|
Academic Council
Meeting Notes
September 5, 2000
Present: Curtis Johnson,
Dean of the College; Dinah Dodds; Dean of Arts and
Humanities; Gary Reiness, Dean of Mathematical and Natural
Sciences; Harold Schleef, Dean of Social Sciences; Terri
Banasek, Administrative Assistant and recorder; and Rosie
Felton, Administrative Assistant for Budgets and
Contracts.
Announcements:
- Dean Dodds announced that the College has hired Joan
Landry as orchestra conductor. The position of violin
instructor is still open.
Agenda Items:
- Accreditation update: Dean Schleef prepared a brief
summary of where the College is and what has been done to
date. He has the department reports, with the exception
of Music and Sociology/Anthropology. Departments have
identified department goals, described how goals are met,
and discussed various ways they use to determine whether
their goals are being met. Now the College needs to
establish a systematic method of assessment. It will
take years to get it going. We must send a response to
NWASC this fall informing them how we are going about
doing this and to build on that to describe our
assessment plan. We should begin to implement at the
departmental level.
This must be done in a systematic and a timely way. The
College should take the curricular goals in the catalog
as a given and link department goals to College goals.
Later it may be necessary to revise the college goals
based on our experience with this process. Ideally the
College would undertake the assessment process at the end
of each academic year and, in the fall, revisit the
goals.
We should begin implementation at the departmental level.
Last year's chairs' reports can be the foundation of
this larger process. Some departments have already
identified measurable outcomes. Each department needs to
come up with its own desired outcomes which are specific
to the discipline and devise a workable way to judge
whether they are meeting their targets.
Dean Schleef described three common methods of
assessment: rubrics, portfolio, and standardized tests.
It is preferable if the assessment is carried out by a
group of faculty rather than just one, to ensure that
common standards are employed. Standardized tests might
be useful as an intermediate measurement to see where
students are; perhaps giving a qualifying exam midway
through their college career. Some fields have national
tests, such as GRE sections, that might be feasible.
"Rubrics"refers to a set of pre-established criteria that
is used in evaluating student work. For student writing,
the desired outcomes might include clarity, correct
mechanics, and well-formed ideas. An assessment team
would take writing samples, evaluate them, and determine
at what level on a predetermined scale, or rubric, the
outcomes have been met. They would need to establish a
scoring method, perhaps a numeric way to evaluate the
work that has been done. One option to determine whether
student writing is improved by Inventing America, for
example, would be to evaluate a sample of student
writings at the end of the first semester and another at
the end of the second semester.
The difference between rubrics and portfolios is that you
can apply rubrics to a particular part of the curriculum.
With the portfolio, you obtain a composite of the
student's work over time.
Ideally, the specified outcomes should be few in number
and concise to allow a workable assessment process.
Faculty need to deliberate in their departments to
determine what suits them best. In addition to other
measures, departments could use a capstone experience,
although just having a capstone experience by itself does
not form an assessment that is meaningful. Assessment
needs to be done by a group of faculty members.
The form and structure should be established by the
Academic Council to ensure clarity and uniformity in the
process. Dean Schleef distributed worksheets for
developing an institutional effectiveness plan. He will
make copies of the full report for members of the AC.
The Academic Council needs to build a timetable for
establishing the assessment mechanisms. The College must
show NWCAS that we are working on this.
Dean Dodds suggested that a member of the assessment team
attend a department chairs meeting to help inform chairs
of the plan. Janet Davidson, who will be attending a
second conference in November, Kurt Fosso and Jay Beaman
are all part of the assessment team. Dean Schleef could
be a spokesman for the team, and he would be willing to
help in the process at a divisional level.
Dean Reiness stated that we will have our work cut out
for us, because the purpose of last year's self studies
was not clear to department chairs. We will need to make
clear that assessment has to be ongoing and systematic
and that last year was just a start. We need to devise a
realistic and workable timetable for future progress.
Chairs should have a clear idea of what they will be
asked to come up with and when.
By the end of this semester, the departmental goals
should be related to the College's mission and goals.
The general feeling is that the College goals are
obscure.
Dean Johnson pointed out that the department chairs will
mainly wish to know what their specific tasks are. The
College must convince the accreditation group that we are
making serious strides about how we are going to develop
these methods, and this must come from the chairs.
Unfortunately, relying on grades as an assessment
mechanism is not enough, as grades don't meet the
systematic approach; different faculty members use
different criteria in assigning grades.
The most significant thing to come out of the retreat was
the discussion of what our standards are. Standards
cannot be assessed unless the faculty talk about them.
Standards are different from goals; they measure the
level at which a goal is being achieved. The next step
is to determine standards. The retreat itself ought to be
in the report to the accreditation body; it is one of the
steps in the process.
Dean Schleef discussed the difference between a goal and
a standard. A standard is a measurement of an outcome.
A goal is an outcome that is designed to happen (a
substantial outcome). Standards are the levels at which
we expect students to achieve. This is where the main
deficiency is in the department reports.
We need measurement of what we expect the students to
achieve. Standards will be the result of discussion in
the faculty at various levels. Dean Schleef has samples
of standards to distribute to chairs.
Dean Schleef will convene the task force to develop a
timeframe for the report to NWASC. He will check with
Mervyn Brockett to determine due date for written report.
- The NEH has a competition for summer grants which
include a $4,000 stipend for two months. In the past, we
have invited applications from people in the humanities,
broadly defined. Janice Byerlee has application
materials, and they are also available on the web. The
College can submit two proposals, with at least one being
from a junior faculty member. The deadline is October 1;
proposals are due to Academic Council by September 15.
Rishona Zimring and Susan Glosser are interested. Dean
Johnson will issue an invitation to apply via email to
faculty.
- Outside reviews: The divisional deans should suggest
to candidates for promotion and tenure that they have the
option of drafting two different scholarly narratives -
one to the Committee on Promotion and Tenure and one for
outside reviewers. The narrative for outside reviewers
could be more concise, while the narrative for the CPT
should contain more information for the committee.
A research narrative is intended to provide context for
the work which is helpful to both external reviewers and
to the CPT.
Dean Schleef suggested that the packet to outside
reviewers include a cover letter, standards, and
materials for review. This material is already being
provided to the outside reviewers. Each divisional dean
sends a cover letter, the College's standards, and
criteria for review along with the candidate's work.
- Judaic studies position: The Schnitzers are
committed to giving money for faculty positions at three
colleges: Lewis & Clark, Portland State, and Reed,
but the initial funds might not be received for another
two years. The amount would be disbursed over a period of
years, with some money coming from Lewis & Clark.
The Religious Studies department would like to start a
search for a new position in Islamic Studies, not in
Judaic Studies. A previous Academic Council recognized
the position in Islam as one that ought to be pursued as
a joint position with Sociology/Anthropology, and Robert
Goldman and Richard Rohrbaugh have begun discussions.
There needs to be some clarity in terms of the goals of
the department and the College's resources. The
Religious Studies department is being asked to submit a
new proposal with rationale for Academic Council
consideration.
- Computer recycling: Many faculty and staff are upset
because they have not received the computers they were
led to expect during the previous budget cycle, and some
are working with obsolete machines that impede their
ability to function. The fact that new administrative
computers are being installed, but none in academic
offices, was of great concern to the Academic council,
which felt that academic computer needs are paramount.
The Academic Council decided to invite June Jones to
September 12 meeting to discuss the situation.
- Curriculum committee: Ben Westervelt is leading the
DC program, and the Curriculum Committee needs a
one-semester replacement for him from the Arts &
Humanities division. Dean Dodds will approach Kurt Fosso
and Susan Glosser about serving for a semester.
Next meeting: September 12, 2000, 9 a.m., in Breakfast
Room.
|
