SOS Steering Committee Meeting 12-1-2000

Minutes

________________________________________________________________________

Attending: Kathy Johnson (Chair), Pam Crowell (Bio), Dennis Devine (Psych), Paul Dubin (Chem), Gordon Fricke (Assoc Dean), Joe Kuczkowski (Assoc Dean), Jon Luke (Math), Gabe Filippelli (Geology), David Stocum (Dean), Mihran Tuceryan (CSCI), Steve Wassall (Physics); Fritz Kleinhans (Sec).

______________________________________________________________________________

KJ opened meeting at 10 AM.

The ongoing discussion of the Strategic Plan was concluded with a brief summary by DS. GabF suggested it would be helpful for Dept Strategic Plans to be distributed between Depts. DS noted that these have been shared between the Chairs.

JK opened the discussion on Student Advising. His task force is reviewing the progress we have made on the Advising Plan established by the 1997 task force. The progressive advising plan has been implemented. Windows on Science students have advising built into there course curricula. Other students are at least receiving an initial advising session. We were the last school to drop mandatory advising prior to registration. The SOS does not have the resources to do this without university support. Depts have different levels of advising infrastructure; e.g. Psych has made a major effort on student advising.

The assessment of advising in Depts has, by and large, not been implemented yet. Feedback from students is desirable. KJ noted that it is hard to get feedback from their Psych seniors and inquired if the SOS could get this data as part of their process for certifying students for graduation. JK thought the logistics of handling seven exit surveys for the seven departments would be difficult. The senior exit Packet has several assessment pieces already. If we want to survey advising at school level, perhaps we should use a common set of questions. KJ asked about the possibility of a web administered survey form for seniors, making it a part of the graduation requirement drill. . JK noted that the SOS also has compliance problems. Currently, there is no penalty/follow-up for students who do not answer all the graduating survey questions. On a similar note, PD reported that Chem had decided that advising should be 'mandatory' but not 'enforced'.

JK noted that the SOS was rated low on a university wide assessment of advising. He thinks we have problems, but not as severe as the university survey suggested. SRW noted that his WOS students had a much more favorable view of University College advising than they did of SOS advising. The SOS advising seemed to be too narrow and did not help students with the broader issues.

A discussion of advising in different depts followed the above portion of JK's report:

In Chem, PD blocks student registration if they have not had an advising session. PD reported that his major time sink was with students who could not be found. They were on his advisee list, but were no longer at school. KJ seconded this for Psych; tracking missing students is the hardest advising task. PD has not found that his block policy creates any ill will with students. Active students follow up and fix their advising problems, the rest have disappeared and the registration block is moot. Some students do complain that they can not find their advisors, but these students may want instant access. Finally, PD reported that in Chem all faculty participate in student advising. He also noted that those students who took advantage of the advising resources typically have a better graduation rate and get more involved in research.

GabF inquired how other depts handled exceptions to the official plan of study in the Bulletin. KJ says the lead advisor does this in Psych. KJ went on to discuss how Psych handles student advising. They use peer advisors who do much of legwork, e.g. mailing, logistics, etc. Graduate students supervise these peer advisors. The peer advising process is part of the professional practice seminar required of the psych students. They attend a training seminar and then are responsible for being available in the peer advising office several hours per week. Psych could help extend this program to other depts if we could fund the graduate student supervisors. JK liked the idea of peer advising. PD noted that students have highly variable advising needs. Some are proficient and are ready to think about grad school while others are just surviving form week to week. GorF agreed that they need help on how to achieve their long-range goals.

JK raised the question of training for advisors. He would like to see faculty attend workshops on how to be better advisors. Greater consistency of advising is needed. If a dept is not consistent, how can we be consistent across depts? GabF noted that Geology has a small number of majors (30) which are handled by one advisor and thus consistency is not a problem in Geology.

JK when on to note that faculty are good at mentoring, but less consistent at some of the other advising tasks. Most of our majors have Junior/Senior and may be able to take responsibility for some of the other issues aside from mentoring.

KJ inquired how the Steering Committee could help JK on advising problems. JK said the first step was for his task force to look into current practice in depts. and figure out where the problems are

KJ initiated discussion of whether a common, school wide, advising session/time would be helpful; e.g. a 'Registration Evening'. Those with long memories reminded us that something like this occurred under the old system where each department had to have a representative at registration. Many liked the idea but there was some concern whether we would have a good student turn out for a 'Registration Evening' and whether the students who most needed it would come. If we were to do this, it would probably be desirable to have a 'portable computer class room with laptops'.

JL raised the question of how to provide recognition and rewards for good advising. FK seconded this question. DS recounted how the U of I tried to make advising a part of every faculty's responsibility. Over time as research pressures increased, the faculty advising effort collapsed and the U of I went to peer advising. It was suggest that perhaps we could use the TERA award as a way to recognize excellent advising. As a start DS suggested that advising activity should be tracked in the faculty annual reviews. Over time this data may work itself into the promotion and tenure process, as has been the case for teaching excellence. PC suggested that the 'senior survey' could include a question about outstanding advisors in addition to those about outstanding mentors.

The SOS Steering Committee will revisit the issue of advising during the spring term.

Parking: KJ presented her draft letter on parking problems and some comments form Boyd on this letter. The consensus was that the third paragraph should be rewritten or removed. KJ will revise the letter and circulate it to the faculty for approval. Assuming approval, the letter will be signed by the Steering Committee and forwarded to the parking authorities.

The parking discussion led to the issue of building landscaping and access. There were choice comments about mud and sidewalk layout.

The next Steering Committee meeting will be the first Friday in Feb 2001. KJ adjourned the meeting at 11:30 AM.

fwk, seceretary

12-7-2000