Thursday, September 15, 2016

General Education 2015 Academic Initiative Proposal

ACADEMIC INITIATIVE PROPOSAL


Primary Initiator(s): Jenn Boulay and Holly Pappas                          
Department/Division: Lash Center for Teaching and Learning         
Telephone # & Extension: 2853(Jenn), 2244 (Holly)                     Date: 10/15/15      
Email: jennifer.boulay@bristolcc.edu              



Initial Proposal

Working Title of Proposed Project: General Education Competencies Review

Working Summary of Project – Include required resources (not to exceed one page in length):

A 13-15 member task force will be formed and co-chaired by Jenn Boulay, Academic Coordinator for the Center for Teaching and Learning, and Holly Pappas, Outcomes Assessment Fellow. This working group will review and recommend Bristol Community College’s general education competencies to ensure they reflect the current College consensus and are sufficiently rigorous and measurable. Over the course of the fall semester, we will develop recommendations for the competencies, with future assessment of these competencies in mind; part of this process may involve exploration of how well our existing BCC General Education competencies align with the AAC&U LEAP Value Rubrics. The proposal, with potential recommendations for revision of the College’s General Education competencies, will be submitted to Academic Affairs by the end of December 2015.

Both faculty and students (current and prospective) will benefit from this work because it will provide them with clear statements of what skills students are expected to possess by the time they complete their academic program. This will be achieved by providing a measurable description of competencies with a framing language and glossary of terms.

This project fits in with a greater assessment plan for general education competencies and is aligned with accreditation standards 4.48, 4.49, 4.51 by the New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC).

4.48 The institution implements and provides support for systematic and broad-based assessment of what and how students are learning through their academic program and experiences outside the classroom. Assessment is based on clear statements of what students are expected to gain, achieve, demonstrate, or know by the time they complete their academic program. Assessment provides useful information that helps the institution to improve the experiences provided for students, as well as to assure that the level of student achievement is appropriate for the degree awarded.

4.49 The institution’s approach to understanding student learning focuses on the course, program, and institutional level. Evidence is considered at the appropriate level of focus, with the results being a demonstrable factor in improving the learning opportunities and results for students.

4.51 The institution’s approach to understanding what and how students are learning and using the results for improvement has the support of the institution’s academic and institutional leadership and the systematic involvement of faculty.

The group will have broad representation which includes full and part-time faculty and professional staff from various areas of the college (e.g., Academic Divisions 1-6, Lash Division, Student Services, Enrollment Services). Each stakeholder will bring an important perspective that will help to articulate what a BCC graduate should exemplify.

                                   
Due Date (please indicate if fixed & why): 12/31/15




Estimated Budget:                                        $0                                                             



Identified or requested funding source: N/A

Notification

         President of F&PS Senate                                                                             __________________________           
                Required for all College-wide Academic Initiatives



Approval
              President or his designee, usually Academic V.P.
         Academic VP                                                                     ___________________                                         
                Required for all College-wide Academic Initiatives




NOTE: Approval to Investigate Does NOT Constitute Final Approval










Appendix A: Timeline and Communication Plan

The overall timeline for this project, in response to the NEASC letter dated December 2, 2014, is as follows:
1.      Review and recommend General Education competencies, Fall 2015
2.      Create assessment plan, Spring 2016
3.      Assess competencies using assessment plan, Fall 2016
4.      Report to NEASC, Spring 2017

Note: This task force will dissolve after providing recommendations for revisions of the General Education competencies. This document only covers the first stage of the overall project.


Status updates about this initiative will be provided throughout the semester at All Academic and Professional Staff meetings, as well as at Division and Senate meetings. The final report will be published and made available to the college. 

Wednesday, September 14, 2016

Minutes of May 2, 2016

Bristol Community College
Faculty & Professional Staff Senate Meeting
Minutes of Monday, May 02, 2016
Room B101 3:15pm

Senators in attendance:  J. Pelletier, D. St. George, S. Pero, J. Boulay, J. Flanigan, L. Neubert, H. Tinberg, T. Grady, L. Delano-Botelho, J. Corven, B. French, J. Constantine, J. Jodoin, S. Ferreira, B. McGuire, R. Worthington, K. Hiller
Absences: J. Mbugua, J. Bjornson, G. Leeman,
Excused Absences: M. Geary, S. McCourt, R. Benya-Soderbom
Four guests attended this meeting.
Meeting called to order:  3:15 pm
Minutes:  Minutes from April were approved with an amendment to the timeline for the Writing Center Coordinator position and one abstention due to an absence.
Division Reports
·         Division 4: Accreditation for clinical lab science has been finalized
·         Division 5: Some courses approved by CWCC may be running without going through the department or curriculum committees; minutes are messy in eFolder; no good system for taking minutes and having public viewing
·         Lash: The LCTL is hosting a High Impact Practices Summer Institute with faculty stipends and two CORI workshops on how to seal a CORI record
Final Report from Senate Task Force on Academic Support and Retention
·         The Senate thanked the task force for their service: Jean-Paul Nadeau, Deborah Palumbo, Debra St.George, Ron Weisberger, and Julie Jodoin-Krauzyk (Chair)
·         The final report was submitted and approved with no abstentions
·         The final report will be distributed to constituents with key findings and recommendations highlighted; it will also be distributed to President Sbrega and Vice President Sethares next week
Response to College’s Strategic Planning Draft and Process
·         Senators expressed concern about submitted recommendations not being included in the strategic plan; a dialogue followed regarding processes for providing committee feedback to stakeholders
·         Senator Neubert, co-chair for the Strategic Planning Committee, indicated that all feedback was shared with the committee and consultants before being voted upon for the draft plan; items with suggestions from multiple constituents were reflected in the final plan; there was an explicit focus on incorporating elements of the state’s Vision Project
·         A discussion followed regarding how information is not currently fed back to constituents (e.g., committee reports; College monthly reports)
o    How could the College do a better job of sharing information back to initiators of suggestions?
o    How could minutes/process of giving feedback become more transparent?
o    What role in closing the loop can divisional representatives play on the committees they serve?
o    Is there a good place to centralize meeting minutes? Should it be Office 365?
Senate Protocol for Submission of Academic Initiative (AI) Proposals:
·         Draft Senate Protocol for Submission of AI Proposals:
·         The draft protocol does not require a vote; however, it breaks down the process from Senate perspective
·         Proposed closed-loop process:
a)    Notification (not just sign-off) share with Senate
b)    Discussion and feedback (means of communication)
c)     Markers to monitor down road, share with initiator of proposal
d)    Senate president monitors progress; possible ad hoc Senate committee
                                          i.    Signing signifies something beyond notification with transparency
                                        ii.    What if a bad initiative? Senate provides that feedback

·         General Education Initiative Update
o    Jenn Boulay and Holly Pappas have begun using AI for the general education initiative
o    Secretary Boulay explained process and status for the project:
§  The committee will solicit feedback on proposed competencies via the following strategies in Fall 2016:
·         Program coordinators/department chairs
·         Division meetings
·         Senate meetings
·         Campus-wide meetings
§  The committee looked at the Mass Transfer Block, draft NEASC standards pertaining to general education, general education competencies from other institutions, the College’s draft strategic plan, the College’s educated person statement, the College’s mission statement, and constituent feedback prior to WTR
§  The proposed competencies include: critical reading and analysis, written and oral communication, scientific reasoning and discovery, quantitative and symbolic reasoning, global and historical awareness, multicultural and social perspectives, ethical dimensions, information and technical literacy, and something that captures competencies gained from humanities (e.g., aesthetic appreciation or creative thinking)
§  Due to WTR, the committee did not have adequate representation to work on written and oral communication, quantitative and symbolic reasoning, humanities (or aesthetic appreciation or creative thinking) and this work will continue into Fall 2016
§  The committee proposes that the first-year experience remains a graduation requirement, but is omitted as a competency
Looking Back and Forward
·         President Tinberg offered a recap of the Senate’s 3 strategic goals for the year
o    governance: two Academic Initiatives (general education and civic learning)
o    promoting student academic support and retention (no summit this year due to WTR)
o    sustainability: nomination committee for Senate
§  a conversation followed regarding the pros and cons of having Senate service acknowledged under the College’s committee system (autonomy and independence; possibility of losing representatives and input if Senators only serve on one committee)
Other
·         The Senate will have a retreat during the summer to formulate the strategic goals for next year (date, time and location TBA)
·         President Tinberg encouraged Senators to attend the focus groups for the presidential search in May
·         Senate elections will close tomorrow and a vote for officers will follow; Sharon Pero has agreed to run for vice president
·         The Senate thanked the Grandchamp Committee and Senator Grady for delivering the annual Grandchamp Lecture
·         The Senate thanked exiting Senators: Betsy Kemper-French, Brian McGuire, Susan McCourt, Tom Grady

Meeting Adjourned:  4:13 pm
Respectfully submitted, Jennifer Boulay, BCC Faculty & Professional Staff Secretary



Minutes of April 11, 2016

Bristol Community College
Faculty & Professional Staff Senate Meeting
Minutes of Monday, April 11, 2016
Room H209 3:15pm

Senators in attendance:  J. Pelletier, R. Benya-Soderbom, D. St. George, S. Pero, S. McCourt, J. Boulay, J. Flanigan, L. Neubert, H. Tinberg, , T. Grady, L. Delano-Botelho, J. Corven, B. French, J. Constantine, J. Jodoin, S. Ferreira, B. McGuire, J. Bjornson, G. Leeman
Absences: J. Mbugua, K. Hiller
Excused Absences: R. Worthington, M. Geary
Eight guests attended this meeting.
Meeting called to order:  3:15 pm
Minutes:  Minutes from January 19, 2016 were electronically reviewed and passed with no abstentions, but an amendment regarding the metamajor discussion.
Division Reports
·         Division 1:
o    The English Department’s portfolio assessment project is being reviewed by the administration
§  The initiative has run for the past 19 years and includes faculty stipends and the chair receives reassigned time to norm and score student writing
§  Division 1 received an email from the division secretary indicated that this program has not been approved for the 2016-2017 academic year
§  Vice President Sethares has a different intention for the program, specifically around assessment, and met with the dean and the faculty chair of the initiative
§  Senators expressed concern over the lack of transparency and limited input from stakeholders with regard to these decisions and questions were raised as to how this may impact other portfolio projects at the college (e.g., ESL portfolios)
o    The English Department has been requested to standardize English 101 offerings
§  Dean Ryder indicated there is inconsistency in the delivery of the course, specifically regarding the amount of writing
o    A Writing Center task force has been set up by Vice President Sethares to explore the future of this support service
§  The current coordinator is now full-time faculty only and she is no longer coordinator for the Writing Center
§  This message has not gone out campus-wide, only to the English Department
·         Division 5: Faculty are apprised of what’s happening in STEM (noninstructional); philosophical discussion; academic instructional group involvement (e.g., portfolio project)
·         Lash Division:
o    There is an AMCOA conference scheduled for April 22nd and a regional workshop will be held on May 17th; both events are free and Peggy Maki will serve as the keynote
o    Senators were reminded to participate in the strategic planning meetings scheduled for April 25th
Draft Report from Senate Task Force on Academic Support and Retention
·         The task force consisted of 5 members: Jean-Paul Nadeau, Deborah Palumbo, Debra St.George, Ron Weisberger, and Julie Jodoin-Krauzyk (Chair)
·         Charge was to gather qualitative and quantitative data as it relates to the allocation of resources for academic support across campuses and the impact of such allocations on student retention
·         In defining academic support, they identified 13 areas related to classroom success:
o    Learning Commons, Advising (including Advising Center, Connections and Guided Pathways), Office of Disability Services, QUEST Program, faculty office hours, library/technical support, supplemental instruction (SI), College Success Seminar (CSS), learning communities, ESL program, support for student taking online courses (CITE Lab and SmartThinking online tutoring)
·         Their research questions included:
o    How are we currently doing?
o    What is working?
o    What do we need to do better?
o    How do we know?
o    How do we share this information?
·         Challenged with a short timeline and coupled with WTR, the group engaged a small amount of stakeholders and administrators; findings included:
o    decisions about allocations about support was not always data driven in past, but are looking for more systematic approach to disbursement of funding
o    the Retention Council is currently run by administrators; Senators should join subgroups
o    availability of information among depts. varied
o    availability and equity across campuses with outcomes (retention, graduation rates) varied
·         Recommendations include:
a)    Create a systematic, holistic approach to data collection/analysis—both qualitative & quantitative
b)    Implement systematic holistic approach toward measuring the relationship between academic support and student retention utilizing pre-existing tools
c)    Create an academic support advisory board
d)    Institute Learning Communities for first-semester students connected to the College Success Seminar (CSS) or equivalent
e)    Consider mechanics for examining student usage of faculty office hours and consider offerings part-time faculty incentives for providing office hours
f)     The college should continue to discuss next steps related to recommendation at campus wide Retention Summit
·         The following discussion points were raised by the Senate:
o    CAS reviews from IE committee—could they be used for data collection?
o    Accredited programs need analysis, action, and ongoing data; consistent and should be fed into larger; sharing of this information (e.g., health sciences)
o    Faculty involvement as front line workers is missing info from retention discussion
§  Approach faculty for data on why students leave as they may have a unique insight (e.g., absences/grades/transportation issues)
§  Ask faculty to use MapWorks more often
o    Tutoring is also available within instructional area (outside of TASC)
o    What is the standard formula for the current retention rate: what counts and what doesn’t?
·         The entire report may be viewed on the Senate blog
·         Senators were asked to reflect on the report and provide feedback within the week; constituents will be able to leave anonymous responses on the Senate blog after May 2nd
·         Final changes will be made, and voted on at the last Senate meeting; subsequently the final report will be presented to the administration
Update on Nomination and Timeline for Elections
·         The Senate thanked members of the Nomination Committee for their service: Ron Weisberger, Paul Robillard, Jill Flanigan, Robyn Worthington (Chair)
·         The Senate has a complete slate with no contested seats
·         Voting will be conducted electronically and will run for a full week in April (date TBA)
The Academic Initiative (AI) Process:
President Tinberg indicated a fuller draft of the protocol for submission of AI proposals will be available for the May 2nd Senate meeting and he asked Senators to provide feedback on the Senate’s blog. The following questions were raised about the AI process:
·         Draft Senate Protocol for Submission of AI Proposals:
·         How should Senate respond to new AI (aside from signing); what type of protocol should exist?
·         What type of notification/feedback can the Senate provide?
·         What role should the Senate play in monitoring?
                                          i.    What happens after the initiative begins?
                                        ii.    Should we evaluate the process itself?
·         What role should the Senate play in the pilot process?
·         What happens to the initiative after it leaves the Senate?
·         Civic Learning/Engagement Initiative
o    Rebecca Clark has begun using AI for the civic learning initiative
o    Concerns raised by the Senate included the initiative’s nomenclature and possible credit creep
§  If the college uses different terms to define civic learning with engagement than the state does, will it have a negative impact on transferability?
§  If civic learning with engagement is assigned more than three credits, what impact will adding to the credit load have in the long run?
Grandchamp Lecture
·         The Senate thanked the Grandchamp Lecture Committee  for their service: Jim Corven, Ron Weisberger, and Deb St. George (Chair)
·         This event provides a venue for faculty to share work that is not immediately obvious to their colleagues and it honors the Senate’s first president, Jeanne Grandchamp
·         The Committee was pleased to announce that this year’s Grandchamp Lecturer will be Senator Tom Grady; his lecture, “Jiggle the Handle: How to Plumb One’s Integrity to Flush Out a Life in the Arts and Education,” will be held in H210 on Wednesday, April 13, 2016 at 3pm
Other
·         President Tinberg requested Senators to volunteer to serve on the College’s presidential search committee; he underscored how important it will be for Senators to be at the table post-WTR
·         The Executive Committee will explore the role faculty play in orientation

Meeting Adjourned:  4:04 pm

Respectfully submitted, Jennifer Boulay, BCC Faculty & Professional Staff Secretary