President Halligan called the meeting to order with the following members present: Ackerson, Arquitt, Bertholf, Bierman, Buchanan, Cole, Dawson, Finn, Gedra, Horn, Hsu, Kimbrell, Lawry, Locy, Martin, Miller, Moder, Montgomery, Schwarz, Sisson, and Wilkinson. Also present: Bost, Carlozzi, Dahl, Daugherty, Gregson, Hallgren, Johannes, Jones, Lavoie, Lingelbach, Matoy, Najd, Oaks, Rhoten, Sanders, Tilley, Vitek, M. J. Warde, Watkins, Webb, Young. Absent: Bice, Edgley, Krenzer, Richards, Robinson, Scott, Smith, and B. Warde
Dr. Horn moved acceptance of the April 14, 1998, Minutes. Dr. Schwarz seconded the motion. The Minutes were approved. Dr. Schwarz moved acceptance of the, May 12, 1998, Agenda. Dr. Horn seconded. The Agenda was approved.
SPECIAL REPORT: Student Perceptions of the Quality of Instruction from the Student Satisfaction Inventory – Mary Jane Warde said that it was made clear at the meeting of the NCA in Chicago that in addition to taking assessment seriously colleges should also be establishing feedback loops to put the data to use. A Student Satisfaction Inventory is given each spring semester. It is a standardized instrument published by the Noel-Levitz company which has been used at OSU since 1994. The instrument has been administered in several different ways. During the first two years it was mailed to a stratified random sample of approximately 1500 students. The response rate was not very good. In 1997 the survey was administered in several classes. The target audience was 2000 students. The response rate was 74% in 1997 and 76% in 1998. The rate was this low because some students were enrolled in two of the sample sections or were absent. (NOTE: Do not survey on Fridays!) The faculty have been very cooperative. In 1997 thirty-four faculty cooperated and in 1998 there were forty cooperating teachers who were for the most part different than those the previous year. Sampling in class not only improved the response rate but also removed a bias in the mail-out survey which occurs when the respondents with a complaint in some area return the surveys at a higher rate than students who have no complaints. In 1998 there were a large number of Juniors and Seniors who responded. This reflects the bias of departments to have students in their capstone courses participate in the survey. There was good representation from all the colleges, however the greatest number were from the College of Business, because they asked to have all sections of a particular course surveyed. The Assessment Office is willing to work with departments or colleges to get the information that they need. The survey asks for their degree of satisfaction on a seven point Likert scale in eleven areas. Over the last 5 years the responses have been fairly consistent. One area that has gotten consistently high responses is academic advising. The area with the highest ratings this year was student centeredness. The section that usually gets the worst rating is Safety and Security. This area has low ratings because of dissatisfaction with parking. The area of Instructional Effectiveness has held steady over the past 5 years. In this area the students are asked a number of questions that are specific to instruction. During 1994 and 1995 students rated several areas of instruction below the national average for the area. In 1996 there was enough areas rated below the national average that a follow-up survey was conducted amongst the same population that had answered the original survey. This follow-up survey is in the Library and contains detailed information about students attitudes toward instruction. In 1997 and 1998 students at OSU rated all the areas under instruction higher than the national norm for those areas. Some areas like "instruction in my major field," and "variety of courses," have been rated above the national norms each year. Commitment to academic excellence is a half point above the national norm in 1998. In overall satisfaction the national norm has remained roughly constant over the five year period whereas the OSU satisfaction score has risen consistently over the same period. When students were asked if they would re-enroll in their university, the national norms have declined slightly whereas OSU's scores have improved slightly each year. All the reports generated by the Assessment Office are on reserve in the Library and on the server. Dr. Ackerson asked what the uncertainty estimates were on of the results. It is hard to determine if there is an increase or decrease if the numbers are in the noise range of the data. Dr. Warde replied that they were provided along with the scores and are available in the report. Dr. Moder asked what population was used in norming the data. Dr. Warde replied that the survey is nationally normed and OSU is in the group of public four year universities. The number of students participating this year is 108,000. Dr. Buchanan asked if there were schools that scored very high on the survey or were most of them about average. Dr. Warde said that no other schools results are provided. Dr. Halligan asked if national statistics were provided. Dr. Warde said that OSU is provided a national normative report. Ms. Watkins said that the students are also asked the importance of the different areas. Has there been any change in the importance ratings over the five years? Dr. Warde said that for the last two years the importance ratings of the different broad areas were within about one hundredth of a point. Dr. Lawry asked if we knew what was happening with the retention rate in view of the increased satisfaction results. Dr. Warde said that this instrument does not answer that. Dr. Halligan said that we were at 48% four years ago. The comparable number for our peer institutions was 61%. The latest data showed a retention of 80% from freshman to sophomore. OSU should have the best retention it has had at the next reporting period and is on the path to 62%. Dr. Warde said the Assessment Office has a data base containing all the responses for OSU students. The responses can be accessed by major code and can be used for program reviews or other research. Dr. Halligan asked if there was any other area besides parking that was bad news. Dr. Warde replied that there was not.
SPECIAL REPORT: Strategic Enrollment Initiative Task Force Report – Randall Dahl said that Dr. Halligan appointed a Strategic Enrollment Task Force to focus on retention. The task force involved both faculty and staff and met with faculty groups from every college. The three highest priorities in undergraduate enrollment at OSU are retention, coordination and organization. This is designed as a low cost high return project. The current OSU enrollment is made up of about 18% new freshman, 10% transfers, 68% continuing and 4% re-admissions. Through selective admissions OSU is getting the best prepared students in Oklahoma. As far as graduation rates we are doing better than any other comprehensive university in Oklahoma. However, we are 9th in the Big 12. These are 1996 figures and we are doing better. For the last three years an average of 981 freshman did not return the following fall and of those 443 were in good academic standing. An average of 644 seniors (16%) did not return and 576 (89%) of those were in good academic standing. The most common features of prior studies of enrollment, recruitment, and retention are twofold. First, few of the recommendations were implemented and second, none of the studies provided for a mechanism to implement or monitor the recommendations. Good students are scarce resources that are critical to the success of the university. Degree completion is not the only measure of institutional success, but it is the most important single measure. Retention to graduation must be a significant institutional value. Admission standards at OSU are appropriate to the institutional role, mission and enrollment environment and are sufficient for a conclusion that all students admitted are capable of succeeding here academically. The leading academic task is to facilitate the success of the students who are enrolled. The primary marginal factors in retention are internal and subject to institutional influence while those of recruitment are external and subject to only limited institutional influence. This is the reason that the task force placed such a high priority on retention. The five major recommendations are: 1. Immediately mount a continuing major institutional initiative to substantially increase and sustain retention to graduation. 2. Develop, implement, evaluate, refine, and maintain a comprehensive and strategic enrollment marketing and new student recruitment plan and related action programs. 3. Improve the coordination and management of the academic scholarship programs, and secure increased funding for scholarships and financial aid. 4. Improve academic advising and management of the transition to college. 5. Create an Enrollment Management organization at OSU charged to promote, manage, and facilitate primary undergraduate enrollment functions, and provide leadership, coordination, and support in achieving institutional enrollment objectives and implementation of the recommendations of this report. Each recommendation was followed by several sub-points. Mr. Najd asked if a similar task force could look at graduate education. Dr. Halligan said he liked that idea. Dr. Johannes asked if money was the main reason that seniors did not return. Dr. Dahl replied that we do not know. There are lots of reasons. However, when asked many students will say it is financial or personal. It may be how the students are allocating their money. Dr. Halligan said that financial aid is $108M per year and if we have 20K students and two thirds are getting financial aid then, on average, each student that qualifies for financial aid gets about $7500. The total cost of attendance is $10K or less so for the majority of these people it should not be money. Dr. Sanders asked if there is enough information available to tell which colleges are doing better. This might help determine which factors, advising, lack of scholarships, etc. are causing this. Dr. Dahl said there are many reasons. In some cases a person may have a job and it is more attractive than completing the last hours. Dr. Daugherty asked if we knew about gender and age of drop outs. Dr. Dahl said again we do not know. One of the recommendations under the retention initiative is to launch research efforts to study these types of questions. Dr. Ackerson pointed out that the data looks at four years but many students actually take longer. Dr. Dahl replied that the average time to graduation is 4.7 to 4.8 years. Dr. Ackerson asked if they could get funding the last year. Dr. Dahl said that some can. Efforts have been made to make more scholarships extend for multiple years. Also it is not clear whether students are choosing to go longer or whether our programs are forcing that. Ms. Jones said that many girls are getting married before their senior year. She will be attending 17 weddings this summer. Dr. Dahl said that we are not capturing the long-term picture in all of this data. Dr. Halligan added that the goal of this is not to have anyone change their academic standards. We are only trying to understand why that many students in good academic standing are leaving.
REPORT OF STATUS OF FACULTY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATIONS:
President Halligan, Executive Vice President and Vice Presidents
96-12-04-FAC Changes in Appendix D: Under review. Dr. Keener will work with Legal Counsel to draft wording changes to more clearly delineate the role of Ombuds and provide additional specifics regarding membership to the Informal Review Committee. Requires Board approval.
97-02-02-ADHOC Patent Policy 1-0202: Pending review by Faculty Council committee. Draft including incorporated changes from initial reviews is currently being reviewed by Faculty Council committee. Following their review, document will pass to Research Council, Dean’s Council and Legal Counsel. Requires Board approval.
97-04-03-ASP Guidelines for Scheduling Common Evening and Final Exams: Administration agrees in principle, but defers decision awaiting new computer system. Dr. Vitek has coordinated this review with the Registrar and the Faculty Council committee. Draft revisions are being considered. Because of the extensive computer reprogramming involved, CIS must postpone until new computer system is operating.
97-09-01-FAC Policy and Procedure Letter on Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure: Under review.
Dr. Keener is coordinating review. Special review group met 3/27/98 and following up on possible revisions. (See Halligan memo dated 3-31-98.) Revised draft prepared and under review by Dean’s Council.
97-09-02-FAC Return of Policy and Procedure Letter on Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure to Faculty Council Before Action by the President: Pending review of draft P&P Letter.
98-02-03-FAC Timing of the A&D Process: Under review. Currently being reviewed through Academic Affairs.
98-02-05-SALR Course Syllabi Availability: Under review. Currently being reviewed through Academic Affairs.
98-03-01-FAC Personal Profit on Required Materials: Under review by Academic Affairs.
98-04-02-BUDG Faculty Computer Allocation: To be reviewed with the University Budget Committee as FY99 budget plans are finalized.
98-04-03-RES Research Scientist Positions be Added to the Faculty Handbook: To be reviewed with the Research Committee.
98-05-01-ASP Changes in Academic Regulation 5.4 (Dropping Courses):
To President Hallligan.
98-05-02-BUDG Increase in Promotion Raises: To President Hallligan.
REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEES:
ACADEMIC STANDARDS AND POLICIES – Gerald Horn
Dr. Horn introduced Brant Adams who is a member of the ASP Committee and thanked Bill Ivy for his assistance with the development of this recommendation. The Faculty Council Recommends to President Halligan that: 1) Paragraph 2 be revised as follows: After the deadline for dropping with no record, but prior to the end of the twelfth week of classes of regular semester or the 6th week of the eight week summer session, or proportionate periods for block or short courses, a student may drop a course and the grade of "W" (dropped) will be recorded on the student's academic record. 2) Paragraph 3 be omitted, and 3) that paragraph 4 be revised as follows: After the twelfth week of classes of regular semester, or the 6th week of the eight week summer session, or proportionate periods for block or short courses, a student may not drop a course...[no further changes]. There are a number of traps set for both faculty and students in paragraph 3 of Academic Regulation 5.4. The committee feels that students are not given enough feedback early enough in the semester to make good decisions with regard to dropping a course. Many courses have a significant portion of testing and/or assignments after the 10th week. In some cases the exams or assignments have been completed but the results have not been returned to the students. A student may be encouraged by the instructor to remain in a class because there is plenty of opportunity left to bring up a low grade and end up not doing so. Or, a student may drop prematurely from a course s/he would have eventually completed successfully. A key reason for this recommendation is that it will allow students to be better informed and make better decisions. Paragraph 3 in the current regulation requires that a student be assigned a "W" or "F" during the 7th to 10th week period. The "F" is counted in the GPA. There was faculty concern about the fact that many faculty are currently assigning students the grade of "W" even though the student was failing at the time of the drop. So the current policy is not being applied consistently by the faculty. This recommendation will result in a policy that will more accurately and honestly reflect what is already occurring. The recommendation is less punitive to students and should encourage student success and retention. Dr. Horn responded to a budget concern of President Halligan by stating that the recommendation is revenue neutral since no tuition or fees are refunded after the second week. Dr. Halligan said that the students pay only 25% of the total cost. When does the state count enrollment? Dr. Dahl said that the state count occurs at the end of an academic year. It appears that this change would be negligible with respect to state funding since the state uses a three year rolling average or actual enrollment whichever is higher. [...Continued on next page...]