Top of Page

JANUARY 26, 2006 ACCREDITATION STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES

Meeting Notes

January 26, 2006

 

I.       List of documents to accompany second draft

A.    Each standard will include a list of documents, sources, etc. that need to be in the library as evidence (rather as hard copy or electronic).

B.    Due date for the list is changed from Jan 30 to Feb 6

 

II.Approval of meeting notes for fall 2005

A.    Meeting notes were approved.

1.    Sep 1

2.    Sep 15

3.    Sep 29

4.    Oct 13

5.    Oct 27

6.    Nov 10

7.    Dec 1

B.    Jennie will post them on the website

 

III.        Approval of minutes for January 12, 2006 meeting

A.    Dialog occurred on the difference between SLOs and Objectives.

1.    Ruth Stiehl’s workshops scheduled for Feb 16 & 17 should help characterize the differences

2.    ATE, BEaT, and Nursing will attend Ruth Stiehl’s workshop on Feb 16

3.    Liberal Arts will attend Ruth Stiehl’s Feb 17 workshop.

4.    Purpose of the workshop: "This session is for program faculty who have already identified learning outcomes and a program map. The session will result in at least one prototype assessment task/tool.”

B.    Meeting notes were approved.

C.    Jennie will post them on the website

 

IV.Second draft strategies

A.    Standards reported on their progress.

B.    Doug expressed a generic concern that the program review process be integrated throughout the document.

1.    Sara shared that Standard III is tying in program and unit reviews especially in the area of technology and the business office.

2.    Sara and other standard chairs agreed that evidence is constantly evolving so what is written up in the second draft is different from the first and will probably be different in the third draft.

C.    Trina said the Interim Report needs to be put on the Accreditation site.

1.    The mid-term report is already on the website

2.    Trina will give the interim report to Marsha to scan.

3.    Jennie will put the interim report on the website once she receives it.

D.    Development of guidelines for distance education classes

1.    Sara reported that when the Resources committee of standard III began to do research, they realized the distance education issue was bigger than their Standard's purview. They then pushed for a group to meet. The group included Doug, Noreen, Kathy Damon, Laurel, Ellen Okuma, Guy, Violet, and Sara.

2.    The formation of an ad hoc distance education committee based on Doug’s recommendation is on the agenda for Friday, Jan 27 Academic Senate meeting.

3.    Jenny reported she has research on faculty evaluations, peer evaluations, curriculum processes and more that is worth reviewing.

E.    Lou reported that he, John Carroll, Mike Leialoha, and Joel Peralto are scheduled for a vidcon session Friday, Jan 27 with system personnel to discuss accreditation issues for standard IV.

1.    Trina gave Lou a draft grid she had received from the system showing everyone’s responsibilities (UHCC Campus-System Functions Map).

F.    Standards will submit the second draft via email Jan 30. (Standards I & II to sanders@hawaii.edu; standards III & IV to lpadilla@hawaii.edu.

1.    Editors will review the draft like the other steering committee members and submit their comments to the standard cheers.

2.    Actual editing will not occur until the final draft.

3.    Jennie will put the second draft on the Accreditation website.

G.    Kathy said as we read the second draft we should have a sense of what we want ACCJC to recommend. We need to shape their recommendations by the evidence we give them.

H.    The Steering Committee should use Kathy’s grid while reviewing the second draft to check for the integration of themes.

I.    Upcoming due dates

1.    March 24 – third draft is due

2.    May 1 – final draft is due

a)    The calendar on the Accreditation website needs to have the final due date changed from Monday, May 2 to Monday, May 1.

 

V.    Student survey

A.    Discussion occurred on how to compile the results of the student survey.

B.    Marsha and Sara volunteered OCET’s help so Beth will get them the surveys.

C.    It was agreed that the Faculty Staff Administrator survey results compiled by Beth would be used as final survey results.

D.    Discussion occurred on the need for a better mechanism for doing surveys.

1.    Both Doug and Shawn shared their suggestions.

2.    The outcome of the discussion was that we need resources for a person, software, equipment, and office space.

3.    Trina agreed to work with Shawn to create a proposal with a budget that could be submitted to the system if and when they get the $1 million for program review requested in the supplemental budget.

4.    Mai will put something in standard II regarding the need.

 

VI.Thank you

A.    Standard chairs were acknowledged for their hard work and diligence.

 

VII.        Other

A.    The next meeting is February 9, 2006 at 9am conference room 6B.