Graduate Council – Year-end Report 2003
– 2004
Nigel D. Priestley, Chair
1.
Introduction
The Graduate
Council, being a sub-committee of the Faculty Senate, has a charge of
promoting, reviewing and evaluating programs and issues related to graduate
education at The University of Montana.
The committee held twenty one full meetings in the 2003 – 2004 academic session. In addition,
numerous sub-committee meetings were held.
2.
Membership
The membership
of the committee for the 2003 – 2004 academic year was
as follows:
|
Name |
|
Department |
Term ends in year |
|
Teresa Beed |
|
Accounting & Finance |
2004 |
|
Gene Burns |
|
HHP |
2005 |
|
Kevin Canty |
|
English |
2004 |
|
|
|
Geology |
2004 |
|
Richard
Hughes |
Vice Chair |
Media Arts |
2005 |
|
Mark Kayll |
|
Mathematics |
2006 |
|
Stephanie
Kucera |
Graduate student |
Psychology |
– |
|
|
|
Forestry |
2006 |
|
|
Chair |
Chemistry |
2005 |
|
Randy
Skelton |
|
Anthropology |
2005 |
|
|
|
Psychology |
2004 |
|
Randy Tanner |
Graduate student |
EVST |
– |
|
Tully
Thibeau |
|
Linguistics |
2004 |
|
Stephanie
Wasta |
|
Curriculum & Instruction |
2005 |
In addition,
Dean Strobel of the
3.
Curriculum
review
A significant
portion of the workload of the committee is in the review of additions and
changes to individual courses and programs.
The course/program review procedures were greatly impacted by the
availability of the data via the internet for the first time this year. The new data delivery format resulted in a
much more efficient review. It should be
noted that a significant number of proposals came through by traditional means
and were still evaluated. It is hoped
that the proportion of the latter proposals should decrease in future years.
In total, 174
proposals were reviewed in the fall and 21 in the spring semesters. These included four Level I and two Level II
proposals. New programs and options
included:
Masters degree in Music with an
option in Music Theater
Ph.D. and Masters degrees
in Neuroscience
Ph.D. and Masters degrees
in Biomolecular Structure and Dynamics
Ph.D. degree in Anthropology
Masters degree in Intercultural
Youth and Family Development
Some concerns
were raised by the committee about the funding of the Neuroscience and BSD
graduate programs:
The
Graduate Council approves of the academic components of both the Neuroscience
and Biomolecular Structure & Dynamics Ph.D. programs. The Council is
concerned, however, with the sustainability of both programs after 2007, when the
current EPSCoR grant ends.
A significant
change to the grading policies occurred this year with the decision to replace
the Pass/No Pass language with Credit/No Credit language. While the majority of the impact for these
changes will occur at the undergraduate level some problems would have arisen
in the graduate programs. Foremost among
the problems was the equivalence of a ‘C’ grade at the graduate level to
failing work. Many of the difficult
issues arise when an instructor who has a distribution of grades in a class
that are assigned letter grades A – F has to decide where the Credit – No
Credit cutoff should be. The solution
decided upon was to recognize that such a grade ‘translation’ is often not
appropriate in graduate courses and therefore:
The
grades of CR and NCR are not defined in terms of their relationship to
traditional grades for graduate courses.
Indeed, a
graduate student that takes a course with the CR/NCR option when there are
students being graded on the traditional scale in the class can not then claim
credit for that class. The effects of
this change will be reviewed at a later date.
4.
Program
review procedures
The Graduate
Council attempted to take a more active role in graduate program review this
year. Procedures were agreed with the
Provost for the inclusion of the Graduate Council in the review process
(Appendix A). Currently there are four
reviews underway: Anthropology,
Sociology, Wildlife Biology, and Art.
While the
goals of the Graduate Council and the Provost in this regard are laudable, the
procedures may need to be modified based on experiences gained in this first
year. A major issue to solve is the
speed with which the review data comes in.
Unfortunately, the review process is still ongoing at the end of the
semester and, since Graduate Council does not meet in the summer, the results
of our review will not be available until next academic year. The impact of our efforts should be an issue
for review by the Council next year.
5.
Graduate
student increments
The Council
took a major step forward this year in the establishment of a set of guidelines
and examples for graduate increments.
Graduate increments are definitions of the differences in requirements
between undergraduate and graduate students when both participate in the same
class. The new guidelines are given in
Appendix B. We will have our first
opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness of the guidelines during our course
and program review activities in Fall 2004.
6.
Dissertation
awards and Bertha Morton Fellowships and Scholarships.
There were 37
proposals for graduate dissertation awards split as follows: 20 in Social
Sciences; 5 in Humanities; 7 in Schools; and 5 in the Sciences. After review, ten awards were made. An improvement was made to the review
procedures for next year in that a candidate will be able to select which
sub-area the application should be reviewed in rather than having the Council
make a choice. The change will make the
application process easier for students in programs that cross many of the
sub-area boundaries.
After review
of the Bertha Morton Fellowship and Scholarship applications it was decided to
award one $3000 Fellowship and twenty four $2000 Scholarships.
7.
Other
issues
The Graduate
Council considered the dual listing of 500 and 600 level classes with 300/400
level classes as an alternative to the current UG class designations. Much input was received from a number of
sources. After significant discussion it
was decided to follow the traditional advice “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix
it.”
ASCRC passed a
motion to require that courses approved for online delivery must be approved in
advance by ASCRC and/or Graduate Council.
Much discussion followed. No
decisions could be made, however, for lack of data and a clear problem
definition. The Graduate Council will
continue efforts, in collaboration with ASCRC, in the next year.
The Graduate
Council gave the Provost input on the candidates for Regent’s Professor.
8.
Work
in progress
a)
Informational
discussions with programs
The Graduate
Council did not have any informal informational discussions with
representatives of graduate programs this year.
The value of the procedure, both to the programs and the Graduate
Council, is quite apparent and the continuation of these meetings will be a
priority for next year.
b)
RTV
courses are still being considered
No action has
yet been taken on a number of course proposals coming from RTV. The proposals need to be evaluated in the
greater context of the overall RTV program and the evaluation will be taken up
again in Fall 2004.
APPENDIX A
Whereas:
The Faculty Senate has (March 13, 2003) approved a motion from the Graduate
Council concerning the participation of the Graduate Council in the Program
Review and Departmental Assessment carried out by the Provost:
“The Graduate Council proposes to
resume its rightful role in the graduate program review process, and requests
all program review documents be submitted to the Council for final review and
comment. The appropriate subcommittee
will evaluate the material and prepare a summary report for discussion and
approval by the Council. Upon Council
approval, the summary report will be forwarded to the
Whereas:
The Graduate Council’s inclusion in the review procedures needs to be explicitly
defined.
The
Graduate Council proposes that for reviews of programs and departments with a
graduate component:
1) A copy of the basic data, faculty
assessment data and self-study that is compiled by the program under review for the Provost will be sent to the Chair of
the Graduate Council and the Dean of the Graduate School by the Provost.
2) The Dean of the
3) A copy of the report submitted to
the Provost by the program’s external reviewer will be sent to the Chair of the
Graduate Council and the Dean of the
4) The appropriate subcommittee of the
Graduate Council will meet and evaluate the review material. The subcommittee will prepare a summary
report of their evaluation that will be presented to the Graduate Council
before April 21st for review and possible amendment. Upon approval, the final report will be
forwarded to the Provost for inclusion with material returned to the Dean
responsible for the program under review.
5) The Dean of the
6) The Dean of the
APPENDIX B
Graduate
Increment Guidelines
(Approved
Graduate Council
The
graduate increment is the work required of graduate students to distinguish
their learning experience from that of the undergraduates in a course where
both participate. Graduate education is
significantly different in scope and depth from undergraduate education and is
not to be looked upon as merely a 'quantity' of education exceeding that
received in an undergraduate program.
While a perfect solution would be to keep graduate and undergraduate
courses separate, this is often not possible due to limited resources. Therefore, we endeavor to make mixed
graduate-undergraduate courses function as well as possible. The choice of a well-crafted, appropriate
graduate increment forms the foundation for a successful outcome.
The hallmarks
of a successful graduate increment are:
(a) it is specific in what it expects from the student. The work
required of graduate students should be clearly detailed in the syllabus or
other course supporting materials;
(b) it requires a higher level of sophistication / synthesis
from the graduate student; and
(c) it supports the specific outcomes and competencies we are
trying to develop in the graduate program. Ideally the graduate increment will
help to prepare the student for work as an independent researcher, a teacher,
or a creative professional.
The following
examples are graduate increments sampled from the course approval forms
received in Fall 2003.
Each increment is provided with commentary. The comments provided below are guidelines
only; individual courses and their graduate increments will still be evaluated
as a whole and in context. These
examples are a starting point in what we hope is a systematic effort to improve
the use of the graduate increment.
"A research paper on a topic related to the class that covers material
not otherwise
addressed."
Requiring
graduate students to go beyond the regular course material on their own is
laudable; however, there is no guidance as to the amount of work required or
that this represents a significant extra effort on the part of the graduate
students.
"A presentation to the class based on research done that relates to the
class, but is not otherwise covered."
The commentary
here is similar to that of the first example.
The length of the presentation and the preparation work should be
significant to justify the graduate increment.
The presentation should not be used as an alternative to teaching by the
faculty member.
"Regularly leading a group of undergraduates
in discussion."
This is a poor
increment as it implies to at least to some extent that the graduate student is
being used to teach the class rather than the faculty member. This is, of course, quite appropriate for a
TA but not a graduate student taking the class for credit. It is not clear if the quality or the
quantity of the discussion leadership is being assessed.
"A creative project that is more complex than
that expected from undergraduates."
This would be
an excellent example of a graduate increment if only the term 'more complex'
could be defined. An example of a more
complex project given in the course syllabus would be very helpful.
"Graduate students will be expected to complete a longer research paper
and an annotated bibliography."
There are
problems with the term 'longer'- how much longer? Is 'longer' necessarily better? Does 'longer' mean 'more of the same' in
comparison to the undergraduate expectations?
"ECG Assessment: Graduate students will be required to spend at least 10
hours working in a cardiac rehab center or with a cardiologist to evaluate
ECG's. They will also be required to write a paper on a focused area of
ECG interpretation."
This example
clearly defines the expectations for the graduate increment. Specific performance objectives are given.
"Extra reading and writing assignments"; "Two extra 7 page
papers"; "An extra marketing plan"
These examples
runs counter to our belief that graduate education is fundamentally different
to undergraduate education and is not merely 'more of the same.'
"A 10 - 12 page term paper addressing a current management issue,
focusing on land use planning on public land, is required. The paper will
be of publishable quality, including an introduction, literature review, presentation of the issue, discussion of the significance
for management, conclusion, and references to literature cited."
Outstanding! Clear performance
objectives; a requirement for synthesis / sophistication and clear
presentation.
"Develop a research design for the study of the ecology of a mammal
species using the methods discussed in class."
An excellent
example wherein the basic knowledge gained in the class has to be used by the
graduate student in a specific application.
"Grading will be done on a separate, more rigorous scale. An extra
assignment is required, i.e. a 20 minute oral presentation, case, etc that is
geared to meet the student's interest."
The objections
here may be debated at length and there is, perhaps, no correct answer. The problem lies in using a separate 'more
rigorous' grading scale. The function
used to generate a letter grade from a score should be the same for all
students in the class. If more rigorous
performance is required from the graduate students then 'more rigorous'
assignments should be given.
"Graduate students will complete two additional assignments: a
teaching demonstration related to one of the strands of reading that has been
used with students in the field placement during the semester and a research
paper (8 - 10 pages) that addresses some topic related to the teaching of
reading that will be presented to the class."
An excellent
graduate increment that is specific in detail and tests on competencies
uniquely expected of graduate students.
"Graduate students will complete a critical review of a book about the…?"
An excellent
graduate increment provided that the undergraduate students are not expected to
do something similar.
"Assigned work and examinations for graduate students, though
overlapping, are more extensive and will probe the ****** theory more deeply
than those for undergraduate students."
Excellent. It is better to get a graduate student to
perform at a higher level by setting a more difficult task than to expect
superior performance on a more mundane task.
The evaluation methods should be tailored to the performance being
evaluated.
"Graduate students will be required to write more extensive papers and
to teach at least one class session."
Ignoring the
use of the ill-defined 'more extensive papers', using a non-TA graduate student
to teach a course (unless the course specifically involves teacher training) is
a poor use of a graduate student. Having
graduate students give presentations to the class is quite acceptable although
as the percentage of the total class contact time given by graduate students
increases the approach becomes less reasonable.
The latter point remains a judgment call for the particular faculty
member teaching the course to make in the context of providing a sound graduate
increment.