ALL UNIVERSITY STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE

Planning Committee Meeting

June 11, 1998

The Planning subcommittee discussions first focused on the successful meetings held on April 30, 1998. It was generally agreed that the subcommittee meetings were productive and that the full committee meeting provided a sense of closure for this year.

The discussion then focused on plans for our second year. A concern was raised about the potential overlap of subcommittee responsibilities that could result in duplicative requests for "conversations" with various groups. It was clear that the Ongoing Efforts subcommittee should continue to talk with departments or other units that are already engaged in assessment and should reach out to others that seem ready to begin doing assessment. The Out-of-classroom Learning subcommittee should engage Student Affairs staff and Academic Affairs faculty and staff in conversations about the ways the four programs (Greek Life, Judicial Affairs, Career Services, and Residence Life) can support students' academic success and enhance their personal growth and professional development. These two subcommittees will produce the "numbers" of units involved in assessment that the Vice Chancellor and Chancellor are looking for.

The Community conversations subcommittee should again meet with the deans to engage them in a discussion of how essential their leadership and commitment is to the success of assessment at SU. In addition, this subcommittee should continue to meet with faculty, at the invitation of deans, to discuss assessment in the broadest terms (existential/epistemological, i.e., values, ways of knowing, finding meaning). Units may be identified for follow-up by the Ongoing Efforts subcommittee as a result of these conversations.

The following topics could be the basis for a set of recommendations, which would be our "product" for year two.

1. Procedures that constitute assessment (e.g., describing intended student learning, evaluating the extent that learning is occurring, identifying improvements suggested by the evaluation, making changes in courses and programs in light of the suggested improvements)
2. Minimum requirements (criteria and standards) for doing assessment and degree of flexibility in describing intended student learning, evaluation methods, involvement of faculty, and using and reporting results
3. Resources available/needed for the design and implementation of assessment within units
4. Consequences for doing or not doing assessment

• The last topic discussed concerned the institutionalization of assessment over the next five years. We have to look down the road to make sure that the Chancellor, Vice Chancellor, and deans make assessment part of the managerial structure of the University, just as they have advising and retention.