аЯрЁБс>ўџ 13ўџџџ0џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџьЅСq` №П“ bjbjqPqP .,::“џџџџџџЄЄЄЄЄЄЄЄИ    0 Иh ЖP P P P P P P P ч щ щ щ щ щ щ $h†‚ ЄЏ P P Џ Џ ЄЄP P " — — — Џ vЄP ЄP ч — Џ ч — — ЄЄ— P D 0a‚3ЫEЩ % "— ч 8 0h — G F— Є— PP Ўў |— z dо бP P P  P P P h Џ Џ Џ Џ ИИИd ИИИ ИИИЄЄЄЄЄЄџџџџ  Teaching and Learning Project Minutes October 21, 2008 Present: Richard Livingston, Debbie Wilson, Michael Norris, Christina Goff, Humberto Sale, Gil Rodriguez, Gail Newman, Ruth Goodin, Ken Alexander, Julie Von Bergen, Ginny Richards, Cherry Li-Bugg, Nancy Ybarra. Minutes of September 16 were approved, as was today’s agenda. Announcements In their exit interview on Oct.16, the Accreditation Site Team commended the college for its work on assessment at the institutional and program levels. At the course level, it recommended a plan be devised to update the vast majority of courses (at least 75%) that are out of date. Since course level student learning outcomes are connected to our course outlines of record, we are significantly deficient in assessment at the course level. Informal Reports from those who attended the Student Success Conference in Anaheim at the beginning of October: Michael Norris was impressed by a demonstration of Elumen, software that tracks assessment of SLOs at multiple levels. This software interfaces with Datatel, and allows teachers to plug in data as they grade. This data can then be sorted in various ways to look at patterns across disciplines and at multiple levels: course, program and institutional. According to the vendor, it goes beyond CurricuNet in its ability to track SLO assessment. Debbie Wilson, one of our two new “assessment coaches” for occupational education, attended the conference in hopes of finding tools and ideas to help her in her new role. She learned that SLOs are inherent in occupational education and are already embedded in most, if not all, occupational ed. courses. “Start where you are” and plan for meaningful alignment. The bottom line is student learning and success, not compliance. Debbie particularly took note of the observation by one presenter at a workshop she attended that while faculty may not always be interested in the process of assessment, they are usually interested in the results. And the results can be positive- it’s not always bad news. Julie Von Bergen reported that she co-presented with Myra Snell in a session on assessment efforts in math, particularly on bringing students into the process. Myra did several other presentations at the conference. агАЩДЋУН was well represented. Gil noted that there were 10 different strands at the conference and perhaps next year we could try to send more people to cover different strands, particularly student services. He brought back some handouts from different sessions that he will share with people who may be interested in the information. Program Review and TLP Reports Nancy brought in two sample TLP reports that had been completed early and are on the TLP website to serve as models for programs that are still working on that Nov. 26th deadline. One was from Child Development and the other was from Information Services. Both were thorough, complete, and “closed the loop” in terms of an action plan to improve learning. Thanks to Pam Perfumo and Kathy Cullar for providing these models! Based on these reports, and others that have been submitted to TLP, we decided to keep the current format for planning – the grid- and the report format as it is. They work! The next question we considered was what to do with the TLP reports once they are submitted with the program reviews. Who will look at them and provide feedback or assistance? After some conversation, we decided that Gil, Nancy, Kiran, and Michael – and anyone who wants to join them- will go through the reports and sort them into piles for review by the following groups: occupational education committee, student services committee, L&LSS committee, general education committee, and “other” which the TLP will look at and either review themselves or decide on an appropriate group for peer review. TLP will meet on January 20 to get started on this process. Course Level Assessment While it probably falls to Curriculum Committee, department chairs, and the Office of Instruction to develop a plan to ensure that all course outlines of record are updated pronto, it is still the responsibility of the TLP to plan for and facilitate course level assessment. While we might make the argument that the new COOR does a careful job of ensuring that there is close alignment between course SLOs and grading practices, we need to begin the work of documenting student learning at the course level. Nancy suggested that one place to begin might be to look at courses that typically offer 5 or more sections, are required for a degree, and/or are not already participating in some form of institutional level assessment. Gil will begin with compiling a list of courses with 5 or more sections for us to review at our next meeting. We all agreed that where possible, it would be wise to align course level assessment efforts with program and institutional level. Christina suggested adding a box on the assessment planning grid that would indicate that a program level assessment was also focused on a particular course. Richard also noted that we should be “mapping” course level SLOs with program and institutional level SLOs. Perhaps this too is something we could incorporate into the program review process – each program could fill in a template we create for such a map. TLP Coordination beginning Fall 2009 – after Nancy Nancy will be resigning as Coordinator of the Teaching and Learning Project at the end of the Spring 2009 semester- after 5 years, she feels it is time for new leadership to advance assessment efforts at агАЩДЋУН. Based on other recommendations from the Accreditation Site Visit Team, and her own reflections on the need for both faculty participation and consistent expertise and consultation, she recommends that the college consider hiring an educational researcher and a professional development specialist to guide the efforts of faculty and staff who are leading the “Big 5”. While the faculty leadership positions would rotate, there would be stable support and continuity provided by the educational researcher and professional development specialist – permanent positions that would not rotate. This is just an idea of course, and the college will need to have this conversation in various venues and reach a decision. 8МСN [ \ S V Ц Ю Џ Я щ ћ  E G -^ak…РЧ-LM›Ё­єіЁЂ|ќ789QRdiЛМѓыуыплпбЧплплпУлУПУпЛлЛлЛГЛГЛпЏбЊЏлЏІžІЏІš–І–Œ‡–л–ƒhф3V h–D˜>*h"ch–D˜5>*h–D˜he;hђpіhђpіH*hђpі hŠ9ѕ>*hŠ9ѕh Еh Е6h Еhф>8h4йh"chK,5>*h"chŠ9ѕ5>*h"chK,hЕ'[hG$5hЕ'[hK,5hЕ'[hЕ'[5CJ$aJ$3'89:  L M N \ ]    Š ‹ F G јљ,-LMїїїїїїђђђђђђђђђђђђђђђђђђђђђђgdK,$a$gdK,“ §MЂЃ89QRНОёђѓ ‘ ’ “ њњњњњњњњњњњњњњњgdK,МНОёѓ  “ ќјюъјупhŠ9ѕ hŠ9ѕhe;he;h"ch(35>*h(3h–D˜,1hАа/ Ар=!А"А# $ %ААаАа а†œ@@ёџ@ NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH DAђџЁD Default Paragraph FontRiѓџГR  Table Normalі4ж l4жaі (kєџС(No List“,џџџџ'89: LMN\]Š‹FGјљ, - L M Ђ Ѓ 89QRНОёђѓ‘’•˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€М“ M“ “ џџ  Q˜2фѓ Q˜2лB Q˜2|њ Q˜2$PQ˜2дяШQ˜2МnPQ˜2DhPQ˜2дF Q˜2lbДQ˜2ЙQ˜2l€PQ˜2Є]GeeІІM M OOыыѓѓ•   llЊЊR R TT№№јј• 8 *€urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags€City€9 *€urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags€place€ р5 ОФщэ 'б з фшїћ!%•йнQW•33N]- L — Ђ 9Q••х "cG$K,(3ф>8e;ф3VЕ'[Z}–D˜ Е4йŠ9ѕђpіџ@€  ”nD  “`@џџUnknownџџџџџџџџџџџџG‡z €џTimes New Roman5€Symbol3& ‡z €џArial"qˆ№аhєКЪ†kЫ† xЊщ ,Њщ ,$№ЅРДД24‡‡2ƒ№HX)№џ?фџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџG$2џџInformation TechnologyInformation Technologyўџр…ŸђљOhЋ‘+'Гй0Œ˜ЄАамшќ ( H T `lt|„фInformation Technology Normal.dotInformation Technology9Microsoft Office Word@аˆУ@АњЯH5Щ@ў‘ЫEЩЊщўџеЭеœ.“—+,љЎ0ј hpŒ”œЄ ЌДМФ Ь йфагАЩДЋУН, ‡'  Title ўџџџўџџџ!"#$%&'ўџџџ)*+,-./ўџџџ§џџџ2ўџџџўџџџўџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџRoot Entryџџџџџџџџ РF0в„3ЫEЩ4€1TableџџџџџџџџWordDocumentџџџџџџџџ.,SummaryInformation(џџџџ DocumentSummaryInformation8џџџџџџџџџџџџ(CompObjџџџџџџџџџџџџqџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџўџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџўџ џџџџ РFMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.8є9Вq