FACULTY SENATE MINUTES
November 9, 2004
Dr. George Cronk, Chair of the Senate,
called the meeting to order at 3:55 p.m.
I. REVIEW OF
MINUTES: The October
12, 2004, Faculty Senate Minutes were approved:
PASSED: 41 – 0 - 1
The
Chair then asked to change the order of the meeting so that item II.
CHAIRPERSON'S
REPORT
would be given at the end of the meeting.
APPROVED
without objection.
III.
COMMITTEE REPORTS: None.
IV.
OLD BUSINESS: None.
V.
NEW BUSINESS:
SR#05-04/05 Course
Deletion MAT-116 Technical Mathematics I
SR#06-04/05 Course
Deletion MAT-222 Technical Mathematics II
A motion was
made to table until the next meeting on Tuesday, December 14, 2004.
PASSED: 45 – 0 – 1
II.
CHAIRPERSON'S
REPORT
A. On October 28, the Senate Officers met with
President Winn, Acting Academic Vice President Tomko, and Executive Vice
President Laughlin. The following items
were discussed:
1. Calendar:
the 2005-2006 calendar is still under review.
2. Book Adoption Policies: a college-wide policy is being discussed and
will be formulated.
B. Learning Assessment Issues Remarks by Dr.
George Cronk:
If
I had some musical backup, I would sing this:
"I'm wild again, beguiled again,A simpering, whimpering child again -
Bewitched, bothered, and bewildered, am I."
An
"assessment atheist"? No, an "assessment agnostic."
The
call: Develop learning objectives,
assessment tools, and assessment criteria for all courses and align those items
with the BCC Core Competencies, the GE program goals (where relevant), and the
departmental program objectives.
Then
put it all in "syllabi" or somewhere else….
The
BCC administration is in transition
(a new dean of A&H; a new AAVP; a new – and acting – AVP; etc.). We must remember
that and make appropriate allowances when criticizing administrative policies
and actions.
None
the less: There has been weak
administrative leadership on student learning assessment methods and
structures, not just recently but for years. In my view, we have never received
clear direction on all this stuff from the administration. When the
administration has sought to lead herein at all, its efforts have been inconsistent,
confused, and confusing (sometimes baffling).
Who
is the administrative supervisor of the learning assessment process? Pruzan or
Hadaller? Both? Either? Neither?
Buddhist
tetralemma:
1.
The Buddha does not exist.
2.
The Buddha does not not-exist.
3.
The Buddha does not both exist and not-exist.
4.
The Buddha does not neither exist nor not-exist.
Both
Pruzan and Hadaller have tried to help me in my (thus far futile) efforts to
get a handle on all this stuff. However, they do not seem to be flying on the
same wavelength. They do not say the same things. Sometimes, what one says is
different or even the opposite of what the other says. None the less, each has
tried to offer useful guidance on this (to me) bewildering project, and I am
grateful to both of them.
Complicated
and technical terminology without clear and consistent definitions: goals vs. objectives; learning objectives / learning
outcomes (the same or different?); assessment measures/tools/types/criteria
(all the same thing or different things?); grading/assessment rubrics and other
kinds of rubrics; etc.
Need
for a glossary of stipulative (but
also plausible) definitions – that we will stick to. (This is Peter Dlugos's
idea, and I think it is a good idea.)
The recent request
(command?) from the administration to department heads: An inventory of "syllabi" by December 1,
2004: (1) those containing detailed learning objectives and specific learning
outcomes linked with assessment tools; (2) those with objectives but no
outcomes and/or no linked assessment measures; (3) those which lack even
rudimentary learning goals/objectives. "In this way we can identify those
courses which may require more attention than others and thereby work out a
reasonable timeline in light of the Middle States site visit." (The
goblins are coming, the goblins are coming!)
Not
a bad idea. A step in the right direction, but….
Just
which or what kind of "syllabi" is the administration looking for – "departmental policy
syllabi" or individual classroom syllabi prepared by individual faculty
members? Both?
Format
for assessment paraphernalia? Do this;
no, do that. Here's what I've done. Not enough. It lacks X, or Y, or Z…. (No
consistent directions.)
Where
do "they" want the assessment paraphernalia to go? Some say, in the "departmental policy
syllabi;" others say, no, in a departmental file? Still others say, In
each classroom syllabus for each section of each course; but then in what form?
What about the length and complexity of the classroom syllabus? Will this only
further boggle students' eyes and minds?
My
request to administrative and
assessment leaders for sample syllabi of their own showing "what is to be
done" (Lenin). Some helpful responses, but nothing really detailed or
exemplary; nothing much to use as a model. Found much that I would NOT want to
do….
Follow
the Learning Assessment Plan or not?
Some in the administration have given me instructions that contradict or are at
least inconsistent with the current LAP. Others say, follow the LAP.
Time
and effort issues. This work takes a
very great amount of time and requires very great effort.
"Pay-off"
issues: Will there actually be an
increase in learning? Will the increase be so great as to justify the time and
effort expended? Will there be no increase at all? Will students learn even
less?
Somewhat
on the plus side: Doing the labor
required in this process, I have thought more deeply about my courses, about
what my objectives are, about what my courses should cover, and about how the
assignments I give to my students might make what I am asking them to do more
clear, more meaningful, and more valuable to them. It seems to me that I am
learning things of (at least some) value; but I am not at all convinced that
all this effort on my part will actually result in increased student learning.
Freedom
issues.
Faculty
anxiety about this….
However,
the administration says that "it's up to us" how to do all this. Good
on the freedom and control front, but this is also a way of throwing the entire
burden on the faculty.
We
need models ["templates"?] that we can modify and fill in according
to our own views and perspectives.
Is
it all worth it? The big conflict between threat and promise in the
self-study/assessment process: "You had better comply or you won't be
reaccredited" versus "This is really worth it; it will make
your classes more meaningful; students will learn better and a lot more;
etc."
A
mixed message.
I
can understand and go along with the threat to comply or else. (I grew up in
the streets of Paterson, in the mean part of town.) But if we go that way, then
we need not take seriously the idealism expressed by some about the assessment
process. We can just "do the job," pro forma and in a practical and minimal fashion. Get it done and
in the can, and get ready to show the can to anyone who asks to see it. Of
course, we cannot officially SAY that that is what we are doing. We must, in
fact, "just do the job" – just comply – but also at the same time
mouth the slogans and pieties of educational-assessment idealism.
Some
actually believe in the idealism, and some of those want all of us not just to
comply but also to "believe."
I
am for the compliance, but I lack the belief.
Dr. Cronk's remarks were a catalyst to a
discussion on learning "assessments-outcomes-goals-objectives."
Ø Questions of terminology
Ø Question of who is the audience of syllabi?
Ø The syllabi should be user-friendly
Ø One source should tell the faculty what
items should be included in a syllabi
Ø Syllabi can have a problem of clarity and
consistency
Ø Some subjects are easier to codify or
not—assessment of student; not the faculty
The meeting
was adjourned at 5:20 p.m.
Respectfully
submitted,
Professor Marjorie Webster
Secretary
E:\S11092004.doc