Date: September 24, 1999

Attending: Frank J. Garrahan, presiding; Amber Archuleta-Lucero, Jonathan Buckstead, Cecile Durish, Jim Fowler, Stefan Haag, Glen Hunt, Lynn Lehle, Marilyn Mote-Yale, Hugh Moore, Ed Mullen, Judy Nwachie, Paz Pena, E. A. Poe

Before the Task Force met in formal session, Hugh Moore, adjunct faculty from Rio Grande, gave a presentation on the current status of the Social Security System & the myth of the Social Security Trust Fund.

1. Task Force discussed in detail the 1999-2000 faculty evaluation process and the essential components of both full and mini portfolios. After much debate & compromise, recommendations were approved and have been submitted to Dean Rex Peebles for his consideration. (See last page for recommendations)

2. Chair updated faculty on the Spring 2000 schedule & the vast difficulties in its creation.

3. The following travel requests were approved:

Ed Mullen:

TX Association of Gifted and Talented Students Conference

TX Municipal League Conference

Paz Pena:

American Political Science Association

Judy Nwachie:

I.N.M.P.

 

Appendix:

 

ALL FACULTY:

Student evaluations in the Fall semester. New hires will be evaluated by students in their initial semester of teaching.

Completion of the faculty input form (A&B form)

Portfolio &endash; type depending on criteria listed below.

PORTFOLIOS:

CONTINUING FACULTY (FULL & ADJUNCT) Mini-Portfolios

Syllabus

NEW HIRES (FULL & ADJUNCT)

Syllabus

Representative unit &endash; including handouts, learning objectives, quizzes, test, paper.

Live class observation or video class presentation (option of faculty member).

Evaluation of student assessment methods &endash;

sample of some graded papers (best/worst), or

analysis of the quality of an objective exam

MAJOR PORTFOLIO (FULL & ADJUNCT)

Syllabus

Statement of teaching philosophy

Representative unit &endash; including handouts, learning objectives, quizzes, test, paper

Unit outline of lectures including class activities & assignments

Evaluation of assessment methods &endash;

sample of some graded papers (best/worst), or

analysis of the quality of an objective exam