INSTITUTIONAL PORTFOLIO.

November 7, 2001 Minutes

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

General Discussion

Discussion began with comments about the IUPUI portfolio Web site navigation. The current navigational scheme is difficult to follow and it"s difficult to tell where you have been and where you are. Sharon suggested looking at Portland State "s format, which is easier to follow.

The group also raised concerns about NCA review teams. Committee members who have been on NCA teams reported that evaluators often lack understanding of and preparation for special emphases self-studies and reviews. Without this understanding, team expectations don"t match institutional expectations and preparation. As a result, the evaluation visit and report suffer. To head off this problem, Trudy is working with our NCA liaison, Mary Breslin , to help with naming the visit team. The self-study plan, if sent to potential team members with the invitation to join the team, should also help team members know what to expect.

Sharon emphasized the importance of educating both faculty and students about the accreditation process and making sure that we have opportunities for them to learn what is going on. One way to educate students might be to work with each school"s student council; another might be to include information on Insite when students register. Other possibilities include holding town halls for faculty and students. The schools" Boards of Advisors also need to be informed.

Other questions revolved around what should be considered a separate category in the portfolio, in addition to the three main elements of IUPUI"s mission. Possibilities include:

• Campus Climate and Diversity
• Best Practice (originally called Management Practices )
• Collaboration

Should these be separated out since they are cross-cutting themes? It is important that we show how these relate to teaching and learning.

Excellence in Teaching and Learning Self-Study

In preparation for outlining the special emphasis self-study on Excellence in Teaching and Learning, Susan passed around several handouts, including the minutes from the last Steering Committee meeting, the draft Self-Study Plan for IUPUI, a list of goals and strategies for each major area of IUPUI"s mission, and the current set of indicators listed in the portfolio. Susan also provided the group with copies of UMKC"s special emphasis self-study on "Assessment," which was apparently well-received by NCA.

Vic provided an additional handout, Appendix B-Synopses of Performance Indicator Brainstorming Sessions, which was generated by a series of separate meetings and groups convened for the individual goals defined for the "Excellence in Teaching and Learning" part of IUPUI"s mission. (The indicators currently in the portfolio are placeholders.) A group has not yet been convened to discuss indicators for the goal "Improve Student Learning and Persistence." The plan is for such groups to continue discussing indicators and ultimately get their ideas to the Deans" Council for review and then to the Chancellor"s Cabinet.

Trudy drew the group"s attention to the goals and strategies handout and suggested that the self-study focus on goals two and three, "Support and Enhance Effective Teaching" and "Improve Undergraduate Student Learning and Persistence." She noted that the special emphasis self-study needs to be clearly linked to IUPUI"s mission and vision. Susan suggested that the group look at how the goals and strategies link with the indicators and also at another handout, Preliminary Thoughts (and Questions) on Topics for Student Learning Self-Study.

In response to one of the questions on this last handout, the group decided that general education should be included in the teaching and learning self-study, since this is an area of emphasis for NCA and IUPUI has not done well on this in past NCA reviews. Evidence that IUPUI provides a coherent general education experience might include the PULs and the "Principled Curriculum." Vic suggesting including the "empirical curriculum"?that is, the core curriculum that students actually experience. Sharon raised a concern about the possibility that NCA may ask students about their general education experiences; she was doubtful that many students could articulate what makes general education coherent at IUPUI.

Committee members suggested some minor revisions to the indicators for the two goals the self-study will address, ending up with the following:

o Support and Enhance Effective Teaching

• Teaching and learning as an institutional priority
• Resources for teaching and learning
• Inclusiveness in classroom and curriculum
• Impact of teaching on student learning

o Improve Student Learning and Persistence

• Coherence of curriculum
• Student achievement in major and PULs
• Student progress and performance
• Quality of learning environment

The committee then brainstormed about evidence that might be used to address each of these indicators; the full list that was generated is attached, along with Vic"s breakout of initiatives and sub-indicators to be included in our consideration of each major indicator. Trudy suggested that, in order to simplify PRAC"s task for the meeting on Friday, we provide the group with a handout listing the two goals to be addressed in the self-study, the revised indicators, and the Steering Committee"s suggestions for evidence for each indicator.

PRAC

The group decided on the following agenda for the self-study discussion at the PRAC meeting:

1. Begin with general summary of how the self-study is shaping up
2. Refer to IUPUI"s mission and vision as the basis for the special emphases self-studies on "Excellence in Teaching and Learning" and "Excellence in Civic Engagement."
3. Solicit PRAC members" suggestions for additional evidence

Trudy noted that PRAC is focusing on assessment of learning and not student satisfaction and asked whether Vic"s office can pull together a profile of each school that includes alumni status and employer satisfaction for this year. Vic replied that this should be possible by January, since schools have moved to electronic reporting.

Susan reported that PRAC members are confused about the various matrices. We now have two sets of matrices related to student learning outcomes: those in the schools" annual reports to PRAC and those resulting from the Faculty Associates" study of the PULs . The information and questions she"s received from PRAC members suggest that they"re not sure what matrices we"re updating and also that, for the PUL matrices, it"s very difficult to make statements about the entire school as opposed to individual departments. We need to clarify this at the PRAC meeting. Trudy suggested that only a few schools are likely to make changes on the PUL matrices.

The group also discussed how to reflect changes to the PUL matrices over time in order to show that improvements are being made as a result of assessment findings. One suggestion was to show improvements in another color. Another suggestion was to provide links to past years.

• Finish GIRs and develop content for the criteria
• Sara can begin to put content on the web