1. DETF 2014-15

2. intersections of work Placement, Program Model, IE, State Recommendations DETF Curriculum + Pedagogy SACs Alignment + Curriculum Assessment Professional Development

3. faculty experiences: what we know How do you know if your students are placed correctly? What do you do if they’re not?

4. grade + characteristics data  Summary: In 2010-2011, DE faculty at Rock Creek, Cascade, and Sylvania voluntarily filled out a “Grade and Characteristics Chart” to try to capture the qualities and habits of successful and unsuccessful students in DE classes.  Data Gathered: For each section, the instructor noted…  the number of students earning an A,B,C/P,D, F/NP or W  number of students attending at the beginning and end of term  (most importantly) the characteristics of students who earned A, B, C/P, D, and F/NP  Findings: The responses in the characteristics section reflected the greatest consistency in reported data. Across the board, instructors reported similar qualities for each grade level and subject. The qualities related to attendance, quality of work, communication, use of resources, schedule balance, preparation, engagement, motivation, adversity, and language barriers.

5. GradeCharacteristics A Strong attendance, high quality work, communicative, engaged, organized, motivated, utilizes resources, responds to feedback, assignments complete & on time B Good attendance. Completes most assignments w/ good quality but may be inconsistent. Work turned in on time. Good participation & communication. Works hard. Less studying. C/P Misses classes, turns in late assignments, missing or low scoring assignments. Less organized, inconsistent quality of work. Does minimum to pass. May work full time, no time for tutoring, struggle to balance school & schedule, has excuses. Little communication. May not buy textbook right away. D Excessive absences or consistently late to class. Don’t "get" assignments. May work hard but don't understand concepts or missing instruction through absences. Disorganized. Poor scores. Little to no communication with instructor. Questionable work ethic. Inappropriate behaviors. Dealing with life issues. Schedule conflicts. F/NPExcessive absences, missing many assignments, low scores, no effort. Unprepared for class. No textbook. Does not use resources. Does not follow through. Not participatory. Unprepared for class.

6. questions raised:  How do we receive the information (via assignments, conferencing, hearsay, OSD reports, etc)? What is our individual expertise or understanding of specific adversarial situations? Are we guessing? Are we certain?  2. How does lack of consistent interpretation affect our instruction? Our feedback? Our advising?  3. How can we get on the same page?

7. Sylvania Intake Pilot Kristin Sengdeng, Jeanette Muehleck, Karen Paez

8. a couple approaches to placement Guided Self-Placement  Students have academic placement and affective and/or readiness assessment.  Students have required, meaningful conversation with trained* advisors.  Students make decision which level of RD/WR to enroll in.  Learning support embedded in curriculum and/or if students enroll at level higher than placement, they take support course or lab Institutionally determined by placement  Students have academic placement and affective and/or readiness assessment.  Advisors suggest support resources and lift “holds”  Students are placed into appropriate levels with similarly-leveled peers.  Students proceed through program, sometimes with mechanism to challenge placement or accelerate.  Learning support offered through separate courses, often in connected cohorts.

9. überAssComm DE SAC Assessment Info

10. Fall 2014 Winter 2015Spring 2015 Oct DETF meeting: placement Nov DETF meeting: pilot options + funding Dec DETF meeting: measuring success (DOI Joint) SAC mtg Faculty curriculum collaboration Winter DETF meeting Faculty curriculum collaboration Spring DETF meeting: make recs Spring Symposium: Placement + Curriculum + Assessment Faculty curriculum collaboration SAC mtgs develop and run informal integration with linked RD/WRRun exp. pilots of linked RD/WR Assessment: COSA for RD + WR 115 to understand curricular alignment, placement, and pre-reqs Work w/advising + student services + assessment to develop affective + academic placement

11. next steps: action items  Placement  measuring affect and readiness  developing assessment for RD/WR samples  considering transcript evaluation? other?  Curriculum Collaboration  developing pilot options  sharing pedagogy  integrating SLCs, labs, Libraries, and DS  Research + Funding  working with IE to establish measurements of success  seeking funding from State and other sources  Professional Development  what does this look like?