|
Meeting Minutes: Retreat
February
24, 2006
Announcements:
The
provost is here today. We wanted you all to hear about support
from Academic Affairs.
Dr.
Aeschleman:
We talked
about priorities that we were asked to submit. We sent out
priorities with comments to get it out to the campus community.
We took our charge to list pragmatic objectives that App could
be involved in within seven directions.
We have a
real crisis in math and science/ engineering according to the
president of the UNC system. He saw first hand in rural China
students in the 1st grade all sitting in front of
their own computers doing math and science in English.
The entire
system only turned out 3 certified physics secondary ed teachers
in the last five years. How that translates into functional
objectives remains to be seen.
We can
find the resources to do this as long as it’s reasonable. If
you want 4-8 courses that are small, we can probably do that.
We can track student credit hours so faculty aren’t punished.
It’s remarkable that we are the one institution that isn’t
having to deal with budget caps.
If we
choose not to put something in the core, that doesn’t mean we do
not value it as an institution.
The more
general, the less malleable, the more specific and direct, the
more likely you can influence it in some way. We have to
generate skills that will generalize in whatever they do.
I don’t
know if we can do the well rounded approach. There are
different methods to understanding the world.
If we go
in saying there are 20 things we really value, we run the risk
of not being able to do any of the 20 very well.
If we go
to smaller classes, it’s going to take more money.
Students
don’t know what the nature of the core is. It’s hard sometimes
even to get faculty to come to departmental meetings. Part of
the process is just doing the process. If someone chooses not
to avail themselves, they can’t complain.
If you
can, remind colleagues that if it’s not in the core, that
doesn’t mean that it’s not valued.
Discussion:
The fact
that Schneider came and spent the day with us made a big
difference.
Assessment
isn’t popular with faculty. We need to tailor our forums in the
future to our faculty. When we present goals, we need a lot of
evidence for faculty support. We could do an electronic
survey. We could say 92% of faculty felt strongly that writing
should be part of gen ed. We need something to back up our
goals.
We need to
let people know that assessment isn’t driving this, but that
it’s going to happen.
We’ll have
to be clear about what assessment will be used for.
We want to
see a clear focus for goals for the core.
Over 90%
of our students are white. Isn’t that our job to expose them to
things? Most are coming from similar backgrounds. It’s not
indoctrination, it’s an informed decision.
Students
do not have the right to remain free from unwelcome questions.
We have to
distinguish program assessment from course assessment.
We really
have to think about terminology: maybe student outcomes more
than assessment.
Criticism
for Portland State: Mostly self reported and the rubric is more
complex than data allow for.
We need a
purpose: Almost all have some sort of gen ed purpose statement
that the goals address.
There is
someone in the Office of Institutional Research that could set
up an electronic survey.
If 60% of
the core is non-tenure track, we want to find out what they
think.
Short
Break
The survey
for alumni can be used to survey faculty; we’ll circulate that.
We talked
about the value of an international experience.
We could
work on the mission statement. As far as goals go, we could
either work further on them or eliminate some.
A major
issue is whether and how quantitative skills fit into the scheme
of things. If you see it as quantitative literacy, you could
put it under number two.
One of the
reasons we want to address global and cultural engagement is
that we want to address social responsibility.
We have to
think about what our institution is about.
Making
them understand that they have ethical decisions to make and
that they have an impact is important. Whether we say whatever
coursework deals with ethics, ethics has to be there. If you
teach it separately, you don’t know it will be exposed to all
students.
Paolo
Friere said the way to make people responsible members of a
community is to base the course on dialogue and problem posing.
We are not
talking about teaching values, but getting people to examine
them. There are much deeper issues that go well beyond
plagiarism.
I agree
that the place for ethics is the purpose statement.
I know
from my profession that the most important part of a code of
ethics is the welfare of the people we serve.
Is there a
way we can look at what other schools have done to couch these
issues?
We should
not try to reinvent the wheel.
Keefe
suggests we come back, divide into small groups, and take goals
and learning outcomes and work on them.
Pay
attention to language.
This may
get shaped differently depending on the faculty survey.
Break
until 1:15, then small group work.
|
