Academic Affairs / Provost
- About Academic Affairs
- Academic Procedures and Regulations
- Transfer Guidelines
- Faculty/Staff Resources
- Faculty/Staff Support & Development
- Faculty Compensation
- Internal Program Review
- Organizations & Governance Groups
- Administrative Committees
- Consumer Information
Academic Council Minutes
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
I. Department Chair and Provost Discussions
A. Substitutions and articulation of classes
Bit of discussion in Exec Committee. Grelle - brought to our attention that chairs typically review courses for substitute and subsequently that course is now available via articulation. Once this happens it can be used in any area, but we do not know why. Looked at all the courses that had been substituted several 100 times and the course was articulated. We were told that if one department substituted a course it should not articulate and they are currently trying to figure out why this is happening and how to resolve the issue.
B. Innovation Campus
Out of the original cohort of 23 students 17 remain in the original Systems Engineering Technology program. These students have all been placed. Karen Dexter is coming on with us from MCC. She will be the person working with the involved departments making sure all assessments are completed and acting as liaison. For this fall, new cohorts for Engineering Technology CADD. Associates in Engineering Tech from MCC and CADD bachelors from us. The original cohort has 5 coming in. The first group was free, now students and families pay regular tuition (either dual credit or undergraduate). The legislature is suppose to pass a bill that identifies innovation campuses, of which we will be the first. President Ambrose is currently looking for other dollars as well as those that will come from the state.
Going to start engaging some new partners, looking at competency based programs, and will align better with the WGU. The WGU impact is still considered to be low, not necessarily competition for us. We are spending some time talking with Truman who is interested in competency based programs. Nursing is being looked at to see if it will be a viable option at the innovation campus. Space is major issue.
Summit Campus is part of this rebranding. We are getting a whole lot of interest from the JCCC. The new facility may be named for a large donor or have a broad name such as Innovation Campus.
We are looking at the space issues again, since there has been such a long time lapse. The trailer on S291 that has a banner is no longer in the running as a location. Homeland Security was wanting that space (where the Summit Center is currently located). KC was coming back to us with $250 a square foot (lease) where we pay in the range of $7 a square foot currently. KARO is now very interested in us maintaining space in their facility, and offering around $10 a square foot for a lease renewal. We will bring folks back to the table to continue that conversation. Looking at extending that lease into 2018. Hopefully developers will come back to the table with more reasonable offers. They would absolutely allow better signage on three sides and are fine with electrical signage visible from the highway. Current considerations include wrapping the innovation campus along with the summit center.
When we get ready to move into more space, we will revisit what our space needs are (ie recording studios) and what the best use of the space will be. We are raising funds right now. The president is sitting down with a donor as we speak. One of the developers expressed their desire to be a part of this, possibly as a donor. Have not heard anything regarding international programs being housed at this location.
Funding would include equipment. If we are able to grab more of that north building or the whole building at the current Summit Center location, that would be ideal. One space will take two years to clean up the chemicals left from the previous tenant. Negotiations are ongoing. Right now we are at $10 per square foot.
How are we doing programing there? How are we deciding what programs are going to be used in this campus? The two that are already on the books have had faculty at the table and were business/industry driven by partners approaching us with their needs.
Are faculty being asked to come up with proposals? It’s a collaboration with business and university. The business are dictating what their feeder programs would be. Normally you would do some kind of market demand, but this came originally from Cerner and DST. They drove the program. When other partners have set forward, the second program was driven by that as well. It wasn’t an administrative decision, it was a request from those businesses that are partnering with us.
If we think we have a program, do we need to come forward with some business/employer support? Start with having your dean present any proposals.
The students are paying regular tuition, right now dual credit while they are in high school finishing the AA. We will see the tuition when they reach the bachelors degree level.
Summit Center receives many requests to hold conferences. We would like to have our own space where we could house these and accommodate their various needs.
Has there been consideration of combining these three areas? We cannot use the word campus lightly. When we do rename it, we may want to consider taking the word campus out. All the administrative and support services have to be provided on a campus and would require HLC approval for a new campus.
There were some problems this semester. They have assured us that they have done everything they can on campus, and the problem is in BlackBoard itself. Jim Graham has taken a hard line approach that Bb should have been more proactive preparing for our heavy use times such as finals week. They are being very aggressive with Bb.
D. Syllabi (HLC)
We do not need every syllabi, just samples. It is critical that the learning outcomes that are addressed in that course are listed on the syllabus. They need to be directly tied to and relatable to the outcomes of the program. We also found some syllabi that still reference CMSU.
We’ve made some changes in the faculty guide specifically about credit hour, we asked that you put it in some departmental publication. Do we want to have some statement requiring it in the syllabus? Would a common cover sheet that has the program outcomes for that major with the ones addressed in the course highlighted be helpful?
Do you want to require credit hours statement in syllabi? College of Ed requires it as do other departments.
Cover sheet - this would be opposed for the sheer size of our current syllabi. How do we communicate the requirements of credit hours and how they are determined.
Maybe just a direction to a website that leads students to the core pieces that are common in all the syllabi. This has been discussed in COE. For consistency sake, a link to the faculty guide would be automatically updated. Business already requires their competencies. Gen Ed lists the outcomes addressed in that course, but not a specific requirement. Faculty are already talking about how long their syllabi are, up to 30 page. Curriculum matrix link could be another option. Please think of some way to communicate these items better.
Provost needs chairs help with grades getting entered on time.
II. Approval of Minutes from April 9th, 2013
III. Questions on Written Reports
IV. Information Items
A. Education Advisory Board
Erin McDougal - Student Success Collaborative. From the parent firm the advisory board company. Grown a number of memberships. Based in Washington D.C. Started with healthcare and were asked to move into higher education space. Currently have 6 different academic areas. Academic affairs led to the student success collaboration. They hit their 1000th member this morning. Kept hearing need for research in student success. Data analytics and predictive modeling to inform what's there. Using available past data to predict student success. UCM is part of the 22 member founding cohort (the entire Indiana system and MU are part of this cohort). 36 in the current (spring) cohort.
Started partnership with UCM late last year. On site in March. Have been collecting data since then. Today was for validation. Next milestone will be the in-person training for testing purposes. Full site launch will be this fall, meaning it will be ready. How it is actually rolled out will be determined by the leadership team. Since March 2012 prototype we have had 4 new releases.
Our main focus is calculating student risk. Academic, non academic, progress to degree, early engagement rist. No easy way to gather this information. Developed risk prediction based on academic data.
Risk is calculated using historical academic data compared to our current students. Students are color coded: red-high, yellow-medium, green-low.
If a student gets an A in intro to Bio they have a 70% chance of graduating where a C student drops to a 40% chance.
Will be training the pilots later this summer and whole campus this fall.
What is the timeframe? The pilot programs will have it this summer. It will be available to everyone this fall, but the actual rollout is up to the leadership team. Training is onsite and online. System is very intuitive.
Email any questions to email@example.com
V. Discussion Items
A. Selection of Vice Chair and Executive Committee members for 2013-14
Nicole Nickens will be chair next year. Need volunteer/nomination for vice chair. Jim Staab nominated Eric Tenbus. Approved.
Executive Committee: volunteers - Patricia Antrim, Ed; Scott Chenault, Harmon; Linda Medaris, Library and Academic Enrichment; Michael Godard, HST
VI. Other Items As May Arise
Email coming out tomorrow letting you know that you can order your faculty parking permits from Cheryl Riley. Please do not email her with questions, contact Public Safety directly.
VII. Future Agenda Items