1. Minutes of the Second AMCOA Meeting, June 27, 2011
Prepared by Kerry McNally
Host Campus: Northern Essex Community College
I. Attendance
The second AMCOA meeting was hosted by Northern Essex Community
College from 10:00 a.m.-12:00 Noon on June 27, 2011. Representatives
from 26 institutions attended the meeting (See list in Appendix A), as
well as , Peggy Maki, Consultant under the Davis Educational Foundation
Grant awarded to the Department of Higher Education, who also
chaired the meeting, and Kerry McNally, Administrative Assistant for the
AMCOA project.
II. NECC President-to-be Lane Glenn Opening Remarks
Dr. Glenn welcomed the AMCOA Project Team and stressed the
importance of the work that the Project encompasses. He is
knowledgeable about learning outcomes and acknowledged that there
are challenges of looking at them as a university system versus locally.
Assessment is important work, and critical thinking an important goal of
an education. Although the goals and changes may at times seem
daunting, Dr. Glenn stated that the University system should
“continually be moving in the direction of the ideal,” quoting Richard
Paul.
1

2. III. Peggy introduced Kerry McNally to the AMCOA Team, as the AMCOA
Project’s new Administrative Assistant.
IV. Update and feedback on September 30th
Conference planning – Kris
Bendikas, Chair
Peggy asked Team Members to invite colleagues, especially faculty, to
attend the September 30th
Conference. Peggy said that she will notify
the Presidents and Vice Presidents.
Kris Bendikas gave her presentation of the Conference’s Planning
Recommendations, a copy of which is attached to these minutes as
Appendix B, along with Ellen Wentland’s suggested outcomes for the
September 30th
Conference, Appendix C. Kris emphasized that
partnerships should be overarching for all conferences and
recommended concurrent partnership-type sessions.
Peggy agreed to be the keynote speaker for the Conference and any
concurrent sessions.
Kris said that it is critical that the LEAP program be explained to
participants at the Conference. Rumors are circulating that
Massachusetts is becoming a LEAP state, which may not be true, and if it
is, what does it mean?
Kris further recommended collaborative models for faculty and IR
assessment staff.
2

3. Based on the recommendation of the conference planning group, Peggy
asked if the AMCOA Team felt she should invite Jonathan Keller from
the Department of Higher Education to speak about his work at an
AMCOA Team meeting or at the Conference. The group agreed that she
should.
Kris brought up the fact that NSSE and CSSE data with other data are
being used on campuses. Could something like the Keene State Model
be done in Massachusetts?
Some additional topics included:
1. Models that link curricular and co-curricular learning
2. Articulation of Achievement Levels
3. Gainful Employment Reporting
In conclusion, we need to get baseline information on what people are
doing now, focus on collaborations between faculty and assessment
people, discuss what LEAP means, and define how to use learning
outcomes to make changes.
Peggy polled Team Members to see which aspects of the Planning
recommendations proposal should be adopted. Additional Team
comments are listed below:
1. The Team agreed that partnership and community are essential
in the process of improving assessments.
3

4. 2. The Team agreed to the idea of concurrent sessions.
3. Team members said that people are not clear on what LEAP
means and that education about what it means at the IR and
faculty levels is critical. Presidents, Chief Academic Officers,
Faculty, and IR people should all be made aware of it. There
should be discussions about it with faculty, academic affairs
officers and the co-curricular side. Peggy emphasized that LEAP
does not prescribe curriculum; rather it identifies the 15 most
prevalent learning outcomes for General Education that arose
from a survey of institutions across the US. An institution
determines how it addresses some of these outcomes in its core
or General Education based on its mission and purposes.
4. Members feel that campuses need an introduction to the
process of addressing LEAP outcomes and using VALUE rubrics
and will need time to adjust to the LEAP concept to see who will
participate. In fact, several AMCOA members stated that it is
important to explain how LEAP emerged since many people do
not understand its origin as the work of AAC&U. Some faculty
members equate LEAP with NCLB (No Child Left Behind) and
dismiss the idea, so more work needs to be done with faculty to
help them understand that LEAP provides a national framework
for identifying and assessing the most common learning
outcomes that US higher education identifies it prepares
students to achieve.
5. Peggy asked if any of the Team Members were using LEAP on
their campuses. Of the institutions represented at the meeting,
Holyoke Community College, Greenfield Community College,
Salem State, and Worcester State are using or beginning to use
LEAP on their campuses. The AMCOA Team stated it would be
useful to have Team Members from these campuses describe
their experience with LEAP.
4

5. 6. One Team Member commented that IR/Assessment people are
interested in the assessment process, how it is reported and
done, but faculty are not. The IR/Assessment perspective is
more aggregate, while the faculty perspective in evaluating
students is more individual.
7. Faculty should have a presence in the planning process because
of what they can learn.
8. One Team Member said that there is a separation between
faculty who are using the LEAP process and IR assessors who are
doing it. This does not work if they are not doing it together.
What works on some campuses that could grow on others? IR
offices are often viewed as data receptacles.
9. One Team Member feels that we should be focusing on where
we are and not the “Beyond.” Beyond signifies change, learning
a new process, more work, etc. Defining where we are feels
more comfortable for now.
10. It is important to inform faculty about changing processes early
on. Faculty express anxiety about programs imposed from the
top down; thus they need to be included in the process.
11. “What the faculty wants for assessment” would be more inviting
for a faculty meeting than organizing a LEAP meeting for them.
12. In the Working Group Report, there is trend data.
13. Peggy stressed that LEAP does not impose a curriculum on a
campus or dictate pedagogy; rather it identifies the 15 most
prevalent outcomes that campuses across the US address in
their GE or core curriculum. Peggy is willing to lead a panel to
explain LEAP.
14. “Liberal Education and America’s Promise (LEAP)” would be a
good info session for faculty.
5

6. 15. Make LEAP part of a collaborative model, rather than separate.
16. It is important to distinguish among the kinds of reports that IR
prepares—from retention data to student performance data.
17. It is important to present assessment changes to faculty. How
do we present developments to them?
18. The issue of using commercially developed software for
assessment was also raised. Peggy stated that there are at least
15 commercial designers of assessment management systems
several of which incorporate eportfolio capacity. A session on
this would be useful for faculty and IR professionals to learn
about as a way to centrally store assessment data and derive
evidence of student learning.
V. Dates
a. AMCOA meetings. Below are the dates for future AMCOA meetings
for fall, 2011. Sites have not been determined yet. Peggy requested
members to consider hosting future meetings.
i. No July meeting
ii. Thursday, August 18th
iii. Wednesday, September 14th
(perhaps at a central location)
iv. Tuesday, October 18th
v. Wednesday, November 9th
vi. No December meeting for now. Peggy will revisit the need for
this month’s meeting in the fall.
6

7. b. Three Statewide or regional conferences. Sites have not been
determined.
i. Thursday, November 17th
. It would be good if this were in
either the Eastern or Western Region.
ii. Thursday, February 9th
. This should be in the opposite region
from the November meeting.
iii. Monday, April 23rd.
VI. Chairs and Planning Committees for three statewide or regional
conferences. Stipend for Chairs.
Peggy will e-mail members to see which campuses can host the future
meetings and conferences and who might be interested in chairing each
of the three other conferences planned for 2011-2012.
VII. A National Development in Assessing Student Learning
Peggy distributed a chart and written description of the proposed
Undergraduate Degree Profile developed by for work students should
produce at the end of their associate’s, bachelors’ and master’s levels.
The UDP is currently being piloted in two accrediting associations and the
Council of Independent Colleges; it is informed by LEAP.I specifically
identifies 5 areas of student performance: applied knowledge,
intellectual achievement, specialized knowledge, broad integrative
knowledge, and civic learning. Peggy issued a caveat that the pilot
program is still being tested, so it is unknown how it will pan out. In
7

8. particular, the focus on students’ knowing a second language may be an
issue since that is not a requirement at many institutions, Others have
interpreted “a second language” as referring to non-native learners who
need to demonstrate knowledge of English.
VIII. Foci of First Statewide Report on Outcomes
Peggy reported that Commissioner Freeland has requested that
institutions initially report on students’ achievement under general
education in three areas: critical thinking, writing, and quantitative
reasoning because these are the most common outcomes that
institutions prepare students to demonstrate.
IX. Foci of Future AMCOA Meetings
Peggy stated that we may use future meetings to focus on specific
activities or topics such as discussing the kinds of assignments and
student responses to those assignments that demonstrate students’
achievement of critical thinking, writing, and quantitative reasoning at
the end of their studies. Based on our further discussions we may decide
to offer sessions at our conferences that bring people together to discuss
assignments and perhaps score them. One of the Team reminded
participants to obtain students’ permission for using their work at
AMCOA meetings/conferences to respect their privacy rights. There may
be other foci that AMCOA members would like to address at our monthly
meetings. Given that time ran out, we will return to this topic at our next
meeting.
The next AMCOA meeting will take place on August 18th
from 10:00
a.m.-12:00 Noon. A campus has not yet been selected for this meeting.
Peggy Maki will send an agenda and driving directions to the site one
8

9. week before the meeting. Please let Kerry know as soon as possible if
you plan to attend the meeting or cannot.
Mark Your Calendars: September 30, 2011: First Statewide
Assessment Conference at Worcester State University
9

10. Appendix A
Institutions Represented at the AMCOA June 27th
Meeting:
Berkshire Community College
Bridgewater State University
Bunker Hill Community College
Cape Cod Community College
Fitchburg State University
Framingham State University
Greenfield Community College
Massachusetts College of Art and Design
Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts
Massachusetts Maritime Academy
Massasoit Community College
MassBay Community College
Middlesex Community College
Mount Wachusett Community College
North Shore Community College
Northern Essex Community College
Quinsigamond Community College
Roxbury Community College
Salem State University
Springfield Technical Community College
University of Massachusetts Amherst
University of Massachusetts Boston
University of Massachusetts Lowell
University of Massachusetts President's Office
Westfield State University
Worcester State University
10

11. Appendix B
AMCOA Planning Group recommendations
• “Partnerships” should be an overarching theme for all four conferences.
o There are a number of partnerships that need to occur as part of assessment:
academic -co-curricular, faculty-IR and Assessment, campus-community., etc.
o This theme is recommended as being of importance to achieving our individual
and collective assessment and improvement goals.
• If possible, the conference should be organized with concurrent sessions so that everyone
can attend all the sessions.
• The conference should begin with a Keynote address (Peggy?) to frame the theme of
“partnership.”
• Discussion session: “LEAP and Beyond”
o Include an initial discussion about LEAP and the Lumina Degree Profile at this
conference, with follow up in subsequent conferences
o The BHE has recommended that Massachusetts become a LEAP state, but there is
still uncertainty about what that means for campuses and the system
• Presentation Session: Collaborative models for faculty-IR-assessment
o These roles require very distinctive skills sets. How can they work together most
productively? What collaborative models are working for campuses?
o What are the particular difficulties on smaller campuses when two or more roles
are filled by the same person?
• Discussion session with Jonathon Keller, DHE
o An invitation for him to speak about the challenges of mining and reporting data,
particularly in the context of the expectations of the Vision Project
• Presentation session: Identifying models for using NSSE/CSSE data
o How can this data be triangulated with other data to support change? What
models have campuses used to mine, review and report on this data?
11

12. • Presentation session: Reviewing the selection of commercially developed assessment
instruments as well as data gathering, analyzing and reporting instruments available
o Although the Working Group has not endorsed standardized testing as part of the
Vision Project, campuses that want to use commercially developed tools have a
multitude of choices.
o Which ones have been used? Which ones have been supported by faculty? How
well have they worked?
Additional topics were generated, but were thought more suited to the conferences that will
involve faculty more directly. They are:
• Developing models that would link curricular and co-curricular learning
o Describing Best Practice models of collaboration
o Identifying ways to increase collaboration and learning about the benefits of
doing so.
• Articulating Achievement Levels
o Determining what a shared outcome would look like
o Exploring the pros and cons of moving towards shared criteria/benchmarks
o Developing a process for moving that forward that with another institution
• Gainful Employment Reporting
o The requirements for reporting are not yet clear, but sharing information about
what and how information could be collected to serve this and other assessment
purposes at the same time would be helpful.
12

13. Appendix C
AMCOA Conference, September 30, 2011
EW Suggested Outcomes – 6/21/11
13

14. Session ideas Details from Yammer feed Possible outcomes - Participants will be able to:
Collaborative models in MA In what ways can these groups work together? What models or
examples of collaboration exist in Massachusetts? I have a sense
that the assessment component, on many campuses, is the newer
piece. How can that work be informed by IR data, and possibly
vice versa? What might be an example, given the very specific
tasks that must be accomplished by IR, of a "best practices" IR/
assessment partnership? For us to be able to report results of
assessment we will need to agree on shared criteria and standards
of judgment.
• Identify and describe models of IR/ Assessment
collaboration that support and enhance the
effectiveness of campus outcomes assessment
efforts.
• Apply some of the tools and processes identified in
the successful collaborative models to strengthen
IR/ Assessment connections towards the goal of
expanding and coordinating information sources
relevant to outcomes assessment and evaluation.
Articulating achievement
levels
Very related to this scoring issue is the issue of criteria or
articulation of achievement levels. Although I think a first step
for each institution, for the purpose of creating ownership, is the
identification of their own outcomes and of description what
those outcomes should "look like", it is also the case that most of
us will define similar outcomes and similar levels of desired
achievement. Do we want to move towards shared
criteria/benchmarks for student expand »
• Develop a plan for identifying and/or creating
institutional-level clear, specific and measurable
learning outcomes.
• Identify for each developed institutional-level
outcome the specific assessment methods to be used
and the achievement criteria that will be applied.
• Prepare a summary description of the institutional
level work for the purposes of cross-institution
sharing and collaboration.
• Discuss the pros and cons of developing shared
criteria and benchmarks.
Gainful employment
reporting
One issue facing all of us is the issue of "gainful employment,"
and the requirement that for financial aid we will need to
somehow document the employment of our students. This may
fall to IR offices, or assessment offices, or other entities.
• Discuss the issues and the specifics involved in the
financial aid requirement
• Determine how to best institutionally address this
requirement in a way that serves multiple purposes
and contributes to outcomes assessment work
Triangulating NSSE/CSSE
data with other indicators
We could look at NSSE/CCSSE data and discuss ways to
triangulate this data with other indicators of student achievement
on our campuses.
• Discuss some of the specific items included in the
NSSE/CCSSE instrument with respect to their
relationship with other campus outcomes measures
or achievement indicators.
• Identify possible models that would provide a way
to include and consider the information gathered
from multiple indicators/ methods.
Linking curricular and co-
curricular learning
Another topic for a conference for Assessment Directors, IR
folks, and faculty might focus on linking of curricular and co-
curricular learning towards more comprehensive student
achievement of an institution's Gen Ed SLOs.
• Describe models of collaboration between the
curricular and co- curricular areas that have
demonstrated effectiveness in terms of campus-wide
learning outcomes assessment.
• Identify ways to increase curricular and co-
curricular collaborations, thereby enhancing the
institutional – level assessment efforts.
• Describe the benefits of these types of institutional
collaborations/partnerships.
14

15. “Effective Practices in..."
15