Minutes December 10, 2018

Call to order: 3:01PM

Attendees: Annemarie Paikai, Brent Hirata, Warren Kawano, Matt Egami, Sandro Jube, Karim Khan, Camden Barruga, Rachael Inake, Michelle Igarashi, LeeAnne Egan

  1. Approval of minutes November 5, 2018: approved as corrected.
    1. Attendance: deleting Matt adding Brent.
  2. DE Guidelines & Evaluation – Division Chair Feedback
    1. Warren reported division chairs liked the changes the committee made to the guideline document. Chairs approved the three-year self evaluation for online instructors. If, however, an instructor does not complete a personal assessment, the chair will have cause to not schedule the instructor for a DE course. Details
      1. No minimum score.
      2. DE Committee will provide list of who completes training every year (akin to Federal Guidelines training).
      3. Instructors assigned a DE course right before the term begins will have until the conclusion of said term to complete the evaluation.
    2. Timeframe for roll-out: DE Committee will work with div chairs to create schedule so not everyone will be up at once.
  3. Revised DE Guideline (with Annotations)
    1. For convocation distribution.
    2. Took out OSCER notes. Guidelines with annotations are on DE team drive for future reference.
  4. Revised DE Peer Evaluation
    1. For convocation distribution.
    2. Div chairs liked the checkmark chart for evaluation.
  5. DE Self-Evaluation Online Form – Draft
    1. For convocation distribution.
    2. The form will be used only for self-evaluation purposes. This should not be used for course evaluation, peer evaluation, or any other form of faculty performance assessment.
    3. For those with multiple courses and for ease of use, instructors may want to create their write-ups in Word first, then cut and paste into the form.
    4. Google Forms has been chosen as for evaluation use as it is easy to share and collaborate.
    5. When submitted, responses will be housed in the DE Shared Drive. DE Committee will send PDFs of individual instructor responses to div chairs.
    6. The points in the evaluation form should be outlined or explained in one’s DE syllabus.
    7. The quality of answers is the onus of instructor. Follow-up discussions on the evaluation will be done between instructor and div chair.
    8. At convocation, the DE Committee will emphasize no one will be “policing” online instructors or their courses. The form presents a unified campus checklist and should be approached as such. If requested, the DE Liaisons will work in conjunction with the div chair to help instructors maintain course quality and content alignment.
  6. Convocation Presentation – Draft
    1. Matt, Warren, LeeAnne, and possibly Annmarie will present at convocation.
    2. The presentation will include discussions on forms, training, quality assurance, best practices, current and new/improved guidelines.
    3. Federal Guidelines training will be replaced by a more in-house robust workshop.
  7. Subcommittee Reports
    1. IOTA (Sandro*, Camden, Warren)
      1. Nothing new to report at this time.
    2. DE Liaison (Michelle*, Kuuipo, Christy)
      1. The subcommittee suggests DEL work at the division-level to advertise availability and offer targeted services thereby encouraging faculty to seek support: Increasing Utilization of DE Liaisons.
      2. The new DE Liaisons Assistance Request form is more general than the former one to encourage open-ended requests.
    3. Faculty Evaluation (Rachael*, Karim, Matt, Kelsie)
      1. DE Faculty Survey Results 2017-2018
        1. The Faculty Evaluation Subcommittee categorized survey results to organize needs and instructor concerns.
        2. ID themes
          1. Maybe offer professional development opportunities.
          2. Highlight these themes when advertising DE workshops.
          3. Karim: PD on how to engage students in DE courses.
            1. Quality Matters training (six weeks total for three modules — two weeks each) would help with this. Warren will check on next start date and report back to committee. QM tells instructors what must go into a DE course but not how to teach DE. Instead it asks, “What should a good quality course have?” QM also helps to start conversations about what kind of help an instructor may require. Lastly, QM provides insight into what a third-party would say about one’s course.
          4. Next steps: review survey results. What can we or EMC do to support faculty needs?
  8. Next meeting: January 14.
Tagged with:
Posted in Minutes

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Skip to toolbar