General Meeting Information

Date: April 27, 2026
Time: 11:00am to 12:00pm
Location: MLC 243

This meeting will be held HyFlex, meaning anyone can participate in-person or online.  To join remotely, see the Zoom information at the bottom of this page

  • Agenda

    Time Topic Purpose Discussion Leader

    11:00-11:05

    Welcome! Approval of Agenda and 4/13 minutes

    I/D/A

    Capurso

    11:05-11:10

    Public Comment

    I

    All

    11:10-11:15

    Quick Notes:

    I/D

    Capurso

    11:15-11:20

    Turnitin Renewal

    I/D

    Nocito

    11:20-11:30

    AI Surveys Update

    Tools Results

    I/D

    Capurso & Nocito

    11:30-11:55

    Proctoring Software

    Proctoring Software Survey (Action Item)

    I/D/A

    Capurso & Nocito

    11:55-12:00

    Good of the Order

    I

    All

    12:00

    Adjournment

    A = Action
    D = Discussion
    I = Information

  • Minutes [DRAFT]

    Welcome!

    Welcome! Approval of Agenda and 4/13 minutes 

    • Ivan approves, Lianna seconds 

    Public Comment

    • None

    Quick Notes

    • Curriculum Update
      • It’s Elumen season
      • In the last week alone, James has gone through 70 different workflows
      • The form has been really helpful, thank you for your previous feedback on that
    • Workshops
      • James has a workshop this Thursday about making videos fun and accessible
      • Cheryl and Shawn have some accessibility workshops coming up
      • Point any inquirers to Sal’s emails; we’re using Sal as the main promoter as attendance seems better when emailed out by Sal
    • Senate Elections
      • There are several openings, so please vote
    • Accessibility Extension
      • The deadline that we have to have all our changes in has been extended by a year
      • We need to keep doing the work on this, the deadline does not mean pause!
      • At the district level, we are trying to adopt the ACMM
      • There are a lot of cool workshops in the agenda

    Turnitin Renewal

    • The college has a subscription which has been renewed year after year, and for the first time this year we’ve been questioned about whether or not we should renew
    • It is quite expensive (comes out of AVPI budget), but about 400 faculty use it
    • The renewal deadline is coming up pretty close, so Gaby proposes to renew for this year and go on a deeper dive into it in the future; Amy agrees that this is a lot of users and should be renewed; James points out that it is quite widely used and the English department in particular really values Turnitin
    • Would be great if we could get some more stats on this before voting at one of the upcoming meetings
    • Turnitin does have an AI detection module, but we are likely not considering adding that on for this year
    • Tracy points out that students are very rarely using traditional plagiarism, and more and more we are seeing 100% match to AI; so the AI tool might be more needed
    • There are also free AI detection tools available
    • Amy thinks it’s not worth the price

    AI Surveys Update

    • Lisa is still gathering the data from the survey we ran Winter Quarter and will hopefully get it to us by next meeting
    • Chesa is happy to be here!
      • Will be meeting with Mary tomorrow
      • Notes that there is a lot of survey fatigue this year
      • Is excited to continue collaborating with COOL, especially with the impact of AI on SLOs
      • This is a great place to collaborate before bringing things to Senate
      • Foothill also ran a survey for the whole campus community, and the data from that will be shared in May; they got some great info regarding the agency people feel around AI
      • The main goal is to get more resources for all the folks doing this work; just one AI fellow is not sustainable
      • Gaby wonders if we should continue with informal work or wait for a more formal taskforce
      • Chesa has been working with Foothill and they have more resources in this area
      • The student survey was originally a Mallory project, and when Lisa got involved, she decided to make it a full survey

    Proctoring Software 

      • We need to get this approved and through today
      • James presented at Academic Senate last Monday
      • The state senate said that the old resolution has expired, so the need for this going forward is a top priority
      • James tried to align the survey with policies at other colleges, state and federal laws, and data we’ve already collected
      • The goal is to understand the vibe of the campus because there is way more nuance than just “do we want it or not”
      • If the college decides not to move forward with it, this can be a good place to point to for the concerns
      • Lianna wonders if it might be helpful to break down some of the different types of proctoring software, particularly in questions 4 and 9; Amy thinks this is a good idea
        • Maybe for question 4, it could be something like, “click all forms of proctoring software you are familiar with”
        • Question 9 could essentially be a grid of all the options listed in question 4; this would give us a more nuanced view as it is pretty broad as it is
        • Gaby suggests that a way to group them could be Secure Exam Browser vs full proctoring
        • This will help to guide the discussion in the Senate as well
        • Jacob suggests that some of this info can also go at the top in the description of the form; James thinks we could also include a description and maybe a link to the Senate presentation in the body of the email
      • Ivan points out that there can be significant data and privacy concerns
      • Jacob asks if this is going out to students; James thinks that in the timeframe, it will likely not be possible to go out to all students, but definitely wants it to go to DASG senators
        • We could add a question like, “How comfortable are you taking an exam with any form of proctoring software” to get more of the student perspective
        • Gaby suggests this might be for a different survey; “How likely are you to enroll in a course that uses proctoring software?”
        • Maybe we could do a short survey for DASG that is more student focused; this would be helpful for Senate as well
      • With updating question 4 and 9, and emailing the updates to COOL once those updates are made, do we have a motion to move this forward? Ivan motions, no objections

    Good of the Order

    • None

    Meeting adjourns at 12:03

Documents and Links

Member   Remote Location   In District?  
Lianna Wong SC 1230, 21250 Stevens Creek Blvd, Cupertino, CA 95014 Yes
Ivan Kojnok 
Attended Remotely
 Yes
Tracy DeHaan 20560 Town Center Lane, Cupertino, CA 95014 Yes

Back to Top