University Planning Council
Wednesday, December 8, 1999
UN 207, Noon – 2:00 p.m.
Minutes

Present: D. Baldwin, T. Fossum, L. Gellott, B. Greenebaum, J. Hanson, F. Kavenik, J. Keating, Co-Chair, R. Kirby, E. Letven, P. Lyter, S. McLaughlin, J. Ostheimer, T. Peischl, B. Piazza, C. Rugzie, D. Sharp., R. Singer, Co-Chair J. Sounderpandian, A. Statham, R. Stolz, W. Streeter, S. Wallner, E. Wilson for D. Cress, Guests: S. Norton, N. Smith

The meeting was called to order at noon.

• I. The minutes of the November 8 th meeting were approved.

• II. Technology – T. Peischl reported on the planning efforts in Technology. The major points:

•  There is some question about whether the Technology Advisory Committee is the appropriate committee to oversee technology in the overall planning structure. If it is, its charge may need revision. That is the first issue that has to be addressed.

•  Planning is difficult in the area of technology because of a multitude of projects which the campus must undertake without being very involved in their implementation. The sentiment of the council was that planning was necessary in order to be able to be proactive as well as reactive regarding technology issues, understanding that some portion of the time and effort would have to be set aside to react to unforeseen obligations.

•  It is important that other planning groups consult with Technology when considering actions that will impact the delivery of technology.

•  Additional resources may be required in order to effectively manage increasing expectations of technology; that must be communicated as part of the budget process.

•  Technology planning will be taken up at the next meeting with recommendations forthcoming regarding an appropriate planning structure for technology.

• III. Assessment – S. Norton, Director of Assessment discussed the current status assessment of learning outcomes.

•  A set of learning outcomes for General Education (written and oral communication, critical thinking, diversity, information literacy).

•  Efforts are under way to assess the extent to which majors address General Education objectives through survey to instructors, self assessment of students, and longitudinal studies with University Seminar students.

•  Each major has developed an assessment plan with learning objectives.

•  The Academic Assessment Committee will monitor the collection of learning outcome data by departments.

•  In order for assessment to be effective, it has to be seen as an important part of academic planning and curricular development, and not just as an exercise for accreditation.

•  In order for assessment to be effective, it must be seen as a part of the normal assessment of students, and not a new and unrelated exercise.

• IV. Enrollment Management – S. McLaughlin briefly reported on the activities of the Enrollment Management Team. The Stamats report should be forthcoming soon. There are a number of small dollar initiatives that are being discussed with a report with recommendations scheduled for the middle of the spring semester.

• V. Committee on Alternative Delivery and Programs – J. Ostheimer reported on three groups examining alternative delivery and programming, evaluation of experiential learning and distance education. All are looking at ways to better serve the growing pool of non-traditional students. Recommendations coming from these groups will go to appropriate faculty governance committees for consideration.

• VI. Title III – D. Baldwin, N. Smith and R. Singer reported on the efforts to resubmit a Title III institutional grant proposal. There are a number of initiatives that were planned for the first year that will be completed. A summary was distributed by D. Baldwin.

Adjournment: 2:05 p.m.