JULY 2016 – JUNE 2017

May 18, 2017

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

Decisions made:

1. Faculty advisors for Senior Projects will have students prepare Executive Summaries for their Senior Projects; Executive Summaries for projects to be presented at the Knowledge Fair will be provided to the Trustees for the Board Book.
2. Approved new 6-week schedule for Faculty Development for new faculty:

1. Course will consist of 3 “2-week” modules:
   1. 1. Introduction to CBE and Main Point Charts
      2. Student Learning Chart (Objectives, Assessments and Activities) and Course Overview Chart
      3. Higher States of Consciousness, Unity Chart, and Unified Field Chart
   2. First module to include Retreat or WPA
   3. Schedule for after 33-lesson SCI so new faculty take that first
   4. Take to AC for approval

1. Reviewed Faculty Development plan (from ad-hoc committee). Decided it needed more development to be considered “a plan.” Tabled.
2. Approved new schedule for TLC meetings: Paula is on both CC and TLC. CC meets first and second Thursday, so TLC will meet second and third Thursday of the block. Paula will attend CC the first Thursday of the block and will attend TLC the second and third Thursdays of the block.

Action Steps:

1. Executive Summaries: Jane will compile instructions; Paula will provide a model for students based on the work of a past winner of the Knowledge Fair.
2. Jane will prepare proposal for Academic Council and get it scheduled.

Meeting adjourned:

March 16, 2017

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

Decisions made:

1. Discussed TBL in CBE: Plan a way of collecting information to assess use of TBL in CBE.
2. Suggestions: Devote a faculty meeting to TBL; model the TBL process.

1. Start with double quizzes on terminology and concepts from TBL based on workshops that Holly gave in 2015
2. Assign an application exercise: Distribute cases of MIU faculty who used TBL and ask faculty to analyze and evaluate them.

1. Suggestions:
   1. Collect information from faculty to determine who has been using TBL. Also look at list of names who picked up scratch cards.
   2. Ask some of those who reply to draft short case describing use of TBL.
   3. Prepare discussion questions for faculty small groups to analyze and evaluate use of TBL.

Action Steps:

1. Matthew will record questions(attached)

Meeting adjourned:

January 31, 2017

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

Guest: Ken Daley

Reviewed policies and guidelines for 2017 Knowledge Fair:

• Reviewed Dates and General Guidelines
• Refined Judges’ Guidelines: specified duties of the Timekeeper; added information about resources and lunch meetings
• Revised Faculty Guidelines: Added information about practicing and recording presentations during the Senior Project block(s); added encouragement to stay and hear all presentations
• Brainstormed content needed in Student Guidelines: contact info; visual aids; attire; time limits will be enforced; video-recording for yourself; stay and watch all talks; invite friends and family; video-recording of final talks; emailed feedback summary; awards celebration.

Meeting adjourned 4:30 PM

January 19, 2017

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

Decisions made:

2017 Knowledge Fair

1. Approved new rubric (created by Isabelle) with suggestions for minor edits
2. Reviewed list of candidates to invite as judges
3. Reviewed ideas to include in Judges’ Guidelines
4. Suggest to faculty: Invite alumni from your program to participate in judging final presentations in departments and selecting Knowledge Fair candidate
5. Paula offered to help create summary sheets for participating students after judges have made their decisions. Include average scores and key comments.

Faculty presentations

1. Reviewed experiences with the traditional lecture format that (1) integrated the discipline knowledge with principles from the Science of Consciousness and (2) illustrated use of the CBE teaching charts to an audience of all or half the faculty (two groups)
2. Four (Paula, Matthew, Isabelle, Jane) of the 5 TLC members in attendance had given their faculty presentation to either the entire faculty or to half the group.
3. Offered suggestions for updating faculty presentations:
   1. Evaluate using rubrics
   2. Include instructions for a student learning activity that asks students to integrate the knowledge of the discipline with knowledge from the Science of Consciousness. Ask presenters to actually run the activity?
4. Listed benefits of reviving the program of Faculty presentations to the Faculty Senate
   1. Raise quality of teaching for presenters and for audience
   2. Introduce new faculty to existing faculty
   3. Establish process that upholds University governance: approved means one becomes member of Faculty Senate with voting privileges
   4. Memorable experience; rite of passage
   5. Part of a sequence of steps within introductory faculty Development. Include in that not only training specifically in CBE, but also non-CBE best practices could be taken in a separate one-month block. During their first year faculty would take one block of CBE and one of best practices, teaching only 14 credits. For continuing faculty a teaching strategies course could count for four credits of their load.

Meeting adjourned 4:25 PM

November 10, 2016

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

Guest: Claudia Melrose

Agenda: Discuss Knowledge Fair feedback from Claudia Melrose and Jonathan Gordon

Decisions and action steps:

Simplify the rubric to make it more manageable for judges:

• Condense and reorganize the text by combining many of the little points into 2-3 main points under 3 main headings
• Start with the most important points (depth of discipline, well integrated with STC)
• Use a Likert scale to simplify scoring
• Replace “delivery” with “presentation”
• Weight the 3 areas equally (content, organization, presentation)
• Consider Jonathan’s feedback
• Resolve differences among frameworks. Jonathan Gordon’s is a business framework; MIU’s is more academic. This difference may be confusing to students (unless they are skilled at using a basic framework for presentations). Jane & Isabelle will talk to Jonathan about integrating the two.
• Motivate faculty to mentor their students more, and help them represent their department well in front of parents and Trustees. It’s best if students have 2 blocks to prepare.
• After they present, students receive a filled out copy of the rubric that contains the composite feedback from the judges, created by Jane based on her notes during the judges’ discussions.

October 6, 2016

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

We connected by Zoom with Drs. Holly Bender and Kajal Madeka at Iowa State University and reviewed development of the ThinkSpace site for MIU.

Meeting adjourned:  4:30 PM

September 29, 2016

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

Decisions made:

1. Finalized rubric for 2017 Knowledge Fair. Jane will send it to Claudia Melrose and Jonathan Gordon for review and then present it to Academic Council.
2. Worked on updating and simplifying text for Knowledge Fair documents for faculty, students and judges. To be completed at the next meeting.

Meeting adjourned: 4:25 PM

September 22, 2016

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

Decisions made:

1. Start routinely sending TLC decisions to AC for approval.

Rationale: We need a process for bringing TLC decision to the faculty.

1. Refinement of the Knowledge Fair rubric: Allot 100% of the points to CONTENT and ORGANIZATION, then deduct points for Delivery in case the DELIVERY is inadequate.

Rationale: We found ourselves trying to cram too many criteria into the 100 points of the rubric, so that each criterion ended up with very little value.

TLC proposes 3 changes to the number of points allotted to CONTENT:

Alternative: raising the third item (documented main points), which is really the bulk of the project. to at least 15%, and keeping the first item (significance) at 15%, like this:

All items in ORGANIZATION stay the same, at 25 points total.

In the DELIVERY category, TLC proposes to deduct points according to the following guidelines:

​

Action steps:

• Send the proposed Knowledge Fair rubric to Jonathan & Claudia for feedback.

• Fix the formatting, so the grand total number of 100 points fits on one line.

Meeting adjourned:

September 8, 2016

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

Met in Dreier 102

Decisions made:

1. Knowledge Fair
   • Reviewed feedback from the judges of the 2016 Knowledge Fair
   • Revised the Knowledge Fair rubric based on their feedback (see attachment).
   • Raised question of process for sharing Knowledge Fair guidelines with Academic Council: Present? Present for approval?
   • Action step: Bring handouts associated with Knowledge Fair to TLC for review.
2. Discussed general plans for the Sept 30 Faculty Development Workshop on Unified Field Charts.
   • Reviewed list of discipline-level charts that still need to go through an approval process:
     • Not approved: Sustainable Living, Literature
     • Not yet reviewed: Media & Communication, from INU: Health, Communication, Architecture, Defense, political science, Agriculture, others?
     • Out of date: Computer Science, perhaps Electrical Engineering
   • Discussed proposal for 2-hour concurrent sessions on Friday morning Sept 30:

• Maharishi video on Unified Field Based Education, Part 1, Tape 3, July 27, 1990, Vlodrop. (2 hours) Vedic Science & Technology, the Vedic Science of the Unified Field of all the laws of nature applied to education
• Understanding the Unified Field Chart (Chris Jones)—with opportunity to work on drafting charts individually or in small groups or practice speaking about them in small groups after introduction by Chris Jones
• Using technology to draft or edit charts (Ken West) )—with opportunity to work on charts individually or in small groups after introduction by Ken West
• The purpose and use of the Unified Field Chart (Susie Dillbeck)

1. 1. Decided to offer the first three sessions.
   2. Action steps:
      1. Reserve rooms
      2. Invite session leader for Maharishi video –Bill Sands?
      3. Announce to all faculty

Meeting adjourned:

4:15 PM