[Speaker 3] (0:00 - 5:10)
We're going to go ahead and get started in the, you know, earnest of time. So we're going to go ahead and call the meeting to order 315. And we're first going to start with approval of the minutes from September 9th.

Those were outside for anyone who wanted a copy. So we need a motion to approve. Okay, Francisca and John for the second.

Any discussion, questions, comments from last meeting? You guys all look like you need a cup of coffee. No?

Okay, so with nothing, can we get a for all in favor of approving the minutes from September 9th? Okay, any opposed? All right, good.

So minutes are approved. We're ready to go from there. Okay, so you may notice that the agenda that you have in your hand is going to look a little different.

I was explaining to those who came early that we have to upload the agenda seven days in advance to be compatible with the state law, which requires us to get it to Roger something like three weeks in advance, which then means that it's not necessarily the most accurate. So going forward, we're going to put a disclaimer on this that says the most recent or the most up-to-date agenda will be in the calendar invitation. So you probably got a notice this morning when I edited and updated that agenda.

So that's where you'll find the most recent one. And then when Kathleen sends the minutes in, we'll update this on the website. So that's the best that we can do to stay in compliance with the law.

So that's there, but this is going to have a little bit more detail. So we'll start with my report. A couple of things that I wanted to bring up and kind of talk to you all about is, one, access to the assembly meetings.

So historically, these have been in-person only, except during COVID when we would have some WebEx. However, we also have seen a decline in attendance and participation. So I would like for us to start offering these on WebEx.

Also, we have colleagues at McNair, at Huntsville, at Liberty who can't necessarily get here. We also have adjuncts who probably have really important and great things that they could add, but they work, so they may not be able to be here. So what I would like to do and what I would propose is that going forward after this meeting, that we have those allowed to be on WebEx.

We have to record these anyway for state law now, so it's not like secrets are happening or anything anyway. But it would allow participation, with the exception of we're not going to take votes from people who are not physically here. So representatives would need to be here.

Voting members would need to be here because it's too much. But we could accept questions from people online, and they could at least stay caught up with what's going on. So that's what I would propose going forward.

I'd like to hear anybody's thoughts on that before we decide. Anybody have comments that we need to say in the microphone? Okay, so we have Stephen who motioned to allow us to do that.

Okay, Cassandra. All those in favor? Okay.

Any opposed? Okay, awesome. So going forward, we'll have those on WebEx, which is why some of you may have seen a WebEx link that Romero and I were working on how to make it, so that they could host the meetings in case I'm not here or in case they get started, whatever, so they can have everything that they need.

So that's one, so thank you for that. The other thing that's going to be coming out to you all, I don't need any, is that I have met with the executive council, so all the officers, to kind of talk about the vision of the assembly as we move forward. And part of that is to try to get some feedback from faculty as to what you guys think we should be focusing on.

So after this meeting today, I'll be sending out a survey that's in Microsoft, so a Microsoft form with a few questions asking you all what you think we should be focusing on and some different things like that. It's anonymous. I made sure that it's not taking names so you guys can be as open and honest.

But I want us to talk about what our vision is for the assembly, things that we think the administration needs to be looking at, all of those fun things. So I just wanted to let everyone know before you get the email that that's what that's about. It's going to come to me directly.

And then in there it talks about I may share, like, overall themes with the office, with the executive committee or any major concerns that we might have, obviously, with President Adkin, but individual responses will not be shared. That'll be for me to look at and so we can kind of see what we want to do going forward. So that'll be coming out after this meeting.

Questions about that? Okay.

[Speaker 13] (5:10 - 5:34)
So, Mark. All right. Just the only update, we're still looking for that professional standards and responsibilities role.

I did some deep digging to get the exact role responsibilities. I have them off the top of my head, but I know we'll all forget them. So I will send it out in an email.

Still looking for someone to volunteer their time. The person will be a real hero in all our eyes. That's all I got.

[Speaker 3] (5:36 - 5:56)
Awesome. So for Kathleen, there's not a report. She can't be here because she's teaching, but she doesn't have a report.

As you guys know, we're still hanging out with the money that we currently have. Dr. Taylor. Oh, Francisca.

No report from Francisca. Dr. Taylor. Okay.

[Speaker 4] (5:56 - 8:24)
If you look on the agenda, we have three items there. Our committee, we support awards, charitable donations, and gestures of bereavement. Carl, you've got to hold it closer to your face.

Oh, sorry. Need I start over? Okay.

Okay. Again, we have three functions. We do awards, we do charitable donations, and we do bereavements, gestures, whatever that might be, right?

So first one on our, we have here, we have an award that we come across. It's called the Minnie Stevens Piper Foundation Award. I just found out, some of you guys may know about this already.

I heard it was here before. You're a nominee. Atta girl.

So we just found out about this, and unfortunately, it's a time frame we have here. We only have, we found out that we have to nominate, the president's office has to nominate this by a month from today, as a matter of fact. And so, I know, it's short notice, but I'm thinking maybe short, maybe better.

We're going to send out an email tomorrow and send you some information about this. We're going to have a link on it. So what is Minnie Driver?

So if you're not familiar with it, driver, Minnie Stevens Piper, sorry, they were based out of San Antonio. They're statewide, right? It's prestigious.

They provide scholarships. They provide grants for students, but they also like to look at faculty like us that do well and then give them the award. And actually, if you do well, the nomination, you get a lot of data to support it.

You're great, besides being great in the classroom, you do other things outside in the classroom, community-type work, charitable-type work, research, whatever all that is. There's a whole list there. So in the email we're going to send out tomorrow, we're going to have you ask to look at that list and see what the requirements are.

If you find someone that fits that, please nominate that individual within our workplace here. We're only going to give you a week, unfortunately, because we've got to get the nominations. Our committee will do that and then turn around and then transport that over to the president's office where they will make the decision to nominate.

Again, I apologize for the short time. I'm hoping to be looking at it tomorrow. We will send another reminder next Wednesday or so, because Thursday is the deadline, to get that in.

So hopefully you'll think of somebody that deserves that. Again, the winner gets $5,000 and the prestige of being a Piper Foundation Award winner. Again, only 10 people get this across the state of Texas.

So it's kind of a big deal. I wouldn't mind. We'd like to see if we can do this maybe on an annual basis.

We'll see how that goes. But right now, we'd like to see how this works out for us. What's that?

[Speaker 16] (8:30 - 8:30)
Yeah.

[Speaker 4] (8:32 - 10:21)
Again, I apologize. So that said, if we want to do it next year, we'll definitely start sooner. So we'll give it a shot.

Thanks, Laura. All right. Second bullet we have here is request for faculty trust, to the faculty trust.

So our second function we have is the charitable donations, right? So we went out in the last semester. If you remember, we supported the graduation vouchers, which seemed to go over well with the students, for sure.

They loved it. I think faculty enjoyed doing that as well. We as a committee would like to continue doing that.

Now, we know we've got more graduates in the spring versus fall. That comes into play. So we've got to think about what else can we do as a faculty assembly to support our students.

And so I was talking with Jessica Haney, who does a great job over there, and then Fran from our sister committee, which is the philanthropy and community involvement, comes across. Hey, let's talk about what are we doing for the fall besides graduation? Well, of course, next month, Thanksgiving.

SRC normally donates at least 100 or so, maybe more, Thanksgiving dinners to students and their families. Christmas, they have a Christmas wish tree for students' families. They have that kind of thing going there.

So we've got to talk about, from a standpoint, what can we do to support that? And so our thought was if we can get some dollars, in this case, we came up with an amount of $500 to support all three of those initiatives from the faculty assembly. We'd have to go out and request to the trust to get those dollars because we don't have any dollars, but we'd have to get approval from you folks here to see if that's something we want to do.

With that said, does anybody have any thoughts about that, of providing $500 to the SRAC to support graduates, Thanksgiving, and Christmas for our students?

[Speaker 16] (10:27 - 10:28)
Oh.

[Speaker 15] (10:33 - 10:42)
Historically, the faculty assembly has done things like providing a boy's bike and a girl's bike for things like the tree. Are they preferring cash donations in lieu of actual items? Either or.

[Speaker 4] (10:43 - 10:48)
They'll take both. They'll take both. OK.

So it could be whatever we as a faculty. Sorry. Sorry.

[Speaker 3] (10:48 - 12:11)
So the other change that's happened in the SRAC over the last year or maybe two years is they've put kind of a limit. So it used to be whatever the kids asked for, like a PlayStation, would go on the tree, which is unreasonable. So they've gone to like a limit of like $30 per child, which is why I think we've stopped doing bikes.

And so typically the giving tree or the angel tree or whatever we call that, you know, everyone can kind of individually pick a child. I usually pick the same age as my kids and let them shop. But there are often children who don't get picked or like they come in at the last minute.

Right. So their names are still left on the tree. And then the SRAC uses institutional or whatever funds they can drag together to make sure that those kids also have, which is kind of our thought of part of this money would cover the kids that have not been selected or maybe like somebody picked their name but then failed to bring the gift in and they still need one.

So it wouldn't be a ton of money, but they would be able to utilize that. And then also same thing like they they buy turkeys, but sometimes we don't have enough. Right.

So so that was the thought of that $500 could cover a little bit of cost for those two things. But then the major focus being on caps and gowns for the fall, where then we would in the spring. We don't really have other events.

So we have a lot more graduates that money than going to caps and gowns for for the spring kind of exclusively, I think.

[Speaker 4] (12:13 - 12:33)
Appreciate it. Does that help, Joe? Okay.

Any other thoughts or questions on that? Okay. So we're going to make a motion.

I'm going to make a motion to request the $500 to the Faculty Trust to support these three initiatives. And I'll see. Do I have any eyes?

Any hands up? Got one, two, three.

[Speaker 14] (12:33 - 12:42)
That's it. Do we need more? How's it work?

All in favor? All right. I'm still learning.

[Speaker 4] (12:43 - 14:01)
Okay. Anybody disagree? What's the word?

Opposed. Sorry. Anybody oppose?

Thank you for your time. So what I'll do next is we, I'm sorry, we'll go around and turn around and get with the Faculty Trust to make that request. Okay.

Thank you. One last thing I have on my agenda here real quick. The bereavement group.

And some of you, I don't know if Mr. John saw that. I didn't realize there was a bereavement group out there. So gestures of bereavement from the Faculty Assembly.

I'm taking this over and trying to wonder what that might be. I found out that we work with, if we lose somebody, unfortunately, we work with HR. And I found out that Paul Arrigo and his group go out, and they reach out to all employees within the campuses, all at Lee College, which is impressive.

And they said, well, I will let you know. Of course, I know if we happen to unfortunately lose somebody in our faculty, I'm sure we'll hear ahead of time or hear about it. But they said they'll let us know.

As you know, also families deal with things differently when they lose someone. And sometimes maybe a card works, maybe they want a donation, stuff like that. We won't know.

It's almost like a real-time call. But if we happen, unfortunately, hopefully we don't, we lose somebody, we want to kind of deal with that on maybe a real-time call. But we'd like to do something from the Faculty Assembly to support that family.

[Speaker 14] (14:02 - 14:15)
Anybody have any thoughts or ideas in regards to gestures of bereavement? Kind of learning as we go. Okay.

Thank you for your time. Appreciate it.

[Speaker 3] (14:18 - 14:52)
So I think we would be interested if anyone is participating with Paul or if anyone from the Assembly would be interested in being part of Paul's group that does bereavement. That way we're not reinventing. So someone from Carl's that can be on Carl's team but is doing that with Paul.

So if anyone is interested, if you'll let him know, he can connect you with Paul. So then we have that, again, not reinventing the wheel, kind of keeping it consistent across campus. Let's see.

Unfinished business.

[Speaker 16] (14:53 - 15:05)
Dr. Ramirez. Okay.

[Speaker 1] (15:06 - 24:24)
Title is probably still a work in progress. But the Ad Hoc Committee on AI and its Usage, we met last week. And so really, yeah, go for it.

We had a robust discussion because one of the things was why are we here? Like what are we trying to do? And after much, much debate and discussion of what our goal was, we ultimately came down to this decision of, like, a one-size-fits-all AI policy is ineffective.

And the reason that we decided this was, one, the challenges with test proctoring. That was pretty much, like, the main focus of what most of our discussion was, was test proctoring and just the challenges of doing it consistently and fairly. And that's on and off campus.

Connected, like, linked closely to that is difficulty implementing AI policies dual credit. ISDs have a very different understanding of AI and what they're recommending their faculty there. And then dual credit students at the same time.

So you have either labs that are working, some that are not working, students' devices that they're using. So whether it's a Chromebook, an iPad, or something like that. So it creates a multitude of challenges when you have a one-size-fits-all kind of AI policy.

I mean, like, well, this is supposed to work across. It doesn't because you have different institutions kind of implementing their own kind of policies. And then with technology, it compounds the issue.

And so that's one thing. There's varying relationships with AI across disciplines. So math, sciences, English, all of them are going to have a very different relationship with AI.

So, again, if you're trying to implement just kind of, like, one blanket AI policy, it's going to run into challenges just because of the way in which the different disciplines will interact with AI or won't interact with AI. And there's unclear AI usage among students, staff, faculty, and administration. I don't mean to generate content for assignments.

I'm talking the everyday. When they Google, are they using Gemini or are they actually using what's in a search browser, right? If they're wondering about relationship advice or just what to do on a specific day, that's still an interaction with AI.

And that needs to we really need to understand exactly how much faculty, staff, students, administration is using it, right? And it's not just about assignments. It's also about evaluation, right?

And so if we're evaluating students or we're using AI to evaluate students, administration is doing the same thing. Like, it's just a compounding kind of, like, cycle, right? And we need to kind of understand exactly how embedded AI is at this institution.

Next slide. So our recommendation, short term, is to develop a strategic plan to streamline proctoring solutions on and off campus for spring 2027. It's ambitious.

It's extremely ambitious. But that's the short term. Invite a representative from dual enrollment to serve on the committee.

Because, again, our what is it? I'm just going to throw out a number because somebody can fact check me. It's like 40% of dual credit is our population.

And so the fact that we have such a disconnect with them and the ISDs, somebody needs to be on there. So that way the policies that were or there are recommendations that we're trying to put in place need to make sure that it can be feasible with dual credit. Long term, conduct a study of AI usage at Lee College and explore its impact on the institution and the community.

And so we really need to kind of, like, develop a survey in which that we explore, again, it's not just about generating content for assignments. It's about your day-to-day interactions with AI. Because people have different degrees of those interactions and differing understandings of AI and its usage.

And you don't want conflicting misinformation of, like, one faculty member saying this with another faculty member saying this with an administrator saying this with a teacher at an ISD saying this. And that is all just, like, one convoluted loop that students are getting exposed to and not themselves understanding what an ethical, what it means to ethically use AI. On its impact of the community, because data centers is such a dynamic kind of conversation, our usage of AI does, like, plot cameras, all of this builds into kind of, like, AI data centers.

And so if we're using it, are these data centers being built around our communities? Again, that is going to impact a direct impact on our community. Especially rural populations.

And so our stance on AI, our statement about its usage and misusage of AI does impact the community and does signal things. So if we're talking about, like, a marketing plan and, like, we are all one, well, then we are all one in regards to kind of AI data centers and, you know, the uses of resources around. And that, again, because our community or, yeah, our population goes into, like, rural communities, that's an important thing to consider.

And then the other is provide sustained PD on AI. And this is not just, like, a superficial kind of thing. I've been, like, hey, this is what, you know, generative eyes and these are, like, other AI tools that, you know, pivot from that.

It really needs to be not just teaching, but also learning as well of its usage of how you can use it, again, for its data interactions. What we're trying to kind of avoid is just this misinformation about what AI is and what it's not. And how it's effectively used in your field, how it's effectively used as a tool to kind of help you make decisions, whatever kind of decisions those makes.

There is a way in which that we can provide PD. And it's sustained, right, because AI, what, it's every six weeks, something's changed. And so we do need people that are reading literature that are using it on its day to day.

Yes, it can make life a lot easier, but it can also be informed in different ways. I mean, like, hey, this is how it's impacting our community. And so that's long term.

We're not reinventing the wheel. Laura Lane Worley created two documents, the artificial intelligence at Lee College, a framework for responsible governance. And then the other is an AI governance and risk assessment form.

These documents themselves provide us with a foundation that we can build upon. And so she's taken, I believe she developed that over the summer. And so we should utilize what's already been in place.

One thing that I recommend to the committee is model the report of MIT's ad hoc committee on AI use in teaching, learning, and research training. That came out in August of this year. And it provides such a wonderful kind of, like, framework to kind of explore exactly AI usage.

It is not talking about completely removing it. Obviously, it's in Boston, so its impact of, like, data centers is not going to be there. But it does talk about this idea of, like, cognitive surrender and what people are doing with regards of using AI.

So, again, if you Google and use Gemini, and that's the first thing that you're looking at, well, then that would be kind of cognitive surrender to them of not going through and actually looking at the links that are provided for you. Instead, you're just using the AI that is, or the Gemini that's provided that kind of information to you. And then you kind of scroll on from there.

And so it does offer, it does kind of, like, provide some language that we can use. And it also puts humans first. And so if you're using AI for assessment, you're stripping away the sort of human interaction.

It would be the same way that administrators are using AI to kind of understand our teaching practices and be like, there's a humanistic element that can be really forward, right? And telling students and, you know, providing, like, no, I am looking at this. I am doing these things.

Hence the reason why I put this PowerPoint presentation was human generated. So that way people know exactly, hey, there is a human behind what it is that's being done in class, the PowerPoints, whatever kind of lectures that you're doing, all of those things forward. And so I do think it's a valuable resource.

The committee also provided additional kind of literature of Jackson Hyde's dean of faculty authorizes professors to use AI detectors, detector pentagram to review student work. That's from Dartmouth. And then Brian, not going to mispronounce that last name, and Alex's artificial writing and automated detection.

And so I do think there's a way in which that we're not reinventing the wheel. This is research informed. This is what academics do.

We look at research and then we use that research to then support and substantiate the decisions that we're doing. And so that is one of the things that the committee is trying to do is use our academic training to kind of inform what it is that we're recommending from there. The next steps is that we're going to try to meet once more in October, once in November, and once in December.

Again, it's an ambitious goal to attempt to streamline test proctoring for spring of 2027. But we're going to do our best.

[Speaker 16] (24:29 - 24:29)
Kristen.

[Speaker 8] (24:33 - 26:39)
I want to try to speed through all of my thoughts because I have several. Some of them are just thoughts. Some of them are questions.

So here's the thought. This might be a long range suggestion for your committee to consider for student, something to assist with student usage. There is, or I thought there was, a plagiarism class that students can take.

It's an online course. If they're accused of plagiarism, they are enrolled in this course and it teaches them, you know, about plagiarism and how to not plagiarize. So perhaps there was one bullet point, I believe, on your first slide where you talked about education and understanding with what is AI and how it's being used.

Perhaps a class could be created on AI usage. But to piggyback on another point you made, we have to understand it first in order to create something that maybe the students could take. So if a student does, I hate to use the word get caught, but if they get wrapped up in an AI accusation of any sort, it might be a class they can take if that course were created through the library.

Another consideration with dual credit faculty, as a faculty member, it seems like dual credit, well, it seems like students are coming from the K-12 environment without, like they're being told to not use it. So are we prepared for that? What if we get a dual credit person on the team and they come in and they're like they're not allowed to use it at all in the K-12 environment?

And we have three AI policies here that are in our syllabi. Those syllabi are passed out in dual credit classes and it gives faculty the options of the strict, the moderate, and the very lenient. From what I think I've heard, but it'll be great to have a dual credit person on board to confirm this, it's not allowed at all in the K-12 environment.

So how would we merge with that if it's not allowed there? And just something to consider, you know, before that happens. And okay, I'll stop there.

I probably had a few more and I'll think of them later.

[Speaker 6] (26:45 - 27:53)
So Jose Martinez is now overseeing, is he here? Yeah, he's right behind you. Oh, he could answer this question.

He's over academic integrity. And he and Ugo and I have met a few times talking about different options, including AI education for students, as well as not just having them do some sort of blackboard course, but actually having them meet with a tutor and go over information. It just depends on the level of the academic integrity violation.

And then some of the things we heard amongst faculty in the committee is that some high school, we heard that a high school instructor allegedly told a student to use AI for their college course. But if a dual credit student's in a college course, they're in the college course, whether they're taking it from a high school instructor who's teaching the college course or a college course, so they have to follow Lee College's syllabi. I don't know if that answers your question.

[Speaker 2] (27:57 - 29:45)
So to comment a little bit directly about both those questions, I'll start with the workshop that we're working on. So I actually met with Ugo earlier this week from the Learning Hub to kind of discuss our progress and what we're trying to implement right now. And so what we're what we landed on was that we're working really on three workshops that we're trying to implement.

And the idea behind these workshops are, for one, to be something that a student can take without even having to violate policy to take it. So similar to like when you go to the Learning Hub and sign up for a blackboard basics workshop or a tutoring session for whatever subject the student is interested in, they could essentially sign up for this workshop as well. Right.

So on their own or even as part of your requirement, I know EDUC, y'all always have them do things for extra credit or just like participate in opportunities. This would be something like that that they can attend and it would be beneficial for anybody. And almost also we're trying to make it informative enough that even a faculty or staff member could also attend it and learn more about academic integrity, AI, things like that.

The three sessions that we're really working on, one is basically academic integrity and writing based classes and another one for non-writing based classes. Right. So the writing based class is more about how AI is used and interacts with like writing.

Right. So like it's very different when it comes to violating the policy for that when it comes to writing an essay or a journal post or something like that versus using it or AI using it for a test on a biology exam. Right.

So there's very different considerations that need to take place for those two type of courses. And I think even with the pangram article and the email that we talked about, it was brought up that, you know, this was for writing based content. Right.

So we have to be very intentional with making something for that and then making something for non-writing based courses. Go ahead. You're good.

[Speaker 1] (29:45 - 31:03)
Yeah. That's why we are, you know, against the whole one size fits all policy because of just these AI detectors and just the different ways in which the disciplines will interact or won't interact with AI. That's that's the best recommendation we can do.

And it gets even muddier because if you're like, hey, you can use like cloud or anything else like that, but you can use Google. So a student Googles and then, you know, whatever, Gemini posts up and they're like, well, I just Googled and like this is what it did. I mean, like that's AI.

And students don't know that. I don't know how many people actually know that. Like, it's just like, hey, like what you get from Google, that first thing, that's AI.

That's Gemini. You have to scroll down to actually look at, you know, what it is that you're I don't know what the keyword search was for. And so that becomes it.

If you're using Copilot, like, I mean, that's, you know, not a similar thing, but still, again, what AI tools are you using? How are you using them? Which ones are you OK with?

Like, I mean, because we allow for Grammarly, I mean, that's an editing tool. Right. But if somebody is using them and like, well, you can't use this, you can't use Grammarly.

Well, then that changes things. And then another faculty has been like, well, Grammarly is not an AI tool. And that's how that kind of like misinformation goes.

And so that creates a lot of problems.

[Speaker 2] (31:03 - 36:29)
Right. And so that's where some of that is coming into play. Right.

So we're trying to create those two courses. So non-writing and writing based workshops. And so these workshops can be done either individually or in a group setting.

Right. So the new app that the Learning Hub has, Penji, is what we're going to be offering it through. And it can either be done in person or remote.

The remote option is really important for the dual credit population, because if you've ever tried to schedule a meeting with a dual credit student, it's sometimes impossible because of their high school schedule. Right. And they'll give you all these excuses of, you know, I have football, I have cheer, I have whatever.

Right. They still have some accountability because, you know, in our eyes, they still are a college student. So they have that accountability that they have to meet.

But it is understandable to say a 14 year old is not going to be able to come on campus because they don't have they don't drive. Right. Like that's just a reality.

Right. So how do we meet that need for them to have that option? We can do it remotely.

Right. So we'll have that for them. The third session that we're working on is more for like a second violation.

These two are more for first. For the second violation, it's just an in-depth overall like academic integrity across the board. So it'll cover a little bit of AI, more on plagiarism, more on just different forms of academic integrity issues, but also go into like what happens.

You're now experiencing a second violation. What does that mean for you, for your academic career? Right.

Like if you get a third violation, you end up getting suspended or expelled. That's something that will follow you in your transcript. Right.

So covering more of the practical effects of that, but also some of that educational pieces. And then, you know, we've talked a little bit, too, about how else can we expand it. And I would love to do some type of like group workshops that they're required to do after their second violation.

And more of like a classroom setting where, you know, we have faculty come in and do topics on whatever it may be. And it's all supplemental learning, but also pushing them to, you know, engage in services on campus. Right.

So like if a student said that they cheated because they were feeling stressed out and, you know, their mental health is really poor, then, you know, connecting them to timely care to the therapist on campus is an easy way to get them that resource. Right. Because we can attend to the issue.

But if we don't address the cause of it, they may just go back into it. And the part of it is just to be a little bit more intentional with the training. Right.

So, yes, they will have those workshops assigned. Google is currently working with Dr. Tripp in the writing center to kind of develop some of those. We are going to present that to faculty to see what feedback you'll have.

Right. And give you an opportunity to add. I'm working more on the non writing based stuff.

And so I'll have that as well presented to you and whatever faculty wants to provide feedback. You're welcome to. And then that way we can make sure it's informed by not just what we want on the student services side, but also the academic side.

So we're working on a lot of things like that, but it is very intentional required meetings. I've also asked for assistance with like faculty to maybe help with meetings for the students, because one of the things that I do as well outside of the workshops is when they violate a policy, I talk to them about what the actual issue is to make sure they understand what it is. Right.

And so an example, you know, it happened in one of the cases we had recently. A student used Canva A.I. to create a PowerPoint presentation for one of their major assignments. Right.

And a lot of people actually didn't know that Canva has A.I. that can create that. Right. And that goes back to the example of they were told by their high school that they can use this to create their presentations.

Right. And I'm sure everyone has some experience with creating a PowerPoint or document or something with A.I. The big issue is, you know, you have to make sure that the A.I. is not hallucinating a source or modifying content or making a fact up. Right.

And in this case, the student had a fact made up and they didn't verify that claim. So by definition, they plagiarized. Right.

And so having them understand like what happened there. And so I think it would be helpful if we have a faculty member to kind of help explain that a little bit more when it comes to their course content. Because for me, right, like my I work a lot with student conduct.

Right. So that's my main work here, student conduct and behaviors. We have issues related to like chemistry coursework, which is very specific to like chemical formulas and molecular weights and things like that.

Right. Or very specific to the content of the course that I may not be able to explain because, you know, I don't have a full understanding that a faculty member might. So that's where it might be helpful to have someone that's in that content that can cover some of those things.

So that's one of the things that I would also like to kind of build on for that. But yes, we are going to have those workshops. We're working on finalizing them soon so we can have them assigned out.

Because once students violate policies, they're required to do that before they can register classes. We're being a little bit lenient right now until we get that actually ironed out in the details. So typically the semester they violate, they would have to complete their trainings.

But, you know, if we're not developing quick enough for them, then we will work with them to be able to register for classes and things like that. So but yes, we are getting close to finishing that and providing a draft or some sort for y'all. And then real quick for the dual credit part, there is no one specific policy.

I spoke to Jordan Salazar and some other people in dual credit. Each school has a different policy, kind of like us. Right.

Like where we have the all A.I., some A.I. or no A.I. Right. It really depends on the instructor. And it also depends on the ISD that we're working with.

Right. Because we work with like over 17 high schools or something like that. So it's different between each one.

Right. So ultimately it falls on to the course and what's in the syllabus for that person. Right.

So if your course says no A.I., the expectation is they read their syllabus and no A.I. Right. However, I think there's a larger conversation to be had that they're still going to use it to study and to do other things or even unknowingly with like Gemini. Right.

Like if they Google search, they're going to be using it. So, you know, there's a larger conversation there, but it's going to fall back to the policy of the instructor of that course.

[Speaker 9] (36:33 - 37:16)
OK, I I feel like we're talking about A.I. focusing on A.I. as one of the tools. Right. For cheating.

That was talked about last month. But I thought during that conversation, Nicole was talking about cheating in general, you know, just, you know, the students having the ability to cheat. In general, she offered a solution, you know, having students use a natural laptop just to keep them from using an iPad because iPad does not work with the app.

Right. The Honor Lock app that she felt that would solve maybe not all, but a lot of the problems. And, you know, we were told we cannot request that from dual credit students because they mostly have an app.

[Speaker 7] (37:17 - 37:40)
No, no, that's not what I said. I said dual credit is working to see what the options are with the school district. We are downloading things onto their computer labs so that their computer labs are available and we can discuss the potential future use of laptops in the future in the MOU.

But at the current, I can't tell them that by spring they have to purchase laptops that are not in their budget.

[Speaker 9] (37:41 - 38:37)
Well, I feel like because I thought, well, are we not requiring regular students to have what they need as far as what the teacher says you need to use this app? Because that's how I feel like I'm keeping my testing, you know, under the rigor that I want. Are we not requiring our regular students to have what they need to take a test in the way that we want them to test?

The regular student, not dual credit, just a regular college student that is taking our classes online. Do we not have that requirement that students must have internet, must have a device that is working with the software that we need? Is that not part of our policy that students taking online courses must have those, what they need to take the course?

[Speaker 7] (38:41 - 39:12)
So, yes, the syllabus has specific listings for what the students need to take a course and the instructor can adjust those accordingly. But when we have students that are on main campus, there are other avenues for them to get that assistance, right? If I don't have a laptop at home, I can come to the library or I can check out a laptop or I can do whatever.

That's not necessarily the case with dual credit. And so we're having to navigate how to work with the school districts to make sure that we can get them what they need on their campus.

[Speaker 9] (39:13 - 39:20)
Okay. I was just making sure that we were not focusing on just on AI as being the only issue, whereas it's also the device.

[Speaker 6] (39:20 - 40:40)
I think you had it in the slide. One of the conundrums is that some device, some of the proctoring tools are not, you can't use it on one device and then the other. So we have both Respondus and Honorlock.

And we did that early on when we started all of this because of the issue between Chromebooks and iPads. One of the things that as we reactivate the Distance Ed Committee that we would like to do is have the DE committee start looking to see, is there a proctoring tool that can do both, like all devices, right? So it simplifies things for faculty if you have a proctoring tool that you can use on all devices.

Because some faculty I know have created exams in Respondus and in Honorlock because of the population and the devices that they had. So that is one of the things that I'm hoping we can look at. We can't change proctoring tools in the middle of the year, though, because we've already paid.

We have contracts that go through August 31st. But it is something that we can evaluate and the Distance Ed Committee can evaluate it and bring it to Faculty Assembly and present it and then make recommendations for next year regarding proctoring.

[Speaker 3] (40:41 - 41:26)
Thank you. While he goes up there to Catherine. The other thing I want us to think about when we talk about requiring students to have laptops, I don't know if any of you have seen the Trellis Report, but it's something like 45% of our students have admitted to missing meals because they didn't have enough money.

So if we have half of our students who are not eating, it's going to be really difficult to say, oh, and you must have a laptop to take classes. So I would encourage faculty to look at the report of the financial situations of our students when we consider whatever this looks like. Because if I'm not eating, I can't buy a laptop.

And the library ran out before the semester even started. So that's another piece, Catherine.

[Speaker 10] (41:26 - 42:29)
I just wanted to mention about a year or so ago, I had a horrendous issue with online dual credit students. And I've been working with Goose Creek and with the testing centers at the dual credit campuses. And I kind of just wanted to mention as an FYI that I finally made progress with them.

I have been communicating with them over the summer leading up to the start of the fall semester. And Goose Creek has purchased external cameras that they have dropped off at every single proctor location. Now, each location only has about a handful at each location, but every single dual credit campus now has external cameras.

And that's what I mandate that my students use. They must use an external camera with their tests. There's no other way around it for testing with me.

So Goose Creek has purchased external cameras to have at their campuses. If you have a little bit stricter testing policies, they now have access to that.

[Speaker 1] (42:29 - 43:13)
I think one of the things that we, as the committee continues to work, is reimagining assessment and moving beyond just kind of like traditional assignments. Obviously, some disciplines are just going to be very much, hey, this works best for our main assessment. But I do think, and I can only speak for my division, is that there's alternative ways to kind of do final assessments.

And so that's going to take some kind of imagination and some innovation and obviously labor to kind of do that. But this might be one of the ways in which that we make that recommendation is that some faculty think about portfolios, think about different ways to kind of imagine that sort of final assessment.

[Speaker 2] (43:18 - 46:24)
And then if I could add something to the whole testing situation. So that's obviously like something else that we receive in our integrity reports is, you know, students being flagged for cheating on online tests. Right.

I think right now it's mainly using AI for assignments. Then secondary, it's testing issues and mainly with the ones that are doing it online. Right.

And so what I will say about that is sometimes it is hard to prove exactly what they're doing. Right. If they're using a second screen or a phone or someone hiding in the corner of the room or whatever it may be.

Right. It is sometimes hard to prove that. But what I will say, though, is a student can I think this is acceptable and like expected that if they don't follow the procedures that you set forth for your examination, you can also just give them a zero or a grade reflective of them not following instructions.

It's similar to like math. Right. You don't show your work in math.

You don't get credit for the question or problem. Right. So for an exam, if a student is not doing the proper room scan, not showing you their worksheet, not showing you things that they need to show you before they start the exam, then you could just give them a bad grade for that as well.

It doesn't necessarily have to be cheating. You can flag it for cheating because, I mean, if you have that feeling, then do it. Right.

But it could also just be that they didn't follow instructions. Right. Because I think that's what I'm seeing a lot of right now.

It's it's really hard to prove what they were doing on that second screen. But if you say clearly no calculators and in the room scan, they have a calculator, they violated a requirement. Right.

What I will also say, though, is that some of the students that I've spoken to with those issues right now have reported that they've done the room scans like they've done it in other classes. Like they followed the procedure that they've done it in every other class, but they are only now getting flagged. So the quality of review from instructor instructor is inconsistent.

Right. And I know a lot of instructors in the room, you know, you guys are obviously here because you care about, you know, your voice being heard and things like that. But, you know, the difference between an adjunct and a full time faculty and different full time faculty.

Right. There is a difference in terms of how they review their own content. So that's something that has to be improved.

I think across the board is like if we are reviewing or requiring students to do a room scan, are we actually watching the room scans? Right. Because I think in some cases, students are I saw his room scan, the one that I'm thinking about right now.

And he did a very poor room scan. Right. But if he's taken other classes and he's done exactly that and never been flagged.

And after a year and a half, the expectations are he said in his mind that he's OK to do that. Right. And so then now being flagged can be seen as, you know, an inconvenience or something that he doesn't understand.

So, you know, that's where like if we are requiring him like a second camera, like it has to be consistent in terms of how other faculty also do it. Right. And I think I don't know if this is true, but online classes like who's the main person or main group of faculty full time or.

Right. So like I guess it depends on subject area. Right.

Like depending on what, you know, staff capacity or faculty capacity looks like. But that's one of the concerns students are bringing to me, because obviously half of my job is the advocacy for the student as well. Right.

And I think these are valid concerns as well, that if I'm doing it in one way, then why am I being flagged in another class? Right. And a lot of it is tied back to like constraints of technology.

So requiring that second camera is a hardship. But at the same time, if you let them know ahead of time. Yes.

But I just wanted to bring that up.

[Speaker 12] (46:24 - 46:50)
I mean, I do hear what you're saying and I think we should be consistent, but I wouldn't tell a police officer who pulls me over. Like I speak through the school zone every day and you're just not catching me like I shouldn't get a ticket. You know what I'm saying?

I mean, so if the rule is set forth in another class, I still think we need to put some responsibility on the student.

[Speaker 2] (46:51 - 48:20)
And no, and generally, yes. Right. But that's where if like then why are we requiring them to do the room scan if we're not checking the room scan?

Right. I think. In some cases, some faculty are very responsive with like I'm looking at every minute of this video to make sure or they have like a flag.

Right. Because I think in another case, there was like an Apple handoff notification that was coming off multiple times during the exam that led them to then watch the full video. And I think that's a reasonable expectation from faculty.

But at the same time. Right. Like, I think for him, it was just that the way that he was interacting with the course wasn't clear to him.

Right. Because was there an explanation to him of like exactly what they needed to do for the room scanner? Was it like this description?

Right. And so, like, yes, the responsibility ultimately falls on them. And in this case, he still got a penalty for it.

Right. Like so it wasn't like he kind of got let go free or whatever. Right.

But there needs to be some consistency, I think, for them between class to class, because the other piece, too, is the confusion with like the A.I. policy in general. Right. Like the different policies and course to course.

And then even within those. Right. Like if you have a policy of no A.I. or some A.I. between instructors, it is then different between that as well. Right. So like that causes a level of confusion for students that like that, those inconsistencies are what leads to some of these issues where like they're not trying to cheat. They're just not informed.

Right. They don't know what they know until they're told. And so obviously you can't control it 100 percent.

But can we minimize that? I think is more what I'm trying to get at.

[Speaker 1] (48:21 - 49:59)
I think what you're saying and I'll give it to Jessica and Hunter is indicative of just the misunderstanding and like the failed understanding of just what A.I. is. And that's where students are like, well, this is not like again, the Google is the very easiest example. And they're like, this is not A.I. I mean, like it extremely is A.I. And so I do think there needs to be some ways to kind of like inform students and inform faculty. The other thing and I'm just going to end now anecdotal evidence. Everybody has it. Everybody knows exactly what's going on in their courses and how A.I. is used and misused in their courses. And rather than just kind of say, well, I have this evidence and it's anecdotal and then place it on a hierarchy of who's believed over others. And this anecdotal evidence is more substantiated than others. That's why we're recommending a longitudinal study of exactly A.I.'s usage on campus. So that way we can actually ask these kind of questions, hey, to students, to faculty, to staff, to admin, to get a broad picture of A.I. Because it's not just like anecdotal evidence that's going to like, hey, this is this substantiates my claims and been like this survey gives us data that we can then determine, like this is how widespread it is. This is how students are using it. This is how faculty are using it.

This is also how admin are using it. Right. Like and so that gives us a better understanding to then think about the policies in place to think about how divisions will go, because, again, we all have anecdotal evidence.

And I want to kind of marshal that evidence into something that is a lot more concrete so we can actually make something that is a recommendation and a policy in place that moves us forward.

[Speaker 5] (50:02 - 52:52)
OK, this is a really, I think, difficult time in higher education. So I want to commend the committee and thank them for doing all this work. I'm also really glad that you guys brought up Grammarly as well as Copilot as an EDUC instructor with first time in college students.

There is a big we are literally on our landing pages of when a student goes on to one login when a student goes into Microsoft 365. These are on our landing pages and there's not like clear instruction from the institution on how to use them. And so our students are really struggling.

I don't want to say that they agree with the police reference. I use it all the time in my class. You got to know the rules, you know, but I know that we don't always have time for that.

And so I do think it's partially a faculty responsibility and institution responsibility that if we're literally giving them the highest grade quality of these tools, because Grammarly they we give them the best form of Grammarly. And then you have some instructors that are, you know, flagging usage for grammar and spelling detection when they could also just use that in Word. So it's it becomes I have, you know, conversations with my class regarding tone, word switch, switches, you know, sentence structure changes.

You're going into dangerous territory with that. Right. So I kind of ask my students to think more about what is the help you're getting through the Word document that's provided for you, because that's also a form of AI.

Right. But it's it's so. So it becomes very confusing to our students when we are giving them the tools, but we're not, you know, and I know that's where we're working towards.

But I think for the next couple of years, it's going to be a lot of students not understanding why they're getting flagged for things. And also faculty having a hard time, like, should I be allowing students to use Grammarly or not? The institution says yes, but I how do I say no?

And, yeah, I think also to keep in mind is that I know some faculty have a very strict personal policy in their own lives. Right. And so how does that bleed into what we do for work?

You know, and I have a very anti-AI policy in my life as much as I can, and I work hard to not project that into my students. But I also really want them to understand it's hard when you have three different policies. Right.

And you're looking at three different ways. And then some want us to use Grammarly and some don't. I was flagged for plagiarism in this class, but not this class.

It's really a difficult time. So I appreciate the longevity study. I think that will be really, really helpful.

But also, what are we saying as an institution when we put these tools out and how are we training from the very beginning?

[Speaker 11] (52:57 - 53:28)
Yeah, I can be really short. I just wanted to end on saying that AI literacy does become everyone's responsibility with our students, no matter what genre we're teaching, no matter what the assignment is. And like teaching students that just as Jose is talking about, like not only is it our responsibility to check for AI in our classrooms, but it's also our students responsibility to be able to defend that they didn't use AI on something and they might just be a really strong writer.

Right. That's a possibility. And so I think this is a brilliant conversation and I look forward to moving forward these conversations.

Yeah.

[Speaker 3] (53:28 - 53:53)
So we'll put the PowerPoint that Javier provided in the meeting link from today so that you guys have access to this article because those are hot links. Right. OK, so you'll have those new business.

OK, no president slash Dr. Norris, because she's the closest thing to in the room. Anything we need to know?

[Speaker 7] (53:53 - 54:35)
Yeah, just a couple of things. As the committee is working on AI, I would recommend that you guys touch base with Kaylee Villanueva because there are tools that she specifically asked students to use when they have disability accommodations. And so I want us to be careful not to write something that then is exclusive of that population of students.

So just a side note. The only other thing I have is Curtis White is going to temporarily oversee distance education for this semester in the spring. We'll start the new procedure of filling those positions by application and that process.

But he's going to be the one picking it up for the rest of the semester.

[Speaker 3] (54:37 - 54:40)
She should have also told you there's faculty PD next Friday.

[Speaker 7] (54:41 - 55:35)
Yes, there's faculty PD next Friday. For some of you, it's going to be a busy day. English and math are getting pulled into achieving the dream to discuss co-reqs.

We have another group that's on campus to just to talk with technical faculty about a project. And so lots of people split in lots of different directions. Also, that just occurred to me.

What was it? I don't know. Oh, Mount Bellevue.

I have asked Priscilla to come to the next faculty assembly meeting to talk to you guys about the Mount Bellevue update. You know, we heard lots of stuff at the beginning about Mount Bellevue campus coming and then it kind of got quiet. And now we're like, oh, my gosh, nobody's planning.

And with campus opens in less than a year. And so I asked her to come next time to provide an update on where we are, how you can start planning in your departments and those kind of things.

[Speaker 3] (55:36 - 56:39)
Yeah, we'll likely add some time to that meeting also because Scott Bennett is going to present the employee satisfaction survey. So that was presented at a board meeting about two months ago, I think. And so I've asked him to come to the assembly to speak on that.

And then I'm not sure how many of you have looked at the upcoming board meeting agenda. But Dr. Walter's retirement has been announced for March of 2027. So hold that in your brain for later thoughts.

Did you have a question or comment? The CFO and the foundation thing person are on also are on this board meeting agenda for approval. So there's that's the new hire.

Two of the new hires for this board meeting tomorrow. So they should be hired tomorrow. OK, let's see any other announcements.

Anybody have anything amazing to tell us about. All right. With none, we will adjourn at 412.