Posted on by Greg

Results of the Post-Final Meetings (Dec. 11-13)

We met to work on our SLOs, along with a few other things, on the three days after the scheduled final. I think the meeting was really positive; meeting as a department, both full- and part-time, is important–and will be more so given some of the changes in the works, primarily (thought not exclusively) regarding AB 705, as explained below.

So here are some highlights, including what we discussed, as well as some announcements and some decisions we made.

SLO Discussion

Issues

  • We didn’t all agree on some definitions of terms in the SLOs. The most obvious was the term “synthesize” (for 1A), but there were other examples as well.
  • We had a wide range of assessment methods, from specific assignments to more holistic assessments. Some of these might not fit the expectations for SLO assessment.
  • We haven’t had the opportunity to discuss ENGL 1B or 1C SLOs.
  • Discussion at the end of the semester is easily forgotten before the beginning of the semester, so we wondered about the timing of these meetings.

Decisions

We agreed to break these end-of-semester meetings into two separate meetings–one at the beginning of the semester, to discuss how we’ll define and assess that semester’s SLO; and one at the end of the semester, to discuss the results of that semester’s SLO assessments. 

Though the days will be distributed differently, this is the same work, so we plan to have part-time faculty sign in and be paid, as before.

The meeting before the semester begins:

  • One hour dedicated to each level: 1A, 56 (and 51) and 1B/1C.
  • Discussion with specific samples about the SLO, seeking agreement on definitions, assessment methods, and standards.
  • I will send an email requesting, for each course, assignments and/or writing samples (stripped of identifying information) that could be used to measure the SLO for that semester. This meeting won’t work if I don’t get those. So watch for that email.
  • We will try to record these meetings so that those who couldn’t attend will be able to listen (or watch?) the discussion. 
  • Next semester, we’ll be measuring the same SLOs that we measured this semester, but this will likely change each year (we’re required to measure each SLO at least once each four-year program review cycle.

The meeting after the semester begins will take place over two days, to accommodate MW and TTh teaching schedules.

AB 705

Over the past few months, we’ve been working to get ourselves set up to comply with AB 705 while still serving our students well–and without lowering standards, as many of us fear may be inevitable. Some highlights of that discussion:

  • For those who want background information, there are a few resources that you should check out:
  • Some decisions have already been put into place:
    • English 105 has been discontinued, effective Spring 2019 (next semester)
    • English 51 will be discontinued effective Fall 2019
    • Effective Fall 2019, we will offer, in effect, three levels of basic composition:
      • English 1A – for the highest placing students (high school GPA of 2.6 and up) 
      • English 1A plus a co-requisite, English 10 (see below) – for middle placing students (high school GPA of 1.9 up to 2.59)
      • English 56 – for students with high school GPA > 1.9.
    • English 10 has been approved by the curriculum committee.  The Course Outline of Record (which you can see on CurricuNet Meta) includes topics from ENGL 56 and 1A, with the instructor deciding what to select from among those topics based on the need of her specific students.
  • Some decisions are still being finalized:
    • We have a new, 5-unit course that, we hope, will replace ENGL 1A+10, but we will need to be sure that it will articulate with CSU and UC before we can offer it. Assuming that isn’t a problem, that would likely go into effect Fall 2020.
    • Beginning Fall 2019, we plan to offer on-going professional development that would include:
      • Readers Apprenticeship workshop during professional development week
      • Inquiry groups throughout the semester. We don’t have details yet, but it would be something like a couple hours twice a month, with both predetermined topics and opportunity for troubleshooting-type discussions
      • Stipends for part-time faculty to participate
    • Looking further ahead:
      • There are some requirements (which, as Carrie pointed out, are likely to change, so we probably have a moving target…) that we’ll need to prove we’ve met in order to keep placing students into the co-req course and/or 56. So there is a chance that Fall 2021 will again look different. (Ugh.)

We had a few issues come up, mostly around concerns–all of which are perfectly justified–about what the state is demanding from us. A few things I think are worth keeping in mind (and, yes, this is my perspective–not everyone will agree with me on this):

  • The percentage of students that the state expects to fail to pass ENGL 1A within a year is very high. There’s concern–and it’s probably right–that many students will just quit. But the number of students they expect to pass in a year is actually higher than the number who spend multiple years and don’t pass.
  • National research shows that high school GPA is a significantly better predictor of success in English and math courses. By using placement exams (we’ve used Accuplacer, which I regularly heard called “Inaccuplacer” at state academic senate meetings), we’ve been underplacing students. This means that students who could have succeeded in 1A have been forced to take 56, or even 105, which adds to the time they need to stay at Yuba–if it doesn’t make them quit altogether.

My personal take: we would have gotten to something similar to AB 705 sooner or later, given our previous efforts around acceleration (moving from 5 levels of comp (110A, 110B, 105, 51, 1A) to two or three (56, 1A or 105, 51, 1A) and the work around Guided Pathways. So I’m not opposed to the theory. But the implementation timeline has been insane, and doesn’t give us the opportunity to figure out the best way to do things.

That said: the AB 705 workgroup (Shawn, Kiara, and Carrie) have been doing great work working through options and recommending the best routes for the time we have.

Final Exam Schedule

Next semester, we will no longer be giving our final exams at a common time. Instead, we’ll be scheduled like pretty much all the rest (the exceptions being math and ESL). A couple things to note:

  • The final exam schedule is on one of the last pages of the semester’s printed Schedule of Classes. (Here’s the Spring 2019 Schedule of Classes; you’ll find the final exam schedule on page 129.)
  • The final is only two hours (1:50, technically), not the three that you may be used to when we had a common time.
  • If we have the misfortune of having our class’s final scheduled on the last day (Monday, May 20 in the upcoming semester), we are still required to meet with the class at the time. This is true even if we don’t plan to offer an actual final exam–even if, for example, we have a writing project due the last day of regular classes. District policy, based on state law, requires us to meet. We are allowed to do whatever we think is appropriate for our class. But we do have to meet.

Closing thoughts

I think that’s it. If you think of anything I left out that I shouldn’t have, please let me know. (My email is gkemble@yccd.edu )