INSTITUTIONAL PORTFOLIO.

Members present: Trudy Banta, Karen Black, Victor Borden, Sharon Hamilton, Sara Heiliger, Susan Kahn, Steve MacLaughlin

Susan explained that the draft was sent to NCA two weeks ago and we have not heard back from NCA or our liaison, Mary Breslin. Trudy will contact her next week since she is out of town this week.

Susan passed out 6 handouts: Agenda, Preliminary Outline of NCA Special Emphasis Self-Study on Teaching and Learning, Outline of Criterion One, Outline of Criterion Two, Matrix of Criterion One, Matrix of Criterion Two

Susan suggested we think about the Web site and what repairs we can make immediately in preparation for when the self-study team is named. It is likely once the team is named that they will look at our portfolio.

Vic suggested we put a message explaining the current status of the portfolio up front.

Sharon mentioned that she cannot open the Web site from home since she does not have Flash. She tried to download the program and still was unable to view it.

Steve explained that we can make the Portfolio so it will detect whether the machine has Flash or not and can display an alternate format if Flash is not detected.

Another issue that was raised is that the area for accreditation is hidden and needs to be in a more prominent spot on the Portfolio.

Susan discussed how we are really looking at two categories of information we need for the site.

1. Information we provide
2. Getting information we need from other offices

Susan suggested that we post our planning materials in the meantime to demonstrate the process. This should also include an area to make comments, suggestions or ask questions. This can be in the form of an email mailed to someone on the team. By posting the planning materials, this is one way we are alerting the campus community to what we are doing. In addition, next semester Trudy and Susan plan to visit various campus groups and give presentations on the Portfolio.

Other items to be posted now:

• GIRS
• Criteria
• Outlines and draft of self study
• Minutes from planning meetings

Karen asked about the UUPP webpage. She inquired about what actual materials should be posted to the Bibliography page. Susan stated that the references should be relevant to electronic portfolios, as if you were doing a class on them. The page is not meant to be a comprehensive site of references on assessment.

Susan asked what else was irritating about the Portfolio Web site from a user"s stance. Sharon contributed that the second page"s navigation is unclear. The words and font are faint and are not conveying the message intended.

There is also an issue with the mission statement. It is currently located on the splash page but once you enter the portfolio it is inaccessible. There are also a few different versions of the mission on the web and the current version is still not approved. It is also important to get the Mission of IUPUI clearly on the IUPUI homepage www.iupui.edu .

Susan suggested that if you have documents that may need to be included on the Portfolio Web site, then Sara will collect those. Ideally she needs all documents in electronic form. Some of the things suggested were Regina Turner"s retention study and the findings from the Diversity Inquiry groups. Trudy suggested starting to look at other people"s Web sites before asking for information since it may already be posted.

Susan brought up that there are some problems with the PRAC Web site. Especially the school reports that are long with no table of contents and currently only available in pdf format. Karen stated that really we are lacking in reporting skills rather than assessment skills. People are unsure of what to report and if they should include what they have written in past reports even if it is an ongoing process.

Vic suggested that Best Practices should not be a separate point but could be woven throughout each point.

For example:

Current Status

• Best Practice (exemplars)
  • Representation (what is typical overall)
    • What are issues? (opportunities/challenges)

Susan stated that we have a form/format issue. She inquired to the group whether we would use essays or short blurbs to respond to the criteria.

Vic suggested a descriptive paragraph and a reflective paragraph format.

Sharon suggested that a 2-3 page essay with an overview would work; making sure it is in a printable format.

Some edits were made to the criterion one outline. We need to address institution wide planning and planning at the school level. Trudy suggested that we look at the report from 1992 by Carol Nathan and the work of the Strategic Directions Taskforce. Address history of planning from 1988-1992 in one or two sentences. Trudy explained there would be a letter going out to schools explaining what we need so we need to decide before we ask for things.

Trudy stated we need to show involvement of appropriate groups such as: Future Group, Faculty Council, Staff Council, and Student Government.

Revisions were made to the Criterion Two outline. Under Governance (Concept of IUPUI) we should discuss the 1992 report by Carol Nathan. Making sure that the relationship between IU and Purdue is clear. Trudy suggested we describe the connections with the Board of Trustees and Faculty Council, and that IU is the managing partner.

Under the financial section RCM should be discussed. Trudy also suggested including IUPUI"s plan for financial exigency from Sara Hook"s office.

Under physical plant section Emily Wren could contribute. Vic suggested we use information from Facilities Management since they are responsible for all the state reporting.

There is an issue concerning whether to include off site facilities like research centers, institutes, and medical school facilities. Trudy suggested that Mark Brenner may have such a list.

Next time we hope to have drafts of the next 3 criteria.