Academic Senate
2010-2011 

Home

Student Learning
Outcomes

Let's Talk About
Teaching and Learning

Board Policy
Review

The Ed
Center

Flex Day
Info

Committees

Dec 2, 2010

 

Elections in Spring 2011

 

From the Academic Senate Bylaws:

Section 2. Election of Senators

a.    Academic senators are to be elected for a term of three years so that one third of the academic senate is elected each academic year.  The executive board of the senate, with the senate's consent, shall communicate the necessary staggered schedule, which will be conveyed to the individual areas or divisions listed in Art. III, I. b. by February 1st of each year.

b.    Area representatives: Following the staggered schedule, each of the areas or divisions listed in Art.  III. I.b. shall entertain nominations and elect its senator from its own faculty members, in whatever manner it chooses. Senate representatives shall be selected by March 1st of each year.

The staggered schedule is here:

http://www.mpcfaculty.net/senate/terms.htm

 

The following areas should have elections to elect an Academic Senate representative. There are no term limits for Academic Senate representatives.

Division or Area

Senate Representative

Term Began

(Fall Semester)

Term ends

(Spring Semester)

Physical Sciences

Fred Hochstaedter

F2008

S2011

Student Services

Debbie Anthony

F2008

S2011

Supportive Services

Alexis Copeland

F2008

S2011

College Readiness/TRIO

Chris Calima

F2008

S2011

At-Large

Susan Walter

F2008

S2011

 

Fred's suggestion:

The Academic Senate President, as an agent of the executive board of the Academic Senate, communicate to appropriate division chairs, deans, directors or coordinators of these divisions/areas the necessary staggered schedule and the need for this selection to take place.

 

Institutional Goals

Dear Fred,

I am not sure if we want to take time today to talk about these if they are still in discussion at Senate.  Just to give you my thoughts though as you and Senate continue to think about them, here’s how I see it.

 

The new goal is fine. We are getting rid of the idea of critical thinking, which is really important in my view, but I guess you want to focus on “success.”  But this isn’t a change I would quibble over as long as when we get to implementing this “student success” is viewed broadly.  In other words, we need to define student success broadly, and not simply measure it by graduating with a degree or certificate.  Success is defined by the student, and for some it may be improving Basic Skills without getting a degree; or, it may be a UC or CSU student taking a class they need in the summer; or, it may be a student taking a class for personal growth and lifelong learning.  The difficulty of identifying student success and my fear that it will devolve into measuring certificates and degrees, and then using that as a way to judge programs and funding scares me, to be honest.

 

I do like the idea of looking at high rigor; I would love to see the faculty take a stand against grade inflation, for example, and courses and programs with unusually high GPAs are not necessarily a sign of “student success”; they may be signs of grade inflation and low standards.  I also think a broader range of grading options would help us ensure better rigor by more accurately measuring success.  I would love for the Senate to look at cheating and plagiarism and to advocate for the tools and policies (honor policy?) that would help us combat these problems.  In my experience, they are rampant and much worse than many want to believe. 

 

On 3a, I wonder if we need that as an objective as I think we are doing it through our SLO evaluation process.  We are supposed to be having dialog to discuss student success and SLOs as part of that process.  We also have flex days, which provides a framework for this objective. Do we need more?  Personally, I have enough to do and don’t welcome more meetings if I can help it.  I think you will find a majority of faculty feel the same.

 

3b: not sure what this means in practice. Do we really have a problem?  If so, I am not aware of it in Humanities or Social Science.

 

4 looks good to me.

 

Going back to 1, I wonder if it could be amended to this?

1.       Investigate ways to articulate “student success” that represent the diverse range of our student goals, retain strong academic rigor, high academic standards.

 

Thanks,

 

Alan

 

 

Legal Opinions
10_07 - Limitations on Enrollment for Cohorts of Students.pdf
07-12 - Assigning Fail or I Grades due to Academic Dishonesty.pdf
Pertinent language from the 2010-2011 MPC Catalog
We need to make our colleagues aware of these issues.
Plagiarism detection is a related issue; some MPC faculty have used this software:
http://www.turnitin.com/static/index.html

 

Background for the Legal Opinions

 

From the 2010-2011 MPC Catalog, pp. 23-24.

http://www.mpc.edu/classes/MPC%20Catalogs/2010-11%20Catalog.pdf

 

Plagiarism and Cheating

Academic honesty is a cornerstone of the educational community; therefore, students are expected to understand the standards of academic honesty as they pertain to students’ behavior in the classroom.

Plagiarism

It is important for students to acknowledge sources that are used for completing classroom assignments. Plagiarism is a form of academic dishonesty.

Plagiarism may be any one of the following:

1. Verbatim copying without proper documentation of the source(s).

2. Paraphrasing without proper documentation of the source(s).

3. Unacknowledged appropriation of information or ideas from someone else.

If students have any questions about these forms of plagiarism or about an assignment they are preparing, they should ask their instructor for clarification rather than risk unintentional plagiarism.

Cheating

It is important for students to act in an honest and trustworthy manner. Work performed on examinations or other forms of evaluation must represent an individual’s own work, knowledge and experience of the subject matter. Students are expected to follow the classroom rules established by the instructor.

Cheating may be any one of the following:

1. Unauthorized looking at or procuring information from any unauthorized sources or from another student’s work during an examination or from any work that will be graded or given points.

2. Unauthorized acquiring, reading or learning of test questions prior to the testing date and time.

3. Changing any portion of a returned graded test or report and resubmitting it as an original work to be regraded.

4. Presenting the work of another as one’s own for a grade or points.

5. Knowingly assisting another student in cheating.

This list is not all-inclusive and the list itself is not meant to limit the definition of cheating to just these items mentioned.

Consequences

The disciplinary action for cheating or plagiarism is up to the discretion of the instructor. The instructor may select one or more of the following options:

1. Issue an oral or written notification and warn the student that further acts of this sort will result in additional disciplinary action.

2. Issue an "NP" or a failing grade ("F") or "0" for the assignment in question.

3. Refer the student to the Vice President for Student Services for disciplinary action.