In Attendance: Rick Althaus, Christopher Davis, Jim Ermatinger, Christina Frazier, Allen Gathman, Adam Hanna, Dennis Holt, , Carolyn Rainey, Bruce Skinner, David Starrett, Jane Stephens, Susan Swartwout, Alissa Vandeven and President Ken Dobbins
Absent: Crystal Kaufman
Recorder: Christie Renner
D. Holt welcomed Alissa Vandeven to the committee. She is representing the Division of Business & Finance.
The writing subcommittee will start drafting a response to the homework from the committee’s discussion today of additional brainstorming ideas that were received from constituencies and the open forum.
Discussion of Strategy Forum Homework Questions
Discussion was held on integrating new brainstorming ideas from the open forum that was held on September 27. Comments made on question #8 concerning opportunities include:
On question #8, discussion was held on narrowing the opportunities down to three. They include:
On question #8, discussion was held on narrowing the vulnerabilities down to three. They include:
Additional comments made:
Discussion of Potential Action Projects
It was stated that there should be a long list of potential Action Projects so that as one is completed, another AP is moved to the list.
One Action Project must focus on student learning.
D. Holt distributed a document giving updates on the Student Success Initiative. Many of these projects would make good Action Projects.
Discussion was held on “defining good to great” as a potential Action Project. It was suggested “University of First Choice for Students, Faculty and Staff” would be a better descriptive title. A comment was made that we can’t be everything to everyone and that we need to identify who we are targeting, including students, faculty and staff. There are measurable goals that can be identified to determine if we are the “first choice”. Potential Action Project is to define and develop measurable indicators of being a University of first choice for students, faculty and staff (approximate time 1 year). A whole series of Action Projects could be developed. Also discussed was conduct evaluation of faculty and staff compensation and benefits, set a target, and determine a plan. (This could be a three year plan.)
Discussion was held on “developing a wireless campus”. Comment was made to combine distance learning and web course evaluation into one item. We could look into the quality of online courses - is it working?, what kind of students are taking online?, where do we go from here? Also, we should look at blended and hybrid classes. How do we deliver technology to faculty to teach these courses? Look at maintaining quality while decentralizing. Is ITV too expensive? Need to evaluate the learning outcomes with the cost and faculty time. The technology component should focus on web course and distance learning evaluation instead of becoming a wireless campus. We could use “becoming a wireless campus” as a measure. Potential Action Project (first part is to evaluate web course and distance learning. Second part is to evaluate delivery (e.g., effectiveness and cost). Develop a process of delivering quality education in a diverse environment.
Discussion was held on “Student Success Initiative” (e.g., retention). One area to look more closely into is the Student Transitions program. We need to make sure we are developing the right review in data collection and implementing it through all four years. Potential Action Project is to evaluate Student Transitions program.
Other ideas or comments from committee members include:
President Dobbins talked about the Student Financial Services initiative and stated that there will be an evaluation of Financial Aid (what are students getting and how is it being offered?). Also, he is very interested in setting up a way for students (particularly beginning freshmen) to see what classes they should take in the following spring when enroll for fall classes.
Next MeetingThe next meeting will be scheduled on Wednesday, October 11 at 4:00 pm.