April 2015 Minutes

Henderson State University Assessment Team
Meeting Minutes
Wilson Room, Garrison Center, 4:00 p.m.
April 20, 2015

Present: Stephen Adkison; Angela Boswell; Nathan Campbell; Deb Coventry, co-chair; Daniel Fitzroy; Bernie Hellums; Lenette Jones; Beth Maxfield; Lloyd Moyo; Ginger Otwell; Brett Serviss, co-chair; Drew Smith; Sheryl Strother; Wrenette Tedder; Dale Van Noy; Bob Yehl

Absent: Claire Howard; Paige Reagan; January Schultz; Celya Taylor

The meeting was called to order at 4:01 p.m. by Deb Coventry, Co-Chair.

The Minutes from the March 16, 2015 meeting were approved.

1. Higher Learning Commission (HLC) Assurance Argument Update
Wrenette Tedder updated the team on the progress made on the HLC Assurance Argument. Currently, a rough draft has been compiled from the sections written by each of the Criterion Committees and has been submitted to both the Faculty Senate and Staff Senate. These bodies were asked to go over the draft document and provide feedback on sections that might need additional information as well as on ideas concerning different pieces of evidence that could be used in support of the final document. The draft document will be cleaned up over the summer and reviewed once again before the final submission. The final Assurance Argument will need to be locked into the HLC system by September 6th and the actual peer evaluation will begin on October 12th.

Ms. Tedder also asked the Assessment Team to review, provide feedback, and identify evidence for the Criteria 3 and 4 sections of the draft Assurance Argument. She asked the team to ignore grammatical mistakes that will be cleaned up and to focus primarily on areas that could be improved and on ideas regarding more evidence for these sections. Assessment Team members were asked to submit comments and ideas to Wrenette using the hlcassurance@hsu.edu email by May 11th.

2. Assessment Awards
Deb Coventry initiated a conversation on the Assessment Awards process. The hope was to simplify the process of identifying outstanding assessment plans by utilizing the newly revised feedback rubric. Once the top five plans have been identified, the Assessment Team will make the final selection.

It was noted that the recognition of the Assessment Award winners has been pushed back to Fall 2015. Dr. Adkison explained that a Fall Convocation is being planned early in the Fall 2015 semester and will include recognition of the Faculty Excellence Award winners. It was generally agreed that this would be an appropriate time to recognize the Academic department winner of the Assessment Award. The Administrative department winner will need to be recognized at a different to be determined function. Dr. Adkison also mentioned that it may be a good idea to present more than one Assessment Award. After some discussion, the Assessment Team agreed to also start presenting an award for Most Improved Assessment Plan.

Continued Evaluation of Academic Assessment Plans
Assessment Team members turned in the final batch of evaluated Academic Assessment Plans. Wrenette Tedder reiterated that the two member teams need to individually evaluate the plans, come together to compare results, and then prepare one master evaluation for each Academic unit.

1. Rubric Scoring and Sharing of Evaluation Data
Because the evaluation of Academic Assessment Plans by the Assessment Team was concluding, Deb Coventry asked the team members how they wanted results to be returned to the departments. Wrenette Tedder mentioned that the evaluations will be typed up to include the comments from each reviewer before being returned to the departments. After a brief discussion, the team decided that the plans would be returned simultaneously to both the Deans and the individual department chairs. In addition, Co-Chairs Coventry and Serviss as well as Ms. Tedder will join the first Provost Council meeting in the fall to explain the assessment process and emphasize the importance of the assessment plans.

2. Administrative Rubric
Brett Serviss, Deb Coventry, and Wrenette Tedder developed a proposed feedback rubric for the Administrative Assessment Plans. This rubric was developed from the Academic Assessment Feedback Rubric with most of the edits consisting of word and term changes that made the rubric more useful in relation to Administrative departments. After a brief discussion, the team decided to move ahead and begin evaluating the Administrative units with the proposed rubric.

3. First Round Assignment of Administrative Assessment Plan Reviews
Wrenette Tedder assigned the same teams with three Administrative Assessment Plans to evaluate. The teams will need to return the evaluations to Ms. Tedder by May 4th. The remainder of the Administrative Assessment Plans will be evaluated over the summer.

4. Next Meeting?
After a brief discussion, the Assessment Team decided that it did not need to meet again this term; however, team members will need to adhere to the following deadlines:
• May 4th – Evaluation teams need to have evaluated their assigned Administrative Assessment Plans and returned the completed rubrics to Wrenette Tedder.
• May 11th – Assessment Team members need to have reviewed the draft Assurance Argument Criteria 3 and 4 section and submitted to Wrenette Tedder comments and ideas regarding more evidence that could be used in the final Assurance Argument.

The meeting adjourned at 4:58 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Daniel Fitzroy, Secretary