Thanks to the Faculty Development Committee for arranging a "brown bag" on the ratification of the 27th amendment.

Faculty present: Charles Miles, Herman Prager, Ron Fletcher, Stefan Haag, Greg Harrison, Jack Floyd, Lisa Perez-Nichols, Ann Dillon, Susana Aleman, Karry Evans, Shina Amachigh, Cecile Durish, Lynn Lehle, Glen Hunt, Marilyn Mote-Yale, Dean Cobb, Frank Garrahan, Al Belmarez, Judy Nwachie.

1. Full-time hiring committee. Members include Gaye Lynn Scott, Marilyn Mote-Yale, Frank J. Garrahan, Lisa Perez-Nichols, and Harris Bell.

A. Applications are being reviewed. March 26 and 27 have been set aside to conduct interviews.

B. Candidates will be notified and scheduled before Spring Break.

2. Department Chair election process is beginning. Ed Mullen has agreed to be Election Coordinator (even though he's on sabbatical!) and will send out information regarding nominations, process, and deadlines.

3. Mike Harris, adjunct faculty member, has been selected to receive a NISOD Excellence Award. Congratulations to Mike!

4. Professional Development Opportunities.

A. The Place of Lucknow: Religious & Cultural Collaborations and Collusions in South Asia. April 2-3, UT's South Asia Institute. Workshop is for college educators.

B. Southwestern Social Science Assoc. meeting, March 17-20, The Omni Hotel, Corpus Christi. Theme: The Social Sciences as an Instrument of Policy Formation

C. 24th International Conference on Critical Thinking, Palo Alto, CA, July 12-15. Sponsored by the Foundation for Critical Thinking.

D. National Learning Communities Project, Washington Center for Improving the Quality of Undergraduate Education. Ten open houses on Learning Communities in Midwestern and Southern states (e.g., UTEP March 4, Collin County Community College March 5)

E. Council on International Educational Exchange offers intensive one to two-week seminars abroad in an effort to help internationalize the curriculum.

5. ECS using IVC? The unanimous opinion was that using IVC technology for Early College Start classes is a bad idea. The Department Chair will represent that view in her meeting with ECS and DL representatives.

6. Master Plan initiatives. The Department Chair included the following in her Master Plan requests. Any new money requested in the budget process must be tied to Master Plan initiatives:

A. Stipend for a faculty member to spearhead development of an online assessment instrument and streaming video orientation for the Department's distance learning students in an effort to reduce withdrawal rates.

B. Stipend for a faculty member to spearhead the development and publication of an in-house GOVT 2305 textbook.

C. Funding for placing a permanent computer-based projector in one Government classroom at each major campus.

D. Funding to provide each full-time faculty member with a laptop computer.

E. Funding to continue to support NMUN and INMP as well as to support MOAS and/or MAL courses if they are developed.

F. Funding to increase the number of full-time faculty in the department to 24.

G. Funding to help develop a relationship with sister institutions so that we can offer joint faculty development opportunities.

H. Funding to adequately support faculty attendance at professional conferences.

I. Funding to offer an annual symposium for faculty and students.

7. Jim Fowler's retirement celebration. Jim Fowler has been told by his wife that he's retiring at the end of the Spring semester, and we want to do something to celebrate his many years of service to ACC. After some brainstorming it was decided that we would set aside a Friday afternoon (April 23 looks like the best date) and invite people to drop by Scholz's to give Jim a hug and tell him we'll miss him. More to come about this.

Adjunct Faculty Committee. Glen Hunt reported that interviews had been conducted and several people were added to the eligibility lists. The Department typically hires most of its new adjuncts for summer courses. The committee will conduct additional interviews before the spring semester ends.

Faculty Development Committee. Karry Evans asked for input, names, etc. regarding a possible spring symposium examining Brown v. Board of Education on its 50th anniversary, perhaps in the context of current issues in Texas regarding public education. The other suggestion was to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act. If you have any suggestions or contacts that we could benefit from, please pass those along to Karry (kevans@austincc.edu).

Faculty Evaluation Committee. Marilyn Mote-Yale reported that adjunct faculty evaluations would be completed by early March to be forwarded to the Dean. The Evaluation Summary forms will be sent to faculty members from the Dean's office. In addition the committee members have drafted departmental definitions of "excellent", "very good", "good", "needs improvement", and "unacceptable." The proposed definitions are included here. Note that the one-sentence definition is the generic, soon-to-be-adopted Collegewide standard. What follows that one-sentence statement are the specific standards proposed for our department. Please send feedback to Marilyn (mmyale@austincc.edu).

In general, an excellent instructor has a thorough knowledge of the course content, knows how to organize discipline content for a community college survey course, and submits a portfolios that meets the following standards:

1. A syllabus that complies with all the requirements of the department and the College as outlined in the Government Faculty Handbook. Furthermore, the syllabus should be clear, concise, and relevant. Because the syllabus is for the student's benefit, an excellent syllabus should let the student know exactly what is expected day by day, week by week, for the entire semester. In addition, an excellent syllabus should be aesthetically pleasing to the eye, easy to read, and user-friendly.
2. A variety of up-to-date handouts that illustrate the instructor's effort to help the students learn. These should include learning objectives or other study tools that reflect the course goals and objectives, and supplemental materials (charts, graphs, overheads, classroom handouts) that clarify key concepts and highlight recent developments in the political system that aren't addressed in a textbook.
3. A variety of up-to-date projects or assignments that stimulate student learning and that clearly relate to the course goals and objectives as well as to students' lives. Assignments that give students the tools to take beyond the Government classroom will meet the definition of instructional excellence.
4. Assessments that reflect the course goals and objectives, that are technically proficient, and that are matched to the content of the syllabus and the learning objectives. Tests should reflect a close alignment between the course description, the course materials and handouts presented in the portfolio, and instruction. Excellent tests include a variety of question formats and reflect more than merely a reliance on a publisher's general-purpose test bank.
5. A statement of teaching philosophy that clearly states pedagogical intent. All elements of a teaching portfolio should be a reflection of the content of the philosophy statement.
6. A course commentary that clearly explains how each element of the course fulfills the teaching philosophy.
7. A faculty input form that shows a thoughtful and detailed response to student ratings and comments.
8. A faculty development plan that is a clear, organized, and detailed statement of the specific methods the instructor will use to develop new tools or techniques for the classroom, increase his/her knowledge of the field of political science, keep up with developments in the political system, and in other ways improve as an instructor.

In general, a very good instructor has a thorough knowledge of the course content and submits a portfolio that meets the following standards:
1. A syllabus that complies with all the requirements of the department and the College as outlined in the Government Faculty handbook. A very good syllabus lets students know what is expected of them throughout the semester.
2. A variety of handouts that illustrate the instructor's effort to help the students learn and that reflect the course goals and objectives. In addition, a very good instructor provides supplemental materials that clarify key concepts and highlight recent developments in the political system that aren't addressed in a textbook.
3. A variety of projects or assignments that stimulate student learning and that clearly relate to the course goals and objectives as well as to students' lives.
4. Assessments that reflect the course goals and objectives, that are technically proficient, and that are matched to the content of the syllabus and the learning objectives. Tests should reflect a close alignment between the course description, the course materials and handouts presented in the portfolio, and instruction. Tests should include a variety of question formats and reflect more than merely a reliance on a publisher's general-purpose test bank.
5. A statement of teaching philosophy that clearly states pedagogical intent. All elements of a teaching portfolio should be a reflection of the content of the philosophy statement.
6. A course commentary that clearly explains how each element of the course fulfills the teaching philosophy.
7. A faculty input form that shows a thoughtful and detailed response to student ratings and comments.
8. A faculty development plan that clearly summarizes the methods the instructor will use to develop new tools or techniques for the classroom, increase his/her knowledge of the field of political science, keep up with developments in the political system, and in other ways improve as an instructor.

In general, a good instructor has a thorough knowledge of course content and submits a portfolio that meets the following standards:

1. A syllabus that complies with all the requirements of the department and the College as outlined in the Government Faculty handbook.
2. Handouts that illustrate the instructor's effort to help the students learn and that reflect the course goals and objectives.
3. Projects or assignments that stimulate student learning and that clearly relate to the course goals and objectives as well as to students' lives.
4. Assessments that reflect the course goals and objectives, that are technically proficient, and that are matched to the content of the syllabus and the learning objectives. Tests should reflect a close alignment between the course description, the course materials and handouts presented in the portfolio, and instruction.
5. A statement of teaching philosophy that clearly states pedagogical intent. All elements of a teaching portfolio should be a reflection of the content of the philosophy statement.
6. A course commentary that clearly explains how each element of the course fulfills the teaching philosophy.
7. A faculty input form that shows a thoughtful and detailed response to student ratings and comments.
8. A faculty development plan that identifies areas for improvement and clearly maps out strategies for achieving stated goals.

The Government Department's definition of "good" sets the minimum performance standards. A rating of "needs improvement" means failure to meet some of the Department's minimum standards. This includes a portfolio that lacks some required components and/or contains some components that do not meet the standards for a rating of "good". The instructor who receives this rating will be expected to work with the Department Chair and Faculty Evaluations Committee Chair in developing a plan designed to bring all elements of the portfolio up to minimum standards. This plan should be developed within 90 days of receiving the evaluation and will be reviewed by the instructor and the Department Chair throughout the following academic year.

The Government Department's definition of "good" sets the minimum performance standards. A rating of "unacceptable" means that a majority of the Department's minimum performance standards have not been met. The instructor who receives this rating will be expected to work with the Department Chair and Faculty Evaluations Committee Chair in developing a plan designed to bring all elements of the portfolio up to minimum standards. This plan should be developed within 90 days of receiving the evaluation and will be reviewed by the instructor and the Department Chair throughout the following academic year.

Student Assessment Committee. Frank Garrahan provided an update on our effort to evaluate student learning in the context of the College's General Education outcomes. The Writing Outcomes Statements from the College's Gen. Ed. Committee will be one basis for our assessment. In addition, where appropriate each submission will be evaluated using discipline-specific outcomes. The specifics are found below. Contact Frank (frankjg@) if you have questions.

In Spring 2003 the Department decided to try a different approach to evaluating student learning. Our goal was to assess the intellectual competencies ACC has established for courses in the core curriculum. As noted below, ACC's General Education Review Committee has identified 7 student proficiencies.

"Upon receipt of an associate degree from Austin Community College, a student should:

1. Possess sufficient literacy skills in writing, reading, speaking, and listening to communicate effectively above the 12th grade level.

2. Understand numerical data and their implications for daily living.

3. Possess consciousness of our society.

4. Think and analyze at a critical level.

5. Appreciate multi-cultural, multi-ethnic contributions to our country.

6. Understand our technological society.

7. Possess basic skills in the use of computers." (http://www.austincc.edu/gened/outcomes.htm)

The college-wide General Education Committee was to have written specific outcomes and rubrics for each of the seven proficiencies above. Our goal was to apply those (perhaps in somewhat modified form) to our collection of student work. Of the seven, only the Communications Committee has completed its work. As a result, we do have specific rubrics to use in evaluating writing skills, but do not have any direction in assessing the remaining six proficiencies.

Given this situation, we will assess the student work we've collected using this one college-wide outcome and three discipline-specific outcomes, written by the Government Department's Student Assessment Committee. See below for the specific rubrics to be used.

Writing Outcomes Statements (as specified by the college Gen Ed Committee): Upon receipt of an associate degree from Austin Community College, a student should be able to:

Write a clear, well-organized paper using documentation where appropriate.

The following criteria will be used to measure the writing outcomes.

Students are able to write an essay/paper that is competent, responsive to the assignment, and adequate. The essay/paper would include these typical features:

1. A thesis statement is apparent.

2. An introduction and a conclusion are present.

3. Most paragraphs are clearly organized, unified, and coherently presented with some transitions.

4. Most of the sentences are clear; that is, they are understandable and punctuated appropriately.

5. If research material is included, it is adequate to the assignment and documented appropriately.

a. Demonstrates knowledge of the major structures of government.

4 = Compares and contrasts the major structures of government.

3 = Analyzes the major structures of government.

2 = Identifies several major structures of government.

1 = Identifies a major structure of government.

b. Demonstrates an understanding of limitations on government.

4 = Develops a comprehensive, rational argument for or against a major limitation on government and describes its implications.

3 = Analyzes a major limitation on government, the pro and con positions and consequences of the limitation.

2 = Identifies multiple limitations on government.

1 = Identifies a major limitation on government.

c. Demonstrates ability to locate information on governmental policy and politics.

4 = Compares and contrasts sources of information on governmental policy and politics for accuracy, relevancy and bias.

3 = Analyzes a source of information on governmental policy and politics for accuracy, relevancy and bias.

2 = Analyzes the content of a source of information on governmental policy and politics.

1 = Identifies a source of information on governmental policy and politics.

The Department approved travel requests from Karry Evans, Shina Amachigh, and Jeremy Teigen. The Department did not approve a travel request from Alyssa Eacono, who is on the adjunct eligibility list but is not currently teaching a course.

The question before the Department was whether to retain our current standards for awarding Multiple Semester Term Appointments (excellent/excellent on the two evaluation components) or to make a change. After some discussion we decided to establish excellent/very good as the standard under which the Government Department would award MSTAs for the 2004-2005 academic year.

Gaye Lynn Scott asked the Department to approve an honors course for Fall 2004 focusing on the presidential election. The course was approved.