Academic Foundations Committee

Minutes

 

November 25, 2008

 

 

Present:          Oliver Chen                                         Kurt Toenjes

                        Mark Hardt                                          Dan Lennon

                        Richard Pierce

 

Absent:           Abbas Heiat – excused                          Jane Howell – excused

                        David Garloff – ex-officio                   Tasneem Khaleel – ex-officio

                        Gary Young – ex-officio                      Mary Susan Fishbaugh – ex-officio

                        Karen Heikel – ex-officio                    John Cech – ex-officio

                        D’Ann Campbell – ex-officio              Stacy Klippenstein – ex-officio

 

Presiding:      Mark Hardt, Chairperson

 

 

Mark Hardt called the meeting to order at 3:45 p.m. in the Bridger room of the SUB.

 

The minutes of October 14 were accepted as presented.

 

I.          ACTION ITEMS

 

A.  Curriculum Change on Academic Foundations Course

(This change was approved by the UCC 11/12/08)

Item 16.a  ART 110 Art Studio Essentials for the Non-Art Major.  Change title to Studio Art for Non-Art Majors and change course description.

 

- Motion by Dan Lennon, seconded by Oliver Chen to accept Item 16.a.

 

- Motion carried.

 

B.  Official Adoption of the 70% Rule

That if 70% of a class/section achieves an assessment objective, that objective is considered met.

 

- Motion by Oliver Chen, seconded by Dan Lennon to adopt 70% as the minimum for assessment objectives.

 

It was noted that the 70% does not mean in total for the class for all objectives, but rather 70% of the class must pass the exam/project/etc. in order for the class to achieve one objective.

 

- Motion carried.

 

II.        DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS

 

A.  Letter to Faculty:  Assessment is Not Optional

 

Dr. Hardt noted that although he and Lorrie Steerey, Chairperson of the Academic Senate, met with IT early on, many of the changes discussed were not implemented in the assessment website.  Thus, another meeting next week is in order.

 

Only 20% of Academic Foundations courses turned in assessments last year.  Perhaps the AFC needs to be blunt and simply tell faculty they must submit their assessment data or their courses will be dropped.  We ultimately have no choice in whether we assess or not.

 

It was noted that many faculty have commented that the window to input data is much too short.  It’s not that the data-entry takes so long, it’s a matter of the faculty getting around to doing it.  Expanding the window of data-entry and then informing faculty they must participate is the best approach to use.

 

It was cited that hopefully for next semester, the system will be open all semester long.  Also early next semester, Dr. Hardt will be meeting with Department Chairs to tell them they must be advising part-time faculty on assessment, and Chairs can even help determine assignments to use for assessment.

 

It was noted that the Sciences Department has a database of many possible assessment tools/instruments which faculty can choose from.  The sharing of these exams and lectures has also led to sharing of creative ideas for assessment.  The department also considered making submission of assessment data part of the part-time faculty contract.

 

B.  Training Sessions for Faculty on Assessment:  Why, How, and Data Collection

 

It was noted that some faculty state they need training to run the assessment data collection website.  It was responded that if the faculty members are that computer challenged, we should direct them to IT.

 

C.  Assessment Data for 2007-2008

 

We will have to have an action plan to respond to NWCCU regarding the extremely low participation (20% of Academic Foundations courses) in assessment.  Essentially, NWCCU wants us to demonstrate mastery of assessment.  Dean Tasneem Khaleel would like to talk to the AFC at the next meeting about this plan.

 

D.  Upper Level Academic Foundations Program Assessment:  Form and Implementation

 

The model of a capstone has become more acceptable.  The idea has been put forward that if a student can write a paper—a thesis—they will use their Academic Foundations skills.  This thesis could be part of their major capstone.

 

It was noted that “upper level” implies that AA and AS degrees would not be included.  Is a separate assessment needed?

 

Another issue that must be dealt with is tracking of transfer students.  If students transfer in some Academic Foundations courses, we need to separate those students from students who take their entire Academic Foundations package at MSUB.  It was noted that we could make this part of their application for graduation.  If a student transferred in Academic Foundations courses, it must be noted on the application.

 

 

The Committee agreed to a short meeting during finals week (December 9).

 

 

The meeting adjourned at 4:15 p.m.

 

Respectfully submitted, Rita J. Rabe Meduna.