Undergraduate Curriculum Forum (UCF)

Minutes 10/30/03 (amended)

Present

E. Emenyonu, J. Manzella, C. Wieder, G. Kowalczyk, G. DeJarnette, S. DiFrancesco, R. Glinka, H. Podnar, J. Tait, C. Coron, B. Eldridge, N. Henderson, M. Shea, L. Berman, M. Thompson, N. Chrissidis, W. Shyam, L. Bier, J. Fields, R. Mugno, K. Gatzke, J. Critzer, C. Novosad, M. Vancour, S. Jackson, J. Tolis, C. Barrett, J. Mielczarski, N. DeCrosta, M. Heidmann, K. Mauro, E. Beatty, M. Kennedy, B. Aachpal, M. Moss, L. Berman

I. Call To Order

The meeting was called to order by Jim Tait at 9:44 a.m.

II. Announcements

There will be an Interdisciplinary Conference coming up this Saturday, November 1, 2003, in Engleman 120.

III. Approval of Meeting Minutes

The UCF minutes of October 16, 2003 were approved subject to two minor corrections.

IV. Standing Committee Reports

Steering Committee

No report was submitted

Notifications Management (NMC)

The NMC minutes of 10/23/2003 were accepted.

NMC presented two written motions for UCF approval. Motion #1 was unanimously approved. Motion #2 was also unanimously approved.

New Programs and Innovations (NPIC)

The NPIC minutes of 10/23/2003 were accepted. Discussion on the written motion presented by NPIC was commenced. A member commented that having an alternative course approval avenue under some circumstances could be very useful to some departments. Joe Fields commented that those opposing the motion might be misunderstanding the motion. Jim Tait suggested that this discussion be deferred until the next meeting to allow Dr. Ellen Beatty, the Acting Academic Vice President (AVP) and Dr. Marianne Kennedy to make a presentation on assessments. No one objected.

PRESENTATION BY DR. ELLEN BEATTY AND DR. MARIANNE KENNEDY

Dr. Beatty commented that assessment has been a contentious issue. The AVP's office is charged with assessment. She suggested that we might need to correct the way we have gone about implementing assessment. According to Dr. Beatty, assessment started as an accountability measure. She says that she would like to see that changed. The other aspect is using assessment to improve what we do to become an outstanding university. Though the responsibility for assessment rests with the AVP, the actual process of implementation falls to the Faculty.

Next, Dr. Beatty introduced Dr. Marianne Kennedy and invited her to continue with the presentation. Dr. Kennedy thanked the UCF for inviting them to do a presentation on assessment. She learned from a NEASC meeting she attended that she was the only faculty member in attendance. All the other schools were represented by some professional hired to work in the area of assessment specifically. Our focus has been on doing assessment because some body was telling us to do it. The purpose of assessment is to improve student learning and who better to do this than faculty. It really is the responsibility of faculty to assess. The assessment movement has shifted the paradigm to focus on student learning. Key questions: (1) What do we want our students to know when they graduate from our program? (2) How are we going to know that they have acquired those skills that we want them to acquire? (3) How is your department using that information to make your program better? This will in turn make you think about your outcomes.

Dr. Beatty commented that we have NEASC accreditation component, our professional schools have their individual accreditations. Those two have been running in parallel. This is not only a Southern issue. There is an awareness that those two levels of assessment need to focus on student outcomes.

A member commented that assessment takes resources, are we talking about getting new resources, or reallocating existing resources or doing it without new resources. We need to make assessment happen and we need resources to do it. Dr. Beatty agrees that we need resources to do assessment. We have to do assessment in order to get better in order to be in a stronger position to demand for new resources. We are doing assessment without added resources from the CSU system. We will not be involving external consultants. Dr. Beatty added that her office might be in a position to make small grants available. Dr. Marianne Kennedy commented that external reviewers have their place but what really do we think about the quality of what we are doing?. While she is concerned about the lack of resources, it still is an opportunity for us to improve upon what we are doing.

A member stated that he does not see anything good with assessment. The same member sought to know what the administration wants the faculty to give up concerning what we are doing already in order to add assessment to the workload? Dr. Kennedy responded that it is our responsibility to articulate what we are already doing.

Bob Eldridge stated that his thinking was that we are required by the State to come up with a system of external reviews. His department went through that about 4 years ago. The School of business has been trying to go through an accreditation but it has not been possible due to the volume of work required. With due regard to the AVP, without resources it is almost impossible to do assessment.

A member commented that she has already embedded assessment in her own courses. She then asks - what can you do with individual faculty members who have already embedded assessment into their courses? Dr. Kennedy replied that program assessment is beyond the level of individual courses. It is a group of people coming to consensus regarding what is important for students to know at the end of their program. Dr. Beatty added that there is the need to look at the whole program.

A member commented that he thinks that assessment is good but you need resources to do it. Dr. Beatty replied that she is aware that you need resources for assessment.

Michelle Thompson stated that assessment is continually going on through their Departmental Curriculum Committee. She added that, based on feedback from those involved in the NEASC assessment, it was an externally imposed process, which was a complete waste of time.

A member sought to know whether there are precedents we can look at? He pointed out the dangers of having people from other departments deciding the assessment criteria. Dr. Kennedy agreed that it is important for each area to be in charge of their assessment. Dr. Beatty agreed that assessment has to be internally driven. We want to have a mechanism for articulating what we are doing to be able to be confident about that. To be quite clear, we have to do assessment.

A member commented that assessment requires consensus. This can exclude those faculty members who are not part of the consensus. Can there be clear communication to the department regarding ways of separating the assessment criteria from evaluation issues, for example, Promotion and Tenure? Dr. Kennedy commented that faculty resist assessment for two main reasons: firstly, people feeling at risk that they will be judged harshly using the assessment criteria. The second aspect is people feeling frustrated because they put time into assessment and nothing happened eventually. Dr. Beatty added that the administration is making serious efforts to isolate assessment from allocation of resources and evaluation.

A member commented that the history of successful assessment is that it is enhanced when it is a faculty initiative. It is up to us to ensure that this succeeds.

VI. Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 10:47 a.m.

Minutes recorded by:

Emmanuel N. Emenyonu.