April 10, 2006

1:00 p.m.
Bridges Hall 250B

Present: Tim Borchers, chair; Ted Gracyk, Cassie Kramer, Jody Mattern, Amy Phillips,
Peggy Rittenhouse, Stacy Voeller, Alison Wallace

The meeting was called to order at 1:05 p.m.

Minutes: Moved by Gracyk, seconded by Phillips to approve the March 20, 2006 minutes. Following a suggestion to distinguish between discussion of plans vs. reports the motion was approved unanimously.

MFA Assessment Plan:
A handout outlining the findings of the review group was distributed and follows:
I.  Overview
    Cover Sheet

• No signatures indicated
• No records of program consultation or support
• 4 SLOs

1. Demonstrated ability to create, revise, polish own work in a specific genre

2. Demonstrated advanced comprehension of the history/convention of chosen genre

3. TAs will develop teaching skills

4. Students working with New Rivers Press will demonstrate knowledge of the publishing process

Assessment measures listed:

• MFA Thesis (SLOs 1, 2)
• MFA Oral Defense (SLOs 1, 2)
• MFA Public Reading (SLOs 1, 2)
• Completion of English 674 (SLO 3)
• Classroom Observations (SLO 3)
• Individual mentoring with faculty (SLO 3)
• Publication of a manuscript (SLO 4)
• Participation in Book Festival (SLO 4)

• Several of the above could be considered direct measures
• SLOs discussed as appropriate to program goals because of consistency with “American Writing Program’s” expectations (should this be “The Association of Writers and Writing Programs”?)

II. Student Learning Outcomes
    General:

• “Other” MSUM mission goals added are not MSUM mission goals
• Couldn’t find MFA SLOs listed in Graduate Bulletin or on MFA website
• Specific
• SLO #1 – No rubrics provided for assessing thesis, oral defense, public reading

 -- No clarification on what “successful completion” means re. thesis

• SLO #2 – Plan indicates that this SLO is addressed through “The Introduction to the MFA Thesis” and that assessment measures are thesis, oral, reading. Is “Introduction” a course?  If so, no assessment measures/rubric listed for course. Also not clear how thesis, oral, reading will measure this SLO. Again, no clarity on what “successful completion of thesis” means.
• SLO #3 – Contradictory assessment references made to “Completion of English 674” and “progress in English 697.”  No rubrics provided for either.  No rubrics for classroom observations and teaching materials.  No clarity on “successful completion of an academic year of teaching.”  (Several misspellings.)
• SLO #4 -- Mentions that “students are assessed at all stages of book production process” but doesn’t say assessed for what or at what specific stages. No rubrics provided.
  • ‘Level of student performance expected’ lists SLOs not articulated. Lack of clarity on meaning of “successful team work” and “responsible individual achievement.”

Assessment Report Cover Sheet – Provided but with no report.

Part of a larger discussion is how to assess the plan without know the program objectives. MFA’s objectives are not listed on web etc.

Assessment Questions: Borchers distributed a two-page document he compiled based on information gathered at the recent Higher Learning Commission (HLC) annual meeting and how assessment is viewed and handled at MSUM. Four articles, Growing a Culture of Assessment: Writing an Annual Assessment Report, Building a Practice of Assessment: Lessons from an Institutional Journey, Campus-wide Collaboration for an Effective Institutional Assessment Program, and Using Peer Review of Assessment Reports to Enhance Shared Responsibility were also distributed for review and discussion. The articles were all presented at the HLC meeting and represent alternate formats for handling assessment by other institutions. Discussion included the following items:

• SLOAC should be an educational body for assessment and not an approval body.
• Separating assessment from the department review process is favorable as it appears many departments/programs don’t do much in the off year.
• Linkage between department content and Teacher Education needs to be established.
• Departments/programs that are nationally accreditated be given a “pass” or provide a summary based on what is submitted to the accreditating body.
• Department assessment coordinators become more active in the assessment review process.
• Assessment workshops/training should be held on campus.
• MSUM only does a small sliver of assessment. It needs to broaden its thinking of assessment and the data that is available on campus.

It was recommended that the articles be made available to department chairs and assessment coordinators and further discussion on streamlining the assessment process at MSUM needs to take place at the administrative level. Borchers agreed to bring the information gathered at HLC and SLOAC discussion/suggestions to Academic Affairs Council (AAC) for discussion. He also agreed to send additional articles from the HLC meeting to committee members.

The following recommendations were made regarding reviewed plans and reports:

• Physics, English, and Special Education may go ahead and collect data giving consideration to SLOAC suggestions for improvement of respective assessment plans.
• MFA and MLA assessment plans still need some work.
• Anthropology & Earth Science, History, and Educational Leadership are asked to submit a progress report in one year.
• Construction Management’s plan is approved.

Next meeting: April 17, 2006 at 1:00 p.m. in BR 250B. The April 24 meeting is cancelled.

The meeting adjourned at 2:20 p.m.

A member of the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities System
an equal opportunity educator and employer | Accessibility Questions? | Contact assess@mnstate.edu | Updated 1/11/06
MSU Moorhead | 1104 7th Ave South | Moorhead, MN 56563 | 1.800.593.7246
home | msum | committee members | faqs | forms | grants | learning improvements
plans and reports | policies and procedures | resources | schedule status