ACADEMIC AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE OF THE CPC
MINUTES
FOR THE MEETING OF
April 21, 2004
2:30 P.M.
President’s Conference Room
Attending:
Administration – Nancy Carson, Bobby McNeel, Bob Richards, Ann Tomlinson
Faculty –Carmen Carrillo, Sally Gogin, Bruce Lemon, Lauren McKenzie, Jim Stanbery, Pamela Watkins, Mark Wood, Laurel Woodley, Bradley Young
Classified –Traci Liley
Students – Ana Velasco
Absent: Administration - Charlie Bossler, Luis Rosas, Faculty – Nabeel Barakat, Joy Fisher, Wendy Hollis, Susan McMurray, Stanley Sandell, Classified –Hovsep Kotelyan, Classified Manager - Carla Mussa-Muldoon, Students - Phillip Horsley, Kalani Mailo, Anthony Rodriguez, Arsenio Navarro-Rodriguez
Nancy Carson chaired the meeting in place of Luis Rosas (jury duty).
I. MINUTES
The Minutes of the March 17, 2004 meeting were distributed.
II. PROGRAM REVIEW
III. VIABILITY STUDIES
With the mini-program review chairs have done a good part of the work necessary for the full review required as part of the accreditation process. The Grant Allocation Task Force (GAC) was impressed with the work done so far. The full review should not be seen as an opportunity to share personal unhappiness but rather an opportunity to focus on student learning outcomes and improvements. Some years back, there were 10 accreditation standards. The standards were later reduced to eight, and now we will be working within four.
Ann Tomlinson distributed a packet to guide members through the review process including:
Any objective in outlines must be reflected in the contract.
Identify people working on this, the responsible party and reporting dean.
Chairs are asked to provide to Ann Tomlinson the target date, identify individual with primary responsibility, meeting dates and a specific timeline. Members agreed to have this information to Dr. Tomlinson by Thursday, 4/29/04. An exception was granted to Pamela Watkins, who will see that her information is received by Monday, 5/03/04. The presenters at the 3/26/04 Accreditation Workshop made clear their zero tolerance philosophy on incomplete work. The program review summary asks seven questions, which could easily be done this semester. It does not ask what financial resources are needed for this program. Student learning is the purpose and goal. The campus has talked and talked about money and the need for money, now is the time to address student learning outcomes.
Appendix A of the handout deals with a Student Satisfaction Survey. It might prove helpful to those areas planning to survey their students as it covers the basics including equipment and resources. A survey does not need to be completed. There is also a sample Industry Needs Survey for member’s information.
Appendix C sets out the
timeline for planning.
Appendix D is Sally Fasteau’s summary as a sample.
Appendix E is the College course outline. Note (on page 2.) entry skills/objectives must be measurable. Exit skills must refer back to course content.
Appendix F pre-requisites need to be validated every five years.
There are five categories of SCANS competencies on the District course outline form: resources, interpersonal, information, systems, and technology. General academic standards should include critical thinking as well as quantitative reasoning.
Paradigms in teaching/learning have shifted. The teacher is more the coach in a collaborative style, teaching students to become learner themselves. In a move to become a school of tomorrow, the focus should be on active learning and participatory learning.
Good news! Dr. Tomlinson has received the small evaluations from every area expected. Electronics and Drafting are doing an expanded process. The programs with enrollments below 25 have already been prepared and turned in to the GAC.
Bloom’s Taxonomy guides should be helpful to members as they include knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, evaluation in their course outlines. Elements of an Assessment Plan is also an excellent resource.
Mrs. Carson commented on the need to have data market information to continue an occupational program. She recommended incorporating this in the program review. Nursing, AJ, Media Arts and Graphics are required by the State to complete an evaluation demonstrative that they still meet qualifications. A Career Ed Program form for the two-year review was distributed to attendees.
Members agreed that they would identify committees for each program, copy the program review summary, and submit all materials by Flex Day, 8/27/04. Discussions with the departments to take place during the Mandatory Flex Day, 8/27/04, at department meetings.
IV. ACCREDITATION
The upcoming accreditation matrix will have four values measured against the following themes: Institutional Commitments, Evaluation Planning and Improvement, Student Learning Outcomes, Organization, Dialogue, Institutional Integrity. The values/objectives are:
1.) Institutional Mission/Effectiveness;
2.) Student Learning Programs and Services;
3.) Resources, and
4.) Leadership and Governance.
Bobby McNeel recommends a uniform methodology to keep the writing on track; the tone a single voice.
Lauren McKenzie believes that there should be sufficient committee involvement to have one group work on the themes and another on each of the values/objectives during a brainstorming workshop. Perhaps the folks who attended the accreditation training workshop at West Los Angeles could serve as leaders with a set out text provided to the group for review.
The Senate is working on identifying the Steering Committee. There is thought to be no negative toward the idea of having tri-chairs of the various committees.
Much of the work done on accreditation is expected to be available on the website. This could be managed by providing passwords to the committees.
V. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 3:46 p.m. The next meeting is scheduled on Wednesday, May 19, 2004, at 2:30 p.m., in the President’s Conference Room.