Minutes for October 20, 2003
Present: John Whitesitt, Connie Anderson, Wayne Schumacher, Cody Bustamante, Curt Whittaker, Sib Farrell, Alena Ruggerio, Dan Rubenson, Marny Rivera, Zinn, Jean Maxwell, Kemble Yates, A.S. Galvan, Kevin Talbert, Peter Wu, Terry Longshore, Katy Bazylewicz, Jon Harbaugh, John Richards, Lee Ayers, Dale Vidmar, Mark Siders, Etsuko Fujimoto, Diana Maltz, Laura O’Bryon, Earl Potter.
Guests: Barbara Scott, Ken Kempner, Ed Battistella, Sue Burkholder, Carl Moody, Diane Brimmer, Laura Jones, Mike Corcoran, Tonette Long, Sarah Ann Hones, Paul Steinle, Susan Walsh, Steven Jessup, Linda Wilcox Young, Parvaneh Scoggin, Prakash Chenjeri, Elsa Cabrera, Kathleen McNeill, Cynthia Beckwith, Sandra Coyner, John Fitton, Mada Morgan, Judith Ginsburg, Elisabeth Zinser.
I. Approved Minutes of
Motion by John Whitesitt, Second by John Richards with no changes.
A. Sib Farrell introduced and welcomed Sarah Anne Hones, SOU's new Director of Academic Advising and Support.
B. Disability Awareness Week runs October 27 through
III. Remarks from the Provost
A. Charitable Giving Campaign
1. A new approach will be utilized to spread the word about the campaign, the department team representatives will be making individual contact with SOU faculty and staff, asking individuals to "consider a gift" to the campaign.
2. Last year, $23,000 was donated, with 25% of eligible participants contributing.
B. There are strategic items of importance to the University other than the strategic initiative process, which may be part of the process.
1. The Technology Council will be responding to requests for funding, utilizing the current dollars for current projects and maintenance functions. The Provost is asking for development of a vision for the role of technology in teaching, noting that strategic planning is the route to meet the campus technology needs of the future.
2. An exploratory review of the potentials in distance education will be undertaken.
3. Input will be gathered to plan the future of International Studies programs.
IV. Advisory Council Report from the Faculty Senate Vice Chair: Jon Harbaugh
A. Areas discussed at the Advisory Council Meeting on October 13th included:
1. SOU's ability to support strategic outcomes that are predicted by the selected initiatives.
2. The importance of the campus community being engaged in the Strategic planning process, with no requirement (obligation) to submit a strategic initiative.
3. A review of the Faculty Senate goals, with discussion focused on the prioritization matrix.
4. Design of the format for the Faculty Senate meeting's agenda for October 20th, with a determination of the plan to review the CREAC, Curriculum and Core Curriculum Committees.
V. Remarks from the Student Senate Representative: No student representative was present.
VI. Action Items
A. Faculty Senate Strategic Planning Session: results of ranking process. The summation of the votes on strategic planning for the year was distributed in a prioritization matrix.
B. Senate discussion on curriculum: Dan Rubenson, Kemble Yates, and John Whitesitt led discussion on curriculum. Curriculum was ranked number 1 on the prioritization-ranking matrix.
1. Dan Rubenson noted:
a. In the late 1980s, the Curriculum Committee developed a 9 Goal curriculum as part of the proposed semester conversion.
b. Over the next few years, review was done on the 9 Goals system; the learning objectives were not clearly defined.
c. In 1992-95, modifications were discussed and developed, task forces were utilized, and new courses were piloted.
d. The "new" general education curriculum emerged over stages, with the development of statements of “Purpose” and “Guiding Principles” for general education; the initiation of Colloquium in 1996-97 to provide a foundation in thinking, writing, and speaking skills in relation to and to address retention issues; and the introduction of the Exploration Sequences, Quantitative Reasoning options and the Synthesis and Applications courses.
e. Little assessment of SOU's current general education curriculum has been done, and there is considered concern about the Colloquium and Synthesis and Applications requirements.
2. Kemble Yates noted:
a. There is a crisis in the learning objective system, as there has been no follow-up assessment on the current curriculum.
b. There is a crisis in the funding model in the last few years.
c. There is need for a curriculum system that is more efficient.
d. The Synthesis and Applications coursework, the creation and delivery, is not meeting the demand.
e. The Core Curriculum Committee was originally intended to sunset three years ago, but was needed in continuance to work with the curriculum development.
f. CREAC was developed by the input from the Curriculum and Core Curriculum Committees, with the tasking of creating new ways to work with the general education process.
3. John Whitesitt noted the relevance of the Faculty Senate having a clear understanding of how the CREAC, Curriculum, and Core Curriculum Committees fit into the goals of the University, and the importance of providing a sense of direction for these committees.
a. A list of four proposals from the Faculty Senate Advisory Committee was distributed. These proposals identified the rationale behind the suggested actions.
b. Discussion items noted: 1) the need to understand how the committees work together; 2) the concern of the lack of an Education Department Faculty member on CREAC (whose experience in curriculum development and the definition of outcomes objectives could be advantageous); and 3) the preference of keeping CREAC membership small while bringing in people to consult with the committee (such as representatives from the Education department, those who work with multicultural diversity, and those who work with technology) to further investigate and facilitate outcome development.
4. Provost Potter noted:
a. The need for imbedded assessment and the importance of identifying the outcomes over time for different student populations.
b. The importance of development of an approach for delivery to transfer students.
c. The recommendation for review of the curriculum at the Council of Public Liberal Arts Colleges (COPLAC) peer schools.
d. The faculty should develop the model, and then let the administration work with the scheduling and resourcing requirements.
e. The importance of discussion between CREAC and Curriculum Committee, with a goal to "…adjust, adapt, and implement change".
5. President Zinser complimented the four-proposal document, and suggested her view of the committees' charges as follows:
a. Core Committee – work with the general education curriculum as it is now.
b. CREAC – review the general education curriculum as a result of the interim accreditation review and other considerations, and propose changes and improvements for the future.
c. Curriculum Committee – the ongoing oversight committee to implement curriculum policies as a whole- the core and the major issues- and consider curriculum policies for the future.
6. Further discussion items noted:
a. A recommendation was made to request submission of minutes from CREAC to the Faculty Senate. Steve Jessup, Chair of CREAC, agreed to initiate this process.
b. Regarding assessment issues, there was concern expressed over the timing of assessment, as there is movement toward a new general education model. President Zinser recommended the review of assessments used at COPLAC institutions.
7. There was a call for review of the proposals, a request for questions and suggestions to be forwarded to the Advisory Council, and a suggestion for further discussion and a vote on the proposals at the Faculty Senate meeting of November 3rd.
A. Inter-Institutional Faculty Senate report was presented by Laura Jones. The presentation is attached.
B. Kemble Yates presented information on the Association of Oregon Faculties, noting that only 50-75 members out of a potential pool of approximately 400 participants at SOU are members of the organization.
VIII. Adjourned approximately
Updated Friday, October 1, 2004, 21:10:11