Program Review and Assessment Committee
Meeting with Dr. Ellen O'Sullivan, SCSU Assessment Process Coordinator
January 31, 2003
Present: K. Buterbaugh, J. Bloch, C. Coron, C. Durwin, M. Kennedy, A. Kumar, H. Podnar, W. Shyam, E. O'Sullivan
Started: 1:00pm.
At the beginning of the meeting, the members were presented with a 17 page concise overview of the SCSU assessment process prepared by the Assessment Office. The overview explains the basics of the self-study and provides helpful hints and proposed time tables relevant to the assessment process.
The meeting started with Dr O'Sullivan's introductory presentation that included a basic overview of the assessment process, short history of the process at SCSU, and the advantages and disadvantages of the current assessment process. It was mentioned that the assessment process should be scheduled every five years, and that its time table asks for at least 5 semesters of continuing activities. The activities and the reports could differ from one department to another, and could be incorporated into the general accreditation process. Dr. O'Sullivan reflected on the history of the process, how it started 8 years ago (1st phase), application of standards and guidelines developed by UCF (2nd phase), and the current status of the process.
The current process is mandated to report every couple of years. The process could be divided into assessing GenEd programs and the other programs. Today, most of the programs concentrate on the outcome based assessment. The process ends with the final implementation meeting as its closure.
Given the difficult financial times, the current process could suffer from temporary suspension of external evaluations, and loss of re-assigned time for the individuals in charge of the assessment.
The meeting continued with compiling a list of questions/observations suggested by the members. The complete list follows:
1.) External evaluators
2.) 5 year cycle
3.) Recommendations, Implementation (What do we get?)
4.) Departments with Incomplete Assessment (Help!)
5.) Lack of Fairness between departments (dos/dont's)
(some departments do it, some don't)
6.) Library falls in the Outside Accreditation
7.) The place of Assessment in the University Strategic Plan
8.) Focus on Student Needs
9.) PRAC's place in the process
10.) If State mandates, is there funding for the process (not just State)
11.) Who decides the Rubric for the Process
12.) term "Outcome" (How it was used, and how it will be used in the future)
13.) Calendar Cycle
14.) Commitment to the Assessment Process
15.) UCF Standards
The meeting proceeded with sorting the listed items into several categories by relevance:
Resources: 10,14,3,1
UCF role: 11,15,9
Policy: 2,12,6,7,13
Process: 4,5,11,13,8
The first topic for the discussion was the role of UCF. The members reflected on the current UCF constitution, and concluded that the current UCF role (with the PRAC on the forefront) would be:
-to witness and monitor all the steps in the assessment process
such as:
-training
-assessment reports and documents
-external evaluations
-implementation meetings
-final steps resulting from the implementation meetings
-to make sure that the actions and agreements are in concert
-to mediate between departments and administration (when asked)
It could have an advisement capacity, given that that the future advisors are properly trained. Dr O'Sullivan also highlighted that the UCF has the ability to determine the steps in the assessment process. It was expressed that the UCF body would like the process to be department driven, given the assumption that the departments have unified vision.
It was suggested that the Office of Assessment could send a summary report of the current steps to the departments that are about to enter into the process.
The next topic of discussion was a link between the assessments in undergraduate and graduate programs. An overview of procedures practiced by Graduate Council was given. The Graduate Council formed a Academic Standards subcommittee consisting of 13 members. The chair of the committee can distribute 3 credits to the committee members. Report templates are well standardized, and the time tables are already in place for a number of years in advance. The report is due every five years, and the Graduate Council could grant a conditional 1 year approval in an unfavorable case.
The final minutes were left for the summary. It was concluded that the process is going to follow the current guidelines, but the input into the procedures is welcome. Some of the conclusions reiterated the previous discussions: - the steps in the process should be more detailed, - the process should be simplified, - community should be invited to monitor the important steps, - positive or negative answers should be known. Dr. O'Sullivan will prepare a memo specifying the possible avenues of action for the process.
Adjourned at 4:00pm
Recorder: H. Podnar
