COUNCIL FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING
Minutes for January 26, 2001
A. Attending: Belzer (Chair), Das, Dean, Enos, Hjelm, Kunicki, Kruger,
Reynolds, McKnight, Sato, Wabrek
Excused/Absent: Fisher, House, Jones, Paulson, Pehrsson, Nitse
B. Approval of the CTL minutes for December
8, 2000
Kruger amended the minutes to read, “students taking his classes were somewhat
computer illiterate.
MOTION: PROBLEM … We voted but according to my records, no motion was
made (let alone seconded). I propose we revote on the minutes for December 8,
2000 – sorry.
VOTE: Unanimously passed.
II. BUSINESS
A. Update on Center activities (see attached memo from Janet House)
Janet House provided a memo for Council members to discuss in her absence. The
Center is currently active in bringing Dr. Vincent Tinto to campus in late March. Enos
and Nitse (by prior communication with Belzer) indicated an interest in Tinto related activities.
In addition, discussion groups on faculty workload have begun meeting, an effort is still being
made to fill the faculty intern position, and progress is being made on the Center web page.
B. Center
Director position and related issues
Belzer summarized discussions with House and Nitse on progress toward getting a full-time
Director for the Center for Teaching and Learning. House will be meeting with Dr. Lawson
shortly after the next Council meeting. Council members considered issues that House, Nitse,
and Belzer had raised regarding the process for hiring a Director for the Center. Issues included:
the role that the Council would play in hiring the Center Director, faculty representation on the
search committee (which should include several Council members (but not the entire Council),
timing for the interview and hiring process, and administrative vs. faculty needs that might be met
by the Center Director. In particular, administrative needs were thought to possibly include an
orientation for adjunct faculty. Discussion ensued on resources devoted to full-time faculty vs.
adjunct faculty and whether or not the Director of the Center should really take on this role.
Sato indicated that both growth and reapportionment studies associated with Faculty Senate had
also expressed serious concerns about the number of adjunct faculty on campus as our institution
increases FTE’s and the problem adjuncts might have in making a commitment to ISU. Council
members generally agreed that the search committee for the Center Director and the
administration would need to come to agreement on the job description for the position.
C.
Selection of goals for review during the 2000-2001 academic
year
Given our late start in the academic year, Belzer suggested that it might be best for the Council
to assess goals 6 and 10a because some data had already been collected on these goals, so
progress toward completing these goals might be made more quickly. Belzer solicited input
from Council members. Generally Council members agreed that this approach would work.
Some Council members felt that all General Education Goals should be revisited. The argument
was made that the goals themselves might need to be revised or updated. For example, Sato
suggested an Economics of Health Care goal and information literacy had been discussed in
previous Council meetings. Some discussion followed on which committee on campus could
address these concerns. It was thought that the General Education Committee reported to
the Curriculum Council.
Some concern was raised regarding the role of the Council in overseeing the assessment of
General Education Goals. Accreditation was given as a reason for the Council’s continued
nvolvement in the General Education Goal assessments. Enos suggested that it might be more
reasonable for the Council to oversee two goals per year if the process and the reports were
not so extensive. Kruger indicated that the task would be more acceptable to faculty if the
advisory reports had impact. Hjelm suggested that the lever for impact in the process was the
feedback loop with accreditation agencies. Council members generally agreed that the Council
needed to be involved in the oversight of the General Education Goal assessments but that this
year it would make sense to monitor the process that committees used to complete the assessments.
Dean suggested that committees use the Goal 9 document developed by Barbara Bain, modify
it as necessary, and continue to have Council members on the committees report back to the
Council.
MOTION: Moved by Sato. Seconded by Hjelm. The assessment for the General
Education Goals 6 and 10a will be
overseen by the Council.
ACTION: Unanimously passed.
After some discussion on the courses and departments involved with these General Education
Goals, Council members volunteered or were recommended to serve on the committees for
each of the goals.
MOTION: Moved by Hjelm. Seconded by Kunicki. The Council appoints Alice Sato
to serve as the Council’s
representative on the committee to assess General
Education Goal 6.
ACTION: Unanimously passed.
MOTION: Moved by Sato. Seconded by Enos. The Council appoints Patricia Dean
and Laura McKnight to serve as the
Council’s representative on the
committee to assess General Education Goal 10a.
ACTION: Unanimously passed.
Dean indicated that Barbara Bain had provided some data from previous work on the goal
10a assessment. Belzer had communicated with Gail Dial and was assured that some data
were available from previous work on goal 6 as well. Council members generally agreed that
committees should be established by consulting with faculty in representative departments and
that decisions could be made on how to complete the goal assessments only after data from
previous work on the assessments had been
examined.
D.
Summary on data gathered by Council members on assessment
within their departments
Little to no information on use of the Assessment Handbook was provided to Council members
who inquired within their departments. The Task force (consisting of Dean and Kunicki) was
given creative license to determine another course
of action.
E.
Discussion groups for Spring 2001 – Faculty Work load and
Information literacy
Faculty workload discussion groups have already begun meeting this semester. Approximately
16 faculty from various colleges are involved. Faculty in the discussion groups will determine
how long, how often, and under what guidelines they want to meet.
Belzer summarized her communication with Dr. Rosmarie Fouad urging the Council to continue
our dialogue on the issue of information literacy. Fouad had indicated that she made a presentation
to the Dean’s Council. The presentation was well received. Dr. Lawson had indicated that the
issue needed to be addressed by faculty through the faculty governance structure. House and
Fouad were considering the administration of a survey on information literacy to students in a few
classes from each college.
Council members continued to report on input from faculty within their departments on information
literacy. As in the input described in our December Council meeting, input from faculty from the
various colleges tended to be diverse and bimodal (both complimentary and antagonistic toward
student capabilities with information literacy). It was generally agreed that survey data should be
collected prior to initiating a faculty discussion
group on the topic.
Meeting adjourned 3:40PM