JULY 2015 – JUNE 2016

Minutes of the Teaching and Learning Committee

May 12, 2016

Present: Jane Schmidt-Wilk*, Paula Armstrong*, Matthew Beaufort, Isabelle Matzkin, Mark Ellinghaus* (asterisk denotes presence at the meeting)

Combined meeting with members of the Quality of Instruction subcommittee: David Fisher, Joseph Lerman. Not present: Craig Pearson, Chris Jones, Liis Mattik

1. Mark Ellinghaus agreed to post minutes for TLC online.
2. David Fisher presented slides summarizing the results of the CBE survey he organized in April 2016. Committee members gave advice about adding confidence intervals and analyzing the qualitative data before presenting the slides to Faculty Senate.

Action steps: Jane will notify Jeff Whitten that Mark will replace Michael Zijlstra as TLC’s online scribe.

Meeting adjourned: 4:05 PM

April 28, 2016

TLC Attendees: Jane Schmidt-Wilk, Paula Armstrong, Isabelle Matzkin, Mark Ellinghaus

Guests: Diane Aitcheson; Business: Cliff Rose; MVS: Tom Egenes; P&H: Dinesh Gyawali; SL: David Fisher and Dina Chammas (also Paula for Education)

Not present: Art (Dale Divoky, Gyan Shrosbree, or Matthew Beaufort); Computer Science (Paul Corazza); Individualized Majors (John Collins); Media & Communications (Amine Kouider?)

Agenda: Reflective Writing in the Senior Projects

1. Introduced Diane Aitcheson, who has offered to (a) assist faculty in developing assignments etc. (rubrics, grading advice) for reflective writing component of Senior Project and (b) coach students on their reflective writing for Senior Projects.  Students may email Diane at iadiane77@gmail.com for appts during the school day. (She teaches CS ESL students from 3:15 to 5 PM.)
2. Reviewed Senior Project Knowledge Fair process as well as the 2016 Knowledge Fair rubric; Reviewed Senior Project guidelines
3. Reviewed criteria for Reflective Writing component and looked at examples
   1. Students reflect:
      1. on the project
      2. on their own growth and learning—personally, academically, professionally
   2. Students integrate STC/SCI/MVS into reflections:
      1. on the project
      2. on their own growth and learning
   3. Faculty assess students’ reflective writing as part of Senior Project
      1. on the project
      2. on their own growth and learning
4. Attachments (examples) from Paula Armstrong:
   1. Analysis of project 1: https://sites.google.com/site/awarwickeducation/research-in-mathematics-education/analysis-of-student-learning
   2. Analysis of project 2 (page 30):

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OIJ7GJrdBXeI5SiCO0vl_iSFB0DQ8QMwiW6bewko7do/edit#

1. 1. Reflection on growth project 1: https://sites.google.com/site/awarwickeducation/research-in-mathematics-education/reflection-on-professional-growth
   2. Reflection on growth project 2 (page 36):

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OIJ7GJrdBXeI5SiCO0vl_iSFB0DQ8QMwiW6bewko7do/edit#

1. 1. Reflection on departmental standards: http://mrsstarling.weebly.com/teacher-education-standards.html
   2. Sample assignment based on John Bean (attached)
   3. Sample reflective writing rubric (attached)
2. Action steps for Senior Project Advisors:
   1. Please send Diane list of names of students doing Senior Projects in your program this spring
   2. Integrate reflective writing into assignments for Senior Projects in your program this spring
   3. Consider reviewing rubric with students, asking them what they would add. Ask students to evaluate samples of good and poor reflective writing using the rubric. (We’ve attached good samples. Still aaiting for access to the poor samples!)

March 11, 2016

Present: Jane Schmidt-Wilk,* Paula Armstrong,* Matthew Beaufort*, Isabelle Matzkin* (by skype), Michael Zijlstra (asterisk denotes presence at the meeting)

Agenda: Plans for upcoming CCTSs

What approach do we want to take towards assessing development of critical thinking skills in the CCTS that are scheduled to begin March 28:

• Paula Armstrong:ED115 Contemporary Issues in American Education
• Matthew Beaufort: FA204 The Spiritual Quest
• Travis Cox: SL-G100 Understanding and Advocating Sustainable Living
• Diane Aitcheson: course cancelled due to low enrollment​

1. Reviewed responses to the Paulian approach discussed at CCTS scoring meeting last fall.
2. Recommended giving the Grit test as post-test but limiting assessment to Paul’s 8 elements of reasoning (A page)
3. Each faculty member grades his/her own students.
4. Invite Travis and Diane to meet with TLC next week and review this plan with them.

Recommendations for faculty wide initiatives to improve Quality of Instruction:

1. Integrate analysis of course materials using Paulian Elements into courses across the curriculum
2. Adopt SC progression, including one scientific research finding in each lesson, into SC points of main points
3. Ask students to integrate SC points in activities that they do

Meeting adjourned.

January 28, 2016

Present: Jane Schmidt-Wilk,* Paula Armstrong,* Matthew Beaufort, Isabelle Matzkin,* Michael Zijlstra*(asterisk denotes presence at the meeting)

Guests: Dr. Alan Hodder, Hampshire College

Debra Levitsky and Anthony Robinson, Math Department

Based on the recent interest in considering moving away from letter grades, we invited Dr. Alan Hodder to tell us about Hampshire College’s approach to narrative grading. Notes from his presentation are below. No decisions were made (other than to adjourn.)

Hampshire College Approach to Grading

Alan gave an overview of the mission of Hampshire College and the role of narrative grading within that mission. The college was founded by the members of what is now the Five Colleges Consortium of Western Mass. in 1970 with the goal of providing an innovative educational program. The school’s philosophy is that students learn better when they are interested in learning in order to answer questions that they have about an area. Thus the whole curriculum is designed to foster an inquiry-based approach to learning.

There are no majors at Hampshire and no lists of required courses. Instead, the curriculum at Hampshire is structured in three divisions. Students in the first division, i.e., the first year, take Gen Ed and distribution courses. Then they select 2 advisors from fields that interest them and develop an area of interest to study, and eventually formulate some questions that they want to explore. Then with their advisors they select courses for the second division (second and third years) that will help them answer those questions. For the third division (fourth year) they develop and conduct an independent project in that area.

Hampshire has 1400 students and about 120 faculty.

There are no letter grades at Hampshire. Instead, starting in the first division, students receive both formative feedback on their assignments during their courses, and then they assemble portfolios of all their work in the course for summative feedback. The summative feedback is provided in narrative form. At the completion of each division, students also receive a summary of the summative feedback from the different courses they took. I think Alan said students may choose which of these narratives to include in their transcripts.

We looked at 4 sample course-level narratives, and Alan pointed out the 3 points that each is expected to cover:

1. Provide a fair description of what the student did (objective)
2. Evaluate that performance: How effective was it in what ways? What problems were there?
3. Make specific recommendations for improvement

​

In addition the forms include criteria for their cumulative skills requirements. Their current skills are “writing and research,” “multiple cultural perspectives,” “independent work,” and “quantitative.” [These sound similar to our ELOs.] The Hampshire website and the student handbook go into some detail in describing these skills and the rationale for highlighting them, but one can easily see how they are related to Hampshire’s emphasis on independent work and clear writing.

​

For each course, these skills are identified in the course description, and that description commits the professor to commenting on them in the narrative. But these paragraphs are for the student and his/her advisors; they do not appear in the transcript summary of narratives.

Alan teaches 2 courses per semester, which are capped at 25 students each. He also has a waiting list for his courses. Since students develop individual programs, much of his time is spent advising students, either one-on-one, or in small groups with another faculty advisor.

Training for new faculty on writing narratives is included in a 3-4 day orientation for new faculty that takes place in the week before school starts. Oversight of the quality of narratives is maintained through reviews in the faculty performance review cycle, which evaluates performance on term-specific contracts. The cycle follows this format:

1. Appointment with 3-year contract
2. Faculty performance review
3. Contract renewal for 4 years
4. Faculty performance review
5. Contract renewal for 10 years
6. Faculty performance review every 10 years, plus a mid-contract performance review

Faculty performance reviews focus on 3 criteria in this order:

1. Teaching and advising
2. Scholarship and scientific presentations
3. Community service

In the context of a faculty performance review, the Deans review all the course evaluations (narratives). When he was Dean, Alan provided templates to his faculty illustrating what a good narrative should look like.

Hampshire gives faculty three weeks at the end of each semester to complete the summative narratives for these 2 courses. He says it takes him a “solid week” to complete the narratives for one course. That involves reading and giving feedback on each final project, usually a research paper in his courses, and reviewing the comments he wrote on the other assignments in each portfolio. It takes him about an hour to read and evaluate each final project and another 30-45 minutes to compile all the other feedback plus that into a narrative.

Meeting adjourned: ​4:20 PM

In emails after the meeting, Alan acknowledged that this inquiry-based approach works best with gifted students. He wrote: “it was certainly is the case that in its early years Hampshire was one of the most selective colleges in the country. That is no longer the case, alas, but I do think that Hampshire was conceived with exceptionally able, if not gifted, students in mind and proves most successful for that kind of cohort. Students who are not as well prepared may find it more challenging.”

November 12, 2015

Present: Jane Schmidt-Wilk*, Paula Armstrong*, Matthew Beaufort, Isabelle Matzkin*, Michael Zijlstra* (asterisk denotes presence at the meeting)

Decisions made:

1. Meaning of Grades

A: excellent – exceeds the course objectives

B: good – meets the course objectives at the expected level

C: fair – meets the course objectives at a basic level

NC: no credit – did not meet the course objectives

1. New Faculty orientation course will include encouraging faculty to engage students to reflect on their goals for the course before showing the course overview chart, and will encourage them to engage students in a conversation about their progress in attaining the course objectives after the professor has reviewed the Mid-Course Feedback forms.
2. Suskie charts can use column #1 to identify the deeper knowledge of the course objectives; then column #2 can show the action needed to attain that knowledge or skill.​

Action Steps:

1. Syllabus template shows new meaning of grades.
2. Faculty orientation will introduce new faculty to ideas for engaging students in reflecting on their own goals and progress toward their and course goals.
3. Based on today’s feedback, Jane and Michael will revise their Suskie charts, so they can be used as examples for others.

Meeting adjourned:  4:30

October 29, 2015

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

Absent: Matthew Beaufort

Agenda: Compare Scantron and other software for end of course evaluations to SmartEvals

Problems with Smart Evals:

• Website is difficult to navigate, inefficient
• Website has problems with login
• Difficult to send emails to students through website
• Administrators can’t get comparative data on faculty for multiple courses
• Course survey of most dropped courses may not be accurate
• Faculty do not use Scantron very often, most likely because of its complexity

Scantron:

• Does both paper and electronic versions of survey
• Compiles notes from handwritten feedback
• Seems to be able to do any type of data collection
• Testimonials are positive – they say it’s easy to use and efficient
• Testimonials say it’s easy to implement into current IT

Mentor, by Axiom Education:

• Does survey and course management
• Can align course and program objectives, probably institutional ELOs

Action steps:

• Need to find out if Sakai has the capability of aligning objectives and ELOs. (Michael)
• Need to find out how much Scantron costs. (Chris)
• Find out what other schools do who don’t have an institutional researcher. (Isabelle)

Summary: SmartEvals works for faculty now that Mike Farrer sends faculty PDFs of their reports. But administrators need to hunt through the system to compile information on any single faculty member—or ask Mike to do it. We need an efficient way to use evaluate assessment data and student feedback. If we switch systems, we need to make sure the new system can be integrated with Sakai.

​

October 22, 2015

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

Reviewed and refined template of the Suskie Chart, in preparation for the Oct 23 faculty meeting. Result is below. Material in green is for faculty and should be deleted before publishing the chart for students.

*The numbers in parentheses refer to the MIU Essential Learning Outcomes that are best supported by this course objective; theyappear in boldface in the list below. (highlight in bold those that best apply to your course objectives, activities and assessments)

1. Holistic development of consciousness and health
2. Consciousness-Based understanding (Knowledge)
3. Creative and critical thinking
4. Communication
5. Scientific and quantitative reasoning
6. Collaboration and leadership
7. Sustainable local and global citizenship

October 1, 2015

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

1. Syllabus updates:

a. Recommend using Suskie’s Template for a Curriculum Map in the MIU Course Syllabus template (See attachment)

b. Review syllabus text about academic honor code and plagiarism: revise using a combination of Gerry Geer and Rod Eason’s text.  Jane will post for input. (see attachment)

2. Applying TBL’s 5 S’s to design Assessment Team Application Exercise(s)—POSTPONED.

We’ll discuss Application Exercises next time, so we can use the October 3rd Assessment Team meeting to better understand the vocabulary and general concepts of assessment, plus what the university is doing now in terms of assessment.

The course objectives marked with asterisks (*) address the MIU Essential Learning Outcomes that appear in boldface in the list below.

​

ESSENTIAL LEARNING OUTCOMES (highlight in bold those that apply to your course objectives)

• Holistic personal development (Or “Holistic Development of Consciousness and Health”)
• Consciousness-Based understanding (Knowledge)
• Creative and critical thinking
• Communication
• Scientific and quantitative reasoning
• Collaboration and leadership
• Major field competence
• Sustainable local and global citizenship

ACADEMIC HONOR CODE

PROPOSED NEW TEXT

Personal integrity, honesty, and honor are essential qualities of a capable student and a developing leader. The University has established an Academic Honor Code that sets forth the standards of academic honesty and personal integrity expected of all students for all writing assignments and exams.

Abiding by the Academic Honor Code will help you avoid academic dishonesty and plagiarism. Academic dishonesty​includes a range of unethical behaviors undertaken to deceive anyone who may be evaluating your work for meeting course and degree requirements. Plagiarism means submitting or presenting someone else’s work as if it were your own—without citations, quotation marks, or acknowledgment. Examples include copying text and/or graphics from online sources without attribution, copying a friend’s paper, or purchasing an essay for submission.

Plagiarism is a serious academic offense. Here at MIU, you will get an NC on any homework that you have plagiarized. Additional penalties for plagiarism could include an NC in the course, academic probation, or suspension from the University for two full semesters, depending on the seriousness and intentionality of the violation (see pp. 363–367 in the 2015 MIU Catalog).For help in avoiding plagiarism, refer to http://plagiarism.org. Additional information is in the Student Handbook at http://www.miu.edu/handbook.

If you are feeling pressured by assignment deadlines, don’t risk everything by resorting to plagiarism. Come and talk with your professor instead.

Existing text in syllabus template

Academic Honor Code — Personal integrity, honesty, and honor are essential qualities of a capable student and a developing leader. The University has established an Academic Honor Code that sets forth the standards of academic honesty and personal integrity expected of all students for all writing assignments and exams. This course will be conducted in strict conformity with the Academic Honor Code. You can find the Code and related procedures on page 373 in the University Catalog at www.miu.edu/catalog. Please familiarize yourself with this code and avoid using others’ work without proper citations.

​

Rod Eason’s text

•    Academic Honesty–Correctly Citing Source Material & Avoiding Plagiarism

College essays and research projects will typically include a combination of your own ideas and those borrowed from other sources. Whenever you use words or ideas borrowed from other sources (books, magazines, newspapers, songs, movies, web pages, etc.), the source must be properly credited. Your professor can help you in understanding citation guidelines.

​

Not properly acknowledging your sources (whether on purpose or by accident) is called plagiarism. In all fields of intellectual endeavor, plagiarism is considered a serious offense. You will get an NC on any homework that you have plagiarized, and you may receive an NC for the course. Copying the work of another student (such as an exam or a written assignment) or knowingly allowing another student to copy your work is an example of academic dishonesty and may be subject to the same consequences as those for plagiarism. For additional help avoiding plagiarism, refer to: http://plagiarism.org. Additional information is in the Student Handbook at: http://www.miu.edu/handbook.

​

Gerry Geer’s text

Below is the draft paragraph on plagiarism that I’m planning to add to my next syllabus. Please use (or not) as you see fit!

A Note on Plagiarism

Plagiarism means submitting or presenting someone else’s work as if it were your own—without citations, quotation marks, or acknowledgment. Examples include copying text and/or graphics from online sources without attribution, copying a friend’s paper, or purchasing an essay for submission. Plagiarism is a serious academic offense. Here at MIU, the penalties for plagiarism range from an NC on the assignment and/or an NC in the course to academic probation or to suspension from the University for two full semesters, depending on the seriousness and intentionality of the violation (see pp. 365–366 in the MIU Catalog). These penalties have been applied in previous Higher States courses and will be applied again in this one if necessary. If you are feeling pressured by assignment deadlines, don’t risk everything by resorting to plagiarism. Come and talk with your professor instead.

​

September 17, 2015

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

Goal: prioritize projects for this year.

​

Proposal to standardized language for consciousness: Use STC as the umbrella term, which includes SCI and MVS.  Isabelle will draft a proposal for definitions of both.  This term will affect the website, admissions, all faculty charts and teaching materials.

Proposal needs to be approved by AC, but first should go to MVS dept. for their feedback.

Sept 10, 2015

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

Absent: Matthew Beaufort

Jane presented the following ideas for projects to take on this academic year. Next time we’ll prioritize and see what overlap there is with the assessment team projects. “A” means it has a connection to Assessment.

1. Repurpose TLC as Assessment Team? TLC can consider if it would work to fold the work of the assessment team into its weekly meetings. After we see who is interested in being on the team and how much overlap there is, we can decide on this.
2. Update Teaching Resources: ​
   1. Per Craig’s wishes
   2. Draft a page of instructions about locating scientific research
   3. How to use this section of the website
3. A CCTS review success and plan for new year, given new info from July conference ​
   1. coordination of CCTS with Comp 2
4. A KF feedback – review and schedule dates for 2016, reserve hall ​
   1. Jane post 2015 KF talks
   2. Jane post Eva Saint Denis 2014 talk
5. UFCs- next steps: complete work on existing charts (which ones?); talk to Volker-establish procedures, clarify policy. Workshop for faculty on creating UFCs. ​
   1. Content approval process
   2. Technical approval process
6. A HLC Assessment Academy report and next steps and then some more!
7. A Scantron vs.SmartEvals: review advantages and disadvantages with view on possibly switching to Scantron
8. Policies regarding main points—all different contexts. Share handouts. Handouts shared and edited by team. To be presented to Academic Council
9. TBL going forward: ​
   1. visit Ames Oct 30 or Dec 4
   2. A schedule meeting at end of Sept block for faculty who have tried or are interested in trying TBL to share successes and challenges
10. Create learning community centered around methods of CBE and start meeting—ideas of lessons that people—one Weds. per month or maybe Friday afternoon between blocks.
11. Feedback from Aug FDS… Garnet type up?
12. Develop master plan of Faculty Training courses—series of required courses with specific (diff) goals: CBE, Higher Ed ped, CT, UFCs….
13. Plan August 2016 FDS—CT or SC? Or both? Or Assessment?
14. Locate Richo Akshare charts and post. What about software and instructions for making the chart?
15. Transcribe K Yancey talk or at least Main Points: is there a work study student who could do this?
16. A Craig: Make sure departments have clear and measurable learning objectives for each program and for their undergraduate major,coupled with clearly specified assessment measures,and then next step, make sure that courses in that program or major have clear and measurable learning objectives that align with those program learning objectives,also with specified assessment measures. And make sure that the learning objectives for courses and programs support our overall Essential Learning Outcomes.
17. A Draft proposal to standardize SC language-e.g.,SC/STC is umbrella for SCI and MVS as a whole.
18. A Faculty Teaching Award—plans we drew up last spring to honor faculty—tie it to assessment of student learning, which will be tied to student learning objectives
19. A Program Overview Chart: create an overview of courses for each major/program and show it to students regularly ​
    1. in the syllabus, on the first day of each course, so students know how their current course fits into their academic program.
20. Departmental handbook for students majoring in that field
21. Faculty Development program to culture the new faculty (growth of consciousness)
22. HSC course for faculty
23. Orientation for new faculty (in addition to new faculty training – can include more detail)
24. Oral Communications Workshop for faculty with Jonathan Gordon, Oct 6-9.

​