Meeting Date: 
May 23, 2018
Date: 
05/23/2018 2:30 pm to 4:00 pm
Location: 
109 Gilkey Hall
Event Description: 

A PDF of the agenda can be found here.

A PDF of the minutes can be found here.

Agenda: 
  1.  Standards for Non-Credit Academic Experiences – Rebecca Mathern
  1. Program Review Edits
  1. Fall Program Review Assignments
    1. 10-year Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences
    2. 10-year Marine Resource Management
    3. 5-year Comparative Health Sciences
  1. Curricular Proposal – Marisa Chappell, Robert Figueroa, Allen Thompson
  1. Revisiting Certificates and Double Counting

 

Meeting Schedule
Thursday, May 31 – 2:30-4:00 ~ 110 Heckart Lodge
Wednesday, June 6 – 2:30-4:00 ~ 110 Heckart Lodge

Minutes: 

Voting members present: Bill Bogley, Jim Coakley, Ryan Contreras, Cass Dykeman (via phone), Theresa Filtz, Lisa Ganio, Claire Gibbons, Marie Harvey, George Waldbusser
Voting members absent: Sourabh Apte, Pat Chappell, Lisa Price
Ex-officio members present: Graduate School – Jennifer Brown, Steph Bernell; OSU Cascades – Julie Gess-Newsome (via phone)
Guests: Rob Figueroa, Allen Thompson

 

Standards for Non-Credit Academic Experiences – Rebecca Mathern

Not discussed

Graduate Program Review Edits

  • Ryan proposed revisions to page 23 of the Guidelines for Review of Graduate Programs
  • Page 1 – Could the two red bullets be combined?
  • Who establishes available dates? Graduate School
  • Lisa will work on revisions with Steph Bernell and Maureen Childers.
  • There is no indication of when the report is due from reviewers to the Graduate School. Steph indicated that Maureen follows up after a specific amount of time, but agreed that the timeline should be indicated in the guidelines.
  • The Guidelines don’t indicate how the chair is chosen – it was felt that the external academic should be the lead reviewer. The Guidelines need to indicate that the external reviewers shall have prepared the report prior to their departure.
    • Proposed new bullet – The Graduate School Dean shall select academic and industry reviewers. The Graduate School Dean shall determine the chair, typically the external academic reviewer.
  • Recommendations and Report – Included in ‘The Day of Site Visit’: Prior to external reviewers departing, the bullet points shall be submitted to the Graduate School Dean and the final report date shall be submitted within four weeks.

Action: Lisa Ganio will distribute an edited version of the guidelines for review by the Graduate Council.

Fall Program Review Assignments

  1. 10-year Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences – Theresa Filtz
  2. 10-year Marine Resource Management – Marie Harvey
  3. 5-year Comparative Health Sciences – Lisa Ganio

Ryan will work with Maureen to identify upcoming program reviews and ask those program directors to serve as the secondary faculty reviewer so they become familiar with the process. Cass will forward to Ryan potential volunteers from the College of Education.

Curricular Proposal – Robert Figueroa, Allen Thompson

  • Applied Ethics MA, MS – Change Graduate Major #103431 from the College of Liberal Arts
    • The proposal is to add an MS degree to Applied Ethics.
    • Rob indicated there are 7-9 students, which is not a large contingency for the MS. While assessing the curriculum, it was noted that some students are doing work focusing on Science, and they expect to work in association with scientists after they graduate. It is a smaller group of students, but there is an interest, if the unit could fortify the curriculum, for Science applications. There is a lot of work available in New Media Communications and Biomedical Ethics. Applied Ethics felt that having an MS degree would make a graduate more attractive to employers in scientific fields.
    • Allen noted that students develop a scientific literacy.
    • There’s an understanding of a difference between an MA and MS. If one is taking science coursework, the non-MS degree more accurately reflects the credential. One Council member felt that the distinction is more about how the thesis is approached – is it an analysis of tests or a hypothesis-driven literature review to develop ideas that one finds a way to test somehow. Response: The science is hypothesis-driven and tested.
    • Allen – appreciated a broadening understanding of defending a thesis; typically, in Ethics, it is investigating normative issues of social population and defending descriptions.
    • Rob indicated that the theses he is involved with are case driven; an advantage of philosophy and applied ethics – an understanding of how scientists think.
    • Allen was surprised to hear that an MS degree is constrained by empirical testing.
    • One noted that the coursework is similar and questioned what the difference is between the MS and MS. Allen stated the difference is on a case-by-case basis for the thesis project (there is also a non-thesis project), and only 3 required courses – there is no room to make the division.
    • Could two students have exactly the same coursework, but one earns an MA and one an MS? Allen stated that what one earns would be at the decision of their major professor. The programs of study could look identical, but it would be unusual. The only distinction would be in the content covered under the thesis credits, but this would not be transcript visible.
    • Rob indicated that the program is oriented so the major professor is identified in the first year.
    • At the five-year review, student learning outcomes will have to be discussed – what are the Learning Outcomes for the MA and MS? Learning outcomes for programs must be distinctly different between the MS and the MA.
    • Rob did not see the distinction between other MA and MS degrees. Steph noted that students must identify the degree they are seeking (e.g., MS or MA) in their application and asked whether students would understand the distinction between an MS or an MA degree before they arrive at OSU. Allen responded that students self-select and indicate the type of faculty with whom they wish to work. Rob acknowledged that shifts occur, and that the MA has a non-thesis option.
    • At OSU, students must have two years of language, but this is not documented in the materials for the program. Allen agreed that is a requirement by the Graduate School for any MA program. It was noted that language needs to be listed as a requirement.
    • Dean Brown noted that the Graduate School receives many exception requests because students don’t realize they are required to take a foreign language. She requested that they make the requirement clear on their webpages, in their graduate handbook and in their application materials. 
    • One indicated that the program handbook needs to list the requirements. Rob responded that the FAQ is identical to what is in the catalog.
    • One questioned whether the two years of language must at the graduate level. Rob responded that the language requirement can be satisfied with prior undergraduate coursework.
    • Several members were concerned about the apparent lack of distinction between the MA and MS.
    • Steph asked, if a student wants an MS, is there a downside for them having an MS and trying to get into the field? Allen responded that the program is self-styled and is not a feeder for advanced degrees. If one is going into a PhD program in Philosophy, neither an MS nor MA are detrimental to the student.
    • Rob felt it would be a bonus if a student is comfortable with the interaction between science and philosophy.
    • One questioned the role of the Graduate School whether students earn an MA or MS – does it matter that they have the same degree? Jennifer responded there is no problem if faculty control the curriculum, the Graduate Council ensures the rigor of the degree and that it does what it says it will do, as long as the degree is added not just for the sake of adding degrees.
    • Allen said it would be helpful to know what markers are set for satisfactory criteria or whether other elements of the proposal are being met.
      • The proposers were asked to include learning outcomes for both the MA and MS.
      • If developing learning outcomes, one was concerned that the MA and MS criteria could be unevenly applied if students and faculty are choosing their pathway; students need guidance so criteria are clear. Allen will ensure that content on the website clarifies the MA and MS.
    • One Council member noted that there used to be a requirement for an assessment matrix.
    • What happens in the practicum that activates and checks that students are enabled to work with the scientific community? Allen responded that they would develop different criteria for the tracks.
    • One requested the following be clarified in the proposal: outline student learning outcomes for both the MA and MS, and how to measure; whether there is a thesis for the MA and MS; the language requirement; and ensure that a disciplinary or integrated minor is 15 credits.
    • One thought that adding an MS must be an abbreviated Category I and go to the Higher Education Coordinating Commission for approval – it’s not a change of title. Ryan will check with Gary Beach.
    • One was concerned with the already low numbers; and felt they could end up with a degree program with many faculty and very few students – it will not look very robust.
    • One questioned the value of splitting into an MS. One responded that the proposers indicated they had not really thought this through.

Action: Lisa Price, Graduate Councilor for College of Liberal Arts, will be notified of the missing items from the proposal and will be requested to work with the proposers to make needed changes:

  • identify student learning outcomes for both the MA and MS, and how to assess the Learning Outcomes;
  • make clear whether there is a thesis for the MA and MS;
  • document the language requirement; and
  • ensure that a disciplinary or integrated minor is 15 credits.

Revisiting Certificates and Double Counting

Not discussed

 

 

Minutes prepared by Vickie Nunnemaker, Faculty Senate staff