Theme 1: Meetings/Minutes

October 20, 2006

Key Ideas Generated from WASC Meeting

October 20, 2006

As noted and recalled by Mary Virnoche

Linking University and Department Outcomes

We clarified the relationship between departmental level outcomes and the university level outcomes. Over the course of the meeting we decided that one of the university level outcomes would be “competency in major” thus linking the two levels of visioning. It will be important to be clear on this relationship when we talk to our colleagues.

Structure and Process of Assessment Body for University-Wide Outcomes (Ideally)

  • cross-university committee
  • stipend for service
  • perhaps meeting for a few days in summer
  • reviewing one outcome each year
  • “sampling” evidence of outcome from all departments (or other designated data sources)

To fund the stipend we might sell a booklet to students outlining the outcomes, providing readings and rationale, samples of measures and other information. (1000 * $10 = $10,000/ year for assessment stipends). University of Washington did this. But if we go to an all online-model, then that would not be a source for funds. Another funding structure could be a student fee.

GWPE Linkages

We might consider using the existing GWPE as an assessment tool as it exists or by revising the rubric used to assess the exam. We might also change the design of GWPE to meet other outcomes goals, while also measuring writing competency.

University Wide Learning Outcome Areas (DRAFT)

The Greater Expectations work recommends no more than 5-7 learning outcomes. We decided that we would try for five, but ended up with six. Two of those outcomes are already generally defined by someone (Sorry, I missed the part of where these were coming from): written communication and ability to analyze qualitative and quantitative data. As we already had agreed on competency in major as a third, we only had room then for three more areas. Last time we had a great deal of consensus around an outcome having to do with involvement, so that outcome was included. The final list then looked as follows:

  1. Graduates will carry forward their responsibility for social, environmental and economic justice in their work and their communities. (We talked about referring to the pledge for language. This would likely be measured in alumni.)
  2. Involvement in the campus or local community that reflects an integrated experience.
  3. Diversity
  4. Ability to analyze quantitative and qualitative data
  5. Written Communication
  6. Competency in Major

Structure for Campus Meetings

  1. Exercise like we did helping group to focus on the “whole” student.
  2. Brainstorming
  3. Introduce our draft
  4. Facilitate Ideas about how brainstorm ideas might be integrated into or change the draft. If anyone wants to “add” another outcome, then he/she would be asked to suggest which outcome it should replace.

We also talked about each of us bringing a student or another person along to take notes so that we can focus on facilitating these meetings. Given our time constraints, we will need to meet with faculty and staff during already structured meeting bodies and times.

Preparing for October 27, 2006 Meeting

For the next meeting, committee members are asked to work on framing these areas in outcome language. We should draw on our notes integrating ideas like critical thinking and evaluating evidence into the existing outcomes.

Agenda for October 27 2006

  1. Wording of outcomes
  2. Assign committee members to campus groups
  3. Review and further develop the structure for campus meetings