Mark A. Casteel, Vice-Chair

Joseph J. Cecere

Dwight Davis

Terry Engelder

Sabih I. Hayek

Deidre E. Jago, Chair

John R. Lippert

Arthur C. Miller

John W. Moore

Murry R. Nelson

John S. Nichols

Jean Landa Pytel

Dennis C. Scanlon

Cara-Lynne Schengrund

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON CURRICULAR AFFAIRS

 

A Clarification of “Active Learning” as it Applies to General Education

 

(Legislative)

 

(Implementation Date:  Upon passage by the Senate)

 

Introduction:

 

During Summer 2000, Dr. Louis Geschwindner, Chair of the Faculty Senate Committee on Curricular Affairs (SCCA), appointed the Active-Learning Advisory Committee (ALAC) to review and advise the SCCA on Recommendation #4 from the Report of the Special Committee on General Education. Specifically, the charge for the ALAC was to provide recommendations to SCCA to facilitate improved integration of the “key competencies for active learning” into General Education courses.

 

As a result of several meetings and on-going discussions during Fall Semester 2000, the ALAC recommended that no modification should take place to Recommendation #4 of the Report of the Special Committee on General Education. However, ALAC recommended that the SCCA consider presenting a motion to the Faculty Senate to modify and broaden the “Framework for General Education” at Penn State in order to clarify the concept of student-centered learning.  The SCCA accepted the recommendation of ALAC and makes this recommendation to the University Faculty Senate.

 

Recommendation:

 

That the section concerning “Active Learning Elements” of the “Framework for General Education” be changed as follows:

 

Current:

 

ACTIVE LEARNING ELEMENTS

 
Three or more of the following are to be integrated into courses offered in the knowledge domains:

 

·        active use of writing, speaking and other forms of self-expression,
  

·        opportunity for information gathering, synthesis and analysis in solving problems (including the use of library, electronic/computer and other resources and quantitative reasoning and interpretation, as applicable),

 

·        engagement in collaborative learning and teamwork,

 

·        application of intercultural and international competence,

 

·        dialogue pertaining to social behavior, community and scholarly conduct.

 

 

Proposed:

 

CORE COMPETENCIES, ACTIVITIES, AND STRATEGIES FOR ENHANCED LEARNING

KNOWLEDGE DOMAIN COURSES MUST REQUIRE EACH STUDENT TO ENGAGE IN ACTIVITIES PROMOTING LEARNING COURSE CONTENT THROUGH PRACTICING, TYPICALLY, THREE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING:

 

·        WRITING, SPEAKING AND/OR OTHER FORMS OF SELF-EXPRESSION,

 

·        INFORMATION GATHERING, SUCH AS THE USE OF THE LIBRARY, COMPUTER/ELECTRONIC RESOURCES, AND EXPERIMENTATION OR OBSERVATION,
 

·        SYNTHESIS AND ANALYSIS IN PROBLEM SOLVING AND CRITICAL THINKING, INCLUDING, WHERE APPROPRIATE, THE APPLICATION OF REASONING AND INTERPRETATIVE METHODS,
 

·        COLLABORATIVE LEARNING AND TEAMWORK,

 

·        ACTIVITIES THAT PROMOTE AND ADVANCE INTERCULTURAL AND/OR INTERNATIONAL UNDERSTANDING,
 

·        ACTIVITIES THAT PROMOTE THE UNDERSTANDING OF ISSUES PERTAINING TO SOCIAL BEHAVIOR, SCHOLARLY CONDUCT, AND COMMUNITY RESPONSIBILITY,

 

·        A SIGNIFICANT ALTERNATIVE COMPETENCY FOR ACTIVE LEARNING DESIGNED FOR AND APPROPRIATE TO A SPECIFIC COURSE.

Rationale:

 

Students should be actively involved in a significant part of their own learning in all General Education courses at Penn State.  Through the use of active learning in assignments, exercises, and other formal activities associated with a course, students become engaged participants in the particular course's content and, simultaneously, build competencies, skills, and abilities that are necessary to promote learning in any situation.

 

A successful General Education course typically will involve students in several active-learning activities, not all of the same type.  However, evidence of significant involvement by students is more important than the count of activities. Activities that promote intercultural and international competence, or that help students assess social behavior and scholarly conduct in the community, are especially valuable.

 

ACTIVE-LEARNING ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO THE COMMITTEE ON CURRICULAR AFFAIRS OF THE UNIVERSITY FACULTY SENATE

 

Richard Alley

Christopher Bise, Chair

Barton Browning

Donald Fahnline

William Kelly

Diane Zabel

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON CURRICULAR AFFAIRS

 

Phyllis Adams

Alison Altman

R. Thomas Berner

Douglas K. Brown

Barton Browning

Garry Burkle

Robert Crane

Brian Curran

Jennifer Flinchbaugh

Gary J. Fosmire

George W. Franz

Louis Geschwindner, Chair

Sally Heffentreyer

J. Daniel Marshall, Vice Chair

Kathleen Mastrian

Robert Minard

Robert Novack

Judy Ozment Payne

Sheila E. Ridley

Howard Sachs

Richard J. Simons

Shelley Stoffels

James Thomas

Rodney Troester

Diane Zabel

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON OUTREACH ACTIVITIES

 

Recommendation to Refine and Expand the Models for Recognition of Outreach Activities

 

(Advisory and Consultative)

 

[Implementation:  Upon Approval by the President]

 

 

Introduction

 

       Universities throughout the United States, including many of the nation’s land-grant institutions, are expanding their commitment to outreach and embracing the concept of the engaged university as they redefine their role in the 21^st century.  An engaged university is both relevant and responsive to the challenges and changes in our society, using its scholarly resources to address the needs of many different constituents  (Kellogg Commission, 1999).

 

       Universities and society long have recognized that the activities of faculty generate benefits that extend beyond the students and scholars who are part of the academy.  This recognition underlies the historic justification for using federal, state, and local tax revenues to support higher education activities as well as the extension traditions associated with land-grant universities.  In recent years, there has been a growing emphasis on the contributions universities like Penn State make to society.  For example, major funding agencies including NSF and NIH, seeking to expand the impact of sponsored research beyond traditional audiences, increasingly have been interested in projects that develop partnerships beyond the university to disseminate results to the general public and to extend the value of scholarship to society.  Many agencies are specifically requiring outreach activities to be identified in grant proposals.

 

       Penn State’s definition of outreach, first formally stated in the 1995 joint report of the Council on University Outreach and the Faculty Senate Committee on Outreach, articulates a vision of engagement and extended impact for our institution.  The report defines outreach as

 

“. . .  the generation, transmission, application, preservation, and enhancement of knowledge between the University and external audiences, within the Commonwealth, nationally, and internationally.”

 

It goes on to say:

 

“Outreach is a form of scholarship that is embodied in the teaching, research, and service missions of the University.  As such, outreach activities can take a number of forms including but not limited to credit and noncredit instruction, applied research, technical assistance, demonstration projects, evaluation studies, and policy analysis (Council on University Outreach and the Faculty Senate Committee on Outreach, 1995).”

 

Other universities have established similar definitions of outreach.  For example, Michigan State University defines an outreach activity as one, “…in which the public benefits from what is uniquely the province of the university to provide, mainly scholarship (Michigan State University, 1999).”

 

       The 1995 Penn State joint report concluded that outreach is a form of scholarship and a major function of the university and therefore is integral to the intellectual life of Penn State.  The report also noted the array of benefits outreach brings to the institution, among them:

 

¨      Increased effectiveness in addressing societal issues and problems.

¨      Enhanced student and faculty recruiting.

¨      New avenues for fund-raising and friend-raising.

¨      Enhanced stature and support in the Commonwealth, the nation, and the world.

 

       In addition to enhancing the reputation and impact of Penn State, faculty engaging in outreach through teaching, research, and/or service enrich their own professional development and that of their colleagues.  External activities provide faculty with opportunities to collect data, examine different perspectives, and gain insight about social issues.  Interaction with policymakers, civic officials, and community leaders can open up new dimensions for teaching, research, and service.  Specific benefits of outreach for faculty cited in the 1995 joint report of the Council on Outreach and Faculty Senate Committee on Outreach include:

 

¨      Improved teaching and learning.

¨      Greater understanding of the implications of individual scholarship on society.

¨      New lines of inquiry and support for research.

¨      Expanded faculty visibility, research opportunities, support, and consulting.

¨      Opportunities for undergraduate and graduate students to gain practical experience and apply newly acquired knowledge and skill.

 

The current Senate Committee on Outreach Activities adds to this list the strengthened faculty commitment to students that outreach affords, as it supports the application of theory and community-based learning.

 

       Despite both the important institutional and individual benefits of faculty outreach activities, recognition for such endeavors can be elusive.  Based on a survey of faculty perceptions of the rewards and barriers to outreach activities and an inventory that identified more than 5,000 outreach programs at Penn State, a 1995 Informational Report to the University Faculty Senate from the Senate Committee on Outreach Activities concluded that “ . . . many outreach activities are not catalogued and recorded; a more effective definition of outreach as well as an improved process for recording and sharing this information are needed.  In addition, a large number of activities are measured for client satisfaction; however, evaluation methods to determine both quality and impact of these programs generally need to be enhanced.”  The report concluded, “Faculty perceive that rewards are personal rather than from the University (Senate Committee on Outreach, 1995).”

 

Recognizing Outreach in the Assessment of Scholarship

 

       Paramount to recognizing faculty for their scholarly outreach is Penn State’s ability to assess the quality of outreach activity as it relates to each of the university’s categories of faculty responsibility: teaching, research and service:

 

Outreach teaching extends instructional capacity beyond the campus to external audiences, through continuing education courses, seminars, workshops, exhibits and performances, presentations, non-formal educational opportunities, and other teaching activities addressed to non-traditional learners.  It also includes delivery of non-resident instruction through distance education.  Courses that include service learning experiences for resident students are also a form of outreach teaching.

 

Outreach research involves a continuum of activities in partnership with external constituencies to discover, explore, and develop new knowledge in partnership, with each contributing to the research. This cooperative and/or collaborative discovery, application, and problem solving can take a variety of forms including applied research, evaluation and policy studies, creative works, and demonstration projects.

 

Outreach service includes faculty sharing their expertise with audiences predominantly external to the university.  This may include presentations to professional and learned societies, participation in community affairs as a representative of the university, and consulting.  Faculty expertise also may be called upon in service to government, corporations, and advisory boards, through technology transfer and clinical service delivery activities, and by participation in task forces, authorities, and public hearings.

 

       The Committee notes that some outreach activities span traditional lines of teaching, research, and service.  For example, a presentation to a predominantly non-academic professional group may reflect both teaching and service missions.  If Penn State and its faculty are to realize the benefits of outreach more fully, we will need to be flexible in our effort to assess faculty scholarly achievements.

 

            Penn State currently has mechanisms in place to recognize faculty involvement in outreach activities.  Of greatest significance are the modifications made in 1995 to the University’s promotion and tenure guidelines that explicitly allow for the documentation of outreach activities to be included in all categories of faculty evaluation (teaching ability and effectiveness; research, creative accomplishments and scholarship; and service to the university and the public) rather than relegating outreach solely to the service category as had been the case in the past.  Annual faculty merit reviews provide another mechanism where faculty outreach scholarship contributions may be recognized.

 

Other forms of outreach recognition also exist at Penn State.  The University established the Penn State Award for Faculty Outreach in collaboration with the Coordinating Council for Outreach and Cooperative Extension and the Faculty Senate Committee on Outreach.  This annual recognition is designed to reward faculty for their contributions to outreach and consists of a cash award of $1,000.  In addition to this university-wide award, additional recognition of outreach activities within departments and colleges could serve as motivation for increased faculty involvement in outreach.

 

            The Penn State Outreach magazine, first published in 1998, celebrates the outreach activities of faculty.  In the past two and one half years (6 issues), the activities of more than 320 faculty members from across the University have been featured, representing a diverse array of fields.  Outreach is distributed widely internally and externally and has become a model for other universities seeking to inform their constituents of faculty contributions in these areas.

 

RATIONALE

 

In recent years, the Faculty Senate Committee on Outreach Activities has found through faculty surveys, interviews, and inventories, that many faculty members are significantly engaged in important outreach work at Penn State.  Examples abound of activities that contribute to economic development, public policy, and the lives of individuals, families, and communities. Many of these have been catalogued in a 1998 inventory of outreach and programs and services (Penn State University, 1998). However, while recognition of the value of outreach activities has increased at Penn State during the past five years, the level of engagement by faculty in outreach is impeded by real and perceived conceptions of how it is recognized and rewarded within the university.

 

Possible frameworks for integrating outreach into the model of scholarship that is valued at Penn State include Boyer’s work (1990) that delineates the scholarship of integration and the scholarship of application in addition to the more traditionally recognized scholarships of discovery and teaching. The Kellogg Commission’s (2000) recommendation that learning, discovery, and engagement become the contemporary expression of the tripartite teaching, research, and service mission offers another approach. The multidimensional model of scholarship presented to the Penn State community in the recent UniSCOPE report (Hyman et al., 2000) integrates the full range of scholarly activities and offers guidance for documentation and evaluation of outreach teaching, research and service.

 

By recognizing and rewarding the continuum of faculty activities, the university will be positioned better to fulfill its land-grant responsibilities in the future. Especially key are incentives that encourage faculty to continue their outreach activities and explore new areas that address changing societal needs.

 

The recommendation set forth by the Committee encourages Penn State’s continuing commitment to faculty engagement in outreach activities by strengthening the procedures to recognize and reward these activities.

 

RECOMMENDATION

         

The Senate Committee on Outreach Activities recommends that Penn State, through the University Faculty Senate, strengthen and expand assessment models of scholarship to recognize better the breadth and value of outreach activities at all levels of review across colleges and departments.  The models should address the interactions between outreach teaching, research, and service.  They should also enable faculty to identify and document outreach activities effectively.

 

 

REFERENCES

 

Boyer, Ernest L. (1990).  Scholarship reconsidered:  Priorities of the professorate. San Francisco: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching; Jossey-Bass publishers.

 

Council on University Outreach and the Faculty Senate Committee on Outreach. (1995). Penn State’s Outreach. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University.

 

Hyman, Drew; Ayers, John E.; Cash, Erskine H.; Fahnline, Donald E.; Gold, David P.; Gurgevich, Elise A.; Herrmann, Robert O.; Jurs, Peter C.; Roth, David E.; Swisher, John D.; Whittington, M. Susie; and Wright, Helen S. (2000). UniSCOPE 2000: A Multidimensional Model of Scholarship for the 21^st Century. University Park, PA; The UniSCOPE Learning Community.

 

Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grant Universities. (1999). Returning to our Roots: The Engaged University. Washington, DC: National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges.

 

Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grant Universities. (2000). Returning to Our Roots: Toward a Coherent Campus Culture. Washington, DC: National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges.

 

Michigan State University. (1999). Institutional Indicators for Outreach: Beyond Counting (June 1999). East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, The Committee on Evaluating Quality Outreach.

 

Penn State University. (1998). Making Life Better: Penn State Outreach Inventory.  University Park, PA: Penn State Outreach and Cooperative Extension.

 

Senate Committee on Outreach. (1995). Informational Report to the Faculty Senate, July 1995. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University, University Faculty Senate.

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON OUTREACH ACTIVITIES

T. R. Alter

G. J. Babu                                                                   

J. F. Bardi                                                                   

P. A. Book                                                                  

J. C. Carey                                                                  

I. E. Harvey                                                                 

J. C. Hewitt                                                                 

K. M. High                  YLE>W. K. Hock                                                                

K. N. Ivanov

D. E. Kunze

G. A. Lesieutre

H. B. Manbeck, Chair

J. H. Ryan

K. W. Sandler

D. J. Troxell

 

SUBCOMMITTEE

T. R. Alter

J. F. Bardi

P. A. Book, Chair

J. C. Carey

I. E. Harvey

D. C. Kunze

H.     B. Manbeck

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMPUTING AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS

 

Student Computing Initiative

 

(Informational Report)

 

After a year of study and preparation, Penn State launched the Student Computing Initiative (www.psu.edu/studentcomputing) for full-time students entering the University during the summer or fall semester. The Committee that planned the implementation (Ingrid Blood, Jack Burke, Anna Griswold, Geoffrey Harford, Linda Higginson, Joe Lambert, Carly Lipsitz, Terry Peavler, Madis Pihlak, and James F. Smith) consulted with representatives from all offices that deal with entering students, and we were heartened by the cooperation that we received from all Penn State offices at every location.

 

Last month Dr. Harwood contacted via e-mail the relevant person from each of these offices at every location, asking for information about how the Student Computing Initiative had worked. Were there technical or logistical or support problems that were either new or more demanding than in previous years? The information was presented to Computing and Information System Committee. This Committee is happy to report to the Penn State Faculty Senate that aside from one campus that experienced some slowness in connecting students’ computers in the residence halls, no location reported any new problems caused by this Initiative.

 

We believe that initiated communication – print and electronic – effectively achieved the goals of the Initiative to students and parents. The Committee is considering to keep the Website current, and to use this as a primary vehicle for supporting the initiative in future years. The future evolution of this Initiative will be closely monitored and reported to the Faculty Senate upon special requests.

 

In specific, in the spring semester 2001, the Faculty Advisory Committee on Academic Computing (FACAC) will conduct its annual survey of how students use computing at Penn State. The primary focus of this survey will be to learn whether this year’s first-year students are making fuller use of technology than the previous year’s first-year students. 

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMPUTING AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Thomas Abendroth

Anthony Ambrose

J. Gary Augustson

Edward Bollard, Jr.

Joseph Borzellino, V-Chair

Robin Ciardullo

Stephen Cyran

Jessa Gabler

John Harwood

Pablo Laguna

Barbara Power

David Richards

Dhushy Sathianathan

Semyon Slobounov, Chair

Mark Strikman

John Urenko

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMPUTING AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Information Technology Fee Overview for FY 2000/2001

 

(Informational)

Overview

 

The Information Technology Fee (IT Fee) provides a wide range of central and location specific services to students. These include the Access Account, information services, software, and local computer laboratories. This year, the IT Fee was distributed to both central and location specific services. In general, the IT Fee collected at each campus is returned to the students at that campus in central services, software, or local services. The figures used here are estimates that will be adjusted to reflect actual collections during the Spring Semester, 2001. The following pie chart gives an overview of how the IT Fee was allocated.

 

The largest single portion, 46%, of the IT Fee is allocated to location specific uses. These are normally microcomputer labs and similar facilities that students use. The remainder of the IT Fee is allocated to services available to all students at all locations. Of these, 39% go to C&IS to provide a variety of services. The Libraries[1] receive 10% of the IT Fee. Site Licensed Software (e.g., Eudora, Microsoft) accounts for 5% of the IT Fee’s allocation.

 

Libraries

 

The libraries received $1,482,000 for FY 2000/2001, which represents an increase of $657,000 over the previous Fiscal Year. The funds are separate from those provided for operation of LIAS and related systems by C&IS. The IT Fee is used by the University Libraries to help support student access to electronic journals and databases, develop instructional software in the use of library and Internet resources, and equipment for electronic classrooms.

 

Computer and Information Systems

 

Computer and Information Systems received $5,929,829 for FY 2000/2001, which is an increase of $1,314,000 over the previous Fiscal Year. The following chart shows how these funds were allocated to various C&IS services.

Center for Academic Computing Facilities

 

These facilities in the Center for Academic Computing (CAC) are those that have been historically funded from the IT Fee from its inception. They include some central services such as Access Account management, consulting, training, documentation, and a wide variety of similar services.

 

Library Computing Facilities

 

As with general academic computing, Library Computing Facilities have been historically funded from the IT Fee. These include LIAS and similar services provided to students by Library Computing Services, which is a unit of C&IS.

 

Courseware Development

 

The CAC has an extensive program aimed at introducing appropriate technology into the curriculum.  This program is partially funded by the IT Fee with the remainder of the funding coming from other sources.

 

Student Access

 

The Access Project receives nearly half of the entire C&IS funding. It provides modems at every location, email, space for personal web pages, and a wide variety of other services used by students at every location. Every student is automatically assigned an Access Account upon matriculation and most activate their accounts.

 

CAC Consulting and Training

 

The CAC answers over 100,000 questions per year, the bulk of which come from students. The CAC also has a wide range of training both in workshops and online. This service is partially funded by the IT Fee.

 

Technology Classrooms

 

While the bulk of funds for Technology Classrooms come from other sources, the CAC does have funds for support of technology in classrooms. The primary use of these funds is to support existing classrooms and to explore new technology for its potential in teaching and learning.

 

Access for Disabled Students

 

Students with disabilities have special needs that include large fonts, speech synthesis, and Braille printing. The CAC has worked closely with the Office for the Disabled to ensure that these needs are met. These funds provide for the special needs of disabled students at all locations. They are in addition to location specific funds that provide the base support.

 

Location Specific Funding

 

Nearly half the IT Fee, $7,183,873, is returned to each campus to provide services intended primarily for the students at that campus. These services are primarily in the form of Student Access Microcomputer Laboratories. Each campus provides students with facilities that are tailored for local use. At University Park, both the CAC and colleges operate labs with the CAC providing base services available to all students. Also, CAC provides guidance to other units on the construction, equipping, and operation of their labs.

 

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMPUTING AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS

 

Thomas W. Abendroth

Anthony Ambrose

J. Gary Augustson

Edward R. Bollard, Jr.

Joseph E. Borzellino, V-Chair

Robin Ciardullo

Stephen E. Cyran

Jessa Gabler

John T. Harwood

Pablo Laguna

Barbara L. Power

David R. Richards

Dhushy Sathianathan

Semyon (Sam) Slobounov, Chair

Mark Strikman

John B. Urenko

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES

 

Annual Report for 1999-2000

 

(Informational)

 

On behalf of the Senate Committee on Faculty Rights and Responsibilities, I am pleased to present the annual report of this committee to the Senate. 

 

During the 1999-2000 academic year, the committee dealt with six cases, two fewer than in the previous year and considerably fewer cases than was true in previous years.  Since 1992 when 24 cases were considered by the committee, the number of cases has declined each year.  As most of the cases in the past involved disputes over decisions made about promotion and/or tenure, the decline in numbers reflects decreased numbers of petitions for review of a complaint being filed alleging procedural or other irregularities in the handling of the review for promotion and/or tenure.  It seems clear that there is better understanding of the procedures to be followed by both faculty and those charged with reviewing the dossiers.   

 

Four of the cases considered during the 1999-2000 academic year involved disputes over promotion and/or tenure decisions, all alleging procedural irregularities.  For three of these cases, the committee did not find significant procedural irregularities and the recommendation to the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs that no corrective action needed to be taken.  For one case, the committee did find evidence that procedural irregularities had occurred and recommendations for corrective action were forwarded to the Vice Provost.  The Provost and Vice Provost agreed with the recommendations and corrective actions were taken.

 

The two other cases considered by the Faculty Rights and Responsibilities Committee involved disputes between faculty and their administrators.  One involved issues of academic freedom, professional ethics, and procedural fairness.  The committee recommended a course of action to remedy the situation to the Vice Provost and the Provost's office concurred with the recommendations. The other case alleged concerns about professional ethics, procedural fairness, and retaliation.  The committee believed that there was merit to these concerns and recommended several options for resolution of the problems.  The Provost's office did not support the recommendations offered to these problems, but did offer other solutions and this long-standing case is considered concluded.

 

In closing, I wish to express my appreciation to the other members of the committee who have expended considerable time and effort in considering these varied cases.  Their involvement in these cases has been thoughtful and caring.  They contribute much to Penn State through their work with the Faculty Rights and Responsibilities Committee.

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FACULTY RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES

Nancy Eaton

Gary Fosmire, Chair

Peter Georgopulos

Linda Itzoe

Margaret Lyday

James Rambeau, V-Chair

Robert Steele

Leon Stout

David Wormley

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON OUTREACH ACTIVITIES

 

Penn State Alumni Association

 

(Informational)

 

Background

 

            The Penn State Alumni Association (PSAA) is the oldest non-academic organization having a formal relationship with the University.  It was founded on July 28, 1870, nine years after the graduation of the first class of students.  The PSAA represents the more than 400,000 living Penn State alumni/ae, and is the largest dues-paying alumni association in the United States, with over 145,000 members. 

 

The missions of the Association are: To connect alumni/ae to the University and to each other; to provide valued services to members; and to support the University’s missions of teaching, research, and service.  Many of the Association’s activities involve audiences external to Penn State campuses and thus, represent a form of university outreach.  Furthermore, some of these activities involve faculty in significant roles. 

 

 

Organizational Structure

 

PSAA is an interdependent organization of the University, designated as a nonprofit corporation under Section 501(c) 3 of the Internal Revenue Code, with a “for profit” subsidiary to handle entrepreneurial income.  An Alumni Council of 78 members oversees the general activities of the PSAA.  This Council consists of:

 

¨      30 elected members;

¨      32 members, each representing one of the college/campus alumni societies;

¨      9 members appointed by the Association president; and

¨      7 ex officio members representing the Board of Trustees, the Faculty Senate, the Graduate Student Association, the Undergraduate Student Government Association, the Council of Commonwealth Student Governments, the Lion Ambassadors, and the Nittany Lion Club Advisory Board. 

 

 

The Executive Board of the Alumni Council oversees the finances of the PSAA.  Members of the Executive Board include the PSAA officers, the Trustee representative, the Faculty Senate representative, and twelve other Council members appointed annually by the Association President (one of whom must be a student). 

 

The Association supports over 300 chartered affiliate Penn State alumni/ae groups around the world.  These groups include:

 

¨      Chapters (geographically-based);

¨      Societies (College- or campus-based);

¨      Affiliate Program groups (related to academic departments);

¨      Alumni Interest Groups (based on some other common thread); and

Nittany networks (informal regional groups). 

 

 

Programs and Services

 

            The Association provides a broad range of benefits, programs and services for alumni/ae and members.  Examples include a variety of publications including: The Penn Stater magazine and the Football Letter; an interactive website; an on-line directory; networking events; reunions; volunteer and leadership education; alumni recognition programs; and community volunteer programs. 

 

In addition to such programs and services for alumni, the Association has developed strategic partnerships within the University community to benefit students (“future alumni/ae”).  For example, in collaboration with the Division of Student Affairs, the PSAA supports the following organizations and initiatives:

 

·                                Office of Alumni Career Services (jointly funded);

·                                LionLink, an on-line career mentoring program;

·                                FastStart, a minority mentoring program;

·                                Lion Ambassadors;

·                                Blue/White Society, a student spirit group;

·                                The HUB/Paul Robeson Center ($500,000); and

·                                a new Career Services building ($750,000 of pledged support). 

 

The Association’s interaction with the academic community and faculty has also had high priority and continues to expand.  Examples of this interaction include the following programs and services:

 

·        “Huddle with the Faculty,” held on Football Saturdays (A Penn State faculty member speaks to an alumni group; the Alumni Institute celebrated 25 years of such faculty programs during the 2000 All-Class Reunion);

·        Affiliation Speaker Program (Penn State faculty and staff speak on a variety of topics to alumni groups world-wide);

·        Alumni Travel Program (Penn State faculty and administrators host alumni tours);

·        Joint funding of the Office of Alumni Education with Outreach and Cooperative Extension;

·        Support of the Alumni Admissions Program through the Office of Enrollment Management;

·        “Margin of Excellence Fund” (a $10 million endowment for the purpose of providing annual support to an area of need within the University). 

·        Annual financial support to every college/campus for support of alumni societies and alumni relations;

·        Teaching Fellow Awards (two per academic year (one to a UP faculty member, and one to a non-UP faculty member), with $750,000 in endowments providing one-quarter release time and monetary award to the recipients);

·        Society of Distinguished Alumni Mentoring Program with students of the Schreyer Honors College;

·        Undergraduate scholarships ($375,000 in endowments);

·        Graduate fellowships ($1,375,000 in endowments);

·        Undergraduate Study Abroad ($500,000 pledged for an endowment);

·        Support of the Paterno Library ($500,000);

·        Alumni Fellow Program (recognizes distinguished alumni through academic colleges, alumni spend 2-4 days interacting with students and faculty); and

·        Council in the Classroom (a new program designed to introduce members of the Alumni Council into classroom settings state-wide). 

 

 

Opportunities

 

            The mandates from the volunteer leaders of the PSAA are to increase membership and to increase the level of service to alumni/ae.  Alumni consistently request career services and educational opportunities.  The Association has responded by increasing support of Alumni Education and college-specific programs. 

 

To build stronger life-long relationships with our students and alumni, the PSAA intends to significantly expand outreach services, and the Penn State faculty will play a critical role in helping alumni/ae world-wide stay up-to-date and connected. 

 

 

Summary

 

The Penn State Alumni Association exists primarily to benefit alumni/ae.  The Association provides a broad range of benefits, programs and services for alumni/ae and students that goes far beyond athletics.  Because participating alumni/ae are, in general, far from Penn State campuses, many PSAA activities can be considered forms of university outreach teaching or outreach service.  Furthermore, many of these activities involve the active participation of Penn State faculty, and the opportunities for such participation are likely to increase in the future. 

 

 

            Additional information about the Penn State Alumni Association and its activities can be obtained at: http://www.alumni.psu.edu/

 

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON OUTREACH ACTIVITIES

T. R. Alter

G. J. Babu

J. F. Bardi

P. A. Book

J. C. Carey

I. E. Harvey

J. C. Hewitt

K. M. High

W. K. Hock

K. N. Ivanov

D. E. Kunze

G. A. Lesieutre, Subcommittee Chair

H. B. Manbeck, Chair

J. H. Ryan

K. W. Sandler

D. J. Troxell

 

PENN STATE ALUMNI ASSOCIATION

Diane Ryan, Executive Director

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION

 

Grade Distribution Report

 

(Informational)

 

In March 1987, the Senate passed legislation requiring an annual review of grade distribution data for baccalaureate students.  The attached tables show data that has been provided by the Registrar' Office for each spring semester from 1975 to 2000, with detailed data for spring semester 2000.

 

Table 1 presents the percentage of grades awarded in courses numbered 0 through 499 in resident instruction courses for the spring term/semester 1975 to 2000.  Table 2 presents a summary of grade distribution for resident instruction for the spring semester 2000 at all locations for all courses for all colleges except the College of Medicine.  Table 3 is the grade point averages and Dean’s list summary by college for the spring semester 2000.  And finally, Table 4 presents an all-University distribution of semester grade point averages for baccalaureate students.

 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION

 

Cheryl Achterberg

Richard L. Ammon

Theresa A. Balog

Dawn G. Blasko

Ali Borhan

Richard J. Bord

John J. Cahir

William J. Campbell

Paul F. Clark

Rebecca L. Corwin

Cheng Dong

M. Margaret Galligan

David J. Green

Lynn Hendrickson

Gary L. Hile

Larry J. Kuhns

Jamie M. Myers, Chair

Laura L. Pauley

Robert D. Ricketts, V-Chair

Thomas A. Seybert

Carol A. Smith

Jane S. Sutton

                                                                                          

Eric R. White

Jenny Zhang

THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY

The University Faculty Senate

MINUTES OF SENATE COUNCIL

Tuesday, February 13, 2001     1:30 PM   102 Kern Graduate Building

MEMBERS PRESENT

J. W. Bagby

C. D. Baggett

A. Chellman

W. R. Curtis

W. T. DeCastro

P. Deines

G. F. De Jong

C. D. Eckhardt

R. A. Erickson

D. S. Gouran

W. L. Kenney

S. A. Marsico

R. L. McCarty

J. W. Moore

M. R. Nelson

J. S. Nichols

P. P. Rebane

I. Richman

A. B. Romberger

A. W. Scaroni

C. L. Schengrund

L. L. Snavely

B. B. Tormey

T. T. Turner

 

G. J. Bugyi

V. R. Price

 

ACCOUNTED FOR

 

P. C. Jurs

A. E. Leure-duPree

G. B. Spanier

 

GUESTS

G. Barbato

C. Bise

P. Book

J. Cahir

G. Fosmire

G. W. Franz

T. Jackson

J. Landa Pytel

G. Lesieutre

H. Manbeck

L. Milakofsky

J. M. Myers

J. Romano

R. Secor

S. Slobounov

K. Steiner

R.Vaught

 

Chair Cara-Lynne Schengrund called the meeting to order at 1:32 PM on Tuesday, February 13, 2001, in Room 102 Kern Graduate Building.  Before the minutes of January 16, 2001 were addressed, George Bugyi made two corrections.  On page 3, third paragraph, line 10, the word “rectified” should read “recertified.”  The second correction was on page 6, second paragraph, line 2; the word “advise” should read “advice.”  A Richman/Chellman motion was passed accepting these minutes as corrected. 

 

ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REMARKS

 

Professor Schengrund announced that the Faculty Advisory Committee met Tuesday, February 13 and discussed the following topics: Governor’s budget; review of legislative and free speech implications of sex faire; student matters; update on the meetings held by the committee demanded by the Black Coalition of Students; Justin Leto’s comments to the Senate; printing of the Blue Book; administration’s position on UniSCOPE; and implications of the Pope/ARL case on safety of Penn State researchers abroad.  Dr. Schengrund announced that the printing of the Blue Book will continue for now. 

 

The next meeting of FAC is scheduled for Tuesday, March 13.  If anyone wishes to submit an item for FAC to address, please contact one of the Senate Officers or one of the three elected FAC members; Peter Deines, Peter Rebane, or Gordon de Jong.

The iences on February 28.  This will conclude the visits to units at University Park for the spring semester.  Dr. Schengrund encouraged the Council members from these units to ask their fellow faculty colleagues to attend these sessions.

 

The Chair announced that the Senate Office has received a memo from the President regarding implementation of the Undergraduate Education report passed by the Senate on December 5, 2000.  The report was titled “Revision of Senate Policy 42-27: Class Attendance.”  President Spanier approved this legislation to be effective spring 2001 and referred the report to the Vice Provost and Dean for Undergraduate Education for implementation.  

 

Professor Schengrund shared the status of the demands of the Black Coalition and how the discussions are progressing.  At a meeting last Friday, three things were addressed.  First, with regard to an Institute, the Department of African/African American Studies and Dean Welsh are presently working to develop it.  Second, the demand for the mandated 3-credit course on the History of Racism in the United States has been dropped at the encouragement of the Department of African/African American Studies.  What the Black Coalition would now like to have is a requirement that incoming Freshmen have a reading which deals with diversity issues prior to coming to the University and that during the orientation process there will be a component dealing with this reading.  Also during the First-Year Seminar, there will be one class period dealing with diversity issues.  The third demand is that the Department of African/African American Studies should develop a course on the History of Racism in the United States with the hope that students would take that course. 

 

Provost Rodney Erickson shared with Council Governor Ridge’s budget proposal for 2001-2002.  The Governor has proposed a 4.25% increase statewide and a 3% increase for state-related higher education.  The real story is that the Governor has actually removed $7,000,000 from the Penn State budget because monies that were supposed to be permanent for this year will not be allocated.  So effectively, what the Governor has proposed is an increase of 62/100 of 1 percent.  Needless to say, there will have to be a great deal of work with the Legislative branch to try to regain an adequate allocation from the state.  This will mean that salary increases will be difficult, and that tuition will be going up again.

 

Professor Erickson continued his remarks by stating that the 9^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals allowed Napster to remain in business but told a lower court judge to rewrite the injunction that ordered Napster to shut down because of copyright violations.  All of this reinforces Penn State’s stance on the issue. 

 

Vice Provost Romano next described the change of assignment patterns at the University.  Over the past four years it has changed from 4500 students moving from the other campuses to University Park to 3600 students. This decline of 900 students is attributed to the availability of baccalaureate programs at the campuses.  This is borne out by the sharp increase of enrollment of upper-division students at other locations. 

 

On the admissions side, Dr. Romano indicated that the status of the admissions numbers fluctuates from week to week and that we are still in the middle of the admissions cycle.  It is very difficult to make any predictions at this time.  In terms of freshmen admissions across the institution, we are in a very slight decline.  Last year we had 51,000 applications as of this date, which was a 10% increase over the year before.  So we are happy with the number of applications received to date this year.  It is much too early to tell what will happen on the yield-rate side. 

 

Immediate-Past Chair Murry Nelson, Chair of the Senate Council Nominating Committee, reported that his committee is now finishing up the slates of nominees for the next general election of the Senate.  The present slates are as follows: for Chair-Elect, the candidates are Jamie Myers and John Moore; for Secretary, the candidates are Deidre Jago, Mark Casteel and Mike Navin; for the Faculty Advisory Committee to the President, the candidates are Wayne Curtis and Peter Rebane.  Dr. Nelson also reported that the slate for the Committee on Committees and Rules is not complete at this time. 

 

REPORT OF THE GRADUATE COUNCIL

 

Caroline Eckhardt, the Liaison to Graduate Council, reported that the Graduate Council had not met since her last report and, therefore, she had nothing to report at this time.  She did note that there is a report forthcoming on the future of Master of Business Administration degrees. 

 

AGENDA ITEMS FOR THE FEBRUARY 27, 2001

 

Legislative Reports

 

Curricular Affairs – “A Clarification of ‘Active Learning‘ as it Applies to General Education.”  Christopher Bise presented this report on behalf of the Curricular Affairs Committee.  Questions were asked concerning the impact of these new active learning elements on Intercultural and International Competence and if the bullet on Intercultural and International Competence should be a single bullet by itself.  Dr. Bise indicated that these new elements will enhance the Intercultural and International Competence and that separating it out might be counterproductive.  Council also suggested that the word “competence” is not really appropriate and a word such as “understanding” should be used instead.  The report was put on the Senate Agenda with a Chellman/Richman motion. 

 

Advisory/Consultative

 

Faculty Affairs – “Revision to Administrative Guidelines for HR-23: Promotion and Tenure Procedures and Regulations.”  Louis Milakofsky shared with Council that the purpose of this report is to emphasize the quality indicators of significant achievements in publications, such as citations and awards received for them.  Council made several points concerning this report.  The first is that we are a research university and that the awards in grant monies are more important than our allocation from the state, which is much less than the grant monies.  The second point is that this report emphasizes quality at the exclusion of quantity and that both measures should be weighted.  The third point is that there are other indicators and they should be valued also.  This report was passed on a split vote of 8 to 6 on a Chellman/Richman motion. 

 

Outreach Activities – “Recommendation to Refine and Expand the Models for Recognition of Outreach Activities.”  Harvey Manbeck and Patricia Book presented this report and stated that it is the outcome of the report that was presented a year ago on the engagement of faculty in outreach activities.  The most important issue in that report was to insure that we have the model in place at Penn State that recognizes the breadth of scholarship in outreach.  Council asked that it be made clear what the Senate would be voting for.  Dr. Manbeck defined what the recommendations are in terms of the UniSCOPE report.  A discussion of the UniSCOPE report and how that report will impact on HR-23 ensued.  The responsibility that the Faculty Affairs Committee might have as a result of this report was also a topic of discussion.  Council asked for some editorial changes, and a Chellman/Tormey motion was passed on a 9 to 4 vote. 

 

Research – “Courseware Copyright Policy.”  Guy Barbato and Thomas Jackson offered this report and indicated that the Research Committee struggled to strike the right balance between the faculties rights and responsibilities as well as the rights of the University.  In some cases they are in conflict.  Council requested that the signature block at the end of the report be moved to the end of page 1 to show that this page is the cover page from the committee and the rest of the report is basically the report of the copyright committee.  Council discussed the lack of detail in the report regarding the recommendations. The clarity of ownership of courseware materials should be further developed in the view of Council.  

 

Dr. Jackson noted that the attempt in this report was to try to develop a broad outline of a policy that would both protect faculty rights and also answer some of the pressure from the administration to protect the institution.   He indicated that the University administration has taken the position that they ought not to pay twice for intellectual property.  Council asked for a rewriting of the report to clarify what the Senate would be voting on.  Council also decided that this report should not be offered as an Advisory/Consultative report but rather as a Forensic Session.  This was accomplished on a Tormey/Chellman motion, which was passed on a 9 to 4 vote.  The report will be listed in the Senate Agenda under Forensic Business. 

 

Informational Reports

 

Computing and Information Systems – “Student Computing Initiative.” Semyon Slobounov introduced this report and simply asked if there were any questions.  Without discussion, the report was passed on a Tormey/Romberger motion.

 

Computing and Information Systems – “Information Technology Fee Overview for FY 2000/2001.”  Dr. Slobounov did not have any comments on this report and a Chellman/Romberger motion was passed to place this on the Senate Agenda.

 

Faculty Rights and Responsibilities – “Annual Report for 1999-2000.”  Gary Fosmire was asked to establish a timeline with the number of cases over the last several years by Council.  This report was passed on a Tormey/Curtis motion.

 

Outreach Activities – “Penn State Alumni Association.”  Professor Manbeck stood for questions.  There were none, and the report passed on a Curtis/Scaroni motion.

 

Undergraduate Education – “Grade Distribution Report.” Jamie Myers answered some questions on the impact of grade inflation from Council.  Council passed a Chellman/

Romberger motion.

 

ACTION ITEMS

 

There were no Action Items for Council to consider.

 

NEW BUSINESS

 

There was no New Business for the Council to consider.

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

Senate Chair Schengrund thanked the members of Council for their attention to their duties, and adjourned the meeting at 4:15 PM. 

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

George J. Bugyi

Executive Secretary

      

THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY

 INTER-OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE

Date:       February 16, 2001

From:      George J. Bugyi, Executive Secretary

To:          All Senators and Committee Personnel

      

 

 

     Please note the scheduled time and location of your committee.  If you are unable to attend, notify the Senate Office prior to Senate Day -- if possible.

    MONDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2001                  7:00 PM

     Officers' and Chairs' Meeting                                Board Room II, NLI

                                                                        8:00 PM

     Commonwealth Caucus                            CANCELLED

     TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2001                 7:30 AM

     Intercollegiate Athletics                                         205 Shields Building

                                                                                  8:00 AM

     Faculty Affairs                                                       106 HUB

     Outreach Activities                                                 502 Keller Building

     Student Life                                                           301 HUB

                                                                                 8:30 AM

     Admissions, Records,
Scheduling and Student Aid203 Shields Building

     Committees and Rules                                          16 HUB/Robeson Cultural Center

     Curricular Affairs                                                   102 Kern Building

     Intra-University Relations                                      233 HUB

     Research                                                               114 Kern Building 

Undergraduate Education                                      Penn State Room, NLI

     University Planning                                                322 HUB

                                                                                 9:00 AM

     Faculty Benefits                                                     101-A Kern Building

     Libraries                                                               E510 Paterno Library

                                                                                 9:30 AM                     

     Computing and Information Systems                      201 Kern Building

                                                                                 1:30 PM

     University Faculty Senate                      112 Kern Building

There will be a Commonwealth Caucus meeting at 11:00 AM on TUESDAY,  FEBRUARY 27, 2001, in the ALUMNI LOUNGE OF THE   NLI.  At approximately 12:00 Noon, a buffet luncheon will be served.

 

The Pennsylvania State University

The University Faculty Senate

101 Kern Building (814) 863-0221

Fax:  (814) 863-6012

 

 

Date: February 16, 2001

 

To:  Commonwealth Caucus Senators (This includes all elected Senators from

     Campuses, Colleges, and Locations Other Than University Park)

 

From:  Salvatore Marsico and Irwin Richman

 

 

  MONDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2001 

THERE WILL BE NO COMMONWEALTH CAUCUS MEETING ON MONDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2001. 

 

 

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2001 -- 11:00 AM --

AlUMNI LOUNGE, NITTANY LION INN

 

     The Caucus will meet at 11:00 AM on Tuesday, February 27, 2001, in the Alumni Lounge of the NLI.  A buffet luncheon will be served at noon.

 

     The tentative Agenda includes:

 

I.        Call to Order

 

II.        Announcements and Reports from co-chairs of the caucus

        (Richman & Marsico)

 

III.  Reports from Committee Chairs

 

IV.   Upcoming Senate Elections

 

V.        Discussion on Election Procedures

 

                       VI.  Other Items of Concern

 

                       VII. Adjournment and Lunch