Faculty Meeting – IV15 4/17/15
McDowell Hall 112, 1:30 p.m. Friday
Joe Matterer presided over the meeting.
Agenda/Order of Business
- Committee Reports (reports to be posted in Program Planning, here)
- Activities and Events (A&E) – presented by Ken Hyde
- Curriculum Committee – presented by Nigel Caplan
- Revisions to the listening curriculum – presented by Nigel Caplan
- Advisory Committee – no presentation since Dr. Stevens is out of town
- Conduct and Attendance – presented by Lowell
- Joe Matterer added that he will be changing the Week 2 probation meeting to targeted audience with 2 different meetings.
- Nigel Caplan confirms that there is no institute-wide policy about making up work. This is left to the discretion of the instructor.
- Responding to a question about whether the policy is being followed, Emily Thayer said that the multiple repeater policy is being followed in that each student’s case is reviewed carefully before recommending dismissal. Nigel Caplan pointed out that the original intent was to get the student placed at the correct level, if the student would be better served at a lower level. He stated that thinking that the student would be better served at another program may be misguided. Joe Matterer argued against lowering to a level after they’ve already spent 2 to 3 sessions at a higher level. An instructor responds that they do not have the opportunity in the current class to cover material that should have been covered at a lower level. Joe Matterer said that he does not see it as a lock-step structure that one level builds on the next. He did not want to carry on this discussion during this Committee report, but pointed out that he is on the Committee and this is how he influences decisions made there. Emily Thayer followed up that a large number of students have been dismissed in the last 18 months, but this is not the goal of the Committee. A reoccurring theme is that the Committee wants to offer support and help to make the student successful. Joe shared that Dr. Stevens will not support dismissing a student who has one “bad” session—it has to be multiple “bad” sessions.
- Promotion and Peer Review – presented by Leslie Criston
- CNNT faculty go through a peer review at 6 and 12 years.
- Those who go up for promotion (generally, not a momentary promotion, but title change) is a peer-review process. It’s a new process and the entire University is going through it. They need training on how to do the technical part of it.
- 3 people have gone through peer-review this year
- Newsletter – presented by Sarah Petersen
- Sarah asks that teachers write little blurbs about goings-on in the classroom with the thought of alumni as audience. Reminder to help with photos. They want more photos, fewer prose.
- Scott Duarte reminds everyone about resolution of photo images. For example, if taking photos from Facebook, open the photo and copy the image (not saving the thumbnail of the image).
- Nonie Bell asks about the level of the language of the articles, specifically asking about who are alumni that we are targeting. Sarah P. responds that its something to keep in mind and why they emphasize photos and fewer words. She said aiming for native audience is a good idea. Scott Duarte added that native English would be at a high school level.
- CAS/UD Senator Reports – holding off on presenting on this because Senate meeting next Tuesday, April 21.
- Survey – CEA requirements – only 25% of respondents. This survey is to pull together a database to assist with teacher training portion of CEA. It will also be built on for future use with teacher training and professional development purposes. Jim Weaver will be sending out a reminder to complete this survey. He said for many people, it will not take much time to complete.
- Final listening test proposed resolution (new business) – presented by Walt (as emailed to all faculty on April 17). Asking for a vote from full-time faculty at the next meeting on Monday, April 27.
“Whereas the Michigan Aural test is not closely tied to the level outcomes as stated in the curriculum , and whereas it is unlikely that a product exists that is closely matched to ELI’s outcomes , and whereas a rough draft of a listening test has been created by the Testing Committee and has been reviewed and well received by all members of the Testing Committee and the Curriculum Committee with members of these two committees offering constructive criticism that will inform a revision of the draft, be it resolved that the Testing Committee and other ELI and UD personnel create several forms of the test and that the test be piloted and the results reviewed and reported by the Testing Committee, and that this review will include item analysis, statistical data and correlations with class grades and other assessments, and, pending analysis and review, that the faculty vote at a later time on whether or not to adopt the new test forms as final listening assessments.”
No other business was discussed.