2015-2016
SAC #8
INDIANA STATE UNIVERSITY
FACULTY SENATE – STUDENT AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
Meeting Minutes, April 5, 2016
11:30 a.m., Library, Room 028
Members Present: Azizi Arrington-Bey, Cheryl Blevens, Lisa Philips, John Liu (late arrival),
Alina Waite.
Ex-Officios Present: Craig Enyeart, April Hay, Jennifer Lawson, Linda Maule, Susan Powers
(on behalf of Joshua Powers), Richard Toomey.
Student Representatives and Guests Present: None present.
I. Call to Order
Chairperson Cheryl Blevens called the meeting to order at 11:33 a.m.
II. Adoption of the Agenda
Today’s agenda SAC #8 (not SAC #9) was adopted as distributed with this minor edit and a
change in sequencing to address the priority items: Blevens/Philips. Motion passed. 4-0-0.
III. Approval of Minutes from the March 3, 2016 and April 1, 2016 Meetings
Motion to approve the minutes with corrections: Blevens/Philips. Motion passed. 4-0-0.
Unapproved Minutes from March 3, 2016 Meeting drafted as:
III. Approval of Minutes from the February 2, 2016 Meeting
Motion to approve the minutes as distributed: Blevens/Sowers. Motion passed. 6-0-0.
Corrected Minutes from March 3, 2016 Meeting (having had one member who missed the
prior meeting due to prior obligation abstain) to read as:
III. Approval of Minutes from the February 2, 2016 Meeting
Motion to approve the minutes as distributed: Blevens/Sowers. Motion passed. 5-0-1.
Unapproved Minutes from April 1, 2016 Meeting to reflect SAC #7 (not SAC #8).
IV. Faculty Senate Charges for 2015-2016:
1. (Action Item) SAC response to Academic Advisement Task Force Report. [Charge:
Review recommendations from the Advising Taskforce and, working with FAC and GC,
make recommendations that could be enacted without the additional funding requested.]
(Sowers)
Revised proposal that was attached to today’s agenda is provided at the bottom of these
minutes. Yellow: old changes / Green: most recent changes.
1
2015-2016
SAC #8
Maule asked for clarification of the use of the terms, “advising tools” and “technology”.
Highlighted MySAM has proved to be valuable platform for advising purposes.
Reminded committee its discussion should focus on academic advising at high level from
a student’s perspective, and not on specifics of tools/technologies per se.
S. Powers informed committee that in evaluating technologies, automating scheduling
would prove challenging and therefore be unlikely because control would tend to be
either all (current situation) or nothing.
Liu offered suggestion from a faculty perspective, to incorporate a function into MySAM
that would allow notes for all advisees to be aggregated/exported in order to facilitate and
demonstrate one’s work. This idea was well received.
S. Powers informed the committee that for any student who entered since Fall 2014, we
are legislatively mandated to update their degree maps (study plans) before priority
registration, whether a student comes to see us or not. A question as regards the term,
“efficient,” was also asked; “… Degree Map is not an ‘efficient’ tool.” from who’s
perspective (student, faculty, administration)?
Maule indicated FAC is referencing NACADA while looking into accountability
measures and a rewards structure.
Philips offered to revisit the Taskforce Report and consider revisions in consultation with
Sowers. An earlier discussion about whether advising is to be considered teaching or
service was more appropriate for FAC rather than SAC; thus, our document should not
reflect this point.
Maule indicated stakes surrounding advising are so high, and that all students must take
30 credit hours to maintain any type of assistantship or scholarship.
A question as to whether discussions about expanding professional advising are taking
place was asked. S. Powers indicated discussions are ongoing within various colleges;
changes with financial implications are taking place at the college level. A brief
conversation ensued about transitioning advising priorities over the four-year period:
1st year involves UC and general expectations of students;
2nd – 3rd years focuses on department level specific programs and study plans
4th year emphasizes scheduling less and career readiness more (with career center)
An additional meeting was scheduled on Tuesday, April 19th from 11:30am to 1:00pm to
continue this conversation and discuss a revised taskforce report was suggested.
2. [New Charge] Work with FAC to review the University grade appeal process (Section
323) and consider revisions to incorporate consultation with the instructor in question by
the Grade Appeal Committee. (Philips)
Section 323 was finalized. Philips will follow up with charge to verify it is complete.
2
2015-2016
SAC #8
3. Work with FAC and student conduct regarding policy/procedures for removing a student
from a course. (Waite)
Charge is complete.
4. Provide updates from SGA Senate meetings. (Gallatin)
Tabled.
5. (Revised Charge) Monitor the enrollment structure and processes of undergraduate,
graduate, and International student groups. (Hudnall)
Tabled.
6. (Revised Charge) Monitor student quality measures that go beyond HSGPA. E.g.,
examine the infrastructure of student admissions to assure that the anticipated number of
entry level students requiring remedial English or Math courses can be accommodated.
(Hantzis)
Tabled.
7. Monitor scholarship GPA maintenance standards. (Liu/Toomey)
Tabled.
8. Administer the Faculty Scholarship. (Liu, Arrington-Bey, Hantzis)
General discussion took place.
9. Produce and submit an annual report by April 27, 2016. (Blevens)
Tabled.
10. [New Charge] Work together with the chairs of the other standing committees (other than
the Dismissal Committee) to draft Handbook language for the creation of a Policies
Committee that would serve as a sub-committee of the standing committees.
Tabled.
11. [New Charge] Revisit the limit of 13 credit hours for students placed on academic
probation within the context of today’s landscapes while also looking to the future.
This charge will likely be a conversation for next year.
V. Administrative Reports
None
VI. Announcements
Registration begins next week; registration holds are coming (those students who didn’t
get transcripts from transferring high school/institution, or immunization, etc).
VII.
Adjournment
The Chair adjourned the meeting at 1:46 p.m.
Minutes recorded by AMW
April 5, 2016
3
2015-2016
SAC #8
SAC PROPOSED RESPONSE TO THE ACADEMIC ADVISING TASKFORCE
REPORT
REVISED APRIL 4, 2016
SAC applauds the work of the Academic Advising Taskforce in capturing the
interactional complexities of the dynamic process of academic advising. SAC
is also pleased that the committee identified challenges that occur at the
undergraduate and graduate level. The committee agrees with the Taskforce
that the ability to develop and sustain a relationship between the student
and the advisor is essential to student success.
However, SAC recognizes that academic advising goes beyond the primary
relationship between the student and the advisor. Individual programs,
departments, colleges, and administrative offices must be involved and
supportive of the process. SAC is disappointed that no financial allocations
have been provided for this essential task. To clarify, SAC does not
recommend reimbursement for individual advising sessions. Instead,
moneys would focus on the unique needs of Colleges and Departments. For
example, monies could support changes in advising tools, advancements in
advising technology, the engagement of professional advisors and similar
initiatives.
The University as a whole is responsible for identifying, training, and
providing appropriate tools to facilitate academic advising. SAC notes the
importance of documenting a curricular plan during the advising session.
However, it is SAC’s view that Degree Map is not an efficient tool. The
committee and would encourage a review and possible change to the
current system. The committee It agrees with the Taskforce that each
faculty member is unique and that not all faculty members should be
required to advise students. Deans, chairpersons, and program directors
must identify faculty who have the desire, talent, and disposition to become
advisors. Those who are qualified must demonstrate competency in skills
related to advising by being. All advisors would be required to achieve an
initial competency. To achieve this, SAC recommends that the Faculty
Center for Teaching Excellence (FTCE) design a certification program for the
undergraduate as well as the graduate level. Additionally, FCTE should
develop requirements for continued competency. SAC recommends that
advisors complete the competency program and also demonstrate continued
competency. The committee suggests a further show of support for the
program through the development of a publicity campaign that encourages
faculty to hold each other accountable for actively participating in the
certification process. The University needs to provide appropriate tools to
assist in the advising process.
SAC is concerned that the primary outcome measure at the undergraduate
level is “on-time graduation” or the 30-60-90 rule. Scheduling should not be
4
2015-2016
SAC #8
the primary focus of advising sessions. Time devoted to the development of
professional behaviors and attitudes is essential for student success. The
scheduling of classes can and should be addressed through other methods
such as peer advising, or graduate assistant mentoring. Students have
different need levels, and some will require additional advising sessions in
order to be successful. A standard assignment (number) of advisees may not
be appropriate.
SAC agrees that advising must be evaluated and become part of the
promotion, tenure, retention, and biennial review processes. The
committee is undecided regarding where advising resides, teaching or
service. SAC finds that either category has strengths and weaknesses. SAC
would charge individual programs, departments, and colleges to make the
decision based on the needs of the students and within the curriculum. The
University must appropriately compensate advisors for their work. Because
of the diverse nature of programs, departments, and colleges, this
compensation must be negotiated within the different areas and reviewed by
the Deans for equity between colleges.
1 March, 2016
5