COUNCIL ON ACADEMIC ASSESSMENT (CAA)
MINUTES, APRIL 24, 2008
UNH 200, 3:00 – 4:00
Members present: Henryk Baran, Irina Birman, Seth Chaiken, Bill Lanford, Marjorie
Pryse, Bill Roberson, Bruce Szelest, Rose-Marie Weber
Members absent: Stacey Chen, Michael Christakis, Peter Duchessi, Sue Faerman, Anna
Politano, Joette Stefl-Mabry, Man Kit Tse
The minutes of April 3 were approved.
The Council began to review the six reports presented by the Program Review
Committee. Pryse remarked that the reports were more substantial that they have been in
previous years. She stated that they will give greater credence to the Council while also
being helpful to the departments. Peter Duchessi deserves credit for steering the
committee in a productive direction. The committee discussed how best to review the
reports. Chaiken suggested that perhaps one representative from the committee could
present each report to the Council. Discussion ensued which later resulted in a consensus
that any report should be very brief, and rather than repeat what the Council had already
read, simply focus on issues and concerns. Roberson questioned the absence of context
in the reports i.e. they do not refer back to any previous report. Lanford pointed out that
since these programs were part of the first cycle of program reviews, there is no context
from which departments or the committee could draw. Roberson suggested that the
reports include language that looks forward to the next report. Further discussion
clarified the timetable of program reviews and annual reports. Pryse noted that the issues
raised in these reports are intended to be addressed in the departments’ annual assessment
activity reports. Baran asked for clarification about what information is given to the
departments to create their assessment plans. Bendikas described the Practitioner’s
Guide which is provided to all Chairs at an orientation meeting prior to beginning the
self-study process, In addition she stated that she has been meeting with Chairs and
assessment liaisons to provide feedback and answer questions about their annual reports
and assessment plans. The Council members agreed that there is a need for additional
information and education about different types of assessment.
A motion was made a seconded to accept the Criminal Justice report.
The motion carried.
A motion was made and seconded to accept the Psychology report. Discussion ensued
regarding the omission of the master’s program in the self-study. The motion was tabled
while further information was sought.
A motion was made and seconded to accept the Department of Earth and Atmospheric
Sciences report. Discussion ensued about the issues and concerns raised. Bendikas
asked for Council members to review the reports to be sure that the language was positive
rather than punitive. Weber stated that while the reports did raise concerns, they did so in
a constructive way. Birman clarified several points that the committee had raised
regarding the presentation of assessment information in the report. Roberson asked if the
Chairs and departments engaging in their program reviews were told in a simple and
straightforward way that the assessment plan was to deliver a clear picture of how well
their students are learning the objectives the program sets forth. Szelest described how
the Chairs are guided through the process, but acknowledged that the Program Review
process is in need of clarification. The motion carried.
The Council returned to the comment about the MS program in the Psychology report.
Pryse clarified that the department has an MS only in Industrial Psychology and it did
mention that briefly in the self-study. The Psychology report was accepted based on the
deletion of two statements pertaining to the MS program. The motion carried.
A motion was made and seconded to accept the Physics report. Weber reviewed the
issues in the report for the Council. Pryse suggested an editorial change to one item. She
then asked the Council to consider the value of rejecting a department’s assessment plan.
Discussion ensued. It was decided to separate the motions. The motion carried.
Pryse then made motion which was seconded, asking that the department share with the
Council their assessment plan, that it take into account the recommendations made in the
Program Review Committee’s report, and those from the Director of Assessment, and
that it be provided to the Council by the end of November, 2008. The motion carried.
A motion was made a seconded to accept the Sociology report. The motion carried.
A motion was made to accept the Communications report. The motion carried.
The meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m.
Minutes respectfully submitted by Kristina Bendikas
