This is what I noticed about day two:

On day two of the institute, we started with a review of the findings by the transcript-reading institute conducted earlier this summer. That institute used the Six Expectations of an Evergreen Graduate as the foundation to develop a coding rubric for the assessment of transcripts from the class of 2008 for evidence of over all pedagogical success. That institute used the Six Expectations as a foundation to ensure a faculty-centric research grounding for analysis and assessment.

After the review, we broke into small groups and read a couple of sample transcripts. This exercise served as a spring board to larger discussions of pedagogical methods, and inevitably, teaching philosophies as well.

Some of the questions that came up in discussion of the assessment tool and findings:

Where do advanced studies appear in the curriculum? Does advanced work always mean tightly disciplined work? Does it ever mean that?

The sciences have pre-ordained tracks for progressive learning, leading to advanced work. How is advanced work in the humanities structured in the curriculum? Is advanced work in the humanities properly supported by the deans?

If there is a poverty of structured advanced work in the humanities, have humanities programs slipped into a role of providing “gen ed” opportunities in complement to the more structured tracks and repeating programs in the curriculum?

Other conversations centered around questions of how students could become better informed and more mindful of the Six Expectations and Five Foci throughout their career track and learning choices at the college.

Some specific suggestions about this:

Faculty might introduce and discuss these with students in Week One each year.

Students could get more and better advising from faculty members and from Advising.

Seniors could be encouraged and helped to write summative evaluations.

Juniors and seniors could be encouraged to design and complete “capstone” projects.