Meeting, September 13, 2007
DRAFT
|
Members
Present: |
B. Allen,
E. Ametsbichler, C. Anderson, L. Barnes, R. Bendick-Kier, B. Brown, N. Bradley-Browning,
K. Canty, F. Cardozo-Palaez, J. Carter, B. CochranA. Delaney, B. Douma, L. Dybdal, J. Eglin, D.
Erikson, L. Frey, J. Gannon, J. Glendening, S. Greymorning, B. Halfpap, L.
Hayes, J. Herbold, K. James, S. Justman, B. Larson, C. Loisel, J. Lopach, J.
Luckowski, M. Mayor, S. McCann, D. McCrea, M. McHugh, S. Miller, M. Monsos,
C. Nichols, M. Papanek-Miller, M. Patterson, M. Pershouse, L. Putnam, B.
Reider, J. Renz, T. Seekins, P. Silverman, G. Smith, S. Stiff, D. Stolle, R.
Stubblefield, D. Swibold, H. Thompson, E. Uchimoto, K. Uhlenbruck K. Unger,
N. Vonessen, A. Ware |
|
Members
Excused |
T.
Atkins, L. EagleHeart-Thomas,
S. Gordon, J. Henry, L. Knott, M.
Kupilik, J. McNulty, N. Nickerson, D. Potts, D. Shively, R. Skelton, D.
Spencer |
|
Members
Absent |
J.
Crepeau, W. Holben |
|
Ex-Officio
Present: |
President
Dennison, Provost Engstrom, Associate Provost Walker-Andrews, Dean Fetz,
Associate Dean Tompkins, Registrar Micus |
|
Guests |
S. Samson |
Chair Hayes
called the meeting to order at 3:14 p.m.
He asked that senators move to the front and that they identify
themselves before speaking. ECOS is still looking for a member to serve on
ASCRC from social sciences and the Writing Committee from humanities.
Communications:
President Dennison
Enrollment is still being tracked and currently stands
at $2 million short of projections.
Usually there is a rush at the end so this is normal. Graduate students
and resident students are above projections.
The upper-division numbers are also significantly higher than
projected. This seems to indicate that
the retention efforts are having an affect. When the analysis is complete, it
is likely that the student carrying load will show an increase based on the
preliminary head count and FTE figures. This is a result of students taking
more credits. So it seems communicating
to students the cost savings of shortening the time-to-degree by taking a full
credit load has had an impact.
Provost Engstrom
The Provost
looks forward to a productive year working with the Faculty Senate. He has been on campus now for over 7 weeks
and hopes to talk with everyone in the near future. He is very supportive of faculty governance
and believes it is an important part of the university. He came from an Institution where the Senate
was fairly young. He worked hard to
strengthen and help establish the Senate in its rightful place in shared
governance.
There are several academic initiatives that he is interested in pursuing. He outlined them as follows. 1) Fundamental Student Success: The Early Alert System and the general
education program are examples of these. He is very interested in the
components, particularly early in students’ careers, that assure their success.
2) Academic Enrichment: Includes opportunities such as study abroad,
undergraduate research, and service learning. 3) Expansion of Graduate programs
and the 4) Research Mission of the University. These are some of the things he
hopes to working with the Senate this academic year.
Provost Engstrom asks that faculty put some mechanisms in place to give
beginning students feedback in the first three to four weeks of the semester as
outlined in the Early Alert memo.
Registrar Micus will soon be requesting information to be input into
Banner for the Early Alert system. He
hopes that faculty members teaching 100 and 200 level courses participate in
the program.
Chief Information Officer Ford
There are many
kickoff activities this fall including the visit of Doug VanHouweling,
the CIO of Internet II, a leading national research and education networking
organization. He will give a talk Monday, 9/17 at 7:30 pm and again Tuesday
9/18 at 3:00 p.m. followed by a question and answer session. Both talks relate to the future of the
internet. This was to be the culminating
event associated with the announcement of new networking capabilities for the university system. Unfortunately, the legislature didn’t fully
support the project and it has been delayed for at least six months. The bandwidth seems to be holding up this
year, so there isn’t a major problem.
Emily Yaksitch, Multicultural
This will be the second year of hosting
the Day of Dialogue. It will be Thursday
November 8th. The day encourages dialogue across campus in various
venues. It is a symposium style event.
The goal is to have discussions about diversity that enrich the campus. Handouts were provided to senators. Proposals
are due September 17th.
Please contact Ms. Yaksitch with your questions at 243-2005.
Please encourage your students to participate and consider presenting research
or activities that relate to diversity issues. There will be two featured speakers; one is
Dr. Francis Kendal. There will also be
an evening performance by Step Africa
from 7-9 pm. There are two events
leading up to the Day of Dialogue as well.
On Monday, October 29th Dana Hyatt from
Chair’s Report:
Chair Hayes
explained that ECOS developed several goals for the year and these were posted
for senators’ consideration.
The Joint Ethics Committee has been discussing ways to involve the campus in
considering a statement of ethics and will be conducting an online
questionnaire to collect faculty, staff and student comments regarding the
values that should be expressed in such a document. Donald McCabe, a founding member of the Center for Academic Integrity will be on
campus October 2-4. Contact Dane Scott if you are interested in a class visit.
Committee Reports:
ASCRC
ASCRC Chair Holly
Thompson went over the timeline for implementing changes to the general
education program. The revised model was
sent to all faculty on August 31st. It was the product of a workgroup that met
over the summer and amended the model according to the guidelines outlined by
the Senate in May. The model will be discussed today. There will be an open faculty meeting on
October 3rd and a vote in the Senate October 11th. Then subcommittees of the General Education
Committee will be formed to develop criteria and learning outcomes for the groups.
These will go through ASCRC and the Senate for vote next year. Then the General Education Committee will
work on a plan for implementation for fall 2009.
She summarized the changes made to the current model and opened the floor for
questions. Ethics and Human Values is
its own group. American and European and
Indigenous perspectives were added in place of western and non-western. Then
there are statements that outline the overlap of groups.
Senator Uchimoto: Why are the writing
and math requirements so asymmetric in terms of the number of the credits and
the course levels? Math is a truly
universal language that transcends different cultures and countries. As such, the UM students should be
required to take at least as much math as they are now.
H. Thompson - It is assumed that the current
catalog language pertaining to math will apply.
Senator
Greymorning: Will indigenous languages be able to satisfy the Modern and
Classical Language requirement.
H.
Thompson:-This will likely be the case.
The courses will need to be set up with that intention.
Senator Renz requested clarification with regard to the 0-10 or 3-6 credits in
Group III.
H. Thompson: The 0 credit reflects the possibility that students can test out
of the Modern and Classical Language requirement by demonstrating
proficiency. The 3 credit reflects the
possibility that one of the symbolic systems courses may also meet the math
requirement, Group II.
Senator
Vonessen: Making Modern and Classical Languages the default option and linking
Symbolic Systems to the major will create problems for students that change
majors. It is inherently unfair for
students and limits their choice.
H. Thompson: This issue is related to the fundamental problem with diverse
universities. The Board of Regents
mandate that students must be able to graduate in 120 credits. And there is pressure from accrediting
bodies, such that majors don’t have room for 10 credits of foreign
language. Group III is a compromise.
Senator Mayer:
It would be simpler to go back to the ad-on system with Western/non- western
the way it was before. He assumes that
there will not be any courses in Group 9 or 10 that don’t also satisfy one of
the other Groups 4-8. This model makes it looks like more courses are required.
H.
Thompson: This framework indicates that these groups are important to think
about. She did receive communications
from some faculty who would prefer the western/non-western terminology.
Senator Greymorning: Group IX: American
and European Perspectives and Group X Indigenous and Global Perspectives delineate the categories better than western/non-western.
Senator
Frey: The integrity of the framework
rests entirely on the criteria.
President
Dennison: The groups could probably be sliced thinner so that each group would
have absolutely no relationship to the others.
We should be getting students to think in terms of how knowledge is
related. What really differentiates Expressive Arts from Literary and Artistic
Studies? Historical and Cultural Studies
seems clearly related to American and European Perspectives. Social Science would certainly have something
to do with Indigenous and Global Perspectives.
As long as general education is considered separate from the major, students
are going to view the requirements as obstacles to get through rather than
considering the courses as part of an integrated whole. There should be an integral relationship to
the major. A better approach would be to
consider how the majors would bring different perspectives into their students
course work.
Senator
Frey: How will this work in practice?
President
Dennison: The interdisciplinary areas should be outlined and then the majors
would suggest how their courses fit the areas.
The General Education Committee would make the determination. The majors need to start looking at
this. The program is being sliced too
thin and there is no opportunity for truly interdisciplinary courses. Upper-division courses should be
counted. We need to think about how we
can put interdisciplinary courses together to enhance the major.
Provost
Engstrom summarized his concerns regarding the proposed general education
framework. 1) One of the core skills
that isn’t explicit in the proposal that is so important
in today’s world is information literacy.
How do we teach our students to get and validate information? This could
be addressed without a fundamental change to the framework. 2) The fundamental
foundation areas – composition, quantitative component, and information
literacy need to be taken early in the undergraduate curriculum. 3) Where do we give our students the
opportunity to think about the major issues that we are faced today as a global
society? A component is needed early in the program that gives all of our
students the exposure to understanding these big issues. 4) How does the general education program
relate to the students major? A general
education program needs to help students understand how the various components
are related and helps them choose the direction of their study.
We have the opportunity to be a leader by giving serious consideration to what
general education is supposed to accomplish.
Students and too many faculty view general education as a set of hurdles
that they have to get over that is outside the content of what they are really
here for- the major. General education
should be integral to the undergraduate experience. Students spend a ¼ to 1/3 of their program
taking general education courses. The
program deserves the same type of creativity and depth of thought that is given
to the major.
Senator
Carter: Views general education as an opportunity for her students to look at
the world from a different perspective.
She is concerned that if general education is tied to the major their
view of the world will be narrowed.
Provost
Engstrom: Students need to study a problem from different perspectives. They
will understand the problem in some detail in their major, but may decide to
take courses in other disciplines in order to address the problem. Take for
example global climate change. The
solution to the problem is going to involve scientists, political scientists,
economists, and communications specialists.
So a student might decide to take courses in these other areas.
H.
Thompson: Several faculty have expressed concern
regarding the logistical problems with teaching cross-disciplinary courses in
terms of assigning student credit hours. Theoretically you could have proposals
for cross-disciplinary courses with the proposed framework.
Provost Engstrom: There are likely some logistical hurdles that will need to be
addressed.
Senator
Greymorning: Course descriptions could specify how courses articulate with
other disciplines.
Provost Engstrom:
A certain degree of connection can be made back and forth among the disciplines
and this is something to look at. But,
it does not go far enough. We ought to be considering new courses, specifically
designed as general education courses, not courses that are developed within
the concept of a specific discipline.
H.
Thompson: Could this be a freshman course that exposes students to discipline
interfaces or capstone courses that help students synthesize their experience.
Provost
Engstrom: Ideally it would be both. There should be a range of introductory
courses that expose students to a series of big issues. Then, have a capstone course after the
student has some expertise to consider the issue. This would be the ideal
bookend approach.
Senator
Halfpap: There have been considerable
comments in favor of coherence. He
suggests that we also consider incoherence and serendipity. Many students think
they know what they want to do. Then
they are forced to take general education courses and often head in a different
direction. Too much focus on the major
would not allow for these discoveries.
H.
Thompson: Where do we go from here? Do
we continue to work from this framework and try to fold some of the Provost’s
recommendations into the framework and comeback with a slightly modified
version?
It was
clarified that all courses will have to be reviewed to assure compliance to the
new criteria and it seems that many of the issues could be resolved during that
phase of the process. The hard work will
take place when the groups are defined.
Many of the current courses will meet the new criteria but others may
need to be revised. New ideas can be brought in at this point as well.
President
Dennison: It seems there are two
separate processes involved in deciding the criteria and evaluating the
outcomes. How will we be able to
demonstrate that the goals for the courses are achieved? We need to show what
happens to a student as a result of taking the course and have a coherent
curriculum. He imagines that a current
student would not be able to articulate the connections between the components
of the general education program, other than have a little of this and have a
little of that. Do we even know what the
relationships are?
Senator
Mayer: One of the points of general education is for students to be exposed to
different disciplinary perspectives.
They learn the skill of different ways of examining problems and the
world. They can then compare these and
out of this comes some sort of coherence.
If we abandon exposing students to the various perspectives we will
loose the diversity of the general education program.
Senator
Frey: Part of the problem with the current general education is that majors are
too tightly tied to general education – a student can fulfill almost all of the
general education requirements within their major department. Tying general education to the students major
would restrict their exposure to different ways of looking at the world.
Senator Justman: Liberal Studies has
foundation courses that are included in the offerings for general
education. Students who take the courses
become Liberal Studies majors. There is
a natural articulation from general education into the majors.
Senator
Carter: Three credits of a discipline
just exposes students to the discipline it does not make them an expert. So a better way to look at problems from
cross-disciplines would be to bring students together from different
disciplines to work on a problem.
Senator
Anderson: Did ASCRC look at other Universities’ programs? For example many schools are utilizing
interdisciplinary course clusters.
H.
Thompson: The General Education
Committee looked at other models and forwarded three models with different
emphases to ASCRC for consideration.
ASCRC then worked to develop a model that would work for our diverse campus with the various constraints from accrediting
bodies and the Board of Regents The
model doesn‘t have some of the creative components that smaller private schools
have created.
Senator
Ware: The Senate should follow the timeline.
ASCRC could make minor changes within the framework. Then in the long term, a fundamentally
different general education program can be considered in the next review
rotation. This framework is a slight
evolution from the current system.
Senator
Luckowski: It is important to have a
general faculty meeting regarding the framework prior to the vote.
H. Thompson: Could ASCRC meet with the Provost to discuss ways his suggestions
could be folded into the framework that wouldn’t include a radical change. She requested some clarification on how
information literacy would be defined.
Senator
Ware: Information literacy varies across disciplines. It will be difficult to develop a course that
is appropriate across general education.
Provost Engstrom: He is not advocating an information literacy course. It can be accomplished very effectively
within the context of one or more of the groups in the framework. He appreciates the discipline specific
point. What he is trying to make
apparent is how an educated individual goes about making decisions about his or
her life that are based on reliable information. This needs to be done in a deliberate way.
Senator
Silverman: One way to do this would be to have a parallel general education
framework for departments; and each department, for example, would be required
to address an information systems requirement, or an interdisciplinary
exposure.
Professor
Greymorning: How would this impact the total number of credits imposed on the
majors. Any increase in credits could add a burden to departments.
Senator Silverman: If all the majors agreed that this was important they might
have to reconsider the courses required by the majors.
Senator Mayor: Most all departments have a methods course and an upper-division
writing course. Many of the Provost’s
suggestions could be folded into these courses without adding additional
credits.
Senator
Papanek-Miller: Information literacy and
technology go beyond general education.
It includes student services and other programs that support students.
Senator
McCrea: There are already a number of courses that integrate information
literacy into the curriculum. There is a component in some courses that bring
students into the library to learn about resources and incorporate critical
thinking about sources that are available.
Many faculty are probably informing students
about how to find information specific to their discipline.
Chair Hayes
informed the Senate that motions and amendments on the structure will be
appropriate for the October meeting.
He suggested information literacy could be included in the Preamble and each
department could respond to how it assures their students are learning about
information literacy within the structure of the major. Information literacy is
appropriately part of the mission of the university.
The Provost responded that there are a number of ways that information literacy
can be accomplished. He would like it to
be addressed in a deliberate and explicit way.
The Chair informed the Senate that ASCRC will consider the issues and how they
can be incorporated into the framework.
Any modifications will be sent to the faculty prior to the open faculty
meeting on October 3rd.
New Business:
New Academic Policy
The Worklife
and Spousal Employment Policy is available for review and discussion. It will be voted on at the next meeting in
accordance with the bylaws.
President
Dennison informed the Senate that the policy was drafted at the request of the
PACE Group. It is working to pull
together various procedures, practices and policies to make them
accessible. It isn’t anything new; it
includes current practice, and procedures that are in the collective bargaining
agreement.
Sabbatical/Leave Bylaw Amendment
The Sabbatical/leave Bylaw amendment
was available for consideration and will also be voted on in October in
accordance with the bylaws.
Senator Vonessen recommended the correction of a typo in the last sentence. It will be corrected for the next reading.
Good and Welfare:
The reception is
located upstairs.
The meeting
was adjourned at 4:43pm.