January 15, 2020 Minutes

Faculty Senate Minutes

January 15^th, 2020

SUB Ballroom D

3:10pm-4:30pm

I.            Call to Order

a.       The meeting was called to order at 3:10pm

II.            Approval of the December 4th meeting minutes

a.       Jim Meyer moves to approve. Tomas Gedeon seconds. None opposed. Approved.

III.            Informational Items

a.       None

IV.            New Business

a.       CORE Update and Endorsement

i.            Background

A.      Current Core has been around for a long time.

B.      New core will help us with assessment for accreditation.

C.      No common understanding of what the goal of the core curriculum is and why it is important for students.

D.      Students, faculty, staff were all unable to articulate what was valuable in core classes and how they integrated with students’ major programs of study.

E.       Core was seen as individual courses (US, W, Q, D, I, CS, R) that were not cohesive or part of anything larger.

ii.            Core Committee Members Since AY18 (*indicates current members)

A.      Mike Wittie

B.      Sara Rushing

C.      Dean Adams

D.      Craig Carr*

E.       Jenny Green*

F.       Janet Heiss-Arms*

G.      Meg Konkel

H.      Colleen McMilin*

I.         Amber Raile

J.        Matthew Regan*

K.       Sally Moyce*

L.       James Meyer

M.    Rebecca Jones*

N.      Meri Schroeer*

O.      Paul Gannon*

P.       Shannon Willoughby*

Q.     Michelle Miley

R.      Ken Silvestri*

S.       Tony Campeau

T.       Doug Downs

U.      John Lund

V.      Greg Notess

W.    Michael Everts

X.       Dean Adams

Y.       Carl Igo

Z.       Deb Blanchard

AA.  Ada Giusti

BB.  Jack Brookshire

CC.   Amy Thomas*

iii.            Listening and Feedback Sessions: January 2018-August 2019

A.      Academic Advising Council

B.      Academic Council

C.      Associate Deans’ Council

D.      Campus Action Advising Team

E.       CLS Advisory Council

F.       Core Steering Committees Members

G.      Curriculum and Programs Committee

H.      Department Heads and Directors

I.         Faculty Senators

J.        Library

K.       NAS Faculty Emails to Core Committee

L.       Planning Council

M.    Update Core Committee members

N.      Many Other Faculty Who Provided Input Individually

O.      ASMSU Senators

P.       CLS Student Ambassadors

Q.     COA Student Ambassadors and Ag Education Club

R.      Diversity and Inclusion Commons

S.       Honors College Students

T.       Student Organization Leaders and Members

U.      Trio, Empower and McNair students

iv.            Core 2.0 – Goals and Objectives

The goal of Core is to provide students with the opportunity to develop their creative and intellectual potential. The objectives of Core 2.0 include:

A.      Think, speak, and write effectively, and evaluate the oral and written expression of others.

B.      Develop learning objectives and the means to reach them, thus developing lifelong patterns of behavior which increase the potential to adapt to and create change.

C.      Exercise and expand intellectual curiosity.

D.      Think across areas of specialization and integrate ideas from a variety of academic disciplines and applied fields.

E.       Use complex knowledge in making decisions and judgments.

F.       Make discriminating moral and ethical choices with an awareness of the immediate and long-term effects on our world.

G.      Develop a critical appreciation of the ways in which we gain and apply knowledge and understanding of the universe, of society, and of ourselves.

H.      Understand the experimental methods of the sciences as well as the creative approaches of the arts.

I.         Develop an appreciation of other cultures as well as an understanding of global issues. 

J.        Outcomes information:

http://catalog.montana.edu/core-general-curricular-requirements/

v.            Notes on Implementation:

A.      Existing Core Courses – Update courses CIM to reflect how the course links to outcomes and artifacts. Instructor initiated updates and linked to assessment process.

B.      New Courses – New course proposals identifying learning outcomes, linked to assignments (same form or parallel forms pending Banner/CIM update)

C.      Faculty Learning Communities – Composed of Core Instructors

vi.            Comments:

A.      Understanding that the new core is fundamentally no different than the old core. Just different layers of core. Has been modified, but looks like the point is changing as little as possible. Seems that Montana Hall just wants to say that they had a hand in the Core. Not convinced that this is in the best interest of the faculty. All the time put into this is taking away from teaching and research time.

B.      Would like to add the re-designation of an existing course to the conversation. Need to link syllabus to new learning outcomes. You will not be kicked out of your core designation.

C.      Three Core Values: Each core course will need to meet two of those three values. Designed to be simpler by having three objectives instead of 10+. http://ou.montana.edu/msu-core/proposed.html

1.       MSU Graduates are Effective Communicators

2.       MSU Graduates are Thinkers and Problem Solvers

3.       MSU Graduates are Local and Global Citizens

D.      Understanding is that as of now core courses need to meet their current outcomes PLUS two of those three values. That is not the intent. It should just be those three values.

E.       Needs to be a presentation of ‘cost’ benefit to the faculty. Concerned about the additional workload.

F.       Dean Adams: Core are already supposed to apply for re-designation every five years or so and that hasn’t been happening. This will be designed around the assessment schedule. Adds value to the Core. Courses may have other outcomes to meet around diversity or inquiry, but those aren’t necessarily assed in this manner. In the past there were committees built around each designation area and it was their responsibility to assess the core in that area. This is a much more robust assessment. This came out of the Wabash study that showed we were failing in this this area. We are aware of the workload to faculty, but they were already supposed to be doing this and it just wasn’t happening.

G.      Will eventually vote on the content of the updated Core. We are not voting on the process by which this is being implemented. There is a vision of what that will look like, but it will evolve. Faculty engagement is critical. Faculty workload is not settled yet and that is not what’s on the table today. We don’t want to lose sight of that, so we will continue to discuss. It is an important conversation.

H.      First that I’ve heard that I need resubmit anything for core designation. If we are concerned that our students aren’t “getting” our core, what do they point them to, the 10+ objectives? It is worth keeping in mind if it’s worth it to re-submit something for a Core that is no different than what we already have. Need help to explain to faculty what is going to happen.

I.         Also concerned about the workload. This is the fourth time I’ve heard this. Why aren’t the new outcomes listed anywhere on the website? Because they are not approved. Understanding is that the core will be clearer and simpler to assess.

J.        So we should not point our faculty to the core website? Eric will get the correct link and will share it as quick as possible.

K.       Larger conversation needs to be had on implementation.

L.       Teaching Core since 1992. There were a number of listening sessions for faculty and students multiple times over the past few years. From feedback they realized that the change to Core didn’t need to be from the ground up, but it comes down to sharpening the language so it makes more sense to faculty and students. This simplifies the language on the syllabus for the students.

M.    Will make sure we get the correct link out to everyone. Please bring comments back in two weeks. Apologies for making things more confusion.

N.      Would like to see an ongoing conversation between faculty and see this as reflective as possible.

O.      Encourage you and your colleagues to review the info from the link that will be sent out and bring feedback to meeting in two weeks.

P.       How does this interact with common course numbering? Core still needs to be transferable, within MUS. Mechanically, for existing courses that have gone through CCN, in the short run nothing should get upended. New courses will have to go through the CCN process, just like any other new course. Still in the works is what it will look like in CIM. There is an update in process to the CIM form to make the core work easier. Ultimately, you should not have to start over.

b.       New and Revised Programs

i.            Integrated Master of Science in Optics and Photonics-Randy Babbitt

A.      This is the first of the 4+1 master’s programs that we’ve seen through the Faculty Senate. Structured in a way that students can complete their bachelor’s and master’s in five years.

B.      Department: Optical Technology Center

C.      Program Committee Members: Electrical and Computer Engineering, Physics, and Chemistry

D.      IMSOP integrates three current SU degrees:

1.       Bachelor’s degree (from any degree granting department)

·         Ex: Physics, engineering, chemistry, biology, microbiology, biochemistry, environmental science, earth science, geology and computer science

2.       Minor in Optics and Photonics

3.       Master of Science in Optics and Photonics

E.       The proposed program will

1.       Lowers barrier for our undergraduates to continue their education at MSU.

2.       Increase the pool of qualified MS and PhD candidates

3.        Satisfy demand for graduate student researchers at MSU

4.       Promote interdisciplinary research

F.       Application

1.       Application typically submitted in the fall of the 3rd undergraduate year

2.       Applicant requirements:

·         MSU undergraduate major with declared minor in Optics and Photonics

·         >3.25 GPA

·         >83 credit hours complete/in progress in semester of application

·         Show promise of successfully completing the master’s degree

3.       Program Rules:

·         Up to 12 reserved credits in 400-level and 500

·         Max  9 total credits of 400-level courses applied to graduate degree

Ø  (total of reserved and earn at graduate student)

·         All the requirements of the MS degree in Optics and Photonics degree apply to the participants in the IMSOP degree program.

4.       Expected Program Participation:

·         1-2 in the first year

·         5-10 students participating after 3 years.

G.      Questions/Comments:

1.       This is all in CIM? Yes.

2.       These do not need to go to BOR. Will not come back for another reading. Give you a week to look it over and take it back to your departments. If no issues, Steering will approve. If issues, will have more time. Please take a look at the specifics. If you have questions on courses or impacts, please let Eric or Michael know. Think about what this addition might mean for your department. Don’t want to hold this up for normal questions. Bigger questions will be given the time. Will move forward two Tuesdays from now in Steering. Eric will work with the proposer and involved parties on big issues.

3.       There has been a slight change in policy at the graduate school. They used to limit reserved credits to 9, but have had to make a change for these types of programs. They will now reserve 12. Is  it changing the policy, or making an exception? It will probably change the policy if it’s going to affect other programs.

4.       Is posted to Faculty Senate website under “Upcoming Meeting”

ii.            Master of Science of Innovation and Management-Tim Harvey, Associate Dean

A.      Dean Ranalli implemented a similar program at his previous institution.

B.      For STEM undergrads. Would get a business degree to complement their STEM degree.

C.      Co-hort program. Moving through a sequence of 10 courses, 30 credits total, with the same group of students.

D.      Need to increase grad enrollment. JJCBE is 98% undergrad. Do not have a lot of options for grad programs without stepping on U of M’s toes.

E.       Need to increase our footprint, and this seems like a very focused way to do that.

F.       Targeted at existing stakeholders=current MSU graduates.

G.      Is posted to Faculty Senate website under “Upcoming Meeting”

H.      Have to have 60% of teaching done by TT Faculty for our accreditation. We are right on that line currently.

I.         Most business NTT faculty have come from the private sector. They are very experienced and very stable.

J.        This will be carried out by both, NTTs and TTs.

K.       Questions:

1.       Seems like a lot of graduate credits for a program. Can only compare it to their current master’s program which is 15 credits per semester.

2.       Have you reached out to U of M when creating this? There will be potential overlap. Will have to defer to the Dean. Provost Mokwa: System wide discussions happened during the Intent to Plan process. In the end there were enough differences between ours and U of M’s programs and they gave us the go ahead.

3.       This is for entry level graduates

4.       Nothing about limitations to STEM students is listed on the syllabus. What about Arts and Architecture students? Would it not be appropriate for them, or could they go in that direction if they desired? This program assumes a highly quantitative background.

5.       How many graduate students would you need to change the 2%? This would not make a huge impact, but need high teens or low twenties. Cannot go above 40 without having to add sections. It may double the number that we have now.

c.       New Courses

i.         MSSE 508: Statistics Boot camp for MSSE Capstone Projects

ii.       PHSX 585: Physics by Inquiry: Electric Circuits

iii.     PHSX 586: Physics by Inquiry: Heat and Temperature

iv.     PHSX 587: Physics by Inquiry: Optics

v.       PHSX 597: Physics of Renewable Energy for Teachers

vi.     Linked to website

vii.    Will not impact other curricula

viii.  Let Eric and Michael know if you have issues PRIOR to next Tuesday.

V.            Old Business

a.       Center Review Guidelines Discussion – This item was tabled until the next meeting.

VI.            Announcements and Updates

a.       University Council Update

i.            Relationships Policy-Second Reading 2/5

A.      Second reading at University Council in February. Posted on University Council’s website.

ii.            Restricted Research Policy

A.      Past article didn’t relate the policy well

B.      Intent is to balance the encouragement of this research with the protection of faculty and students.

iii.            Student Field Trips and Domestic Travel Policy

A.      If you are taking students off campus for academic purposes, check the policies before you go. Make sure you are in compliance. Reach out to relevant bodies. Don’t’ get stuck.

b.       Upcoming Items

i.            Center for Science, Technology, Ethics and Society

A.      Will see this in the next few weeks

c.       Convocation Recognition – Senators and Alternates

i.            Congratulations to Julia Haggerty, Robert Carson, Christina Anderson, Steve Swinford, Rob Maher, and Lucia Ricciardelli!

VII.            Public Comment

a.       Please state your name and affiliation

i.            No public comment

VIII.            Honorary and Posthumous Degree Candidates (Closed/Executive Session)

a.       Summary of the nomination and review process

i.         We cannot take discussion of these outside of this room Candidates have not been notified. This has not been made public. It has come up that senators are uncomfortable hearing and voting on these the same day, so if that comes up in the future we will have more time. These we need to move on today.

b.       Honorary Degrees – Andreas Thorsen

i.         Ed Schmidt moves to support these two candidates. Bradford Watson seconds. None opposed. One abstention. Motion passes.

c.       Posthumous Degree - Tony Campeau, Registrar

i.         Jim Meyer moves to approve support of these two candidates. Franke Wilmer seconds. None opposed. No abstentions. Motion passes.

IX.            Adjournment

a.       Meeting was adjourned at 4:45pm

Reminder: Next Faculty Senate Meeting

                                January 29, 2020

                                3:10-4:30 PM

                                SUB Ballroom D

A printable PDF of this information can be found here.