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

Feb 17 2011

 

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

 

We agreed on this at the Dec 2, 2010 meeting, and I have completed this task:

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.

 

 

Request for "problematic" statewide regulations

From: Kathy Harmonson [mailto:kathleen@ASCCC.ORG]
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 4:28 PM
To: SENATEPRESIDENTS@LISTSERV.CCCNEXT.NET
Subject: Title 5 Survey

 

Dear Local Senate Presidents and Curriculum Chairs:

 

The ASCCC Futures Committee is working to address Resolution 7.20 (F09) which asks that we “Work with the Consultation Council to identify regulations that are universally problematic and bring those regulations back to the body for further consideration.” You are asked to consider the topic broadly, considering what statewide regulations currently impede your ability to effectively serve your communities. The survey that follows requests your identifying information and simply asks two questions “What statewide regulations would you like to see changed, and how?” and “Are there currently local interpretations of statewide regulations that you find problematic and would like to see modified? Please explain your answer.” You may complete this on your own, or seek input from your senate and/or curriculum committee. We look forward to gathering and sharing the input received. Please respond to this survey no later than February 28, 2011.

 

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/9WRFXND

 

Sincerely,

Michelle Pilati

Chair, Futures of California Higher Education Ad Hoc Committee

 

 

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.

 

 

Accreditation Report -- "SLOs"

Team Recommendations

1. In order to meet the Commission’s 2012 deadline and building upon the progress made in identifying student learning outcomes for nearly all courses, program, certificates and degrees, the team recommends that the college complete the process of assessment to guide improvement of student learning (IIA.1 and IIA.2).

2. In order to meet the Commission’s 2012 deadline, the team recommends the college completes the process of identifying course level student learning outcomes and ensures student information is clear, that SLOs are described, and that students receive syllabi reflective of the identified student learning outcomes (IIA.2 and IIA.6).

3. In order to meet the Commission’s 2012 deadline, the team recommends the college take appropriate steps to ensure that faculty and others directly responsible for student progress toward achieving stated learning outcomes have, as a component of their evaluation, effectiveness in producing those learning outcomes, and that this standard is achieved by the 2012 deadline established by the ACCJC (IIIA.1c).

4. To increase effectiveness of distance education offerings, the team recommends the college follow through with a plan to design an evaluation process and evaluation tool to provide students an opportunity to evaluate the learning experience specific to online courses (IIA.2 and IIB.3a). Further, the team recommends that the Distance Education Task Force develop clear protocols and strategic goals for distance education learners that meet the institutional outcomes of the college and ACCJC policy on distance education (IIA.1, IIA.2 and IIA.6).

The team notes and encourages the college to continue to develop and implement a more effective and clearer strategy for integrating student learning outcomes with planning, research and resource allocation efforts. The process should contain an evaluation and improvement component for all educational, academic support, fiscal, technological and human resources.

The emphasis on student learning is apparent and the college has begun to identify student learning outcomes for courses, career and technical programs and general education requirements. While it is attempting to fulfill its mission of student learning, the college has further work to do in assessing learning outcomes and using assessment results for improving instruction in all college divisions and departments. (p. 16)

The 2009 changes to the instructional program review template to include reflection documents have the potential to provide future evidence about student learning and learning outcomes, as does the emerging work in Student Services to articulate and assess student learning outcome accomplishments. Campus interviews confirm that the college does not report student learning outcome assessment to a wide audience on campus or to the public. (p. 19)

The college recently adopted a software program to facilitate the curriculum process. Within that system course level objectives and student learning outcomes are documented independently. Through interviews with faculty in multiple venues, the team found evidence that it is unclear to the faculty at large what the difference is, if any, between course level objectives and course level student learning outcomes. At this point, it is still voluntary whether course level SLOs are included in the students’ course syllabi. Also, the assessment method that faculty choose to use and the results of that assessment are not shared with the institution; rather, they are kept at the faculty member or department level. The program review and action plans may reflect the aggregate results of assessment; however, discrete results need to be shared at the course and program level for quality improvement purposes (IIA.1c, IIA.2a, IIA.2b, and IIA.6). (p. 25)

 

 

Board Resolution in Support of Expediting Transfer Degree Curriculum

Fred,

I received this proposed resolution last week from CCLC with the recommendation that it be presented to our Governing Board for adoption.  As I read the document, I was uncomfortable in presenting it to the Board without Senate review. While the statewide Academic Senate is collaborating with the overall process of developing the implementation plans, I wanted to offer the opportunity for the MPC Senate to review this language before presenting it to our Board.  Further, as you know, Carsbia is participating on the SB 1440 Task Force, and I would want his feedback on this language as well.

 

As a result, I will hold any consideration by our Board until at least the March 2011 meeting.  Please take steps to  include discussion of the language of this resolution in time for consideration for that agenda. I am not asking you to specifically take action on the actual resolution, only give comment on its language and whether you would want to make comment at the Board meeting if it is ultimately presented for adoption.

 

Let me know if you have any questions.

 

Thanks,

Doug

 

From: Samantha DeMelo on Behalf of Scott Lay [mailto:sdemelo@ccleague.org]
Sent: Friday, February 04, 2011 8:02 AM
To: Douglas Garrison
Subject: Resolution in Support of Expeditious Approval of SB 1440

 

 

To:      Chief Executive Officers
           Boards of Trustees Presidents

From:  Scott Lay
           President/CEO, Community College League

Re:      Resolution in Support of Expeditious Approval of SB 1440 (AA for Transfer) Model Curricula

SB 1440 (Padilla) was enacted last year to require that the California State University admit community college transfer students who have earned an “AA for transfer” degree, effective Fall 2011.  The bill specifies the units needed and the Academic Senate for the California Community Colleges is working with the CSU Academic Senate to develop guidelines for transparent and effective transfer patterns in the most popular majors.  In addition, a task force has been charged with developing a series of model curricula for use by local boards and curriculum committees in developing local AA for Transfer degrees which are reasonably consistent across districts in the most common majors.

SB 1440 is a critical element within our student success agenda, as it is expected to smooth the pathway of community college students to and through the California State University, thus increasing the number of students who can be served in California's public higher education systems.  We have included a link to a copy of a proposed resolution for adoption by your local board of trustees and hope that you will use this as a public statement that your district will be actively engaged in implementing this important initiative in a timely manner.

Download SB 1440 Resolution (Word)

Connecting Community Colleges for a Strong California

Community College League of California • 2017 O Street, Sacramento, CA 95811 • (916) 444-8641

Here is the Resolution:

Resolution In Support of Expedited Implementation of SB 1440

______________________________________

 

WHEREAS, the Legislature, with the support of all 72 community college districts in California has passed, and the Governor has signed, SB 1440 (Ch.428, Statutes of 2010), the Student Transfer Achievement Act;

 

WHEREAS, SB 1440 is the most significant measure in more than 20 years for improving transfer rates from community colleges to campuses of the California State University;

 

WHEREAS, it is anticipated that once the AA transfer degrees proposed by SB 1440 are in place, many more transfer students will also earn an associate degree; there will be more clarity and consistency about the best lower-division preparation; and students will be guaranteed a place in the California State University with junior standing;

 

WHEREAS, SB 1440 will reduce the amount of time and money spent in obtaining both AA transfer degrees and BA/BS degrees due to its provisions that:

·   prohibit community colleges from adding any local requirements to the sixty units provided for in the bill;

·   encourage community colleges to facilitate acceptance of  credits earned at other community colleges toward  the associate degree for transfer; and

·   prohibit CSU campuses from requiring any additional courses other than the sixty units required for majors with 120 semester, or 180 quarter, units;

 

WHEREAS, the bill provides that, commencing with Fall 2011, students who earn an associate degree for transfer will be guaranteed admission into a CSU baccalaureate program, it would be most beneficial if colleges have as many associate transfer degrees as possible in place by Fall 2011;

 

WHEREAS, the Academic Senate for the California Community Colleges is coordinating a statewide system to develop a model curriculum that identifies the most appropriate coursework not only for transfer preparation but also for earning an AA or AS degree in a common discipline, local colleges will soon be able to adopt the model curriculum for their degrees, and the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office is preparing to expedite approval of degrees that reflect the model curriculum;

 

WHEREAS, the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office and the California State University have established a Joint SB 1440 Task Force to ensure coordination between the CSU system and California community colleges for a smooth implementation process and may also make recommendations for further legislation, regulatory changes or other policy changes;   

 

WHEREAS, in order to have these AA transfer degrees in place, local college faculty as well as the local board of trustees must approve degrees based on transfer models provided by the Academic Senate for the California Community Colleges;     

 

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Board of Trustees of the _______________ Community College District, by passage of this resolution, hereby expresses its intent to expedite approval of these degrees in order to have SB 1440 fully implemented in _______________ Community College District by Fall 2011.