>
> |
-
- Carl Weiman's CWSEI initiative (~13)
- grad student PGS and UGF procedures and feedback (~10)
- postdoc issues (~8)
- search for new ICICS director (*~4)
- e-games in the curriculum (~3)
- strategy for relationships with Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, Intel, ... (~2)
- our response to sustainability (~2)
- Open Media Environment (~1)
- Discussion: CWSEI
- Son led off by identifying this as a good opportunity and later encouraged us to "go for it". Tamara countered why do this? (We are too busy already, we have bigger problems facing us, and this will push us too far.)
- This was tempered by concerns about being first (Holger), who will do it (Nando), who will lead it (Joanna), whether we understand the rules and constraints (Raymond), how well we fit the vision that Weiman has (Gregor), whether that vision is believable or naive (Kevin L-B), and whether we have things we want to do that this will fund (Jim L).
- Michiel raised the question "what do we want to accomplish" and expressed the hope that this would be more than just bigger and better 1st year courses, but rather engaging students to approach learning differently.
- Early on Alla called for straw vote of interest: 4 were enthusiastic, 4 were opposed, and everyone else was undecided.
- David P said "there must be a better way to teach!" but wondered if this was the way to find it.
- Mark asked what the instructors think. Paul responded that we need to look at a number of things in our curriculum and this may be a good way to get some help. Later, Donald noted that not everyone in the department needs to be an active player, but we do all have to support an initiative if we launch one, and Mark said we seem not to be too enthusiastic.
- Bill took a double shot to note that all the instructors he has spoken to are positive. He then summarized his conversations with Weiman, and said that preparing a proposal would not be difficult and he felt there was a large design space, that the goal is not restricted to just what happens lectures but rather more about changing how students think about science and how they think about learning about science. In response to a question, he said that what we want to change is how students spend their time outside lecture, when they should be putting in intensive effort understanding concepts. He closed with the advice that we should understand what we want to accomplish before submitting a proposal.
- In three installments Kelly suggested there are advantages to applying in the first round, realistically much of the effort would be done by instructors and a few senior faculty (usually not pre-tenure faculty who have other priorities), and that there are risks involved so we ought to think about what those are. Norm emphasized that although this is a five-year program, he thinks it likely that all of the funds will be committed within six months.
- Discussion: NSERC PGS and UBC UGF applications (process and feedback)
- Alla led off the discussion saying she feels we have a poorly understood process, with little or no feedback to guide faculty or grad students in deciding whether they should apply or how to make their applications successful. She contrasted this with the situation for grant applications, where we seem to have better mechanisms for mentoring those who are applying for the first time and a better understanding of what success rates are. This was echoed by a number of other people(Kelly, Holger, Joanna).
- David P said students do get feedback about how far their application gets in the process. It was noted that this would be useful to provide to faculty as well.
- Apparently the process for NSERC PDF applications has changed. These now go straight to NSERC and are not evaluated by UBC.
- Discussion ensued about how well our departmental rankings correlated with UBC rankings and subsequent success rates at the NSERC level. The belief is that UBC rankings are consistent with NSERC awards, but our rankings may not be in line with how UBC subsequently ranks applications, but we do not know and perhaps should investigate this.
|
Copyright © 2008-2025 by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.