Members Absent: Penny Asbury, Kelly Blake, David Martin, Karen Fahey, Jo Ann Raines, Ron Fleshman, Tom Whittier, Anna Reno

Others Present: Kathleen Bors, Jane Horst, Dennis McCutcheon, April Vestal

Jodie Jackson and Helen Baker gave an update of the electronic implementation of the new evaluation forms and handed out a copy of the Electronic Implementation protocol.  Jennifer Allen will present this document at the site coordinator meeting tomorrow.

Jodie Jackson gave an update of the evaluation reports, 7/1/00 – 9/30/00 discussing the low n that prohibited analysis of some of the consortia and some disciplines.  Jodie suggested that utilizing 6 months of data would give a larger n and, hence, a better and more thorough bar chart analysis than 3 or 4 months worth of data and proposed executing bar chart analysis every six months and compiling open-ended responses every 3 months for view by designated school representative and committees.  No objections were voiced..

Bar chart analysis
Data Collection Period Report available from Alex
Jan 1 – June 30 July 30
July 1 – December 31 January 31
 

Open-ended Responses
Data Collection Period Report available from Alex
Jan 1 – March 31 each year April 15 each year
April 1 – June 30 each year July 15
July 1 – September 30 October 15
October 1 – December 31 January 15

Response rates were discussed and it was suggested that we should look at responses rates by school as well as consortium:  is it a site issue or a school issue?  The importance of the correct entry of data into TRACKER was discussed.  It was suggested that Mark Allen conduct TRACKER training again for site coordinators and site secretaries.  It was suggested that this be a mandatory requirement.  Jodie mentioned that Mark Allen will be conducting TRACKER training for WVU campus coordinators in December

The role of the Evaluation Committee was discussed.  The questions posed included:

• Who should review the evaluation reports?  Who would be most likely to use it to improve the program?
• To whom do we answer? (feedback from the School Committee and the Site Coordinators was sought in the development of the new evaluation forms)
• How is this data being used now?

The pros and cons of the involvement of the Evaluation Committee in the evaluation of field faculty was discussed.  The pros include:  a) some field faculty would like to see this and b) faculty improvement efforts are important since faculty make a huge impact on the quality of the RHEP program.  The cons include:  a) some faculty don’t want this; b) if this involved another form for students to complete, it could result in a less-than-thoughtful completion of all evaluation forms by students and c) most individual schools conduct their own evaluations.  No action taken at this time.

The Outreach? Committee’s request for copies of the evaluation reports was discussed.  They will be granted copies of evaluation reports with negative references to specific field faculty blacked out.

Helen Baker discussed the results of the Field Faculty Survey done about one year ago.  There was a 25% response rate.  67% of those responding said that they use email on a regular basis which may indicate that email may be an appropriate means of communicating with field faculty.  There was nothing in the results that needed to be addressed by the Evaluation Committee.