Developmental Faculty Meeting

Developmental Faculty Meeting

October 10, 2007

Minutes.

Present: Dawn Gondoli, Nicole McNeil, Darcia Narvaez, Julie Turner, Cindy Bergeman, Tom Whitman, Dan Lapsley, Trish Mitchell, Chrystyna Kouros, Kristin Warzon, Mignon Montpetit

Dr. Turner gaveled the meeting to order at 11:30.

Announcements

Dr. Turner noted that the “Welcome Packet” is posted to the “Developmental Program” page of the DSG newsletter website (“Dan’s website”).

FYI, here’s the URL: http://www.nd.edu/~dlapsle1/DSG

Dr. Turner noted several items that are before the Planning Committee

·  It is investigating the use of space in the department by program, rank, gender in order to compare it to average estimates of 1000 sq. feet reported by COGDOP.

·  It has referred to the Undergraduate Education Committee an observation by Dean Roche that the placement of our students in graduate work is not in the best universities. The UEC is tasked with understanding why this is the case and what can we do about it.

·  It will take up long term goals and vision and priorities for the short term at its meeting in November.

Prelim Grading Policy

We took up this question: “Does the developmental document imply or say that one can fail a required question so long as the overall average score is at least 3.5?” This is not addressed explicitly in our written document, although the ‘oral tradition” is that students cannot fail a required question. The graduate guidelines speak only in general terms about prelim grading and leave it up to programs to decide how to weight the scores.

After discussion it was moved by Dr. Bergeman, and seconded by Dr. Gondoli:

1.  That students must get an overall score of 3.5 to pass the written preliminary exam;

2.  that only one question can be scored below the minimum passing score of 3.5;

3.  and that one may not fail a required question

The motion passed with no objections but one abstention.

Dr. McNeil inquired as to whether there is a process by which faculty readers determine which questions should appear on the prelim exam. For example, what type of question is one that should be “required?” Historically, the general practice is to ask a “big” theory-and-issues question on one day; and a big “design-and-methodology” question on the second day (or vice versa), in addition to optional questions each day.

It was noted that our re-design of the reading list could help readers concretize the “oral tradition” in how questions are selected.

Reading List Update

We compared the “Developmental Reading List Fall 1999” against a list of readings suggested by Dr. McNeil and Dr. Bergeman’s reading list for the class “Concepts and Methods in Human Development.”

Dr. Bergeman suggested that insofar as “theories” and “methods” are required areas in the prelim that perhaps the reading list should also be broken out accordingly. After discussion we agreed to “start from scratch” in our revision of the prelim reading list. The first task is to sort out the structure of the document. There was ready agreement that:

·  one section should include “developmental meta-theory and issues” readings;

·  a second section should include “developmental design, measurement and methodology” readings;

·  a third section should include foundational readings in various sub-areas.

The “developmental meta-theory and issues” readings might cover, e.g.,

·  developmental paradigm issues, developmental contextualism, lifespan perspectives

·  critical periods, age as a variable, plasticity, nature-nurture, stage-environment fit

·  nature of change (stability-change, continuity-discontinuity, quantitative-qualitative)

·  stage models

·  history of developmental psychology

….etc

The “developmental design, measurement and methodology” readings might cover, e.g.,

·  cross-sectional, longitudinal, sequential designs

·  microgenetic method

·  analysis of longitudinal data

·  dynamic designs

·  qualitative method

·  measurement issues

….etc

There was more discussion about what are the various sub-areas and the topics that the sub-areas should subsume. Should they align with our “core courses?” Should they align with our understanding of topics or processes? With textbook chapters? Consensus did seem to emerge around a few key points

·  Perhaps the sub-area listings might only be a heuristic to guide faculty in the selection of readings, but that these headings need not be included on the actual reading list (the readings could simply be listed in alphabetical order).

·  Actual prelim questions would surely call for integration across the sub-headings.

·  Certain themes would be found within each heading. For example, lifespan issues, or biological and contextual factors, would appear under each sub-heading.

At meetings end the nominated list of sub-areas came down to these (with examples of specific topics):

1.  Cognitive Development (Piagetian and neo-Piagetian theories, information-processing, connectionist models, intelligence, memory, learning, perception, language, motivation, etc)

2.  Developmental Psychopathology (risk, resilience, protection, developmental disability, psychosocial interventions, social policy, etc)

3.  Social-Emotional (attachment, temperament, self-regulation, emotional development, personality development, etc)

4.  Contextual (family, neighborhood, school, work, culture, media, leisure, etc)

5.  Social Cognitive Development (theory of mind, perspective-taking, person perception, interpersonal understanding, moral development)

Homework

·  Dr. Turner will communicate with Julie Braungart-Rieker and Mark Cummings about how best to differentiate the developmental psychopathology and social-emotional areas.

·  Dr. Bergeman will identify readings from her course syllabus that would be appropriate for the “Developmental Meta-Theories and Issues” and “Developmental Design, Measurement and Methodology” sections of the reading list.

·  Everyone is tasked with

o  contributing readings to each section, or for the section(s) one is taking a special responsibility for;

o  or nominating other ways to constitute the sub-areas;

o  suggesting other topics that might fall within the sub-areas

Please send (digital) lists of readings for each section (or for the sections one is taking a special responsibility for) to Dan, who will compile these into a working document.

Tentatively, our next meeting is schedule for Friday November 9.

Respectfully submitted,

Dan Lapsley