PROGRAM REVIEW AND ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE                      
 
Minutes of: November 3rd 2005
 
Present: K. Cummings, J. Fields, C. Novosad,  R. Mugno (co-chair), H. Podnar,

E. Schmitt, W. Shyam.

Started: 10:00am

A number of members reported about the sessions given at the NEEAN's 2005 Fall Forum, New London. Some of the sessions presented results about: syllabi learning outcomes analysis, first year student seminars, assessing assessment and students' portfolios.

The PRAC's chair reported about the planning efforts for the upcoming CSU four-campus assessment conference. The next conference will be organized by Central CSU on Friday April 28th 2006.  At this point the planning committee is identifying possible speakers and presenters. Some presenters from the Fall Forum might be contacted. The recipients of the 2005 CSU assessment grant are expected to present. The next planning meeting is scheduled on November 18th.

Some details about the PRAC's assessment workshop were resolved (the specific presentation title, the details about catering).

The discussion about the UCF Standards Document followed. Dr. Fields reported about the status of the document in relationship to the UCF and the Faculty Senate. Members turned their focus toward the guidelines related to course proposals assessment component.  The PRAC is charged with formulating the statement(s) on learning outcomes and evaluation guidelines for new course proposals. Based on the discussion from the previous meetings, members talked about the distinction between course outlines and syllabi. The course outline should specify the core of the course in question

That does not change over time.  The outline should include the students' learning outcomes. Some discussion was devoted to the course topics, with the conclusion that even the course topics could change from semester to semester. An example given was about 'the current state of the art' topics that might not be static. PRAC members could not reach a unanimous conclusion about the necessity to include detailed evaluation procedures within the course outlines. The major questions to be answered are at which point the course revision needs to be submitted and how binding the current course proposal is. Given the significance of the matter, members will continue the discussion at the next meeting.

Adjourned: 11:00am

Recorder: H. Podnar