Graduate Council Annual Report, 2005-2006

Graduate Council Membership

TermEnd	Member	Department	Contact info

2006	*Neil Moisey (Chair)	Forestry	moisey@cfc.umt.edu
2008	Louis Hayes	Political Science	louis.hayes@umontana.edu
2007	*Nancy Hinman	Geology	nancy.hinman@umontana.edu
2006	Teresa Beed	Accounting & Finance	teresa.beed@business.umt.edu
2007	*Tully Thibeau	Linguistics Program	tully.thibeau@umontana.edu
2006	*Mark Kayll	Math	kayll@mso.umt.edu
2007	Michael McClintock	English	michael.mclintock@umontana.edu
2007	Albert Borgmann	Philosophy	albert.borgmann@umontana.edu
2008	*Michael DeGrandpre	Chemistry	michael.degrandpre@umontana.edu
2008	*Christine Fiore	Psychology	christine.fiore@umontana.edu
2008	Neva Hassanein	EVST	neva.hassanein@umontana.edu

2008	*David Erickson	Curriculum & Instruction	david.erickson@mso.umt.edu
	Ex-Officio Member
	David Strobel	Dean Graduate School	dstrobel@mso.umt.edu
	Arlene Walker-Andrews Associate Provost Graduate Students:		arlenewalkerandrews@mso.umt.edu
	Philip Sharp	Communication Studies	Phil.sharp@gmail.com

	* IIP Oversight Committee Members

Subcommittees

Humanities
Michael McClintock
Albert Borgmann
Tully Thibeau

Sciences
Michael DeGrandpre
Mark Kayll
Nancy Hinman

Schools
Teresa Beed
Neil Moisey
David Erickson

Social Sciences
Christine Fiore
Louis Hayes
Neva Hassanein

2005-2006 Items

Curriculum Items -128 total
Level II
New MS in Information Systems -Interdisciplinary Program (Computer Science & Information Systems and Technology)

Level I
Department name change from Geology to Geoscience

Change title of PHD from Pharmacology/Pharmaceutical Sciences to Biomedical Sciences

Bertha Morton Selection Procedure and review (addendum 1)
An ad hoc committee of two members, professors Kayll and Borgmann proposed revisions to the Bertha Morton Selection Procedures that were piloted this year. These involved additional consideration of candidates whose scores were on the cusp of making the award cutoff. Each proposal received two scores, one from the specialists (Council members within the students discipline area) and one from the generalists (members from discipline areas other than the students). Proposals were the two groups disagreed in terms of inclusion on the award list were evaluated a second time, discussed, and members were given the opportunity to change their scores. The revised scores were then sorted with the agreement list to determine the awards. A total of 57 proposals were reviewed for twenty-eight awards.

Research Proposals reviewed

A total of 53 proposals were reviewed by Council members to determine 10 awards.

Criteria for Research Awards (addendum 2)
After the review it became apparent that guidelines would be beneficial for both the students and the Council members. An ad hoc committee chaired by Professor Fiore developed criteria

The Center for Teaching Excellence Graduate Teaching Awards
Two Council members, professors McCormick and Borgmann served on the review committee. A total of 11 nominations were reviewed for one award.

Program Review:
The Social Science Subcommittee reviewed the internal and external reports for Geography and drafted a statement from the Council. It was discussed revised, and approved on 2/14/06. The Schools Subcommittee conducted a review of the materials for Curriculum and Instruction and Educational Leadership and Counseling. The Curriculum and Instruction report was approved on 2/22/06; however the Educational Leadership and Counseling report was tabled. The subcommittee had difficulty obtaining the necessary information to conduct the review and had several questions that needed to be addressed.

Individualized Interdisciplinary Program (IIP) report from Dean Strobel
ECOS expressed concerns regarding the oversight of the program to the Provost and she suggested Dean Strobel provide a report to Graduate Council of each step in the Process. The IIP oversight committee had concerns as well. The IIP committee chair, Professor Kyle drafted a list of discussion items. Dean Strobel responded to the discussion items with a report on 11/2/05 and there was follow-up discussion on 12/14/05 at which time it was agreed that an ad hoc committee would work collaboratively with Dean Strobel on recommended changes.

IIP Recommendations for improvement (addendum 3)
An ad hoc committee (Professor Kyle, Moisey, and Hinman) discussed and drafted a recommendations document. It met with Dean Strobel and presented the recommendations to the full Council. ECOS suggested a few editorial changes for clarity and the recommendations were approved the 5/4/06 Faculty Senate meeting.

Graduate increment recommendations (pending)
An ad hoc committee chaired by Professor Hinman met to discuss the issue. The Council will consider the recommendations next academic year.

__________________________________________________________

(addendum 1)

Bertha Morton Scholarship and Fellowship

2005 Graduate Council Procedures

The Graduate Council recommended using the revised Bertha Morton scoring procedures at the December 7, 2005 council meeting. These scoring procedures were applied to the 2005/06 applicants. There were 52 Bertha Morton nominations. There were 28 nominations on the agreement list between the generalists and the specialists. Nine nominations were on the disagreement list.

Procedural changes for following years:

Final ratings of the applications will be completed (entered into Blackboard) by the Friday prior to the Graduate Council meeting to award Fellowship/Scholarships. Scores for the generalists and specialists will then be calculated to derive the agreement and disagreement lists. These lists will then be circulated to Graduate Council members by Friday afternoon to allow for discussion in the following Graduate Council meeting.
Bertha Morton applications need to be available on Blackboard through the entire selection process (until awards have been selected).

Other possible changes to the process:

Selection Criteria – there was some discussion on expanding the selection criteria (social worth, etc.)
Limit of one Fellowship/Scholarship per student. Discussion here focused on many students becoming successful “tenured graduate students.”
Reallocation or expansion of current nominations. There are currently 72 possible nominations with 20 currently not be submitted. In addition, there does not seem to be an even distribution by graduate program (Please see following table).

________________________________

(addendum 2)

Research Award criteria

1. Double-spaced prospectus describing the proposed research project totaling no more than 1000 words including the following:

o Title of study

o Purpose: hypothesis, thesis, and/or research question(s)

o Significance: why is the project worth doing and what contribution will it make

o Methodology to be used

o Feasibility: can project be completed with available resources or is additional subsidy needed

o Name of the Chair of your master’s or doctor’s dissertation/thesis committee

o Projected date of study (research needs to be conducted during Fall 2006, Spring 2007, and/or Summer 2007)

2. One-page itemized budget and a narrative that includes:

o A list of any funding you have or may have available specifically for this research project

o Information about level of progress on your project, such as if it has been approved by your committee at this point in time

o Signature of your supervising faculty member in support of your study/funding and verifying the information provided in the first two bullets in this section

3. One-page letter of support from your dissertation/thesis Chair or another faculty member associated with your study that is able to attest to the quality of your study.

[Any materials received in excess of the page limits given will not be reviewed].

The Graduate Council will review applications and announce the awardees early in December. Applications will be evaluated on the basis of adherence to the guidelines, quality of study, and with consideration given to budget needs.

Graduate Council will rank each application based upon the following 5-pt rubric:

5 – excellent: purpose, significance, methodology, and feasibility clearly articulated.
4 – good: quality and clarity of proposal somewhat less rigorous
3 – adequate: satisfactory articulation of project but qualitatively inferior
2 – inadequate: deficient in one or more of the above stated criteria
1 – unacceptable – lacking documentation and/or articulation of the above

_____________
(addendum 3)

Proposed IIP Procedure Changes

The following procedural changes to the IIP program will be reviewed by the IIP Oversight Committee on an annual basis. The Proposed changes recommend a separate Admissions Committee to oversee the admissions process. The current Oversight Committee will focus primarily on oversight of the IIP program.

A. Application

1. New pre-application procedures

a) Pre-committee status: faculty do not officially become members of the student’s program committee until the student is admitted;

b) New pre-application checklist is signed by proposed major advisor;

c) Preview of credentials: student must present to all proposed committee members their GRE scores, transcripts, and letters of recommendation before faculty agree to serve. Credentials are needed by the pre-committee to help guide the student in the articulation of objectives and curriculum design and includes assessing transfer credits and residency requirements.

2. Supporting letters from pre-committee members.

These do not merely offer a signature but a statement about the value and rigor of the student’s proposal and willingness to participate in the collaborative effort.

3. Increased power of Oversight Committee

Anybody on an IIP program committee who objects to a voting outcome within the committee may appeal to the Oversight Committee. The Oversight Committee has the right to recommend that the Graduate School Dean intervene to remedy the conflict.

4. Strengthened rule on rejection from traditional doctoral programs.

This rule should be interpreted (or revised) to mean that students either rejected or ejected from an existing UM doctoral program will not be admitted into the IIP degree program. Students wishing to transfer from an existing UM doctoral program will be considered on an individual basis, taking into account the spirit of this rule.

5. Explicit IIP program committee chair responsibilities.

a) Faculty willing to chair IIP committees must be proactive in keeping the collaborative function of the committee together;

b) They should serve as a student advocate and must be available for the student;

c) They must clearly understand the IIP process as articulated in the IIP Faculty and Student Prospectus.

6. Formal IIP application checklist

a) Delete language about semi-annual reporting, etc. on the application – this will be on a separate form;

b) Incomplete applications (according to the checklist) will be screened by the Graduate School before faculty review and returned to the applicant.

B. Admission

1.New IIP Admission Committee

Form an IIP Admission Committee separate from the IIP Oversight Committee; the new committee must include the IIP Oversight Committee chair. The charge will be to take over the review/admission phase in the IIP application process from the present IIP Oversight Committee. This will free the Oversight Committee from admission duties to better focus on oversight of the program.

The IIP Admission Committee will be composed of five faculty members from any Schools or Colleges that offer graduate programs. At least three of the five must be from different doctoral-granting programs. The composition will be based on ECOS recommendation and appointed by the President for staggered three-year terms.

2. Application cover sheet

As in other graduate programs, the Application Cover Sheet will be signed by the Admission Committee Chair after the committee has taken action on the application.

3. Enforced interaction between Admission Committee and proposed chair.

During the review of an application, the chair of a student’s proposed IIP program committee will meet with the IIP Admission Committee to discuss details of the student’s research problem(s) and academic plan.

C. Student’s Program

1. Update IIP Prospectus regarding on-line and transfer credits.

The IIP Prospectus will clearly articulate the responsibility of a student’s pre-committee in evaluating on-line and transfer credits. An evaluation of the appropriateness of such on-line and transfer credits in the student’s individualized program must be provided by the pre-committee. Particular emphasis should be placed on whether the number of credits exceeds a reasonable standard for validating that the degree is from The University of Montana. The Admissions and/or Oversight Committee may challenge the evaluation and request a justification from the student’s pre-committee.

2. Update IIP Prospectus regarding comprehensive requirement.

We recommend shoring up this requirement by strengthening the Prospectus language regarding the comprehensive exam. One program requirement (mentioned on p.3 of the 2003 self-study report) is a comprehensive requirement after course work and before admission to candidacy. Since “the content and format ... is negotiated between the student and the faculty committee” [current Prospectus], this has led more than one applicant to downplay the importance of this milestone, even to the point of omitting it.

The goal of the comprehensive requirement is to assess whether the student is prepared to undertake doctoral research. It provides a unique opportunity to assimilate material spread over the degree program and to synthesize it into a coherent mental package. Applicants should understand this at the outset and not seek ways to bypass a comprehensive exam. The comprehensive requirement is the charge and responsibility of the doctoral committee and should be completed at the end of the students’ coursework.

3. Introduce required seminars for IIP students that may not be taken in the same semester:

a) IIP Seminar (2 credits)—Topical subjects selected by IIP students and faculty (to help build an IIP student cohort);

b) Campus Seminar (2 credits)—Offered by any graduate program on the UM--Missoula campus;

c) The two seminars insure a minimum of 4 residency credits to be completed over two semesters.

D. Reporting

1. Annual review by the Oversight Committee.

a) IIP student progress will be reviewed annually in February;

b) Students will complete an on-line “Progress Report” that will indicate progress in their program as well as professional activities;

c) The Graduate School will provide the IIP Oversight Committee with copies of the students' brag sheets and a summary table of student progress, annually in March.

d) The Oversight Committee will then provide feedback on student progress to IIP doctoral committees.

2. Scheduling defenses

At least one month prior, IIP students are responsible for notifying the Graduate Council, the IIP Oversight Committee, and the Graduate School of their dissertation defense (time and place). At this time, a copy of the dissertation manuscript must be made available tothe Oversight Committee.

E. Oversight Committee

The Oversight Committee is composed of Graduate Council doctoral program faculty. The committee's charge is to provide oversight of the IIP Program.

The duties will include: following up on provisional status; annual review of student progress and reporting procedures; appointing at least one Oversight Committee member to attend each IIP student dissertation defense; and addressing appeals from IIP program committee members (per A.3 above). Moreover, this committee will serve in the role of traditional departmental graduate committees, where this is appropriate within the IIP program. For example, per D.1.d above, the Oversight Committee communicates with the students' program committees regarding student progress, change in status, and degree milestones. The Oversight Committee may send recommendations to a program committee (e.g. if a student should be put on probation).

(addendum 2) Research Award criteria

_____________ (addendum 3)