JULY 2013 – JUNE 2014

Minutes of the Teaching and Learning Committee

May 22, 2014

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

TLC Not present: Matthew Beaufort, Anil Maheshwari, Michael Zijlstra

Guests: John Collins, Travis Cox, Anne Dow, Kaeli Ferguson, Chris Jones, Matthew Rainforth, and Richard Thompson

Agenda: Review results of Ennis-Weir critical thinking test given as pre- and post-test during March Creative and Critical Thinking Courses. Discuss how to improve future CCT courses.

Main Point:

Both pre- and post-test results showed wide range of abilities.  22 students scored higher on posttest, 14 regressed. Many of the students who scored higher on the post-test were lower scorers on the pre-test.  Many who regressed were higher scorers on the pre-test.

Questions and possible answers:

Q:        How could some students show lower scores on posttest?
A:        a. lack of motivation due to taking the same test again after taking it three weeks earlier
b. regression to the mean
c. more focus on discipline with emphasis on critical thinking rather than focus on explicit critical thinking skills

Q:        Was the test targeting the skills we want to address?
A:        Unclear; suggestion to use AACU test or other assessment

Q:        How can the course be as valuable as possible for the wide range of student abilities?
A:        a. consider dividing classes so ability range is smaller
b. more individualized (one-on-one) instruction
c. break down skills into simple steps
d.  teach CT vocabulary and give lots of practice with explicit skills

Q:        What follow up should take place?

A:        a. faculty who teach CCT course may need to teach it more than once (rather than have all faculty take a turn), so they develop their own skills
b. faculty who teach CCT need to share their expertise and insights (on how to incorporate critical thinking skills into the major) within their department
c. offer the learning strategies course so very low ability students can take that first (or instead?)
d. use the test John Collins created as a model in other CCT courses
f. investigate the consortium of five Ohio colleges that teach CCT to see what curriculum they have developed.
e. send a representative (Isabelle) to the critical thinking conference in late July (check first that it is geared toward higher ed)​

Meeting adjourned 4:30.

May 1, 2014

Present: Jane Schmidt-Wilk, Paula Armstrong, and Anil Maheshwari

Guests: Cheryl Michie, Eric Liu, and Richard Thompson

Not present: Isabelle Matzkin, Matthew Beaufort, Michael Zijlstra

Agenda: Revise end of course feedback form to make it more relevant to distance education.

1. In preparation for the meeting we reviewed three documents ​
   • Quality Matters rubric 2011-2013 http://www.adlc.ca/public/download/documents/6131
   • ERIC http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED537339.pdf
   • Vai & Sosulski (2011) list of standards pertaining to: ​
     1. Learning Outcomes
     2. Ease of Communication
     3. Pedagogical & Organizational Design
     4. Visual Design
     5. Engaged Learning
     6. Collaboration & Community
     7. Assessment
     8. Feedback
     9. Evaluation & Grading
     10. Ease of Access
2. Reviewed MUM policy regarding student end-of-course feedback: The main point is not to put the student in the position of evaluatingthe teacher or the course, but to ask them about their experience in the course. You will not prevent some students from “tee-ing off,” but at least you will not put them in a position of making judgments they are not capable of making or inviting criticism, which is not good for them or the relationship with the teacher.
3. Recommendations

1. Add questions for the following categories to the current end-of-course form:

• Technology ​
  • Audio quality
  • Visual quality
  • Reliability
  • Technical support
  • Ease of log in
• Ease of Access
• Resources ​
  • Professors
  • Advising and other administrative services
• Visual Design
• Ease of Communication ​
  • Timely response from professor
  • Teamwork of class colleagues
  • Academic support
  • Timely response from administrative services
• Collaboration and community
• Policies ​
  • Course policies were clear
  • Technology prerequisites were clear

b.  Create a mid-course feedback form for DE courses.

Action Steps

1. Cheryl Michie will type up her notes for specific questions to include in the new end of course experience form.
2. TLC will meet again on May 29 to review text with Cheryl, Eric and Richard.
3. The proposed questionnaire(s) will go to the Distance Education committee for review.

April 10, 2014

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

Not present: Matthew Beaufort, Isabelle Matzkin

Agenda: Review plans for Knowledge Fair

TLC reviewed the draft guidelines for the Knowledge Fair and revised the Evaluation Criteria to suit the new structure of the event. Copies of the final documents are attached.

​

M.U.M. Knowledge Fair 2014

Faculty Guidelines

The M.U.M. Knowledge Fair is a celebration of the Senior Projects that undergraduate students have completed in their majors.  For 2014, the Knowledge Fair has a new structure, as outlined below.

Purpose: The purposes of the Knowledge Fair are multiple, including to:

• Bring the undergraduate student body together in a shared academic experience, modeled on the structure of an academic conference
• Demonstrate the value of the MUM undergraduate curriculum, including the unifying value of integrating the Science of Consciousness into the academic disciplines
• Demonstrate the growth of knowledge and skills that allowed the presenter to do the research and answer the selected research question
• Give continuing students a vision of the goal and inspire them to do interesting, challenging Senior Projects that they will want to share with the student body
• Inspire more faculty attention on structuring Senior Projects to integrate the curriculum of each discipline

Dates:  The Knowledge Fair will take place in Dalby Hall on Tuesday, May 20 from 1 to 3:15 PM and will be followed by a reception. ​Presenters will also present to the judges on Monday, May 19 either after class or in the evening. (Presentation appointments will be scheduled in advance).

Audience: The audience for the Knowledge Fair will consist of:

• Peers (undergraduate students)
• Faculty
• Trustees
• Outside judges (who are neither current students, MUM faculty, nor Trustees).

Each category of the audience will provide one or more awards (explained below.)

Format: The structure will consist of one student from each department presenting his or her Senior Project:

• In a 6– to 7–minute oral presentation to the judges in Dalby Hall during the late afternoon or evening of Monday, May 19 followed by 5-8 minutes of questions and answers to questions posed by the judges, and
• In a 6– to 7–minute oral presentation to the assembled audience in Dalby Hall on Tuesday afternoon, May 20 followed by 2 minutes of questions and answers to questions from the audience.

The presentation will be a live, oral presentation and include some visual supporting material (such as slides, self-made video clips, or props). The presentations will be introduced briefly by the emcee and timed by a timekeeper.

Task: The challenge for the presenters is to synthesize their Senior Projects in a concise oral presentation for a diverse audience who may or may not be familiar with issues in the discipline.

Criteria for Students’ Participation in the Knowledge Fair

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 2014.

Departmental Preparation for the Knowledge Fair

1. Faculty members who are teaching undergraduates in May: ​
   • Allocate time in your syllabus before Monday afternoon, May 19, for your students to attend Senior Project presentations in your department (see below).
   • Allocate the afternoon of May 20 for the Knowledge Fair in your course syllabus and on the Course Overview Chart
   • Commit to bringing (not sending) your classes to the Knowledge Fair on May 20
   • Accompany your students to the Knowledge Fair and take their attendance
2. Faculty members who are mentoring Senior Projects:

• Identify the students who qualify for the Knowledge Fair and coach them in preparation of their presentations. Make sure they have a copy of the Evaluation Criteria for the Knowledge Fair. (The Evaluation Criteria will be posted online both in Teaching Resources and in the Student Life section.)
• Work with your department to schedule a time before Monday afternoon, May 19, for the students doing Senior Projects to present their projects to the students and faculty in the department. If your department wishes, these presentations may be longer than 7 minutes with more time for questions and answers, so that the presenters can convey the depth of their knowledge and give you and your colleagues a sound basis for selecting one presenter to represent your department. Note: we recommend using the attached Knowledge Fair Evaluation Criteria to evaluate these projects.
• Choose one project from among the presentations in your department to represent the achievements of your department at the Knowledge Fair. By Monday morning, May 19, notify Jane Schmidt-Wilk who that presenter will be.
• Prepare a few question(s) to pose to your advisee during the Knowledge Fair Q&A session. These questions will be used as back-up questions, in case there are no questions from the audience.

Awards: The University and the Student Government will provide award(s), as follows:

1. Traditional University Knowledge Fair Awards. As in the past, the University would provide three cash awards: first place ($300), second place ($200) and third place (100). Criteria for these awards are similar to those used in 2013 (Please see the attached Evaluation Criteria).Judging for these three awards will be conducted by three outside evaluators.The winners of these awards will receive special recognition and their awards at the Commencement Awards Ceremony on the evening of May 23.
2. New Student Award(s). Student Government will be awarding the presenters based on criteria that Student Government is developing. We plan to announce these awards after the group meditation at the Knowledge Fair.

​

Maharishi International University • Knowledge Fair Evaluation • Spring 2014

​

Comments:

​

March 20, 2014

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

Not present: Paula Armstrong

Guest: Sue Brown

Agenda: Review Senior Project Program in Individualized Studies

TLC reviewed the guidelines for the Individualized Studies Senior Project, which are posted athttp://www.miu.edu/solo and noted the following two key points:

1. Students who wish to pursue Individualized Studies submit a proposal for their program; the senior capstone project is included in that proposal.
2. Application materials are not posted online; Sue Brown evaluates whether the program is a good fit for the student; whether he/she is self-motivated, has a clear goal and sense of direction.

Recommended action steps for Director of Individualized Studies

1. Text states: Student is required to have a concentration — check with Chris Jones on the term “concentration” vs. track. Example: Brooke Hadfield did consciousness-based leadership; concentration in MVS
2. Self-reflection is required only for performances and media projects; should be part of all Individualized Studies senior projects.
3. Assessment: text requires outside advisor only if there is no one at MUM with sufficient expertise; TLC recommends external advisor for each Individualized Studies senior project.
4. Public presentations are not planned at this time, although Brooke did one. Suggestion: Connect with the department that makes the most sense (concentration area) and have students present to that department (including their students).
5. Models to emulate: If possible, since they are so varied. Part of planning the major is to get guidance on what they need to do, e.g. scientific research methods, etc.; go through CC for approval
6. Knowledge Fair: provides a venue for choosing the best project.

General  Discussion:

1. Every department should be represented at the Knowledge Fair. So the students could give 10 prizes so everyone can win something (funniest, best dressed etc.). Create a culture of inclusivity; everybody does it. These awards will be different than the University awards which are strictly academic.
2. Self-reflection is important but doesn’t seem to be part of our culture; we need to put attention on it and teach our faculty how to do it. Some ideas:Structure a self-reflection requirement  on a weekly basis throughout capstone project – or any course; this generates materials that can be used for a summative reflection.Grading: ​J. Bean recommends grading students’ reflections only on engagement and complexity of thinking

   For example, in the recent Rotating University course to India, students were expected to keep a ​journal that was personal and not graded, but at the end of the course students give a graded presentation where they drew things out of the journal; it then became evident who has been engaged and who was faking it; students could also make a preliminary presentation in the middle of the course

   If someone is writing a paper, they could reflect on the process of writing the paper? Kathleen Yancey has done some work in this and written about it. Another example: Students in one course made a cause-mapping chart, took a 20-minute break, then reflect: What did you just learn from this? Looking for number of dimension in the reflection. Students had good insights: “I never realized I was thinking this way.”

3. Noted confusing terminology of Senior Capstone and Senior Project. Both involve reflective writing. When Senior Project Program was envisioned, it was thought that it would replace Senior Capstone, which at that time was deemed not very effective (see original description). Since then, however, Senior Capstone seems to be more effective, so it was decided to keep it. Now we have two activities that sound similar to students. Students are sometimes confused; say they’ve already done the capstone… This issue needs further discussion in a larger arena.
4. In the current Senior Capstone course, students are expected to create a both concept map and a Unified Field Chart on the discipline they studied; Sue Brown proposes that UFC should be on their whole education. We refer this issue to the faculty who teach the Senior Capstone.

March 6, 2014

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

Not present: Anil Maheshwari, Isabelle Matzkin

Guest: Mara Winningham

Agenda: Develop proposal for redesigning MUM Knowledge Fair

Mara Winningham described the Senior Capstone experience at Warren Wilson College, in Asheville, NC, based on her observations when she visited her daughter as a first semester senior: Mara also shared with the committee a link for their 2013 Capstone:

http://warren-wilson.edu/blogs/blog/2013/05/06/2013-academic-capstone-carnival/

At Warren Wilson College graduating seniors complete their senior capstone over the course of a semester.  It is a graduation requirement.  They take a senior capstone course during that semester.  Their initial proposal is reviewed by their advisor, researched, drafted, revised, refined during that semester and presented to other students within departments over 2-3 days at the end of the semester.  Friends and families are invited to those sessions.  The capstone is graded but is not a competition. Students are excited about the capstone research and presentations.  Presentations are generally to fairly large audiences (40+ people).

Ideas for how to revise MUM Knowledge Fair:

• Students present capstone projects within departments and the best is chosen to present at an all-student meeting (Wednesday afternoon?) before graduation
• Powerpoint presentations are used instead of posters
• 7-minute time limit + 3 min. Q/A
• Outside evaluators judge at all-campus meeting (this doesn’t preclude outside evaluators within departments)
• Could use the same evaluators as last year
• Evaluation criteria need to be looked at for possible revision
• Propose the above to student government and relevant faculty committees for possible roll out in Spring 2014

Meeting adjourned 4:20 PM​

​

February 27, 2014

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

Not present: Paula Armstrong

Agenda: Planning TLC agenda for Spring 2014

Decisions and Action Steps

1. CCTS Assessment for March 2014:
   1. Jane and Isabelle will organize CCTS record-keeping and chart for the assessment party March 21.
   2. Jane will find out what help might be available from Evaluations Office
   3. Jane will reserve room
2. Paula needs MUM organization chart and faculty review and evaluation process for Education Dept accreditation report:
   1. Jane and Paula will meet to work on documenting faculty review and evaluation process. Start planning and bring a draft; compare to the annual performance review; give more attention to the quality of teaching. For example, Cathy has ideas about Criteria for Promotion re Teaching (w/ FPC) involving 4 levels of teacher-ship
   2. Jane will ask Craig about MUM organization chart
3. Knowledge Fair 2014? Can we revise in time for this year?
   1. Art department feels current format doesn’t work for them; suggest giving all students an opportunity to present and showcase their work to an outside audience
   2. Jane will invite Mara Winningham and Diana Krystofiak to a meeting to discuss their daughters’ experiences of capstone projects at other small, private colleges
   3. Thoughts: skip the knowledge fair for now? All students, not just seniors, show what they are most proud of during the year; not a lot of extra preparation needed; 3-minute presentations; softer guidelines?
4. Final projects: still need to meet with Sue Brown, Individualized majors. Jane will set up date.
5. Review MUM Online Standards with Cheryl Michie.
   1. Look at book of standards that Susan Palma created; now Biran Saine’s responsibility
   2. Jane will set up meeting with Cheryl
6. Unified Field Chart: need a process for approval and finalizing:
   1. find out if the plotter can print them yet.
   2. Jane check with Jeff Whitten whether we can we post all charts on Teaching Resources. Idea would be departmental charts posted as PDF files only & stored them in a central place; can we make sub-charts available in their original files on Teaching Resources for teachers to update as needed.
7. Susie’s Summer 2014 Workshop
   1. Jane send dates to Matthew
8. Preparation of Reports for Academic Committee of the Board of Trustees            .
   1. Paula and Jane will summarize what we’ve learned about status of final projects.
   2. Isabelle and Jane will meet to summarize status of CCTS.
      1. Note 1: institutional learning goals: CCT is a process that overlaps greatly with writing, reasoning & logic, and creativity; beautiful multi-dimensional way to teach MVS; Isabelle would like to consider a more integrated approach to institutional learning goals
      2. Note 1: Comp 2: overlaps with CCTS; might need to be re-thought in light of institutional learning goals, etc.; a textbook would be useful, e.g. one authored by John Bean

January 30, 2014

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

Guests: Gabe Romero, Gurdy Leete

Agenda: Review Media and Communications senior project

MC has four capstone options which are not necessarily viewed as culminating courses but include some of the criteria for a senior project.  Capstones are project-based; a portfolio of work is expected; and they are thought of as “starting one’s career.”

Suggestions from TLC:

• Introduce capstone course through student advising; during other courses let students know its importance.
• Extend the time from one to two blocks pending DOF approval for low enrollment.
• Contact outside experts to volunteer as guides and evaluators.
• Incorporate a written reflection on the project, including connections with Maharishi Science of Consciousness.
• Create a course syllabus, including a timeline with due dates for the proposal (not mentioned during meeting).
• Compare project guidelines to 12 institutional learning goals (not mentioned during meeting).

Meeting adjourned 4:20 PM.

Jan. 16, 2014

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

Not present:  Paula Armstrong

Agenda: Assessing Critical thinking (CT) abilities in CCTS using the Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Test

We want to assess the specific improvement of CT in CCTS – one of our national norm assessments already evaluates general levels of CT; results show our students are doing OK but not improving at MUM.

Our CCTS goals go beyond the skills that are being tested here to include discipline-specific skills. With the proposed test we can assess core abilities, rather than discipline-specific skills. CCTS courses can start with general CT, then later build assessment of discipline-specific CT on that.

Ennis offers 7 reasons for testing CT in his article:

1. Diagnosing the levels of students’ critical thinking
2. Giving students feedback about their critical thinking prowess
3. Motivating students to do better at critical thinking
4. Informing teachers about the success of their efforts to teach students to think critically
5. Doing research about critical thinking instruction questions and issues
6. Providing help in deciding whether a student should enter an educational program
7. Providing Information for holding schools accountable for the critical thinking prowess of their students

We are most interested in 1 through 4 of his 7 reasons:

1. diagnosing students’ CT
2. giving students feedback about their CT skills
3. motivating students to do better at CT
4. informing teachers about their success in teaching CTProposed sequence for testing:

1. On the first or second day: Administer the pre-test as an attention step and intro to CT
2. During the course: Provide continuing opportunities to practice the same type of analysis – paragraph by paragraph, but discipline-specific
3. At the end of the course: Administer the post-testGradingStructure independent grading: At least 2 people should grade and confer with each other. Faculty don’t grade their own students.Students would appreciate seeing their own improvement in pre- and post-test. This addresses points 2 and 3, but we may work up to that in later administrations of the test.  This time we decided to do both pre- and post-test grading together after the course is over in a “group grading” session for all CCTS faculty, including those not teaching this semester. This way all CCTS faculty get the same training at once – it’s faculty development.

   After this year, when all CCTS faculty are already skilled at assessing the results of this test, we can invite non-CCTS faculty to the group grading session, as a faculty development in CT.

   Action steps:

   ​

   • Jane will contact Chris J and Mike F about setting up the test
   • Isabelle will contact spring CCTS faculty, inform them of this assessment idea and set up CCTS lunch meetings in February to discuss and get their input

Two more items need to be discussed:

1. Grading. if this is an “Assessment,” it does not get counted in students’ grades. Check with Chris.

2. Logging scores and doing analysis of the scores — those are things Mike F could help us with. Also maybe setting up the assessments…

NOTE: Heads-up: Thanksgiving week in the middle of the block again in 2014 – not ideal; we should discuss ways to handle this. There was a suggestion by an outside faculty that we should consider a Thursday-only holiday, rather than disrupting the block and having such high student absence.

Agenda: CCTS Assessment: The Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Test

1. Why? We would be interested in ____?
2. How to assess?
   1. Faculty take test first
   2. Student Post-test
   3. Student Pre-test?
   4. At least 2 independent graders
   5. Are there any activities in class where students practice this kind of analysis?
3. How to implement program of CCTS assessment? Can we try this in March 2014?
   1. How to get buy-in from other CCTS faculty?
   2. Do we need approval from MUM Assessment Committee?
   3. Any other levels of approval needed?
   4. Who will grade them?
   5. Any help from Mike Farrer, Evaluations Office?
4. Limitations
   1. If use pre-test, 3.5 weeks later we do it again…

December 19, 2013

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

Not present: Isabelle Matzkin

Guests: Fred Travis, Johann Svensen

Agenda: Review MVS senior project

The MVS Senior project is a two-block research paper (see attachments for paper description and evaluation).  The project has been offered for many years, but this year has undergone significant revision to move from an “all about” paper to a thesis-based research paper.   Students spend 6-8 weeks researching, writing, revising and presenting, with daily faculty and regular peer interaction.  It will be offered in its current version for the first time in May 2014.  Representing the department in the Knowledge Fair is offered as an honors option.  Students present their research either to faculty or each other.  The department is considering revising its MVS program to be three semesters, with a two-semester option for those with a BA in MVS.

Suggestions from TLC for improvement:

• Incorporate a written reflection on the research and writing process
• Clarify guidelines for instances where students might do a project other than a research paper
• Create a course syllabus, including a timeline for due dates for the proposal, first draft, final draft, presentations, etc.
• Consider what outside experts could evaluate projects.
• Present to other undergrads
• Compare project guidelines to 12 institutional learning goals.
• Consider creating some guidelines or a rubric for the outside evaluator. (It wasn’t clear to us whether the outside evaluator would be evaluating the papers or the presentations.  If it’s the paper, there is a rubric.  There didn’t seem to be a rubric for presentations, but the Knowledge Fair rubric could be used.)

​

Meeting adjourned 4:15.

​

MVS Final Paper for Undergraduate

Senior Thesis

The final research paper explores practical outcomes of Maharishi Vedic Science—how the principles brought out by Maharishi can practically address current problems in society, such as education, government, ADHD, PTSD, etc.

The paper should be approximately 6000 words, from 15 – 20 pages, double spaced with Times Roman font.  The audience is non-meditating individuals attempting to solve that problem. For example, if the paper is about education, it should be written so that a non-meditating principal of a school would feel comfortable reading it.

Your paper should have these sections:

Introduction (1-2 pages)

This gives the big picture of your paper.  It includes:

• A thesis statement that presents your wholeness (one paragraph) followed by an overview of: ​
  • the problem you will explore
  • current interventions that have been used to address it
  • how Maharishi Vedic Science reframes the problem
  • how Maharishi Vedic Science and technologies address this problem

​

Body of the paper (10–15 pages)

Here you logically present your thesis, using evidence to support your statements.

• discuss the history of the current problem (1-2 pages)
• summarize research reporting current attempts to address it (2-3 pages)
• reframe the problem in terms of principles of Maharishi Vedic Science (1-2 pages)
• suggest how application of Maharishi Vedic Science and technologies can address the problem.Build the model of Maharishi Vedic Science here (2-3 pages)
• present research that reports the effects of Maharishi Vedic Science and technologies (3-4 pages)
• makepredictions of further application of effects of Maharishi Vedic Science and technologies (1 page)

​

Conclusion (1–2 page)

• go back to your thesis summary and discuss it in terms of the details you presented in your paper.
• Offer ways to practically implement your solution.
• Give suggestions for further research.

​

References (30 minimum)

RUBRIC

Senior Project Research Paper

BA in Maharishi Vedic Science

Final points

​

December 5, 2013

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

Not present: Michael Zijlstra

Guest: Sabita Sawhney

Agenda: Review Business Department Capstone: Entrepreneurship Project

Background: students come into the Entrepreneurship Project course in one of three types of situations:

• Some students already have a plan
• Some have no idea, in which case they are nudged in some direction
• Some already have a business and want to work on an expansion plan​Strengths of the Business Senior Project:
• Department has been requiring Business Plan for many (20?) years
• Department has tradition of strong connections with mentors/outside evaluators
• Department has decided to give template to students earlier on, even at the start of the program; students will fill it in throughout their course work, then polish it during capstone course
• Suggestions for department
• Foster students’ accountability: template submission should be part of the grade in the required courses preceding Entrepreneurship Project
• Make sure the prerequisite courses are listed in the catalog
• Lay out the entire sequence of course in the Entrepreneurship program for students at the start of the major to give them the big picture before they start
• Talk up the Business Plan in each of the prerequisite courses.
• Clarify the options for students who have no interest in starting their own business. Shouldn’t they still learn how the parts fit together? Some  options:
  • Write a Business Plan for a non-profit
  • Write a Business Plan for another person/business
  • Do a simulation, but this might compromise those who do the simulations in the MBA.​Suggestions for the Project Course:​
  • Clarify in the syllabus about mentors – one-on-one sessions or guest speakers for everybody
  • Have students submit a proposal/business concept statement that is graded in prerequisite course so students are held accountable for progress on Business Plan
  • Include connections to MVS in the evaluation grid (10% of the grade?)
  • Require a piece of writing in which students reflect back on their experience; this should be part of the grade also; 1-2 pages
  • Identify which Institutional Learning Goals the project addresses (posted online at http://www.miu.edu/RelId/678786/ISvars/default/Institutional_Learning_Goals.htm
  • Go over the integrating principles / wholenesses & universal main points from the 10-minute morning presentations; put them on charts so the course is complete; create Unity Charts
  • Spell out timeline & milestones in the syllabus AND in template: view sample for Education Foundations program by Chris Jones available online athttp://www.miu.edu/RelId/679432/ISvars/default/Guidelines_by_Department_and_Program.htm
  • View the online syllabi; polish the Business syllabus so it can be posted there, too

​Ideas about the Knowledge Fair:

• Could students present their Fast Pitch? (It’s a ppt presentation)
• Is the current format good for business students? Powerpoint would be good; they’re comfortable with that; not too many use posters
• Ppt slides could be printed out and put on poster board

TLC should draft a guideline for the reflection paper and put online; could use Kolb’s model of experiential learning.

Meeting adjourned: 4:15 PM

​​
November 26, 2013

• Write up 5 clinical cases (case portfolio) during a one-month rotation in the new campus clinic under the supervision of the clinic’s physician;
• Additional writing requirements for the pre-med students. (See attached materials.)

• In order to find time for the pre-med students to do the Senior Project, the department may need to soften some requirements, i.e., research methods and one Maharishi Ayurveda course.
• Some premed students may have to do a June block clinical rotation to fit it in.
• If they don’t have a block free, premed students could come to the clinic after class twice a week; other professors will need to give a little leeway to give them time to write their papers.
• Part-time track could either be modeled after music lessons taken once a week throughout the semester, then receive 1 additional credit.
• Do clinic for one whole week.

1. 1. Have students write a proposal:
2. a. Identify which five cases they want to select out of the ones they worked with, based on criteria.
   b. Write a short proposal for Question 3: Compare the modern medical approach to another common disorder with the Ayurvedic approach.
   c. Chris Jones’ MA senior project (Foundations concentration) could provide a model for this document as well as for other aspects of the course syllabus. Online at http://www.miu.edu/RelId/679432/ISvars/default/Guidelines_by_Department_and_Program.htm
3. 2. Have students make an oral presentation as part of their Senior Project.
4. a. Students typically present to faculty after the case. Everyone has taken the pulse and read the history.
   b. Knowledge Fair
   c. Some graduate schools our students apply to require a course in Presentation Skills
5. 3. Have students reflect in writing about their experience doing the capstone project.
6. a. Maybe have open discussion at end of course.
7. 4. Create a course syllabus
8. a. Include project description and course description
   b. Identify the milestones from students’ perspective and structure a timeline. See timeline in Chris Jones’ syllabus
   c. Provide grading rubrics that show how the different items will be evaluated.
   d. Clarify the grading scale

1. 5. Can the students write a publishable paper or present at a student conference? Comparing modern medicine vs. MSV treatment?
2. a. Publication would give students an edge in terms of admission to med school.
   b. Could be an honors option for the top students.
   c. Could have conference here: start out as the Knowledge Fair and develop into a student conference on Maharishi Ayurveda.
   d. Could get Student Government involved in organizing Knowledge Fair on a bigger scale
   e. Could take students to student conferences at other schools
3. Administrative suggestions from TLC and ideas from the department for addressing them
4. 6. Non-disclosure issues. Department will establish policy and procedures.
5. 7. Identify where in the program students learn the material they need to address each of the questions. Paul knows which courses cover which issues and will write it up.
6. 8. Write senior project description for catalog
7. 9. Identify which of MUM’s Institutional Learning Goals are addressed by the Senior Project
8. 10. Identify challenges in comparing to other AV schools
9. a. Vaidya Kshirsagar and Vaidya Gupta may give input. They may help evaluate cases.
   b. For essay, have to look into it.
10. 11. Ask an outside evaluator to review senior projects, both papers and case practice. This helps students gain confidence that it’s not just our people but outsiders who approve of their work.
11. a. Paul will consider asking the Vaidyas named above
    b. Maybe ask some Western doctors trained in Maharishi Ayurveda

November 21, 2013

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

Not present: Matthew Beaufort, Anil Maheshwari, Isabelle Matzkin​

Agenda: Review collective progress on senior projects, plan next Faculty Development session

1. We created the attached chart as a way of identifying the steps involved in the process of developing senior projects. As a first step in creating a report summarizing what we’ve learned Jane will fill in the chart based on the materials from each department and share it with TLC.
2. We brainstormed ideas for concurrent sessions at the next Faculty Development session. It was proposed that a date in January would be a better time than mid-December. We also briefly considered the idea of AIW, authentic intellectual work, as an option that might better serve the faculty than scattered concurrent sessions.

Possible topics and leaders for faculty development workshops in January:

1. Differentiation (Paula)
2. Challenge panel (Chris?)
3. MVS Integration (?)
4. SCI progressions/ HSC (Sam?)
5. UFC approvals
6. Health and Fitness (Ken)
7. Kathleen Yancey follow-up (Sue )
8. Teaching the Whole Course the First Day (?)
9. Grading (Chris?)

Progress on senior projects

​

​

October 31, 2013

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

Not present: Isabelle Matzkin

Michael presented the CS senior project (outlined below).  Syllabus will take some time to create but may be ready by spring.

Discussion followed on proposal from APC regarding using of Main Points and other charts in classrooms:

– When Jane visits classes, she observes whether all the charts are being used properly.

– If they are not, Jane emails the instructor and the department chair, copy to Cathy, that the instructor must rectify this in his or her next course. At this point the department chair is now also responsible to make sure this happens.

– Jane makes sure to visit these instructors the next time they teach, checking to make sure charts are being used as directed.

– If they are not, then Cathy meets with the instructor and the department chair as soon as possible.

– Proper use of charts becomes a formal component of the annual performance review for instructors and department chairs.

Some committee members questioned the emphasis on charts only, some felt the proposal has a punitive feeling.  The question of how to support instructors in integrating recommended aspects of CBE was left open.

Meeting adjourned 4:35 pm.

Conceptual Draft October 2013

Background

• Students take our 6 fundamental courses
• Take 2 electives – area of interest / needed for project

CS 335 Software Development

• Prepare students for doing a significant software project.
• Focus on analysis, design
• Software Engineering practices for a single person
• End of first week require students to submit proposals
• End of Second week Use Case diagrams
• End of Third week submit analysis diagrams
• End of the course Decide which proposal to use
• Create list of milestones (deliverables) for the coming 6 weeks

CS 336 Software Development Laboratory

• Rename to Senior Project – different number?
• Two month sequence
• First month Pass / Fail
• Directed Study with weekly deliverables
• Daily emailed progress reports / problems / questions
• 6 weeks project
• 2 weeks writing
• Weekly drafts based on progress reports?

Questions:

• Can outstanding students finish in one month?
• Can weak students take 3 months?

October 24, 2013

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

Not present: Anil Maheshwari

Guest: Terry Fairchild

Agenda: Review Literature senior project

The Literature Department has had many years experience with senior projects in various forms. Currently there are two tracks in the Literature Department: Literature with an emphasis on Creative Writing, and Literature. Both tracks take the same final project course, in which literary theory is a strong component.

The department has had this version of the project for a couple of years; the project used to be more of an independent study, but faculty felt that students were too isolated and couldn’t see what others were doing. The emphasis now is process rather than information. A short (10-page) paper is seen to be more valuable than a long paper. The paper in this course is different from other courses in that it is a month-long writing assignment rather than a week-long paper. Every part of the paper is looked at closely, and there are higher grading standards. A reflection on the writing process is supposed to be part of the presentation.

Recommendations from committee:

• As a department think together on these issues:

• The project is like a course – how could it be more of a final project?
• How could time before the course be used to introduce/start the project?
• What milestones could be built into the project plan?
• Could the students start earlier in the major reading selections as a group and critiquing them in terms of Maharishi Vedic Science?
• How could you involve an outside evaluator to evaluate the students’ projects?

• Include the following in the syllabus:

• Scoring rubrics for both project and presentation
• Criteria for presentation
• Milestones with percentage or point value for each assignment

• Show alignment with institutional learning goals

Meeting adjourned 4:35 PM.

October 15, 2013

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

Not present: Matthew Beaufort

Guest: Anne Dow

Agenda: Review Mathematics senior project

There are two tracks in the mathematics major: the mathematics track and the sciences track.  There are many more students in the sciences track, who intend to go into computer science, and they will do the Computer Science department’s final project.  The other smaller group of students will do the mathematics final project.  One student each year for the past two years has done a final project.  Both projects consisted of reading a book and creating something new or summarizing the material.  Both projects were structured to be one month long, but Anne felt that was not enough time – the student who was most successful with his project spent the equivalent of two months on it.

Math majors will take either Abstract Algebra or Real Analysis 2, which draw on a depth of mathematical thinking and out of which could come the final project.  Anne has a catalog description, some guidelines and extensive scoring criteria for the project.

Recommendations from TLC:

• Math department faculty should meet together to make standards, criteria and parameters for the project concrete
• Design the project for those qualified to be math majors, not lower ability students
• Decide if writing will take a narrative or thesis-driven form or have option to be either
• Aim for depth in final project and allow enough time
• Introduce the project briefly early in major or pre-major courses to plant the seed of an idea
• Create a syllabus for the final project
• Have students present to each other at the end of the semester in which they complete the project

Meeting adjourned 4:25.

October 10, 2013

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

Not present: Matthew Beaufort, Anil Maheshwari

Guest:  Diana Krystofiak

Agenda: Review Sustainable Living senior project

Diana Krystofiak presented the Sustainable Living senior project.  In its current form the project has been required for several years. The department introduces students to it early in their major.  It is considered a big deal.  Students can spend up to a semester on it, or a minimum of two months.  A two-week senior project prep course is offered, although nowadays most students don’t take it.

There are two options for the project: a 25-page research paper or a physical project with a 15-page paper.  The shorter paper does not require a thesis – it can be a narrative of the project.  The physical project is overseen by a faculty advisor knowledgeable about that field.  Students work mostly independently but with advisor oversight.  Scoring criteria are given to students in advance.

Students may elect to work on their Senior Project during any blocks during the year, rather than all at the end of the year. One challenge the department faces is that students are at different points in their project throughout the year, making management and oversight difficult. However, having smaller numbers of students doing Senior Projects each month may be more manageable than having all of them doing projects at the same time—it is a big program.

Project meets most senior project criteria, with the exception of having an outside evaluator.  The committee suggested clarifying project criteria for both tracks, as well as requiring a presentation for both.  We would like to meet with department in spring to see how the project description has evolved.

Meeting adjourned 4:20 PM.

October 3, 2013

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

Agenda: Review Art Department BA and BFA senior projects

Matthew Beaufort presented outline for senior projects (see “Brief Description of Art Dept. Final Projects”).  BFA is more rigorous program, consisting of more coursework and hands-on artwork.  BA is for students with an interest in art but who don’t want to be practicing artists. BA project will mirror BFA but have shorter essay, a digital portfolio instead of exhibition and only one month instead of two to write paper.Both projects will have outside evaluator.

Committee suggested clarifying project criteria for both tracks.  Would like to meet with department again later in semester to see what progress has been made.

Meeting adjourned 4:40 PM.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF ART DEPT. FINAL PROJECTS

BFA students spend the last 4 months of the spring of the senior year on the project. The first two weeks is a course to teach them how to write a BFA thesis and to launch them on that process. They then continue meeting with another professor (Matthew) who guides them to perfect their essay through several rewrites. Every student must attain at least a B grade for the 2500 word thesis. The main activity of the final project is creating art work to be part of a BFA exhibit at the end. Along the way there are many critiques with faculty and other BFAs. At the conclusion, they write an artist’s statement, and orally explain their art to a Visiting Evaluator from another university and the faculty. The Visiting Evaluator also meets with them individually, reads their thesis, and fills out an evaluation form for each student.

1.         This project addresses most of the Institutional Learning Goals with the exception of wellness and citizenship.

2.         Meets all the guidelines for senior project. We will expand the reflection in writing on the project and also require a more formal presentation on their work to the artistic community.

3.         The thesis could meet the guidelines for the Knowledge Fair.

The project for the BA program is to have them take the same 2-week course as the BFAs and the rest of the month write what amounts to a 2000 word thesis that integrates research into an artist, contextualizing the artist in art history and the contemporary art world, and reflecting how this artist’s work inspires, influences or relates to their own, and relating all of this to consciousness. The BAs also assemble a digital portfolio of their best work from all the courses they have taken. The essay and portfolio are reviewed by the Visiting Evaluator.

September 26, 2013

Present: Jane Schmidt-Wilk, Chair, Paula Armstrong,

Not present: Matthew Beaufort, Anil Maheshwari, Isabelle Matzkin, & Michael Zijlstra

Guest: Chris Jones

Paula and Chris presented Final Project guidelines for the Education department. They have 2 different projects:

1. Student Teaching Portfolio — for undergraduates who are pursuing certification as elementary or secondary school teachers. (The program for elementary school certification is being phased out.)
2. Research and Recommendation Paper on an educational innovation — for undergraduates who are in the Foundations track. This project has been successful with masters’ level students in the Educational Innovation program and will be continued for the Masters students.

Since the first project has been used by the Education Department for many years, most of our time was spent reviewing the second project.

Best practices that other departments could emulate:

1. Calendar
2. Rubric for the final paper
3. Use by both undergraduate and graduate students (with variety in grading standards)
4. Masters students draft proposal during the 2 weeks after SCI. That allows them to complete the proposal in first week of the 2-blocks in the spring devoted to the project.
5. Model syllabus—could become template for research and writing projects in other departments.

Areas for improvement

1. Expand final paper rubric to address content expectations
2. Expand final paper rubric to address issues of length or quantity—how many words or pages are you expecting? How many citations constitute a satisfactory literature review? How many references constitute a satisfactory bibliography? Or is there some other way of conveying these expectations? (It should justify 8 weeks’ worth of fulltime student attention.)
3. Create a rubric for proposal?
4. Consider what role proposal plays in grading.
5. Compare project requirements to current list of Institutional Learning Goals
6. Clarify what form expression of reflections will take.

Jane will review both documents more carefully and send any additional comments to Paula and Chris.

September 13, 2013

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

Not present: Isabelle Matzkin

Discussion revolved around senior projects and the Knowledge Fair.

Suggestions:

• Timeline: project criteria be presented to students early in senior year, students present to departments toward end of year, best projects selected for Knowledge Fair.
• Knowledge Fair shouldn’t be restricted to graduating students only, but anyone who has completed their major
• Knowledge Fair presentations could be during a campus-wide meeting in Dalby the Wednesday before graduation.
• Should poster be a requirement for Knowledge Fair? Art dept. would like senior exhibits as substitute. Other departments might like a digital instead of poster presentation.
• Recognize first year students for “best first year essay” contest with rewards (modeled after other colleges).

Action Steps:

1. Jane will contact Mara Winningham to find out how her daughter’s college made the senior project a big deal.
2. Start meeting with department chairs to help them strengthen and standardize final projects.

• Sept. 26: Education
• October 5: Art
• October 31 or Nov. 7: Computer Science

September 5, 2013

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

Not present: Isabelle Matzkin

We reviewed achievements of the previous year and began to set goals for the new academic year.

Achievements 2012-13

• Inaugurated committee with mission statement (to promote continuous improvement)
• Faculty development sessions : ​
  • concurrent workshops, September, 2012
  • writing across the curriculum, August 2012, with follow up in May and August 2013
• Started rubric for assessing faculty
• Teaching Resources website including Syllabus template online
• Institutional learning goals started
• Knowledge Fair guidelines

Goals 2013-14

• Develop SCI aspects of institutional learning goals
• Establish CBE/SCI standards for online education
• Enliven SCI across the curriculum
• Solidify the principles of CBE and their application
• Develop principles for integrating active learning with CBE
• Cultivate active learning, critical thinking and writing across the curriculum
• Plan faculty workshop on grading
• Refine Knowledge Fair process and criteria
• Develop process for approval of Unified Field Charts