Faculty Council Meeting
Minutes for Meeting on December 12, 2005
12:15 PM, Woolworth Room
President: Noreen Naiman Vice President: Julie Graves Secretary: Tamar Castelloe
1. Approval of minutes from meeting on November 21, 2005
At the beginning of the meeting, there was not a quorum. Consequently, a vote on the minutes from the November meeting could not be held at the start of the meeting. Later in the meeting, there was a quorum, but other issues were on the floor. Approval of minutes will be postponed to our next meeting.
2. Reports from Board of Trustees (BOT) meeting on December 5, 2005
a. Noreen Naiman
President Noreen Naiman stated that there was nothing discussed at the BOT that the Faculty Council (FC) had not discussed before. She reported that Steve Warshaw presented his trimester report, as he had done for the FC last year, and he’d mentioned that there are some problems. During the meeting, Noreen pointed some of the problems out specifically so that new BOT members would be familiar with them.
Comment: A faculty member asked whether it seemed that there was more “give and take” and conversation among the BOT members than in the past.
Noreen answered that she hasn’t been to too many meetings in the past, so she wasn’t quite sure how it compared with previous meetings. However, she did say that there definitely seemed to be good conversation.
b. Personnel Committee-Mary Roberts
Mary Roberts reported that the Personnel committee approved the Faculty Salary Schedule, and the issue then went to the BOT. The committee then went into closed session to discuss faculty contracts.
c. EPPC-Jim Litle (Report also available on FC website on AAG)
Jim Litle provided a written report on the EPPC meeting, which is attached here:
EPPC Meeting Dec 5 2005 report to FC-Jim Litle.doc
Comment: A faculty member asked whether there was any discussion about future residency waivers. Jim answered that the one awarded to the Hurricane Katrina victim was a “follow-up” on the UNC waiver offered to hurricane victims attending universities in hurricane damaged areas. The policy Jim referred to was exclusive to the Hurricane Katrina event.
Comment: Another faculty member asked what NCSSM plans to do to ensure that the student who was awarded the waiver does well while he is attending our school. She wondered whether he will have satisfied graduation requirements by the end of his senior year. Noreen answered by saying that the student has been assigned an academic advisor, and the issue has been discussed in Instructional Council twice, so attention is being paid to it.
d. Development Committee-Scott Laird
Scott Laird began by saying that he is very honored to represent the FC in his position as liaison and is pleased to be a part of this. Scott then explained that during the Development Committee meeting, there were three sub-reports:
· Monetary Gifts-Ken Steen and Therese Taxis
It was reported that the current Capital Campaign has raised a total of $5.8 million to date. The Class of 1985 recently gave a $50,000 gift for the Cupola Renovations, and the Quarter Century Society is another major part of the recent Capital Campaign with 5 families to date making a $25,000 contribution. The Class of 1986 donated a gift of $55,000 for digital archiving of the annual end-of-year slide shows.
· Communications-Craig Rowe
It was reported in the Development Committee meeting that Communications’ goal is to leave a “larger footprint” in the state, and one major goal is to get news coverage of NCSSM. They also plan to make continued improvements on the NCSSM website and get alumni more involved in the school.
· Outreach/External Programs-Sally Adkin
Topics reported on in the committee meeting include statewide outreach needs, NCSSM summer programming, and an overview of Distance Learning.
3. Research Experience
Noreen expressed that she senses that the faculty has some concerns about the Research Experience program. She mentioned that Tom Clayton has referred to it as Independent Learning at times, and she feels that independent learning is a goal we as faculty have for our students. Noreen asked members of each department to describe what research might look like in their disciplines so as to help the faculty consider which of the three proposals presented by Tom we might be able to accommodate.
· Mathematics-Dan Teague
Dan Teague explained that some courses, like Mathematical Modeling and Complex Systems, include projects that students could use as a starting point to complete their Research Experience. He envisions Research Experience projects done in mathematics as being those investigating ideas that are “new to the students,” not necessarily original, however. The projects would be on ideas and results that they couldn’t find just by “looking them up,” and the research they do would probably be more descriptive than rigorous mathematics. The resources Dan feels would be needed include primarily time and some computer equipment (not necessarily a lot of other equipment).
Comment: A faculty member asked whether the research would need more of an intense, short amount of time or a long period of time. Dan answered by saying that he sees it as more of an intense, short time period, like Miniterm (focused), but the mathematical idea would have to have already been thought about and had preliminary work done.
Dan added that typically, the projects completed for the two courses mentioned earlier would not be at the level that the Research Experience projects would be.
Comment: Another faculty member expressed that they have similar projects in their classes as Dan mentioned in the Modeling and Complex Systems courses, and that their students wouldn’t be able to wait until the Research Experience program began to start their projects. They would need to do considerable preliminary work.
There was a comment about how it seems that the majority of Research Experience projects in mathematics that are connected to projects done in classes would be done by seniors, as the courses in which these types of projects are done are mainly populated by seniors.
There was a suggestion that a “hybrid” of the Research Experience be offered, one that involves preliminary work done in a course and then considerable work done after completion of the course.
· Science-Marion Brisk
Marion Brisk stated that in Science, she envisions projects linked to data analysis, where the criteria would be to develop something original or new. She would like students to have the ability to find what indulges their imagination. She also envisions that departments should be able to decide whether projects qualify as Research Experience projects, since what is considered “research” may vary between disciplines.
Comment: A faculty member in the math department stated that to her, it is not important to have students do something new because in mathematics, it takes a lot to find out whether your material is in fact new. She expressed that she likes the students to have the freedom to find something they’re interested in, but the word “original” worries her. Marion responded by saying that this is why she feels this should be up to departments. Another faculty member added that departments’ methodologies are different as well.
Comment: A faculty member asked whether research done for competitions could count as a Research Experience project. Noreen answered by saying that at this time, competitions are not awarded credit, but she isn’t sure whether they would count.
Comment: A faculty member asked whether we are interested more on the project (product) or the process (the experience). He wondered if we could ask that of Tom Clayton.
Marion stated that in courses she teaches that require students to do research projects, it has not seemed to be difficult for students to find new material to research. For example, in Environmental Chemistry, each of her 20 students developed original research projects. They were not at the research level that the Research Experience would require, but they were original. She continued by saying that she feels “process” is the most important thing but that most of her students seem to be interested in finding something new. She stated that the Honors Experience Committee (which is the committee that is working on the Research Experience), on which she serves, would like departmental input.
Comment: Another faculty member on the Honors Experience Committee stated that Jerry Boarman’s interests seem to be more on “process.” The committee’s focus is to make sure that the students’ projects aren’t “embarrassing.”
· Humanities-Sarah Russell and Jane Shlensky
Sarah Russell described her research experience in college, in which she became interested in answering a question related to a class she took in her freshman year. After working on research to answer that question, she came out both with information and a concrete sense of what research is. She added that she remembers how much one-on-one time it took with her professor as well as unstructured time she needed to manage the process.
Comment: A faculty member commented that it is too difficult to have a strict definition of “original” research.
Comment: Another faculty member felt that it is hypocritical for us to ask the students to do something we as faculty don’t have time to do.
There was discussion about the word “publishable” in the description of the Research Experience projects.
Comment: A faculty member stated that she interprets “publishable” as different from “published.” She feels that the projects just have to “look” publishable. Another faculty member stated that she believes the projects need to be “publishable” for the NCSSM community, not necessarily for the public.
Jane Shlensky explained that she has had students do research in both junior and senior classes, and students were told early in the year that they should start thinking about a potential project. Questions arose throughout the year, and the students became interested in things that they can investigate and research. She feels that the process she had her students go through worked well and that the students produced wonderful things. She did explain, however, that students decided on their topic in January and presented their projects in May, so she is not sure that the Research Experience can be done in one trimester, as it would not be enough time.
Comment: A faculty member commented that students already know how to summarize and report, and they need to answer new questions.
Comment: Another faculty member suggested that students could perhaps take a class that studies the difference between “reporting” and “new research.”
The discussion ended due to time.
4. Announcements
Noreen called for ideas from faculty regarding hosting a “get-together” for the Student Life Division, as they have hosted the faculty twice. She would like faculty members to e-mail ideas to her.
The meeting adjourned at 1:20 pm.