Curriculum & Teaching Committee Meeting

Friday, Jan 30, 2004

Minutes

 

 

Committee Present:  D. Boucher, Chair and for one day only, Secretary; T. Snider;

J. Ryan; D. Sosar; T. Visgilio

 Guests Present:  E. Napieralski

 

The meeting came to order, relatively speaking, at 2:05PM

 

  1. Minutes of previous meeting approved by default. (Never was heard a discouraging word.)

 

  1. Some mention was made of the “odd” meeting time of 2pm. We are apparently creatures of habit. In retrospect, the chair has since found that 3pm will work better for future meetings due to some conflicts more substantial than memory lapses.

 

  1. Student Evaluation of Teaching Forms and data:  Principal Points

 

·         Copies of a report by Dr. Dan Ghezzi on statistical analyses of the forms from Fall 2001 and Spring 2003 were distributed via email in advance of the meeting. (available on C&T website soon-D.B.) Copies of the current form were distributed at the meeting for reference. Also distributed for comparison was a sample form and statistical from a private survey company used by some colleges and universities.

·         J.Ryan commented that the Ghezzi report might be extended. A different approach to the data may yield some further insights. Specifically, further insight into the relationship of observed variables (questions asked) to latent variables (e.g. “professionalism”). We leave that to Jack to decide.

·         Among the suggestions for an improved form:

1.       It is clear from Dr. Ghezzi’s analysis that we could remove some questions and still have the same statistical validity. (e.g. question #9 on the form is over 90% predictive of the mean value over all questions. This might allow for fewer questions and more room for open text responses on the front of the page.

2.       A “baseline shift” for the numerical comments. That is, if the College average is 4.7 and the max score is 5, might we move the scale so that 1 is bad, 2 is average, 3 above average, 4 is wonderful and 5 is “among the best I’ve had at King’s”.

3.       Might we allocate a set number of points in each category, say professionalism, such that the students are forced into ranking their responses?

4.       Should questions about demographics (school year, sex, etc.) come last, so that the students’ primary energies are focused on the questions that are, we hope, more difficult to ask?

·         A radical notion from our guest and semi-professional agitator, E. Napieralski: Do we NEED to have an objective form at all? Might a systematic approach to classroom visits by peers be better? Some points raised:

1.       Is it better to have subjective but useful or objective but (nearly) useless?

2.       The visitation must be beyond the simple observation now done. It would have to include a portion of the class time when the students are interviewed by the visitor, without the instructor present, of course.

3.       That’s a LOT of labor!

4.       Could it made a formal part of a (now required) faculty mentoring process?

5.       A standard procedure would have to be established and not everyone would want to play the role of “visitor” in classrooms. A trained and experiencedcorps of visitors would have to be established. And compensated (see #3). This could perhaps be part of C&T, or if governance reformed, perhaps just a “T” committee. Maybe CELT could be involved?

 

  1. The Chair announced that the website for C&T will be up soon and should be viewed by the Committee members for their comments and suggestions.

 

 

  1. Next meeting will be held on Friday, Feb. 27 (at 3pm), location TBA

 

 

The meeting adjourned at approximately 3:10PM

 

Thanks for reading this far,

Derrick Boucher, Ph.D., Chair of C&T

(recording the minutes because he forgot to tell someone else to do it) Liebler is next