PROGRAM REVIEW AND ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE

Minutes of: March 20th 2003

Present: E. Beatty, C. Coron, C. Durwin, H. Hein, E. O'Sullivan. H. Podnar, P. Smith, S. Selenkas, W. Shyam.

Started: 10:00am.

This week's meeting attracted a number of faculty members interested in the future of SCSU assessment process.

At the beginning of the meeting Dr. O'Sullivan presented members with a package that included several examples of the assessment process at other institutions. The examples featured other approaches to assessment, that might be useful in defining the SCSU's assessment process. The institutions were: University of Washington, Towson University, College of Staten Island and Northwest Missouri State University. The latter three are considered to be our peer institutions according to the new Performance Measures project. Dr. O'Sullivan highlighted the significance of Alumni Surveys, and proceeded with a couple of SCSU examples (Departments of Psychology and Public Health). PRAC members welcomed Dr. O'Sullivan's invitation to the Psychology Department implementation meeting, with the commitment to send at least one observer. Once again, the members agreed on the idea of reviving the initiative to integrate Assessment information and provide a help web site.

The definition of peer institution was the next topic of discussion. Dr. Smith suggested that the strategy of selecting a comprehensive public institutions that are slightly 'better' than ours might be more beneficial.

Some of the members suggested that the Assessment Process cycle of 6-7 years might prove significantly easier for the SCSU departments. The promise was made to revisit the time cycle.

The discussion followed in the direction of a link between the Assessment process and the University Academic Strategic Plan. The members recognized two-dimensionality of the strategic plan creation: policy making and curricular needs. It was concluded that the strategic plan as such should be department oriented. The development of the plan should assure the protection of our liberal arts core.

To assure quality and fairness, a group of external evaluators should be asked to review our programs, and provide areas for improvement.

The meeting continued with the expression of faculty dissatisfaction, and even reluctance to continue the assessment process. It was cleared that the departments feel unsafe, if their assessment process shows areas and gaps that need improvement, or if it shows overgrowth. Dr. O'Sullivan answered to this question, by stressing that some of the assessments that were the most beneficial to the departments were the ones that showed areas of improvement. The members concluded that the some effort should be invested in developing a culture of positive self-assessment practice. With this in mind, it was suggested to start with an Assessment Newsletter, as a source of information, as well as a medium for sharing experiences related to the assessment process. Dr. Beatty offered her help and expertise in the newsletter creation.

Adjourned at 11:20am

Recorder: H.Podnar