|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A confession, a network path, a political update
Faculty assessment reports are coming in nicely, and we'll have plenty of good ideas to work with when we have our planned faculty workshop at summer's end on how we can use the reports, classroom assessment in general and our new system of Common Student Learning Objectives to work for the actual day-to-day improvement of what we actually do in a real classroom. That, after all, has to be the focus of assessment. Without that real-world application in the classroom, assessment is just another buzzword.
We'll have more details on the workshop as plans gel during the summer. It'll probably be in August, and it will replace the syllabus workshops I led last summer. For now, I want it to build on our success in drafting syllabi that reflect the Learning Outcomes we adopted in our workshop in December 2004 by going on to the next step. That step, as I see it, is using classroom assessment techniques (CATs for short) to get a handle on how well students are picking up the specific learning objectives or competencies we set out in the syllabus. I hope to call on other instructors to share how they used CATs to assess for these things in their classes. So the year's-end assessment reports are a vital first step toward getting the August workshop off the ground, and I appreciate everyone who's gotten them in.
But here's a confession. I haven't quite gotten around to filling mine out yet.
And with the confession, here's an extension and a plea. The deadline was the end of spring semester, but there's still plenty of time. If you haven't filled out your questionnaire yet, please join me in doing so and returning it to the Academic Affairs Office. Late questionnaires will be accepted without question or comment. What else can I do?
How to access Academic Affairs, committee reports
If you're like me and have the technological sophistication of a cocker spaniel puppy, you might appreciate a refresher on how to access information posted to SCI's computer network at \\Computer183\academic affairs. As you read it, please keep two things in mind: (1) It was written by somebody who majored in English and journalism rather than a technical field for a reason; and (2) it's always easier to do these things than it is to read about them. Always. With those caveats, here's the path:
Posted to the Academic Affairs folder on Computer 183 are an academic calendar, minutes of faculty committees (including assessment) and all three communiques issued so far by Academic Affairs Dean John Cicero.
Blunt language on higher ed commission
As the deadline draws nearer for recommendations from a blue-ribbon federal Commission on the Future of Higher Education, the politicking about assessment and other higher ed issues is likely to intensify. That's the conclusion of a reporter for the online magazine Inside Higher Ed who's been following the commission closely. In an article headed "Crunch Time for Commission," Doug Lederman reports on an undercurrent of friction between chairman Charles Miller and commission members, especially the educators on the panel:
... The differences are likely to emerge on issues such as how far the panel goes in trying to dictate measures that colleges would be urged to report to prove their effectiveness, and whether the report strikes a critical and combative tone toward higher education, or a more sympathetic one.
Reaching consensus may be difficult, given the complexity of the issues the panel is wrestling with and the wide range of views of its members, who include loyal defenders of higher education and some corporate representatives who’ve made clear their decreasing confidence in academe’s ability to innovate and to regulate itself.
Miller, a former University of Texas regent and longtime associate of President Bush, has taken what some have characterized as a combative tone toward colleges and universities on several fronts. Lederman's report notes that Miller "makes no bones about the fact that he has strong points of view and has tried to be a provocateur, laying out perceived problems in blunt language accessible to policy makers and the public alike," adding that "most members of the commission say they appreciate that." But some commissioners, including president David Ward of the American Council on Education, are concerned by what they see as a hostile tone in Miller's comments to the news media and in issue papers written by several consultants to the Commission. Says Lederman:
“There’s been a slight lack of balance in the commissioners’ views vs. the chairman’s views,” said Ward, who like all of the commissioners for this article expressed respect and admiration for Miller, and acknowledged that the chairman had been open and accessible to the panel members themselves. “The commissioners have been a little disenfranchised, because the process up to now has not given commissioners much of an opportunity to express themselves publicly. And much of what has been said by the chairman or on his behalf, in the form of those issue papers, has tended to be negative” about higher education, Ward added.
Miller's supporters on the commission acknowledge his language has been blunt. But they say that's the way to change systems. Lederman adds:
“You have a secretary and a chairman who want this to be a report that is not pablum,” says Arthur J. Rothkopf, a vice president at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce who, as former president of Lafayette College and a high-ranking Transportation Department official in the administration of the first President Bush, has backgrounds both in academe and in government. “Charles’s view has been to stir the pot, to put out ideas that may not be in the conventional wisdom, and that might not be so comfortable, and he doesn’t much care about whether the people in higher education like it or don’t like it. And I think that’s very positive in terms of possibly generating change.”
Miller has been especially outspoken in advocating mandated standardized testing for college students along the lines of No Child Left Behind, and the issue papers have been especially critical on accountability and accreditation issues. One paper suggests doing away with the regional accrediting bodies, including the North Central Association, and replacing them with a quasigovernmental National Accreditation Foundation along the lines of Department of Homeland Security. Another blames higher tuition and a plethora of allied problems on faculty "dead wood" and colleges that "do not schedule courses on a student-demand basis, retaining instead a faculty-driven scheduling system." It is not altogether clear what kind of recommendations will emerge from the Miller Commission's deliberations, given the disparity of views represented by its chairman and members, but it appears likely they will change the context in which we do assessment at SCI in the future.
-- Pete Ellertsen, chair, Assessment Committee
Nuts & Bolts is an electronic newsletter published by SCI's Assessment Committee. Members are: Bob Blankenberger, humanities and social science; Amy Lakin, languages and literature; Steve Stowers, math; Barb Tanzyus, math; Ray Bruzan, chemistry; Brian Carrigan, science; Sr. Anna Izydorczyk, student; and Pete Ellertsen (chair), communications and humanities. Kevin Broeckling, dean of students; and John Cicero, academic affairs dean, serve ex officio.
If you have information, comments or feedback, please contact any committee member or Nuts & Bolts editor Pete Ellertsen, in Becker L-16A on the SCI campus, 525-1420 ext. 519 or by e-mail at <pellertsen@sci.edu>.
