April 16th, 2010
MEMBERS PRESENT: Linda Carlisle, Jane Gillespie, Chair, Steve Hansen, John Hunt, Matthew Johnson, Michael Shaw, Ken Witt, Valerie Yancey
MEMBERS EXCUSED: Scott Belobrajdic, Steffany Chleboun, Carole Frick, Laura Fowler, Urszula Ledzewicz, Greg Sierra
MEMBERS ABSENT: Shakti Banwat
Karen Kelly, Associate Professor, Primary Care and Health Systems Nursing
Melody Rowbotham, Assistant Professor, Family Health and Community Health Nursing
There were no announcements.
II. Minutes of March 19th, 2010
Mike Shaw made a motion to accept the minutes; Ken Witt seconded. The motion passed unanimously.
III. Form 91A – Request for Change in Academic Program: Nursing (SON-G-10-05)
The graduate program wishes to modify its terminal project from a publishable manuscript to a “3-5 page reflection from each semester that demonstrates progress toward meeting outcomes.” The School felt that the terminal project paper was not contributing much to the development of the complex role of nurses. The School also wishes to have a more robust way to measure specific outcomes.
Issues that arose included the fact that the mentor (chair) for each candidate is assigned instead of chosen by the student, although students are allowed to change their chairs. The Council was concerned that the candidate’s chairperson might wield disproportionate power. The School considered using a committee, however faculty are already involved in each course and individual faculty work load is a consideration.
Val Yancey explained that a portfolio is the way to reflect rigor associated with scholarly work. Reflection papers can be rigorous, as the students need to assess the differences in knowledge. Melody Rowbotham explained that the reflection paper is a way of measuring the process of transforming a practitioner to a higher level of practitioner. She added that each student writes a paper each semester and presents it using PowerPoint. No credit is assigned to this process. Karen Kelly added that each specialty has a final course and each has a large-scale project.
Steve Hansen commented that typically a program requires a final product to prove that the student has met all the outcomes. Yancey replied that in most nursing master’s programs, no thesis or paper is required. She said that research is not being conducted in any institution. Most programs require an exit interview or an extra course.
Ken Witt asked whether a final presentation of 15 minutes with 5 minutes for questions would be adequate. Kelly replied that there would also be an exit interview. Some committee members expressed a desire to see standards clearly communicated, and a clear end point. Jane Gillespie asked how the reflection paper is evidence-based. Hansen stated that the lack of specificity is a problem in the working of this proposal. For example, what is the content of the paper?
Mike Shaw suggested that Nursing take the proposal back for revision and resubmission. He stated that the Programs Committee could conduct a vote by e-mail prior to the Graduate Council meeting.
The School of Nursing withdrew the proposal.
IV. Continuing Business
There was no continuing business.
V. New Business
There was no new business.
The meeting adjourned at 3:08 PM.
Stephen L. Hansen
Associate Provost for Research and
Dean, The Graduate School