Assessment Facilitation Team: A Proposal for the CoEd

1. Assessment Facilitation Team: A Proposal for the CoEd Kathy Chinn Laurie Churchill Heather OesterreichMarc Pruyn Robert Rhodes Fall 2009

2. In this presentation • Overall goal • What leads us to seek change • Other points • Facilitating a culture of assessment • Proposed structure of the AFT • Proposed possible specifics • Example of possible data types • Proposed timeline

3. Overall goal To co-create a streamlined assessment process for the CoEd which facilitates on-going, purposeful self-study from the bottom up

4. What leads us to seek change • We envision a more thoughtful, purposeful & transparent collection of assessment/evaluation data • We’d like to avoid excessive/duplicative data collection processes • We would like to see a more streamlined data collection process • This type of process could aid in authentic program development • We’d like to enhance collaboration & communication • We want to affirm our commitment to ethical/FERPA/access issues in relation to student data • We seek a bottom-up approach that can then connect to a CoEd meta-plan

5. Other points • The horse should lead the cart • The dog should wag the tail • We can find out things about our programs that we didn’t know or intend • This should cover all CoEd departments & extension campuses • Could help with • Recruitment of students & faculty • Development/alumni • Grant seeking • State legislative bodies (e.g., TEARS)

6. Facilitating a culture of assessment • Students • Teacher, councilor, trainer, administrator candidates (pre- and in-service) • MA students • Doctoral students • Faculty • Staff • Community • Administration

7. Proposed structure of the AFT • Team orientations • Facilitation/Ethics/Data (“bean counter”) • Initial “kickoff” volunteer members • Chinn, Churchill, Oesterreich, Pruyn, Rhodes • In future might include • Course reassignment • A dedicated position or ½ position • Rotating membership • Assisted by a graduate student • Be process-driven, not person-driven

8. Proposed possible specifics • Could coordinate efforts on behalf of and meet with • All Program Directors & Department Heads • College Council Research Committee/College Council • Dean • Educational Research & Budgeting • Other collaborator departments, colleges & programs • Outcomes Assessment Committee • NCATE, ASHA, NASP, APA, etc. • Will know • Where data are located • How to build report constructs with COGNOS, TK20, Banner, etc. • How to work with other College, NMSU and state entities to find useful data

9. Example of possible types of data • Student/program demographics • Demographic • Age • Ethnicity • Home town • Gender • Years to completion • First Language • Students on financial aid • Traditional/non-traditional • Attendance • Full-time/part-time • In-service/pre-service • Why return • Tests/grades • NMTA/other test rates • GPAs • After • Job placements • 3-5 years out • Coming from • LCPS, GISD, DACC, EPCC, military, other

10. Exampled of data (continued) • Enrollment trends • Numbers in programs • Drop-out/push-out • Drop-in • Stop-out • Retention data • Graduation rates • Time to program completion • Programs • Taught by faculty, adjunct • F2F, on-line • Off-campus, on-campus • Admissions/completion rates for Teacher Education Program • Majors • Alternative licensure • Practicum hours/performance

11. Proposed timeline • Summer 2009 • Share initial ideas with Dean Morehead • Early fall 2009 • Share draft proposal with Associated Dean Rhodes • Fall 2009 • Share draft proposal with Department Heads • Share draft proposal with Program Directors • Share draft proposal with CoEd Faculties • Spring 2010 (post NCATE!) • Begin pilot work with/for Program Directors • Fall 2010 • Begin college-wide work with/for Program Directors

12. Thank you