October 2, 2019 Minutes

Faculty Senate Minutes

October 2^nd, 2019

ABB 138

3:10-4:30pm

I.            Call to Order

a.       Meeting was called to order at 3:09pm

b.       Michael Brody is chairing meeting in Eric’s absence.

II.            Approval of the September 18th meeting minutes

a.       Tomas Gedeon moves to approve. No discussion. Amy Thomas seconds. Approved.

III.            Informational Items

a.       Core Committee Update/Reinvigorating the Core – Dean Adams

1.       List of committee members working on this 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

2.       Many have been involved in this effort

3.       NASH meeting High Impact Practices

A.      Foundation Courses:

i.            University Seminar (US)

ii.            College Writing (W)

iii.            Quantitative Reasoning (Q)

iv.            Diversity (D)

v.            Contemporary Issues in Science (CS).

B.      Ways of Knowing course areas:

i.            Arts (IA)

ii.            Humanities (IH)

iii.            Natural Sciences (IN)

iv.            Social Sciences (IS)

v.            Research & Creative Experience (R)

4.       Why reinvigorate the Core Curriculum?

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

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

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

5.       Core learning outcomes

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.        Explain how science contributes to analyzing complex problems in the contemporary world.

K.       Describe the scientific method, the kinds of questions asked by scientists and the methods used to explore those questions.

L.       Demonstrate critical thinking, writing and oral communication skills.

M.    Work effectively in small groups.

N.      Understanding of disciplinary methods, including the kinds of questions asked in the discipline and the methods that practitioners use to explore those questions

O.      Demonstrate critical thinking skills within the field.

P.       Demonstrate communication skills.

Q.     Demonstrate the ability to successfully collaborate as a member of a team (when applicable).

R.      Demonstrate an understanding of the responsible conduct of research.

S.       Demonstrate critical thinking abilities

T.       Prepare and deliver an effective oral presentation

U.      Demonstrate analytical, critical, and creative thinking in written communication.

V.      Demonstrate themselves to be reflective writers

W.    Show willingness to take risks in new writing situations 

X.       Collaborate with other writers 

Y.       Demonstrate ability to read rhetorical situations 

Z.       Demonstrate control of situation-appropriate conventions of writing

AA.  Integrate source material in their writing 

BB.  Interpret and draw inferences from mathematical models such as formulas, graphs, diagrams or tables.

CC.   Represent mathematical information numerically, symbolically and visually.

DD. Employ quantitative methods in symbolic systems such as, arithmetic, algebra, or geometry to solve problems.

EE.   An analytical and critical understanding of diversity within societies, nations, and cultures.

FF.    Knowledge of a language other than English and the culture(s) that speak(s) that language.

GG. An analytical and critical understanding of particular, traditionally marginalized, or less frequently studied societies, nations, and/or cultures and an understanding of cultural difference in relation to those societies, nations, and/or cultures.

HH. Locate relevant information from broad and diverse sources 

II.       Apply critical and creative thinking to synthesize information 

JJ.      Produce a scholarly product based on both existing information and student effort (e.g., analysis, synthesis, design, etc.) 

KK.   Demonstrate the ability to successfully collaborate as a member of a team (when applicable).

LL.    Demonstrate an understanding of the responsible conduct of research.

6.       How might we improve the core experience for students and faculty?

A.      Invite students, faculty and staff to tell us what knowledge, skills and habits of mind MSU Graduates should be able to demonstrate.

B.      Use what we learned to do something that could transform the culture on campus in a meaningful and impactful way.

7.       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

8.       What we learned:

A.      The Core should be a program of study and not individual courses that are checked off. Faculty, staff and students should be ab le to communicate the goals of the MSU Core program clearly and easily. 

B.      The Core Qualities should represent the knowledge, skills and habits of mind that the faculty, students and staff at MSU value and believe that every graduate should embody.

9.       MSU Core Qualities

A.      MSU Graduates are Effective Communicators

B.      MSU Graduate are Thinkers and Problem Solvers

C.      MSU Graduates are Local and Global Citizens

10.   Core Committee Timeline for AY19-20

A.      Summer: IGEA and designing assessment process

B.      Fall and Spring: Core Assessment (Pilot in Inquiry and University Seminar) – Workshops for Instructors.

C.      Fall: Seeking approval for the three MSU Core Qualities

D.      Seeking input on other ways we might improve the core experience.

E.       Committee has defined each quality and they are available on the website

F.       Will come back to another meeting for support. This is informational at this point.

11.   http://ou.montana.edu/msu-core/proposed.html

12.   Working on assessment of the Inquiry Core.

13.   Questions/Answers:

A.      Do core courses, as they are now, get mapped into these new core classifications? We are not changing designations, but there could be pathways within the core to allow students to “focus” on an area, but that hasn’t been decided. Faculty would have input on that.

B.      Core areas will not change. Core info on Provost’s website. http://ou.montana.edu/msu-core/index.html

C.      Will be assessed on the qualities, but may not be ALL of them. Cases like University Seminar, all three qualities would have to be covered.

D.      Was on core committee, was under the impression that courses would lose designation. Would be more of a staggered, or rolling change, not all at once. The policy always said they need to re-apply for designation after a certain amount of time, but it just hasn’t been done.

E.       Have taught core science courses for 40 plus years. It has gotten harder over the years to interest students with learning science. Maybe it’s difficulty for them, but just can’t get them interested. Hare to get student ratings up if they don’t want to take science courses.

F.       Find it concerning that during training, a table of four people were so far apart on their evaluations.

b.       Relationship Policy Introduction – Kellie Peterson/Nic Rae/Beth Burroughs/Abbie Richards/Matt Caires/Tami Eitle

1.       Old policy/existing policy states that it’s okay to have a relationship with a student, but you need to tell us about it and we’ll put a plan in place. That didn’t work.

2.       New policy is looking at the scope of your authority and how it relates to relationships.

3.       ASMSU will see it tomorrow night.

4.       Can we share this with other faculty? Wanted senate to have first look at it. Understand this is a DRAFT, working on gathering feedback at this point.

5.       Feedback Sessions:

A.      Monday, October 7th, from 9am-2pm in Ballroom B

B.      Wednesday, October 9th, from 9am-2pm, Ballroom A

6.       Remedial measures: who decides what will be done? What policy do we put in place? Anonymous tips? Suspending faculty during investigation? How do we remedy the harm to the people who were impacted? Then there are disciplinary measures. That is covered for faculty by the faculty handbook. Will be based on the amount and the reliability of the information. There is more to that process. The power of HR is already there. The hope is that you can find a way to remedy the situation in the short term so that no one has to be suspended.

7.       Is there a mandatory reporting piece to this? Yes. What are the repercussions if you don’t report? Disciplinary process is found in the faculty handbook, so all of those policies would be used here. What if you’re just suspicious? Are you mandated to report? If you ”reasonably believe” is when you are mandated to come forward.

8.       Will the handbook link be available in this policy so you can refer to that? Yes, it is listed under Enforcements.

9.       Have you looked at policies on other campuses? Yes. They spoke with Yale. They had a much more open and public process. They maintain public lists of ongoing cases, etc. Looked at about 10 schools. Looked at their policies. They were all fairly new, so it’s hard to get an idea of how it’s going for them.

10.   Trying to change behavior. We need to communicate that this is important and try to keep issues from happening in the first place.

11.   Think the way this policy is headed is good. Lining out the lines of power is helpful.

12.   Do we have data now that we can compare to later? The kind of data we have is more anecdotal, stories that were told. Lack of complaints doesn’t necessarily mean there aren’t any.

13.   Will you collect data going forward? Monitor how many complaints come in, but how do you measure what people AREN’T telling you?

14.   This is our business. Please look at this and bring back your feedback.

15.   Is there something in the policy that protects the faculty if they are WRONGLY accused? There is some language about malicious accusations.

16.   How do you, Matt Caires, see this rolled out to students? That hasn’t been put in place yet. It could be rolled into the Code of Conduct, but hasn’t been talked out yet. Will be thoughtful about what is the appropriate place for this.

17.   When talking to students, there was clear difference between undergraduates and graduates.

18.   One process in the faculty handbook for discipline of all.

19.   Would like to see this presented right up front to NTT and TT faculty as they are on-boarded.

20.   Statistically, false accusations about this type of thing are very rare.

21.   Concerned about how this conversation is taking place. Talking about a culture change and the majority of this conversation is revolving around ‘false accusations’. We need to change the culture and that is on us. It’s on us to educate our faculty. If you see something, say something.

22.   Education through SAFECATS app?

IV.            New Business

a.       New Courses

1.       BIOH 535: Principles of Neuroscience

2.       BIOH 545 Current Neuroscience

3.       NUTR 430 Food Processing

4.       ECVI 334 Heavy Civil Construction Planning and Estimating

5.       ITS 272 Cyber Defense

6.       ITS 274 Ethical Hacking and Network Defense

7.       CIM: Courses and Programs

b.       Program Updates

1.       BLEN-BS: BS in Biological Engineering

2.       EGIS-BS: BS in Earth Science/Planning Option

3.       ESGL-BS: BS in Earth Science-Geology Option

4.       ESPL-BS:  BS in Earth Science-Paleontology Option (CPC approved)

5.       These are changes. They are adding in already existing outcomes and reconfiguring some program details.

c.       Pathways

1.       Montana Transfer Pathways outlines the knowledge and skills that are essential for students to complete during their first two years of study for majors found on more than one MUS campus. -Computer Science

d.       Program Proposals

1.       PhD in Public Policy and Administration

A.      Very robust, well put together proposal

B.      UGC has some questions. Will have proposer come talk to them about it.

2.       Integrated MS in Optics and Photonics

A.      Designed for four year graduates in engineering to go on into photonics.

B.      Would think this type of program would be in great demand these days.

V.            Old Business

a.       Courses Approved at FS Steering

1.       EENV 436: Stormwater Management and Engineering

2.       HSTR 474: Introduction to Public History

3.       HTR 492: Independent Study

4.       HTR 490R: Undergraduate Research

5.       Held - GH 353: The U.S.-Mexican Border: History, Politics and Culture (next steering meeting)

A.      (Info on new info box in CIM form)

B.      GH = Global Humanities

C.      Is now on everybody’s radar

D.      Everyone involved has reviewed now and is on board. Issues have been resolved.

b.       Campus Sustainability Advisory Council (CSAC) Nominations

1.       Kevin Amende

2.       Julia Haggerty

VI.            Announcements

a.       Workload Plans and Process Update-Provost Mokwa

1.       At first steps

2.       EHHD, CLS, COE and COA are doing some clean up but are about done

3.       Departments will provide more specific aspects to the colleges plan

4.       We have been building to this time for 128 years. Don’t expect them to be perfect right away. That’s why they are called plans.

5.       Changes and improvements will be valuable.

6.       Anticipate being done by mid-December

7.       What does done mean? College will have a chance to refine their plan as best for them. Provost not reviewing the departmental plans, just the colleges. Want to have that wrapped up by mid-December.

8.       How was the decision made to decide if there would be review at the college or department level? That came from the Deans. Has been left up to them.

9.       Did you ask Deans for additional information, rules on how this should be developed? Deans wanted some issues flushed out at the department level. It’s up to Deans to manage courses, their budgets, etc. Don’t want to dictate how they do it. Tried to leave those decisions to the college. Want fairness across depts. and colleges, not necessarily equality. Want this to be transparent, so these will be posted at some point.

10.   Remember that the emphasis when we reviewed this before was that it would be up to the departments to figure their workload. This is more of an implementation issue.

11.   Was there a mandate for faculty involvement for developing the workload plans? Was understood it would be collaborative process with the faculty. Not exactly, “mandated”, but it was encouraged that everyone would work together. Sensing that some don’t feel they had enough involvement. Encourage you to bring this up with your Dean. They should be open to hearing your input.

12.   Going back 3 years there was a taskforce made up of faculty that worked on this process. One of the recommendations from that taskforce was to put a policy in place. Data from that report was shared.

13.   Took FS two years to go over the documents was partly due to fear of a power influence. Want to look back carefully at the language in the documents. Doesn’t sound like the plans are being implemented as the language in those documents state they should.

14.   Internship Policy is now on the website. The next step is for the units to develop internship guidelines for assigning credit for internships. A plan will be developed between student, faculty mentor and employer.

b.       Provost’s Distinguished Lecture Series: Dr. Christine Stanton, Department of Education
October 15, 7:00 PM, Museum of the Rockies

https://www.montana.edu/news/19068/msu-provost-s-lecture-series-continues-oct-15-with-talk-by-education-professor-christine-stanton

c.       Through the combined efforts of Faculty Senate and Academic Council, the Provosts office has developed a new academic policy related to the award of academic credit for internships.  The policy is designed to provide consistent academic requirements for internship credits that will be applied to all departments. 

(https://www.montana.edu/provost/Internship%20Policy%20Final%2010.2019.pdf)

d.       Upcoming Items Informational 10/16

1.       Medical Excuse Policy Update

VII.            Public Comment

a.       No public comment

VIII.            Adjournment

a.       Jim Meyers moves to approved. Tomas Gedeon seconds. Meeting was adjourned at 4:25

Reminder: Next Faculty Senate Meeting

                                October 16, 2019

                                3:10-4:30 PM

                                ABB 138

A downloadable PDF of this information can be found here.