September 18-19, 1998
Memorial Union, Madison, Wisconsin

Present: Kathy Ackley, Dick Berke, Hal Bertilson, Tony Ciccone, Julie Furst-Bowe, Linda Carpenter, Rene Gratz, Jerry Greenfield, Suzanne Griffith, Mary Hampton, Doug Johnson, Nan Jordahl, Cathy Helgeland, Kristen Kleinsteiber, Richard Lee, Penny Lyter, Thomas Manning, Ron Mickel, Sherrie Nicol, Dan Riordan, Erika Sander, Kathy Sanders, Denise Scheberle, Tim Sewall, Robert Skloot, Dave Staszak, Kay Taube, Greg Valde, Crystal L. Voigt, Don Weber

Absent: James Taylor, Bill Cerbin

Staff: Lisa Kornetsky; Interim Director; Donna Silver, Assistant Director; Rebecca Karoff, Communications Coordinator; Renata Wilk, Graduate Assistant

Friday Guests: Ed Meachen, Associate Vice President for UW System Office of Learning & Information Technology (OLIT), and Hal Schlais, Learning Technologies Liaison, OLIT


The Retreat began with an orientation session for new members, led by the UTIC Staff and the Executive Committee. The purpose of this orientation was to familiarize new members with the history, mission, structure, budget and staffing of the Council, as well as to introduce members to UTIC programs and initiatives.


The September Retreat convened at 10:30 a.m. UTIC’s Chair, Doug Johnson of UW-River Falls, welcomed Council members to the first meeting of the academic year 1998-99. After members introduced themselves, Doug provided an overview of the retreat agenda.

The Council then split into groups to discuss Patricia Cross’s article, "What Do We Know About Students’ Learning and How Do We Know It?"

The meeting resumed after lunch with a provocative presentation by UTIC Representative Greg Valde (UW-Whitewater): "I Taught It, But They Forgot: Memory and (vs.?) Meaningful Learning." Among other things, Greg cited what kinds of things people—students--tend to remember the most (overlearned content; procedures; processes; what we find personally meaningful, relevant or emotionally arousing; things we actually do; attitudes), as well as what we tend to forget (what we receive passively; what we perceive as irrelevant; what we cram into memory; what we never use). Discussion followed.

Afterwards, the Council heard a presentation by Ed Meachen, Associate Vice President for the UW System Office of Learning & Information Technology, and Hal Schlais, Learning Technologies Liaison for OLIT. Ed Meachan discussed some of the recent technology initiatives on the System level. He began with an IT Plan overview and its focus on teaching and learning, including five initiatives being proposed to assess Student learning outcomes. He also outlined the IT budget request for 1999-2000, which includes a three-year replacement of desktop computers, bringing faculty up-to-date with students (faculty development), and the necessity for certain types of hardware if the need demands it (e.g. high-level Pentiums, etc.). Another high priority initiative would be to overhaul library circulation and collections, for example a new interlibrary loan system has been proposed. Hal Schlais followed with an overview of the Learning Technology Development Council (LTDC), and the initiatives of "Teaching with Technology Today" (TTT), the LTDC’s web newsletter highlighting innovative uses of learning technologies within the UW-System.

The meeting at the Memorial Union adjourned at 4:30. UW System President Katharine Lyall hosted a reception for UTIC reps on the 19th floor of Van Hise Hall. The evening ended with members dividing into smaller groups and going out to dinner.


The meeting reconvened at 9 a.m..

After a brief welcome from Chairman Doug, the meeting was turned over to Lisa Kornetsky, Interim Director of UTIC. She informed the Council of UTIC’s search and screen process for Director of UTIC and handed out a current position description. There was some discussion about whether or not to conduct a national search. Lisa then discussed some of the initiatives for the upcoming year. She emphasized the importance of making UTIC as visible as possible, specifically as a resource for faculty. Perhaps UTIC could provide information about best practices in faculty development, in addition to its current initiative to collect information about faculty/staff participation at Faculty College, Wisconsin Teaching Fellows, UTIC grant programs, and conferences.

The Council then went into committee meetings. At 11:00, the full group reconvened to hear committee reports and discuss business pertinent to the Council.


Diversity Committee

Sherrie Nicol, the newly elected chair, reported that the Committee will make an effort to help campuses meet their curricular requirements for Plan 2008 by sharing information on specific programs, and plans to put together an e-mail survey for campuses. The group then discussed climate issues for students and faculty of color, agreeing that the diversity issue needs to be broadened to include sexual orientation, disability, and other categories of social identity.

Grants Committee

Rene Gratz, the newly elected chair, reported on the proposed changes for the UTIG System Review. For example, instead of holding a Madison orientation for reviewers, the committee discussed providing orientation materials by mail, followed by a phone call with one of three experienced review panelists and members of the Grants Committee: Doug Johnson, Linda Carpenter, and Rene Gratz. Reviewers would then send their evaluations to these three panelists. The UTIC staff and three panelists would then synthesize rankings and determine the grant recipients. The Committee will pursue this reorganization, although it concluded that since the "Call for Proposals" has already gone out to the VCs, this may not work until next year.

Professional Development Committee

Chair Erika Sanders reported first on the Committee’s discussions of the Department Chairs Workshop and Faculty College. Regarding the Department Chairs Workshop, the question was raised, should the workshops be directed toward new Chairs, or for those have already been Chairs? In addition, the Committee agreed that there should be an increased emphasis on leadership and professional development for Chairs. It was proposed that UTIC should consider leading a session on this topic in some way. The Committee then discussed the UTIC handbook, particularly the wording of the Wisconsin Teaching Fellows Program. Changes should be implemented in the nomination process, keeping the focus on experienced and effective teachers. The question was raised about a new initiative for mid-career faculty. Further discussion will be needed on this topic. Another question came up about the lack of diversity on the UTIC council; perhaps this can be emphasized somehow in our nomination letter.

Student Learning Committee

Dick Berke reported that Greg will be the new Chair. Regarding the April Conference, the committee agreed on a late October planning meeting that would ideally include a member from each of the other UTIC committees. Dick then gave a "homework" assignment, asking for each Committee member to prepare his or her ideal agenda for the spring conference, to be discussed at the next UTIC meeting. The UTIC staff will be contacting presenters for the Conference in the coming weeks; Bob Diamond and Tom Creed came up as specific examples. Afterwards, the Committee proposed holding the Conference 2000 in La Crosse (or somewhere other than Madison, depending on the sites and organizational help volunteered by Council members). Further, the Committee proposed that the next round of Conference Development Grants be devoted to Student Learning proposals.

Technology Committee

Dan Riordan reported that Kay was elected as Chair for another year. During this session, the Committee held an open discussion on technology. The following topics were addressed: best practices; implications of technology in teaching; cost effectiveness; faculty downsizing fears. The Committee needs to communicate to the campuses that its focus is on learning and pedagogy, not on technology itself. In order to communicate better with Committee members, a listserv will be set up. Future initiatives of the Committee will include conducting research on external funding sources, and on assessment tools for technology. The Committee will look at UTIG grants for models as well.

After closing remarks by Doug Johnson, the meeting adjourned at 1:00.

Following are the full Committee Minutes as submitted by recorders:

Diversity Committee

Present: Hal Bertilson, Ron Mickel, Sherrie Nicol, Denise Scheberle, Rebecca Karoff

Meeting opened with the election of Sherrie Nicol as new committee chair (by acclamation).

Sherrie discussed activities on her campus relative to creating an ethnic studies and indigenous people certificate program. The committee decided that its first task would be to gather information from other campuses on their major, minor, emphasis, and concentration programs in ethnic studies. UTIC representatives would be asked via the listserve to provide information on their institution’s programs.

Discussion also revolved around the following climate questions: Do new women and faculty of color feel comfortable on campus? (this question will also be asked of UTIC reps.); and How do we deal with issues of diversity as they occur in class?

Ron discussed the need to help faculty in departments as they become more diverse, noting that climate, not the curriculum, is the problem. The committee recommends that diversity be a track at the April Student Learning Conference.

Rebecca will put together a list of biographical materials and case studies on diversity. Sherrie and Rebecca will work as a subcommittee to propose a workshop at the Student Learning Conference. Committee also addressed the need to expand diversity beyond the four racial and ethnic groups identified in the UW System Plan 2008.

Meeting adjourned at 10:45 a.m.

Grants Committee

Present: Linda Carpenter, Julie Furst-Bowe, Rene Gratz, Doug Johnson, Charlotte Stokes

1. Doug Johnson convened the meeting.

2. Rene Gratz was elected chair.

3. Linda Carpenter was designated note taker.

4. Doug will chair the November 6 meeting in Rene’s absence.

5. Charlotte Stokes will serve as UTIG review observer this year.

6. Discussion of UTIG review process

Doug provided an update on the current grant guidelines and review process. For the 1999-00 proposals, the major guideline change is the requirement for collaboration; this has been eliminated. A 1:2 match will continue.

The most recent procedures used for the review process involved constituting an ad hoc committee comprised of 15 faculty. Students were not included because of inconsistent participation in the past. Faculty represented all campuses and a range of disciplines. The committee met for a one-day orientation in late November. This meeting was followed by a conference call among subcommittee groups, typically in early January. The committee then reconvened for a two-day meeting in February to make funding decisions.

Because concerns have been expressed about the time commitment and expense associated with this process in light of UTIG’s small budget, a streamlined process was proposed for this year. Under the proposal, the same type of committee would be constituted, an orientation meeting would be held, and conference calls would be made. The major change is that only three team leaders would attend the final convening. Team leaders for this year would be Doug, Rene, and Linda.

Don suggested an alternative to this procedure. Proposals would be sent to reviewers in the field along with instructions, explicit criteria, and expected feedback. Team leaders would serve as interpreters of reviewers’ recommendations rather than as primary reviewers themselves.

After considerable discussion, the following procedure was recommended for this year. The committee acknowledged that it is radically changed from previous procedures, but it is expedient and can be carried out electronically.

a. Campuses will provide names of reviewers as in previous years.

b. Each reviewer will consider some subset (maybe 1/3) of all proposals received. Procedures used in the past by UTIC staff to assign reviewers to teams and distribute proposals will remain unchanged.

c. Proposals will be mailed to reviewers with instructions so that materials are received by December 4. Reviewers will be expected to submit evaluation forms with funding ratings (1-5) and a narrative description of strengths and weaknesses for each proposal reviewed. Evaluation forms should be available on the Web so that information can be provided electronically. Narratives can be submitted as attachments via email.

d. Mailing will be followed up by a phone conversation on December 4 with a team leader/review panelist to clarify instructions.

e. Reviewers will submit their evaluations to their assigned team leader/review panelist who will synthesize the data. The panelists will meet in February with UTIC staff to further interpret the data and make funding recommendations.

f. The role of the observer in this process will be to evaluate the process as designed from an outside view. The observer will sit in on the funding meeting with the panelists and the staff.

7. November agenda

a. consolidation of grant programs

  1. continued discussion and evaluation of new review procedures

Professional Development Committee

Present: Tony Ciccone, Mary Hampton, Cathy Helgeland, Erika Sander, Tim Sewall, , Lisa Kornetsky

Kornetsky opened the meeting and Sander was identified as chair (by consensus or by default, depends on your point of view).

1. UTIC Handbook. Kornetsky agreed to have the Executive Board and UTIC staff review and update the material. We still support placing it on the UTIC Website, once revised.

2. Updates on UTIC Professional Development Programs.

2.1 Faculty College. We discussed various ways in which this might be reformatted to assure appropriate impact on home campuses. While faculty college focuses upon the development of the individual faculty fellow, we did discuss the notion of campus teams, especially in the context of the Carnegie Foundation initiative (Academy for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, or CASTL) and it’s a campus conversation piece. We will continue to discuss these notions.

2.2 Department Chair Workshop. This will take place this fall in Neenah. The program was responsive to last year’s evaluations, with more time allocated to experience John Tallman’s personnel component (an always popular meeting!). We will review evaluations from this fall once available. This workshop is designed for new department chairs. Given UTIC’s focus on undergraduate teaching and student learning, we discussed ways in which the chairs workshop might incorporate sessions dealing with chairs as A change agents, role of chairs in the instructional enterprise, to name several.

3. A Jump Starting Mid-Career Colleagues. The discussion under item #2, above, broadened to how we might better address the developmental needs of faculty and teaching staff who are in mid-career doldrums. We all agreed that this was an audience to target, to enable them to play a more active role in both teaching and the learning community on campus. Marie Wunsch was suggested as a potential facilitator, as she has done work in this area. We will continue discussions with a view toward developing initiatives targeted at mid-career colleagues.

4. Agenda for the Year. The committee agreed to pursue these items this year:

4.1 Re-think the Department Chair Workshop, its delivery model.

4.2 Collect/update data on the matrix (includes all institutions, contact persons, UTIC reps, Web addresses, addresses/Internet names, etc. Kornetsky indicated that UTIC staff were keen to get these data together and available.

4.3 The UTIC Handbook will be reviewed by the Executive Board; when finalized, it will be put on the UTIC Website.

4.4 We will continue to discuss the mid-career colleagues and consider developing appropriate developmental initiatives for them.

Respectfully submitted by

Erika Sander, Committee Chair

Student Learning Committee

Donna distributed a variety of materials to assist the group in thinking about the work of the committee and the upcoming spring conference on learning.

We agree that planning for this and future conferences would be the focus of our committee. We have Lee Shulman set up for the keynote & Bob Diamond to do one of the sessions.

We agreed we'd like to have one planning meeting by the end of October. We agreed to review several articles and think about conference themes or tracks prior to that meeting. The conference will be April 9-10 at Union South.

Some discussion ensued regarding the April 2000 conference. Location is an issue that requires further discussion. LaCrosse is one possibility that was raised.

Greg Valde agreed to be Chair of the learning committee.

Minutes submitted by Greg Valde

Technology Committee

Present: Gerald Greenfield, Suzanne Griffiths, Dan Riordan, Kay Taube, Renata Wilk

The group discussed a wide range of possible topics and concerns, especially the following:

Agenda and goals for the committee:

1.We will focus on the use of technology as an effective pedagogical device and as a way to increase student learning

2. We will suggest a technology track for the spring conference with the theme "Things that work and why"

3. We will try to find or develop assessment information so that concerns about effectiveness of technology in learning can be addressed on more than an anecdotal level

4. We will set up a liason through our chair with the LTDC

5. We will have a committee listserv (of which this communication is the first message)

6. We hope that the grants committee will give feedback on completed technology projects and will fund technology learning/assessment projects

Respectfully submitted by: Dan Riordan

The Office of Professional & Instructional Development (formerly the Undergraduate Teaching Improvement Council) is part of the Office of Academic Affairs, University of Wisconsin System.

This page can be reached at: http://www.uwsa.edu/opid/conf/council/fall98.htm.

Last revised: June 21, 2002 .