COUNCIL FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING

(Approved by CTL at the November 6, 2002 meeting)

Date: October 23, 2002

Time: 11:00 am

Place: Faculty Senate Conference Room, Red Hill Building

Present: Adkison (presiding), Devaud, Nuhfer, Smith, Kunicki, McKnight, Nitse, Reis, Squires, and Kruger.

Excused: Wabrek and Sato

Absent: Bunde and Packer

1. It was established that a quorum was present.

a. Minutes of April 26, 2002 –

Action: Moved by Devaud and seconded by Kunicki to approve the minutes of April 26, 2002. Passed unanimously, 2 abstentions.

b. Minutes of October 9, 2002 –

Action: Moved by Reis and seconded by McKnight to approve the discussion minutes of October 9, 2002 with corrections. Passed unanimously.

2. Discussion of draft assessment template -

Adkison stated that the draft assessment has support from colleges. The Dean of Arts & Sciences, Dick Pratt is very interested in it. Nuhfer was asked what he thought was missing from the draft. He stated that in a meeting with Alan Egger they discussed the learning outcomes; does the content match with the goals? - this should be looked at to distinguish between them.

Adkison stated that the 102 Student Responsibilities were broad and vague and didn’t seem to match with the goal stated. Nuhfer explained there is need for the course content and the goals to come from the same angle. This template is a very different approach to assessment than from other universities. They look at curriculum first, and then see if the courses meet those standards. Nuhfer stated that an outside reviewer may ask about the fact of not getting pre-requisites taken and what action is taking place to correct this problem. He said that he believes the assessment is productive. The goals are in place and faculty understands them, but it needs to be clarified if the goals are being met.

Adkison stated that the council should find out the desired objectives from the departments on the goal courses and why they are in place. Are the courses satisfying goals and meeting the expectations?

On the goal 1 campus wide writing survey, Adkison noted that he has had a 20-25% response rate, with only a 7% expected. He will have more information at the next meeting about the results.

It was discussed how well goal 1 courses contribute, from the faculty perception. Adkison stated that the English Department is nervous to take on the responsibility for teaching students how to write on all levels and in all fields.

Nuhfer stated that the assessment should look at perception of goals vs. stated objectives vs. basic knowledge of the students. There is a common grammatical structure in all writing. Goal 1 is a progressive goal. What does the department want to see as an outcome? He suggested an assessment to see the outcome after English 102. Kruger stated that the key in writing is the basic framework – including grammar, punctuation and capitalization.

Adkison mentioned that it is important to circulate the draft for input. It has been sent to Deans’ Council as well as Faculty Senate. The previous assessments were not repeatable, nor consistent. Also, the goal 1 courses may not be affective because students aren’t prepared. There is less than 10% of the student population that use the writing center. If they don’t have to, they won’t use it.

Reis commented that it is the Council’s responsibility to ensure that the students are getting a fair education. Kruger stated that it should be stated by the university that certain basic skills are needed for a BA or BS degree. If students don’t have the basics, it is up to them to get extra help. Adkison said that the assessment first needs to be completed to find out where students are.

On the assessment draft, page 1, sentence 1, it states: Goal 1: To express ideas in clear, logical and grammatically correct written English. Adkison stated that it is mistitled. Grammar means mechanical grammar, and the assessment should intend to mean the usage of grammar.

Some questions, which were brought up, are: Are the goal courses effective? Is the goal relevant? Are the courses relevant?

Kunicki will check U of I and BSU to research their goals. Nitse will check BSU and Squires will check U of I to see how they are assessing goals.

3. Support of Center for Teaching & Learning -

Nuhfer stated that the Center has been very productive in his first eight weeks at ISU. He has done workshops and presentations. He has asked for help in the following areas:

¨ A 1-day workshop with a special presenter to discuss a topic in which people will be interested in attending. He asked for themes and the need for recruitment of a speaker to build up attendance. Some ideas were:

o Cooperative learning.

o How does the brain learn? A foundation for everything that we do.

o Case methods.

¨ Formative evaluation-

Knowledge and formative surveys are difficult to complete without access to a scanner more often. Smith offered the scanner in Biology; there is also a scanner in the Computer Center and College of Education, which Nuhfer will look into.

¨ Mailing –

Nuhfer said that there is a problem with mailing the newsletter. He will have to send each department many for them to distribute to the faculty.

4. Next meeting date -

The next meeting will be held on November 6, 2002 at 11:00.

5. Ad Hoc committee -

Action: Moved by Squires and seconded by Nitse to nominate Joe Kruger to the ad Hoc committee of Council for Teaching & Learning. Passed unanimously.

6. Boot Camp -

Nuhfer mentioned that Alan Egger is looking for those interested in Boot Camp at the end of July. Those who would be interested in going, please email Alan Egger.

7. Adjourned at 12:10

Respectfully submitted

Connie Patchin, Secretary