April 2000 Archives

Minutes 25 April 2000

| No Comments

 Tuesday, April 25, 

3:30 p.m.
Columbia Room 

1.0 Call to Order 

2.0 Call of the Roll: 

There was one substitution: Bryan Dutton for Irja
The following senators were absent: Dean Bethea, Brian Bonnlander,
Brodsky, Tina Fuchs, Stephanie Tunison, and Wangeshi Gatimu. 

3.0. Corrections to and approval of the minutes from the previous
senate meeting/Agenda Adjustments. Minutes approved. There
were no agenda adjustments. 

4.0. Reports of the Presidents 

4.1 Senate President 

4.11 Joel reminded all senators that new senator positions must be
decided by the next meeting. New senator information can be
provided to Joel (alexanj@wou.edu) or Sarah (boomers@wou.edu).
New senators are required to come with old senators to the May 9

4.12 Executive Committee elections will take place
May 23. The nominating committee for this committee will be
decided upon after all new senate positions have been determined.
While the role of the vice president has not changed for the next
academic year, it has been discussed that we may want to
incorporate faculty senate webpage maintenance into his/her
duties and take that up formally next year. 

4.13 Joel reminded senators of the recent email detailing all
Executive Committee-approved course approvals. 

4.14 Joel requested input/suggestions for an outside non-research,
non-WOU-affiliated member to serve on the IRB committee, the
federal grant-mandated committee on campus that oversees
research involving human subjects. 

4.15 Joel reminded senators that course change forms REQUIRE
Ed. Media and library signatures so that potential course impact on
these resources may be communicated. 

4.16 The W and D designated course issue remains in limbo until
the ARC can present more exact findings. Joel hoped that their
long-awaited report would take place at the next meeting. 

4.2 President of Western Oregon University

President Youngblood said the budget report will be on next month's
There was no further report.

President Youngblood and Provost Minahan were asked about
whether the catalog would be 1, 2, or 4 year and much discussion
ensued. Provost Minahan noted the large cost (approx. 40K) of
publishing new catalogs, although noted that many are handed out
as recruiting tools (and the true effectiveness of this is not known).
While he commended the obvious curriculum development going
on, he hoped that faculty would recognize the need for a long-term
catalog and understand that not every change needed to go into
catalogs (sub-catalog information provided within departments, for
example, could suffice over some periods of time). Joel asked
whether a "mini-catalog" that was less expensive to produce could
be written to solve the problem of using the expensive catalog as a
recruiting tool. The Provost said this was under consideration. 

4.3 Student Body President

Obie Garza was not present. 

5.0 Consideration of Old Business 

5.1 The new "on-line routing form" was discussed, with some differences
opinion. Some senators believed that there should be an
intermediate form that addressed courses that were both "in-load"
and "self-sustained." Some senators believed that additional
information about "financial issues" or needs should be addressed
in the form. Other senators had no problem with the existing form.
Specific comments should be sent to Joel and he will assimilate all
comments for another review. An ancillary discussion of how the
"eCollege" training for the on-line MAT was had. Senators
involved in this training discussed pitfalls with software and
hardware, the huge time commitment, and the necessary learning
curve that will have to take place. 

5.2 New Masters in School Counseling. The presentation about
this new degree highlighted state employment needs for School
Counselors and the unique disability emphasis this degree would
offer in comparison with degrees at other institutes. Primary
discussion involved questions about FTE (2 will be added) and
comments from Provost Minahan indicating that this may be tough
to approve beyond campus because OSU has a comparable degree (that
ironically originated from WOU when we ran a joint education program
years ago). The faculty senate approved the new degree program. 

6.0 Consideration of New Business: none 

7.0 Reports of the Interinstitutional Faculty Senators: none 

8.0 Reports of Faculty Senate Sub-Committees 

8.1 Academic Requirements: None 

8.2 Curriculum Committee: 

Brian reminded everyone that next meeting
will be May 16. 

8.3 Graduate Study Committee: None 

8.4 Honors Committee: None 

8.5 International Education/Services Committee: None 

8.6 Academic Information Committee: None 

8.7 Jenson Lectureship Committee: 

Janeann reminded everyone
about the upcoming spring lectureship - now two weeks away. 

8.8 Honor Code Committee: Kim Jensen discussed the progress the
committee had made this year (based on the report handed out at
the last meeting). She pointed out perceptions that there should
be a "shift in culture" on campus to one of academic honesty,
pointing out student support for more guidance and awareness
when it comes to these issues. Other committee members
present described specific ideas, including more faculty orientation
on the topic (particularly for new faculty), encouraging all faculty to
"read the existing rules" at the beginning of classes in the fall, and
actually having students sign awareness statements. Some
discussion ensued about potential legal issues involved, although it
was pointed out that students enter into a contract via enrolling that
assumes they know about the existing code which is, in itself, part
of the contract. Some senators felt more student orientation
activities need to take place so that that awareness was made early.
Some senators felt we should be careful to emphasis "honesty" not
"dishonesty" in the language of any codes being considered. After
lengthy discussion, it was moved that the committee be continued next
year and charged with the task of defining specific measures to address
these issues and, in the long term, defining the most appropriate "code"
for this campus. This motion was approved. 

The Meeting was adjourned.

Minutes 11 April 2000

| No Comments

Special Senate Meeting: Martin Morris Presentation/On-Line
Curriculum Grant Information 

March 14, 2000 

Columbia Room, 3:30 p.m. 

1. Call to Order. 

2. Call of the Roll. 

Lowell Spring was present on behalf of Irja
Galvan. The following individuals were not present: Dean Bethea,
Judy Bullington, Ming-Chi Own, Tina Fuchs, Wangeshi Gatimu,
David Hargreaves, Linda Keller, Rebecca March-McCannell, Donna
Perry, Janeanne Rockwell-Kincanon, Stephanie Tunison, and Mike
Ward were absent. Several guests, both administrative and from
the School of Education, were present. 

3. Presentation from Martin Morris and Discussion.

This is a hopefully brief and general overview of what was an
informative 90 minute combined presentation and question/answer
session. The object of the meeting was to inform. No specific
votes or motions were taken. For additional information, please
review original materials about this grant and intellectual property
rights provided earlier via email. Some key points:

(a) The LAAP Grant is funded through OUS and eCollege, with
OUS funds supporting assessment and salary and eCollege money
for technology (server, laptops, and software) and training-related
travel stipends. OUS funding accounts for nearly twice the amount
provided via eCollege. "Ownership" of on-line converted materials
still remains somewhat "muddy" and, as recommended by Martin,
should remain a point of discussion as this campus becomes more
involved in both the internet and in grant-supported curriculum.
Likewise, general issues regarding copyrights and intellectual
ownership, academic freedom, and the appropriateness of on-line
courses for particular disciplines should remain a topic of discourse.

(b) The specific cohort target for these funds consists of
transitional teachers in the classroom who have a bachelors degree
in their content area but still need formal licensure. Such
transitional teachers have three years to obtain their licenses.
There are approximately 126 transitional teachers working in the
state and this program hopes to recruit 25. During involvement in
the on-line version of this MAT, masters students will have a
classroom mentor. Several questions were discussed regarding
student access not only to hard/software but also to weekend
contact with professors. In addition to on-line materials, it was
also suggested that video/audio presentations were being persued.
This program has been accredited. There will also be an additional
cohort involving special education.

(c) As indicated by Martin and several School of Education faculty
present, the implementation of the transitional license/MAT
program for its summer debut is proceeding on schedule. Current
faculty have now been scheduled for summer on-line courses and
will be involved in conversion/course preparataion this spring. OUS
funds will cover salary for extra preparation time (approximately
$1500 per faculty) and eCollege money is supporting laptops (PC
or Macs loaded with necessary software) and training for those
faculty involved in the conversion process. All faculty will receiving
regular FTE for on-line courses (i.e. entirely comparable to non-on-
line format equivalent classes).

(d) In terms of grant submission/approval protocol issues, Martin
noted that it was unfortunate this grant was available over a
matter of days and submitted without, indeed, more faculty input.
He and the Provost spoke on the need for improved mechanisms
for monitering and managing grant submissions on this campus. In
particular, grants requiring matching funds (historically, anywhere
between 5-100K) may need more formal scrutiny (e.g. via a
committee). However, it seems even more imperative, should such
a committee evolve, that all grants be prepared and
submitted in a timely and organized fashion if they are to be
reviewed properly and meet deadlines.

(e) The last major point I will highlight regarded the question
Faculty Senate was asked to consider when this issue was
originally brought forth: "Does an 'on-line' version of a class require
a course change/curriculum committee approval?" The Provost
suggested that the essence of a course lies not in the catalog
description but in the syllabus. Thus, even though a catalog
description usually does become altered if an on-line version
becomes available, the essence of the course - as defined by the
syllabus - should not change. 

After lengthy discussions, the meeting was adjourned.

Have a great spring break!

About this Archive

This page is an archive of entries from April 2000 listed from newest to oldest.

March 2000 is the previous archive.

May 2000 is the next archive.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.