ALL UNIVERSITY STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNITY CONVERSATIONS MEETING NOTES

April 30, 1998

In attendance: Shiu-Kai Chin, David Miller, Gary Spencer, Arlene Kanter, Ron Cavanagh, Frank Wilbur, Bron Adam, Ruth Stein

Shiu-Kai began by summarizing the conversations conducted with the Maxwell undergraduate directors and Social Work faculty as representing "two ends of the spectrum" in terms of readiness for an assessment initiative. He noted that it seemed significant that in the last five minutes of both discussions questions\ about rewards emerged.

Ron noted that the excellent attendance at both conversations "said something" about interest in assessment.

Frank responded that, like the advising initiative, rewards need to be made available for those who invest heavily in assessment activities.

Other comments about the two conversations included the following: In the meeting with the Maxwell undergraduate directors, there was a sense that they were "trying to get a handle on what we were asking them to do." An important distinction emerged about the different constituencies faculty/departments serve. Not all learners experience their courses from the same position. Majors and minors are quite different from students taking a course or two in a department or division.

The Social Work faculty contend with outcomes or expectations set by an external accrediting body and thus have a different stake in the assessment initiative than faculty in schools not governed by accreditation agencies.

It's an illusion that we all agree about what the outcomes of our courses and programs are.

Assessment is a dynamic process that we engage in again and again.

The value of considering assessment questions may be that it forces faculty to think about different ways of knowing-to enlarge our understandings about our subject, our students, and ourselves.

The group began to approach the focus questions.

Question I-What have we learned?

Considering assessment:
• Precipitates discussion that may lead to "collegial" or "non-collegial" discussion
• Reflects the tension between individual and collective interests
• Reminds us that it's teachings (plural)-not teaching (singular)
  
What are the ways to produce good learning?
Do not sacrifice utility for commonality.
Faculty are not "plug compatible" or "academic components"
The one thing that unites faculty (teaching) may be what divides faculty

• Departments/schools are in different places vis ... vis assessment. The range seems to be from "not thinking about it" to "doing a lot."
• Groupings are important. We have to be careful about how we approach school/college, department/division
Function of the academic discipline-"high/low paradigm"
Different academic culture and individual differences
Some departments represent "fields"

Implications:
In "high paradigm" field: need to "crisp it up" so that assessment supports paradigm
In "low paradigm" field: must have discussion of what it means to act collectively
We've learned that people want to know:

• What is the global expectation? What will happen if we don't do this?
  
• What are the rewards/resources for participating in assessment initiative?
  
• Will priority be given to assessment in allocation of resources and rewards?
  
• How will we avoid the unwanted side effects of using assessment data in summative ways (in faculty evaluation, for example)?
  

Question II-Where should we be a year from now?

1. We might work toward an ethnographic description of each field, focusing on how faculty view and organize themselves. This would:
   • encourage collective reflection as a field
   • capture the richness of the differences across academic fields/areas
   • inform AUSLOAC about the different cultures/epistemologies operant in the academic areas
   • help us learn about ourselves and our colleagues
   Gary Spencer suggested two broad questions for this study:
   • How is it that a particular unit thinks about what it does?
   • How does a particular unit make sense of what it is doing?
2. Provide an outline of issues to consider and give academic areas a year (or some period of time) to discuss these issues and ask them to report on their progress.
3. "Put flesh on" what different teachings (learnings) are and where different departments/fields are, seeking "concreteness and particularity."

Question III-What should we do to get there?

1. Provide easy access to information on teaching and learning across fields and courses. Focus on the syllabus as an important means of expression to facilitate conversation. Perhaps make them available through a website.
2. Meet again with the deans as a group.
3. Continue to meet with departments/colleges/schools.
4. Determine how to report on the information we have collected and how to receive reactions from individuals and units.
5. Look at existing documents describing the aims of academic areas/departments (e.g., Middle States).
6. Meet with individuals and small groups of faculty in informal settings to explore questions about "collective responsibility" (i.e., What does "collective" mean?) and address issues of confidentiality. Are private communications being compromised in order to satisfy public needs?

Meeting notes: Bron Adam and Ruth Stein