STRATEGIC PLANNING TASK FORCE
Meeting #28—September 7, 2006
Forum Room
Members absent: David Ober
(Jensen Zhao substituted for Shaheen Borna, who is on leave.)
Provost King convened the meeting at 7:30 a.m. He called the group's attention to definitions of student learning that the College of Sciences and Humanities is using. The terms defined are
experiential learning, immersive learning, and
international learning experiences.
Minutes:
Provost King requested that changes to the minutes of August 31, 2006, be sent by e-mail to the Provost's Office. John Motloch has asked that in these minutes, "environmental" before the word "sustainability" be deleted (the second sentence under
Minutes). His comment was about the broader issue of "sustainability" rather the environmental subset.
Modified Version of Goal #1 Objectives:
Heather Shupp reported for the subcommittee (Richard Bellaver, Marilyn Buck, Terry King, Heather Shupp, and Tom Taylor) that met this past week. The group has written a modified version of Goal #1 Objectives, avoiding words that appeared ambiguous to the task force and substituting words that may be clearer and more straightforward. The subcommittee also took notice of the themes that came out of the discussion of Goal #1 Objectives at the previous meeting.
Mrs. Shupp noted that the subcommittee wrote some Common Objectives (Objectives supporting more than one or all planning Goals) and moved information technology into that section. "Cross Cutting" will be re-named "Community."
Provost King then asked for comments on the modified version of Goal #1 Objectives. A lengthy discussion ensued about the word "relevant" in Objective B. Some members found the term to be vague: What is "relevant"? Or what is "irrelevant"? Some argued that all learning experiences are relevant, or they should be. Still others said that faculty advisors should help students decide what is relevant anyway. A few other comments followed:
- The word "relevant" is important in communicating with students, but faculty probably understand what is meant without the word being explicitly stated. Faculty will undoubtedly want depth in the experience.
- Is the word important to people off campus, though?
- Would the word "appropriate" be better?
- Maybe we should add "as part of their studies" at the end of the Objective.
Provost King called for a vote, and the majority voted to strike the word "relevant."
Another issue was raised concerning Objective B: Should we include graduate students? Some of the responses were as follows:
- The experiences and characteristics of a graduate education are different from those of an undergraduate education.
- Some graduate programs already include a great deal of immersion learning.
- Time is a factor for a graduate student.
The consensus was that "undergraduate" should stand alone in Objective B.
(An editorial comment was that the words "Ball State University" should be removed from Objectives B and D. They are self-evident.)
The conversation then turned to Objective C with the question of whether or not experiential learning is implicit in the objective. Some felt that "experiential learning" is a subset of "active learning." One suggestion was to include "experiential learning," along with "international learning experiences," at the end of the objective. However, others found Objective C to be already too lengthy. Another member suggested substituting "in- and out-of-classroom learning opportunities" for "active-learning opportunities." Someone thought "hands-on" could be omitted. The subcommittee will now do the wordsmithing.
Goal #2 Objectives:
Provost King asked task force members to review individually these objectives again, looking for those to eliminate and those to modify. Members responded, especially regarding Objective G:
- Should Objective G go to Goal 4? (And maybe A, too?)
- In reference to Objective G, do we have a faculty retention problem? Some turnover is good.
- Some departments have a retention problem, however. (An example was cited of a department that hired seven new faculty two years ago, and only three are left.)
- How do you measure satisfaction?
- The issue of faculty salaries can go under Objective G as a measure.
- A glance at the faculty who left this year shows only eight to ten faculty who might suggest that Ball State has a retention problem.
- Sometimes we lose faculty to administrative positions elsewhere.
- Is faculty retention unique to Ball State? Is there a national standard for retention?
- Those who are most dissatisfied may not be our best scholars anyway.
- Maybe we should just omit the word "retention."
- Even when we have faculty we are sorry to lose, it may not say something about Ball State. A counterargument was that the cost of losing one highly productive faculty member is tremendous.
It was decided that the subcommittee will try again with Objective G.
It was decided also that the word "diversity" is confusing in Objective C as it has other meanings in academic settings. What we want to say is that we wish to increase the breadth of disciplines that engage in scholarship.
In reference to Objective B, someone asked if the public will understand the term "extramural." Why not "public and private" instead? The Provost suggested that we leave the objective for now. Outcome measures will help to clarify terminology.
A final question was whether or not the Objectives had been listed in order of priority. Provost King responded that prioritization will come later.
Review and Adjourn:
The Provost said that the subcommittee will bring back to the task force revised Objectives for Goal #2 at the next meeting and also "clean up" Objectives for Goals #3 and #4.
The next meeting of the task force is set for Thursday, September 14, 7:30 a.m., in Cardinal Hall A.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 a.m.