Minutes

University Curriculum and Academic Policy Committee

September 8, 2005

Members present:

Rosemarie Bosler, Cynthia Chance, Lee Chiang, Anne Henderson, Saundra Oyewole, Cristina Parsons (chair), Iliana Restrepo, John Volpe

The minutes of the August 19 2005 meeting were approved as amended.

I. Protocol Revisions

Following the decision at the August 19 2005 UCAP meeting to revise the 1st and 2^nd year protocols for program assessment reports, Cristina Parsons, Cindy Chance, and Anne Henderson worked to prepare revised drafts of these protocols for UCAP’s consideration. The revised draft protocols were distributed to UCAP members before the September 8 meeting.

At the meeting, Cristina Parsons reviewed the reasons for revising the protocols. The 1^st year protocol needed revision for several reasons:

• UCAP review of 1^st and 2^nd year assessment reports submitted in Spring 2005, along with feedback from programs entering the 2^nd year of the assessment cycle, indicated that the existing 1^st year protocol did not prepare programs adequately to enter the 2^nd year of the assessment cycle. The 1^st year protocol provided little guidance to help programs specify data sources and instruments suitable for assessing their goals and objectives. In other words, the 1^st year protocol did not guide programs to develop a data collection plan, a necessary prerequisite for the main task of 2^nd year assessment activities. Accordingly, the 1^st year protocol was revised so that its final task became the development of a data collection plan.
• The existing 1^st year protocol required programs to create questions related to each of its objectives. This step was burdensome and not always meaningful or useful for programs. Accordingly, the requirement to generate questions was removed from the 1^st year protocol.

Cristina Parsons also explained that the 2^nd year protocol required revision as a result of the changes to the 1^st year protocol. Because of the addition of the data collection plan to the 1^st year protocol, some of the text on data sources and instruments which had previously been part of the 2^nd year protocol was moved into the 1^st year protocol. The revised 2^nd year protocol now begins with the task of implementing the data collection plan from the 1^st year assessment report.

Anne Henderson mentioned that Vice President for Academic Affairs wanted to make certain that the protocols directed programs to assess student learning for all populations the programs served, particularly general education students. This prompted discussion of whether such a charge to programs would prove too burdensome. Cristina Parsons told the committee that she would meet with Dr. Blanshan to discuss whether the revised protocols provided sufficient guidance to programs concerning the measurement of student learning outcomes.

The committee discussed whether the revised protocols would comply with Middle States requirements. Some committee members expressed uncertainty about what Middle States wanted from assessment. Anne Henderson said that Middle States seemed most interested in the integrity of the assessment process: that expectations be clear, that compliance be strong, and that the results of assessment lead to meaningful changes in program activities. The protocol revisions were intended to clarify expectations and improve program compliance, thus addressing Middle States requirements.

After this discussion, the revised 1^st and 2^nd year protocols were approved.

II. Dates and Deadlines

Because it was important for programs entering the 2^nd year of assessment to receive their 1^st year evaluations and the revised 2^nd year protocol before attending the 2^nd year workshop, the date of this workshop was moved from September 9 to September 23. The 1^st year workshop date remained unchanged (October 14).

The meeting adjourned at 1:15 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Anne Henderson