The Moon Room

A Community Forum on Guilford College Faculty Life

Clerk’s Committee meeting agenda – March 30, 2017

March 28th, 2017

Clerk’s Committee Meeting Agenda

Thursday March 30, 2017 2:30 pm

  1. Gathering and Moment of Silence 2 minutes
  2. Figuring out who’s doing the minutes [Eva for March 30?] 1 minute
  3. Approval of Minutes from March 16 meeting 2 minutes
  4. Scheduling: Position requests and upcoming meetings 5 minutes
  5. For discussion: Creating a welcoming environment for trans students 15 minutes
  6. For discussion: Using the tree for midterm grades 5 minutes
  7. For discussion: College marshals process 5 minutes
  8. For approval: Agenda for faculty meeting April 5 10 minutes
  9. For discussion: General Education Revision – next steps 30 minutes

Materials and models for Critical Perspectives curriculum discussion on March 15

March 12th, 2017

LAGER has prepared two documents for the Critical Perspectives discussion we are holding March 15th in the Collaboratory space in Hege Library. These are a set of slides that describe their ideas for incorporating Critical Perspectives and a memo summarizing what they are presenting. Note that the model they’re using here is their updated model 4.5, which includes a couple of changes from model 4.0 based on feedback from recent meetings.  These changes include:

  • Adding a third writing course, called XP in the slides, which is parallel to the current HP requirement, but which may include a broader scope in terms of topic.
  • Removing the full-semester first-year Gateway Seminar course (akin to current FYS) in second semester, retaining the two-credit half-semester Gateway Seminar in the first semester.
  • Changing the nature of the first course, and reducing the experiential credits by two, of the central experience courses (what we’ve been calling Communities in Practice)

See the memo below for more details.

With that model (4.5) as a base, LAGER has proposed several different ways in which the Critical Perspectives ideas could be included in the curriculum. They have four models, some of which might have trouble satisfying Jane’s charge to us with regard to the Art and Science findings. If you have a different model to propose, please describe it in the comments section of this post, and we can enter it into our discussion on Wednesday.

Here are the LAGER documents:

Memo for CP models – Google Docs

 

slides only

Discussion on Critical Perspectives – Wednesday, March 15, 3:45 p.m.

March 10th, 2017

LOCATION CHANGE: This event will be in the Collaboratory in Hege Library, NOT in the Gilmer Room.

We will host a discussion during the reserved time on Wednesday, March 15th, at 3:45 pm, centered around the concerns that have been raised recently about the curricular elements we currently house in the Critical Perspectives requirements, namely Social Justice/Environmental Responsibility, Diversity in the U.S., and Intercultural.

NOTE: This meeting is not a called faculty meeting, nor is it even as formal as a forum. We know it’s a very busy time of year with midterm grades due on the 16th, and we realize that this is short notice and that many people have scheduled other events during this time already. We hope that people can come and talk, and that we can make some progress toward resolving these concerns and moving the curricular process forward. If you cannot come, or if you wish to make comments leading up to or following up from the meeting, please feel free to do so here in the comments on this post.

We propose that we have this discussion focus on two questions:

  1. If we were to decide on critical perspectives for 2017, rather than using the ones from 1998, would we retain the same categories and the same names? Are there different concepts, different elements, or different names that we would like to use for the new curriculum?
  2. If we were to combine these to the structure mapped out by the LAGER model, where could we place them? Could we infuse them into the entire curriculum? Could we focus on them in immersive major events rather than courses? Would we replace or modify elements in LAGER 4.0? Would we add something? Would we use a similar method to now, where they are flagged on courses that are part of the rest of the curriculum?

Here is the previous discussion on the page from the March 1 called faculty meeting. It includes some long comments on Critical Perspectives from various faculty members.

March 1 faculty meeting discussion

 

We have asked LAGER to come with a set of various models for Critical Perspectives that we can compare and discuss, so that we can talk about their merits and drawbacks in relation to each other. We will post these as they become available, but feel free to make additional suggestions here as you wish.

If you’re interested, here’s the text of the items used in the Art and Science requirement (Guilford login required). This isn’t directly relevant to the discussion proposed above, but it is important as we move forward.

The documents prepared by LAGER for this meeting are here.

Open discussion area for March 8 faculty meeting

March 8th, 2017

Please add comments, questions, or discussion here. You may post anonymously if you wish.

Here are two cards left at the meeting:

 

If you have another A&S [Art and Science] info meeting, don’t put it Friday afternoon.

 

Great meeting! New format is much improved.

And here is a card that I missed seeing in the box. I think it was submitted last meeting, the called meeting on March 1st, but I can’t be sure.

It may be worth asking in a survey if faculty will stand in the way of the concept. I feel when this concept comes for approval several will. Perhaps because their feedback is collected but not considered.

 

Clerk’s Committee Meeting Agenda, March 9, 2017

March 8th, 2017

Clerk’s Committee Meeting Agenda

Thursday March 9, 2017 2:30 pm

  1. Gathering and Moment of Silence 3 minutes
  2. Figuring out who’s doing the minutes 1 minute
  3. Approval of Minutes from March 2 meeting 2 minutes
  4. Representative for search for HR director 5 minutes
  5. Review of Faculty Meeting on March 8 10 minutes
  6. For discussion: General Education Revision and A&S Initiatives 40 minutes

 

 

Clerk’s/LAGER joint meeting on February 23, 2017

March 3rd, 2017

Meeting record – February 23, 2017

Clerk’s Committee met jointly with the Liberal Arts General Education Revision committee (LAGER) to discuss the process and strategies for Spring 2017 for moving forward with general education revision. The joint group elected to call a faculty meeting for March 1st to allow LAGER to present their latest model, take questions, and listen to discussion.

Clerk’s Committee Meeting Minutes, February 16, 2017

March 3rd, 2017

Clerk’s Committee Meeting Minutes

Thursday February 16, 2016 2:30 pm

Present: Dave Dobson (Clerk), Don Smith (minute taker), Beth Rushing, Sherry Giles, Eva Lawrence, Kathryn Shields, Alfonso Abad Mancheño, Gwen Erickson

1.The committee gathered in silence at 2:33 pm.

  1. We reviewed the minutes from the meeting of 2/9/2017 and made no changes.
  2. We discussed our reactions to the faculty forum of 2/15/17 on aspects of the newest proposal from LAGER about the General Education revision.  The activity to indicate our reactions to aspects of the proposal seemed to go well, and the ensuing discussion revealed some confusion as to the leadership for this project, between LAGER, Clerk’s, Administration, and Admissions.  Although there seems to be some convergence happening, there are parts of LAGER that people are still unhappy with, and there are still facets that people want that are not yet in the LAGER proposal.

We discussed how the Art&Science response does and does not intersect with the LAGER process.   Beth reiterated that the response from A&S calls for transformative change, not small tweaks that delude us into thinking we’ve made a change.

One challenge with the forum was that the proposal is being revised as we speak, and there was some confusion as to which version we were responding to.  There is lack of clarity as to whether LAGER has completed their charge, and has handed it off to… Clerk’s?  The faculty?   “In which court is the ball now?”  How many proposal reviews do they need to do?  Some faculty are still reacting to previous versions that are no longer relevant, or someone on the committee will use language that evokes earlier versions, and that can lead to confusion.  Sometimes there is confusion between who is presenting and who is facilitating.  Often we don’t truly trust the committees we empower to go off and do the work.

There seems to coalescing support around separate breadth courses, experiential components, and faculty led programs (although some student led programs in some cases would probably be exciting).  Does the group work requirement leave room for introverts?  Or is it good to help people step outside their comfort zones?  Are we ready to shepherd the groups to maximize productive discomfort without crossing over into dysfunction?  There was concern expressed that we are “pulling bricks out of the building as it’s being built” and whether we are supporting the committee we entrusted to do this work.  It’s been a long process, and there does seem to be progress.

Some people who were here for the 1998 revision compared our current process with that one and felt we were actually doing quite well, in terms of speed, progress, and general rancor.  We may be in “the spaghetti”, but this is not surprising and should not be discouraging.

Next steps: hand it back to LAGER for a final revision?  Clerk’s has a scheduled meeting with LAGER next week; we could give them the March 1st forum.  There could also be a large chunk of time at the March 8th faculty meeting.  Should we have a called faculty threshing meeting?  We will talk to LAGER next week about what would be most useful for them.

  1. We discussed a proposal to add “Peace” to the list of Core Values.  Clerk’s didn’t seem to be the most appropriate venue to discuss this proposal.  We reviewed the process by which the Core Values were originally established, and it was emphasized that the original process involved the whole campus, with many constituencies involved beyond just faculty.  We decided that the SPOC would be the best body to consider this proposal, and the Clerk will send the proposal on to that body.
  2.  We discussed a proposal to modify the requirements for being able to participate in the graduation ceremony.  The next step is for the faculty to consider it, but we also want to solicit student input, to ensure that this is something they want.  Before the meeting of Clerk’s on March 2nd, Beth will discuss the proposal with student leadership.  We will decide on the 2nd whether to bring it to the faculty for discussion or approval.
  3.  Further agenda items were postponed to later meetings.
  4.  The meeting closed with a moment of silence at 3:51 pm.

 

Clerk’s Committee Meeting Agenda, March 2, 2017

March 1st, 2017

Clerk’s Committee Meeting Agenda

Thursday March 2, 2017 2:30 pm

  1. Gathering and Moment of Silence 3 minutes
  2. Approval of Minutes from Feb. 16 meeting and record of Feb 23rd meeting 2 minutes
  3. For review: Programs seeking tenure-track positions 2 minutes
  4. For approval: Nominees for Nominating Committee 5 minutes
  5. For possible approval: Proposal for Personnel Committee 10 minutes
  6. For approval: Agenda for Faculty Meeting on March 8 10 minutes

Possible agenda items:

  • Proposed change to commencement requirements
  • Report from board meeting (Melanie Lee-Brown)
  • Report on gift reporting and accounts and grant process (Ara, Gail)
  • Nominees for Nominating 2017-2018
  • Draft committee slate 2017-18
  • Personnel Committee
  • Change to commencement participation requirements
  • Curriculum revision
  1. Review of Called Faculty Meeting on March 1 and Gen Ed process 30 minutes

 

Clerk’s Committee Meeting Minutes, February 9, 2017

March 1st, 2017

Clerk’s Committee Meeting Minutes

Thursday February 9, 2016 2:30 pm

Attending:  Alfonso Abad Mancheno, Dave Dobson, Sherry Giles, Gwen Gosney Erickson, Eva Lawrence, Beth Rushing Kathryn Shields (recorder for this meeting), and Don Smith. Absent: Leanna Kantt, Jeffrey Ray

Meeting began with a moment of silence

Minutes from Feb. 2 meeting – approved

Item of New Business:  Tim Kircher cannot attend the Board of Trustees meeting.

We discussed whether we should try to replace him or have the Clerk be the faculty representative?  Jane regularly gives a report of the faculty meeting so the situation has changed from past practice.  The faculty rep attends the open portion of the meeting and any committees of interest.  Dave also attends Finance and Academic Affairs committee.  We agreed that it may be a chance for another faculty member to experience the board meeting, which might be welcome.

Dave will send it out to faculty to see if anyone would like to attend on Feb. 24-25 with a note that the first person to respond will represent faculty and report at the next faculty meeting.

Review of Faculty Meeting on February 8

We agreed that the minutes for the Feb. 8 faculty meeting look good.

In follow-up discussion regarding the faculty meeting, we decided that the words “at least” should be left out of the statement on catalog language on credit hours:

Guilford College utilizes the federal definition of the credit hour. Under this definition, one credit hour entails the equivalent of forty-five hours of instruction and student work in a term, regardless of the length of the term or the delivery mode for the class.

The Academic Dean and the department chairs are responsible for ensuring adherence to this policy.

The federal definition does include a reference to the credit hour defined as a “minimum” of the forty-five hours of instruction.  We agreed that this statement is a step in the right direction.  In order to work towards some clarity about the implications for our classes and our academic environment, we need to continue conversations as a campus community.

The Clerk will send out that statement with the agreed upon catalog language and mention that the process language is in process separately.

As a related matter, we discussed the fact that the academic calendar could include an additional week in the fall of 2018-19 now that January term no longer exists.

Dave communicated to Jane of the results of faculty-approved nominees for honorary degrees.

Curriculum discussion.  We really need to know if this proposal is going to be approved by faculty sooner rather than later.  Another way of describing what they are proposing is a major + 3 SACS requirements + a PPSE.  Art and Science recommends that what we do needs to be required and awesome (experiential, student-led).  We will need staff to support the community outreach, training, etc., but we cannot start budgeting it without a decision about support.  In the Forum next week we could have a goal to build an approvable proposal (Feb. 15).  We could revisit in the Forum on March 1 [after the presentations on Feb. 17 by the Arts and Science group (a repeat of earlier presentation), and on the discussion on the 22nd, which will be an opportunity to try to elicit people’s dreams (collaborative learning, ethical leadership), mine ideas, and generate plans]. We can take the results of these two forums to the March faculty meeting for approval if we are able to come to some consensus. The curriculum will not really be in its final form until we’ve worked out the implementation.

Discussion of Position requests for searches in 2017-18

We will be losing a few people to retirements and unexpected losses.  We will not know about our fall enrollments so the plan is to request proposals and approve a few (around 2) this semester and add several more (around 2) in the fall if the enrollments are high enough.  There is also a chance that the two we approve could have to be pulled.

We will remove the request for cover letter, job description, and course rotations.  We added some clarification about the narrative (teaching area, list of courses, contributions to gen ed, interdisciplinary programs, and other majors).  We should remove “supporting materials” unless we have some specific requirements.

Include in the memo that programs that submitted proposals in the fall can either update that information or let us know they want that proposal to be considered.

Online course evaluations pilot for spring semester– approved

Discussion of online course evaluations.  One person wondered if we could create a requirement to encourage submission because we would not want to create a situation like the advising survey.  For example, could the students not be able to access grades until their evaluations are submitted? Banner would require programming, so it probably would not be possible.

The system will send reminders to people who have not submitted them.  They may also be able to be tied to Canvas.  While online evaluations tend to generate fewer responses than paper, we would likely need to change the way we have thought about them in the past.  We can also do some things to increase responses.

They can still be administered in class and we should offer that as a recommended practice to instructors.

After we adopt the online course evaluations we can decide what questions can be included (common set of four questions, lab-specific, studio-specific, and we could make department-specific questions, and individual questions).  We could decide that we would only allow three forms at Guilford.  The four questions are good global questions and the other options are relevant to certain classroom situations, which would be better information for everyone involved than the generic set of questions we currently use.

Since we have not had a faculty discussion about it, we agreed that a pilot this semester is the best way to go. Beth will send a memo that Clerk’s has approved a pilot of online evaluations during the current spring semester.  We should indicate that there is strong support from Department chairs and it also has FAC support.  The Dean will meet with faculty who will be under review next year.  For the people who will be up for Tenure Review, they would have the option to use the ScanTron evaluations if they are nervous about a change.  We plan to follow up with a presentation/discussion at the March faculty meeting.

We will continue the following issues to future meetings:

Proposal for Personnel Committee

Faculty service workload and expectations –

Proposal for Peace as a core value –

The meeting closed in silence at 3:55 pm.

 

The Moon Room

A Community Forum on Guilford College Faculty Life