Santa Barbara City College
Committee on Teaching & Learning
Minutes 9-25-06
Attending: Scott Brewer (Ed. Support), Dixie Budke (Tech.), Anita
Cruse (English), Mark Ferrer (FPDC, FRC), G. Lewin (Chair), Evan McCabe (Health/Human
Srvc.), Kenley Neufeld (Library), P. Nunez (ESL/FL/Ed.), N. Mahaffey for J.
Pike (CLRC), J. Simpson (Sci. and Tech.), C. Solberg (Soc. Sci.), M. Spaventa
(Administrative Liaison), N. Warner (F. Arts)
Guest: Sheila Wiley, Co-Director of Gateway Program
Gateway to Success Presentation, Sheila Wiley and Curtis Solberg
One of the most important initiatives in Partnership for SBCC Success is Gateway.
Sheila was invited by Jack Ullom to work part-time in the Gateway Program last
year; she had used instructional aides in her past classes here and at Marymount.
Alice Scharper has taken over as the dean overseeing Gateway since Jack retired,
and she is amazing.
Prof. Wiley said she will emphasize the updates on Gateway. The key to Gateway’s
strength is the fact that it was created by faculty for the faculty. Faculty
members have the freedom to choose how to use the instructional aides (IA) with
their classes. There are 118 IAs across campus for 118 courses this year. Goal
is to add 20 sections for Spring 2007 and 20 sections in the fall. Spread the
word that faculty in any dept can join Gateway. It is top-heavy in English for
obvious reasons. If you can make a case to Sheila and Alice Scharper that you
need an IA, you may get one (eg., Yoga).
Spring 2006 piloted Learning Communities. We had a difficult time registering
students into the communities, and Scott was a huge help with that. In Spring
2007 we will pilot five learning communities. Sheila shared the student-centered
ads in the Spring Schedule and handouts about how to reach students to be involved.
More information will be given on registration for these sections for Spring.
Tutorial 199 sections have been added by Jerry Pike for Gateway tutors. We are
now looking for a fulltime temporary contract for a Gateway counselor. Currently
Jerry Pike, Sheila and Alice are meeting with Julie Hendricks to designate the
white portable 33, as the Student Center on East side. On West side we have
LRC and places in the Library. The East side portable will be community-minded,
friendly and inviting to students; this will open first day of Spring 2007.
The assessment of the Gateway Program is a big issue. We are working with Melanie
Rogers who is tracking students’ progress in Fall and Spring of 05-06.
We have paid attention to what is it we are really comparing. Specific criteria
have been selected. They are comparing full Gateway classes, not those with
other types of instructional aides. We will look at both quantitative and qualitative
data. It is exciting to have a real program on this campus for Student Success.
We are looking at Chaffey College, which has a student success center, and their
concept of the Directed Learning Activity is being adopted by SBCC. For example,
English professors would come up with specific activities and teach tutors how
to implement them, and the tutors would teach these skills to the students.
Sheila has been very active in giving outreach presentations to people on campus
about Gateway. We have had monthly luncheons with Gateway teachers and students
(meet and greet to foster the idea of being part of a community). We will be
represented on Student Services Day where many connections take place, not only
for students but for those who wish to be tutors.
A lot of work has gone into hiring, doing the classification, and training this
summer. Now I am observing the tutors in classes so I know what is and is not
working. We will fix it if something needs fixing. We want faculty to want to
be a part of Gateway.
Pat Chavez-Nunez asked how they designate the Gateway classes. It is faculty
request, in a nutshell. Sheila answered that she sends out an invitation first
to those instructors who already have been Gateway instructors, and then it
is faculty request. We are putting a “G” in the Spring Class Schedule
so students can sign up if they so choose. The Gs in the Spring Schedule are
new additions. Faculty email Dean Scharper if they want to be a part of Gateway,
and they need to specify the section (not just the class). We save hours to
give to new faculty who may wish to come into the Gateway Program; changes in
schedules occur, creating openings as well. We allocate four hours a week for
each class generally; if they are members of a learning community, they get
six hours a week. The faculty and administration are very supportive of this
program. 448 hours are allocated for Spring, and we have room for more.
Gerry Lewin asked about evaluation as explained by the AS document; how are
you comparing Gateway to non-Gateway? Prof. Wiley explained: we pull out the
classes within the larger group that are only Gateway IA classes to use for
evaluation. We have to be really careful what we are looking at. 2% success
rate is a realistic success rate to expect. It is different to have a tutor
who works with a teacher than have a student go to the LRC and work with a tutor
there. Kenley said you could look at Math classes that get extra support plus
those that get just Gateway support, and compare those with the standard model.
Yes, Sheila said, but we are being very precise and are getting help from the
math dept on how to handle the statistics. They will not be interested in it
if it is not done in the purest statistical method. Sheila volunteered to visit
CTL again on March 12 next semester and concentrate on evaluation since more
data will be available.
How did the learning community model evolve to become included, asked Kenley,
who has experience with it from Fresno CC. Was it intentional to create a LC
within Gateway? They were around already; Sheila said it started with the at
risk student. We need to bring support, a sense of community and a feeling of
shared experience to those at risk students. We need to build the community
here (which would be easier in a non-commuter school). Marilynn said it came
out of the Fullerton model.
Registration was a block for us. Kenley agreed it was a problem at Fresno where
he was involved with it. He said the challenge was the coordination of activities
and meetings of faculty. Sheila said she wants to talk about the students and
create an experience rather than talk about the curriculum during meetings.
Here having faculty choice adds a lot of power to the program. Curtis’s
model is the goal because it doesn’t work in every class but it is a wonderful
model for his style of class.
Curtis Solberg said he started with a realization about his class, which is
that it is the same as a high level university course. What is different is
there is a tremendous level of scaffolding, which he can’t do himself.
He deals with large number of students in the Forum, where it’s hard to
have a personal relationship with the students. The IAs took his classes, and
have been groomed by Curtis to do what he directs. He started five years ago.
One part of it is accountability. He informs the dean and provides anecdotal
and quantitative data.
Curt worked with Colleen, his IA, to describe his course philosophically and
practically, in terms of nuts and bolts. There is no pay for this for the faculty,
but the instructors get flex credit for it. It is not a gravy train for the
faculty. Is the money going to continue for this program? Sheila said she thinks
it will continue as a long-term plan.
They use group sessions mainly; occasionally a one-to-one session is approved.
Curt’s secret is his motto of “Recall, reinforcement and review”,
the “3Rs”. It’s not “tutoring lite”. He must persuade
the wouldd be client if they persist, it leads to skills mastery and these skills
will help them in the future. Students write ten 3 page papers, two midterms
and a final. Multiple choice and essays are required. It goes very quickly;
there is no time to coast. You have to be “on task” all the time.
Curt asks for a fifteen or twenty minute essay about themselves that he uses
to pinpoint the “at risk” students. He advises them to make a list
and map it out before writing. He researches the English class they last completed.
He and Colleen pick out students who have skill and attitude deficiencies. These
may auger ill for university work.
He calls the students up who show potential for university work. They are invited
by blocks; he has three blocks. Students can join for just one block, which
is five weeks. It requires compulsory attendance at two seminars per week. He
needs two hours per week extra (3 hours studying per each hour of class is the
model for classes). After the first exam, anyone can join Block Two, which is
the sixth week of class. It is hard to demand reading accountability; hit them
with multiple choice is the only way to do it. You let them take the multiple
choice and the essay seminar. Colleen makes the money. She meets Curt at his
house on Saturday, and is paid for that meeting. These seminars are highly structured
and they’re run like a drill in the military. They result in mastery of
essay writing and multiple choice type questions. No discussion is involved
due to time. The results from the last five years are significant.
This summer Colleen and Curt taught a Gateway course in a six week period, History
100 for non-majors. All of American history in six weeks, which means three
evenings a week from 6-9:05 pm, a Carnegie unit. They must write more and take
more tests. 25 students were on roster and 40% (10/25) were high school students
from Dos Pueblos. There were scheduling problems to work out, and one student
got a ride from the IA. The results were astounding: 3 Cs, 13 Bs, and 8 As.
Only one student earned a D, and nobody failed. Conclusions: improved levels
of performance were linked to Gateway empowered. The three-way relationship
strengthens instructor familiarity with these students. He can do more because
of his IA. Another observation, Gateway could serve as a port of entry for new
high school entrants. H.S. students can be given a sense of empowerment which
will reduce non-productive grades. ESL students were very much supported by
the Gateway Program.
Curtis shared three student profiles with CTL members, which gave us a lively
and genuine sense of the reality of the interaction and benefits of the programs,
as well as the trials and choices of the students. A basketball player was too
busy with athletics to take Gateway, and that was a shame. A Russian immigrant
did well in essays, but struggled with nuances of multiple choice. She showed
that the American Dream is alive. She finally brought her grades up to a B due
to diligent effort. She could barely speak English, and she did not miss a beat.
She came so far. A Korean boy who was ambitious and hardworking was thinking
of dropping the course, so he talked with Colleen. His problem was written English.
Content was good and he received one-on-one tutoring on essay writing, notetaking
in lecture, and his persistence paid off. He became aware of university level
work.
Nina commented on the amount of work Curt is doing. Curt did not want it to
end. He reads finals; readers do not read finals. The readers put marks on the
essays. Curt’s pedagogical method is what Colleen gives the students.
She does not attend the classes. The material has not changed. The IAs who have
been through the classes are the best; it doesn’t always work that way.
The college has been generous about providing reader support, which Curtis needs
to do his job. It is a great story of true education, Gerry commented.
Marilynn said the Online IAs have been trained by the faculty. In many ways
they provide a similar kind of support for the faculty and student. She is looking
at tutor training for OIAs. They had a session with David Starkey; we are hoping
to put a request in for more reader money. This helps give students the amount
of writing practice and feedback they need. Curt said everyone benefits from
it; the readers learn about this as well as the students. Those who have worked
in Gateway as IAs have jobs in CCs now. It is a nice lab in which they can learn.
Marilynn discussed her college daughter’s visit, when they watched a tough,
hard standard portrayed in a reality tv show. Here we are being nurturing, giving
kind support, and I wondered why we are doing this when the reality tv show
is utterly tough and so popular. Curt illustrated the toughness by an example
in which a student coming late was not allowed in the seminar. It’s like
West Point; no room for individuality. If you explain your standards, even students
who aren’t used to discipline can do it. Jodi said she incorporates Curtis’s
standards into her course. It’s respectful to the students. Evan doesn’t
let nursing students in the class if they are one or two minutes late.
Marilynn asked Curtis about the parents who demand an A for their children.
Did the parents pressure him to give good grades? Curtis said he is happy to
talk with parents. Jodi asked about when students are identified in the regular
semester. Do you do it after the first test? He does this inviting after the
first day of class, but blocks would allow others to join, if tests were given
later and revealed those who would benefit.
Sheila said Curtis’s method is a rarity, and faculty members have a choice
as to how to work with the IA. The classes in which all the students are considered
Gateway students are those that will show in the statistics. She asked CTL members
help spread the word to faculty that they can become Gateway instructors, and
they can have autonomy to teach it and use IA as they choose. She will send
information to Scott about methods for spreading the word about Learning Communities,
and he will report to the CTL. Gerry concluded with comments about how the positive
benefits it has made on students with unusual learning profiles and those with
learning disabilities.
Student Success Grants, Dixie Budke
Dixie Budke, chair of the Faculty Professional Development Committee, explained
the procedure and development for getting Student Success grants, which will
go through her committee. She is becoming a member of CTL to represent the Technologies
Division, but also to see how the committees can work together on these grants.
The process is easy and so faculty members are motivated to apply. Most may
focus on skill building; Marilynn added that we want to keep it broad and include
work outside the classroom since it all contributes to better teaching and learning.
The guidelines and application will go out tomorrow electronically and will
be returned electronically. The tech support is in place, as will be explained
in the guidelines. It requires a dean’s signature because often they know
of hidden pools of money that can be drawn upon to supplement these endeavors.
Oct. 27 is the due date. CTL can support interest in the grants by encouraging
faculty who have expressed ideas to improve teaching and learning through work
the CTL has done, i.e., the SSI discussions on Obstacles and Solutions to Student
Success, and within our divisions.
Gerry clarified that the first two pages of the Evaluation Criteria documents
sent out by Anita Cole (AS) are those CTL will use to monitor proposals. We
will be monitoring those selected by Senate.
Next meeting: Monday, Oct. 9th, 2006