Assessment Committee

Minutes of January 21, 2005

Board Room 11:30 – 12:10 / 12:50 – 1:45

 

  1. Call to Order: Ursula Gaertner called the meeting to order at 11:30 a.m.

 

  1. Prayer: Stephanie Charging Eagle opened the meeting with a prayer.

 

  1. Roll Call of Members Present: P = Present, E = Excused, A = Absent

 

_P_ Shannon Amiotte                     _P_ Joan Nelson

_P_Stephanie Charging Eagle         _P_ Shauna Pourier

_P_Jim Dudeck                              _P_ Janet Red Feather

_P_Ursula Gaertner                        _A_ Bill Swanson

_P_Gerry Geraud                           _A_ Irvine Twin

_P_Marilyn Kockrow                     _E_ Verine White

_P_Geraldine Little Whiteman         _E_ Karen White Butterfly

 

Note(s): Troy Ferguson is no longer a member of the committee. Due to other OLC obligations, Joan was excused from the morning session, Marilyn was excused from the afternoon session, and Shauna was excused from a portion of the afternoon session.

 

  1. Reading of Minutes of November 12, 2004: Minutes were reviewed. No corrections were noted. Motion to accept made by Jim, Seconded by Stephanie and Unanimously Passed

 

  1. Reading of Minutes of December 3, 2004: Minutes were reviewed. No corrections were noted. Motion to accept made by Stephanie, Seconded by Shauna and Unanimously Passed

 

  1. Officers’ Reports (Ursula, Marilyn, Janet): Ursula noted that the committee will need to consider and map out the next steps including reviews of the assessment calendar, policies and reports. She further noted that professional development opportunities would need to be shared.

 

  1. Need for New Committee Members / Officers: After serving as the committee recorder and maintaining meeting minutes for approximately 1 ˝ years, Janet asked to step down from the position. Her request was honored and Ursula called for nominations. Shannon was selected through acclamation and will serve as the recorder from this meeting forth.

 

  1. Sub-Committee Reports:
    1. OLC Assessment Policy (77-000) and Institutional Assessment Calendar (Jim, Gerry, Ursula) – No discussion
    2. Travel to NCA Annual Conference in Chicago – OLC will be sending a delegation of 5 members. Both Jim and Stephanie are interested in attending.
    3. Flow Chart Development from Assessment to Planning to Budgeting to Ensure Improvements – Shelved until a later date.

 

  1. New Business / New Agenda Items:
    1. Gerry shared assessment information for general education outcomes at the college level; focusing on the development procedures used by ACT in the development of the CAAP assessments, as well as the content of the CAAP. While the example provided was specific to the CAAP assessment it was noted that the general design format is that used by other companies in developing assessments.

 

If OLC were to develop its own assessments, the college would go through a process similar to the one described. Marilyn noted the value in using assessments that were already developed, validated and recognized in the field by other institutions. Gerry agreed however noted the exceptions of specialized areas such as Lakota Language, History and Culture for which standardized assessments do not exist. The college already uses an oral language proficiency interview and is considering the development of an assessment to measure student knowledge in treaties, treaty law and social structures, etc. Stephanie, Gerry and Ursula entertained discussion regarding a committee process to construct and review items; similar to the process noted in the construction of the CAAP items. Gerry noted that when constructing a local test such as that for Lakota Knowledge, that we have the obligation to ensure that we are teaching the content and providing students with opportunities to gain the knowledge and skills we wish them to demonstrate through assessment.

 

Further discussion between Gerry, Jim and Marilyn focused on test bank items that often accompany text books. It was noted that while they can be very helpful, instructors need to carefully and select those that are most appropriate. Marilyn noted the same is true for text selection.

 

A similar test is the Academic Profile Test by ETS in which the content is essentially the same. Gerry noted that an advantage of the CAAP assessment is the option to administer the subtests separately. (Not an option of the APT.) In addition, the CAAP test is developed by ACT which is the developer of the Compass assessments used in the admission process. This provides some comparative abilities.

 

Gerry suggested that as a pilot and to get a feeling for where OLC students are academically at the end of their sophomore years (and how successful instruction has been up to that point) that the CAAP assessment be administered in units by subtest to different students at the end of their corresponding content courses, i.e. the math assessment could be given at the end of Math 134. The focus of the assessment at this point would be to measure college performance, not individual student performance, and to answer the question, “How good of a job are we doing as an institution?”

 

Joan noted the need to address specific concerns for some students and Gerry suggested the use of diagnostic assessments for these instances. Joan also noted the predictive value of the results in providing insight to the success students will find in going on into future education.

 

Gerry noted that at some point, in the future, the test may become a requirement for all students. For departments such as education and nursing which have certification requirements, this would help to ensure that students will be successful in passing certification assessments.

 

Joan suggested providing orientation for students as soon as they declared their major. This would allow departments to clearly outline the requirements and expectations for the degree area – students would know what they would need to do and the help that would be available for them.

 

Gerry noted that the SD Regents require the CAAP assessment for all junior level students. In a comparison of OLC assessment data, 70% of the OLC student would have met the State requirements. Joan noted that in comparisons with other small colleges our students perform as well or better.

 

Gerry asked the committee to consider the proposal of administering the CAAP on a trial basis and to make a formal decision at the next meeting. Ursula asked the committee members if extra time was needed and suggested that a decision be made during this meeting.

 

A motion was made by Joan to pilot the CAAP test of general education at the end of the spring 2005 semester; it was seconded by Janet and passed unanimously.  

 

    1. Ursula asked the committee members to send her any items for the next agenda.

 

    1. Work with the faculty senate.

 

  1. Announcements:
    1. Shauna reported that Trudy had received the baby gifts from the committee members and was very pleased.

 

    1. Gerry noted that OLC is showing strengths in the areas of entrance exams and post instruction tests, while making progress in general education assessment. Continued work is needed in academic departments, especially in formalizing rubrics and defining portfolio assessments.

 

    1. Jim noted work is being done to better define assessments for computer and information technologies.

 

  1. Adjournment: At 1:45 pm a motion was made by Geraldine to adjourn; it was seconded by Stephanie and unanimously passed.

 

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

Shannon Amiotte

Recorder

 

Exhibits: CAAP Development Procedures, Content and Sample Items