CASL-PR
August 24th 2016 –Meeting Minutes
Roll call- Jerry Buckley, Kelly Burke, Jason Burgdorfer, Erin Delaney, Nicole Faudree, Necia Gelker, Audrey Green, Barry Gribbons, Andy McCutcheon, Daylene Meuschke, Denee Pescarmona, Dilek Sanver-Wang, Cindy Stephens, Jim Temple, Omar Torres, Tina Waller, Paul Wickline, Micah Young, Rebecca Eikey, Simon Kern, Lee White.
- Approval of minutes from last meeting – Minutes Not available
- New business
- Agenda item 1- Ice Breaker - Getting to know each other;
Committee members gave their name and answered different questions regarding what committee members remember as their happiest, proudest, most enjoyable time and so on.
- Agenda item 2 –Vision for 2016-17
The vision for 2016-17 includes using the days of assessment or similar meetings to complete all the ISLO.
a)Opening remarks by regarding Critical Thinking ILO which is now completely compiled; Further report on June 10th , 2016 Opening Day work by faculty on Effective Communication with Oral and Written Communication.
SLO coordinators have a list of the faculty members who are interested in continuing their contribution to the ISLO. From that session an idea was floated regarding faculty meeting together to complete the ILSOs for a whole day at the Hyatt or similar venue to complete all the ISLO. Since there is no funding for such an event perhaps the faculty could meet for various session with the goal of completing all of the ISLOs and in the spring 2017 there could be a pilot, mapping the ISLO programs.
A question was posed to the committee regarding the order to follow in considering the ISLOs. There was agreement to consider the ISLOs in the order as decided by faculty. It was decided that the faculty members who have not previously attended any of the meeting would attend a 1 1/2 hours workshop/orientation for new members who would like to start participating. It was proposed that the new faculty could have the orientation earlier on the day of the ISLO sessions.
There was agreement that the ISLOs would have to be finished by fall 2016.
In the spring 2017, a pilot of a norming session would allow for a signature assignment to be connected to the ISLOs.
b) SLO Co-Coordinators - Visit Schools to share our goals for this year. SLO coordinators have decided to talk with individual schools through the deans perhaps to have 5 minutes of their school meetings to reach out to the individual departments.
3. Agenda item 3. it was reported that DayleneMeuscheand Cindy Stephens will be holding open office hours (as it relates to the Program Review) Tableau/ Salary Surfer and the like, to help explain the connection between the SLO-Program Review and Budget. This could be done in connection with Professional Development for the open hours. This was reported to also be part of the data coaching efforts.
It was suggested that this would be a good time to connect with people in the different schools; to give it back to the faculty as it is their programs that benefit from better goal setting and planning.
- Agenda item 4 Training through CETL for assessment training
and
- Agenda item 5 eLumen - rolling out Curriculum and SLO assessment
SLO Coordinators have been asking people in the different schools to look at their assessments; would like to coordinate with CETL – (Center Ron and Brent are faculty coordinators.) The purpose is to provide training to faculty to gain a deeper understanding of the assessment cycle.
A request was placed on the committee by the SLO Coordinators regarding who would like to be included in the Program Review training.
There were questions regarding how the ISLO would fit into the timeline of eLumen implementation. It was suggested that some of the spring 2017 course SLOs could be used piloting in e-lumen database.
There was explanation that the timeline for eLumen would include the discussed pilot, there are plans of not renewing avoiding double entries would better enable us to not renew CurricuNet in July 2017; The aim would be not to do double work.
Questions and comments included whether or not people who were up for renewals would be considered for the eLumen training and how the link between the SLO and Curriculum modules makes it necessary to be looking for advocates who would take this to faculty because faculty would use the modules one day.
It was agreed that people who are entering the AAJCC report information continue to do so in CurricuNet for the next report
Agenda issue 6- CASL-PR Website updates
The general idea regarding the website is to provide the SLOs information in an uncluttered way so that the SLO information can be accessed easily
Agenda issue 7 - Program Review - Welcome Jason Burgdorfer
PR goals for fall:
Training Faculty to create connections between the SLO and Budgeting
Explore the Timelines for the Program Review
There was a question regarding allowing more breathing room on the Program Review. The reasons were illustrated by two hand-outs distributed: Suggested Program Review Modifications: Year One/ PR- Planning Summary Form and Adjusting timeline to secure funding through the activity form for supplies
The discussion focused on the idea that the administrators will need a way to know which of the items in the lists presented to them at the PAC-B committee do not delineate priorities.
It was mentioned that objectives and budget requests are connected and because of that connection it is not certain what opportunities there are to hold off on Program Review. Also it was mentioned that the PR Committee has previously decided to keep PR as is for the Year 3 Update and put in place funding for eLumen.
There were questions regarding the connection between the sheet that the schools provide and the summarized version of the list that the administrators review. Other questions were posed regarding the process of dealing with the funding, money and now and planning for the 3 year funding. Expressed curiosity regarding the budgeting for instructional supplies.
Explanation was provided that PAC-B sets priority and schools budgeting request justification but there is no code to connect the excel sheet and the budgeting priorities for the PAC-b to know what really are the pressing priorities.
A question was placed on whether or not everything which was submitted was also ranked.
Furthermore there were comments that the faculty must have a way to train in making requests for equipment through the program review and planning.
In response, it was mentioned that everything that was submitted last year, was sent to the deans, who sent it to Jerry, who sent it forward after asking questions to the PAC-b committee.
This is one-time money this year; lots of equipment money for sure; I know that there is a lot of back and forth on what is submitted; SharleneColealwill present on the budget status at the PACB. The list was presented in the spring 2016 and people made comments to the effect of forced costs
In the next couple of weeks, there will be a long list of things funded. There will be a list for things not funded. There will be a new way to ask for funding pathways for the lists of things who are not funded.
There were questions regarding in what way the items were ranked and by whom and whether there were faculty members who are part of the evaluation process. Also, there were questions regarding the process by which one can advocate to reach out to PAC-B for items already included in the SLO and PR?
The response provided that the Dean does the ranking/Jerry does the ranking/ PacB reviews and makes recommendations, there is place to put recommendations but the information is not as detailed.
It was mentioned that there was a lot of conversation in the spring about the request, forced cost and what counts and that any equipment request that was reasonable was funded. It was also mentioned that if there is any reasonable request will be funded.
Discussion and comments included statements on how first level of program review was in December but there were requests made outside program review after that and how the Perkin’s funding equipment in May was done that way.
There were comments regarding the discrepancies between the spreadsheets developed by schools/faculty not being the same as the information presented to PAC-B.
There were responses that stated that the challenge if there are two different forms there should be a code to link the two so there is a way to check and provide rationale for the program request. And also, that there is enough money to justify funding for millions of dollars.
It was also stated that it is hard to tie the rationale between the funding request and what is needed. This links to the Professional Development training. Everything comes back to the objective and how it will be used. I have to have something to make that distinction.
Furthermore it was stated that if there is money and there is no need to deviate from procedure.
It was proposed that the Program Review for year 3 update is halted to allow for reflection
Following the proposal there was a question on whether or not Daylene should stop working on the data she has spent two months processing?
Further questions were posed regarding the Year 3 update and whether or not that is more than review?
The response provided that even if we kept the old way; there are ways to keep the free form updates. It was also mentioned that there could be a way to simplify the process of requesting equipment so that it saves time. Furthermore it was commented that in the current process people can shift money around; that might not be a possibility/ Suspending the program review for one year; on the administrative site the AOU will continue; but on the Faculty side that doesn't have budget codes to update. But someone would have to do budgeting. Objectives give opportunity for budgeting, if you want to keep objectives open you would give opportunities to the budget request. Closing Objectives would create problems for budgeting.
There were comments regarding using the data that Daylene has to inform the requests in order to figure out the needs or think critically about Tableau.
In addition, there were comments about this year being viewed as a perfect storm of opportunity.
Furthermore there were questions on how the CTE component would be affected this year and whether or not the Academic Senate would be where the issue would be decided.
In response, the comments included a proposal to suspend year 3 for non-CTE programs in order to allow for more training. That that would put CTE faculty at a different place because they would be made to something more than other faculty and it is a fairness issue. CTE faculty in the room agreed but also commented that Program Review is tough and more training is needed.
Additionally it was stated that from the standpoint of accreditation the program review process needs to be executed but how we execute it is an internal process, if we scale down the version while we are adapting to an online system, certainly is our decision.
Comments about how there needs to be more time to make the decision followed and that reflecting on measurable and timely objectives set in year 1 would be important.
In addition, there were comments against doing program reviews in isolation but focusing instead on collaboration and exchanges with other faculty when doing program review.
It was decided to make the current program review module available “read only” for a limited time. This could be done once Daylene finalizes the data.
Building instructions so they are embedded
Delimitation of the data functions
It was stated that alternatives would be considered in case Program Review was halted.
a) Daylene's questions-tabled
- Open issues – Cindy Stephens will speak with Rebecca Eikey regarding the following items
1. Revision on CASL/PR Charters/Committee Procedures--FALL
2.Assessment Grants – showcase/follow up/presentation for BOT
3.Implementing Peer Review Process for APR-Nicole and Miriam’s subcommittee
4.Separate process for Replacement/Repair needs – to be developed—incorporated into PR
- Adjournment