Academic Planning Task Force Minutes
J-161 – 12:00 P.M.
September 17, 2007
1. Updates:
A. The Psychology proposal is on the tentative BoR agenda for October.
B. The just-released 6-year facilities plan includes design money (in the 6th year) for another SPSU building (construction management).
C. Three STEM-education related grant proposals about to be submitted.
2. A reminder of the new academic program plans that are currently "in the works":
Psychology
Accounting (graduate and undergraduate)
Bio / Math / Chem / Physics Education (with CS to be added when it becomes a GA certified area)
Certificate in nuclear energy (possibly growing into Nuclear / Fossil Fuels / Alternative Energy degree?)
3. Goal for this term: have an Academic Plan written by the end of this term.
A. Academic Planning Task Force will sketch out priorities
B. Steering Committee will sketch out implementation
C. Drafting Committee (still to be created) will work on draft in parallel with A & B
D. Draft will be circulated to Senate, General Faculty
4. Brief general discussion, including prioritizing items from the list of potential Academic Goals in the Academic Planning Steering Committee minutes of 9/12, what was missing from that list (advising; comprehensive university); and what an Academic Plan should look like (broader strategies/goals; more specific tactics; possibly a 3-year perspective like the Strategic Plan?).
5. Consensus emerged on the following 4 Goals:
A. Quality Instruction, including Assessment and Professional Development
B.
C. Funding
D. Student and Community Needs (with subsequent brainstorming generating the following list of ideas to be discussed / processed later: regional partnerships; national and international needs; industry; underrepresented student groups; STEM initiatives; alternative energy)
6. In-depth discussion of Goal A: Quality Instruction produced consensus on the following sub-points:
A. Quality Instruction, including Assessment and Professional Development
I. Examine and improve the way we teach what we teach
a. rigor
b. matched to desired output
II. Support exploration and innovation, especially in STEM areas (including expansion of CTE to K-16)
III. Wrap instruction around applied learning
a. active learning
b. hands-on learning
c. service learning
d. study abroad
e. experiential learning
IV. Meaningful support for faculty scholarship
7. Discussion on point 6.A.IV included discussion of why scholarship belongs under "quality instruction" (informs teaching, models lifelong learning, maintains currency in field); group agreed to resume discussion at the next meeting with the following question: What KIND of scholarship?
Meeting notes courtesy of Julie Newell, Chair, SIS