October 28, 2024

I. Call to Order

---

Welcome

Erik Woodbury reminded representative to fill out their report out

---

Approval of Agenda and Minutes from October 21st, 2024.

James Tallent moved, Shagun Kaur seconded to approve both minutes and agenda. No objection. Agenda and minutes approved by unanimous consent.

---

Public Comment

James Tallent had a question about the status of the medical center that the Senate had deep discussions about last spring. In his voter information guide it appeared that the center was already built and was bringing medical care to the area.

Erik Woodbury:There has been no update. Nothing has been finalized. Nothing has been decided. The school district sent a land lease agreement to the county for consideration. It will need to come back to the board before it is approved. The speculation was that since Joseph Simitian who championed this project has termed out they are waiting until after the election for someone else to pick it up.

There is some disagreement among the county board about building in Cupertino to serve people in San Jose.

The district should be asking for more than a dollar in the agreement.

---

II. Consent Calendar

---

Common Course Numbering Phase II Convenings  Volunteers

Biology volunteers Bob Kalpin and Jason Bram.

A hearty thanks to them and to all who volunteered.

Sherwin Mendoza moved to approve the consent calendar, Cynthia Kaufman seconded. No objections. Approved.

For the next round they will need volunteers for anthropology and sociology.

---

III. Needs and Confirmation

---

District and College Needs (Attachment)

• AS Scholarship Committee
• COOL Committee
• Tenure Review At-Large Representatives

---

No Confirmations

---

V. New & Continuing Business

---

AS Scholarship 

Rubric: Financial Aid Scholarship from the De Anza Academic Senate

Application example:  Academic Senate Award Application

Mary Pape: The presentation last week that raised some questions. THe draft document was approved last April 15. 

Felisa Vilaubi joined the meeting to clarify and answer questions. First, the decision included changing the scholarship to an award which will allow more flexibility in making the awards.This bypasses the academic requirements in a traditional scholarship application. 

They made it a faculty or staff nomination to streamline the process to award funds. There was no specific amount because it depends on how many students they get. They could have multiple smaller awards to address the needs of more students. 

They may not be students that are doing A-plus work, but those with a real need that a faculty member or as a classified professional may notice.

The nominating faculty or staff member will fill out the form with the student. Then the application will go to the committee for consideration. There was a question about whether the application has to come back to the executive committee for approval.

Felisa would like to use this format as a pilot to start making to students by the end of the quarter with the understanding that it will come back to the Senate for evaluation and possible changes.

The committee will need to have a certain amount of money to give out. If the funds run out,  the committee could work with financial aid for other money for students to apply outside of the Senate funding.

When and how to get started?

Felisa was willing to stay on the committee but will need help especially with setting up the website and can can get going as soon as it is done

Mary Pape will help with the website and communication.

Academic Senate Award committee members: Felisa Vilaubi. Veronica Acevedo, Mary Pape, and Bob Singh.

The Committee will report back to the Senate at the end of the quarter. Call for anyone else interested in joining the committee.

---

Quick Notes:

News Updates from Officers

Campus AS Social, Wednesday 10:30 AM - Noon, Main Quad to hangout with  coffee, tea, donuts and cookies.

Resolutions for ASCCC Fall Plenary available here. Read through for discussion next week. Mary Pape and Erik Woodbury has put together a resolution on common course numbering.

Department Chair Meeting, November 22nd.

---

AI Workgroup: Resources for Faculty

Presentation of Results

Jyothsna Viswanadha, part-time math faculty, a member of the AI Workgroup gave a report on the work of the taskforce. The group included Erik Woodbury, Chesa Caparas, LK Sengupta, Kevin Glapion, Rachel Silveria, and Mirsaeid Abolghasem.

They brainstormed on ideas as to how they may help faculty members understand and use AI. They created and sent out a survey at the beginning of this year. The questions included: What are the concerns? What do you expect to see? And what kind of guidance do you want? 

The biggest faculty concern was detection and reliability.

They have created a module called “Generative AI Introduction, Tools, Resources and Other Information” in the Academic Senate canvas shell. The page “What is Generative AI?” included a list of Different AI Platforms Available. It also the role of Generative AI in Community College Education like Personalized Learning, Content Creation, Enhanced Engagement, Administrative Efficiency, Support for Diverse Learners, and Professional Development. The page also included various resources that provide a comprehensive starting point for exploring generative AI, understanding its various platforms, and discovering its applications in the educational sector.

There is a page on AI and Disability Support. The page on Syllabus Resources and Tools has a link to the Foothill college's AI Chatbot. There are sample language for course syllabus statements on AI usage.

The page called “How to Use AI: A Introductory Guide for Instructors” started with a useful list of Dos and Don’ts as well as other useful and practical examples.

Jyothsna Viswanadha shared how she has applied these tools in her teaching to create tests and discussion. Create new topics for professional training workshops.

Academic dishonesty was the biggest concern because the whole point of students coming to class is to learn, not to just earn a grade.

Slide 4 in the presentation has a chart that shows the capabilities and limitations of AI as well the users should be aware.

There are detection tools (slide 5) that are mostly for plagiarism but not as reliable for AI determination.

AI detection has positive and negative impacts on diversity and equity. (slide 7). There are also significant impacts on workload and academic integrity. (slide 8) Awareness and transparency can reduce unintentional misuse. Instead of restricting it, blend it into your classes to increase equity. 

There were discussions on best practices and policies. The need for a college or district policy and how such structure may impact academic freedom.

There was a question regarding privacy and ethical concerns. Jyothsna shared some of the applications people have used that worked well. Going through the district domain provides some protection for the documents.

Foothill has an AI working group that anyone can join. They meet every other Friday

Someone expressed the need for a district level policy that would protect both employee and student privacy. Also the need for a list agreed upon detectors to support faculty identification of  academic dishonesty. Also, for students to check their work before submission. The Senate should set a timeline for the policy. 

Also, the need for professional development. There are a lot of free professional development training available. Perhaps the work group could connect these sources.

It was suggested that AI be included in the report out for regular communication.

There was much discussion and sharing on people’s frustration and dilemma over how to deal with the misuse of AI, cheating, and the additional workload. The pressure for students to cheat and use it.

The Senate will bring this back for more conversation and to get more people involved. Appreciation to the task force for their hard work.

---

RSI Update: Phase II Peer Cohort Option

Presentation

James Capurso announced that the RSI Phase II Peer Cohort was ready for launch. Most faculty want to participate in the cohort option instead of the J1 evaluation. He will send out a mass announcement shortly.

Faculty must complete the Part I and Part II RSI certification by winter 2025 to teach online and hybrid in fall 2025. Faculty earn either $500 or 2 PGA units for doing the peer cohort option.

The course will take 15-30 hours to complete. It will be facilitated by Online Ed led by James, Cheryl and Shawn. There will be asynchronous course work and synchronous meetings. Faculty will be enrolled in a Canvas course and organized by cohorts of 15 to 20 faculty randomly organized. 

There will be time and opportunity to interact with your own department to continue conversation

Slide 4 shows 6 modules in Course Content with 2 optional units.

Part 2 enrollment is contingent upon completing part 1.

There is an accelerated fall peer cohort starting 11/4. Faculty may sign up between now and Friday. They will select 60 faculty for this session.

They will run quarter long and 4-week intensive versions of peer cohorts in the winter. Winter cohorts will start during week two of Winter. Priority will be given to those who teach online and hybrid. Anyone who misses the training in Winter can complete the training in Spring. However, that will not qualify them to teach online and hybrid in fall 2025.

GE Committee Development

Working File

Membership

The Senate discussed the composition and the number for the membership

Sherwin Mendoza felt that 2 faculty was too small a number. Shagun Kaur would like to have representation from board areas. There are 7 GE areas, ideally there should be one for each area to provide a more diverse background.

Shagun, Cynthia Kaufman, and Mary Pape advocated having student voting members on this committee. Need student voice in governance;  full members are more engaged. 

James Tallent moved, Sherwin Mendoza seconded to make the 2 student representatives voting members. No objections. Approved.

Bob Singh moved, Mary Pape seconded to approve the GE committee membership as discussed and revised in the GE committee working file. No objections. Approved.

Next, the Senate will determine the Timeline for the committee.

---

Good of the Order

Please review all report outs

---

Adjournment

Bob Singh motioned, Mary Pape seconded, to adjourn, no objection.

---

Attendance

In person

Erik Woodbury, So Kam Lee, Mary Pape

Veronica Avila Acevedo, James Adams, Viviana Alcazar, *Sam Bliss, Megan Brophy, Umar Douglas, Mark Hamer, Kevin Glapion, Lauren Gordon, Dawnis Guevara, Cynthia Kaufman, Shagun Kaur, Sherwin Mendoza, Lisa Mesh, *Aura Ozturk, Christian Rodriguez, Jayanti Roy, Lakshmikanta "LK" Sengupta, Sukhjit Singh, Leah Smith, James Tallent, Lianna Wong, Christina Wright

Online

Mary Donahue, Mark Landefeld

Absent

*Deborah Armstrong, Ravjeet Singh

*Non-voting members