COUNCIL FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING

Minutes

(Approved by CTL at the November 20, 2002 meeting)

Date: November 6, 2002

Time: 11:00 am

Place: Faculty Senate Conference Room #128, Red Hill Building

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

Excused: Wabrek and Sato

Absent: Packer

1. It was established that a quorum was present.

Minutes of October 23, 2002 –

Action: Moved by Nitse and seconded by Nuhfer to approve the minutes of October 23, 2002 with corrections. Passed unanimously.

2. Reports on draft assessment template from Dean’s Council and Faculty Senate -

Adkison stated that the Faculty Senate had no feedback to offer at this time. Smith reported that Senate did not discuss the template in length. Deans’ Council feedback was that the plan looks fine. They would like the Council to assess the goal courses as they are currently structured, they were against making changes to the goals at this time. The assessment of goals is the weakest area for ISU. The goals have not been affectedly assessed since the last accreditation process.

Adkison stated that he would like it to be accomplished by the council to have four to six courses assessed by 2004. He suggested writing an assessment plan or handbook for future reference of the council. He would like to have a template for the process to help the departments coordinate the assessments. He stated that if the council does not move on this, the Faculty Senate may lose input over the process, which in turn could be sent to the administration. Nuhfer explained that the curriculum is traditionally a faculty issue which is separate from the administration. He would hate to see it turned over. Adkison suggested coming up with a process so the departments can define what they expect from the goal courses. The major work on goals 1, 6 and 7 are already in place.

Adkison stated that the writing survey has had a response of 21%. From that, he can generalize that 90% of the courses require some type of writing.

Smith asked about the goal 1 template as it is now. The actual template which will be used is on the last two pages, the background information precedes it. It will be of criteria used in each goal course.

McKnight asked if there is a process to standardize the goal courses across the state. Some institutions do not agree on the courses and will not accept them. Adkison stated that he has not seen a petition turned down for those that have not been accepted.

Bunde mentioned coming up with 10 questions on what the courses are intended to do. Adkison stated that the departments should come up with 10 points they are trying to accomplish with the chosen goals. He wants to work with the departments for specific outcome objectives. The council should work within the departmental assessment plans.

The council looked at ISU’s goal criteria. Some are written that could be misleading for students to choose from. Some show no specific desired outcome of the students. Adkison stated that the departments can be asked how the criteria for each course was developed. Nuhfer agreed and added what learning outcomes were each trying for?

Bunde would like it part of one of the goals to have some computer skills. Kunicki stated that in the first year seminar, students are encouraged to learn some skills, but it is not mandatory. Kruger stated that his department is addressing that problem directly in class. Nuhfer suggested an online tutorial before a student can continue on with classes. It was said that students do not want to pay extra for computer usage. Squires suggested making that part of their tuition, so it is already paid for.

Adkison and Nuhfer will develop a template to refine and add details for the goals. Adkison will speak with the Chair of Faculty Senate to ask for articulation of the new general education courses. Reis suggesting waiting on Faculty Senate input until the new template is in place.

3. Discussion of U of I and BSU general education requirements and assessment efforts -

Nitse reported on the assessment for U of I. He was told that the SBOE sets up general standards. U of I meets those standards at the minimum and ISU meets them at the maximum.

Squires reported on the assessment for BSU. He was unable to get into their website therefore could not retrieve much information. He reiterated that the SBOE sets the minimum general education requirements. It seems that BSU clusters their classes into themes instead of departments.

Kunicki handed out the three different institutions’ general education requirements. She stated that BSU seems to have a lot of latitude in the core areas. Adkison said that it looks like it is not a traditional general education structure, that the institutions do not have a common general education experience. Some departments would not exist at ISU without the general education courses. It is valuable to keep them in place.

4. Next Council meeting -

The next meeting was set for 2 weeks, Wednesday, November 20, 2002.

5. Adjourned at 12:05

Respectfully submitted

Connie Patchin, Secretary