Minutes of the Meeting of the Provost’s Assessment Advisory Committee
December 10, 2004
Present: Desfosses, Walker, Bakhru, Beditz, Myers, Herman, Butler, Horney, Mahan,
Singh, Lorang, Pryse, Stevens, Idone, Chaiken, Wagner, Szelest
3:00 p.m.: Szelest welcomed Vince Idone, Chair of the Council on Research (RES) to the
committee.
Szelest briefed the advisory committee regarding recent state-wide newspaper coverage
of General Education assessment issues, and a FOIL request to SUNY by a reporter for
campus Gen Ed reports. System Administration has not previously shared these reports.
Will try to get more information from Patty Francis at System Administration. There
may be implications for our program assessment processes. At this point is unclear what
the FOIL includes. The General Education reports, written for two years now, include
various categories each year. We hope a discussion will occur because the numbers are
not comparable. It is unknown at this time what has been released.
Herman noted that if reporter comes to our campus, it would be helpful to have
information ahead of time. Szelest responded that Sue Faerman, Dean of Undergraduate
Studies, will be the likely person to engage reporters on Gen Ed assessment issues due to
her position and experience with General Education assessment. Lorang noted that it
appears that System Administration fully briefed the reporter in question on Gen Ed
assessment. Desfosses suggested that it would be helpful for Herman to have
supplemental information so she could respond with good information. Szelest
responded that a lot of information would be needed, and we will coordinate a
comprehensive campus response. Pryse asked if course grades are used in preparing the
Gen Ed assessment summaries, and if so, could we be accused of grade inflation? Szelest
responded that course grades are not used, rather the piece of the course that gets
evaluated for the General Education component is graded, and this is how we determine
the percent of students exceeding, meeting, approaching, or not meeting the Gen Ed
learning objectives. Chaiken added that students meet the General Education component
independent of passing the course. In a UAC discussion, new and recurrent outcomes in
Mathematics concluded that different examinations are given in different courses.
Desfosses asked whether, among SUNY campuses, standards are set? Szelest replied, no.
Campuses and their faculty senates had rejected this approach. Each campus’s unique
Gen Ed plan is approved by SUNY GEAR. Results were not intended to be comparable,
due to the diversity of institutions and approaches to General Education across SUNY.
This is the system we live in. Desfosses asked if there was anything analogous to SUNY
norms? Szelest responded that there are no SUNY norms for Gen Ed, yet. Under the
SUNY Trustees recent resolution for “Strengthened Campus-based Assessment,” SUNY
is now trying to develop Gen Ed norms, use pre-existing nationally normed tests, or will
allow campuses to develop their own norm-based tests. There are a host of
methodological difficulties in doing this. It is an uphill battle – need valid, reliable
measures.
Regarding the draft Institutional Assessment Plan:
Szelest has received comments on issues pertaining to non-academic services. Theresa
Walker forwarded some suggestions from the Division for Research regarding
assessment in non-academic and administrative units to make them more prominent. .
Butler suggested that the terminology in the draft creates a distinction between academic
and administrative units – this terminology is dated as the non-academic administrative
units are integral to the academic mission. We should be sensitive to learning
communities and all that comprises them. Szelest responded that he will revisit the text
and circulate a revised draft. Herman volunteered the copy editing services of University
Advancement.
In other issues:
Chaiken noted that the charge of UAC is relevant here, and this council wants to be in the
loop regarding learning objectives, outcomes, and environments in the academic support
units (e.g., EOP, admissions, ASC/US, etc.) as they relate to academics. For example,
advisement contains a variety of learning objectives. Szelest commented that it is an
evolving process in each VP area, and the intent is that there should be considerable
review and discussion of support unit assessment plans by Senate councils and other
interested parties.
Comments on Draft doc:
Szelest said he would be sending out the next draft, and that comments would be
appreciated. Committee members were asked to review a handout on Linkages between
Assessment and Planning and Resource Allocation Functions. Middle States will be
looking for a section like this. It will not be used to reallocate resources. Notice the
sentence, “Function of assessment is descriptive, not prescriptive.” Please comment on
this. Desfosses indicated that this sentence is misleading because it is tied to resources.
Szelest replied that it is meant to allay fears that the report will result in resource
reallocation. Pryse explained that many resource allocations are historical, for example
the graduate assistant allocatoins. It is a small pool of resources, so administrators must
be given some room for creativity and not tie their hands by linking to assessment.
Wagner explained that evaluating program effectiveness is but one of several sources of
information for resource allocation. Chaiken suggested that evaluating the potential of
programs to target strategic growth initiatives, and to target under funded areas was
another purpose.
Next Steps:
It was decided that Committee members would be asked to confer with their colleagues
and Senate Councils and provide comments and suggestions to Szelest by the end of
January.
At some point, we will present our recommended Institutional Assessment Plan to the
Provost, then to the President. Early in the spring semester would be good. VPs will
then need to develop divisional assessment plans, and then their operational units will
need to. Several timeline scenarios were discussed, but not finalized.
Szelest said that he would make the draft document available on the www.
Next meeting will be scheduled for early February after the next comment period (end of
January 2005) has concluded.
Respectfully submitted by Barbara Wilkinson and Bruce Szelest