These
minutes reflect discussion and debate at a meeting of a committee of the
Minutes
1:00 – 3:00
238A Morrill Hall
Present:
Emily Hoover (chair), Victor Bloomfield, Shawn Curley,
LeAnn Dean, Gretchen Haas, Adam Hirsch, James Leger, Richard McCormick, Leah
McLaughlin, Christopher Pappas, Emily Ronning, Karen Seashore, Mary Ellen Shaw,
Craig Swan, Douglas Wangensteen, Joel Weinsheimer
Absent:
Dale Branton,
Guests:
Laurel Hirt; Tina Falkner;
Associate Dean Robin Wright (Chair, Provost's Council for Enhancing Student
Learning)
[In these minutes: (1) transcript notation for community
service; (2) data on number of credits at graduation; (3) evaluation of
instruction; (4) student learning objectives]
1. Transcript
Notation for Community Service
Professor Hoover convened the meeting at 1:00 and
welcomed Laurel Hirt to discuss the notation on a student's transcript for
community service. She noted that the
Committee had earlier approved the program.
Ms. Hirt distributed copies of a sample transcript; the
notation of a community engagement scholar would appear after the grades in a
section entitled "non-course milestones." That section already exists on transcripts
and is used for a few other programs (Carlson School Emerging Leadership
Program,
All coursework for the community engagement scholars will
appear in the coursework section of the transcript. A student would be permitted to name a focus
area in the notation, but there will be no long description. The explanation of the program, Professor
Hoover agreed, will have to be found elsewhere; Professor Curley suggested one
possibility might be the student portfolio.
Professor Seashore commended Ms. Hirt for the endeavor
and asked if there was any progress in bringing together various people around
the University who are working on programs like this. Dr. Swan said there has been; they are trying
for coordination, not control, and easy access to information. Awareness would be acceptable, Professor
Seashore said. There is widespread
concern about student access to information, she said; "we always think
websites are beautiful" but one can log in and there is no way to find
what one wants. These need to be set up
so freshmen can find things.
Ms. Dean said there is a committee looking at this option
at Morris; will the opportunity be available to coordinate campus students as
well? Ms. Hirt said there will be and
that she has been talking to people on the other campuses.
Professor Hoover thanked Ms. Hirt for joining the
meeting.
2. Data
on Credits at Graduation
Vice Provost Swan next noted that the Committee has had a
long-standing interest in graduation rate issues; he provided to the Committee
data on the average number of credits students have at the time they graduate,
by college and campus. This information,
he said, is regularly shared with the colleges and campuses and graduation
rates will be an increasing part of compact discussions. One long-standing concern of the Committee is
that the path to graduation be clear.
Dr. Swan said he would be interested in Committee discussion that could
inform the discussions with the colleges about the ease (or lack thereof) with
which students can graduate.
Dr. Swan reviewed briefly the average number of
credits students have at graduation for the years 2000 – 2003. The numbers for 2003 range from 132.5 (
In looking at a graph that Dr. Swan provided, plotting
credits at graduation and proportion of graduates who have ranges of credits,
Dean Bloomfield noted that there appear to be two groups: one, composed of AHC colleges and Natural
Resources, has fewer students in the 120-130 range and more with more credits;
the other colleges have a higher percentage of students with 120-130 credits at
graduation. Is there a reason for the
difference, he asked?
Professor Leger said that in IT, the engineering programs
are very structured so there are almost no free electives. To meet liberal education requirements,
students must be very careful, and often they must take extra credits to meet
the liberal education requirements. A
number of IT students are also not caught up in math or science, Dr. Shaw said,
so take other credits while waiting to get into the IT programs.
How do these data compare with other institutions,
Professor Seashore asked. They have had
those data in the past, Dr. Swan said, and the University is in the upper 1/3
to ¼ in terms of average number of credits students have at graduation. The number has declined a little; the state
grant program now limits aid to 120 credits, which could have an impact. He said he could inquire again about
comparative data.
Could one argue that the credits are not wasted,
Professor Seashore asked? Some students
say they are trying to prepare for graduate or professional school. She said she was concerned that the Committee
not just look at the data and conclude that students took four extra courses
for no good reason. 80% of the students
have fewer than 140 credits. There are a
number of ways one can look at the data, Dr. Swan agreed. In some cases, one applauds the commitment of
the students, and there will always be some who want to take more credits. But are there enough of those students, in
the aggregate, to have an impact on the numbers? On the survey of seniors, course access—which
the colleges control—is identified as a problem. Admissions committees for graduate and
professional programs will also want to see that students can complete a
program. The average number of credits
students take to graduate will never be at 120, he said, but should it be at
136-138? That seems a little high.
In addition, Dr. Swan observed, some students come with
PSEO credits and graduate early; there is anecdotal evidence to suggest that
the University may have one of the highest THREE-year graduation rates in the
country. Some students, however, use the
extra room provided by the PSEO credits to explore other courses and graduate
in four years. He said he could provide
the Committee with the data. Professor
Seashore said it was important to review the data and to isolate what the
University can work on; it will be helpful to know the number of students who
graduate with more credits because of personal or professional reasons and the
University should not discourage such students.
That argument is not likely to impress the legislature, Dr. Swan
surmised.
Professor McCormick reported that as Director of Honors
for CLA, he sees more and more students coming in with a lot of credits. Some are virtual sophomores or juniors. Some of those students go through the
University fast, but most use the credits to do more. One who came with many credits was a triple
major and is now a Rhodes Scholar. That would
sell in
Professor Hoover said that her concern is that if there
are impediments to graduation, the University do as much as possible to allow
students to graduate as fast as they wish.
She said it was interesting that the average number of credits student
take to graduate, across all campuses, is mostly in the 138-141 range. If there are impediments, it appears they are
in the system; Professor Seashore said it is important to know if there are
system issues. Professor Hoover said she
was struck by how similar the campuses are—she said she assumed the Twin Cities
campus would be behind. It would be
helpful to learn how the University compares with other institutions. It will be necessary to find out how they
treat PSEO credits, Dr. Shaw said; the University might not be in the
mainstream in that respect. The
practices vary, Dr. Swan said. The
public institutions are more likely to give credit for PSEO and IB credits; the
private institutions, because of their tuition structures, are less inclined to
do so.
Professor Hoover said she knows that a lot of people want
to improve the six-year graduation rate, and some want to do so starting with
the incoming class of 2005. Dr. Swan
said he would provide the data the Committee requested. Professor Seashore asked also for average
credits to graduation for MNSCU students; Dr. Swan said he would try to get
what he could.
3. Evaluation
of Instruction
Professor Hoover recalled that the Committee was working
through a set of recommendations from the ad hoc subcommittee on the evaluation
of instruction and was down to the last one, the issue of a question bank to
draw additional questions for the evaluation process. These questions would be used by the instructor
to improve teaching, so summaries would go only to the instructor.
Professor Seashore said that if the policy requires the
results go only to the instructor, that reduces the potential a faculty
committee in a department could provide an instructor with some
assistance. She said she has chaired
committees for faculty and they often encourage instructors to go into
teaching-enhancement programs.
Departments and colleges should also be able to add questions with the
goal of enhancing teaching. That is not
what the subcommittee recommendation says, Professor Hoover observed.
Professor Weinsheimer suggested there are three or four
questions in front of the Committee:
-- the possibility of supplemental questions, regardless of
whom the results go to
-- questions the instructor or department want to add
-- the
need to ensure, when students write commentary, the answers will not be
prevented from going to the appropriate bodies.
There are times, he said,
when the numeric information is less informative than comments, and it is
important that the student responses go to the department or college; much of
it is very telling and must be used for summative as well as formative
evaluation. Perhaps there needs to be a
box with comments for the instructor and another box with comments for the
department, Dr. Swan suggested. If the
questions are formative, they should go only to the instructor, Professor
Weinsheimer said. He said he was talking
about comments students make on their own, such as the instructor coming late
to class or doing inappropriate things—they make the comments because they
think people care and it is important those comments get to the people who need
to see them.
There is also concern about how the comments are used
across departments, Dr. Shaw said. It
inherently ties the department's hands if there are specific questions but the
results are not available to the department, Professor Seashore
maintained. There are instructional
strategies that can be provided to faculty and departments need to be able to
use the questions. Why would the
Committee prevent the department from using questions to help the faculty
member? The recommendation, Dr. Shaw
pointed out, says that departments and instructors can use questions for
whatever they want.
Vice Provost Swan said there are several things to be
separated out in the discussion. Can faculty
add questions that only they see the results from? Can a department have a bank of questions it
uses? Finally, the use of the results
from the open comment section. He again
suggested that perhaps there need to be two comment sections, one for the
instructor and one for the department.
Professor Weinsheimer noted that such a distinction may be necessary
because the evaluations serve two purposes, summative and formative.
The form could make clear where the answers will go,
Professor Leger commented. Students say
they are convinced the answers go nowhere; the forms could make clear which
questions will be used for promotion and tenure and which will go only to the
instructor. That might increase student
buy-in to the process. Professor
Seashore said she always asks questions about readings and class activities and
she would not want the department chair to go through those.
The Committee discussed changing the recommendation to
allow students know where the evaluations and comments are going. There was agreement that colleges and
departments should be allowed to add questions and that questions about
teaching style should not be eliminated, and that instructors should be allowed
to add questions, the results of which only they will see.
Dean Bloomfield noted that the ad hoc subcommittee
explicitly stayed away from peer evaluation of instruction, but the matter of
questions for department/college use opens up the issue of teaching style and
the opportunity for a chair who is concerned about improving teaching to obtain
the information needed. Professor
Seashore noted that the existing policy calls for peer review but it has never
been implemented; the closest departments come is review of data and student
comments; if that is withheld, departments can't even do that.
Vice Provost Swan returned to the issue of who gets to
see what questions. The Committee has
talked about faculty and departments, but not students. The subcommittee punted on that issue. The current policy includes ten questions,
the results of which can be released to students on a voluntary basis, that get
at the structure of the course. Most
faculty do not release the results. The
Committee might discuss whether there is legitimate information that might be
available to students and under what terms.
The subcommittee noted that data used for personnel decisions is legally
private; the question is if some data should be available to students.
If such a provision is added to the policy, it will go
down to defeat in the Senate, Professor Seashore predicted. The subcommittee prepared an extraordinarily
good report and this Committee is tinkering around the edges. The question of student access to data should
not be attached to this particular document.
Others on the Committee agreed; Professor Hoover noted that provision of
information to students is already part of the policy and would need to be
incorporated in a revised policy. The
Committee discussed the issue of releasing information to students; Dr. Swan
said there is range in what is provided at other universities. Professor Weinsheimer said the question is
whether one wants a system outside the regular system, run by students, or
integrated into the regular system. He
said he believed the University should provide information to students to help
them choose courses; one step has been taken in that direction by identifying
outstanding teachers. He recognized that
a proposal will be controversial. In
response to Professor Seashore's comment that it will be voted down by the
Senate, he said this issue is as important as others addressed by the
subcommittee but agreed it could be separated from the subcommittee
report. There is nothing to hide, he
maintained; the data suggest that instructors are well above average, and
releasing the information would be to the University's credit.
In terms of signing the release, Dr. Swan said that a
web-based version is needed to make it easy for faculty to release the results
from the student questions.
Professor Curley said he could imagine arguments on both
sides about releasing information to students and that he would be happy to
have that discussion. That is separate
from this report, however, and he did not want to see the subcommittee's work
held up. The issue of releasing
information to students should be brought up in the future. The subcommittee recommendations on the
student release questions, Professor Seashore suggested, should form the basis
for the discussion. She said she would
like to see more information released to students but wanted to see the
subcommittee report get to the Senate this academic year.
The Committee agreed that the question bank should be available. Professor Hoover asked how much of a problem
it would be if each unit wanted to construct individual forms. Dr. Swan said that if all were paper forms
there could end up being over 160 forms, which would send the cost
skyrocketing. Having forms for the
colleges would be simpler, and one assumes they would not change a lot over
time. There are practical issues
associated with each faculty member using his or her own questions, such as
printing costs and turnaround time. The
easiest way to personalize the forms would be a web-based system, but the
Committee has been of mixed mind about that approach. But Dr. Swan said he would not want to be
responsible for getting different forms to 2000 faculty on time! What faculty can do is add questions in
class, but they can't be added to the printed forms. Professor Seashore speculated that it will be
technologically simple in a few years to get individualized forms; for now, she
said, the Committee should recommend the policy it believes best and punt on
the technology until it can do what the policy suggests.
The Committee appeared to agree on the proposal that
there should be two sets of open-ended questions, one for the instructor to
improve the course and one for the department, with each set identified for the
students. What if a student does not see
a question that he or she wants to comment on, Professor Leger asked? Professor Wangensteen said the
Professor Hoover said the Committee would return to this
issue with a draft policy to considered, once it has been drafted by a joint
subcommittee with the Committee on Faculty Affairs.
4. Student
Learning Objectives
Professor Hoover next welcomed Associate Dean Robin
Wright, Chair of the Provost's Council for Enhancing Student Learning, to the
meeting to discuss student learning objectives.
Dean Wright began with an update. The Council (CESL) is in its third year; it
began as the Twin Cities Assessment Council, motivated by the upcoming
accreditation of the Twin Cities campus.
She reviewed the membership and the accomplishments of the Council and
provided information about the efforts of several working groups. One of the things CESL has done is define
learning outcomes for anyone who receives a baccalaureate degree from the
University.
Dean Wright provided the list of seven learning outcomes
CESL has proposed, along with elaboration and examples.
(x. Foundational life-long learning and
citizenship goals: At the time of
receiving a bachelor’s degree, students will demonstrate:
--Elaboration/Examples:
1. the ability to identify, define, and solve problems
-- recognize
the complexity and ambiguity inherent in many problems
-- can evaluate and synthesize knowledge
and frame logical arguments based on this knowledge
-- understand and use the scientific
method and other modes of problem solving
2. the ability to locate and evaluate information
-- can
access information as needed and work effectively with modern information
technologies
-- understand and practice the
responsible and ethical use of information
3. mastery of a body of knowledge and mode of inquiry
-- know the facts, theories, and concepts
central to their discipline
-- display appropriate disciplinary
literacy and sophistication
-- understand the relationships between
the methods and content of their discipline
-- understand
the social and ethical context and implications of disciplinary knowledge and
endeavors
4. an understanding of diverse philosophies and cultures in a
global society
-- understand the philosophical,
artistic, scientific, and political roots of civilization
-- are able to put issues in their
historical, philosophical, and societal context
-- can work with individuals from diverse
backgrounds, perspectives, and disciplines
5. the ability to communicate effectively
-- communicate
ideas and information effectively in appropriate formats to different audiences
and in different contexts
-- engage
in constructive discussion by listening accurately, understanding the
perspectives of others, and demonstrating civility and respect
6. an
understanding of the role of creativity, innovation, discovery, and expression
in the arts and humanities and in the natural and social sciences
-- possess
a sufficient foundational knowledge to understand applications and impacts of
art, humanities, and science on daily life
-- can make aesthetic and logical
judgments
-- understand connections between
disciplines
7. skills for effective citizenship and life-long learning
-- display intellectual curiosity,
flexibility, and openness
-- are able to reflect upon and
articulate their own values
-- understand and practice professional
and ethical behavior
-- are
aware of personal strengths and weaknesses and are prepared for life after
college
-- understand the nature and importance
of responsible citizenship
She said that she has imagined that she was charged to
move her college (Biological Sciences) toward a defining what biology students
must know, given the list. She said they
must almost start de novo. Others could
do the same, imaging what students should know and how they should be affected
by a university education. All would
have to start de novo, she predicted; this is a very big problem. The group worked for about a year on what
skills should be developed. Dean Wright
said she would like ideas from the Committee about the list so that it is one
the University can stand behind and that will serve as an organizing principle
across the disciplines.
In addition to the two columns in the document now, there
will be additional ones about what the goals mean within a particular discipline,
what the unit is doing, where one learns the goal in the curriculum, and how it
is measured/assessed. In the future, the
list will be used to talk with taxpayers about what the University is doing and
how it is assessing its performance.
There are ways to do this that do not require a lot of extra work, she
said. For example, there could be
agreement across the institution that there is a need for skills in
argumentation, or more attention to grammar, that could be embedded in the
curriculum.
Professor Leger noted that the engineering accrediting
agency has a tool for assessing outcomes; is it matched to this list? They thought long and hard about this and she
might check their standards to see if anything is missing. Dean Wright said that the goals on the list
are so universal that they can be matched to almost any accrediting
standards. There is a universal
understanding of what it means to be educated.
Where the list has power, she said, is in looking for opportunities in
teaching where the instructor can make connections—and tell students what they
are doing, what the intent is, and what is expected that graduates of the
University should be able to do that they may not have been able to do before.
This has profound implications for the liberal education
requirements, Professor Seashore commented.
The liberal education requirements are an array of courses where
students would be expected to reach some of these goals. She said she doubted that most liberal
education courses are organized around these learning objectives. Are they prepared for that revolutionary a
change, she asked? In some fields, these
learning objectives are not part of what they do. This is a radical suggestion.
Dean Wright said she did not view it that way. The learning objectives intersect with the
liberal education goals. The liberal
education requirements are courses, not goals, Professor Seashore
responded. The courses are evaluated periodically,
Dean Wright said; not as a group, Professor Seashore replied. Dr. Swan noted that the Council on Liberal
Education looks at groups of courses within the categories; Professor McCormick
reported that there was recently a re-certification process for liberal
education courses. But they were not
reviewed in the light of these learning objectives, Professor Seashore
surmised. There will be a broader review
of the liberal education requirements in the near future, Dr. Swan added. It will require a different starting point,
Professor Seashore said, because the reviews have not addressed these goals.
Dean Wright said that CESL spent considerable time trying
to bring the two documents together—the learning outcomes and the liberal
education requirements—and concluded that the current liberal education
requirements focus more on content than on what to do with it. Syllabi indicate what material will be
covered. This document, learning
outcomes, talks about what to do with the knowledge. The two approaches aim at the same
things. Professor Seashore said she
thought that material covered and how to use it are not usually both
covered. Dr. Swan said the right-hand
column is compatible with the report of the task force on liberal education
(the Howe committee); Professor Seashore recalled that she was on the Howe
committee and said the list was compatible with the report but that it does not
comprise the elements by which courses are evaluated for liberal education
requirements.
Once CESL is satisfied with the list of learning
outcomes, Professor Curley asked, what will it do with it? They want to see it as in line with
accrediting regulations and would like to see each degree-granting unit have a
similar document, Dean Wright said. What
comes next, Professor Curley inquired?
How is it intended to be used?
Each degree-granting unit should examine its curriculum in light of the
list and serve as an organizing principle for the degrees they grant. Professor Weinsheimer said he sensed CESL
wished to go beyond accrediting regulations; Dean Wright agree. The intent is not simply to measure something
(for accreditation purposes) and then forget.
The next step is to ask each college to develop a document, Professor
Weinsheimer asked? That is her expectation,
if the Provost asks them, Dean Wright said.
The next step is departments, Dr. Swan said; some programs already have
documents similar to this.
Dr. Swan commented that this is what the University is
trying to do with its students; the document also asks people to be more
reflective and more candid about it, in appropriate ways. The message needs to be communicated to
students about what is expected, why things are structured in a certain way,
and there needs to be a continuous feedback mechanism that allows for both
internal and external stakeholder involvement.
Professor McCormick recalled that when he was on the
Council on Liberal Education there was a great deal of discussion about
frustration with how to assess writing; they could not say if the requirements
would lead effective assessment. He said
he appreciated the move to learning outcomes.
When one looks at the document's application to the entire University
and every student, and to each degree-granting unit, is it clear that no unit
can take care of the objectives by itself.
That is why liberal education courses fall across the campus.
Professor Seashore repeated her view that the document
implies radical change. It says it is
University's responsibility to deliver something to students and assess whether
it has done well. This document,
however, turns a lot back to the students because these objectives are not met
with any one course. The idea is to give
students the responsibility to elaborate on what they have learned in order to
graduate on time, but they are let out on the basis of what the University
assesses. Professor McCormick said the
portfolio is a way for a student to demonstrate competencies. This will be very time-consuming if done
well, Professor Seashore cautioned, but it is very valuable—and it changes the
relationship in assessment between the student, the department, and the
University. Students could achieve some
of these objectives without taking a course.
The hope is that courses would improve the student's
performance on the learning outcomes, Dean Wright said. The plan is to start using the document with
new course proposals, and evaluate existing courses over a three-year
period. This is course-driven, she said,
but they will also look at ways it can be used beyond courses. Dr. Swan observed that the learning
objectives would be accomplished through courses, but not all courses would aim
to achieve all the objectives. It is
the curriculum that should accomplish all of them, Professor Hoover commented.
Professor Hoover thanked Dean Wright for bringing the
work of CESL to the Committee. She
adjourned the meeting at 3:00.
--
Gary Engstrand