Exploring Digital & Global Education
Discovering Work and Learning
Strategies
for the New Millennium
| |
Exploring Digital & Global Education Discovering Work and Learning
Strategies |
STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES
Steering Committee Meeting #1
Steering Committee Meeting #2
Steering Committee Meeting #3
Steering Committee Meeting #4
Steering Committee Meeting #5
Steering Committee Meeting #6
Steering Committee Meeting #7
Steering Committee Meeting #8
Steering Committee Meeting #9
Steering Committee Meeting #10
EDGE STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING #1
EDGE STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING #2
DATE: February 5, 1998
LOCATION: Clearwater Campus Library, Multi-Purpose Room
ATTENDING:
Dr. Ann Chard, Associate Executive Director, SACS
Guy Hancock, Co-chair, EDGE Study
Dave Hartman, Co-chair, EDGE Study
Esther Oliver, Administrator, EDGE/Reaffirmation
Ernie Ross, Chair, Reaffirmation Committee
Joe Smiley, Committee Member
Linda Gaier, Committee Member
Danny Clark, Committee Member
Susan Anderson, Committee Member
Iris Yetter, Committee Member
Mary Smith, Committee Member
Linda Nielson, Committee Member
Susan Demers, Committee Member
RE: An informal meeting with Dr. Ann Chard, to give a general
review of the Alternate Self-Study process to answer any questions that
anybody may have.
2.01 Ann Chard opened the meeting by reviewing the Alternat Seld-Study process by the use of the overhead projector and slides.
2.02 Ernie Ross questioned what the reaffirmation was based on.
Ann Chard responded that the reaffirmation is based on the Compliance Study. The Focus Study is not considered for reaffirmation, but it must be completed "satisfactorily".
2.03 AAnn Chard suggested that for the site visits by the Visiting Teams to have information readily available. Ann Chard even suggested sending information to the Visiting Team four to six weeks prior to their visit. This makes the process more simplistic. A good line of ccommunication between the Steering Committee and the Visiting Team removes much of the confusion.
2.04 Dr. Esther Oliver commented on the yearly SACS meeting and how institutions that had finished their self-study had their reports on display. Ann Chard stated that she would send a list of all institutions that have completed the self-study.
2.05 Joe Smiley requested Ann Chard share some difficulties that past institutions have had with their self-study's.
Ann Chard gave several examples of institutions losing focus, losing site of their goals. She explained that sometimes too much effort goes towards the Focus Study and the Compliance Study suffers.
Ann Chard shard a list of "Lessons Learned: Advise from Self Study Directors" on the overhead.
2.06 Ann Chard commented that the idea of the Compliance Visiting Team and the Consultant Visiting Team coming at the same time is a good decision. She stated that two teams can help each other and share information.
Chardinism: "HAVING BOTH COMMITTEES COME AT THE SAME TIME IS LIKE HAVING
ONE NIGHTMARE INSTEAD OF TWO!"
2.07 Ann Chard described the charecteristics of the self-study. Compliance: The compliance section is made up of the must statements (approximately 400). These all must be covered. Need to provide evidence of compliance, need to pinpoint where information can be found, and need to provide a narrative for the criteria. Not all narratives have to be large, some will be small. Rule of thumb; Any documentation that can be placed right with the criteria, do it. The easier the report is to read the happier the committee members will be and the quicker they can finish their work.
2.08 Ann Chard discussed the matter of non-compliance situations. Some non-compliance items may be arise during the the self-study. If the non-compliance is amended prior to the release of the final report, the college has no reason to mention it in its report. The committee is only interested if the item is in compliance or non-compliance.
2.09 Ann Chard explained that the expectation of the criteria is that the institution keeps its integrity by staying in compliance. There is always ebb and flow. One of the main factors of the self-study is to critically examine all aspects of compliance issues.
2.10 New legislation as of June: After Visiting Team releases its report, the instituion has five months to respond. After the response is given to the C&R Committee, the institution has two years to come into compliance, or it may face the loss of its accreditation.
2.11 The Focus aspect of the study: This involves braod-based participation. The focus describes the study, it describes the importance of the study to the institution, analyzes the effect of the study (both current and long-term), and it describes changes at the institution as a result of the study. Any person who reads the Focus Study should be able to relive the study. Although a final report is due in two years, this does not mean that it is where the study must end. The institution may indicated on the report how far along the institution plans on carrying out the study.
2.12 Ann Chard described the make-up of the Compliance Visiting Team. Chair, Instituional Effectiveness, Finance/Physical Resources, Student Services, Learning Resources, Faculty and Curriculum. Chair is considered approximately two years before the site visit. The rest of the committee is put together eight to ten months prior to the visit. The make-up of the committee may be altered in respect to the institution.
2.13 Copies of Ann Chard's overheads were requested.
2.14 Ann Chard discussed the Consultant Visiting Team. Many teams were made up of professionals who do the consulting as a career. Nobody has yet to turn down a consulting offer. Most business professionals want to learn the accrediting process and the consulting route is the best opportunity they have to get an up-close view.
2.15 Ann Chard discussed the responsibilities of the Steering Committee: Plan, Organize, Coordinate, Monitor, Advise, and Facilitate the Self-study. Communication through media to keep college aware of important dates and status of study.
2.16 Ann Chard discussed the "In-House" Manual and its structure. It should include a statement of purpose. It should also include: committee organization, membership, committee charges and assignments, calendar and schedule, methodologies for data collection and analysis, editoria/writing and operational guidelines, project resources, bibliography of references, and other appropriate materials.
2.17 Discussion of timeline. The C&R Committee meets twice a year, June and December. If the site visit for the study is in the Fall of 1999, report is due to the C&R Committee in June of 2000. If the visit is Spring of 2000, report is due December of 2000. Once the dates are established for the Visiting Teams, a timeline can begin to be plotted. The Chair of the Compliance Visiting Committee will visit approximately eight weeks prior to the rest of the committee. Mail ALL pertinent documents to members of the Visiting Team four to six weeks prior to their visit.
2.18 Discussion of Visiting Committee timeline. The Visiting Committees will have a four day visit. On the first day a social gathering at night is recommended. The second and third days will consist of site visits and interviews. The fourth day the members will need to finish their exit reports and should be out of the area by lunch.
2.19 Dr. Ann Chard's email address: achard@sacscoc.org.
***END OF MEETING MINUTES #2 NOTES***
EDGE STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING #3
EDGE STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING #4
EDGE STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING #5
DATE: April 24,1998 TIME: 1:00pm
LOCATION: Caruth Health Education Center, Provosts Conference Room
ATTENDING:
Guy Hancock, Co-chair
David Hartman Co-chair
Dr. Esther Oliver, Administrator
Linda Nielsen, Committee Member
Jean Wortock, Committee Member
Susan Anderson, Committee Member
Iris Yetter, Committee Member
Robert Meyer, Committee Member
Sean McCormick, Admin. Assistant
RE: Monthly EDGE Steering Committee.
AGENDA: The June Retreat (main item for discussion) Creation of an in-house SACS Manual SACS shadowing visit Phase I Update
5.01 Guy Hancock began the meeting by reading a quote from the book, "Competing for the Future".
5.02 The minutes from last meeting were approved.
5.03 The June 5th retreat was brought to the floor for discussion. All day retreat at the Allstate Center, all days work will focus on "Model College". Dave Hartman reviewed most up-to-date agenda for the retreat. All of the day's information will be formatted and then posted on the web. Computer labs will be available and other types of demonstrations for people to have a "hands-on" experience with the technology.
Dr. Esther Oliver questioned if that the model college idea for the retreat some how tied into the EDGE self-study. Guy Hancock explained that this was a necessary step to Phase II. David Hartman added that this would be able to pull all ideas together help committee chairs picture the full scope of their ideas.
5.04 It was questioned why that the EDGE web page is not linked from the SPJC home page. It was agreed that a link would be formed to link the SPJC home page to the EDGE home page.
5.05 The fast track program was discussed. It was agreed that the program fits a certain niche, and that the college could use the program. Guy Hancock explained that it was not really the program that interested him, but the process it took to put the program together. It was agreed that support from the top of college down is what truly pushes the process through the college.
5.06 Dr. Esther Oliver questioned how the meetings at Clearwater Campus went? Guy and Dave responded that there was no meeting, no one showed only Dave and Guy. It was thought that it was some kind of communication error. The discussion went to meetings with Committees. Tarpon Springs, St. Pete/Gibbs, and Allstate Center have all been met with. Clearwater will need to be rescheduled.
5.07 Some marketing ideas were discussed for getting faculty and staff to visit the web page. Some kind of give-a-ways. The problem, explained by Dr. Oliver, is that not all faculty have the availability to access the web. There is some where on each campus to access the web and faculty/staff could access the EDGE home page.
Robert Meyer stated that he would discuss the idea with Mike O'Berry and present it to the Steering Committee at the next meeting.
Dr. Oliver suggested a brief message on the Email to give them a hotlink to go directly t the web page. Another idea would be a play-off from the Blue & White to direct people to the web. Guy Hancock expressed that he did not want to "SPAM" the college.
5.08 A list server will need to be completed next week to facilitate the process of contacting the committees.
5.09 The Phase I documents were discussed. Some are too vague. It was decided that rewards need to be offered to the committees who have finished Phase I and have done a lot of thought and worked through the process.
5.10 The Compliance and Self-study processes were discussed and the differences in the two. The compliance committees are on the same time schedule as the self-study committee.
The two sides of the study can not be separated, but also they are not together. One plays off the other. Problems with the criteria will highlight problems that the self-study side may be able to focus on resolutions
5.11 The In-house SACS Manual was discussed. The web pages, will serve as the in-house manual, and that Dr. Oliver was to check with Ann Chard to find out if that is enough.
Guy Hancock asked if anybody had any questions from their committees? It was thought that once some Phase I documents are posted on the web, it would clarify for other committees that may be lost.
5.12 The shadowing was discussed. David Hartman and Guy Hancock are to visit and shadow the visiting team to view the process. Give some insights on what visiting team look for and what to expect.
It is almost time to name site visit committee. That is part of the process of the shadowing.
5.13 The Phase I update: The database has been set up along with its file. A beta version for the web page is also complete. David Hartman summarized the process for the database by committees. The next step of the process will be working on an index page, so committees can access data from the database, so the committees can compare works from other committees. This is thought to facilitate the Steering Committee when it is time to compile data for the final EDGE document to be turned into SACS.
It also encourages people to review other committees work and maybe re-format their own documents.
5.14 Guy Hancock offered an idea that possibly a small play be performed for faculty as a teacher from the year 2010... Just a basic slice of life. Give the idea to the drama department to possibly work it out and form a short play. It is an idea and input was requested.
5.15 Robert Meyer discussed an article he found by Dr. Carla Lane. He gave a brief synopsis and copies will be made available.
***END MEETING MINUTES #5 NOTES***
DATE: May 29, 1998
TIME: 2:00pm
LOCATION: Caruth Health Education Center, President's Conference Room
ATTENDING:
Guy Hancock, Co-Chair
David Hartman, Co-Chair
Dr. Esther Oliver, Administrator
Angel Rosado, Committee Member
Gean Wortock, Committee Member
Robert Meyer, Committee Member
Michael O'Berry, Committee Member
Iris Yetter, Committee Member
Joe Smiley, Committee Member
RE: Monthly EDGE Steering Committee Meeting.
6.01 Dave Hartman opened the meeting discussing the Program and Committee Chair retreat for June 5th. The general layout of the day was explained to the committee. The tabletop discussion was discussed in detail. Some of the questions for the panelists were discussed. Guest speaker, David Bona, will give a presentation about his process of getting support for his program. Demonstrations will be set up in the De Soto Room. Labs will be set up for people can have "hands-on" experience with computers. Finally, the preparation for the model college for the future.
Mike O'Berry explained different demonstrations he has been working out for the retreat. Also, researching different sites to put up on a page. CBT materials from different companies.
Guy Hancock questioned places for Mike's demonstrations. Dave Hartman suggested just making a quick web page to list links to all the SPJC on-line classes.
6.02 The topic of computer "minimums" was asked. It was thought that computer minimum standards are what keep technology movement in the college.
6.03 Iris Yetter questioned ideas from the committees for the planning session for the retreat. She explained how with one change, you effect all different aspects of the college-wide process. How do we phrase the group topic so that we can get creativity and involvement, without problems? Robert Meyer suggested that the problem is the expectations may be too high and undeliverable.
Guy Hancock once again referred to his book "Competing for the Future". He explained that the companies with the most resources are often left behind. The companies who plan and then go look for the resources are the ones who accomplish the cutting edge. We need dream the dream today and then go for it, rather than looking at your wallet and seeing how far it can get you.
Robert Meyer explained that when he brought faculty together, what do you want in your classroom? He got replies like, give me a projector that works. They are not looking far ahead into tomorrow as in on-line courses, but wanting basic needs in their classroom for teaching today.
Technology is not a teacher, but a tool. Using technology to reach more customers. It does not produce better teachers, the classes are only as good as its teacher.
6.04 Joe Smiley questioned if a "state of the college" address could be made to allow all faculty and staff present at the retreat to realize that the college is making the progression towards the future, but it is a slow process.
6.05 Florida Room control: Committee come up with three or so bullets, those can be transferred onto the screen. Big letters...
6.06 Web form is up for database for Phase I. Soon, Phase II will be ready. Collection of Phase I reports has been received. Managing the EDGE process, Steering Committee Members are to help committees condensing reports so that it can be easily sorted... Common answers are expected, which will be transferred and addressed. Also, unique ideas will also come forward, which will also be included.
Dr. Oliver suggested a sit down meeting with committees to help push the process to them.
6.07 Guy Hancock stated that it should be recommended that all committees have AT LEAST one adjunct on their committee. Joe Smiley stated that he assumed that, and had two adjuncts in both committees.
Guy Hancock explained that some committees might need to have sub-committees because of the diversity within their committee. Such as the communications department. It was decided that ESL, which is under communications, should have its own committee due to its diversity.
***END OF MEETING MINUTES #6 NOTES***
DATE: 6/26/98
TIME: 2:00pm
LOCATION: Provost's Conference Room, Health Education Center
ATTENDING:
Esther Oliver, Administrator
Guy Hancock, Co-Chair
David Hartman, Co-Chair
Robert Meyer, Committee Member
Richard Konrad, Committee Member
Linda Nielsen, Committee Member
Mary Smith, Committee Member
Joe Smiley, Committee Member
Mike O'Berry, Committee Member
EXCUSED:
Susan Anderson, Committee Member
Brad Jenkins, Committee Member
Susan Demers, Committee Member
Danny Clark, Committee Member
Iris Yetter, Committee Member
AGENDA ITEMS: Plans for In-service Day, and a review of the Phase I reports for completeness.
7.01 Hartman expressed thanks to committee for work with June 5th Retreat and their participation. Noted that we received a very favorable response on the evaluation of the Retreat.
7.02 Guy Hancock distributed forms for the steering committee to evaluate reports. The committee is to review the reports for which they are the liaison. (See Evaluation for Steering Committee for questions addressed).
Questions addressed were the need for public member (advisory committee members are eligible), and also the need for an adjunct instructor member.
This is the first part of report that the committee will be writing. A list of missing phase I reports was shared, and an updated list of liaisons for the committees. Also, a list of committees and members was shared.
7.03 The database is ready for Phase II, however it was felt that some response to Phase I reports should be provided, before Phase II reports are submitted. The process of moving from Phase I to II was raised. It was felt that some review of the reports and some dialog of the major points needs to be shared with the program committees before moving to Phase II. A time for a review workshop was discussed and the steering committee will be polled for a convenient time to meet--looking at 2:30 p.m. on a Tuesday, July 14th.
7.04 Copies of the current committee reports were distributed to steering committee to review for completeness. These reports are also being distributed to all chairs of the program committees by the liaisons
It was noted that report committees may realign or split based on the needs of the program, or they may combine across the sites.
7.05 A discussion on the needs for visuals in getting messages out to the committee members followed. This could be used on the web site, or as posters in the workplace.
7.06 David Hartman discussed the In-Service Days. This would be done closely with FGO who arranges that day. Some activities from the Edge Committee should be a part of the day's activities. Suggestions made were to present mini-presentations of where we are in the process, departments could present their reports and look for suggestions, solutions, processes from the other participants. Case studies could be presented, and various methods of implementation can be discussed.
7.07 Robert Meyer brought up the question the Stewart Gilbert on his special study. This would be an extra effort at this time, and it was decided to hold this for participation after the Phase reports. It is anticipated that we will be asked to participate in this study and active on a committee at some time in the future. Item tabled for the time being.
***END OF MEETING MINUTES #7 NOTES***
DATE: 7/14/98
TIME: 2:20pm
LOCATION: Provost's Conference Room, Health Education Center
ATTENDING:
Guy Hancock, Co-Chair
David Hartman, Co-Chair
Danny Clark, Committee Member
Richard Konrad, Committee Member
Michael O'Berry, Committee Member
Susan Anderson, Committee Member
Robert Meyer, Committee Member
Iris Yetter, Committee Member
Angel Rosado,Committee Member
Mary Smith, Committee Member
PURPOSE: Make sure all EDGE committees understand what is required of them. Liaisons need to know how to read, report on committee reports.
It was discussed putting Richard Konrad's "Dream to Reality" chart on the EDGE Web site. Discussed need to link individual unit and report schedules into Richard's chart.
How well did evaluation form work? Consensus - pretty well. Need to get form on web, linked to database Need for search page to seek out consensus items (in progress)
Purpose of study is for the College. The Report is for SACS.
Where do the Provosts have input into EDGE Study? They are not designated as units. It was decided that is necessary to have Provost's input at the campus level. They are needed for input, as facilitators, and motivators. Guy and Dave will ask provosts to set up small campus-wide committees.
Make sure provosts are at the meetings.
It was stated that we need to avoid perception that study is being centralized.
It was also decided that the Cabinet must be in the loop if there is to be buy-in on EDGE study.
Guy and Dave may need to make periodic reports to cabinet.
Decision makers may not be sufficiently represented on Steering Committee (Mike) Many critical decisions being made unilaterally, in isolation. (Robert) Concern raised that people are so busy, campus committees might end up staffed by the same people who are on the Steering Committee. (Mary S) Perhaps telecommunications and networking representatives could be added to the Steering Committee. . The College's strategic goals need to be in sync with EDGE goals.
It was discussed the need to bring all units in the college into EDGE process.
Point of study is not technology but fundamental change and how to facilitate it as an ongoing process.
Criteria needed for judging projects, ideas. Support within all levels of college must be addressed in plans.
We could send reports that identify consensus items in each phase of the study.
Need to incorporate Unit Planning process into EDGE long-range plan. In many cases, unit planning committee members are also involved in EDGE study but may not be considering unit plan as part of EDGE. Could designate unit plans as formal part of EDGE process.
Steering Committee needs to devote a meeting to discussing role of Unit plans.
Liaisons need to contact committees that haven't reported on Phase 1.
***END OF MEETING MINUTES #8 NOTES****
(MEETING MINUTES #9 NOT AVAILABLE AT THIS TIME)
STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING #10
Date: Friday, September 4, 1998
Time: 2:00 PM
Location: Caruth Health Education Center, Provost's Conference Room
10.01 How are Edge Committees & Steering Committee members interacting, are there public members involved, what is the outcome & goal?
10.02 How well are the Steering Committee members coaching the EDGE Committees?
Steering Committee must go to the committees and coach them, rather than wait for them to come to us with questions.
10.03 We have goals; do the committees keep referencing the goals as they work?
Take quotes from committee reports to put in B&W, identify sources so each committee gets recognition.
Should we relate each question on the phases directly to our goals?
Combine weekly reminder with request for update from SC
10.04 IN-SERVICE DAY PLANS: Panel discussion? Questions sent beforehand? Faculty presentations? Possibly Mike Bizell from PBCC Phys Therapy Assistant program?
INSTRUCTIONAL COMPUTING PRESENTATIONS:
Vicki W: Will demo web page template to create faculty home page. Not how-to, but a Wow, look what this will do! This is why you want a web page, not "how to create one".
Kim Leighton: Will discuss missing piece, using tech to complete the instructional puzzle.
Sandy: Wonderful world of WebCT.
Joe Lapierre: How to use PowerPoint for instruction.
Allen Schapiro, new Curriculum Designer: Will talk about facilitating communications on the web Chat room & discussion: asking the right kinds of questions.
Carol Copenhaver: To do a technology update - 5 minutes.
10.05 Re-thinking what you are doing makes you better, it's not the technology but the process of rethinking that is valuable.
10.06 FGO to select the presentations?
10.07 Use Intel's compressor and do compressed video with a guest speaker?
***END OF MEETING MINUTES #10 NOTES***
This page last updated: July 23, 1998
Back to the top
Return to EDGE Home
page