CASL - 19 September 2012
CASL—10 October 2012
Present: Shannon Godsey, John Schwetman, Jeni Eltink, Jerry Pepper, Jim Klueg, Tracy Bolen, Richard Davis.
Excused: Dana Lindaman
Absent: Julia Williams
Shannon opened the meeting with a reminder that assessment reports are due Monday, October 15.
Two students, Taylor Glynn and Corey Christensen, will accompany Shannon at a Teagle Assessment workshop at Wabash College titled: Including Conversations With Students In Your Assessment Work. The intention is to return from with workshop with memo explaining ideas for including students in assessment activities on campus. John offered the student fee committee as a model for student involvement and Mick identified a group of students that may be good for an initial focus group. He also made a statement about the value of having student-learning outcomes visible to all current and future constituencies.
Shannon reported progress on her scheduled campus assessment updates. She has presented to Department Heads in SFA, LSBE and SCSE as well as CODAA and Student Life Directors; meetings with CEHSP and CLA are scheduled.
An update on HLC mentor feedback on the final Academy report was reported. Susan Murphy (mentor) stated we have addressed all concerns identified during the last accreditation visit and highlighted our plan for sustaining our assessment work, using PALs to build in-house expertise, and appointing a Director of Student Learning Assessment.
Shannon received an invitation for faculty to contribute to an AAC&U VALUE project in global learning. The group was asked if this was a sensible project to let faculty in the LE category, Global Perspectives, learn about. The group unanimously decided it was worthwhile to inform faculty as long as nothing was required. There may be publishing opportunities available from this project.
There was discussion around the results of the capstone survey sent to Department Heads and directors in spring 12. In the survey, there was a definition of a capstone which DHs and directors were asked if they agreed with (if not, why), and whether their program had a capstone according to the definition (if not, why). If they indicated they had a capstone, they were asked to describe it, explain faculty and student perceptions, and indicate if program outcomes were addressed in the capstone. —There were 15 respondents, 12 indicated they had a capstone, 3 said they did not (lack of resources).
The groups had concerns about the low response rate. Jerry asked how we would use the information even if we had more. There was discussion about setting up professional development what would allow programs that want a capstone to learn from programs that currently have a capstone. Examples of capstones included experiences and courses and Mick pointed out how student life programs often provide capstone experiences for academic programs. Richard asked how learning was assessed in those situations—Mick indicated it is possible, but they were working toward figuring it out. Jim suggested a workshop for those who want a capstone and one for those who have one but want to develop it. Tracy described capstone projects/courses in LSBE that were not reflected in the survey results. Because the programs that have capstones indicated they value them (faculty and students) and because the HLC mentor encouraged continued discussion because capstones provide rich experiences for students and assessment data, the group decided to add a short period of targeted discussion about capstones at the Peer Review on November 16 rather than send the survey out again.
Shannon provided an update on Campus Labs implementation.
The group discussed planning for the Peer Review on November 16th including when CASL members will attend, how to group liaisons, and whether to provide NSSE data. Planning will continue at the next CASL meeting on October 31st.