skip to main content
Indiana University

Bloomington Campus bridge
Indianapolis Canal

Standard I: Mission, Goals, and Objectives

Appendix 1.4 Minutes of Faculty Policy Council Meetings

Indiana University School of Library and Information Science
Faculty Policy Council
Meeting Wednesday, February 16, 2005

Present: FPC Members Alice Robbin (Chair), Kiduk Yang, and Jean Preer.
Faculty: Ralf Shaw, Tom Nisonger, Howard Rosenbaum.

Recorder: Jean Preer

The Faculty Policy Council of the Indiana University School of Library and Information Science met on Wednesday, February 16, 2005. The meeting was called to order at 1:35 p.m.

1. SLIS Policy on Plagiarism

With no other matters before the Council, Robbin had asked faculty members to consider the school’s policy for handling alleged incidents of plagiarism. She distributed copies of Part IV Student Disciplinary Procedures of the Indiana University Code of Ethics. She also called attention to the legislative responsibility of faculty for student conduct in the SLIS governance document. Her concerns involved the definition of plagiarism and the way in which the matter is handled in SLIS.

Robbin reviewed known variations in possible disciplinary action, reflected in recent cases, where sanctions ranged from a zero on one assignment to an automatic F for the entire course. She noted that there are particular risks where an F is assigned for the whole course including some that can jeopardize a student’s entire future. Measures to handle the alleged plagiarism must be proportional to the offense.

Her examination of many SLIS syllabi revealed that plagiarism is treated in different ways. Particularly in the syllabi of adjuncts, it may not be mentioned at all. Some full time faculty include language providing for an automatic F in the course, while others warn of an F or zero for an assignment with a caution that a repeated offense could lead to an F for the course. She asked whether as a rule awarding an F for the entire course was a just response or whether the punishment should be more tailored. As a matter of fairness and justice, she asked whether responses should be standardized.

Discussion:

Faculty members favored discretion to respond to different degrees of plagiarism on a case by case basis. Flexibility was needed in defining plagiarism and in responding to it.

Shaw noted that as individual faculty handle such matters, they may not recognize a student’s pattern of conduct. In other departments, faculty must always file incident reports, so there is an internal record that is accessible to faculty.

Robbin reiterated her concern about syllabi that do not include any information about the possible consequences of plagiarism. Faculty should be urged to revise their syllabi and that students should hear about plagiarism procedures at orientation. Shaw noted that the Curriculum Steering Committee had recommended that adjuncts be given information about various school policies and that this should be included.

Preer spoke in favor of requiring each faculty member to inform a designated person, preferably the Executive Associate Dean, about any plagiarism incident and how it was being handled in order to centralize and accumulate data. Robbin warned against sending formal incident reports outside the school without an intermediate response within the School involving faculty. Since Shaw pointed out the drawbacks of having such matters handled by a committee, there was consensus that the responsibility should go to the Executive Associate Dean. This would enhance institutional memory and might lead to more uniform responses. The faculty member would first determine whether plagiarism had occurred.

Shaw concluded that in each case of plagiarism, before any case involving plagiarism leaves the school, there should be consultation between the Executive Associate Dean, the dean of students, and the faculty member.

All agreed that in each case, two people, including the Executive Associate Dean, had to sign off before the matter could leave SLIS. Preer will check the procedure in Indianapolis where there is no Dean of Students. It was suggested that a faculty member there along with the Executive Associate Dean in Indianapolis sign off before a case was sent outside the school.

Council members will reflect on what has been concluded so far and make recommendations for implementing any changes. They agreed to meet again on Wednesday, April 27, 2005, at 1:30pm. The meeting adjourned at 2:40 p.m.

Indiana University School of Library and Information Science
Faculty Policy Council
Meeting March 29, 2006

Present: Council Members, Kiduk Yang, Jean Preer, and Howard Rosenbaum

The Faculty Policy Council of the Indiana University School of Library and Information Science met on Wednesday, March 29, 2006 in the SLIS conference room on the IUPUI campus under the leadership of Howard Rosenbaum. The meeting was called to order at 1:05 p.m.

The minutes of the meeting of February 8, 2006 were approved.

Follow up. Members noted that the most recent revision of the course numbering scheme, discussed at the last meeting, has been distributed by Ralf Shaw in time for the faculty meeting scheduled for next week on April 5, 2006.

Campus issues. Howard and Kiduk reported that enrollment in the MIS program remains a matter of concern. Faculty and staff are looking at ways to promote the program among IU undergraduates, through open houses and advertisements. This is a national trend, experienced by other LIS programs.

L401 is being revised on the Bloomington campus. Jean provided a quick description of how L401 has been revised at IUPUI and suggested that they contact Kathy Schilling, the SLIS faculty member who oversaw the revision.

IU SLIS-Indy now has its own VIC classroom in the conference room of the SLIS office suite. VIC classes are delivered to remote sites in Fort Wayne, Gary, New Albany, and South Bend. Having its own VIC classroom assures SLIS-Indy of a VIC capability in the face of increasing competition for VIC classrooms on the IUPUI campus. FPC members considered the possibility of using VIC to hold FPC and other meetings.

Planning. In addition to efforts to configure the MIS program to maximize enrollment and to reorder course offerings, the doctoral program is currently being reviewed.

FPC Election. Kiduk Yang is completing the last year of his term as a member of the Faculty Policy Council. According to the SLIS governance document, an election must be held to fill his seat. Kiduk is eligible for a second term. Howard Rosenbaum will initiate the process for an election on the Bloomington campus.

Other matters. Jean shared with Howard and Kiduk the Rubric for Tenure-Track Faculty Annual Assessment developed by SLIS-Indy faculty. It has just been used for the first time as the basis for the yearly evaluation of SLIS-Indy faculty.

After a discussion of Indiana’s Brain Drain, the meeting adjourned at 2:10 p.m.

Jean Preer

Indiana University School of Library and Information Science
Faculty Policy Council
Meeting October 17, 2007

Present: Council Members, Pnina Shachaf, Jean Preer, and Howard Rosenbaum; Ralf Shaw, Alice Robbin, Ron Day, Hamid Ekbia, Susan Herring, John Walsh

The Faculty Policy Council of the Indiana University School of Library and Information Science (IU SLIS) met on Wednesday, October 17, 2007 at IU Bloomington under the leadership of Howard Rosenbaum. The meeting was called to order at 1:00 p.m. in room 002.

Election to Faculty Policy Council An election will be held to fill the at-large seat on the Faculty Policy Council. Harold Rosenbaum will leave the Council at the end of 2007 to assume the position of Associate Dean at IUB. Pnina Shachaf represents the IUB faculty; Jean Preer is starting her second three-year term representing the IUPUI faculty. A ballot will be prepared listing all faculty members eligible to serve. The term of the new member will begin in January 2008.

Endorsement to Chair Doctoral Dissertation Committees After discussion of a variety of alternatives, it was agreed that tenured status on the SLIS faculty would be the criterion for endorsement to chair doctoral dissertation committees with the Doctoral Steering Committee considering exceptions to this policy. The Dean’s office will be responsible for informing the University Graduate School of faculty members endorsed by the School. It is necessary to determine, in the case where the Doctoral Steering Committee grants an exceptional endorsement, whether this endorsement applies only to chairing that doctoral dissertation or whether it constitutes an ongoing endorsement. Ralf Shaw will check on this and report to the Faculty Policy Council for possible further consideration of the matter.

Yearly Planning Cycle On behalf of the Strategic Planning Committee, Alice Robbin presented the proposed IU SLIS Yearly Planning Cycle. The cycle is based on a set of principles and establishes a series of planning points identified through the academic year. The process vests planning decisions in existing committees and places general coordination in the hands of the Associate Dean at IUB. The Faculty Policy Council approved the proposal which, with minor changes, will be presented at the IU SLIS faculty meeting on October 31.

Governance Document Howard Rosenbaum presented a schedule for the three-year review of the IU SLIS governance document approved by the faculty in May 2004. Faculty will be invited to go over the current document and send proposed changes to Howard by October 28. A draft of the revised document will be available on October 29 and will be discussed at the FPC meeting that will follow the faculty meeting on October 31. Following that meeting, either a vote will be taken by paper ballot or another FPC meeting will be scheduled before the vote is taken. (See Rosenbaum message, “Time to review the governance document,” October 17, 2007)

Distance Education Howard Rosenbaum reported that Dean Cronin is interested in revisiting the role of distance education at IU SLIS. Currently the Indianapolis campus handles distance education for the school with courses delivered via VIC to sites in Gary, South Bend, Fort Wayne, and New Albany, and as web-based offerings. At present, it is not possible to complete an entire degree online. After much discussion of the pros, cons, methods, and costs of distance education, it was agreed that this is an appropriate matter to discuss as part of long-range planning, with referral of the matter to appropriate SLIS committees.

Next meeting The Faculty Policy Council will meet on Wednesday, October 31, 2007 following the meeting of the IU SLIS faculty.

The meeting adjourned at 2:30 p.m.

Minutes prepared by Jean Preer

Indiana University School of Library and Information Science Faculty Policy Council
Meeting February 19, 2008

Present: Council Members, Pnina Shachaf, Jean Preer, and Lokman Meho; IUB Associate Dean, Howard Rosenbaum, Rachel Applegate, Ron Day, John Walsh

The Faculty Policy Council of the Indiana University School of Library and Information Science (IU SLIS) met on Tuesday, February 19, 2008 at IU Bloomington under the leadership of FPC chair Pnina Shachaf. The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m. in room LI030.

At the request of Dean Cronin, and following preliminary discussion at previous FPC meetings, attendees addressed the question of whether IU SLIS should expand its offerings of courses by distance education. Looking at information about what other schools do proved inconclusive with highly ranked schools divided on whether or not they offer degrees online. There seems to be a great deal of variation in these online programs with at least two of the leading schools, Pittsburgh and Illinois, requiring some travel to campus.

Faculty members shared their experiences teaching in various distance modes at IU and at other LIS schools. Currently distance education offerings for the school are delivered through IUPUI. A little over half of the credit hours at IUPUI in 2007 were VIC and online courses (14% VIC*, 38% online, and 48% in-person, during Summer 2007, fall 2007, spring 2008). All but one of the required courses for the MLS degree are available over VIC (Virtually Indiana Classroom) with synchronous broadcasts to VIC classrooms at regional campuses in Gary (IUN), South Bend (IUSB), Fort Wayne (IPFW), and New Albany (IUSE). Neither Research Methods nor Evaluation is given over VIC or as a web-based course. None of the required courses, except S504 Cataloging, is taught online. [Note from recorder: S501 Reference will be offered online in summer 2008.] A number of electives are available as web-based courses. [Note from recorder: These include S532 Information Architecture for the Web, S571 Materials for Youth, S574 Information Inquiry for School Teachers, and S622 Resources and Services for People with Disabilities.]

At present, it is not possible to complete an entire degree through distance education. It is possible to complete the courses for school library media certification online and to fulfill the requirements for Librarian V Certification in Indiana. Since VIC is a system that works within Indiana, a totally online degree would require the conversion all the remaining required courses and a substantial number of electives to web-based offerings.

Discussion covered many aspects of distance education that must be considered before deciding whether to expand distance offerings:
* the interest in faculty at IUB in distance education (all faculty at IUPUI are expected to teach distance courses either web-based or by VIC)
* responsibility for converting courses for online delivery
* the role of adjuncts in designing and delivering online courses
* quality issues
* impact of distance teaching on research productivity
* the respective roles of IUPUI and IUB if IUB offers distance courses
* potential competition for students
* “branding” issues-would it be a single IU SLIS degree?
* assigning courses and allocating revenue

Those attending the meeting felt that it had been a productive session raising many issues and forming a basis for further discussion. The meeting adjourned at 10:30 a.m.

Minutes prepared by Jean Preer

Indiana University School of Library and Information Science
Faculty Policy Council
Meeting April 30, 2008

Present: Council Members, Pnina Shachaf, Jean Preer, and Lokman Meho; Howard Rosenbaum, IUB Associate Dean, Marilyn Irwin, IUPUI Associate Dean, Rachel Applegate, John Walsh

The Faculty Policy Council (FPC) of the Indiana University School of Library and Information Science (IU SLIS) met on Wednesday, April 30, 2008 at IUPUI under the leadership of FPC chair Pnina Shachaf. The meeting was called to order at 11:30 a.m. in the conference room of UL1112 and was devoted to the implementation of the long-range planning process adopted by the SLIS faculty on October 31, 2007.

COORDINATION
As a review, Howard Rosenbaum distributed an outline of the long-range planning cycle, incorporating text from the planning cycle memo. IUB Associate Dean is responsible for general coordination and information sharing about all SLIS planning activities. Over the summer, he and Dean Cronin will summarize the planning activities of the previous year and determine appropriate goals for the school and its committees to consider for the coming year.

STANDING COMMITTEES
In fall 2008, SLIS standing committees, acting on a somewhat general charge from the dean, will be asked to establish short and long-term goals and report them to the IUB Associate Dean and the FPC. At the faculty meeting in the spring 2009, they will be asked on their progress in meeting these goals.

ALUMNI INPUT
Since the school has increased its alumni activities, faculty attending various professional meetings will be asked to connect with SLIS alums and relay suggestions and concerns to the IUB Associate Dean. Sarah Burton will be asked to keep faculty informed about alumni events at conferences throughout the year and to let alums know that faculty will be interested in receiving their input. It was noted that the curriculum committee might want to conduct a more formal survey of employers, many of whom are alums, as one of its planning activities.

REVISIONS TO PLANNING CYCLE
It was agreed that the IUB Associate Dean would prepare a yearly planning progress report and also that SLIS should establish a periodic revision of the planning cycle, based on our experience with the process, as is currently done with the governance document.

STUDENT OUTCOMES ASSESSMENT
Participants agreed that the school must address the matter of student outcomes assessment as part of its planning for the next COA review. The matter will be added to the planning agenda and reported at the faculty meeting.

The meeting adjourned at 12:28 p.m.

Minutes prepared by Jean Preer

Indiana University School of Library and Information Science
Faculty Policy Council Meeting
December 1, 2008

Present: Council Members, Pnina Shachaf and Jean Preer; Howard Rosenbaum, IUB Associate Dean; faculty members Noriko Hara and Alice Robbin

The Faculty Policy Council (FPC) of the Indiana University School of Library and Information Science (IU SLIS) met on Monday, December 1, 2008 at IUB. Chair Pnina Shachaf called the meeting to order at 12 noon in conference room 036. The minutes of the meeting of April 30, 2008 were approved.

PLANNING
The meeting largely focused on progress so far in the implementation of the long-range planning process adopted by the SLIS faculty on October 31, 2007. Howard Rosenbaum, IUB Associate Dean, who coordinates the school-wide planning effort, reported receiving planning goals formulated by the following standing committees: Curriculum Steering Committee, the Information Technology Committee, Admissions and Scholarship Committee, Diversity Committee, and Doctoral Steering Committee. The ad hoc Long-Range Planning Committee also submitted goals. (A summary of these reports, compiled by Howard Rosenbaum, is attached.) It was noted that the planning cycle begins with committees formulating (and reporting) goals during the fall and not during the summer. FPC members thanked Howard for compiling and reporting this information.

A discussion followed concerning the respective roles in the planning process of the Faculty Policy Council and the Long-Range Planning Committee. The governance document (sec. 2.1) assigns legislative authority to the FPC for the School's short and long-term planning. It was suggested that the FPC focus on the substance of planning in terms of the School's direction while the Long-Range Planning Committee focus on the process itself as proposed in the committee's goals for 2008-2009. The status of the Long-Range Planning Committee as an ad hoc rather than a standing committee was also raised and deferred until the planning process has been through a complete cycle.

As part of its role in planning, the FPC will use its meetings for more in-depth discussion of matters that involve more than one committee. Chairs and program directors will be able to bring up issues of more school-wide interest such as continuing education.

OTHER MATTERS
A concern was raised about whether the Associate Dean at IUB is allowed to serve as a member of the Doctoral Steering Committee or whether holding that administrative position precludes committee service as a faculty member. The current governance document, which was consulted, does not specifically prevent such service. The Faculty Policy Council, which is charged with reviewing the governance document every three years, may address these issues in future.

NEXT MEETING
The Faculty Policy Council will hold its next meeting on
Wednesday, January 28, 2009, at 12:30 p.m.

The meeting was adjourned at 12:55 p.m.

Minutes prepared by Jean Preer

Report to the FPC: Fall 08 - SLIS standing committees' long range planning activities
12.1.08
HR

Curriculum Steering Committee: Hara

CSC will continue to review new course proposals for the masters' and specialist degrees and will sponsor a student open meeting in the spring semester. In addition, CSC will address the following three goals that were suggested by the Dean this past summer:

- review and revise DL specializations. CSC met w/ the director of DL specializations (John Walsh), and he will bring a proposal to the committee later this year
- evaluate continuing education opportunities. CSC discussed the opportunities for continuing education and made recommendations, which will be shared at the fall faculty meeting
- propose a plan for student outcome assessment. CSC has briefly discussed this issue and will continue to examine and discuss it this semester (and next if it's necessary).

Information Technology Committee: Yang

The primary objective of the IT committee is to ensure that information technology at SLIS provides a robust, reliable, and secure information technology infrastructure to SLIS. Following outlines IT committee's goals in support of this]

Long Term (on-going) goals

~Develop a strategic plan for accommodating the IT needs of SLIS in keeping with major IT trends.
~Engage in periodic assessments to monitor the status of IT infrastructure, emerging IT needs, and adequacy of IT support at SLIS.
~Investigate new technologies to identify those that could benefit SLIS

Short term goals

~Review current IT infrastructure and policy

~Periodic hardware & software replacement

~On-line documentation
~Existing hardware & software
~FAQ & help

~Access to electronic resources for students and faculty
~Electronic class notes
~Digital library reserves

~Improve web-based information resources

~Investigate a Web-based course content management system that can be used by faculty to easily create and maintain course websites.
e.g., Kiduk Yang's Course IT framework, OnCourse
Explore the development of Web-based IT services that can facilitate administrative activities

Examples
Update Yang's Independent Study tracking system to be deployed for SLIS at large
SLIS student database to keep track of student progress for advising
Travel Reimbursement system to file travel reimbursement online for efficient processing and record keeping

Long Range Planning Committee: Preer/Robbin

The members of the SLIS Long Range Planning Committee conducted a phone meeting on Friday, November 21, 2008, beginning at 4:30 p.m. The discussion focused on the goals of the committee for 2008-2009 as required by the SLIS planning process. Since this is the first year of the implementation of this process, adopted by SLIS in October 2007, the committee sees its overall goal as fostering the integration of the planning process throughout the School. To this end, the committee established as its objectives for this year

~to monitor informally the planning process and
~to suggest areas in which the process could be enhanced.

Committee members again recommended that the school institute a regular rotation of program reviews noting that since the MIS program has recently been revised, a review of that effort might be in order.

Other suggestions included enhanced tracking of MLS graduates and a more formal process of gathering alumni feedback now that a yearly cycle of alumni gatherings at professional associations is in place.

Doctoral Steering Committee: Jacob

Long term goal

egin a revision of the PhD program

Short term goal

ationalize the quals evaluation process according to the Dean's charge

Diversity Committee/Admissions and Scholarship Committee/Standing
Sub-Committee on Review of Students on Probation: Spencer

Long term goals for these three committees:

~ treat people with a welcoming, respective attitude,
~ manage difficult situations with reflection, thoughtfulness, and care,
~ manage administrative processes in a timely and efficient manner,
~ keep in mind faculty research areas and academic goals, and
~ be responsive to changing needs of the profession.

1. Admissions and Scholarship Committee (2008/2009)

Charge: To be responsible for implementing the School's admission policy at the master's level and to make decisions concerning distribution of financial aid to master's students.

This committee acts in an advisory role. The practice I have observed as Chair is to seek advice from committee members on policy issues and problem/borderline applications. Pnina Shachaf is my primary contact, and Kathy Schilling supports the SLIS Indianapolis processes.

2. Standing Sub-Committee on Review of Students on Probation (2008/2009)

This committee acts in an advisory role. The practice I have observed as Chair is to seek advice on the more difficult student academic situations.

3. Diversity Committee (2008/2009)

Charge: To provide advice and plan for the School's diversity initiatives in the areas of student recruitment and retention.

This committee is in part a "think tank" - creative contributors - people who help plant seeds of ideas. Annually we both (1) create a summary of diversity initiatives from the previous year - for both campuses, and (2) think on future possibilities. The committee asks primarily in an advisory role.

Indiana University School of Library and Information Science
Faculty Policy Council Meeting
February 11, 2009

Present: Council Members, Pnina Shachaf, Jean Preer (by phone), and Lokman Meho; Howard Rosenbaum, IUB Associate Dean; faculty members, Ralf Shaw, John Walsh, Ying Ding. Director of Admission and Placement, Rhonda Spencer.

Excused: Marilyn Irwin, IUPUI Associate Dean; Noriko Hara.

The Faculty Policy Council (FPC) of the Indiana University School of Library and Information Science (IU SLIS) met on Wednesday, February 11, 2009 at IUB.

Chair Pnina Shachaf called the meeting to order at 12:30 p.m. in conference room 030. The minutes of the meeting of December 1, 2008 were approved.

NEXT MEETING
The next FPC meeting will be held on Wednesday March 11, 2009 at 11 a.m. Three issues are on the agenda for the next meeting: 1) IUPUI online distance education; 2) Students outcome assessment; 3) Continuing education.

RECRUITING
The meeting focused largely on identifying methods for improving recruitment and quality of Master students, including:
1. Coordination between the two campuses in recruitment and admission. SLIS IUB should try to be more active at the ILF activities.
2. Increasing the applicant pool would allow more selective admissions.
3. Targeting such scholarships as those provided by IMLS.
4. Using scholarships as a recruitment method to target specific groups.
5. Participation at ALA by having an exhibit booth targeted primarily towards potential students.
6. Encouraging SLIS faculty to get in touch with their advisees as soon as possible after receiving the advising sheets from Rhonda. It was argued that this will encourage more students to select SLIS over other schools.
7. Consider making SLIS-related announcements on professional listservs popular among librarians and potential MLS and MIS students (not JESSE or ASIS-L and various ALA listservs).
8. Seek out and place on the web site more success stories from current and past students, as well as include more information about where our graduates are and what they are currently doing.
9. Redesign SLIS web site. It was argued that it is the most popular recruiting tool. Prospective students should be the main focus of the web site, followed by others (i.e., current students, faculty members, and others).
a. There is a need to revise and update the content – perhaps an ad hoc committee could work on that.
b. It may be useful to add a SLIS (faculty?) blog.
c. Professional design is extremely important. It may be useful to hire a professional company.
d. Generate student and faculty comments. A survey among current students (and others).
e. The welcome note from the dean can emphasize outstanding teaching and placement success.

The meeting was adjourned at 13:35 p.m.

Minutes prepared by Pnina Shachaf

Indiana University School of Library and Information Science
Faculty Policy Council
Meeting March 11, 2009

Present: Council Members, Pnina Shachaf, Jean Preer, and Lokman Meho; Howard Rosenbaum, Associate Dean-IUB, Marilyn Irwin, Associate Dean-IUPUI, Ralf Shaw, Noriko Hara

The Faculty Policy Council (FPC) of the Indiana University School of Library and Information Science (IU SLIS) met on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 at IUB.

Chair Pnina Shachaf called the meeting to order at 11:00 a.m. The agenda included discussion of two major topics: a proposed online degree for the Indianapolis program and a progress report on student outcomes assessment.

ONLINE DEGREE PROGRAM Marilyn Irwin presented the reasons for a proposal that would allow an MLS student enrolled in the Indianapolis program to complete the entire program online. (See attached outline.) There are a number of hurdles to be cleared before implementation can begin. A target date of fall 2010 has been established with a number of questions still to be addressed. Some of these were raised in the discussion including an on-campus orientation, an enrollment limit, the ratio of face-to-face to online courses, and which courses beyond the core would be offered online.

The proposal will be presented at the Faculty Meeting as well.

STUDENT OUTCOMES ASSESSMENT On behalf of the Curriculum Steering Committee, Noriko Hara presented an update on its consideration of a plan to measure student outcomes. She referred to a study by Rachel Applegate of the measures that various schools use including a final exam, capstone project, and portfolio. Rachel has looked into using Oncourse as a means for students to post assignments or projects that demonstrate fulfillment of the existing MLS curricular goals. Before the plan is presented to the faculty next fall, it was suggested that it be piloted by a small number of students in the Indianapolis program, so it can be demonstrated to and evaluated by the faculty. Since SLIS will participate in the NCATE review prior to the COA reaccreditation visit in 2012, students in school library media or graduate assistants might be asked to test the system. It was agreed that student input would be useful. Rachel will get everyone into the system. Questions were raised about assessment policies and procedures. Jean Preer will distribute an earlier memo outlining possible assessment policies and procedures. (See attached).

The meeting adjourned at 12:20 p.m.

Minutes prepared by Jean Preer

Indiana University School of Library and Information Science
Faculty Policy Council
Meeting April 15, 2009

Present: Rachel Applegate, Blaise Cronin (Dean), Noriko Hara, Elin Jacob, Lokman Meho (FPC member), Jean Preer (FPC member), Alice Robbin, Howard Rosenbaum (Associate Dean-IUB), Pnina Shachaf (FPC Chair), Debora Shaw.
Apologies: Marilyn Irwin (Associate Dean –IUPUI)

The Faculty Policy Council (FPC) of the Indiana University School of Library and Information Science met on Wednesday, April 15, 2009 in Bloomington. Chair Pnina Shachaf called the meeting to order at 12:00 noon. The agenda included discussion of and providing feedback on the strategic plan of the School of Library and Information Science which was prepared by Dean Cronin.

Following a brief overview by Dean Cronin of the goals and objectives of the document and its value for the school, the floor was open for faculty members to discuss changes and additions to be made to the document.

Dean Cronin announced that he will incorporate into the document all the feedback provided at the meeting and those made in person or via e-mail by faculty members who were unable to attend the meeting. The faculty will then be asked to review and vote on the updated version of the document.

Dean Cronin indicated that he hopes that faculty deliberation, review of and vote on the final version of the strategic plan will be done by the end of the semester (Spring 2009).

The meeting was adjourned at 1:00 p.m.

Minutes prepared by Lokman I. Meho

Minutes of the Faculty Policy Council
October 28, 2009, 11:30

Present: Council members, Jean Preer, Pnina Shachaf, Ron Day; Marilyn Irwin, Howard Rosenbaum Debora Shaw, Staša Milojević

The Faculty Policy Council (FPC) of the Indiana University School of Library and Information Science (IU SLIS) met on Wednesday, October 28, 2009 at IUPUI. Chair Pnina Shachaf called the meeting to order at 11:30 a.m.

Minutes from the last meetings (March, 11, 2009; April 15, 2009) approved.

Item 1 - Biennial narrative report to the ALA COA discussed. Pnina said that Blaise has incorporated earlier comments from members of the Long Range Planning Committee and the Faculty Policy Council to the report. Jean said that Blaise did a good job organizing the report around the standards and that the contents are great. Pnina agrees.

Item 2 - Long range planning.
Jean handed out a revised version of Howard and Blaise’s 10/12/2009 on Long Range Planning Goals for 2009-2010, with additions for “sequence objectives in SLIS Strategic Plan” with selected action items. She also handed out a table: “IU SLIS Strategic Objectives, Actions, and Responsibility” for the AY 2009-2010.

Pnina discussed the possible roles of the FPC in the planning process: should the FPC wait for committees to respond or should the FPC be more active? At the end of the fall semester Howard will remind Committee Chairs to share their goals for the year with the Associate Dean at IUB and the FPC.

Item 3 – Student outcomes assessment. Marilyn raised the question of whether the FPC should be involved in the implementation of the Student outcomes assessment. Pnina said that we need to hear more from the CSC. Marilyn and Jean said that the Student outcomes assessment should be for curriculum goals and Jean said that it should be indirectly for the COA. Pnina said that Indy e-portfolio is a pilot case; Marilyn said that they have a grant for it. Jean said that the Student outcomes assessment shouldn’t be a burden upon the faculty. Pnina said that the pilot evaluation data should be shared with the Bloomington faculty as soon as possible and perhaps Rachel Applegate should address the FPC.

The meeting adjourned at 12:15.

Minutes recorded by R. Day

Indiana University School of Library and Information Science
Faculty Policy Council Meeting
December 2, 2009

Present: Council Members, Pnina Shachaf, Jean Preer, and Ron Day; Howard Rosenbaum, IUB Associate Dean; faculty members Debora Shaw, Noriko Hara, Staša Milojević, Rachel Applegate, Kathy Schilling

The Faculty Policy Council (FPC) of the Indiana University School of Library and Information Science (IU SLIS) met on Wednesday, December 2, 2009 at IUB. Chair Pnina Shachaf called the meeting to order at 11:32 p.m. in conference room LI036. The minutes of the meeting of October 28, 2009 were approved with the phrase “student outcomes assessment” replacing “CSC evaluation tools”.

EXPERIENCE WITH e-PORTFOLIOS ON ONCOURSE
Rachel Applegate presented the experience of SLIS Indianapolis in the use of ePortfolios as a means to assess student learning outcomes. With a two-year Integrative Department Grant from IUPUI, SLIS Indianapolis is piloting the design and use of Oncourse ePortfolio to enable students to upload completed and graded assignments that demonstrate their mastery of the six objectives of the MLS curriculum. All SLIS faculty have access to the ePortfolio on Oncourse. Elsa Kramer, SLIS alum, adjunct professor, and project coordinator of the grant, posted her completed SLIS assignments as an example.

So far, two classes of students and a group of volunteers have worked with the system, including some beginning their programs and some about to graduate. Their feedback has resulted in some changes. Rachel reported that the use of Oncourse provides familiarity, storage capacity, long-term retention, and maintenance. UITS staff has worked with SLIS-IUPUI in making changes based on student and staff suggestions. The system makes it possible to identify which students have not completed uploading materials for each objective and may allow access by a particular goal.

DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE SCHOOLWIDE IMPLEMENTATION
Discussion followed concerning the school wide possible implementation of student outcomes assessment using ePortfolios. Additional information was distributed at the meeting in a position paper by Marilyn Irwin “Evaluating Student Learning Outcomes”, a summary of progress so far by Rachel Applegate, “Program-level Assessment for SLIS”, and “Student Outcome Assessment – Portfolios” by Noriko Hara (these documents are available on Faculty Exchange). Staša Milojević described the use of portfolios at UCLA.

For accreditation we need to implement a solution that will inform our curriculum development and will be used for program improvement. Jean Preer (for Alice Robbin) reminded the faculty that multiple assessment measures can be used concurrently. Faculty discussed whether any other assessment measures should be considered further and followed up on concerns raised by Elin Jacob in an email read at the opening of the meeting. Besides the portfolios other possible solutions, such as exams, surveys, exit interviews, and thesis were briefly discussed. Faculty agreed that SLIS should adopt a method that did not involve much greater work for students and faculty. Pnina Shachaf asked that additional options be considered at the meeting. No other student assessment option was advanced for consideration, but faculty are encouraged to propose workable alternatives.

It was agreed that student outcomes assessment using ePortfolios needs to be a school wide effort, that the focus should be on improving the proposed ePortfolio, and that responsibility should rest with the Associate Deans on both campuses (Howard Rosenbaum and Marylin Irwin). Two major issues need to be addressed before the e-portfolio option can be implemented: 1) The technical issues with Oncourse ePortfolio software and the willingness of UITS to make changes. 2) The implementation issues and the faculty workload (how faculty would be involved in advising students about ePortfolios and reviewing their submissions). Building on the knowledge gained from the pilot data at IUPUI, a plan for a school-wide implementation should take into consideration the differences between the Bloomington and Indianapolis campuses (student bodies, number of graduating students, number of faculty, and the inclusion of the MIS program).

The meeting was adjourned at 1:00 p.m.

Minutes prepared by Jean Preer

FPC Meeting, March 3, 2010

Present: Shachaf, Preer, Shaw, Sugimoto, Chen, Applegate, Irwin (phone), Day, Japzon, Jacob, Rosenbaum (last 10 minutes)

Minutes of Dec 2, 2009 meeting approved.

1. Progress—e-portfolio:
Irwin: e-portfolio is a pilot program in Indianapolis.

Jacob: problems of implementing across campuses

Jacob: two different questions: learning outcome assessment versus program assessment.

Discussion revolved around the relation of these two issues.

Japzon: portfolios are a lot of work for faculty and students.

Applegate: Program assessment helps us decide if it’s one or many students who are having problems.

2. Program assessment
Shaw: ALA objectives are unclear as to the relation of student evaluations to program assessment.

Jacob: what Ralf and I propose is a pre-test/post test evaluation in selective classes for learning outcome assessments and a longitudinal study to assess the ability of the program to prepare students for professional positions.

Chen: Is there enough time to prepare and to perform different evaluative tools before the ALA accreditation visit?

Shachaf sum
--e-portfolio pilot will continue at the IUPUI campus; Insights will be shared with the faculty by the fall of 2010.

--Irwin and Rosenbaum will meet to help coordinate assessments plans on both campuses.

--Bloomington faculty (Elin and Ralf) will begin to experiment with tests to measure learning outcomes in their classes and will start developing longitudinal surveying instruments.

Applegate: By the fall we will have from these different assessments on the two campuses rich materials for discussion. The time should work out.

Preer: Exit surveys need to relate to program goals.

Noon—meeting is adjourned.
Minutes: RD (with JP)

Indiana University School of Library and Information Science
Faculty Policy Council Meeting
April 28, 2010

Present: Council Members, Pnina Shachaf, Jean Preer, and Ron Day; Howard Rosenbaum, IUB Associate Dean; faculty members Susan Herring,Elin Jacob,Debora Shaw,Cassidy Sugimoto,and John Walsh

The Faculty Policy Council (FPC) of the Indiana University School of Library and Information Science (IU SLIS) met on Wednesday, April 28, 2010 at IUB. Chair Pnina Shachaf called the meeting to order at 11:30 p.m. in conference room LI036. The minutes of the meeting of March 3, 2010 were approved.

Pnina Shachaf noted that Jean Preer was concluding her second consecutive three-year term on the Faculty Policy Council and thanked her for her service. An election for the Indianapolis representative to the FPC will be held when the selection of the new Executive Associate Dean is announced with Jean Preer, who is ineligible for re-election, serving until then.

The meeting focused on two related topics, the review of the governance document and the process for reviewing degree programs. Based on the discussion the members of the FPC will draft changes to the governance document.

REVIEW OF GOVERNANCE DOCUMENT
According to section 8.2 of the document, the SLIS governance document is to be reviewed every three years. The last revision was adopted by the faculty in January 2008. Pnina Shachaf proposed a timetable for the review process beginning with discussion at today’s meeting, followed by further discussion next fall, preparation of a draft by the FPC, and a vote by the faculty to be held before the end of the semester.

Electronic voting on issues raised at faculty meetings was discussed with questions raised about how the process differs from votes taken in faculty meetings, the number of votes required, the need for discussion before a vote, concerns that the text of the matter up for vote accompany any email ballot, and the need to protect voter confidentiality. It was suggested that section 7 on Voting be moved to section 6 on Faculty Meetings.

Other suggestions included adding a Long-Range Planning Committee as a standing committee and considering issues related to remote participation at faculty meetings.

REVIEW OF DEGREE PROGRAMS
The governance document does not currently specify how degree programs, MLS, MIS, and Ph.D., are to be reviewed, with various approaches having been used in the past. The document specifies that responsibility for review of policies related to the doctoral program rest with the Doctoral Steering Committee. It was suggested that the document specify that responsibility for review of the doctoral program rest with the Doctoral Steering Committee and reviews of the MLS and MIS programs rest with the Curriculum Steering Committee.

Participants also discussed how program review committees are to be constituted. The document specifies that ad hoc committees and task forces are appointed by the dean and that such committees may be established also at the recommendation of the FPC or two thirds of the faculty. A program review committee is an ad hoc committee or a task force. It was suggested that subcommittees, not currently defined in the document, be described as being composed only of members of the committee itself. Membership in a program review committee involving members outside of the committee conducting the review should be determined by a consultation between the Dean, the program director, and appropriate standing committee chair, with appointments made by the dean. A program review then would begin with work by a small group, with reports to the appropriate standing committee (Doctoral Steering Committee or Curriculum Steering Committee) before proposals for revision were presented to the faculty as a whole for discussion and vote. Responsibility for such reviews should be clear and the process should be inclusive, iterative, and outcome based. It was recommended that the position of program director be described and documented. The possibility of reviewing program directors was also mentioned. These matters will all receive further attention as the governance document is reviewed in the fall.

The meeting was adjourned at 12:40 p.m.

Minutes prepared by Jean Preer

FPC meeting
October 12th, 2010

Present: FPC members: Shachaf (chair), Applegate (via phone), Day; Irwin (Executive Associate Dean), Rosenbaum (Associate Dean), Jacob, Milojevic, Shaw, Sugimoto.

Meeting begins at 1:05

I. Minutes from 4-28-2010 meeting approved

II. Bloomington Campus E-Learning Taskforce Report (Provost)

Rosenbaum, who as a member of the task force wrote sections of it, and as a chair of the CSC discussed it at the CSC meeting, presents highlights from the report:
a. The document discusses distance education—best practices, assessment of learning outcomes.
b. Rosenbaum says that the Provost will start pushing schools toward distance education

Irwin: most of the core MLS courses are available online but a full online MLS program has not been yet pushed for approval. This may be on the agenda on the new Executive Associate Dean.

Shachaf: the report distinguishes between online courses and hybrid/blended courses. Bloomington faculty are using technologies in support of instruction and they provide content online, but have not been interested in developing online courses in the past.

It seems that Bloomington may or may not be engaged in e-learning depending on the definition of this term and what types of ‘technologies’ are being referred to.

III. FPC’s review of the Governance Document:

Shachaf suggests that the faculty will review the proposed changes systematically and present the draft of the proposed changes. The proposed changes follow the discussion that was held during the last FPC meeting (4-28-10), addressing e-voting, committees, and program review process, and are based also on other comments received from faculty.

”Proposed Revision 7.0” document is placed on oncourse FPC tab..

IV. Learning Outcome Assessment
Shachaf suggests that in order to meet the December 1st, deadline set up by the Dean at the faculty retreat last week, the FCP will devote time during two consecutive FPC meetings this semester to discuss this matter. The goal is to have a plan for a faculty vote by November 15. The faculty will vote on one of two options (e-portfolio or pre-and-post test) or to approve one plan that will integrate the strengths of the two.

Applegate and Irwin present the e-portfolio model and the results from the year-long project in Indianapolis. The discussion focused on this in regard to the Bloomington Shaw-Jacob pre-and-post test model. It is thought that both models have strengths and weaknesses and both serve their different campus charges and pressures. Shachaf suggests that perhaps it would be useful to try and imagine combining both models for student learning outcomes assessment under the logic model for program evaluation in a way that could be implemented across both campuses for COA purposes. Discussion continues along this line. It was agreed that the school could benefit from using data gathered from both methods, that pre-and-post test will include one core area per year across campuses, and that evaluation of students e-portfolios in Indianapolis will provide additional data for program assessment.

Shachaf proposes that a one page document attempting to describe this plan be composed, and Applegate and Irwin volunteer to do this in consultation with Shaw and Jacob by our next meeting (November 3rd).

Meeting is adjourned at 3:00

Minutes recorded by R. Day

Faculty Policy Council
November 3, 2010

Present: Pnina Shachaf, Rachel Applegate, Ron Day Howard Rosenbaum, Marilyn Irwin, Stasa Milojevic, Cassidy Sugimoto, Debora Shaw

Meeting began at 11:35, room 2115E University Library, IUPUI

I. Minutes from 10-12-2010 meeting approved (incorporating minor changes)

II. Student Learning Outcomes proposal discussion
Note: Shaw took notes about specific suggestions for clarification and changes of wording.
• Need to change introduction and presentation to clarify that this is a school-wide plan. The document distributed by Shaw et al. presents background information.
• The document refers to a logic model; Shaw will clarify.
• “Measures of understanding.” If an assignment addresses one or more of our program learning outcomes it can serve as a ‘post’ or demonstration of the mastery (or degree of mastery) of the objective; for example, students can be asked to write a reflection on their own learning process describing what was new to them and what they learned which can document the ‘pre’ stage. A formal pre-post *test* is an alternative, not the only option.
• The heart of what is proposed as a policy (what we will do) is in the first three sections (1: the process involves all MLS and MIS students; 2: measures of understanding will be gathered in core courses, one area per year; 3: ePortfolios will be used at Indianapolis, the results of which also inform #2).
• The Associate Deans will be responsible for implementing the ‘measures of understanding;’ The EAD at IUPUI will be responsible for managing the use of ePortfolios at Indianapolis.

After input is received at the faculty meeting, Shaw will be responsible for writing a final resolution for voting by the faculty. She plans to circulate the proposal later this week. Voting to be completed by Dec. 1st.

III. Governance document.
Few comments were sent to Pnina.
Various edits were made during the meeting; the edited version (with tracking on) will be posted to the Oncourse site.
Topics of edits:
• Admissions and Scholarship Committee changed to reflect both all-School and specific-campus procedures
• Curriculum Steering Committee changed to reflect its role in program review; The Associate deans were added as ex officio members.
• No changes to Information Technology Committee.
• Ad hoc committees. Program Review, some slight edits. Search and Screen, had moved from elsewhere in the document.
• Electronic voting. Discussion of how it would be decided upon/ implemented emphasizing the need for flexibility.

Meeting concluded at 12:30 pm.

Minutes, Rachel Applegate

FPC meeting, February 23rd, 2011

Present: Interim Dean Shaw (until 2:15); FPC members: Shachaf, Day (recording), Applegate; Associate Deans: Rosenbaum, Lipinski; Chen, Milojevic, Preer, Robbin, Sugimoto, Walsh.

1. SLIS Mission
Shaw presented the mission statement of the School and other mission statements for comparison, within and outside of IU. Discussion involved the possible inclusion of terms, such as ‘practice,’ ‘research,’ ‘theory,’ the removal of the term “user-centered approaches,” and the use of “stronger verbs”. Shaw will share a draft with the faculty and request additional suggestions. The discussion will continue at the next faculty retreat.

2. Voting

2.1 Electronic secret ballots:
To assure that electronic secret ballots are anonymous Applegate tested and demonstrated the use of OnCourse’s “Tests and Surveys” tool. It was agreed that future secret ballots would be done on OnCourse.

2.2 Discussion of sections 6.7 and 7 of the governance document
Shachaf described two processes that can lead to changes in SLIS governance document; a review by the FPC that leads to a new version on which faculty vote and an amendment that can be proposed by three faculty members (or the FPC) that is subsequently voted on by faculty. The latter requires a 2/3 majority of the faculty and the former requires a simple majority. As of Dec 15, 2010, the FPC concluded its review and the faculty adopted a new version.

Preer and Robbin presented ideas for rewording and policy changes for section 7 of the governance document, (see their email to the faculty from 2/22/2011). Discussion involved whether there was a difference between revisions (which require a majority vote) and amendments (which require a 2/3rds majority vote). It was agreed that these are two separate processes. The need to require a 2/3 majority of all eligible faculty to approve changes is unclear and other options, such as a simple majority and a majority of 3/4 of the faculty, were been discussed as well.

Lipinski suggested renumbering section 7.2.1 as section 7.3 and stated that the term “eligible voting faculty” is ambiguous. Preer commented that we need to clarify in different sections issues about faculty eligibility to vote and eligible faculty voting.

Walsh raised the issue of the voting status of absentees. Lipinski stated that in 6.7 there was no mention of absentee voting. Robbin said that the term “absentee” needed to be clarified in the governance document. She suggested that the entire governance document needed to be reviewed again and that the faculty should be educated on these matters.

Preer said that the FPC should be required to meet twice a semester and Robbin said that ad hoc committee sections in the governance document needed to be addressed; both of which were issues articulated in their email.

The meeting adjourned at 2:46pm.

FPC meeting, November 9, 2011

Topic: SLIS future options document to Provost Karen Hanson; Dean ralf Shaw leads discussion.

Ralf begins meeting, discussion of the SLIS future options to Provost Karen Hanson and discusses minor corrections offered by the faculty. Ralf discusses the positive aspects of proposing the joining with SOIC.

Faculty members offer corrections (edits as per within document)

Discussion of p&t evaluation in the new school

Edit document to “retain” rather than “cannot” throughout administrative areas.

Should IUPUI upper level administration be advised as to the discussions in Bloomington on this topic?