Notes - February 4th, 2008
The De Anza Academic Senate
Approved Notes for the meeting of
February 4th, 2008
Senators and Officers present:, Argyriou, Chang, Chenoweth, Dolen, Glapion, Goodwin,
Hanna, Hughes, Kessler, Kramer, Lathers, Lee-Klawender, Maynard, Miller, Mitchell,
Ng-Lee, Paicius, Schaffer, Setziol, Shively, Walton, and White
Senators and Officers absent: Bambhania, Cole, Coleman, Gallegos, Guevara, LaManque,
Maynard, Schafer-Braun, and Winters
DASB:
Classified Senate:
Administrative Liaison:
Guests: Maryalice Bonilla, Karen Chow, Stevie Payne, and Pedro Hernandez
Curriculum Co Chair: Anu Khanna
SLO Coordinator: Maryalice Bonilla
[NOTE: Item numbers are reflective of agenda numbers in the order they
are actually taken up at the meeting.]
The meeting was called to order at 2:32 a quorum being present.
I. Approval of Agenda and Notes: The agenda was approved as distributed with the
withdrawal of Item IV (Academic Senate B budget).
The notes of January 28th, 2008 were approved with minor corrections.
Also, during this item - It was MSCU(Mitchell/White) to support the upcoming teaching
and learning conference at De Anza and contribute $500 to offset costs of the conference.
Karen Chow was present to encourage Senator and faculty at large participation.
II. Needs and Confirmations: Tom Izu was confirmed for service on the Mediated Learning
Building Design Committee.
There is a need to replace Chenoweth on the Educational Information System (EIS) Steering
Committee.
Also during this item – Chenoweth noted the death of Marion Winters’s husband.
It was MSCU (White/Kessler) to send flowers to Marion Winters and to spend up to $75
for them.
III. Student Learning Outcomes: Student Learning Outcomes Coordinator Maryalice
Bonilla made a presentation to the group. She began by quickly going through what
she said were common myths about the relatively new addition to accreditation standards
called Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs). She emphasized that what has been feared
should not happen because faculty have the primary responsibility for all aspects
of outcomes including what should be measured and how it should be measured. After
a brief description of the difference between “objectives” and “outcomes” (both being
used as terms of art in speaking of SLOs), Bonilla had the group take a quiz wherein
the members were asked to determine whether a statement was indicative of an “objective”
or an “outcome”. Given the purportedly correct answers, some in the group appeared
to understand the distinction while others were not so sure.
A lengthy discussion revealed the need for further basic discussion about the orientation
of the group in terms of basic philosophical and practical approaches to SLOs.
An accreditation report is due in October explaining progress towards implementation.
V. Board Policy Revisions: Chenoweth and Kramer reintroduced the topic while some
copies of the previously distributed material were handed out. Once again, people
in the group were picklefaced at the prospect of being asked to judge the appropriateness
of proposed language without having existing language and or information as to who
drafted what with what motivation.
Chenoweth interrupted the agenda to acknowledge the arrival of Cindy Castillo who
came to recruit faculty readers of scholarship applications. Readers will be asked
to read applications perhaps twice as part of an organized team. A training for readers
will be held mid March at which point the readers will have until April7th to read
and rate applications.
Back to Item V: The group was at first unaware that the packet contained both proposed
Administrative Procedures and proposed Board Policy. There were comments about some
smaller details (e.g. pondering the meaning of “college-wide and Curriculum Committee”)
in section AP5071: Articulation and Transfer Functions and the revelation that it
was proposed Administrative Procedure rather than Board Policy. The section was then
described as reading more like a job description than the title would seem to imply.
There were numerous comments about the Course Repetition section (CCLC 4225???).
The numbering of the section resulted in a mini eureka experience for some who realized
that the document must have been model language from a Community College League of
California document and, therefore, raising again the question of who produced what
language with what intent.
VII. Good of the Order and announcements: Time was insufficient for this item.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:30.