Faculty Meeting Minutes
March 8, 2011
Dickey Hall Auditorium
Ivory V. Nelson Ph.D., President, Presiding
Dr. Nelson called the meeting to order at 4:05 PM.
I. Report from the Student Government Association: Stephanie Rand, Vice President of Internal Affairs.
Ms. Rand reported on the Rally for Higher Education held in Harrisburg, PA on Tuesday February 15, 2011. Around 150 Lincoln University students attended. The purpose of the rally was to encourage our state legislators to support Lincoln University and higher education in general.
Student Government elections will be held on March 31, 2011 and there will be several debates between March 20 through March 30, 2011.
The campus recycling program will begin in April. There have been some changes since Lincoln last did recycling and we hope that this program will get off successfully.
Dr. Nelson reported that our local state representative was impressed with our students during the rally in Harrisburg and will do his best to support the university.
II. Report of the President: Dr. Ivory V. Nelson.
Dr. Nelson concentrated his report on Standard 14 (Assessment of Student Learning Outcomes). He distributed to the faculty eight handouts in total. He is deeply concerned with our total lack of completion regarding the program reports regarding assessment of student learning. He had sent to the deans 3 separate mailings on assessment of student learning including one giving 8 articles on assessment of student learning if read would have put us on a path of completion on Standard 14.
The handouts distributed as follows:
A. Assessment of Student Learning Implementation Plan dated March 8, 2011
B. Middle States Commission on Higher Education decision of November 18, 2010 regarding Lincoln University status. (Blue)
C. Schedule of the Middle States Commission on Higher Education visit by Dr. Mary Ellen Petrisko, Vice President on February 18, 2011 (Yellow)
D. Lincoln University Majors (Purple)
E. Program Assessment Review by the Faculty Committee on Assessment (Green)
F. Faculty Response to a MSCHE Rubric for evaluating Institutional Student Learning
G. Completing a Monitoring Report (Salmon)
H. Lincoln University Assessment of Student Learning: University Programs Not Ready (Tan)
Dr. Nelson pointed out that we need to submit a monitoring report to Middle States Commission on Higher Education by November 1, 2011. It is absolutely imperative that we complete as much work as possible by May 6, 2011. He feels that the visit from Dr. Petrisko was going well until she met with the Department chairs. At that meeting the department chairs present failed to communicate that we understand Standard 14. We were not totally confident in what we have done so far and will do in the future regarding assessment of student learning.
Regarding Handout #1: Assessment of Student Learning Implement Plan Dr. Nelson laid out how we are going to proceed.
Fulfilling our commitment to implement a systematic plan for assessment of student learning, it is necessary for Lincoln University to do the following:
• Provide evidence of two (2) years of securing assessment data on student learning (2009-10; 2010-11)
• Provide evidence of decision making relative to student learning over the past two (2) years (2009-10; 2010-11)
• Provide evidence that the University has assessed a significant number of its academic programs for 2009-10 and 2010-11
• Provide evidence that the University has a plan to assess all the following programs in 2011-12:
• Programs assessed in 2009-10; 2010-11
• Programs not assessed in 2009-10; 2010-11
• Core Curriculum
• African American Experience, First Year Experience, Success Courses
• Provide evidence that all academic University programs have assessment plans to make informed program decisions on a semester and yearly basis.
The schedule to accomplish the above objectives:
On March 1, 2011 Draft assessment plans from departments that have more than one major [program] (i.e. Anthropology and Sociology, Business and Information Technology and other) was due. None were turned in on time.
By May 6, 2011 the following need to be completed:
• Complete Assessment Reports and Plans on 2009-10, 2010-11 programs
• Complete plans for assessment on programs not assessed in 2009-10; 2010-11
• Schedule for assessment of Core Curriculum and Success Programs (African American Experience, First Year Experience and Success Courses)
• Each department drafts a Monitoring Report on each program in their department for submission to the Deans.
Handout #2, which was distributed previously at the December, 2010 faculty meeting, Dr. Nelson reemphasized what Middle States is asking us to do the following in our monitoring report:
At its session on November 18, 2010, the Middle States Commission on Higher Education acted:
“To note the visit by the Commission’s representatives [in September, 2010]. To warn the institution that its accreditation maybe in jeopardy because of a lack of evidence that the institution is currently in compliance with Standard 14 (Assessment of Student Learning). To note that the institution remains accredited while on warning. To request a monitoring report, due November 1, 2011, documenting evidence that the institution has achieved and can sustain ongoing compliance with Standard 14. To request that the report include, but not limited to, (1) evidence of appropriate and assessable student learning goals at the program and course levels; (2) evidence of direct methods of assessment at the program and course levels; and (3) evidence that student learning assessment data are analyzed and used to improve teaching and learning (Standard 14).“
On Handout #3 Dr. Nelson gave the faculty the schedule of the visit of Dr. Mary Ellen Petrisko, Vice President, and the representative from Middle States on February 18, 2011 on how we should proceed with the upcoming Monitoring Report due to Middle States Commission in November 2011. He stressed that as the result of this visit there is some concern whether we are committed to doing assessment of student learning. Our report must indicate that we are totally committed to getting it right and that we are willing to do it all the way by doing what needs to done to get across the goal line.
On Handout#4 a list of all the majors [programs] now offered by Lincoln University: 37 total: 30 undergraduate, 4 graduate programs, and 1 secondary education program with 8 cognate areas, Core Curriculum, and Success Program.
Regarding Handout #5 Summary Report of the faculty assessment committee of our program student learning assessment plans. The committee assigned 2 readers to each program report and used a rubric designed by a member of the committee for evaluation. This rubric corresponds with the Middle States “Rubric for Evaluation Institutional Student Learning Assessment Process.” The Committee found 13 reports “Satisfy” Standard 14 and 10 reports “Do Not Satisfy” Standard 14. The Committee was pleased with the significant progress that the faculty has made and will continue to make to meet Standard 14.
The programs that “Satisfy” Standard 14:
• English Liberal Arts
• Mass Communications Center of Excellence
• Masters of Human Services
• Music Education
• Computer Science
• Early Childhood Education
• Health & Physical Education
• Health Science
• Human Services (Sociology)
• Masters of Education/Early Childhood Education
The programs that “Does not Satisfy” Standard 14
• Information Technology
• MSA/ Finance and Human Services
• Political Science
Dr. Nelson emphasized that there is sufficient help on campus to assist those departments that have not satisfied Standard 14. It is essential that all programs must follow the Evaluative Rubric for Department Assessment Reports as designed by the Faculty Committee on Assessment. It is absolutely imperative that we must do this.
Handout #6 gives the results of the faculty response to a survey based upon the MSCHE Rubric for Evaluating Institutional Student Learning. 66 of the faculty did respond out of 104 faculty members. This survey was an attempt to get the entire faculty how our faculty feels about assessment on this campus. We sent out this form four times to the faculty. That 38 faculty members who did not respond indicated a total lack of commitment by our faculty regarding the assessment of student learning. This shows the attitude and commitment of the faculty must improve regarding the assessment of student learning.
Handout #7 indicates what the Middle States Commission on Higher Education expects us to submit our Monitoring Report due by November 1, 2011. The monitoring report can be no longer than 25 pages with supporting data and evidence and all supplementary documents in appendices. The report must contain the following: cover sheet, issues or topics covered, institutional context/update, progress to date, and conclusion. The supplemental information report that accompany the monitoring report can be no longer than 15 pages including supporting data or evidence, supplementary documents and show relevance of data, evidence and supplements to the report. Please use this format when completing your department monitoring report on program assessment of student learning due by May 6, 2011.
Handout #8 lists all the programs not ready on Standard 14 (Assessment of Student Learning):
• Information Technology
• Political Science
• Criminal Justice
• Visual Arts
• Music Performance
• Core Curriculum
• Secondary Education
• Success Courses
• General Science
• Environmental Science
We are supposed to have all the draft reports on assessment of student learning done on all programs by March 1, 2011. The only ones that were added to the list are Core Curriculum, Success Program and Secondary Education. Most program reports have been submitted to the Deans and sent back to you several times for revisions. They are still in progress of review and revision. You should take into consideration all the comments of the reviewers and follow the guidelines.
After all this there was extensive discussion with Dr. Nelson from the faculty present. Some faculty mentioned that several of the program reports on assessment of student learning from the programs that have not satisfied Standard 14 have been rewritten and read several times to take into consideration suggestions and comments of the reviewers. The faculty reported that they have been trying to find a good format to base their program report on assessment of student learning and it has taken awhile for them to find one that does the job. Dr. Nelson replied that these reports still can be well written but still not able to convey the message that they are doing what Standard 14 requires. Make sure all the dots are connected and are following the proper guidelines regarding program goals, student learning objectives, and designing the rubrics to assess the SLOs and then analyze the data to improve the program based upon the rubrics and measurements. You must convince the readers and reviewers that you’re doing it right. If not, then you failed the Standard.
III. ACTION ITEMS
A. Approval of the Minutes of February 1, 2011 faculty meeting. The minutes were approved.
B. Recommendations from the Educational Policies Committee: Dr. Jim DeBoy.
There are 4 motions for consideration of the faculty. These recommendations and notions have been on the Academic Affairs web site when a Memorandum from the Educational Policies Committee was posted. These motions if approved would take effect as of April 11, 2011 (14th week of the spring semester).
Motion 1: Lincoln University students are permitted a maximum of twelve (12) credit hours taken as “on-line” (distance learning) from other accredited institutions. These credits will be applied to the 120-124 needed for graduation provided all other existing regulations are fulfilled, e.g., earned a final grade of C or higher.
After some discussion the motion was approved with 2 nays.
Motion 2: Incomplete Grade (I) and revised Incomplete Grade Submission form are amended as written in 28 February 2011 Memorandum.
Motion 3: Change of Grade (COG) is amended as written in 28 February 2011 Memorandum.
Motion 4: Satisfactory Progress (SP) is created as a new interim grade. Policy and procedures are written in February 28 2011 Memorandum.
Motions 2-4 were considered in Block by the faculty.
The rationale behind motions 2-4 was to reduce the inordinate number of incomplete grades submitted in recent years by indentifying specific, valid reasons and establishing procedures in clear, precise language.
The memorandum as submitted by the Educational Policies Committee is attached as an addendum to the official minutes of this faculty meeting.
There was some discussion about the motions regarding the Incomplete Grade. It now addresses arbitrariness and eliminates the possibility of giving an Incomplete Grade for those students who are failing your class already.
There was a motion to delete part 2 of Motion 3 concerning the change of grade regarding Arbitrariness. Dr. DeBoy responded this will address those few occasions when a professor gives all students in his/her class F’s or A’s. This would allow the Department Chair and Dean of School a chance to review the grades and determine whether the grades assigned were outside the acceptable norm. In a voice vote and a vote by hand the motion to delete part 2 of Motion 3 was defeated.
The faculty then voted on Motions 2-4 en block. They were approved with some nays.
C. Curriculum Committee: Dr. Sally Monsilovich.
The Curriculum Committee recommended renumbering the course on Native American Literature taught by Dr. Marie Nigro in English and Mass Communications. The current number is ENG390 and the course will be renumbered to ENG210. This motion was approved by the faculty.
IV. Discussion Items
Update from the Faculty By-Laws Committee: Dr. Susan Safford.
The committee distributed 2 handouts for consideration of the faculty. The first handout is a proposed template for each standing committee would also list briefly what their duties and responsibilities are. The First part of the template would address what should be put in the Faculty By-laws and the second part of the template addresses what would be placed in a proposed appendix to the By-laws on Procedures and Policies of Faculty Committees (Manual). The second handout concerns the Faculty By-laws Committee. These would be brought up for action at the next faculty meeting in April.
Dr. Nelson reported that in his budget message today Governor Tom Corbett recommended that the state appropriation to the 14 state owned institutions and the 4 state related institutions of higher education: Penn State, Pitt, Temple and Lincoln received 50% of what they got in 2010 fiscal year. It is very important that we do assessment right because it will guide us in our budget planning for years to come in determining which programs to keep.
Albert M. Bryson, Faculty Secretary