The University Committee met on Tuesday, April 28, 2009 in Molinaro Hall room D135.

Call to Order

The meeting was called to order at 3:30 p.m. by Dennis Rome, Chair.  Also attending were committee members Herb Colston, Peggy James and Greg Mayer.  Chris Evans and Farida Khan were excused.  Gary Wood was present as Secretary of the Faculty.  Bill Blanchard and Rizvana Zameeruddin were invited guests and represented the Academic Achievement Assessment Committee. 

Approval of Minutes

 

Minutes from the meetings of April 21, 22 and 27 2009 were approved as distributed.  (Note: the April 22 and 27 meetings were University Committee lunches with chancellor candidates.) 

Announcements

Dennis reported on the feedback from his students regarding chancellor candidate John Folkins, and on his own impressions of candidates Folkins and Keon. 

Old Business

1.  Charge and membership of the Academic Achievement Assessment Committee.

Bill Blanchard and Rizvana Zameeruddin were invited to explain the rationale for the proposed revisions to the membership and charge of the Academic Achievement Assessment Committee (AAAC).

Changes to the membership would eliminate references to members from specific areas such as English and math and to specific individuals such as the Director of Assessment.  The rationale for these changes was to give the UC more flexibility in appointing people to the AAAC and to avoid situations such as the current one where the Director of Assessment’s spot is open because there is no Director.  It was suggested that there at least be included some guidelines about who the administrative members of the committee should be.

Most of the discussion was related to the proposed changes in the charge to the committee; specifically, the revisions would change the committee from one that is actively involved in actually doing program assessment to one that would review, promote and facilitate program assessment.  The responsibility for doing the assessment work would be left to individual departments.  Two opposing viewpoints were expressed.  On one side, assessment of each and every department and program on campus is far too much work for a single committee and assessment of student learning outcomes should be a routine part of what every department and program does.  The committee members would like to see the role of the committee as being a monitoring one.  The committee would make sure departments have identified learning goals, have assessment methods in place, are using them to collect information, and, where appropriate, are making programmatic changes based on that information.

On the other side, some members of the UC said that department chairs are already overburdened with clerical sorts of tasks and it should be the responsibility of the AAAC committee to take on most of the burden of doing assessment.  Greg reported that this is how the committee operated some years ago when he was a member.  He also cited examples of the General Education Committee operating the same way; i.e., conducting assessments of general education courses in various departments.  In response to comments about the burdensome nature of program assessment, Bill suggested that departments make it manageable and only assess a small number of learning outcomes at any one time.  He also noted that assessment is most likely happening in most departments in a number of informal ways, but is not being documented.

There was also some discussion of various assessment methods, the necessity of doing things other than giving exams, assigning grades, evaluating papers, etc.

While there was no resolution to this argument, Bill did note that a position authorization request for a new administrative position, Director of Assessment and Academic Planning, had just been approved, and that this person might help departments streamline their assessment processes. The UC thought it would be wise to review the position description for the Director to help determine to what extent the charge to the AAAC should be revised.  Gary will request the position description from the Provost’s office.  No formal action can be taken until the Faculty Senate meets again in the fall.

Herb suggested that rather than hiring a director, the same money could be used to give department chairs more release time for doing this kind of work.  He also noted that the proposed revisions to UWPF Chapter 3 describing the roles and responsibilities of department chairs contain numerous references to assessment.

2.  University Committee report to the new Chancellor.

There was not time to address agenda items 2 or 3.

3.  UW-System textbook guidelines. 

New Business

1.  Strategic planning process and mission statement discussion.

The committee drafted a statement summarizing their concerns regarding the strategic planning process.  Gary will send the statement to Provost Greenfield.

Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 5:30 p.m.

Submitted by,

Gary M. Wood

Secretary of the Faculty