2011-2012
FACULTY SENATE
California State University, Sacramento
MINUTES
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Foothill Suite, Union
3:30- 5:00 p.m.
MOMENT OF SILENCE
RICHARD CLEVELAND
Emeritus Faculty, Mathematics
APPROVAL OF THE
AGENDA
The agenda was approved as published.
REGULAR AGENDA
FS 11/12-109/Flr MINUTES OF MARCH 15, 2012 – REGULAR MEETING
Carried unanimously.
INFORMATION ITEM
Select
Committee Update
Background information can be found at Attachments C, E, F, K.
The following items
will receive a Second Reading at the Faculty Senate meeting on April 5, 2012
(or at a subsequent meeting).
FS
11/12-110/
AITC/EX ACADEMIC INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY STRATEGIC GOALS, ADOPTION OF
The Faculty
Senate recommends University approval of the document titled “Academic
Information Technology Strategic Goals” which includes:
a)
The
“Role and Core Values” associated with the need for academic technology that
supports excellence in teaching and learning and in the quality of the student
experience.
b)
Goals
that focus on the “Teaching, Learning and the Student Experience” (section I).
c)
Goals
that focus on “Academic Priorities in the use of IT Resources”
(section II).
d)
The
commitment to “Consultation and Collaboration in the Decisions Regarding
Academic IT” (section III).
e)
The
development of a strategic plan that specifies the process for the “Assessment
and Evaluation” of progress towards meeting goals specified in sections I and
II (section IV).
Attachment
A – AIT Memo; Attachment
A-1 – AIT Strategic Goals
FS 11/12-111/EX ACADEMIC INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY STRATEGIC PLAN, REFERRAL TO AITC TO DEVELOP
The Faculty
Senate charges the Senate’s Academic Information Technology Committee (AITC) to
develop and bring to the Senate a recommended strategic planning process that
will provide for:
a)
The
ongoing assessment of the goals specified in Sections I, II and III of the
“Academic Information Technology Goals” document,
b)
The
modification of these goals, as needed, to reflect changes in technology and
pedagogy, and
c)
Recommendations,
as appropriate, towards achieving these goals.
FS
11/12-112/
GSPC/EX POLICY ON GRADUATE LEARNING GOALS/OBJECTIVES, ESTABLISHMENT OF
Background
Recently, the College of Engineering and Computer Science underwent a review of its graduate programs. The first recommendation to the Faculty Senate by the program review team said, in part, that the Senate should “[c]larify and/or develop University graduate learning outcomes, and graduate assessment policies and procedures.” This recommendation was referred to the Graduate Studies Policies Committee (GSPC) on December 29, 2011. A couple of years prior, GSPC had developed Graduate Learning Goals (GLGs) to be considered for adoption by the Faculty Senate, as a companion policy to the Baccalaureate Learning Goals adopted by the Senate, but the Executive Committee declined to forward them to the Senate for its consideration.
Purpose
Just as the Baccalaureate Learning Goals were adopted to guide and support undergraduate programs, Graduate Learning Goals can offer similar guidance and support. In particular, GLGs can assist in program review, in the Instructional Program Priority (IPP) process, and in program improvement as units consider various means of better meeting student needs.
Rationale
When learning objectives have been discussed in relation to graduate programs in the past, the varied nature of the programs has been cited as a problem in writing common objectives across disciplines. For example, a Master of Arts in Literature may not share many common objectives with a clinical Master of Science in a health related field. With doctoral programs added into the mix, the variety is only greater. However, it seems reasonable to suggest that each graduate program could define its own set of learning objectives, specific to the level of study and to the discipline, which are clearly more advanced in content than those defined for related undergraduate work. For some programs, these might already be defined, at least in part, by external accrediting agencies. Such defined objectives could also form the basis for assessment plans within graduate programs and offer foci for future academic program review teams.
Proposed Policy
The Faculty Senate recommends that graduate faculty be required to establish, for the programs in their purview, Graduate Learning Goals/Objectives, and assessment components associated with them, to be submitted to Academic Affairs within one full academic year of approval of this policy. The Faculty Senate further recommends that in developing graduate learning goals/objectives, faculty may consult the information submitted in the Instructional Program Priorities (IPP) process, the Graduate Learning Goals recommended by the Graduate Studies Policies Committee (see attachment), and/or the Lumina Foundation Degree Qualifications Profile in framing their learning goals/objectives and assessment components. (http://www.luminafoundation.org/publications/The_Degree_Qualifications_Profile.pdf)
Adjourned.