September 16th, 2010
MEMBERS PRESENT: Marcus Agustin, Sarah Bailey, Rakesh Bharati, Steffany Chleboun, Dean Cody for Linda Carlisle, Dave Duvernell, Roberta Harrison, Shan Lu, Gertrude Pannirselvam, Joe Schober
MEMBERS EXCUSED: Scott Belobrajdic, Carole Frick, Poonam Jain, Michael Shaw, Mariana Solares, Terry Yan
Denise Cobb, Director of Assessment
Christa Johnson, Associate Dean, Office of Research and Projects
Lynn Maurer, Associate Dean, The Graduate School
Ron Schaefer, Director, International Student Services
A. Report of the Course Review Committee (CRC) – Informational
The report for June, July, and August 2010 was distributed through Blackboard.
B. 2010 – 2011 Academic Year Charge to the Graduate Council
Acting Associate Provost for Research and Dean of the Graduate School, Jerry B. Weinberg gave a presentation to those present. He believes the Graduate School has a significant impact on the university. Increasing SIUE’s reputation leads to higher quality students and faculty. SIUE does not have a policy to make oral exams open to the public. Weinberg would like ERP to consider the issue. Regarding the future of an electronic thesis, the University will adopt turn-it-in, a software program that checks for plagiarism. Weinberg requested ERP review policy regarding thesis to support this. The Council will also review ICR (Indirect Cost Recovery) distribution. Part of ICR funds go to university to support infrastructure, some goes to the Graduate School, which then splits it with the schools and college. The Primary Investigator (PI)’s unit does not get any funds. The Graduate School needs to adjust the formula to make it more equitable. Since the research centers are supposed to be a place to bring together researchers, the Council needs to figure out how to support the centers. Weinberg would like the Council to consider new program ideas to support faculty research. The policy on intellectual property policy needs to be updated. SIUE has not supported faculty in getting patents. We want to increase awareness of the benefits of patents. Right now, graduate students made up about 15-16% of the total head count. Weinberg would like to see that increase to 20%. Denise Cobb put in that the Graduate Committee on Assessment (GCOA) worked hard last year to establish itself and to review assessment plans. GCOA is a support mechanism to help graduate programs develop thoughtful way of assessing graduate education. We are going to review plans of programs that are next in the review cycle. The weight of the Graduate Council should support assessment. The PowerPoint slideshow is available on the Blackboard Graduate Council course.
C. Other Announcements
Christa Johnson announced that the STEP applications are due in the Graduate School on Friday October 1st. They may be due earlier in each school or college. She also announced that the LINC conference will take place on February 24th and 25th, 2011. Roger Beachy, the Director of the National Institute for Food and Agriculture, has been confirmed as the keynote speaker.
II. Approval of Minutes of May 7th, 2010
The minutes were unanimously accepted as submitted.
III. Report of the Executive Committee
The Executive Committee met and will include its discussions under later business.
IV. Report of the Programs Committee
A. Form 91A – Request for Change in Academic Program: English (CAS-10-18)
The graduate program wishes to change its admission requirement for the American and English Literature specialization from two years of “college-level course work … in the same modern or classical foreign language” to one year. The program also wishes to change the admission requirement of the TESL graduate program’s foreign language requirements from two years in the same foreign language to two years of foreign languages, since those graduate students may benefit from the two years not being in the same language. The graduate program would like this to take effect retroactively for Fall of 2010. The graduate program was asked to acquire a letter of collation from the Department of Foreign Languages and Literature.
This request passed unanimously.
B. Form 91A – Request for Change in Academic Program: Special Education (SOE-10-609)
The graduate program wishes to change the program of study for its three options and its post masters certificate to “more effectively align with the professional teaching standards for special education and provide students with a more comprehensive and current program.”
This request passed unanimously.
C. Form 91A – Request for Change in Academic Program: Civil Engineering (ENR-10-10)
The graduate program wishes to create two Professional Development Sequences (PDSs) in sustainability engineering to “respond to the increasing demands of sustainable infrastructure in civil engineering professions,” and to increase enrollment by attracting working professionals in the St. Louis metropolitan area. The PDSs would also help the graduate program remain competitive in this region, and would appeal to professional engineers who do not wish to earn a master’s degree.
This request passed unanimously.
V. Report of the Educational and Research Policies Committee
The committee did not meet. Its first meeting will be held on Friday, October 1st.
VI. Graduate Committee on Assessment
The Graduate Committee on Assessment (GCOA) wishes to be affiliated to the Graduate Council. Rakesh Bharati stated that it could either join the GC through its Programs Committee or directly as a committee of the GC. However, Bharati also noted that including GCOA directly as a committee of the Graduate Council would violate the GC Operating Papers as the Graduate Dean wishes to nominate the membership of the GCOA. Therefore, it would be best that GCOA instead becomes a subcommittee of the Programs Committee (PC) to work with the Graduate Council through the Programs Committee. Weinberg stated that he wants assessment to impact graduate education at SIUE and pointed out that if there is a subcommittee the membership would require overlap between GCOA and the PC. Dave Duvernell asked whether having GCOA report to the Programs Committee would create a disproportionate amount of work for the Programs Committee. Bharati commented that the Graduate Council needs to look at assessment as representatives of the graduate faculty. He stressed that the conversation about GCOA should be structured as 1) should we do this? 2) Where does it fit within the Graduate Council structure? 3) Do we approve of the Operating Papers, and 4) How are the members of the GCOA chosen?
Gertrude Pannirselvem asked for clarification about the relationship between GCOA and the Faculty Senate and the Curriculum Council. She said that the undergraduate COA structure was not clear to the Curriculum Council. Denise Cobb clarified that during the last couple of years mechanisms have been put in place in the operating procedures and in practice. There is a more direct connection between the undergraduate COA and the CC. She serves on both committees to provide continuity. Cobb stated that to make GCOA analogous to undergraduate COA, she asked for a spot on the Programs Committee. Lynn Maurer added that the Graduate Committee on Assessment meets monthly and submitted operating papers for the Council’s consideration.
Cobb explained that until last fall, no graduate program had an approved assessment plan. Duvernell asked whether the Council is trying to create a mechanism for the Programs Committee to have access to information they didn’t have before. Pannirselvam asked about what kind of information the Programs Committee members would have to review in order to enable discussion/voting about decisions made by GCOA.
Marcus Agustin asked Cobb and Maurer what kind of structure would support the GCOA the best with regard to autonomy and credibility. Maurer replied that assessment plans are not subordinate to the Programs Committee business. She felt GCOA would be better served alongside the Programs Committee under the Graduate Council and added that the members of GCOA were chosen for their expertise on assessment. Cobb added that GCOA has more legitimacy as its own committee under the Graduate Council. Every review of an assessment plan results in a letter from the Graduate School (Lynn Maurer) and from the graduate faculty (the chair of GCOA). GCOA plans to send a copy of its results in the form of these letters to the Graduate Council. Weinberg wants to insure that the letters have the weight of the Graduate School and Graduate Council behind them. Agustin proposed that the GC look at all options to include the GCOA in the Graduate Council.
Marcus Agustin made a motion to take the Operating Papers of the Graduate Committee on Assessment to ERP for review; Steffany Chleboun seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Cobb and Maurer will be invited to attend the ERP meeting.
VII. Continuing Business
There was no continuing business.
VIII. New Business
A. Nominating Stephen Hansen for Emeritus Dean status
Rakesh Bharati stated that since many of the Graduate Council members will have retired from the Graduate Council by the time that Steve Hansen retires from the Department of Historical Studies, he wished for the Graduate Council to go on record to recommend emeritus dean status for Hansen.
Marcus Agustin made a motion to recommend emeritus dean status for Stephen L. Hansen upon his retirement; Sarah Bailey seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
B. Election of Vice Chair/Chair-elect
Rakesh Bharati nominated Marcus Agustin to run for this office; he accepted. The vote to confirm was 9 ayes and one abstention.
The meeting adjourned at 11:32 AM.
Jerry B. Weinberg
Acting Associate Provost for Research and Dean,
The Graduate School