COUNCIL FOR TEACHING AND
LEARNING
Minutes for April 13, 2001
A. Attending: Belzer (Chair), Dean, Enos, Hjelm, House, Kunicki, Kruger,
Reynolds, McKnight, Nitse
Excused/Absent: Fisher, Jones, Paulson, Pehrsson, Wabrek, Sato, Das
B. Approval of the CTL
minutes for February 23, 2001 and March 16, 2001
MOTION: Moved by Nitse. Second by Kunicki. For approval of the February
23, 2001 minutes.
ACTION: Unanimously passed.
MOTION: Moved by Enos. Second by McNight. For approval of the March
16, 2001 minutes.
ACTION: Unanimously passed.
II. BUSINESS
A. Final Report from Assessment Handbook Task Force
Dean and Kunicki provided a one-page summary to Council members. Dean
indicated that several issues were important to a random sample of faculty using the
handbook. First, there was general criticism on the use of assessment language, which
was described as exclusionary and offensive. Second, when faculty were not compensated
for their efforts in completing the assessment plans, faculty felt that this was burdensome,
particularly in small departments. Third, faculty cited problems with the implementation of
the new handbook policies, particularly the lack of feedback on why previous assessments
were not valued and why assessments needed to be changed. Dean suggested that
standardization was not objectionable and that this could be helpfu to faculty.
Kruger raised the question of why student evaluations and grades could not be used to
assess whether or not students were learning what they were supposed to learn. Council
members commented on the value of using exit interviews and alumni surveys to demonstrate
how well students in early classes were prepared for later classes. Enos suggested that
student evaluations vary enough from program to program that they can better be used for
annual reviews than for assessment. Enos also pointed out that Alverno was brought to ISU
several years ago and that they used innovative assessment techniques but on a much smaller
campus.
Hjelm commented that program reviews, assessments of degree programs, faculty evaluations,
and post tenure reviews are all getting incorporated into accreditation visits. Council members
generally agreed that faculty need to decide how important assessment is to us and that this is
best decided by the people within a unit, so that faculty are able to focus on what's important
to them.
Dean also indicated that there was some confusion among the assessment coordinators on whether
the task force was asking about the Faculty vs. Assessment Handbook.
Council members generally agreed that faculty should only be involved in assessment to the extent
to which it was helpful and/or met standards imposed by accrediting agencies and the SBOE.
To the extent that the assessment was being conducted for an authority and just because it was
required, it would make sense to make the assessment minimal and as painless as possible.
House suggested that the task force report be modified to include this information.
MOTION: Moved by House. Second by Nitse. For acceptance of the assessment report
as amended.
ACTION: Unanimously passed.
House commended the task force for their hard work and Council members applauded their work
as well. Dean agreed to modify the report and forward it to Belzer for submission to the Faculty
Senate by April 16, 2001.
B. Review of Criteria and Advertisement for
the Innovative Teaching Grant
House and Nitse provided Council members with a revised version of the Innovative Teaching
Grant and solicitted comments. Nitse indicated that they were still debating whether or not to include
a deadline on the grant; perhaps it would be useful to have the new Center webpage list all of the grant
deadlines on the same page. House indicated that it would be possible to link grant application
deadlines using one webpage. The need to have a Center email for submission of proposals, rather
than House's email address was recommended as well.
Kruger asked when faculty would be most likely to have an idea of when they would conduct a project.
Belzer asked whether it would make sense to make the deadline open during the first year and keep
track of the numbers and timeframe of proposals submitted. House suggested a February 1 deadline,
with an award date of February 15 and money spent before February 14 of the following year. Hjelm
pointed out that it would be necessary to encumber the money and that this would be particularly useful
for faculty planning to work on teaching and seminar projects during the summer.
Kunicki asked whether or not funds would be available for this academic year. House indicated that
she had had no budget for the Center for this academic year but that funding should be available for the
Center during the next academic year. She also informed Council members that she had agreed to
continue to serve as the Interim Director for the Center for Teaching and Learning for another year.
House suggested that it might be possible to set aside $5,000 - $6,000 for grants next year and that
she would check on funds for this academic year.
MOTION: Moved by Kunicki. Second by McNight. For approval of the Innovative Teaching
Grant guidelines as
amended.
ACTION: Unanimously passed.
C. Update on General Education Goal
Assessments (6 and 10a)
D. Update on Issues from the Center for
Teaching and Learning
Meeting adjourned 4:25PM