ACADEMIC SENATE MINUTES
DATE:††††††††††† February 2, 2006
PRESENT:†††† Agnes Samples††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Mark Hardt
††††††††††††††††††††††† Lorrie Steerey (via phone)††††††††††††††††††††††††† Sandie Rietz
††††††††††††††††††††††† Paul Bauer†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Audrey ConnerRosberg
††††††††††††††††††††††† Ben Marschke†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Keith Edgerton
††††††††††††††††††††††† Randall Gloege††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Bruce Brumley
††††††††††††††††††††††† Noreen Lee†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Craig McKenzie
††††††††††††††††††††††† Matt Redinger††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Lewis Rife (student)
††††††††††††††††††††††† Mary Susan Fishbaugh (ex-officio)†††††††††††††† Tasneem Khaleel (ex-officio)
ABSENT:†††††† David Garloff (ex-officio)†††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Mary McNally (ex-officio)
††††††††††††††††††††††† Kirk Lacy (ex-officio)††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† John Cech (ex-officio)
††††††††††††††††††††††† George White (ex-officio)††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Terrie Iverson (ex-officio)
††††††††††††††††††††††† Curt Kochner (ex-officio)
GUESTS:††††††† Dan Gretch††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Connie Landis
††††††††††††††††††††††† Susan Gilbertz††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† Brent Roberts
PRESIDING: Keith Edgerton, Chair
Keith Edgerton called the meeting to order at 3:41 p.m. in the
The minutes of January 26 were accepted as presented.
I.††††††††† ITEMS FOR INFORMATION
Item 48† Emeritus nomination of Dr. Randall Gloege,
Assistant Professor, Department of English and Philosophy,
ř Motion by Matt Redinger, seconded by Sandie Rietz to accept Item 48.
ř Motion carried.
II.†††††††† DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS
A.† Academic Foundations Committee Update
Keith Edgerton stated that the Provost sent a memo to the Academic Foundations Committee (AFC) noting that he believed they had not completed their task.† The AFC sent a response that they have met the task, and they are also not completely finished yet.† Mark Hardt, Chair of the AFC, noted that if the Committee finishes the assessment tool this semester, we can have assessment data ready by 2008, when NWCCU is to visit.† It was noted that the Committee is much farther along than the Provost is giving them credit for.
It was cited that the Provost may want quantitative measures
and data, but we donít have those yet because the program is not running
yet.† It was noted that the AFC does not
want a cumbersome system like the
It was noted that February 10 is the deadline to submit a course for Academic Foundations.† Once the final vetting of the courses is complete, the Committee can move quickly to an assessment tool.† The AFC is considering several models of assessment, such as student surveys, steering committees who decide outcomes for each category of general education, a portfolio system, a thesis/capstone course, and others.† It was noted that the problem with many assessments is that students are often not able to accurately report what they have learned.
It was stated that the AFC developed the matrix, which had to be submitted for each course, as the beginning of the assessment process.† When students finish Academic Foundations, they should be able to satisfy all parts of the matrix somehow.† Then, we have to show how our students grew as a result of what they learned.† The students should have some kind of physical product that shows they have grown.† The problem with any portfolio or essay-based assessment is:† Who is going to review 5400 of them?
It was noted that it took a year or more to build the matrix.† Itís possible it will take that long to create the assessment tool as well, and we donít have that kind of time.† We have not done what NWCCU advised us to do.
It was stated that the AFC would welcome any help or suggestions that any of the faculty may have, especially for an overall assessment of the Academic Foundations program.
It was noted that a simplistic student opinion survey may be the easiest way to satisfy NWCCU.† They are not necessarily interested in the results of the survey or how hard we worked to create the survey.† They want to know that we have a list of objectives that all students should meet, and that we are assessing those in some way.
It was cited that no matter what assessment tool is chosen, it will be arguable.† The two problems inherent in assessing general education are that there is no clear point that defines the end of general education and the beginning of the rest of the studentís career and that we canít mix up assessment with evaluation of faculty teaching.† It was suggested that we could set a barrier for students that they have to complete a certain portion of Academic Foundations before they can continue, and then assess at that point.† However, most colleges are not interested in that approach, and it is also an obstruction to retention of students.
The Senate agreed that the AFC should report the results of their assessment decision by March 23, 2006.
The meeting adjourned at 4:51 p.m.