1. 1
Minutes of the Third AMCOA Meeting, August 18, 2011
Prepared by Kerry McNally
Host Campus: Holyoke Community College
I. Attendance
The third AMCOA meeting was hosted by Holyoke Community College
from 10:00 a.m.-12:00 Noon on August 18, 2011. Representatives from
21 institutions attended the meeting (See list in Appendix A), as well as
Richard M. Freeland, Commissioner of Higher Education; Jonathan
Keller, Associate Commissioner for Research, Planning and Information
Systems; Anne Perkins, Vision Project Research Associate, Research and
Planning; and Peggy Maki, Consultant under the Davis Educational
Foundation Grant awarded to the Department of Higher Education, who
also chaired the meeting.
II. Holyoke Community College President William Messner Opening
Remarks
President William Messner welcomed the AMCOA Team to Western
Massachusetts and Holyoke Community College. He praised the Team
for representing campuses all across the state and for getting together
and acting “as a system.” “We don’t do enough of that.” He
emphasized the importance of this collaborative work and credited
Commissioner Freeland’s leadership for bringing campuses to these
conversations. After having guided Holyoke Community College through
a New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC)
accreditation review this past spring, he said that it is wonderful that the
NEASC is reviewing schools with an eye for improvements in assessment

2. 2
and that assessment is now a priority for the state and federal
governments, as well as the schools.
III. New AMCOA Team Members
Peggy Maki introduced new Team members who were not introduced at
the previous meeting: Benjamin Railton, Associate Professor of English,
Coordinator of American Studies, Fitchburg State University; Ann Caso,
Director of Institutional Research, and Susan Chang, Director of
Assessment, at Framingham State University; Richard Parkin, Assistant
Vice President/Academic Affairs, and Linda Meccouri, Professional
Development Coordinator and Professor, Multi Media Technology,
Springfield Technical Community College; and Yves Salomon-Fernandez,
MassBay Community College.
IV. Update on Conferences (place, date, chairs)
Peggy Maki provided an update on the scheduled conferences and
asked for a volunteer to Co-Chair the November 17th
conference at
Greenfield Community College to serve with Ellen Wentland. Judith
Turcotte volunteered for this role.
Jim Gubbins of Salem State University volunteered to Chair the Fourth
AMCOA Conference on April 23rd
.
Peggy reminded AMCOA Team members to confirm their correct titles
for the September 30th
Conference Brochure as soon as possible. Their
names will appear on the brochures for each of our conferences.
Kris Bendikas, chair of the September 30th statewide conference,
distributed a handout that listed the Conference Planning Group’s
recommended sessions for that conference. (See handout in Appendix
B.) All of the presentations could not be included in the first conference,

3. 3
but will be given at one of the other conferences. It was decided that
after each session there will be a companion roundtable as well as
additional roundtables focused on topics identified by the AMCOA
group, such as the following:
a) How LEAP outcomes are integrated into campuses
b) How to assess online
c) How to facilitate alignment between NEASC expectations and
those of DHE
d) How to collect, store, and represent assessment results
Jonathan Keller will present a session as well as offer a roundtable after
his session and be available at the rest of the conference. At the
meeting Peggy asked members if they could identify topics for Jonathan
that they would find useful. Among those recommended was a focus on
identifying “what not to do in preparing or reporting results.”
Discussion also focused on how we can make our four statewide
conference presentations available to our public institutions.
Specifically, we focused on discussing the possibility of videotaping,
audio taping, recording PowerPoints, or uploading handouts to our
social network--Yammer. Lori Dawson is currently looking into the
possibility of videotaping and can confirm that method after she sees
the final schedule. Several team members stated that faculty and others
who will not be able to attend the conference have already stated that
they would like access to materials. We also discussed how important
session contents are to faculty development.
Peggy reminded the Team to limit the number of colleagues attending
the September 30th
Conference to 2-3 because of space considerations
at the Conference location. However, she said that Kerry will be able to
track registrations and let institutions know if they can bring more than
2-3 people.

4. 4
V. Volunteers to introduce sessions on September 30, 2011
Peggy asked for volunteers to introduce sessions at the conference. The
following individuals volunteered: Susan Taylor, Yves Salomon-
Fernandez, Suzanne Van Wert, Ellen Zimmerman, Michael Vieira, Susan
Keith, Martha Stassen, Judith Turcotte, and Carol Lerch.
VI. Discussion of assessment experiments. Peggy Maki, AMCOA Consultant;
Commissioner Richard Freeland; and Jonathan Keller, Associate
Commissioner for Research, Planning, and Information Systems
a. Parameters for Assessment Experiments
Peggy Maki distributed a draft of parameters for assessment
experiments supported by the Davis Educational Foundation Grant.
After she reviewed those parameters (see Appendix C), she responded to
questions about them. In response to the question about faculty
receiving stipends for participating in experiments, she stated that funds
could be used in that way. Another question raised was whether
including performance on remedial coursework could be included. Peggy
said she thought that could be included in experiments. A question was
raised about whether or not “useful results for transfer from two-year to
four-year institutions” should be a criterion for the experiments to
address. Charlotte Mandell said that four-year institutions can
disaggregate their data to look at the two-year population and that this is
an important focus. Peggy noted that a common thread in her
conversations at the community colleges is their desire to make sure that
transfer students are able to demonstrate the same level of learning as
those students who do their first two years at a four-year institution.
Overall, Peggy stated, the issue that these experiments will have to
address is that of scalability.
It was agreed that AMCOA team members would vet this current draft on
their campuses and submit proposed edits or changes by Sept. 15, 2011.
Peggy will incorporate proposed changes into a final Request for
Proposals that would go out to team members one more time for final

5. 5
approval before being officially released. It was also agreed that to
develop strong proposals the deadline for submission should be moved
to October 31, 2011. The Commissioner’s Advisory Committee would
then select proposals in November 2011 based on the ranking of
proposals by volunteer AMCOA members. (The appended draft reflects
new dates proposed by team members at the meeting.)
b. Richard M. Freeland, Commissioner of Higher Education
Commissioner Freeland expressed his gratitude for the work of the
AMCOA team –especially participants’ commitment to meet over the
summer months. He also expressed his excitement about the AMCOA
project and the importance of our focus on documenting our students’
learning. He stated that he believes “We are on the edge of a real
revolution in Higher Education, and Massachusetts has a chance to
initiate the dialogue. There are many political aspects in public higher
education, but the educational outcomes overshadow the political sides.
We must emphasize the educational outcome of this process.” Further,
he stated that if faculty and other educators at our institutions approach
outcomes assessment in the right way, they can become more effective
teachers, particularly for the range of students who come into public
higher education. This commitment can be the most important
development in higher education.
The Commissioner also described how the Davis grant supports campus-
based work in assessment through the four statewide conferences, the
AMCOA meetings and members’ leadership, Peggy Maki’s initial campus
visits and her availability as a campus resource—all of which will lead to
the design of an eventual statewide system of reporting students’ levels
of achievement. Thus, the State’s approach to assessment is based on
two levels: (1) campus-level and (2) statewide level. Focus on statewide
reporting is aimed at learning how well students are doing so that we can
identify ways to improve students’ learning. Even though political issues
may emerge, he noted that we are capable of having discussions about

6. 6
these levels as demonstrated by the AMCOA project itself. He also
added that if a campus does not want to participate in the eventual
reporting, that is O.K. What we do need to keep sight of is that “stronger
education is our most important outcome.” Thus, he hopes that all
campuses will want to join this statewide effort of reporting assessment
results.
The Commissioner also reported on movement towards becoming a
LEAP-affiliated State, a movement that was endorsed by the Board in
June. Neal Bruss requested that the Board’s action on this be distributed
to our campuses. And, the Commissioner reported that he intends to
share this possible affiliation with NEASC as well as meet with NEASC
representatives to discuss the ways in which an affiliation would align
with NEASC reporting requirements.
The Commissioner reported on his July presentation at a national
conference of SHEOs (State Higher Education Officers) during which he
talked about learning outcomes assessment within the context of the
Vision Project and the parameters of the AMCOA Project. Responses
from the SHEOs and nationally recognized leaders such as Peter Ewell,
Carol Schneider, and Paul Lingenfelter were that Massachusetts is way
ahead on this focus. Specifically, he stated that conference participants
were intrigued by the notion of a reporting system design that is not
mandated. Other states expressed interest in working with us, so there
is a lot of interest in our work. After the presentation there was a memo
sent around lauding the work taking place in Massachusetts and asking
other states to take note of our work. Peter Ewell stated that he thought
our approach is “the best authentic assessment for accountability and
improvement.”
Finally, the Commissioner reported that AAC&U has requested that we
participate in a large Lumina grant they expect to receive with specific
focus on developing better understanding about what students should

7. 7
be learning at different levels (as represented in the Lumina
Undergraduate Profile) to facilitate effective transfer. The Commissioner
stated that because as a state we are well down the road with
discussions about LEAP outcomes and VALUE rubrics, it would not be
advisable for us to be diverted to another direction. Thus, he stated we
need another year to see how we progress with our current direction
and commitment.
c. Jonathan Keller, Associate Commissioner for Research, Planning, and
Information Systems
Looking at the partnership focus of our AMCOA work, particularly in the
design of assessment experiments that will inform a statewide system of
reporting, Jonathan stated that he and his staff are happy to contribute
their expertise and experience to the experiments--particularly since the
scope of this commitment to design a system can seem overwhelming.
He said that the State has resources that are available to assist team
members as they and others design a reporting system. Specifically, he
stated that he and his staff can assist in: (1) developing experiments; and
down the road (2) developing something statewide. He also said that he
can assist with analyzing and interpreting NSSE and CCSSE results
because he has extensive experience with those instruments. He also
can provide advocacy for looking at where institutions shine, such as
identifying activities that show critical thinking. He has resources that
can help with database development and definitions, demographics, and
tracking students.
VII. Suggestion to develop a database of assessment instruments
Professor Benway has recommended that under our Davis Grant we
develop a database of assessment instruments. Discussion focused on
the value of this effort to all of our institutions as well as the significance
of this database as a possible way to represent to external stakeholders
how we assess our students—perhaps as part of the eventual statewide

8. 8
reporting system. Rather than simply list methods, there was a
recommendation that there be some kind of reporting or description of
each method’s particular usefulness. Peggy will ask one of our team
members to take a stab at writing a description of what we might include
in this proposed database. This description will come forward to the
group for further discussion.
VIII. Next AMCOA Meetings
The next AMCOA meeting will take place on September 14th
from 10:00
a.m.-12:00 Noon at Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts. Peggy Maki
will send an agenda and driving directions to the site one 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, 9:00
a.m. – 3:00 p.m. (8:30 a.m. Registration)

9. 9
Appendix A
Institutions Represented at the AMCOA August 18th
Meeting:
Berkshire Community College
Bristol Community College
Bunker Hill Community College
Cape Cod Community College
Fitchburg State University
Framingham State University
Holyoke Community College
Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts
Massasoit Community College
MassBay Community College
Middlesex 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
Westfield State University
Worcester State University

10. 10
Appendix B Session Proposals for September 30th
AMCOA Conference
Topic Presenters Institution
“Teamwork: the Key to Faculty Engagement.”
Discussion of the Title III funded program, The
Connected College, administered at Bristol
Community College, which involves collaborating
with faculty to develop institution and program-
level assessment strategies through the creation of
a set of Course Design Toolkits.
Kevin Forgard, the project’s instructional
designer
Maureen Melvin Sowa, Professor of History
Bristol Community College
“The development and function of BHCC’s
faculty-driven assessment initiative: the Student
Learning Outcomes Assessment Project
(SLOAP).” Based on a conceptual assessment
framework that provides an institutional model for
all assessment activities.
Judy Lindamood, Chair, Early Childhood
Education & Human Services Department
Timothy McLaughlin, Chair, English Department
Natalie Oliveri, English Department
David Leavitt, Director of Institutional Research
Bunker Hill Community College
“Using Business Process Analysis to Facilitate
Buy-In and Effective Assessment Information
Flow.”
1) How to improve faculty buy-in by
approaching VALUE Rubrics as a
customizable tool to test in a low-pressure
pilot project
2) How to get started on a Business Process
Analysis
Ann Caso, Director of Institutional Research
Susan Chang, Director of Assessment
Cynthia Glickman, Business Systems Analyst
Patricia Lynne, Associate Professor and
Assessment Liaison, English Department
Ellen Zimmerman, Associate Vice President for
Academic Affairs
Framingham State University
“How Institutional Research Supports
Middlesex Community College’s Program
Review Process.” Improving access and
advancing student success by strengthening
evidence-based practices and resource allocation.
Embedded in this program review process is the
assessment of program effectiveness, including
impact on students – student success and student
learning – for both academic and co-curricular
programs.
Lois Alves, Vice President of Institutional
Research and Enrollment Services
Cynthia Lynch, Service Learning Coordinator
Elise Martin, Associate Dean of Assessment
Middlesex Community College

11. 11
Appendix B (continued)
Topic Presenters Institution
“Assessment of Supplemental Instruction.” In
the spring of 2011, NECC carried out an extensive
assessment project, focused on classes designated
for Supplemental Instruction (SI). Quantitative
and qualitative data was collected through methods
including surveys completed by students, faculty,
and SI leaders. The findings provided important
insights into SI at NECC, and suggested numerous
strategies for improvement.”
Lynne Nadeau, Coordinator: Academic Resource
and Tutoring Center
Linda Shea, Assistant Dean: Library and
Academic Support Services
Ellen Wentland, Assistant Dean: Academic
Program Review, Outcomes Assessment, and
Educational Effectiveness
Northern Essex Community College
“Discussion of UMass Dartmouth’s
Commitment to Student Learning statement
(CSL).” Founded on broad campus discussion,
using LEAP principles, and motivated by NEASC
standard 4.16, it states aspirational goals for
students upon graduation. Developed
collaboratively, CSL has guided renovation of
general education, improved advising, and will
soon help refocus academic major learning goals.
Richard Panofsky, Assistant Chancellor for
Institutional Research & Assessment
UMass Dartmouth
“Institutional Research.” Jonathan Keller, Assoc. Commissioner for
Research, Planning and Information Systems
DHE
“Using NSSE/CCSSE Results.” A panel
discussion to share strategies and best practices.
David Leavitt, Director of Institutional Research
Elise Martin, Associate Dean of Assessment
TBD_________________________
TBD_________________________
Bunker Hill Community College
Middlesex Community College

12. 12
Appendix C
Draft for Review by AMCOA TEAM
Parameters for AMCOA Assessment Experiments
August 18, 2011
Funding for the AMCOA project under the Davis Educational Foundation grant awarded to
DHE includes support for scalable assessment experiments developed among our public
higher education institutions that have the potential to: (1) “provide a foundation for the
system-wide plan connected to the Vision Project,” and (2) demonstrate that a “campus and
system collaborative approach to assessment of student learning can be helpful to public
campuses and to the public system as a whole” (Davis Educational Foundation Grant).
The following list provides parameters for developing a proposal to undertake the design
of an assessment experiment. The experiment:
1. Builds on current campus-based systems that report results as well as
plans to improve student learning, creating a statewide system that
addresses both (a) accountability and (b) improvement.
2. Reports exiting students’ achievement levels in General Education
based on scoring students’ authentic work, using agreed upon
nationally informed scoring rubrics such as the LEAP rubrics and
translating assessment results into scores or dashboards that are
useful across campuses. Initially, GE reporting will begin with a focus
on results of scoring student work that demonstrates critical thinking,
writing, and quantitative reasoning.
3. Demonstrates or offers the ability to aggregate or to disaggregate
assessment results based on institutional demographics
4. Experiments with
a. web platforms (including current existing data systems at
DHE) to enable disaggregation and aggregation of assessment
results across student populations or
b. portfolio assessment technologies that would provide cost
efficiencies for campuses
5. Identifies plans to improve patterns of weakness in student work
6. Provides useful results for transfer from two-year to four-year
institutions
7. Experiments with the use of NSSE and CCSSE surveys and consortia
that enable comparisons between or among similar institutions,
including consortia development of additional survey items for NSSE
and CCSSE instruments

13. 13
Appendix C (continued)
Funding:
The Davis Grant provides a total of $60,000 for this phase of the AMCOA Project. The
maximum grant for a proposed experiment is $12,000.
Proposal:
Please submit to Peggy Maki by October 31, 2011 a one- to two-page proposal that includes
the following information:
Initially, a description of your overall approach to your experiment based on
the 7 parameters listed above
Identification of those involved in your experiment, including the person who
will chair or convene the group
Approximate timeline you will follow to develop an experiment that you will
demonstrate at the fourth statewide assessment conference
Budget that may include support for meetings, compensation for faculty time,
compensation for new DHE staff demands focused on developing, pilot
testing, or assisting the development of web-based reporting in an
assessment experiment
Proposals that involve collaboration between or among two-year and four-year institutions
are welcome, demonstrating that reported results are useful for our public institutions and
provide valuable information about our students’ achievement levels across their
education. Submitted proposals will be reviewed and ranked by a panel of AMCOA
members and then submitted to the Commissioner and Advisory Board for final selection
in November, 2011.