[In these minutes: Student Learning Outcomes, Student Rating of Teaching
Form, Textbook pricing, March 22 Student Senate agenda]
STUDENT SENATE
CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE (SSCC) MINUTES
MARCH 22,
2007
[These minutes reflect discussion and debate at a committee of
the University of Minnesota Senate; none of the comments, conclusions, or
actions reported in these minutes represent the views of, nor are they binding
on, the Senate the Administration, or the Board of
Regents.]
PRESENT: Daniel Moore (chair), Kristen Denzer, Jeni
Kiewatt, Trent Senenfelder.
ABSENT: Jeff Holtz, Sarah Mattison,
Bree Richards.
1. STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES
Arlene Carney,
Vice Provost for Faculty and Academic Affairs, joined the meeting to discuss the
Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs). She said that as chair of the Council for
Enhancing Student Learning (CESL), an assessment of student learning was done in
2002. It showed that the University does not consistently assess student
learning throughout their undergraduate career and therefore does not provide
information to faculty on how to make courses better.
During the October
2005 accreditation site visits, an assessment was mandated. CESL began
development of the seven SLOs. Past assessments looked at the basic input and
output of student learning. This assessment uses a student's baseline knowledge
as the input and asks the University to design courses that enhance this
baseline information. The output then measures what has been learned in the
seven SLOs. Students would be informed of the SLOs when they enroll and then
provided with evidence to prove that they had been met upon
graduation.
For the seven SLOs, faculty and administrative groups were
asked what students should be able to do when they graduate. Most groups that
were asked came up with the same sets of responses that are not
discipline-specific. The SLOs have then been refined by many groups, and will
be presented this spring for Faculty Senate approval.
Once approved,
implementation of the assessment will start with asking faculty to add language
to their syllabi to clearly communicate to students which SLOs will be covered
in a course. The SLOs are meant to be umbrella groupings so that faculty and
departments can define sub-outcomes within the larger groups.
Students
can then track their progress through their course syllabi and the electronic
portfolio. Students should be able to satisfy all seven SLOs by graduation
through their liberal education requirements and degree requirements for their
major.
The SLOs are being implemented now for the Twin Cities, but
conversations are taking place with the coordinate campuses. Once approved,
Arlene Carney said that she will work with volunteer departments to pilot
implementation of course assessments and modification of course syllabi. Once
the pilot plan develops a system for implementation, she will work with all
departments to make this change.
Q: Do the SLOs apply just to
undergraduates?
A: Yes. Professional programs have their own assessment
criteria. Work needs to be done to articulate how the SLOs might apply to
graduate students.
Q: How will student progress be tracked?
A:
Students will work with their advisors to decide which classes fit the SLOs.
Advisor input is not meant to be prescriptive, like liberal education
requirements, but is meant to facilitate a discussion. Future liberal education
classes will also identify SLOs that they fulfill.
Q: Why are SLOs
necessary? Are students not learning what they are supposed to?
A: At
this time, students are not asked to reflect on their learned skills just check
off completed requirements. The SLOs are meant to facilitate reflection as a
student progresses towards a degree. It also gives students the skills and
vocabulary to use in resumes and job interviews.
Q: What do faculty think
of the extra work that will be required?
A: Most faculty will embrace the
concept, but maybe not all at once, since they want to teach quality classes.
Her office will offer a series of seminars on how to incorporate these concepts
into classes. They are not meant to be onerous standards for faculty or
students.
Q: How will results be tracked?
A: Through evaluations
and students seeing language each semester on their course syllabi.
2.
NEW STUDENT RATING OF TEACHING (SET) FORM
David Langley, of the
Center for Teaching and Learning Services (CTLS), joined the meeting to discuss
the revised student rating of teaching (SET) form. He noted that these are the
responses that go to the faculty member and are not eligible for release to the
students. He walked the students through the revised SET form.
He then
tuned to the student release questions, noting that only ten percent of faculty
now release these responses. He is hoping that this figure increases when used
in combination with the revised SET form.
He then noted that the SET
Review Committee discussed the revised student release questions, noting that
the originally-proposed 18 questions composed a long form. He noted that since
six of the student release questions were now being included in the core faculty
questions, the Committee decided to shorten the student release question section
to focus on questions that help students select courses and do not duplicate
information that is already available from One-stop.
Members made the
following comments:
- By reducing the student release questions from 18 to 4, less information
will be available to students
- Students want to know information about the faculty teaching the course
- Good questions from the student release section have been moved to the core
faculty section and therefore cannot benefit students
- Many course decisions are now made by word of mouth since this information
is not available and One-stop descriptions are not always available or
accurate
Q: Will the core faculty questions incorporate the
SLOs?
A: The core faculty questions cannot pertain to all the SLOs, but
faculty are able to add additional questions to cover specific SLOs that are
addressed in their course.
Q: What is the process for approval of the
core faculty questions?
A: David Langley has met with the Educational
Policy Committee (SCEP) and will meet with the Faculty Affairs Committee (SCFA)
Tuesday. Both groups are being asked to approve the core faculty questions, as
well as the revised student release questions.
Members agreed that David
Langley should inform his working group, SCEP, and SCFA that SSCC wishes to use
the 18 questions that were piloted in summer 2005 and were approved by SCEP in
spring 2006, but have not been yet incorporated on the form.
3. STATE
LEGISLATION ON TEXTBOOK PRICING
Daniel Moore said that a bill has
been introduced into the legislature to control textbook pricing and access to
book updates. MnSCU has been working on this issue as a way to keep publishers'
prices down, make more information available about book updates at the
bookstores, and have faculty make book choices 30 days before a class starts.
Part of the bill also included funding to start a textbook rental program, but
the University has decided against being part of this program.
He then
turned to a report from the Task Force on Textbook Costs, noting the study that
the University completed in March 2006. Since this is an issue for many
students, he has added this as a discussion item at the April 5 Student Senate
meeting.
4. CAMPUS UPDATES
There were no
updates.
5. APPROVAL OF THE MARCH 22 STUDENT SENATE
AGENDA
The agenda was approved as presented.
6. OTHER
BUSINESS
With no further business, Daniel Moore thanked all members
for attending and adjourned the meeting.
7. STIPEND REVIEW
COMMITTEE
Quorum was not present to conduct the stipend
review.
Becky Hippert
University Senate