Undergraduate Curriculum Forum (UCF)

Minutes 10/28/04 (revised)

Present

B. Horn, C. LaDousa, B. Phelan, M. Bills, J. Feng, G. Kowalczyk, R. Glinka, S. DiFrancesco, H. Podnar, K. Barrett, C. Coron, A. Abugri, N. Marano, N. Henderson, D. Marino, E. Schmitt, L. Yacher, N. Chissidis, N. Disbrow, W. Shyam, L. Bier, J. Fields, R. Mugno, R. Kustin, M. Moss, S. Bochain, K. Gatzke, K. Cummings, K. Buterbaugh, C. Novosad, K. Marsland, R. Hunter, S. Jackson, J. Tait, W. O'Brien, P. Whelan, J. Mielczarski, C. Barrett, L. Kohrn, K. Laing, G. DeJarnette

I.  Call to Order

The meeting was called to order at 9:45 a.m.

II.  Announcements

None.

III.  Approval of UCF Minutes of 10/14/04

The UCF minutes of 10/14/04 were approved pending the following revision to the bylaws motion: to strike second sentence under VII. Rules of Procedure ("Any or all of these may be suspended at the discretion of the UCF Chair with consent of those present.").

VI. Reception of Standing Committee Minutes and Approval of Standing Committee Motions

Steering Committee

No report.

Notifications Management (NMC)

No report.

New Programs and Innovations (NPIC)

The NPIC minutes of 10/14/04 were received.

NPIC continued to discuss special topic courses, including the need to inform the community about special topic courses.

Program Review and Assessment (PRAC)

The PRAC minutes of 10/14/04 were received.

PRAC continued to discuss its role in the assessment process and suggested possibly holding an assessment debate for faculty.

University-Wide Impact Committee (UWIC)

No report.

Writing Across the Curriculum (WACC)

The WACC minutes of 10/14/04 were received.

WACC is trying to get a UA to help out with tracking of proposals and attempting to secure an executive director.

Motion: To approve GEO 362L: Urban Geography

Approved with one abstention.

V.  Discussion about assessment with guest Barbara Wright

Vice President Beatty introduced Dr. Barbara Wright, assessment coordinator at ECSU. The Vice President also expressed her hope for PRAC to be more active in assessment, which, she said, belongs with faculty.

Dr. Barbara Wright discussed the ways in which the assessment movement has turned from over-quantified assessment to more sound educational practices. She said that faculty should direct assessment, and that we need to embrace it and shape it into ways that make sense for us and our students educationally.

She had us look at the assumption often held by faculty that we "figure out what they [the administration] wants; find the quickest, least damaging way to respond; send off a report; and forget it." She asked us to consider the us-them dynamic present in the assumption and analyze what it's about.

As an example of successful assessment, she presented an assessment project at Fredonia, where an attempt to assess students' abilities to think critically turned into a process that allowed faculty to see what students weren't able to do, allowed faculty to be more explicit about what students' needs were, and ultimately, provided the occasion for innovation in the classroom, which helped students improve their critical thinking skills.

In a lively discussion, members expressed both a belief in and resistance to assessment. Some of the comments addressed the general practice of assessment, such as the amount of time spent figuring out what students cannot do, when, in fact, we already know what they cannot do. In response, a member asked how we know that what we think we know about students is in fact accurate. Others questioned the use of Fredonia as an example analogous to Southern. Others expressed dismay with the administrative support at Southern, particularly in relation to Graduate Studies. Others said they had felt supported by the administration when doing assessment. And others discussed the problematic nature of "program assessment," and the possibility for exclusion when departments must come to consensus about goals and outcomes in order to assess.

One member pointed out the two levels of assessment present in the Fredonia example, the first stages during which students' abilities are assessed, and the next stages where a judgment about what needs to be improved happens, and a type of evaluative procedure seems to take place.

In response to a question about the use of quantitative data, Dr. Wright explained that assessment allows us to be more explicit about what our students need, and what all that means. Within the process, we can come to understand things. She said what we're really after is useful information - a mixture, usually, of qualitative and quantitative knowledge. She said we have to tolerate ambiguity.

Another member pointed out that we are familiar with assessment in the classroom and at the university level, but not so familiar in assessing our programs.

Dr. Wright said that assessment should never be equated with evaluation, that no part of the assessment process should be evaluative of faculty. A member questioned that, saying that once we begin "Making judgments about what needs to be improved" we are inevitably taking part in evaluation.

PRAC reminded us that they are attempting to sponsor a debate where these types of concerns can be raised and discussed.

VIII.  Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 10:55 a.m.

Minutes recorded by Nicole Henderson, Secretary for UCF