2016-09-26 meeting notes

Owned by David Walker
Last updated: Nov 03, 2016 by Michele Van Hoeck (Unlicensed)

Date

Michele Van Hoeck (Chair), Laura Gil-Trejo (Consultant), Sarah Dahlen, Sue Thompson, Monica Fusich, Lindsay O’Neill, Charissa Jefferson, Ann Agee, Katherine O’Clair & Tim Held

Absent: Stephanie Brasley, Co-Chair

Discussion items

  1. Introduction and welcome to new members (Michele)
    1. Tim Held from Stanislaus is taking Felicia Kalker’s place.
    2. We will be meeting every fourth Monday of the month: our next meeting will be on October 24th.
    3. The agenda is a mix of old business and new business. Michele indicates that we will likely not get through the whole agenda and that Tim’s item will be addressed at next months meeting.

 

II.         Use of Confluence and Google docs for CAT (Michele)

           a.    Confluence is a data management/document sharing site.

           b.    Only includes official and/or completed documents

         c.     Can be viewed by the public, but can only be edited by Michele and Stephanie.

           d.    Official archive for our meeting minutes will be located there.

           e.    Confluence is different than the google drive/drop box.

           f.     Google drive has been a great tool for things that are not finalized and still in collaborative form. COLD cannot view our google drive.

g.    What is on google drive will be used internally by CAT.

 

III.        CSU-wide list of assessment contacts - any corrections or updates? (all)

a.    This list is stored on our Google drive if anyone needs to edit it.

 

IV.       Pilot Project Update (Laura)

a.     Part of the pilot test included collecting student writing samples. In total 99 students volunteered to submit their final paper for their required writing composition course.

b.     The CAT Pilot Project team chose the UCI Library Rubric and has gone through three iterations of rating papers (29 in total).

c.     The group is finally at the stage where we can continue to rate the remaining 70.

d.     While that is occurring Laura will be analyzing data based on the statistical model that will be shared on the Googledrive. Survey items as well as the IRB application will also be uploaded onto the google drive.

e.     Final analysis should be completed by the beginning of the year

 

V. ACRL Standards for Proficiencies for Assessment Librarians and Coordinators (Sue Thompson)

a. Eleven proficiencies in four groupings: General knowledge, ethics, specific skills, assessment methods and strategies. They have an extensive bibliography.

b. Would be helpful for developing job descriptions. Individual libraries could also look at the proficiencies to see which match with what they are doing, as well as for professional development planning.

c. Are we interested in promoting the standards as is? Are we interested in modifying them for our purposes? Not clear if we have in CAT a lot of extra resources to modify. It seems useful to share our on our website as is.

d. Article in the Journal of Academic Librarianship that describes how it can be used.

e. Michele will forward  to COLD, and add it to the confluence page. Toolkit editors will add it to the toolkit.

 

VI.  ACRL metrics update (Michele)

  1. We submitted a proposal and it was approved. All 23 campuses now have access to ACRLMetrics
  2. What CAT may want to think about is
    1. No official fall deadline for CSU.
    2. One time submission to ACRL metrics in February.
    3. Upside: Same data as before but only needing to submit it once.
    4. Downside: Now there is a lag in availability of data
    5. Next year we may want to volunteer to submit the data earlier than February.
      1. This would give us everything we had earlier with less work.
      2. San Marcos is pushing the deadline up already.
    6. There are two different sites for reporting data and creating reports. Username and passwords are maintained by the deans. The deans could distribute as needed.
    7. Creating reports on ACRL has a learning curve that is not trivial, but the company’s tech/support is helpful.

VII.     Assessment Toolbox revisions (Michele)

a. Felicia was a driver in editing/revising the toolbox, which was created on a parallel site. The revision was more about the design then content.

b. Michele is concerned about the time needed to keep up the toolkit as well as the revisions.

c. Question: What is our next step for the toolbox? Who would like to be the keepers of the toolbox….volunteers????

d. Monica would be interested but not such that she would be doing it on her own. She would be interested in taking a second look at it.

e. Michele suggests it would be fine to leave the overall design of the old site as is, for easy maintenance.

f. Sarah was feeling like the original site could use some things, and it was good to have some new eyes to look at it.  Sarah would be willing to help with implementation e.g. transferring or adding.

g. What would be most beneficial is what is happening at other CSU campuses, i.e. CSU-specific material. We should trim some of the material that is redundant/duplicative.

h. We could use one new member to volunteer to review the toolkit

i. Michele will send the link to Felicia and Laura’s current draft toolkit.


VIII.     NSSE IL data and module (Michele)

a. Michele is interested in finding a partner who might want to work with her on the IL questions in the NSSE

b. Stanislaus is using the IL module and would be happy to work with Michele on this.

c. It seems like Cal Poly is as well……there may be five others.

d. To be discussed next month


IX.      Idea: CSU symposium related to IL as WASC core competency (Tim Held, Michele)

           a.  To be discussed at next month’s meeting.


TimeItemWhoNotesNew column















Action items