Program Review and Assessment Committee Minutes
November 29, 2001

Attending: C. Coron (Chair), Bob Gelbach, A. Kumar, W. Shyam, R. Page

Dick Gerber accepted the committee's invitation to discussion university evaluation and accreditation processes, and explore avenues of cooperation. He had some concerns he wished to discuss concerning faculty's interest in critiquing his office without accepting any accountability for the review and evaluation processes of the university. Gelbach assured Gerber that our mission was to improve and support, not to attack and blame. Ultimately these processes are critical for a viable academic community which continues to learn and continuously improve. Gerber complimented the committee for considering these processes and taking ownership of curriculum issues after they had been passed. He concluded that in principle, PRAC's efforts could be a valuable contribution.

Gelbach suggested that if PRAC could review the data that had already been gathered on assessment, the committee could identify areas where further data gathering was necessary. Gerber noted that the research capabilities of his office were limited, and that such research would be possible if the faculty would accept responsibility for it. His office does this kind of research only because the faculty will not. Gelbach noted that research is not viable without institutional support, and has to be considered a joint venture between the faculty and the administration. The committee agreed that faculty without resources can not assume a greater role.

Gerber noted that the entire CSU system is entering a new era of State Legislature mandated assessment. Whether the university likes it or not, the Board of Trustees is going to demand far more assessment than they have required before. The challenge becomes, how to we provide this kind of data given resource limitations? While the higher ups are insisting on more assessment, the chances of additional funding to support it are dismal, given the current slate of political leaders and economic conditions. And if the university does not provide that data, superior funding will flow to sister institutions who do. How do we make the most of a difficult situation? Since burdens are going to grow, how can these burdens be managed?

Gerber's vision was to build a "culture of assessment" at SCSU. He wants assessment to become a routine task. Departments will receive information and training on conducting their own assessments, the results of which will be sent to his office. To support faculty, Ellen OSullivan is designing an assessment manual to walk departments through the assessment process. These are the pressing issues:

• Training and education needs
• Pre- and post-testing of training effectiveness
• Course-embedded assignments
• Impact on students
• Portfolio assessment

Gerber could envision PRAC as faculty mentors who could attend assessment meetings and assist departments in conducting these assessments. Coron and Gelbach offered a different vision of PRAC's role in this process. They suggested that the role of faculty mentors would be too time consuming, given faculty responsibilities for research, teaching and professional development, in addition to service. They suggested that PRAC could identify ways to provide electronic support and streamline the process so that it is more efficient and less burdensome. For example:

1. PRAC could help develop effective faculty training courses and materials.
2. PRAC is developing a website which could include Beatty's "mentor in a manual" online, and provide checklists to further simplify the process
3. Some processes and procedures have already been developed, but are not being used. With administration input, they could be further refined, and successfully implemented.
4. In an oversight role, PRAC could help identify and evaluate what was working, and what was not, and make suggestions for improvement.
   Gerber had been notified of a survey instrument PRAC is developing on assessment, and felt that such efforts are short-sighted. They identify problems with the assessment process without acknowledging the significant progress which has been made. From a historical and cultural development perspective, the committee agreed that the gains which have been made are commendable. However, problems will always remain, and PRAC can help the university learn from them. In particular:

1. Improving the accessibility of accurate information on assessment is needed
2. Tracking and documentation are currently haphazard
3. Accountability concerning faculty and administration commitments to act on assessment recommendations an be improved
4. Statistical rigor of assessment is improving, but still has a ways to go
   Gerber expressed concern about the accountability issue being used as a tool to scapegoat the administration for resource constraints. The committee reassured Gerber that accountability is neutral in this context and works both ways. It is true that with clear documentation, a department could justify not acting on assessment recommendations because of a lack of resources. But with clear documentation, administrators would also be able to hold departments who did receive resources accountable for implementing those recommendations. Everyone agreed that tracking and documentation makes implementation more fair and efficient.

The meeting concluded with a mutual commitment to communicate more frequently and cooperate more closely. Gerber offered to include PRAC members on departmental assessment meetings they would like to observe, as schedules permit.

Minutes recorded by Robert Page