College of Arts and Sciences Dean's Council Meeting

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

3:30-5:00 CNS 100

Present: A. Biselli (for D. Winn), E. Boquet, M. Coleman, N. Dallavalle, D. Keenan, P. Lane,

J. McCarthy, D. McFadden, J. Orman, L. Porter, R. Rodrigues, G. Sauer, J. Simon,

J. Shanahan, M. Sourieau, K. Steffen

Not Present: D. Winn

The meeting convened at 3:30 p.m.

Approval of the Minutes

Dr. Nancy Dallavalle moved to approve the February 4, 2009 minutes and Dr. Glenn Sauer seconded the motion. All were in favor with one abstention.

Registration changes

A handout of Registration and Advising procedures were shared with the department chairs previously from Drs. Orin Grossman and Mary Frances Malone. Ms. Susan Peterson put together information packets consisting of information previously distributed to chairs, along with her helpful points relative to course enrollment management and advising.

The new process will be implemented spring semester 2009 for fall 2009 registration privileging students by graduating year allowing them to register for all of their courses at once—major, minor, and core selections.

· Class of 2010 will begin April 14; class of 2011 on April 16; and class 2012 on April 20.

· Subsequent to all scheduled registration dates, students will be permitted to enter the registration system to make adjustments to their schedules.

· University Registrar will prepare a memo to all students explaining the details of the registration process, inclusive of the registration schedule.

Dr. Rose Rodrigues mentioned that the registration process may present some challenges, especially for courses that fulfill majors, minors, and core. She encouraged holding a certain number of spaces for specific courses to accommodate each graduating year in terms of reserving seats to assist with meeting course requirements. She suggested informing majors and/or minors to come back to their advisors if they do not get into a course, so their mentor could see if seats remain available to accommodate their needs. In the Sociology Department advisors will construct a list of these students, submit their list to the department chairs, and then the department chair will work with the Registrar's Office to have these students placed into one of the reserved spaces to meet their major and/or minor requirements. The Dean mentioned that Biology, Communication, and Visual & Performing Arts had been using a similar process for registration for years.

Dr. Lynn Porter shared that all of the programs within the Visual and Performing Arts Department meet with all of their majors and minors to take a poll in terms of what courses their students plan to take allowing them to gain a sense of how many seats to reserve in accommodating student's major/minor needs.

The Dean encouraged department chairs to bring their students together to discuss course and/or program opportunities. This is a community building initiative giving students the opportunity to ask questions, along with an opportunity for departments to discuss various options, such as Study Abroad programs. Ms. Dawn Quintiliani created a study abroad quick facts and tip sheet for department chairs listing the various Study Abroad Programs, eligibility, timelines, and academic advising responsibilities.

Advising

An article on Academic Advising, A Comprehensive Handbook, which was found on the NACADA website www.nacada.org was distributed to chairs. The value of this article was to share ways in which faculty could help students integrate, and think about the questions such as, who am I called to be and what do I care about? This article fits well with the calls of the University's Strategic Plan, and the website offers many articles relative to faculty advising.

The Dean circulated the summary report on Wabash National Study of Liberal Arts Education. Ms. Ann Stehney and the Dean have data reports from Wabash. She recommended chairs become familiar with the data these reports display and encouraged conversation at the department level to determine what makes sense for the department to prepare students appropriately.

Dr. Elizabeth Boquet is participating in an on-campus cross divisional working group working on initiatives for the College and University at large attempting to bring best practices of advising to Fairfield. Because registration and advising is tightly coupled and are long standing areas of dissatisfaction at the University, the new registration policy is an interesting segue. As colleagues work towards registration changes, work around orienting a more student-centered approach to registration, and gain a more structural user friendly system, positive changes will occur. Boquet expressed the importance of decoupling advising and registration and having advising become a much broader developmental relationship with advisees.

Registration and advising are long-standing areas of dissatisfaction for both students and faculty. There should be conversations about what advising means for Ignatian pedagogy. Academic advising has an essential teaching function and advising is part of the teaching relationship that we should have with students; therefore there is an importance behind faculty claiming this teaching function.

An updated model that recognizes the essential teaching functions of academic advising broadly understood (more than assistance with course selection) is needed. A good academic advising relationship is going to help students with the following:

· Make meaning of their educational experiences

· Make sense of their immediate circumstances

· Make decisions about the future

Conversation unfolded related to student learning through working with the core integration initiative and reviewing the Wabash data. The Dean noted that the single best predictor for a good learning outcome for students is a satisfactory relationship with a faculty member. It is the best predictor of retention, persistence, and engagement.

Here's what we know about academic advising:

· Importance of the development of a significant relationship with a faculty member. (Fairfield's strength in this area.)

· Address the disconnect between what is an obvious strong point for us (see Wabash data on student satisfaction with faculty) and what is clearly a weak point (advising)—The Wabash data determined that students at Fairfield were satisfied with their relationship with faculty members, but there was a disconnect with dissatisfaction with their advisors.

· Central to student's learning experiences; Boquet urged the group to claim advising as an essential teaching function rather than to see it farmed out to "advising professionals" or other non-faculty

· Advising should take a long view of student development

· Good advising practices = good teaching practices: Being up-to-date on subject matter, asking thoughtful and provocative questions, helping students to learn independently, engaging students actively in the process, providing prompt feedback, etc.

· Learner-centered approach consistent with what we see in the shift in national conversations in higher education focused on student learning.

· Dr. Boquet indicated that her own interest in advising-as-teaching drew her to my current position—similarities to writing center work.

As with registration, structural changes are necessary making resources more readily available for students, faculty, and professional staff. How do students experience accessing information about advising, degree evaluations, or any other academic support? In an on-campus advising group, Boquet and others were involved in looking at peer institutions, including all of the Jesuit institutions, to see how they shared this information with students, so they could navigate outside of class academic support (through faculty, student services, peers). Fairfield does not have a seamless presentation for students.

(Update on the new Academic Support and Engagement effort.)

· Listed in the Strategic Vision working document presented in a number of venues to university community.

· The broad picture involves bringing together advising and student support services so that students experience a more seamless integration of support outside the classroom for their academic work.

· Exec VP Billy Weitzer is overseeing the effort.

· Cross-divisional working group (approximately 15 people) from academics, student affairs, and all schools in the academic division working all year to obtain the bigger picture to determine the advising needs for students.

· Representatives at 4 conferences including a 5-person institute group—National Academic Advising Association, 2 regional conferences, and a one-week institute on consolidating and looking at improving advising resources on individual campuses.

· There will be some restructuring and shifts in reporting lines.

· New position (Dean of Academic Support/Engagement) reporting to the SVPAA parallel position to Dean of Student Development in Student Affairs, and these two positions will coordinate efforts to bring the academic and student affairs division into closer collaboration.

The restructuring and elimination of duplication of services in some areas does mean that the administration is hopeful to be able to move forward with this piece of the strategic vision. There is advising going on in so many areas—academics, athletics, project excel, student support services, etc… This is a big area that requires better coordinating attention and the University is behind the curve on this issue. This has been flagged by NEASC and in other assessments as one of the areas in which we are underperforming.

Rodrigues shared her concerns with Ms. Mary Ann Palazzi, Athletic Director, advising student athletes. Ms. Palazzi has a role working with athletes, and advising should not be part of her responsibility. Rodrigues is concerned that Ms. Palazzi's advising is causing an enormous disservice for athletes. Boquet mentioned that this is one of the areas under serious discussion. She commented that our current advising system at Fairfield is a partly centralized and partly decentralized system that is confusing for students. First year advising is very centralized for students and then very decentralized for subsequent years. We need to articulate priorities based on our mission and determine where we place our resources and assure that the advising effort is placed within the academic division.

Dr. Kraig Steffen commented that freshmen who were undeclared also at a disadvantage as they moved into their sophomore year, because it was not clear how they were assigned an advisor. When a new advisor is assigned, the previous advisors are not always informed.

The Dean assured the chairs that Billy Weitzer does understand the importance of implementation of advising as part of the academic program. She commented that chairs should have a role of expertise in advising (both major and core requirements), and they should mentor their faculty colleagues preparing them to be effective advisors. They should link their faculty to other resources on campus, inclusive of helping them find useful resources for students.

Boquet mentioned that the Wabash report represented national trends. She asked chairs what their thoughts were about this data.

• Rodrigues commented that the questions in the report were constructed well; however, she felt that the diversity questions were poorly designed and problematic.
• Boquet commented that the purpose of the data was to initiate conversations with students asking them what constitutes diversity. Wabash was not interested in having institutions benchmark against each other but more importantly the longitudinal data and the conversations that facilitate on campus.
• Wabash reported that campuses nationally look very much alike but internally student experiences vary tremendously. Our most engaged students are having the same experiences as the best Universities in the country, but there is a large standard deviation on campus between the most and least engaged student.
• McFadden thought that the data was problematic in terms of a great indictment of residence hall life and the FYE. Situations were more challenging after one year at Fairfield then they were when they first entered the University. This seems like an academic issue.
• The Dean shared that the conclusion drawn from this data indicated that after the students first several weeks at Fairfield, their performance declined. This was correlated with Fairfield culture. What are the opportunities offered during their first weeks of engagement with Fairfield? How can we invite them to engage in a relationship with faculty much sooner?
• Shanahan recalled that the students were complaining about taking the Wabash survey at a certain time. Students who were selected for this cohort were not able to register until they completed the survey.
• McCarthy commented that as students begin their education, they are going to respond to questions with more sociably desired answers. Once they are at the University for awhile, they begin to feel more comfortable and will share information they would not initially. What is the validity and liability on this survey? McCarthy was interested in seeing the questions that were asked to the students.
• The Dean asked chairs if they would like to have a presentation from Ms. Stehney and Dr. Curt Naser during this summer's chairs retreat bringing more depth to this data in hopes to launch a greater conversation for next year.
• This survey will continue over a 4 year period following the same students and continuing participation from the same institutions.
• Dallavalle recommended that we submit questions to Ms. Stehney and Dr. Naser, so they could go through these inquiries and lay out an action set of questions that would be beneficial to the chairs. This information could then be discussed at future Dean's Council meetings. The Dean asked chairs to forward questions to her attention and she will forward them appropriately.

ASCC subcommittee report on internships, independent studies and supervised research

This report detailed ways to account for intensive work with students outside of the traditional classroom setting in terms of internships, interdependent studies, and supervised research. The idea is to explore resource neutral solutions to implement the recommendations in the report.

The Dean reiterated that the single most important determinant of student engagement, persistence in education, and success and satisfaction was student relationships with faculty. These intensive experiences are the front lines of engaging in that work. She encouraged participation in internships, independent studies, and research allowing students to engage in a more intensive fuller experience outside of the classroom. However, the question of whether and how to account for supervising such experiences in faculty load requires some complex consideration.

If faculty engaged in one or two of these experiences a year why accrue? An independent study where the student is truly independent does not warrant that faculty should be accruing; this is not a big add on to their course load. If a faculty is supervising 3 research students each semester at 10 hours per week, per student, then a model should be looked at to build this into the department's resource use.

At the department level the following should be considered as decisions are made.

· Develop models for different experiences

· Bundling of internships

· Supervised intensive lab experiences should be treated differently from the library work with students

Angela Biselli expressed concerns with reaching the 20 student threshold. She commented that this is hard in Physics, because there are few majors within the department. Independent studies in Physics are very dependent with faculty meeting their students numerous times during the week. The department feels it is very important for students to engage in independent studies and/or research. The quota of 20 students does not seem to work for the department and there is little freedom to restructure the curriculum.

Steffen commented that one of the critical distinctions in Chemistry is the laboratory based research experiences. These are very intensive and do require the faculty member to be present. Two students per semester is a very reasonable load compared to other schools. To obtain a BS in Chemistry with ACS certification students are required to engage in one research experience. These research experiences are already built into the curriculum, but if students engage in research during the semester or for credit, then the faculty member receives no support for this commitment. The Dean mentioned that the faculty member would get paid, if the student is registered for a course over the summer.

The Dean noted that different departments should consider approaches that match their program learning goals, their curriculum, and their faculty numbers (numbers and distribution of interest in doing this work among their faculty).

The Dean asked the chairs to review the ASCC subcommittee document carefully, as well as her cover memo and instructions.

· Have conversations about the structure for the department based on consideration of your discipline, curriculum, program learning goals, and the assumption of a resource-neutral solution.

· Draft a one-page department plan for her review by April 30 (deadline is not firm)

· Conversations and approvals will unfold as necessary in May and June

· New systems will go into effect (e.g. begin accruing or bundling) in '09-'10

Boquet was on the subcommittee and commented that the committee gathered information from numerous institutions and list serves provided by scientists. She offered some cautions relative to this information, most notably that folks from numerous other institutions had concerns about the accrual model. Any institutions that supported a system like this commented that an accrual model was difficult in terms of tracking. The bundling option was not something that was deemed desirable by all of the faculty on the subcommittee, so the it had to find a way to pick a number that would be equivalent to a course. Nevertheless, the Dean indicated that she thought the bundling model was in the best interests of both departments and faculty.

Announcements

Summer Chairs Retreat

· The Chairs Retreat will be scheduled either Wednesday, August 26 or Thursday, August 27. New chairs will meet for a ½ day prior to the full-day retreat.

· Possible Topics:

o Focus on Living & Learning, Student Engagement

o Conflict Management and Mediation

o Diversity Training and Consciousness Raising (re: faculty and students)

o Managing in Tight Economic Times