╨╧рб▒с>■ <>■ ; ье┴{` Ё┐!bjbjюFюF .,М,М, диииииии╝дддд╕╝в"2╪╪╪╪╪╪╪╪!"#"#"#"#"#"#"$╘#h<&╝G"иь╪╪ььG"ии╪╪\"ВВВь^и╪и╪!"Вь!"ВВОq hиин!╪╠Ё;ТАL╞дJF┘ "r"0в"щ ─°&Р▄°& н!°&ин!`╪vNTВвDц╪╪╪G"G"l╪╪╪в"ьььь╝╝╝D д╝╝╝ ╝╝╝ииииии Teaching and Learning Project Minutes February 21, 2006 Present: Ginny Buttermore, Kiran Kamath, Richard Livingston, Cindy McGrath, Gil Rodriguez, Humberto Sale, Myra Snell, Nancy Ybarra Guests: Ken Alexander (on behalf of Curriculum Committee), Dan Henry (on behalf of PresidentТs Council), Erich Holtmann (on behalf of Academic Senate), Sandi Schmidt (on behalf of classified staff on SGC) Approval of Agenda and Minutes of November 15, 2005 Approved. Announcements The following were invited to this retreat but were not able to attend: representatives from the Distance Ed. Committee, faculty representatives from SGC Next steps in the collegeТs assessment efforts Background and goal of todayТs retreat: This fall ╨╙░╔┤л├╜ will begin its accreditation self-study. In the self-study members of the college community will have the opportunity to evaluate the assessment efforts of the Teaching and Learning Project and determine if the current approach to assessment is the direction in which the college should continue. If there is support for the TLPТs initiatives, there will need to be a vision of how the college will move beyond the pilot phase and more fully institutionalize current assessment efforts. The goal of this retreat is to create this vision and to identify implementation issues that will need to be addressed. Toward this end, we will build on the preliminary conversation summarized in 11/15/05 minutes of the TLP, see the Уprogram review and the TLPФ section of these minutes. Due to the college-wide implications of this conversation, we have invited those in a wide range of leadership positions to participate. Opening clarification: УAssessing our approach to assessmentФ: The retreat began with a discussion of the purpose of the self-study. The accreditation site visit is FA 08 (not SP 08 as indicated on the TLP timeline!). The self-study will take place SP 07-FA 07 (not starting in FA 06 as indicated on the TLP timeline!). Myra and Nancy have been operating under the premise (or delusion!) that the accreditation self-study would provide the college with a mechanism for evaluating the TLPТs approach to assessment. This idea originated in the original Academic Senate Assessment Task Force that envisioned the staff development/ institutional portfolio approach to assessment as a pilot that would be assessed then institutionalized or dumped at the self-study. Hence when the Academic Senate asked how the TLP is assessing its own work, Nancy and Myra told them that the work of the TLP would be assessed during the self-study. Dan emphasized that the self-study is meant as a reporting tool, not as a mechanism for evaluating the effectiveness of college processes. The accreditation standards require Уinstitutional dialogueФ about assessment and through this dialogue the evaluation takes place. We need to continue to build venues for this dialogue, perhaps another college assembly. We are already Уon the roadФ with TLP updates to Academic Senate, Classified Senate, and SGC. Premise of ideas discussed today: The goal of assessment is to improve teaching and learning. So assessment is most effective when controlled and conducted by those closest to the means for implementing plans for improving teaching and learning. Summary of the conversation at the retreat: To move the locus of control closer to those who have the greatest ability to affect improvements in learning, we discussed a series of drafts that would empower the GE, DE, Occ. Ed, Student Services and eventually the Library and Learning Support Services Committees to identify, design, conduct, and respond to assessment projects in their respective areas. Each draft suggested changes to the charge and membership of these committees. We went through each of the drafts and no major objections were noted. We decided to forward these drafts to the respective committees for feedback. Then the drafts will need to be discussed in Academic Senate, Curriculum Committee, and SGC. Since SGC has the power to form committees and formulate their charge, the TLP will eventually need to formally recommend these changes to the SGC. The following general comments were made: The УempoweredФ committee approach to assessment fails to address some skills and abilities that are not part of the Уinstitution-levelФ learning outcomes, e.g. graduation requirements established by the Board, civic literacy, quantitative literacy, etc. Accreditation requires assessment of learning at the end of the certificate/degree. Does this plan meet that requirement? If not, who is responsible for assessment of certificate/degree? We need to work on vocabulary. Do we have Уinstitution-levelФ or Уmega-program-levelФ learning outcomes? Do the Уinstitution-levelФ SLOТs align with the college mission, goals, and strategic initiatives? Part of our discussion of moving the locus of responsibility for assessment involved a discussion of release time for leadership. Currently, the college allocates 0.5 for TLP leadership. We discussed the possibility of providing release time for leadership at the committee level. Currently, the DE Committee is allocated release time that is tied to assessment and staff development responsibilities. Second to DE, we have done the most assessment and staff development work in GE, so we discussed the possibility of devoting 0.25 to GE leadership and reducing TLP coordination to 0.25 in Fall 2007. At that point, we would need to go back through the FPM process to see if the college is willing to allocate additional release time to coordinate and conduct assessment efforts in Occ. Ed and the other areas. Part of our discussion focused on reporting relationships. The five committees would request funding from the TLP for assessment projects in their area. These committees would also report on the progress or obstacles encountered when conducting assessment work. The TLP would Уassess the campusТ assessment effortsФ and report to the SGC on progress toward relevant master plan goals and strategic initiatives the Curriculum Committee on issues related to the establishment and measurement of program-level SLOs the Academic Senate on issues relevant to institutional planning. Next steps: Get feedback from the five committees on suggestions for changes to charge and membership. Get feedback from SGC, Academic Senate, and Curriculum Committee &78╥Ў $ 4 S b Й Л м ╕ ╛ └ ┴ ┬ ╦ ╠ ▄ u v w Б е ж з и ╧ ╨ ┼╥▌яЎ< = > ? ч prЗЙп╪ўўЄэщхсхсхсхсх┌╙┌╠┼┌с╛┌с╖░╙░╠┼┌исдадЬадаЬХ┌аЬсНЙНЙЕЙhL2Єhчhчhч5БhПЩhПЩhкЬh {gh>hРhяhРhя5БhкЬ5Б>*hРhяhРhяhРhяhПЩh╛ShПЩh╛S5Б>*h>5Б>*hПЩ5Б>*hРhяhП_hПЩ h>5Б hП_5Бh╛ShПЩ5Б3&89╝╜К Л ┴ ┬ ╠ ═ █ ▄ v w з и > ? qr╪┘╨╤■ўўўЄэЄЄЄЄЄЄЄЄЄЄЄЄЄЄЄЄЄшЄЄЄЄgdчgdП_gdПЩ$a$gdПЩ!¤JPsv░┘∙@H╧╤√■Rkf┤№ю!/5:;КЛТУдеюя,|╨ч╡╢` l !!!№°№°№°№°Ёьшьшр▄ь╪ьш╘╪╨╪╨╪╠╪╘╪╨╪╨╪▄ш╚▄╨▄ш╚ш─ш╝ш─╡hПЩhПЩhS@`hS@`5БhПЩh_1h {gh uЕhL2Єh┌[╜hчhчhч5БhS@`hРhяhРhяhРhя5БhчhЧ0■;<gf"Люяf╢ ^ _ ` l m ╚ ! !!!···ЄЄЄЄ····ъъъхххх▌▌╘··Дh^ДhgdS@` &FgdS@`gdS@` &FgdS@` &Fgd┌[╜gdПЩ,1Рh░╨/ ░р=!░"░#Ра$Ра%░░╨░╨Р╨ЖЬD@ё DNormalCJ^J_HaJmH sH tH DAЄ бDDefault Paragraph FontRiє │RTable NormalЎ4╓ l4╓aЎ(kЇ ┴(No List, &89╝╜КЛ┴┬╠═█▄vwзи>?qr╪┘╨╤■;<gf"Люяf╢^_`lm╚ Ш0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ 0ААШ 0ААШ 0ААШ 0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ 0ААШ 0ААШ 0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ 0ААШ 0ААШ0ААШ0ААШ0АА&89╝╜КЛ┴┬╠═█▄vwзи>?qr╪┘╨╤■;<gf"ЛюяШ0АААШ0АААШ0АААЪ0АААШ0АААШ0АААШ0АААШ0АААШ0АААШ0АААШ0АААШ0АААШ0АААШ0АААШ0АААЪ0АААШ0АААШ0АААШ0АААШ0АААШ0АААШ0АААЪ0ААШ0АААШ0АААШ0АААЪ0ААА{И0АyИ0АyИ0АyИ0 АЪ0АААШ0АААЪ0ААА{И00А{И00А{И00╘Щ!■!! лв ╝Ммвмm=нв &?ов lm=пвьm=░в DG=▒в Ї?▓в╠Wгг▓╗╗╖ ┴ ┴ зз╢└└╝ ┼ ┼ V*Аurn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsАplaceАhttp://www.5iantlavalamp.com/h*Аurn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsАCity0Аhttp://www.5iamas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags╝>Ф#(ж░V[м п жл¤┬╦диL▓=A333388vvJkpqsv░¤¤R k J:JRZZdef!"ю╨чж░qx'ъўкЪ ▓{l/yр8 }zsT▓┐\▒ <(XФX" +'ш^о3z╥ hД╨ДШ■╞╨^Д╨`ДШ■OJQJo(ЗhИH╖ЁРhДаДШ■╞а^Да`ДШ■OJQJ^Jo(ЗhИHoРhДpДШ■╞p^Дp`ДШ■OJQJo(ЗhИHзЁРhД@ДШ■╞@^Д@`ДШ■OJQJo(ЗhИH╖ЁРhДДШ■╞^Д`ДШ■OJQJ^Jo(ЗhИHoРhДрДШ■╞р^Др`ДШ■OJQJo(ЗhИHзЁРhД░ДШ■╞░^Д░`ДШ■OJQJo(ЗhИH╖ЁРhДАДШ■╞А^ДА`ДШ■OJQJ^Jo(ЗhИHoРhДPДШ■╞P^ДP`ДШ■OJQJo(ЗhИHзЁhД╨ДШ■╞╨^Д╨`ДШ■OJQJo(ЗhИH╖ЁРhДаДШ■╞а^Да`ДШ■OJQJ^Jo(ЗhИHoРhДpДШ■╞p^Дp`ДШ■OJQJo(ЗhИHзЁРhД@ДШ■╞@^Д@`ДШ■OJQJo(ЗhИH╖ЁРhДДШ■╞^Д`ДШ■OJQJ^Jo(ЗhИHoРhДрДШ■╞р^Др`ДШ■OJQJo(ЗhИHзЁРhД░ДШ■╞░^Д░`ДШ■OJQJo(ЗhИH╖ЁРhДАДШ■╞А^ДА`ДШ■OJQJ^Jo(ЗhИHoРhДPДШ■╞P^ДP`ДШ■OJQJo(ЗhИHзЁhД╨ДШ■╞╨^Д╨`ДШ■OJQJo(ЗhИH╖ЁРhДаДШ■╞а^Да`ДШ■OJQJ^Jo(ЗhИHoРhДpДШ■╞p^Дp`ДШ■OJQJo(ЗhИHзЁРhД@ДШ■╞@^Д@`ДШ■OJQJo(ЗhИH╖ЁРhДДШ■╞^Д`ДШ■OJQJ^Jo(ЗhИHoРhДрДШ■╞р^Др`ДШ■OJQJo(ЗhИHзЁРhД░ДШ■╞░^Д░`ДШ■OJQJo(ЗhИH╖ЁРhДАДШ■╞А^ДА`ДШ■OJQJ^Jo(ЗhИHoРhДPДШ■╞P^ДP`ДШ■OJQJo(ЗhИHзЁhД╨ДШ■╞╨^Д╨`ДШ■OJQJo(ЗhИH╖ЁРhДаДШ■╞а^Да`ДШ■OJQJ^Jo(ЗhИHoРhДpДШ■╞p^Дp`ДШ■OJQJo(ЗhИHзЁРhД@ДШ■╞@^Д@`ДШ■OJQJo(ЗhИH╖ЁРhДДШ■╞^Д`ДШ■OJQJ^Jo(ЗhИHoРhДрДШ■╞р^Др`ДШ■OJQJo(ЗhИHзЁРhД░ДШ■╞░^Д░`ДШ■OJQJo(ЗhИH╖ЁРhДАДШ■╞А^ДА`ДШ■OJQJ^Jo(ЗhИHoРhДPДШ■╞P^ДP`ДШ■OJQJo(ЗhИHзЁД╨ДШ■╞╨^Д╨`ДШ■o(.А ДаДШ■╞а^Да`ДШ■ЗhИH.В ДpДL ╞p^Дp`ДL ЗhИH.А Д@ДШ■╞@^Д@`ДШ■ЗhИH.А ДДШ■╞^Д`ДШ■ЗhИH.В ДрДL ╞р^Др`ДL ЗhИH.А Д░ДШ■╞░^Д░`ДШ■ЗhИH.А ДАДШ■╞А^ДА`ДШ■ЗhИH.В ДPДL ╞P^ДP`ДL ЗhИH.}zsT▓{l/+'ш^<(Xqx' х>Чч╡ _1╛SП_S@` {gM y uЕПЩкЬ┌[╜8╓чРhяL2Є/#гїv @А░░8H%░░@@ Unknown GРЗz А Times New Roman5РАSymbol3&РЗz А Arial?5Р Зz А Courier New;РАWingdings"1ИЁ╨h╪вг&,дг&¤╜O-╜O-$Ёе└┤┤ББ42ГqЁIX Ё ?ф ПЩ2 Teaching and Learning ProjectInformation TechnologyInformation Technology ■ рЕЯЄ∙OhлС+'│┘0дРШ└╠ь° 4@ `l xДМФЬф Teaching and Learning ProjectInformation TechnologyNormalInformation Technology5Microsoft Office Word@.№W#@╫SL╞@ИЛАL╞╜O■ ╒═╒Ь.УЧ+,∙о0hpМФЬдм┤╝─ ╠Ўф╨╙░╔┤л├╜-GTeaching and Learning ProjectTitle ■ !"#$%&'()*■ ,-./012■ 456789:■ ¤ =■ ■ ■ Root Entry └FЄNТАL╞?А1Table 'WordDocument .,SummaryInformation( +DocumentSummaryInformation8 3CompObj q ■ ■ └FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.8Ї9▓q