PROGRAM REVIEW AND ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE
UCF  STEERING COMMITTEE
Meeting with Dr. Philip Smith, Vice President for Academic Affairs

November 7th 2002
 

Present: K. Buterbaugh, E. Beatty, J. Bloch, C. Coron, H. Podnar, W. Shyam, C. Stanton, J. Tait (chair).

Started: 11:00am.

The meeting served as a continuation of the dialog about the future of the university self-assessment process. The meeting was also an opportunity for the participants to present summaries of their efforts to improve and better understand the assessment process.

At the begining of the meeting, Dr. J. Bloch distributed copies of an insightful summary of several different assessment models as an alternative to the outcome based model currently used at SCSU. Another set of copies addressing the assessment models and experiences currently available on the Internet followed. A number of PRAC members shared the research activities in this direction, and prepared the list of relevant web sites, together with short description of each. The PRAC chair, Dr. C.Coron, reported on the research and the PRAC's current efforts.

Dr. P. Smith expressed his agreement that the university might benefit from experimenting with different kinds of models. He suggested that it might be a good idea to keep some elements of the outcome based assessment. It was suggested to get in contact with Dr. Ellen O'Sullivan, to obtain more information about her experiences with this kind of assessment.

Dr. Bloch elaborated on his memo describing different kinds of approaches to assessment. He highlighted four models that might be of interest. The first model is based on the Cognitive Theory. As an example, Dr. Bloch mentioned that students could be asked about their perceptions about men and women. At the end of the course, they will be presented with the same materials. Now, the assessment could be based on the impact that the course had on the students perception of gender roles. The next model presented followed the Constructivist Approach. In this approach, more emphasis is put on the instructor to construct a strategy that will be beneficial to students. The building blocks, such as readings, lectures, discussions, assignments, and other might be under the constant development to meet the academic realities of the student. Social Learning Theory was presented as the third model. Students are encouraged to work together, with the benefits enjoyed by less able and better students. In this context, the mistakes are treated as a sources of knowledge. The last model follows the Behaviorist Theory, and concentrates on the outcome based assessment.

It was noticed that Behaviorist Theory was popular in the early 70s, followed by the Cognitive approach in the early 80's.

The members agreed that all four kinds of assessment could be used in the process. It was realized that there might be some faculty resistance on outcomes. If students "come out this door and have a different view" then the teaching process fulfilled its purpose.

It was concluded that the graduates should be tracked, with different pieces of information collected. Even in the case when a graduate does not work in its area of study, the satisfaction with having the learning experience should be recorded. Students should be involved in projects that will expose them to practical aspects and, as a result, make them appreciate the reality of life.

It was suggested that different programs could use different assessment models. It would be certainly interesting to watch the progress of such approaches. One of the members noticed that if different models are to be used, the administration should proceed with the procedure to accommodate them. The UCF could also take an activist role to influence the process.

Dr. Smith pointed out that if a program wants to be approved by the Department of Higher Education and the Board of Governors, it must specify the ways of the assessment.

One of the members pointed out that there should be a vision on the benefits of the assessment process. The vision should justify the assessment process in its entirety. The assessment should drive the strategic plan. On the other side, the departments fear to be penalized for presenting the results of the assessment.

Dr. Smith provided the answer that our vision is to be a preeminent institution in New England. The basic role of the assessment would be the self-improvement.

A member noticed that the resources might be short for the vision to be fulfilled. Another participant suggested that the university should recognize the things that we do well, and continue doing it, and to stop the things that are not done so well. The assessment should serve as a bases for improvement, with or without additional resources allocated. A member mentioned an example of the department of counseling services, that because of the performed assessment, changed the direction without getting more resources. Another member added that the process could be different with the always expanding academic departments.

Dr. Smith supported the idea of increasing the intellectual capita on the topic of the assessment, and was eager to check the listed web sites.

The meeting concluded with the things to do: organize the meeting with Dr O'Sullivan planned for 21st of November, continue with the research, get departmental opinions about the possible assessment approaches. 

Adjourned at 12:00pm

Recorder: H.Podnar