The University of Oklahoma (Norman campus)
Regular session – December 12, 2011 – 3:30 p.m. – Jacobson Faculty Hall 102
office: Jacobson Faculty Hall 206
phone: 325-6789
e-mail: facsen@ou.edu website: http://www.ou.edu/admin/facsen/
The Faculty Senate was called
to order by Professor Georgia Kosmopoulou, Chair.
PRESENT: Adams,
Apanasov, Baer, Bemben, Bergey, Buckley, Burns, Chang, Cox-Fuenzalida, Devegowda,
Fagg, Grady, Gramoll, Hahn, Keresztesi, Kimball, Kosmopoulou, Leseney, Loon, Marsh-Matthews,
McPherson, Minter, Morrissey, Morvant, Moses, Nelson, A. Palmer, G. Palmer, Park,
Ransom, Soreghan, Stock, Stoltenberg, Tabb, Vehik, Xiao, Zhang, Zhu
Provost's office representative: Mergler
ISA representatives: Crawford, Hough
ABSENT: Ayres,
Chapple, Chiodo, Ellis, Jean-Marie, Klein, Moxley, Natale, Taylor, Verma,
Williams, Wydra; Graduate College liaison -- Griffith
________________________________________________________________________________
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Announcements:
Institutional Review Board electronic submission
Faculty death
Schedule of spring 2012 Faculty Senate meetings
Faculty development awards
Affordable learning
Academic integrity
Student Conduct hearing panel pool
Committee on Committees conflict of interest policy
Senate Chair's Report:
Semester reports from council chairs
Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics
Sooner Ally
Faculty Advisory Council to the state regents issues
________________________________________________________________________________
The Faculty Senate Journal
for the regular session of November 14, 2011 was approved.
iRIS, the new Institutional
Review Board electronic system, was implemented Monday,
December 5, 2011. A new
study may continue to be submitted
using the current process (hard copy) until January
17, 2012.
To sign up for training on how to use the new online system, see IRB
website: http://www.ouhsc.edu/irb-norman. A closure request should be submitted if a
current study will not continue beyond May 31, 2012. For further information, contact the IRB
office at (405) 325-8110.
The Faculty Senate is sad to
report the death of retired faculty member Gwenn Davis (English) on October
14.
The regular meetings of the
Faculty Senate for the spring 2012 semester will be held at 3:30 p.m. in
Jacobson Faculty Hall 102 on the following Mondays: January 23, February 13, March 12, April 9,
and May 7.
The Faculty Senate sent out
the call for proposals for the Ed Cline faculty development awards on November
10. Proposals are due to the Faculty
Senate office on February 3. Up to $2500
is awarded. Further information is
available at http://www.ou.edu/admin/facsen/facdev.htm.
Prof. Bruce Mason (Physics
& Astronomy) explained that last spring Provost Mergler asked him about the
uses of open sources and low cost material for OU students in an effort to help
students lower their educational cost.
Prof. Mason has been involved for years with the MERLOT project, a
multi-state, multi-discipline learning repository. In the past year, MERLOT and the California
state university system started the affordable learning solutions (attached),
which is a website with a collection of learning resources ranging from content
that instructors can plug into their course to entire books. The website (http://als.csuprojects.org/home) brings together all the things that are happening in
open source education, open educational resources, and low cost alternatives
that publishers are providing. The Oklahoma
State Regents are partnering with MERLOT, and the Oklahoma academic librarians
may consider an affordable learning solutions initiative. Prof. Mason said he would be happy to provide
more information and to give presentations to academic units.
Prof. Fagg said he had
noticed that students seem less motivated to read the material if it is online
instead of in a textbook. Prof. Mason said
the consortium is trying to understand what are best practices and what approaches
work better than others. In his
experience, the online material is not an advantage if it looks like a textbook. There are opportunities out there to improve the
interaction with students.
Dr. Greg Heiser, Associate
Provost and Director of Academic Integrity Systems, gave an update on the
campus academic integrity system. Also
attending the meeting were Zeke Johnson, chair of the student integrity
council; Breea Bacon, associate director of the integrity program; and Prof. Trina
Hope (Sociology), the senior member of the academic integrity steering
committee. Other members of the steering
committee are Mark Morvant (Chemistry & Biochemistry), Andy Fagg (Computer
Science), Sam Huskey (Classics & Letters), and Aimee Franklin (Political
Science). The point of the system is to
have a procedure that is fair, simple, yields consistent and clear results, and
is non-adversarial. The primary change in
the system, which was approved by the OU Regents last January, was to remove
most of the criminal or adversarial language.
Instead of charges being filed, we now have reports of potential
violations, and the reports can be made by anyone. The faculty member is no longer the
prosecutor but rather just reports a violation and if necessary, is a
witness. So far, the system has worked well. Last year, 290 cases went through the system for
the Norman campus. About the same number
is expected for this year. One improvement
in the new system is the capacity for investigations, which can be requested by
the faculty member or the student. The new
system has required a larger integrity council because the members participate
in investigations, in adjudication, and as peer educators in integrity training
classes. This past year, we had the
largest number of graduates ever in integrity training classes. Some graduates have even applied to be on the
integrity council. Dr. Heiser said the
challenge is to get the word out that OU is a scholarly community that values
integrity. Other challenges are addressing
some procedural issues because the Tulsa campus does not have an integrity
council and making sure the web site includes all the necessary information and
forms. Ms. Bacon pointed out that they
had worked closely with the Student Conduct Office in the transition. Dr. Heiser added that we need to convey the
message to students that academic integrity also is an aspect of becoming a
responsible, professional adult. OU now
has an Ethics Bowl team coached by Dr. Steve Ellis (Philosophy), and it is
going to the national competition for the second year in a row.
Ms. Bacon noted that the Do
You Understand Integrity (DYUI) training has been very successful. The integrity council has done a great job of
expanding their efforts by investigating hearings and helping her teach the
course. The members are adequately trained
and have been very professional. She asked
the faculty to pass along the names of students who would be good additions to the
council. Prof. Hope said she had served
on the College of Arts & Sciences misconduct board for a number of
years. She said what is best about the
new system is that it is student run and that sends a message that integrity is
not just something the instructors care about.
The new boards have three students and two faculty,
and a student serves as chair. Before,
it was the opposite. Ms. Bacon said one
of the new positions on the integrity council is vice chair of adjudication. That student will chair every hearing, which
provides a consistent message and transcript.
Prof. Hope mentioned that having the student investigators shifts the
system to one that is more student driven. The one hearing that has been held went very
smoothly.
Mr. Johnson said it used to
take months to wrap up a case. Centralizing
it in the Provost’s office has helped streamline things. Some cases have been resolved in as little as
a day. Training for the members is done twice
a year on every aspect, from investigations to adjudication, and everyone goes
through peer educating. Prof. Fagg said
it was worth talking about how the faculty role has shifted. Previously faculty members were investigators
and prosecutors. Now they are called in
as witnesses and may not even stay for the entire hearing. Dr. Heiser said the new system has moved away
from an adversarial system to one where the board asks the majority of the questions. It has worked pretty well so far.
Prof. Burns said he was leery
about using plagiarism software because the information goes into a central
database. He asked whether alternatives were
available. Dr. Heiser replied that Turnitin.com
is the leader in the field of plagiarism detection software. It makes sense to have one database of
written work. It would be nice if universities
could provide the service, but it is not a project that universities could take
on. Turnitin
compares a student paper to its database of previous papers and then adds that
paper to the database. Some criticisms are
that this amounts to stealing the intellectual property of the students without
paying them and that it has a Big Brother element. On the copyright issue, a case decided a
couple of years ago that it is fair use, not a violation of copyright. There is an option for institutions to ask that
the student papers be removed from the database. With respect to it being an intrusive search,
the Desire to Learn (D2L) process is fairly automatic and low impact. Students can be given access to the originality
report so they can review it. Without Turnitin, instructors would have a difficult time seeing
where students are having problems handling research.
Prof. Nelson said she thought
the presence of the academic integrity system was going to help. She asked if the students could contact
someone if they have questions as to whether something they have done or
contemplate doing is appropriate or not.
Occasionally students do things innocently. Dr. Heiser said students could contact the integrity
council through integrity.ou.edu.
Prof. Palmer noted that it is
helpful for the students to see the results of Turnitin
because the report highlights what is plagiarized. She said she has had great success with Turnitin. It insures
that a paper has not been turned in before by someone else. She pointed out that sometimes a student will
turn in a paper to an athletics department tutor and so it will be flagged as
being previously submitted. Prof. Hope explained
that instructors can click a button to send an email to the athletics department,
and the staff there can verify that the paper was submitted by the athletics
department student life office.
Prof. Zhang asked whether
students could run their papers through Turnitin to police
themselves before they submit them to their instructor. Dr. Heiser answered that professors can turn
on a button in D2L to allow students to review their own originality before
they submit the final paper. In many
cases, students who have problems with plagiarism have more fundamental problems
with picking a topic, identifying good research sources, etc. It is important to focus on more than the end
product. He will be starting a
plagiarism training course for the spring so students will learn the difference
between writing and copying.
Prof. Devegowda said some
written work by students, such as general exam reports, are outside of
courses. He asked whether professors
could give their Turnitin ID and password to students
so they could do a self-assessment. Dr. Heiser
said he would have to check the contract.
Ms. Bacon said the students could use WriteCheck,
which is through Turnitin, but it costs about $5 per
paper. Prof. Devegowda said he had noticed
that; however, it is limited to 5000 words, and general exam reports can be 100
pages long. Prof. Hope said faculty could
create a class, have the students register, and then the students could run their
report through Turnitin.
Mr. Clarke Stroud, vice president
for Student Affairs and dean of students discussed the new Student Code that
was established on September 19. The previous
code had been in place a couple of decades, and in some cases, outside forces (parents,
attorneys) were steering the process. The
new code brought some order and simplified the prohibited conduct for
students. Students now know what they
can expect if they engage in prohibited conduct. Secondly, the same Student Code was
established on all three campuses. Before,
the Health Sciences Center handled misconduct processes in the various
colleges, so the outcomes could vary for the same misconduct. The third benefit is the new code established
some clear procedures for the students. The
Student Conduct web site (http://judicial.ou.edu/) has the Student Rights and Responsibilities Code,
which includes the prohibited conduct for students. This kind of prohibited behavior is not
academic related. It involves situations
such as threatening another student, stealing, and alcohol or drug
violations. The Student Rights and
Responsibilities Procedures (also on the Student conduct web site) are simple
and clear for the students. They
indicate exactly what happens when students are accused of misconduct. Students can resolve the matter with a
Student Conduct officer or go to a hearing.
If they go to a hearing and are found innocent, the matter is over. If they are found guilty, they have an appeal
and then they have one more appeal after that.
In the new code, the hearing procedures are clear. Previously, attorneys would try to establish
different kinds of processes. The new
code and procedures put us in compliance with the Dear Colleague letter. The University has a new sexual misconduct
policy and will have a new sexual misconduct officer. One of the requirements of the Department of
Education is students can no longer sit on a hearing panel when the case is
sexual misconduct. The hearing panel has
to be faculty and staff. The cases of
sexual misconduct that go to a hearing are incredibly divisive. The new process protects both the suspect and
the victim in the case. Hearing panels
are composed of three members, one student (except in sexual misconduct cases),
and two faculty and staff. Mr. Stroud asked
the senators to pass on to their colleagues that Student Affairs needs faculty
to volunteer to sit on the panels. He
would like to establish a pool of 10 faculty, 10 staff
and 10 students who would be selected as cases come up. Volunteers will need to attend one mandatory
training session before they can serve on a panel. The new process now has some real time limits
that were not in place before, so cases should be resolved more quickly. Mr. Stroud said he would be happy to speak at
a departmental meeting. Faculty who are
interested in volunteering for the hearing panel may email Mr. Stroud.
Prof. Grady asked whether
some of the incidents could involve criminal matters and whether the hearings were
closed. A student who might be involved
would not want his words to be used against him in court. Mr. Stroud said the hearings are closed. However, a transcript of the proceedings could
be subpoenaed. Prof. Grady said he
assumed the idea was the internal process would be faster than in court. Mr. Stroud said any criminal process would go
first. The code portion has a provision
for a direct administrative action, such as temporary suspension or expulsion of
a student who is considered a threat.
Prof. Kosmopoulou explained
the proposed change in the bylaws of the Faculty Senate’s Committee on
Committees (attached). The change would introduce a conflict of
interest policy. The main difference is
the last paragraph. The Faculty Senate
executive committee unanimously recommended the change. The proposed change will be voted on at the
next regular session. There was no
discussion at this meeting.
“We had
our Faculty Senate large executive committee meeting late last month, and we
heard from the chairs of the Information Technology Council, the Athletics
Council, the Continuing Education Council, the Budget Council, the Faculty Welfare
Committee and the Faculty Compensation Committee. Al Schwarzkopf, the chair of ITC, reiterated
that the council is focusing on three areas for improvements: research computing, classroom technology and oZone. We spent some time discussing classroom technology
and in particular lecture capture options and closed captioning. Al Schwarzkopf
was selected as the faculty representative on
the oZone change request committee (see 11/11 Senate
Journal).
“Emily
Johnson, the chair of the Athletics Council, gave us a brief report of
activities. (Among other issues discussed, it was mentioned that the Athletics
Department finished paying off its loan, 11 years early.)
“On the question
that Prof. Ransom asked in our previous meeting related to COIA (Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics), Emily
Johnson mentioned that she and Connie Dillon, the faculty athletics
representative, both believe that OU's oversight policies are equal to or
better than those recommended by COIA. I talked to Connie Dillon, as well, who
offered to come and discuss this in more detail with the Senate to answer
questions. Joining the COIA is ultimately a Senate decision, but Connie Dillon
would encourage the members of the Senate to review the COIA recommendations
and also consider the views of the faculty members on the Athletics Council
since they are actively engaged in many of the oversight functions that COIA
recommends. I invited her to join us at
the January meeting to discuss COIA with the Senate or any other issues related
to athletics.
“Shannon
Bert, the newly elected chair of the Continuing Education Council, gave an
activity report. She discussed among
other issues the Outreach Lifelong Learning Opportunities brochure, which gives
a general description of offerings.
We also
heard from Susan Hahn on the Budget Council meetings. The Budget Council
invited Chancellor Johnson to talk. Some of the details of the discussion are
in the slides of his presentation made at the Regents Faculty Assembly. These
slides were made available to you last month. As you saw from President Boren’s letter, the
budget outlook is not very optimistic, but we are waiting for further news and
developments. The welfare and
compensation committees are also continuing their activities along the lines
described in earlier meetings.
“The
reports of all council annual activities will be made available to us in the
summer.
“Kathy Moxley,
Director of the Women's Outreach Center, who came and informed us at an earlier
meeting about the Faculty Ally training
program, asked me to inform the senate that they have been taking the
suggestions they heard at Faculty Senate and are offering a two-part session in
the spring. They have one
training on January 12 from noon to 3 p.m. (lunch provided) or a two-part
session on February 21 and 28 from 8:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. For more information see
http://www.ou.edu/content/studentlife/diverse_communities/lgbtq/sooner_ally/faculty-ally.html.
“The monthly
meeting of the faculty advisory council to the Oklahoma State Regents for
Higher Education took place on Friday, December 9. Dr. Houston Davis, Vice Chancellor for
Academic Affairs, discussed the Complete College America (CCA) initiative. Oklahoma’s activities as part of this program
will be focused on a framework that covers two fronts: (1) Academic preparation
initiatives for high school students and (2) adult degree completion initiatives
that aim to streamline degree options. At
the end of the meeting, I was elected the chair of the council for the period
April-June 2012.” [Note: The Highlights
of Oklahoma’s Complete College America
and NGA Complete to Compete Initiatives is available from the Faculty
Senate office.]
The meeting adjourned at 4:25
p.m. The next regular session of the
Faculty Senate will be held at 3:30 p.m. on Monday, January 23, 2012, in
Jacobson Faculty Hall 102.
____________________________________
Sonya Fallgatter, Administrative Coordinator
____________________________________
Mike Bemben, Chair-Elect