Faculty Senate

Curriculum Council

MEMBERS PRESENT:
    Mike Bailey - Computer Science
    Carol Brown - Business
    Neil Browne - OSU-Cascades/English
    Mary Cluskey - Health & Human Sciences
    Jon Kimerling - Science
    John Lee, Chair - Science
    Marv Pyles - Forestry
    Rich Shintaku - Education
    Nicole von Germeten - Liberal Arts
EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS (Non-voting) PRESENT:
    Alfonso Bradoch - Extended Campus
    Laurel Kristick- OSU Libraries
    Susie Leslie - Academic Programs and Academic Assessment
    Mary Rhodes - Registrar's Office
    Gary Beach - Budgets & Fiscal Planning Committee
LIAISON MEMBERS (Non-voting) PRESENT:
    Mary Ann Matzke - Academic Advising Council
    Neil Browne - OSU-Cascades
SUPPORT STAFF PRESENT:
    Vickie Nunnemaker - Faculty Senate
GUESTS PRESENT:
    Belinda Batten, Frank Bernieri, Nancy Heiligman, Kate Peterson, Tom Shellhammer,
    Alice Tucker, Ken Williamson

Report from the Curriculum Council Chair -
Horticulture Therapy - Lee and Pyles sent a message to Larry Curtis regarding concerns related to the proposed courses; Ray Williams has been asked to work on liaison issues.

Minutes - The January 24 minutes were approved as distributed.

Baccalaureate Core - The Baccalaureate Core Committee (BCC) has undertaken a review of the Bacc Core; there is a moratorium on Bacc Core Category II proposals for new undergraduate courses, as well as those requesting a change in credits until the review is completed. Leslie noted that proposals will continue through the process if the BCC has approved the proposal and it was already in the system at the time of the moratorium.

Study Abroad - Lee will review new materials received and this topic will likely be included on the next agenda.

Extended Campus - The follow-up discussion included the following comments:

• Pyles liked the previous discussion regarding the equivalent checklist and having the review run through the college/department curriculum committee rather than being reviewed by the Curriculum Council. He asked the Council to consider forwarding a recommendation to the Executive Committee and Faculty Senate for the discontinuance of additional funding received by departments for on-campus students taking distance courses.
• Bradoch responded that campus demand was an issue to consider, and that the tuition is the same as on campus, but the fees are different. The difference is that when a student hits the tuition plateau, Ecampus charges the additional tuition. There is an online box stating that additional funds could be incurred when registering.
• Pyles questioned whether the Registrar's Office can determine whether a student is on-campus or not; if not, his previous recommendation would not be possible.
• Regarding the previous review discussion, Bradoch noted there are several ways to define distance courses: web based, face-to-face at a distant location, or a combination of the two. He also stated that Ecampus is not the only OSU online provider since some departments offer their own courses. He felt that the on-campus online courses should also be included in the review process.
• Lee felt that Bradoch raised several issues and that the first step is to decide what direction to take: 1) determine the definition of a distance student; and 2) whether to charge on-campus students differential tuition.
• Bradoch asked the Council to consider the time involved for the college/department curriculum committees and recommended that the Council suggest the time frame involved. Cluskey suggested syllabus template formats to assist in course preparation.
• Pyles suggested appointing a subcommittee to draft relevant elements which would be forwarded to the Executive Committee.
• Bailey suggested the need for a mechanism to follow Ecampus students to determine how well they do after the distance course. Bradoch stated that grants are being submitted to fund this type of research.

Lee stated that the proposed subcommittee and the charge will be discussed at the next meeting.

Department Structure vs. School Structure - This discussion refers, specifically, to several departments within the College of Engineering that have prepared proposals to combine departments into Schools; more broadly, it refers to the concept itself of the department structure vs. the school structure.

Williamson felt that a school structure allows a unit to be more strategic and focused within the college and reduces the number of department heads reporting to the dean. He felt it was clear that department head positions, which now have fund raising responsibilities, no longer fit within the College of Engineering (COE). They have begun consolidating programs in an effort to simplify undergraduate curriculum and offer savings, as well as to simplify the administrative structure. They are trying to add faculty and staff to pick up departmental duties and allow department heads to be involved in other areas.

Batten explained that Mechanical Engr.(ME) and Industrial and Manufacturing Engr. (IME) are moving toward consolidating courses or expanding options for students, and a school will help facilitate these opportunities.

The discussion with Council members included the following:

• In response to Lee's questioning whether there were turf issues, Batten stated they were looking collaboratively at issues but was unsure of turf issues; she felt that people view opportunities as a team.
• Batten responded to Matzke that individual degrees will be maintained. Williamson added that common advisors are being proposed, as well as an individual to track accreditation issues.
• Lee questioned whether there was some importance of having a school. Williamson responded that a school more accurately reflects what they are doing, given the size and complexity, and allows greater collaboration. Bailey noted that multiple chairs don't see the full value of collaboration. Batten stated that both units feel they are on equal footing with a different name rather than a department being acquired. There are currently 28 faculty in ME and IME and 1,300 students; Civil Engr. has 30 faculty and about 1,000 students.
• Lee questioned whether consolidation results in better courses. Williamson responded for the current school in COE and noted they have been able to be much more specialized, they have been able to hire faculty and put more emphasis on courses, and have grown about 20% this year.
• Shellhammer questioned whether fewer lower level courses would be offered. Williamson responded there would be less duplication as a result of changing the curriculum. Shellhammer questioned the philosophical feeling related to the move to larger class sizes. Williamson acknowledged that smaller classes are better and they would move to a single large lecture with smaller recitations. Shellhammer questioned the need for administration, perhaps at the cost of teaching. Williamson felt it doesn't cost any more, but also doesn't save a lot. When faculty are hired, they must be nationally or internationally known and must bring their research with them. New faculty are expected to support .5 FTE of their salary from research. An alternative is that these faculty be in new chaired positions, which is included in the Top 25 initiative. In response to Shellhammer asking if there was a financial incentive to take on an administrative role, Williamson responded negatively and noted this was an opportunity to build leadership training. The associate heads will be responsible for work allocations and assignments, TA assignments, etc.; the school head won't know the details.
• Matzke expressed concern about the lack of small group learning experiences for undergraduate students and interactions with faculty. Williamson responded that multiple recitations of about 20 students will be offered to provide the small learning experience for large courses. There will also be an internship coordinator, which would not be possible in a small department.
• Williamson stated they are being driven by where Dean Adams wants to take COE and they are trying to put together an administrative structure to achieve that goal; he hoped the Council appreciates the constraints they are under.
• Lee questioned the upper limits of classes and asked if the structure can't afford to take additional students. Williamson responded that they take all freshmen students who wish to enroll. They are struggling with how many restrictions to place on juniors and seniors and are considering restricting that group by 25% this year.
• Bernieri questioned why the school entity requires a college over it. Williamson felt that the COE needs a central head, which would be a dean, and didn't see how they could function without it. Batten felt a college was needed to coordinate engineering efforts.
• Kristick questioned whether Nuclear Engineering would remain a department. Williamson thought the plan was to consolidate several programs and call it a school.
• Pyles didn't feel the proposal would change the curriculum and felt the proposal should be endorsed. He did note that the proposal calls for 'lower division faculty' which is a new rank in COE.

Report from Academic Programs - Tucker reported there are 48 proposals waiting to be reviewed.

Minutes provided by Vickie Nunnemaker