Results from OAI Norming Session Dec 21 2009

Following the Dec 18 for programs to deliver reports, the OAI met as a whole to apply the rubric to selected programs and discuss face-to-face the experience and observations. These images are the whiteboard of the results of that session. Scoring data are preliminary, because of the pilot and developmental nature of the meeting.

Following the meeting, Dec 22 & 23, the Directors used observations about the raters and process to assign raters to programs and then the team went online to begin rating and commenting on the programs’

plans.

Status of reports for 2009

Status of reports for 2009

Hi Larry,
Here is where we are at.

1.      “Ready” means we have it and are reviewing it now (or have reviewed and rated).
2.     “Not ready” means we are either talking with or working with programs to get their planning documents (and plans) in shape.
3.      “Not received” means just that, though the overall response is complicated by the limbo status of professional programs.  We will review the few we have received and work with their interested people.

At this point, we will “score” them not using the full scale of the rubric, but categorically into three bins which will be sorted on Monday.  All documents that have been shared with us will receive written feedback.  The three bins:

1.      On Target and going well (high)
2.      On Target with work
3.      Doubtful that adequate progress will be made this spring.

We will press to meet zero week with category #2.  I suspect category #3 represents the meetings with deans that you may want to initiate.

I’m taking my hardworking crew (those that have lasted through this adventure) to Riccos for some Nogg of the Egg at 2:00.  If you are free, please consider joining us.

And have a great holiday!

Gary
Attached spreadsheet with details by program status of 2009 self-study reports

Exchange with Delinquent Program

December 18th–Deadline for Planning Template

A program point reports:

Gary Brown:  I just received an e-mail from the [Administrative Assistant for the program] indicating you are not pleased with our response to the request for the [snip] program assessment.  I will be glad to respond to your request for revisions after the holidays, but will not  assign a faculty member to revise the assessment document before Christmas, or the New Year for that matter.  I am away from Pullman through January 7, 2010 and have not identified a faculty member interested or willing to devote time to assessment at this time.  I believe the learning outcome and assessment documentation we compiled with Theron and your assistance was very helpful in achieving [professional accreditation] approval for the [program] undergraduate curriculum, and will do my best to fill in the current assessment templates as requested upon returning to Pullman.  Please address any further correspondence regarding assessment of the [program] to me.  Thanks and enjoy the holidays!!

From: Brown, Gary
Sent: Friday, December 18, 2009 2:50 PM
Thanks for the quick reply,[first name].  We have enjoyed our collaboration with your program for some time and look forward to continuing to do so in the coming year.  I appreciate your recognition of the ever changing challenges related to accreditation, and  I am confident that together our units can work to develop a system of assessment that your faculty find useful, that is understood to be inextricable from good teaching practice, and that simultaneously addresses[professional accreditation] as well as NWCC&U, the Washington state HEC Board, and OFM requirements (and any other agency in the ever expanding realm of interested stakeholders).

And, yes, thanks.  I am ready for the holiday here!

Best and happy holidays to you, too!

Gary

Liaison Writes at Deadline

A Liaison writes….

Gary,
I am leaving town for the weekend but if you let me know on Monday who missed the deadline, I’ll remind chairs at our 10:30 am meeting that you need these asap.

I talked to [the dean about problematic program] … [snip] do we have to enroll someone from the faculty to engage in the assessment process? I’ll [address] this after the holidays.

[snip]

As you know, TK is the rock star behind the [2 integrated program plans] with a serious assist from Kimberly Green.  I am hoping we can use these examples of models of how to curriculum map well.  I am convinced that this will be a valuable opportunity once people realize how to do it and what the value is in going through the process.  In general, the [program] teaching faculty are on board.  The paradigm is shifting.  I am always hopeful you know.

Have a good weekend.

ITS private cloud – new POSITIVE updates

Re: [ctltoperations] ITS private cloud – new updates

On 12/18/09 11:39 AM, “Corinna Lo” wrote:
Hi, Arlo

I just talked to Arlo Clizer on their virtualization project.  ITS is moving forward in expanding their virtualization cluster to host their production applications (some funding from Business Affairs).  They are working on the purchase order to go out to Purchasing one of these days.

He expects the earliest they can get something up will be next February.  Their virtualization cluster is on HP Blade server.  They will be using 12 blades, and it can be expanded to a total of 32 blades.  He said they should have the capacity to host our production Skylight.  He does not expect there will be a cost associated with the hosting.  Down the road, if we want to host more virtual machines to their cluster, and they need to expand their cluster to accommodate that, we can simply buy more blades and put into their cluster.

They will work on a terms of service agreement on this hosting.  Most likely, they would simply host, manage the VMWare virtual machine environment, manage the networking and server room condition.  They would not have staff capacity to manage our application, such as patching.  We will have access to the operating system of our virtual machines there, and manage our application.  As for backups, they are working on upgrading/ configuring their Tivoli backup to include the entire virtual machine backups.  Currently, they are simply backing up the data.  I expect there will be some cost associated with the backups as they used to have.  The backup is not stored in ITB1010 currently, but it is on Pullman campus.  Within a year, he expects the backup will be stored somewhere off campus.

As for business continuity, the facility in Spokane campus did not work out.  They are now thinking about to go to WSU Vancouver.  But this is too early to say if it will become a reality.  But they will need to find some solution soon (in the next year as part of their core system planning/ upgrade).

We can talk about what that means in our overall plan in migrating our legacy work in our next Thursday meeting.
I like what I’m hearing so far…

– corinna

Encouraging programs to document what(ever) they are doing

A couple of the programs I’ve been working with have sent exhibits along with their reports — materials that I had no idea existed (like course rubrics based on the CITR).

Regardless of whether or not a program uses a template or other shared space, I’m thinking we should encourage them to document what they are doing somehow, somewhere.  Among other carrots: It will help them write the next report.

It could be as simple as a threaded discussion somewhere, where people add very short summaries of what assessment work is discussed and done when.  Encourage regular documentation / communication of some kind.

Creating collaboration spaces for programs

Creating collaboration spaces for programs Discussions are ongoing, but converging on the specifics of the web tools we need to support this work.

The Showcase is already in development at https://universityportfolio.wsu.edu/2009-2010/Pages/default.aspx
It is intended to be a public space with harvesting feedback on program studies. Its also turning into a kind of portfolio of our efforts https://universityportfolio.wsu.edu/2009-2010/_layouts/viewlsts.aspx

The Workspace, Assessment.wsu.edu is still being discussed, especially what template to offer, and what other aspect of the terms of service need to be decided.  One of those issues is who is authorized to manage permissions, and if we don’t want programs with that authority, how they can manage some authority self-service. Permissioning an AD group that the program manages is the path we are adopting, with wrinkles, such as this below

—— Forwarded Message
From: Joshua Yeidel
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 13:41:53 -0800
To: OAI messages
Subject: FW: [sharepointdiscussions] RE: AD Groups vs SP Groups

In the Rain King Design meeting today we discussed program workspaces in
assessment.wsu.edu.  The notion was put forward that we would control
SharePoint permissions in the spaces, but add a program-managed Active
Directory group as “contributor”.  Then the program would add or remove
people to/from that group via AD to manage their access to the workspace.

This note from a SharePoint consultant mentions one consideration for that
scheme.  To see who is or is not a contributor, we will have to look in
SharePoint _and_ view the AD group in an Active Directory browser such as
“Active Directory Users and Groups” on Windows.  I don’t think that’s a
fatal flaw in the scheme, but we should be aware of it.

—— End of Forwarded Message