 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
HLC/NCA Accreditation at Phoenix College
|
|||||||
|
|
HLC/NCA Accreditation at Phoenix College |
||||||
|
|
HLC Criterion 3 Meeting Notes The HLC Criterion
3 Subcommittee met Mike began the meeting by
informing members that we will be losing some of our colleagues:
Marian Gibney has been asked to serve on a different sub-committee,
and Vaswati has accepted a transfer to The committee resumed its work on criterion 3A, “Results obtained through assessment. . . . “ Some results have come in already. These results would include minutes of advisory committees, general education competencies for mathematics, English, and reading. Writing—Results have been made available to faculty Oral communication—Results have been made available to faculty Mathematics—Results have been made available to faculty Occupational—Advisory committees; results have been made available to students ESL—Results have been made available to faculty Developmental Education—Results made available to students (unclear); both pre- and post-testing. The process for all of the above is that materials are gathered on campus before being made available to the District Student Academic Assessment Committee (DSAAC), to the deans and the president, then to the district, to the board and, thus, to the public. In at least one instance there is a common final exam at the course level: Spanish. Apparently the psychology department has done this, too. Is a report available? Student feedback may be one means of measuring success or of doing assessment, but this is apparently done by sections—individually. Should all courses be evaluated by all students, campus-wide? Dental is already having students evaluate course competencies. Perhaps this is just a matter of gathering material from the individual instructors or departments. Should we request this information from faculty? This could be a survey question: “Are you currently conducting instructor/course evaluation or assessment? If so, what type? (i.e., student self-assessment of course competencies, structure, content). What changes have you made as a result (content, structure, pedagogy)?” Geoff Eroe volunteered to get informal instructor evaluations being used. Sample assessment, results, changes, etc. Probably self-reporting at this level. John Arle said he is already doing this via the internet; the files are available. Some of this material is probably available in reports to the district from the deans and the president. Pam will track assessment reports. What constituencies are being reached? Department reports should reflect assessment of student performances. Thus, department annual reports might be useful as could reports of program coordinators. Kristen Anderson to check on department reports. “The organization integrates . . . . “ Mike to contact Jeremy. Passage rate on licensing exams—occupational—are available already on-line. “The organization’s assessment of student learning extends . . . . “ Criterion 5 sub-committee will be gathering this information. What assessments are being done? What about non-credit and continuing education courses? Again, this may duplicate what criterion 5 sub-committee is gathering. Dual Enrollment? Joy Fitzpatrick to contact Raul Sandoval about Dual Enrollment. Senior education and Study Abroad programs ought to be considered, too. Survey question: “What non-credit offerings are available in your department?” These would include dance, music, and theatre performances. Also OE/OE courses. Mike Mitchell to follow up on this. Lily Kang to follow up on library instruction. “Faculty are involved. . . . “ Statement of committee charge and rosters needed from as far back as 1996 for the following: instructional councils (John Arle to follow up); campus and district curriculum committees (John Arle); assessment committees (Kory Merkel); Adult Education (Kory Merkel); advisory boards (Lily Kang); FEP Process (statements, in re: faculty participation and student outcomes) (Kristen). All of these should reflect that the committees define outcomes and use assessment. Ocotillo Committee belongs under 3C, so is will be deferred for now. “Faculty and administrators . . . . “ Assessment steering committee; advisory boards—Lily to follow up. Dean Tadano—faculty
evaluations; not content; just records indicating that the process
exists and is being followed. Program review—that they occur. Institutional
assessment and planning—mission and goals. See link from
Faculty and Staff page on We will start 3B the next time we meet. Mike reported on
result so far from examination of mission and goals campus-wide.
Department—student links on Mike to check with Dean Tadano with a suggestion about refining the actual definition of department. The next meeting
will be Wednesday, March 10, at
Long-range question: Should all courses eventually use pre- and post-evaluation? Long-range question: How are we assessing the success of students enrolled in Dual Enrollment? Respectfully submitted, Don Richardson |
|
Updated: 6/2/04 Disclaimer. Send comments about this website to webmanager. |