Portland State University UUPP Faculty Committee Minutes

May 5, 1999 Present: Bob Everhart, Michael Flower, Kathi Ketcheson, Carol Morgaine, Judy Patton, Michael Reardon, Gerry Recktenwald, Juliette Stoering, Jim Strathman, Maria Talbott, and Tricia Drew. Absent: Wally Pfeiffer, Ellen Skinner, and Jackie Temple. External Audience Representatives Dr. Sherwin Davidson, Vice-Provost and Dean, School of Extended Studies (LIfelongx Learning) Mr. Scott Quick and Mr. Rob Fenstermaker, STEP Technology (Technology) Dr. Ron Cease, Chair, Public Administration Program (Local Political) Mr. Duncan Wyse, Oregon Business Council (Business) Ms. Judy Sandoval, Guidance Counselor, Gresham High School (Guidance Counselors) Dr. Ken Dueker, Transportation Research Group, College of Urban and Public Affairs (City Planning/Transportation) Kathi Ketcheson began the meeting by giving a brief overview of portfolios in general, the purpose of the Urban Universities Portfolio Project, and PSU’s progress on the Portfolio to date. She explained that the Faculty Committee is seeking the representatives’ input about the Portfolio because the Portfolio aims to foster communication with multiple external audiences. The meeting participants broke into two groups to discuss the Portfolio. The representatives addressed a variety of issues in reference to five discussion questions presented to the participants. These issues included the number of audiences addressed, assessment, the Portfolio’s message and medium, and technological limitations. Below, notes from the two groups are combined and organized thematically. Audiences Judy Sandoval suggested that high school counselors are already able to find the information they need about PSU. She would prefer that the Portfolio ensure that its content is accessible and relevant to high school students. Typical examples of high school students’ questions about universities include: "How do I get in?" "Can I get in without a high school diploma?" "Does the school have money for me?" "Why should I go to this school and not somewhere else?" "What’s an urban university?" "Is there a way I can talk with some students who already go to PSU?" "Is Portland State really for me?" She felt that the portfolio should not be a marketing tool, but rather a way for prospective students to gain a sense of what they might expect to do and what other students do at PSU. Ron Cease recognized the utility of the Portfolio for legislators and government offices. Some legislators would use the Portfolio when dealing with budget specifics. Duncan Wyse offered a different perspective; he felt the Portfolio should not be tailored to oversight or other legislative committees. Instead, the Portfolio should be a concrete example of what PSU does for its customers and should facilitate contact between the community and PSU faculty, staff, and students. Ken Dueker recommended that peer institutions be considered as a possible Portfolio audience. Rob Fenstermaker thought the Faculty Committee should pick no more than five broad target audiences. As an individual, he named three distinct ways that he would use the Portfolio. As a father, he would want information about PSU’s locale, faculty, and programs. As a life-long learner, he would want information about continuing education classes. As a businessman, he would want information about recruiting, internships, and training opportunities. Assessment Bob Everhart explained that the Faculty Committee has wrestled with making the portfolio more than a marketing tool and asked the representatives whether assessment would be a useful function of the Portfolio. The representatives expressed general agreement that it would. Duncan Wyse felt that an assessment feedback loop would build program credibility. Ron Cease commented that although accreditation teams look for specific indicators in the review process, conveying the sense that exciting and dynamic activities are happening also expedites review. The group felt the portfolio should demonstrate how the university makes use of its environment and in what direction is it moving, while also providing a means for self-assessment. Ken Dueker and Rob Fenstermaker suggested that cross-sectional and longitudinal assessments are integral to the Portfolio. A cross-sectional assessment could highlight commonalties within the university (between departments, programs, etc.). Longitudinal assessment could help PSU track changes and improvements over time. The representatives wanted examples of how PSU is a different and better place than it was a few years ago documented in the Portfolio. Scott Quick compared the Portfolio to drafting a business plan: PSU can document the present situation and its vision for the future in the Portfolio, and use the portfolio as an analytical tool for progress. Message and Medium The representatives reiterated that the portfolio should be concrete and practical. Personal stories will make it come alive. In the prototype, the group emphasized organizing the audiences’ understanding of functional areas—not around programs and divisions Rob Fenstermaker suggested that the Faculty Committee clearly identify their audiences. Once they are chosen, the Committee should hone in on the message that is to be communicated to each audience. What is the goal of communication with each stakeholder? Scott Quick remarked that the Faculty Committee should decide on an overarching message to display in the portfolio, for example, highlighting the connection of PSU to the community. The Faculty Committee should consider breaking the Portfolio content into categories based on the audiences. The content must also be finite with clear boundaries. Maintenance and management issues should not guide the organization of the portfolio; instead the content should be organized in a way that makes sense to the audiences. The Faculty Committee should distill the features in the Portfolio and prioritize what to communicate to audiences. These priorities can be measured against constraints imposed on the project to determine how to proceed. Duncan Wyse suggested that the Faculty Committee define categories at the outset. He suggested the following categories: Community service, internships, professional education, undergraduate education, lifelong learning, and arts and community events. Scott Quick reminded the group that more could always be added later. Concurrent with message selection, the Faculty Committee should choose the technological medium to use. According to Rob Fenstermaker, the content of the Portfolio should complement the technology. For example, if the Portfolio consists of five content areas, these must all be brought together by the Portfolio’s design. Barbara Walvord, a National Review Board Member, suggested that the Portfolio’s conceptual and technological design process could be envisioned as a triangle: message medium audience Scott Quick suggested that the Faculty Committee test not only the message but also the architectural issues (i.e., the conceptual organization). The Committee should discuss how the overarching message interacts with constituents and publics? He felt that the next steps should be to coalesce the prototype and test market it for customer validation. For the prototype he recommended that we define the major categories and then develop one area thoroughly to its conclusion. The group suggested that the Faculty Committee establish guidance and clearly outlined principles for material selection, keeping in mind the multiplicity of audience viewpoints. The text of the Portfolio should be simple; Rob Fenstermaker envisioned a multidimensional information array that is not textual in any deep sense but, rather, is inviting and widely readable. Technological Limits of the Portfolio Three factors limited the size of the Portfolio: necessity of navigational ease, space constraints on the server, and the human commitment needed to keep it updated. As the Portfolio grows, it will contain more and more links with an exponentially increasing number of links between documents. As the number of links increases, they will become easier to break. For these reasons, it is necessary to take a realistic look at the limits of the Portfolio. Michael Flower noted that the Portfolio might push past these limits if the limitations are not acknowledged. Before proceeding with the construction, the Committee should investigate how complex the Portfolio can become and still remain functional. Other Comments Ron Cease suggested that the Portfolio could be used to communicate with other programs across the country. If a national level Portfolio were created, cross-sectional assessment might provide comparisons among institutions. It might be a ‘gateway’ for the user to explore the differences among institutions before focusing on PSU in particular.