COUNCIL FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING
April 28, 2000
A. Attending: Belzer (chair), Kunicki, Das, Dean, Devine, Hjelm, Kruger, Lung
Excused/Absent: Bosworth, Enos, Fisher, Jones, Nitse, Paulson, Pehrsson, Price, Wabrek
Guest: Terry Lay
B.
Approval of the CTL minutes for March 24, 2000
MOTION: Moved by ? Second by ?
ACTION: Unanimously passed.
II. BUSINESS
A. Proposal for Teaching and Learning Resource Center
Belzer gave the committee an update on the Assessment Policy/Plan, the Center Proposal,
and the Teaching and Learning proposal that was sent on to the Faculty Senate. The Center
Proposal was tabled and will be addressed on Monday, May 1. The Assessment Policy/Plan
was approved with the following revisions: “Within the last past nine years” phrase will
be removed, and “the policy” on page 11 will be added to the handbook. The Assessment
Handbook has been given a one-year approval with the direction that the CTL monitor the
usage of the handbook and collect information regarding changes that need to be made
in the handbook. It was expected that the CTL work closely with assessment coordinators.
Belzer distributed a letter written to Dr. Lawson by Jennifer Attebery, making some strong
recommendation for what ought to happen. The Faculty Senate was not in favor of the
schedule in the handbook and recommended that the schedule be revised so that CTL members,
who are on 9 month appointments and are not expected to perform committee work during
the summer, are not required to review assessment plans during the summer.
B. CTL Meeting for fall
Belzer will send out an e-mail requesting committee member schedules for the fall semester.
At that time she will schedule the meetings accordingly.
C. Discussion groups for Fall 2000-2001
Belzer suggested that Rosmary Fouad might be willing to lead an information literacy
discussion group (teaching students how to locate and use campus wide resources), if there
was adequate faculty interest on this topic. Some discussion ensued on how to incorporate
information literacy into various courses that students must take. One suggestion involved
incorporating instruction on information literacy into the Freshman Seminar. The discussion
group would be open to faculty campus wide. The question raised was, does the council
wish to sponsor this or other discussion topics? It was decided that the council would
consider possible topics for discussion groups at the beginning of the fall semester.
Devine suggested another discussion group topic, computer based testing (showing students
how to take and learn from tests on the computer). Belzer recommended putting out a mailing
next fall on these two discussion groups to see what kind of response the CTL gets from the
faculty. Kruger said he would contact Keith Weber about this.
D. Involvement of the CTL in the assessment
process
Discussion focused on program assessment, how to carry it out and what the council’s role
should be during the process. Faculty Senate suggested that the council confer with the
assessment coordinators. If the policy and procedures in the handbook were not working
well, then the handbook would need to be revised. Belzer asked for volunteers who would be
willing to participate on a task force who would meet next year, develop and administer a
survey to the assessment coordinators, and monitor the assessment process. It was suggested
that John Jones be involved in the development survey but that the task force be composed of
council members not associated with the Office of Institutional Research. Dean and Kunicki
volunteered to serve on the task force. Hjelm suggested that the task force contact John Jones
and meet with him. It was suggested that a letter be sent to assessment coordinators early
in the fall semester to inform them that the task force would be considering the handbook.
Assessment coordinators could be encouraged to speak with John Jones and/or Council
members on the Assessment Task Force, if and when they encountered any problems
with the handbook. It was suggested that the task force also contact assessment coordinators
later in the 2000-2001 academic year to formally solicit their responses on whether the
handbook was helpful, and report their findings to the Council for Teaching and Learning.
E. Timeline for working on other goal
assessments
Belzer indicated that goals 7, 10B, 11, and 12 have never been assessed, and goals 6
and 10A had been reviewed but without a final report or recommendations by the task force.
It was suggested that two goals be reviewed each year (with goals 10A and 10B counted
as one goal), so that all goals would be reviewed once every 6 years. Concern was
raised regarding the time demands that such a timeline would place on council members.
It was suggested that only one experienced council member would need to be involved on
each task force, which would mostly be composed of faculty members from relevant
disciplines within the departments involved with each goal. A timeline for working on goals
will be finalized by the council next fall.
F. Selection of goals for review during the
2000-2001 academic year, including
recommendations
for Tasks Force members
It was suggested that goals be worked on in numerical order, beginning with goals 6
and 7 during the 2000-2001 academic year. The Council did not make a motion or
vote on this item because a quorum was no longer present at the end of the meeting.
The
recommendation will be reviewed by the council next fall.
Meeting adjourned 4:25