Council for Teaching and Learning

Minutes for October 20, 2000

I. PRELIMINARIES

A. Attending: Belzer (Chair), Das, Dean, Kruger, Nitse, Sato,

McKnight, House, Enos

Excused/Absent: Fisher, Hjelm, Jones, Kunicki, Paulson, Pehrsson, Wabrek

Guest: Rosemarie Fouad, Barbara Bain (sitting in for John Jones)

B. Approval of the CTL minutes for September 29, 2000

MOTION: Moved by Sato as amended with Kunicki as absent from the Sept. 29,

2000 Council meeting. Second by Dean.

ACTION: Unanimously passed.

II. BUSINESS

A. Update from Center Task Force

House provided a draft mission statement of goals for the Center to Council members.

She made it clear that she was open to changes and additions to the draft document.

The committee discussed the document and suggested other possible goals. Belzer

suggested adding another goal: To facilitate faculty in pedagogical research. Some of

the discussion pertained to the Center’s role in conducting exit interviews with students.

The general consensus of Council members was that the Center should be involved so

students would be more willing to provide candid responses. However, faculty from

the department conducting the exit interviews would also need to be involved to

ensure appropriate follow-up on impromptu information disclosed during the exit

interviews. Council members also suggested another goal: Mentor and critique the

teaching of a faculty member. A final goal added by the Council involved a clarification

of the relationship between the Council and the Center in terms of a division of labor,

who reported to whom, and who was in charge of various projects and tasks. House

agreed to add the goals discussed. House stated that she would reorganize the

statement before re-submitting it to the Council.

B. Plan for Information Literacy Discussion Group

House gave a handout to Council members regarding information literacy. The handout

summarized information provided to House by Fouad. She suggested that the Council

view Fouads’ presentation in either the next meeting (November 17) or the following one.

Viewing the presentation would ensure that Council members were all talking about

information literacy in the same way and could provide consistent information to other

interested faculty. Following Fouad’s presentation to Council members, House suggested

that representations from departments across campus could be selected, asked to attend

the presentation on information literacy, and provide feedback. At the same time, the Center

could sponsor brown bag lunches for faculty who are involved in information literacy and

those who have seen the presentation and are interested in information literacy. Once faculty

across campus had been given an opportunity to consider the issue of information literacy,

House suggested that a committee could convene to generate a vision for how information

literacy might be reflected in our undergraduate curriculum. If appropriate, the committee

could then make recommendations to the Curriculum Council.

C. Plans for Other Discussion Groups

There was some discussion concerning web sites or possible chat rooms for discussion

groups, especially for the involvement of off-campus faculty. Council members generally

agreed that a printed newsletter was also a good mechanism for advertising discussion groups

and getting information to faculty on pedagogical issues. Other suggested topics for brown

bag discussions that might only run for one or two sessions included: mentoring graduate

students, writing better multiple choice exams, and valuable professional organizations.

Another idea for a discussion group, faculty workload, generated extensive discussion among

Council members. Questions were raised concerning an official document and formula for

calculating faculty workload and guidelines for workload relative to tenure and promotion.

Council members commented on the variation in faculty workloads within and across departments

and colleges, a perceived inequity when some faculty taught more than other faculty, and

differences in contact hours for faculty teaching clinical or laboratory courses. Faculty Senate

was thought to have reviewed the issue of faculty workload in the early 1990’s but members

of the Council were not aware of recommendations that Faculty Senate had made for changing

the formula for faculty workload.

Belzer asked whether the Council wanted to make a motion concerning this matter.

MOTION: Moved by Kruger. Second by Sato. Moved to generate a discussion group on

faculty workload.

ACTION: Unanimously passed.

Council members generally agreed that the discussion group would stimulate thoughtful

conversation and recommendations (as appropriate), not set or change university policies

on faculty workload.

Belzer asked Council members how they wanted to implement this action.

House indicated that it might be better to have a meeting that was more casual and informal.

A brown bag lunch was suggested, unless a larger group participated. If there were more

than 25 interested faculty, Bain suggested the need for a facilitator. Options were discussed

for advertising the discussion group. By general consensus, it was agreed that the discussion

group would be announced by posting a notice on department bulletin boards. Bain agreed

to write the advertisement and serve as the contact person. Once faculty indicate interest,

a meeting time for the discussion group will be set.

D. Other Miscellaneous Items

The task force in charge of reviewing the Assessment Handbook and its’ implementation

across campus inquired as to whether or not they would be receiving a letter from Randy

Earles (Chair, Faculty Senate) before they initiated this task. In addition, they needed to

know whether or not the School of Applied Technology was also required to follow the

guidelines in the Assessment Handbook. Belzer indicated that she would contact Earles

and e-mail the task force members regarding his responses.

Meeting adjourned 3:45 P.M.