Council for Teaching and Learning

Minutes for March 24, 2000

I. PRELIMINARIES

A. Attending: Belzer (Chair), Dean, Devine, Enos, Kruger, Kunicki,

Lung, Nitse

Excused/Absent: Bosworth, Das, Fisher, Jones, Hjelm, Paulson, Pehrsson, Price, Wabrek, Egger

B. Approval of the CTL minutes for February 18, 2000

MOTION: Moved by Nitse. Second by Kruger to approve minutes from February 18, 2000 with no revisions.

ACTION: Unanimously passed.

II. BUSINESS

A. Goal 9 Assessment

The Council noted that it had not received the Goal 9 Report before the report was forwarded to the State Board of Education. The Council generally agreed that a deadline for submitting the report should probably be given when a task force was assigned a goal assessment. New members of the Council raised questions about how task forces were assigned. It was suggested that first year members observe the goal assessment process and not be assigned to a task force until at least their second year on the Council.

Comments were made regarding the contents of the Goal 9 Report. For example, Council members pointed out the disparity between faculty and student perceptions on the extent to which course goals met expectations. In general, the Council felt that the Goal 9 Report was thorough and well documented. With some latitutude for differences across disciplines, Council members generally agreed that the Goal 9 Assessment (and the document, Guidelines for Assessing Goals, prepared by Barbara Bain, which outlined steps taken in the Goal 9 Assessment process) was a good model for future goal assessments.

Discussion occurred regarding how often goals should be assessed. The goal 9 report suggested that this goal be reassessed in 5 years. The Council questioned the feasibility of such a recommendation.

MOTION: Moved by Nitse. Seconded by Enos to accept the Goal 9 Report but review the goal every 6 years, rather than every 5 years as recommended in the Goal 9 Assessment Report (provided that no changes occurred in the General Education Goals and that goals 10A and 10B were reviewed together).

ACTION: The motion was withdrawn. It was agreed that the motion to approve the Goal 9 Report should be separated from a motion to address a timeline for future assessments of all of the goals.

MOTION: Moved by Nitse. Seconded by Enos to accept the Goal 9 Report.

ACTION: Unanimously passed.

B. Timeline for Other Goal Assessments

Discussion continued on how many goals could be assessed during an academic year continued. One member suggested that we decrease the number of Council members on each task force so that we could do more goal assessments each year. Another Council member suggested that we might streamline the assessment process by bringing in outside faculty (not on the Council) who could serve on two assessment task forces during a two-year period. It was noted that Council members should not serve on task forces within their discipline because of a conflict of interest. Another suggestion to streamline our assessment process involved making use of assessment documents generated by departments who were utilizing the Assessment Handbook prepared by John Jones. It was generally thought that a single Council member (preferably not one serving their first year on the Council) could serve on the Council’s behalf by assessing whether or not the task force was on target and had a clear picture of the assessment process.

It was also suggested that we check with the Office of Institutional Research to determine how such a decision might relate to accreditation recommendations. It was noted that no more than two goals have been assessed in one year. Goals 6 and 10A were initiated but no final report was ever submitted. Goals 7, 10B, 11, and 12 have never been assessed.

MOTION: Moved by Kruger. Seconded by no one to decrease Council involvement in the assessment of each goal to facilitate more expedient review of more than one goal per year.

ACTION: Tabled until our next meeting to give members an opportunity to check with Ron Hatzenbeuhler or Barbara Bain for more specific information on the history of the goal assessment process.

Questions were also raised about the extent to which the Office of Institutional Research and possibly the Center Director should be involved in the goal assessment process.

Further discussion occurred on which goals should be assessed first. Some members suggested that we continue in numerical order. Another member suggested that we ask students which goals need to be assessed. However, some members indicated that it would be inappropriate to ask students without getting perceptions from the departments involved. It was suggested that we ask Butch Hjelm for his opinion on which goals were in need of assessment and that we defer a decision on which goals were to be assessed until the next meeting

C. Discussion on Center Proposal

In the interest of time, Sharolyn composed a draft letter to Dr. Lawson, Dr. Egger and the members of Faculty Senate. Components to the letter had been composed previously by Task Force members, Phil Nitse and Ken Bosworth. She asked Council members to comment on the letter, indicated that she wanted to ensure the letter reflected the convictions of all Council members.

Several suggestions were offered. First, the introduction to the letter should include a statement or paragraph indicating that our Council was responding to a charge issued by Dr. Lawson. Second, it was felt that we should emphasize the fact that other universities have a Center, which serves as an investment in faculty and teaching. Third, members have investigated Centers and interacted with Center Directors and those providing leadership to Center Directors. It is not unusual to allocate funds to support quality education; something that has grown in importance in academia in recent years. Fourth, members generally agreed that it would be important to emphasize not just bringing back what the Center used to have but bringing back additional programs that provide opportunities for sustained faculty development on campus. Finally, members emphasized the importance of a full-time Center Director.

Since time for the meeting was running long, members debated how we could best approve the Center Proposal. Members did not feel that they were ready to make a motion. It was decided that Sharolyn would quickly incorporate suggested changes into the letter and email to all Council members for comments and approval. Once Sharolyn had reconstructed the letter, it would be sent to all concerned. A follow-up on the Center Proposal would occur at the next Council meeting.

D. Upcoming Agenda Items for Future Meetings

Sharolyn suggested that members continue to think about topics for discussion groups (perhaps for next fall). She indicated that the academic year was coming to an end and we need to reach closure on a number of unresolved issues, including a proposal for the Center for Teaching and Learning.

Next meeting, April 28, 2000 at 3:15, room 102.

Adjourned 4:25PM.