Office of Academic Affairs
200 Bricker Hall
May 3, 2006
3:00-5:00pm
MINUTES
Present:
Professors: Lora Gingerich Dobos, Richard Gunther, Kay Halasek, Raymond Noe, Margaret McMahon, Raymond Noe (Chair), Electra Paskett, Nancy Reynolds, W. Randy Smith (Vice Chair), Harald Vaessin, George Valco, Brian Winer
Student Members: Kevin Freeman (Inter-Professional Council); Scott Pearson (Council of Graduate Students
Guests: Professor Stephen Mangum, Senior Associate Dean, Fisher College of Business; Professor Robert J. Caswell, Associate Dean, School of Public Health; Professor Martha Garland, Vice Provost for Enrollment Services and Dean for Undergraduate Education; Katherine Meyer, Associate Provost; and Cynthia Feidler, University RegistrarÕs Office
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF APRIL 19, 2006
Minutes of the Meetings of April 19, and May 3, 2006, will be reviewed/acted upon at the May 17, 2006, meeting.
COMMENTS FROM THE CHAIR Ð PROFESSOR RAYMOND A. NOE
¥ Will attend the Faculty Council meeting with McMahon and Smith on May 4, 2006, for the discussion of the proposal to Establish a Department of Urology. The proposed department does not meet current rules that require 10 faculty to establish a department.
COMMENTS FROM THE VICE CHAIR Ð PROFESSOR W. RANDY SMITH
¥ Council soon will discuss the 2003 Guidelines for the Review of Centers as proposed by an ad hoc Committee on Centers. These Guidelines have not yet been approved by Council. Council members have been sent the report.
¥ Subcommittees have been working on proposals. Council will have a regular meeting on May 17, 2006, then an additional meeting has been scheduled on May 24, 2006, to allow time for proposals to go to the University Senate before the close of the academic year.
¥ TodayÕs meeting will include the review of two proposals and a visit by Professor Martha Garland, Vice Provost for Enrollment Services and Dean for Undergraduate Education, to give an update of the Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEI).
¥ Rankin will be retiring on May 31, 2006. Council members were invited to her reception on May 30, 2006. Lakshmi Dutta was introduced as the new Program Manager for the Council effective June 1, 2006.
¥ Pearson is in the final stages of his doctoral program and has accepted a faculty position at Washington College in Maryland. Freeman will be graduating from the College of Law in June 2006. The hooding ceremony will be on May 12, 2006. Council members expressed conrtatulations to both student members.
PROPOSAL TO REVISE THE REGULAR CLINICAL TRACK FACULTY PROPOSAL, FISHER COLLEGE OF BUSINES Ð PROFESSOR MARGARET McMAHON, CHAIR, SUBCOMMITTEE B
McMahon said the proposal to establish Clinical Track Faculty in the Fisher College of Business had been approved on May 17, 2005, and had included an approved list of courses to be taught by clinical faculty. The revised proposal was to amend the list of courses. Syllabi for the courses had been provided. Subcommittee recommended approval with one abstention.
Smith said the original proposal had been reviewed by Subcommittee B and so the revision was returned to it. Smith and Professor Carole Anderson, Vice Provost, Academic Policy and Faculty Resources, had met with Subcommittee B for a broader discussion of the Faculty Rule for Clinical Track Faculty, to help interpret how to proceed with this proposal.
¥ Gunther noted that the University Senate has been debating for years what clinical track faculty should teach. With the advent of budget restructuring the Colleges have gained control of funding for their departments and have become well qualified to decide what is appropriate for their faculty to teach. Council should not be micromanaging this process. Subcommittee B, in reviewing the large set of syllabi, determined that it really did not have the knowledge to determine what should be taught and by whom. It felt the judgment should be left to the academic units who know best what should be taught from a Òreal world setting.Ó
¥ Such a view would not apply to courses such as, say, Organizational Theory, that normally would be taught by regular tenure track faculty. Is there a reason why these courses would be taught by clinical faculty, and should Council interfere? Some Council members argued that Council should not do so if there has been a college-wide vote by faculty.
¥ Another issue emerges - the timely hiring of individuals from the private sector to teach as clinical faculty. It is important that the Colleges act quickly on hiring opportunities, and not be delayed by a lengthy review process.
¥ Subcommittee B believes that the current Rule needs to be revisited. Smith strongly supported that process. He has been involved in all 3 proposals that Council has approved to date. Council had taken a full year to review the College of Law proposal and needed to examine nearly 150 course syllabi for the College of Engineering proposal review. Even when letting the College determine who should teach, Council still maintains annual oversight. The College has to report back to Council, and the Council to the University Senate.
Smith said that changing this process will require changing the Faculty Rule.
¥ Halasek noted that this current proposal does violate the current Faculty Rule. There needs to be a clear distinction between what regular faculty and regular clinical faculty teach. There is also concern that some of these offerings are Òbusiness drivenÓ and that courses are now being created specifically for certain clinical faculty. That is not what was originally intended. Perhaps the Rule should be changed first, before Council gives such latitude to the Colleges. The process is not disputed, but the Rule should be followed.
Others suggested that the Rules were established years ago. Now, with budget restructuring, funding decisions are being made by Chairs and Deans and we need to let units decide at that level.
¥ Noe clarified the point that for this proposal, individual department faculty have been involved in determining what courses would be included and who would teach them, and there are faculty on the Executive Committee who had endorsed this change. But it appears there was not a college-wide faculty vote.
DISCUSSION WITH PROFESSOR STEPHEN MANGUM, SENIOR ASSOCIATE DEAN, FISHER COLLEGE OF BUSINESS
Mangum provided background on the proposal and the list of courses, saying that in the three years from the time the proposal was first initiated until the proposal was approved, changes had occurred that made it necessary to revise the list. In the interim, they had identified three areas that they wanted to teach. Mangum said the field changes quickly, and business schools are highly competitive.
¥ What do the clinical faculty teach? None teach at the PhD level. They can teach 800-level courses in the Masters program, and those below in the undergraduate program.
¥ What percent of all the faculty can be clinical faculty? No more than twenty percent of the full tenured faculty can have this status.
¥ Who voted? Tenured faculty voted on the original proposal. Was the new list voted on? The most recent list was not voted on by the full faculty. The revised list was voted on by the College Executive Committee.
¥ What is the average teaching load of the faculty? The regular tenure track faculty teach four courses. The clinical faculty teach 9 courses. In the Summer they teach three workload units. How does this relate to the 20% faculty? It does not relate to the 20%, but to the number of people being taught.
¥ Why not use adjunct professors or visiting lecturers to take these courses? Individuals want the title of clinical faculty. It is prestigious. The College can then attract a cadre of individuals who are world class, PhD qualified, and who have unique business experiences. As it is, they cannot compete with some universities who have the freedom to hire these individuals right away without a lengthy review process. It hurts this College in the national rankings too. The Ohio State University was just ranked 41st by the U.S. News and World Report. One key area is the hiring of clinical faculty. Hiring clinical faculty would affect class size - allow us to expand the teaching and offer twice as many sections.
¥ Did they have particular faculty in mind to teach each of these courses? Yes. Mangum said this is not unusual. We hire tenure track faculty the same way. The College often creates a course for people they want to hire. That criterion is part of the process.
¥ Gunther stressed again that often subcommittees are inundated with raw data without having real knowledge of the appropriateness of the coursework. Only faculty in the College are best suited to make this judgment.
Subcommittee B moved approval, Dobos seconded the motion. Discussion continued.
Council Discussion:
¥ Are these courses taught now by tenure track faculty? No. Many are new courses. Are these electives? Yes they are - for the most part.
¥ Do we want to approve the entire list or part of it? The problem is that some of these courses look like they could be taught by regular faculty. The feeling is that the regular tenure track faculty are teaching some of the courses now, but would welcome clinical faculty to take over.
¥ Could Council ask for a faculty vote from the College? Yes. Smith commented that, given what had been learned about the voting at this meeting, that is an appropriate request.
¥ Subcommittee B could go back over the list, course by course, but at some point Council needs to trust the College. If the College Executive Committee voted positively, then should we approve the list? No. Then Council should table the proposal until the College faculty takes a vote.
Valco moved to table the proposal, Pearson seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously. Smith will notify Mangum that a college-wide vote of the faculty will be needed before Council will act.
PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH AN UNDERGRADUATE MINOR IN PUBLIC HEALTH Ð PROFESSORS RAYMOND NOE, AND W. RANDY SMITH, SUBCOMMITTEE D
Smith presented the proposal saying it had been reworked for an undergraduate minor in Public Health. At present there are no undergraduates in the School. Caswell said he had reconvened the group and resubmitted the proposal. One piece was missing Ð a list of courses from the Colleges of the Arts and Sciences to be taught as electives - that is forthcoming this month and Smith will provide Council with it.
¥ It is not known who will serve on the Oversight Committee.
¥ Who will teach the Introduction to Public Health course?
¥ Who will be advising students?
DISCUSSION WITH PROFESSOR R. JEFF CASWELL, ASSOCIATE DEAN, SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
Caswell gave an overview of the proposal saying that it will be a 20 credit-hour minor. The Statistics course will also meet the General Education Curriculum (GEC) requirement. There is only one prerequisite, but since demand for it is quite large, two sections will be offered next fall. He said that they are open to a variety of other courses that will expand offerings. Academic advising will be handled by the Graduate Studies Committee. There will be four new course offerings, including an Introduction to Public Health (400). Twenty-five to thirty students are expected in the program.
¥ The Oversight Committee will be the Graduate Studies Committee which includes Caswell, a student, the Director of the Ph.D. program, and representatives from each of the SchoolÕs divisions. If the number of courses expands, and the volume of students, they will create an undergraduate curriculum committee.
¥ Will the courses be ÒgenerallyÓ available? Yes.
¥ Who will teach Public Health 400? The course will be team taught with Caswell as coordinator.
Subcommittee B recommended approval, Halasek seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously.
DISCUSSION OF STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTION (SEI) Ð PROFESSOR MARTHA GARLAND, VICE PROVOST FOR ENROLLMENT SERVICES AND DEAN FOR UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION
Garland gave an update of the Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEI) noting that she had decided to continue offering both the paper version and the electronic version. The SEI Oversight Committee had recommended making both available and letting it evolve. Instructors were increasingly using the e-version. Garland said it is, however, more difficult for the RegistrarÕs Office to keep offering both because it gets complicated and expensive.
¥ Are there student representatives on the Committee? Yes.
¥ Do you have data on the participation rates? Generally the rate of use is at 75% then it drops to 50% with a conversion. It is expected that as students become more familiar with the e-version, they will use it.
¥ The trend seems to be that if classes are small, there is less response.
¥ Can this be integrated into CARMEN. Yes.
¥ Is there any way to note this as a newly implemented process? Can courses that use the e-version be identified in some way, so faculty will be able to designate them, and make their interpretation more meaningful, for personnel-related matters? Garland will look into it.
The Council endorsed the plan for SEI format use presented by Garland.
DISCUSSION OF TURNITIN.COM - PROFESSOR MARTHA GARLAND, VICE PROVOST FOR ENROLLMENT SERVICES AND DEAN FOR UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION
Garland also gave an update on turnitin.com, a writing tool capable of identifying plagiarism. A pilot study had been done Ð 34 instructors had set an account Ð with 27 actually using it. Two thousand papers had been checked. There were very few cases of plagiarism. More faculty felt it was useful than did not.
The plan is to purchase a license for it for three years and make it available to instructors who want to use it. At the end of that time, an assessment will occur with a determination about future use. Council members had implementation suggestions Ð notably a tutorial-like session for new users, and continued monitoring Ð that will be conveyed to Garland. Garland agreed to give periodic updates to Council.
The Council endorsed the plan for turnitin.com presented by Garland.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:00pm.
Respectfully submitted,
W. Randy Smith
Joyce Rankin