RFPs Year 3
Archives for Bush Faculty Development Committee 1993-2002
New faculty 1993-2001
Faculty Development Grant
from the Bush Foundation
Nov 2002 - Nov 2005
Initial Planning Retreat
An initial planning retreat was held as indicated in the proposal.
Participants included the following people: Richard Hanson, Karen Dorn, Geoffrey Dipple, LaMoyne Pederson, Karin Lindell, Sharon Gray, John Bart, John Clementson, Arlen Viste.
Some notes from the retreat follow.
2. Teaching and learning (pedagogy)
Should the grant provide direction in building a college consensus about teaching . . . something for the whole college? Improving the college as a whole? How about a thematic focus each year?
1. Service learning?
Tie this work to the shared fundamental values?
One Assessment workshop might be devoted to items 5 and 6 above . . . perhaps in the first year.
Assessment development for faculty might consist of both the use of experts and also the use of local conversation about assessment. This committee can model and advocate good teaching practice (including assessment) and development of better classroom teaching.
The College will establish two to three departmentally based programs supporting non-traditional students, 2-3 projects for gen-ed projects
** Support for the Augustana Symposium will be as stipulated in the proposal.
Should the summer research projects be connected to the themes as designed? Or should student research be the fourth theme? The goal is to move the college to where there is more student-faculty research, where students and faculty have a better understanding of the research process and the value of the research process for student learning.
6. Vocation of the college and for our students: Implications for learning
New faculty orientation process – giving new faculty the context of the place . . . give new faculty the LECNA survey, to establish a baseline . . . could these data carry over to a classroom-based or service-learning effort? Might this lead to a more informed pretenure process? Using existing data? Measure change in the faculty? How does this sort of information affect student learning? Spend money on consultant or conference activity to gather ideas?
NSS – this is not student orientation. Credit producing course, but it is very hard to recruit faculty to teach the sections. One issue: The NSS lacks academic rigor. Load implications for the faculty? Any sort of change requires a general education review . . .is 1 credit sufficient? What happens if it becomes a 3 credit experience? Should we have a common 1st year experience? A freshman year experience? Spend money on gathering new ideas about how NSS might evolve? Should NSS be framing the key questions for the rest of the student's career?
Capstone? How then shall we live?
Mission and Vocation: A series of workshops, re: tying the mission of Augustana College into the learning experiences of the students at Augustana College. $4500 across the life of the project. . . how would we spend that money? Organizing a conference for our faculty and bringing in some "big name" presenters. Building on new faculty orientation . . . probably for year 2 of the project. Large workshop plus follow-up to see how these activities might form, shape or alter teaching?
6e. support for 2-3 projects (like the coalition for social justice) - RFP would go to the campus community, but there must be an emphasis on student learning. Could be student initiated, but will require a faculty or staff advisor.
Feed it to divisions and departments by doing presentations to units. A sort of rolling road show about the possibilities within the grant. Or, have a faculty luncheon around one or more themes or topics within the project. Push the RFPs whenever possible . . .get the one, two and three year plans out to the faculty. There are monthly division meetings . . . we could get on their agendas. There needs to be "stuff" on a website. Arlen will invade the faculty. We should preserve the notion that there will be adequate funding for a project, but they will be competitive.
1. Five internship centers are created and operational. 2. Students are introduced, through these internship centers, to greater diversity and complexity. 3. The internship sites are truly functional, i.e., they systematically contribute to students' preparation for vocation, life and the future.
Current internship programs . . . Washington semester; HECUA programs (MUST, Stockholm program) The idea for this component is to provide internship programs (in many different disciplines. Part of the intent is to move students out of SF and becoming sort of a "signature" program for Augustana.
How to spend the money: development money, there is support money. Development: make contacts, search out facilities, identify support people. Money would be spent on a coordinator here at Augie to run this program.
Could the program start as a trial program in the interim to see how it (the process) works. This process could test several things: cost to students, arrangements for students, support services for the student . . . perhaps we could learn about the process and apply those lessons to a larger grant proposal. Perhaps in the summer as well.
1. recruit a coordinator (on-campus)
4. Diversity, globalism, regional and international perspectives
4a is really a renewal of the existing mini-grant program. 4b is designed to be more intensive. REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS need to be developed for each element.
For 4a: criteria need to be developed: (a) designed around a specific course; (b) must focus on diversity; (c) some form of measurable student learning outcomes; (d) reflect the goal of approaching a sense of competence in self and in the culture; (e) these grants are not to be used for regular and needed curricular revision; (f) a new or substantially revised course might be the outcome for one of these proposals; (g) money may not be used for faculty salaries or money may be used for only a portion of the total costs; (h) money could be used for a variety of faculty development activities, e.g., conferences, materials, equipment; (i) there is an expectation that the innovation would be on-going, not episodic; (j) departmental and/or divisional approval and support is present;
For 4b: criteria - - - (a) larger, more departmentally or programmatically based proposals; (b) must focus on diversity; (c) some form of measurable student learning outcomes; (d) end product will be a substantive change/enhancement/addition to the curriculum; (e) money may not be used for faculty salaries or money may be used for only a portion of the total costs; (f) money could be used for a variety of faculty development activities, e.g., conferences, materials, equipment; (g) there is an expectation that the innovation would be on-going, not episodic; (h) departmental and/or divisional approval and support is present;
5. Information technology (IT)
How will we assist in the incorporation of WWW methods in 3-5 courses
How will we demonstrate (prove) that these enhanced learning environments
enhance student learning?
What is the connection to the informational literacy theme (from above)?
CWRI – how many experiences, what
type of experiences need to be developed (or have been developed)?
For this project – there must be a link between the assessment committee (or the assessment process) and the particular approved activities within this project. That is, each approved project within the grant will have an assessment dimension. People applying for such monies need to coordinate their assessment efforts with the assessment experts on campus so that each element within this project is appropriately assessed. An appropriate mechanism for making this aspect work will be developed.
As assessment website and an assessment handbook will be developed. Both these resources will be available to participants in this project.
The assessment committee has been created. The members of the committee will be meeting with each department, that process beginning in Feb 03. Workshops on assessment will be based on needs, as expressed by the faculty. This fact puts a spring 03 workshop into some doubt. There will be a program offered on Reading Day, 2003.
The philosophy is to start at the program and course level with the goal that the majority of academic departments have sets of measurable student learning outcomes.
· We also want assessment to coordinate with the college program review process. Assessment informs program review. Up through this process, we want departments to have curricular maps.
· The number of departments with multiple measurement items and a central assessment organizational scheme increases, e.g., portfolios, capstones, classroom level assessments, or standardized tests
· College will move to a higher level on the Higher Learning Commission's Levels of Implementation
· Academic departments will move to a higher level on the Higher Learning Commission's Levels of Implementation
· Academic departments receiving grants will share their progress with the community and serve as mentors to other departments.
· The progress generated with 1A and 1B help foster a campus wide culture of assessment
· The college conducts a forum to share the success and difficulties with assessment of student learning
· A forum is created to interpret assessment results and discuss strategies to improve student learning based upon those results.
· The college will have a systematic process in place for sampling the broad student population on issues ranging from student learning to student satisfaction with campus facilities and services.
Criteria for assessment grants to faculty: (a) designed around a specific course; (b) some form of measurable student learning outcomes; (c) these grants are not to be used for regular and needed curricular revision; (d) a new or substantially revised course might be the outcome for one of these proposals; (e) money may not be used for faculty salaries or money may be used for only a portion of the total costs; (f) money could be used for a variety of faculty development activities, e.g., conferences, materials, equipment; (g) there is an expectation that the innovation would be on-going, not episodic; (h) departmental and/or divisional approval and support is present.
Approval process for these grants will rest with the assessment committee with advise and consent from the faculty development committee.