Education Policy Committee Meeting
Tuesday, 27 September 2005
Members present: Martin Hansen, Patrick Connelly, Jim Van Speybroeck, Tom Hill, Bill McAleer, Deanna Stoube, Jeremy Burke, Barb Wiese, Keri Manning
Absent: Mara Adams, Lori Rodrigues-Fisher, Bradley Hannon (student representative)
Guests: Bob Ristow, Marcia Less, Maggie Woods, Paul Koch
I.
Approval of
minutes
Motion to approve minutes of August 30 meeting: J. Van Speybroeck; seconded by T. Hill
Minutes should reflect that Tom Hill and Mara Adams will serve as chair and recorder, respectively, in the spring semester.
II.
Notification
from MOL
The MOL program notified EPC of new course descriptions and titles on September 13.
III.
RE: Master’s
of Education in Teaching
A.
Approval for
EDUC 603: School-Community Partnerships, EDUC 604: Content Teaching, EDUC 605:
Reflective Teaching
Dean Ristow explained that these syllabi are coming to EPC now because they were not complete in the spring when the committee approved the 4-point plans for these courses as well as the Master’s program.
Motion to approve syllabi: P. Connelly; seconded by T. Hill
In discussion, minor concerns about the uniformity of the syllabi were raised, but the consensus seemed to be that the goals and content of the courses were clear.
Motion passed without objection.
B.
Notification
of name change for EDUC 715
Dean Ristow explained that while EDUC 715 is already an approved course, the department would like to change the name to “Teaching Diverse Students.” This will address National Board concerns about diversity beyond special education.
The only concern raised by the committee was that the
syllabus encourages students to go to Student Success for assistance; the
C.
Request for
extension to submit syllabi for EDUC 607: Advanced Content for Math and Science
Teachers, EDUC 608: Advanced Content for English Language Arts Teachers, and
EDUC 609: Advanced Content for Social
Science Teachers
EPC has already approved the 4-point plans for these three courses; however, the Education Department does not yet have the faculty – even adjunct faculty – to offer these courses yet.
Motion to approve extension: J. Van Speybroeck; seconded by Pat Connelly
Dean Ristow discussed the justifications for extending this deadline and, in response to a committee member’s question, noted that he is reluctant to set objectives for these courses because each one requires specific expertise. Also, the courses will not be taught before Summer 2007.
Motion to extend deadline approved without objection; syllabi for these courses must be approved before the courses are taught, mostly likely in Spring 2007.
D.
Notification
re: structure of M.E.T. program
M. Wood, D. Stoube, and Dean Ristow of the Education Department explained why they have
elected to offer three separate tracks in the MET program, which has already
been approved. Offering a reading
endorsement will prove very important in marketing the degree, for it is very
difficult for school boards to find qualified reading instructors right now.
Such endorsements would make elementary school teachers more competitive in the
job market. Reading endorsement classes
offered in summer school have proved very popular. This multiple-track system will maintain the
integrity of the program and continue to fulfill the
E.
Approval of
EDUC 553: Advanced
Motion to approve: J. Van Speybroeck; seconded by P. Connelly.
These courses are graduate versions of existing undergraduate courses and will not be taught until Summer 2006.
Motion approved without objection.
IV.
Assessment
Paul Koch attended to discuss EPC’s role in learning assessment. Koch argued that everyone on campus should be concerned about assessing student learning and that the Academic Support Committee, Student Life Committee, and EPC have a particular role to play. Five-year program reviews should include assessment plans; therefore EPC should make assessment of student learning a prominent issue. Koch also presented a list of five fundamental questions that the AAHE/HLC have created:
1. How are your stated learning outcomes appropriate to your mission, programs, and degrees?
2. What evidence do you have that students achieve your stated learning outcomes?
3. In what ways do you analyze and use evidence of student learning?
4. How do you assure shared responsibility for assessment of student learning?
5. How do you evaluate and improve the effectiveness of your efforts to assess and improve student learning?
Departments should use direct measures of student learning, such as a major field exam, licensure exam, capstone paper, etc. and use data from those measures to shape their curricula and address any deficiencies
An extended discussion of assessment among committee members and Koch followed.
Members raised concerns about quantification of curricular goals and additional workloads in order to provide adequate assessment. Koch noted that professors should have some measure of students learning and probably more than one, and that thus assessment should not mean additional work for professors.
Committee members also specifically asked about EPC’s role. Should EPC ask professors engaging in program review and creating new courses to answer the above five questions in their paperwork? If EPC did, would we need the approval of the Faculty Assembly in order to do so?
Koch answered that departments should be focused upon learning outcomes, and that most are engaged in some form of learning assessment. There is a problem if departments cannot address the issue of assessment.
Some committee members noted that the specific role of EPC is vague; should it be primarily concerned with curricular issues or should it take a more active role in assessment? It may be useful to put some guidelines for EPC down in writing.
Ultimately, committee members largely agreed that EPC needs time to digest this discussion and define its role in assessment. Whether they have considered it “assessment” or not, most professors measure student learning on the course level and most departments have specific goals; this requires departments to think very conscientiously about how their courses work together, discuss these issues, and to use their findings to drive the changes they make when they present program reviews. Assessment does not have to mean statistical evidence but can be revealed by faculty impressions and student suggestions.
EPC will discuss assessment when it meets again and will consider adding a question about assessment to the requirements for program review.
V.
Final
business
B. Wiese will wait to send a letter regarding 5-year reviews to department chairs until the committee makes a decision about adding a question about assessment to its guidelines. She will rework the letter and send it out to the committee for feedback.
There are no program reviews scheduled until November 1, when Criminal Justice is on the agenda.
The Campus Bulletin often notes that EPC is meeting when it is not; pay no attention to that unless an agenda has been sent out as well.
All program review and curricular materials to be examined in Spring 2006 should be sent to Tom Hill.
Motion to adjourn at 4:34 by D. Stoube; seconded by P. Connelly.
Motion approved without objection.
Submitted by Keri Manning