Student Affairs Assessment Council Minutes
November 6, 2013
Attendance: Jeff Kenney, Melissa Yamamoto, Juliana Recio, Jo Alexander, Rick DeBellis, Tom Watts, Tina
Clawson, Carolyn Killefer, Marigold Holmes, Kent Sumner, Rick Stoddart, Maureen Cochran, Ozge Akcali,
Kami Hammerschmith
Peer Reviews: Last year the Assessment Council proposed and implemented changes to the peer review
process. Maureen shared copies of the agenda that was created to facilitate this process and asked the
Assessment Council to provide feedback as to how this process/agenda has worked for them; discussion
followed:
 It’s especially helpful when the unit being reviewed prepares in advance for the meeting by
filling out their answers to the 5 questions under section III in the agenda. These responses
should be shared with the review team so that they can complete filling out the agenda
questions for submission.
 This process of having the unit under review consider the questions listed in section III of the
agenda helps the reviewers understand how the time would be best spent.
 These questions help to facilitate a conversation that is conducive to discussing future directions
for assessment planning.
 Reviewers are interested in implementing a feedback process to help them understand if
they’ve been helpful to the unit who was reviewed. Perhaps SAREP could create a way for this
feedback to be provided, either by calling units once their review is complete to debrief or via a
survey.
 If SAREP creates a feedback loop, it could include the question “How do you plan to incorporate
results into your plan for next year?
Membership Description, Self-Study, Orientation:
Earlier this year we discussed the possibility of creating an orientation process for welcoming new
people into the Assessment Council; we began this process by creating a draft of a membership
description. The latest draft of the membership description was revisited by those present and
discussion followed:
Feedback on the membership description draft:
 We should add an approximate time commitment (meeting length & frequency, estimated time
outside meetings)
 The first sentence says “… Assessment Council members should…”
o “should” may be better as “will”
o The final bullet “Have a sense of humor” is not necessary and may be viewed as
exclusive by some.
 We should include some information on the Assessment Council from the website.
 What is the purpose for this? To recruit new members or to as a promotional piece to share
with supervisors?
 Add that members need support from their department.
 List more concrete benefits to membership: peer reviews, professional development, retreat,
resources, conference funding.
 Add a “why do assessment?” section
 The idea to use this as a partnership agreement arose and was discussed.
o
o
Pros: symbolize commitment to the team
Cons: seems a bit ominous, adds a level of formality, seems to be inconsistent with
University culture, could hinder some from joining
Self-Study: At the recent Assessment Council meeting with Initiative 6, the idea of conducting a selfstudy was raised. The intention is that this will help us understand how much time is devoted to
assessment and we could ask those reporting to indicate if they believe more time was necessary to
work on their assessment activities. Maureen asked those present to discuss the idea further.
 People liked the idea of conducting a self-study but expressed that we need to be careful in how
we measure this so as to not encourage the idea that assessment is a compartmentalized
activity. We must define assessment in a way that is consistent with our culture and goals. We
need to get around the assumption that assessment is something that happens at the end of a
process.
 Some people have been asked by their supervisor(s) to put assessment on the back-burner; we
need some support to show that assessment is not a back-burner activity.
 We could create domains of what assessment could look like; curriculum development, strategic
planning, instrument development & administration; follow-up questions, etc. What does that
planning look like? Was it data driven or based on experience?
 There could be marketing value in this; to help people understand that assessment isn't just
surveys and that it’s more than what’s seen in the reports.
Orientation: Maureen will look into historical documentation to see what has been developed in the
past in terms of new member orientation. Discussion included:
 Mentoring relationships (within alignment groups)
 Training on software used
 How to write an assessment plan/report, referrals to good examples
 Orientation should be available in a variety of formats
 Are there trainings on campus that we'd recommend they do?
Next Meeting:
November 27, 2013
9:00 am-10:30 am
MU Council Room