ࡱ> tvs'` bjbj$$ 0"FF ^ suuuuuu$Rh     s s  `xd _ " W0   7      RESOLUTION 1: Support for Faculty Primacy in the Use of SLOs to Improve Student Learning Whereas, the members of the 17Թ community are dedicated to the achievement of learning and to the success of our students; Whereas, the cycle of SLO assessment empowers faculty to try new pedagogical approaches to explore both what works and what does not work, and encourages meaningful collegial dialogue about improvement of student learning; Whereas, SLOs are intended to target deep learning beyond content alone and as such have the potential to stimulate both faculty and students to consider beneficial lifelong skills, values and behaviors that may be gained from a college education; and, Whereas, The 2002 ACCJC accreditation standards require that colleges incorporate measurable student learning outcomes at the course, program and institutional level; Resolved, the 17Թ Academic Senate supports the development and utilization of processes that honor faculty primacy in the identification and assessment of SLOs and that seek to utilize SLOs to their greatest potential in fostering student success. RESOLUTION 2: SLOs on Course Syllabi Whereas, when placed on the course syllabus, SLOs are made transparent to students and can prompt students to consider their own learning; and Whereas, course-level SLOs are aligned with program and institutional-level learning outcomes and as such articulate a clear vision for student learning to the students; Whereas, many students experience an increased motivation to learn when they have a clear understanding of how a course is going to benefit them in the long term; Whereas, the 2002 ACCJC accreditation standards require that in every class section students receive a course syllabus that specifies learning outcomes consistent with those in the institutions officially approved course outline, Resolved, the 17Թ Academic Senate strongly encourages faculty to place SLOs on their course syllabus. RESOLUTION 3: Opposition to Using SLOs in Faculty Evaluation Whereas, Campus visiting teams for the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC) have offered conflicting interpretations of Accreditation Standard III.A.1.c, leading to some team recommendations that the attainment of student learning outcomes should be included in individual faculty evaluations; Whereas, The Academic Senate for California Community Colleges, in its 2004 paper, The 2002 Accreditation Standards: Implementation, has stated its opposition to the use of SLOs as a basis for faculty evaluation, noting the potentially negative impact on evaluation as a collegial peer process, on academic freedom, and on local bargaining authority; Whereas, The Academic Senate for California Community Colleges noted in the same paper that in the event that SLOs data is collected and aggregated, it must be without reference to specific classes, students and its instructors; and Whereas, The differing interpretations of Standard III.A.1.c by visiting teams have caused confusion, uncertainty, and anxiety on the part of faculty at colleges that have received team recommendations that appear to conflict with stated positions of the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges, with previous understanding of the standard, and with the ACCJCs stated respect for academic freedom; Resolved, That the 17Թ Academic Senate work with the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges to clarify the intent of standard III.A.1.c in order to resolve the conflicting messages being delivered by various visiting teams; Resolved, That the 17Թ Academic Senate affirms its resistance to including the attainment of student learning outcomes as an aspect of individual faculty evaluations; and Resolved, That the 17Թ Academic Senate work with the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges and with other concerned statewide faculty organizations to ensure that accreditation recommendations do not encourage the use of student learning outcomes in any manner that would undermine either local bargaining authority or the academic freedom of individual faculty members. @GY f p ST>?@ScABVf 繯ïïïï篖ïxïxhohd6OJQJ^JaJhi`hd6OJQJ^JaJh4Gyhd6OJQJaJhd6OJQJ^JaJhd6OJQJaJhBchd65>*hd6OJQJ^JaJh,hd65>* h2hd6 hNhd6hd6h@ h@ 5>*h5Kh@ 5>*,YZ i j o p % & tu^_ 1$7$8$H$gdd6gdd6TU?@BC 5gdd6gdd6 & 0` P@1$7$8$H$gdd6.:pd6/ =!"#$% 666666666vvvvvvvvv666666>6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666<@< 6NormalCJ_HmH sH tH DAD Default Paragraph FontRiR Table Normal4 l4a (k( No List >O> e|style61 XDYD CJOJQJ"YZijop%&tu^_!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!YZijop%&tu^_T U ? @ BC0000000000000000000000000000000000000000 8@0(  B S  ?8<04~<@  ' +   pMQ3z gT#zBI#Y#=0q2'gT#(;:BI#&a3;#=r`@hvOC#hvOCBI"S#=gTQS[hvOC#y]]BI#ahvOC#"!cgT# dd#=#g'QigT#GfiO4lhvOC#zhvOC#t`{d6@ 5T@-/P@UnknownGz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z Arial;& z Helvetica3z Times7K@Cambria qhA,FA,Fyy24J#H ?'q"2XRESOLUTION 1: Support for Faculty Primacy in the Use of SLOs to Improve Student Learning Staff/Faculty Staff FacultyOh+'0 ,@ Xd   \RESOLUTION 1: Support for Faculty Primacy in the Use of SLOs to Improve Student LearningStaff/Faculty Normal.dotStaff Faculty2Microsoft Office Word@@d@dyGVT$m}  |E&" WMFC~ @`lUT#m EMF`eU"   Rp@Cambria7K@Cambri  0Ln0dv%  Rp@Cambria04 0bJ))-;"32 0P00";;;;;;7K@Cambri$8 0 0B30Ln0dv% %  TXU@@ LhRESOLUTION 1:B:3F7D@#FD;T X] U@@ L Support for Faculty Primacy in 3<<<8.%!9.76/;%5=.Y6/5<Td^ X U@@^ LTthe %<5T XU@@  LdUse of SLOseD.59!37F.TdXU@@LT to %9TxX&U@@L\Improve"Y<.955'% Ld&9 !??% ( TT'X<U@@'LP  % TAU@@,LlStudent Learning3%<<5<%756.<<4'% Ld181!??% ( TT?AU@@,LP ;Rp@Cambria7K@Cambri~|2 0P00Ln0dv%  TTB(U@@LP ; T,U@@ L`Whereas, \71)11+T,U@@CLthe members of the Foothill College community are dedicated to the "71S1S71)+5"71655"785111-5SS78"21)1717,1"27"5"71 T- U@@:Lachievement of learning and to the success of our students1,7121S18"511)871187"5"71+7,,1++557)+"7718"+TT - U@@ LP;TT - U@@ LP < TT(U@@LP ; TU@@vLWhereas, the cycle of SLO asse\71)11+"71,2,1526A1++Tl7U@@v0Lessment empowers faculty to try new pedagogical 1++S18"1S85M0)+1,7"2"5"*281M8171151,1 TU@@MLapproaches to explore both what works and what does not work, and encourages 188)51,71+"51085)175"7M71"M5*4+187N71"751+85"M5)418718,57)111+ TvU@@aDLmeaningful collegial dialogue about improvement of student learning;S118817,51117251711757"S8)521S28"5+"7718"11)881TTvU@@aLP ; TTw(U@@LP ; T `U@@K=LWhereas, SLOs are intended to target deep learning beyond con\71)11+26A+1)18!08717"5"1)11"711811)881712587,58T i`U@@ KLptent alone and as "18"15811871+ TPbU@@VLsuch have the potential to stimulate both faculty and students to consider beneficial +7,77121"7185"18"1"5+"S71"175"71,7"2187+"7718"+"5,58+71)7181,1 T@iKU@@6SLlifelong skills, values and behaviors that may be gained from a college education; 1581+4+2171+197717125)+"71"S128111817)5S1,5111177,1"58 TdLU@@LTand,187TTLU@@L&" WMFC `P ; TT(5 U@@ LP a; T7  U@@ L`Whereas, \71)11+Td7 K U@@ LTThe ;71TL7 D U@@L L`2002 ACCJC7777>988T<E7 U@@E (L accreditation standards require that co1,,)17"1"58+"1871)7+)177)1"71",5T 7  U@@ Ltlleges incorporate 121+8,5)85)1"1 T  3 U@@ NLmeasurable student learning outcomes at the course, program and institutional S11+7)171+"7718"11)88157",5S1+1""71,57)+18)51)1S1878+""7"581 Tl!  U@@ LXlevel121TX!  U@@ LP; TT! # U@@ LP < TT ( U@@ LP ; T  U@@j LLResolved, the Foothill College Academic Senate supports the development and >1+5217"71655"785111>,171S,2181"1+7885)"+"71712158S18"187 T  U@@ JLutilization of processes that honor faculty primacy in the identification 7"-1"5858)5,1++1+"71"7585)1,7"28)T1,28"71718",1"57Td t U@@ LTand 187 T, j U@@U PLassessment of SLOs and that seek to utilize SLOs to their greatest potential in 1++1++S18"526A+186"71"+114"57"-126@+"5"71)1)11"1+"85"17"18 Tk 5 U@@ Lfostering student success.5+"1)81+"7718"+7,,2++TT6k o U@@6 LP : TT (T U@@? LP ; % T,V U@@ %LRESOLUTION 2: SLOs on Course Syllabi  B:3F7D@#FD;37F.9<99<..5356;'% Ld  !??% ( % TT V ( U@@ LP < T ?U@@*JLWhereas, when placed on the course syllabus, SLOs are made transparent to \71)11+M71881,1758"71,57)+1+2177+26A+1)1S171")18+81)18""5 TX@:U@@LPst+"T;@U@@;BLudents and can prompt students to consider their own learning; and7718"+187,188)5S8"+"7718"+"5,58+71)"71)5M811)881188TT@U@@LP ; TT()U@@LP ; T+U@@LlWhereas, course\71)11+,57)+1TT+U@@LP-!T+U@@5Llevel SLOs are aligned with program and institutional12126A+1)111817M"78*51)1S1878+""7"581TT+U@@LP-!Tp+U@@LXlevel 121 TDU@@TLlearning outcomes and as such articulate a clear vision for student learning to the 11)88157",5S1+1871++7,71)",71"11,11)2+585)+"7718"11*881"5"71 TxU@@t L`students;+"7718"+TTyU@@ytLP ; TT(U@@LP ; TtU@@_LpWhereas, many stu\71)11+S182+"7TYtU@@_<Ldents experience an increased motivation to learn when they 718"+1081)18,&" WMFC `1188,)11*17S5"21"58"511)8M718"712 TLuU@@ULhave a clear understanding of how a course is going to benefit them in the long term;71211,11)7871)+"18881575M1,58)+1+2581"57181""71S8!71581"1)STTu8U@@LP < TT(^U@@ILP ; T_U@@MLWhereas, the 2002 ACCJC accreditation standards require that  in every class \71)11+"717777?8981,,)17"1"58+"1871)7+)177)1"71"&8121)2,1++ T <IU@@4 Lsection students receive a cours+1,"58+"7718"+)1,1211,57)+TT=lIU@@=4,Le syllabus that specifies learning outcomes 1+2177+"71"+81,1+11)88157",4S1+ T(JU@@OLconsistent with those in the institution s officially approved course outline, ,58++"18"M"7"75+17"718+""7"58+5,12188)5217,58)+157"81&TTJU@@LP : TT(3U@@LP ; TD4U@@TLResolved, the Foothill College Academic Senate strongly encourages faculty to place >1+5217"71655"785111>,171S,2181"1+")581218,57)211+1-7"2"581,1 TlU@@LXSLOs 26A+T`ZU@@LTon 58T[U@@[Lxtheir course syllabus."71),57)+1+2177+TTU@@LP :Rp@"Helvetica;&z Helvetca0= 0Ln0dv%  TT!#U@@{LP 6 % TT(U@@LP ; % T#{U@@f<LRESOLUTION 3: Opposition to Using SLOs in Faculty EvaluationB:3F7D@#FD;E<<8.%9<%9D.<437F.=76/<%5:56;6%9<'% Ldk#rk6 !??% ( TT$]{U@@$fLP :Rp@Times New RomanGz Times ew Roman<0Ln0dv%  T,|xU@@PLWhereas, Campus visiting teams for the Accrediting Commission for Community and _2,!,,'C,N22'2'21-,N'!2!2,I,,",221C2NN''22!2!C2NN22/,22!"  T8`U@@IRLJunior Colleges (ACCJC) have offered conflicting interpretations of Accreditation (222!C2,1,'"HCC(B!2,2,2"!,",2,22!,322,!2!,,22'2!I,,"-2,22!" % 666666666666666666666666666666666666 6 66 6  6 66 6  6 66 6  6 66 6  6 66 6 666666666&WMFC`66666666666  $4.@Cambria-@Cambria-- 2 py 5$RESOLUTION 1:    ;2 p 5$ Support for Faculty Primacy in        2 p5$the  2 p 5$Use of SLOs1    2 pD5$ to  2 pZ5$Improve  - @ ! py- 2 p5$ -#2 y5$Student Learning     - @ !y- 2 5$ @Cambria- 2 y5$ 2 y 5$Whereas,  p2 C5$the members of the 17Թ community are dedicated to the ;               b2 y:5$achievement of learning and to the success of our students              2 5$; 2 5$  2 y5$ 72 y5$Whereas, the cycle of SLO assi    S2 A05$essment empowers faculty to try new pedagogical          2 yM5$approaches to explore both what works and what does not work, and encourages                  q2 yD5$meaningful collegial dialogue about improvement of student learning;                2 W5$  2 y5$ g2 ,y=5$Whereas, SLOs are intended to target deep learning beyond con             &2 ,,5$tent alone and as    2 ?yV5$such have the potential to stimulate both faculty and students to consider beneficial                2 RyS5$lifelong skills, values and behaviors that may be gained from a college education; a             2 dy5$and,  2 d5$  2 wy5$ 2 y 5$Whereas,  2 5$The 2  5$2002 ACCJC   G2 +(5$ accreditation standards require that co       (2 ;5$lleges incorporate u   2 yN5$measurable student learning outcomes at the course, program and institutional                 2 y5$levelv2 5$;  2 5$  2 y5$ }2 yL5$Resolved, the 17Թ Academic Senate supports the development and                 z2 yJ5$utilization of processes that honor faculty primacy in the identification              2 _5$and  2 yP5$assessment of SLOs and that seek to utilize SLOs to their greatest potential in              22 y5$fostering student success.      2 )5$  2 !y5$ -C2 4y%5$RESOLUTION 2: SLOs on Course Syllabi           - @ !4y-- 2 45$ z2 FyJ5$Whereas, when placed on the course syllabus, SLOs are made transparent to               2 Yy5$stn2 YB5$udents and can prompt students to consider their own learning; and                2 YX5$  2 ly5$ "2 y5$Whereas, course   2 5$-[2 55$level SLOs are aligned with program and institutional          2 ]5$-2 b5$level 2 yT5$learning outcomes and as such articulate a clear vision for student learning to the                 2 y 5$students;   2 5$  2 y5$ %2 y5$Whereas, many stu  e2 <5$dents experience an increased motivation to learn when they            2 yU5$have a clear understanding of how a course is going to benefit them in the long term;                2 5$  2 y5$ 2 yM5$Whereas, the 2002 ACCJC accreditation standards require that in every class             ;2 y 5$section students receive a cours    M2 S,5$e syllabus that specifies learning outcomes        2 (yO5$consistent with those in the institutions officially approved course outline,                 2 (5$  2 ;y5$ 2 NyT5$Resolved, the 17Թ Academic Senate strongly encourages faculty to place                 2 ay5$SLOs  2 a5$on ,2 a5$their course syllabus.    2 aE5$ @"Helvetica- 2 sy5$ - 2 y5$ -e2 y<5$RESOLUTION 3: Opposition to Using SLOs in Faculty Evaluation                 - @ !y- 2 F5$ @Times New Roman-2 yP5$Whereas, Campus visiting teams for the Accrediting Commission for Community and         ,$5'2 yR5$Junior Colleges (ACCJC) have offered conflicting interpretations of Accreditation      ,$5'"System-$$55$$44$$44##44##44##44##44##33##33""33""33""33""33""22""22""22!!22!!22!!22՜.+,0P hp  117Թ' YRESOLUTION 1: Support for Faculty Primacy in the Use of SLOs to Improve Student Learning Title  !"#%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijlmnopqruRoot Entry FP"dwData 1TableWordDocument0"SummaryInformation($DocumentSummaryInformation8kCompObjq  FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q