- About Archives
- About SAA
- Careers
- Education
- Publications
- Advocacy
- Membership
NOTES: DAS Subcommittee Conference Call / November 29, 2017
Called to order at 2:05 pm Central time.
Attending: Glen McAninch, Martin Gengenbach, Kate Legg, Alice Sara Prael, Sibyl Schaefer, Jennifer Spamer, Veronica Martzahl, Solveig De Sutter, Nancy Beaumont, Brianne Downing.
Glen asked about status of search for new Director of Education. Beaumont indicated that she has a finalist for the position who will be meeting with various staff members on Friday, December 1. Beaumont is hopeful that “this may be the one.”
Brianne and Nancy to take notes.
Sibyl has not reviewed the curriculum since it was presented to the group 6 months ago. The material is freely available (no copyright constraints). Is it relevant and appropriate for inclusion in DAS curriculum?
Glen: How might we integrate the materials into DAS curriculum? Free? Charge? They’re structured nicely according to our new web presentations (modules). Seem to fall into Transformational tier.
Marty: Likes them a lot. Interested in idea of being able to present them in some way. How would this fit into how we’ve crafted various tiers? Some components are Transformational; some may be scattered across four tiers. Talk some more with DPN/AV Preserve about how we might leverage resources; respect that they’re free resources but also get something for SAA? Prerequisite readings?
Solveig: Likely could not charge for the materials, but could charge for an exam that we would create.
Glen: Is the focus on AV or more generic? Sibyl: More generic.
Glen: Appoint team to develop proposal: Glen, Marty, Sibyl.
Marty: Rather than developing a proposal right now, begin by having a conversation with each other and present ideas to DASS at next conference call (December 18). Sibyl: Talk to people at AV Preserve/DPN. Marty: Use this as a way to bring in new potential instructors. De Sutter: Still exploring whether to integrate with DAS.
Action Item: Glen, Marty, and Sibyl to converse and present ideas to DASS on December 18 conference call.
Marty: A lot of work was done a few weeks ago; haven’t returned to it since then. Could be a helpful orientation guideline for incoming DASS members.
Action Item: Prepare for review on January 2018 conference call.
Glen has created a document but hasn’t distributed to anyone yet. AV/DPN could go on this list. List of courses currently in Transformational tier, what was required, suggestions for new courses.
Action Item: Glen will send to full group before next meeting (December 18 conference call).
Solveig and Veronica pointed out need for clarification on page 2, paragraph 2, regarding “The questions must be taken from courses offered within the previous six months in order to ensure that exam-takers are tested on material that they’ve actually seen.” This is not accurate; definitely not previous six months, as there is a lag time of at least 12 to 18 months.
Glen questioned text on page 3 regarding what the LMS can export. Since we’re evaluating the system we don’t know what reports we actually need; if it can be exported into a spreadsheet and then imported, that may be a fairly easy solution.
Veronica: Tiers are not an issue in terms of scoring the test; more a factor in construction of test. Want to be sure to keep appropriate ratio of test questions to number of courses required at each tier.
Solveig: Sheet that test-takers receive now provides group minimum/average/maximum correct in each tier so that they can see how they did individually and in comparison with others who have taken the test.
Jeni: Does moving online mean that students won’t get these automatically separated out by tier?
Glen: Be more particular for those who fail. (Three to four fail a comp exam, so shouldn’t be a big deal to analyze manually for those folks.)
Jeni: Would be willing to say that only those who fail will they get a more detailed breakdown by tier.
Glen: Pilot questions really complicate things….
Veronica: Better off doing the 100 scored questions and asking them if they’d be willing to complete test questions (which aren’t scored for the individual). 100-question test remains static for period of one year. Much higher level of complexity if we include test questions.
Brianne: We would sell the course portal; they would have the exam plus an optional exam with test questions.
Solveig: We need a sample of 20-25 exams to evaluate the pilot questions.
Incentive to complete pilot questions? (Downing: 20% off coupon for next webcast.)
Decision: Include pilot questions in a separate test, regardless of when offered. (Unanimous agreement.)
Glen: How long before person has to take exam after they’ve paid for it?
Brianne: When you purchase exam, you can take it at any point. We can set a “hard” expiration date to keep everything in month restriction.
Glen: Some desire to have it be less than a month. Jeni: Not sure of advantage of having it open longer. Brianne: Once someone purchases, they can have a finite amount of time until purchase expires. Example: We open it from March 1 through March 31; no matter when they purchase, they must take exam by March 31.
Glen: Do we want to concentrate exams within a period of time? Benefit of concentration is that it allows evaluation by group. Currently three times per year (February/March, Annual Meeting, November).
Veronica: If core questions remain the same and pilot questions are included in a separate test, that would mean we’d wait until year end to do assessment of pilot questions with Sandy. Part of this is predicated on the thought that we would need to set a pass/fail in advance for the 100 core questions. Minimize Sandy’s role with analysis by pre-setting pass/fail.
Glen: Does anyone object to “fixing” pass/fail rate throughout the year. (No one objects.)
Decision: Fixed pass/fail rate moving forward.
Glen: Pick times for exams?
Jeni: If people can purchase at any time, have own expiration date based on purchase date. Any disadvantage? Could still set a date and collect results preceding that date?
Staff: See benefit in limiting test-taking dates based on ability to promote “cohorts” and make a splash for the program. Solveig: Better in terms of planning and continuity.
Jeni: Main motivation for asking is assumption that we want to increase accessibility, whether 4, 5, or 6 times.
Solveig: Previously accessibility was based on locations. Nancy: 4x per year or 6x per year?
Decision: Quarterly feels right for comp exam administration. Pick one month in each quarter.
Veronica: Better to start with new test in July? Still hold a February test in person. In July roll out new test in new format. Brianne: Push for February online. General: Or offer for first time in April?
Marty: Messaging to those who would expire before April is that they have an extension. Is very positive message.
Decision: Shoot for April 2018 for first administration of online comprehensive exam.
Glen: Analysis would correspond with quarterly test taking.
Jeni: When we were talking earlier about reports used to analyze by tier, this will also affect amount of time Sandy spends. She was able to get data divided by tier previously. Would have to be done manually in future.
Veronica: Wasn’t done automatically before. Won’t be that different.
Brianne: If we’re having Sandy do this four times, will it cost us more? Yes.
Glen: You would get your test results automatically?
Brianne: You would not know which questions you missed.
Veronica: That greatly reduces what Sandy is doing, so may not have to do analysis after each test administration (i.e., no additional costs).
Glen: We should have a meeting with her to study impact of these decisions versus what it would take to beef up the course exams.
Solveig: Making course exams “more better” would require a lot of input from committee and course instructors.
None. The call was adjourned at 3:05 pm Central time.
Next Call: Monday, December 18.