The meeting was called to order at 10:33am.
The minutes from the February 4, 2014 meeting were approved.
Academic Program Review
The dean reviewed again the Academic Program Review Plan document with the members. The plan will put all A&S academic programs on an 8-year cycle. Academic Program Review is different from assessment as it an opportunity to look at the overall objective and design of academic programs. Academic Program Review will focus on conversations among faculty and set goals for the programs in the School of Arts and Sciences. The dean encouraged faculty members to pursue opportunities to undertake program reviews in concert with other programs if there are overlapping areas for discussion or planning. The dean’s office can facilitate requests for data that in support of the program review. The outcome of Academic Program Review will be a short report to the Dean’ office, Dean’s Advisory Council and Academic Council on the questions discussed with focus on the actions a department plans to take. With the report, the department or program may request an external review or consultation to assist with follow-up.
A faculty member asked if the registrar’s office has the recorded first and second theses advisors information on file. It was suggested that this material be recorded and accessible as it would be useful knowledge for faculty.
The dean asked Kevin Butterfield, University Librarian, to discuss the UR Scholar Repository where theses are deposited. Mr. Butterfield stated the library has a webpage that lists honors theses. Currently, around 15,000 honors theses have been downloaded.
It was suggested that “teacher scholar” be added to the language of the Academic Program Review draft in order to reflect the importance of faculty scholarship to academic programs. The dean agreed and will make the appropriate changes to the draft.
Some faculty members preferred to have external reviewers arrive before the program review discussion and report. There was discussion regarding external reviewers visiting campus before a department discusses its needs. The dean stated that she would like the reviews to have goals. Therefore, she would prefer that the external reviewers be brought into the process when the department has clarified its focus, goals, and questions for the external review.
The dean’s office will assign departments and programs to two-year cohorts over the next eight years. We are accepting volunteers for the cohort that begins 2014-2016. The dean encouraged those departments that would like to volunteer for the first round to contact her. The dean’s office will assemble the first cohort in a meeting late this spring.
DAC Bylaws:
Dean Skerrett would like to bring the Dean’s Advisory Council (DAC) bylaws before the faculty for a vote this semester. The dean handed out a hardcopy of the bylaws that included revisions made by Dr. Nicole Sackley.
The dean opened discussion on how department chair representatives are elected to DAC and explained the composition of the DAC. There are four members that are elected by the faculty to DAC and also become members of Planning and Priorities. The other four members are three department chairs from the tripartite divisions and one representative from the program coordinators.
The issue concerns the appropriate electorate for the divisional chair elections: Should the Academic Council elect the divisional chair representatives or should the department chairs of the division elect their representative. A faculty member noted that a department chair is there to represent all of A&S, not only an individual department or division. It was suggested that the elections should not be too local and that Academic Council should be the electorate. It was argued that this could be a benefit since the departments know who would be the best representative for their division. There were others who disagreed. A straw poll did not show any strong majority for either approach.
The dean would like to bring the Bylaws to the A & S faculty as the next step in strengthening the governance structure of the DAC.
General Education Courses:
Dr. Libby Gruner discussed the proposed timeline from the General Education Committee revising the timeline for approval of field of study courses. Dr. Gruner explained that a course proposal would need to come to the committee two semesters prior to when the course would be taught. This would give faculty members time to discuss the course in detail, as well as receive proper revision before final approval. This would require firm deadlines from Academic Council. Dr. Gruner explained the current process and how approvals go before Academic Council and the A&S faculty meeting before the General Education Committee reviews them.
It was questioned if this proposal would change the proposal process if the UFC Senate proposal is passed. Dr. Crystal Hoyt answered that proposals would go to the Senate instead of the University
Faculty Meeting. The dean urged that council members review this proposal. The dean will bring this back to a future Academic Council meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 11:47am.
Respectfully Submitted,
Zandria Haines
The minutes from the February 4, 2014 meeting were approved.
Academic Program Review
The dean reviewed again the Academic Program Review Plan document with the members. The plan will put all A&S academic programs on an 8-year cycle. Academic Program Review is different from assessment as it an opportunity to look at the overall objective and design of academic programs. Academic Program Review will focus on conversations among faculty and set goals for the programs in the School of Arts and Sciences. The dean encouraged faculty members to pursue opportunities to undertake program reviews in concert with other programs if there are overlapping areas for discussion or planning. The dean’s office can facilitate requests for data that in support of the program review. The outcome of Academic Program Review will be a short report to the Dean’ office, Dean’s Advisory Council and Academic Council on the questions discussed with focus on the actions a department plans to take. With the report, the department or program may request an external review or consultation to assist with follow-up.
A faculty member asked if the registrar’s office has the recorded first and second theses advisors information on file. It was suggested that this material be recorded and accessible as it would be useful knowledge for faculty.
The dean asked Kevin Butterfield, University Librarian, to discuss the UR Scholar Repository where theses are deposited. Mr. Butterfield stated the library has a webpage that lists honors theses. Currently, around 15,000 honors theses have been downloaded.
It was suggested that “teacher scholar” be added to the language of the Academic Program Review draft in order to reflect the importance of faculty scholarship to academic programs. The dean agreed and will make the appropriate changes to the draft.
Some faculty members preferred to have external reviewers arrive before the program review discussion and report. There was discussion regarding external reviewers visiting campus before a department discusses its needs. The dean stated that she would like the reviews to have goals. Therefore, she would prefer that the external reviewers be brought into the process when the department has clarified its focus, goals, and questions for the external review.
The dean’s office will assign departments and programs to two-year cohorts over the next eight years. We are accepting volunteers for the cohort that begins 2014-2016. The dean encouraged those departments that would like to volunteer for the first round to contact her. The dean’s office will assemble the first cohort in a meeting late this spring.
DAC Bylaws:
Dean Skerrett would like to bring the Dean’s Advisory Council (DAC) bylaws before the faculty for a vote this semester. The dean handed out a hardcopy of the bylaws that included revisions made by Dr. Nicole Sackley.
The dean opened discussion on how department chair representatives are elected to DAC and explained the composition of the DAC. There are four members that are elected by the faculty to DAC and also become members of Planning and Priorities. The other four members are three department chairs from the tripartite divisions and one representative from the program coordinators.
The issue concerns the appropriate electorate for the divisional chair elections: Should the Academic Council elect the divisional chair representatives or should the department chairs of the division elect their representative. A faculty member noted that a department chair is there to represent all of A&S, not only an individual department or division. It was suggested that the elections should not be too local and that Academic Council should be the electorate. It was argued that this could be a benefit since the departments know who would be the best representative for their division. There were others who disagreed. A straw poll did not show any strong majority for either approach.
The dean would like to bring the Bylaws to the A & S faculty as the next step in strengthening the governance structure of the DAC.
General Education Courses:
Dr. Libby Gruner discussed the proposed timeline from the General Education Committee revising the timeline for approval of field of study courses. Dr. Gruner explained that a course proposal would need to come to the committee two semesters prior to when the course would be taught. This would give faculty members time to discuss the course in detail, as well as receive proper revision before final approval. This would require firm deadlines from Academic Council. Dr. Gruner explained the current process and how approvals go before Academic Council and the A&S faculty meeting before the General Education Committee reviews them.
It was questioned if this proposal would change the proposal process if the UFC Senate proposal is passed. Dr. Crystal Hoyt answered that proposals would go to the Senate instead of the University
Faculty Meeting. The dean urged that council members review this proposal. The dean will bring this back to a future Academic Council meeting.
The meeting adjourned at 11:47am.
Respectfully Submitted,
Zandria Haines
No comments:
Post a Comment