Graduate Council

Voting members present: Sourabh Apte, Bill Bogley, Ryan Contreras, Rebekah Elliott, Marie Harvey, Lisa Price (via phone)
Voting members absent: Pat Chappell, Jim Coakley, Theresa Filtz, Lisa Ganio
Ex-officio members: Jennifer Brown – Graduate School Dean, Stephanie Bernell – Graduate School Associate Dean
Guests: Maureen Childers, Rosemary Garagnani, Dorthe Wildenschild

Update of Action Items from Fall 2017

• The Program Review Process is ongoing:
  • All winter reviews are fully staffed with primary and secondary reviewers.
  • Ryan will soon be reaching out to determine reviewers for Spring program reviews.
• Laurels Grants – discussion regarding Graduate Council role
  • Steph indicated that there are two representatives each from the Graduate Council and Graduate School (non-voting) and one from each college.
• AY 2017-18 assignments have been posted to the Graduate Council website.
• Epidemiology, Bioinformatics and Fisheries & Wildlife academic program reviews have been accepted; the History of Science will be discussed today.

Approval of Minutes from Fall 2017

• October 12
• October 26

Action: Marie moved to approve both the October 12 and 26, 2017 minutes; motion seconded and passed via voice vote with no abstentions.

History of Science Graduate Program Review Report

• Review date: June 6-8, 2017; Reviewers: Ryan Contreras, Rebekah Elliott
• Review Report (Revised 12/7/2017 to include a Curriculum Council Addendum)
  • This review was discussed on November 30, 2017, an amendment (included in the above report) was suggested, and the Council was to vote by email, but failed to get a quorum.

Action: Marie moved to accept the History of Science program review report; motion seconded and passed unanimously.

• Maureen has developed a template related to program reviews that is now being discussed in the Graduate School and, when finalized, it will be forwarded to the Graduate Council for review and approval
• In this review it was apparent that there was tension between the History and History of Science faculty, and this became an issue.
• Not all issues were addressed in the report.

Proposal to Change the MEng Degree Assessment Practices – Dorthe Wildenschild

Proposal: To both enhance experience for MEng students and to define an alternative summative assessment for the MEng degree.

• This is an additional opportunity for all MS Engineering students to offer professional development courses to assist students with obtaining jobs. Students will engage in developing a portfolio to serve as a final exam; the portfolio will be graded by two faculty. The process for grading the exam structure is based on the MCoun which also has a portfolio.
  • Ryan – leaving door open if ENGR 550 goes away – Dorthe - 2 one-credit courses; will be able to use existing final exam as well.
  • Q: One questioned whether this applies on a student-by-student basis or program-by-program?
    • A: Dorthe assumed it’s by program; she’ll make that change in the proposal.
  • Q: Wil the portfolio course will be in the last quarter?
    • A: Yes.
  • Q: Will students begin building a portfolio earlier?
    • Dorthe responded yes, students will be told up front about the portfolio expectations. This expectation also needs to be communicated in the Graduate Handbook and orientation.
  • Q: Will students understand which track they’re on?
    • Dorthe noted that this is why it needs to be by program; each program would have one or the other.
  • Q: Are there plans to assess?
    • Dorthe explained that assessment will occur through the exit interview and the regular assessment for the course.
  • Q: A large proportion of those enrolled are INTO students – is the portfolio valuable when they return to their countries?
    • Dorthe responded that the ability to communicate effectively with employers is helpful.
  • Q: In talking with people, what was the discussion related to the written comprehensive integrative exam? 
    • Dorthe stated that taking another written exam was not adding a lot to the program; reflecting on future employment seems more appropriate.
  • Q: There are a lot of peer and peer aspirational programs that have no assessment. Related to faculty time, will there be one advisor for all MEng students and an additional individual?
    • Dorthe indicated that the staffing is yet to be determined. Lyn Paul in Engineering has offered to assist.
  • Q: Is there a college or program rubric?
    • A: Dorthe stated that the rubric will need to be developed.
  • Ryan recapped two items that need to be accomplished: 1) insert in the Graduate Handbook and advise up front that students are required to prepare a portfolio, and 2) the program will develop a rubric.

Action: Marie moved to approve the proposal to change the MEng degree assessment practices with the understanding that a rubric will be developed and relevant information will be inserted in the Graduate Handbook; motion seconded and approved unanimously with Theresa Filtz voting in abstentia.

Amending Graduate Reviews

1. First meeting with Associate Dean or graduate studies representative (i.e., program director) (in lieu of College Dean) and review team. A number of deans have balked at this meeting occurring so early in the review, and it’s not a good use of the dean’s time.
2. Extend review for an additional one-half day; the Dean would be in the debrief meeting and be able to assess the draft report at this time.
   • Should the individual at the first meeting also participate in this meeting with the dean? They could be there, but the dean needs to be present to discuss resources.
3. Extend review for an additional one-half day, or into the evening of day one, to complete draft of review. The spirit of this is to have a draft report completed before the external reviewers leave town.

• The following morning would be better for those who live out of town – if the review goes too late, external reviewers may need to stay overnight.
• Staying late into the night may not be as productive.
  • Suggested to remove the suggestion to extend the review by one-half day and, in its place, indicate that the draft report will be finalized prior to the external reviewer’s departure.

Action: There was no support to extend the graduate review for one-half day. Instead, the Council supports indicating that the draft report will be finalized prior to the external reviewer’s departure.

Matters Arising

INTO Proposals

Ryan distributed the following proposals from INTO:

1. Alternative Language Assessments from TOEFL

• Rosemary noted that a language test similar to TOEFL has probably been in existence for 10 years. It is a testing alternative for those unable to attend a TOEFL exam and is less expensive than TOEFL.

2. IELA was developed with Cambridge University (CU); it has support material from CU and INTO – it is very new. If accepted, it would likely be on a trial basis for at least three years – likely not large numbers will apply. This would be for entry to INTO pathways and graduate study. To some extent, OSU would be a beta tester.

• Steph noted that, in Public Health, there is a lot of legislation – would there need to be a disclaimer indicating that INTO would benefit financially from the IELA testing service?
• Elena Sapp from INTO is available to attend the next Graduate Council meeting – Rosemary will invite her to attend.
• Rosemary has heard that the TOEFL alternative makes it easier for applicants to finish at one time; it would ease the application process.

3. Another proposal from INTO contains ideas to adjust the pathway for students with a GPA under 3.0 or those not meeting language requirements.
   1. One proposal was that, if completing 3 undergraduate credits and 6 graduate credits with at least a B grade, students would be admitted to a graduate program with only 9 credits vs. 15 credits.
   2. Jennifer stated that INTO is working on a 10-year launch of the pathway and trying to create more rigor in the pathway, as well as creating more graduate courses in the pathway.
      1. Programs should have input.
      2. INTO needs to be observant of Graduate Council policies.

Minutes prepared by Vickie Nunnemaker, Faculty Senate staff