Meeting Date: 
May 9, 2018
Date: 
05/09/2018 2:30 pm to 4:00 pm
Location: 
110 Heckart Lodge
Event Description: 

A PDF of the agenda can be found here.

A PDF of the minutes can be found here.

Agenda: 

1. 2:30 – Accreditation Discussion – JoAnne Bunnage, Director of Accreditation

2. Policy Updates

  1. Majors
  2. Minors
  3. Repeatability: Repeating Courses for Credit
  4. Minimum Class Size

3. Program Review Discussion

Recently there have been instances in which it is unclear who is responsible for communicating. Specifically, internal reviewers are not being consulted on dates and times of reviews. What is lacking from the guidelines is consideration of internal reviewers’ schedules.

  1. From the current guidelines: The schedule and agenda of the site visit will be developed by the Graduate School in consultation with the director of the program being reviewed. Arrangements for scheduling participants and for locating space are the responsibility of the program in consultation with the Graduate School.
  2. ONE TO THREE TERMS IN ADVANCE OF THE REVIEW ¨
    • Program nominates external reviewers (3 academic peers/3 employers) and forwards names and contact information to Graduate School Dean, including:
      • Complete name & title
      • Address
      • Telephone number(s)
      • Email address
      • Website
    • Program forwards site visit “black-out” dates (and preferred dates) to Graduate School Dean.
    • Graduate School Dean establishes date of site visit.
    • Program arranges external reviewers’ travel, lodging and payment of any honorarium, as necessary.
    • Program works with Graduate School Dean to establish site visit agenda.
    • Program is responsible for scheduling site visit for participants, facility tours, locating space for the meetings and for arranging meals and refreshments for the site visit.
Minutes: 

Voting members present: Sourabh Apte, Bill Bogley, Jim Coakley, Ryan Contreras, Cass Dykeman, Theresa Filtz, Lisa Ganio, Claire Gibbons, Marie Harvey
Voting members absent: Pat Chappell, Lisa Price, George Waldbusser
Ex-Officio members present: Graduate School – Stephanie Bernell, OSU Cascades – Julie Gess-Newsome (via phone)

Accreditation Discussion – JoAnne Bunnage, Director of Accreditation

  • PowerPoint
    • All of the Graduate Council Standards have been submitted. Slide 2 shows the interconnection of accreditation with other activities at the University. JoAnne is expecting at least eight external reviewers during the site visit. The Provost told deans that no searches are to occur during the site visit from April 15-17, 2019. In the past, OSU has received recommendations from the reviewers; two years ago, OSU was told that it was in a ‘fragile state’. JoAnne felt that was a statement that could no longer be made. Reviewers will look for mission fulfillment – for the Graduate School, there is a stated mission, core themes, and how those link to the OSU mission. There is a set of objectives and indicators. Provost Feser met with the Steering Committee last Fall and individuals were identified to respond to Standards. OSU Cascades and Hatfield Marine Science Center are included in the review; it’s still unclear how Portland will be handled. Core theme committees are starting to meet and addressing objectives and indicators. She is sensitive about getting input from students (about 30 have been nominated or have applied – looking for 15). The charge for faculty and units is to keep up the good work. Provost’s reports are used to populate portions of the report. Websites must be updated and have accurate, current and functional links. The Provost is providing some web support.
    • Q: Is Extension involved? Yes. Q: Are external stakeholders involved in accreditation? Core theme three does include stakeholders, and reviewers will likely meet with Extension representatives.
    • Q: Are faculty and programs at EOU involved in the review? JoAnne responded no, and added that EOU was not prevalent in the document from the past.
    • JoAnne thanked the Graduate Council for their work.

Policy Updates

  1. Majors
  • The Graduate Council made no revisions.
  1. Minors
  • Undergraduate minors - Paragraph 4 – add ‘/programs’ following ‘academic units’
  • Graduate Minors:
    • #2 –“a different major” – revise to read: A subset of courses from a different major
    • #3 – delete ‘or graduate option’ since an option is not a minor. Replace ‘concentration’ with ‘focus’.
    • Paragraph below #4:
      •  Replace ‘concentration’ with ‘focus’.
      • Add ‘/program’ following ‘academic unit’
    • Page 2:
      • 2nd paragraph - add ‘/program’ following ‘academic unit’
      • 2nd bullet add 18 credits for a doctoral minor.
  1. Repeatability: Repeating Courses for Credit
  • No additional revisions
  1. Minimum Class Size
  • No additional revisions

Program Review Discussion

Recently, there have been instances in which it is unclear who is responsible for communicating among the Graduate School, program and external and internal reviewers. Specifically, internal reviewers are not being consulted on review dates and times. The guidelines are lacking consideration of internal reviewers’ schedules.

  1. From the current guidelines: The schedule and agenda of the site visit will be developed by the Graduate School in consultation with the director of the program being reviewed. Arrangements for scheduling participants and for locating space are the responsibility of the program in consultation with the Graduate School.
  2. ONE TO THREE TERMS IN ADVANCE OF THE REVIEW ¨
    • Program nominates external reviewers (3 academic peers/3 employers) and forwards names and contact information to Graduate School Dean, including:
      • Complete name & title
      • Address
      • Telephone number(s)
      • Email address
      • Website
    • Program forwards site visit “black-out” dates (and preferred dates) to Graduate School Dean.
    • Graduate School establishes dates with internal and external reviewers.
    • Graduate School Dean establishes date of site visit.
    • Graduate School communicates date of site visit to all participants.
    • Program arranges external reviewers’ travel, lodging and payment of any honorarium, as necessary.
    • Program works with Graduate School Dean to establish site visit agenda.
    • Program is responsible for scheduling site visit for participants, facility tours, locating space for the meetings and for arranging meals and refreshments for the site visit.
  • Red text above indicates suggested revisions to the process.
  • Where can the Graduate Council be very explicit to work with both internal and external reviewers?
  • Steph proposed a potential solution – in the past, the Council chair asked for volunteers for a specific Graduate Program Review (GPR). Instead, ask who is available during Fall term; once dates are known, internal reviewers need to be treated the same as external reviewers. The programs are not contacting internal reviewers in a timely manner. Steph indicated that Graduate School representatives meet with the program 6-9 months prior to the term the review will occur and meticulously review expectations of the program. She suggested there could be better language online. Maureen Childers needs to know who the internal reviewers are so she can send the same materials at the same time to both the internal and external reviewers. She has already started working with programs whose reviews will occur in Fall 2018.
  • How far ahead of GPRs are external reviewers determined? Steph indicated that they meet with programs 6-9 months in advance.

Action: In the bullets above, prior to ‘Graduate School Dean establishes date of site visit’, another bullet needs to be added to indicate that reviewers receive dates and availability is determined.

  • Maureen indicated that there are 7-8 reviews scheduled for 2018-2019.
  • Council members agreed that availability of internal reviewers must be included when determining review dates.
  • In the past, the Graduate School has identified programs whose review is within 2-3 years, and invited an inexperienced internal reviewer to participate as the second internal reviewer so they become aware of the review expectations.

Action: The Graduate Council chair will solicit Fall term reviewers prior to the end of Spring term.

  • 10-year reviews – Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences and Marine Resources Management
  • 5-year review – Comparative Health Sciences

 

 

Minutes prepared by Vickie Nunnemaker, Faculty Senate staff