Faculty & Staff
Self Governance » Assessment of Learning Committee
Minutes
JULY 30, 2001
In attendance were Drs. Mark Haase, Bob Supernaw, Jim Stoll, Michelle Condren, Quentin Smith, Cindy Raehl and Craig Cox attended via conference call.
Dr. Thomas Thekkumkara was out of town.
Dr. Haase called the meeting to order and presented to the committee the proposed final draft of the letter to faculty regarding Tech's Top Ten with the changes incorporated that were suggested by committee members. Dr. Haase also presented to the committee the proposed survey that has been prepared using the CourseMetric program. There was some discussion about the duplication of questions in the survey it was then decided to leave the survey as is. By using the Course Metric program we will be able to guarantee faculty compliance to the best of our ability because we can build in reminders to those who have to respond. It was decided that we will get the final results of the survey August 13 so that the Chair will have time to prepare the Assessment Committee's proposal to present at the August 27 faculty meeting for faculty approval.
The committee discussed the role of our residents in the Assessment process and explaining what it means and what their role will be. Cindy Raehl suggested that we let Dr. Krystal Haase, the Director of our Resident Program, inform the residents about the Assessment Exam process and their role as question writers.
Consequences of poor performance on the annual Assessment Exam was then discussed at great length. Dr. Haase stated that he and the Associate Dean for Assessment of Learning had discussed possible consequences and they propose that we use a step-wise approach as is used with our SOP academic system, which is the strike process. If a student fails the overall exam they would then receive one strike. A strike is equal to one class failure per semester. Dr. Raehl restated her concerns about the Assessment of Learning Committee making decisions about progression, as this is the job of the Credentialing Committee. Dr. Stoll felt that the strike system was too severe and he suggested that we schedule a Saturday retake day. The Assessment equivalent of a "second chance". Dr. Supernaw stated that in his opinion it is actually worse for a student to fail the overall Assessment exam than to fail a single course. Dr. Cox also felt that we should use a "scare tactic" to at least make them take it seriously i.e., letting them know that they will have to come in on a Saturday and retake the test. With the plan of eventually going to a step-wise strike approach and then to remediation. Dr. Supernaw stated that the results of the Assessment Exam were provided to the Credentialing Committee for the students who had poor performance academically. There was a lengthy discussion on the subject. The committee agreed that this year we would provide a Saturday retake day for those who fail the overall exam. If the student then fails the overall retake they would receive a "strike". It was agreed that if they fail the exam twice it should be indicative that they need some form of remediation.
Dr. Supernaw advised the committee that there appears to be a direct correlation between how students are doing based on course grades and their performance on Assessment Exam. It is also a measure of "did the school and faculty do their job?" Dr. Raehl suggested that we make the student appear before the credentialing committee. It was decided that we can propose this to the credentialing committee. Dr. Supernaw stated that the Credentialing Committee will be looking to the Assessment committee for direction on how to handle the student failure of the Assessment Exam and that our suggestion would probably have the support of the Credentialing committee. Dr. Stoll suggested that after the results of the survey are in and we know how the faculty feels about the subject that next year we reevaluate the process for the punishment for overall failure. Dr. Supernaw stated that out of all of the students this year we only had seven overall failures.
The date of the Annual Assessment exam was then discussed. After much discussion it was decided to keep the exam in January for this year. It was decided that it would be held on January 11, 2002. Once again after we receive the faculty input on moving the date the committee will reconsider the possibility of a spring administration. The general consensus was to decide and then always keep the assessment exam at the same time for continuity purposes.
The next OAC meeting will be September 12 unless we need to call an interim meeting regarding the result of the Tech's Top Ten survey.
The meeting was adjourned.