Instructional Support Committee

Attending: Cecilia Knight, Keri Kornelson, Kara Lycke, Dan Reynolds, Anatoly Vishevsky, Jon Chenette, Bill Francis, Richard Fyffe

Minutes of 31 January approved.

Fast track approvals

• Classroom visitor for HIS 214 & 323, to describe U of Iowa Lincoln archive collection $153
• HIS 323 field trip to view Bollinger Lincoln collection in Iowa City $277
• HIS 222 field trip to popular women's magazine collection in Iowa City $328

E-Reserve Report Discussion (continued from 31 January)
Richard reiterated the two questions he raised at the previous meeting and the initial understanding reached concerning the first of these questions:

• Should the Library hold faculty to the existing limits on copyright expenditures ($150 for a single item and $1000 for a course)?

At the 31 January meeting ISC recommended continuing the moratorium on limits for another semester in order to gain an accurate picture of demand and costs.

• How important is it that as much learning material as possible be made available electronically?

The Libraries purchase books if chapters are requested for e-reserve and the Libraries don't own a copy already. Faculty members want students to bring physical copies of reserve materials to class. ISC believes it is reasonable to encourage the use of physical reserve, particularly for items likely to be used repeatedly over the years, unless there are pedagogical reasons to favor e-reserve in particular cases. Advantages of physical reserve include speedier placement of materials on reserve (items for which we cannot claim fair use must wait 10 days for a publisher response before being made available electronically), long-term savings to the College budget by using a physical copy rather than paying repeatedly for copyright clearances, and shifting of printing costs to the actual users (photocopying paid for by students rather than printing paid out of general college budgets). Pedagogical reasons that might argue for e-reserves in particular cases include the need to accommodate a large number of students on short notice (requiring simultaneous access by multiple students) or lower cost if an item is anticipated to be needed only once and not considered relevant for the Libraries' collections.

Text for the next reserve request letter to faculty should rely on people's good will, promoting physical reserve by discussing briefly the pedagogical and cost tradeoffs of e-reserve and physical reserve. The Libraries will draft some language for such a letter, and Richard may bring it back to ISC for comment. Faculty don't generally know how much is being spent on e-reserve materials for their courses. The average cost per item has been $56 and the per-item cost has ranged up to $363.

Revised Faculty-Faculty Tutorial Guidelines

The following revision of guidelines for faculty-faculty tutorials, designed to accommodate the model of a mutually beneficial tutorial, were approved:

Faculty-faculty tutorials are funded by the Instructional Support Committee to encourage interdisciplinary teaching and greater diversity in our curriculum. The faculty members involved in the tutorial must be from different departments. Tutorials may benefit each participant or may aim primarily at one participant learning from the other. In cases where one person is being tutored by another, only the person receiving the tutoring needs to submit a proposal. Otherwise, both faculty members should submit proposals or collaborate on a combined proposal.

The tutorials can take place at any time during the academic year or the summer and last over whatever period of time participants find most beneficial. A tutorial usually ranges from five meetings of two or more hours, to ten or more meetings of shorter duration. Faculty members receiving funding for faculty-faculty tutorials are expected to spend a minimum of 30 hours each, including time together and individual study time, on the tutorial project.

Application Deadlines:

• First Monday in September for fall projects
• Monday following Thanksgiving break for winter break projects
• First Monday in February for spring semester projects
• First Monday in April for summer projects

Budget Guidelines:
Each tutorial participant will receive a stipend of $650; each tutorial group receives an expense allowance of $75.

Application Guidelines -- Please submit the following information to the Instructional Support Committee via the Associate Deans' Office:

• the name and department of each participant;
• the subject of the tutorial;
• a statement about the contribution of the tutorial to interdisciplinary teaching or greater diversity in our curriculum;
• the purpose to be accomplished in the tutorial (include a rationale for the participation of both faculty members in this project);
• a description of the written work to be submitted at the conclusion of the tutorial (recognizing that this might change in the course of the tutorial);
• a reading list or bibliography (attach to application form);
• the tutorial timetable -- the proposed number and length of meetings, and when and over what period of time they will take place

Draft EKI Curricular Development Guidelines

ISC seems like the right body to handle summer stipend and travel/student assistant fund proposals, using the Curricular Development budget and our usual procedures guided by funding levels and favored areas for support determined by the Advisory Board (and endorsed by the faculty - see next paragraph). We do not believe ISC is the proper body to deal with course release requests.

Committee members questioned the need to settle on two hubs at this stage in the development of the EKI. We wondered why these particular hubs were chosen, asked whether the hubs could change from year to year, and asserted that the faculty as a whole should discuss the concept of the hubs and endorse the particular hubs chosen by the AB. We wondered what would happen if ideas were put forward that didn't fit neatly with one of the hubs, such as the Berlin course that has been under development by faculty members from Art and German. We acknowledged that there may be value in seeking coherent directions for the development of the EKI but felt strongly that there needs to be room for good ideas to emerge and gain support outside the hub emphases. The way the cohesion is expressed in the draft seems heavy-handed. Perhaps indicating that tie-ins to the hubs are "particularly encouraged" rather than required would provide an appropriate level of coherence while still allowing the degree of experimentation that ISC members consider appropriate until the EKI is further along.

We discussed the requirement for a commitment to teach the course "twice within the next seven years." Will this requirement prejudice the EKI against initiatives proposed by early career faculty members, who don't yet have the College's commitment to ensure they will be here for seven years? What if a course bombs the first time it is offered and is deemed to have been a failed experiment? The required letter from the department chair suggests that the commitment is actually by the department rather than the individual; will other department members be expected to pick up the course if the person developing it leaves or loses interest? We recognize the importance of gaining a level of assurance that courses the College invests in will be offered multiple times, but we think the language of the draft needs to account for the issues raised by these questions.

Committee members favored the idea of emphasizing collaborative over interdisciplinary projects expressed in the penultimate paragraph. This is something the faculty strongly desire - opportunities for collaborative teaching. The "but" in the first sentence of that paragraph seemed a little strong to some. Would an "and" work as well? The following language was suggested: "Proposals are invited for interdisciplinary projects, whether individual or collaborative. Special emphasis will be placed on collaborative projects."

Summer Workshop Proposals

Questions were raised about the five $75 honoraria included in the "Collaborative and Integrative Teaching: Syllabus Design" proposal's budget. These are for faculty guest speakers spending an hour with the workshop sharing their experiences with collaborative teaching. ISC members agreed that is was appropriate to pay modest honoraria to these faculty members.

The list of workshops was approved for advertising as presented. The Associate Deans' office will put together an announcement to go out to faculty in late February or early March, requesting responses by the Friday before spring break. This timetable allows for workshop planning to proceed with knowledge of viability and number of attendees and allows for better-informed budgetary management.

Respectfully submitted,
Terri Phipps