Graduate Council

Voting members present: Sourabh Apte, Bill Bogley, Jim Coakley, Ryan Contreras, Cass Dykeman, Theresa Filtz, Lisa Ganio, Marie Harvey
Voting members absent: Pat Chappell, Claire Gibbons, Lisa Price, George Waldebusser
Ex-Officio members present: Graduate School – Stephanie Bernell, Jennifer Brown
Guests: Rosemary Garagnani

Informational Items

1. INTO Pathways – Jennifer Brown

• The Graduate Council has discussed the 15-24 graduate credit hour rule with a B or better related to the INTO graduate pathway relaunch. INTO talked with deans about the relaunch of 2.50 GPA admission into the pathway (not program) which is a decrease from 2.75 GPA; showed in presentation that the average student is typically at a 2.75. When students are looking at graduate schools, those who may be at 2.70 GPA feel more comfortable when the entry is 2.50 GPA because they feel like they are exceeding the bar. INTO is adding multiple options, and a dean’s group is discussing whether they will opt in. One indicated interest in potentially getting some PhD students. This is also an effort to try to increase diversity. It was noted that 100-level language courses aren’t included in the GPA.
• Once a student is brought into a pathway, it’s unlikely they will be sent back home – there will be an effort to get them into a program. Are OSU units thinking about students who may not be appropriate in a graduate program? Jennifer thought some may be, but she will broach this subject.
• It was reported that some faculty felt there was no ‘valve’ to admit students once they are in the pathway. It’s up to the unit to ensure that the pathway contains sufficient rigor.
• One felt that, if the minimum GPA is 2.75, the 3.25 student will not come when there is a much lower entry GPA, and it will turn away the 3.0 GPA students by lowering standards to 2.5. If a 3.0 GPA is required in the pathway, they may be admitted.
• Another felt that this constitutes a change of admission standards, which requires approval – INTO can’t just decide to change admission standards.
•  Please advise Jennifer if there are concerns.

2. Graduate Council Listserv

• If individuals wish to petition to be subscribed to the listserv, they will be considered on a case-by-case basis by the Graduate Council.
• When to remove non-members? Members should be briefed that the Graduate Council listserv is open to anyone. Non-members will be removed in June, but may apply for the following academic year.

Action: Individuals, other than voting members and ex-officio members, may request to be added to the listserv and will be reviewed and approved by the Council on an individual basis.

3. IELA/PTE-A

• English Language Testing Equivalents
• IELA and PTE-A Assessment
  • Ryan noted that a February 13, 2018 ‘Graduate Council Follow-Up: IELA and PTE Language Tests’ document made it explicit that the Graduate Council will receive data in 2019 and 2020 from the Graduate School and IELA; that the pilot ends in 2020; and, at the end of the pilot, the Graduate Council will determine whether to continue with these language tests.
  • One member preferred that students would be required to complete both tests to provide a comparison during the pilot period; they didn’t have confidence of the test.
    • One felt this was an undue burden on students; however, colleges could choose to restrict students from taking the IELA.
    • Another felt that a better validation would be to have some students take one test and other students take the other test.
  • A question was raised as to how the IELA was approved at the undergraduate level since it did not appear to go through the Curriculum Council. Faculty Senate President Jon Dorbolo was notified about the undergraduate level approval, and the matter is pending.
  • Rosemary noted that the IELA has all the sections of the other test related to reading, speaking and listening. She thought it was supposed to be comparable, but noted that it is new.
  • The IELA will be administered at INTO centers but graded at Cambridge Centers.
  • The beauty of pilot is that it is not ongoing.
  • How to assess whether it’s working? There are metrics.
  • Regarding pathway evaluation – when admitting underperforming, underprepared students, it’s been difficult on all involved.
  • The IELA approval can sunset as of 2020, unless the Graduate Council votes to continue.

Actions:

• Marie moved to approve the IELA pilot project, to fulfill admissions language requirements at the graduate level, which will sunset as of 2020, at which time the Graduate Council will review and discuss the data and vote to extend the pilot or continue indefinitely; motion seconded and passed with one abstention.
• The attached IELA and PTE-A Assessment will be used as a review document by the Graduate Council in January 2019 and January 2020.

Organic Agriculture – New Online Certificate #100609 – Ryan Contreras

• Web version
• PDF version
• Executive summary document
• Course development schedule
  • Observations from Rosemary Garagnani
    • I do not see a total credit hour requirement. The proposal shows required courses equaling 12 credits and a list of electives, but does not specify how many elective credits are required.
    • Admissions criteria are not stated.
    • The proposal mentions enrolling international students but, to do so, students studying from abroad must be able to complete 100% of the coursework online. It is not clear whether that is possible.

• 100% of the coursework is available online.
• Ryan will request that the proposer detail the total credit hour requirement and ask that the number of electives be specified and indicate that the admissions criteria (noted above) needs to be specified. Additionally, Ryan will request that references in the Executive Summary should be changed as follows: CAS is College of Agricultural Sciences, Animal Science should be Animal and Rangeland Sciences, and Health and Human Sciences should be College of Public Health and Human Sciences.
• Has Ecampus approved online courses, and what is the approval schedule? Ryan will request clarification of the status of course development and approval.
• #5.b. Outcomes and Quality Assessment – it’s not clear how learning outcomes will be assessed of the students for the program. Ryan will request proposer’s to provide a description of how students (not the program) are summatively assessed relative to the learning outcomes.
• How do they intend to use the capstone? Perhaps the capstone is actually a project? Ryan will request clarification of whether the capstone is intended to be an experiential learning that can occur any time within the certificate, or a true capstone that should occur towards the end? If a pure capstone, then they should consider making it an actual course instead of using the 506.

Action: To ensure that all concerns have been captured before sending to the proposers, Ryan will distribute a list of questions to the Council members.

Policy Revisions – Lisa Ganio

• Internships – Graduate-Level
  • The members were requested to circulate the proposed policy to faculty in their college and report the feedback:
    • Agricultural Sciences – no concerns
    • Public Health and Human Sciences – Marie sent to faculty and forwarded one comment to Lisa Ganio.
    • Science – The policy was sent to select units and received broad support; suggested that students ‘must’ have … rather than ‘should have’. Several commented on real or perceived thesis credits.
    • Business – Learning agreement should specify basis of evaluation rather than evaluation of the student’s performance.
      • One member would be opposed to ‘must’ vs. ‘should’. Another noted that a syllabus is a learning agreement. The first individual was not sure that would be a definition with which all would agree. Ryan suggests adding ‘a syllabus counts or learning agreement approved by the graduate faculty member assigned to the course that addresses issues’ to the paragraph that describes the learning agreement. 
    • Forestry was fine with the policy.
  • What constitutes a new internship? It’s the process of creating the Category II proposal that creates the course that is being described.
    • Change to ‘activate an internship course number (510, 610)’ Lisa will send revisions to Academic Programs and Assessment and Vickie.

Approval of March 16, 2018 Minutes

• Approval of minutes was postponed to the next meeting.

Request to Review AR 27

Proposed revisions to Academic Regulations are circulated for review and comment by all Faculty Senate committees and councils prior to being presented for approval at a Faculty Senate meeting. Please review the attachment and be prepared to either express comments/concerns or indicate that you have no concerns. For those of you unable to attend the meeting, please respond to the co-chairs.

• Graduate Council noted the confusion that occurred because, as written, AR 27 does not specify if it applies to graduate or undergraduate minors, certificates, options and majors. At one point, a prior email claimed that AR 27 applied to both graduate and undergraduate students, but Rosemary noted that this is not correct.  
• Changes number of credits
• A post baccalaureate certificate is earned after one has an undergraduate degree; an undergraduate certificate is earned before one has an undergraduate degree.
• The new policy indicates only 15 credits must be new, and 12 credits of a 27-credit certificate may be double counted. Undergraduate credits count toward a post-baccalaureate.
• Request that each time a credential is mentioned, either undergraduate or graduate must be indicated.

Action: Rosemary, who serves on the Academic Regulations Committee, will inform the Committee of the requested revisions.

Minutes prepared by Vickie Nunnemaker, Faculty Senate staff