Assessment Facilitators Group Meeting
Minutes
September 26, 2014
Attending: Melinda Jackson, Robin Love, Diane Wu, Carol Reade, Julie Sliva Spitzer, Elaine Collins, Lynne
Trulio, Hilary Nixon, Dennis Jaehne, Cami Johnson, Brandon White, Jinny Rhee, Minnie Patel, Scot
Guenther, Cheryl Allmen, Demerris Brooks (DOUBLE CHECK)
Meeting convened at 12:10pm




Welcome and introductions of group members and guests Brandon White, Chair of the Program
Planning Committee, and Cami Johnson, Chair of the WASC Steering Committee.
WASC Accreditation Updates: Cami Johnson updated the group on the purpose of the
Institutional Education Effectiveness Index (IEEI) spreadsheet required by WASC, and answered
questions about the level of detail needed in descriptive information for this spreadsheet. She
also reminded the group about the next steps in the WASC accreditation process: conference
call with campus leadership on November 12, to identify “lines of inquiry” for follow-up, and onsite campus visit April 14-16, 2015. AF group members should plan to be available to meet with
the WASC on-site team during those dates, if needed. Cami also announced a plan for a student
work showcase during the WASC campus visit, and asked group members to suggest
appropriate student research, scholarship, creative activities, or other achievements to be
included in this showcase.
Discussion of new assessment form used in 2013-14 reports.: Group members reported that the
new form was more work for chairs and/or department assessment coordinators than the
previous report template (partly due to the fact that it was new). Some questioned the
relevance of the graduate and retention rates included in Part B of the new form, as this seemed
disconnected from the assessment of student learning. Melinda Jackson clarified that the
graduate and retention rates are considered “indirect” assessment measures, while the
assessment of specific Program Learning Outcomes (PLOs) are considered “direct” measures.
She suggested that while both types of assessment data are important, programs may find it
useful to be aware of trends in their graduation and retention rates on an annual basis,
particularly given the new budget model which gives departments more control and
responsibility over their individual budgets. Scot Guenther mentioned that some chairs in the
College of Humanities needed help in accessing the Required Data Element (RDE) numbers from
the Institutional Effectiveness and Analytics (IEA) office, but that becoming more familiar with
these numbers proved valuable to them once they were able to review the data.
Discussion of plan to provide feedback on annual assessment reports: The group discussed
whether to follow the same model as last year, in which college AFs provided feedback to the
programs in their colleges based on the WASC PLOs rubric. An alternative model in which crosscollege teams would consider a set number of programs was discussed, but ultimately it was
decided to continue using the previous model. ACTION: AFs will begin reviewing annual
assessment reports from the programs in their colleges, with the goals of providing written
feedback to all programs by the end of the Fall 2014 semester. Deadline: December AF meeting
(December 19, 2014).





Proposal to present case studies of assessment in different programs at each AF group meeting
this year. ACTION: College of Social Sciences will present on the Environmental Studies programs
at our next meeting in October; College of Engineering will present in November.
The group discussed the question of how assessment reports should be organized for
departments with multiple programs. One option is to combine the reports for all programs into
a single document, with each program listed sequentially. Another option is to require separate
assessment reports for each program, although this may create a burden for departments with
multiple programs. Dennis Jaehne suggested that the end-user experience should serve as a
guide. Since assessment reports should be listed separately for each program on the UGS
program records webpage, it is desirable to have separate reports for each program, to make it
as easy as possible to access the information a user is seeking. After some discussion, it was
agreed to table this issue for further discussion. ACTION: Revisit this question at a future
meeting, and make a decision to provide clear guidance for 2014-15 assessment reports.
Some questions have come up regarding requirements for the assessment of minors. MJ
clarified that if a minor program is required as part of a degree program, then the way(s) in
which the minor contributes, at least in part, to fulfillment of the PLOs should be made clear in
the program planning process. The group discussed the implications of this, and it was further
clarified that this need not involve detailed documentation of direct assessment at the level of
courses within the minor, but simply an explanation of how the (required) minor contributes to
the learning outcome of the program (e.g., Breadth of knowledge). Minor courses (that are
required) should also be mapped to the PLOs.
Cheryl Allmen presented an update on the progress in Student Affairs assessment over the last
year, including (FILL IN DATA ON NUMBER OF PROGRAMS ETC.)