1. Academic Governance Meeting Wednesday, November 18 th, 2015, 12:45PM Gateway A&B

2. White House Day of Climate Action Live-stream Viewing in Nifkin Lounge TOMORROW - November 19 th Time: 3:00-4:30 White House Council on Environmental Quality ESF Pledge UN Climate Change Conference (11/30-12/11) Paris

3. Agenda 1.Opening Remarks/Minutes/Announcements a.Strategic Planning Steering Committee b.3 rd Party Consultation 2.Applied Learning Initiatives 3.Schedule Reset Updates 4.UFS Plenary and Resolutions Old Business Graduate Student Bill of Rights New Business

4. Strategic Planning Met four times Set aside 915 Draft Assessing V2020 Goals Adding members – C. Spuches – N. Ringler – S. Shannon Tentative Timeline

5. Strategic Planning – DRAFT timeline 11/30 – Complete assessment of V2020 12/21 – Include ideas from 2014-2015 planning process 1/7 – Identification of areas to organize document around, formalize plans around community engagement 1/19 – Generation of new ideas (community outreach) 2/15 – SPSC pull together ideas generated by community 3/1 – Draft to SPSC only 3/21 – Draft to community 3/23 – College Hour Listening Sessions on the 3/11 draft 4/13 – Draft – revisions completed sent to community 4/20 – College Hour Listening Sessions on 4/13 draft 4/29 – Document finalized and submitted to BOT and community

6. Consultation

7. 3 rd Party Consultation 10/28 – Names of three consultant firms provided by SUNY 10/29 – Requested information (AG) 10/30 – Proposed Process sent by SUNY 11/3 – Suggestions for populating the core group sent (AG) 11/6 – SUNY/UFS interviewed the three consultants 11/10 – Core group size decided 11/10 – Analysis of the consultants shared with the core group 11/12 – Consultant team was decided upon (6:30 PM) 11/17 – First meeting of the consultant team

8. Consultant Group Scott Sears and Sears Associates Scott Sears, Ann Martin, Judith Saul Ithaca, NY http://www.searsassocs.com/aboutus.html

9. First Meeting Core group – 3 Faculty – 3 Administrators – SUNY Administration – UFS Representative – Scott Sears and Judith Saul 4.5 hours Phase 1 – Information Gathering to create the process

10. Phase 1 – Information Gathering Goal: Consultants learning more about the issues and collaboratively (with those interviewed) figuring out the process to engage the community broadly

11. Phase 1 – Information Gathering

12. Initial Interviews to Shape the Process One-on-one Interviews Answers used to shape the larger process Develop the tools used for larger outreach 1-1.5 hours

13. Inclusive Multi-dimensional Process Entire ESF Communit y

14. Let’s see this as an opportunity…. Problem(s)Opportunities Finding a new appropriate balance for ESF in today’s world….

15. Applied Learning Initiatives 15

16. 16

17. SUNY and the Entrepreneurial Century SUNY and the Seamless Education Pipeline SUNY and a Healthier New York SUNY and an Energy- Smart New York SUNY and the World 17 SUNY and the Vibrant Community SUNY and the Entrepreneurial Century SUNY and the Seamless Education Pipeline SUNY and a Healthier New York SUNY and an Energy- Smart New York SUNY and the World SUNY and the Vibrant Community 17

18. 18 Applied learning refers to an educational approach whereby students learn by engaging in direct application of skills, theories and models. Students apply knowledge and skills gained from traditional classroom learning to hands-on and/or real word settings, creative projects or independent or directed research, and in turn apply what is gained from the applied experience to academic learning. The applied learning activity can occur outside of the traditional classroom experience and/or be embedded as part of a course. Definition of Applied Learning

19. 19 Rationale 19

20. SUNY Student Perceptions Provost’s Applied Learning Advisory Council Campus Teams First Applied Learning Conference Campus Commitments Regional Engagement Meetings All SUNY Campuses Engaged

21. Resolution: “Resolved that the Chancellor be, and hereby is, directed to develop a plan to make approved experiential or applied learning activities available to students enrolled in an academic program of the State University beginning in the 2016/17academic year.” SUNY Student PerceptionsA Year in Review State Language Board of Trustees Resolution Applied Learning Steering Committee Creation of guidance document to support campus work

22. Vision 22 Every SUNY student will have the opportunity to do an Applied Learning Experience before they graduate.

23. SUNY WORKS Cooperative Education Internships Clinical Placements Practicum 23

24. SUNY SERVES Service Learning Community Service Civic Engagement 24

25. SUNY DISCOVERS Research Entrepreneurship Field Study International and Domestic Study Away Creative Work 25

26. Agenda: What is Next 26

27. Given… SUNY Excels Performance Improvement Plans Completion Agenda Institutional Goals Middle States 27

28. 28 Broken into VII parts with different due dates Steering Committee working on supportive materials for each part Campus Plans

29. 29 Due February 15 th, 2016 Part I: An Inventory of all applied learning on campus Due April, 2016 Part II: Data Collection and Reporting Part III: Faculty Engagement Part IV: Student Engagement Due May, 2017 Part V: Feasibility Study Part VI: Collaboration Plan Part VII: Determination of Graduation Requirement Feasibility

30. 30 Criteria The Activity Is Structured, Intentional and Authentic Requires Preparation, Orientation and Training Must Include Monitoring and Continuous Improvement Requires Structured Reflection and Acknowledgment Must be Assessed and Evaluated Criteria

31. 31 Graduation Requirement Due: May 1, 2017 Based on your plan, explain your campus decision on whether or not you will require an applied learning experience as part of your graduation requirements. Describe the results of your feasibility study and list the specific reasons for your decision. Describe your campus plan for supporting applied learning in the future. Part VII

32. Questions? 32

33. Schedule Reset What is the task? Where do we stand now? What are the next steps?

34. The Task Directives contained in Governance resolution approved last spring. Resolution calls for reset to accomplish the following goals: – Maximize utilization of instructional space throughout the day and week – Reduce conflicts with student schedules – Integrate the College Hour “seamlessly” into the class schedule

35. What has been done? A draft schedule has been formulated. That draft was formulated based on a set of assumptions and principles to be reviewed momentarily. That draft was completed with the aid of representatives from each department (as directed in the Governance resolution).

36. What has been done? Considerations in developing the first draft: – Assumed we would use the SU template Allows for more classes in 80 minute time periods. Minimizes scheduling conflicts with SU courses. – College Hour inserted without creating time “offsets” for any courses.

37. What has been done? Considerations in developing the first draft: – To minimize scheduling conflicts for students and to maximize space utilization: Courses were spread throughout day as much as possible. Schedule construction began with determination of courses that would be allowed to conflict while minimizing impact on student schedules.

38. What has been done? Considerations in developing the first draft: – For programs with many lab courses, lectures were put in the morning and labs in the afternoon to minimize conflicts – Afternoons were more heavily utilized for lecture courses in programs with few labs.

39. What has been done? Considerations in developing the first draft: – Courses taught in other departments were considered in developing departmental schedules. – Attempts were made to reconcile differences between catalogue descriptions and actual practice. – Attempt were made to consider impending curricular changes.

40. What has been done? Considerations in developing the first draft: – Lecture length was not altered from the current schedule. – Instructor preferences were not considered; however, certain practical issues were, e.g.: Not having instructors teach back=-to-back Visiting instructor availability

41. What has been done? Considerations in developing the first draft: – Some courses were not scheduled Special Topics. Courses with insufficient information to know how to schedule. Courses that don’t meet on a regular basis.

42. What’s next? In chronological order Faculty discussion of: – Adopting the SU schedule template – Proposed plan for the College Hour Collection of information from faculty on: – Characteristics of instructional spaces desired for each course. – Identifications of specific problems with draft schedule.

43. What’s next? In chronological order? Projection of class sizes based on history and enrollment projections. Placement of courses in instructional spaces

44. What’s next? In chronological order Modification of draft based on information provided by faculty and availability of appropriate instructional spaces. Review of second draft by faculty. Preparation of final draft.

45. What’s next? In chronological order Correct Catalogue descriptions to match practice.

46. Discussion on SU Schedule Template First period MWF and all periods MWF pm can be used as 55 or 80 minute periods. This will have little effect on ESF scheduling. Provides greater flexibility for instructors and minimized student conflicts with SU courses.

47. SU Schedule Template

48. Discussion on College Hour Proposed that College Hour be scheduled from 11:00 to 12:20 on Tuesday and Thursday (or alternatively from 9:30-10:50 on TT).

49. Discussion on College Hour Why? – To avoid the “offset” problem requires consuming a MWF or TT period. – Our experience with the College Hour shows that 55 minutes is not enough. – Our experience with the College Hour shows that one period is not enough.

50. Discussion on College Hour Why? – Placement of the College Hour at a later time conflicts with labs. – Placement of the College Hour earlier requires that everyone involved in meetings arrive early to campus.

51. Discussion on College Hour Why? – Using TT morning for the College Hour has only minor “adverse” effects: Increases the number of early morning classes by about 10% (i.e, 2-3/semester). Negligible effect on course conflicts for students.

52. UFS Plenary Report www.esf.edu/facgov/meeting.htm

53. Old Business

54. Graduate Student Bill of Rights Ad Hoc Committee of Executive Committee – Chair: Scott Turner – Administrative Liaison: Scott Shannon – 20% graduate students Expected report at the 2/10/16 Meeting – Release or report for review 1/27/16

55. New Business

56. Next Meetings December 15 th at 9:30 AM February 10 th at 12:45 PM March 30 th at 12:45 PM May 12 th Time TBD Photo Courtesy of James Hassett