Presented November 22, 2013
Technology Committee
A & E Committee
Professional Development Task Force
Testing Committee
Technology Committee reported by Scott Duarte
Members: Scott Duarte, Lowell Riethmuller, Nicole Servais, Bob Palmer, Ken Hyde, Kate Copeland, Phil Rice
Progress on stated goals:
1) Process survey as committee
The committee will in fact resubmit the survey to the faculty after a small redesign of the original survey. Many teachers did not respond to the initial survey. This will be conducted sometime during session II-IV.
2) Offer optional group training in Smartboards and iPad tips/tricks.
This will be examined after survey II results have been analyzed.
3) Respond to individual needs via tech buddies and specialists.
Tech buddies have been putting out fires in all buildings as the problems arise.
Buddies include Nicole/Scott (108), Dan (102), Bob (318), Erin/Zuba (189), and Celeste/Jim W. (Rodney/Elkton/ Amstel). Tech buddies now have administrative privileges with computers.
4) Tech buddies can install Q software in their buildings as needed.
Ongoing. Unfortunately, we can’t blanket install the software on all computers. Level coordinators are still responsible for getting the appropriate level software to the tech buddies to install.
5) Play English videos in TV in student lounge to promote English ambience.
A rotating schedule of movie titles is being created and will be implemented starting in Session III. We are also looking at whether apple TV is a viable solution for playing movies/tv shows on the television.
Activities & Events Committee
1. Continue to develop the website.
We are proceeding with a distributed responsibility model of development. Each committee member has taken responsibility for developing the information for one of our standard trip destinations, which can be done offline. This information will then be collated and uploaded to the website.
2. Clarify escort duties and guidelines.
The committee is working on revising guideline documents and putting procedures into place to insure that escorts get the needed information in a timely fashion.
3. Clarify processes and lines of communication with event stakeholders.
The committee chair will be meeting with stakeholders to determine what needs to be done to meet this goal. Currently identified needs are for a meeting with Dru to create a better process for dealing with Cohort and class related events.
Committee Members:
Ken Hyde, chair
Tim Kim, Orientation Coordinator
Anne Owen, Faculty member
Mikie Sarmiento, Faculty member
Kendra Bradecich, Faculty member
Carolina Correa, Faculty member
Phil Rice, Faculty member
Lisa Connor, Faculty member
Mikki Washburn, S-contract member
Amanda Strickland, S-contract member
Ana Kim, Faculty member until Sep. 1st.
Kathy Hankins Bracy, S-contract member until Oct. 28th.
Baerbel Schumacher, Special Programs liaison
Marie Hunt, Financial Office liaison
Professional Development Task Force
| Goal | Accomplished |
| A. Recruitment and sharing for offsite professional conventions1. Penn TESOL East – Saturday November 9 2013— up to 66% faculty and tutors (presenters and attendees), transportation provided
2. TESOL in Portland – Wednesday March 26– Saturday 29 March, 2014 –Up to 25 % of faculty as presenters and attendees, follow-up discussions to include presentations by proposed and accepted TESOL presenters as well as idea exchanges among TESOL attendees 3. Increase number of participants in other conventions by 25% (educational technology, 4C’s, etc) as applicable |
A. In progress
1. 40% (56 of 70+70) |
| B. Increase number of faculty mentoring partnerships by 25% | B. Flyer to go in mailboxes |
| C. Local Event Connections1. Sponsoring of regular informal faculty discussions on topics of
Interest; Suggested:
Phonological challenges for particular linguistic groups |
1. In progressa. List being formed b. TBA c. TBA 1. TBA 2. Feb 2014 d. Session 3 2014 e. TBA f. TBA g. TBA h. TBA i. IPads in the classroom Session 3 2014 j. Assessing & Correcting Oral Intelligibility Session 3 2014 k. Email Feedback on Writing TBA l. Google Apps Workshop 10/7 cmpltd |
| 2. Faculty Professional Development Retreat Date possibly April 11: | 2. TBA |
| D. Development of individually accessible Professional Development materials | D. In progress |
Note: Faculty survey conducted in October 2013 received 20% response (14/70) Interest in technology and reading expressed by majority
Future Speakers Form on Google Docs – Several recommendations under consideration
#1 Neil J Anderson of BYU (Reading Specialist) for Spring Retreat
Testing Committee
Members: Michal Fields, Mary Beth Worrilow, Ken Cranker, Kathy Vodvarka, Jackie Whitney Walt Babich
Accomplishments:
1) Norm referencing (All faculty) Final essays July 2013
2) Test design workshop (All faculty (September 2013)—See Second attachment
3) Adjustments to proficiency scales (October 2013)
Progress on Stated goals:
1) That we examine data from standardized test results to draw inferences for the purpose of informing administration and teachers.
(Ongoing part of our mission, done in partnership with administration and utilizing the skills of new member Jackie Whitney)
2) That we work with level coordinators to insure that new teachers are adequately trained and mentored in assessment.
(We have worked with coordinators on the workshop op and norm referencing)
3) That we explore the possibility of creating an integrated skills test as a final assessment for EAP VI students.
(This has been brought to the attention of the EAP task force)
4) That we work with lower level teachers to refine the placement process so that initial placements into Basic, Level I and Level II are more standardized.
( Ongoing.)
5) That we closely examine the speaking finals, level by level, to insure standardization and to make sure that the finals reflect realization of language learning outcomes and that they are not overly content-based.
( To be addressed in 2014)
6) That we work with administrators to assess students referred to ELI for language proficiency assessment by UD Admissions such as those who have taken the SAT but who scored below the required 90 on the iBT.
( This issue seems to less pressing. We tend to address issues as they arise.)