Core Curriculum Steering Team*
2010-2011 Report
1. The Core resource web page created in August 2010 was modified and approved in December. The
resource page can be found at www.dcccd.edu/coreresources. This web page is updated as
additional resources are created.
2. 293 sections of EDUC 1300 were offered in Fall 2010. Appendix A.1 (p 6) provides numerical data
related to enrollment and acquisition of course materials. The District Office of Institutional Research
was asked to provide the following data:
 EDUC 1300 student success and retention data
 EDUC 1300 student persistence data from Fall 2010 to Spring 2011
 Previous first semester student success and retention data
 Previous first semester persistence data from Fall to Spring
Consult Appendix P, p 32 for a summary of data for Fall 2010.


At the conclusion of Spring 2011, the following data was requested
GPA of previous second semester students
GPA of second semester students who completed EDUC 1300
EDUC 1300 Champions (Appendix B, p 7) met monthly to coordinate activities, address concerns,
and refine and update the course. The Champs developed and revised an instrument to assess
students’ use of strategies and skills described by the course learning outcomes. The instrument
was administered to all EDUC 1300 students at the end of the Spring 2011 semester and the
Summer I and Summer II semesters. A link to the data from these surveys provides the questions
and the student responses. Note that 89.6 % of the most recent student respondents indicate that
they would recommend EDUC 1300 as a worthwhile course to another student.
https://www.surveymonkey.com/sr.aspx?sm=QpVZBRRd3K2hSQ2KAyRRS_2bjJpSCsqEM3exuX4nsyLNU_3d
https://www.surveymonkey.com/sr.aspx?sm=EEwVIeg7rQ2RQDPLSgYWoJeHsSd9x9S0JAxt9Qx2ZxU_3d
3. “Learning Matters” EDUC 1300 Professional Development (half-day Thursday and full-day Friday)
was offered in 2010 in May, August, September and in 2011 in January and August. Enrollment in
each session included:
May PILOT
41 (19 Academic Deans & 22 cofacilitators who participated as learners)
June
55
July
41
1
August
31
September
34
January
43
August
27
Total
272
4. 22 co-facilitators identified resource materials, developed and lead learning activities, contributed
materials to the EDUC 1300 Learning Matters eCampus site and refined the content of lessons for
each subsequent session. As of August 2011,189 faculty are enrolled in the EDUC Learning
Matters community. Co-facilitators were compensated for work done in May – September, 2010
sessions and donated their time for the January, and August 2011 sessions. (Appendix C, p 8). 125
of the June 2010 – January 2011 participants (a 61% response rate) completed an online survey of
their learning. (Appendix D, p 9). EDUC 1300 faculty were added to the team of co-facilitators in
August 2011 to assist with revisions of resources and lessons and to provide insights gained from
teaching the course.
5. Handouts describing EDUC 1300 and the text and ePortfolio materials were created for advisors to
share with students. (Appendix E, pp 10 -11)
6. All faculty teaching EDUC 1300 received free ePortfolio accounts from Foliotek.
An email was sent to all EDUC 1300 faculty at the end of the Fall 2010 semester inviting them to
incorporate the use of ePortfolios in other classes they teach. Students who did not acquire three
year Foliotek accounts in EDUC 1300 can purchase stand-alone codes for three year Foliotek
accounts for ~$30 in each college bookstore.
7. Foliotek webinars were conducted at each college on June 30, July 28, August 18, September 1,
November 18, November 19 and January 12. Faculty who expressed an interest in incorporating
ePortfolios in Spring 2011 or Summer 2011 courses were provided free Foliotek accounts. More
than 300 faculty, staff and administrators have received free Foliotek accounts.
8. The ePortfolio Core Committee created a pre-built portfolio (pages and prompts) to guide the
creation of EDUC 1300 student portfolios. The “Lifelong Learner” pre-built page prompts can be
accessed when Foliotek ePortfolios are created. (Appendix F, p 12)
9. Foliotek provided presentation and assessment portfolios at no cost for eight EDUC 1300 sections in
Fall 2010. (Appendix G, p 13) Each college piloted one on-ground section. An eighth online section
was included in the pilot. Students enrolled in the EDUC 1300 Pilot Project sections were asked to
complete a common Information Literacy assignment, a common ePortfolio assignment and a
reflection of each of these. Rubrics were provided for both assignments and reflections to help
students understand the expectations for learning. The portfolios, Information Literacy assignment
and Reflections were scored in April, 2011.
A new pre-built portfolio type, “Learning Framework,” was created based on the assessment of the
pilot portfolios. This pre-built portfolio scaffolds thinking and learning for EDUC 1300 students and
utilizes prompts that incorporate critical thinking terminology. (Appendix H, pp 14 – 15)
10. An analysis of calls to the Foliotek help desk is attached in Appendix I (p 16)
2
11. Several electronic portfolios have been created and distributed at webinars and professional
development sessions to foster “folio thinking and learning” and to provide dynamic ePortfolio
resources for both faculty and students.
http://my.foliotek.com/share/dcccdportfolios - intended as a faculty resource - tools,
technology, examples, etc
http://my.foliotek.com/share/foliothinking - intended as a faculty resource
- thinking and learning aspects of ePortfolios
http://my.foliotek.com/share/eportfoliolearning - intended as a resource for nonEDUC 1300 students – “What is an ePortfolio?” It includes directions for creating a
BLANK portfolio.
These portfolios are refined and updated as additional resources become available.
12. The CCST partnered with LCET to develop and deliver training in ePortfolio learning and
technology. One three hour session was conducted at each college in spring 2011 and one at each
college in summer 2011. Sessions will be refined and updated as the level of learning and use
changes. It is expected two sessions will be offered at each college, each semester beginning Fall
2011. A manual, created to support ePortfolio learning and technology, can be accessed at
http://employeetraining.dcccd.edu/tutorials/other/ePortfolio_Learning_Manual.pdf
13. To disseminate the use of ePortfolio in courses beyond EDUC 1300, the ePortfolio committee
invited faculty from standalone Tier 1 courses (HIST 1301 and ENGL 1301) and Tier 2 courses
(ENGL 1302 and GOVT 2301) to attend 9 hour workshops in Summer 2010 to learn more about the
use of ePortfolios to promote learning. Other ePortfolio implementation strategies are described in
Appendix J, pp 17 - 18.
14. The number of ACCUPLACER Computer Skills Placement tests available and administered until
the test was suspended in December is attached in Appendix K ( p 19). Data collected during June
and July, 2010 is shown on pages 20 - 21. Aggregate data shown in this format does not provide the
level of detail needed to evaluate the need for skill enhancement and project enrollments for
computer courses.
CSP data that has been requested beginning in September, 2010 includes:





Number of students passing all 3 sections of the Computer Fundamentals (Basic Concepts, File
Management, Information & Communication) and all tests in the other three Knowledge Areas
(Basic Concepts, File Management, Information & Communication) - No skill enhancement course
required
Number of students passing 2 of the 3 sections of the Computer Fundamentals (Basic Concepts,
File Management, Information & Communication) and all tests in the other three Knowledge
AreaTests (Basic Concepts, File Management, Information & Communication) - No skill
enhancement course required
Number of students failing 2 of the 3 sections of the Computer Fundamentals (Basic Concepts, File
Management, Information & Communication) – 3 credit- hour skill enhancement course required
Number of students who pass 2 of the 3 Computer Fundamentals tests but fail two of the remaining
three Knowledge Area Tests (Basic Concepts, File Management, Information & Communication) –
Two 1 credit-hour or one 3 credit-hour skill enhancement course required
The number of students who took the CSP test and did not pass but have yet to re-test or enroll in a
skill enhancement course.
3
The data was not available at the time of this report.
15. The Computer Literacy Committee, Testing Center Directors and Advisors met on October 4, 2010
to discuss the Chief Student Services Officers’ recommendation to the VP Council. (Appendix L, pp
22 -23). Following this meeting, the Computer Literacy Committee developed a Computer Skills
Placement Test Review Sheet (practice test). Open the highlighted link in Appendix M (p 24) to view
the Review Sheet.
16. Student eNewsletter, catalog and webpage information was created in advance of Winter Term and
Spring registration to provide Computer Literacy Information. (Appendix M, p 24)
17. To address concerns raised by students during Winter Term/Spring 2011 registration, information
related to Registration Blocks was written and disseminated. (Appendix N, p 25)
18. Members of the Tier 1, 2 and 3 committees met together to discuss Tier Learning initiatives. The
proposed UEAC Core Objectives, the THECB document “Mapping Core Objectives to Component
Areas,” and the LEAP Value rubrics were examined. The model for identifying Information Literacy
criteria found in the LEAP Information Literacy rubric appropriate for EDUC 1300 was explored. It
was suggested that representatives from each Tier committee could meet to identify Information
Literacy rubric criteria appropriate for each Tier. The group also agreed that this model could be
used to develop “levels of learning” for each core objective.
19. A three hour Professional Development session addressing “Learning using the Tier Structure of the
Core” was designed in cooperation with the Faculty Association Presidents. The session scheduled
for Thursday, February 17, (DCCCD Conference Day) was postponed. The session was designed
so that faculty from each college representing disciplines in each Core Learning Category would
gather to share insights and discuss strategies for learning.
20. The Core Evaluation Committee developed a process to evaluate and revise the new core. The
process was reviewed by the Core Curriculum Steering Team and submitted to the VP Council in
April. (Appendix 0, pp 26 – 31)
21. The CCST discussed and develop a revised organizational structure for the continued leadership
and implementation of the DCCCD Core Curriculum. Many members of the CCST have served for
four years and will be moving from leadership roles to core committee roles or other work in the next
year. Key features of this new structure are the inclusion of an academic dean as co-chair of each
committee and a vice-president as liaison to each committee. It was also determined that the
learning features of the core could be implemented more effectively by one Core Learning
Committee than a committee for each Tier. (Appendix Q, p 33)
*2010- 2011 Core Curriculum Steering Team (Appendix R, p 34)
4
“The key to building trust in both good and bad times is to realize that none of us is as smart as all of us. It
has been found that those organizations that engender trust democratize the decision-making process by
soliciting input and sharing the decision-making itself with as many people as possible. When leaders treat
their people as their business partners and involve them in making important decisions, those people feel
respected, and respect leads to trust. If you respect your people and they trust you as a leader, they will give
their all to get the best results they can for the organization.”
Wright Lassiter,
Chancellor’s Bulletin #32
April 24, 2009
5
APPENDIX A
EDUC 1300 FALL 2010 ENROLLMENT
Campus
# of Sections
Brookhaven
Cedar Valley
Eastfield
El Centro
Mountainview
North Lake
Richland & RCHS
35
20
57
19
38
41
83
Total
293
# of students/
sections
26
28
25
25
24
35
29
Total
909
557
1444
468
909
1449
2402
8138
Books sold
or in stock#
1027
718
foliotek
active+
~350*
1275
1350
~1725*
5469
#Books
sent to bookstore and either sold or kept in stock. Returned books have been subtracted from original order.
*ECC kept 450 books from original order but shipped ~ 100 to RLC.
+ Number of students who registered foliotek accounts
6
APPENDIX B
EDUC 1300 Champions
Fall 2010 -2011*
Name
Bill Hammerschlag
Jane Rowe
Valerie Crow-McDowell
Chaelle Norman
Joe Martinez
Alexis Clayton
Mwauna Davis
Tuesday Hambric
Susan Wyatt
Daven Salmi
Deb Yoder
Angelo Alcala
MaryAnn McGuirk
Gary Duke
Gary John
College
BHC
BHC
CVC Fall 2010
CVC Spring 2011
ECC Fall 2010
ECC
ECC Sp 2011
EFC
EFC
MVC
MVC Fall 2010
NLC
NLC
RLC
RLC
*Faculty serving only one semester noted above
7
APPENDIX C
EDUC 1300 “Learning Matters” Co-Facilitators
Co-facilitators:
Susan Wyatt, Champ, EFC
Mary Osentowski, CL, RLC
Ana Rodriguez, EFC
Mwauna Davis, ECC, Champ
Valerie Crow-McDowell, LF, ECC
Brett Bodily, NLC
Gabe Edgar, CL, RLC
Gary John, RLC, Champ
Cathy Edwards, MVC
Gwen May, CL, RLC
Daven Salmi, Champ, MVC
Matt Hinckley, CL, RLC
Gabe Edgar, CL, RLC
Liz Nichols, EFC
Amy Monroy, BHC, EDUC 1300 FAC
Joe Martinez, EDUC Champ, ECC
Gloria Garcia, LF, MVC
Becki Williams, CL, RLC
Mary Darin, LF, RLC
Module/Activity
Autonomous Learner
Metacognition
Cooperative Learning
Strategy/Technique
Assigning Roles
Thinkalouds &
Reflection/Processing
Learning Theories:
Dual Store Model of Memory
Carousel
Critical Thinking:
Elements of Thought
Pair Read
Behavior Management:
Mindsets and Self-Change
Guided Inquiry using
Think/Pair/Share
Ethical Reasoning
Send-a-Problem
Evidenced Based Reasoning:
Buzz Groups
Daven Salmi, EDUC CHAMP, CVC
Deb Yoder, CL, EDUC Champ, MVC
Myesha Applewhite, EFC, EDUC1300 FAC
Victor Soto, MVC
Hazel Carlos, BHC
Gemmy Allen, NLC
Chaelle Norman, CVC, Champ
Toby Baldwin, LF, MVC
Gary Duke, LF, RLC
Sharlee Jeser-Skaggs, RLC
MaryAnn McGuirk, NLC, Champ
Toby Baldwin, LF, MVC
Gary Duke, LF, RLC
Sharlee Jeser-Skaggs, RLC
MaryAnn McGuirk, NLC, Champ
Legend:
ePortfolios
Information Literacy:
Library Tools & Resources
Jig saw
Information Literacy:
Guided Practice
Research as Problem-solving
CL cooperative learning “specialist”
LF Learning Framework Committee member
Champ EDUC 1300 Champion
8
APPENDIX D
EDUC 1300 “Learning Matters” survey of 204* participants, June 2010 – January 2011
1. Are you planning to teach EDUC 1300 during the 2010-2011 academic year?
Yes
No
If needed
Question
75.8%
8.1%
16.1%
Response
Count
123
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Strongly Disagree
No
Agree
disagree
opinion
(5)
Rating
Response
Strongly Average Count
agree
2. I was able to gain a better understanding of the goals,
purposes and philosophy of EDUC 1300
4.8
1.6
1.6
33.1
58.9
4.40
124
3. I have a better understanding of the needs and
attitudes of first year college students
4.0
4.8
9.7
40.3
41.1
4.10
124
4. I was able to experience and learn appropriate
pedagogical styles and techniques relevant to a
Learning Framework course
3.2
2.4
4.8
41.9
47.6
4.28
124
5. I will be able to apply effective, learner-centered
strategies for empowering students to becomes active,
responsible learners
1.6
3.3
0
44.7
50.4
4.39
123
6. I was able to develop an understanding of and
strategies to teach the major components of EDUC 1300
2.4
0.8
4.0
44.4
48.4
4.35
124
7. I have become acquainted with the resources
available for instructors and students
3.3
4.1
0
42.6
50.0
4.32
122
8. I have had an opportunity to begin building
community with instructors teaching FTIC students
2.4
2.4
7.3
49.6
38.2
4.19
123
To access comments and responses to the question, “What additional training do you feel is still needed for faculty to ensure maximum
course effectiveness?”, open the following two survey links using the password EDUC 1300:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/sr_pass.aspx?sm=kbH%2ff3XbWlAZJeCngmixagpvjQW5xaj8ILUOIJEF%2fZE%3d
https://www.surveymonkey.com/sr.aspx?sm=yrZk6aFLJ5dlirLPDHMZl_2fCuVB6pIgGLxM2cnMC5rTw_3d
*May PILOT Participants were not polled
9
APPENDIX E
EDUC 1300 Textbook Information
(All Campuses Except Eastfield)
You will be required to purchase:
DCCCD custom edition of Academic Transformation: The Road to College Success Package, 1/e, by
McGuirk, which is bundled with a Foliotek Online Portfolio System Access Code.
(ISBN number – 10: 0558791344)
The foliotek access code will be bundled with the textbook and shrink-wrapped. Carefully open the package
and retain the access code as you will need it to create your electronic portfolio for this course. If you
accidently discard the code, you will be required to buy a new code. The code provides a three-year license
for the use of the Foliotek ePortfolio System.
The textbook is a special custom edition prepared for students enrolled at one of the Dallas County
Community Colleges. Used copies of the textbook are not available.
The cover
of
the
textbook
and the
foliotek
Purchase the textbook from the Follett Bookstore or from any one of the DCCCD bookstores in person or
online. If you purchase your textbook from the national eFollett online bookstore, make sure you enter your
campus location (Richland), the course name and number (EDUC 1300), and the author (McGuirk) so that
you receive the correct textbook. If you simply search for the textbook online by entering the title only, you
may purchase the wrong book. You may also look up your books on eConnect. Follow these steps:




Go to the eConnect Current Credit Student Menu
Under “Prepare to Register,” select “Find Credit Classes”
Select Term, Location and Course
Review “Find Credit Classes Results” – you’ll find a link to textbook information under the “Class
Features” column.
10
EDUC 1300
Learning Framework Course
D.C.C.C.D.
3 hrs. of transferable credit
Required of all students with less than 12 hours of college credit*
Get more out of your education with this dynamic course! Discover your strengths and weaknesses, set goals, practice
critical academic and lifelong learning skills, and develop effective academic behaviors for college success. You will
acquire the tools to accomplish your goals academically, personally, and in your career. The course includes a balance
between theoretical underpinnings and the experiential application of learning strategies. The focus of the course is on
(a) research and theory in the psychology of learning, cognition, and motivation; (b) factors that impact learning; and (c)
application of learning strategies. Coordinating Board Academic Approval Number 4203015125
Please don’t confuse the Learning Framework course with a pep talk or a simple study skills course. It’s not that. This
course is a combination owner’s manual and tool box for your education. You get on-the-job training in being a more
successful student beginning the first day of class. You’ll gain valuable knowledge and skills through guided learning
activities and practical exercises. Then you roll up your sleeves and test the ideas yourself in other classes and life
experiences.
The Learning Framework Course will help you:
 Improve your memory
 Learn more efficiently
 Become an autonomous learner
 Set academic goals
 Deal with stress
 Enjoy college more
 Change bad habits
 Learn research strategies
 Create an electronic portfolio
 Make better decisions
 Use class time effectively
 Develop a personal learning system
 Make higher grades
 Identify and use resources
 Become a more effective thinker
What students are saying about this course:
“Honestly, I never thought that I would have ever enjoyed this Learning Frameworks class. Not because I thought it would be boring,
but because I didn’t think that there was a need for it. Looking back at what I thought about this class…my mind has completely
changed.”
“Never before have I thought about the way I studied or the way that I comprehend. I will forever keep that in my mind now for the
rest of my life.”
“I have to say this was one of the most inspirational and helpful classes I have taken so far.”
“This course has provided me tons of useful information that I can apply in my future academics as well as in my personal life.”
“This class has been so fulfilling! I believe that I have learned so much from this class. Even though the semester has flown by I have
still taken in so much information. This course has taught me how to be a better student as well as a better person. I especially
enjoyed getting tips on goal setting, making dreams come true and time management help.”
Additional facts about this course:


Prerequisite: One of the following must be met: (1) completion of Developmental Reading 0093; (2) completion of English
as a Second Language (ESOL) 0044; or (3) have met the Texas Success Initiative (TSI) standard in Reading.
Links: www.dcccd.edu/PreCore
|
my.foliotek.com/share/educ1300info
*Students in technical career programs or who are over the age of 65 are waived from this requirement
11
APPENDIX F
Lifelong Learner
ePortfolio Page Prompts
Introduction
Briefly introduce yourself and post on the Introduction page of your ePortfolio. Include a picture and a few
important details about yourself. Keep it simple. A quick read makes the reader want more.
About Me
What do you want visitors, professors, employers, classmates and family members to know about you? You
may want to provide a short narrative history of your life, a vision for your future, or -- perhaps -- insight into
your "quality world.” You will want to provide photographs, artwork, images, and/or videos that say, “This is
me.”
Goals
The Goals page is your future. You have the freedom to make the choices necessary to give your life the
direction you desire. Goal-setting puts you in the driver’s seat and lets you know both where you are going
and how to get there. Academic goals, personal goals, career goals, each are different types of benchmarks
that once defined can help you reach your potential. This is a good space to list those goals and make them
clearly defined.
Annotations
Annotations are summaries and analyses of resources found in books, Web sites, magazines, journals and
other sources. The structure of annotations is quite simple: bibliographic information, a summary of the
main points of the resource, and analyses of how well the resource relates to a concept or answers a
research question.
Artifacts
Start collecting samples and materials that reflect your knowledge, skills, and accomplishments. You can post
these items in the Artifact page of your ePortfolio or store in the portfolio FILES. It is important to store a
variety of materials because you will be able to create many presentation portfolios for a variety of audiences
and purposes. You can then select artifacts from your FILES to develop particular portfolios. Artifacts can
exist in many different formats such as electronic documents (Word, Excel, PowerPoint presentation, Web
pages), multimedia files (video, audio, graphic, image, photo, art, music) and links (blogs, social media, other
websites).
Reflections
A reflection on your learning experience (class activity, assignment, project, work experience, etc.) gives you
an opportunity to think about what you have learned, examine the procedures used while learning, and
make connections to other things you’ve learned. You will be asked to create reflections on most artifacts
you select for inclusion in a presentation portfolio. Reflections are frequently a written activity, but can
articulate your learning in less traditional ways such as through videos, digital images and audio
recordings. Connect reflections to specific artifacts to give meaning and value to artifacts and demonstrate
your learning.
12
APPENDIX G
Assessment Portfolio Pilot Project
COLLEGE
Fall 2010 foliotek pilot
EDUC 1300 Faculty
BHC
CVC
ECC
EFC
MVC
NLC
RLC
RLC/LCET
Amy Monroy
Edna White
Elke Hardt
Phillip Ortiz
Daven Salmi
Angelo Alcala
Cody Arvidson (on ground)
Cody Arvidson (online)
13
APPENDIX H
LEARNING FRAMEWORK
ePortfolio Page Prompts
INTRODUCTION
This page introduces, not you, but your ePortfolio. Convey your purpose in creating the portfolio so
viewers can judge for themselves whether you've succeeded. Let them know what you're trying to
do and what to expect. If you can share a concept or idea that guided your selections (what you
included and what you chose to leave out), do so. Consider including a quote or image that is
meaningful to you and that relates to your purpose. Invite people into the portfolio and give them a
reason for exploring further.
ABOUT ME
This page introduces you. Share your background: the setting or context within which you live,
work, and learn. What are the important elements of your life outside of college and how do they
shape, support, or challenge your learning in college? Try to make connections between who you
are in the “real world” and how you approach college success. Don’t just TELL about you, SHOW
who you are, too. Things you might include: photos, images, audio or video, and links to your social
networking site or blog.
GOALS
List your long-term goals: personal, education, career. Identify the short-term and intermediate
goals that you set to progress toward your long-term goals and achieve your quality world. For a
career goal, in particular, write about implications of choosing this course. Share the tips, tools, or
tactics you’ll need to achieve them. Possible artifacts to provide evidence of your progress include a
syllabi matrix, planning calendar, self-change contract/project, and even a resume or degree plan.
Explain what you’ll do next and why. Consider including images that help you and your viewer
visualize your goals.
LEARNING
This page showcases what you’ve learned about your learning. Collect information you’ve gathered
about yourself and how you learn, such as learning styles inventories, personality type indicators, or
other assessments of your personal preferences. Be sure to include these artifacts on this page.
Interpret those results and draw conclusions about yourself from this evidence, including strategies
for autonomous learning.
THINKING
The Foundation for Critical Thinking (everyonethinks.org) says that “much of our thinking, left to
itself, is biased, distorted, partial, uninformed or down-right prejudiced. Yet the quality of our life
and that of what we produce, make, or build depends precisely on the quality of our thought.”
What have you created that demonstrates the quality of your thinking, either positively or
negatively? Select examples and identify these qualities. Explain your purpose in creating each
14
example and what elements of it lead you to say it was a product of either good thinking or poor
thinking. What would you do differently to make it better?
RESEARCH
On this page, post a question that you’ve been asked to research or that you’ve selected to
research. Then provide annotations for 3 or more sources you’ve consulted which you believe
answer the research question. Annotations include the bibliographic information of the source, a
summary of main point(s), and comments on one or more of the following:





Currency: Is the publication current enough for your topic?
Relevance: How well does the resource help answer the question at issue?
Authority: Is the author or sponsoring organization a credible authority on the subject?
Accuracy: Is the information in the source accurate and free of emotional, biased language?
Does point of view color the facts presented?
Purpose: For what purpose did the author or sponsoring organization create the
information?
REFLECTION:
Your Introduction page described the purpose of the portfolio. On this page, provide a conclusion.
Reflect on your experience in the course and in creating this portfolio. Consider the following
prompts:
 What expectations or assumptions did you have before the course began? In what ways
were your expectations or assumptions valid and/or invalid?
 How has the course contributed to your understanding of yourself and others?
 What impact did the course have on your understanding of your quality world?
 How do you now assume responsibility for your learning? What thinking and behaviors will
you further develop on your journey to becoming an autonomous learner?
Connect your thoughts to the evidence you've provided throughout the portfolio: your goals,
learning, thinking, and researching.
FEEDBACK:
Create a FEEDBACK page for your portfolio using the PAGES and GIZMO tabs. Ask for feedback from
classmates and your instructor. Consider asking for feedback from other instructors, employers,
people with expertise in writing, design, technology, etc. Use the information you receive to revise
your portfolio.
15
APPENDIX I
Foliotek Fall 2010 Summary
As of 12/21/2010 there were 5,469 registered DCCCD users. For the Fall 2010 semester, Foliotek
received 598 support calls. Here is the breakdown of those 598 Support calls:
No Registration Code in Registration Packet*:
Login Information/Difficulty:
Registration Questions (other than no codes):
Portfolio Function Question (how do I…):
Technical Problems (problems on our end):
Locked Accounts:
Sharing a portfolio:
Misc. (mainly questions directed back to
instructors):
Total
No. of
Calls
304
99
56
37
32
29
17
% of
Total
51%
17%
9%
6%
5%
5%
3%
24
4%
598
*Registration Packets bundled with Academic Transformation: The Road to College Success contained some cards lacking unique
registration codes. This was an error that occurred in printing the cards. Students who acquired faulty cards received registration
codes by calling the Foliotek help desk at 888-folioez
Foliotek Spring 2011 Summary
Users added in Spring 2011: 3344
Total users Fall 2010 – Spring 2011: 8838
No. of
Calls
% of
Total
No Registration Code in Registration Packet*:
18
6%
Registration (other than no codes)
22
8%
Login Information/Difficulty:
78
27%
Locked Account
18
6%
Portfolio Function Question (how do I…):
37
6%
Technical Problems (Foliotek):
27
9%
Technical Problems (not Foliotek):
23
8%
Portfolio Function Questions:
30
10%
Page Reorder/Publish/Save Issues
11
4%
Misc
42
14%
Total
291
16
APPENDIX J
Using Foliotek ePortfolios for
Learning & Assessment
Foliotek technology enables users to provide evidence of learning for a variety of audiences and
multiple purposes:
a. Many portfolios can be created with one account.
b. A page created for one portfolio can be copied into other portfolios.
c. Artifacts (files, links, images, videos, etc.) are stored in a FILES section of the Foliotek
account. This section is visible only to the user. Artifacts are collected and stored there and
then pasted into one or more portfolios. Only artifacts pasted into portfolios can be viewed.
d. Artifacts stored in the FILES area of the account can be edited and revised. All
portfolios containing this revised artifact will be automatically updated.
e. Users can store 250 MB of data. Artifacts located or stored in a file sharing site do not use
any of the account storage space. Files can be stored in a DROPBOX and placed into
Foliotek portfolios without using file storage space.
f. Users publish portfolios privately by sending an email invitation with an expiration
date. Students exchange ePortfolio drafts with peers and share feedback.
g. Users publish portfolios publically using a unique url provided by Foliotek.
i. Beginning, Fall 2011, Foliotek will provide password protected COMMUNITIES to
collect DCCCD Foliotek portfolios. Students will be asked to post portfolios at the
completion of a course, a tier of courses or other intervals for use in assessing learning.
Students will receive a confirmation email to document posting which can be used to earn
credit for a course assignment.
Implementation Strategies
underlined items have been implemented as of August, 2011
1.
Target the use of ePortfolios in standalone core courses, while encouraging the use of
ePortfolios in any course and co-curricular environment:
a. Bundle EDUC 1300 textbook with 3-year Foliotek accounts (~$30 for 3 year account).
Provide Foliotek overview in Learning Matters professional development workshops.
b. Provide ePortfolio training for ENGL 1301 and HIST 1301 faculty followed by
opportunities to design and develop ePortfolio assignments, project and course portfolios.
Implement and refine portfolio assignments emanating from this work.
c. Provide ePortfolio training for ENGL 1302 and GOVT 2301 faculty followed by
opportunities to design and develop ePortfolio assignments, project and course portfolios.
Implement and refine portfolio assignments emanating from this work.
d. Provide ePortfolio: Learning & Technology workshops (co-lead by faculty and LCET
trainer) at each college.
e. Provide free Foliotek accounts to all DCCCD employees intending to create
professional portfolios and learning portfolios.
2.
Conduct assessment of Fall 2010 EDUC 1300 Lifelong Learner portfolios using portfolios
created in 8 EDUC 1300 sections using Foliotek assessment tools. Use the results of this
process to create new pre-built portfolio, Learning Framework, containing page prompts that
guide critical thinking.
17
3.
Design pre-built portfolios for EDUC 1300, other standalone courses, college core
portfolios, and degree portfolios. (Other pre-built portfolios can also be created). Each prebuilt portfolio contains page prompts that provide suggestions for the use of media, types of
evidence, and questions to guide reflection.
3.
Consider using LEAP rubrics (as recommended by the THECB) that align with THECB
Core Objectives. Determine appropriate level of “tier” learning for each Core Objective.
Create pre-built Core Portfolio that enables students to collect evidence of learning for each
core objective at the Pre-Core, Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3 levels. Collect student portfolios in
the appropriate DCCCD Community. Assess students portfolios collected in the Community.
See AAC&U publication: Chen, H. L., T. P. Light. 2010. Electronic Portfolios and Student
Success; Effectiveness, Efficiency, and Learning. Washington, DC: Association of American
Colleges and Universities
4.
Consider using ePortfolios to capture evidence that establishes faculty qualifications to
teach courses: diplomas or certificates earned (with discipline indicated); related work or
professional experience, licensure and certifications; continuous documented excellence in
teaching; honors and awards; publications and presented papers; and other demonstrated
competencies and achievements that contribute to effective teaching and student outcomes.
The portfolio can show the relationship between these qualifications and the course content
and/or expected outcomes of the courses assigned to the faculty member.
5.
Consider creating professional ePortfolios to collect and store artifacts for resume
requirements, IAP, Action Plans, professional development, etc. These portfolios can be
posted on eConnect, eCampus and other sites.
6.
Consider creating faculty course portfolios using a variety of media to provide an orientation
to the course and the course requirements. This portfolio can be posted on eCampus and
other sites.
ePortfolio Resources:
Cambridge, D. 2010. Eportfolios for lifelong learning and assessment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Cambridge, B. D. Cambridge and K.B. Yancey. 2009. Electronic Portfolios 2.0: Emergent research
on implementation and impact. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Huber, M., and P. Hutchings. 2004. Integrative Learning: Mapping the terrain. Washington, DC.:
Association of American Colleges and Universities
Zubizarreta, J. and B. Millis. 2009 The Learning Portfolio: Reflective practice for improving student
learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
18
APPENDIX K: DCCCD Accuplacer Computer Skills Placement 2010- 2011
Each student utilizes two units when testing for the CSP
College
BHC
Original
Count of
Units/cost
per college
9,400 units
Fall 2010
Units
Administered
Dec-Feb 2011
Units
Administered
278
Spring 2011
Units (until
Dec 13,2010)
Administered
1,004
808
960
432
1,916
Total
Units to
date
Cost
per
Unit
Total Cost
2,090
Summer
/Fall
2011
Units
TBD
$1.75
$3,657.50
259
1,651
TBD
$1.75
$2,889.25
2,134
1,466
5,516
TBD
$1.75
$9,653.00
834
410
436
1,680
TBD
$1.75
$2,940.00
3,330
1,046
1,170
5,546
TBD
$1.75
$9,705.50
2,110
1,970
1,068
5,148
TBD
$1.75
$9,009.00
3,790
1,624
1,028
6,442
TBD
$1.75
$11,273.5
0
13,218
8,620
6,235
28,073
TBD
$1.75
$49,127.7
5
$16,450
CVC
7,400 units
$12,950
EFC
15,000 units
$26,250
ECC
9,600 units
$16,800
MVC
8,300 units
$14,525
NLC
11,800 units
$20,650
RLC
18,500 units
$32,375
Totals
80,000
$140,000
DCCCD Ed.Affairs/CSP Units/March 2011 vgh
19
Computer Skills Placement
Basic Concepts
File Management
Information and Communication
Presentations
Spreadsheets
Word Processing
BH
92
92
91
92
92
91
CV
405
406
405
405
405
408
EF
521
522
520
519
520
522
EL
314
311
312
303
308
314
MV
994
994
989
990
988
992
NL
824
825
821
815
822
826
RL
Total Taken
1064
4214
1063
4213
1061
4199
1060
4184
1060
4195
1064
4217
Total Passed
1057
2764
3089
2086
974
1731
Scale
60 or higher
60 or higher
60 or higher
60 or higher
60 or higher
50 or higher
Computer Skills Placement per Campus
1200
1000
800
BH
600
CV
400
EF
200
EL
MV
0
NL
RL
20
Computer Skills Placement Total
Computer Skills Placement Total
Total test sections administered = 25,222
Complete test administered (6 sections in each full test) = 4,203
Number of students tested = 4,188
Number of students who retested = 15
21
APPENDIX L
Core Curriculum Computer Literacy
Computer Assessment Meeting Summary
October 4, 2010
Testing Center Directors, Advisors, Computer Literacy Committee members and others who met
during Spring 2010 to address issues related to the implementation of the Core Computer Literacy
requirement convened on Monday, October 4, BHC at 2:30 pm. The purpose of the meeting was to
discuss the progress of the testing, identify issues and needs related to the testing and address a
recommendation to the DCCCD Vice- Presidents Council, Registrars Council and Academic
Advisors;
Members of the Chief Student Services Officers Council recommended the following:
Eliminate the “less than 45 hour rule” for the computer literacy requirements for either
assessment or enrolling in a computer literacy course. While we support the pre-core
requirement for students to be assessed for their computer literacy skills, we feel that it should
only be required for new-to-college students.
The group identified the implications of this recommendation, which included:
1. Continuing students who have not tested will not have adequate information to assess their level
of computer literacy and will likely not enroll in a course to address deficiencies. College Board
research indicates that more than 50% of students overestimate their computer knowledge and skills.
2. Students who either enrolled in COSC 1300 without testing or students who enrolled after testing
may seek redress if the requirement is changed. Specifically, students may request a tuition refund if
proof of computer literacy is no longer required.
3. Lines would be shorter in advising and the testing center if the recommendation is approved.
4. There will be fewer student complaints about the need to test if the recommendation is approved.
5. Fewer students would be blocked from registering via eConnect if the recommendation is
approved.
A few other comments:
1. The recommendation does not state which students would be required to test if the less than 45
hour rule is eliminated. Does “new to college” mean FTIC or those with less than 12 credit hours, or
something else.
2. After Spring 2011, the bulk of continuing students will have met the computer literacy
requirement. After this time the bulk of those being tested will be FTIC students. The difficulties
encountered based on our current capacity to advise and test will be reduced or alleviated.
Action Items:
1. The Core Communication Committee will guide the production of computer literacy information
and media for distribution to students well in advance of Spring 2011 registration.
22
2. The CSP Guide (not a practice test but a list of outcomes) will be posted at each college website
and on the www.dcccd.edu/core website. Testing Center Directors will assume responsibility for
their college posting. The Core Communication Committee will be responsible for posting the CSP
Guide elsewhere. To view the CSP guide, open the link
http://www.richlandcollege.edu/testcenter/accuplacer.php
3. The Core Computer Literacy Committee will discuss the feasibility of developing a CSP practice
test for use in the near future. The College Board knows of our need for a CSP Practice Test and
advised that one will not be available this year. Advisors, Testing Center Directors and others will be
notified when a practice test is available and how students can gain access to it.
4. Testing Center Directors were asked to provide Velma Hargis with the number of Accuplacer
Computer Skills Placement (CSP) Test Units used during Fall 2010 registration.
5. Data collected to date and data available to download from the CSP does not provide ample
information to assess student performance on the CSP. A summary score does not reveal whether
students require remediation in a 3 hour course (COSC 1300), a one hour course, or possess adequate
skill levels. In addition to an item analysis of each of the 6 sections of the CSP test, the Core
Computer Literacy Committee will request:
a. the number of students who took the CSP test and enrolled in a skill enhancement course
b. the number of students who took the CSP test and did not require skill enhancement
c. the number of students who took the CSP test who did not pass but have yet to re-test or
enroll in a skill enhancement course.
Other data will be sought in the future such as the test performance of FTIC students and the
performance of students with 30 – 45 hours, etc.
6. Gary Mahagan will contact the College Board IT representative to seek help moving Accuplacer
records into Colleague so that CSP scores do not have to be input manually.
7. Ramiro Villareal, Core Computer Literacy Committee and Chair of the Computer Science
Discipline Committee noted that COSC 1300 will be replaced by COSC 1301 in Fall 2011. He also
stated that ITSC 1171 was added to college catalogs but not ITSE 1194, 1294 or ITSC 1271.
23
APPENDIX M
Pre-Core Requirements: Computer Literacy
As a DCCCD student, you are required to demonstrate certain computer skills to ensure that you
can use technology as a learning tool. You can meet the computer literacy requirement by passing a
Computer Skills Placement Test or completing one of several computer courses.
The Computer Skills Placement test is available, at no charge, to give you information that will help
you and an advisor select your course of study.
Here’s how it works:



Only students who have completed the Computer Skills Placement Test or one of several
computer courses are eligible to register on eConnect. If you have not passed the Computer
Skills Placement Test or completed one of several computer courses, please meet with an
advisor as soon as possible. The advisor will check to see if you need to take the computer
assessment. (If your degree plan includes a computer requirement, you will need to enroll in
a course to meet this requirement.)
If you need to take the test, the advisor will give you directions for completing the
ACCUPLACER Computer Skills Placement test in the testing center. The test will measure
your skills in six areas.
o If you pass the test, no computer class is required.
o If the test shows that you need additional skills in one or more areas, you will be
required to improve your skills by enrolling in specific one-credit-hour or three-credithour computer classes. An advisor will help you select the appropriate course.
You can retest one time in the first semester of enrollment. The retest fee is $10. If you have
not passed the test or completed a specific computer class by registration of your second
semester of enrollment, you will be required to enroll in a course. Again, an advisor can help
you select the specific course.
If you are uncertain about your computer literacy skills and feel that a computer science class will be
helpful to your college experience, you do not need to take the Computer Skills Placement
assessment. Visit with your advisors to explore your computer science course options.
Here are resources that describe the Computer Skill Placement Test objectives and provide you
practice prior to taking the test:



How do I know if I need to take the DCCCD Computer Literacy Placement test?
https://www1.dcccd.edu/cat1011/ss/transfer/comp_lit.cfm
Practice Test: http://bit.ly/DCCCDpracticetest
Review Sheet: https://www1.dcccd.edu/cat1011/ss/transfer/CompSkillPractTest.pdf
Other Computer Skills Resources and Tools:
http://www.csplacement.com/ACCUPLACER/csp_acc_resources.html
24
APPENDIX N
Can’t register online? You must first have blocks removed
Online registration is not available if you have a block on your student record. Blocks are
used by DCCCD to ensure that students have met all the requirements for registration.
Some of the more common reasons for blocks are listed below:
Do you have fewer than 12 hours of credit?
If yes, you may be blocked because you need to sign up for the Learning Frameworks
(EDUC 1300) class. If you’re not sure if you need the Learning Frameworks class, visit an
advisor. If you do need to take the Learning Frameworks class and want to register online
using eConnect, the Learning Frameworks class must be the first entry on your list of
desired classes.
Do you have fewer than 45 hours of credit?
If yes, you may be blocked because you have not yet met the Computer Literacy
requirement. Meet with an advisor, who will explain what you need to do to meet this
requirement.
25
APPENDIX O
RECOMMENDATIONS for IMPLEMENTING
CHANGES to the DCCCD CORE CURRICULUM
Report Submitted by DCCCD Core Curriculum Evaluation
Committee to the Core Curriculum Steering Team
Jani
ce Franklin
ABSTRACT
This report reflects conclusions drawn by the Core Curriculum Evaluation Committee
in response to its charge as articulated by the DCCCD Vice-Presidents’ Council. The
work of this Committee is part of the broader work of the DCCCD Core Curriculum
Steering Team.
26
Executive Summary
The purpose of this paper is to respond to Charge #7 of the Charges to the Core Curriculum
Committee from the VP Council.
“Recommend a process by which the Core Curriculum can be revised once its
recommendations are adopted.”
The committee recognizes that in the past, there was no mechanism to recommend
changes to courses within the Core. As a result, in 2007, the VP Council charged a newly
constituted Core Committee to revise the current Core Curriculum, and to develop a process
for future revisions. This was suggested with the understanding that there would be no
changes to the new core for the first two years. The timing of this proposed process is
critical, in that if the recommended process begins during Fall 2011, the first changes would
not go into effect until Fall 2013*.
Key features of the process are:
 The formation of a committee called the Core Curriculum Review Committee.
 Recommendations for revisions to the Core are accepted by the last working day in
February.
 The Core Curriculum Review Committee will meet in March to consider revisions.
 Recommendations from the Core Curriculum Review Committee will be presented to
the Core Curriculum Steering Team in April.
 The Core Curriculum Steering Team will make recommendations to the VP Council in
May.
*
Note: Recommended changes to the Core Curriculum must be approved by the
Chancellor’s Staff, The DCCCD Board of Trustees, and the Texas Higher Education
Coordinating Board.
27
PROCESS FOR MAKING CHANGES TO THE NEW CORE
The Core Evaluation Committee of the Core Curriculum Steering Team (CCST),
recommends the following core curriculum revision process for consideration and
implementation during the Fall 2013 semester.
Note: Currently, no name exists for the group that will assume the responsibility for
receiving and reviewing requests for changes to the Core. For the purpose of identification
and for ease during conversations, the Core Evaluation Committee referred to this yet
unidentified group as the Core Curriculum Review Committee (CCRC).
COMMITTEE CHARGE
The core charge for the Core Evaluation Committee is to develop a process for evaluating
the new DCCCD Core Curriculum implemented during the Fall 2010 semester. Number
seven on the list of charges from the Vice-Presidents’ Council to the Core Curriculum
Committee is as follows:
Recommend a process by which the Core Curriculum can be revised once its
recommendations are adopted.
The Core Curriculum Steering Team created this committee, the Core Evaluation
Committee, for the purpose of responding to this charge.
DEFINITIONS
Definition of change to Core -Changes to the Core may consist of addition of new courses, deletion of existing courses, or
transfer of a course or courses from one Core Curriculum Tier to another Tier.
CORE EVALUATION COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP
Co-Chairs:
Dr. Karen Laljiani (ECC)
Dr. Janice L. Franklin (MVC), member of Original Core Curriculum Committee
Professor Sherry Boyd (NLC)
Professor Leticia Escobar (EFC)
Nancy Faris (DO), member of Original Core Curriculum Committee
Mary Frances Gibbons (RLC)
Dr. Sarah Hutchings (MVC)
Teresa Isbell (NLC)
Professor Ricky Reeves (BHC)
Dr. Christina Tomczak (CVC)
Fonda Vera (RLC)
Resource Persons:
28
Professor Hazel Carlos (BHC), co-chair of e-Portfolio Committee, member of Original Core
Curriculum Committee
Professor Victor Soto (MVC), co-chair of e-Portfolio Committee
Dr. Sharon Blackman (DO)
OBSERVATION #1:
As yet no group or body has been identified to assume
responsibility for receiving and reviewing requests for changes to
the Core Curriculum and for reporting its determinations.
Recommendation #1
The Core Curriculum Evaluation Committee recommends a group construct as follows:
To be called the Core Curriculum Review Committee (CCRC):
one faculty member from each Learning Category in each Tier of the Core (For the first year,
we recommend that as many members of the Original Core Curriculum Committee as
possible be included. After this, there should always be some members from previous
years included if possible)
one representative from each of the Pre-Core Curriculum group of courses (i.e. EDUC 1300,
ESOL and Developmental Studies, and Computer Literacy).
District Director of Academic and Student Records
one representative from the Institutional Research Council
one instructional dean
select members of the Original Core Curriculum Committee may be consulted to help clarify
issues.
The committee believes this work group representation is critical to the success of any Core
Curriculum revision effort. The revision process must be faculty-led, and their review process must
be informed by the potential impact on degree plans, graduation rates, and number of Core
Curriculum completers, and the pre-Core Curriculum area. In view of the state’s recent focus on
accountability attached to number of core completers, the area of degree audit and transfer is
critical to the revision consideration process. Any decisions proffered by this group should be
supported by available data, hence the participation of one of the DCCCD’s institutional researchers.
Faculty Selection Process:
Faculty interested in participating in this effort should be invited to apply for a position during the
Fall 2011 semester. The Core Curriculum Steering Team and Vice-Presidents’ Council will work
together toward this effort as well.
Rationale:
The Core Curriculum Evaluation Committee discussed the possibility of including one faculty
member from each of the seven campuses. After much discussion, it was decided that this familiar
29
and oft used selection process was neither necessary nor prudent for this task. Decisions regarding
changes to the Core Curriculum impact all of the campuses at the tier and learning category level,
and discussions surrounding such changes should be approached from that global Core Tier
perspective.
OBSERVATION #2:
The existing DCCCD curriculum revision process is layered and
replete with competing deadlines.
The Core Evaluation Committee carefully reviewed the existing DCCCD Curriculum Revision Process
for the purpose of identifying an insertion point for the work of the Core Curriculum Review
Committee (CCRC). Within the existing process, only four (4) days are available for the purpose of
preparing requests for changes, submitting those requests, receiving and reviewing the requests,
and reporting and submitting responses and/or recommendations to the VPI Council. The Core
Evaluation Committee deemed this an insufficient amount of time for the expedition of the new set
of tasks. Therefore the following recommendation is being presented:
Recommendation #2
The Core Evaluation Committee recommends modifications to the existing DCCCD Curriculum
Revision Process and timelines to allow for the additional tasks resulting from the adoption of this
new core curriculum. The new process should follow this timeline of activities (example dates are
included for illustration):
 Fall 2011- District Academic Discipline Committees begin discussion of proposed changes to
courses that are contained within the Core. Since there is not time to complete the work
needed to utilize the new process, they will need to continue to meet into the Spring
semester.
 Spring 2012- By the end of February, all proposed changes to courses within the Core must
be submitted to the CCRC. The Core Curriculum Review Committee must RECEIVE change
requests no later than the last work day in February. The CCRC will review all
recommendations during March of each year. Any change requests received by the CCRC
after the last work day in February will be deferred for consideration during the next review
cycle, which will occur during the Spring semester of the next academic year (in this case,
CCRC would review it in March of 2013).
 Change requests that are accepted by the CCRC and approved by the Core Curriculum
Steering Team and the VP Council in Spring 2012 will go into effect during the Fall semester
of 2013.
Recommendation #3
The Core Curriculum Review Committee’s review and deliberation process can include, as
appropriate, conversations with the District Academic Discipline Committees in an effort to gain
clarity regarding the request.
Recommendation #4
The Core Curriculum Review Committee will complete their review process, prepare a written set of
findings and recommendations (including decision rationale), and submit to the Core Curriculum
30
Steering Team. Once approved, these recommendations and rationale will be submitted to Office
of Educational Affairs and the Vice-Presidents’ Council for consideration and decision-making. This
step is congruent with the existing reporting and distribution process.
The deadline for the completion of all work by the Core Curriculum Review Committee is the end-ofday on Friday the last week of regular classes during the spring semester.
Recommendation #5
The Core Evaluation Committee also considered district wide Core Curriculum learning outcomes.
While preliminary discussions have centered around the mapping of the Core to the Intellectual
Competencies and Exemplary Educational Objectives, the new Core Objectives recommended by
the Undergraduate Education Advisory Committee (UEAC) to the Texas Higher Education
Coordinating Board will change the emphasis and direction of student learning outcomes.
Therefore, the Core Evaluation Committee recommends that these discussions await the finalization
of the new objectives. Once these are adopted, the Core Evaluation Committee with input from the
Core Learning Committee will identify the achievement level for each objective as they relate to the
tier structure of the DCCCD Core. Finally, the Core Evaluation Committee will make
recommendations to the Core Curriculum Steering Team.
31
APPENDIX P
EDUC 1300 Student Data
Extracted from the EDUC 1300 Learning Matters Award Report
According to Institutional Research, the district achieved close to a 70% pass rate for all Fall 2010 EDUC 1300
sections. All the colleges were above 60% and 8 of 9 colleges were 65% or higher.
EDUC1300
BHC
CVC
EFC
ECC
MVC
NLC
RLC
DCCCD
%ABC
73.01
66.92
76.58
68.74
67.39
71.40
70.02
67.30
Enrollment
925
647
982
451
902
1,450
2,297
7,654
As a result of this program, a significant impact can be seen on retention by comparing persistence data
between EDUC 1300 students and non-EDUC 1300 students:





Based on data from Institutional Research, approximately 67% of students across the district
successfully completed the course by earning a final letter grade of A, B, or C.
Approximately 90% earned a grade between A-F, and 10% withdrew.
According to Institutional Research, the retention rate from Fall 2010 to Spring 2011 for students
who passed EDUC 1300 was 88%.
The retention rate form for all students who took EDUC 1300 whether they passed or not was 76%.
EDUC 1300 students scored higher than previous retention data from Fall to Spring which was only
67%.
According to Dr. Terri Walker, Director of Institutional Research for the District, students who participated in
EDUC 1300 returned the subsequent semester significantly higher than non-EDUC 1300 students. If a
student passed EDUC 1300 there is over an 8 to 10 chance the student will return next semester. Further
data is necessary to confirm current findings; however these immediate differences are significant. This also
supports the probable correlation between well-trained EDUC 1300 faculty/instructors and the current
success of this First Year college course.
32
APPENDIX Q
2011-2012 Core Curriculum Leadership
Core Curriculum Steering Team and Committee Liaisons
LEADERS
CCST
FAC: Matt Hinckley, EFC
Dean: Jennie Pollard, CVC
VP Liaison: Rodger Bennett, BHC
EDUC 1300
(EDUC 1300 CHAMPS)
FAC: Daven Salmi, MVC
Dean: Mary Darin, RLC
VP Liaison: Martha Hughes, NLC
COMPUTER LITERACY
FAC: Ginnette Serrano Correa, CVC
Dean: Becky Jones, RLC
VP Liaison: Audra Barrett, LCET
ePORTFOLIO
(ePortfolio CHAMPS)
FAC: Victor Soto, MVC
Dean: Gretchen Riehl, EFC
VP Liaison: Paul Keleman, NLC
CORE LEARNING
FAC: Amy Smith, NLC
Dean: Kendra Vaglienti, BHC
VP Liaison: Michael Gutierrez, EFC
CORE EVAL
FAC: Karen Mongo, ECC
Dean: Liz Nichols, EFC
VP Liaison: Zarina Blankenbaker, RLC
ADVISORS
Henri Dally, CVC
COMMUNICATIONS
Brenda Welcome, DO
INSTITUTIONAL RESEARCH
Bao Huynh, RLC
ACADEMIC & STUDENT RECORDS
Nancy Faris, DO
CCST LIAISONS
VPI
VPSD
Executive District Director
Rodger Bennett, BHC
Mary Cimenelli, NLC
Don Perry, DO
EXOFFICIO
Sr Assoc Vice Chancellor Sharon Blackman, DO
Exec Vice Chancellor
33
APPENDIX R
2010-2011 Core Curriculum Steering Team
Core Curriculum Steering Team:
LEARNING FRAMEWORKS
Chair:
COMPUTER LITERACY
Chairs:
ePORTFOLIO
Chairs:
Becki Williams, RLC, chair
MaryAnn McGuirk, NLC
Luisa Forrest, RLC
Sam Govea, BHC
Hazel Carlos, BHC
Victor Soto, MVC
TIER 1
Chairs:
Mary Jackson, BHC
David Willburn, EFC
Chairs:
Amy Bell, RLC
Rebekah Rios-Harris, CVC
Chairs:
Gay Michele, ECC
John Hitt, NLC
TIER 2
TIER 3
EVALUATION
Chairs:
COMMUNICATION
Chairs:
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Chairs:
Janice Franklin, MVC
Karen Laljiani, ECC
Courtney Carter, EFC
Brenda Welcome, DO
Liz Nichols, MVC
Jodie Rexroat, CVC
ADVISORS
Deena Reeve, NLC
STUDENT RECORDS
Nancy Faris, DO
LIASONS
VPI
VPSD
Executive District Director
Michael Gutierrez, EFC
Oscar Lopez, BHC
Don Perry, DO
Sr Assoc Vice Chancellor
Exec Vice Chancellor
Sharon Blackman
Andrew Jones
EX-OFFICIO
34