Click here or scroll down for these topics:

Present: Task Force Members: Michael Monahan (Macalester College), Patrick Quade (St. Olaf College), Roger Casey* (Rollins College), Anne Ledvina (Birmingham-Southern College) (arrived late due to flight delay), Sue Mennicke (Southwestern University), Patti Brown (Denison University),R. Blake Michael (Ohio Wesleyan University), Neal Sobania (Hope College), Elizabeth Hayford* (President, ACM), Cheryl Jacobsen (Interim Program Officer, ACM), Tanya Lee (Project Coordinator, ACM), Emily Roberts (Program Associate, ACM)

*members of the GPP Coordinating Committee

Not present: Peter Bankart (Wabash College), Shira Malkin (Rhodes College), George Saunders (Lawrence University), Heidi Rauscher Tilghman (Knox College)

Introductions

Cheryl Jacobsen welcomed the Task Force members to the ACM office and introduced new people. Emily Roberts is the new Program Associate for the Global Partners Project (alongside other ACM programs) as of August of this year, replacing Owen Stanwood. Tanya Lee has just been hired as Project Coordinator for Global Partners, taking over this aspect of Cheryl Jacobsen's position after she returns to Wartburg College in mid-December. There are two new members on the Task Force: Anne Ledvina (replacing Lee Gallo, Morehouse College) and Peter Bankart from Wabash College.

Ms. Jacobsen also brought up the need for a chair or leader of the Task Force, to serve as a primary contact for Ms. Lee and the Task Force members and asked someone to volunteer by the end of the meeting.

Conference Plans: Review and Update

Ms. Jacobsen then reviewed the decisions reached at last year's Best Practices Task Force meeting and provided an update on progress made since then.

The Best Practices Task Force last met on December 1, 1999 in Oak Park, Illinois. At that meeting, it was agreed to hold a Best Practices conference in the summer of 2001. The conference was subsequently named "Integrating Liberal Learning and Intercultural Education: Theoretical Frameworks and Best Practices" and the dates set for June 14-17, 2001. It will be held at Lake Forest College in Lake Forest, Illinois.

It was decided that each college would send a team of two or three faculty or international education administrators (ideally, a mix of both) to attend the conference. The teams would be nominated by their deans, and would submit a proposal detailing a project relevant to the concerns of their campus, but open to collaboration. "Challenge Grants" would be offered to selected projects after the conference.

A conference description, drafted via electronic communication among Task Force members in the spring, was sent out to the deans of the 41 Global Partners colleges on September 25. Deans were asked to select three-person teams to participate in the conference and to submit them to the ACM office by December 4. As of November 28, only three colleges had submitted teams (Coe, Monmouth and Kalamazoo). The deadline will be extended to late January and reminders will be sent out to the deans.

Milton Bennett, of the Intercultural Communications Institute in Portland, Oregon, has agreed to be the keynote speaker. This was announced to the deans in November. Mr. Bennett was easily persuaded, attracted by the conference's emphasis on liberal learning, and will do a formal presentation followed by a workshop on Friday morning (June 15).

Conceptual Discussion: Key Concerns for the Conference

Conversations on the philosophical foundations and conceptual framework of the conference continued throughout the meeting. As Roger Casey pointed out, if the Task Force is able to formulate good, stimulating questions, "the rest will follow." The following is a synopsis of some of the key concerns frequently mentioned and/or generally agreed to.

Michael Monahan initiated the first such discussion with his concern that the emphasis on liberal learning not be lost or subordinated, since it is what sets this conference apart from all other international education best practices conferences. This was readily agreed to by all and frequently reiterated.

Members also returned repeatedly to the concept of integration. The type of integration explicit in the title of the conference – that of liberal learning with intercultural/international education – was approached from many angles, generating the list of workshop topics (see below).

A second site for integration in the conference is between "doing" and "thinking" – that is, urging good practitioners to (re)think their work in terms of the philosophy of liberal learning, while motivating the more philosophically inclined to consider practical outcomes.

Lastly, as with all Global Partners programs, an over-arching goal of the conference is to integrate the efforts of all forty-one consortial colleges. Teams therefore need to be continually encouraged to make contacts with teams from other conferences. The campus-oriented goals of each team and the broader goals of the consortia will necessarily be distinct, but must overlap for the conference to be a success.

Models for the conference were also discussed at length. Mr. Casey crystalized the issue, asking whether it ought to be "Show and Tell" (presentation of successful practices for the benefit of other campuses) or "Sow and Grow" (people with common concerns grappling with tough questions together). Ms. Jacobsen felt it needed to be a combination of the two, with presenters offering for discussion provocative, rather than definitive models. These models, however effective, need to be taken to "the next step," Mr. Monahan and others argued.

Finally, a more pragmatic but equally recurrent and pressing concern was that of communication, dissemination, and getting the campuses excited to participate in the conference.

Foregrounding the Liberal Learning Philosophy: Thursday Evening

The Task Force agreed that the philosophical underpinnings of liberal arts education should be explicitly addressed Thursday evening to set the tone for the weekend. Three ways to do this were discussed:

1) The Task Force enthusiastically accepted Mr. Casey's suggestion that open-ended discussions on this theme be held at dinner Thursday evening, using a model of "open-space conferencing." Participants would be assigned to tables, to maximize diversity, and each table would have a facilitator or convener, while Mr. Casey could facilitate for the room. This activity would serve several purposes: to introduce people to each other, to focus conversation and set the tone for the conference, and to allow participants to take ownership of the conference before Mr. Bennett's keynote speech on Friday. Outcomes discussed for this activity included: statements composed by each table and copied to everyone; a poster session; hand-written transparencies; discussions in team groupings after dinner; or an after-dinner mingle in which to continue these conversations. Participants would be notified of this activity before arrival.

2) Inviting a speaker well versed in the origins of the liberal learning philosophy was also heavily discussed, though a decision was not reached. Such a speaker could focus and compliment discussion, either as a "kick-off" for the evening or as a capstone. Some felt, however, that such a speaker would inhibit discussion, putting participants into a reactive mode if the formal presentation is done first, or causing a stop or change in the conversation if s/he is last. Several names were suggested as possibilities, and it was agreed that it is preferable and feasible to find a speaker from within the three consortia. Mr. Monahan favored someone with a background in intellectual history. Mr. Quade suggested finding someone who could take ideas from all the tables, synthesize them with his/her own and present them twenty-four hours later.

3) Many people favored sending out a one- to two-page, pithy article on the philosophy of liberal learning and international education in advance with the conference packet, perhaps also accompanied by a packet of readings or bibliography. This could be supplementary to or instead of a speaker. Task Force members were asked for suggestions for an appropriate piece.

Conference Schedule

Workshops will be arranged around three broad themes (see A, B and C, below), each given one time slot (Friday 1:30, Saturday 9:00 and Saturday 1:30). During each of these one-and-a-half-hour slots, five simultaneous workshops on specific aspects, or topics, of the theme will be given.

The Task Force agreed on the following themes and topics:

A. Integrating Intercultural Learning

B. Developing Intercultural Learners and Teachers

C. Liberal Learning Models and Methods

The structure of each workshop will be as follows:

Following each workshop, an hour and a half will be set aside for team meetings and/or open-ended discussion groups in rooms with designated discussion themes.

Sunday morning will be set aside for integrative commentary by the Task Force members and a plenary discussion of the Challenge Grants.

Presenters for Workshops

While some felt that presenters should be entirely separate from team participants, most members agreed that they should ideally come from within 100 team participants, but in reality would be a mixture of both. There was a strong consensus that presenters would emerge from within the three consortia. The Task Force was somewhat reluctant to discuss specific presenters this early in the process, but Ms. Jacobsen pointed out that potential presenters who have already been approached or volunteered themselves need to hear back soon. She went over the tentative list of potential presenters that has been assembled so far.

A letter will be sent out to potential presenters asking them to identify which category from our new list of themes and topics is most appropriate for them and what they can offer to the conference. The Task Force is urged to seek out potential presenters. If a presenter is selected through the Task Force's initiative, s/he should also work with the team from his/her campus; the dean should be asked to put them in contact. It was also suggested that an appeal be issued to former ACM, ACS, GLCA off-campus study directors as possible presenters.

Post-Conference Grants

The meeting concluded with a discussion of the post-conference grants, previously referred to as "Challenge Grants." Ms. Hayford remarked, however, that she dislikes the term because it is misleading, suggesting large, NEH-like matching grants. Ms. Jacobsen has subsequently suggested "Partners Projects."

Although the amounts of the grant awards have not yet been decided, it has been assumed that there would be three to six grants of $6,000 to $8,000 each, to cover working expenses, with the possibility of a stipend for the team leader as well, Ms. Hayford explained. Mr. Monahan suggested considering larger sums – perhaps six small grants and four large grants – since grant money has been plentiful lately and people may not be motivated to apply for smaller awards. Ms. Hayford said she would have to look at the budget.

The grants are seen as a motivation for teams to reassemble on campus after conference. Although the criteria for awarding them are still to be worked out, several principles were agreed upon. The grants will not be limited to conference participants, but the conference will serve to stimulate thinking and preparation. Programs and projects that already exist will be eligible for funding, provided that the team proposes to take their project to "the next level." The funded projects should include potential for the project to influence best practices across the forty-one campuses and should result in the free dissemination of a tangible product (which would be the intellectual property of the Mellon Foundation).

Proposals should be submitted before the end of summer (date still to be set), with the project to be completed within one year of the conference. A portion of the award money will be withheld until project is completed and the product is submitted to Global Partners.

While Task Force members agreed that there was no need to keep the existence of grant money a secret, there was a consensus that it should not be foregrounded in the information disseminated before the conference and that the grants should not be introduced in detail until Saturday, June 16, at the earliest, allowing participant teams to focus on the issues at hand, rather than strategies for earning grant money.

The Task Force briefly discussed the potential for further follow-up after these grants are completed. Ms. Hayford pointed out that there is no mechanism for this, but that it is something for the Coordinating Committee to consider.

The Next Steps

The ACM office will send out reminders to deans in December and January, expecting most team submissions to be in by Jan 30. At Patti Brown's suggestion, it was agreed to send out as soon as possible a one-page memo from the Task Force directly to the liaison officers at the forty-one campuses, copied to the deans. This memo is to state that:

Once the teams are named, a second deadline will be issued, by which time each team must submit a one- to two-page, focused description of its project. This will be distributed to presenters to help them focus their presentations.

Finally, a pre-conference packet will be sent to participants and presenters in the spring, including:

There are several discussions still to be had among the Task Force members. These include: selecting presenters for all fifteen workshops; possibly selecting a speaker to invite to Thursday night's event; identifying broad themes for discussions concurrent with team meetings; assigning facilitators for each workshop as well as Thursday night's activity; determining the criteria for the post-conference grants and the process for awarding them; and choosing methods for assessment. Ms. Hayford suggested that teams could build assessment criteria and/or baseline data into their projects.

The possibility of holding another Task Force meeting in the spring was discussed and a decision will be reached by March. Meanwhile, most matters can be addressed over e-mail. The Task Force did decide to meet on the morning of Thursday, June 14, before the conference begins for last-minute organization, and will also stay for an additional three hours on Sunday after the conclusion of the conference to discuss the grants.

Leadership of Task Force was left open. Ms. Lee and Ms. Roberts will contact Task Force members as appropriate.

Submitted by Tanya Lee, 1/3/01