Meeting
Minutes
STEM
SI Teaching Circle Meeting
Science Education Center
October 22, 2012
In attendance: Jeanne Haslam (Learning Center), Michael Gleason
(biology), Laurie Huffman (mathematics), Catrena Lisse (chemistry): co-chair,
and Rosalie A. Richards (science education): co-chair
Regrets: Lisa Buttitta (chemistry), Marcela Chiorescu
(mathematics): conflicted with class time
The meeting initiated at
3:10 pm with introductions by circle members. Richards gave a quick overview of the motivation for the circle
proposal and hence, the circle.
The
discussion first centered around a discussion of the outcomes for the circles
work:
a.
Gleason suggested
that a publication from analysis of STEM SI work would be a worthwhile
undertaking. Members agreed.
b. The discussion also identified the diversity of the use of SIs across
disciplines, specifically, the use of SI prep time. Lisse underscored that prep time
should be used for faculty to work directly with SIs. She discussed how she
used her SI prep time (meeting weekly with students, helping them design the
tasks for the week, going over notes, assignments, assessing areas of need,
etc).
c.
This
led to a discussion about policies for faculty
working with SIs;
if there were any and if not, how could these policies be phased in.
i.
Huffman
suggested that guidelines for faculty would help significantly, especially as a
benchmark for the impact of minimum requirements
ii.
Lisse was unsure
that that faculty would want to do anything more
d. When
Richards probed about how different STEM discipline used SIs
i.
Gleason indicated that biology used SIs in a
laboratory setting (Manoylov), in lecture
(France) and in a hybrid situation (Gleason)
i.
Lisse
responded that SIs were used similarly in chemistry; that in the GC1Y and 1212 courses,
they functioned as the “lecturers” during their tutoring time in order to force
students to understand their assignments versus “doing” their assignments; they
facilitated students’ working examples on the board and helped them to useg model kits to advance learning
e. Huffman asked how we would undertake data collection by discipline
and how this information would help inform Haslam’s training and professional
development program at the Learning Center:
a.
The
circle settled on a short guide to using STEM SIs that might include profiles
of SIs, case studies, etc.
b.
Concerning guidelines for faculty working with SIs, the discussion
settled on making the process simple, phased-in system with a reward (versus
punitive) approach. Gleason suggested a short survey for this semester for
faculty coordinating SIs with a pull-down menu as a
simple start for both pre-
and post-assessment using a Likert scale.
f.
Haslam
asked if SIs were
more work for faculty.
a. Huffman responded with a “no” based on the output for the input; she also suggested a math SI
coordinator. However, Gleason disagreed, suggesting that the coordinator model
would reducethe interaction of SI and faculty. Huffman clarified her
suggestion, indicating that some point person in the discipline to collect the
data (ex. SALG, test data, course data, etc.) might be important.
b. Circle members also suggested that students participating in the
SI experience should take a SALG survey
g.
A
discussion ensued around SI selection: the funding call by the STEM Initiative,
optimal time in the academic calendar for SI selection, better alignments with HR
to foster SI working during the first week of class. Haslam agreed that the
center saw these as critical to the optimal functioning of the SI program.
Haslam also provided data that showed where lowest use of SIs were among
disciplines and use of this information for making cases for need in evaluating
funding for SIs.
h.
The
circle decided that other dissemination would also include the USG STEM-SOTL conference
at Georgia Southern and USG Engaged Learning Conference in Athens. When asked
about local dissemination (at GC), the discussion settled on the development of
guidelines for faculty and other outcomes through the Learning Center. These
were identified as more exponential pathways to include more faculty than a
lunch & learn or a presentation because of the difficulty finding common
meeting times.
Next circle meeting:
-The circle will discuss what members
are doing with their SIs. Members will bring any artifacts to share.
-Should we engage in any common readings
and if so, what?
-Richards asked members to sign in
on the blog and read the proposals and any assignments.
The next meeting date/time: Patti
will send out a Doodle for early November.
The circle meeting ended at
approximately 4:05 PM.
Respectfully submitted by
Rosalie A. Richards, circle
co-chair
October 31, 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment