CASL/Program Review Committee Minutes
September 14, 2016
BONH 330 1:30 – 3:00
In attendance Jeffrey Baker, Jerry Buckley, Jason Burgdorfer, Kelly Burke, Rebecca Eikey, Nicole Faudree, Howard Fisher, Audrey Green, Barry Gribbons, Simon Kern, Andy McCutcheon, Daylene Meuschke,
Denee Pescarmona, Dilek Sanver-Wang, Diane Solomon, Cindy Stephens, James Temple, Omar Torres, Tina Waller, Lee White, Paul Wickline, Micah Young
Agenda item 1: Approval of CASL/PR Minutes from August 24, 2016
The Committee approved the minutes after remarks for fixing the spelling of a person’s last name.
Agenda item 2 a. Discussion Items - CASL
· November 4th and 5th 2016 Days of Assessment - who can help?
o Agenda for those days
1. Pre-workshop for new members from 9 – 10:30 a.m.
After Clarification of what the purpose of the meeting
2. Finalize Critical Thinking
3. Work towards finalization of Effective Communication
4. Begin work on next ILO
Discussion included:
· A call for more faculty involvement and volunteers for the Friday November 4th and Saturday November 5th sessions.
· Clarification on the purpose of the meetings and whether or not the attendance in both session is mandatory, it is not.
· How to be sure that there is ongoing funding secured for the ILO workshops; last year funding for the workshops was one-time funding.
Action items were:
· Agreement that the ILO workshops would be November 4th from 10:30 to 3:30 and November 5th from 9:30 to 2:00.
· Jeff Baker will volunteer for the Friday session from 10:30 to 3:30
· Audrey will look to see if the funding could be ongoing.
· The SLO Coordinators will identify Faculty who would want to be involved in presentation
Agenda item 2. b. Update of visitation of school meetings
ii. SLO Coordinator Kelly Burke presented to the School of Math, Science and Allied Health
iii. Appointments have been made to visit most of the schools
Kelly Burke updated committee on the visits with the schools.
Discussion included:
· Discussion for coordination among the deans with the purpose/goal to sit with Faculty and Chairs to have a collaborative discussion re: support with SLOs
· Considering doing a workshop at the chairs’ meeting.
· Promotion for the ILOs was waiting finalization of the dates
Agenda item 2.c. Kelly is presenting to Synergy on September 15th .
The presentation aims to facilitate new Faculty interaction, building an Acronyms’ list as it relates to the SLOs, and everything that falls into the assessment. It was mentioned that this information should be accessible for reference.
Past SLO Coordinators offered materials from past efforts that would serve as reference.
Agenda item 2.d. Mid-term ACCJC report from CASL – who would like to help?
Perspective was provided by committee members in to how the ACCJC report connects with the accreditation cycles.
It was mentioned that College of the Canyons is half-way through the accreditation cycle and is now looking at the recommendations from the Accreditation team and our own improvement plans.
Dr. Jerry Buckley qualified what is meant by improvement recommendations CQI- more than suggestions and less than sanctions. He mentioned that he would be asking the CASL-PR committee members in attendance to provide recommendation to writing teams. It was deemed important for the process of the recommendations
Action item:
Dr. Buckley will make the documents with the recommendations available to the CASL-PR Committee. Also, there was mention making the tracking tool, an excel sheet available as well.
Discussion continued regarding identification of college members who made the recommendation and how this is belongs not only to CASL but also PR.
Agenda item 2. e. Do we want to have a presentation of eLumen at CPT?
Discussion centered on the timing of the eLumen presentation, the content and the selection of the eLumen representative for the presentation.
It was discussed that the presentation must include information and aim at answering questions on how eLumen will be used from an administrative side.
It was suggested that a request should be made to eLumen for a marketing piece for college wide use. In addition, it was suggested that the eLumen should include the program’s features as they relate to Program Review.
The Committee discussed how an umbrella resource is needed to interface SLOs, Student Services and AOUs with the goal of improving teaching and learning.
Action item
The Committee decided to postpone the eLumen presentation to CPT.
Agenda item 2f. Brief demonstration of Tableau by Daylene
Presentation showed Tableau is an interactive data visualization tool.
The presentation made the following points
· Tableau utilization was decided by CASL-PR in Spring 2016 CASL-PR
· Data is still being built, that includes data for PR: PR data will go into Tableau
and it will be accessible to those who are working on the PR updates.
· It was explained that Tableau will be available in the intranet’s PR site and Institutional Research location via a link but no log in will be provided
· Full department overview is available. The emphasis is for access to faculty. It was mentioned that compliance with FERPA is kept in mind when considering accessibility to Tableau.
· Accessibility features
Dimensions to disaggregate in different categories.
Different filters available and plans to see how it is used to inform future report building
· Work is going on in tandem with clean up and making sure that data, especially the award data is transferred correctly. This would help in disaggregating the associate degrees/ certificates. Everything will be disaggregated to see individual program rewards.
Discussion followed regarding SLOs and how they connect to Tableau
It was suggested that formal talk should happen regarding a research project to link SLO data to the GE fields. Perhaps the GE fields filter could be used.
Also, it was suggested that some explanation between connection between My Canyons SLO data through the excel files and utilization eLumen with Tableau.
Agenda item 2g. Did 1 data coaching session already – 4 more are planned
The next data coaching session is September 15, 2016; A Second reminder is scheduled to be sent on September 14. Open office session at the institutional research location. There are additional sessions at different times. Discussion about how long the session might be and how to schedule them in order to boost attendance. Also appointments could be set up as needed.
Agenda item 3. Discussion items – PR
Continue discussion from last session: Jason, Rebecca, Kelly, and Cindy are meeting to set the agenda. Some questions to be considered were raised by Jason Burgdorfer specifically:
What were pros and the cons of skipping this year 3 of the Program Review.
There was a proposal to call this a hiatus. There were questions raised re: Year 3 CTE specific questions
The Committee discussed regarding changes, what and when they could be made. In addition there were comments on finding out how resources and Tableau interact, providing support staff information, showing location where the SLOs are stored, update the objectives options; Budget information to show table where money can be shifted around.
There were questions posed about being able to see the budgets in the current read only Program Review document. Answers provided information regarding the timeline and different actors involved in the approval of budget.
Action item
It was decided that the different departments could have a blank table by next week to work on Program Review.
It was explained that in three weeks when the budget numbers are loaded they would be populated without disrupting the work that the individuals had done in the blank table. For example, people who are submitting new-equipment requests - it could link to the equipment request.
Some context was provided in the discussion of funding, budgeting and program review. Understanding the big picture vs. individual needs to understand how we spend our funding.
There were additional comments on the language provided in regards to expenditures and how there must be a place in PR to clearly define. Rationale is important.
There were additional questions about how to include equipment requests in the PR stem and the necessity for the equipment. A suggestion was offered to follow the practice set by Jim Temple on computer equipment replacement request planning, when planning Program Review.
There were questions about equipment request planning when moving to a new building. Answers to that included information about specific funds separate from the one-time equipment funding.
The Committee discussed the cons for halting the PR review for Year One; the departments would then consider strengths and see what’s working or not.
Action item
At the end of the meeting, the Committee decided to complete year 3, skip year 1 while building eLumen. If eLumen is not ready, do an update, not a full year 1.
Agenda item 3 questions: What are the strengths of what we are already doing? What are the challenges? How could we make it better?
It was discussed that one of some of the weaknesses would be designing a department’s PR process as a one-year cycle.
There were comments made for the need to explain to faculty that the Budget is a rolling thing. It was mentioned that budget review should be thought of as a continuous process.
There was discussion about exploring practices from other colleges.
Remarks were made about a change in the thinking about when program review truly happens. There were suggestions to conceptually divide the budget into thirds in order to have a manageable load for Program Review.
Agenda item 3 questions: Why do we have User 1, User 2, and User 3? Is there a more efficient way to do this?
There was clarification provided regarding the levels-faculty-chair-dean, for approval. Examples were provided on how it is a vetting and editing process.
Further explanation was provided in calling the PR process a coaching process to make alterations before it goes to the dean or to executive cabinet?
There were opinions offered to explain that PR exists in function of pursuing the mission, goals, objectives- and the in context of priorities and mission/goals.
Furthermore, the form shows context in what is needed to make a request happen. It is so that it contextualizes and why it happens e.g. priorities of wait lists for lab classes as they relate to enrollment management. Having the rationale is not the problem but the issue is time allotted to PR. Writing process analogy was offered to liken the process of writing to Program Review, drafts need deadline to push-through.
Opinions were expressed that it is good for engagement to have the Vice Presidents, deans and department chairs participating in PR as part of having discussions in a collaborative process?
Discussion and opinions were expressed of the different ways PAC-B handles and handled requests in the past. Institutional history was shared to explain what led to the hierarchical PR of today.
.
Agenda item 3 questions: What is the purpose of Program Review? Is it to justify what we are doing or initiate change for our departments/disciplines/schools?
An answer was provided regarding the purpose of PR: Operationalize mission and strategic planning and goals.
Action item
It was decided that we would continue to discuss this at the next meeting.