4 PM, Erwin 206
- Absent: @Irizarry, @Stanley
- Assessment Schedule, based on last year
- Learning Outcomes for Program or Gen Ed on Syllabi; strategize methods to start that rigorously spring 2020
- APAC review of 2018-19 Assessment, using rubric on main APAC page
|5 min||Assessment Schedule||Melanie|
|10 min||Learning Outcomes for Program or Gen Ed on Syllabi||Melanie|
APAC review of 2018-19 Assessment, using rubric on main APAC page
- Assessment Schedule, based on last year:
- Google-based assessment survey – this is a short survey early spring semester that asks assessment coordinators to state what outcomes will be assessed, using what methods, in what classes. Melanie will send it out Feb 1, due Feb 29.
- GLOBE Maps not complete, but over half. Suggested I send out friendly reminders, be sure to distinguish these from tagging. After Thanksgiving email to Prog Assessment Coordinators who didn’t finish it PLO/GLOBE maps last year.
- 2-3 spring meetings, as per schedule Bill set up on 4th Thursday of the month
- Sept 30, 2020 closing date for 2019-20 annual program assessment
- Nov 30, 2020 closing date for 2019, 2nd CAC audit; CAC is now preparing report on 2018 data
- Learning Outcomes Syllabi: program learning outcomes and Gen Ed learning outcomes should appear on all syllabi, in addition to individual faculty member’s choice of course learning outcomes. Many do not. How can we improve out practices starting spring 2020?
- Assessment coordinators will be asked to send links to dept learning outcomes with reference to course/PLO map, and Gen Ed learning outcomes relevant to the department and ask that all syllabi have these learning outcomes listed. 2 weeks before spring starts
- I will send a reminder out to all faculty, 1 week before spring starts
- Repeat this in the fall
- 2018-2019 Assessment Review
The committee reviewed the assessment data for Communication and prepared brief comments and/or recommendations, below. Before posting, we hope to add feedback from the members who could not attend the meeting. The committee will finish comments and recommendations for English and review Mathematics at the first meeting in spring semester. If we can complete responses to these three programs’ assessment work, we will select more, with the goal of 6 responding to six programs this year.
- Communication https://wiki.geneseo.edu/display/acadassess/Department+of+Communication
- COMM assessed Program Learning Outcome 4 (out of 7) “demonstrate mastery of creation and delivery of oral messages, using established standards of effective communication across targeted contexts”
- Outcome and rubric are relevant to discipline; the curriculum and GLOBE maps are complete, so this is highly developed. COMN should still establish a rotation for assessment of all Program Learning Outcomes.
- Process is well developed: COMM assessed 2 lower and 2 upper level courses, the PAC provided both quantitative and qualitative information, and the department engaged in vigorous discussion related to assessment of this learning outcome and program revisions in process.
- Consider dividing out the rubric’s expectations by level, as per AAC&U VALUE examples.
- APAC applauds the vigorous exchange of ideas. We expect the newly designed major will be stronger for the analysis of data in dept meetings. We find the use of results is well developed and once it’s been used to inform the proposed new curriculum we’d deem the work “highly developed.”
- Your artifacts and instruments are well developed as well: quantitative and qualitative analyses, followed by full dept discussion, meet the spirit of two methods of assessment and loop closing.
- APAC recommends Communication assess more Program Learning Outcomes in one year: the ideal cycle for assessing all PLO’s is every three years and should be at most five. We are guessing these last two years reflect the most pressing concerns animating your curriculum redesign.
COMN question: Should we have departmental expectations across courses?
- Yes, we encourage the AAC&U’s model of courses that introduce, reinforce, and demonstrate mastery of each Program Learning Outcome. Consider how you lay the foundation for these skills toward oral literacy in COMN 102, so upper level classes can achieve “mastery”
- If you are referring to uniformity across a single course, as taught by different instructors, we recommend that each faculty member attend to the course’s expected role in overall Program Learning Outcomes, for a minimal level of uniformity. Your course maps should assist with this.
APAC will finish examining and providing feedback on the English department’s assessment at its first meeting in Spring 2020. Since most links were broken, Melanie will request that the department make them accessible.
- Program Learning Outcome 4, “an understanding of how criticism as a practice gives rise to questions about how to conduct that practice, questions that are constitutive of the discipline: e.g., questions concerning what we should read, why we should read, and how we should read” assessed via self reflective writing, measured in foundational major class ENGL 203, fall 2018. The process is well developed.
- Given the department’s self-reflective advising requirement, this seems like a terrific idea to do in ENGL 203. As one committee member notes, it seems it would be helpful for conversation among instructors as to a rubric and instrument for assessment to happen earlier in the semester.
- Different learning outcomes for different levels of coursework in the major is a good idea, and approaching different ones in different semesters is working well.
- Program Learning Outcomes 5&6, “the ability to read texts in relation to history” and “an understanding of how texts are related to social and cultural categories (e.g., race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, class, ability), enterprises (e.g. philosophy, science, politics), and institutions (e.g., of religion, of education” including Basic Research skills. Well developed assessment process as described; we would like to be able to see the graphs generated but documents are either restricted or links are broken.
- We can’t see all the artifacts and instruments, but your descriptions of them are effective.
- Students achieve a high level at the 300 level and not quite so well difference at the 400 level. It could be the small N, or it could be worth investigating. For example, do faculty assume basic skills in research have been exhaustively covered in 300 level but in fact students need more reinforcement, or in fact some may have only taken 2-3 before a 400 level course.
- Use of results: We like the transparency of the conversation on the development of instruments as well as the vigorous debate, documented separately, within a department meeting. Were any action plans developed following the discussion?
For January meeting APAC will complete English review and make notes for department, start mathematics, and choose other programs to review for spring 2020.
Choose up to 3 more programs to examine in spring 2020; consider Business and Education working together to give feedback to one another.
4. Assesstivus will be Tuesday January 21, 2020; focusing on assessing strategies for recruitment, retention, and student success, with focus on under represented groups
Adjourned: 4:55 PM
Next meeting scheduled for Jan 23, 2020, 4-5 PM, Erwin 206
That’s the first week of classes; Jan 30 might be better
- Absent members please review notes committee prepared for COMN re 2018-19 assessment
- All members please review English and Math 2018-19 assessment in preparation for January meeting