November 2014 Minutes

Henderson State University Assessment Team
Meeting Minutes
Wilson Room, Garrison Center, 4:00 p.m.
November 10, 2014
Present: Stephen Adkison; Angela Boswell; Nathan Campbell; Deb Coventry, co-chair; Daniel Fitzroy; Bernie Hellums; Lenette Jones; Beth Ann Maxfield; Lloyd Moyo; Brett Serviss, co-chair; Sheryl Strother; Celya Taylor; Wrenette Tedder; David Warren; Bob Yehl
Absent: Claire Howard; Ginger Otwell; Paige Reagan; Drew Smith; Tammi Wardlaw
Next Meeting: December 8, 2014
The meeting was called to order at 4:00 p.m. by Brett Serviss, Co-Chair.
The Minutes from the October 13, 2014 meeting were approved as distributed.
On Tuesday, November 4th, Wrenette Tedder, Daniel Fitzroy, and David Evans attended the Arkansas Association for the Assessment of Collegiate Learning (AAACL) Fall 2014 Workshop at Harding University in Searcy, AR.  The workshop featured Dr. Linda Suskie and focused primarily on understanding and using assessment results. There were about 96 attendees from around the state with a large contingent of 27 from Arkansas Tech.  At the workshop, each institution received two copies of Dr. Suskie’s text entitled Assessing Student Learning: A Common Sense Guide. Provost Adkison will purchase an additional 24 copies for department chairs.  There will be more discussion about the workshop during the next Assessment Team meeting.
Assessment Cycle – Academic Update.  There are still a number of departments in non-compliance.  A reminder email has been sent to those that still need to enter their assessment plans as well as their data and observations into TracDat.  Provost Adkison asked Wrenette Tedder to attend both the next Executive Council and Deans Council meetings in an effort to drive compliance and make the process not optional.  It was reiterated that much of the work might already be done and has just not been entered yet.
Revised Rubric for the Evaluation of Assessment Plans.  Assessment Team members were previously provided with two department assessment plans and the revised rubric.  In order to evaluate the revised rubric, the team members were asked to use the revised rubric to assess the two plans, paying attention to how the rubric performed.  The team discussed at length various components and wordings in the rubric and suggested ways to improve its usefulness.  One team member mentioned that it may be helpful if the rubric were designed to be more motivational, which may help the departments and institution develop a healthy culture of assessment.  It was also noted that the rubric has two main purposes: serving as an effective tool for evaluating assessment plans and serving as a vehicle for useful feedback to help departments properly assess their areas.  The team did not evaluate the entire revised rubric during the meeting, so team members were asked to write up their evaluations and suggestions and forward them to the Co-Chairs Coventry and Serviss in order to facilitate the discussion during the next scheduled meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 4:58 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Daniel Fitzroy, Secretary