Introduction

Newsletter                    

Resources

Committee Portal

Accreditation Timeline

Criterion Committees:
Criterion 1
Criterion 2
Criterion 3
Criterion 4
Criterion 5

HLC Criterion 3 Meeting Notes

April 4, 2005

          The HLC Criterion 3 Subcommittee met April 4, 2005. In attendance were Mike Mitchell, Chair; Joy Fitzpatrick; Kristin Anderson; Adriana Loera; John Arle; and Don Richardson. Others were excused or absent.

         Mike announced a goal of writing an outline for 3d, reviewing comments from the review committee, and detailing opportunities for improvement.

          3d reads, "The organizations learning resources [money, equipment, and people] support student learning and effective teaching.

I. Resources supporting student learning.

A. Library-open 75 hours/week.
B. Learning Center
C. Tutoring Centers
D. Open Computer Labs
E. Science, Computer, Math and Foreign Language labs; performance spaces (Story Stagecoach; theater productions)

II. Resources supporting effective teaching

A. Tech. & inst. Grants; new committee grants
B. Professional development-money
C. Teaching and Learning Grants-Web/CT
D. Media center
E. Tech support
F. LTD

Access is important as is evaluation of usage
Satisfaction surveys are available from Nursing, Dental, Massage Therapy
[Recommended for 3c: FT/PT ratio, and class size]

         Viability is important, according to the NCA visitor; can we sustain our programs in the future?

         Bond money-capital expenditures, buildings (classroom, student center), equipment. What bond money will go to student learning and effective teaching? Jim Moore should know.

         How do we provide evidence that we are meeting learning goals and teaching goals?

3d suggested outline

I. Learning

A. Library-access, process for evaluation, surveys
B. Lab spaces-science, computer labs, foreign language, and mathematics
C. Tutoring services: learning, tutoring, math & science (title V)

II. Teaching

A. Grants
B. Professional development
C. Media, tech, tech support
D. LTD

In the writing, we need to describe the resources (access), explain how they lead to student learning, and cite the evaluation of it.

Opportunities for improvement

3a Assessment feedback to faculty is not fully documenting assessment loop; application of results is non-existent; void in acting and reporting; there is also no way of notifying students. This is true for academic.
         Occupational does seem to be working.

         Developmental: no developmental program on campus, only classes
No assessment of outcomes being done. No assessment (tracking of students). ESL is tracking

         Personal enrichment: no stated goals; no programmatic structure. We do offer non-credit classes. Surveys? Need to define its purpose in this area.

3b Valuing and supporting effective teaching
         Student evaluations of faculty are not universal on campus, the data are not gathered, and there is little evidence of their use. FEP outcomes do not lead to decisions, evidently.

            FT/PT disjunction

            The role of the department chair was mentioned, but it was brought out that this trying to define this area may infringe on academic freedom and tenure.

          The meeting of 25 April will be devoted to completing the opportunities for improvement.

Respectfully,
Don Richardson