1. 1
Minutes of the Seventh AMCOA Meeting, January 19, 2012
Prepared by Kerry McNally
Host Campus: MassBay Community College, Wellesley Hills Campus
I. Attendance
The seventh AMCOA meeting was hosted by MassBay Community College
(MBCC), Wellesley Hills from 10:00 a.m.-12:30 p.m. on January 19, 2012.
Representatives from 23 institutions attended the meeting (See list in
Appendix A), and Peggy Maki, Consultant under the Davis Educational
Foundation Grant awarded to the Department of Higher Education, opened
and chaired the meeting.
Peggy thanked MBCC for hosting the meeting.
II. Welcome, Dr. John O’Donnell, President, MassBay Community College
President O’Donnell welcomed the AMCOA Team to his campus and said that
it was fitting to have an assessment meeting on the same day that MBCC is
holding a Strategic Planning Day for the campus. MBCC and AMCOA are both
developing a culture of assessment.
Massachusetts has the right policy statement with The Vision Project,
encompassing student learning, but preparing them for careers needed by
employers. The message is that we will educate the best workforce in the
nation. The Vision Project goal is: “We will produce the best-educated
citizenry and workforce in the nation. We will be a national leader in research
that drives economic development.”
How do we bring this policy statement down to professors and students? This
is the important work that AMCOA is doing. Dr. O’Donnell said that he

2. 2
recently went to the Pinning Ceremony at MassBay’s School of Nursing, where
he heard three nurses say that they are practicing nursing based on viewing
evidence. Empiricists look at data, literature, and draw conclusions. Student
assessment follows a similar path.
Thank you for the time and work you are giving to this important project and
welcome to MassBay Community College.
III. February Conference Update: Elise Martin, Conference Co-chair
More than 100 people as of January 19th had registered for the UMass
Lowell AMCOA conference on February 9th.
There are 21 presentations.
There are a number of institutions presenting: Bunker Hill Community
College, Holyoke Community College, Massachusetts College of Art and
Design, Massachusetts Maritime Academy, MassBay Community
College, Middlesex Community College, Northern Essex Community
College, Quinsigamond Community College, University of
Massachusetts Boston, and University of Massachusetts Lowell.
There are six session rooms that seat 30 people each, and there is one
room that seats 15 people.
Elise is holding off assigning rooms until about a week before the
conference, when the number of people registered for each session
will become more apparent.
There are seven concurrent full presentations, while there are two
Poster Sessions in the morning and two in the afternoon.
IV. Update and Questions: Commissioner Richard Freeland, Massachusetts
Department of Higher Education
The Commissioner said that the important goal of higher education in
Massachusetts right now is improving teaching and learning. He thanked the
group for coming together on this issue, and specifically thanked Mo, Bonnie
and Neal’s leadership and Peggy Maki’s guidance.

3. 3
Where are we now? How will we move forward? There are two phases to
the AMCOA Project:
1) How can the system of public higher education support campuses to
improve education?
2) The WGSLOA goal – Can we build on strong campuses to develop
assessment programs at a system level?
Regarding the Phase 2 report on WGSLOA, the Board approved as a working
idea the State’s seeking status from the American Association of College and
Universities (AAC&U) to become a LEAP State and develop a system-wide
program to improve the system’s education. Pat Crosson worked on our
application with the Presidents, Provosts and campuses. A draft proposal was
sent to Presidents and Provosts asking them to let the Commissioner know if
our institutions should pursue LEAP status as a system. The question was:
Will your campus participate? The overall response was positive. No
responses were negative to the idea of seeking LEAP status. Some campuses
said that it is not appropriate for their type of work, but they had a positive
response to it.
We will submit the proposal to the Board and then to LEAP. AAC&U is well
disposed to the work being done in Massachusetts. It sees Massachusetts as
being well ahead of the curve. AAC&U doesn’t like standardized tests
because they over quantify and simplify assessment. The question is: How
can you report results of embedded assessment? AAC&U is interested in this
question. Pat Crosson and I will go to Washington, DC, to talk about our State
assessment plans. I am confident that AAC&U will give Massachusetts a
positive response.
I am open to ideas on how to flesh out the LEAP role that Massachusetts will
play. The Presidents have said: “This is good, but it’s a lot of work.” We have
to figure out how to do it without getting in the way of campus teaching and
learning. Maybe an organizational body of the campuses that said they want
to be part of LEAP will be created. We need to organize all of this.

4. 4
In addition to that, we must coordinate with other states we have reached
out to. There are about seven or eight states that have the same questions
and concerns that Massachusetts has. After becoming a LEAP state, we will
move to a new level of work with a new level of complexity with other state
partners.
AMCOA is doing its work. I am thrilled at the level of quality of the
presentations and the sharing. I am also pleased with Peggy Maki’s work.
The AMCOA project’s goal is to foster true system-wide learning on
assessment. We are doing it with conferences, meetings and Peggy’s
consulting.
Now, how does this relate to Phase II of the AMCOA Project? We are at an
inflection point. How do we keep going with this work? Do we have more
meetings and conferences, or is there another way to continue this work?
Where do we go with the AMCOA group?
The second big issue is: We have a genuine learning group in the AMCOA
Team. In a way, we are preaching to the choir. Most of the AMCOA Team is
strongly invested in assessment. AMCOA’s goal now should be in influencing
change deeper into the faculty work system-wide. How do we do that? How
does AMCOA do it? For example, the Assessment Retreat at MassBay
Community College on January 10th invited people from the public
Massachusetts campuses and from private institutions. How do we best
move forward based on models such as MassBay’s? I would like the AMCOA
Team to talk about this. It would help me to hear positive and constructive
suggestions as we plan next year’s work.
There is a continuing role for the AMCOA group in Phase II, but it should be
interactive with the new LEAP organization. We are creating the proposal to
the Davis Foundation now for Phase II funding. Pat Crosson feels that AMCOA
should continue the work it is doing, supporting campus assessment and
acting as a great sounding board for the new LEAP group.

5. 5
The Commissioner then asked the Team: Where do you see the AMCOA
group moving forward?
Chris Cratsley, Fitchburg State University: He envisions continuing to offer
conferences and meetings because they are an opportunity to learn what
other campuses are doing. That has to continue, maybe in the form of an
annual system-wide conference to share best practices. AMCOA is a source of
details about what others are doing on their campuses, including a forum to
share forms of resistances. The details are important. Maybe there could be
published case studies or a website with courses and descriptions showing
how assessment works.
Maureen Sowa, Bristol Community College: Mo suggested an assessment
database and case studies with best and worst practices at the core level and
in the courses. We should have a site with space for the 28 campuses to post
on these assessment issues. It would be a way to consolidate and centralize
the ideas.
Ellen Wentland, Northern Essex Community College: I would like a way to
link what the campuses are doing on assessment to my campus.
David Leavitt, Bunker Hill Community College: AMCOA has done good work
on assessment. The conferences are heavy on presenters though. It is hard
to get faculty to take the time to go to conferences. Maybe AMCOA could
travel to the campuses to reach faculty and particularly the adjuncts. AMCOA
could create a Professional Development Day around assessment for the
faculty, so they would not have to travel for hours across the state.
Maureen Sowa, Bristol Community College: Maybe we could have better
scheduling of meetings. Faculty members in the community colleges are
teaching five courses and have a very hard time scheduling meetings or
conferences.
Richard Freeland, DHE: How do you integrate assessment work into faculty
workloads?

6. 6
John Savage, Middlesex Community College: I see AMCOA as a resource to
advise other campuses on assessment.
Roger Johnston, Massasoit Community College: There are 75-85% adjuncts
teaching at the community colleges. The best assessment is done with the
full-timers. How do you bring the adjuncts into the process?
Maureen Sowa, Bristol Community College: I am concerned about
templates. A one-size-fits-all template is not necessarily true. There are
gateway courses, tool kits that include assessment methodologies. A one-
size-fits-all template might cause resistance.
Neal Bruss, UMass Boston: Spoken to Richard Freeland – Are you getting
what you need from us to write the Phase II Davis Grant? Our meetings and
agendas have to be carefully planned and in sequence, so we know where we
are going. Neal attended a UMass Dartmouth video conference, which he
found useful. He suggested that maybe it is time to use technologies such as
video conferencing to spread the assessment message.
Felix Wao, Bridgewater State University: I am pro-template. They reflect
what the minimum requirement is. If they are measurable, show the possible
measures, outcomes, and close the loop, they can probably work. When
templates define general minimum standards, they are good.
Elise Martin, Middlesex Community College: Elise said that SOTL (Scholarship
of Teaching, Assessment and Learning) and assessment are moving in parallel
ways. She recommended SOTL to the AMCOA Team as a possible worthwhile
resource.
Richard Freeland, DHE: So we could incorporate techniques; groups going to
other campuses; and campuses helping each other.
Maureen Sowa, Bristol Community College: Would it be possible to have an
AMCOA site on the Department of Higher Education website? Yammer is

7. 7
dense and its feed style buries information as soon as new feeds are added. If
there were an AMCOA website focusing on assessment and learning, it would
be an easier way to find resources.
John Savage, Middlesex Community College: To engage the faculty at
Middlesex CC the college had union reps help them so that this work became
contractual.
Richard Freeland, DHE: We will have an AMCOA and a LEAP structure.
AMCOA has a realm of activity independent of LEAP, but there should be
some overlap between the two. Some of the LEAP members should come
from AMCOA.
Maureen Sowa, Bristol Community College: AMCOA campus strategies flow
up into a LEAP model.
Richard Freeland, DHE: I want the best possible program on each campus.
Then, we can build a system-level on top of that.
David Leavitt, Bunker Hill Community College: AMCOA and LEAP need to
communicate. That would involve more work.
Richard Freeland again thanked the Team for all its work and said that he will
continue to support AMCOA. He emphasized that he welcomed the input
from the Team and was always willing to hear it.
Pat Crosson, Senior Advisor for Academic Policy, DHE: On the Lumina
Project: There is some money, not a lot, for the DHE and two campuses that
would be part of a dyad. We are entering this program late, so as not to
conflict with AMCOA and the agenda of WGSLOA. Assessment is an important
issue for AAC&U’s April meeting. Every state and its team are represented. It
is important that we be there. It is a chance to have a voice in the
parameters. I am pleased to learn that we have more flexibility in how we
participate in the Lumina project. We choose one community college and one
four-year institution that are willing to be part of this process. I have heard

8. 8
from two schools already based on what has been written in the press. I open
up this opportunity to the group and to all of the campuses. Each campus will
receive $40,000 each over the duration of the project.
Pat Crosson’s memo to the AMCOA Team is attached as Appendix B.
V. Presentation and Questions about PARCC: Francesca Purcell, Associate
Commissioner for Academic and P-16 Policy, Massachusetts Department of
Higher Education
Francesca Purcell filled in for Aundrea Kelley, Deputy Commissioner for P-16
Policy and Collaborative Initiatives, who is recuperating from knee
replacement surgery. A copy of the PARCC presentation and handouts are
attached as Appendix C.
Francesca opened by thanking the group for the opportunity to meet with
them. She said that the PARCC initiative intersects closely with the work of
the Vision Project in the area of college participation and ultimately in the
readiness of our students to succeed as measured by the approaches to
learning assessment that the AMCOA Team is working on.
1. The PARCC initiative provides a rare opportunity for states – individually
and collectively – to reach a common definition of what it means to be college
ready and to come to agreement on an approach to assess college readiness.
The presentation touched on why these goals are important and describes
how all of us can play a role in helping Massachusetts define college readiness
and establish college-ready performance levels.
2. Looking at national data, Massachusetts is doing fairly well in terms of
college participation and readiness. For the fourth year in a row
Massachusetts students have won or tied for first place in fourth and eighth
grade reading or math. And, Massachusetts is third nationally and second in
the northeast in college participation rates.
3. However, we are finding that once students enroll in our colleges, more
than 30% are enrolling in remedial coursework, primarily at the community
colleges where more than 60% of new students need at least one remedial

9. 9
course. This is a troubling statistic because remedial courses cost time and
money, but don’t yield college credit. Further, only 25% of students who
enroll in remedial courses ever complete their degree.
4. National discussions about what it means to be college ready link the
definition of readiness to absence of the need for remediation. ACHIEVE, a
national organization which has brought K-12 and higher education together
to focus on college and career readiness, has articulated this commonly
shared definition: “Being ready for college and careers means that a high
school graduate has the core, foundational knowledge and skills―defined as
the mastery of English and mathematics, along with the critical thinking,
communications, problem-solving and teamwork skills learned in those
courses―necessary to qualify for and succeed in entry-level, credit-bearing
coursework―be it at a university, community college, technical/vocational
program, apprenticeship or on the job―without the need for
remediation/remedial courses.”
5. Massachusetts is one of many states without an official definition of
readiness. So, how do we signal what it means to be ready for college? K-12
has defined the MassCore Course of study. Higher education has outlined
admissions requirements which differ somewhat from MassCore. Post
enrollment, however, colleges administer placement exams. Students who
place into remediation are usually surprised and disappointed to find that
although they may have been admitted to college, they are not deemed ready
for college-level coursework. Quite simply, the current signals about
readiness are confusing to students and to the adults who work to prepare
them for college.
6. To address the need for clear signals to students, the National Governors
Association spearheaded the effort to develop a set of rigorous preparatory
standards. The Common Core State Standards have been accepted by 46
states and the District of Columbia. The CCSS align closely with
Massachusetts’s curriculum frameworks and are scheduled for full
implementation in the Commonwealth’s public schools by 2013. A
distinguishing feature about the CCSS is that they are more focused, i.e.,
fewer and deeper, than the standards that were typical in most states.
7. From a national perspective, the common core state standards in English,
mathematics, and eventually science are rooted in college and career

10. 10
readiness. Mastery of the core foundational knowledge and skills in these
standards – along with the critical thinking, communications, problem-solving
and teamwork skill learned in these courses – would signal that a student
could succeed in postsecondary education and training without the need for
remediation.
i. In Mathematics, the CCSS focus is on key topics at each grade level;
there is a coherent progression across grade levels; and it addresses
long-heard criticism of mile-wide, inch-deep math curricula. There
is an emphasis on procedural fluency and understanding of
concepts and skills. Content standards require both conceptual
understanding and procedural fluency.
ii. For mathematical proficiencies students should:
a. Develop, e.g., abstract reasoning, modeling, precision,
perseverance, strategic use of tools, and making arguments.
b. Be able to use mathematics to understand a problem, even
in new or unfamiliar contexts.
iii. The CCSS standards are organized around conceptual categories
that promote various approaches to high school curriculum.
Standards are organized into conceptual categories and models of
traditional, integrated, and advanced courses.
iv. ELA/Literacy
a. Reading involves a balance of literature and informational
texts with a focus on text complexity and student reading
comprehension.
b. Writing emphasizes argument and informative/explanatory
writing. Writing about sources (evidence) answers questions
that require students to have read the text.
c. Speaking and Listening includes formal and informal talk.
d. Literacy standards for history, science and technical subjects
promote the idea that teaching literacy skills is not just the

11. 11
job of the English teacher. It complements rather than
replaces those subjects.
v. Both Content Areas are anchored in college and career readiness.
They explicitly define the knowledge and skills that students must
master to be college and career ready by the end of high school,
and the knowledge and skills in each grade that build towards that
goal.
8. CCSS standards are critical, but only a first step. The development of these
new standards will require the development of new assessment tools.
9. Enter PARCC.
10.Rather than having every state go it alone in the development of new
“next generation” assessments based on the CCSS, the USDOE set aside RTTT
funds to encourage multi-state consortia to work collaboratively. The new
assessments are intended to address five key goals.
11.Goal 1 is high quality.
i. The PARCC assessment system will:
a. Better reflect the sophisticated knowledge and skills found in
the English and math Common Core State Standards.
b. Include a mix of item types, e.g., short answer, richer
multiple choice, longer open response, and performance-
based
c. Make significant use of technology
d. Include testing at key points throughout the year to give
teachers, parents and students better information about
whether students are on track or need additional support in
particular areas.
12.Goal 2 is to signal clearly whether a student is on track to be college ready.
The PARCC assessment system will be aligned to the college- and career-
ready, Common Core State Standards, and is being designed to challenge
students, help identify when they’re not meeting the standards, and

12. 12
provide targeted instruction, supports and interventions to help them
succeed.
Students who score proficient on the assessments will know they are on
track for the next steps in their education creating a more meaningful
target.
In high school, results will send an early signal about whether students are
ready for entry-level, non-remedial courses at higher education
institutions in all 24 PARCC states
Students who are identified as not being on track, or who do not meet the
college readiness score, will receive targeted supports and interventions
Higher education partners in PARCC – nearly 200 institutions and systems
covering over 850 campuses across the country – have committed to help
develop the high school assessments and set the college-ready cut score
that will be used to place incoming freshmen in credit-bearing college
courses.
13.Goal 3 is to be supportive educators.
The PARCC assessments will be built with the K-12 educator in mind around four
different areas.
A. Instructional Tools to Support Implementation
i. Model content frameworks
ii. Sample assessment tasks
iii. Model instructional units
B. Professional Development Modules
i. Common Assessment 101-103: PD focused on the implementation
of the new assessments
ii. Common Assessment 201-204: PD focused on how to interpret and
use the assessment results

13. 13
C. Timely Student Achievement Data
i. Aligned performance-based assessments given throughout the year
ii. Data reports will be available, designed with teacher use in mind
D. Educator-Led Training to Support “Peer-to-Peer” Training
i. Training for cadres of K-12 educators around the instructional tools,
AND
ii. Around training their peers to use the instructional tools
14.Goal 4 is to be next-generation technology based.
15.Goal 5 is to support accountability (at the discretion of the state).
16.The PARCC assessment has the potential to send a clear signals on what it means
to be “college ready”; put students on a faster track to completion, with less
need for remediation; and create a better assessment tool for 21st
century
learning. In Massachusetts it will also help eliminate the disconnect between
MCAS and Accuplacer.
17.The PARCC grant has set an aggressive timeline. Ultimately, in order to set
college ready performance levels for PARCC, we need to come to agreement on
what college readiness is.
18.The recent October Conference launched a discussion on an approach to foster
the conversations that are needed to achieve a college readiness definition in
Massachusetts. This approach would start with discussions among higher
education and K-12 faculty and administrators in every campus. Please look at
the organizing structure and timeline handouts.
To conclude, we have had high standards and strong assessments before, but we still
have gaps. We know that many students coming out of high school are not ready for
college-level work.
What’s been missing? It could be that we haven’t as a state had a systematic approach
to faculty interaction across sectors: faculty from K-12 and higher education, coming
together to examine syllabi, share examples of student work, and developing bridge
modules. We recognize that faculty have the most important seat at the table in

14. 14
determining what college readiness means and how college readiness will be assessed
in the coming years and seek your input and support.
VI. AMCOA Members’ Responses to Assessment Survey Prepared by AMCOA Co-
Chairs
Bonnie Orcutt summarized some of the responses to the Assessment Survey. Some
respondents spoke of the networking advantages of the AMCOA Project. Some
suggested that there should be a central place for the meetings. There is not a clear
answer whether the Team could hold meetings at one school in the central region on a
monthly basis. People were curious about what workshops would be given at the
February Meeting. Overall, people felt that the AMCOA Project was beneficial. Some of
the responses must be tempered because there was a very small response from the
group, only 13. Charlotte Mandell pointed out that it was not possible to nuance an
answer to some of the questions, give it a “yes” or a “no,” so it made it difficult to
answer. Some people feel that AMCOA should have a webpage with assessment
resources, complete with links, case studies, presentations, faculty bringing works in
progress, student development, and mentors (a list of people who could advise faculty
or administrators on assessment).
A small group exercise followed with members breaking up into groups to discuss the
role of AMCOA going forward after the Phase I of the Davis Grant is completed.
Appendix D has a copy of Peggy Maki’s “Small Group Discussion and Reports” and
Appendix E has Bonnie Orcutt’s summary of the small groups’ discussion.

15. 15
Appendix A: Institutions Represented at the AMCOA January 19th
Meeting:
Berkshire Community College
Bridgewater State University
Bristol Community College
Bunker Hill Community College
Fitchburg State University
Framingham State University
Holyoke Community College
Massachusetts College of Art and Design
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
University of Massachusetts Amherst
University of Massachusetts Boston
University of Massachusetts Lowell
Westfield State University
Worcester State University

16. 16
Appendix B: Pat Crosson’s Memo to the AMCOA Team on the Description of the
AAC&U Quality Collaboratives Project
For: AMCOA Team
From: Pat Crosson
Subject: Description of AAC&U Quality Collaboratives Project
Date: January 15, 2012
Massachusetts will participate with the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) and
seven other states in a Lumina Foundation supported project to test the Degree Qualifications Profile
(DQP) in the context of student transfer from two year to four year institutions. AAC&U proposed and
will coordinate the $2.2 million three year project under the LEAP initiative, bringing together state
system and campus representatives as well as national experts on transfer and assessment policy. For
Carol Geary Schneider, President of AAC&U, the project provides an opportunity to ensure that all
students seeking to transfer from a two-year to four-year institution achieve the important outcomes of
a “liberating college education,” and also for building on their work on quality student learning, learning
outcomes assessment, curricular change and transfer. California, Indiana, Kentucky, Oregon, Utah,
Wisconsin and Virginia are the other states participating in the project.
For the Lumina Foundation the project is part of its beta testing of the value of a shared Degree
Qualifications Profile and intended to contribute to its goal of increasing the proportion of Americans
with high quality degrees and credentials to 60 percent by the year 2025. The DQP proposes specific
learning outcomes that benchmark the associate, bachelor’s and master’s degrees, illustrating how
students should be expected to perform at progressively more challenging levels. It could be a useful
tool for campuses to use as part of transfer policy and practice.
In the November DHE Newsletter, Commissioner Freeland announced the Quality Collaboratives Project,
noting that it will “complement our assessment work with LEAP Essential Learning Outcomes and VALUE
Rubrics and the work of the Advancing a Massachusetts Culture of Assessment (AMCOA) project. It will
also be helpful to continuing efforts to improve our transfer policies and practices.” He emphasized that
Massachusetts participation in the project will not change our focus on discussions about the use of the
LEAP frameworks as a shared basis for assessing student learning and will not begin until the second
year of the project (estimated January 2013) to ensure that there is ample time for ongoing internal
discussions related to the assessment of student learning, LEAP and the Vision Project.
Pat Crosson will serve as the DHE liaison for the project and Francesca Purcell and Jonathan Keller will
also be involved, contributing their expertise in areas of transfer and assessment. The actual testing of
the DQP in relation to transfer will be undertaken by a “quality collaborative”—a dyad in which a
community college and a four year institution work together. Within the parameters of dyads, transfer,
the DQP, and the need for complementary approaches among participating states, there is flexibility for
campuses and state systems to develop a project that is helpful to their own work. For each
participating campus, the project provides a total of $40,000, not a great deal of money but enough to
be helpful to campuses that see benefit in this work for their own programs of transfer and learning
outcomes assessment.
Although work in Massachusetts will not start before next year, selecting the Massachusetts dyad now
will enable us to have an important voice in the overall project design and will give campuses an

17. 17
opportunity to begin planning together. AAC&U has already begun work with participating states and
national experts and is organizing an April 2012 meeting for all project participants. Since the meeting
will result in plans that will enable or constrain what we will want to do in Massachusetts, it will be
important that campus personnel working on the dyad as well as DHE representatives attend the April
meeting. It is time to select the Quality Collaborative dyad for Massachusetts.
Given the time constraints, the small scale, and probable limited interest in this project, the
Commissioner will use a low-key process to select the Massachusetts dyad. He will ask any campus
presidents with an interest in the project to be in touch with Pat Crosson. The Commissioner will also
encourage any member of the AMCOA Team with an interest to discuss it with their provost and/or
president. Pat Crosson will ask for a brief description about each dyad, an anticipated approach and
design for the project and a statement about the significance for the campus and the Quality
Collaboratives project as whole. She will review the material and make a recommendation to the
Commissioner. If many campuses respond and the choice will be difficult, the Commissioner will ask the
President’s Advisory Group working with him on matters related to LEAP, assessment and AMCOA to
become involved in the selection of the Massachusetts dyad.
Two campuses, each of which would form a dyad with another campus, have expressed interest in this
project on the basis of the DHE Newsletter announcement. The level of interest among other campuses
is not known. But many campuses have long histories of working together to implement transfer
policies and resolve transfer problems and might see testing the DQP as informative for their efforts.
Additionally many of the current AMCOA experiments involve campus collaborations and focus both on
assessment of learning and transfer issues. Follow-on projects might prove valuable to the campuses
concerned and both AMCOA experiment results and Quality Collaborative test results might contribute
to the AAC&U project as a whole.
If you would like more information on this project, or to express interest in it, feel free to contact Pat
Crosson (pcrosson@bhe.mass.edu) or 508-693-4148.

18. 18
Appendix C: PARCC PowerPoint Presentation (Please double-click the image
below to start the presentation. Single click each slide in the
presentation to move to the next slide.)
PARCC – Partnership for the Assessment
of Readiness for College and Career
Francesa Purcell, Associate Commissioner, Academic and P-16 Policy
Massachusetts Department of Higher Education
AMCOA Meeting| January 19, 2012

19. 19

20. 20

21. 21
Appendix D: Peggy Maki’s “Small Group Discussion and Reports”
Small Group Discussion and Reports
As we move into the last four months of our work under the current Davis Grant that supported the
creation of an AMCOA group and the identified work of the grant—campus visits, monthly meetings,
statewide conferences, and assessment experiments—it is now time to consider how our efforts should
evolve under a possible second Davis grant.
To make recommendations for that next grant, we would like you to respond to two questions focused on
how we advance the work of AMCOA beyond the model we have followed this year. Please appoint a
recorder for your group who will list the significant points that emerge from your group discussion and
then hand those results in before you leave today.
1. Advancing a Statewide Culture of Assessment
To advance a statewide culture of assessment, the goal of AMCOA, what recommendations would you
offer that you believe would effectively advance that goal across our public institutions? For example,
developing and offering professional development workshops focused on assessment, establishing
Faculty Learning Communities across the State, continuing to offer statewide or regionally-based
conferences, developing means to disseminate information about AMCOA and assessment initiatives?
2. Reflecting on Your Role as an AMCOA Member

22. 22
a. How do you currently view your role as an AMCOA member on your campus or on other
campuses?
b. How do you think your role as AMCOA member should change as we move forward?
c. Should there be more specific criteria or other criteria established for appointment of
AMCOA members based on your response to “b.”?

23. 23
Appendix E: Bonnie Orcutt’s Summary of the Small Group Discussion
SUMMARY OF SMALL GROUP DISCUSSION January 19, 2012
Question 1:
To advance a statewide culture of assessment, the goal of AMCOA, what recommendations would
you offer that you believe would effectively advance that goal across public institutions:
MEETINGS AND CONFERENCES:
1. Fewer AMCOA meetings as move forward but continue to meet face to face but less frequently
(limit the number of face to face meetings) with greater use of Skype conference meetings or
video conferencing.
2. Fewer meetings per semester will allow faculty to plan and build their course schedules to
accommodate these meetings. It is important that the meeting schedule be in place early enough
for faculty to build their syllabus and schedule so as to accommodate the meetings. In addition,
when selecting/soliciting faculty participants, the meeting schedule can be publicized. Address
campus specific issues particularly with respect to scheduling
3. Annual State-Wide Conference; fewer conferences
TECHNOLOGY USE TO SHARE ASSESSMENT INFORMATION, ACTIVITIES AND
INITIATIVES INCLUDING BEST/WORST PRACTICES:
4. Seek support for an IT designer; use more technology: website and listservs
Institutional websites to share assessment ideas rather than a DHE website or a DHE site that
would serve that function;
Digital repository for both assessment data and analysis of results and examples of best/worst
practices;
Perhaps a discussion board where there best/worst practices might be shared with immediate
responders
Local websites do not work well
Website to post cases studies; how to assess campus and course level outcomes; share what has
and has not worked
Provide links to well-established campus websites
Post video-taped presentations and sessions
Creation of a Frequently Asked Questions listserv that might address how we can integrate
general education learning outcomes (LEAP outcomes) into the MassTransfer Block
PART TIME FACULTY:
5. Identify models for integrating part time faculty into campus assessment efforts; engage part time
faculty in projects of meaning; that lead to meaningful change with respect to the curriculum and
classroom instruction practices
FACULTY AND INSTITUTION WORKLOADS:
6. Explore how to integrate assessment efforts into overall faculty workloads; need to explicitly
recognize the burden imposed on faculty particularly for institutions without an assessment

24. 24
office; do not want assessment initiatives to be barriers to accomplishing and continuing other
campus based initiatives and activities; need to recognize there will not be an influx of resources
to support assessment results.
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT: AT AMCOA MEETINGS AND ON INDIVIDUAL
CAMPUSES:
7. Workshops and Professional Development Opportunities:
a. Workshops for faculty who are interested in assessment related topics but are not necessarily
experts in this area;
b. Professional development around assessment strategies; Professional development from list
of options is most important
c. Targeted workshops aimed at specific campus constituencies: curriculum committees,
specific academic departments, other
d. Faculty development days on assessment with outside experts, colleagues for colleges doing
assessment well, AMCOA reps and staff; promote cross institutional efforts with focus on
best efforts; Full day professional development around assessment work
e. Explore ways to explicitly link the SOTL with Assessment
f. Use of Faculty Learning Communities to bring the activity/discussion to individual campuses
Faculty learning communities perhaps driven by discipline and or interest (topic based);
Organize working groups by discipline or by topic;
Integrate professional development with respect to student learning outcome assessment
within the discipline; disciplinary based conferences and/or general education  important to
look for ways to integrate strategies for assessment of general education with assessment of
specific programs
“How to” processes; how to assess specific areas
Department based groups getting together – example of the nursing presentations at the
conferences
g. Identify models for developing college-specific outcomes and what to do with assessment
results
h. Develop signature assignments (Salt Lake CC) that capture the full range of student abilities
and, necessarily, how to scaffold learning to enable student success
SHARING INFORMATION AND ENGAGING FACULTY, ADMINISTRATORS, AND
STUDENT AFFAIRS PROFESSIONAL STAFF:
8. Explore ways to provide more support for building assessment and generating faculty buy-in
9. Faculty and others need multiple exposures; so keep talking
10. Discussion and support for what is a case study and how to use consultant group work with a
consultant
Consulting working groups drawn from membership; development of a resource foundation
11. Possibly list the names of faculty and administrators in AMCOA that are available to speak on
specific topics on other campuses
12. External report on comparative highlights from Peggy’s and the President’s reports: showing
resources from campuses that are exemplars;
OTHER:
13. Impact policy issues and contract language

25. 25
Question 2:
A. How do you view your current role as an AMCOA member on your campus or other
campuses?
1. Conduits for information to and from the AMCOA group for faculty and administrators on
campus. Serve as the eyes and ears for our campuses; bring information back to administrators
and faculty, particularly those involved in assessment. Acquiring a broader perspective to bring
back to campus committees; link between the our campus and statewide initiatives; sharing
information from the state with our campus
2. By presenting, we are a resource to other campuses.
3. Responsible for engaging more people – but in many cases, able to generate interest but not
engagement – future role should focus on engaging; how to engage faculty in projects that lead to
curriculum and pedagogical changes: changes to enhance student learning
4. Learn from what others are doing
B. How do you think your role as an AMCOA member should change as we move forward?
NOTION OF TRAVELING ROAD SHOW:
1. We think the role as resources to other campuses should expand through the travelling road show
and digital repository initiatives. Promoting professional development on campuses through a
travelling road show. It is important to bring assessment initiatives, strategies, support to
campuses; this may help to address adjunct issue; importance of people on campuses hearing
repeatedly the message
2. We would like to increasingly be a resource for shaping the direction of the LEAP State initiative
if our campuses are amenable.
3. AMCOA might serve as a support or resource group for institutions
4. Institutions should consider providing faculty release and the group should consider scheduling
the meetings carefully to accommodate faculty.
SHARING IDEAS; IDENTIFY WAYS TO POOL IDEAS
5. Create ways to facilitate more dialogue between faculty from different institutions and ways of
pooling ideas; facilitate the exchange of ideas and practices across institutions; share institution-
specific efforts
6. Encouraging people to “buy in to a culture of assessment
7. Made sure this group is viewed as a “bottom up” group; a non-clique group
8. Establish professional development networks
9. Future role should focus on engaging; how to engage faculty in projects that lead to curriculum
and pedagogical changes: changes to enhance student learning
OTHER:
10. Group discussion:
AMCOA group might serve as a vetting group; provide feedback for Phase II work and initiatives
AMCOA group should continue the work it has been doing with respect to supporting campus
and system-wide assessment

26. 26
C. Should there be more specific criteria or other criteria established for appointment of
AMCOA members based on your response to “b”?
1. We do not need to set criteria, but the roles of AMCOA members should be clearly
communicated to the campuses so that the best representatives can be selected, and in particular,
so faculty involvement can be encouraged.