TILT Task Forces

TILT Task Forces

• Academic Integrity

  Overview:

  The Academic Integrity Task Force was convened in Fall 2007. The Task Force was charged with developing a comprehensive program regarding academic integrity issues for instructors at the University.

  Task Force activities were guided by the following key questions:

  1. What do we want instructors to understand about academic integrity?
  2. What are the ideal elements of a program for developing this understanding?
  3. What is being done now at CSU to support the development of this understanding?
  4. What is being done elsewhere to support the development of this understanding?
  5. What isn't being done (that should be)?
  6. What should be done to develop a coherent, integrated academic integrity program at CSU?
  7. How should the program be funded?
  8. How can/should TILT support these activities?

  Task Force Members

  • Jeff Casterella
  • Sandy Chapman
  • Catherine Dicesare
  • Ron Hicks
  • Anne Hudgens
  • Andrew Norton
  • Dan Palmer
  • Mike Palmquist
  • Tom Siller
• Advising Professional Development

  Overview:

  The Advising Professional Development Task Force was convened in Fall 2007. The Task Force was charged with developing a comprehensive program to support the professional development of advisors at the University.

  Task Force activities were guided by the following key questions:

  1. What are the competencies we want to support and develop in our advisors?
  2. What are the ideal elements of a program for developing these competencies?
  3. What is being done now at CSU to support the professional development of advisors?
  4. What is being done elsewhere to support the professional development of advisors?
  5. What isn't being done (that should be)?
  6. What should be done to develop a coherent, integrated professional development program for advisors at CSU?
  7. How should the program be funded?
  8. How can/should TILT support the program?

  Task Force Members

  • Shaun Beaty
  • Gaye Digregorio
  • Leslie Diverdi
  • Blane Harding
  • Mike Jaramillo
  • Jack McGrew
  • Mike Palmquist
• Assessing Teaching Effectiveness

  Overview:

  In spring 2011, the Faculty Council Committee on Teaching and Learning asked the University Distinguished Teaching Scholars and staff from the Institute for Learning and Teaching (TILT) to develop a set of recommendations for assessing teaching effectiveness. A TILT taskforce was established and met during the summer and into the fall. Its report was delivered to the Faculty Council Committee on Teaching and Learning in December 2011.

  Task Force Recommendations

  Assessing Teaching Effectiveness

  Task Force Members

  • Rich Feller
  • Kate Kiefer
  • Mike Palmquist
  • Erica Suchman
  • Ray Whalen
  • Toni Zimmerman
• Evaluating Teaching Effectiveness

  Overview:

  This task force explored how departments at Colorado State University could develop processes for evaluating teaching effectiveness. This task force built on the results of the TILT/UDTS Task Force on Assessing Teaching Effectiveness (see above), which presented its report and recommendations to the Faculty Council Committee on Teaching and Learning in December 2011.

  The larger goal of this task force was to develop guidelines for evaluation practices that might be adapted for use in a wide range of disciplines. The goal was to share strategies and make recommendations that reflect an understanding that teaching practices and conditions vary widely across disciplines and that no single "one-size-fits-all approach is likely to be appropriate for all departments.

  Guiding Questions

  1. What outcomes, practices, and processes are most closely associated with our understanding of teaching effectiveness?
  2. Which of these outcomes, practices, and processes best lend themselves to accurate and reliable assessment?
  3. Which assessment processes are used at CSU? How widely are they used?
  4. Which assessment processes are used at other educational institutions?
  5. Which assessment processes are not widely used—at CSU or elsewhere—but might be worth considering?
  6. What does research and experience tell us about the effectiveness of these processes?
  7. How should academic programs and departments use these processes to assess teaching effectiveness?
  8. How can TILT support academic programs and departments in their efforts to implement these processes?

  • Report without Appendices
  • Full Report, including Appendices
  • Appendix: Course Evaluation
  • Appendix: Teaching Excellence
  • Appendix: Student Course Surveys
  • Appendix: Course Development and Instructional Innovation
  • Appendix: Peer Review of Teaching
  • Appendix: Mid-semester and/or Periodic Semester Reviews
  • Appendix: Teaching Portfolios
  • Appendix: Professional Development Plans
  • Appendix: Lesson Study
  • Appendix: Statements of Teaching Philosophy
  • Appendix: Guidelines for Peer Review

  Task Force Members

  • Meena Balgopal
  • Stephanie Clements
  • Gwen Gorzelsky
  • Matt Hickey
  • Nancy E. Levinger
  • Michele Marquitz
  • Benjamin F. Miller
  • C.W. Miller
  • John Moore
  • Mike Palmquist
  • Erica Suchman
• Graduate Student and GTA Professional Development

  Overview

  The Graduate Student and GTA Professional Development Task Force was convened in Fall 2006 and completed its work in Spring 2007. The Task Force was charged with developing a comprehensive program to support the professional development of graduate students and graduate teaching assistants as teachers.

  Task Force activities were guided by the following key questions:

  1. What are the competencies we want to support and development in our graduate students?
  2. What are the ideal elements of a program for developing these competencies?
  3. What is being done now at CSU to support the professional development of graduate students? [report available in print]
  4. What is being done elsewhere to support the professional development of graduate students? [report available in print]
  5. What isn't being done (that should be)?
  6. How much would it cost to do activities that currently aren't being done?
  7. How can/should TILT support these activities?
  8. What would be the best way to form these activities into a coherent, integrated program?
  9. What are the desired outcomes of such a program?

  Task Force Recommendations

  Final Ranking of Professional Development Activities

  Related Materials

  Colorado Preparing Future Faculty Program Overview

  Task Force Members

  • Jack Avens
  • Sandy Chapman
  • David Gilkey
  • Shirley Guitron
  • Jodie Hanzlik
  • Sally Hibbitt
  • Mike Palmquist
  • Marc V. Richard
  • Frank Vattano
• GTA Training

  Overview:

  In Spring 2015 the CSU Graduate School asked The Institute for Learning and Teaching (TILT) to convene a task force to draft recommendations designed to support departments and colleges in developing discipline-specific Gradate Teaching Assistant (GTA) training programs. This request was made as part of a larger systematic effort to improve GTA training at CSU, an effort supported by the Committee on Teaching and Learning (CoTL), which brought concerns about GTA training to the Council of Deans and the Provost in 2014. A TILT task force met throughout the Spring 2015 semester and submitted its report to the Dean of the Graduate School, the Associate Provost for Instructional Innovation, and the outgoing and incoming Chairs of CoTL in June 2015.

  Questions the task force considered:

  1. What preparation should departments provide to prepare GTAs to teach effectively?
  2. What structures and approaches might be used to provide this preparation?
  3. How might this preparation build on the university GTA Training?
  4. Could further changes to the newly revised university GTA Training improve its fit with departmental GTA preparation programs?
  5. What existing departmental programs offer models of effective GTA preparation?
  6. What useful models exist outside CSU?
  7. What recommendations, guidelines, models, and/or other materials could best support departments in developing effective GTA training programs?
  8. What resources will departments need, and how should these resources be obtained?
  9. What assessment mechanisms should be built into GTA training programs?
  10. How can/should TILT support departments in developing such programs?

  Task Force Recommendations

  GTA Training Task Force Report

  Task Force Members

  • Trevor Aguirre
  • Ken Barbarick
  • Mark Brown
  • Stephanie Clemons
  • Tod Clapp
  • Deb Colbert
  • Jody Donovan
  • Tom Dunn
  • Don Estep
  • Gwen Gorzelsky
  • Troy Holland
  • Jennifer McLean
  • John Moore
  • Melissa Reynolds
  • Erica Suchman
  • Rachel Sutton-Brothers
  • Tammi Vacha-Haase
• Honor Code

  Overview:

  The Honor Code Task Force was convened in Spring 2013. The Task Force was charged with exploring the idea of moving to an honor code system for dealing with academic integrity at CSU. The HCQuestion at hand was "Shall CSU consider moving from a 'Conduct Code' to an 'Honor Code' model for promoting and adjudicating academic integrity?"

  Task Force activities were guided by the following key HCQuestions:

  1. What is the current system at CSU and what are the strengths and weaknesses of that system?
  2. What kinds of honor systems are used at other large, public universities and what are their strengths and weaknesses?
  3. What other approaches might be appropriate for CSU?
  4. What challenges are likely to face efforts to create some kind of an honor system at CSU?
  5. What would be a general outline for a modified honor code system at CSU?
  6. What opportunities are likely to present themselves if we move toward a changed system?
  7. What are the funding implications of moving to an Honor Code system?
  8. What are the next steps and who should be involved?

  Task Force Members

  • Shawn Archibeque, Animal Sciences
  • Laurie Craig, Engineering
  • Craig Chesson, Dean of Students/Conflict Resolution and Student Conduct Services
  • Sue Doe, English
  • Samantha Guinn, ASCSU
  • Doug Hoffman, Marketing
  • Megan Longo, Graduate Student Council
  • Carole Makela, School of Education
  • Janice Moore, Biology
  • Lois Samer, Mathematics
  • Elaine Green, Academic Integrity Program, Convener
• Second-Language Learners

  Overview:

  The Second-Language Learners (L2) Task Force was convened in Fall 2010. The Task Force was charged with exploring issues related to the learning and teaching of students whose first language is not English.

  Task Force activities were guided by the following key questions:

  1. Who are the students whose needs are addressed by this task force?
  2. What learning challenges face these students?
  3. What instructional challenges face instructors of these students?
  4. Ideally, what elements should be included in a comprehensive program designed to support the learning and teaching of students whose native language is not English?
  5. Which of these elements are currently available at CSU?
  6. Which of these elements are provided at comparable institutions?
  7. Which of these elements are not generally available at institutions of higher education, but ought to be?
  8. What are the most practical range of elements that CSU could support in a comprehensive effort to enhance the learning and teaching of these students?

  Task Force Recommendations

  Second-Language Learners Task Force

  Task Force Members

  • Nancy Berry
  • Sandy Chapman
  • Jenn Christ
  • John Durkin
  • Fabiola Ehlers-Zavala
  • Margaret Gough
  • Mark Hallett
  • Debra Mellecker
  • Mike Palmquist
  • Jennifer Noelin Serrao
  • Mary Kay Wedum
• Service and Community-Based Learning

  Overview:

  The Service and Community-Based Learning Task Force is charged with devising a comprehensive plan that identifies a clear pathway for students to participate in and progress through a range of community-based service and experiential learning opportunities designed to enhance their academic learning, deepen their civic skills, and/or extend their professional experience and preparation. These opportunities might range from one-time service activities to more academically-integrated learning communities, capstone projects, and/or field experiences.

  Task Force activities are guided by the following key questions:

  1. What are competencies and knowledge do we want students to develop during their college career through service and community-based learning experiences?
  2. What is currently being done at CSU (range of services and programs) to encourage and support service and community-based learning experiences for students?
  3. What is being done elsewhere to encourage and support service and community-based learning experiences for students?
  4. What isn't being done (that should be)?
  5. What should be included in a plan designed to develop and maximize students' academic, professional, and socially-responsive skills through service and community-based learning?
  6. What groundwork would need to be done to prepare for a successful implementation of the plan?
  7. What resources would be required to implement and ensure the long-term success of the plan?
  8. What role should TILT play in the plan?

  Task Force Recommendations

  Service and Community-Based Learning Task Force Final Report.

  Task Force Members

  • Jess Burge
  • Pattie Cowell
  • Clayton Hurd
  • Jen Johnson
  • Margarita Lenk
  • Pam Sampson
  • Lou Swanson
  • Paul Thayer
• Tutoring

  Overview:

  This task force explored options for providing tutoring services on campus. When the task force convened, there were a number of valuable tutoring opportunities available to students on campus, many of which were sponsored by colleges and departments. There were also a large number of tutoring services offered by individuals and groups who were not affiliated with the University. The task force considered how we might work to ensure the highest possible level of quality to students who seek tutoring from individuals not affiliated with a University college or department. This task force also considered and recommended actions that might be taken to enhance tutoring at CSU.

  Task Force activities were guided by the following key questions:

  1. Ideally, what would be included in a program designed to provide the best tutoring to students at the University?
  2. What services are currently supported at CSU?
  3. What services are currently offered (but not sanctioned) at CSU?
  4. What services are provided at comparable institutions?
  5. What services are not provided at CSU or elsewhere that should be provided to our students?
  6. What are the most practical range of elements that CSU could support in a comprehensive tutoring program?
  7. How much would it cost to support this program?
  8. What are the best options for implementing and funding the program?

  Task Force Recommendations

  Tutoring Task Force

  Task Force Members

  • Sandy Chapman
  • Carmen Gonzalez
  • Brian Jones
  • Jessica Klingsmith
  • Heather Landers
  • Lauren Long
  • Mike Palmquist
  • Kaleb Scarberry
  • Jennifer Serrao
  • Ty Smith
  • Michelle Turner
  • Toni-Lee Viney
  • Elizabeth Wilson
• Veterans-Student

  Overview:

  The Graduate Student and GTA Professional Development Task Force was convened in Fall 2009 and completed its work in Spring 2010. The Task Force was charged with developing a comprehensive program to support the learning and teaching of students who are military veterans. Operating under the assumptions that, as was the case with the veterans who returned from World War II and Vietnam, student returning from conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan often bring different goals to their classrooms than students who arrive directly from high school. The task force explored how TILT and the Office for Adult Learners and Veterans Services might develop programs to enhance the learning and teaching experiences of students who are veterans.

  The Task Force was guided by the following key questions:

  1. What are the ranges of learning and teaching challenges and opportunities associated with students who are military veterans?
  2. What are the ideal elements of a program for addressing these challenges and opportunities?
  3. What is being done now at CSU to support the learning and teaching of student veterans?
  4. What is being done elsewhere to support the learning and teaching of student veterans?
  5. What isn't being done (that should be)?
  6. What costs are associated with specific elements of programs that might be developed or extended to support student veterans?
  7. What activities should TILT and the Office for Adult Learners and Veterans Services support to enhance the learning and teaching of student veterans?
  8. Should TILT and the Office for Adult Learners and Veterans Services coordinate their efforts in this area with other university units? If so, which units?
  9. What would be the best way to form efforts to support the the learning and teaching of student veterans into a coherent, integrated initiative?

  Task Force Report

  Veteran-Students Final Report

  Task Force Members

  • Ann Ingala (co-chair)
  • Heather Landers (co-chair)
  • Donny Armstrong
  • Gabriel Bedingfield
  • Peter C. Bleich, Jr.
  • Sue Doe
  • William Doe
  • Neill Grigg
  • Troy Lepper
  • Jenny Pickett
  • Benjamin Schrader