Present: Rachel Nye, Alan Beauchamp, Gary Stark, June Schaefer

TLAC Meeting: 12/5/08

Present: Rachel Nye, Alan Beauchamp, Gary Stark, June Schaefer,

Keith Ellis, Marcus Robyns, Dave Bonsall, Lisa Flood, Robert Marlor

Absent: Barb Coleman

TLAC Agenda December 5, 2008

Welcome and Call to Order
Approval of November Minutes
Sandi Poindexter visited TLAC in reference to AQUIP:
Trying to educate folks about AQIP, the idea is that we are coming up for accreditation. Within higher learning they have 2 methods (Peak and AQIP); higher learning commission accredits us via N. Central agency using AQUIP methodology. Differences between methods were pointed out. Actions projects must be done yearly (3), a systems portfolio (100pgs) needs to be done, and then there is a visit, then a quality summary report, so about 7 things are used to judge us. Continuous improvement is the key to accreditation. NMU switched to AQUIP in 91. 5 criterions are used for assessment. There are about 150 questions in 9 categories we have to respond to. Each category has a context, a list of processes, and outcomes. Category 1 is most closely affiliated with TLAC and the faculties, i.e., helping students learn. There was a less than desired outcome the 1st time (2006). They graded us on 4 scales across 9 categories. Of the criterion for accreditation, there were 5 items broken into 4 goals, and we did not pass 3, but we MUST pass all 20. One of the failed areas has to do with learning and program review. The approach since last May has been to get others folks around campus to answer these 20 questions; they have about 30 people working on this. When AQIP comes back in March they will sit down with Senate chairs and ask them some questions, so the chairs need to be familiar with what is going on with the AQIP process. Our attention needs to focus on category 1. 9, 10, 11, and outcome 5.
9 = learning styles, how do we detect and address differences in learning styles. So e.g., are we putting on workshops to address this item? AQUIP looks favorable upon love needs assessment, i.e., send out a survey to faculty to assess their needsactive, service, and peer learning threads. Other ideas; students at risk, gifted students, how do we support these students?
Number 10: Subgroups of students: handicapped students, commuters, older students, nontraditional, English as second language, etc. (57% of students are UPers, a large % are 1st generation college students), accessibility of on-line students and other cohort groups.
Action Projects: Establishing benchmarks as we want to grow online ed and maintain quality. The roadmap, and benchmarking of the roadmap is action project 2;
Number 11: involved TLAC in the sense that who defines effective teaching and learning. In a sense it is via bylaws, but this is at a second level. The bylaws spec the rules, but NMU says we have a teaching mission, but do we have a definition of what is an effective teacher, what makes the classroom work well, the idea of communicating this? We acknowledge academic freedom. She uses the excellence awards and the criterion listed in them. What can we do for new faculty to help set a standard? How do course evaluations play in, AQUIP was critical of the fact that we have no uniform course evaluation. A course evaluation seminar on Jan 22 will be provided. Should we have a faculty manual? Something up on the faculty website. Note that we do not have an outcomes assessment committee at this time, which was the primary criticism of NMU.
Category 1: How are we placing expectations on faculty? How do we design our processes for assessing student learning? How do we assess learning and support needs (library, tutoring needs, advising needs, ensuring faculty have what they need, etc.). TLAC may play a role in terms of increasing awareness of campus resources.
Number 5 deals with results: What is your process? AQUIP looks well upon longitudinal data, e.g., how do you know these initiatives do anything, e.g. superior edge, what changes are you expecting, how are you going to measure them, and what is the data going to be.
NMU is in the developmental stages of this process (gathering feedback). AQIP needs to be present across campus. We are looking at similar institutions in an attempt to find a model to help.
E.g., TLAC could survey the students with 5 NESSEY questions over 5 years and report out this as DATA for the AQUIP report.
Hoping we can provide input on the 5 questions for item one, both in terms of planning/speculation and data collection.
Reports on TE’s that have taken place
Have we ever offered more than once a year? No, but we do record these, but need to advertise this to faculty a bit better.
Updated version of satisfaction survey
Gary is working on new software, still working on it. Items are finalized, do not need IRB approval, and will do it early next semester.
Update on faculty survey for assessing needs
Update on the “Online Classroom” and the “Teaching Professor”
Send out a reminder to view these publications
Magna Seminars available
Available, some getting it directly, also need to start using these, perhaps could spend some of our money here.
Plans for future TE’s and Speaker
Gary, Jim Highland (reacting to the Past, has invited us to his class if we want to see it) will do a TE.
Treasurers Report
Marcus absent, but it appears to record the session there is a fee, lets protest as this is academically related. Contact Eric Smith to find out.
Schedule for Next Semester’s Meetings
Times will be distributed and we will respond with times we can attend.
Other
Winner’s announcements: Grants $800 each to Chris Kauffman, the other to a team out of the school of education.
The scholarship of teaching and learning, trying to get multiple universities involved, $500 gets us in as a member, decisions makers, discount on conference fees, location is Yipsilanti…take a look at the email and respond.
Adjourned

Respectfully Submitted

Alan Beauchamp

Secretary, TLAC

Amended: Rachel Nye, Chair after committee feedback d/t Alan not present at February meeting.