November 7, 2014
2 PM PST/4 PM CST/5 PM EST/10 PM GMT
Attending: Susan Albright and Hugh Stoddard, co-chairs; Terri Cameron, Walter Fitzwilliam, Heather Hagman, Scott Kroyer, Kirke Lawton, Vicky McKinney, Johmarx Patton, Robby Reynolds, Paul Schilling
1 Curriculum Inventory submission update
Terri stated that 120 schools uploaded data. There were 86 schools that mapped competencies through the curriculum using the terms broader and narrower. Lecture is the most frequently used instructional method. No one included integration blocks. She is working to validate data on the number of sequence blocks by academic level. There were a total of 138,983 events uploaded. There is a lot of data to work with. Two Canadian schools verified submissions. 118 us schools submitted; which is an 85% participation rate, a 13% increase this year.
Kirke’s unit is looking at their data and pulling it into a data warehouse. He will look at changes we are proposing.
2 Review changes to the specification
Valerie pointed to changes on page 39 and 43 of the specification. What we had called SequenceBlockLevels is now AcademicLevelReferences. It has a Starting AcademicLevel and EndingAcademicLevel as well as an attribute that indicates if the sequence block is longitudinal or flexible in its scheduling (ie it may occur in one sequence block or another).
Terri commented that when they do reports, they calculate academic level by the start date of the earliest sequence block and the end date of last sequence block. That requires finessing of data. We could have an optional academic level start and end date. Scott supported that. Terri added it would allow us to run reports on the average length of academic levels. She added that they received a lot of sequence blocks that don’t have dates. She would like both date and duration.
Scott questioned whether the AcademicLevelReferences should be an enumerated list rather than a range. That would allow us to represent courses that may occur in one of three academic levels, or courses that span academic level 1, 2, and 4. Valerie agreed to work with Scott and Kirke on developing some options for AcademicLevelReferences and representations of longitudinal and flexible scheduling and will circulate it to the group for review.
3 Review results of survey of curriculum deans and administrators
Valerie reviewed the results of the survey. She explained that the survey was intended to answer the question as to whether academic levels were useful. Terri commented that as long as the accrediting body looks at sequential data, people will want to see that.
CONSENSUS: academic levels are useful.
Terri commented that academic level dates would let us do interesting reports. Walter commented that the minutes of the April meeting have some discussion on that. Valerie agreed to distribute. The group agreed to discuss at a subsequent meeting.
Valerie will work with Scott and Kirke on developing some options for AcademicLevelReferences and representations of longitudinal and flexible scheduling and will circulate it to the group for review.