Program Review Committee
Minutes
Jan. 27, 2012
Present: Dinora Cardoso, Alister Chapman, Savannah Kelly, Barb Kennedy, Debra
Quast, Ray Rosentrater
Ray Rosentrater opened the meeting with prayer.
Tatiana Nazarenko was away at a conference and asked Ray Rosentrater to lead the
discussion on the Task Stream Software presentation. She asked the committee to
consider what parts might beneficial or whether some of it should be modified.
Positive
 Since it is web based, the materials are easier to see and access
 While it is doubtful faculty would actually see much benefit, committee members
can see it would be easier on an institutional/administrative level to gather data
 The student portfolios would be very helpful to students…not much benefit to
administration
Negative
 Very commercial presentation. It would have been much more helpful if we
could have seen how an actual college is using the software. Tim Wilson says he
would need further demonstration to make a final determination if this would
work for us
 Faculty probably would not see these as any more beneficial as up loading
material would be similar to putting material on the Archives
 We might have seen this as helpful 4 or 5 years ago when our documents were
stored in myriad places but we have got an established archive
 Debra Quast says the learning curve to introduce this at Azusa was quite steep—
she reported that there was initial hysteria with faculty when they were forced to
use it
 Alister believes we are needing some faculty breathing space—the pace of change
has picked up in the past two years and he fears we will lose faculty buy-in. We
have picked up more believers in this past year…sending faculty to conferences
has helped. However, if we continue to introduce change, such as this software,
we might have a revolt
 The cost factor is also a major concern. This money would be spent gathering
data instead of affecting change. We should spend our energy on how to use our
data than how to capture it. It would be more effective to use this money to
augment the Program Review budget-- to send faculty to conferences, pay faculty
to attend workshops, pay for external reviews and come along side faculty in a
helpful way.
The group broke into two sections to review the JFK Program Review guide. The
following are observations/comments gathered from the faculty: Dinora, Alister and Ray.
A general discussion about faculty fatigue related to program review kicked off first.
 At the present time the priority of this committee should be to communicate,
reduce burdens and get faculty on our side rather than to modify our templates
and procedures.
 There is a perception that members of the PRC are adversaries who need to
expend their personal capital to accomplish the work. We cannot have this
perception continuing…how will we recruit future members for the committee?
 We need to be clearer in our communication. Dinora believes that the use of the
word “improve” should be deleted from our templates and the word change
instituted. She reported that one department didn’t believe they needed to
improve!
 If we are changing significant things like templates…introducing M.O.U.’s –how
can we better communicate with our faculty? How can we disseminate
information to the larger faculty. Presentations at dept. chair meetings are not
getting handed down. We know this because several departments do not hold
regular meetings.
 Tom Fikes & Phil Ficsor’s presentation was great! We need to get them up in
front of a wider audience and continue to send people to conferences
 Should we consider a May workshop to help people with their annual reports.
Consider paying them to attend, have speakers such as the USF Dean, Michael
Weber? We need to be more supportive of our faculty in this process
 In the recent past, we have made significant progress toward putting program
review and assessment on a firmer footing, toward broader participation in the
process, and toward more uniform reporting. We need to continue this good
work, but the faculty needs a rest from additional changes.
On the JFK document
Notes from the Faculty Discussion Group
 Like the fact that a call for reflection comes first with references to the
supporting data at the end. Our template is just the opposite. We should get the
departments to tell us a story with data supporting at the end.
 Dinora would like more reflection on the faculty work load. How are faculty
hours allocated in terms of hours in the classroom, office hours, prep time and
time for reading and reflection and finally scholarship. Of course, consider a
faculty member who is responsible for the assessment reports…how is this
accounted for in that section?
 If we were to make changes…when would we roll them out? We should be
mindful of Tom’s concern that changes were made mid year when he was writing
his 6 year report. This group believes we couldn’t introduce any changes until
June of 2014.
 Alister characterized the JFK guide as “unimaginative” and “template driven
versus purpose driven” which is exactly what Tom Fikes noted in his
presentation


Page 7 of JFK guide…student learning assessment is very heavy on data, not
enough interpretation
Page 8-Faculty quality questions are very different than the ones we are asking
Notes from the Administrators Group – Debra, Tim and Savannah








We liked much of the JFK document and the idea of having something like it.
Annual assessment reports as they are currently do not fit fir student life or
library.
Tim shared that PR for student life uses three components- SLOs, satisfaction,
and process.
Debra shared that PR for library uses SLOs for instruction but also looks at
different kinds of measures for evaluating other program areas.
We like the idea of a guide like this, one with explanations and templates. We
need to improve ours.
We like the idea of external reviews and the summary sheet.
We want direction on process and group selection.
We like a pause year in the cycle.
We like looking at workload and including CVs.
On the JFK document:
 Page 3- Tim likes cycle for student life. All think external review valuable. Cycle
similar to Tom Fikes 6-year cycle in his presentation.
 Page 4- like process of picking group and meeting with PRC right away.
 Page 7- we like how division of labor is spelled out. Noted that we do not have
deans at Westmont. Workload for provost would be huge.
 Page 9- future data needs a good idea.
 Page10- overview of proposes changes a good idea.
 Page 12- future trends a good idea.
 Page 16- provost feedback report a good idea.
 Page 21- Place holders with live links to content sections could be helpful.
Recorded by,
Barb Kennedy