Northeastern State University’s Center for Teaching & Learning will host two screenings of the documentary Race to Nowhere in early February.
Each event is free and open to the public.
The first screening will begin at 6:30 p.m. on Monday, February 7th in the Webb Auditorium on the Tahlequah campus. Reserve free tickets for the TQ screening at http://rtnnsutahlequah.eventbrite.com/
The second screening will begin at 7:00 p.m. on Thursday, February 10th in the Broken Arrow Auditorium on the Broken Arrow campus. Reserve free tickets for the BA screening at http://rtnnsubrokenarrow.eventbrite.com/
Following the 90-minute movie, students and educators will join in a discussion of contemporary education and the cultivation of creativity in schools.
According to the publisher, “Race to Nowhere is the only film that shows what is actually happening to our kids as a result of current policies and practices obsessed with testing, performance and competition rather than meaningful teaching and learning.”
For more information about “Race to Nowhere,” visit www.racetonowhere.com/.
Thank you, Dr. Jocelyn Payne for the lovely tulips; they look beautiful in my office. And thank you again, Dr. Angel Kymes for the chrysanthemums last semester. I enjoy working with you and your students very much.
Thanks go to Kyla Eden for taking these highly descriptive and detailed meeting minutes :-)
NORTHEASTERN STATE UNIVERSITY
CENTER FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING STEERING COMMITTEE
Minutes of the meeting: January 14, 2011
The Center for Teaching and Learning Steering Committee met on Friday, January 14, 2011 at 3:00pm in Tahlequah (WEBB621) and via ITV from Broken Arrow (BALB105).
The following attended:
- Linda Summers
- Rick Shelton
- Donna Shelton
- Vanessa Whitley
- Evelyn Woods
- Judy Moody
- Earlena McKee
- Cari Keller
- Kyla Eden
- Kip Finnegan
- Chuck Ziehr
- Gene Kozlowski
- Stacy Thompson
Absent with notice:
- Martha Parrott
The meeting was called to order by Linda Summers at 3:00pm.
E-course compensation application evaluation:
Stacy Thompson gave an overview and general information about the e-course compensation application evaluations, specifically regarding the timeline.
- Applications are graded on a twenty (20) point scale.
- Each application has two evaluators, unless it is necessary to bring in a third evaluator (in instances where the scores are severely different).
- The monetary amount of the grant is $1,800.00.
- It is suggested that the decision for funding should be limited to, but preapproved for, those applicants who score an 80% or higher overall.
- Documents should be e-mailed or otherwise delivered to Stacy Thompson by the Friday, February 4, 2011, so that the process can be finalized during the next CTLSC meeting, which is Friday, February 11, 2011.
- Linda Summers agreed to send out an e-mail to committee members, reminding each of the February 4th deadline.
There is much discussion about whether or not to make the grant more exclusive. This would be called the “Innovative Teaching Grant.” Compensation could be made more competitive to promote excellence. Because grant applications are increasing and award money is not, it is suggested that applicants be made to show innovation in teaching in order to receive the grant.
There is much discussion about the monetary amount of the grant, and how many classes the account can handle. It is suggested by several that the amount of the grant should be decreased to accommodate more classes; it has been equally suggested that the grant amount is increased to increase exclusivity, meaning that fewer classes would be compensated.
Specifically, Rick Shelton suggested that the grant be increased to $2,000.00 and only compensate 25 courses. Chuck Ziehr suggested that the monetary amount of the compensation should be decreased in order to extend the grant to more courses.
It is further suggested by Rick Shelton that the Quality Matters rubric should be applied to online as well as face-to-face courses.
There is much discussion on the application process and/or nomination process for the grant. It is suggested that three application methods be made available to apply for future grants from CTL:
2. Nominated by colleague
3. Nominated by student.
It is suggested that the policy containing the rules and regulations for this process should be considered and written over the summer.
A motion was made by Donna Shelton to vote on funding for applications receiving a score of 80% or higher.
Motion seconded by Judy Moody.
There is discussion on the topic . . . vote taken:
Motion to vote on funding for applications receiving a score of 80% or higher passed unanimously.
Recommendations for the Task Force on Online Education:
Cari Keller, a member of the Task Force, gave an overview of the document “Recommendations from the Task Force on Online Education.”
- The focus of the Task Force is to encourage a continued access to instructors who are qualified to teach online.
- Issue #1 is related to online courses, online general education courses, and compensation in general.
- No recommendations are made regarding Issue #1.
- A major concern with the document is the idea of “lowering the amount of money for course compensation, yet raising the bar for the course.”
Gene Kozlowski makes a motion to recommend keeping the course compensation amount at $1,800.00.
Donna Shelton seconds.
Much discussion about the topic . . . vote taken:
Motion to recommend that the course compensation amount be left at $1,800.00 passed unanimously.
- It is suggested that the online evaluation is flawed:
o There is a low response rate from students.
o Two extremes are present in the online evaluations that are completed:
§ A high or superior rating based on the student’s general acceptance of the professor
§ A low or negative rating based on the student’s dislike of the professor.
- It is suggested by Gene Kozlowski that faculty be encouraged to give their own evaluations instead of, or as well as, the CTL evaluations. He stated the method used in his online classes, which produces a higher amount of productive evaluations. He proposes that the faculty who are interested in giving their own evaluations should use the survey server, Checkbox.
- A question is raised as to whether or not the problem with the CTL evaluations is the questions asked, or the method of delivery. It is decided that the context in which the evaluation is given (face-to-face vs. anonymous) impacts the yield. Specifically, return rate is higher when the instructor being evaluated is involved in the delivery process and students understand the relevance of the evaluations.
- Therefore, the committee recommends that the process by which evaluations are presented to online students should be revised; focus should be placed on getting a better response rate for the evaluations.
Linda Summers tabled this issue for the next meeting, due to the amount of time left in the meeting and the amount of issues still left to discuss.
Currently in CTL:
- Wimba Pronto is live, although one tab is not installed. This program is capable of making multi-person video calls.
- Wimba Suite is installed, but is only active in the faculty learning space.
- Currently, there has been no testing in actual classrooms.
- The full version of Wimba will be made to download, and pushed to the whole university.
There is much discussion regarding the issue of students with no computers or internet access at home.
**There will be a demonstration of Wimba on Friday, January 21, 2011 from 10:00am – 12:00pm in Broken Arrow BALB 110. Demonstration will be given by Rick Shelton.**
- Funded and ongoing.
- A question is raised on whether or not to promote Quality Matters at this point in time. It is decided that we should wait until we know more about the program.
- The program is scheduled to be introduced Fall 2011 semester.
- Upgrade scheduled for Fall 2011.
AVPTL Search Committee:
- Meets January 27, 2010 at 3:00pm.
- There are 26 candidates in the pool.
Chuck Ziehr committed to sending monthly updates via e-mail to the University Community.
Online Instructional Designer Search Committee
- Meets Thursdays at 3:00pm
- Several applicants did not meet minimal education requirements, so were eliminated. The pool still contains a number of qualified candidates.
Tabled Until The Next Meeting:
Due to time constrictions, Linda Summers tabled the following business:
- Official Description of CTLSC for website
- Discussion on committee matters:
o What the committee is doing right,
o What the committee could be doing better,
o And suggestions on how to improve the committee.
Meeting is adjourned by Linda Summers at 5:00pm.
The Center for Teaching and Learning Steering Committee will meet again from 3:00pm – 5:00pm on Friday, February 11, 2011 in Tahlequah: WEBB621 and Broken Arrow: BALB105
Minutes taken and prepared by:
Kyla D. Eden
One of the most important responsibilities charged to college students each semester is to evaluate their instructors. The reason I label this responsibility as important is because these evaluations serve as mirror to faculty so that they can better assess their effectiveness in the classroom, adjusting as necessary. Another element as to the importance of these evaluations is that they help determine who gets to continue to teach and who does not, in that administrators use them as one of the measures of teaching effectiveness.
And though the results are shared with the instructor after all course grades have been submitted, the students only see the one they fill out, ultimately not knowing how their evaluation compared to others in the classroom, nor learning of the compiled results.
That said, in the spirit of transparency, below is a compilation of the instructor evaluations submitted by the students enrolled in my class this past fall semester. Twenty four were enrolled; twenty were in attendance at the time of the evaluation (thank you, Eddie for proctoring ;-)
As A Student In This Class:
- I attended the first day of class – 85% yes – 15% no answer
- My skills were adequate for this class in
- Math – 5% agree – 40% strongly agree – 50% not applicable – 5% no answer
- Reading – 5% agree – 90% strongly agree – 5% not applicable
- Writing – 15% agree – 80% strongly agree – 5% not applicable
- I attended class regularly – 15% agree – 85% strongly agree
- I prepared for each class – 5% disagree – 35% agree – 60% strongly agree
- I turned in papers and assignments on time – 20% agree – 80% strongly agree
- I was free to ask questions and contribute to class discussions – 5% agree – 95% strongly agree
- So far in this class, my grades reflect my level of performance – 10% agree – 90% strongly agree
The Instructor, At the Beginning of the Course:
- Explained the Syllabus – 100%
- Explained what work would be required – 100%
- Explained how work would be evaluated – 100%
The Instructor Throughout the Semester:
- Set and maintained high standards – 15% agree – 85% strongly agree
- Was well prepared for each class – 10% agree – 85% strongly agree – 5% no answer
- Explained topics clearly – 10% agree – 85% strongly agree – 5% no answer
- Encouraged understanding and applying facts as well as memorizing them – 10% agree – 90% strongly agree
- Encouraged the students’ creative thinking – 10% agree – 90% strongly agree
- Encouraged the students’ critical thinking – 5% agree – 95% strongly agree
- Was available for consultation during posted office hours or by appointment – 20% agree – 80% strongly agree
- Was patient with students’ learning – 10% agree – 90% strongly agree
- Alternated methods of instruction (handouts, films, overheads, the Internet) – 10% agree – 90% strongly agree
- Returned graded work as promised – 10% agree – 90% strongly agree
- Returned papers, tests, and assignments with helpful comments – 10% agree – 90% strongly agree
- The instructor’s attitude toward the subject matter was – 95% enthusiastic – 5% interested
- Information & dates for major assignments were announced and/or distributed through the syllabus, handouts, or course materials – 90% always – 10% frequently
- Regarding course subject matter, the instructor’s ability to answer students’ questions suggests – 80% mastery – 20% competence
- The instructor responded to students’ questions in a manner that was – 90% patient – 5% reasonable – 5% no answer
Summary of Course:
- My expectations for this course were met – 100%
- This course was a challenging and learning experience for me – 100%
- I would recommend this course to other students – 100%
Additional Comments – a blank box at the end of the evaluation in which students can write specific comments (all are direct quotes including format and spelling ;-):
- Learned a lot! Great class! Loved it. Would recommend to anyone. Loved the :-) on papers!
- Would recommend Mrs. Summers to anyone. Great teacher and shows true passion and expertise for her job and teaching. Actually enjoyed going to class thanks to Linda Summers.
- Your understanding and “down to earth” attitude made learning fun and exciting :)
- Very good writing teaching. Would have enjoyed having you for Comp 2 :(
- Your a great teacher! I enjoyed class very much. :) I wish you would teach Comp II :)
- You are very open and have a broad mindset on topics. Great teacher :)
- Made essays easier by the topic were freely choosen. If it wasn’t explained correctly the first time explained again to understand.
- Great teacher! :) One of the best I’ve had. Sometimes instructions were a little vague though.
- Great assigned readings
- I like the class. :)
- Loved your class!
- Great teacher! Very knowledgeable and helpful! Thanks!
- Awesome! <3 U! :) Again…UR awesome! :)
- Great teacher!
- She was the best instructor I ever had.
- I <3 Linda. Enjoy this pig (comment accompanied by the hand-drawn image of a pig with a curly tail standing in a mud puddle ;-)
- Good teacher, really cares about students. I have nothing to add.
(Thank you to all the students who successfully completed last semester’s class. I’m proud of your accomplishments. You were a great group – dynamic and energetic. Good luck in Comp 2 and in all your future endeavors. :-)