MARCH 24, 1998
In attendance were: Shiu-Kai Chin, David Miller, Vince Tinto, Gary Spencer, Ron Cavanagh, Bron Adam, Ruth Stein, Peter Gray, and Marv Druger
After reviewing the notes from the last meeting the discussion centered on the content and focus of the community conversations. It was suggested that people might ask, the assessment of what? or, who are you people to be asking these questions?
It was generally agreed that it would be appropriate to reiterate what the chancellor and vice chancellor have said about assessment and to describe how this group (AUSLOAC) came into being. We also might say something like, as most of you know there is considerable national pressure for assessment (for example, articles in the Chronicle of Higher Education and Newsweek) and at this University the following has happened... In other words, there is an imperative to assessment so as to improve teaching and learning. We want to be informative and to help people to feel comfortable with assessment. We want to ask them, "what questions do you have?" We don't want to appear as lackeys of the administration, but to talk with faculty about assessment and to say what we think.
The question was raised, what issues are we asking people to respond to? We have to identify the issues relevant to people in each school or college by asking others, and ourselves "if I were a person in that school/college...." We also want to ask for their advice and to ask them to help us decide what's important to assess based on their point of view. We want to start sustainable, long-term reflective conversations about what the campus thinks about assessing our students. "What is important for my student to have after they leave?" We have a collegial responsibility for what students learn.
Vince asked, aren't we trying to determine the goals of an SU education, what is our signature? Ron indicated that we could be looking at global SU goals and/or local program goals. It was generally agreed that it would not be productive to start with the discussion of global SU goals, as this might be a very short and superficial conversation. Instead, we need to have different types of conversations with different groups.
It was suggested that we arrange conversations through cooperation with the deans. It should feel like a faculty initiative. We need to share the assumption that people have been and are doing assessment. We want to talk with them about the assessment process (as outlined by the chancellor, the vice chancellor, and Ron).
Vince noted that by raising the conversation to a public level we will create a potential for action since there will be people with whom we talk who have never thought about assessment before. We want to create a level of discourse that is public and honest. We want to begin with the assumption that as serious educators we should think about what our student should learn.
There are some possible outcomes if we invite people to a conversation on assessment: (1) some smart and articulate people will say that what's important to me as a teacher is not to have an idea in advance of outcomes, (2) some natural groupings may be dysfunctional (as illustrated by the rift caused by the discussion of assessment in the English Department), and (3) no one will show up.
The question has been raised, why aren't the deans leading this conversation? Why us? Why hasn't this initiative come through the normal structures of deans and chairs or the University Senate? What is our role vis-a-vis the normal channels of discourse. The fact is we have no authority. We only have our credibility as faculty members. We have to first speak as faculty who have a task. We have to say, we need information from you to do our task.
In talking with the deans the Vice Chancellor can articulate why he went this route and we can note that we are starting by talking with the deans and asking them how they would like us to proceed.
The last topic we discussed was the appropriate role of students in these conversations. We need to engage them in some way, which will be determined in the future.
We will meet again on the March 31, 1998, at 1 PM in the CSTL conference room.
Respectfully submitted, Peter J. Gray