CoP Planning

SHARED DOC

• CoP Proposals

• Recruitment Announcements - Upload your completed announcement by Friday, 12/20/2024

COP Planning Draft - Example

1. Goal. Once the CoP is over, what will have changed? Why is this important and how does this align with system, college, division, and/or department goals? 

   • example: The goal of the CoP is to advance faculty and student AI literacy. This goal will be helpful for students because there is very little concerted effort on campus to have focused, hopeful conversations about how to best support learning in the AI era. The CoP aligns with the Chancellor's Vision 2030 and our college's mission to innovate and be student-centered.

2. Interest Holders. To make this change, who will you need to engage? That is, who will participate in your CoP?

   • example:Teaching faculty (full-time or part-time)

3. Artifact(s). What will the end product be (this could be completed by each participant or a co-created group product).

   • example: Each participant will:

     1. Document their learning through a reflection diary. 

     2. Submit a redesigned assessment that integrates the use of Gen AI as a learning tool and applies the AI Assessment Scale.

4. Incentive. What options are available to incentive this work?

   • example: Flex credit 

I am Biology Faculty.  I have taught many different Biology classes, but teach mostly anatomy & physiology classes now.  I have been distance education co-coordinator at Laney for two years now.  This is my first year as DE coordinator at the district level.  I am also curriculum co-chair for the first time this year as well.  I was trained as a marine biologist and spend the first few years of my career working on Caribbean coral reefs.  I am very happy to be in the Bay Area which is where I am from.  I don't mind sharks, but the fire coral is very, very painful. 

How is/has your college responded to Gen AI? 

Screaming, yelling, and general 'the sky is falling' sentiments.  However, after a few presentations from AI experts the campus and district has settled into a leery acceptance.  There are some faculty that are playing around with it, some that are trying to ignore it, and still others that are forbidding it's use.  Administrators have been mostly quiet. 

COP Planning Draft

1. Goal. Once the CoP is over, what will have changed? Why is this important and how does this align with system, college, division, and/or department goals? 

   • Build collaboration between faculty, staff, administrators and students over AI use, specifically college/district policies.  

   • Build a community of interested participants to continue to discuss, review, explore, and analyze AI tools.

2. Interest Holders. To make this change, who will participate in your CoP?

   • Faculty, staff, administrators, and students.

3. Artifact. What will the end product be (this could be completed by each participant or a co-created group product).

   • Create a clearing house of information on AI.

   • Policies around AI use and access. 

4. Incentive. What options are available to incentive this work?

I am a full-time Math faculty and Distance Education and Technology Committee faculty co-chair at AVC.

Early Spring 2024 semester, the AVC's Academic Senate called for the formation of the AI Faculty Workgroup. The group consists of 6-8 faculty (depending on faculty availability per semester) and a Director of Online Education and Instructional Support.  The group developed the AI Usage Recommendations and modified the Academic Honesty Policy to reflect the AI topic. Unfortunately, even though the additions to the policy were approved last Srping, adding those changes to the college catalog is another story and is taking longer than we expected. 

In the meantime, the AI Faculty workgroup is offering multiple professional development events for faculty/staff and students on the topic of AI. 

COP Planning Draft

1. Goal. Once the CoP is over, what will have changed? Why is this important and how does this align with system, college, division, and/or department goals? 

   • The AI for Math FLC Community of Practice will focus on the Math department (which I am a part of) with the goal to develop clear understanding of how Gen AI can be applied to math assignments. 

   • Another objective of this CoP is to develop a syllabus statement for AI use in the Math and Statistics classes that will be shared with the department. 

2. Interest Holders. To make this change, who will participate in your CoP?

   • Several Math faculty expressed their interest in joining the AI for Math FLC (Faculty Learning Community). 

3. Artifact. What will the end product be (this could be completed by each participant or a co-created group product).

   • First, the group will develop several AI Usage policies for Math and Statistics classes so that other faculty in the department could adopt any of the policy that correspond to their teaching philosophy. 

   • Second, the group will produce several examples of assignments that are AI resistant or, in reverse, AI adoptable and can be used by other Math faculty.

4. Incentive. What options are available to incentive this work?

   • Currently, the only incentive available for this kind of work at my college is Professional Development hours. After completion of the FLC work during the semester, participating faculty may claim up to 10 hours of Standard 1 FPD hours.

I am a full time English faculty member reassigned as the Distance Education Coordinator at Cuyamaca College. I serve in many spaces where AI is discussed, and I am often turned to to offer guidance and support for faculty and the college at-large.

How is/has your college responded to Gen AI? Please provide examples if possible.

In short, we really haven't. At the moment, faculty range from extreme fear of the technology to a complete adoption and promotion of gen AI with their students. Some faculty use AI to generate curriculum and assignments, while other have extreme ethical concerns, such as equity implications related to the cost of the "pro" versions, energy consumption of the technology, bias in the algorithms, etc. 

We do have a professional development space called "Teaching Dialogues" where faculty are discussing gen AI. However, there were only 2 one-hour sessions slated for this semester, and the first one was more lecture-based, so there wasn't a lot of time for discussion. While it is marked as a CoP, I don't think it's a true CoP in the sense that it isn't participant-driven and topics are preset. Faculty desire to have an AI institutional policy.

COP Planning Draft

1. Goal. Once the CoP is over, what will have changed? Why is this important and how does this align with system, college, division, and/or department goals? 

   • Ideally, the CoP participants will have a draft of an institutional policy, both for the ethical use of AI for students and for employees. 

   • Cuyamaca has moved to an equity-minded academic integrity policy, so it is critical that the AI policy aligns with the spirit of that work. 

2. Interest holders. To make this change, who will participate in your CoP?

   • Faculty and staff will participate, and administrators will ideally buy in and support the effort--hopefully with funding!

3. Artifact. What will the end product be (this could be completed by each participant or a co-created group product).

   • We will co-create an institutional AI policy

   • Participants will create individual syllabus/department policies to be shared with students. These individual policies will align with the institutional policy and serve to further delineate what ethical use of AI looks like in their roles.

4. Incentive. What options are available to incentive this work?

   • Flex credit for sure but hopefully funding for participation and deliverables

I am a Design & Digital Media professor, in my 20th year full time. I teach graphic design for print and screen, UI design, digital imaging and illustration, and portfolio courses. During the past spring semester I served as co-chair of our AI Task Force, overseen by the academic senate. Over the last year I have lead two professional development sessions on AI in Education, and facilitated an AI in Design Careers industry advisory meeting with regional creative professionals and educators. 

In April of 2024, the AI Task Force I co-chaired produced a 12-page "AI at Sacramento City College" report. It explored "the applications, benefits, risks, and ethical implications of integrating artificial intelligence at Sacramento City College." The report attempted to assess the advantages, challenges, and ethical considerations associated with AI technologies in teaching, research, student services, and administrative functions. We provided an overview of the current state of AI implementation at SCC; an analysis of the benefits, risks, and ethical considerations; recommendations for best practices; suggestions for faculty professional development; and proposed strategies for addressing academic integrity. The report was delivered to the academic senate for review, and I also presented it to the President's College Council for discussion. Ultimately, I can't say what tangible impact it had, other than getting the conversation started in earnest. 

Other than that, the college, and for the most part, the Los Rios district, has been slow to respond to faculty concerns about AI. There has been zero leadership from the district. In my opinion, they have left it to the colleges and individual faculty to figure it out on our own. However, thanks to work of our wonderful ID and DE coordinators, in the coming spring semester I will likely be serving on special contract as AI Professional Development Coordinator (0.2 FTE), the first official paid AI-focused role at SCC. There is also strong campus support for a 0.8 or full-time AI position in the '25-'26 academic year. 

COP Planning Draft

1. Goal. Once the CoP is over, what will have changed? Why is this important and how does this align with system, college, division, and/or department goals?
   
   

INDIS 313 Freshman Seminar is an interdisciplinary first-year course essentially for most incoming freshman / first time students. This course is designed to help new students develop essential life, academic, and professional skills needed for success both in college and beyond. Students explore their educational and career goals while learning about specific academic disciplines, campus resources, problem-solving strategies, and how their daily choices impact their success. Because nearly every new student takes this course in their first year, it is a perfect opportunity to introduce students to AI literacy and ethics at the start of their college experience.

While there is a core curriculum and student learning outcomes, individual instructors, who come from all academic areas, have wide latitude in how they present topics and meet outcomes. Currently, some instructors are incorporating ad hoc AI topics and assignments, but it’s likely that most are not.

I propose to lead an AI CoP to develop a new set of modules introducing GenAI / AI into the INDIS 313 course so that all incoming students receive a relatively similar introduction to the topic.

This CoP will endeavor to meet college Mission, Vision and Values, including:

1. • • make high-quality education and technology accessible to all;

     • authentically engage and value the student voice;

     • leverage innovation to create possibilities for our community;

     • connecting with others to create change; and

     • contribute to an equitable community.

This CoP will align with and meet several Los Rios district goals:

1. • • meeting our mission to "provide a vibrant learning environment that empowers all students to achieve their educational and career goals."

     • aligning with our Strategic Plan that "focuses on increasing student access and success through enhanced teaching and learning opportunities and expanding the district’s role in workforce development."

     • meeting our student success goal of "providing educational opportunities that serve the needs of the greater Sacramento region’s diverse population."

     • meeting our employee professionalism goal to "encourage, promote, and support the continuous professional development of all employees, acknowledging their unique contributions to creating a collegial workplace that is diverse in composition and thought."

     • our goal to provide academic rigor -- "Los Rios' educational standards emphasize critical thinking and writing, analysis and excellence in educational experiences, stimulating faculty members to challenge themselves and their students in an atmosphere that inspires thoughtful teaching and learning."

     • and our Innovation goal of Fostering Innovation and Responsible Risk-Taking: "Los Rios supports and invests in change that increases the effectiveness of our programs, the productivity of our work, and the successful outcomes of our students."

2. Interest Holders. To make this change, who will participate in your CoP?

Faculty who have taught or currently do teach the INDIS 313 Freshman Seminar class; AI-focused faculty, program coordinators, and possibly some students who have completed the INDIS 313 course.

I will to work with the Director of First Year Experience, and the Freshman Seminar faculty Coordinator, who is already on-board with this idea, to strategize implementation. 

3. Artifact. What will the end product be (this could be completed by each participant or a co-created group product).
   
   

A series of 1-3 Canvas modules inside the INDIS 313 model shell addressing AI Literacy, AI Ethics, and AI Tools. 

A revised and approved official course of record that includes GenAI and AI topics and SLOs.

4. Incentive. What options are available to incentive this work?
   
   

Flex credit, possibly a grant-funded or campus-funded stipend

Hello! I've taught English at Chaffey College for 19 years, Work Experience for one year, and served as a DE Coordinator for six years. I live in the Inland Empire region of Southern CA (for 211 more days) and have two boys, 17 and 20. My background is in English literature and creative writing. As DE Coordinator, I've developed and implemented much of the professional development for faculty college-wide. I believe Gen AI will disrupt higher education completely and I've been a little disappointed and concerned about the lack of urgency from colleagues and the institution as a whole, but I think we're making some progress. I believe we have an obligation as faculty to understand and help students understand and develop AI digital literacy skills that will serve them in both education and career, but I also believe staff and administrators need support and professional development to understand and leverage these tools effectively. At my college, the focus is on professional development for faculty, so I will continue to advocate for changing that. In the meantime, DE offers many workshops, resources, and trainings related to AI and I'm hoping momentum will build. 

COP Planning Draft

1. Goal. Once the CoP is over, what will have changed? Why is this important and how does this align with system, college, division, and/or department goals? 

   • I hope that by the end of this, faculty will know how to speak with their students about AI, develop a syllabus statement, develop one or more AI literacy assignments, and understand how AI will impact their field and be able to communicate this to students and help preparet them for it. 

2. Interest Holders. To make this change, who will participate in your CoP?

   • At this time, I would only be able to get faculty buy-in, but I hope that Institutional buy-in will happen at some point. In the meantime, I will shoot for broad disciplinary representation.

3. Artifact. What will the end product be (this could be completed by each participant or a co-created group product).

   •   I will make it a required outcome that faculty share one of the AI digital literacy assignments or resources they create in the Commons. 

4. Incentive. What options are available to incentive this work?

   • Flex credit and possibly grant funds

I'm a former ESL faculty/teacher trainer/writer/instructional designer turned Director of Distance Learning and Instructional Technology at Mt. SAC. Supporting faculty and innovation in teaching and learning are my professional passions. 

My first teaching assignment was at a technical university in Košice, Czechoslovakia. I was just out of college, the Berlin Wall had fallen, and, because it was a system of production schedules versus supply and demand, I didn't even have a white board pen to teach with let alone access to a computer or copy machine. Like most of us in this CoP, even though I work in ed tech, I tend to view instructional technology from the perspective of what essential skills and approaches are critical for teaching and how can tech be additive -- not a substitute for solid pedagogical foundations. Anyone should be able to teach even without access to a whiteboard marker.

Our campus has been AI-adverse. The only committee group that has convened about AI has been to choose a detector and update our Academic Integrity policy. My unit was told not to do workshops on AI by our Academic Senate. (We were able to, because we are an operational unit and it is within our scope.) Our IT Department has been extremely slow to discuss what we need on an enterprise level but is finally working on a strategic plan with a consultant and other units on campus. Our library has developed an AI workshop for students. 

My unit's surveys show that GenAI is the top concern for faculty right now. We went from a handful of participants in our AI trainings to 30+ per session this past year. We have 4 synchronous workshops focusing on equity, assessments, productivity and AI detection (framed within ethical considerations) that we offer regularly and a self-paced workshop. 

One of the CCC Board of Governors Trustees works at our college. He is the driving force behind the AI work system-wide. He and I have been connecting informally about ways in which we can start leveraging AI for all stakeholders -- not just faculty. We have a group of faculty and a few classified staff who have completed the PlayLab PLC who have asked for leadership in terms of connecting with one another. My unit is the current hub for GenAI information, training and support.

COP Planning Draft

1. Goal. Once the CoP is over, what will have changed? Why is this important and how does this align with system, college, division, and/or department goals? 

   • The college goal that this CoP would support is: Priority 4: Effectively coordinate human, physical, technology, and financial resources to improve student accessibility, growth, and academic success.  (My italics)

   • The CoP would be centered around the HUMANS Framework and how we can approach GenAI from a humanistic perspective. The goal is simple – to be able to have regular and open discussions about GenAI in key campus shared governance groups with an eye to incorporating GenAI into our overall strategic planning.

2. Interest Holders. To make this change, who will participate in your CoP?

   • Ideally this CoP would include participants from multiple stakeholder groups – faculty, classified, students and managers – to join, including most importantly, members who are adverse to or reticent to adopting GenAI. (Depending on comfort level, among faculty and staff, however, it’s understood that managers may need to have their own CoP.)

3. Artifact. What will the end product be (this could be completed by each participant or a co-created group product).

   •  As a collective, we would work to create a draft vision statement for general GenAI use across campus. Each participant or small group would then prepare a short list of the shared governance groups or unit meetings they belong to where they would be able to discuss this statement with the goal of eventually bringing this to our executive leadership. A large part of this work would be to start the process of strategic planning from a grass-roots level.

4. Incentive. What options are available to incentive this work?

   • Unfortunately, we have limited financial incentives on our campus. This work would need to be driven first by intrinsic motivation. There are several potential ways in which this could be supported by my unit, however:

     1. Event where we honor participants as campus innovators.

     2. At the end of the initial CoP work, a subscription to an AI tool. (Duration and platform contingent upon end of year funds available.)

I am the Instructional Technology Coordinator at Chabot College and an Adjunct in the Communication Studies Department. Prior to accepting a full-time position at Chabot, I spent 10 years in the private sector working in technology and those same years as a “freeway flyer” teaching as an adjunct at many of the colleges around the SF Bay Area.

AI at Chabot …

I think we have reactions across the spectrum from Full on Freak Out to Experimentation and Implementation in the Classroom. 

Last year my department brought together a panel for Fall Flex day to discuss AI at Chabot. Faculty, Students and Staff were represented on the panel.  The panel discussed How they were currently using AI, Where they saw AI moving in the future for education and the workforce and How the Chabot community could support the exploration of AI at Chabot. We conducted a survey and created a work group exploring AI use at Chabot. Three sub-groups were formed based upon the interest of folks volunteering: AI, Education, and the Workforce/ AI, Teaching, and Learning/ AI Foundational Knowledge) The sub groups met during the year and produced recommendations.  Although, the groups accomplished their goals (to come up with recommendations)  the ending seem to fizzle.

These groups were generally made up of our “usual suspects.” People who were already over volunteered and spread thin. We did not have funding and were not able to implement most of the group’s suggestions because of lack of funding, so those folks just ended up being pulled away into other projects. A couple of our interested Faculty have continued to work independently on AI, experimenting in their own classrooms with Assignments and software, sharing out to their disciplines. Sadly, the other end of that spectrum is faculty who are calling for more AI Detection software in Canvas and stricter Exam Proctoring online/on-campus. This request has gotten louder over the last six months as we also struggle with fraudulent enrollments.

Our Faculty Senate followed the progress from last year and with input from various faculty members has determined that they do not wish to have a specific District Wide Policy, but a policy that comes from faculty, is more flexible and allows Academic Freedom within disciplines.  The Faculty Senate has asked that the District look at purchasing AI Detectors.

COP Planning Draft

1. Goal. Once the CoP is over, what will have changed? Why is this important and how does this align with system, college, division, and/or department goals? 

   • My hope is that a culture shift around AI will take place.  One that allows our community to see AI as a tool with limitless possibilities; versus the current, predominant opinion of AI, as a tool just for cheating. 

2. Interest Holders. To make this change, who will participate in your CoP?

   • Faculty, Students and Staff

3. Artifact. What will the end product be (this could be completed by each participant or a co-created group product).

   •  Short Term: create a collaborative space (in person and online) where Faculty, Students and Staff can explore, learn, and share knowledge about AI, its applications, and ethical implications

   • Long Term: 

4. Incentive. What options are available to incentive this work?

   • currently only PD Flex credit

Tell us about yourself.

How is/has your college responded to Gen AI? Please provide examples if possible.

COP Planning Draft

1. Goal. Once the CoP is over, what will have changed? Why is this important and how does this align with system, college, division, and/or department goals? 

   • 
     

2. Interest Holders. To make this change, who will participate in your CoP?

   • 
     

3. Artifact. What will the end product be (this could be completed by each participant or a co-created group product).

   •  

4. Incentive. What options are available to incentive this work?

   • 
     

I'm faculty coordinator of online education, a full-time non-classroom faculty position dedicated to that role. I am heavily involved in shared governance activities to advance support for quality online teaching and learning across the college. I'm currently additionally serving as the Coordinating Officer of our Academic Senate and our ZTC Pathway Grant coordinator. I report directly to our VPI, and our online education department also includes two instructional designers and an instructional technologist/Canvas admin. Our college is very collegial and department-centered, so my role is more often facilitative than front-and-center direction in terms of providing PD, guidance, support, etc. to colleagues. I get to serve students directly through the Student Online Academic Readiness (SOAR) workshops that I facilitate. Personally, I love soccer, gardening with native plants, live music, and DIY everything.

MiraCosta has the first AI AA degree in the state, and the faculty member responsible for that teams with our college's Center for Teaching and Learning coordinator to run a weekly "AI Discovery Lab" that's HyFlex and open to everyone in the college community - faculty, staff, admin, students. We've had faculty-led workshops and discussions on ethics, concerns, tools, etc since spring 2023. We had a senate task force discussing how AI intersects with our college values last spring. Currently the task force (which I'm leading) is working on planning a full-day AI event for this January, hopefully with many faculty-led discussions and workshops. The largest concern at the moment is academic integrity, or more generally, the use of AI to short-circuit actual learning. Even folks who are outstanding, humanizing, creative, open, tech-embracing online instructors are feeling dismayed at the widespread use of AI. We have no institutional online proctoring tools (we do have a local proctoring center), but there was significant pushback about disabling the Turnitin AI detection feature. However, faculty advocating for keeping that also made it very clear that their use of that tool is not punitive and not decisive - it's just one element that informs their interactions with students around their work.

COP Planning Draft

1. Goal. Once the CoP is over, what will have changed? Why is this important and how does this align with system, college, division, and/or department goals? 

   • Participating faculty will have determined how to revise at least one assessment in a class they teach in order to address concerns they have about how student use of AI may negatively impact their learning. This fundamentally aligns with the following language from one of MiraCosta College's four institutional goals: " foster academic excellence by strategically developing a culturally competent, adaptive, innovative, and relevant teaching and learning environment; ... and intentional professional development for the college community that is responsive to a changing world. "

2. Interest Holders. To make this change, who will participate in your CoP?

   • Faculty who want to work in cross-disciplinary community to address the challenges they are seeing with assessment-as-usual, due to student use of AI.

3. Artifact. What will the end product be (this could be completed by each participant or a co-created group product).

   •  Faculty will redesign at least one assignment to be more "culturally competent, adaptive, innovative, and relevant" in order to better address the challenges (and, perhaps, opportunities) that generative AI presents.

4. Incentive. What options are available to incentive this work?

   • Flex credit for sure.

I am the Instructional Designer for Distance Education, but I taught English as an associate faculty at colleges throughout California for about 18 years before that. 

There has been no official response to AI at our college so far, but some things are beginning to happen.  After the first genAI tools were released, I put together this resource page on our Distance Education website simply because we began getting questions from faculty.  It needs updating, but it's a start.  I presented on AI and Alternative Assessments at our Fall 23 Professional Development Day.  This semester (fall 24), a genAI Resolution was brought to Academic Senate which resulted in an AI Taskforce that is currently meeting to begin to create a plan for policy and training.  In addition, the English Department's Online Committee is focusing on genAI this year.  So we are at the beginning

COP Planning Draft

I'm not sure if my CoP will actually be a CoP.  I've submitted a proposal for a 3-hour session on genAI for our spring Professional Development Day, which might be a good means to get significant faculty participation and I could run some abbreviated version of my CoP plan that way.  Alternatively, I could design a CoP and then offer it to the Senate Taskforce to be run by whomever they choose and modified as needed.

1. Goal. Once the CoP is over, what will have changed? Why is this important and how does this align with system, college, division, and/or department goals? 

Overall, faculty participants will know how to access resources related to genAI and have built some materials for their courses that respond to genAI.

1. • Learn/Use: Faculty will access resources to help them learn about genAI and be able to compare different genAI tools.

   • Evaluate/Critique: Faculty will be able to identify, discuss, and research various ethical and privacy concerns related to genAI.

   • Syllabus Policy: Faculty will draw on resources to create thoughtful syllabi policies on genAI.

   • Student Support: Faculty will provide students with resources to help them understand genAI and its implications for the course content.

   • Adopt/Respond: Where relevant, faculty will create course content or assignments that respond to (deter the use of?) and/or use genAI effectively and appropriately for their discipline.

From SRJC's mission and vision: "The college envisions equitable, impactful, transformative, enriching, and holistic learning opportunities that inspire our students to thrive."  And, "Teaching and Learning that encompass excellence, freedom, and responsibility in academics that promote civic engagement, a love of learning, and success for all students."  SRJC's mission also states that " We offer exceptional teaching and learning in support of associate degree, certificate, transfer preparation, workforce preparation and community education."

2. Interest Holders. To make this change, who will participate in your CoP?

   • Ideally faculty from a variety of disciplines so that any resulting artifacts are responsive to the needs of different disciplines.  

   • Possibly staff and administrators who want learn about genAI and how it impacts the college?

3. Artifact. What will the end product be (this could be completed by each participant or a co-created group product).

Resulting artifacts could be determined by the group, but here are some suggestions:

3. • Syllabi policies & resources for syllabi policies for their discipline.

   • Shareable assignments and activities

   • A collection of resources for faculty and students on genAI.

4. Incentive. What options are available to incentive this work?

   • PGI & Flex Credit

I'm the DE Coordinator at Folsom Lake College and the current Co-Chair of the District Educational Technology Committee. I also teach in the Communication Studies department to keep my connection to students. While my degrees focused on Communication Studies, I've always been interested in technology and have spent a not-insignificant amount of time researching things related to technological capital.

How is/has your college responded to Gen AI? Please provide examples if possible.

Our college is fortunate enough to be located a short distance from one of Intel's large campuses. This means that we have very motivated faculty in the Computer Science department, so much so that they've created an AI Department at FLC. The current District Academic Senate President (and FLC faculty) organized an AI Summit for our district to begin the much needed deep conversations around how we as a district and college will respond to AI.

In our Fall Flex, myself and some other faculty held a FLEX activity on AI where we presented our best suggestions at the time of how to consider AI. Regardless of one's approach (for/against AI) the one constant was that we cannot bury our heads in the sand. The anti-AI side expressed desires for 100% accurate AI detectors while the pro-AI side expressed desire for custom AI Tutors for their courses. Everyone agreed that regardless of the approach, our current policies may need updating, and that everyone should have some form of syllabus language to address AI.

COP Planning Draft

1. Goal. Once the CoP is over, what will have changed? Why is this important and how does this align with system, college, division, and/or department goals? 

   • Identify what the current iteration of Generative AI is and is not. 

   • Explain to students the benefits and detractors of AI use in their coursework and in the field. 

   • Analyze how technological capital/digital literacy may have equity impacts. 

   • Generate sustained interest in faculty to continue the conversation of AI. 

I'm in process of updating the DE Master Plan here at FLC. The revision was actually delayed to account for some of these recent AI conversations. Faculty demand for "answers" to AI questions are, in-part, informing the new plan. The existing goals of fostering innovation and leveraging technology to create educational opportunities both align here. As far as college values go, FLC aims to develop fluency with technologies that extend educational opportunities.

2. Interest Holders. To make this change, who will participate in your CoP?

   • For true change, there will need to be participation across all groups within FLC and the district. At FLC we've discussed the need for student senate to be involved as any policies FLC makes may very well be part of the student-senate 9+1.

   • In reality, the Spring CoP will focus on faculty (full & part-time) as they are the "front-line" of AI issues.

3. Artifact. What will the end product be (this could be completed by each participant or a co-created group product).

   •  Individual Faculty

     1. Syllabus language for their course that aligns with their approach to AI

     2. An "AI Rationale" page or module in their course that explains their approach to students

   • Group Project

     1. Suggestions for a college level AI Policy to bring to Academic Senate.

4. Incentive. What options are available to incentive this work?

   • FLEX Credit would be available.

   • Exploring other options

     1. Los Rios has a "Foundations" training that may be able to open up stipends or class advancement

     2. Submitting a proposal to DE Dean for additional funding

I'm one of the faculty coordinators for Online Ed.  (There are two of us, which is very helpful for managing the load.)  I've been in this role for almost ten years, and it has grown in ways that I never imagined when I first began.  I also teach in the English department, and my experience teaching online has informed my role as an OE coordinator.

My reactions to AI are complicated and constantly shifting.  I am occasionally amused, curious, confused, annoyed, exasperated, delighted, exhausted, excited, impressed, and depressed--sometimes all on the same day--by AI and its impact on education.  I try to stay positive and informed.  It is certainly an interesting moment.

The reaction of the college has been mixed, which is understandable given the complexity of the situation.  Among faculty, we have some people who are thrilled by AI, and we have some people who are terrified of it.  We have done several rounds of PD, mostly informative sessions, and I think that we are ready to move to a more "active" phase of discovery and implementation.  The reaction of the administration, at the college and district, has been cautious.  We still do not have any formal policies and little in the way of messaging.  However, we just started an AI workgroup at the college, and we will soon have one for the district, too.

COP Planning Draft

1. Goal. Once the CoP is over, what will have changed? Why is this important and how does this align with system, college, division, and/or department goals? 

   • We will have (hopefully) more definitive policies and messaging to go with those policies.  We will also have some concrete PD to support those policies and practices.

2. Interest Holders. To make this change, who will participate in your CoP?

   • Faculty and (hopefully) some administrators.  I know that faculty are eager for this work.  

3. Artifact. What will the end product be (this could be completed by each participant or a co-created group product)?

   • Local policies and best practices (either at the department or division), ideally something that could be widely shared, perhaps along with a Canvas page that faculty could customize or add to their own classes. 

4. Incentive. What options are available to incentivize this work?

   • We usually offer stipends for PD, especially for PT faculty, and I think that we could for this CoP, too.

Tell us about yourself.

I am a chemistry faculty member at Los Angeles Pierce College (Pierce College), where I strive to introduce metacognition skills and critical thinking in STEM through reflection and inclusive teaching practices. In addition to teaching, I serve as the College Outcomes Coordinator, where I lead initiatives to improve institutional assessment and foster continuous growth.

At the state level, I serve as the ASCCC OERI Chemistry Discipline Lead, collaborating with colleagues across California to expand access to high-quality, openly licensed educational resources. My efforts include developing Canvas Shells for Introduction to General Chemistry and General Chemistry 2, complete with OER content, to support faculty adoption throughout the Los Angeles Community College District (LACCD). These resources are designed to reduce barriers for students and enhance teaching effectiveness.

Beyond course materials, I have also developed AI bots to support my chemistry courses and Creative Commons, leveraging technology to enhance both student engagement and resource accessibility. I’m passionate about using innovative tools and methods to create equitable learning environments that empower students from all backgrounds.

Outside of work, I enjoy running and playing basketball, which help me stay energized and focused.  I am always eager to connect with colleagues to share ideas, collaborate on projects, and advance the mission of equity and excellence in education.

How is/has your college responded to Gen AI? Please provide examples if possible.

At Pierce College, our faculty’s perspectives toward generative AI range widely — from those who avoid using AI altogether to those who fully embrace its potential for enhancing teaching and learning. This diversity reflects a spectrum of concerns, including equity (such as access to advanced AI tools), bias in AI algorithms, and the challenges AI poses to maintaining academic integrity and privacy, data security.

In terms of professional development, several workshops have been organized to introduce AI tools to faculty, to improve teaching effectiveness. For example, last year, I also facilitated a community of practice that focused on using AI tools to support faculty in their teaching.  During last year’s opening day, we provided sessions to familiarize faculty with practical AI applications in education, and I led several AI workshops at my college and another community college. Additionally, the LACCD has advertised AI-related webinars for faculty and staff, providing more opportunities for exploration. 

This year, our Senate President has asked each senate committee to provide recommendations about AI that are relevant to their constituents. However, there has been no formal discussion or direction from the administration regarding a cohesive AI strategy or policy, leaving much of the initiative to individual faculty and committees.  

COP Planning Draft

1. Goal. Once the CoP is over, what will have changed? Why is this important and how does this align with system, college, division, and/or department goals? 

Once the CoP concludes, participants will have developed a deeper understanding of generative AI and its implications for teaching and learning. Specifically, participants will:

1. • Create syllabus policies and classroom strategies for the ethical and effective use of AI, addressing concerns such as equity, bias, and academic integrity.

   • Develop and share AI literacy assignments and resources to help students navigate and responsibly use AI tools in academic and professional settings.

   •  Build confidence and capacity in using AI tools to enhance their own teaching effectiveness.

This aligns with the college’s commitment to equity-minded practices and innovative pedagogy, as well as the broader goal of preparing
students for a rapidly evolving technological landscape.

2. Interest Holders. To make this change, who will participate in your CoP?

To achieve these goals, the CoP will involve:

2. • Faculty from various disciplines who are interested in integrating AI tools or addressing its challenges in their teaching.

   • Classified staff who wish to explore how AI can support their roles and improve campus operations.

   • Administrators who can provide insight into institutional priorities and align AI initiatives with college goals.

   • Students, if possible, to provide perspectives on how AI impacts their learning experience.

I anticipate there will be challenges inviting classified staff and administrators to attend professional development activities as they may not receive time release.   

3. Artifact. What will the end product be (this could be completed by each participant or a co-created group product).

Suggested artifacts may include:

• Syllabus policies that clearly articulate expectations for AI use in the classroom, tailored to their disciplines.

• A collection of AI literacy assignments and activities shared via Canvas Commons to support teaching across the college.

• A shared resource hub (e.g., a Canvas shell or Padlet) containing best practices, ethical guidelines, and AI tools for faculty and students.

4. Incentive. What options are available to incentive this work?

   • Flex credit for faculty who join the CoP and contribute artifacts.

   • Potential stipends if funding becomes available.

Tell us about yourself.

I'm the District-Wide Dean of Distance Education and Digital Equity for the Contra Costa Community College District. Prior to this role, I was full time English Faculty and the DE Coordinator for Diablo Valley College, one of the three colleges within my district.

How is/has your college responded to Gen AI? Please provide examples if possible.

There has been a lot of fear and uncertainty about how AI will change higher education. Also a lot of denial and focusing on detection/cheating. We have been working hard at all three colleges to encourage a more open perspective of inquiry and experimentation. I created a district-wide AI Taskforce to help us collaborate and pool resources as we navigate this new landscape. 

COP Planning Draft

1. Goal. Once the CoP is over, what will have changed? Why is this important and how does this align with system, college, division, and/or department goals? 

   • I created a district-wide AI Taskforce where faculty, classified professionals, Senate presidents, and deans have come together to create a plan for rolling out AI support across the three colleges in our district. We have been meeting for a full year to create strategic priorities, a professional development plan, and an AI support hub. 

   • We are looking to roll out professional development (i.e. a kind of CoP) in the spring/fall to provide support and room for inquiry and experimentation with AI tools, giving participants a supportive environment to think through how AI fits into their current role. 

   • Once this is over, my hope is that people will feel less fearful and will have concrete takeaways they can implement into their work. I hope that space for inquiry will help develop digital literacy and help them critically reflect on how/why digital literacy and digital citizenship are vital skills for educators and students.

   • This is important because it encourages our colleges to embrace innovation, flexibility, and adaptability in the face of change. 

2. Interest Holders. To make this change, who will participate in your CoP?

   • We are currently designing professional development pathways for faculty, classified professionals, managers, and students. 

3. Artifact. What will the end product be (this could be completed by each participant or a co-created group product).

   •  For faculty, they will produce a clear AI policy for their syllabus, corresponding statements for all assignments in their course, and a reflection on their experience experimenting with AI and how it can enhance their digital literacy/citizenship skills. 

   • For classified professionals and managers, they will create a map of where/how AI can be useful in their job duties, and also analyze the kinds of information they can/can't put in AI based on our data classification system. They will also produce a reflection on how AI fits within their role and on their experience experimenting with AI and how it can enhance their digital literacy/citizenship skills. 

   • For students, we are creating a short, self-paced AI Literacy course where they will take a series of short, reflective quizzes on what they learn, and then they will submit a final reflection analyzing their digital literacy and digital citizenship experiences in the context of AI, focusing on ethical AI use in education. 

4. Incentive. What options are available to incentive this work?

   • For faculty, we will offer 4 upper division units that can be used for salary advancement. For classified professionals, we are pursuing stipend funding. For managers, we are not sure yet about compensation/incentives. 

Hello Colleagues,

I am a Full-Time faculty member in the Cinema Department at City College of San Francisco. I began as a Part-Time instructor in 2013 before becoming Full-Time 2018. My graduate work is primarily in English (Film Studies), but I have produced feature-length and short documentaries since 2016 that have screened at over 50 international festivals. I also work with collaborators on installations, the latest of which was at the MoMA in New York last year.

Fall 2024 was my first semester serving as Distance Education Coordinator in the Office of Online Learning and Educational Technology. I also have chaired the Academic Senate Committee: Teaching and Learning with Technology Roundtable since 2021. I also have been active designing online courses since 2013. CCSF's Cinema Department created the first (and still maybe only?) completely asynchronous AA in Film Studies in the United States.

Our faculty has yet to embrace AI as something that we must adapt to and live with. Most have viewed it as a "cheating device" that must be stopped. The Teaching and Learning with Technology Roundtable has invited pitches from several vendors including AI detectors and online test proctoring software. My opinion is that none of these tools are worth paying for and will never produce useful results. For example, Turnitin's rep told us that the detector does not work with samples of 300 words!? So our faculty is fearful and skeptical at this point.

On the other side, our classified staff in OLET (and myself) are working to see how we can work with AI. We realize AI will always be part of our lives moving forward. Most faculty fear stems from instructors who are unwilling to change their pedagogical practices because they either are lazy or they lack the skills to do so.

COP Planning Draft

1. Goal. Once the CoP is over, what will have changed? Why is this important and how does this align with system, college, division, and/or department goals? 

   • The goal is to work toward an AI policy for the college in collaboration with the Technology Committee and administration. TLTR passed a resolution for suggestions for AI policies that faculty might  include on syllabi, but an official AI policy for the college is at least a couple of years away. San Francisco does have an official AI policy for city employees, but CCSF needs to develop a policy for faculty, classified staff, and administrators. 

2. Interest Holders. To make this change, who will participate in your CoP?

   • Faculty have expressed interest in taking part in the CoP after I mentioned that we have secured funding for participants. OLET needs to be selective in choosing participants who have a vested interest (and history working with) developing technologies. My hope is to include classified staff (IT, ID, Trainers), and administrators with backgrounds in developing policy on technology. I am presenting at the Teaching and Learning Technology Roundtable on the CoP after our meeting on 12/10. Members will have the opportunity to offer feedback on how they envision the CoP and I will be able to report on 12/10.

3. Artifact. What will the end product be (this could be completed by each participant or a co-created group product).

   •  A college-wide AI policy that address faculty, classified staff, and administration is the primary objective. 

4. Incentive. What options are available to incentive this work?

   • FLEX credit is not enough. We have secured funding. How much remains to be seen, but participants will be paid.

I'm the Distance Education Faculty Coordinator at El Camino (aka ElCo or ECC). It's a full time 12 month faculty position which is unusual for the college (only my role and the Curriculum Coordinator are 12 month positions), and it also means that the only course I regularly teach is our certification course, Learning Online and General Instruction with Canvas (LOGIC). The rest of my position is focused on developing trainings, co-leading POCR, developing policy, and as with the rest of the members of the small Online & Digital Education team, providing technical support.

The primary response to generative AI at ECC has been defensive. The only AI related policy that has been developed thus far has been modifications to AP 5500: Standards of Student Conduct to define how academic misconduct can include use of AI tools. The vast majority of faculty are seeking to harden their course structures (whether online or on campus) in an attempt to keep AI out of instruction. This has not been universal, and it has been mixed with curiosity even among many of the faculty who have initially responded with fear or anxiety. There are individual faculty who are very proactively working to integrate AI into their pedagogical practices across a few different disciplines, and the English department brown bag group has largely focused on AI discussions this term.

COP Planning Draft

1. Goal (developed in conversation with Anthropic's Claude). Once the CoP is over, what will have changed? Why is this important and how does this align with system, college, division, and/or department goals? 

   • To collaboratively develop a framework of evidence-based practices for AI integration that enhances student learning, supports workforce preparation, and maintains academic integrity across diverse disciplines and student populations.

   • To establish a sustainable model for sharing AI integration practices across departments through documentation, peer mentoring, and collaborative professional development, with the aim of building institutional capacity for AI-enhanced instruction. 

In addition to developing this faculty based pedagogically oriented CoP, I also plan on working through the Campus Technology Committee to establish a working group or other purpose built cross functional body to take on the task of developing campus wide policy that addresses AI adoption outside of classroom use.

2. Interest Holders. To make this change, who will participate in your CoP?

   • A relatively small group of select faculty from across academic divisions will participate in the CoP.

   • The group focused on campus wide policy will need to be cross functional/multi0stakeholder including students, faculty, classified staff, and administrators. This group will almost certainly need to involve at least one high level administrator, and will need to include expertise from Information Technology Services (ITS). It will almost certainly need to include campus community members who are not already members of the Campus Technology Committee.

3. Artifact. What will the end product be (this could be completed by each participant or a co-created group product).

   •  Each participant will develop a set of tools to share with their disciplinary colleagues. The work will collectively be assembled into a toolkit (format TBD) that can be accessed by faculty across the campus to effectively integrate AI into their curriculum and pedagogical practices. The toolkit will also serve as a resource for Online and Digital Education (ODE) to develop trainings to offer for faculty over the course of the Spring 2025 term and beyond.

4. Incentive. What options are available to incentive this work?

   • Flex is available for this work for participating faculty for the Community of Practice. At current there is no monetary incentive that can be provided, but this is an avenue that can be explored. I do not anticipate an additional incentive as requirement for the policy group as members doing the heavy lifting will already need to address these questions within their normal roles on campus.