Planning the responses to College of Engineering and Architecture Meeting notes today to organize efforts to send feedback to the college and its programs
Here is a calendar of our end of year 2009-10 work to finish reports to NWCCU and discussion around data and representations to get the website developed.
—— Forwarded Message
From: Nils Peterson
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 10:20:35 -0700
To: Corinna Lo , Gary Brown , Joshua Yeidel , Peg Collins
, Jayme Jacobson
Conversation: Ratings Page on UP/2009-2010
Subject: Re: Ratings Page on UP/2009-2010
Corinna, Its helpful to understand your intention. It seems to me that this may also be a discussion about summative vs formative. That is, ready comparison could encourage programs to find where they are in the community, to quickly find programs that performed higher on a given dimension, etc. The current implementation that makes comparison difficult makes it feel to me like our intention is summative.
On 10/13/10 9:16 PM, “Corinna Lo” wrote:
I think technically it would be possible in Mathematica. My concern initially when I made the chart is that checkboxes are too inviting for comparison… For this particular use case, people will naturally be drawn to compare between programs across colleges. This is what made me created the chart in dropdown menu instead. I can envision other use cases, such as comparing program’s target and direct assessment of student work. Then checkbox will be a good option to have.
On 10/13/10 8:27 PM, “Brown, Gary” wrote:
I like the one with small charts to the right. It works fine. I also will think about trimming the prose. I imagine, however, we will be asked to provide the check box comparisons we had in the Google docs approach. Will this be possible to do with Mathmatica?
From: Yeidel, Joshua
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 7:32 PM
To: Lo, Corinna; Collins, Peggy; Peterson, Nils; Brown, Gary; Jacobson, Jayme K
Subject: Ratings Page on UP/2009-2010
I was dissatisfied with the layout of the Ratings page because the copy is so long it pushed the charts “below the fold”, as they say in the newspaper business.
I put together a test page called Ratings1 (not published, available only by logging in):
The College chart on this page comes from a test Mathematica page I made based on Corinna’s chart page, but somewhat smaller. [I didn’t bother with the other charts until I get some feedback on this.] I don’t think the chart can’t be much smaller because the dropdown has to fit the full name of CAHNRS.
If you look at this in a 1024×768 window, the copy column is narrow, but not unbearably so, IMO. In wider windows, it works fine.
What do you think?
—— End of Forwarded Message
This image shows more details of our understanding of the last 30 days before the NWCCU report on 10.15.2010. A year ago we “guessed” the date at 10.10.10, which still shows in the figure.
Late reports have come in around the 9.17 deadline, driven by President/Provost goal of getting to 100% reporting. The report (or at least the exec summary) is going thru Provost to Regents, hence the 9.17 deadline before the Sept Regents meeting. Another post in this chronicle gives more details of the web reporting that needs to be accomplished in the remaining weeks.
Planning for the Assessment Report 2009-2010 Web Presence Activity underway to modify Accreditation.wsu, OAI website, and University Portfolio to reflect our understandings of the needs for the online portions of the NWCCU reporting and public face.
At Accreditation we seek a link. OAI serves as our news page. Its contents evolve over time. UP home needs to be pretty durable over time, an introduction to the concept that there is a growing portfolio of evidence. 2009-10 tab in UP will soon become locked, a historic record of the year past. A 2010-11 tab will open up for the dynamic materials.
The image shows a variety of elements that are needed to populate 2009-10.
—— Forwarded Message
From: Joshua Yeidel
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 18:49:15 -0700
To: Nils Peterson , Jayme Jacobson , Corinna Lo , Gary Brown
Subject: Plan for Assessment Report 2009-2010 Web Presence
I have created a Google Doc with prose to accompany the photo Nils kindly made of the whiteboard from Thursday’s meeting. The URL was sent to your Gmail account. Please review and correct/update. I tried to record the assignments as I understood them (in bold)j — since the time frame is so short (preview is due for review by higher-ups in 10 working days), it is important that if you are NOT the right assignee, you let everyone know.
attached PDF Planfor2009-2010AssessmentReportWeb
—— End of Forwarded Message
Comment at end of original post
Revision to the Primary Trait Survey In addition to the ratings of each program’s Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Reports with our rubric, we are capturing some basic data about the reports using a more primary trait survey.
The idea is to be able to go back a quickly find specific programs so that we can feature them or analyze their strategies.
Friday 13th we met about the survey we have been using, and created this whiteboard to revise a couple of the key questions. Nils will update the survey today and we’ll try to capture data on all the May programs. (Preview of revised survey is here.)
Recognizing transitions in our unit today we had a discussion about the future of Design Circle meetings and Morning Reading Group [MRG was hosted on Ning and previously on WSU Wiki, both of which have gone away].
A major thread of the discussion took the thread of ‘what are you doing?’ by way of what are you reading and how are you capturing/ sharing it.
We produced this whiteboard
For me the discussion was a return to our previous conversation about the OAI’s web presence/strategy and my thinking about how to develop a professional learning community as part of that web strategy. As I’m writing this, I’m also connecting to the nascent thinking I’m doing to get ready for the HASTAC P3 event in Sept.
As a result of the discussion I had a couple insights and Josh followed up with me to share his insights. We concluded an idea to incorporate the idea of a “one minute write” into our discussions. We thought it was worth trying with this discussion.
I will shortly mail a link and invitation to the participants today to write brief comments to this post, “what was your big take away, your muddiest point, your action item, the thing that you want to ponder from today’s conversation?”
[ Comments attached to original post are replies to the prompt. Ed.]
Nils’ take aways
2. I’ve thought before about being more intentional about output of my reading, need to return to that
3. This connects to the OAI “blue zone” in our analysis of our web strategy
Joshua’s Take Aways
2. Gary’s thought about rebalancing “pulse-taking” reading vs. reading for deeper learning is very apposite for me.
3. Reliable “output” to an OAI audience would depend on an agreement on a sharing venue. The only one currently working is “OAI.personnel” email, which lacks many useful capabilities. Others (e.g., Diigo group) are hit-and-miss.
Judy’s Take Aways
I have not been following change management, change agency, or related subjects and I realize that could be very helpful for my understanding of our new, re-focused role.
I got several interesting sounding names and groups to check out.
2. Muddiest point – what’s the POD? ; >
3. Action item – create a personal landing page for all my social sharing sites to see how it works;
4. Ponder point – Gary’s point about pulse-taking vs reading for deeper exploration and integration. I need to do less pulse-taking…also think about mechanics & philosophies of sharing meaningfully
2.muddiest point – are we trying to focus or direct more what people read?
3. action item – earn to use tags more effectively
4. the thing that you want to ponder – it is interesting that the more technical staff reads about assessment, teaching and learning but the non technical staff do not generally read technical materials.
Kimberly Gets Candid
At the same time, that array of reading lacks systematic sharing and analysis. Where are our collective knowledge, skills, and attitudes strong, and where are there gaps? Are people reading to address areas of weakness? What does our unit need to learn more about? How are we connecting theory and practice, as a unit? Also, the internet makes it easier than ever to fall into confirmation bias; to what extent is that impacting all of us?
2. Muddiest point: are we aiming for more homogeneity?
3. Action item: make a systematic effort to share what I’m reading (though this depends on the muddiest point).
4. Ponder point: I realized that when Gary talked about taking the pulse that I do this by keeping track of what others are doing (via Diigo, alerts, etc.) and then dive it when I’m interested. I would like to be able to leverage others’ readings so that we cover more ground. Would also like to see the workshop with Melynda Huskey happen since we would probably get multiple books worth of insight about change management.
Diigo Group as a summary
Planning changes to University Portfolio site Josh, Nils & Jayme met today to talk about revising the public portfolio for the 2009-10 year.
Presently we only have materials from Dec 2009 in there.
Our goal is to have it close to final by Aug 20, since we get busy with other stuff then.
Audience. Our hypothesis: NWCCU Reviewers (these are exhibits to Jane’s Univ level report) + WSU Deans and Provost + Other programs (we would be able to send a program to look at the work of another program easily).
How much scores do we show? College averages? All programs? Colleges as navigational aid to programs? The issue here is the politics of “public.”