Westmont’s Program Review Committee
Minutes
Jan. 22, 2014
Present: Dana Alexander, Dinora Cardoso, Barb Kennedy, Mary Logue, Andrew Mullen,
Tatiana Nazarenko, and Michael Sommermann and Bill Wright
Guest presenter: John Blondell
Bill Wright opened the meeting in prayer.
John Blondell, Chair of the General Education Committee, attended to share the draft
proposal of the Westmont Outcomes Redesign. During last academic year, the GE
committee had conversations which focused on practical and clear ways to assess
various learning outcomes. He noted that we must consider ways to map the varying
constituencies involved in assessment which include institutional outcomes, general
education outcomes and WASC mandates, and focus on those outcomes which might
serve multiple points. Some of our outcomes are still aspirational goals, which are
difficult to assess. The list of core (or PRC proposes calling common) Westmont
Outcomes would include:
 Christian Understanding, Practices, and Affections
 Global Awareness
 Critical Thinking
 Quantitative Literacy
 Competence in Written Communication
 Competence in Oral Communication
The above are all previously identified and some have already been assessed
institution-wide or are in the process. WASC mandates the addition of Information
Literacy. John noted these are sustainable, in terms of the regular assessment we are
physically able to do, and most importantly they speak to the essential character of
Westmont as well as WASC. The Diversity outcome may and should be added to the
Global Awareness one.
John and Tatiana believe the GE Breadth requirements should be assessed by the
faculty in courses — getting rid of the expectation that there will be an extensive data
collection and analysis across the disciplines. The GE Committee intends to conduct
rigorous syllabus reviews and hold round table conversations with faculty who teach in
the general categories such as Common Context. These conversations may lead to
revising the existing course assignments or instruments utilized for assessing student
learning. Following the area round-table discussion a brief Executive Summary will be
generated with the focus on closing the loop activities. The goal of these meetings will
be to encourage faculty to improve student learning following meaningful conversations
and assessment-related professional development. The GE Committee may also
facilitate the revision of some area certification criteria. John and Tatiana do not believe,
however, that Breadth GE requirements should be mapped up to the ILO’s. Moreover,
the college does not have sufficient resources to support an ambitious and extensive
assessment plan.
1
The PRC will continue reviewing the annual GE reports to stay connected with the
policies and procedures and provide their feedback. The Academic Senate will also
review and discuss the GE annual reports.
Several members of the Committee expressed some concern about the adequacy of
this review process for the GE categories. Several suggestions were made with the
intention to improve the proposed assessment process. Michael Sommermann
cautioned that in the past, the faculty assessing the GE category of Exploring the
Physical Sciences struggled to come up with an assessment tool which could be used
by all the classes. He recalls that it was difficult to find common principles for assessing
student learning in all area courses. He believes that the instrument was used only once
and was inconclusive in evaluating the courses. Perhaps, we should consider this
experience in designing new assessment strategies for GE Breadth Requirements.
Tatiana asked the Committee to consider the Faith-Learning Evaluation Data Collection
Template which she passed out. The college will be assessing the integration of faith
and learning at the departmental level. Previously, we had been including essay
requests with student course evaluations which were returned to the faculty member
and given as evidence to Faculty Personnel Committee members. At an up-coming
Department Chair meeting, the PRC will be asked to present different models of looking
at the effectiveness of student faith learning in courses and departments.
Recorded by Barb Kennedy
2