Provost’s Council
August 13, 2013
2:00 pm.
Ruby Hicks Hall, Room 245
(Revised 8/17/13)
Members Present: Dan
Averette, Jackie Blakley, Tim Bowen, Todd Crisp-Simons, Lynn Lewis, Robin
McFall, Sarah Shumpert, Brian Swords
Members Absent: Amanda
Blanton, Scott Harvey, Dan Holland
Others Present: Margaret Burdette and Chris Marino
Length of Meeting: 2.0 hours
Topics Discussed:
The July 9, 2013 and July 23, 2013 meeting minutes were
approved. The July 23, 2013 minutes were
approved with a minor revision.
Sarah Shumpert led the group in an Academic Program Review
reflection activity. The handouts, 2012-2013 Academic Program Review and Academic Program Submission and Review
Process, were distributed, and Chris Marino touched on the components of
the review.
Sarah led the group in an analysis/reflection of the
review. She requested input on various
aspects of the review.
In General:
·
Lack of depth
·
Laborious but learned a lot
·
Problems with understanding/answering # 7,
Impact of the Plan
·
Variance between departments
Presentations:
·
Some were very good
·
Presenters got very comfortable and wanted the
Provost’s Council to know and understand what they did.
·
Differences in understanding what the
presentations were supposed to be like
·
Differences in the quality of the review
presentations
Review Team Members – Where in the process were they the
most comfortable?
·
Team members found that, when compared, most
rubrics were similar
·
Did well when the teams met to discuss issues
·
When familiar with the program under review, did
not see the needs as easily - answered questions
based on their own knowledge of the program
·
What was expected in the review was not clearly
articulated
Review Team Members – Where in the process were you unsure?
·
Quantitative rubric score for program could be
helpful
·
Unsure of the feedback they were providing – rating
the program or the answer to the question?
·
What was the team’s purpose?
The group noted that the hardest thing to consider was how
do you know? How do you prove the
answer? The presenters expected
Provost’s Council to be familiar with the program, and sometimes the answer was
that they simply followed College procedure.
Least Clear:
·
Repeated questions – need to clean up and
condense
·
7.A – Outcomes – it is unclear how to answer
this
·
Need professional development on how to map
activities and the effects on key performance indicators
·
Process is missing benchmarks. - How do you know
what’s good? How do you find the
meaning? How do you calculate?
·
Plans tended to not be well developed.
·
Would a sample APR be beneficial for the
reviewers?
Good News:
·
Everyone was involved and was seeking ways to
get better. Eye-opening for the programs
·
Great attitude – everyone wanted to “fix” things
·
Peer learning was very beneficial
·
Saw Provost’s Council role differently as a
result
·
Have to start somewhere, so kudos for starting
and trying
Bad News:
·
Data gap
·
Communication issues
·
Gaps in writing skills – part of program development
to address the gaps.
Departmental Benefits:
·
Chance to meet with other departments facing the
same challenges
Changes to the Process:
·
What will the department do to correct problems?
·
May need more product at the end
·
Mini-plans that feed into bigger plans
·
Create divisional plans to support strategic
plan
·
There has to be a way to determine if
outcomes/goals are me - some indicator that will feed into plan
·
What is the expectation after the review is
completed?
Template Issues:
·
Issues with 7A
·
Repeated questions
·
Should be able to streamline and still get
needed information
·
Somewhat cumbersome – difficult to maneuver
through the document
·
Walk through the questions; consider that there
may be different interpretations of the question; look at language again
·
Simplify the wording
·
Different ways of writing – see the need to
write across the curriculum.
Process Issues:
·
More direction may be needed
·
From a pacing standpoint, need checkpoints
within the process
Summarize – Categories of changes:
·
Better communication of expectations
·
Must be able to understand the expectations
based on the language of the question
·
Redundant?
Ask only what is needed
·
Provide tips for success
·
Data – use, capturing, application
·
Be aware of key metrics
·
Need professional development and support
institutionally
·
Weak on diversity in the metrics
Next Steps:
·
Institutional Effectiveness will review the
process and comments and revise
·
Look at and vet questions to make more clear
·
Provide professional development for programs going
through APR
·
Provost’s Council needs to consider what happens
next
John Lummus discussed Professional Development Allocations. He noted that his office is looking at ways
to better fund activities to align with the Strategic Plan. He also reported that employees are not
spending the allocations, and money is being left on the table. He reported that $14,000 of mini-grant money
was left unspent and the group discussed ways to address this issue. These include:
·
Have supervisors encourage staff to use this
funding.
·
Award funding twice a year, rather than once.
·
In addition to individual development, invite a
speaker or consultant to campus to address a large group.
·
Consider increasing the maximum amount on a case
by case basis.
This year’s mini-grant submission deadline is September
15.
John noted that these monies will be used as strategically
as possible, and will be reallocated, if they are not restricted funds.
Under Announcements, Sarah reported that we are moving
forward with the Starfish Early Alert System, and hopes to pilot it in the
spring.
Robin was pleased to note that all the faculty vacancies in
the Arts & Sciences Division have been filled, and that division is fully
staffed again.
Jackie reported that the Pickens Hall renovations are moving
more slowly than expected, and the Business &Public Services Division faculty
and staff will not be able to return to their offices until mid-September. In order to accommodate the beginning of fall
semester, B & PS faculty and staff are moving again. Jackie asked that you call her if you need to
know someone’s location.
Dan A. announced that the SC Accelerate grant administrator
and administrative assistant have been hired.
They are housed at the Industrial Technology Center.
Lynn was pleased to report that the Surgical Technology
Department has met a benchmark, and that improvements are continuing. Kaye Bathe’s last day is Friday, August 16,
and Lynn and Donna Palmer continue to look for interim staff for the Medical
Assisting program.
Lynn also noted that it appears that some student fees have
been changed without any communication.
Galen will look into this issue.
Todd noted that once classes begin, Faculty Senate will begin
the process to fill adjunct faculty positions.
Galen reported that all new full-time faculty have started
orientation. Deborah Brock has modeled
orientation like a course with a series of sessions and presentations. These sessions teach new faculty the tools to
be effective in the classroom and the tools to create a teaching
philosophy. The end result for these
faculty will be to develop a personal plan and a plan to improve student learning
outcomes in their courses.
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
Recorded By: Anne Bryan
