Reading Sub-Task Force

April 27, 2001
9:30 to 11:30 am
HBC 221



Members Present:  Julie Wauchope, Marilyn Burke, Ann Palmer, Sibyl Noack, Cheryl Engle, Anne Ward, Cathy Smith, Carrie Pyhrr, Dorothy Martinez, Maggie Miller.

1 We examined the "Self-Study Report" from the program review process, 1999-2000.  Many sections such as the Statement of Purpose / Mission and the Vision Summary were recognized as pieces generated in separate processes.  The following topics elicited discussion, questions, and suggestions we want to explore in 2001 - 2002.
a. Student Achievement p.2        
    ACC Descripes the awarding of a W for a grade as "non-mastery."  Due to the complications caused by TASP, this is not always an accurate description in the Developmental Studies program.
    Our group considers this an issue that has not been adequately addressed.  We would like to see a change in the withdrawal forms to indicate whether a W has been assigned due to a student passing the TASP or due to a student moving to an alternative program or due to a student enrolling incorrectly.
    For the same reasons we would also like to see a change in the way data is collected.
b. High Demand Course Analysis p.4      
    Opinions as to the accuracy of the data in the 1999-2000 report vary but there is agreement in the group that we would like to see current reports such as this one.  We do not know whether the reports are still produced, are distributed only to the deans, or are distributed to Task Force chairs.  In any case, we would like to see these in order to make better decisions about our program.
c. 5 Year Action Plan (separate, no page number)    
    1. RE: To evaluate and revise all new reading / writing initiatives implemented during the spring and fall semesters of 1999.
      We would like to be more systematic in our evaluation process.  We propose that our Task Force Chair formally request the evaluation of all 8 week courses, paired courses, flex course and online courses for grades, re-enrollment, and TASP requirements, beginning with Spring 1999.
  2. RE: To improve student retention for all developmental students.
      We would like to see a committee established from the larger Task Force (comprised of both Reading and Writing faculty) to address student retention.  There is no specific plan in place that focuses on student retention due, in part, to the problems created by Datatel.  However, we want to reiterate our support for such things as implementation of the screening for course prerequisites.
    3. RE:  Provide systematic and ongoing professional development activities that contribute to program development.
      We are proud of the commitment and the follow-through we have made to professional development.  We would like to make a stronger connection to the Writing Department through this commitment by considering the establishment of committees focused on the core courses of the Developmental Communications Program.
    4. RE:  Incorporate more technology into the reading and writing program.
      We believe the action statements need to be rewritten so that "computer based" becomes "computer assisted." We would like to survey the current use of technology in DEVR and DEVW courses to establish a baseline measure.  On a related note, we would like to have a workshop in 2001-2002 that focuses on the use of technology, specifically how to make pedagogical decisions regarding technology.  David Caverly from SWTSU was mentioned as a person who has made numerous presentations on the topic.
    5. RE:  To achieve level one certification from the National Association of Developmental Educators for the Developmental Communications Discipline.
      We are still unable to act on this part of the plan.  We would like to have an update from the Coordinating Board as to the status of this requirement.
2. We reviewed the draft of the Developmental Reading brochure and gave feedback to Marilyn Burke and Ann Palmer.  We encourage them to complete the editing and to get this great brochure into print as soon as possible.  The prohibitive cost of slick 4 color copies caused us to decide to use regular stocl paper and to limit the color.
Respectfully submitted 5-8-01