Professional Development and Scholarship Committee

Trinity University

Washington, D.C.

Minutes for the October 11, 2006 Meeting

The October , 2006 meeting began at about 3:07. The members present included VPAA Sue Blanshan, Assoc VPAA Virginia Booaddus, V.R. Nemani, Deborah Litt, Mary Hayes, and Konia Kollehlon. The meeting essentially revolved around a discussion of the draft proposal for the Center for Teaching and Learning Excellence, prepared by Sue Blanshan. After providing a brief overview of the draft proposal for the Center for Teaching and Learning Excellence [hereafter referred to as the Center], Sue noted, among other things, that after a final draft for the Center is completed, she plans to develop a proposal to seek external funding for the Center. She asked that members of the Professional Development and Scholarship Committee serve as advisors ( or “sounding board” ) during the preparation of the proposal/development of the Center. In this regard, Sue noted that some help will be needed, especially from colleagues in the School of Education, on articulating the design aspect of the proposal.

Professor V. R. Nemani indicated the need to provide quantitative and qualitative outcome assessments of usage of the Center once it becomes fully operational. Sue indicated that from her research thus far on similar centers, she has not found very good models for assessing such Teaching/Learning centers. Sister Mary Hayes asked how we can retain very competent, bright students, and minimize their likelihood of transferring. Deborah Litt suggested some possible solutions; such as, developing more honors programs, developing different levels of assignments (with different levels of difficulty), as a way of stimulating brighter students, and improving/enhancing co-curricula/student life activities, among others. Deborah further noted that she would like to see more discussions of innovative pedagogy in the proposal for the Center, since the needs of the School of Education (with greater emphasis on teaching skills/more of a training program) may differ somewhat from those of the College of Arts and Sciences (with its greater emphasis on liberal arts education – i.e., basic literacy /numaeacy, etc). Deborah further suggested that the needs of adult learners and support for graduate education should be further discussed in the proposal. Deborah also inquired about funding for professional development in the School of Education. Sue indicated that faculty members should submit proposals and explain what they need, even if such needs are not directly related to curricula reform.

Focusing on the Quantitative literacy/numeracy subsection of the proposal, Konia underscored the significance of quantitative literacy across the curriculum, especially in the social sciences. Konia noted, however, that since Academic Computing merged with (or was absorbed into) Technology Services, until recently, he and some other faculty members who teach quantitative-related courses (such as Research Methods/Population Studies) have not had much cooperation/support from Technology Services. This is especially the case with faculty access to SPSS, consultations on components of SPSS to be ordered, and installing data files (and other softwares) for student use in the SPSS directory in a timely manner. The meeting adjourned at about 4:20 pm.

Submitted by Konia T. Kollehlon

#