Program Review & Assessment Committee
Minutes
September 28, 2000

Present: C. Coron (chair), E. Aboelela, B. Kottler, C. Durwin, B. Gelbach, J. Halstead, W. Shyam, J. Yang

Recorder: C. Durwin

For the benefit of the new members to this committee, the meeting began with B. Gelbach providing a short history of the committee, the role that the committee has played in the program assessment process, and some of the problems encountered in this process.

The focus of this meeting was to determine what aspects of the assessment process can be improved and how to execute the improvements.

This led the committee to address and discuss four main questions:

1. Who benefits from the assessment?
The consensus of the committee (after some brainstorming and discussion) was that the assessment process would benefit:

• programs (in terms of improved quality)
• departments (and their faculty)
• students (as a result of improved programs and departments/faculty).

2. What do they need from assessment?
In order to improve program quality and benefit departments and students, the consensus of the committee (after some brainstorming and discussion) was that three crucial items are needed from an assessment:

• suggestions for improvement of shortcomings
• resources to meet the needs of (and improve) programs, departments, and students
• information regarding direction for further growth (of programs and departments)

3. What key features of an assessment would provide what they need?
The meeting ended with a list of ideas that were brainstormed but not yet discussed and prioritized:

• Relationship between outcomes and goals (defining an operational plan)
• Rubric for assessment
• Measurements that are specified and measurement skills to carry out the assessment (some specific measures mentioned were: finding/using a national standard in a field as a criterion, surveys of graduates, assessing the market for college students, assessing the competing postsecondary institutions, developing an awareness of the current and future market in the field for graduates)
• Inventory of financial and material resources that are needed (by departments, programs)
• Clear incentives for doing the assessment
• Objective and efficient analysis from an independent reviewer

4. What process will support these key features?
The fourth question was not addressed.

The meeting ended with an agreement to return to the third question for further discussion and to continue with question 4 in order to clarify the role of the committee and where improvements in the current assessment process can be made.