a.	Discussion of what the use of a mapping tool would look like. Running in a preliminary scale for use in an area that needs input and space for questions. 
b.	Interest in this and appreciation for a thoughtful approach. 
c.	Faculty senate will be hearing more about this for faculty perspectives, input and questions. 
d.	The questions we discussed include what the methodology is and the details of the weighting. Process would take testing through the SLOA Committee. 
e.	Additional questions were how it reviews a variety of content areas (e.g., for psych course, psych faculty know courses and can review them for what works as opposed to looking at a variety of disciplinary areas). 
f.	How does a mapping tool connect with the planning process as it is outlined? This mapping tool seems aligned with the accreditation process. 
g.	Additional questions: how AI is using the rubric and the financial services example is looking at variability as opposed to previous concerns in note e. Drilling down to course SLOs and what assessments to review. How results are displayed and clear. Tak can come and present the mapping tool when it’s more developed and ready for testing.
h.	How to ensure anti racism, liberation, and equity maintain focus through development of mapping tool. It was mentioned considerations for this are more in the curriculum area – how bias played a role in the course SLOs and PSLOs were developed. However, it was suggested that we would need to carefully review the findings of this work.
i.	Idea of tasking individuals to conduct tests the same process simultaneously to ensure we do not bias the process. Identify the places we can maintain equity at the center of our work.