Committee on Academic Development/Elective Academic Programs

Annual Report for 2020-21

Annual Report for the Committee on Academic Development/Elective Academic Programs for 2020/2021

Telephone: 718-281-5274

Email: rakpinar@qcc.cuny.edu

______________________________________________________________________________

MEMBERS (2020-2021)

Rezan Akpinar, Health, Physical Education and Dance

Joanne Chang, Music

Merlinda Drini, Engineering Technology

David Pham, Mathematics and Computer Sciences

Taibu, Rex, Physics

Renee Rhodd, Academic Affairs

Susan Riekert, Nursing

Melissa Dennihy, English

Crystal Moscat, Academic Advisement

Mark Ulrich, Business (Steering Committee Designee)

Michael Pullin, Academic Affairs, President's Liaison

There were no student representatives attending meetings.

II) MEETING TIMES

The committee members met eight (8) times during 2020-2021: September 16^h, 2020, October28^th, 2020, November 25^th, 2020, December 10^th, 2020, February 15^th, 2021 and March 18^th, 2021 April 08^th, 2021, May 06^th, 2021

III) WEBPAGE

All agenda, minutes, and year-end reports have been updated on the college website for the academic period of 2020-2021 by the Chairperson, Dr. Rezan Akpinar.

IV) ACTIVITIES:

a)Temporary PNET Student Evaluation of Faculty Form was revised according to committee suggestions on Fall 2020. Column of "Not Applicable" was added to the choices. Changes in the form was due to the following:

"In our meeting on October 28, 2020, committee members reviewed the Temporary PNET Student Evaluation of Faculty Form that was submitted to the committee by the Steering Committee. ADEAP committee worked in coloboration with eLearning committee. After reviewing the document, committee members gave their approval withadditon of an not applicable column to choices.Since the document is being recommended to be used in Fall 2020 and possibly Spring 2021 semesters, comimittee voiced their concerns on the following:

Question #8 and # 10 raised issues for concern. Main concern being, students choosing "Disagree" or Strongly disagree" due to lack of choice that is appropriate as an answer to the question. This we believe will endanger the faculty who is being evaluated. Even when it is a temporary form, these forms are going to be put into faculty files, and used in tenure and promotion purposes. One of the recommendation by the committee was to add a column of "Not Applicable" to the questions. Modified form is presented in the attachment. The following was concerns raised by the faculty during our meeting.

# 8.The instructor maintains a classroom atmosphere of respect towards differing viewpoints.

For a fully asynchronous class, there really is no classroom and students may be completely isolated from one another. As noted during the meeting, this is not always the case for all asynchronous classes. Question 8 is applicable to some asynchronous classes which have discussion boards where students can post comments and other students can respond to those comments. The instructor can then monitor the discussion board and make sure that the comments are respectful. So question 8 can be applicable to some but not all asynchronous classes. So in this case, having the "Not Applicable" bubble would give additional flexibility.

#10 Overall the quality of instruction is comparable to an effective teacher in a traditional classroom.

“#10: our concern is that fully online learning is still quite new to the vast majority of both students and faculty. In our opinion, it doesn't seem fair to ask students to compare an experience that is new to all of us to the traditional context which faculty and students alike have far greater experience with. As colleagues noted during the meeting, students are having a number of technical and circumstantial difficulties adapting to online learning, and most faculty have received no formal training in online instruction and may only be trying it now for a full semester for the first time (in the midst of a pandemic, no less). To us, a better question for #10 might be something like "the instructor has effectively adapted the course and its activities for an online format and is flexible with students as they adjust to this new way of learning."

“Question 10 could be problematic. It could be read by the student as meaning "is the online course as effective or as good as regular in-person classes?" To this, the student might bubble in "strongly disagree". To those reading the results of the survey, this will give the impression that the instructor's teaching is not very good.’

“#10. Every course is different and it might be difficult for a student to answer whether the particular online class that the student is evaluating is as effective as the same course in person, which the student has not taken in person (with the exception of a student who had taken that course in the past and did not pass it or withdrew.) It seems more apt for a peer evaluation for an evaluator that has evaluated the same faculty member both in the classroom and online for the same course.” "

"In our November 25, 2020, the ADC committee members have expressed their concerns on two issues. Firstly, how can we ensure students are given specific instructions (either in the email or on the form) so they know to answer questions that do not apply to their class with "not applicable?" Second, can we make sure faculty will be given the evaluation forms ahead of the students so they are aware under what standards they are being evaluated? ' The last issue was resolved by Faculty Survey done by the ADC committee on March 22, 2021. Survey questions reflected what the Student Faculty evaluation look like.

Our concerns and revision of the Student Evaluation of the Faculty Form was presented to the Faculty Senate's November meeting. Form was approved with "Not Applicable" column addition.

b) ADEAP comittee created Faculty Survey in Spring 2021, results of the survey was presendted to the Faculty Senate. Following is the summary of the report of the survey.

"Executive Summary

The annual Faculty Survey by the Academic Development Committee was given to 766 members of the QCC faculty during mid-spring 2021. A total of 263 responded to the survey, however, many did not answer all of the questions. Broadly, representation of the various departments was achieved with a proportionally larger number responding from the English and Mathematics and Computer Science Departments.

The primary purpose of the survey was to receive feedback about the Student Evaluation survey. Questions were asked about the usefulness of all questions and inquiries were made about the relevancy of the survey questions in light of all teaching modalities (e.g. synchronous, asynchronous and hybrid).

The main findings were that for three of the questions on the Student Evaluation Survey, the ratings of usefulness and relevancy for all teaching formats was low enough to provide some evidence for a need to remove those questions from the spring 2021 survey instrument. These three questions were:

"Overall, the quality of instruction is comparable to an effective teacher in a traditional classroom."

"The instructor maintains a classroom atmosphere of respect towards differing viewpoints."

"The instructor encourages students to ask questions and participate in class activities."

Several new Student Evaluation Survey questions were suggested in the Faculty Survey by the Academic Development Committee. Three of the proposed questions received a relative large proportion of responses in support of the adoption of these new questions. These supported new proposed questions are:

“The instructor was supportive to the challenges students face in the online learning environment.”

“The instructor's use of technology-based resources enhanced student learning or instructor was innovative in enhancing student learning.”

“The instructor’s efforts toward creating a positive learning atmosphere in the teaching environment were acceptable.”

Findings

A total of 766 members of the QCC faculty were invited to take the annual survey by the Academic Development Committee. The survey asked questions about the Student Evaluation Form. The initial invitation to take the survey began on March 22, 2021 and the survey concluded on April 6, 2021. 263 faculty members responded to the survey, resulting in a response rate of 34.3%. The following tables show the responses to each of the closed-ended survey questions.

Q.2) Please select your department from the drop-down list below.

Department	Count	Percent
Art & Design	6	2.3
Biological Sciences & Geology	18	6.8
Business	13	4.9
Chemistry	11	4.2
Did not answer	24	9.1
Engineering Technology	19	7.2
English	38	14.4
Foreign Language & Literatures	7	2.7
Health, Physical Education & Dance	19	7.2
History	4	1.5
Library	1	0.4
Mathematics & Computer Science	34	12.9
Music	11	4.2
Nursing	20	7.6
Other	1	0.4
Physics	7	2.7
Social Sciences	19	7.2
Speech Communications & Theatre Arts	10	3.8
Student Affairs	1	0.4
Total	263	100.0

The one respondent who selected “Other” did not specify the department in the next open-ended question.

Q4) Were you satisfied with the Fall 2020 Student Evaluation of Faculty Form for in-person classes?

Response	Count	Percent
NA (Did not see the Fall 2020 Student Evaluation of Faculty Form)	159	60.5
Yes	48	18.3
Did not answer	45	17.1
No	11	4.2
Total	263	100.0

Q5. Spring 2021 teaching style

Response	Count	Percent
Synchronous	111	42.2
Asynchronous	59	22.4
Did not answer	47	17.9
Hybrid	33	12.5
Asynchronous,Synchronous	8	3.0
Hybrid,Synchronous	3	1.1
Hybrid,Asynchronous	1	0.4
Hybrid,Asynchronous,Synchronous	1	0.4
Total	263	100.0

For questions 8 to 17, the following instructions were given:

Listed below are the questions which appeared on the Fall 2020 Student Evaluation of Faculty Form. Rate each question as useful or not useful.

Q8) The instructor presents the on-line materials in an organized manner.

Response

Count

Percent

Useful

172

65.4

Did not answer

31.6

Not useful

3.0

Total

263

100.0

Q9) The instructor responds to questions in a reasonable period of time as defined in the course syllabus and elsewhere on the course website.

Response	Count	Percent
Useful	160	60.8
Did not answer	84	31.9
Not useful	19	7.2
Total	263	100.0

Q10) The instructor provides feedback on assignments and graded materials in a reasonable period of time as defined in the course syllabus and elsewhere on the course website.

Response	Count	Percent
Useful	161	61.2
Did not answer	84	31.9
Not useful	18	6.8
Total	263	100.0

Q11) The instructor provides well-organized and logical explanations.

Response	Count	Percent
Useful	167	63.5
Did not answer	83	31.6
Not useful	13	4.9
Total	263	100.0

Q12) The instructor provides clear objectives for the course.

Response	Count	Percent
Useful	156	59.3
Did not answer	85	32.3
Not useful	22	8.4
Total	263	100.0

Q13) The instructor helped me learn the subject matter.

Response	Count	Percent
Useful	157	59.7
Did not answer	83	31.6
Not useful	23	8.7
Total	263	100.0

Q14) The instructor encourages students to ask questions and participate in class activities.

Response	Count	Percent
Useful	160	60.8
Did not answer	83	31.6
Not useful	20	7.6
Total	263	100.0

Q15) The instructor maintains a classroom atmosphere of respect towards differing viewpoints.

Response	Count	Percent
Useful	144	54.8
Did not answer	82	31.2
Not useful	37	14.1
Total	263	100.0

The ratings of “useful” was somewhat less frequent for this question.

Q16) Assignments and exams are closely related to the course content.

Response	Count	Percent
Useful	167	63.5
Did not answer	84	31.9
Not useful	12	4.6
Total	263	100.0

Q17) Overall, the quality of instruction is comparable to an effective teacher in a traditional classroom.

Response	Count	Percent
Useful	121	46.0
Did not answer	83	31.6
Not useful	59	22.4
Total	263	100.0

The lowest percent responding “useful” was for this question.

Q20) Are there any questions on the Fall 2020 Student Evaluation of Faculty Form which are NOT applicable to either the synchronous, asynchronous, or hybrid teaching formats? Check all that apply. (We would like the questions on the Spring 2021 form to be applicable to all
three online teaching styles.)

Response	Count	Percent
Did not answer	193	73.4
Assignments and exams are closely related to the course content.	2	0.8
Overall the quality of instruction is comparable to an effective teacher in a traditional classroom.	21	8
The instructor encourages students to ask questions and participate in class activities.	3	1.1
The instructor encourages students to ask questions and participate in class activities.,Overall the quality of instruction is comparable to an effective teacher in a traditional classroom.	3	1.1
The instructor encourages students to ask questions and participate in class activities.,The instructor maintains a classroom atmosphere of respect towards differing viewpoints.	2	0.8
The instructor encourages students to ask questions and participate in class activities.,The instructor maintains a classroom atmosphere of respect towards differing viewpoints.,Overall the quality of instruction is comparable to an effective teacher in a traditional classroom.	6	2.3
The instructor helped me learn the subject matter.	2	0.8
The instructor helped me learn the subject matter.,The instructor maintains a classroom atmosphere of respect towards differing viewpoints.	1	0.4
The instructor helped me learn the subject matter.,The instructor maintains a classroom atmosphere of respect towards differing viewpoints.,Overall the quality of instruction is comparable to an effective teacher in a traditional classroom.	1	0.4
The instructor maintains a classroom atmosphere of respect towards differing viewpoints.	2	0.8
The instructor maintains a classroom atmosphere of respect towards differing viewpoints.,Assignments and exams are closely related to the course content.,Overall the quality of instruction is comparable to an effective teacher in a traditional classroom.	1	0.4
The instructor maintains a classroom atmosphere of respect towards differing viewpoints.,Overall the quality of instruction is comparable to an effective teacher in a traditional classroom.	4	1.5
The instructor presents the on-line materials in an organized manner.	2	0.8
The instructor presents the on-line materials in an organized manner.,Overall the quality of instruction is comparable to an effective teacher in a traditional classroom.	1	0.4
The instructor presents the on-line materials in an organized manner.,The instructor responds to questions in a reasonable period of time as defined in the course syllabus and elsewhere on the course website.,The instructor provides feedback on assignments and graded materials in a reasonable period of time as defined in the course syllabus and elsewhere on the course website.,The instructor provides well-organized and logical explanations.,The instructor encourages students to ask questions and participate in class activities.,The instructor maintains a classroom atmosphere of respect towards differing viewpoints.,Overall the quality of instruction is comparable to an effective teacher in a traditional classroom.	1	0.4
The instructor presents the on-line materials in an organized manner.,The instructor responds to questions in a reasonable period of time as defined in the course syllabus and elsewhere on the course website.,The instructor provides feedback on assignments and graded materials in a reasonable period of time as defined in the course syllabus and elsewhere on the course website.,The instructor provides well-organized and logical explanations.,The instructor provides clear objectives for the course.,The instructor helped me learn the subject matter.,Assignments and exams are closely related to the course content.	1	0.4
The instructor presents the on-line materials in an organized manner.,The instructor responds to questions in a reasonable period of time as defined in the course syllabus and elsewhere on the course website.,The instructor provides feedback on assignments and graded materials in a reasonable period of time as defined in the course syllabus and elsewhere on the course website.,The instructor provides well-organized and logical explanations.,The instructor provides clear objectives for the course.,The instructor helped me learn the subject matter.,The instructor encourages students to ask questions and participate in class activities.,The instructor maintains a classroom atmosphere of respect towards differing viewpoints.,Assignments and exams are closely related to the course content.,Overall the quality of instruction is comparable to an effective teacher in a traditional classroom.	2	0.8
The instructor provides clear objectives for the course.	2	0.8
The instructor provides clear objectives for the course.,The instructor helped me learn the subject matter.,The instructor encourages students to ask questions and participate in class activities.	1	0.4
The instructor provides clear objectives for the course.,The instructor maintains a classroom atmosphere of respect towards differing viewpoints.	1	0.4
The instructor provides feedback on assignments and graded materials in a reasonable period of time as defined in the course syllabus and elsewhere on the course website.	2	0.8
The instructor provides feedback on assignments and graded materials in a reasonable period of time as defined in the course syllabus and elsewhere on the course website.,The instructor provides well-organized and logical explanations.,The instructor encourages students to ask questions and participate in class activities.,The instructor maintains a classroom atmosphere of respect towards differing viewpoints.	1	0.4
The instructor provides well-organized and logical explanations.,The instructor encourages students to ask questions and participate in class activities.,The instructor maintains a classroom atmosphere of respect towards differing viewpoints.	1	0.4
The instructor responds to questions in a reasonable period of time as defined in the course syllabus and elsewhere on the course website.	1	0.4
The instructor responds to questions in a reasonable period of time as defined in the course syllabus and elsewhere on the course website.,The instructor provides feedback on assignments and graded materials in a reasonable period of time as defined in the course syllabus and elsewhere on the course website.,Assignments and exams are closely related to the course content.,Overall the quality of instruction is comparable to an effective teacher in a traditional classroom.	1	0.4
The instructor responds to questions in a reasonable period of time as defined in the course syllabus and elsewhere on the course website.,The instructor provides feedback on assignments and graded materials in a reasonable period of time as defined in the course syllabus and elsewhere on the course website.,Overall the quality of instruction is comparable to an effective teacher in a traditional classroom.	1	0.4
The instructor responds to questions in a reasonable period of time as defined in the course syllabus and elsewhere on the course website.,The instructor provides feedback on assignments and graded materials in a reasonable period of time as defined in the course syllabus and elsewhere on the course website.,The instructor provides clear objectives for the course.,The instructor encourages students to ask questions and participate in class activities.	1	0.4
The instructor responds to questions in a reasonable period of time as defined in the course syllabus and elsewhere on the course website.,The instructor provides feedback on assignments and graded materials in a reasonable period of time as defined in the course syllabus and elsewhere on the course website.,The instructor provides clear objectives for the course.,The instructor helped me learn the subject matter.,The instructor maintains a classroom atmosphere of respect towards differing viewpoints.,Assignments and exams are closely related to the course content.	1	0.4
The instructor responds to questions in a reasonable period of time as defined in the course syllabus and elsewhere on the course website.,The instructor provides feedback on assignments and graded materials in a reasonable period of time as defined in the course syllabus and elsewhere on the course website.,The instructor provides clear objectives for the course.,The instructor helped me learn the subject matter.,The instructor maintains a classroom atmosphere of respect towards differing viewpoints.,Overall the quality of instruction is comparable to an effective teacher in a traditional classroom.	1	0.4
The instructor responds to questions in a reasonable period of time as defined in the course syllabus and elsewhere on the course website.,The instructor provides well-organized and logical explanations.,The instructor provides clear objectives for the course.,The instructor helped me learn the subject matter.,The instructor encourages students to ask questions and participate in class activities.,The instructor maintains a classroom atmosphere of respect towards differing viewpoints.,Assignments and exams are closely related to the course content.	1	0.4
Total	263	100

Responses (survey statements) to question 20 with a count of 4 or more are highlighted in yellow in the table above. The table above shows clustered results showing counts for each respondent. It shows the counts for all outcomes (selecting one or more questions). This format is not easily “digestible” but does show where responses clustered. The main distilled outcomes are shown in the Summary/Conclusion section of this report under the subsection “Questions that might be removed”.

Survey participants were given the following instructions for questions 22 and 23:

Below are the two open ended questions which appeared on the Fall 2020 Student Evaluation of Faculty Form. Please rate the questions as useful or not useful.

Q22) What did you like best about this class?

Response	Count	Percent
Useful	152	57.8
Did not answer	86	32.7
Not useful	25	9.5
Total	263	100

Q23) Recommend this instructor to a friend? Why?

Response	Count	Percent
Useful	126	47.9
Did not answer	87	33.1
Not useful	50	19.0
Total	263	100

A relatively larger percentage did not seem to find the statement in question 23 to be useful.

Q24) Below are some possible questions that may be added to the Spring 2021 Student Evaluation of Faculty Form. Select any which you believe would be helpful.

Response	Count	Percent
Did not answer	153	58.2
The instructor was supportive to the challenges students face in the online learning environment.	22	8.4
The instructor's use of technology-based resources enhanced student learning or instructor was innovative in enhancing student learning.	8	3.0
The instructor's use of technology-based resources enhanced student learning or instructor was innovative in enhancing student learning.,The instructor was supportive to the challenges students face in the online learning environment.	18	6.8
The instructor’s efforts toward creating a positive learning atmosphere in the teaching environment were acceptable.	6	2.3
The instructor’s efforts toward creating a positive learning atmosphere in the teaching environment were acceptable.,The instructor was supportive to the challenges students face in the online learning environment.	18	6.8
The instructor’s efforts toward creating a positive learning atmosphere in the teaching environment were acceptable.,The instructor's use of technology-based resources enhanced student learning or instructor was innovative in enhancing student learning.	5	1.9
The instructor’s efforts toward creating a positive learning atmosphere in the teaching environment were acceptable.,The instructor's use of technology-based resources enhanced student learning or instructor was innovative in enhancing student learning.,The instructor was supportive to the challenges students face in the online learning environment.	33	12.5
Total	263	100

The table above shows how determinations of “helpfulness” of possible new questions clustered because respondents could choose more than one question. In the aggregate, there are clusters of questions which were deemed to be helpful. The most frequent cluster was of 33 respondents who believed that all three questions would be helpful.

It may be more informative if the results are disaggregated. The table below shows disaggregated results. Counts equal the number of respondents who deemed the question to be helpful.

Possible New Question	Count
The instructor was supportive to the challenges students face in the online learning environment.	81
The instructor's use of technology-based resources enhanced student learning or instructor was innovative in enhancing student learning.	64
The instructor’s efforts toward creating a positive learning atmosphere in the teaching environment were acceptable.	62

Summary/Conclusions

Questions that might be removed

The survey results provide some evidence for the removal of three Student Evaluation Survey questions as follows:

For two of the questions, the evaluations of usefulness showed that they were relatively less useful. They are:

“The instructor maintains a classroom atmosphere of respect towards differing viewpoints.”and

“Overall, the quality of instruction is comparable to an effective teacher in a traditional classroom.”

Also, for these two questions, the survey revealed that a relatively large number of respondents (responding to the question) indicated that they are not applicable to all three teaching formats. From question 20 in the survey it was found that 43 respondents indicated that the question "Overall, the quality of instruction is comparable to an effective teacher in a traditional classroom." is not applicable to all three formats.

There were 26 respondents who indicated that the question "The instructor maintains a classroom atmosphere of respect towards differing viewpoints." is not applicable to all three formats.

For the third question that might be removed, "The instructor encourages students to ask questions and participate in class activities.", the usefulness rating was not terribly low, however, through question 20 it was revealed that 22 respondents indicated that it is not applicable to all three teaching formats.

Questions that might be added.

It is clear that a substantial number of respondents are in favor of three questions. Of those who responded to the faculty survey question (110 responded) the percentage of those who supported the addition of the following new questions were:

74% supported “The instructor was supportive to the challenges students face in the online learning environment.”
58% supported “The instructor's use of technology-based resources enhanced student learning or instructor was innovative in enhancing student learning.”
56% supported “The instructor’s efforts toward creating a positive learning atmosphere in the teaching environment were acceptable.”

c)Subcommittee on Accessibility: The ADEAP committee in conjuction with Accessibility committee created and presented a two part workshop on Universal Design for Learning. Workshop was in response to Fall 2020 Faculty survey, which Accessibility committee had provided questions to.

d) Faculty Development Workshops:

The Academic Development Committee arranged the following workshops in colloboration with CETL and eLearning Committee.

“Finding the Balance – Communication, Feedback, and Time Management.” Apr 06, 2021 Dr. M. Dennihy

“Tips for Teaching from Home More Comfortably.”April 07, 2021, Dr. K. Kolack

“Using Voice Thread to Achieve Learning Goals.”April O8, 2021 Dr. P. Bhansali

“Using Ted-Ed to Create Scaffolded Lessons.” Apri15, 2021 Prof. S. Lago

“A Little bit of empathy goes a long way.” April 21, 2021 Dr. A. Callwood

“Flipgrid- Establishing Community in the Remote Classroom.” April 22, 2021 Prof. J. Yi

“Incorporating Universal Design for Learning in Online Teaching.” April 29, 2021 Dr. A. Ridinger-Dotterman, Prof. K. Alves

“Creating a growth mindset to foster student motivation “May 06, 2021 Facilitators: Dr. R. Akpinar,

Dr. I. Schrynemakers

Academic Development and Elective Programs committee also co-sponsored programs and workshops;

CETL workshops.

Student Development Workshops:

Mindfulness club Thrive Series:

“Forging an Ethical Path for Secular Mindfulness”

Feb 19, 2021Speaker: Dr. Frank Diaz, Ph.D.

“Stress and Anxiety: Beneficial or Destructive?”

Feb 25, 2021, Speaker: Dr. Rezan Akpinar

“Gratitude Journaling Event” March O3, 20201

Speaker: Prof. B. Miller and Prof. A. Crimino

“Healthy Life Balance: Yoga and Meditation” March 04 2021 Speaker: Dr. Andrea Salis, Ph.D.

“Art & Mind” March 11, 2021 Speaker: Prof. Susan Gonzalez

“Peacebuilding Through Awareness and Improvisation-Part 1” March 12,2021 Speakers: H.Huggins

“Brain Dance: Integrating Mind and Body to Facilitate Focus” March 17, 2021 Speaker: Prof. Nicole Y. Mclaim MFA, CMA

“Music Without Borders: A Pianist Journey with Mindfulness: March 19, 2021 Speaker: Dr. Joanne Chang Ph.D

“Mindfulness and Dicipline-Balancing our Activities of Daily Life” April 09, 2021 Speaker: David Listen

“Mindfulness Oriented Psychotherapy” April 16, 2021 Speaker: Dr. Peter Lin, PhD.

“Peacebuilding Through Awareness and Improvisation-Part 2” April 24,2021 Speakers: H.Huggins

Co-sponsored programs with e

V) COMMITTEE MEMBERS (2020-2021)

Rezan Akpinar, Health, Physical Education and Dance

Joanne Chang, Music

Rondi Davies, Department of Biological Sciences and Geology

Melisa Dennihy, English Department

Crystal Moscat, Academic Advisement

Lyubomir I. Boyadzhiev , Mathematics and Computer Sciences

Carlene Byfield, Nursing

Rex Taibu, Physics

Michael Pullin, Academic Affairs, President's Liaison

Jenifer Klein - Office of Student Conduct

Mark Ulrich - Steering Committee Designee

VI) ELECTION

On May 06, 20201 elections for Chairperson and Secretary were held. Elections were held by online voting. The seven (7) voting committee members were present.

(a) Chairperson: Rezan Akpinar (7 votes)

(b) Co-Chair: Mellisa Dennihy(7 votes)

VII) ACTION PLAN FOR 2021-2022

The committee members propose the following action plan for 2021-2022:

a) The committee will continue to review, evaluate, and report to the Academic Senate on the system of student evaluation of faculty. Present and innitiate the change in the Student Evaluation Form of the Faculty.

b) The committee will work with the E-Learning Committee on preparing workshops for faculty development

c) The committee will work on committee guidelines according to suggestions of the Steering Committee

d) The committee will work on name change and abreviation of the name of the committee. Develop a logo for the committee.

d) The committee will be working with CETL in arranging a workshop in SOTL- Scholarship of Teaching and Learning workshop series. The committee will continue to collaborate with CETL and the Office of Academic Affairs to promote and expand on faculty and student development programs.

Committee on Academic Development/Elective Academic Programs

Annual Report for 2020-21

Committee Links

Campus Cultural Centers