1
Research & Planning Committee
Minutes & Action Steps
(12:30-2:00).
Committee members:
Ted Blake
Meeting #8
From Tuesday, Feb.23.10
X = in attendance
x5487 – English LRC MVC
Janice Levasseur* x5482- Mathematics MVC
Patricia Menchaca – ENVS MVC (class on conflict this semester)
Brandon Moore x3754 – Statistics SJC
Bahram Sherkat x5754- Mathematics MVC
X
Dennis Anderson x3420 –Instruction
X
Susan Guarino
x3080 –IT (in training seminar)
Charles Hawkins x3703 - Research
Brian Orlauski
x3083 -IT
Rebecca Teague x3072 – Grants (on leave)
X
X
Bill Vincent
x3200 – Student Services
Guest: Alex Cuatok
* scribe
CC: Roger Schultz, Tom Spillman
Agenda items:
1. Review minutes and action taken since last meeting

W’s
o Charles reported the results from FA09 semester: classes averaged a 14% attrition rate (aka
W’s), accounting for 7,200 W’s.
o Math averaged 20% W’s (note: about 14% of FTEs are generated from math classes.)

Braham requested that the math data be broken out between Basic Skills Classes (Math
96 & below versus Math 105 and above.)
Action Step(s): Charles will breakout FA09 W’s by discipline & recap in March meeting.

XERN - format change to include keys variables of all 4 service areas
o Dennis approved the format as a valued added tool that he needs.
o
It was agreed to make the development of this project a priority
o Dennis is currently having a trouble ID a person who has the time to take on this project.
o Dennis will source help from clerical support (maybe split their work load. Maybe pull classified
staff during the summer session)
o The clerical support will be trained by Susan & Brian but should report to Charles (Dennis made it
clear that he does not want this responsibility to fall on Charles.)
o Estimate the clerical work 4 – 6 hours/week pulling data (initially) & eventually get it down to about
30 minutes/week of work.
Action Step(s): Dennis will ID support person to work on XERN project.

Review of MSJC 2010 ARCC scores
o Dennis presented the 2009 numbers (which are based on 2007/2008 data)
o We are “holding our own” except in the area of ESL.
o The Board would like to create a comparison based on our own “geographical peers” – RCC, Palomar,
San Bernardino & COD.
o The Board would also like to know the academic level of the Basic Skills students. Are they mostly
first-time freshman (we don’t want MSJC to be a remedial institution for the K-12 system)?
o Charles shared that the ‘18 – 19’ year olds have a lower success rate than the ‘less than 18’ year
olds (the ones who are taking college courses while in high school.)
o Action Step(s): Charles will provide Dennis with a recap comparing MSJC 2009 ARCC indicators
with “geographical peers” – RCC, Palomar, San Bernardino & COD for the March 12th B.O.T. meeting.
Charles will post presentation on IR website.
X
X
X
X
X
2

Face-to-Face Orientation
o Janice shared the idea of offering face-to-face orientations in the LRC (conducted by LRC
personal – Ted Blake, Janice L, possible Alex Cuatok) in which a group of students would go through
the on-line orientation together.
o Alex shared the Eagle Access Center, where students currently go through the on-line orientation,
gets bombarded during peak times (not enough computers.) A face-to-face orientation option
would help alleviate this problem.

A face-to-face orientation would also help reduce the cheating that happens with the online orientation format.
o Alex also shared that a new version of the on-line orientation is being currently being developed.
o Dr. Vincent asked about the challenges to offering a face-to-face orientation

Alex identified two challenges: manpower and resources.
Action Step(s): It was agreed that no face-to-face option will be pursued at this time.

Equity Plan & ARCC
o 2 Indicators could be tied to the Equity Plan (e.g. success rates overlap both Equity Plan and ARCC)
o It was suggested that several unanswered questions could be addressed by conduction a student
focus groups. In addition to the student equity questionnaire.
Action Step(s): Charles will keep committee updated on Equity Plan topics/analysis that is relevant to
research committee goals.
2.
DSS policy on % of cap & reporting sections

Charles shared the handout “SP10 – 1st Census fill rates by course”
o A significant # of SP10 sections were over cap
o Fewer offered seats but higher % of cap was the result of efficient planning.
Action Step(s):
o Charles & Carlos Lopez with direction from Dr. Anderson are beginning work on a project to assist
faculty utilize D.S.S. & other data resources to make fact based decisions.
o Dr. Vincent & Dr Anderson will ensure that faculty understands that the data will not be used in a
punitive nature.
3.
Capturing student ‘major” & ‘goal’

Suggestion: Survey the students at registration
o IT in prior meeting stated that it will slow down the system.

Currently, in some cases we guess on student major based on student course selection
o For STEM, focus groups were conducted
o Maybe survey STEM SI classes and classes with STEM Coordinators to get a general sense (not an
informed goal) for majors and goals.

At the Chancellor’s Level, though, “informed goals” needs to be reported (i.e. the students must meet
with a counselor to declare a major)
o It was stated that initial goal versus an informed goal can be considerably different
o Counselors right now don’t have access to change a student’s goal in DataTel.
o Rebecca suggests surveying the ones we can get & report the results as “surveyed goals” would be
better alternative vs. guessing based on the student’s course selection.
Action Step(s):
o It was agreed that we will not gather this information on a questionnaire.
4.
IRB (Institutional Review Board) & Review of Research Policies/Practices

An agenda item was brought to the floor by Rebecca for two reasons
o An IRB is important for grants & Assoc. Faculty member voiced concern over lack of IRB
o
3
Research & Planning Committee
Minutes & Action Steps
Meeting #7
From Tuesday, Nov.24.09 (2-3:00).
Committee members:
Ted Blake
X = in attendance
x5487 – English LRC MVC
Samia Estassi
X5743 – Chemistry MVC
Janice Levasseur* x5482- Mathematics MVC
Patricia Menchaca – ENVS MVC (class on conflict this semester)
Brandon Moore x3754 – Statistics SJC
Bahram Sherkat x5754- Mathematics MVC
* scribe
X
X
Dennis Anderson x3420 –Instruction
X
Susan Guarino
x3080 –IT
Charles Hawkins x3703 - Research
Brian Orlauski
x3083 -IT
Rebecca Teague x3072 – Grants (on leave)
X
X
X
Bill Vincent
Guest:
X
x3200 – Student Services
CC: Roger Schultz, Tom Spillman, Alex Cuatok,
Agenda items:
1. Reviewed minutes & actions taken since Oct. meeting
2. Ws- a discussion & a consensus by the committee was reached on the next steps:
 Pros and cons of students being directed to W versus course grade of D/F were
discussed.
 Janice shared that students have reported that counselors recommend taking a W
versus a “bad” grade. This is contrary to the advice Janice gives students. Janice
encourages students to stay in the class to get exposure to the material.
 W’s are an issue. A large amount of W’s affect our ARCC data and are costly to the
institution. However, the culture of Ws is so permissible here. There would need to be a
culture change, too!
 Reasons not to take the W include: 1) dropping below 12 units affects Financial Aid, 2)
the F won’t affect GPA if the class is successfully repeated, 3) gain as much exposure to
the subject material rather than always seeing the first 4 weeks over and over again.
 How about Early Alert? Right now the Early Alert deadline is the 6th week. Dr. Tinto
mentioned MSJC ‘s Early Alert was too late. Also, once an early alert is put out there,
what is the message? What are the students being told? The instructors should be
aware of what the message is.
Action Steps: Susan will provide Charles with data. Charles will look at W’s by subject to
establish a base-line of W’s. Also, let’s take a closer look at the Early Alert process. Is it
effective? Also, what about a focus group regarding Ws (why did you drop?)
3. Estimated Term Enrollment Counts (aka XERN) – a consensus was reached on next step:
 To be “published” twice: 1) census and 2) end of semester.
 Pros: All relevant stats in one place / Can be used as a planning tool / Transparency –
everyone sees the same data
 Cons: Labor intensive (stress on the system) / Other projects are displaced / All data
obtainable through other sources (pulls data from Datatel)Who can create this report?
Admin III on the Instruction side?
Action Step: Dennis will identify 1 – 2 Admin III to be trained by Brian and Susan (training to
begin in the beginning of February. In a pilot run, the Admin III will pull the data for the XERN
census report.) Susan and Brian will develop a process document along the way. Ultimately, a
full-timer in instruction would be the point-person for this report and the XERN data base.
4. Pre-course enrollment questionnaire – recommended list of questions -Chas
4
Who needs the data? Counselors and Grants. Maybe 3 – 5 questions prior to enrollment
(major? Ed goal?) The issue though with the question on ed goal is that counselors want
the answer to be informed (i.e. answered after having met with a counselor.)
 What about the questionnaire administered as part of orientation?
 What about regular communication from a counselor?
 Problem: 60% of students never meet with a counselor.
 Since major declaration is important to the institution (grants, funding) Brian suggested
the implementation of change-of-major on line followed with regular communication. An
analysis though would have to be done to determine if the declared major is consistent
with the ed goal.
Action Steps: Need a champion from Counseling to push the importance of declaring a
major and having an ed goal. A counselor will be invited to the next research committee
meeting. Bill will meet with Tom.
5. Review of MSJC 2010 ARCC scores & next steps – Chas
 Charles presented the trends for the 8 ARCC indicators. Note: The ARCC 2010 actually
reports 2009 numbers. Challenges for #3 and #6 have been issued (number to be
investigated more.)
Action Steps: In March the report is due. The action plans are put in place to address the
issues the ARCC data points out.
6. Chemistry 101 vs. 100 data – Charles & Janice
 Charles prepared data looking at success rates for Chemistry based on the math
prerequisites. Janice and Ladylyn presented the data at the Academy the weekend
before (note: Carlos recommended that the population sizes need to be included on the
tables for presentation.) The data suggested that maybe the prerequisites were too low.
If a student earned a C in Math 96 (the prerequisite to Chem 101), there is no chance of
earning an A in Chem 101. However, instead of rushing out and changing the prerequisite,
Janice asked, “What can the Math Center do to help out?” The Math Center wants to
support Math across the curriculum.
Action Steps: Dennis wants to initiate Cluster meetings in the spring semester, beginning
with the Science instructors. Janice would be in attendance as a representative for the
Math Center. The cluster meetings would give instructors a forum to discuss issues they are
having in their classes. Dennis suggested the cluster meetings be held at the Western
Center in Hemet (a neutral meeting ground.)

7. Pros & Cons of Face-to-face orientation prior to 1st day of class:
 Ted spoke last week to Alex Cuatok and others involved with BSI. While the on-line
orientation is nice, it would be better to be able to offer an alternative. The face-toface would provide the incoming students the opportunity to make a connection with a
real person and with the school. Ted suggested the LRC be the venue for the orientation.
Action Step: Survey students to see if a face-to-face orientation is wanted? Bill will meet
with his people to discuss option.
 After Thought: Janice mentioned that the face-to-face orientation doesn’t even have to
be different from the on-line. The face-to-face orientation could just be students
gathering with school representatives (LRC, counselors, faculty, etc.) and going through
the on-line orientation together. The school representatives will be available right there
for any questions.
8. Equity Plan & ARCC – Bill/Charles
5
Equity plan looks at students by 8 different groups (ethnic, gender) and the
institutional structures in place to make sure no one group is put in an inequitable
position. (e.g. Is the low productivity of African-American males due to institutional
barriers?) The Equity plan requires a BIG assessment of the institution.
Action Step: Charles and Bill will look at what pieces of the data are relevant and
actionable in order to tailor the Equity Plan to our college.

NEXT Meeting - Tues. Feb. 24, 2010 from 2 to 3:30 pm - SJC Rm. 1111 linked to MVC
LRC 105
Thanks, for your participation, Charles 2.16.10 x3073
6
Research & Planning Committee
Minutes & Action Steps
Meeting #6
From Tuesday, Oct. 27.09 (2-3:00).
Committee members:
Ted Blake
X = in attendance
X
Dennis Anderson x3420 –Instruction
X
Samia Estassi
X5743 – Chemistry MVC
Janice Levasseur* x5482- Mathematics MVC
Patricia Menchaca – ENVS MVC (class on conflict this semester)
Brandon Moore x3754 – Statistics SJC
x5487 – English LRC MVC
X
X
Susan Guarino
x3080 –IT
Charles Hawkins x3703 - Research
Brian Orlauski
x3083 -IT
Rebecca Teague x3072 – Grants (on leave)
X
X
Bahram Sherkat x5754- Mathematics MVC
* scribe
X
Bill Vincent
Guest:
X
X
CC: Roger Schultz,TomSpillman, Alex Cuatok,
Agenda items:
1.
Review minutes & action taken since last meeting
Chas- recapped recent internal research
Chas- Recap next step of reformatting/replacing XENR with EECF Report after meeting with EC
Chas-Recap % o f cap for FA09 MVC,SJC,
Banning & Beaumont 92% of cap (up drastically)
o Data supported the expansion to put 4 – 5 modulars on the site

Importance of math classes

Math makes up 14% of the FTES

50% of that comes from Math 90/96

Math, English, and History are the big FTE generators
Recap of Math 41/42 - Janice




2.
Little by in – small samples make any analysis impossible.
Instructors seem to use the lab as a last resort.
 The intention is to get students enrolled immediately so support begins early in the
Semester.
Braham suggested making in-class presentations in the SP10 to advertise the lab classes. Brandon suggested a
STEM session at the next Academy to educate the faculty as to what services are available to support math
students.
Action Steps: Janice volunteered to co-present.


3. Recap of recap of workshop Chem 101 / 101 - Janice
Following up with an on-going concern, Janice shared her encounter with Ladylyn Domingez, the STEM counselor.
Ladylyn approached Janice with a concern. She has counseled a couple of students directly into Chem 101 and the
students are struggling because they did not take Chem 100 first. Math 90 is the prerequisite for Chem 100 and
Math 96 is the prerequisite for Chem 101. Charles has pulled data on success rates for Chem 101 students who
have and haven’t taken Chem 100. Unfortunately, the sample size is small. Only 11 students in Chem 101 had
taken Chem 100. So, Charles also pulled data on the math preparation of the Chem 101 students. Charles will
summarize the results & report to the group.
Student participation was great (averaging 10 students/Chem workshop). Samia said that the students would like
more
of these workshops so Janice and Samia will work on the planning and expansion of the Basic Chem workshop
series.
Action Steps: The Math Center will run the Basic Chem workshop series again in the SP10.
Charles/Janice will present Chem100/101 student data in next Research meeting.
4.
Recap of Math 90 and Math 96 grade correlation – Charles
Charles shared the data he pulled regarding success and Math 90 and subsequent success in Math 96. Given the
grade in
Math 90, we can now state the probability of success (or lack thereof) in Math 96. If a student earns a
7
C in Math 90, there is about a 60% chance they will be unsuccessful (D, F, W) in Math 96! There’s only about a 5%
chance that student will get an A in Math 96. Charles has similar results for “if a student earns an A in Math 90” &
“if a student earns an A or B in Math 90”.
Action Steps: Charles will produce similar summaries for the correlation between Math (prerequisites) and Chem
outcomes.
5. Review, Discuss, and Agree upon next steps:
“W” project
What can we do about the W? Put together a proposal on how to handle the excessive number of Ws
2-peat intervention to include possible counseling (track why students drop) and also a plan on how to get
back into a class (what roadblocks can we put in place?)

Susan cautioned the “roadblock” issue – how do we manage it?

Ted suggested more closely examining the exit-entry skills issue (sited as a best practice – carefully match
up exit skills to the entry skills of the subsequent course

Brandon agrees as he thinks Math 90 had been watered down since it was the “end of the road” (now it is
Math 96)

Brandon, as a side note, shared that SJC Math Department will have in place the SLOs for Math 96 this
year (3 – 5 questions that every Math 96 final will have).The SLOs for Math 90 will be in place next year.
Action Step: Follow up with Instruction and Enrollment (Title 5 issues)
* Pre-Reenrollment Questionnaire

This is a Student Services area. Counselors initiated the removal of surveys in the past. However, there is
a need to collect the information the surveys gathered.

Survey to be short (3 – 5 questions): Major? Ed Plan? (Remind students of their academic goals).

Ted suggested a required orientation where the survey could be administered.

Susan suggested regular communication instead of another barrier (survey).

There are not enough counselors for the one-on-one. In fact, many students (~ 60%) don’t even see a
counselor. Have department faculty encourage declaration of majors (~ 50% are undeclared  lost
revenue for the school)
Action Steps: Talk to counseling (Tom Spillman and Bill Vincent). Explore the option of student’s selfdirected ed plan (open datatel up to the students).
* Estimated Enrollment

To be used as a planning tool for service areas

Gives FTEs and Student Count by Area

President, VPs need this information at their fingertips (also information  being transparent)

Run the report 3 times a semester (prior, census, after)

It is labor intensive to pull the data and compile the report.
Train others to pull the data (the data is available from many separate sources) The nice thing about the XENR is
that the data is presented in a nice summary. Make a cheat sheet (programming examples) on how to pull the data so
anyone can. Create a workflow chart to obtain the data needed.
Action Steps: Agree in Nov. committee on plan for XERN report
6. Other
Braham commented that the committee is a functional committee and that more people should get involved!
Next meeting: Tuesday in November 24th 2009 at 2-3:30
Thanks, for your participation, Charles 11.24.9 x3073
8
Research & Planning Committee
Minutes & Action Steps
Meeting #5
From Tuesday, Sept. 29 (2-3:00).
Committee members:
Ted Blake *
X = in attendance
x5487 – English LRC MVC (class until 11 am)
Samia Estassi
X5743 – Chemistry MVC
Janice Levasseur x5482- Mathematics MVC
Patricia Menchaca – ENVS MVC
Brandon Moore x3754 – Statistics SJC
Bahram Sherkat x5754- Mathematics MVC
* scribe
X
Dennis Anderson x3420 –Instruction
X
X
X
Susan Guarino
x3080 –IT
Charles Hawkins x3703 - Research
Brian Orlauski
x3083 -IT
Rebecca Teague x3072 – Grants
Bill Vincent
Guest:
X
X
CC: Roger Schultz,Tom Spillman, Alex Cuatok,
Meeting was called to order at 2:03 p.m.
Agenda items:
1. Charles opened by discussing a couple of issues of which Drs. Anderson and Vincent are already aware:
A+dvancerallows for a reassessment after completion. 33% of those who completed were able to assess into a
higher course. What’s the best way to target these students?
Action Step: A task force from the BSI committee will assist Joanna in developing the most optimal approach.
2.
3.
4.
Chas -Review minutes & action taken since last meeting
Internal research – Assessment Practices of Community College Instructors
J. BoarerPitchford- (Capella U –contact Dave Moss) Internal research about PhD’s to promote individuals
getting their PhD’s. Charles has been looking at her questionnaire and giving her recommendations. It has been
approved by Dr. Anderson. Action Step: Assessment Practices survey to be emailed distribution on Oct 12th
Chas - on-line 15 share vs. 30: Statewide average is 8%. There has been talk of bringing us up to 30%, but it
would drop our overall success rates by 1%. Action Step: completed
Committee - Recap next step of reformatting/replacing XENR with EECF. Report after meeting with EC:
Charles presented a sheet that allows us to answer some big questions like headcounts and estimated FTES for
each service area. This will allow for some business decisions to be made based on data. There was discussion
about when this report would be useful (probably shortly after census). The sheet seems very useful for
schedule building. It is time intensive to produce, so it will need to be decided if resources should be used to
produce the sheet.
Action Step: Chas sit down with Susan and look at the 320 report/discuss how to proceed-see #12
5.
Ted - LRC student tracking systems – update changes to be made: The Datatel system has been tweaked to
gather more accurate data. The main change was eliminating the “other” option. We now have tutoring and
testing only, and students log out more efficiently with a card swipe. Action Step: completed
6.
SI awareness – Recap SP09 Stats: The first time we were able to recap not only MVC but also SJC. 80% of
MVC got passing grade, and SJC was similar. Results provided significant evidence that SI students scored
higher success rates vs. non-Si students. Data was presented to Executive Cabinet 9.23.9.
Action Step: Janice Levasseur will present results to BOT 11.12.9
7.
Pre-enroll form proposal – draft needs by instruction(Bil Bergin, Dick LeGarra,), grants -(ENVS) & counseling,
to include: (a) Major (ID by MSJC offerings): What majors are taking courses (CAPP for example) (b)
Academic/ED goal (degree, transfer, certificate, personal development): What are their plans? Discussion:
Could we have students identify their major and goal at the point of entry to MSJC. This would be an immediate
source of data. This would be just a couple of questions that wouldn’t take students more than a minute. This
has been in place before, but it was eliminated at the request of the counseling faculty (because it was
9
uninformed data). It’s probably better for this to exist, however. Bottom line: it’s better for students to guess
than for us to be guessing. Susan will look into why it was removed before. Bill will ask his faculty/admin if this
makes sense to them. A significant # of our students don’t see counselors, so this will at least capture some
information. Action Step: See #12
8.
% cap by semester: It seems as if more students are staying in courses. Charles is tracking this. Historically,
we have seen 13% disappear by the end of the semester. However, TEC has retained (and is retaining) more
students than MVC and SJC. He will track it at 6, 12, and 18 weeks. This might be artificially stimulated by the
bad economy.
Action Step: Chas will recap FA09 at the end of the semester.
9.
Recap analysis

Puente – success analysis: Looked at fact based data. Data showed that students had a 10% higher
success rate compared to other students/courses (74% vs. 64%). He did not find any correlation
with Guidance. Action Step: completed

HR – Faculty & staff satisfaction survey: Action Step: Questionnaire targeted for w/o 11.26.9

TEC – Student survey: Laurie wanted to do a survey about whether we are meeting their needs.

Action Step: Chas set with Laurie
AJ 201 – correlation with Engl-62 & Engl-98 (done): Charles did analysis. Action Step: completed
10. Grant data request-FYI:
a.
RCOE/RCSD – target Green jobs for inmates -external writer: targets matriculation
b.
UC /STEM – Transfer partnership (6CCC & UCR)– target 4yr transfers: Person representing the UC
system. We are one of six colleges selected to participate in a survey promoting students transferring
to UCR. We will identify which students are STEM students to get the students and their parents
involved in their efforts to transfer. This is an FYI. This will appear soon.
c.
SSS (Student Support Services) -Target Low-income/1st Gen/Disabled - external writer: This is still
in process. The writer still needs some additional data. Charles is working on this.
d.
CCRAA (College Cost Reduction Access Act) STEM – on going -target 1st time college, full time –
Hispanic: This is ongoing. Charles and Susan are meeting to format the data.
11. Other items: Charles will be pulling this next week.
CHEM. 101 passed (prerequisite of M96 not Chem. 100)
12. Any questions or new topics?
W’s -- Bill Vincent: The issue involving the W’s and how to deal with them. Students are competing for precious
spots and perhaps first time attempters should be given priority? We need a clearer idea/plan of how we will
manage this. We should see how many students constitute this repeat W group as we may see no funding for
these students in the future. Charles mentioned that we may need some remediation/intervention before
students are allowed to take the course again. Bill will bring this to the next meeting b/c there have already
been some changes made. Discussion: Should we look into Math 096’s success rates? We also need to look at
Math 090 and Math 105 to see what correlations emerge. Charles mentioned that we need three projects:

“W” project,

New Enrollment process project

Project geared toward capturing more information about students.
Action Step: Charles will write up a report on each of these subjects & use as a starting point at Oct. meeting.
Thanks, for your participation, Charles 10.26.9 x3073
10
Research & Planning Committee Meeting #4
Committee members:
Ted Blake
Minutes & Action Steps
From Friday, May 22 (10:00 – 11:30 a.m.
X = in attendance
x5487 – English LRC MVC (class until 11 am)
Samia Estassi
X5743 – Chemistry MVC
Janice Levasseur * x5482- Mathematics MVC
Patricia Menchaca – ENVS MVC
(prior meeting)
Brandon Moore x3754 – Statistics SJC
(prior meeting)
Bahram Sherkat x5754- Mathematics MVC (auto trouble)
* scribe
Dennis Anderson x3420 –Instruction (in Executive Cabinet)
X
X
Susan Guarino
x3080 –IT
Charles Hawkins x3703 - Research
Brian Orlauski
x3083 -IT
(on vacation)
Rebecca Teague x3072 – Grants
Bill Vincent
Guest:
(in Executive Cabinet)
CC: Roger Schultz, Pat James, Tom Spillman, Alex Cuatok, Del Helm
Agenda/Discussion Items:
1. Estimated Enrollment Counts & FTES (EECF): The EECF format will replace the XENR.
Action Step: Dennis Anderson will present to the Executive Cabinet to push forward the updated
format for programming. Charles will meet with Dennis & update committee on next steps.
2. Data Entry Gaps: Work in progress. Susan reported that she has conducted MIS workshops with
matriculation & financial aid. Susan also reviewed the structure of the enrollment form.
Action Step: Susan will continue to work with Susan Loomis & Cheri Naish to close data entry gaps.
3. Eternal Human Research Request: A Capella University doctoral candidate, Julia Boarer-Pitchford,
was approved to interview MSJC instructors via an on-line questionnaire using Survey Monkey. Request
was approved by the VP of Instruction, President of the Academic Senate & Assoc. Dean of IR. The
purpose of Julie’s study is to examine the assessment practices used by community college instructors
for use in basing the course grade. The objective is 200 completed surveys. The survey will be fielded in
FA08.
Action Step: Chas will inform Julie the request was approved & forward her appropriate research form.
4. Online Resources: - Pat James spoke on the topic of On-Line at the recent Deans’ meeting. The
following is a recap of her presentation. Pat provided an overview of MSJC’s on-line program status,
resources & future needs. She emphasized that a DE course is more difficult than a F2F course. She
also stated that we should not expect that overall DE success rates to equal or exceed F2F success
rates. Pat mentioned that on-line accessibility needs to be addressed in all courses while maintaining
quality.
Pat has been asked to create a plan for a “Virtual Campus” (VC). She will submit to Roger Schultz by
June, 11, a recommendation of the components of the “VC.”
The components will include:
a. Financial structure - needs to generate 500 FTES to be a center/current FTES stay with the
department they came from/must determine if a cost center or self funding
b. Professional development center
c. Curriculum
d. Online tutoring – via Smarthinking, an online service
e. Students services – to include Counseling (use CC Confer not email), Assessment (Pat is open to
ideas), Financial Aid, DSPS, EOPS
Pat expressed her desire to make a form of SI available to on-line students. She emphasized that a DE
program must have all the elements that the current F2F program has but it must be accessible on-line.
X
X
X
11
She said that MSJC is further ahead of others on the “VC” concept but it must be up & running prior to
MSJC splitting into two colleges.
Pat mentioned that while on-line is not for every student, there are students that have no access to
education other than on-line format. Pat stressed that we must do a better job of preparing students
for DE. She is targeting for three full time on-line instructors/mentors and one counselor. Pat asked
Charles to contact Lynn Mann and review the on-line orientation data. She asked the deans to provide
her with any ideas that they may have for the “VC.”
Charles stated that there is a 4 – 6 point spread (face-to-face higher than on-line) & the MSJC on-line
success rates are higher than the state average (see attachment)
Janice expressed hesitation of using SI as an on-line student support program being that SI’s focus is
on the group interaction. However, Janice is willing to try it out (especially if there will be funding for
it.) Rebecca mentioned writing Smarthinking into the current Title V grant (which will have an emphasis
on the on-line learner.) Janice updated the group that the LRC hopes to have Smarthinking in place this
summer session.
Del is analyzing the data to determine the correlation between F2F/OL success rates & FT/ PT faculty.
Action step: Charles will contact Lynn Mann regarding on-line orientation data. Deans provide Pat
feedback on “Virtual Campus “concept. Janice will share the Smarthinking information with Rebecca.
Del intends to use web-site for statistical calculations. Charles & Janice will work with Del to validate
the site.
5. LRC Student tracking system: A meeting with Pat, Ted, Albert, Evelyn Maze & Susan was held on
May 28, 09. Tutor Trac appears to be the preferred canned program based on feedback from the listserve. It was decide to use existing resources in light of the budget crisis.
Action Step: A new screen with only four options will be programmed starting SU09 using DataTel. Data
will be available by student ID, course, course section, # of LRC visits, # of LRC hours, and course grade
with a tentative date of FA09. Susan will look into using SARS Trak where applicable.
6. SI Awareness: Charles spoke of Tinto’s positive comments about SI. SI awareness is growing at
MSJC! Janice has met with the counselors at MVC advising them of the SI line-up for the fall semester.
Janice is working on the SJC Fall SI line-up. At the end of the semester, Janice will analyze the data
and then pass it on to Charles for presentation. Janice met with Evelyn & Maria (LRC –SJC), May 27 to
see what data has been collected this semester.
Janice has contacted Susan G. about setting up a website for SI (possibly linked from the LRC’s site.)
Action Step: Susan will contact Stephanie and arrange a meeting time with Janice. Janice hopes to
work on the site over the summer. Janice will modify color scheme of SI handout per Pat James
suggestions.
7. W Repeaters: Charles presented a table of ‘W’ rates for the most recent 7 semesters from FA05 to
FA08 (see attachment). The data seems to support a reported 14.5% W rate (source: Brian Orlauski).
Susan stated that it would be worthwhile to see where the W’s are coming from by discipline. That way
SI, BSI, grant intervention can be directed to where it is need most. For example, we already know that
Math 96 is the most repeated class. This point brings up the ongoing discussion we have had within the
committee – do students struggle with Math 96 because they barely pass Math 90? (It is the
committee’s belief that Math 90 is the trouble spot). There is already a shortage of Math 90 & Math 96
courses & the shortage is expected to increase with the added transfer requirement of M96.
Action step: Charles agreed to do a sampling of the % of FDW’s by discipline.
12
8. Chemistry 100: Chem 100 students are deficient in math skills. Currently, Math 90 is the
prerequisite for Chem 100 & Math 96 is the prerequisite for Chem 101. Math 90 is not enough of a
preparation for Chem 100 (Chem 100 students are expected to be able to work with logs.) Samia
believes that Math 105 should be the prerequisite for Chem 100 & that Chem 100 should be the
prerequisite for Chem 101.
Janice suggested that the SLO’s for Math 90 should include the ability to transfer the Math 90 skills
into the classes that have Math 90 as a prerequisite. (Direct SLO comments to Dennis, Richard Kandus,
& Marlene Cvetko.)
The MVC Math Center will sponsor a Foundations of Chemistry workshop in the FA09. The workshop
series will occur the first 7 weeks of the semester & will cover the math (fractions, units, conversions,
literal equations, etc.) the Chem 100 students are expected to be able to do. Samia wants to gauge the
turnout of the workshops in order to determine what path the Chem department should take – increase
the prerequisite requirement, create a math for science class, create a Chem lab (like the Math 41/42
labs), continue with the workshop series.
Action Step: Janice will keep records of the Chemistry workshop series & report on her findings.
9. Data Information Site: Rebecca asked if there was a place where we can go to that reports on
decisions that have been made based on data (example: positive SI results  inclusion of SI in the
instructional component of the STEM grant, 4/10 work week, etc.) With accreditation coming up, access
to this type of information is invaluable. Also, reporting on this information . . . should it occur? Once or
twice a year? The objective of the site is to identify the source of the fact based data that was used
as evidence.
Action Step: Charles said that he will ask for a POV from Dennis.
Susan recommended that the committee skip the August meeting due to the start of the FA09, the
committee agreed.
Next meeting: Friday, Sept. 18, 2009 at 10:00 – 11:30, SJC rm. 1111 & linked to
MVC rm. 130
Please, forward to me any agenda items for the Sept. meeting.
Thanks, for your participation,
Charles 6.2.9 x3073
13
Research & Planning Committee Meeting #3
From Friday, April 24 (10:00 – 11:30 a.m.)
Committee members:
Ted Blake
April 24, 09- Minutes & Action Steps
X = in attendance
x5487 – English LRC MVC (class until 11 am)
Samia Estassi
X5743 – Chemistry MVC
Janice Levasseur * x5482- Mathematics MVC
Patricia Menchaca – ENVS MVC
(in doctorial meeting)
Brandon Moore x3754 – Statistics SJC (in SLO conference)
Bahram Sherkat x5754- Mathematics MVC (unable to attain)
* scribe
Dennis Anderson x3420 –Instruction
X
X
Susan Guarino
x3080 –IT (absence due to district outage)
Charles Hawkins x3703 - Research
Brian Orlauski
x3083 -IT
(on vacation)
Rebecca Teague x3072 – Grants
Bill Vincent
Guest:
CC: Roger Schultz, George Kozitza, Pat James, Tom Spillman, Alex Cuatok, Del Helm
Item
1. Estimated Enrollment Counts & FTES (EECF): is a snapshot of MSJC’s headcount, FTEs & credits
per student by service area & on-line activity for the current term doing the enrollment process. The
EECR is intended to be an internal document used for planning as well an enrollment update progress
report. Dennis agreed that due to the complexity of the calculation for separating the I-15 corridor
into TEC & H.S. it would be adequate if this data is supplied by IT on a need-to-know basis versus
included on the EECF report. Once the EECF format is up & running this report will replace the XENR.
Action Step: Dennis Anderson will present to the Executive Cabinet to push forward the updated
format for programming.
1a. MSJC FTES: It was noted that MSJC reached a milestone in AY2007-08, exceeding 10,000 FTES,
bumping us into a higher FTES category. We are currently on track to reach 11,500 FTES for AY 200809.
2. Online Resources: As the on-line student population grows, we ask, “Are we servicing this population?”
The committee felt that MSJC needs to build an on-line community. Janice mentioned the LRC is
pursuing on-line tutoring with Smarthinking. The LRCs would pay for the service using existing tutoring
funds (however paying for on-line tutoring will reduce the number of face-to-face tutors the LRCs will
be able to staff.) Rebecca mentioned there may be a chance to write the funding of Smarthinking into
an upcoming Title V grant. Dennis supported this idea as the 5 years of Title V funding will give the
state’s (and school’s) budget to rebound, putting us in a better position to absorb the cost of on-line
tutoring in five years.
Del Helms initial analysis confirms MSJC’s retention rates among our on-line students is lower than F2F.
Action Step: Rebecca to surface any opportunity to write funding of Smarthinking into a future grant.
Charles will follow-up with Del & report on his research progress.
3. LRC Student tracking system: Currently, we are not able to tie growth in the LRC numbers to
student success. Susan said that the IT department is open to looking into a student tracking system
that would meet the needs of MSJC. SARS is not an option since it does not track student hours. Janice
X
X
X
X
14
provided information from an ACTLA (Association of Colleges for Tutoring and Learning Assistance)
meeting on three student-tracking systems used by member schools of ACTLA. Charles shared the
material with Susan.
Action Step: A meeting is scheduled for Thursday, May 28 at 10 am (PCR at SJC linked to LRC room
201 at MVC) with Susan Guarino, Pat James, Ted Blake, Janice Levasseur & Charles Hawkins to discuss
which if any of the software packages is suitable & the budget considerations.
4. SI Awareness: It was agreed to increase the awareness of SI among students & staff. Charles
shared his standing proposal for Janice to be the district SI Coordinator. Janice submitted a proposal
to Pat James outlining a district SI plan schedule for MVC & SJC. Dennis supported the proposition.
Action Step: Janice developed a handout merchandising SI services & students results. Janice met
with MVC counselors on Wednesday, May 6 & presented a tentative FA09 SI course & math 41/42
schedule. Janice will develop a SI course schedule for SJC.
5. W Repeaters: How do we address the W’s? Charles provided handouts of SP09 DFWs. The average
% of DFW since 1993 is 14.5%. Can we look at that information in a time series instead? We expect a
drastic rise in the number of DFWs over the recent years. What do we have to do to decrease the
number of Ws? What do we do with 2-peaters and 3-peaters? Janice shared her desire for LRC to
reach out to the student services side. By teaming up, the two departments can enhance existing
programs and work together to develop new ones. Bill Vincent concurred with Janice’s idea to work with
Students Services.
Action step: Charles will review the XGRD reports for the past 7 semester to determine if the % of
DFWs has increased over time. Janice will follow-up with counseling on LRC existing programs.
6. Chemistry 100: Janice presented a concern that was brought to her attention by an associate
faculty USDA ENVS tutor & committee member, Patricia. Patricia has encountered student frustration
among Chem 100 students. Samia noted that most Chem 100 students struggle with the math, although
Math 90 is a pre-requisite. Also, several Chem 101 students struggle with the math, although Math 96 is
a pre-requisite. Janice asked if the Chem faculty could meet with the Math faculty regarding this issue.
Janice suggested that maybe the Math SLO should reflect the fact that math must be applied to other
fields. The group liked the idea of maybe the faculty coming together to brainstorm ideas for student
support. Other suggestions included: (a) making this a topic for a future Teaching Academy session & (b)
creating a Chemistry session similar to math 41/42 for one unit of credit.
Janice mentioned that the MVC Math Center will sponsor in FA09 a Chemistry workshop series
(presented by Patricia) that will cover the main “sticky” points Chem 100 students face.
Action Step: Patricia Menchaca will address this issue at the May 22nd meeting.
Next meeting: Friday, May 22, 2009 at 10:00 – 11:30, SJC rm. 200 & linked to MVC rm. 130
Please, forward to me any agenda items for the May meeting.
Thanks, for your participation,
Charles 5.7.9 x3073
15
Research & Planning Committee Meeting #2
Mar. 20, 09 Minutes & Action Steps
From Friday, March 20, 09 (10:00 – 11:30 a.m.)
Committee members:
Ted Blake
X = in attendance
x5487 –English LRC MVC (class until 11 am)
Laura Lord
x3488 - English LRC SJC (will join in April)
Janice Levasseur * x5482- Mathematics MVC
Patricia Menchaca – ENVS MVC
Brandon Moore x3754 – Statistics SJC
Bahram Sherkat x5754- Mathematics MVC
* scribe
Dennis Anderson x3420 –Instruction
X
X
X
X
Susan Guarino
x3080 -IT
Charles Hawkins x3703 - Research
Brian Orlauski
x3083 -IT
Rebecca Teague x3072 – Grants
Guest:
Tom Spillman
x5250 –Counseling/SSS
X
X
X
X
CC: Roger Schultz, Bill Vincent, George Kozitza, Pat James, Alex Cuatok, Del Helm, Cheri Naish, Susan Loomis
Item
1. MSJC Stats/Facts: Substitution for ‘fact books’ now found on-line www.msjc.edu > College Information >
Institutional Research & click on any ‘blue’ link. Site also includes a link to the CCC chancellor’s office Data Mart
under “Links of Interest”.
Action Step: Committee members were asked to explore the site & give feedback, both pros & cons.
2. Estimated Enrollment Counts & FTES (EECF): The intent of the document is to manage the business better.
Charles collects enrollment data daily & disseminates out twice a week until 1 st census. Once the EECF format is up
& running the report will be run twice a week.
The breakdown of the I-15 corridor into TEC & H.S. is difficult and the data for those sites should be produced on
a need-to-know basis. Susan Guarino informed us that from a programming stand-point, reporting headcount is easy
and data can be produced on-demand. However since FTEs are more difficult to calculate it can’t be done on
demand. For example, Susan mentioned that a 3 unit class for an 18 week semester = 54 contact hours. A 3-unit
class may actually meets only 48 hours but we are paid for the full 54-hour term. A fast-track class (that carries
the same units) that meets for 48 hours will only be paid for the 48 hours. More FTES are generated with fullterm classes.
The EECF format is more like a FTE report that shows headcount. Charles noted that this EECF should be viewed
as an estimate of headcount & FTES & not an actual. This document can be used as a planning tool but needs to be
placed as a priority item to be ready for FA’09. It was noted that 1 FTES (Full-Time Equivalent Students) means
completing 15 units/semester for 2 semesters.
Action Step: Susan, Brian Orlauski & Charles will meet to determine a workable EECF version. Charles will verify
that the above definition of 1 FTES is consistent with the chancellor’s fiscal data office (Fiscal Data Abstract
report).
3. LRC Activity correlation to Student Success: Objective is to tie students LRC hours to student success.
Susan informed us that the DATATEL tracking system was developed in house. IT is receiving many requests for
DATATEL to be programmed to track specific data. Maybe we have reached the point where DATATEL in
insufficient and it is time to revamp the student tracking system. SARS is not an option since it does not track
student hours.
Action Step: Janice Levasseur will be attending the ACTLA conference in April & will look into other student
tracking systems that are able to gather data to correlate number of visits with student success.
4. SI Results: We cannot link SI class enrollment to the early alert system on a timely basis.
Action Step: It was agreed that (a) Susan approved IT support to place the list of SI classes on the MSJC
website for student viewing beginning FA09 (b) Janice will provide list to Counseling (Tom Spillman) & IT (Susan) on
which MVC classes would be SI supported as soon as the SI schedule is confirmed & (c) Janice will begin concept
development of a SI website. Charles will ask Laura Lord to do points (a) & (b) for SJC.
5. W Repeaters: We must address the repeaters. Janice mentioned there is a need to reduce the number of Math
50 and 51 sections in order to increase the number of Math 90 & 96 sections.
16
Action step: Charles will review with Dennis Anderson committee’s concerns & get POV (point-of-view) from Dennis
on possible plan of action to reduce repeaters
6. On-line vs. F-T-F: Online student success & retention is a hot subject. It is estimated that 1/6 of MSJC FTEs
come from distance education. 30% of our students take at least one on-line course. The committee expressed a
need to make MSJC on-line program a successful program. We need a master plan that may include a procedure to
identifying on-line compatible learners. Del Holmes is conducting research to identify strategies to improve the
retention rates of students enrolled in MSJC's online courses.
Action step: Charles will request a POV from Dennis & Bill Vincent on priority of on-line concerns. Charles will
follow-up with Del on his research progress.
7. Gaps in student data: There are gaps in our student data, High School data is lacking (students misspell their
HS name, new high schools pop up, etc.). Ed goals are being captured but only 30%-40% of students have declared a
major. We make contact with students every semester through the registration process. Although, these questions
are asked during the application process through a state-wide application data is incomplete.
Maybe we should incorporate a small survey that would ask the students the pertinent questions, for example: their
major, high school attended & educational goal.
Susan recommended closing the gaps of existing points of capture before introducing new points of capture.
Action Step: Susan will work with Susan Loomis & Cheri Naish to close gaps.
8. ARCC Report 2009 recap: Dennis completed the 500-word ARCC narrative about who we are. The ARCC 2009
report is out and we are below average on all 7 indicators. We are at the peer group low for two of the measures.
The committee expressed frustration that we need to do more about our below-than-average numbers. A
suggestion was made to prioritizing the funding on programs that are proven to increase success rates. There seems
to be no focus. There needs to be a highly coordinated effort takes the focus off of growth & places the focus on
quality (increase student success).
Charles shared that brands are built on repeat customers, not on a base of 1st-time tiers that do not return.
Susan reminded us that we are competing with schools that have bonds. We have a competitive disadvantage
because we don’t have the money. Our Executive Cabinet has worked with a consultant group to help MSJC promote
the next bond.
Action Step: Charles agreed to brief Dennis on committee’s concern & revisit this discuss with Dennis at next
meeting.
9. MSJC comparable CCC list: A list of six California community colleges comparable to MSJC were ID using the
criteria of: (a) single-college districts (one main campus & may have 1 or more centers/off sites), (b) unduplicated
headcount within +10% of MSJC headcount & (c) credit FTES & the FTES/headcount ratio similar to MSJC.
Action Step: Assuming no revisions, use this list of colleges when comparing MSJC against selected variables for
future analysis.
10. Other: Charles reviewed all agenda items with Dennis Anderson after the meeting.
Outcome: Dennis agreed that:
(a) Since MSJC is in the planning mode, the EECF report (see item 2 above) will be a great planning tool
(b) Determining the correlate between student LRC activity & student success is a priority (item 3)
(c) Support on SI should be increased (item 4), such programs will be critical in increasing ARCC indicators (item 8)
(d) We need to gain a better understanding of the On-line student & how to assist in their success (item 6)
(e) Butte College is a good choice for comparison colleges (item 9)
Next meeting: Friday, April 24, 2009 at 10:00 – 11:30.

Please forward to me any agenda items for next meeting
Thanks, for your participation,
Charles 4.1.9 x3073
17
Research & Planning Committee Meeting
Of Friday, February 20, 09 (10:00 – 11:30 a.m.)
Attendees - SJC: Charles, Janice, Brandon
#1
Minutes & Action Steps
MVC: Brian, Braham
Committee members:
Ted Blake
x5487 –English LRC MVC (in class until 11 am)
Patrice Menchaca
- ENVS
Janice Levasseur x5482- Mathematics
Laura Lord
x3488 - English LRC SJC (in class- will join us in March)
Brandon Moore x3754 – Statistics
Bahram Sherkat x5754- Mathematics
Dennis Anderson
Charles Hawkins
Rebecca Teague
Brian Orlauski
x3420 –Instruction
x3703 - Research
x3072 – Grants
x3083
Agenda Item
#1 & 2 - MSJC Stats/Facts:
Committee reviewed samples of documents.
Action step: Charles will provide recap & distribute list of items on MSJC Institutional Research site &
provide link at March 20th meeting.
#3- Estimated Enrollment Counts:
This document can be used as a planning tool & needs to be re-programmed for FA’09 but needs to be
placed as a priority item
Action step: Charles will recommend to Dennis Anderson / Roger (a) that reprogramming the document
becomes a priority & (b) target completion date of document for July 10th
#4 & 5 - LRC Activity correlation to Student Success:
Hours visited & student success? How can we measure this? Brian estimates 9 – 12 months before he
can make any programming changes due to the big Title 5 changes that are being programmed. Ad hoc
committee should be formed to validate variable to be used(currently plan to use success rate).
Action step: Charles will review the merits & cost benefits of this project with Dennis Anderson & Bill
Vincent & report back on next steps.
#6 - SI Results:
It was recommended that SI be linked with the Early Alert system.
Action step: Charles reviewed SI results with Dr. Vincent on 2.11.09 & will follow-up to get Bill’s POV
(Point-of-View).
#7 - W Repeaters:
The district is currently rewriting the W “repeat” policy – repeats impact GPA, funding, registration.
Should pre-requisites be an issue more closely monitored? Data driven policy? Charles is working on
math pre-requisite project for Econ and Acct.
Committee agrees that we must really understand the overall impact Ws has on the college & deal with
the “get back in line” students.
Action step: Charles reviewed “W Repeaters “results with Roger Schultz, Dennis Anderson & Bill Vincent
on week of Mach 2nd.
Brian Orlauski showed a total of 261,405 Ws out of 1.8 million seats or 14.5% from the early 1990s to
SP2009.
Charles will add to “To Due List” to determine (a) if the percent of Ws have remained constant or have
increased overtime & (b) the range of Ws by discipline.
18
#10 Math 90 & 96:
How do we best deal with the change in the graduation requirement from Math 90 to Math 96?
All math instructors present at the meeting agree that to deal with success rates in Math 96, more
attention needs to be placed on getting students successfully through Math 90.
Need Ed Plans to encourage taking math classes consecutively.
Need students to take advantage of support programs (LRC, SI, math lab classes, etc.)
What other support can be offered to Math students?
How many non-math classes require Math 96 as a pre-requisite?
Action step: Charles reviewed committee concerns with Dennis Anderson.
#11 On-Line vs. F-T-F:
Online has become a larger share of MSJC’s FTES (estimated at 17% based on MSJC CCCCO AY07-08,
note: CCCCO methodology is not the same as the methodology used in calculating FTES for 320 report).
We must evaluate our on-line program. We must accept that on-line learning is not for everyone. We
(teachers, counselors) need to be able to separate out the on-line compatible learners from the non-online compatible via survey?
Braham shared how he now uses a “sobering letter” that gives students the honest truth about on-line
classes and then allows the student to decide if on-line learning is for them.
We, the school, really need a master-plan for the virtual campus.
Janice shared that the LRC – MVC is attempting to establish on-line tutoring through Smarthinking.
#13 Other:
 Brian asked about a data warehouse for the data that Charles is pulling.
Action step: Currently there are no plans for such a warehouse.
 The committee discussed the importance of continuing education for the
administration/faculty/staff at MSJC – what resources are available (e.g. DSS)?
Action Step: Charles will review with Dennis Anderson to get POV. Roger is planning an April
meeting to include update on data resources.
 Who is going to push the committee’s agenda? We need a champion!
Action Step: Charles agreed to keep Executive Cabinet abreast of committee findings via
periodical briefings to appropriate parties.
 Next meeting: Friday, March 20, 2009 at 10:00 – 11:30.

5.

IRB would take some of the burden off the Research Department
o Current procedure is more informal & is all done through Charles
Action Step(s):
o Dennis with have further discussion with Roger & will take the lead forming the IRB
o Charles & Rebecca will meet with the concerned associate faculty member
o Charles will look back at the former process (note: Braham was on the committee that worked on
the previous process & agreed to forward Charles any documents/procedures previously
developed).
Other Items
Rebecca stated that the D.S.S. fabulous tool & can there be a “district” option with 4 other option
(SJC, MVC, TEC, Banning)
Action Step(s):
o Committee to discuss with Susan Guarino at March meeting feasible options of D.S.S. program
19
o
o

Charles & Dennis to check with Carlos about other possible D.S.S. modules that could be purchased
(added to the yearly maintenance)
Bill, Charles, Dennis & Carlos sit down and determine what other updates/modules would suit our
needs & investigate the affordability of such additions
Fall 2011 up for accreditation
Rebecca Teague outlined the Grant Dept. plan for FA11 accreditation.
Action Step(s):
o Survey both staff & faculty to get a general sense of the climate
o Evolve IRC in survey development
o Develop survey in Spring 2011 (look at each of the four standards)
o Compute results by Aug 2011
o First draft completed in Fall 2011
NEXT Mtg - Tues. Mar. 23, 2010 from 2 to 3:30 - SJC Rm. 1111 linked to MVC LRC 201
Thank you, for your participation, Charles 3.10.10 x3073