October 12, 2020 Meeting

Agenda

Monday, October 12, 2020

12:10 P.M. 鈥� 1:00 P.M.

Call to Order:

Public Commentary:

Action Items

Approval of September 21, 2020 Minutes ACTION

Discussion Items

Emergency Fall Meetings DISCUSSION

Old Business

New Business

Emergency Distance Learning Approval Forms ACTION
1. COMM 1507
2. CTRP 1010
3. CTRP 1070
4. CTRP 1080
5. CTRP 1090
6. CTRP 1131
7. CTRP 1132
8. CTRP 1133
9. CTRP 1134
10. CTRP 1141
11. CTRP 1142
12. CTRP 1143
13. CTRP 1144
14. CTRP 1151
15. CTRP 1152
16. CTRP 1153
17. CTRP 1154
18. CTRP 1161
19. CTRP 1162
20. CTRP 1163
21. CTRP 1164
22. CTRP 1210
23. CTRP 1250
24. CTRP 1260
25. PHIL 1520

Discussion Items

Updates to Distance Learning Approval Forms DISCUSSION
Committee Goals for 2020-2021 DISCUSSION

Other

Adjournment

Next Meeting: November 12, 2020 (12:10 P.M. 鈥� 1:00 P.M.) via Zoom

Minutes

Monday, October 12, 2020, 12:10 P.M. - 1:00 P.M.

Via Zoom

Call to Order: A. Bledsoe, 12:11 P.M.

Attendees: Amar Abbott, Nicole Avina, Marianne C. Bishop (non-voting), Adam Bledsoe, Jill Brown, Geoffrey Dyer, Chris Flachmann, Kelly Kulzer-Reyes, Leslie Minor (nonvoting), Jason Page, Robin Polski, Joy Reynolds, Brandy Young

Public Commentary: None

Approval of Minutes

September 21, 2020 Minutes submitted by M. Bishop
1. Minutes adopted by unanimous consent

Discussion Items

Emergency Fall Meeting: Next meeting scheduled for October 19, 2020, Monday, from 2:30 P.M. - 4:00 P.M.
J. Reynolds inquired about ASTR 1511 if already submitted as traditional (non-emergency) DE course. A. Bledsoe confirmed that course was approved in 2015 for all methods.
1. COMM 1507
  1. Committee reviewed this course last week. K. Kulzer-Reyes communicated with L. Travis with our questions. L. Travis resubmitted with response regarding Presentations.
  2. K. Kulzer-Reyes: motioned to forward the COMM 1507 form to the Curriculum and General Education Committee for the course to be offered in an online format.
  3. J. Reynolds: Second
  4. After roll-call, motion passed.
2. 23 CTRP COURSES
  1. A. Bledsoe noted that all forms submitted are emergency forms, except 1080 which is traditional form.
  2. N. Avina noted that certain forms were incomplete, e.g., questions # 2, 4, 5 and 6 had no responses.
  3. G. Dyer questioned about possibly needing a substantive change with this number of courses that could push the percentage of DE courses offered in the program above 50%.
  4. Additionally, how are assessments done and the keyboard used?
  5. L. Minor spoke with G. Shaw. He鈥檚 rethinking the theory courses. He鈥檚 figuring out which courses should be offered in person. For the online speed practicing courses, students have their own machines so they can do that online but not as effective but possible. He doesn鈥檛 want to go over 50% and a substantive change is not required. These courses have low enrollment and the same students move through all the courses.
  6. L. Minor noted that, while it鈥檚 not in the plans at this time to offer the courses offline, this could be revisited in the future. Currently court reporting is done virtually and it鈥檚 going to be a virtual occupation eventually. She mentioned that there鈥檚 some new technology related to dictation and recording in the works that would allow individuals different options other than listening and typing.
  7. G. Dyer motioned that the forms that are complete, i.e., CTRP 1131, 1132, 1133, 1134, 1141, 1142, 1143, 1144, 1151, 1152, 1153, 1154, 1161, 1162, 1163, 1164, 1210 and 1260 be forwarded to the Curriculum and General Education Committee, with the notation that the Office of Instruction has been in dialogue with the discipline faculty for a plan about technology for assessments.
    1. K. Kulzer-Reyes: Second
    2. After roll-call, motion passed.
  8. J. Reynolds amended the motion so it includes that courses are not appropriate for offline delivery.
    1. K. Kulzer-Reyes: Second
    2. After roll-call, motion passed.
  9. J. Reynolds motioned that CTRP 1010, 1070, 1090 and 1250 be returned to the faculty to respond to questions #2, 4, 5 and 6 and to clarify if CTRP 1080 was meant to be a traditional form.
    1. R. Polski: Second
    2. After roll-call, motion passed.
3. PHIL 1520
  1. A. Bledsoe noted that there were several communication and feedback between him and Prof. Eigenauer. To summarize: J. Eigenauer is concerned that the review of pedagogy and the ones on observations and evaluations are not within our committee. He feels our committee might be delving into an area of monitoring instead of supporting. For example, we asked for clarification on group presentations and he feels that how he plans to have his group presentation, if he鈥檚 doing it, is asking a pedagogical method that is outside our committee鈥檚 direction. He felt that if the instructor checks the box that, after reviewing the COR there are no potential challenges, he doesn鈥檛 feel the committee has jurisdiction on what materials, whether they are software, books, etc. are used in the class. For instance, CMAP software that was listed in the COR. It鈥檚 outside our purview to be asking questions about those things. He feels that it may be appropriate for us to discuss this in the Academic Senate. A. Bledsoe informed J. Eigenauer that he鈥檒l be reporting back to J. Eigenauer after our discussion today.
  2. G. Dyer noted that the committee here knows that our intent all along is to support faculty while also ensuring the quality of distance education courses. The basis of our course review and the approach we are taking is based on the California Code of Regulation Title V Section 55202. The form that we use was approved by the Academic Senate. This has been discussed in the Academic Senate. We鈥檙e also compelled to do the review because of Title V Section 55206. In terms of the curriculum and CMAP, it鈥檚 listed in the COR that鈥檚 why we looked at it. Our concern was if students have a license to use or access it. Is it going to be an issue, that鈥檚 the question we had. For question #2, we were wondering 鈥� if it was okay to teach it fully online and teach it face-to-face, why is it not okay to teach it hybrid? He鈥檚 paraphrased his conversation with Dr. Minor in the amended form. What we鈥檙e looking at happens at the course level, not the section level. We are not trying to police faculty or scrutinize them or tell them how to do their job. We鈥檙e trying to adhere to the regulatory requirements in the manner that 蜜桃影视 Academic Senate has asked us to do.
  3. A. Abbott noted that we鈥檙e definitely looking at the course, not the professor since it will be added to the COR for the next person who will teach it and give them proper ideas on how it could be done. It鈥檚 not directly affecting the current faculty member. We鈥檙e looking at the COR and seeing what鈥檚 best for online modality.
  4. K. Kulzer-Reyes noted that 10+1 should have been considered as well and it includes Curriculum. We鈥檝e been asked to do this and we spend a lot of time on these forms.
  5. G. Dyer mentioned that we listed at the bottom of the form 鈥� have you checked these things 鈥� was because we were hoping by having that reflected in advance in the form it would expedite the approval by the Curriculum Committee. We were not trying to be gatekeepers.
  6. K. Kulzer-Reyes noted that one of our goals this year is to revisit and revise the form. With regards to CMAP, J. Eigenauer mentioned that it鈥檚 an open software but one of the questions she has is does it run on Chromebook, for instance. L. Minor noted that we have Chromebooks that students can check out which shouldn鈥檛 be a concern at this moment.
  7. A. Bledsoe noted that J. Eigenauer mentioned that CMAP software can be downloaded for free by students. Student presentation requirements can be modified to alternative assignment if the course was taught online in an emergency situation. A. Abbott mentioned that information could have been added to the form.
  8. G. Dyer noted that our job is to make sure the course outcomes can be met, the course is accessible, and regular and effective student contact as defined by Title V is present. We are not deciding what goes in the schedule.
  9. L. Minor mentioned that J. Eigenauer has talked to her about his concerns. For instance, it鈥檚 not a scheduling issue, per se. It鈥檚 really his vision of what鈥檚 a better student experience that will promote student success at higher rates and that鈥檚 the in-person. He鈥檚 willing to do the online but he knows it鈥檚 not optimal. His issue is not scheduling, it鈥檚 student experience.
  10. G. Dyer noted that the way we鈥檝e defined 鈥減rogram鈥� (question #3) locally based on the Title V definition is it鈥檚 a series of courses leading to a certificate or degree. But we don鈥檛 have a critical thinking certificate or program. But students can use the course when they go to CSU, for example. B. Young confirmed that this definition still applies.
  11. A. Abbott motioned that the form be sent back to faculty requesting that he cleans up the comments since the form will be part of public record attached to the COR.
  12. A. Bledsoe confirmed what R. Polski stated that typically the commentary, i.e., the DE Committee鈥檚 Comments in the form isn鈥檛 usually on the official form as it moves forward. R. Polski suggested to use that premise and other guidelines that our forwarded form doesn鈥檛 have a lot of commentary so if he would consider removing or revising his comments, something along this line. G. Dyer noted that it wasn鈥檛 clear if these were J. Eigenauer鈥檚 notes to the committee or if these were notes he wanted added to the form.
  13. G. Dyer motioned that we forward the form to the Curriculum and General Education Committee replacing the red instructor comments on page six with the language 鈥� the discipline faculty have addressed these concerns with the Distance Learning and Education Committee.
    1. B. Young: Second
    2. During roll-call: 1 No, 2 Abstain, 1 got disconnected, 7 Yes 鈥� motioned passed.

蜜桃影视