Official EPC Meeting Minutes Fall 2009

These are the official EPC meeting minutes from Fall 2009.

Attendance
Faculty: Jane Couperus (CS), Cindy Gill (NS), Nell Arnold (IA), Lise Sanders (HACU), Carol Lee Bengelsdorf (SS), Elly Donkin (IA), Dean of Advising Eva Rueschmann, Director of Central Records, Bobbie Stuart, Dean of Faculty Alan Goodman

Students: Jonathan Kirschenbaum (HACU), Mallory Schleif (CS), Melanie Magolan (IA), Luke Rafferty (SS)

Absent: Thea Henney (at large), Adam Krellenstein (NS)

Agenda
I. Introductions Cindy Gill (NS), Nell Arnold (IA), Lise Sanders (HACU), Jane Couperus (CS), Carol Lee Bengelsdorf (SS), Elly Donkin (Dean of IA), Alan Goodman (DOF), Eva Rueschmann (CASA), Bobbie Stuart (CR), Jonathan Kirschenbaum (HACU), Melanie Magolan (IA), Thea Henney (At large), Mallory Schleif (CS), TBA (NS), Luke Rafferty (SS), Jean Sepanski (Admin. Asst.) II. Sub- committee reports and elections a. EPC chair b. LOGO c. Calendar d. Division III Exemptions III. Overview of last year/ Q and A IV. Report from Faculty members on their schools/brainstorming session regarding what to take on this year

I. Introductions
Jane introduced all members.

II. Sub-committee reports and elections
a. EPC Chair: Jane was nominated and accepted the nomination to be Chair of the EPC committee for this semester.

b. Logo: this entirely student-run operation rating their courses and faculty is in its second incarnation, going from paper to entirely electronic. Made progress last year but stalled at the end of last semester. They have gone as far as getting semi-official approval and it has a home in PARC in the Peer Academic Resource Center. Have two people sharing a programming position, and Bobbie will continue to meet with the planners. May be available the end of this term depending on how the program goes.

Dillon (former EPC member) very happy. PARC is the new STAR and intends to make it a much better resource and more visible to look at Div II portfolios and contracts, as well as student-run workshops.

c. Calendar: Bobbie asked for subcommittee members and Lise Sanders and Mallory Schleif volunteered for the calendar and Cindy Gill and Luke Rafferty for the Div III exceptions committee. Calendar committee will meet couple times next two months. Need to develop and present 3-year calendar to faculty. One of places started to make progress is in examining use and placement of advising days and period for good utilization of Divisional meetings. Right now there is a commitment of the 5 Colleges for Jan Term through 2012. January 2010 and beyond, UMass starts classes a full week before the other four colleges.

III. Overview of last year/ Q and A
Jane’s personal view was that she found it difficult to determine where next to go based on the last two years. In the first year, faculty said no to the first set of motions in the spring of 2008. Last fall tried a different tactic, namely consistent faculty involvement in several diverse sub-groups meetings. We viewed our role as their filter. At the end of the year, faculty agreed to four things in distribution, yet, it was unclear what they would be. This committee agreed at the end of last year that there is a definite need to have faculty input to move forward. We are in different situation this year, however, as issues about budget, governance, and task forces take precedent. It is extremely likely EPC will not get any measurable time at faculty meetings. We must focus on what issues we can address and bring to the faculty.

Jane suggested going back to multiple EPC reports that got lost or left aside and pick them up and perhaps move forward on. For instance, there was an advising report three years ago that was never brought to the faculty, as Div I took over.

IV. Report from faculty
Jane asked the faculty present where their schools were at. Lise said work load was of concern in HACU regarding doing justice to Div II and III students. Cindy in NS received feedback specifically on Ralph’s State of the College address. Nell in IA said there was a lot of support for less course requirements and more community involvement. Jane reported that CS has strong feelings about four areas of distribution and where it might lead. Wants EPC to focus on evaluations, independent studies and their timing. Alan mentioned that the Governance Task Force will be taking up faculty meeting time looking at how we change and develop curriculum.

Eva said she understands the desire to let Div 1 go, but problematic to just drop, particularly because faculty did vote to go forward with four areas. If we don’t pursue, what will happen? Carol Lee noted strategic planning changes the nature of Div I and 11 and is a part of a big question in Ralph’s vision statement. Also questioning how active this committee will be. This year Jamie Ferrara, the new chair of the Academic Affairs Committee, is interested in examining evaluations. Wants to understand 100 level evaluations and how they can be streamlined. Should we be doing something similar? Have to think away from micromechanics; need to take a higher level view. Original impulse to change Div I was to open up Div I more. As it stands, it is much too rigid; original impulse still valid. Issue of starting one year of breadth before starting concentrations. How can we allow students to pursue concentration earlier?

Never had discussion on how learning goals interact, and never decided what we mean by distribution. Once we answer that question, lots of learning goals intermeshed with Div I requirements depending on where we want to go. Methodology areas came up repeatedly, with some consensus about the four areas.

Motion 3 was passed. Jane described on what was voted. Revised motion didn’t approve it, but supported moving forward in this direction approved and, in theory, having four not five areas.

Should faculty propose pilot studies in tutorial groups along different axis? Nell suggested invite models that could be proposed and tried out by groups of four tutorials. The reality is that any major change will take longer to process, tutorials easier to change.

No final conclusion today about this year’s agenda. Although time will be a factor, we would like to move forward in Div I, approaching this from perhaps a different angle. EPC drafting a concept paper about evaluations and getting a stamp of approval from faculty to go to the Board of Trustees might be useful.

Jane suggested the committee members all think about a question to submit to her before the end of the week that would help us move forward that we could actually do on our own.

Attendance
Faculty: Jane Couperus (CS), Nell Arnold (IA), Lise Sanders (HACU), Elly Donkin (IA), Dean of Advising Eva Rueschman, Director of Central Records, Bobbie Stuart, Dean of Faculty Alan Goodman,

Students: Jonathan Kirschenbaum (HACU), Claire Oberholtzer cbo07 Mallory Schleif (CS), Melanie Magolan (IA), Luke Rafferty (SS), Adam Krellenstein (NS)

Absent: Carol Lee Bengelsdorf (SS), Cindy Gill (NS)

Agenda
Approve Minutes. I. Reports from the Schools’ Representatives II. Reports from any subcommittees and DOF, CASA, etc. III. Review and choose questions EPC might take on this semester/year IV. Develop process of how we will address this/these question(s) this semester

Minutes
Approved minutes of 5/5/09 and 9/22/09.

I.
Lise and Adam will try and put on their school’s agendas what should the goals be by time the student gets to Div II.

II.
No reports.

III.
We would like to choose three or four questions either this semester or the full year and come up with a plan to bring to the faculty. Jane went over this list of questions garnered by the other members:

______Start with the premise that we are trying to get students ready for Div II and III, work backwards to Div I and work on figuring out what are the essential components. For me, something connected to independent study, the idea of community, and getting mcp refocused not as one of the learning goals but as something more substantive would be great. So the manageable question might be: what do students need to make the transition from high school into the realm of Div II and III more successfully, and how can Div I be more strategic about helping that transition?

There was complete agreement that working backward from Div II to Div I and figuring out essential components like distribution skills makes the most sense. Bobbie appreciates having the discussion of Div II, but suggests refraining from saying what is Div II and just say what it is about Div II we want in Div I. Moving forward we should decide on specific questions, i.e. what do students need from high school; how can Div I be more strategic; what do students have trouble with.

______Investigate some options that would address some of the issues like lack of flexibility and insufficient preparation for independent project work in students' more advanced divisional work. These would include formalizing/encouraging/fostering tutorials that incorporate projects, perhaps continuing in to a second semester with the second semester representing a formal registration that would "count" as one of the 8 "things" in Div I. ______Look at a model of a slightly different take on the Div III/3rd semester student Mentored Independent Study that might be used as a model for either students' second or third semester. Sue Darlington has set one up this term as a "group" independent study that falls somewhere between the one-to-one match of Div III and 3rd semester students, with regular and sustained faculty involvement. If this is successful, as I expect it will be, it might be worth putting forth as a model. ______Investigating reducing the number of learning goals, once upon a time we had reduced and simplified the learning goals and this may be worth looking back at if we can find it in the minutes. ______Are we sure about the pedagogical goals of Div I and do we have broad consensus?

There is a broad consensus of pedagogical goals in Div I. Bobbie thought our hands are tied despite the message we got from the faculty that what we are working on is what they are looking for.

______Do all these goals need to be fulfilled in year one? How do we account for students who are way ahead in one or more goals? ______Taking on one goal, breadth or distribution, how do other colleges now deal with breadth requirements?

We could revisit this committee’s look at last year’s Div I’s from a different perspective. If we maintained focus on philosophy and pedagogy, what will it mean for course numbers and distribution? Eva said we need to look at context.

______How can we infuse Div I with more typical Hampshire stuff such as projects, group and collaborative work, and work outside of the classroom? ______If we are to have more students per faculty, is there a way to relieve the value on workload without compromising the goals of division I? ______Should there be a first year common experience beyond the first year common reading (My idea is a lecture/discussion series on alternatives in higher education.) ______What makes an exemplary Division II in each of our schools? ______We might move forward on the question of 7 courses vs. 8 ______What is the nature and meaning of the categories?

Alan said that Div I as currently constituted is mostly about distribution and breadth, but that common experiences in Div I are not about breadth of experience. As an earlier member of EPC, Alan co-wrote the current Div I policy. Time ran out, so only eight things were passed. Should the focus be on Div I or what we need for Div II?

______How do the issues on the retention memo intersect with EPC? Are there aspects/suggestions we as EPC can take up?

Looking at what we know we need to see what would make tangible real benefits. Know we need certain courses to improve the student’s experience.

______Explore EPC's role of reporting on the faculty TO the faculty and whether it should also include representing itself and the faculty concerns to the administration in relation to policies that directly relate to EPC. ______What are the skills we hope students will develop in Division I that will allow them to be successful in Division II and eventually Division III? Or in other words what skills do you need in Div II and III and how does that help us figure out what we should require in Div I.

HS to Div I to Div II. What is a Div II? Forms make it seem like a project Skills scientific reading and writing arguments What should you be taking for concentration/advising independent work Networking skills/meeting people What and how to study Time management Timeline for independent study/how to do an independent study.

What else: ownership of own course of study and concentration. Thinking about Div II earlier. Relating courses (act of making connections)/questions=connections.

- Contract for Div I or finding advisor based on what you are going to do and picking courses so you know your committee ahead of time. - Have planning meeting based on first semester. Have to find second year advisor or someone in your field. Advisor not concentration based. - Plan far ahead for advisor in Div II. - Advisor asking right questions.

______What are the ideas/perspectives/ etc. that we would like to expose students to before they get to Div II and III? Specifically, ideas and perspectives NOT skills.

The student members responded:

- Basic writing skills lacking, didn’t understand the point of the Div II concentration form; - Looks like you are doing a project, but not any overall thing about tying it together. - Never see prompts and what are on the student pages, so Bobbie will bring a blank form to the next meeting. - Committee doesn’t tell you courses that will help you after graduation. - Want a little more emphasis on taking core classes. If you have clear trajectory okay if not, problem.

- Get students doing independent work sooner? Glad moving away from schools. - Hardest transition is in knowing what to study and how to go about studying your topic(s), i.e. courses vs. independent study.

Melissa said she liked the change of staying with her tutorial group the entire semester. Should there be more independent work through tinkering/linking clusters? Melanie encouraged more flexibility regardless of anything else in Div I and having more experience with projects and designing courses. Luke asserted he would like to see making Div I more like Div II, taking on what things are wrong with Div I and tackling them individually.

______What role, if any, can EPC take in the issue of improving Div I advisor/student relationships? What does the Wabash data say about this?

Jane will make a Wabash information binder as a reference tool. Should keep in mind since there is momentum in this direction, we should focus on proposals that integrate well with four distributional requirements and clarify on what those might be.

The student members were asked what was not in place that you needed when they were going from Div I to Div II. Melanie said she got five different descriptions of what Div II was about; did not get an answer to what did Div II actually mean. Clear that students need understanding and knowledge of what Div II is, i.e. contents, skill sets, idea sets.

IV.
Overview: Have conversations with students and faculty outside of the school meetings to have a clear sense of agreement about student goals entering Div II. Ask what that means in different schools. We should look at old proposals, including ReRad’s, determine if they address issues we can take up, or should we be looking at specific proposals for breadth vs. depth and different types of skill sets, separating out developing our own proposals. Also so we don’t duplicate previous efforts, especially those proposals not accepted by the faculty. Once we get some proposals on the table we could tackle one or two at a time i.e. 7 vs. 8 and retention issues. We may want to consult with Steve Weisler.

Claire interested in being the student-at-large. Jane to find out process of electing a student member at large.

Attendance
Faculty: Jane Couperus (CS), Cindy Gill (NS), Nell Arnold (IA), Lise Sanders (HACU), Carol Lee Bengelsdorf (SS), Elly Donkin (IA), Dean of Advising Eva Rueschmann, Director of Central Records, Bobbie Stuart, Dean of Faculty Alan Goodman,

Students: Claire Oberholtzer cbo07(visitor) Mallory Schleif (CS), Melanie Magolan (IA), Luke Rafferty (SS), Adam Krellenstein (NS)

Absent: Jonathan Kirschenbaum (HACU)

Agenda
I. Approve 9.29.09 Minutes II. Reports from the Schools’ Representatives III. Reports from any subcommittees and DOF, CASA, etc. IV. Election Procedure for “at large” student member (see below) V. Reports on “starter list” related to what students need to transition from High School to Div II

Election Procedure for Student at Large: What we have to work with from the 1998 College Constitution: (See EPC page, Constitution is quoted)

Suggestion #1 Call for student at large among the entire college community, EPC reviews the applications and votes on the new member. -The benefit of this is that it gives the widest range of possible students and avoids the issue of uneven numbers of students within the schools and has two students “from” one school. It also avoids having to coordinate a large scale election or coordinate with community council. Suggestion #2 Call for student at large among the entire college community, College Council reviews the applications and votes on the new member. -This benefit of this is similar to suggestion 1 in that it opens the availability, but gives the power to elect to students. However, it is not clear if a) CC wants this responsibility or b) if this would difficult to coordinate in order for a speedy election.

Approved 9.29 minutes.

II.
There will be no EPC meeting on November 17th due to the Eqbal lecture. There will be a meeting the following Tuesday before Thanksgiving, November 24th, with Nell absent.

Adam reported at the last NS meeting a proposal will be implemented in that school. NS will offer two dummy courses, 299 and 399, having no class time or professor. Rather, they will allow for more flexible work outside the restraints of a semester, giving more credence to learning activities such as summer courses, tutoring and being tutored, writing evals for other students, and collective volunteering. Since members were interested in further discussion, it will be put on a future agenda.

III.
Alan reported there are plans for a major overhaul of Hub. Lise heard from one faculty member who requested we spend less time reinventing curriculum and address the question of what is our relationship to other faculty and BOT.

IV.
Election at large: Jane looked at multiple documents and spoke with several people. Right now Article III (see above) outlined guidelines doesn’t say anything about affiliations with schools or how elected or by. In the past there were full campus elections or the Dean of Faculty picked someone. We can decide ourselves but we need to vote what the procedure is and have it approved by the President. Jane came up with two suggestions based on two principals. The first is a call for student at large among the entire college community. EPC reviews the applications and votes on the new member. The second is Call for student at large among the entire college community. College Council reviews the applications and votes on the new member.

All voted for suggestion #1. Jane will put announcement on The Hub to community at large, and also tell school meetings. Applications will go directly to Jane.

Using the starter list that Jane sent out, the members put it in more general categories with three headings, Essential/high priority, Desirable, and Also nice. The focus was on the first two categories:

Essential/high priority All academic skills Recognize, access, Find and use resource Networking skills Sense of academic ownership/collaboration balance Critical thinking Research skills Independent projects (work independently)= experience Exposure to multiple studies and areas Self evaluation and reflection

Desirable Time management (how to study) Related questions/ideas across disciplines Openness to new ideas Knowledge of how mcp influences work Community service Knowing what they want to study

Also nice

Jane suggested that the members think about research projects they already know that are addressing these categories, like independent courses, through courses, within a course i.e. tutorials. The Wabash Task Force was brought up as a possible resource, but Eva explained that it is not focused on Div I, but looks more broadly at pedagogical approaches in classroom.

The following are members relating their own experiences and commenting under each category.

Elly said a skill in a tutorial within Div I could include students writing letters of evaluation either for a student or faculty member. And multicultural perspectives are a way to examine something students are already doing. When asked how faculty ask of their students how their own work is influenced from a multicultural perspective, Lise examined her own syllabi. Cindy noted missed opportunity of apprenticeships. With students reluctant to work on big faculty projects first few years, a lot could be gained with these apprenticeships.

Independent work experiences were advocated, and Carol Lee does a half semester in class and the rest on projects. Carol Lee reintroduces independent courses in Div I. Historically, students had to do projects in multiple areas and this was later replaced by two courses and two projects before switching to the current Div. I.

Someone noted that community service in Div I should reflect more of Hampshire, while Div II’s community service embraces more outside service.

Claire said that the SS fair was very helpful, but there was confusion in how to get professors interested in working with them. She also thought students feel isolated, and Adam said students need to be given more power and control. He mentioned that Five-College faculty were eager to work with students in sciences, letting students know they are in charge of their own education.

Elly said the mentoring classes are very mixed. Div III students are working with Div I’s that have very different levels of abilities to do independent work. This can be a challenge.

Attendance
Faculty: Jane Couperus (CS), Cindy Gill (NS), Nell Arnold (IA), Lise Sanders (HACU), Carol Lee Bengelsdorf (SS), Elly Donkin (IA), Dean of Advising Eva Rueschman, Director of Central Records, Bobbie Stuart, Dean of Faculty Alan Goodman,

Students: Jonathan Kirschenbaum (HACU), Claire Oberholtzer cbo07 (visiting) Mallory Schleif, (CS), Melanie Magolan (IA), Luke Rafferty (SS), Adam Krellenstein (NS)

Agenda
I. Approve 10.20.09 Minutes II. Election of “at large” student member (if any applications) III. Reports from the Schools’ Representatives IV. Reports from any subcommittees and DOF, CASA, etc. V. Review/Collect strategies for the goals we listed last week -determine which items should be addressed through structural changes versus

non-structural

-prioritize what to work on and how we will do it VI. Report on Progress to the Faculty?

Minutes
Approved minutes of 10/20/09 with the following correction: Take out “or professor” Insert: “A professor will sign off and be responsible that evaluations are done.”

II.
Last Wednesday and yesterday Jane sent out on Hamp Announce election information for the EPC “at large” student. She will redo and send it out again today; asked for members to spread the word that the deadline was November 2nd.

III.
Reporting for HACU, Lise will send a detailed list from HACU faculty on what EPC should address. One major topic is exploring balance between courses and independent work.

Nell in IA looked at list and thought it was missing analysis design and use of three dimensional goals. She hoped to see imagination as word that appears in some descriptions; and technical and structural change like seven courses instead of eight, Elly noticed absence of collaborative work.

IV.
The calendar committee met and Bobbie reported she was constrained by a number of factors, from Five-College cooperation to deadlines mandated and voted on in past years by EPC. They hope to put the calendar on the November faculty meeting for a final vote at the December meeting. The calendar committee would like feedback on the best use of advising days in each semester, and plan to send a survey to students and faculty to solicit feedback. Send Bobbie comments and she will work on questions for the survey. One thought is to move the first advising day in the semester one week earlier to get students passing Div II and moving on to Div III a little earlier. Still have to talk to Casa about constraints when Div III be filed. Bobbie handed out copies of her draft calendar, indicating it is last year’s calendar, off by one day, but otherwise is very much the same. There will be twelve class meetings every day of week, except Friday which will have thirteen. With Labor Day falling as late as it has been, there is difficulty to get just twelve, except for Friday. Discussed the number of advising days, and the question was raised if we are bound by certain number of teaching days preventing additional advising days, and if we could use Fridays as advising days.

V.
Jane asked where as a group did we want to go with structural changes regarding the goals we listed last week. She gave some history when schools were asked to come up with proposals for Div I structural changes. There was an affinity group not based on schools. Small group meetings ended up in arguments on what was meant by certain words and ideas and how they would have support, and how would HACU fare with these changes. We can work with those if go to that question again. There have been several plans over the years, with the first set of proposals rejected outright by the faculty. Last year took one piece that the faculty approved. Looked at proposals had four different things. Hard to imagine four different things, our report needs to address that. Hope was tackling this from different directions and seeing what’s left to be included in the “four things”

The group went over the “What do students need to know/be able to do by the time they get to Div II” list to identify what was and was not structural, with some members offering their experiences.

1. How to read/write within different disciplines:

Deb Gorlin alternates between essay and creative writing with ten different kinds of writing, among them reading memoirs, poetry, scientific research, pretend literary essay with topic of choice. Will Ryan is working with TA’s and weekly workshops for tutorials and 100 courses and they are effectively becoming writing tutors. There is currently nothing in place to have earlier division students seek help from later div students unless they are TA’s. Smith has fantastic model for student-staffed tutorial program. Try and develop pilot programs for outside evaluation of writing. All agreed there should be two people added to the Writing Center.

2. Helping students recognize/access and use resources: Elly took her students on Five-College field trips and to shows and they would write about it. Guerilla guide published by Re-Rad for incoming students packet handed out info on everything they don’t tell you in orientation. Hampedia carried the information both last and this year. Jonathan said in his tutorial they were not told what the learning goals were until last week in the semester.

Small rubric teaching tutorial could be exposing students to visiting speaker outside your field (public events). Structural change: electives small first year then urge students, particularly language students, to take Five-College courses. Right now advance placement credit satisfies do not satisfy Div I requirements but students can then go to a 200 level sooner.

3. Networking skills:  bringing multiple tutorials together help students meet other faculty. Second semester students approaching faculty some way. Open house in theatre. Academic circus offered too early, since there was more faculty than students. Ask students to reflect on networking skills in their retrospective.

4. Sense of ownership: need more flexibility in course selection if we moved different way in number of courses. Less focused on getting required courses of out way.

VI.
The members discussed whether to report to the faculty next week at the faculty meeting or another way to give them a sense of our process. Although we may have something more concrete today, we don’t have suggestions. ECF wants reports in writing, leaving little time. Alan said that we should begin to try to get more time on the faculty agenda and that faculty would be happy to get what we’ve started in last few weeks. Questioned asking ECF for ten minutes at the faculty meeting and maybe getting five, or should we report to the faculty in a different way. Since Alan was leaving this meeting to go to ECF at 4:00 he was going to ask for some time at next week’s faculty meeting. Jane was going to try and put a paragraph or two together to send out to faculty.

Attendance
Faculty: Jane Couperus (CS), Cindy Gill (NS), Nell Arnold (IA), Lise Sanders (HACU), Elly Donkin (IA), Dean of Advising Eva Rueschman, Director of Central Records, Bobbie Stuart, Students: Jonathan Kirschenbaum (HACU), Claire Oberholtzer cbo07 (visiting) Mallory

Schleif (CS), Melanie Magolan (IA), Luke Rafferty (SS), Adam Krellenstein (NS)

Absent: Dean of Faculty Alan Goodman, Carol Lee Bengelsdorf (SS),

Agenda
I. Approve 10.27.09 Minutes II. Election of “at large” student member (see attached application) III. Revise and Approve Report on Progress to the Faculty (see attached) IV. Reports and conversation style (briefly!) V. Proposal/suggestions from the deans regarding our path forward VI. Continuation of Review/Collect strategies for the goals we listed -determine which items should be addressed through structural changes versus non-structural -prioritize what to work on and how we will do it

Application for Student At-Large Member: My name is Claire Oberholtzer and I'm a third-year student at Hampshire, currently a Division II concentrating in Culture Through Narrative. When I first arrived here at Hampshire I had never before seen involvement in my school's processes and inner workings as something that would be important to me. Before my work with Re-Rad, I had never really known or cared about how my school operated. Now it's a large part of my life and I wouldn't have it any other way; I believe strongly that students should not only be informed but involved, and I see the EPC as another way to increase my involvement in Hampshire.

In my three years here I have come to understand and respect what a crucial role the EPC plays in the school, and how really unique and innovative a body it is. I've also learned how much I enjoy working with students and faculty to improve the college, and been surprised at how quickly my skills and knowledge have grown: I feel confident leading meetings, giving presentations, taking notes, organizing groups and participating in discussions and projects, things I would not have dreamed of in high school. I would love to be able to be a part of the important work the EPC does and to continue to help make Hampshire even more awesome than it already is.

Draft Report to the Faculty: For the past weeks EPC has come together to continue our work on Division I based on the ongoing discussion of the past several years. At the end of last year there was a sense that as we went forward to figure out the "4 things" that should be required as a distribution requirement we needed to come at them from a different perspective to avoid hitting many of the stumbling blocks we faced last year relating to just what those 4 things should include (e.g. skills, exposure to ideas, modes of inquiry, etc. while avoiding recapitulating what we already have). Thus, this fall we have decided to tackle the issue from a new, different, perhaps more holistic perspective. The overarching idea is to overview the intent of Division I and pull out aspects that should be addressed with structural changes and aspects that should be addressed through existing structures so that we can better understand what should be included within the "4 things" (as well as how this relates to other areas of potential structural change such as the learning goals). To date, we have reviewed and explored the points of agreement across the faculty and students (through our school representatives) about the types of attributes and qualities students need by the time they get to Division II and have surveyed the ways in which we are already addressing attaining these attributes through experiments with classes and within the classroom. As we continue to explore what is already being done (and developing new ideas of what could be done) we are also beginning to tackle the question of how best to attain these skills/attributes/qualities through Division I. We are hopeful that we will better address what changes might be proposed in relation to the learning goals and the distribution requirement as part of this process. We hope to eventually put together a proposal/recommendations that has two components, one set related to things that we can do without structural changes to improve the Division I experience and another related to how we might change the structure (including those 4 "things" we already voted on). It is hoped that this process will include strong faculty feedback as we begin to bring ideas to the faculty either through school meetings or through larger all faculty meetings.

Minutes
Approved minutes of 10/27/09

II.
Jane made several efforts on the intranet and by putting signs around campus on Halloween to post information about the EPC at-large candidate election. Ultimately, the members read through Clare’s application attached to the Agenda and, with an abstention from Alan, voted her in to be the student-at-large.

III.
The members responded to the draft report with some editorial suggestions and language. There was curiosity about the Wabash Task force overlapping with EPC efforts. Eva said there was some, but the Wabash call to get involved in small groups goes beyond Div I to creating student spaces across campus. Jane thought about adding a sentence trying to work with Wabash and cultivate a crossover and asked for suggestions about how to do that. Eva will keep us informed about how the Wabash task force is progressing and said that Wabash is setting up a website as part of the Dean of Faculty website groups and will be able to write reports. It was agreed that Jane will revise this draft, wait 48 hours to get feedback from the members and then send it out via intranet and also post it on the EPC Hampedia page.

IV.
Jane asked each member to take two minutes to share their personal communication style to make sure she is hearing all views and ensure that everyone is being listened to.

V.
Elly reported faculty collectively asked deans to bring certain issues forward. Alan was approached that the deans could be of some help in the difficult process that EPC faces, meeting over Jan term so they could go back to their schools with several ideas. In order to have changes in place for Fall 11 classes, we must present at the March meeting. Discussed logistics of meeting in January, and it was decided that Jane will set up a Doodle poll for schedules, including the deans, Eva and Alan, to see who would be able to attend and when. We were reminded that there is a lot of process that needs to happen once there is a proposal going through different channels, i.e. the Board of Trustees.

VI.
Reviewed read/write within disciplines, networking skills, sense of ownership, critical thinking, research skills, visual literacy, and Experiential Learning/Kinesthetic Learning and added many ideas.

The Diamond model came up while talking about moving distribution requirements becoming part of Div II instead of Div I. The Diamond model begins narrowly, goes out in Div II, and goes back to narrow in Div III. Reminding/utilizing diamond model regarding breadth and more/less faculty attention can bring students to develop critical thinking skills. Projects often get students to critical thinking. There has been lots of success with apprentice project work, i.e. Chris Perry’s animator program. Jane gave the example of ethnography; some skills require immersion, part of why Jan term courses work well (having more workshops in all kinds of skills). This led to a discussion of implementing a Hampshire skills course, perhaps putting it in orientation. Although there already is a student- run insiders guide to how to do well at Hampshire, it was thought there was certainly a need for more information.

Went over what is meant by visual literacy. Quantitative data, theatre art? Read images and interpret the language of the image? How do you take the opportunity to introduce and then incorporate it into different disciplines? Could be included as learning goal or a Div I portfolio.

Under the Experiential and Kinesthetic learning heading the written word is not the first form of access, but learning through doing. Field study courses actually do work. CEL, living thru tomorrow, happening in multiple schools. Have students identify how best they learn? Some students would take more seriously if integrated. Perhaps encourage advisors to ask advisees. May would be an appropriate time to ask those students about their strengths and weakness. Structurally, should community service be part of Div I? EPC may recommend a seven-course model that opens up space for community service, independent or mentored study.

If we suggest seven courses in Div I instead of eight, it frees up faculty to experiment with service learning, apprenticeships, and experiential courses. The faculty members will ask their schools this before the next meeting. Jane will put into Google doc thinking about an ideal Div I. We could consider a modest version of a proposal Larry Winship has on community work floated by Wabash.

Attendance
Faculty: Jane Couperus (CS), Cindy Gill (NS), Lise Sanders (HACU), Elly Donkin (IA), Dean of Advising Eva Rueschman, Director of Central Records, Bobbie Stuart, Dean of Faculty Alan Goodman Students: Claire Oberholtzer (at-large), Melanie Magolan (IA), Luke Rafferty (SS), Adam Krellenstein (NS)

Absent: Jonathan Kirschenbaum (HACU), Mallory Schleif (CS), Carolee Bengelsdorf (SS), Nell Arnold (IA)

Agenda
I. Approve 11/10/09 Minutes II. Plan for final meeting/Jan Term meetings Doodle poll it at: http://www.doodle.com/hvgi333gfefgdnce III. Continuation of Review/Collect strategies for the goals we listed -determine which items should be addressed through structural changes versus non-structural -prioritize what to work on and how we will do it

Make changes in advance at: http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=OAalh7b6DAAm-ZDI1dHFncF8yNmpiNnJqY3c&amp;hl=en

Minutes
I. Minutes approved from 11/10/09.

II.
There is no EPC on December 15th.

Went over the member’s schedules for the Jan Term meetings who hadn’t responded through Doodle. Students Melanie and Jonathan are unable to attend, as well as Carollee. Agreed to have the meetings the first week in January (4th to 8th) from 9:00 to 3:00 to leave room for revisions. Deans Stillings, Donkin, and Rakoff will be there.

Re-Rad is welcome to submit proposals. Learned Peter Graham will be the HACU student rep once again from in the spring.

III.
Continued the review with Exposure to multiple areas of Study, citing the HACU 50’s course this semester.

Self-Evaluation and Reflection: students don’t commonly put multiple versions of their papers in their portfolio; should they be put in to see their progress?

If faculty wants student portfolios assessed by someone who asks and does the writing? Does it dovetail with Wabash? Deb Gorlin and Eva will meet regarding a small pilot project that will train a small number of faculty to evaluate/review voluntary submissions of portfolios. Eva questioned how many faculty and students will take advantage. There is more concern about quantitative skills, because there are fewer people to evaluate those skills. Since standards are so variable, there is longstanding debate re progress vs. achievement.

Some students believe faculty never read their self-evaluations. The question was raised if there was a way to mark them on the Hub if they were read. Eva said the tutorial faculty could discuss the value of self evaluations. Unless we talk about it and make it important, people won't consider it important. Space for feedback on self evaluations would be good on the Hub.

In the old Div I program, Lise said Div III students with experience with Div I’s would evaluate them (as a leadership experience) and come to a final meeting. Audience for evals students or outside world.

How to Study/Time Management – intellectual craftsmanship: CASA workshops; ways of thinking goals to getting something done. Series of workshops for tutorials about time management? Historically workshops on this topic received very poor attendance. Should it be like a traveling show? Drop-in for 40 minutes to each of the tutorials get captive audience? Best ways to learn time management is with other older students and learn by example.

This time of year Cindy hands students little bookmarks to write dates when things are due. As some professors can be helpful, encourage them to share how they personally study or do timelines, even tailoring it to students to what is happening in their first year. Exchanging tips from the Teaching/ Learning Center. Jane has one-on-one advising meetings and asks her students what courses they are going to take. Tell advisors to ask their advisees how they expect their year is going to go.

Alan commented on intellectual craftsmanship: thinking about how one organizes intellectual projects i.e. Div I, II, put folders, ideas and notes together. Students don't realize how ideas recycle i.e. third semester class reminds you where you were at a year ago. Eva said rethink the Div I retrospective? Right now asking to reflect on learning goals, but maybe it should be ideas you have returned to. Mid-term evaluations are useful.

Relate questions and ideas across disciplines: years ago we offered a “Women’s Lives, Women’s Bodies” 8-10 faculty lectures course, with CBS coordinating basic studies. With faculty trained in specific disciplines, this model appeared to balance small group work in tutorials. Openness to new ideas: Talked about exposure to multiple disciplinary perspectives inside and outside of courses and offering the Ways of Knowing course in every school. Natural Science tried a course with five faculty each taking two students as an independent study, then met as a course, but it would have been better to have a seminar with multiple faculty. Jane gave a lecture course in a large class where students disengaged only listened and then stopped showing up. Cindy also had trouble keeping students, which is a drawback to that kind of course.

Should MCP be part of Div I or should be one of four key areas and happen in any school? Should it be one of the four areas engaging across the college and not slotted into learning goals? Learning goals or quantitative skills not always expressed in homework, so it must then be discussed in portfolios. The challenge is educating faculty, because a checkbox is easier than having that conversation. Need a happy medium between giving structure and guidance for faculty to do this. Guidelines for portfolio are potentially replacing checkbox. Is the Div I contract used creatively for this? Perspective instead of retrospective? Having conversation at beginning more likely to incorporate them, as well as orientation - meeting with advisors in advance.

Understanding importance of community service: Bobbie said community service is a community engaged learning requirement in Div II. It was revamped to provide an opportunity to do this work in Div I that wasn’t tied as much in Div II. Don’t have infrastructure to support off-campus work, i.e. transportation huge amount of logistical stuff. If go this route on Div I concentrate on campus only, but it could impact the work study area and current jobs.

Students who have sense of what they know they want could come in already understanding they have a concentration and expand Div I out beyond the first year, moving Div II into first year. Possible to start Div II with only a chair with members added later so as to have one person in Div II for reduced workload and then a second person comes in end of Div II. Need cross disciplinary work can’t do sabbatical wise. Student driven as well.

Attendance
Faculty: Jane Couperus (CS), Cindy Gill (NS), Nell Arnold (IA), Lise Sanders (HACU),

Elly Donkin (IA), Carollee Bengelsdorf (SS), Dean of Advising Eva Rueschman, Director

of Central Records, Bobbie Stuart

Students: Jonathan Kirschenbaum (HACU), Claire Oberholtzer cbo07 (at-large), Mallory

Schleif (CS), Melanie Magolan (IA), Luke Rafferty (SS), Adam Krellenstein (NS)

Unable to attend: Dean of Faculty Alan Goodman

Agenda
1. Approve 11/24/09 Minutes 2. Plan for Jan Term meetings 3. What are the “must haves” off of our list (in relation to structural changes)?
 * push it back 2 days?
 * Deans proposal (introduced by Elly)
 * structure of our meetings
 * goal of the meetings (i.e. one proposal, multiple proposals, “must haves”?)

II.
During the Jan Term meetings we are losing three student members. Peter is returning replacing Jonathan; Ananda is replacing Luke, CS is losing Mallory with no replacement as yet.

Elly reported that the Deans met and have specific ideas, with most already on list, and some suggestions different from what we talked about. They want EPC to have the time to put together a package during week one of the Jan term meetings. What we have now is a long list of what we are hoping for; not one, but two or three packages of what Div I might be.

Since the Deans are tied up with CCFRAP on January 13th and 14th, EPC could go back to work looking at their suggestions and then having a final discussion after the 14th. Wondered about the best way to meet with the Deans, would the whole group be too difficult and smaller groups more effective? Should we have representation at all? Since there are already two Deans in EPC ( Eva and Elly), it was agreed to also have one student and faculty member to avoid the perception that the Deans make all the decisions.

We recognized that the Deans have had longer experience thinking about these issues and that they have understandings that we won’t necessarily have. Agreed that we should begin with the Deans coming up with a list of guidelines for us and what they would like to see, i.e. qualities and what is their bottom line, and we would take those for our input and give them back.

Elly volunteered to send an email out to the Deans asking about their bottom line. Structurally enforcing some coordination would feel better. There is a delicate balance we are trying to make. Deans have something to contribute; they know what is politically feasible, as a lot of proposals have been shot down because of political differences. Get all of the wish list from EPC (what is absolutely crucial) and Deans would also bring in perspective. Back and forth process being proposed. Concern what if EPC comes up with something that Deans say will not work; if ways we can better facilate communication. Need scheduling for digesting Dean’s feedback.

After agreeing to meeting in January the members went over who actually could attend, the dates, and also to posting notes at the end of each day to the Deans and receiving their responses. Postponed, however, deciding which faculty would be at the Dean’s meeting(s).

III.
Today think about what our must haves and must have-nots are.

Must haves:

Div I proposing structural for now

Non structural can happen now

Focus is structural change

Reviewed goals (left column)to determine must haves.

Each EPC member offered their thoughts in a roses or thorns category, as either a no-go for their school or them personally.

The meeting ended with Jane sending out four proposals and agreeing that the first meeting in January would be on the 4th at 9:00 AM in Cole, Room 316.