Docsity
Log inSign up
Docsity
Prepare for your exams
Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity

Earn points to download
Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan

Guidelines and tips
Guidelines and tips
Sell on Docsity
Sell on Docsity
Log inSign up

Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity

Find documents

Prepare for your exams with the study notes shared by other students like you on Docsity

Search Store documents

The best documents sold by students who completed their studies

Search through all study resources
Docsity AINEW

Summarize your documents, ask them questions, convert them into quizzes and concept maps

Explore questions

Clear up your doubts by reading the answers to questions asked by your fellow students

Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan

Share documents
download point icon20 Points

For each uploaded document

Answer questions
download point icon5 Points

For each given answer (max 1 per day)

All the ways to get free points
Get points immediately

Choose a premium plan with all the points you need

Study Opportunities

Choose your next study program

Get in touch with the best universities in the world. Search through thousands of universities and official partners

Community

Ask the community

Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts

University Rankings

Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users

Free resources

Our save-the-student-ebooks!

Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors

From our blog

Exams and Study
Go to the blog

Senate Committee: Critical Thinking Assessment & Portfolio Scoring Talks, Exams of English Language

John Wood Community CollegeEnglish Language

These minutes from the senate committee on academic assessment detail discussions on the potential division of gen ed outcome 4.1 into suboutcomes to better assess critical thinking methods. The committee also established a portfolio scoring plan for may, which includes assessing artifacts from both portfolios and classrooms.

Typology: Exams

Pre 2010

Uploaded on 08/04/2009

koofers-user-d8s
koofers-user-d8s 🇺🇸

10 documents

1 / 2

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ACADEMIC ASSESSMENT
MINUTES
FEBRUARY 8, 2008
Attendees: Dave Rigsbee-Chair; Barb Stoll-Vice-Chair; Sharon Bigelow, Shari Harris, Addie Seabarkrob, Paula
Edgar-Committee members; Randy Greenwell, Dan Gutierrez, and Cathy Stephens-Resource members; Larry
Fischer and Dave Shinn-Ex-Officio members; Melissa Knapp-Guest; and Liz Akers-Recorder.
Absent: Carolyn Warren, Gary Wycislo-Committee members; Renee Higgins-resource member; and SGA
representatives.
Barb Stoll, Vice-Chair, called meeting to order at 1:00 pm in room C283.
Addie Seabarkrob motioned to approve minutes as corrected; Paula Edgar seconded; motion passed.
Dave Rigsbee introduced Melissa Knapp.
There were no additions to the agenda.
NEW BUSINESS
Discussion continued from the last meeting regarding whether to break the Gen Ed Outcome 4.1 into sub-
outcomes, such as 4.1.1, 4.1.2, etc., to address the different methods used to assess critical thinking. The Gen
Ed sub-committee, consisting of Shari Harris and Paula Edgar, was asked to review this issue and bring back
suggestions to the next SCAA meeting.
Barb Stoll reported that several committee members had discussed the inclusion of classroom assignments for
GEG 4.1 and 6.2 in the May, 2008 assessment. The suggestion to reassess GEG 4.1 was due to the fact that
many of the delivery methods, such as dual credit, do not teach the required material until spring. The
suggestion to reassess GEG 6.2 was due to the fact that there are more ENG 102 classes taught in the spring,
so by pulling from the classrooms in the spring, we would get a better overall picture. The training committee
had some issues concerning how they should train. Cathy Stephens explained that the Portfolio assessment
on the first day was primarily to identify the artifacts to be assessed on the second day. She indicated that if
we do not assess artifacts pulled from the Portfolios on the second day, we are not assessing the portfolios.
She suggested the training committee could split the scoring teams on the second day into those assessing
portfolio artifacts and those assessing classroom artifacts. Dave Rigsbee outlined a Portfolio Scoring Plan to
use in May:
Day 1
Read all portfolios
Apply day 1 rubric
Separate them according to which artifacts can be assessed using the 4.1 or 6.2 rubrics
pf2

Partial preview of the text

Download Senate Committee: Critical Thinking Assessment & Portfolio Scoring Talks and more Exams English Language in PDF only on Docsity!

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ACADEMIC ASSESSMENT

MINUTES

FEBRUARY 8, 2008

Attendees: Dave Rigsbee-Chair; Barb Stoll-Vice-Chair; Sharon Bigelow, Shari Harris, Addie Seabarkrob, Paula Edgar-Committee members; Randy Greenwell, Dan Gutierrez, and Cathy Stephens-Resource members; Larry Fischer and Dave Shinn-Ex-Officio members; Melissa Knapp-Guest; and Liz Akers-Recorder. Absent: Carolyn Warren, Gary Wycislo-Committee members; Renee Higgins-resource member; and SGA representatives. Barb Stoll, Vice-Chair, called meeting to order at 1:00 pm in room C283. Addie Seabarkrob motioned to approve minutes as corrected; Paula Edgar seconded; motion passed. Dave Rigsbee introduced Melissa Knapp. There were no additions to the agenda. NEW BUSINESS Discussion continued from the last meeting regarding whether to break the Gen Ed Outcome 4.1 into sub- outcomes, such as 4.1.1, 4.1.2, etc., to address the different methods used to assess critical thinking. The Gen Ed sub-committee, consisting of Shari Harris and Paula Edgar, was asked to review this issue and bring back suggestions to the next SCAA meeting. Barb Stoll reported that several committee members had discussed the inclusion of classroom assignments for GEG 4.1 and 6.2 in the May, 2008 assessment. The suggestion to reassess GEG 4.1 was due to the fact that many of the delivery methods, such as dual credit, do not teach the required material until spring. The suggestion to reassess GEG 6.2 was due to the fact that there are more ENG 102 classes taught in the spring, so by pulling from the classrooms in the spring, we would get a better overall picture. The training committee had some issues concerning how they should train. Cathy Stephens explained that the Portfolio assessment on the first day was primarily to identify the artifacts to be assessed on the second day. She indicated that if we do not assess artifacts pulled from the Portfolios on the second day, we are not assessing the portfolios. She suggested the training committee could split the scoring teams on the second day into those assessing portfolio artifacts and those assessing classroom artifacts. Dave Rigsbee outlined a Portfolio Scoring Plan to use in May:

Day 1

 Read all portfolios  Apply day 1 rubric  Separate them according to which artifacts can be assessed using the 4.1 or 6.2 rubrics

Day 2

 Train on Outcomes 4.1 and 6.  Score artifacts from classrooms  Score artifacts from Portfolios Shari Harris made a motion to adopt the above Portfolio Scoring Plan for May. Paula Edgar seconded; motion passed. COMMITTEE REPORTS Training Committee -Addie Seabarkrob, Gary Wycislo The feedback sheets have been returned. It was asked for Liz Akers to make a summary of the forms. Liz will give Addie the summary and the report will be presented at next meeting. Gen Ed Committee -Paula Edgar, Shari Harris Committee has not met. Paula will notify instructors who will be providing classroom assignments for GEG outcomes 6.2 and 4.1. CTE Committee -Sharon Bigelow, Carolyn Warren Sharon gave a brief report on the handout of the CTE Sub-Committee meeting.  Plans are being made for work to be done during spring term 2008.  Barb Stoll revised the check list to include columns for new information about each program, the CIP code (from ICCB), the date for Program Review (established by ICCB), and a column for the date that the annual report is to be submitted. The programs are sorted by the date of Program Review. Work will need to be done to update the CTWE Program Checklist and establish a specific date for the annual report to be submitted.  A meeting will be scheduled with the CTWE directors within 2 weeks, (February 15, 2008). A regular meeting time will be established with the CTWE Sub-Committee. OLD BUSINESS Dave Shinn reported on the results from the fall reading. He also presented a preliminary report on the Dev Ed Assessment reading. It was also noted that the March meeting will be held on March 7, 2008 from 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 pm due to the fact that the regular meeting day is during Spring Break. Submitted by Liz Akers February 8, 2008 Revised by Dave Rigsbee and Barb Stoll February 22, 2008