December 10, 2018

Time

9am - 10am

Location

Reid 415

Facilitators

Tami Eitle

Committee

Dean Adams, Craig Carr, Jenny Green, Janet Heiss-Arms, Colleen McMilin, Amber Raile, Matthew Regan, Ken Silvestri, Mike Wittie, Tony Campeau, Meg Konkel, Michelle Miley, Sally Moyce, Sara Rushing, Shannon Willoughby, James Meyer

Agenda

  • Review accomplishments of the semester (see the final copy of work done by subcommittee 1 below and the final copy of core design subcommittee 2 in a separate document)
  • How should this work align?
  • Discuss next steps: Possible paths... visit departments and other individually, open sessions, faculty senate, other options? I am working to get communications to help set up a feedback page like they did for the strategic plan.

Desired Outcomes:

  • Some direction on next steps for getting feedback on work so far.

Accomplishments of Core Curriculum Committee Redefining Learning Outcomes for the Distributional Core

Contemporary Issues in Science (CS)

Definition: Capacity to explain how scientific knowledge is created and applied to contemporary problems or challenges as well as how ethics impact scientific research and its applications.

Student Learning Outcomes: 
CS1: Explain how science contributes to recognizing and solving complex problems in the contemporary world.
CS2: Describe the scientific method and how scientists apply methods to explore scientific questions and real-world problems.
CS3: Identify and reflect on ethical claims regarding scientific research and its applications to contemporary issues in science, acknowledging the conflicting values that underlie these claims.
CS4: Engage constructively in open discussions about contemporary issues and moral dilemmas in science.
 
Diversity/Language in Cultural Context(D): 
Definition: Examine cultural, political and economic oppression and privilege and how systemic hierarchies influence and constrain the ways that groups define themselves and have been defined within such contexts.
Student Learning Outcomes: 
D1: Discuss how local, national or global forces have shaped ideas, groups, institutions and/or the environment.
D2: Explore theories of race, gender, sexuality, class, ethnicity, nationality or other social constructed categories and place these in their historical or contemporary contexts.
D3: Explain the ways marginalized groups define and express themselves, the contexts in which these definitions are constructed or constrained, and how self-definition is an act of empowerment.
 

Written Communication (W)

Definition: Written communication is the ability to assess varying circumstances, purposes, and audiences across a variety of contexts; develop appropriate, relevant and compelling content; skillfully communicate content within the specific conventions and genres across contexts; and communicate meaning to readers with clarity and fluency.

Student Learning Outcomes:
W1: Thesis and content of written work is appropriate, relevant and compelling and demonstrates an awareness and understanding of the context, audience, and purpose.
W2: Written work shows mastery of the subject matter, content development, and use of appropriate evidence and sources.
W3: Work demonstrates successful use of a wide range of formal and informal rules particular to the specific writing task(s) including organization, presentation, formatting, grammar and stylistic choices.
W4: Language, sentences and paragraphs communicate meaning to readers with clarity and fluency. 
 
Quantitative Reasoning (Q):
Definition: Develop and use computational and analytical skills to reason about and solve real-world problems, as well as create and critically evaluate arguments supported by quantitative evidence.
Student Learning Outcomes:
Q1: Formulate a problem that can be addressed with quantitative reasoning based on relevant sources of data
Q2: Solve the problem by applying mathematical, statistical, and/or algorithmic methods to the underlying data
Q3: Represent the results as formulas, processes, graphs, diagrams, or tables and interpret them in the context of the original problem, noting limitations of the analysis and data sources.
Q4: Critically evaluate claims made by others using/based on quantitative information.
 
Inquiry and Analysis (IA, IH, IN, IS):
Definition: Inquiry and analysis are the abilities to formulate questions, synthesize information, evaluate and apply appropriate methodological, theoretical, and evidentiary frameworks from specific or multiple intellectual perspectives in order to inform conclusions about or solutions for complex human, natural, social and creative matters.
Student Learning Outcomes:
I1: Formulate a question important to the understanding of a particular area of knowledge.
I2: Synthesize in-depth information from relevant sources representing various points of view/approaches.
I3: Evaluate the appropriateness of discipline-specific methodological and theoretical frameworks for exploration of the question.
I4: Organize and synthesize evidence to reveal insightful patterns, differences, or similarities.
I5: Discuss and articulate relevant limitations of the research or alternative explanations for findings.

December 3, 2018

Time

9am - 10am

Location

Reid 415

Facilitators

Tami Eitle

Committee

Dean Adams, Craig Carr, Jenny Green, Janet Heiss-Arms, Colleen McMilin, Amber Raile, Matthew Regan, Ken Silvestri, Mike Wittie, Tony Campeau

Agenda

  • Core course learning outcomes – Discuss drafts that are already in development: Quantitative (Q), Written Communication (W), Inquiry and Analysis (Inquiry)
  • Work on student learning outcomes for D and CS –See drafts below based on Update Core, Summer workgroup, AAC&U Value Rubrics.

Contemporary Issues in Science (CS)

Definition: Capacity to explain how scientific knowledge is created and applied to contemporary problems or challenges as well as how ethics impact scientific research and its applications.

Student Learning Outcomes:
CS1: Explain how science contributes to solving complex problems in the contemporary world.
CS2: Describe the scientific method and how scientists apply methods to explore scientific questions and real-world problems.
CS3: Identify and reflect on ethical claims regarding contemporary scientific research and its applications acknowledging the conflicting values that underlie these claims.
CS4: Engage in moral discussions about contemporary issues in science constructively and effectively.
 
Diversity/Language in Cultural Context(D):
Definition: Diversity/Language in Cultural Context courses enable students to examine cultural, political and economic hierarchies and understand how groups are defined within those contexts  or study a language in cultural context.
Student Learning Outcomes:
D1: Discuss how local, national or global forces have shaped ideas, groups, institutions and/or the environment.
D2: Explore theories of race, gender, sexuality, class, ethnicity, nationality or other social constructed categories and place these in their historical or contemporary contexts.
D3: Identify the ways marginalized groups define and express themselves, the contexts in which these definitions are constructed or constrained, and how self-definition is an act of empowerment.
OR
D4: Show competency of a second semester or higher of a second language while at MSU.

Written Communication 

Definition: Written communication is the ability to assess varying circumstances, purposes, and audiences across a variety of contexts; develop appropriate, relevant and compelling content; skillfully communicate content within the specific conventions and genres across contexts; and communicate meaning to readers with clarity and fluency.

Assessment Criteria: Proficiency in written communication is present when a student is deemed competent in the following areas.

  • Content of written work is appropriate, relevant, and compelling and demonstrates awareness of the context, purpose, and audience.
  • Written work shows master of the subject matter and use of appropriate evidence and sources.
  • Successful execution of a wide range of conventions particular to the writing task(s) including organization, presentation, formatting, grammar, and stylistic choices.
  • Language, sentences and paragraphs that communicate meaning to readers with clarity and fluency.

Quantitative Reasoning:

Definition (V1): Quantitative reasoning is the ability to develop and use computational and analytical skills to reason about and solve real-world problems; represent, interpret and form appropriate conclusions based on quantitative information; and critically evaluate claims made using quantitative evidence.

Definition (V2): Quantitative reasoning is the ability to develop and use computational and analytical skills to reason about and solve real-world problems, as well as create and critically evaluate arguments supported by quantitative evidence.

Assessment Criteria: Proficiency in quantitative reasoning is present when a student is deemed competent in the following areas.

  • Formulate a problem that can be addressed with quantitative reasoning based on relevant sources of data
  • Solve the problem using mathematical, statistical, or algorithmic methods OR Solve the problem using mathematical and/or statistical tools in conjunction with computational methods or algorithmic approaches
  • Represent the results as formulas, algorithms, graphs, diagrams, or tables and interpret them in the context of the original problem, noting limitations of the analysis and data sources.
  • Critically evaluate claims made by others using/based on quantitative information.

Inquiry and Analysis (IA, IH, IN, IS):

Definition: Inquiry and analysis are the abilities to formulate questions, synthesize information, evaluate and apply appropriate methodological, theoretical and evidentiary frameworks from specific or multiple intellectual perspectives in order to inform conclusions about or solutions for complex human, natural, social, and creative matters.

Assessment Criteria: Proficiency in inquiry and analysis is present when a student demonstrates competency in the following areas.

  • Formulate a question important to the understanding of a particular area of knowledge.
  • Synthesize in-depth information from relevant sources representing various points of view/approaches.
  • Evaluate the appropriateness of discipline specific methodological and theoretical frameworks for exploration of the question.
  • Organize and synthesize evidence to reveal insightful patterns, differences, or similarities.
  • Discuss and articulate relevant limitations to understand or alternative explanations

Subcommittee: November 26, 2018

Time

9am - 10am

Location

Reid 415

Facilitators

Tami Eitle

Committee

Meg Konkel, Michelle Miley, Sally Moyce, Sara Rushing, Shannon Willoughby, Tony Campeau, James Meyer

Agenda

  • Brainstorm design for how these three campus-wide learning outcomes map and relate to the distributional core and to student’s disciplinary and professional education (majors).
  • Make stakeholder lists for each MSU competency
  • Ideas for communication: Website, charrette, stake holder discussions.... should we consider an update to faculty senate in Spring?

Desired Outcomes

  • Multiple design options

November 19, 2018

Time

9am - 10am

Location

Reid 415

Facilitators

Tami Eitle

Committee

Dean Adams, Craig Carr, Jenny Green, Janet Heiss-Arms, Colleen McMilin, Amber Raile, Matthew Regan, Ken Silvestri, Mike Wittie, Tony Campeau

Agenda

  • Core course learning outcomes – Discuss drafts that are already in development: Quantitative (Q), Written Communication (W), Inquiry and Analysis (Inquiry)
  • What do we need to minimally define what a core distributional area covers? Definition? Assessment Criteria?
  • Future work: Assign out work on core course learning outcomes for D and CS (should ethical reasoning be embedded in CS?)

Desired Outcomes

  • Stakeholder list for Q, W, and I

Written Communication 

Definition: Written communication is the ability to assess varying circumstances, purposes, and audiences across a variety of contexts; develop appropriate, relevant and compelling content; skillfully communicate content within the specific conventions and genres across contexts; and communicate meaning to readers with clarity and fluency.

Assessment Criteria: Proficiency in written communication is present when a student is deemed competent in the following areas.

  • Content of written work is appropriate, relevant, and compelling and demonstrates awareness of the context, purpose, and audience.
  • Written work shows master of the subject matter and use of appropriate evidence and sources.
  • Successful execution of a wide range of conventions particular to the writing task(s) including organization, presentation, formatting, grammar, and stylistic choices.
  • Language, sentences and paragraphs that communicate meaning to readers with clarity and fluency.

Quantitative Reasoning:

Definition (V1): Quantitative reasoning is the ability to develop and use computational and analytical skills to reason about and solve real-world problems; represent, interpret and form appropriate conclusions based on quantitative information; and critically evaluate claims made using quantitative evidence.

Definition (V2): Quantitative reasoning is the ability to develop and use computational and analytical skills to reason about and solve real-world problems, as well as create and critically evaluate arguments supported by quantitative evidence.

Assessment Criteria: Proficiency in quantitative reasoning is present when a student is deemed competent in the following areas.

  • Formulate a problem that can be addressed with quantitative reasoning based on relevant sources of data
  • Solve the problem using mathematical, statistical, or algorithmic methods OR Solve the problem using mathematical and/or statistical tools in conjunction with computational methods or algorithmic approaches
  • Represent the results as formulas, algorithms, graphs, diagrams, or tables and interpret them in the context of the original problem, noting limitations of the analysis and data sources.
  • Critically evaluate claims made by others using/based on quantitative information.

Inquiry and Analysis:

Definition: Inquiry and analysis are the abilities to formulate questions, synthesize information, evaluate and apply appropriate methodological, theoretical and evidentiary frameworks from specific or multiple intellectual perspectives in order to inform conclusions about or solutions for complex human, natural, social, and creative matters.

Assessment Criteria: Proficiency in inquiry and analysis is present when a student demonstrates competency in the following areas.

  • Formulate a question important to the understanding of a particular area of knowledge.
  • Synthesize in-depth information from relevant sources representing various points of view/approaches.
  • Evaluate the appropriateness of discipline specific methodological and theoretical frameworks for exploration of the question.
  • Organize and synthesize evidence to reveal insightful patterns, differences, or similarities.
  • Discuss and articulate relevant limitations to understand or alternative explanations

Subcommittee: November 16, 2018

Time

9am - 10am

Location

TBA

Facilitators

Tami Eitle

Committee

Meg Konkel, Michelle Miley, Sally Moyce, Sara Rushing, Shannon Willoughby, Tony Campeau, James Meyer

Homework

  • Review minutes from the meeting on 10.29.18 (the other subcommittee) and the core design and alignment document labeled 11.12.18

Agenda

  • Review and revise design based on feedback
  • Make stakeholder lists for each MSU competency
  • Ideas for communication: Website, charrette, stake holder discussions.... should we consider an update to faculty senate in Spring?

Desired Outcomes

  • MSU competencies draft to take to stakeholders
  • Some general plan for moving forward with communication efforts

November 5, 2018

Time

9am - 10am

Location

Reid 415

Facilitators

Tami Eitle

Committee

Dean Adams, Craig Carr, Jenny Green, Janet Heiss-Arms, Colleen McMilin, Amber Raile, Matthew Regan, Ken Silvestri, Mike Wittie, Tony Campeau

Homework

  • Review Core Design and Alignment_v3 (posted to box and distributed via email with agenda)

Agenda

  • Core Design Proposal: MSU Competencies, Depth and Breadth of Knowledge (20 minutes) (Maintains distributional core course competencies but provides MSU competencies that are covered across the distributional core)
  • Core course competencies – Discuss Learning outcomes drafts that are already in development: Quantitative Literacy, Collaboration, Written Communication, Inquiry and Analysis (30 minutes)
  • Next steps?: 1) Refine MSU Core Competencies based on some stakeholder meetings, 2) Refine course competencies already drafted, 3) Draft remaining course competencies: Information Literacy, Creative Thinking, Intercultural Knowledge, Ethical Reasoning, American Indian Cultural Heritage. (10 minutes)

Desired Outcomes

  • Feedback for other subcommittee on the revised Design with MSU competencies to be covered across the core and course competencies assigned to specific courses in the distributional core.
  • Identify next steps on the developed core course competencies (revisions within subcommittee, stakeholder feedback ???)
  • Identify next steps for subcommittee work.

Collaboration

Definition: Collaboration is the ability to cooperate and interact with other members of a group in a constructive, positive way while making significant individual contributions towards group tasks and goals.

Assessment Criteria: Collaboration skills are present when a student is proficient in the following behaviors/aspects of working as part of a group to complete a series of tasks or a group project.

  • Successfully participates and resolves conflict with other group members in a positive way.
  • Demonstrates accountability by attending and being prepared for all group meetings and responding to communications in a timely manner.
  • Makes individual contributions that advance the progress of group tasks and goals both during and outside group meetings and work time. 

Written Communication 

Definition: Written communication is the ability to assess varying circumstances, purposes, and audiences across a variety of contexts; develop appropriate, relevant and compelling content; skillfully communicate content within the specific conventions and genres across contexts; and communicate meaning to readers with clarity and fluency.

Assessment Criteria: Proficiency in written communication is present when a student is deemed competent in the following areas.

  • Content of written work is appropriate, relevant, and compelling and demonstrates awareness of the context, purpose, and audience.
  • Written work shows master of the subject matter and use of appropriate evidence and sources.
  • Successful execution of a wide range of conventions particular to the writing task(s) including organization, presentation, formatting, grammar, and stylistic choices.
  • Language, sentences and paragraphs that communicate meaning to readers with clarity and fluency.

Quantitative Reasoning:

Definition (V1): Quantitative reasoning is the ability to develop and use computational and analytical skills to reason about and solve real-world problems; represent, interpret and form appropriate conclusions based on quantitative information; and critically evaluate claims made using quantitative evidence.

Definition (V2): Quantitative reasoning is the ability to develop and use computational and analytical skills to reason about and solve real-world problems, as well as create and critically evaluate arguments supported by quantitative evidence.

Assessment Criteria: Proficiency in quantitative reasoning is present when a student is deemed competent in the following areas.

  • Formulate a problem that can be addressed with quantitative reasoning based on relevant sources of data
  • Solve the problem using mathematical, statistical, or algorithmic methods OR Solve the problem using mathematical and/or statistical tools in conjunction with computational methods or algorithmic approaches
  • Represent the results as formulas, algorithms, graphs, diagrams, or tables and interpret them in the context of the original problem, noting limitations of the analysis and data sources.
  • Critically evaluate claims made by others using/based on quantitative information.

Inquiry and Analysis:

Definition: Inquiry and analysis are the abilities to formulate questions, synthesize information, evaluate or apply appropriate methodological, theoretical and evidentiary frameworks from specific or multiple intellectual perspectives in order to inform conclusions about or solutions for complex human, natural, social, or creative matters.

Assessment Criteria: Proficiency in inquiry and analysis is present when a student demonstrates competency in the following areas.

  • Formulate a question important to the understanding of a particular area of knowledge.
  • Synthesize in-depth information from relevant sources representing various points of view/approaches.
  • Evaluate the appropriateness of discipline specific methodological and theoretical frameworks for exploration of the question.
  • Organize and synthesize evidence to reveal insightful patterns, differences, or similarities.
  • Discuss and articulate relevant limitations or alternative explanations

October 29, 2018

Time

9am - 10am

Location

Reid 415

Facilitators

Tami Eitle

Committee

Dean Adams, Craig Carr, Jenny Green, Janet Heiss-Arms, Meg Konkel, Colleen McMilin, Michelle Miley, Sally Moyce, Amber Raile, Matthew Regan, Sara Rushing, Ken Silvestri, Shannon Willoughby, Mike Wittie, Tony Campeau

Homework

  • Revise drafts of learning outcomes per last meeting discussion and upload new drafts to box folder. Please move your earlier drafts to the old drafts folder.
  • Draft learning outcomes for additional areas

Agenda

  • Introductions and welcome
  • Committee and Subcommittees (CERC, Core Learning Outcomes)
  • Summary of work done in the last year

Desired Outcomes

  • Volunteers for subcommittees

You can find the current Core 2.0 mission and goals here.

Committee Member Responsible

 Core Competency Learning                                                                                                                                                                        
  Drafted Learning Outcomes for Sept/Oct Additional LOs to work on
Dean Adams Creative Thinking Creative Thinking
Tami Eitle Inquiry and Analysis, Critical Thinking and Problem Solving Critical Thinking and Problem Solving
Jenny Green Quantitative (Reasoning?, Literacy?)

Quantitative (Work with Mike)
Meg Konkel Civic Engagement? Critical Thinking and Problem Solving
Michelle Miley Communication - integrate written and oral Communication - integrate written and oral
Ken Silvestri Collaboration Civic Literacy?
Mike Wittie Quantitative (Reasoning?, Literacy?) Quantitative (Work with Jenny)

Subcommittee: October 29, 2018

Time

9am-10am

Location 

Reid 415

Facilitator

Tami Eitle

Members

Meg Konkel, Michelle Miley, Sally Moyce, Sara Rushin, Shannon Willoughby, Tony Campeau, James Meyer

Homework 

  • Consider before meeting: should we invite someone from Communications to serve on this subcommittee?

Agenda

  • A strawman proposal to get a discussion started (based on listening sessions, summer work, and feedback)
  • Identify stakeholder by competency
  • Assign members to reach out to stakeholders

October 1, 2018

Time

9am - 10am

Location

Reid 415

Facilitators

Tami Eitle

Committee

Doug Downs (W), John Lund (Q), Greg Notess (Library), Michael Everts (Inquiry), Diane Donnelly (Univ. Studies), Dean Adams (R), Carl Igo (US), Deb Blanchard (US), Ada Giusti (D), Jack Brookshire (CS)

Homework

  • Revise drafts of learning outcomes per meeting discussion and upload new drafts to box folder. Please move your earlier drafts to the old drafts folder.
  • Draft learning outcomes for additional areas

Agenda

  • Briefly discuss CERC petition I sent around to Dean, Jenny, Meg and Mike several weeks ago.
  • Review learning outcomes for Quantitative and Communication
  • Simplification?

Desired Outcomes

  • Decision on CERC petition
  • Recommendations for refining learning outcomes reviewed.

You can find the current Core 2.0 mission and goals here.

Committee Member Responsible

Core Competency Learning                                                                                                                                                                        

 

 
  Revise Learning Outcomes for Oct. 1 Additional LOs to draft
Dean  Adams      Creative Thinking

Creative Thinking
Tami Eitle Inquiry and Analysis Critical Thinking and Problem Solving
Jenny Green                                           Quantitative (Reasoning? Literacy?) Quantitative (Reasoning? Literacy?)
Michelle Miley Communication - integrate written and oral  Communication - integrate written and oral
Ken Silvestri Groupwork/Collaboration

Information Literacy
Mike Wittie Quantitative (Reasoning?, Literacy?) Ethical Reasoning
All Quantitative (Reasoning or Literacy?) - Review both Mike's and Jenny's draft

 

September 13, 2018: IGEA TEAM Meeting

Time

9-10am

Location

Admin and Finance Conference Room, Montana Hall

Facilitators

Tami Eitle

Team Members

Dean Adams, Jenny Green, Meg Konkel, Greg Notess, Mike Wittie, Ken Silvestri, Michelle Miley

Agenda

  • Review learning outcome assignments
  • Brainstorm stakeholders to review these learning outcomes

Desired Outcomes

  • List of stakeholders
  • Assignments to write additional learning outcomes

August 15, 2018: IGEA TEAM Meeting

Time

1-3pm

Location

Admin and Finance Conference Room, Montana Hall

Facilitators

Tami Eitle

Team Members

Dean Adams, Jenny Green, Meg Konkel, Greg Notess, Mike Wittie, Ken Silvestri, Michelle Miley

Agenda

  • Reviewing revised chart based on last meeting.
  • Feedback from Deans: Too complicated, too many competencies, Why not just change the categories to reflect the core competencies?
  • Learning outcomes assignments
  • Brainstorm stakeholders

Desired Outcomes

  • Proposals for stakeholders and list of stakeholders
  • Assignments to write learning outcomes

August 2, 2018: IGEA TEAM Meeting

Time

1-3pm

Location

Admin and Finance Conference Room, Montana Hall

Facilitators

Tami Eitle

Team Members

Dean Adams, Jenny Green, Meg Konkel, Greg Notess, Mike Wittie, Ken Silvestri, Michelle Miley

Agenda

  • Reviewing the overarching Goals of the Reinvigorated Core.
  • Reviewing the mapping of the learning-outcomes with the different Core areas.
  • Core Curriculum Committee Updates
  • Brainstorm stakeholders

Desired Outcomes

  • “Drafty” definitions and learning outcomes
  • List of stakeholders

July 2, 2018: IGEA TEAM Meeting

Time

10-noon

Location

President's Conference Room, Montana Hall

Facilitators

Tami Eitle

Team Members

Dean Adams, Jenny Green, Meg Konkel, Greg Notess, Mike Wittie, Ken Silvestri

Agenda

  • Defining our core areas so they better align with our model of intellectual mindsets, knowledge and skills, personal and social responsibility, and integrative and applied learning
  • I will bring some models and examples that will give us a starting place for definitions and “learning outcomes”.
  • Identify some key stakeholders that we might want to reach out to for purposes of getting some early feedback.

Desired Outcomes

  • “Drafty” definitions and learning outcomes – First drafts to begin
  • List of stakeholders

May 31, 2018: IGEA TEAM Meeting

Time

1-3pm

Location

Bradley Conference Room (Wilson Hall)

Facilitators

Tami Eitle

Team Members

Dean Adams, Jenny Green, Meg Konkel, Greg Notess, Mike Wittie, Ken Silvestri

Agenda

  • Monday Travel to SLC
  • Review IGEA Team Poster
  • Continue work improving and mapping Core Learning Outcomes to the University Learning Objectives we outlined last week.

Desired Outcomes

  • Moving towards an understanding of how our Core learning outcomes might sit under the MSU Learning Outcomes
  • Understanding of Core 2.0 Learning Outcomes and of the AAC&U VALUE Rubrics
  • Goals and GEMs

May 24, 2018: IGEA TEAM Meeting

Time

1-3pm

Location

Bradley Conference Room (Wilson Hall)

Facilitators

Tami Eitle

Team Members

Dean Adams, Jenny Green, Meg Konkel, Greg Notess, Mike Wittie, Ken Silvestri

Agenda

  • Review Plans for Travel to SLC
  • MSU Learning Outcomes
  • AAC&U VALUEs and Core 2.0 Curriculum outcomes.
  • Thinking about Goals for Institute week (Learning Outcomes, Assessment, Communication)

Desired Outcomes

  • MSU Learning Outcomes (Draft)
  • Understanding of Core 2.0 Learning Outcomes and of the AAC&U VALUEs
  • Moving towards an understanding of how our Core learning outcomes might sit under the MSU Learning Outcomes

May 31 Topics:

  • Goals for Institute

April 30, 2018

Time

10am - 11am

Location

Reid 415

Facilitators

Tami Eitle

Committee

Doug Downs (W), John Lund (Q), Greg Notess (Library), Michael Everts (Inquiry), Diane Donnelly (University Studies), Dean Adams (R), Carl Igo (US), Deb Blanchard (US), Ada Giusti (D), Jack Brookshire (CS)

Agenda

  • Revisit Committee representation... based on college versus core area.
  • Review notes from listening session
  • Meetings in May

Desired Outcomes

  • Plan for college appointment of committee members
  • First list of possible learning outcomes

You can find the current Core 2.0 mission and goals here.

April 30, 2018

Time

10am - 11am

Location

Reid 415

Facilitators

Tami Eitle

Committee

Doug Downs (W), John Lund (Q), Greg Notess (Library), Michael Everts (Inquiry), Diane Donnelly (Univ. Studies), Dean Adams (R), Carl Igo (US), Deb Blanchard (US), Ada Giusti (D), Jack Brookshire (CS)

Agenda

  • Revisit Committee representation... based on college versus core area.
  • Review notes from listening session
  • Meetings in May

Desired Outcomes

  • Plan for college appointment of committee members
  • First list of possible learning outcomes

You can find the current Core 2.0 mission and goals here.

April 23, 2018

Time

10am - 11am

Location

Reid 415

Facilitators

Tami Eitle

Committee

Doug Downs (W), John Lund (Q), Greg Notess (Library), Michael Everts (Inquiry), Diane Donnelly (Univ. Studies), Dean Adams (R), Carl Igo (US), Deb Blanchard (US), Ada Giusti (D), Jack Brookshire (CS)

Agenda

  • Need help today at 1pm CPC meeting, 2pm Diversity and Inclusion commons listening session
    • Greg Notess and Dean Adams - 1pm meeting
    • Doug Downs and Jack Brookshire - 2pm meeting
  • Need help for 2pm on Tuesday/Noon on Friday CLS student ambassadors
    • Dean Adams, Maybe Jack, Tami Eitle - 2pm meeting
    • Tami Eitle, John Lund, Dean Adams - noon on Friday meeting
  • AAC Meeting - Leon Johnson 325, Thursday at 10:15am - Academic Advising Council Meeting - covered
  • John Lund is meeting with Carina Beck and the Student Success group
  • Revisit Committee representation... based on college versus core area.
    • We could lose a core area, or we could gain one
    • Representation from each college, two from CLS, two members from Faculty Senate.
    • Deb Blanchard would like to see representation from US Seminar.
    • Writing Center Director as a non-voting member
    • Faculty in the colleges would like these positions to be ELECTED and not appointed by the Dean of the college
    • Ada will be cycling off the committee at the end of this AY.
    • Would like to see as many of the current members to stay on of possible.
    • This committee will be more formal, approving Core for courses.
    • Discussion ensued on the workflow of a new core course proposal
    • How many core courses are taught by NTT Faculty? What is the ratio between NTT and TT teaching core course? Do not feel that NTT faculty should be excluded from the core approval group - they are an important part of the campus community. They have a Union President, James Joyce.
    • Do we need a representative (separate from Diane Donnelly) from Academic Advising Council?
    • Tami will draft some messaging for a Call for Nominations.
    • If you are interested in serving for your college, please let Tami know.
    • Need some representation from Engineering - Rob Maher has expressed some interest.
    • Next meeting is May 7th. Tami will send out a reminder.
  • Review notes from listening session – Sort and Discuss/Missing
    • Box folder-Core 2.0 Curriculum Committee. Everyone has been invited as a collaborator.
      • Notes from Core Listening Sessions
      • Update Core Documents
      • Assessment
      • Current Core Course List

Desired Outcomes

  • Volunteers to run discussions
  • Plan for college appointment of committee members
  • First list of possible learning outcomes

You can find the current Core 2.0 mission and goals here.

April 9, 2018

Time

10am - 11am

Location

Reid 415

Facilitators

Tami Eitle

Committee

Doug Downs (W), John Lund (Q), Greg Notess (Library), Michael Everts (Inquiry), Diane Donnelly (University Studies), Dean Adams (R), Carl Igo (US), Deb Blanchard (US), Ada Giusti (D), Jack Brookshire (CS)

Agenda

  • Dean and Doug will lead listening session with Update Core Committee Members
  • Sign up for leading/taking notes at other stakeholder listening sessions

Desired Outcomes

  • Notes on potential learning outcomes
  • Stakeholder listening sessions updated

Topics For Future Meetings

  • Revisit Committee representation... based on college versus core area.
  • Reports on how stakeholder learning sessions are going
  • Drafting Core Learning Outcomes
  • Plan for how we will communicate our draft learning outcomes to campus stakeholders

You can find the current Core 2.0 mission and goals here.

March 26, 2018

Time

10am - 11am

Location

Reid 415

Facilitators

Tami Eitle

Committee

Doug Downs (W), John Lund (Q), Greg Notess (Library), Michael Everts (Inquiry), Diane Donnelly (University Studies), Dean Adams (R), Carl Igo (US), Deb Blanchard (US), Ada Giusti (D), Jack Brookshire (CS)

Agenda

  • Go over outline for managing listening sessions
  • Plan for coordinating listening sessions
  • Feedback on committee structure and membership
  • Communication to campus (have sent messages to Deans and DH/Directors listserv and asked them to forward to their faculty and staff)
  • Terms for Committee Members

Desired Outcomes

  • Volunteers for listening sessions
  • Plan for call for nominations for

Topics For Future Meetings

  • Reports on how stakeholder learning sessions are going
  • Drafting Core Learning Outcomes
  • Plan for how we will communicate our draft to campus stakeholders

You can find the current Core 2.0 mission and goals here.

Core 2.0 Curriculum Committee page

March 19, 2018

Time

10am - 11am

Location

Reid 415

Facilitators

Tami Eitle

Committee

Doug Downs (W), John Lund (Q), Greg Notess (Library), Michael Everts (Inquiry), Diane Donnelly (University Studies), Dean Adams (R), Carl Igo (US), Deb Blanchard (US), Ada Giusti (D), Jack Brookshire (CS)

Agenda

  • How should we structure these listening sessions so that we learn a lot and do not waste people’s time?
  • Who wants to take responsibility for talking to which stakeholders?
  • What kind of support for these listening sessions will you need from my office?

Desired Outcomes

  • Structure of meetings outlined.
  • Responsible committee members identified.
  • Plan for making support/resources available

Topics For Future Meetings

  • This committee, setting terms, call for new members as we outlined in our new documents about the committee
  • Reports on how stakeholder learning sessions are going
  • Drafting Core Learning Outcomes
  • Plan for how we will communicate our draft to campus stakeholders

You can find the current Core 2.0 mission and goals here.

Core 2.0 Curriculum Committee page

February 26, 2018

Time

10am - 11am

Location

Reid 415

Facilitators

Tami Eitle

Committee

Doug Downs (W), John Lund (Q), Greg Notess (Library), Michael Everts (Inquiry), Diane Donnelly (University Studies), Dean Adams (R), Carl Igo (US), Deb Blanchard (US), Ada Giusti (D), Jack Brookshire (CS)

Agenda

  • Update Core recommendations.
  • Learning outcomes listening sessions - stakeholders, scheduling sessions.

Desired Outcomes

  • Stakeholder map (interest - importance)
  • Stakeholders identified 
  • Responsible committee members identified.

Topics For Future Meetings

  • Learning Outcomes (University and Core Learning Outcomes (University and Core Learning Outcomes)

You can find the current Core 2.0 mission and goals here.

Core 2.0 Curriculum Committee page