academic standards review committee winter 2014 team members: dillon carr, daniel gendler, pamela...
DESCRIPTION
Committee Actions to Date Conducted a review of the existing standards Team members solicited feedback from their respective work areas Compiled recommendations First presentation to AGCTRANSCRIPT
Academic Standards Review CommitteeWinter 2014
Team members: Dillon Carr, Daniel Gendler, Pamela Laureto, Harold Lee, Thomas Street, Fred Zomer
Background•Academic Standards document adopted by AGC in 2009•Companion Document to Faculty Code of Ethics•Aligned to Faculty Evaluation Process and Ideology (circa 2009)•Designated for Review in 2013-2014
Current Charge from AGC•Review the existing standards•Gather feedback from departments or groups college wide •Recommend any necessary changes
Committee Actions to Date
•Conducted a review of the existing standards•Team members solicited feedback from their respective work areas•Compiled recommendations•First presentation to AGC
Committee Report
Internal discussions and peer feedback centered on two primary issues with the academic standards
1.Language choice pertaining to specific parts of the document2.Questions about the implications for action of the Academic Standards document
The organization of the standards and the ‘spirit’ of the document was well received
Document Language
Original Title: Academic StandardsProposed Revision: Guidelines for Faculty
I.Maintains current content knowledge Proposed revision: Removal of # 3 here and reworded to
be part of section 3 below
Document Language
II. Promotes an environment conducive to learning
Proposed revision (#3): Maintains an environment which cultivates respect, care, and rapport among students
Proposed revision (#5): Mindful of their student’s background, culture, needs, aspirations, and goals
Document Language
III. Designs courses that promote learning and success for students
Proposed revision (# 1): Incorporate available information about student’s initial knowledge and needs into the course
Proposed revision (# 7): Considers teaching practices in light of current research and best practices
Document Language
IV. Establishes a professional relationship with students and between students
No revisions recommended
Document Language
V. Creates and maintains a community of learners
Proposed revision (# 7): Collaborates with community partners to enhance learning experiences when appropriate to achieving course outcomes
2. Implications for Action
“Document conforms to current (2009) faculty evaluation process and ideology”
Issue: How does this document (and the faculty code of ethics) align with the new faculty evaluation system?
Issue raised here to communicate that we have considered this feedback, but feel that it is outside our charge
2. Implications for Action
The contract takes precedent over this document
This document is not a policy and therefore has no mechanism for enforcement and proposed language changes reflect this reality
Our stance is that Guidelines for Faculty does still conform to the ideology of the current evaluation system
Where are we now?
1st presentation to AGC to provide an opportunity to comment on committee recommendations
Please forward feedback to Dillon Carr ([email protected]) by April 25
2nd and 3rd visits to AGC will take place during the 2014-2015 academic year