Date:		Wed 4/7/2010 12:51 PM
Subject:	AISL Committee Mtg
Location:	Davis 215 + TVC 124 via PolyCom

Start:	Fri 4/16/2010 10:00 AM
End:	Fri 4/16/2010 11:00 AM

Organizer:	Philbin, Robert
Committee:	Molina, Nancy; King, Jocelyn; Rasmussen, Genia; Edmiston, Annette;
		Nesbitt, Sue; Curtiss, Nelda; Clements, Cynthia; Smith, Ted; Sumner, Jean;
		Ulibarri, Debbie; Grubb, Derek; Veltri, Sandy

We will have an Assessment Improvement of Student Learning Committee meeting Friday 4/16 from
10:00-11:00 a.m.  in Davis 215 +PolyCom with TVC 124.  Our agenda is:

Program-level review
       How do we energize this .. (central person doing VE-135?? .. )
       How to emphasize learning-education-research focus & de-emphasize accountability focus?

GenEd Assessment results
       Analyze our GenEd data
       Come to this meeting having studied at this data, bring your thoughts about this data.
       How to emphasize learning-education-research focus & de-emphasize accountability focus?

Minutes:
Present:  R. Philbin, D. Ulibarri, S. Nesbitt, J. Sumner, C. Clements, G. Rasmussen, N. Molina

The first order of business was to discuss "energizing program-level assessment."   Members
recommended that the faculty evaluation include assessment (within 'service to the college'),
which left the question of what exactly, is to be evaluated.  After considerable discussion,
the following recommendation to the President is:

	The faculty evaluation instrument should reflect assessment as follows:
	- is assessment built into the faculty member's courses and program?
	- does the faculty member report on those assessments? (as appropriate, not all must be reported)
	- does the faculty member attend regularly scheduled Improvement of Student Learning workshops

This recommendation was unanimously approved by those present (6 voting members is a quorum).
The recommendation has embedded within it the requirement that the AISL committee will have regularly
scheduled workshops (monthly) on Fridays for all faculty.

The second, and last, item of business was to discuss the GenEd Assessment results.  Bob
reiterated his evaluation of the GenEd scores for the two populations (GPA<3) and (GPA>=3),
that there is a consistent difference, as one would expect, thus indicating that the GenEd
'instrument' has some validity.

Discussion RE the GPA histograms followed and indicates a need to (a) study grade distributions
by department (Debbie is doing this for A&S) and (b) initiate a discussion among all faculty
about what A, B, C, D, F really signify (toward this end, there is a starting point on the
AISL website here.

Finally, several people brought up the idea (again) that we build our own assessment instrument
for each of the 19 GenEd objectives, perhaps as few as three instruments or as many as 15.  This
same instrument would be administered across all programs/courses campuswide, eliminating the
different-instrument bias in the current scheme.   Sue Nesbitt said she would be willing to write
an instrument for GenEd 5a, b, and c, and Jean Sumner said she has already written something that
might be usable for our GenEd 3a-e.

Several were late for another meeting, so the AISL meeting adjourned at 11:10am.

Respectfully submitted,
R. Philbin

original notes