Entire Assessment Committee Meeting Minutes

October 9, 2008 3:00-5:00 in Room 3603

Claire Stuart-Quintanilla ran meeting, Chair

Minutes taken by Stephanie Owen, Recorder
Total of 18 members attended meeting
I. Old business
• No old business to report
II. By-Laws
• Under III, Article III, instead of saying “membership is required,” it
should state, “committee members expected to attend.”
III. Pre-test results
• Determined that during an Executive Board meeting, the results for the
pre-test will not be revealed until after gathering the post-test data.
• This was decided since there was concern at last large group committee
meeting that instructors, if they knew the results, may teach to the test or
be biased when conducting post-test.
• Chair asked the entire committee if they would like to postpone the
administration of the post-test, which was slated for October 27-31 and/or
when post-test data needed to be turned into Dean Javier, which was
originally slated for November 17th to November 26th.
• So move…Ali Khan moved to keep the original date for
administering post-test and changing the date when graders needed
to turn in their results to Dean Javier from November 17th to
November 26th
• Seconded by Hope Essien
• Unanimous vote to approve turn in date change
IV. Post-test mechanics
• Important to administer the exact test in the same manner as done in the
pre-test.
• There was some decision on whether two graders would be needed for the
post-test grading or if one would suffice.
• Some members felt that the average of the results from the two graders of
the pre-test could be used for the post-test which would than require only
using one grader for post-test.
• Some members felt that two graders still needed to be used for the post-
test to ensure the measuring instrument works and that it remain consistent
with the procedure taken in the pre-test.
• Some of the issues discussed on the above matter included: more time to
grade the results so only one grader needed for post-test; issue of graders
bringing more to the grading process for the post-test having already gone
through the process (with the pre-test) thereby bringing more specific
elements when grading (bias); and importance of keeping two graders to
preserve the established validity of the instrument set by the pre-test
phase.

Assessment Committee Meeting 10-09-08 1

Minutes taken by Stephanie Owen
 • So move…that two graders be used and that the same graders who
graded the pre-test also grade the post-test
• Math mentioned that in the pre-test they did not score blank responses
• Biology mentioned they gave full credit to students for simply responding
to certain components of the test and if they should alter how they
determine scoring for that component in the post-test grading.
• It was determined that everyone should follow the same practices
they used in the pre-test with the post-test
V. Adjunct requests
• Vice President O’Malley needs to know who will be grading for the post-
test.
• Everyone agreed that the same adjuncts that graded the pre-test need to
grade for the post-test. Those departments needing adjuncts include
biology, chemistry, social science, respiratory care, and surgical
technology.
VI. Assessment Day
• Ali Khan went over what will occur during assessment day
• It was determined that two follow up emails need to be sent reminding
faculty and staff about assessment day and its events. One will be sent the
Friday before assessment day (October 17th) and another message Monday,
October 20th
• Assessment Day is slated for October 21, 2008
• Stephanie Owen will ask committee members to help tape cats images
(CATS) around campus either to be done the night before or early the day
of Assessment Day.
• T-shirts and pencils will not be purchased since the paperwork stalled at
the Business Office.
VII. CAAP test
• Administration asked if the Assessment Committee would be interested in
overseeing/administrating CAAP testing.
• CAAP is a national standardized test that tests five areas of student
knowledge (math, reading, science, social studies, and critical thinking).
The test would require commitment by instructors and would take up a
week class time to administer. The test will cost $10,000 but it was unclear
who would pay for it (the Committee or the College?).
• Some committee members thought it would be great to see how students
stand on national level (great to have national benchmark) and they also
felt that any opportunity to generate more assessment data could only
benefit the students, the committee, and the college.
• Some committee members felt the previous CAAP tests has never been
used effectively in the past and that it would be a waste of money to
administer this test if there wasn’t a clear plan made prior to committing to
using the CAAP. Old data from previous CAAP needs to be reviewed.

Assessment Committee Meeting 10-09-08 2

Minutes taken by Stephanie Owen
 Faculty would need to be told long ahead of when the CAAP would be
administered so there won’t be any “surprises.”
• Some committee members asked if it would be possible to only administer
the section related to their discipline/relevant to what they’re teaching.
Everyone thought it would suffice to test students on the critical thinking
portion only.
• So move…Jane Reynolds moved to use the critical thinking
component next Fall 2009 provided that planning and treatment
(have an opportunity to review old data and educate the committee
(and the college) on CAAP and/or other national assessment testing
software) conducted prior to then
• Seconded by Ali Khan
• Unanimous vote to learn more about CAAP, other assessment testing
software, previous CAAP data, and to administer the critical thinking
component of CAAP in Fall 2009 (if all other parts are fulfilled)
• So move…David St. John moved to have the option to administer
discipline specific portions of the CAAP for department assessment
purposes
• Seconded by Edna Boone
• Chair will discuss with Vice President O’Malley on whether departments
can administer parts of the CAAP test specific to their discipline.
• Chair and Co-Chair will discuss with Department Chairs about using the
CAAP as part of the Department Assessment Plan (using CAAP as an
assessment tool in their Department Assessment Plan).
VIII. HLC October Report
• Report has been written up by Executive Board and turned into Vice-
President O’Malley who has approved the report with some request for
minor changes.
• Will be sending the report to HLC tomorrow morning. The final report
will be available on the blog.
IX. Miscellaneous business
• Executive Board will discuss the minutes process so that minutes get to
the large group committee members in a timely manner for approval.
• There was a need to push the Assessment Committee blog by encouraging
everyone to go to the blog for all minutes and pertinent documents related
to committee activities and reports.
• Committee has a budget and will discuss how to use it during executive
board meetings, which will in turn be shared with the large group
Committee members.

Meeting adjourned at 4:50

Assessment Committee Meeting 10-09-08 3

Minutes taken by Stephanie Owen