ࡱ> :<9} $bjbj55 42__YYYYYmmmmmO0!vYYY pppRYYppp:,f@ГmF. 0O8.XfYfxppO : Teaching and Learning Project Minutes February 21, 2012, 2:30-4:00pm, CO4-420 Present: Tawny Beal, Christina Goff, Mike Grillo, Paula Gunder, Kiran Kamath, Gil Rodriguez, Cindy McGrath, Gail Newman, Alex Stirling, Julie Van Bergen, Katalina Wethington, Scott Cabral (note taker) Public comments or announcements Approve Agenda Agenda approved Approve Minutes of Feb. 7 meeting Minutes approved with change to #4 Assessment Update, first bullet, . . . there are still those who are not doing anything. Add or responding. Assessment Updates PSLO: Cindy reported that when she added a new part to the 5-year assessment model, she reviewed the campus website and found six Occ Ed programs that had done PSLO assessment. There may be other stray programs like that. They may have done CSLO assessment of a capstone course as part of their program assessment. Cindy will check on that. CSLO: Christina reported that 182 out of 611 courses (29.8%) of courses have their CSLO assessment documented on the P: drive. There are programs such as environmental science and real estate that have courses that are not offered, but they are not inactivated. Those courses should have a Word document on the P: drive describing that they have not been assessed because they have not and will not be offered. Inactivated is different from not offered. We need a new category of courses that are not assessed because they are not and will not be offered for 1 1/2 years. We need a time limit for letting a course go unoffered. Spanish had 15 courses and they were only offering 5. If we inactivate courses, the total course number of 611 will go down. The 611 number counts courses, not sections. As a way to stimulate faculty to assess their courses, the deans proposed something similar to what was done to stimulate faculty to update their COORs with SLOs. At the end of the Sp12 semester, if a program has less than 50% of our courses assessed, then that programs unassessed courses will not be offered in Fa12. This is in response to some programs that have done very little assessing. One program is that we dont know how many courses are being assessed this semester. At some point, an unassessed course should not be offered. The percentage in the proposal can be altered, but some incremental step has to be taken to get assessment to be taken more seriously by certain areas. The Curricunet cover sheet could have a question about when the course was last assessed and this could affect whether the course goes through the Curriculum Committee. The 5-year assessment model will spread out assessment over five years, but there is an accreditation need to assess more courses now. In April, there will be an assessment document for accreditation that will be due in Fa12, and they wont accept any excuses. Most colleges are on probation due to assessment, and we dont want that to happen to us. Ideally, departments were supposed to have 1/3 of their courses assessed by June 11 and 2/3 of their courses assessed by June 12. The information about assessment does not seem to be trickling down to adjuncts. Cindy and Christina will talk to certain departments one-on-one and see where they are. Some people say they did the assessment in Fa11, but they havent posted the report to the P: drive. New Assessment Model Cindy gave out the draft version from 2-21-12 and said that she included many suggestions from the committee. Page 1: In the last sentence of the Overview, she changed major to comprehensive. Page 2: She made wording changes in some of the bullets. Page 3: There was no feedback about the graphic, so she left it the same. Page. 4: This is new. She redid the previous version of the graphic with the fancy formatting, and she rewrote the text on the right of the page. Page 5: Everywhere in the document where it says, Program and Unit Review, Assessment, and Planning, she will switch program and unit. The top of the page is all new. She reworded all the underlined text based on suggestions. She made it clear that departments have the flexibility to choose their assessment methodology. Page 6: She made minor working changes to emphasize that the research office offers support but does not make decisions about assessment methodology. Page 7: It has all new text about Student Services. Gail explained that during their 2-year cycle, they had themes that different Student Service departments would assess. In the part about GE assessment, it should be clear that department chairs oversee CSLO assessment, and when CSLOs are assessed, then GE SLOs are automatically also assessed because they align to the CSLOs. Alex was concerned that it would be hard for the GE chair to keep track of whether GE SLOs were being assessed in all departments. The GE committee could review this part of the model later. Page 8: One sentence (underlined) was changed on this page. Page 9: There were a few small changes. Page 10: Part C (roles and responsibilities) #5 and #6 were reworded. Page 11: Part F,, #2 and Part G, #2 need to be transposed. At the top of the page, Part E, #3 about completing the U/PRAP process for the TLP itself needs to be deleted. Page 12: In the heading of Part H, she changed the heading from Assessment of the Assessment Model . . . to Evaluation of the Assessment Model . . . Appendix I: No changes Appendix II: No changes Appendix III: She will need to get information and replace the xxx and yyy with numbers in the Spring 2010 description. Appendix IV: She will add information about the P: drive and CLASS. On page 23, the last sentence says that the TLP CSLO assessment coordinator has certain information which is actually available for anyone to see on the college website. Appendix V: Cindy still needs six hours to finish this. It will be about five page total. She will have this appendix for the next meeting. It was noted that the proposed TLP membership will be huge, with 18 people. On the other hand, there is some overlap, some of the positions are deans, and the three leads do most of the work; so, it is really ten faculty and a student rep. Not every meeting will be relevant to every member. The Academic Senate will give feedback on the membership along with the rest of the model. Cindy asked if there was approval of the 2-21-12 draft, and the approval was unanimous (Mike had left). We said that we trusted Cindy to make whatever changes were necessary before she presented the model to the SGC tomorrow. TLP Leadership Load (Part of item 5) Cindy showed us a listing of the reassigned time estimates that Richard requested because he needs to know it for Fa12. The estimates were based on her experience with regard to meetings that each person would have to go to, email time, phone time, research time, and other factors. She came up with the result that the TLP lead would be about a 25% load, and likewise for the GE Coordinator and the CSLO/PSLO Coordinator. It was thought that, if anything, the times listed were underestimates. With the GE meetings, Cindy will add meeting prep to agenda/minutes. The meeting ended at 4:05pm. %&.0167OX]  9 < = K L ^     ( ) [\̣̣̓{ococococochElCJOJQJaJhWjCJOJQJaJhsCJOJQJaJh:CJOJQJaJhG!GhG!G>*CJOJQJaJhG!G>*CJOJQJaJh?"h?">*CJOJQJaJh?"CJOJQJaJhG!GCJOJQJaJh}5CJOJQJaJh?"5CJOJQJaJh:5CJOJQJaJ%&NO  : ; < = L M ] ^   ) * \] dgd: dgd?"@\s-.5<   @ !!!!!""####wj[h:h:CJOJQJaJh:>*CJOJQJaJh!~{>*CJOJQJaJh:CJOJQJaJhCJOJQJaJhCJOJQJaJh!~{CJOJQJaJhX7CJOJQJaJhCJOJQJaJhElCJOJQJaJhEl>*CJOJQJaJhG!GCJOJQJaJhG!GhElCJOJQJaJ#vwRS./rs>?ghYZ dgd:Z  $% !!!!#####$$ dgd?" dgd:####$$;h?"h?"CJOJQJaJh?"CJOJQJaJh:hsCJOJQJaJhsCJOJQJaJhG!GCJOJQJaJ21h:p?"/ =!"#$% j 666666666vvvvvvvvv666666>6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666hH6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666662 0@P`p2( 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p8XV~ OJPJQJ_HmH nH sH tH J`J }Normal dCJ_HaJmH sH tH DA D Default Paragraph FontRiR 0 Table Normal4 l4a (k ( 0No List <0< ?"0 List Bullet  & Fm$DD : List Paragraph ^m$PK![Content_Types].xmlj0Eжr(΢Iw},-j4 wP-t#bΙ{UTU^hd}㨫)*1P' ^W0)T9<l#$yi};~@(Hu* Dנz/0ǰ $ X3aZ,D0j~3߶b~i>3\`?/[G\!-Rk.sԻ..a濭?PK!֧6 _rels/.relsj0 }Q%v/C/}(h"O = C?hv=Ʌ%[xp{۵_Pѣ<1H0ORBdJE4b$q_6LR7`0̞O,En7Lib/SeеPK!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xml M @}w7c(EbˮCAǠҟ7՛K Y, e.|,H,lxɴIsQ}#Ր ֵ+!,^$j=GW)E+& 8PK!Ptheme/theme/theme1.xmlYOo6w toc'vuر-MniP@I}úama[إ4:lЯGRX^6؊>$ !)O^rC$y@/yH*񄴽)޵߻UDb`}"qۋJחX^)I`nEp)liV[]1M<OP6r=zgbIguSebORD۫qu gZo~ٺlAplxpT0+[}`jzAV2Fi@qv֬5\|ʜ̭NleXdsjcs7f W+Ն7`g ȘJj|h(KD- dXiJ؇(x$( :;˹! I_TS 1?E??ZBΪmU/?~xY'y5g&΋/ɋ>GMGeD3Vq%'#q$8K)fw9:ĵ x}rxwr:\TZaG*y8IjbRc|XŻǿI u3KGnD1NIBs RuK>V.EL+M2#'fi ~V vl{u8zH *:(W☕ ~JTe\O*tHGHY}KNP*ݾ˦TѼ9/#A7qZ$*c?qUnwN%Oi4 =3ڗP 1Pm \\9Mؓ2aD];Yt\[x]}Wr|]g- eW )6-rCSj id DЇAΜIqbJ#x꺃 6k#ASh&ʌt(Q%p%m&]caSl=X\P1Mh9MVdDAaVB[݈fJíP|8 քAV^f Hn- "d>znNJ ة>b&2vKyϼD:,AGm\nziÙ.uχYC6OMf3or$5NHT[XF64T,ќM0E)`#5XY`פ;%1U٥m;R>QD DcpU'&LE/pm%]8firS4d 7y\`JnίI R3U~7+׸#m qBiDi*L69mY&iHE=(K&N!V.KeLDĕ{D vEꦚdeNƟe(MN9ߜR6&3(a/DUz<{ˊYȳV)9Z[4^n5!J?Q3eBoCM m<.vpIYfZY_p[=al-Y}Nc͙ŋ4vfavl'SA8|*u{-ߟ0%M07%<ҍPK! ѐ'theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsM 0wooӺ&݈Э5 6?$Q ,.aic21h:qm@RN;d`o7gK(M&$R(.1r'JЊT8V"AȻHu}|$b{P8g/]QAsم(#L[PK-![Content_Types].xmlPK-!֧6 +_rels/.relsPK-!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK-!Ptheme/theme/theme1.xmlPK-! ѐ' theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK]  2#$Z$8@0(  B S  ?X b orSX33333;<?@\a& hh^h`OJQJo(^`o(. ^`hH. pL^p`LhH. @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PL^P`LhH.a         :A?"%#a.X7G!Guc`WjEls!~{g6"I2}:?@`@UnknownG* Times New Roman5Symbol3. * Arial7.{ @CalibriA BCambria Math"qh g g.2.2!n202QHX $P?"2!xxLos Medanos CollegeLos Medanos College  Oh+'0  < H T`hpxӰɴýNormalӰɴý2Microsoft Office Word@F#@%@%.՜.+,0 hp  Ӱɴý2  Title  !"#$%&'(*+,-./02345678;Root Entry F0ד=1TableWordDocument42SummaryInformation()DocumentSummaryInformation81CompObjy  F'Microsoft Office Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q