Minutes
of the
CHAIRS/DEANS’ MEETING
On
April 16, 2002
IN
ATTENDANCE: Trish Goudie, Greg Kegel, Janice Brady and Roger Barber.
Jan Thomson and Ann Goldhahn joined the meeting, by
conference telephone, for about 20 minutes; Darlene Sellers was
then “patched in”, by telephone, for the
remainder of the meeting.
ABSENT:
Will Rawn.
The
meeting was called to order shortly after 9:00 a.m. in the Cowan Hall
Conference Room. The minutes
of the April 9, 2002, meeting were approved without any corrections or
additions.
Continued
Discussion of the Writing Proficiency Exit Requirement at MSU-Northern. The chairs/deans continued their discussion of the writing
proficiency exit requirement at MSU-Northern, since the campus is expected
to submit a preliminary plan to the Montana Board of Regents in May.
Will
and his colleagues in composition had prepared an initial proposal earlier
in the year, suggesting that the writing proficiency of baccalaureate
students at MSU-Northern should be evaluated in the capstone courses in
each degree program. That
proposal was shared with the rest of the faculty, and the feedback was
generally favorable. Some
faculty, especially in the technical areas, were concerned about their
ability to evaluate the writing skills of their students, however, since
they do not teach composition. Because
the capstone proposal was acceptable to most faculty; and because
MSU-Northern only needs a preliminary plan at this point, the chairs/deans
and Roger decided to go ahead with the capstone/portfolio process.
Joyce
Scott, the deputy commissioner for academic and student affairs in the
Office of the Commissioner of Higher Education, had prepared a format or
template for the campus plans, and Roger shared that with Will.
Will prepared an initial draft of MSU-Northern’s writing
proficiency exit proposal, using the template, and Roger distributed it to
the group. Will’s
explanation of Northern’s plan is as follows:
MSU-Northern
proposes to assess the writing proficiency of its
graduating students in the capstone course required in each
major. The
material to be evaluated would be portfolios of written work for
this
course. The primary
evaluators would be faculty in the appropriate
discipline.
Progress to date and next steps:
We have reached general agreement
that it would fit the institutional mission to measure exit
writing
proficiency through the capstone courses; that the composition
faculty will facilitate workshops on evaluating student writing to help
prepare
other faculty to evaluate capstone coursework in their
disciplines; and
that the results of assessment should be reported to the office
of the
dean of Arts and Sciences.
Our
next steps should be to establish a cross-campus committee for
implementation, and to plan remediation for students who may fail
to
meet the exit proficiency standard.
The
chairs/deans have discussed the writing proficiency exit process at
MSU-Northern at several meetings. The
only part of Will’s narrative that was not part of those discussions was
the last paragraph. Greg expressed
significant
concerns about the remediation process, because the capstone courses are
typically completed during a student’s last semester at MSU-Northern.
If students “failed” the writing proficiency expectations of
that course, Greg said, they would have a very difficult time completing
some remediation process. Most
students would be at the threshold of graduation, he noted, and any
remediation process should ideally be available some time before that
graduation threshold.
The
group agreed to discuss remediation more completely at the next meeting.
Roger reminded them that MSU-Northern’s plan must be submitted to
Joyce Scott by April 26. Therefore,
the chairs/deans would have to reach some kind of consensus on possible,
final language for the writing proficiency exit plan at the April 23
meeting of the chairs/deans, Roger said.
A
Common Platform for Internet Classes.
Janice Brady, the director of extended university, came to the
chairs/deans’ meeting to discuss a common “platform” for Internet
classes. MSU-Northern has no
policy or directive on the issue at the present time; and the lapse causes
significant problems for students and faculty.
Those problems include:
--confusion for students, since every Internet class could have
its own procedures and personality; students, in other words, have
to
learn something like a new computer program for every Internet
class
at MSU-Northern because the institution has no common way to set up
and deliver those courses;
--faculty are “on their own” as far as working with students,
because they have to learn the idiosyncrasies of the program they have
adopted for their classes; based on past experience, faculty often
do
not have the time. . .or the ability. . .to solve all of the
problems
confronted by students;
--the staff in the computer services department does not have
time to provide the necessary support for each, individual Internet
class; and because faculty are free to adopt their own support
system, the computer services staff is forced to learn each system
with
all of its quirks and differences; from a personnel perspective,
that’s
just not possible, and as a result, the service to both students
and
faculty is not good.
Jan
distributed a draft policy that would designate eCollege as the platform
for all Internet classes at MSU-Northern.
A common platform, and especially eCollege as the common platform,
would have the following advantages for the institution, according to Jan:
**eCollege provides both training and “Help Line” assistance
for
faculty who are developing an on-line course; for an additional
charge,
eCollege will even put the course on-line for the faculty member.
The
College of Nursing has been using eCollege for at least two years
to
deliver its BSN program throughout Montana.
Trish said that eCollege
is so “user friendly” that most faculty do not need the
extraordinary
services of that provider. But
if faculty are cautious about the work
required for an Internet class, or if they want help in
converting
their course to an Internet format, eCollege is ready to provide
that
service.
**all Internet classes would have the same processes and
personality, and students would only have to learn those procedures
once. From a student
perspective, the similarity between classes. . .
and especially the similarity in computer commands and processes. .
.
would make MSU-Northern’s Internet coursework much less
confusing.
**eCollege provides around-the-clock assistance in solving
technical problems, for both faculty and students.
**eCollege has also “computerized” the support activities that
accompany academic coursework.
For instance, students could
register electronically for MSU-Northern’s Internet classes,
using
eCollege programs; eCollege handles the creation, and security, of
passwords; and so on and so on.
**the Board of Regents has approved a $45 course fee for eCollege
courses at MSU-Northern. The
course fee covers the cost of services
provided by eCollege. At
this point, the institution cannot assess a
course fee for Internet classes supported by other platforms.
**Bill Leath, a staff member with the extended university at
MSU-Northern, has been trained by eCollege to provide advice and
assistance
to faculty members. If
Northern adopted a common Internet platform,
additional staff in the computer services area could also be
trained
by eCollege. That kind
of campus expertise would almost certainly not
be available for a smorgasbord of Internet platforms.
**eCollege would apparently be willing to work with faculty who
receive Internet versions of their textbooks; some faculty are
interested in using those electronic textbooks, but they assumed
that
eCollege could not be the support platform, since the electronic
textbook was developed by someone else.
Jan Brady said she has had several
conversations with eCollege about the so-called problem, and
eCollege has assured her that they can adapt other electronic
courses
to their format and processes.
In
discussing Jan’s proposal, the chairs/deans made the following points:
--several chairs/deans expressed significant concerns about the
current faculty collective bargaining contract, and its provisions
concerning Internet classes. Roger
shared those concerns, emphasizing
that the current contract makes it almost impossible for
MSU-Northern
to offer Internet classes because of the cost.
Since so many schools
are into Internet delivery of their coursework, especially in
Montana,
cost is an important consideration, Roger said.
Some of the
chairs/deans said that they had discussed the situation with
their
faculty, and there seemed to be support for changing the contract
language.
--Darlene was concerned about tying MSU-Northern to eCollege,
especially if that precluded the institution from hiring its own
faculty expert in technology education.
Jan made the point that, even
with such expertise on staff, it would be very hard for
MSU-Northern
to provide 24-hour assistance and support for faculty and students
in
Internet classes.
The
chairs/deans agreed to share Jan’s proposal with their faculty, and come
back to a future meeting with some suggestions and direction.
Future
Meetings, Especially Over the Summer.
Roger asked the chairs/deans if it would be possible to meet over
the summer months. The group
still has a long list of topics that need to be discussed, and Roger had
included at least part of that list on the meeting agenda.
It included such items as: the administration of distant programs,
NCATE and its upcoming visit, internal program review, pre-094
mathematics, mathematics for elementary education, and Level II paperwork
for the July Board of Regents’ meeting.
The
chairs/deans said that they would be available to meet periodically during
the summer. Darlene also
suggested that the group schedule a day-long session, something like a
miniature retreat, to work through some of the topics on the agenda.
Other members of the group thought that was a good idea, and Roger
said he would follow up on it.
The
meeting adjourned at 10:20 a.m.
Respectfully
submitted,
Roger
Barber
