JULY 2012 – JUNE 2013

Teaching and Learning Committee

May 21, 2013

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

Not present:Matthew Beaufort, Anil Maheshwari

Special guests: Dina Chammas and Michael Lerom

The meeting celebrated Dina Chammas and Michael Lerom for converting the undergraduate required physics courses in the pre-med program to active learning courses using Workshop Physics, one component of the Activity Based Physics Suite. Dina and Michael reported on their experience learning about the program, implementing it, and learning from student responses how to improve it further. Dina commented that she was impressed how well the students performed on traditional tests after taking this type of course. Michael noted that the students were much more engaged in the learning experience in this course than a traditional lecture-based course he observed two years earlier. (We also have extensive notes from the meeting.)

Insights:

1. Packaged active learning curriculum may be available for other courses.
2. CS: students might benefit from first trying activities in small groups.

Possible Action Steps:

Consider offering a faculty workshop in active learning for the science faculty or even for all faculty. Dina offered to bring the equipment, show how it actually works; explain the concepts briefly and then give the experience.

TLC then collected a list of upcoming agenda items:

1. Student orientation include orientation to CBE, including the charts they can expect to see in classes
2. Develop a policy about visiting classes and giving feedback, especially if any problematic situations; take it to FPC or have a joint meeting with FPC and then to AC for approval. In this context, it would be useful to look at policies at other universities.
3. Complete classroom visit checklist and/or rubric
4. Contracts need to spell out our expectations like criteria for (re-)appointment, length of service, procedures of faculty approval and membership in Faculty Senate. TLC could give input to FPC.

Next meeting will be Friday lunch, May 24 to discuss upcoming Unity Chart Workshop (May 29).

May 24, 2013

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

Not present: Isabelle Matzkin

We held a lunchtime meeting at Annapurna to discuss the upcoming Faculty Development Workshop on “The Unity Chart with Special Attention to the “Impulses” Line” with special guest speaker Dr.Bevan Morris.  We came up with the following plan:

1. Introduction to the workshop
2. Purpose of the workshop: feel confident that you can write 4^th line; be inspired to round this summer and deepen experiences of all these lines
3. Overview of the session
4. Faculty write down and then share in big group answers to a question like, what is the purpose of the Unity Chart? Why do we use it at MIU classes? Someone records answers on computer, which show up on display.
5. Briefly Review structure of the chart—either with a handout or with slides…
6. Bevan: why is the 4^th line of the chart important? How do we structure it?Some examples from syllabi to comment on? as handouts or with slides?Bring out list of options for 4th line
7. If time allows, workshop: write new 4^th lines, share in small groups, get feedback.

We also discussed the Knowledge Fair that was held on May 22. Our judges had some suggestions for improvements. We will try to arrange a meeting with them after Commencement.

Next meeting of TLC:  in July or August.

May 9, 2013

Present: Jane Schmidt-Wilk, Chair, Paula Armstrong, Isabelle Matzkin, Anil Maheshwari

Not present: Michael Zijlstra, Matthew Beaufort

The meeting focused on the upcoming Faculty Development seminar May 11.

1. Committee members reviewed and revised the handout Jane created that faculty will use as a starting point for discussing teaching strategies based on John Bean’s “Engaging Ideas” that were implemented this year.
2. Members then filled out the form themselves and discussed their own implementation of Bean’s strategies, then estimated time needed for each activity on Saturday.

The next meeting of TLC will be on Thursday, May 16, 2013.

Tentative Agenda:

1.      Update from Dr. Susie Dillbeck re use of Richo Akshare Charts in classrooms.

2.      Display updated Faculty Resources page

3.      New Student Orientation (for August)

4.      Specify CBE expectations for faculty

April 11, 2013

Present:

Jane Schmidt-Wilk, Chair

Paula Armstrong, Matthew Beaufort, Anil Maheshwari, Michael Zijlstra

Not present:

Isabelle Matzkin

The meeting focused on the Faculty & Staff/Teaching Resources webpage of the MIU website.

1. Jane proposed a complete overhaul of the webpage with additional resources.
2. Committee members reviewed the plan and made suggestions for further refinements.
3. Jane will continue working on the outline and will arrange to get it posted online.

The next meeting of TLC will be on Thursday, April 25, 2013.

Agenda: to review plans and procedures for the Knowledge Fair on May 22.

April 29, 2013

Present:

Jane Schmidt-Wilk, Chair

Paula Armstrong, Matthew Beaufort, Anil Maheshwari, Isabelle Matzkin, Michael Zijlstra​

TLC met over lunch to plan the May 11 Faculty Development workshop. The purpose of the workshop is to review, celebrate and inspire continuous improvement in our use of principles of  writing, critical thinking, and active learning presented by John Bean in Engaging Ideas: The Professor’s Guide to Integrating Writing, Critical Thinking, and Active Learning in the Classroom, which formed the basis of the August 2012 Faculty Development Seminar.

Proposed session plan:

1. 1. Introduction. Jane introduces the session as a celebration of knowledge and outlines 4 levels of scholarship of teaching & learning (source: Bilimoria & Fukami, 1999?): ​
   1. I did this.
   2. I did this and the students liked it.
   3. I did this, here’s how the students reacted, and here’s some evidence that it improved student learning.
   4. I did this, here’s how the students reacted, and here’s more rigorous evidence (multiple measures, multiple sources) that it improved student learning.
2. Individual Reflection. Faculty members reflect in writing on their teaching experiences this year: ​
   1. Report something they learned about writing, critical thinking, and/or active learning from Engaging Ideas,
   2. Report on the type of evidence they have that it improved student learning, and
   3. Describe their plans for further developing these teaching strategies
3. Small Group Discussion. In small groups, faculty members share their experiences, evidence, and plans. Group selects 2-3 best practices with evidence from the individual reports to share with the large group. Criteria for best practice? Criteria for best evidence?
4. Share with Large Group. One spokesperson for each group presents the 2 or 3 best practices with evidence, as identified by the group.

Action Steps:

Reserve the room (Festival Hall)

Develop a better title for the session

Announce in the docket and in emails

Develop the handout with questions for the individual reflection part

Time the elements of the session

Develop criteria for sharing: Best practices? Evidence?

The next meeting of TLC will be on Thursday, May 9, 2013 in Gate Ridge 245 at 3:20 PM.

Agenda: TBA.

April 4, 2013

Present:

Jane Schmidt-Wilk, Chair

Matthew Beaufort, Anil Maheshwari, Isabelle Matzkin, Michael Zijlstra

Not present:

Paula Armstrong

Guest:
Michael Farrer, MIU Evaluations Manager

The meeting focused on the MIU Student Online Evaluation System (SmartEvals). Mike Farrer reported on achievements, demonstrated recent improvements on the website, and posed possible additional questions.

Achievements:

1. The Process has improved. …Three files need to be prepared for each GAP upload, which requires very specific formatting. In the recent past, it would take approx. 3–4 hours working with the Enrollment Center’s raw data to create the Student/Course/Registration files in proper format to be uploaded. Mike has worked closely with Tom Rowe to format the raw data so that approx. 90% of the reports can be directly uploaded in the specific format needed. Preparation time for the Evaluations Office is now less than an hour.
2. The South African distance education project NEOTEL is now on the MIU online evaluation system.
3. SmartEvals has the potential to host and provide evaluation data on the MIU student assessment program and plans to administer these tests online starting in the fall of 2014: ​
   • Student Information Form
   • Duke Health Profile
   • MIU Perception of Happiness
   • CTI Questionnaire
   • MIU Experience Questionnaire
4. Department administrators will now have access to SmartEvals to manage reports for the Dept. Heads and instructors.
5. Survey results now include the evaluation report as a PDF within the text of the teacher notification email …in addition to the direct link login.
6. Mike is working with Gap Technologies to: ​
   1. Initiate ‘Teacher Q Notification’ whereby once the upload is complete and before the evaluation period opens, instructors will have the opportunity, within a 48-hour window, to add questions to their class evaluation.
   2. Restructure the MIU SmartEvals online site to improve ease of access and transparency of information. Divisions, Departments and Classes are the focus.
   3. Redesign the look and feel of the site as well as the student and teacher emails and our MIU online site with customized MIU colors and Logos

Possible Additional Questions

​

TLC reviewed additional question options such as:

• Adding drop downs for Disagree and Strongly Disagree answers
• Eliciting more detail for Challenge question.

After discussion, TLC recommended not changing the question set at this time. First, complete the data clean-up process and see what the resulting program/department scores are. After that, we can consider adding or changing questions.

March 7, 2013

Present:

Jane Schmidt-Wilk, Chair

Matthew Beaufort, Isabelle Matzkin, Michael Zijlstra

Not present:

Paula Armstrong, Anil Maheshwari

No longer on the committee:
Raul Calderon

At this, our first meeting in 2013, we previewed our broad goals for the spring and prioritized them:

1. Faculty resources page on MIU website

2. End of course evaluations

3. Knowledge Fair plans

4. Problem-based learning in STEM disciplines

5. Distance Education “working group”/ CBE/SCI content of online courses

6. Completion of the classroom visits rubric

Faculty resources page

Proposed that the pages be organized according to categories such as “templates for your course” and Workshops organized by date and topic.

Action Step: Michael and Jane will meet next week to review, identify and organize the contents for the Faculty resources page and provide that information to Amellia for posting/updating.

End of course evaluations

Although faculty can access their own end of course evaluation data on the SmartEvals system, everyone found it difficult to access program or department-level information from the system; several admitted that they had given up trying to access that data.

Action Step: Jane will invite Mike Farrer to a TLC meeting devoted to SmartEvals.

Knowledge Fair plans
Developed the following basic criteria for Knowledge Fair projects:

1. Project represents a significant and meaningful contribution to society within the context of the discipline
2. Presentation of the project includes: ​
   1. Clear and concise oral presentation that includes wholeness, logically developed main points, supporting evidence, conclusion
   2. Visual aids that effectively convey the ideas
   3. Integration of the Science of Consciousness/SCI/MVS.

Action Step: Jane will review these criteria with Chris Jones, who ran the Knowledge Fair in past years, and find out what other steps are involved in planning and organizing the event.

​

Problem-based learning in STEM disciplines

Proposed Craig’s idea of introducing problem-based learning to the faculty who teach in the science, technology, engineering and math disciplines. Discussed our understandings of PBL and ways to organize an inspiring event that addresses multiple disciplines. Plan a few key speakers from within the group? Have an open discussion?

Action Step: Jane will be meeting with Dina Chammas on Monday to hear about the classical physics course that she redesigned based on attending a conference. Invite Dina to a TLC meeting to help brainstorm a plan for an event for the faculty?

Distance Education “working group”/ CBE/SCI content of online courses.

Reported on the Working group for Online Education and our task of reading books to find core materials for a course for MIU faculty on teaching online. Committee members emphasized the importance of engaging students in online courses.

Discussed the challenges of integrating SCI and CBE into online education. For example, CS always has an SCI question on the exam, and lectures integrate some SCI content, but is that sufficient? And is it effective when instructors for online courses are other than those who actually create the courses?

Action step: Jane will send her Vai & Sosulski slides to members of TLC. Invite Ellen Finkelstein to join the working group.

Completion of the classroom visits rubric
No time remained for this agenda item.

Next meeting: Thursday, March 21 same time, same place.

November 29, 2012

Present:

Jane Schmidt-Wilk, Chair

Matthew Beaufort <mbeaufort@miu.edu

Anil Maheshwari <anil_maheshwari@hotmail.com>,

Paula Armstrong parmstrong@miu.edu

Michael Zijlstra mzijlstra@miu.edu

Raul Calderon rcalderon@miu.edu

Not present:
Isabelle Matzkin <imatzkin@miu.edu>

We discussed the challenges of using the classroom checklist for observing classes and used the meeting to start developing a rubric to be used for visiting classes. Notes for the rubric follow.

Evaluation rubric: degree of CBE in Classroom

November 8, 2012

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

Absent: Isabelle Matzkin, Michael Zijlstra, Raul Calderon

Agenda:

1. Content for 10-min. presentation to Faculty Senate

• Observation of teaching faculty as support rather than evaluation (Jane will show data from visits)
• Formatting for syllabus and main points: show choices for syllabus and main points recommendations​
  1. Faculty Development

• Training course in CBE in the works: different levels of competency through advanced coursework
• Classroom Observation Checklist discussion: how does the current checklist reflect a teaching paradigm other than the lecture? Would like to have a project-based checklist as well as lecture-based.​
  1. Three types of faculty development are needed:

• CBE
• Traditional college teaching
• Distance education

Meeting adjourned 4:20

November 1, 2012

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

Agenda:

1. Discussion of last week’s workshop on Main Points & Unity ChartsThree of the five people present had attended the workshop on main points and unity charts.  There was general agreement that the content was worthwhile, although the organization could have been improved; spending too much time on review of known points and not enough on new knowledge may be an ongoing element of Fac. Development seminars.2. Faculty Resources on websiteJane requests that people send her feedback on organization of resources on new website.  Some templates need updating, for example template for main points.  Some links may not work.Some discussion of effectiveness of main points for students – idea that orientation to main points charts should be included in academic orientation to university during STC/SCI.
2. Syllabus Template Updates including cover choicesSeveral different syllabus cover designs were presented.  People voted on their favorite two choices.  The top three choices will be presented to faculty as a whole to let them decide which one they’d like to use and if there should be only one used by everyone.
3. Inching towards PolicyOne goal for the committee is that it would function like Curriculum Committee, and make and enforce policy.
4. Calendar for Faculty Development 2012-2013 and topics

Calendar of workshops and meetings was distributed.

Jane will distribute minutes of TLC meetings to TLC members.

Meeting adjourned 4:10.

Thursday, October 11, 2012

Present: Paula Armstrong, Matthew Beaufort, Raul Calderon, Anil Maheshwari, Isabelle Matzkin, Michael Zijlstra

Missing: Jane Schmidt-Wilk

Matthew brought a list of SCI/MVS principles he finds useful. Says students seem to be relieved to have something to hold on to. All agree that students appreciate this.

Anil: Could create a survey: Which one of these is most relevant to you, in regard to this course? Explain your reasons. Then have them write an essay about the ones that are most chosen by the class.

Michael: Would like to create resources of SCI points for faculty. A possible way to categorize: unity, duality, trinity, 4 (e.g. stages of the gap), plurality. We want students to have an AHA moment.

Learned in faculty training course what constitutes a good SCI point – 4 criteria:

• correlate (bare minimum)
• correct
• expand
• fulfill

Raul: Question: Where is the critical thinking aspect in giving students these lists of principles to choose from?

Matthew: Answer – example: Assigned a reading by Joseph Campbell. First students had to write definitions of higher states according to MVS. Then identify elements in Campbell, and explain their reasoning. Compare and contrast. Findings: there are a lot of similarities between MVS and other tradition. This provides a kind of validation of the principles. Trying to get students to see a glimmer of universality.

Anil: What is the goal of these principles, anyway? Saw Maharishi’s tape on Gandhi: He said Gandhi was a force for sattwa. Sattwa seems to be key. We ascribe to that. That’s a world view, not a principle. On the basis of that world view, we can engage all these principles. If the world view is not accepted, then any principles can be shredded.

Michael: There are fundamental principles, e.g. sattwa. Then there are layers principles at various levels of expression built on that. But they’re always supposed to tie back to unity, at every level.

Raul: Is it possible for us at MIU to come to a consensus of a template that all faculty should be competent in and apply? Or do we leave it up to everybody’s individual experiences?

Michael: We do want to establish a base level of competence. But it can’t be rigid.

Matthew: Yes, it can’t become like a dogma.

Raul: However, basic skills should not be dogma. How can we create an operational list for faculty?

Isabelle: Perhaps there could be a short list of foundational principles everyone should be comfortable with. E.g. mechanics of transcending, self-referral dynamics of consciousness, higher states. But beyond that, each faculty would need the competence to integrate & relate to principles in their own way. To gain this competence, everyone needs to take SCI or STC, Physiology is Consciousness, and Higher States. The training continues beyond that.

Paula: It’s also useful to sit and think together in departments, not alone. Make these lists together. Michael agrees.

Raul: So, there are a few fundamentals, but within certain departments, there could be added richness of principles.

Michael: Caution: We can “suggest” a list of principles that are “useful”. We don’t want to imply that these are IT, and everyone MUST know these etc.

Raul: who would create that list? Who would evaluate it?

Matthew: Maybe our committee develops a list & criteria of professional competence.

Anil: We want to ask why we are looking for a list of principles. CBE is a strength for us in the marketplace. So I want to be able to teach CBE. As a school we need to have a strong way to teach our faculty how to do that. SCI was very useful, but still, how to teach it? It’s a challenge.

Michael: Consistency is important. Currently, everyone is sort of on their own. Some faculty are better at it than others. Students feel that.

Anil: But consistency of overarching framework, not just consistency of principles.

Michael & Matthew: On Evan’s list of ‘principles’, some are indeed a world view.

Isabelle: About world view: In STC, the Critical Thinking training does involve having students describe the author’s world view. It helps.

For our list of core principles, a logical place to start could be the points from STC.

Matthew: In SCI, the world view is absolutist. Supreme Knowledge. It is not just a world view. World views are debatable. Supreme knowledge is not debatable.

Michael: Although it is a world view, it is “everything.” It’s true in a sense that we have a world view, but it’s important to be tolerant of other world views and find commonality with them. Because the foundation is the same wherever you go. It’s still sattwa, just expressed differently.

Isabelle: Let’s remember that the scientific method is also a kind of absolutist world view. Not challenged at the university level anywhere. There are always certain foundational beliefs.

Raul: Scientific method is only questioned within the context of philosophy of science.

October 4, 2012

Present: Anil, Matthew, Isabelle, Jane. Michael

Not present: Paula, Raul

September Concurrent Workshops

Feedback forms:

• feedback forms all were positive, workshops found to be useful and engaging
• liked Friday morning instead of Sat afternoon
• would like more sessions over longer time for deeper engagement and discussions
• Moodle was biggest session by far, no feedback unfortunately
• · overall tabulations: 63 people involved, 73 responses, Moodle responses not included

Biggest challenges were logistics:

• we didn’t figure out how to best schedule Raul’s sessions
• most workshop leaders didn’t have keys to the rooms on Saturday morning
• · need better system for distributing feedback forms and postering in a timely manner

Suggestions/offers for future topics

• Dara on teaching
• Different learning styles
• Sama offered to lead session on MMY tape on deep principles of knowledge that some people may not understand

—

Incorporating SCI/MVS

New idea: update of 2×2 matrix

Susie Dillbeck’s workshop

We noted that the attention step & need step were taken out by Susie because they were originally from a textbook on communications, but they are clearly valuable nonetheless

Point: A checklist would be helpful

It was felt that faculty would feel overwhelmed by all these steps, visiting faculty even more so. There is also a feeling among many faculty that this method is a little constraining, too formulaic. Suggestion from TLC: It’s better to build up to them step by step, rather than all at once – there will be less resistance. Also if a faculty doesn’t have this system very well integrated, they miss the point and aren’t engaging the students. On the other hand we don’t want people to lecture for 2 hours. These are some ways to avoid that and engage students.

Authenticity is important. If the teaching comes across as formulaic, it isn’t received by students at all. Weak/forced SCI points will turn students away from the Knowledge.

On the sequence of SCI points throughout a course: Some faculty notice that they repeat an SCI point in the same course lessons, simply because that point happens to connect best with the topic.

For the October workshop, Jane’s request is to only focus on main points and Unity charts. We are proposing that people sit in pairs to give each other feedback – experienced faculty with newer faculty. It’s helpful to work with someone from different departments who we don’t usually work with, to cross-fertilize ideas. (Many of us tend to keep coming back to same set of stock SCI principles.) Talking about the knowledge together enlivens it. People can bring a syllabus or chart that they want to improve.

—

How do we know whether a class is integrating CBE?

Question of evidence

• 1^st thing that comes to mind: always support the students. Uplifting interactions. Attitude is more fundamental than all the points in the world.
• Charts are on the wall and in the syllabus
• Online evaluations on CBE content
• Explicit requirement for CBE content in assignments (most students need specifics)
• Student assignments show meaningful integration of CBE and discipline

Feedback: Some students are looking for deep SCI connections and not seeing them

Overall solution: Courses should be assignment-centered rather than lecture-centered.

Workshop idea: because the requirement is to have the charts, the emphasis is teacher-centered. We need to focus on student-centered approach!

Clearly, our students need active learning in order to ‘learn’, so it’s not enough to just put charts on the wall.

This relates to Fred’s point: As long as the teacher is talking, only a small, passive portion of the student’s brain is engaged.

However, learner-centered education is harder to do.

We can look to John Bean for practical tips. — Idea for a project: John Bean in the light of CBE!

[Note for Jane: assignment how to design student assignments with CBE component]

From STC teachers: The new STC students assume critical thinking part of CBE. So it’s even more essential that all faculty be comfortable with this approach.

It helps to have students generate the main points, Unity Charts themselves. They can also create alternate connections in main point charts.

Suggestion: If the teacher tacks on a consciousness point at the end, it will be perceived that way by students. A better way to integrate is for the teacher to start with a consciousness point and build the lesson on that.

“Book learning – it has a value. We give ¼ value to the book, ¾ value to experience.”—Maharishi (paraphrased). Let’s incorporate that.

The challenge is that this is time-consuming and cuts into the time to learn programming etc. Students love concrete things. We need to help their brains grow to be able to think abstractly.

Note: It would be good to decide on one name for the Knowledge — Maharishi’s Science of Consciousness, CBE, SCI, MVS, STC…

September 27, 2012

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

Overview:

Goal 1:

Faculty more easily integrate SCI/MVS into lessons and teaching.

Strategies:

• Within departments coordinate tapes shown, concepts emphasized ​
  • Action: publicize this at faculty development workshops?
• Develop systematic way for faculty to access materials ​
  • Action: September workshop includes library search info
• Faculty experts in SCI become mentors to others (e.g., MVS dept) ​
  • Action: October workshop with S. Dillbeck on writing SCI points should have Vedic Science mentors for groups

Goal 2:

Faculty are current with content of discipline.

Strategies:

• Attend regional conferences to connect with others in the field ​
  • Action: unclear

Goal 3:

Faculty develop best teaching practices

Strategies:

• Multi-faceted faculty development tuned to individual needs of faculty ​
  • Action: September workshops
• Sign up for semester of faculty development workshops ​
  • Action: organize workshop series and get faculty to commit
• Week-long courses could be an option, but when and would faculty participate? ​
  • Action: unclear
• Should always include feedback/evaluation of seminars/workshops ​
  • Action: implemented in August and September workshops
• Faculty performance evaluations used to improve teaching
• Faculty required to meet with students at mid-point of course?

Meeting adjourned 4:00

Minutes from Inaugural Meeting

Thursday, Sept. 6, 2012

GateRidge 245, 3:20 to 4:20 PM

Present:

Jane Schmidt-Wilk, Chair

Matthew Beaufort <mbeaufort@miu.edu

Anil Maheshwari <anil_maheshwari@hotmail.com>,

Isabelle Matzkin <imatzkin@miu.edu>

Michael Zijlstra mzijlstra@miu.edu

Not present:
Paula Armstrong parmstrong@miu.edu

Raul Calderon rcalderon@miu.edu

Notes

1. Jane gave an introduction to the background of the committee, how it fits into new University Governance structure, and her vision of what “improving teaching and learning at M.U.M.” might mean in terms of a 2×2 matrix of teaching and learning, modern science and Vedic science.
2. Each committee member addressed the following questions:
   • Why did you sign up for this committee?
   • What do you hope this committee will accomplish in the next 2 years?
   • What do you plan to contribute?
3. Commonalities appeared across the members present, which are summarized as follows:
   • Our common interest is to enliven SCI in the teaching of the disciplines.
   • Everyone in the room loves to teach, cares about the quality of teaching and learning at M.U.M., and volunteered for the committee to support these broad goals.
   • More specifically, we recognized that integration of the knowledge and experience of consciousness differentiates M.U.M. from other schools. We can develop this core competency to more effectively position our school as superior and distinctive. The University has been effective at generic CBE marketing. If we could develop the core competency in the disciplines, we could more effectively market specific programs at the University, such as CBE-based (fill in any discipline name).
   • Whereas past faculty development has focused on inspiration, what is needed now are practical tools for improving teaching. The biggest hurdle the faculty face is integrating SCI with the discipline. Focus on having better materials on using SCI in teaching and making connections between the discipline and SCI.
   • Our student population has changed, and the new student body requires new types of teaching. Giving points with charts is no longer sufficient. Today’s students need to engage with SCI, not just with the discipline.
   • The Critical Thinking approach currently being pioneered in STC seems to be helping fulfill this need.
   • The faculty also need TLC.
   • Specific ideas:
     1. Longer faculty training course that meets half days to have time to process the information (work on course materials)
     2. Figure out a way to train new and visiting faculty before they teach.
     3. Faculty training in modules.
     4. Identify a set of core SCI principles – perhaps for degree programs or levels and use them consistently across the program.
     5. Post 16 principles of SCI on faculty resources page.
     6. Internal branding: every chart that the plotter prints could have across the bottom: “Maharishi International University: Home of Consciousness-Based Education”

Decision

We decided to meet again to continue our discussion on Thursday, Sept. 27 GateRidge 245 (same time, same place).