ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE

Minutes of October 17, 2003

Board Room - 1:00 p.m.

Jim Dudek called the meeting to order at 1:10 p.m.

In attendance were Janet Red Feather, Jim Dudek, Ursula Gaertner, Susie White Thunder, Trudy Ecoffey, and Joan Nelson.

Not present were Georgia Rooks, Joan Nelson, Ann Rutherford (excuse tendered, professional), Stephanie Charging Eagle (excuse tendered - medical), Sheris Red Feather, Shawna Pourier, Verine White, and Denise Brown Eyes.

Open discussion ensued regarding Ann’s suggestion at the last meeting that sporadic attendance be reported. Jim wanted the committee to consider how to proceed without a quorum. Those in attendance decided to have a substantive meeting but to defer crucial decisions and approval of minutes until the next meeting.

Ursula raised a concern about institutional effectiveness: are we achieving what we set out to achieve? Assessment is a part of that measure.

Per Trudy: We have all of these terms on papers, but are we implementing our goals and objectives?

The committee asked what was meant by “institutional.” Ursula described some attributes, including its promulgation of rules, procedures and guidelines.

For attendance, we’ll try a log of attendance to be made a part of the minutes.

The committee digressed into a discussion of the different value placed upon education today, in an attempt to understand why measures weren’t as high as we’d like for college level students. Ursula gave the example of education in Africa, and how many obstacles children will endure in order to gain an education.

Developmental classes must have a measure; so that at the end of a developmental program, we have established some exit criteria to be fulfilled.

Ursula stressed the pervasiveness of assessment -- it must be institution-wide and constant in order to satisfy NCA requirements. Humanities wanted to use portfolios; Ursula said those could be a viable tool, provided one has uniformity in goals and objectives, sufficient description in syllabi, and consistency in application (rubrics). Portfolios are acceptable, although they’re not her tool of choice, as they are time-consuming and cumbersome.

There are social issues involved with our student population. Our population has some unique features, such as students enrolled who are the first in their households to pursue higher education. These factors need to be considered in determining our outcome criteria; those criteria, per Ursula, must be appropriate to the population.

We can set the standards as individual departments, but we must be able to measure.

The day of reckoning will arrive: to maintain accreditation, outcomes need to be at a certain level and measurable. Ursula remarked that there are good resources on the web about assessment -- Ursula provided these to the department chairs:

Qualitative and quantitative measures

Direct and indirect measures.

Standardized test = quantitative direct measure

Portfolio = qualitative direct measure

Trudy asked the committee to consider how to help Department Chairs with flow charts and budgets -- how to these fit into implementing the mission?

Next meeting is November 14, 2003 at which time, we will determine what constitutes a quorum, and when a quorum is needed.

The meeting was adjourned at 3:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Janet Red Feather, Recorder