The Faculty Council received 526 responses on the Student Progress Reporting Survey conducted Feb. 1-15, of which 338 were from full-time faculty, representing over one-third of the DCCCD full-time faculty. An executive summary of the survey results is linked here. (Previous Advance Blog posts on this evolving discussion can be found at this link.) In addition to the quantitative results, many respondents provided comments, which broadly can be summarized as follows:
1. Many respondents noted that progress reporting is an activity they are already engaged in by keeping the grade center up-to-date; they are, therefore, resistant to further reporting in eConnect.
2. Many comments also indicated that faculty widely assumed that the grade center in eCampus was used by all faculty in the same fashion regardless of course and subject area, i.e., frequently updated, kept current and available to students.
3. A number of faculty viewed progress reporting as means of removing more responsibility on the part of students. Some comments indicated that many faculty believe students are responsible for the monitoring of their own progress.
4. Some faculty expressed concern that progress reporting would result in an increased workload for both faculty and student services staff.
5. There is a clear split in preference, among those who want the ability to project an estimated letter grade (ABCDF), and those who prefer to record that the student is making Satisfactory or Unsatisfactory progress.
6. There is a strong preference for the ability to provide comments, including the ability to write custom comments in addition to having preset comments available to select.
In addition, the following observations were noted by those who analyzed the survey data and have been involved on the Student Progress Reporting task force:
1. The problem that Student Progress Reporting is designed to solve is that not all DCCCD students are consistently and equitably receiving information about their progress in the course.
2. Assumptions about the use of eCampus grade center do not reflect the diverse practices of all full-time, adjunct, and dual credit faculty, across a diverse array of learning environments, and the assessment practices they opt to incorporate in their courses. More specifically, even faculty who use eCampus grade center use it in a variety of ways. Many faculty provide their students with assignment and assessment grades in publisher-provided or industry-specific learning environments. A discussion about the consistent use of eCampus generally and eCampus grade center specifically is outside the scope of the Student Progress Reporting project.
3. Addressing the faculty role in Student Progress Reporting is only one step in what is envisioned as a multi-stage, multi-faceted, and complex activity designed that among other things will include intrusive interventions designed to address student challenges that go beyond the scope of what is happening in the classroom (and therefore is outside of the ability of faculty to address). This therefore requires input and participation by a broad array of stakeholders (including student services, business services, and information technology support services, and even outside social service partners), which in turn requires prototyping and collection of data from faculty and students to ensure long-term success.
WHERE ARE WE NOW:
Consequently, the Faculty Council has achieved consensus regarding the following recommendations:
1. Student Progress Reporting will be implemented in the DCCCD beginning in the 2018-2019 academic year.
2. Fall 2018 and Spring 2019 will serve as testing periods for the Student Progress Reporting prototype. The review of data and outcomes will begin as soon as possible, starting in late fall and continuing throughout the spring.
3. The approval of a general LOCAL Board policy on Student Progress Reporting is supported, but REGULATION language (that requires Chancellors Staff approval, but not Board approval) that specifies in detail a Student Progress Reporting approach, should be paused until the end of the prototyping activity (with a view to such policy being developed in early 2019 for the 2019-2020 academic year).
4. Student Progress Reporting is but one step - but the crucial first step - in an intrusive intervention strategy that will involve student services reaching out to students to help them with challenges that faculty are not equipped to address, even as faculty do work with students who are struggling academically with the specific course material.
5. A senior level administrator should be assigned to serve as the accountability lead for the prototype period and implementation of Student Progress Reporting.
6. There will be a single Student Progress Reporting interval for each section - the survey findings indicate that this should occur at between the 25% and 50% point of a section.
7. Student Progress Reporting will be allow faculty to report a letter grade (ABCDF) or Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory (S/U) progress. Should faculty choose to report progress using the Unsatisfactory label or a D or F letter grate, they will also need to supply at least one comment, either selected from a pull-down menu of pre-written comments, or writing their own comment in a text-entry box.
The Council shared these recommendations with The Instructional Leadership Team (TILT), and the Student Progress Reporting Task Force, on Monday, Feb. 19.
NEXT STEPS:
The Council is still gathering stakeholder input on the preferred system(s) for generating Student Progress Reports. There are advantages and disadvantages to both eCampus/Blackboard and eConnect/Colleague. Among the considerations are the extent to which each system is used by faculty, the extent to which each system is user-friendly, the extent to which training would be required on each system, the extent to which each system can be configured to do what Student Progress Reporting is designed to do, and the extent to which each of these issues can be resolved in time for the beginning of the prototype cycle that will commence with the Fall 2018 semester.
As further information is gathered, conversations will continue with the Student Progress Reporting committee, academic vice presidents, and District officials.
No comments:
Post a Comment