Academic Planning Subcommittee

Academic Planning Subcommittee, 2005-06

The members of the Academic Planning Subcommittee of the Faculty Senate are:

  • June Kloubec (Senate liaison)
  • Barbara Fister (Education Division)
  • Terry Morrow (Fine Arts Division)
  • Matt Panciera (Humanities Division)
  • Max Hailperin (Natural Sciences Division)
  • Jennifer Ackil (Social Sciences Division)
  • The Interim Deans also attend meetings (at our request) in an ex officio capacity.

Meeting Minutes

Documents

Readings

In addition to the links below we have read the most recent self-study and the NCA response as well as several planning documents from other colleges.

On interpretations of "liberal arts"

On external pressures on higher education

Reports from the Secretary of Education's Commission on the Future of Higher Education

Minnesota demographics from the state's Office of Geographic and Demographic Analysis

Brief Notes from Our Meetings

September 8, 2005

We reviewed how we got here: at the faculty meeting of March 16th the need for academic planning was raised. The Senate asked if the AACC was the body that should do this, but decided that it would be better if a special subcommittee took it on. Mariangela and Eric both underscored that this is a job for the faculty, not administration. Though there was originally discussion about having a board member and the president attend, that seemed unnecessary. We should produce a long-term plan by the end of the year - that's the president's wish.

We decided to begin with the big questions, then work toward specifics. We need to consider what we know and can predict about faculty, students, and the higher education landscape generally. We decided to start by finding out what planning has been done; Eric and Mariangela said they would pull together some documents that we can use at our next meeting.

September 21, 2005

We discussed the readings provided by Eric after our last meeting. Some of the planning documents from other colleges presented specific recommendations, others were fairly vague. None of them detailed the process involved in generating the plans. The college's self-study and the NCA report presented some specific challenges: should we identify ourselves as a regional or national college? Do we need to prioritize service or excellence? How much can we afford to spend to go after promising students who have other financial aid offers? We were troubled that the NCA found nothing particularly remarkable about Gustavus.

The role of this committee is not to advocate or against programs but to help the faculty articulate what defines us and where we want to go. There is some uncertainty and nervousness about our charge. We need to reassure our colleagues and ask them questions that show we care about their involvement. A passage from the Self Study seemed relevant here:

It is probably fair to say that the strategic planning process begun in 1992 has played itself out at this point and that the anticipated arrival of a new president in 2003 marks an important opportunity to reconceive strategic planning at the college. Certainly the present set of fiscal challenges provides considerable incentives for entertaining serious change.

From the experience of the previous planning initiative, certain desiderata emerge for new strategic planning initiatives:

  • A new strategic planning process should remain broadly based and consultative throughout its formulation, implementation, and assessment. Planning groups need to meet regularly and offer candid progress reports on a regular basis. Planning processes need to incorporate a deliberate, on-going mechanism for responding to the conclusions from assessment of college programs.
  • The priorities and goals articulated in a plan should have broad support across the constituencies of the college, take into account the governance and work structures of the college, and be few enough in number to give practical guidance in making decisions. Goals should be specific and attainable.
  • Planning documents should be developed into final form, publicly recognized, and prominently available.

We began a discussion of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats.

Among strengths: a good faculty, and a committed faculty; the Lutheran and Gustavus traditions are well suited to serving in a religious manner those of other religions; the Lutheran religious identity gives us a niche we serve well. The reading in common program. Curriculum II.

Among weaknesses: heavy reliance on a shrinking pool of students; lack of money, inefficiency through offering too many choices, the lack of a "cohesive conversation," being tuition driven leads to compromises, the course load means we lack time to do our work well, and a lack of publicity about the academic program that might make clearer what the value of a Gustavus education is.

Among opportunities: having faculty resident in the Twin Cities may allow for useful connections. We can make more use of alumni/ae to education the public about the value of a Gustavus education. There are opportunities (e.g. MPR) for faculty to get out in public more. We have lots of room for expansion of non-traditional offerings.

Among threats: competition for good students, vulnerability to economic downturns, tuition discounting run amok in higher education; lack of understanding in the culture of what our kind of college is.

September 29, 2005

We discussed and suggested changes to the message that will go to the Senate. Further suggestions to be gathered via e-mail.

Chicken is to egg as mission statement is to planning? We decided to start with the current mission statement and the core values; what those are might shift depending on what the planning process reveals.

We discussed what we mean by "liberal arts" and agreed to share material that might shed light on it. Becoming specialized in a major is only one aspect of what we try to do, but the majors drive a lot of decision-making processes here. We are more major-focused than liberal-arts-focused. The meaning of this concept is not well communicated to students, prospectives, and the general public. What strategies should we use to make the liberal arts meaningful? What should "liberal arts" entail here at Gustavus?

October 5, 2005

We talked about one of the "big questions" - what does "liberal arts" mean at Gustavus? What difference does it make? Why do people want to go to a school like this? Is the argument to be made for a liberal education one of utility? Is it a good in and of itself? (and if so, for whom?) Is it good from the perspective of the social good? One way of looking at it is to think of three parts:

  • learning how to think critically and logically
  • learning how the world works / content knowledge
  • putting the two together

What would an ideal prospective student look like? An ideal graduate look like? What should our academic program look like? And who would be the ideal faculty member, since graduate schools don't prepare people to practice the liberal arts. What sort of focus should we have --

  • one that foregrounds citizenship?
  • one that forgrounds the ability to reflect on assumptions about self and others?
  • one that foregrounds the extent to which students learn to work together as agents of change - both change in society and change within one's self?

We kicked around the role of majors and of general education. General education is not the definition of liberal arts. In what ways could the entire academic program enable opportunities for students to make connections? What happens within majors to make liberal arts values present? We also talked about the continuum of a faculty focus on teaching or on research. An interest in teaching is not the same as an interest in the liberal arts. Is an increasing emphasis on scholarship consistent with the liberal arts? Is one's research liberating? Does it serve to model for students qualities of curiosity, passion, excitement - and the fact that knowledge isn't finished?

Final questions to ponder:

  • What should happen to a student who is liberally educated?
  • what will the faculty who accomplish this look like in ten years?

October 13, 2005

We discussed questions raised by Matt in an e-mail - questions that are relevant for students both within disciplines and in interdisciplinary contexts: Who am I? What is the world? What is my role in the world? If we were to ask students to reflect on these questions throughout their education, how would their answers develop? Could we use these questions to infuse the curriculum with an ongoing committment to "big questions"?

We also discussed ways to communicate not just with the Senate but with the faculty at large, perhaps with e-mail conversations with our divisions, followed by a faculty retreat early in the spring.

October 18, 2005

President Peterson met with the committee to provide an overview of campus-wide planning. He envisions us developing general priorites. We as a faculty need to provide the general direction of programs so that when decisions are made they're based on a shared sense of direction. He suggested we may want to meet with the Academic Task Force of the Board in their January and April board meetings. We may also want to meet with Hank Toutain to discuss his planning process. We should "be bold" and should aim at having at least some ideas that can be acted on with current resources.

We spent some time discussing whether within his framework the liberal arts as a key tradition for the college should be articulated by the board or by our sub-committee as a key curricular issue.

The president reiterated his goals: building academic strength and distinction (what makes us stand out beyond basic strength?); enhancing diversity; expanding visibility, finding a sustainable balance so a Gustavus education is affordable ; and expanding our revenue base by raising more money and using our resources more wisely.

After the president left we agreed to work further on getting broader involvement in our discussions over e-mail.

November 1, 2005

We're still somewhat uncertain about what it is we're expected to accomplish this year. E-mail exchanges since the President's presentation queried whether our liberal arts discussion focus fits with his expectations. Can we / should we produce a framework for doing things differently? Or should we focus more on the basic nature of what it is we are trying to do here and perhaps suggest avenues for doing it better in an environment full of challenges?

Is the mission statement itself (or at least parts of it) our academic plan? Are we being asked to operationalize what the mission statement says? And how does that relate to the "big questions curriculum" idea?

Among some of the tangibles that act on the mission (or could act on it) are:

  • community service programs linked to social justice
  • experiential learning
  • rigorous learning
  • development of the whole person
  • exchange of ideas (development of a community able to communicate passionately and openly about ideas).

As an example, among things we do well here is mentorship. Can that be recognized and rewarded? Are there ways to align what we value with budgeting and other decision-making processes?

We reaffirmed that Matt's questions were valuable and not something we want to lose as we try to meet the President's expectations.

We could eventually pose the issues this way: "We will accomplish these things that are important by doing the following …" (Here, presumably, making some concrete suggestions that could be acted on short term while guiding long term decision making by identifying what we do that supports what we want to accomplish and where we need to bring in more resources.)

"Bearing in mind these changing realities: ...." (Here, presumably, pointing out a limited list of specific challenges that should be considered, e.g. financial constraints, changing demographics in MN...) We discussed how monitoring all of the external challenges is beyond us without a lot more time and expertise, but will try to examine some key indicators already available, in particular a document about trends in Minnesota school enrollments.

November 8, 2005

We discussed the new Carnegie classification system looking at true and aspirant peers. It may be that some of our IPEDSdata may be slightly misleading (e.g. some Communication Studies programs are pre-professional, ours is much more firmly attentive to theory; the Criminal Justice degree may be misnamed because the focus is on understanding social systems rather than training for CJ professions.) Max pointed out that IPEDS data is available on the Web.

We talked about ordering tables for the February facutly meeting so we can get community conversations going about academic planning. What do we want to do? How will we do it?We might provide a set of prompts that make statements and ask for responses (in the mode of an A level exam: blah blah blah: Discuss). The discussions must be based on facts we have at hand. We should meet with the Curriculum Committee since they are examining size of majors and how majors contribute to the liberal arts experience; it would also be good to talk to Eric Carlson (FTS), Florence Amamoto (CII) and with Mark Anderson (admissions) for their perspectives.

November 14th, 2005

We reviewed what we heard at the Teachers Talking session on academic planning. On the whole we were pleased that a) responses were generally positive and b) comments were aligning with what we've already been discussing. Some felt we don't support our stated priorities (e.g. interdisciplinarity, international education, student/faculty research, FTS). We also heard a willingness to make hard choices and some concern that we don't have the political position to see our recommendations through.

We spent quite a bit of time discussing the results of the 2004 faculty survey, particularly focusing on the relationship of the major to the whole liberal arts education, the relationship of pre-professional programs and those that specifically prepare students for a career and/or for graduate education, and the expectations of entering students and how to make them more aware of their options. We agreed this is an opportunity to decide how we want to make decisions for the academic program and what our priorities are, short- and long-term.

Finally, we discussed where or whether the college's identity as a church-related college belonged in the plan.

November 22nd, 2005

We discussed various approaches to broadening the conversation and decided that, though tossing out the questions relating to the academic program as posed in the NCAreport might be too broad and shapeless an exercise as a place to start, we could at least discuss them ourselves. The questions are:

  • what are our most distinguishing characteristics? what parts of our mission are we currently living up to? what parts need the most help?
  • what components of our academic and co-curricular program contribute the most to our identity and what we want our institution to be?
  • what could we do right now to focus our efforts on those components that contribute most to our mission? what parts of the academic program should be the focus of long-term fundraising efforts?
  • internally, how could we alter our decision-making processes to strengthen and sustain those components that can or could contribute most to our mission?
  • how generally should we position our institution in the competetive landscape of higher education? what niche do we want to fill? why?

So far we only discussed the first question in the context of our mission statement. Among distinquishing characteristics are our Swedish-Lutheran heritage, residential nature, interdisciplinary programs, international education, and service learning that can develop students' leadership ability, desire to serve, and personal growth. We agreed that mentoring (including but not limited to student/faculty research) and the international education program were strong, though still in need of help. Curriculum II, FTS, and January term were also mentioned as distinctive; CI general education is like many distributive programs and so is not distinctive. Service learning has potential but is time-consuming and not easy to add. We felt the claims made in the mission statement ("faculty who embody the highest standards of teaching and scholarship") about teaching were generally lived up to; research less so.

We discussed attracting students with potential and promise and agreed that we need students who have ability and/or drive. We also discussed briefly how recruiting top students had implications for financial aid costs and diversity.

What can we do now? We thought the three "big questions" had real potential. We thought they would help with both interdisciplinary thinking and the "open exchange of ideas" but wondered operationally how we'd make time for them.

November 29, 2005

Housekeeping: We will have one more meeting this semester and adjourn for January. Some of us will join the Curriculum Committee at 3:30 on Dec. 15th for a discussion of the role of majors in the curriculum; there will also be a Dec. 13th Teachers Talking session on that topic. We may meet with Florence Amamoto and John Cha in the spring, will ask the Senate to have a discussion of academic planning on the agenda for the March faculty meeting. Barbara Fister will chair the committee for the spring term and Max will take notes.

We had a wide-ranging discussion that mapped out some of the issues we've been discussing.

Institutional characteristics we would like to see: arts and sciences plus professions here should mean 100% of our majors involve liberal learning and 100% of our majors prepare students for meaningful employment. Within the majors we should embed liberal arts skills and knowledge within the Lutheran tradition of intellectual inquiry. Social justice and global competence are important and might focus on rural and immigrant communities.

Where we would like to be distinctive: Integration of learning among majors and the rest of the students' experience. Experiential learning opportunities (e.g career explorations, study abroad, meaningful community service) for all students. Strong mentoring, including advising, modeling curiosity and engagement, asking the "big questions," and faculty-student research collaborations.

Issues to examine: is FTSas successful and distinctive as it could be? Does general education encourage engagement and intergration?How do majors fit?

Engagement could serve as an overarching theme. (This may require prioritizing available options rather than continuing to let them proliferate.)

Do we want to take small steps or consider big, painful steps?

December 6th, 2005

We discussed our upcoming meeting with the Curriculum Committee. What do we want to accomplish in our half-hour? We would like to find out what they've learned in the public meetings and what plans they have, if any. We would also like to share the ideas that we had about ensuring that majors embody the liberal arts, that we not assume that job is accomplished by the general education program.

We returned to the engagement question. How can we make students more responsible for their own learning, more engaged and independent?We were concerned that the message sent in the admissions and oorientation process and perhaps in the FTS tends to emphasize the support systems that make Gustavus safe rather than emphasizing that we believe these students are capable of great things and that our expectations are high. We didn't believe this meant we had to attact a different group of students (e.g. compete with Carleton for students) but could shift the message from safe and supportive to challenging and engaged and still be an attractive option. We believe we need to collectively "raise the bar" and set expectations knowing students who could engage often choose not to - behavior we enable. We want to shift from "hand-holding" to valuable intellectual and academic mentoring.

We discussed several related issues. Would it help with engagement to combine sections of thirty into lectures of 60 with smaller tutorials in some cases? (Students can hide in a class of thirty, but not in a tutorial of six.) How can we model integration of learning and commitment to ideas? We should consider ways to cut the sheer number of options (student organizations, events, lectures) and encourage depth of engagement where now we have breadth of shallow experiences and a claustrophobic sense of business and clutter.

February 10, 2006

The meeting convened at 3:35 PM. In attendance were Jennifer Ackil, June Kloubec, Terry Morrow, Matt Panciera, secretary Max Hailperin, chair Barbara Fister, and interim deans Eric Eliason and Cindy Johnson Groh.

1. Jennifer Ackil distributed a letter from Mimi Gerstbauer. Consensus of the subcommittee was to read this letter between now and the next meeting.

2. June Kloubec announced that we are scheduled for the discussion period of the March 22nd faculty meeting.

3. Consensus of the subcommittee was to ask for a meeting with the Board of Trustee's Academic Task Force in April. Eric Eliason volunteered to try to set up such a meeting.

4. The subcommittee discussed at some length the question of whether we should each meet with our divisions face-to-face or solicit their input by email, or whether some other non-divisional discussion prior to the March 22nd faculty meeting was appropriate. This discussion included not only the question of forum, but also what the contents of those meetings or email would be: to what extent we would convey our own provisional thinking (and if so, what that thinking was) and to what extent we would be soliciting ideas. This discussion did not reach a clean conclusion; apparently we are not ready to engage in this communication (of whatever form) before our next subcommittee meeting. The general trend of the discussion seemed to be toward giving some sketch of our ideas and asking for response to it, in particular, with regard to how those ideas could be put into practice within each division. For example, if we are going to try to move the academic program as a whole toward a more engagement-centric or big-questions-centric vision, we need to give some concrete examples of what we see that as looking like, but also to ask how it plays out in the particular contexts around campus. What is being done now that fosters engagement, including engagement in the big questions? What could be done, other than increasing resources, to move the academic program further in that direction? These questions may have different answers from the perspectives of different divisions.

5. The foregoing discussion segued into a discussion of what engagement means and its relations with the big questions. For example, one form of engagement is integration by students of their studies with their lives. Another is for students to become change agents in the community, including not only the broader external community, but also the educational community and its processes. This naturally led to the question of engaging students in our academic planning discussions. Eric Eliason suggested that Hank Toutain might be able to set up a round-table discussion with students. Consensus of the group was that this opportunity should be pursued. The secretary's notes do not reflect who was to look into this; presumably the chair?

6. The discussion of engagement in turn segued into a discussion of the Blue Ribon Task Force's findings, including in particular those based on the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE). This discussion echoed the task force's concern about signs that seniors may be less engaged than first-year students. This raised the question, can we figure out what is causing disengagement?

7. Other comments about how we discuss engagement with others included the remark that we should be clear (particularly when talking with students) that engagement is different from busyness, and the remark that we should prompt faculty discussion partners with specific examples of where we already see engagement.

8. Homework assignments for this week are as follows:
a. Read the letter mentioned in item 1.
b. How would we describe engagement?
c. How could we engage the community in talking about it?
d. Look over Eric Eliason's draft of "The liberal arts as a defining tradition for Gustavus Adolphus College."

The meeting adjourned close to 4:30 PM.

February 17, 2006

The meeting convened at 3:32 PM. In attendance were Jennifer Ackil, June Kloubec, Matt Panciera, secretary Max Hailperin, chair Barbara Fister, and interim deans Eric Eliason and Mariangela Maguire.

1. The committee discussed the letter distributed the prior week from Mimi Gerstbauer. Remarks by Jennifer Ackil, Mariangela Maguire, and Max Hailperin indicated that an acknowledgment of the letter had been sent, that the president was aware we are considering it, and that the letter to the president was from January of 2006. Consensus of the subcommittee was to keep the letter in mind while perusing more general directions.

2. The committee discussed the notion of "engagement," how we can articulate it and move toward concrete steps to realize it, and how the faculty meeting discussion might focus on it and/or on "the big questions." Much of the discussion revolved around the email Max Hailperin had sent out offering a temporal perspective on engagement, suggesting that the engaged student is one who acts in a planned, mindful, reflective manner. This was intentionally a broad statement; for example, planning can incorporate everything from "what will my role be in making the world more just" to "how am I going to participate in the class I am walking into." Mindfulness can incorporate everything from practicing yoga to being fully tuned in to a professor's presentation of factual information. Comments in the discussion included that this breadth could give faculty from across the various departments many different ways to buy in, that mindfulness and reflection could counter busyness, and that this more comprehensive picture could help us differentiate engaged learning from active learning. Other comments suggested ways in which the description of engagement could be improved by incorporating other elements: the communal/shared/social/reciprocal dimension, the cognitive/content dimension, the search for meaning that goes beyond an exam or paper, and the need for personal investment.

Next the committee turned to how his discussion would be expanded to a broader group of discussants, particularly in the context of the March faculty meeting. Should we focus on engagement, the big questions, or both? Most of the committee seemed to favor focusing on engagement. Max Hailperin was perhaps the most cautious in the regard, wondering aloud how gracefully this rubric would stand the test of time. The committee also discussed format: should we call for small-group discussions or a single plenary discussion? Or should we focus on presenting our own ideas, rather than on creating a venue for on-the-spot contribution by the rest of the faculty? Small-group discussions seemed to garner more support than large group, but there was also interest in the idea that we focus on getting our ideas out and expect the feedback to come largely after the meeting. One suggestion is that we focus on giving some concrete ideas as to what could be done to change the academic program so as to foster more engagement, rather than merely how we recognize it. For example, we could suggest steps in the general education area (short of another rework of the general education curricula) and invite others to examine programs within their own departments.

Discussion of specific steps to foster engagement didn't get very far. Might something be done to foster interdisciplinarity? Perhaps a project that spans classes? Might the sophomore year be an attractive time for a programmatic intervention? How will our changes respond to changing demographics? Can they be sold as practical skills?

3. The meeting concluded by setting the agenda for the following two meetings. On February 24th, the committee will consider (without its chair) the document on liberal arts as a defining tradition; prior to that date Eric Eliason will incorporate some revisions in the draft. That same meeting will continue the discussion of engagement. On March 3rd, Florence Amamoto (director of Curriculum II) will visit with the committee.

The meeting adjourned close to 4:30 PM.

Respectfully submitted, Max Hailperin, secretary

February 23

The meeting convened at 10:30 AM. In attendance were Jennifer Ackil, June Kloubec, Terry Morrow, Matt Panciera, and secretary Max Hailperin.

1. The subcommittee discussed what process we wish to use to move from discussion of general principles to articulation of a concrete plan in a form suitable for sharing with others. Consensus was that someone needs to draft a document based on our discussions thus far that would give us something concrete to modify and further develop. Matt Panciera volunteered to do this drafting. The document will define engaged students and engaged education, illustrate how these notions span the distinction between inside and outside of the classroom, and show the opportunities for fostering connections between classes. It will suggest concrete actions that could be taken in the programmatic and curricular realms to further realize our vision of engagement, as well as pointing out what existing strengths in this area can be built upon. It fill conclude with some reflection on the challenges that will need to be overcome. Matt hopes to get a draft to us Monday, so that we can work on it for the Thursday meeting (2006-03-02) and thereby have a couple weeks to continue working on it before the March faculty meeting. Matt's goal is to cast the initial draft wide to see what rises to the top in the committee's further work on it. By the time we are presenting to the faculty, we should focus on a small number of key suggestions.

2. The subcommittee unanimously endorses, with two small editorial amendments, the draft document on liberal arts as a defining traditions. We encourage Dean Eliason to proceed with his plan to have this document vetted by the wider faculty prior to submission to the Board of Trustees. Additionally, June might take this document to the next Senate meeting. The two editorial changes are indicated in the attached copy of the document.

3. The subcommittee discussed what June should report to the Senate regarding the future of this subcommittee. Ought it to continue? Short term or permanently? As a subcommittee of the Senate or a standing committee of the faculty? Consensus was that we should indicate our willingness to continue serving for one (or perhaps two) additional semesters to complete work on the document now being started, but that we would then encourage the Senate to disband the subcommittee and allow the Curriculum Committee to have the field to itself. It may make sense to see how the March faculty meeting goes before we say too much to the Senate about our willingness to continue into the next academic year.

4. Future plans hang largely on how work on the document Matt is drafting goes. June will be unlikely to be able to bring that to the Senate at its meeting, but might be able to circulate a version of it to them by email prior to the March faculty meeting. Moreover, our desires regarding the format of that meeting (small versus large group) will be clearer once we see how the document is shaping up. At some point we will need to revisit questions of how our plan can establish connections with future students and other groups, but that too should wait until we have gotten through a burst of concrete activity on the document.

The meeting adjourned at 11:22 AM.

Respectfully submitted, Max Hailperin, secretary

March 2

Present: Terry Morrow, Matt Panciera, June Kloubec, Jennifer Ackil, Barbara Fister, Mariangela Maguire, Eric Eliason, Cindy Johnson-Groh; Florence Amamoto, Curriculum II Director, joined us for the first half of the meeting.

1. We discussed the progress of the committee vis a vis a sense from the chair of the Curriculum Committee that their decisions were being held off until this committee finishes its work. There may still be an expectation in some quarters that we will provide a list of action items that are more specific than those we've embraced so far.

2. Florence Amamoto described the Curriculum II program, suggesting it is distinctive and draws the kind of students we want to attract. There are persistent staffing issues because teaching in CII requires negotiating with departments who may have other priorities. The students in CII value its challenges, the sense of belonging to a cohort across the years, and some see it as essentially an honors program. There is an attrition to around 35-45 by the senior year due to a desire for more choice or conflict with the demands of a chosen major, with it being a particularly difficult curriculum to schedule for elementary education and athletic training majors. Among its strengths are core readings that can be referred to from one semester to another and the capstone course that pulls together connections between self and society while considering ethical issues in contemprary life. Finding faculty is less difficult in history and classics departments because they've built this service into their planning; finding teachers for courses on the Natural World, Individual and Society, Literary Experience, and theSenior Seminar is more difficult, particularly after the FTSwas introduced and required staffing across the curriculum. In some ways the cohort feeling and the out-of-the-classroom engagement found in CII is also found in certain majors. We need to consider ways to embrace a more diverse student body while providing academic support, a need made vivid by an excellent presentation by Becky Taylor Fremo to new faculty and their mentors.

3. We reviewed Matt's rough draft of a statement about engagement and agreed that sections A and B are a given and may be material that we distribute in advance of the meeting so that faculty can be considering engagement as a framework for planning. Sections C and D express strengths and obstacles. We thought it might be possible to frame section E - possible remedies - as pointed questions. We agreed to continue working on the draft until our next meeting.

bf

March 9

The meeting convened at 10:34 AM. In attendance were Jennifer Ackil, June Kloubec, Terry Morrow, Matt Panciera, secretary Max Hailperin, chair Barbara Fister, and interim deans Eric Eliason, Cindy Johnson- Groh, and Mariangela Maguire.

Mariangela distributed copies of her revised draft of the engagement document and Jennifer distributed her additions to the table of strengths, distinctions, and challenges.

The committee discussed the role of initiatives versus questions, and in particular what level we are ready to discuss at the faculty meeting. Terry questioned whether we have the vision in place; June suggested that the College's Mission Statement might serve as our starting point. Matt reminded us of the need to connect our understanding of the liberal arts to the notion of engagement.

In discussion of the attributes of an engaged learner, Max suggested a couple more points, bringing the total to nine. Further discussion revealed a consensus that these nine points should be consolidated into a smaller number not only for the sake of focus, but also in order to make more explicit the engaged nature of the listed activities. Max volunteered to draft such a consolidated list and to email it in advance of the next meeting.

Discussion turned to possible initiatives. Max suggested a push for broad adoption of project based learning coupled with campus-wide showcase days in which work (including by lower level students) would be exhibited or performed. Others suggested that this could emphasize work outside of the students' majors and that is interdisciplinary in nature; June thought some incentive structure would help with that. Max also suggested faculty model taking interest in one anothers' courses and finding connections between them. He supported the notion of student-driven interim experiences. Jennifer suggested we might renew the call for integrated concentrations, including engaging students in their sophomore year in the development of their concentration plan. This would provide a context for meaningful advising and might open the door for interdisciplinary areas. Barbara suggested some sort of portfolio, perhaps focussed on the big questions. Terry indicated that a substantial move toward engaged learning would necessitate rethinking orientation weekend and the FTS program, so as to move the students more toward taking independent ownership of their learning. Likewise, the advising role would need rethinking. An additional suggestion was that every student be off campus at some point, sooner rather than later so that it could play a transformational role in their education. Jennifer asked whether this might be part of the integrated concentration.

The committee members agreed they would each email out a more fleshed- out description of the initiatives they had suggested.

The meeting adjourned at 11:26 AM.

Respectfully submitted, Max Hailperin, secretary

March 16

The meeting presumably convened at 10:30 AM. (The secretary was late.) In attendance were Jennifer Ackil, June Kloubec, Matt Panciera, secretary Max Hailperin, chair Barbara Fister, and interim deans Eric Eliason, Cindy Johnson-Groh, and Mariangela Maguire.

Barbara distributed copies of her revised draft of the document providing background on the planning process and our vision of engagement. The committee discussed revisions to this document, which Barbara will incorporate (with feedback from those committee members whose schedules permit) and submit the same afternoon for incorporation into the faculty meeting packet.

The committee next discussed plans for the faculty meeting. Consensus was that there would be a brief presentation summarizing the material in the packet and calling for ideas for institutional changes that might facilitate greater engagement, then a small-group discussion period (with a recorder at each table), and then a brief presentation of some of the initiatives we have floated.

Finally, Eric updated the committee on some of the broader planning context, including information on where some of the parallel efforts have gotten to and thoughts on what might be requested for the April board meeting.

The meeting adjourned at 11:28 AM.

Respectfully submitted, Max Hailperin, secretary

March 23

The meeting convened at 10:30 AM. In attendance were Jennifer Ackil, Terry Morrow, Matt Panciera, secretary Max Hailperin, chair Barbara Fister, and interim dean Mariangela Maguire.

The committee discussed what the members present heard at their tables at the faculty meeting and how specific our proposals for initiatives should be.

The committee next discussed when it would be appropriate to talk with admissions, student affairs, and residential life. It was agreed that Barbara should see if Mark Anderson can attend our April 6th meeting, and if not try Hank Toutain, and if he too is unavailable, Charley Strey.

The committee discussed some of the initiatives we are personally favoring at least pending reading the transcribed comments from the faculty meeting. Homework is for each of us to refine our written descriptions of those initiatives.

Barbara will check with June regarding the Senate's expectations of when we will report.

The meeting adjourned at 11:28 AM.

Respectfully submitted, Max Hailperin, secretary

April 6

The meeting convened at 10:31 AM. In attendance were Jennifer Ackil, June Kloubec, Terry Morrow, Matt Panciera, secretary Max Hailperin, chair Barbara Fister, interim deans Eric Eliason, Cindy Johnson-Groh, and Mariangela Maguire, and guests Hank Toutain and Jeff Stocco.

Barbara distributed the document the Deans' Office had prepared by transcribing the comments written down at each table during the faculty meeting discussion. She then introduced the guests who agreed to have a conversation with us about potential connections with the Student Affairs division.

Hank explained, by way of introduction, that the Student Affairs division had been working for some years on being more explicit about what learning students ought to be doing outside the classroom -- both what goals they ought to be achieving and some ways in which they might choose to achieve those goals. The committee that Jeff has been working with has been working on this and making progress.

Jeff explained that the committee was originally terms an "expectations" committee because of the idea that we should get beyond just presenting a range of opportunities without articulating that it is important to the mission of the College that students avail themselves of some of those opportunities -- in other words, we expect them to do so. He indicated that the language has more recently shifted toward talking about "outcomes" or "learning objectives" rather than expectations. He distributed two documents: a grid showing out some of these outcomes aligned with other categories, such as the College's mission, and a more extended document titled "Merging Mission with Student Outcomes," which lists for each College value what the corresponding learning outcomes are and examples of activities that support and develop that value. He also indicated that the Student Affairs division is considering a range of possible options for something like a co-curricular transcript or portfolio, in order to help students think more explicitly about the full range of learning they do at Gustavus.

The subcommittee proceeded to discuss related matters with Hank and Jeff. Some topics touched on in that conversation include whether some students might be over-busy without being truly engaged in reflective ways, whether we could enhance the fit between academics and student life, the role a co-curricular transcript might play in advising discussions, possibilities for change in the orientation period, the possibility for broad showcase days that could incorporate student achievements across the range of curricular and co-curricular activities, and the knowledge that Student Affairs staff have regarding the times of high opportunity and high stress in the academic year.

Barbara thanked Hank and Jeff for their participation in the conversation; there was agreement all around that there are lots of opportunity for further cooperation.

April 13

The meeting convened at 10:35 AM. In attendance were Jennifer Ackil,June Kloubec, Matt Panciera, secretary Max Hailperin, chair Barbara Fister, interim dean Eric Eliason, and guest Mark Anderson.

Barbara asked Mark to provided the subcommittee with background information it might find useful. This conversation occupied the full meeting; some the topics that were touched on follow.

The catastrophic enrollment drop that happened at the beginning of Mark's tenure due to a decline in Minnesota students of traditional high school graduation age may provide an approximate model of what is coming. This time the overall population of that age will remain relatively level, but decreasingly few of them will be from ethnic and racial groups that traditionally go to four-year colleges in such high numbers.

Enrollment management is difficult. Prospective students today are applying to lots of colleges, which makes it hard to predict what will happen. Moreover, they (and their parents) are engaging the colleges in very aggressive discounting competition.

We have been making progress on diversity, but it is expensive.

We are working on outreach partnerships, building relationships and helping middle-school students plan preparatory curricula.

We should look into what programs are working well elsewhere. For example, are there particularly successful and appropriate models among the various programs that bring in students early who can use some boost academically and/or with supportive networking?

Mark sees internationalism as very important. As far as trends in majors, nursing is on an upward swing and business is big.

Another trend is to increasing emphasis on Advanced Placement and Post-Secondary Educational Options. [Editor adds: and perhaps International Baccalaureate?]

We may not be universally, uniformly meeting expectations of rigor and excellence.

An example of a program for lack of which we lose some potential students would be Chinese.

At the end of the meeting, Mark floated a possible change in admissions process.

The meeting adjourned at 11:37 AM.

April 20

The meeting convened at 10:36 AM. In attendance were Jennifer Ackil, June Kloubec, Terry Morrow, Matt Panciera, secretary Max Hailperin, chair Barbara Fister, and interim deans Eric Eliason and Mariangela Maguire.

The subcommittee discussed comments recorded at the faculty meeting. Although no major new initiatives were identified, there is some material that would be important to include in our plan, for example in the suggestions directed to the deans regarding hiring or in general preamble.

The subcommittee discussed the cluster of ideas around co-curricular transcripts, portfolios, and personal academic plans. Consensus was that this sort of thing would need to be framed in a way that emphasized intentionality, reflection, and priorities rather than quantity, busyness, and a "check it all off" approach.

The subcommittee discussed improvements that might be possible in advising, such as a more uniform load, more attention to getting new advisors up to speed on non-mechanical aspects, intentionally providing context for broader discussions, getting students to declare majors when appropriate, and moving some of the conversations out of the official advising relationship.

Finally, the subcommittee discussed bringing our planning document together. It was agreed that FTS ought to be given some mention, even if we are not in a position to say much about that program, and that we should include some response to changing demographics. Terry agreed to email something on that latter topic. Barbara agreed that she will put together a draft of the full document for us to work on.

The meeting adjourned at 11:48 AM.

Respectfully submitted, Max Hailperin, secretary

April 27

The meeting convened at 10:30 AM. In attendance were Terry Morrow, Matt Panciera, secretary Max Hailperin, chair Barbara Fister, and interim deans Eric Eliason and Mariangela Maguire.

Consensus of those in attendance was to move toward the goal of submitting a planning document to the Senate at its May 10th meeting, as outlined by Max in the email he sent shortly before the meeting.

Terry asked whether the questions in the first paragraph should connect better with the document, at the same time as we should point out that they need constant revisiting. Max agreed to draft a paragraph or two sketching how the questions connect with our vision and referring to Darrel and Eric's documents on the Lutheran and Liberal Arts traditions. Later in the meeting, he agreed to also draft some language to appear at a similar position in the overall document which would explain our vision of academic excellence as something we all work collectively toward, as opposed to being something which we achieve by singling out particular areas of excellence.

Terry continued by calling attention to the portion of page 4 regarding what inhibits engagement and asking whether the major-centric focus should be incorporated here. Discussion raised the question of whether superficial breadth really belongs here, and more generally whether a section devoted to what we got from the faculty meeting discussion is really appropriate. Consensus of those present was to roll this into the more general chart of strengths and weaknesses, in particular by adding a row on co-curricular activities, pointing out that they constitute a strength, but at the same time mentioning as weaknesses or challenges two facts: (1) students vary greatly in their co-curricular involvement, from totally uninvolved to overcommitted, and (2) we don't do a good job of fostering reflective involvement in co-curriculars and involvement with connections to the rest of the academic program.

Terry also called attention to the fact that page 2 provided a vision for the engaged student without tying this to the engaged faculty. He agreed to draft a paragraph or two on this topic, which would serve as a transition to the following material on strengths and challenges, as well as foreshadowing where we go from there, which is into the recommendations.

Barbara suggested positioning early in the document the discussion of student demographics as an external influence. Eric mentioned two other external influences: faculty demographics and cultural understanding of the liberal arts. Consensus of those present was to mention these briefly in a section at the end of the document focused on open questions that we leave for future work.

Matt volunteered to work, along with Jennifer, on the integrated concentration section.

Consensus of those present was to cut the faculty center and orientation period initiatives. However, the review of orientation period and student affairs connections more broadly would be mentioned on the section about future work. Another item to include here would be figuring out what the plan suggests for capital infrastructure. A reminder should be included that the whole campus comes into this. Also, assessment should be mentioned. Barbara agreed to draft this section. She might also include some mention of the Swedish immigrant roots.

Max agreed to revise the staffing section.

Barbara will ask June to contribute to the revision of other initiatives, in particular by working on the action items or next steps -- the charges that the Senate might choose to give other groups.

The revised and new pieces we agreed to take on should be sent to Barbara by noon on Tuesday, May 2nd, as should any thoughts on order.

The meeting adjourned at 11:32 AM.

Respectfully submitted, Max Hailperin, secretary

May 4

The meeting convened at 10:30 AM. In attendance were Jennifer Ackil, June Klouec, Terry Morrow, Matt Panciera, secretary Max Hailperin, chair Barbara Fister, and interim deans Eric Eliason and Mariangela Maguire.

The majority of the meeting was spent discussing revisions to the planning document. Barbara volunteered to do the final editing. The consensus was that she should send the document to the Senate in electronic form as soon as she is done with that editing, as well as providing them with hardcopy. She and June will attend the May 10th Senate meeting and are on the agenda. Our idea is to submit the report to them and indicate that if they don't object, it would make sense to add it to the web page of draft planning documents that Steve Griffith has put together for the President.

It was moved, seconded, and unanimously approved that the subcommittee endorses the report, as it will be edited by Barbara to reflect today's discussion and as she otherwise sees fit. Members with further suggestions for editing should send them to Barbara.

We agreed that this was our final meeting unless the Senate tells us otherwise.

The meeting adjourned at 11:31 AM.