October 12, 2020 Meeting
Agenda
Taft College Distance Learning and Education Committee
AGENDA
Monday October 12, 2020
12:10 pm – 1:00 pm
Via Zoom
https://cccconfer.zoom.us/j/92986688361
Call to Order
Public Commentary
Action Items
- Approval of September 21, 2020 Minutes ACTION
Discussion Items
- Emergency Fall Meetings DISCUSSION
Old Business
New Business
- Emergency Distance Learning Approval Forms ACTION
COMM 1507
CTRP 1010
CTRP 1070
CTRP 1080
CTRP 1090
CTRP 1131
CTRP 1132
CTRP 1133
CTRP 1134
CTRP 1141
CTRP 1142
CTRP 1143
CTRP 1144
CTRP 1151
CTRP 1152
CTRP 1153
CTRP 1154
CTRP 1161
CTRP 1162
CTRP 1163
CTRP 1164
CTRP 1210
CTRP 1250
CTRP 1260
PHIL 1520
Discussion Items
- Updates to Distance Learning Approval Forms DISCUSSION
- Committee Goals for 2020-2021 DISCUSSION
Other
Adjournment
Next Meeting: November 12, 2020 (12:10 pm – 1:00 pm) via Zoom
Minutes
Taft College Distance Learning and Education Committee
MINUTES
Monday, October 12, 2020, 12:10-1:00pm
Via Zoom
Call to Order: A. Bledsoe, 12:11 pm
Attendees: Amar Abbott, Nicole Avina, Marianne C. Bishop (non-voting), Adam Bledsoe,
Jill
Brown, Geoffrey Dyer, Chris Flachmann, Kelly Kulzer-Reyes, Leslie Minor (nonvoting),
Jason Page, Robin Polski, Joy Reynolds, Brandy Young
Public Commentary: None
Minutes
• September 21, 2020 Minutes submitted by M. Bishop
• Minutes adopted by unanimous consent
Action Items Discussion
• Emergency Fall Meeting : Next meeting scheduled for October 19, 2020, Monday, from
2:30-4:00 pm
• J. Reynolds inquired about ASTR 1511 if already submitted as traditional (non-emergency)
DE course. A. Bledsoe confirmed that course was approved in 2015 for all methods.
COMM 1507
• Committee reviewed this course last week. K. Kulzer-Reyes communicated with L. Travis
with our questions. L. Travis resubmitted with response regarding Presentations.
• K. Kulzer-Reyes: motioned to forward the COMM 1507 form to the Curriculum and General
Education Committee for the course to be offered in an online format.
o J. Reynolds: Second
o After roll-call, motion passed.
23 CTRP COURSES
• A. Bledsoe noted that all forms submitted are emergency forms, except 1080 which
is
traditional form.
• N. Avina noted that certain forms were incomplete, e.g., questions # 2, 4, 5 and
6 had no
responses.
2
• G. Dyer questioned about possibly needing a substantive change with this number
of
courses that could push the percentage of DE courses offered in the program above
50%.
Additionally, how are assessments done and the keyboard used?
• L. Minor spoke with G. Shaw. He’s rethinking the theory courses. He’s figuring out
which
courses should be offered in person. For the online speed practicing courses, students
have
their own machines so they can do that online but not as effective but possible. He
doesn’t
want to go over 50% and a substantive change is not required. These courses have low
enrollment and the same students move through all the courses.
• L. Minor noted that, while it’s not in the plans at this time to offer the courses
offline, this
could be revisited in the future. Currently court reporting is done virtually and
it’s going to
be a virtual occupation eventually. She mentioned that there’s some new technology
related to dictation and recording in the works that would allow individuals different
options other than listening and typing.
• G. Dyer motioned that the forms that are complete, i.e., CTRP 1131, 1132, 1133,
1134,
1141, 1142, 1143, 1144, 1151, 1152, 1153, 1154, 1161, 1162, 1163, 1164, 1210 and 1260
be
forwarded to the Curriculum and General Education Committee, with the notation that
the
Office of Instruction has been in dialogue with the discipline faculty for a plan
about
technology for assessments.
o K. Kulzer-Reyes: Second
o After roll-call, motion passed.
• J. Reynolds amended the motion so it includes that courses are not appropriate for
offline
delivery.
o K. Kulzer-Reyes: Second
o After roll-call, motion passed.
• J. Reynolds motioned that CTRP 1010, 1070, 1090 and 1250 be returned to the faculty
to
respond to questions #2, 4, 5 and 6 and to clarify if CTRP 1080 was meant to be a
traditional
form.
o R. Polski: Second
o After roll-call, motion passed.
PHIL 1520
• A. Bledsoe noted that there were several communication and feedback between him
and
Prof. Eigenauer. To summarize: J. Eigenauer is concerned that the review of pedagogy
and
the ones on observations and evaluations are not within our committee. He feels our
committee might be delving into an area of monitoring instead of supporting. For example,
we asked for clarification on group presentations and he feels that how he plans to
have his
group presentation, if he’s doing it, is asking a pedagogical method that is outside
our
committee’s direction. He felt that if the instructor checks the box that, after reviewing
the
COR there are no potential challenges, he doesn’t feel the committee has jurisdiction
on
3
what materials, whether they are software, books, etc. are used in the class. For
instance,
CMAP software that was listed in the COR. It’s outside our purview to be asking questions
about those things. He feels that it may be appropriate for us to discuss this in
the Academic
Senate. A. Bledsoe informed J. Eigenauer that he’ll be reporting back to J. Eigenauer
after
our discussion today.
• G. Dyer noted that the committee here knows that our intent all along is to support
faculty
while also ensuring the quality of distance education courses. The basis of our course
review and the approach we are taking is based on the California Code of Regulation
Title V
Section 55202. The form that we use was approved by the Academic Senate. This has
been
discussed in the Academic Senate. We’re also compelled to do the review because of
Title V
Section 55206. In terms of the curriculum and CMAP, it’s listed in the COR that’s
why we
looked at it. Our concern was if students have a license to use or access it. Is it
going to be
an issue, that’s the question we had. For question #2, we were wondering – if it was
okay to
teach it fully online and teach it face-to-face, why is it not okay to teach it hybrid?
He’s
paraphrased his conversation with Dr. Minor in the amended form. What we’re looking
at
happens at the course level, not the section level. We are not trying to police faculty
or
scrutinize them or tell them how to do their job. We’re trying to adhere to the regulatory
requirements in the manner that Taft College Academic Senate has asked us to do.
• A. Abbott noted that we’re definitely looking at the course, not the professor since
it will be
added to the COR for the next person who will teach it and give them proper ideas
on how
it could be done. It’s not directly affecting the current faculty member. We’re looking
at
the COR and seeing what’s best for online modality.
• K. Kulzer-Reyes noted that 10+1 should have been considered as well and it includes
Curriculum. We’ve been asked to do this and we spend a lot of time on these forms.
• G. Dyer mentioned that we listed at the bottom of the form – have you checked these
things – was because we were hoping by having that reflected in advance in the form
it
would expedite the approval by the Curriculum Committee. We were not trying to be
gatekeepers.
• K. Kulzer-Reyes noted that one of our goals this year is to revisit and revise the
form. With
regards to CMAP, J. Eigenauer mentioned that it’s an open software but one of the
questions she has is does it run on Chromebook, for instance. L. Minor noted that
we have
Chromebooks that students can check out which shouldn’t be a concern at this moment.
• A. Bledsoe noted that J. Eigenauer mentioned that CMAP software can be downloaded
for
free by students. Student presentation requirements can be modified to alternative
assignment if the course was taught online in an emergency situation. A. Abbott mentioned
that information could have been added to the form.
4
• G. Dyer noted that our job is to make sure the course outcomes can be met, the course
is
accessible, and regular and effective student contact as defined by Title V is present.
We are
not deciding what goes in the schedule.
• L. Minor mentioned that J. Eigenauer has talked to her about his concerns. For instance,
it’s
not a scheduling issue, per se. It’s really his vision of what’s a better student
experience
that will promote student success at higher rates and that’s the in-person. He’s willing
to
do the online but he knows it’s not optimal. His issue is not scheduling, it’s student
experience.
• G. Dyer noted that the way we’ve defined “program” (question #3) locally based on
the Title
V definition is it’s a series of courses leading to a certificate or degree. But we
don’t have a
critical thinking certificate or program. But students can use the course when they
go to
CSU, for example. B. Young confirmed that this definition still applies.
• A. Abbott motioned that the form be sent back to faculty requesting that he cleans
up the
comments since the form will be part of public record attached to the COR.
• A. Bledsoe confirmed what R. Polski stated that typically the commentary, i.e.,
the DE
Committee’s Comments in the form isn’t usually on the official form as it moves forward.
R.
Polski suggested to use that premise and other guidelines that our forwarded form
doesn’t
have a lot of commentary so if he would consider removing or revising his comments,
something along this line. G. Dyer noted that it wasn’t clear if these were J. Eigenauer’s
notes to the committee or if these were notes he wanted added to the form.
• G. Dyer motioned that we forward the form to the Curriculum and General Education
Committee replacing the red instructor comments on page six with the language – the
discipline faculty have addressed these concerns with the Distance Learning and Education
Committee.
o B. Young: Second
o During roll-call: 1 No, 2 Abstain, 1 got disconnected, 7 Yes – motioned passed.
Other Discussion Items
• Committee Goals for 2020-2021: to be discussed at another meeting
• Updates to Distance Learning Approval Form: to be discussed at another meeting
Adjournment
• A. Bledsoe moved to adjourn meeting : adjourned at 1:04 pm