We now move on to review of the Institutional and External Planning Context sections of the Discussion Draft with includes:
Section 6. Relationship to Institutional Strategic Goals and Objectives
Section 7. Self Identified Improvement Agenda from 2008 Institutional Self Study Assessment
Section 8. Accountability Reporting for Community Colleges (ARCC) Findings and Self Assessment: 2009
Please respond to any or all of the questions below by October 2, 2009
A. RE: Section 6. Relationship to Institutional Strategic Goals and Objectives
Are there any of these Goals or Objectives that are unclear to you? If so, please identify the item(s) and state what is not clear to you.
B. RE: Section 6. Relationship to Institutional Strategic Goals and Objectives
Are there any of these Goals or Objectives that do not seem appropriate as part of an Educational Master Plan? If so, please identify the item(s) and state what is not clear to you.
C. RE: Section 7. Self Identified Improvement Agenda from 2008 Institutional Self Study Assessment
Are there any of these Improvement Agenda items that are unclear to you? If so, please identify the item(s) and state what is not clear to you.
D. RE: Section 7. Self Identified Improvement Agenda from 2008 Institutional Self Study Assessment
Are there any of these Improvement Agenda items that do not seem appropriate as part of an Educational Master Plan? If so, please identify the item(s) and state what is not clear to you.
E. RE: Section 8. Accountability Reporting for Community Colleges (ARCC) Findings and Self Assessment: 2009
Are there any of these items that are unclear to you? If so, please identify the item(s) and state what is not clear to you.
F. RE: Section 8. Accountability Reporting for Community Colleges (ARCC) Findings and Self Assessment: 2009
Are there any of these items that do not seem appropriate as part of an Educational Master Plan? If so, please identify the item(s) and state what is not clear to you.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
(A)
ReplyDeleteUnder Goal 1, item 12 - achieving average information competency five years into the future seems a low target.
I think that the specifics under item (6), Goal 2 (e.g. Career Technical Education) are completely off the radar of most faculty. For this to be a college-wide goal, I feel it needs greater campus presence.
(B) (C) (D) (E) no comments
(F) Should there be a mention of what is currently happening with CSUEB and other places regarding the smooth transfer of our students into degree programs - e.g. that a student at Ohlone meeting all the AA requirements for a math degree automatically meets all the lower division requirement at CSUEB for the BA in math?
RE Goal 1, item 12 - I think the "at or above the state average" is used in many of these because setting more specific levels can be tricky. But, I think it is something we need to address and I will bring it to the attention of Dr. Browning and Mike Bowman.
ReplyDeleteRE: CTE - it is probably completely off the radar screen for faculty not involved in CTE programs. One theme of the current CTE work is to increase college wide awareness and was done with the Basic Skills Initiative.
RE: F - Yes, we should make sure these new articulated degrees are mentioned and cited as models for developing more such arrangements.
(A) Under Goal 1:
ReplyDelete#5. I'm not clear on how "improvement rate" is defined or measured. It might be a good idea to have a glossary that defines "retention", "persistence", "success", "improvement", etc.
#6, 7, 8. Since we typically speak of "transfer rates," it seems odd to have actual counts for these objectives. It also seems like the targets here should be relative to the %'s of students who indicate each of these as an academic goal (which, according to #13, every student will have the opportunity to do). Example: "By 2013, increase to ___% the students transferring to UC and CSU, out of those who list this as an academic goal."
#10. While this objective is in theory a good one, it doesn't seem measurable to me.
(C) "Clear" and "unclear" is hard to define for Section 7. The Distance Learning improvement items are very specific, and it's clear what the outcomes of those would be. The rest of the sections are sufficiently vague that, while the intent is clear for each item, the actual realization of most of the items is not clear. "A system will be in place" doesn't put a clear picture in mind for what will actually happen, and who will be doing it. On the other hand, this does leave the freedom to carry out the objective in a way that is most effective and practical at the time that it's done.
Under "Student Support Services": The 3rd bullet (about the "college culture") seems much broader than Student Services, and I'm not sure it belongs there. Was the intent that this would be done through Student Activities, and that's why it's included here? It also seems like the item could/should be extended to the college as a whole, instead of just the Newark campus.
(E) As mentioned above, some of the terminology could be clarified (e.g. "improvement rate"). The only other items that aren't clear to me are those that attribute an improvement in a measure to specific actions taken by the college. Example: Under "% of students earning at least 30 units", it says that the higher % of fulltime students is "reflecting" various actions that we've taken. Is there any data (surveys, etc.) that lead to this conclusion? How do we know that it's not more of a reflection on unemployment rates or other external factors?
On bullet 5, section 7:
ReplyDelete"An ongoing review of assignments and assessment/evaluations that correlate with course-level student learning outcome (on Official Course Outlines) will be in place and faculty will be encouraged to create assignments that promote active, collaborative learning and use of technology. (Beyond meeting the standard) [II.A.3.b]"
This has more to do with authentic evaluation than assessment, right?
If so, than this is not a responsibility of the SLOA committee, correct?