Minutes

University Curriculum and Academic Policy Committee

January 17, 2006

Members present:

Sue Blanshan, Carolyn Bocian, Cindy Chance, Lee Chiang, Anne Henderson, Saundra Oyewole, Cristina Parsons (chair), Iliana Restrepo, John Volpe

I. The Program Assessment Process

Vice President for Academic Affairs Sue Blanshan spoke to committee members about problems with the existing program review process and proposals for change. She noted that the process currently suffers from poor compliance, unsatisfactory deliverables, excessive labor intensity for both UCAP and programs, and tension between UCAP and faculty colleagues over enforcement of requirements. To address these problems, Dr. Blanshan proposed a new model with the following elements:

• Replace the current five year cycle with a three year program review cycle. Review and assessment activities would be conducted in the first year, and the following two years would be reserved for implementation of program recommendations.
• Rather than placing the entire burden of data collection upon programs, the Office of Academic Affairs would provide programs with aggregate data on indicators such as enrollments, teaching loads, and number of majors.
• Rather than having programs come up with assessment goals on their own, the Office of Academic Affairs would generate structured assessment questions for each program.
• External reviewers would be designated. External reviewers could be involved in the initial stages of assessment, helping programs establish comparisons with peer institutions; and at the final stages, by providing feedback on programs’ reports.
• Program reports would be submitted to the Office of Academic Affairs, which would forward them to UCAP for review and evaluation. UCAP would return its evaluations to OAA, which would then meet with programs to discuss results and recommendations for the following two years of implementation.

Cristina Parsons noted that this proposal would address UCAP members’ discomfort with pressing colleagues for compliance, while retaining UCAP’s valuable role in evaluating program reports, running workshops, and mentoring programs engaged in assessment. She also felt that the proposed model would make assessment less burdensome for programs, because the process would become more directive and focused. Cindy Chance concurred that the more directive approach would ensure that programs assessed what they needed to assess, from the perspective of institutional needs and priorities. Sue Blanshan pointed out that the proposed model would make assessment less burdensome for UCAP as well, thereby freeing UCAP to devote more time to university-wide policy issues.

Sue Blanshan requested that UCAP investigate assessment practices in Trinity’s peer group institutions, to uncover best practices and help Trinity redesign its own process. Cristina Parsons subsequently asked each UCAP member to investigate two peer institutions (as designated in the Middle States report), and to provide a report on best practices within three weeks.

Discussion then turned to the details of the new assessment model. Lee Chiang opined that assessment professionals were needed to help evaluate programs’ reports, because UCAP lacked the necessary expertise. John Volpe responded that much of the expertise, as well as crucial mentoring, could be provided in-house. Cindy Chance argued that the Office of Academic Affairs would provide expertise, by providing data and working with UCAP to generate data-driven assessment questions for programs to address. Saundra Oyewole pointed out that it would be very useful for programs to receive data from OAA before their “assessment clock” started ticking. UCAP members agreed that a plan for phasing out the old model and phasing in the new model would be needed.

II. Assessment Report Updates

Cristina Parsons informed UCAP that she had provided the Biology program with UCAP’s evaluation of its 2^nd year report. She also gave the Religious Studies and Theology program UCAP’s evaluation of its 3^rd year report.

The meeting was adjourned at 1.15 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Anne Henderson