JULY 2014 – JUNE 2015

Minutes of the Teaching and Learning Committee

June 11, 2015

Present: Jane Schmidt-Wilk, Matthew Beaufort, Isabelle Matzkin

Absent: Paula Armstrong, Michael Zijlstra, Anil Maheshwari

Agenda: ​Team-based learning

Watched 12-minute video “Team-Based Learning: Group Work that Works” from UT Austin (https://vimeo.com/51713733) and reviewed its primary components: stable teams, assigned readings, readiness assurance, application projects, and peer feedback.

Discussed compatibility of team-based learning with CBE: identified a variety of ways that team-based learning could be integrated with CBE.

Opportunity: Dr. Holly Bender of Iowa State University teaches a workshop on team-based learning structured in five 90-minute sessions.

Decision: TLC endorses the idea of spending three days of August faculty development seminar to go deeply into team-based learning with this workshop. The sixth session could be a session integrating all the parts with CBE elements, sharing in small groups and with the large group.

Proposed timeline:

​

Daily sessions: Last 10-15 minutes of each session: How would you integrate the Science and technology of Consciousness into this aspect of the lesson?

Meeting adjourned: 4:25 PM

May 7, 2015

Present: Jane Schmidt-Wilk, Paula Armstrong, Michael Zijlstra

Absent: Matthew Beaufort, Anil Maheshwari

Agenda:

1. Faculty qualifications (HLC)
2. Faculty Teaching Award
3. HLC Assessment Academy
4. Knowledge Fair judge
5. Announcements

​

1. Faculty QualificationsHLC requirement is that faculty should have a degree higher than the students that they teach (MA students taught by faculty with doctoral degree). PhD advisors must have a terminal degree in their field. Those who are teaching Gen Ed courses need a background in the field they are teaching, with at least 18 credits of graduate work in the field they are teaching.  MIU faculty will be held to this standard by January, 2016.Since SCI is infused into all courses, one proposal is that graduate credit be given to faculty who have completed consciousness-based continuing education such as SCI, TTC, TM-Sidhi  courses. These courses could then count toward the 18 units of graduate credits needed to support teaching Gen Ed courses, such as Forests. This proposal would serve a dual purpose of meeting HLC requirements and solidifying faculty knowledge of CBE.
2. Faculty Teaching AwardCriteria for the award should include a range of points. So far we have identified:​
   • Integration of knowledge of the Science and Technology of Consciousness with knowledge of the discipline
   • Evidence of the 5 Fundamentals of Education in one’s teaching practice
   • Consistently fair and timely assessment of student learning, including submitting grades on time.
   • Active involvement in assessment of departments’ academic program(s)
   • Investigation of effectiveness of teaching through the scholarship of teaching and learning–ideally resulting in a publication
3. HLC Assessment Academy MIU is applying to be part of HLC academy on assessment.The purpose would be to strengthen program assessment university-wide.
4. Knowledge Fair Judge We need one more judge for the Knowledge Fair: Rhoda Orme-Johnson has withdrawn. Suggestions: Claudia Melrose, Janet Luft Mobus.
5. Other business:

• Develop an orientation for new faculty separate from the intro to teaching CBE course is needed so people are aware of HR-related issues.
• Gabriel Akura has resigned from the TLC committee.​

May 7, 2015

Present: Jane Schmidt-Wilk, Paula Armstrong, Michael Zijlstra

Absent: Matthew Beaufort, Anil Maheshwari

Agenda:

1. Faculty qualifications (HLC)
2. Faculty Teaching Award
3. HLC Assessment Academy
4. Knowledge Fair judge
5. Announcements
6. Faculty QualificationsHLC requirement is that faculty should have a degree higher than the students that they teach (MA students taught by faculty with doctoral degree). PhD advisors must have a terminal degree in their field. Those who are teaching Gen Ed courses need a background in the field they are teaching, with at least 18 credits of graduate work in the field they are teaching.  MIU faculty will be held to this standard by January, 2016. ​Since SCI is infused into all courses, one proposal is that graduate credit be given to faculty who have completed consciousness-based continuing education such as SCI, TTC, TM-Sidhi  courses. These courses could then count toward the 18 units of graduate credits needed to support teaching Gen Ed courses, such as Forests. This proposal would serve a dual purpose of meeting HLC requirements and solidifying faculty knowledge of CBE.
7. Faculty Teaching AwardCriteria for the award should include a range of points. So far we have identified:​
   • Integration of knowledge of the Science and Technology of Consciousness with knowledge of the discipline
   • Evidence of the 5 Fundamentals of Education in one’s teaching practice
   • Consistently fair and timely assessment of student learning, including submitting grades on time.
   • Active involvement in assessment of departments’ academic program(s)
   • Investigation of effectiveness of teaching through the scholarship of teaching and learning–ideally resulting in a publication
8. HLC Assessment Academy MIU is applying to be part of HLC academy on assessment.The purpose would be to strengthen program assessment university-wide.
9. Knowledge Fair Judge We need one more judge for the Knowledge Fair: Rhoda Orme-Johnson has withdrawn. Suggestions: Claudia Melrose, Janet Luft Mobus.
10. Other business:

• Develop an orientation for new faculty separate from the intro to teaching CBE course is needed so people are aware of HR-related issues.
• Gabriel Akura has resigned from the TLC committee.

​

May 4, 2015

Present: Jane Schmidt-Wilk, Paula Armstrong, Matthew Beaufort, Michael Zijlstra

Agenda: Special lunchtime meeting to discuss new teaching award for faculty

Proposal:

1. Jane nominates three faculty members for the award based on her own visits and review of their syllabi.
2. Award criteria would be based on Maharishi’s principles of ideal teaching (Receptivity, Intelligence, Knowledge, Experience and Expression).
3. Matthew, Michael, Paula and Jane partner up to visit each faculty member again.Each faculty would thus be visited two more times after Jane’s initial visit, and Paula and Michael and Matthew would each make three observations.
4. The winner will be decided by the TLC team.
5. The award criteria will be presented to faculty in August.
6. Top award will be recognition and a $200 prize, with two other prizes of $100 each.

April 30, 2015

Present: Jane Schmidt-Wilk, Michael Zijlstra

Absent: Gabriel Akura, Paula Armstrong, Matthew Beaufort, Anil Maheshwari and Isabelle Matzkin

1. Discussed preliminary proposals for a University Teaching AwardTitle of the award: resurrect the award name “Enlightened Educator Award”Framework: Award honors a faculty member:

• Whose teaching enlivens receptivity in students, helps them awaken their intelligence, gives up-to-dateknowledge that is uplifting, structures activities that allow students to work with or experience the knowledge andexpress it
• Who is appreciated by students
• Who submits grades on timeSelection process: We considered several options:

1. Dean of Teaching and Learning proposes a list of nominations to TLC. TLC members vet the candidates and make a selection. Selection is reviewed by APC. Note: TLC members would not be eligible to be candidates.
2. Dean of Teaching and Learning invites department chairs to nominate candidates from their departments. . Note: Department Chairs would not be eligible to be candidates.
3. Dean of Teaching and Learning invites faculty to nominate colleagues.
   1. Question of eligibility for participating in the Knowledge Fair came up. The current guidelines state:“Participation is not limited to graduating students. Students qualify for participation in the Knowledge Fair if they have or will have finished the requirements for the major including their Senior Project in or by Spring 2015.”

But what about students who complete all their coursework and graduate in December? Are they eligible to participate? The question has at least 2 subsections–maybe more:

• Students who will complete their coursework in the major and graduate by the end of the current calendar year, i.e, Dec 2015.
• Students who completed all their coursework in the previous calendar year and graduated the previous winter, i.e., Dec 2014

April 23, 2015

Present: Jane Schmidt-Wilk, Paula Armstrong, Isabelle Matzkin, Matthew Beaufort

Absent: Gabriel Akura, Anil Maheshwari, Michael Ziljstra

Guests:  Tom Egenes, Johann Svenson, Marie Loiselle

Agenda: Review senior projects for Maharishi Vedic Science

The senior project for BA in Maharishi Vedic Science will be a two-month course starting next year. The main change since last year was the creation of 7 different project or research options. One of them will probably be dropped.

Suggestions from TLC to improve the course:

1. Incorporate reflection and reflective writing into the project.This could take the form of a questionnaire at the end of the course on how the project was experienced by the student, what they gained, what they would do differently.
2. Create a timeline or detailed course overview so students know when drafts are due, as well as presentations.The timeline could be created by faculty for all projects, or students doing different projects could create their own and have it approved by the faculty advisor.
3. Locate academic experts in MVS to give feedback on paper and presentations.The outside expert should have some expertise in the area the student is addressing; could be former MIU faculty, MSAE faculty, or experts in areas specific to the projects (i.e., sports, web design, etc.).
4. Students who want to be considered for the Knowledge Fair need to realize they are speaking to a general audience.
5. Presentations should be given to fellow students, like MVS 210, as well as the faculty advisor, before presenting to MVS Dept. faculty.

April 16, 2015

Present: Jane Schmidt-Wilk, Paula Armstrong, Michael Zijlstra, Matthew Beaufort

Absent: Gabriel Akura, Anil Maheshwari

Agenda: Review senior projects for Art BA and BFA (Matthew presented)

The senior project for BA in Art is a one-month course that can be taken any time in a student’s senior year.  It requires that students create a series of works, journal the creative process, reflect on their experience with the project and in the department, and present their project.  The syllabus has been completely overhauled since last year.  It is very thorough and includes all the required elements.  Some unique elements:

• Instead of requiring a reflective essay, there are a series of short answer questions that cover many aspects of a student’s experience as an art major as well as the senior project.
• The syllabus includes a list of MVS principles that can help students make connections between their experiences in the department.They are based on a longer list that is used for the BFA program.

One suggestion from committee is to make sure the evaluation system is consistent with the rubric in the syllabus.

The syllabus is almost ready to be posted online as an example for other departments.

Other points from the meeting:

• Need two more Knowledge Fair judges.Suggestions: Bill Witherspoon and Susan Anderson.
• All departments could come up with a list of SCI/MVS principles most relevant to their discipline to give students ideas for connections with the content they are studying.
• A possible topic for Faculty Development in August is having departments create that list, with writing exercises and prompts for students to help them make SCI connections.
• Need to meet with Lit Dept. about their senior project, and for ideas on how to encourage more reflective writing across campus

April 9, 2015

Present: Jane Schmidt-Wilk, Paula Armstrong, and Michael Zijlstra

Absent: Gabriel Akura, Anil Maheshwari, Isabelle Matzkin, Matthew Beaufort

Guest: Dara Llewellyn

Agenda: Reflective Writing

Dara shared her perspectives and suggestions about reflective writing (see handout below):

• Its value lies in helping students start to trust their own thinking and recognize that the mind can do this on its own.
• The reflections of the writer are ultimately the most persuasive – they show why the writer chose the data that he/she show to persuade.
• A good student will be very sure about what they think at an early stage, but then as they start to research their ideas may change.It makes the paper excellent if this change is added to the paper.

One good use of reflective writing: at the end of the day do exercise about something they learned or still don’t understand (not on the handout).

Samples: Dara’s website: WritingFromTheSelf.com ← Dara’s site, with reflective writing, including blueberries piece, and a reflective piece about writing the blueberries piece.

Discussion

Reflective writing in Comp 1 and 2 courses

• Apparently the content of the course changes depends on who is teaching it.

Application to Senior Project:

• Reflective writing will need a lot of buy-in from many departments.
• If the Senior project is a paper, then reflection should on the writing, after all the research is subsidiary to the writing, but the paper is the final output, so that is what they should reflect on.
• If the Senior project is a project, then t e reflection should be on the process of doing their project. Expressing the thought processes they went though as they did their project. Not sure how you could have a senior experience without having a reflective look at what you did.
• Sample: One student paper for the senior project was published in volume 6 (Literature) in the CBEB series: Amber Price.

Role of MVS in Senior Project:

• Probably need to include more Vedic Science in Senior Projects as Senior Capstone is being dropped.
• Set some specific standards about what will be expected for relations between Vedic science principles and the senior project.
• Students don’t do well expressing SCI because they don’t have a lot of practice in class

Action steps:

1. Plan a session for August Faculty development on reflective writing. Invite Fred to give scientific point of view as well.
2. Invite all the writing faculty together for a meeting about reflective writing. Perhaps have Craig involved as well.

TLC Presentation on Reflective Writing

Nature of Reflection:

• In nature, reflection is a mirroring back or reproducing
• In thinking, reflection is a turning inward to examine our own thoughts. One dictionary defines reflectas to fold or turn back on
• In metacognition, reflection is looking at our own thinking process
• In writing, reflection is considering a focus/topic in the full arena of our consciousness, or against the infinite possibilities of all ideas.

​Benefits of Reflective Writing:

• Repeated experience of infinite flow of ideas, not minding the gaps so writer’s block never forms
• Remembering what one already knows or thinks about a topic
• Primes the pump for further exploration of any idea or train of thought

Uses of Reflective Writing in the Classroom

• Daily journal writing that gives students the experience of realizing that ideas do keep emerging even if gaps occur
• Priming the pump for discussion because it allows student to realize what they already know or think
• Brainstorming for paper topics or lines of development
• For review of what has been learned in a lesson, project, or day, etc.

Conclusion

Reflective writing allows the writer to look inward, backward, around, and forward, feeling for connections, resonance, parallels, even incongruity among one’s own thoughts.

From “Tracing the Blueberry Path” on writingfromtheself.com

April 2, 2015

Present: Jane Schmidt-Wilk, Paula Armstrong, Michael Zijlstra, Anil Maheshwari

Absent: Gabriel Akura, Matthew Beaufort, Isabelle Matzkin

Guest: Liis Mattik

Agenda: Review senior capstone of Physiology and Health department (Wellness Consultant track)

PH430 is the capstone course for both pre-med and wellness consultant tracks.  The course consists of writing up ten case studies from pulse-taking practicum experiences with patients in campus clinic, as well as a research paper related to modern medicine.  The course is small (4-6 students), since that is what the clinic can accommodate in one block. Course includes an oral presentation at the end and feedback from an outside evaluator (Dr. Davis).  Students can take the course as often as they like.  The course is the culmination of students’ undergraduate studies.

The syllabus for the course has been overhauled since last year.  It is very thorough and includes all the required elements for the capstone except a reflective writing component.

Suggestions from TLC:

• Consider how reflective writing can be incorporated into the project.
• Review scoring rubrics to make sure performance descriptors reflect category headings.
• Review institutional learning goals when they have been finalized to see which are addressed in the project.

​

March 26, 2015

Present: Jane Schmidt-Wilk, Paula Armstrong, Michael Zijlstra, Matthew Beaufort, Isabelle Matzkin

Absent: Gabriel Akura, Anil Maheshwari

Guests: Gurdy Leete, Melodia Morales

Agenda: Review senior projects for Media and Communications Dept.

The department has are four (or five?) capstone-oriented projects, each taught by a different instructor:

• Interactive graphic design
• Creative film making
• Feature film production
• Media Projects

One course of the above will be taught in the fall, one in the spring.  Portfolio course is in June. There is great emphasis on creating a strong portfolio.

TLC recommendations:

1. Make an effort to ensure requirements and syllabi are consistent.For example: ​
   1. see if reflective writing is included in each project
   2. create a standard rubric that could be used for all
   3. try to get an outside evaluator (the art department has an outside evaluator that meets with students early in the semester, then at end),
   4. have a timeline for the courses for expectations of when parts of the projects are due.
2. Identify one faculty member or a team in charge of identifying top presentations from each capstone course so students have time to polish and present at Knowledge Fair.Senior project faculty could review the different courses to see if they could have similar expectations.

Discussion about SCI integration:

Some students resist it.  Ideas were to:

1. give a challenging principle to see what connections can be made
2. be genuine and encourage students to speak to how the creative process happens
3. use appealing points from class to segue to deeper relationships to consciousness
4. review at end of each class to integrate knowledge.

The meeting ended with a question as to whether the students’ experience the projects as creating something life-changing or that will change the field.  The answer was “not yet, but making progress toward that goal.”

​

March 12, 2015

Present: Jane Schmidt-Wilk, Paula Armstrong, Michael Zijlstra, Matthew Beaufort

Absent: Gabriel Akura, Anil Maheshwari, Isabelle Matzkin

Guest: Noah Buntain

Agenda: Learn and think about reflective writing, with specific examples from Media and Communication courses

Why reflective writing?

Students develop self-sufficiency because they have thought about how to solve problems.  They deepen their self-knowledge.  They understand their thinking process better.  They develop more critical thinking and their ability to express their thoughts.

What are some challenges to implementing reflective writing?

• Student push back, don’t see the relevance or importance
• Faculty may not feel confident in implementing

What are some suggestions for incorporating reflective writing into faculty courses and the senior projects?

• Read (and be inspired by) the Bean book (Engaging Ideas)
• During Comp 2 and CCTS (where reflective writing is taught) tell students this will be useful to them in their major
• Integrate reflection during projects ―require a journal plus the project
• Students write by hand and can use images
• Faculty can give prompts
• Faculty can model their own reflective writing
• Faculty can show they value students’ reflective writing by spending time with it — reading and commenting on student journals daily or weekly

February 26, 2015

Present: Jane Schmidt-Wilk, Isabelle Matzkin

Absent: Gabriel Akura, Paula Armstrong, Matthew Beaufort, Anil Maheshwari, and Michael Zijlstra

Agenda: Teaching Senior Capstone and SCI

Isabelle proposed discussion of three issues. Comments follow.

1. Consider discontinuing Senior Capstone and subsume its main aspects under the Senior Projects. ​
   • A proposal along these lines is currently under review at Curriculum Committee.
2. Address student comments about SCI by reviewing the way we teach it. ​
   • This is an area in which we need a systematic assessment system.
3. Review successes of student retreats on the Mother Divine campus, compared to the rounding currently offered during forest academies (mostly not in-residence). ​
   • This is an area that needs attention.​

​Meeting adjourned at 4 PM due to lack of attendees.

January 22, 2015

Present: Jane Schmidt-Wilk, Paula Armstrong, Isabelle Matzkin

Absent: Gabriel Akura, Matthew Beaufort, Anil Maheshwari, Michael Zijlstra
Guest: Sabita Sawhney

Agenda: Review progress of Business Department Senior Project​

Suggestions from 2013 have all been implemented:

• Students are given the template in January. Template submission is part of the grade in the required courses preceding Entrepreneurship Project.
• Prerequisite courses are listed in the catalog
• Department lays out the entire sequence of courses in the Entrepreneurship program for students at the start of the major to give them the big picture before they start
• Department talks up the Business Plan in each of the prerequisite courses.
• Department requires business plan for all students, even those who do not intend to start their own business so they understand the process.
• Students meet individually with their mentors as needed.
• Students submit a proposal/business concept statement that is graded in prerequisite course so students are held accountable for progress on Business Plan
• Connections to MVS are now part of the project evaluation
• Timeline for deliverables is now in the syllabus
• Follow up:
• Sabita will identify which Institutional Learning Goals the project addresses
• Reflection paper could be termed “Discussion” and included at end. Its criteria could relate more specifically to the business plan.
• Faculty mentors should be encouraged to attend the Saturday afternoon judging prior to the Knowledge Fair so they can help mentor their student.

January 15, 2015

Present: Jane Schmidt-Wilk, Paula Armstrong, Anil Maheshwari, Matthew Beaufort, Gabriel Akura

Absent: Isabelle Matzkin

Agenda:  2015 Knowledge Fair Planning

​Q: How long should Knowledge Fair presentations be?  Consensus is to keep them at 7 minutes each so we can be sure to finish in one afternoon.  Questions from students did not seem to improve presentations or promote much audience involvement.  (Note: Maybe audience should be encouraged to stand up between presentations to combat dullness from sitting and listening to eleven presentations.)

Q: Who will judge the presentations?  Heather Secrist will be asked to represent science, Claudia Melrose to represent the arts, Ed Malloy to represent the business community. ​Mr. Malloy’s participation could raise the profile of the event, and the event should also be publicized more before and after.​

Q: What publicity would help raise the profile of the event? After the event MIU public relations should blog about it, profile it on the website.  Jane will ask Cathy about recognizing the KF winner(s) during the graduation ceremony.   Anil suggested we think of a catchier name.​

Q: Where and when will the first and second presentations take place?  Students will present to departments Friday afternoonL then to judges Saturday afternoon (May 16).  Presentations to judges will be in Dalby.  Presentations to student body will be Monday or Tuesday afternoon.  Need to check with Fred Travis to reserve Dalby for one of those days.   Academic Council could weigh in on this schedule also.

Q: When to ask Jonathan Gordon to work with presenters?  Consensus was after students present to judges on Saturday, May 16 they could get feedback on their presentation style and strategies for improvement from Jonathan 3-5:00 PM with 11-12 students max (one from each dept)

Q: Should judging criteria be revised?  Isabelle and Paula will collaborate to review and revise last year’s criteria.  We should include one scoring category that refers to the positive and potentially life-changing nature of the project (refers to Craig’s initial directions but wasn’t included before).

December 18, 2014

Present: Jane Schmidt-Wilk, Paula Armstrong, Michael Zijlstra

Absent: Gabriel Akura, Matthew Beaufort, Anil Maheshwari, Isabelle Matzkin

Guest: Anne Dow

Agenda: Review progress on Math Senior Project

1. Committee reviewed recommendations from October 2013 meeting with Anne Dow. ​
   1. Math senior project is thesis driven.
   2. Graduating students take a second course in analysis or algebra that sets up the senior project, then the senior project month finalizes it.
   3. Presentations of graduating seniors projects also help introduce it to other undergrads.
2. Most of last year’s recommendations have been put into place.
3. Remaining action steps for Math senior project: ​
   1. Syllabus needs to be created, with a timeline, detailed expectations, grading criteria
   2. Written reflection on learning process should be included.Reflection can be on either the student’s experience doing the project or the project itself.Examples, how did the project go? What would the student do differently?
   3. Feedback from an outside evaluator (other than project advisor) would be good.
4. Math department will find out how last year’s Knowledge Fair winner was mentored so successfully.
5. A lesson on analyzing one’s audience would be useful for all departments.

December 11, 2014

Present: Jane Schmidt-Wilk, Paula Armstrong, Michael Zijlstra, Matthew Beaufort

Absent: Gabriel Akura, Anil Maheshwari, Isabelle Matzkin

Guest: Sue Brown

Agenda: Review Senior Project Plans for Individualized Majors

Discussion:Thoughts on reflective writing: Noah Buntain incorporates journaling during his courses, with reflective writing at the end.It might be useful for him to meet with TLC.

1. Senior capstone is where students reflect on the Rishi value of their experience at MIU; Senior projects reflect more on the major. Focusing either on the Devata value of the project (the process of doing it) within the framework of their major or the outcome of their project (Chhandas).
2. Individualized major has two graduating seniors this year.Most TLC recommendations from March, 2014, have yet to be incorporated:
   1. Include reflective writing in all senior projects
   2. Locate an external advisor or at least an outside evaluator for the projects
   3. Require that students present to the department of their concentration
   4. Save and present models of other senior projects from the major for students to emulate.
   5. Create syllabus, include all recommended points from March, 2014 (course expectations, timeline, etc.).
3. The senior project is challenging for some students, as they seem to not handle the freedom, responsibility, and self-discipline needed to complete the project successfully.
4. It would help faculty if there could be a decision on how much the senior project supervision counts toward their teaching loads.​

Meeting adjourned 4:30 PM

December 4, 2014

Present: Jane Schmidt-Wilk, Paula Armstrong, Michael Zijlstra, Matthew Beaufort, Isabelle Matzkin

Absent: Gabriel Akura, Anil Maheshwari

Guest:  Nynke Passi

Agenda: Discuss reflective writing with a view to developing it in Senior Projects; Overlaps between grading and end-of-course evaluation periods

1. Nynke Passi presented information on reflective writing.  She passed out a handout from University of Portsmouth (UK) with definitions of types of reflective writing, and some good prompts for reflection.  Jane had a handout from a business course that used reflective writing and also some prompts for reflection from Isabelle.
2. It was proposed that reflection in the senior projects be considered part of project management.  Ideally written reflection would occur periodically throughout the project, not just tacked on at the end.  This could be a way to deepen students’ understanding of how principles of consciousness apply to their work.
3. The Senior Capstone course that all students take as a graduation requirement could be a prototype for reflective writing.  Students would reflect in writing on their MIU experience during Senior Capstone and then again on the senior project when they complete it.
4. Most senior projects are lacking the reflective piece.  How best to inspire faculty to include reflection in their senior projects?  It was decided that a faculty meeting in March could introduce reflective writing. Fred Travis could do a brief presentation on how the brain is involved in reflection; literature faculty could present how they incorporate reflection.  Each speaker would bring out a different angle.
5. Discussion moved on to overlaps between grades and end of course evaluations.  With the new MY MIU portal, students can see their grades as soon as they are posted, which could be before SmartEvals closes.  That could affect their evaluations.  TLC recommended that grades not be released until 10 days after the course ended, at which point evaluations would close also.
6. In the future it would be nice if students could see their grades as soon as faculty posted them (could be before 10 days after the course), butonly if they had completed a course evaluation.

Meeting adjourned: 4:30 PM

November 20, 2014

Present: Jane Schmidt-Wilk, Paula Armstrong, Michael Zijlstra
Absent: Gabriel Akura, Matthew Beaufort, Anil Maheshwari, Isabelle Matzkin

Agenda:  Review Progress on Computer Science Senior Projects

1. Three sets of minutes approved: October 30, November 6, and November 13, 2014.
2. Reviewed senior project guidelines approved by AC 11/18.  TLC will use those guidelines when we meet with dept. chairs to review progress on projects
3. Computer Science Senior Projects: ​
   1. Rather than require significant research, projects require all students to apply knowledge; projects for advanced learners allow them to learn and apply new information
   2. Faculty meets with weaker students daily to help them to manage the project.
   3. Project now has syllabus; syllabus needs to clarify exactly what the senior project is (coding, software).   Syllabus also needs timeline with deliverables, course overview, scoring rubric.
   4. “Evaluation” category in syllabus should indicate project will be graded. Scoring rubric can include categories such as: ​
      1. Originality
      2. Knowledge (extends, stays within, stays within but not well)
      3. Functionality
      4. Scope
      5. Writing (might be able to use AACU rubrics)
      6. Science of Consciousness (included in reflective post-mortem)
      7. Presentation (mentioned in syllabus but should be detailed in scoring)
      8. Project management
   5. Outside evaluator is being sought.  The evaluator can use the rubric or possibly help develop it.

Meeting adjourned 4:20 PM

​

November 13, 2014

Present: Jane Schmidt-Wilk, Paula Armstrong, Michael Zijlstra, Gabriel Akura, Isabelle Matzkin

Absent: Matthew Beaufort, Anil Maheshwari

Guests: David Fisher, Diana Krystofiak, Travis Cox​

Agenda: Follow-up meeting with the Sustainable Living department about the current status of the Senior Project Program

​Most senior project requirements are being implemented by the department. Not all are in the syllabus yet, and some are still being refined. TLC recommends the following action steps:

Student Timeline: Formalize the major milestones of the timeline that students develop with faculty guidance. Add the timeline as a requirement to the course syllabus.Project criteria: Give a brief but more concrete definition of the nature of the senior project up front in the syllabus, including the two main options – project or paper.CBE element: Make the CBE requirement explicit in the syllabus.Student reflection piece: Require that all senior projects include a brief written reflection at the end of the project. For those who write academic papers, this can be a separate writing piece. Add to the syllabus.

1. Grading scheme in rubric: Incorporate feedback mechanisms (e.g. rewrites for student papers) into the grading structure.
2. Outside evaluator: • Create a rubric to be used by outside evaluators (this can be a simpler version of current rubric). • Include a mechanism for receiving systematic feedback from the evaluator.​
   1. Explore ideas for getting outside evaluators more involved, such as: ​
      • Create a list of various skill areas that outside evaluators need to possess, then generate a list of potential people to contact for each area
      • Ask Matthew Beaufort how the Art Department works with their outside evaluator
      • etc.​
3. Note: The faculty also began discussing the option to combine senior project students into groups, to make more efficient use of faculty time and help facilitate the participation of outside evaluators.
4. Student presentation/organization skills: In past Knowledge Fairs, SL student presentations have excelled in content (advancing knowledge in the discipline or creating positive change), but not always in presentation skills or the logical organization of material. TLC recommends that the faculty give more attention to these areas as spelled out in the Knowledge Fair guidelines and evaluation criteria. These should be incorporated in the syllabus.
5. Page numbers: Number the pages in the syllabus.
6. Senior project prep course: Create a separate syllabus for this course.​

TLC recommends that the syllabus be completed this winter so it can be posted on the Teaching Resources area of the website.

Meeting adjourned at 4:30.

​

November 6, 2014

Present: Jane Schmidt-Wilk, Paula Armstrong, Isabelle Matzkin

Absent: Gabriel Akura, Matthew Beaufort, Anil Maheshwari, Michael Zijlstra

Agenda:

1. Discuss faculty development plans for November 21.
2. Discuss how to incorporate professionalism into grading
3. Decide on follow up for departmental senior project planning

​

1. Jane will contact workshop presenters to make sure they are still willing and available, then send out email to faculty to sign up for specific workshops.Potential workshop:  Grading (Chris Jones), Evaluating MP and Unity charts with new rubrics (Jane Schmidt-Wilk), WAVES talk (Peter Freund), Supporting Student Writing (Leah Waller).
2. Professionalism:Discussed going back to a 10% professionalism score based on attendance, punctuality and appearance.  Alternative is what Debra Levitsky described at Saturday workshop: deducting points for attendance and punctuality.   ​No consensus reached.
3. Senior Projects:

Meet with

Have senior project advisors come 3:45-4:45 – present how they’ve revised based on our input. ​Get Chris Jones’ input on senior projects prior to those meetings.

​

Meeting adjourned

October 30, 2014

Present: Jane Schmidt-Wilk, Isabelle  Matzkin, Gabriel Akura, Michael Zijlstra

Not Present: Matthew Beaufort, Anil Maheshwari, Paula Armstrong

Agenda: Discuss possibilities for the upcoming Nov 21^st Faculty Development

This upcoming Saturday the 1^st of November there will be a faculty senate meeting to discuss academic challenge for the students. It is possible that faculty development topics arise from this meeting. Expected topics for faculty senate will be grading and assignments (in the context of challenge).

Creating a survey to faculty about what kinds of development they would like to do is also proposed, and the committee agrees that creating such a survey will be beneficial. (Action step Jane?)

The rest of the meeting is spent on brainstorming ideas for faculty development. Ideas are roughly listed in the order that they came up:Assessment ​

• Grading
• Rubrics ​
  • Holistic
  • Analytic
• Developing a good assessment plan
• How to build interactivity into DE courses
• Writing learning objectives
• Creating student activities
• Differentiated learning
• Remedial activities
• How to best use the writing center
• Designing writing assignments
• Designing intellectually challenging assignments
• Designing assignments that develop Critical Thinking
• Develop student research skills
• How to face / give feedback to students who are not passing
• How to set expectations + give feedback on how well students are meeting them ​
  • Human side
  • Syllabus ​
    • Consequences
• MVS / SC / SCI ​
  • How to grade students’ use of …
  • How to integrate SC into student activities
  • How to integrate SC with a discipline​
• Staying up to date with the knowledge in your field
• Staying up to date with the use of Technology ​
  • Face to Face in the classroom
  • In Distance Education​
• Faculty presentation skills (lecture)
• Developing student presentation skills (structure)​
• CBE Elements ​
  • Main Point / Science of Consciousness chart
  • Unity Chart
  • Unified Field Chart
  • Course Overview Chart
• How to develop a course around a DAMRU chart​
• Faculty understanding of Critical Thinking ​
  • Plus its link to CBE
• Assessing Critical Thinking
• How to help students appreciate their program and continue it after graduation​
• Distance Education ​
  • Technology ​
    • Sakai
    • Adobe Connect
• Answering difficult student questions
• Question to go on the survey:“I would like a chance to teach SCI/STC”
• Different approaches to Faculty Development? ​
  1. oC.U.T.S.Certificate of University Teaching Skills
  2. Authentic Intellectual Work (Fairfield High)
  3. Cooperative learning (Sam Boothby)

October 16, 2014

Present: Jane Schmidt-Wilk, Michael Zijlstra, Anil Maheshwari, Isabelle Matzkin, Matthew Beaufort

Absent: Paula Armstrong, Gabriel Akura

Guest: Cheryl Michie

Agenda:  Review wording for additional questions on end-of-course feedback form for online and DE courses

1. Approved minutes of October 9 meeting
2. Discussed wording for additional questions on end-of-course feedback form for online and DE courses
3. Action step: Cheryl will send proposed updated version of the form to Jane to distribute to TLC for review
4. Action step: Matthew will ask Cathy about progress on editing the videos the faculty made in the July workshop with Susie Dillbeck

​

Adjourned: 4:12 ​p.m.

October 9, 2014

Present: Jane Schmidt-Wilk, Gabriel Akura, Paula Armstrong, Matthew Beaufort, and Michael Zijlstra

Not present: Anil Maheshwari, Isabelle Matzkin

Agenda:  Review and approve minutes from two previous meetings and decide on next steps for faculty development related to CBE integration.

Welcomed Akura as the newest member of the Teaching and Learning Committee.

Old Business

1. Reviewed and approved as amended 2 sets of minutes: Sept 11 and Sept 25
2. Reviewed APC replies (Sept 29) to our proposals from Sept. 25 meeting and Susie Dillbeck’s responses from Oct. 4 to related questions.Action steps:
3. Propose that MIU adopt “Science and Technology of Consciousness” as the primary nomenclature across campus for this body of knowledge and use it in Main Points Charts, etc.
4. Propose that AC review handout on using Maharishi videos in class.​New Business
5. Reviewed Faculty Development Workshop with Susie Dillbeck from Oct 6 and recommendations for follow-up.Decided to ask Department Chairs to continue discussion integrating STC principles with discipline-based content.Action steps:
6. Ask Chairs will focus next Dept. meeting on this and report to Academic Council on October 21.

Meeting adjourned: 4:30 PM

September 25, 2014

Present: Jane Schmidt-Wilk, Paula Armstrong, Michael Zijlstra, Anil Maheshwari

Not present: Matthew Beaufort, Isabelle Matzkin

Agenda:  Discuss questions on CBE policies and practices. The main question in each case is: Who decides?

1. Major nomenclature. What do we want to call the body of knowledge from Maharishi that we teach ? Specifically in the context of CBE, where we refer to Main Points as having a Discipline Point and a …. SCI? MVS? SC? STC point? We’d like to have a consistent nomenclature in the Main Points Charts.Recommendation: This seems to be a question for Susie Dilbeck and Bevan Morris. However, there was a preference in the group for “Science and Technology of Consciousness.”​
2. Adopting the guidelines from International about CBE as policy:

• 8-level UFC
• Main Points with Progression of SCI/SC plus scientific research
• Unity Chart with 5 linesSome faculty members think AC should “approve” the progression of SC policy. We’ve already adopted the 8 line UFC chart and 5-line Unity Chart. Did they go through an AC approval process?Proposal: TLC will propose a process for faculty input on CBE practices.What about faculty who are so new to TM and the movement that they don’t yet have a good grasp of higher states (for progression) or “impulses”? One suggestion was to create some levels of expectations that are tied to promotion to higher faculty ranks.TLC recommends:
• ·new faculty be informed before hiring of 2-week orientation and faculty development requirements.
• each new faculty have a CBE mentor in their department.
• Dean of Faculty needs to follow up on this.

​

3. Using Maharishi videos in teaching. Options:

• Hand out printed main points to students after viewing video?
• Post main points on charts on wall as in SCI?
• Policy on note taking: no notes?“a few words” ? “a few phrases”? Unlimited notes? (See emails from Fred and sentence in SCI instructor’s manual.)

Action Step: Jane will ask Susie if she knows what Maharishi has said specifically about note-taking during academic classes, not only SCI classes and TTC.

​

1. Post Maharishi books online as PDFs. Searchable versions for faculty—Bevan asked Jane to write Volker about royalties. Craig has an idea about making the books available electronically for sale to public (kindle, nook etc.).No longer an issue. According to Michael, who was on Next Generation course, International organization is making Maharishi books e-books.​
2. Format of Main Points on wall charts and in syllabi. See recommendations from Summer 2014 Workshop.TLC recommends that TLC have decision making authority over formats.​
3. Format of scientific research for SCI/SC point in one main point per lesson. Chart booklet uses abbreviated format (for public) butReference Librarian recommends that as academic institution we use full citations in the format of the respective discipline. Raja M Dillbeck agreed.TLC recommends that TLC have decision making authority over formats and more specifically that full citations be used.​
4. Unified Field Charts.See Volker Schanbacher’s email. Give to students only on paper? Electronically? What about DE courses? Who pays royalties for what level of usage? Does this apply to ALL UFCS? Or just to specific charts? What about charts that MIU faculty develop?Action Step: TLC recommends that a group familiar with digital rights management look into this.​
5. Posting and online availability of 16 Principles. Copyrighted material. Can we post for faculty on Teaching Resources?With what if any caveats?

Action Step: TLC recommends that a group familiar with digital rights management look into this.

​

Meeting adjourned at 4:30 PM

​

​

September 11, 2014

Present: Jane Schmidt-Wilk, Paula Armstrong, Isabelle Matzkin,

Absent: Matthew Beaufort, Anil Maheshwari, Michael Zijlstra

Guest: John Collins

Agenda: Develop assessment plan for October Critical and Creative Thinking Seminars

Decisions made:

1. Reviewed and accepted as written the minutes from the Sept 4 TLC meeting
2. Reviewed and modified proposal for common CCTS course goal and objectives (see attached)
3. Reviewed and recommended revision to instructions for Ennis-Weir test. Decided to keep theinstructions as they are with one exception because students will get a chance to practice this format at least once, ideally twice (with our new in-house pre-test and a recommended practice test) before taking the Ennis-Weir test. The recommended change was to omit the instruction to sign the letter.
4. Reviewed Moorburg letter Form 2 (school vouchers); recommended some revisions and made suggestions for the scoring guidelines.Other news
5. Paula expressed interest in developing a CCTS around her Issues in American Education course. This CCTS could be open to students across all majors.
6. David Scharf is interested in developing a CCTS for MVS on Immortality,
7. Both Paula and David would need to take the CCTS training course for faculty. It is not currently scheduled to be taught.

​Proposed Common CCTS Course Goal and Objectives (Sept 2014)

Course description

Common course goal, something like the one below:

All Critical and Creative Thinking Seminars at MIU are designed to develop students’ capacity to engage in meaningful dialogue characterized by analytic clarity, sensitivity, genuine openness to new ideas, imaginative problem-solving, and the depth of insight that is gained when thinking becomes clear and stress-free. This Critical and Creative Thinking Seminar … (give something more specific about this course’s goal)

Common Course Objectives

By the end of the course, students will be able to:

1. Identify and distinguish between the topic, issue, thesis, main reasons, evidence, and context in text or speeches
2. Detect common logical fallacies in text or speeches
3. Demonstrate basic information literacy skills such as conducting secondary research, using academic databases to locate sources, evaluating credibility of sources, and quoting and citing sources professionally
4. Think more creatively (e.g., by applying lateral thinking techniques, problem-solving skills, art, poetry, music, …)
5. Connect parts to wholes and wholes to the Self in light of their own experience and principles of the Science of Consciousness.

​

​

​