Dean Skerrett called the meeting to order at 10:32 a.m.
The dean distributed hardcopies of the minutes from the last meeting and asked Academic Council to review the minutes before voting. The members reviewed the minutes from the November 19, 2013 meeting. The minutes of the November 19, 2013 meeting were approved.
Joan Neff updated Academic Council on the number of administrative endowed chairs, a question that was asked in the last meeting. There are two administrative endowed chairs.
All items on the consent agenda were approved.
Discussion Agenda
1. Preliminary Summary of Department Annual Merit Scores--Malcolm Hill
Dr. Malcolm Hill, associate dean, gave an update on the annual merit review process. The presentation showed proposed annual merit scores by department, including scores “carried” on a department’s triennial schedule. The review process is currently 80 to 85 percent complete. In the future, the dean’s office will know in advance about 60 percent of the tenure track scores and will be capable of better forecasting salary needs to meet projected benchmarks. It was asked if the pie charts on the presentation included directors. Dr. Hill stated that the presentation only included tenure track faculty.
Moving forward, the dean would like to find a better way to complete annual merit reviews submitted to her. While she was able to read files and assign scores in relation to departments and faculty as a whole, she was unable to write detailed commentary. This may be challenging for associate professors when they come up for promotion review.
2. Focus on Teaching-- Libby Gruner
Dr. Libby Gruner, associate dean, gave an update on the Focus on Teaching Initiative. The Focus on Teaching group has met several times over the course of the semester to identify gaps in pedagogy training or innovation. For example, there are many workshops and programs focused on teaching with technology yet fewer that are focused on teaching in general.
The dean’s office Teaching website has been updated to include upcoming events. The Focus on Teaching group would like to figure plan for a selective schedule of future events.
3. Science Initiative Update and Protocol--Malcolm Hill
Dr. Hill, associate dean, began the discussion stating that science research at the University is very competitive and expensive. The University is fortunate to have an annual endowment payout that can be expended in consultation with the science faculty leaders. Dr. Hill gave an update on the equipment planning process for Kresge endowment science expenditures, and discussed the timeline of the initiative. The dean will evaluate and approve priority requests mid fall. During the spring, small equipment requests will be considered along with long term goals associated with the grant’s initiatives. Dr. Hill believes the process has a positive effect for the University as a whole because it prototypes for A & S systemic 5-year strategic budget planning.
It was asked if the arts initiative would meet during the spring semester. The dean confirmed that there will be an arts equipment planning meeting in the spring. By strategically planning use of the Kresge endowment for the science initiative, the dean believes that A&S equipment funds can be focused towards the arts initiative. The timeline process for the arts equipment initiative is a mirror image of the science equipment initiative.
4. Continue Discussion of Curriculum Oversight--Malcolm Hill
The dean asked Academic Council to continue discussions of its curriculum oversight role.
Dr. Hill gave a presentation regarding the curricular approval process. Dr. Hill began the conversation by providing a visual that represented the interconnectedness of majors. The IDST majors were not included.
The dean pointed out that visual allowed chairs to project A&S as an ecosystem rather than a collection of units. Many council members agreed that sharing this chart with the faculty would be helpful. It was also suggested that an image should be created to show how many faculty members of a department participate in other programs on campus.
Dr. Hill presented draft language and a draft time frame for course proposals. Dr. Hill would like to find a way to create a uniform process for course proposals. It was suggested that a clear deadline be created for all course proposals submitted to Academic Council. It was also suggested that course proposals be considered only once a semester. The dean suggested dedicating two meetings per semester or per academic year for approving course proposals. Dean Skerrett asked council members to think about what information would be most beneficial to include on a new course proposal form. She asked members to continue to think about how Academic Council can best embody its legislative role of providing planning and oversight of the curriculum.
Next semester Goals: Proposed Academic Program Review Policy
Dean Skerrett then gave a brief overview of two items she will bring forward next semester. First, the dean handed out a draft proposal for a new mode of academic program review. The dean’s vision for academic program review is to have an 8-year cycle. The review will focus on one or two questions of importance that the department faculty will discuss and develop resolutions or outcomes. The product of the review will be a 3 to 5 page report that will be presented to Academic Council and the DAC. The aims for the new academic program review plan to give focus and flexibility to faculty members.
Next semester Goal: Proposed By-laws for the Dean’s Advisory Council
The dean would like to generate by-laws for Dean’s Advisory Council and create a chair for the committee. The dean would like to give a report and formalize some of the procedures that have been created for this body.
The meeting adjourned at 11:46am.
Respectfully submitted,
Zandria Haines
The dean distributed hardcopies of the minutes from the last meeting and asked Academic Council to review the minutes before voting. The members reviewed the minutes from the November 19, 2013 meeting. The minutes of the November 19, 2013 meeting were approved.
Joan Neff updated Academic Council on the number of administrative endowed chairs, a question that was asked in the last meeting. There are two administrative endowed chairs.
All items on the consent agenda were approved.
Discussion Agenda
1. Preliminary Summary of Department Annual Merit Scores--Malcolm Hill
Dr. Malcolm Hill, associate dean, gave an update on the annual merit review process. The presentation showed proposed annual merit scores by department, including scores “carried” on a department’s triennial schedule. The review process is currently 80 to 85 percent complete. In the future, the dean’s office will know in advance about 60 percent of the tenure track scores and will be capable of better forecasting salary needs to meet projected benchmarks. It was asked if the pie charts on the presentation included directors. Dr. Hill stated that the presentation only included tenure track faculty.
Moving forward, the dean would like to find a better way to complete annual merit reviews submitted to her. While she was able to read files and assign scores in relation to departments and faculty as a whole, she was unable to write detailed commentary. This may be challenging for associate professors when they come up for promotion review.
2. Focus on Teaching-- Libby Gruner
Dr. Libby Gruner, associate dean, gave an update on the Focus on Teaching Initiative. The Focus on Teaching group has met several times over the course of the semester to identify gaps in pedagogy training or innovation. For example, there are many workshops and programs focused on teaching with technology yet fewer that are focused on teaching in general.
The dean’s office Teaching website has been updated to include upcoming events. The Focus on Teaching group would like to figure plan for a selective schedule of future events.
3. Science Initiative Update and Protocol--Malcolm Hill
Dr. Hill, associate dean, began the discussion stating that science research at the University is very competitive and expensive. The University is fortunate to have an annual endowment payout that can be expended in consultation with the science faculty leaders. Dr. Hill gave an update on the equipment planning process for Kresge endowment science expenditures, and discussed the timeline of the initiative. The dean will evaluate and approve priority requests mid fall. During the spring, small equipment requests will be considered along with long term goals associated with the grant’s initiatives. Dr. Hill believes the process has a positive effect for the University as a whole because it prototypes for A & S systemic 5-year strategic budget planning.
It was asked if the arts initiative would meet during the spring semester. The dean confirmed that there will be an arts equipment planning meeting in the spring. By strategically planning use of the Kresge endowment for the science initiative, the dean believes that A&S equipment funds can be focused towards the arts initiative. The timeline process for the arts equipment initiative is a mirror image of the science equipment initiative.
4. Continue Discussion of Curriculum Oversight--Malcolm Hill
The dean asked Academic Council to continue discussions of its curriculum oversight role.
Dr. Hill gave a presentation regarding the curricular approval process. Dr. Hill began the conversation by providing a visual that represented the interconnectedness of majors. The IDST majors were not included.
The dean pointed out that visual allowed chairs to project A&S as an ecosystem rather than a collection of units. Many council members agreed that sharing this chart with the faculty would be helpful. It was also suggested that an image should be created to show how many faculty members of a department participate in other programs on campus.
Dr. Hill presented draft language and a draft time frame for course proposals. Dr. Hill would like to find a way to create a uniform process for course proposals. It was suggested that a clear deadline be created for all course proposals submitted to Academic Council. It was also suggested that course proposals be considered only once a semester. The dean suggested dedicating two meetings per semester or per academic year for approving course proposals. Dean Skerrett asked council members to think about what information would be most beneficial to include on a new course proposal form. She asked members to continue to think about how Academic Council can best embody its legislative role of providing planning and oversight of the curriculum.
Next semester Goals: Proposed Academic Program Review Policy
Dean Skerrett then gave a brief overview of two items she will bring forward next semester. First, the dean handed out a draft proposal for a new mode of academic program review. The dean’s vision for academic program review is to have an 8-year cycle. The review will focus on one or two questions of importance that the department faculty will discuss and develop resolutions or outcomes. The product of the review will be a 3 to 5 page report that will be presented to Academic Council and the DAC. The aims for the new academic program review plan to give focus and flexibility to faculty members.
Next semester Goal: Proposed By-laws for the Dean’s Advisory Council
The dean would like to generate by-laws for Dean’s Advisory Council and create a chair for the committee. The dean would like to give a report and formalize some of the procedures that have been created for this body.
The meeting adjourned at 11:46am.
Respectfully submitted,
Zandria Haines
No comments:
Post a Comment