DETF 2014-15

intersections of work

Placement, Program Model, IE, State Recommendations

DETF

Curriculum + Pedagogy

SACs

Alignment + Curriculum

Assessment

Professional Development

faculty experiences: what we know

How do you know if your students are placed correctly?

What do you do if they’re not?

grade + characteristics data

Summary: In 2010-2011, DE faculty at Rock Creek, Cascade, and Sylvania voluntarily filled out a “Grade and Characteristics Chart” to try to capture the qualities and habits of successful and unsuccessful students in DE classes.

Data Gathered: For each section, the instructor noted…

the number of students earning an A,B,C/P,D, F/NP or W

number of students attending at the beginning and end of term

(most importantly) the characteristics of students who earned A, B, C/P, D, and F/NP

Findings: The responses in the characteristics section reflected the greatest consistency in reported data. Across the board, instructors reported similar qualities for each grade level and subject. The qualities related to attendance, quality of work, communication, use of resources, schedule balance, preparation, engagement, motivation, adversity, and language barriers.

Grade Characteristics

A Strong attendance, high quality work, communicative, engaged, organized, motivated, utilizes resources, responds to feedback, assignments complete & on time

B Good attendance. Completes most assignments w/ good quality but may be inconsistent. Work turned in on time. Good participation & communication. Works hard. Less studying.

C/PMisses classes, turns in late assignments, missing or low scoring assignments. Less organized, inconsistent quality of work. Does minimum to pass. May work full time, no time for tutoring, struggle to balance school & schedule, has excuses. Little communication. May not buy textbook right away.

DExcessive absences or consistently late to class. Don’t "get" assignments. May work hard but don't understand concepts or missing instruction through absences. Disorganized. Poor scores. Little to no communication with instructor. Questionable work ethic. Inappropriate behaviors. Dealing with life issues. Schedule conflicts.

F/NP Excessive absences, missing many assignments, low scores, no effort. Unprepared for class. No textbook. Does not use resources. Does not follow through. Not participatory. Unprepared for class.

questions raised:

How do we receive the information (via assignments, conferencing, hearsay, OSD reports, etc)? What is our individual expertise or understanding of specific adversarial situations? Are we guessing? Are we certain?

2. How does lack of consistent interpretation affect our instruction? Our feedback? Our advising?

3. How can we get on the same page?

Sylvania Intake PilotKristin Sengdeng, Jeanette Muehleck, Karen Paez

überAssComm

DE SAC Assessment Info

Fall 2014 Winter 2015 Spring 2015

OctDETF

meeting:placemen

t

NovDETF

meeting:pilot

options + funding

DecDETF

meeting:measuring success

(DOI Joint

) SAC mtg

(DOI Joint) SAC mtg

Faculty curriculum

collaboration

Winter DETF

meeting

Faculty curriculum

collaboration

Faculty curriculum

collaboration

SpringDETF

meeting:make recs

SpringSymposium:Placement + Curriculum + Assessment

Faculty curriculum

collaboration

SAC mtg

s

develop and run informal integration with linked RD/WRRun exp. pilots of linked

RD/WR

Assessment: COSA for RD + WR 115 to understand curricular alignment, placement, and pre-reqsWork w/advising + student services + assessment to develop affective + academic placement

next steps:action items

Placement measuring affect and readiness developing assessment for RD/WR samples considering transcript evaluation? other?

Curriculum Collaboration developing pilot options sharing pedagogy integrating SLCs, labs, Libraries, and DS

Research + Funding working with IE to establish measurements of success seeking funding from State and other sources

Professional Development what does this look like?