Meeting of the Faculty Council and the General Faculty

Friday, September 16, 2011
3:00 p.m.
Hitchcock Multipurpose Room
Sonja Haynes Stone Center for Black Culture and History

Chancellor Holden Thorp and Professor Jan Boxill, Chair of the Faculty, presiding

Agenda

3:00:  Presentation of the Phillip and Ruth Hettleman Prizes for Artistic and Scholarly Achievement by Young Faculty

  • Chancellor Holden Thorp

Dr. Karen Mohlke, Genetics Department

Dr. Noel Brewer, Health Behavior and Health Education Department

Dr.  Mark Katz, Music Department

Dr. Brett Whalen, History Department

3:05: Presentation of the 2011  Thomas Jefferson Award to Dr. George Sheldon

  • Presented by Chancellor Holden Thorp
  • Citation read by Dean William Roper, Vice Chancellor for Medical Affairs and Chief Executive Officer of the UNC Health Care System

3:10: Chancellor’s Remarks and Question Period

  • Chancellor Holden Thorp

3:30:  Provost’s Remarks and Question Period

  • Provost Bruce Carney

3:45:   Chair of the Faculty’s Remarks

  • Prof. Jan Boxill

3:55:  Invited Guests

4:10: Quality Enhancement Plan Annual Report

  • Prof. Bobbi Owen, Senior Associate Dean for Undergraduate Education
  • Respondents:  Prof. Jean DeSaix (Biology) and Prof. Kevin Guskiewicz (Exercise and Sport Science)

4:20: Research Committee Annual Report and Discussion

  • Presenter: Prof. Kerry Bloom, Chair
  • Invited Guest: Prof. Barbara Entwisle, Vice Chancellor for Research
  • Respondent:  Prof. Greg Copenhaver (Biology)

4:30: Sakai Migration Update (See Migration Update Handout and short video statements about Sakai from Prof. Howard Reisner and Prof. Suzanne Gulledge)

  • Kim Eke, Senior Manager of ITS Teaching and Learning Interactive
  • Kathleen Kyzer, ITS Project Manager
  • Ruth Marinshaw, Associate Vice Chancellor for Research Computing
  • Respondent:  Prof. Tim McMillan (African and Afro-American Studies)

4:40: Center for Faculty Excellence: A Quick Introduction

  • Todd Zakrajsek, Executive Director

4:50  Announcements, Open Discussion, and Meeting Feedback using  Poll Everywhere

4:55: Closed Session:  Honorary Degree Nominee  (Faculty Council members use ONYEN to log in and view this information via our Sakai site)

5:00:  Adjourn

Minutes

 The Faculty Council of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill convened September 16, at 3:00 p.m. in the Hitchcock Multipurpose Room of the Sonja Haynes Stone Center for Black Culture and History.

39 members attended: Bagnell, Balaban, Boulton, Boxill, Bulik, Cavin, Chambers, Copenhaver, Earp, Gerhardt, Grabowski, Grinias, Guskiewicz, Hayslett, Hodges, Irons, Ives, Janken, Koomen, Kramer, Linden, Lothspeich, Lund, Milano, Moracco, Morse, Olcott, O’Shaughnessey, Parreiras, Persky, Renner, Rodgers, Steponaitis, Stewart, Swogger, Sypszak, Thrailkill, Tisdale, and Webster‐Cyriaque.

Call to Order

Chancellor Holden Thorp called the Council to order at 3:00 p.m.

 Hettleman Awards

Chancellor Thorp presented the 2012 Phillip and Ruth Hettleman Prizes for Artistic and Scholarly Achievement by Young Faculty. This year’s recipients are Karen Mohlke, Associate Professor of Genetics; Noel Brewer, Associate Professor of Health Behavior and Health Education; Mark Katz, Associate Professor of Music; and Brett Whalen, Associate Professor of History.

Thomas Jefferson Award

Chancellor Thorp presented the 2012 Thomas Jefferson Award to George Sheldon, Zack D. Owens Distinguished Professor of Surgery. Dean William Roper read the citation. The Council congratulated Dr. Sheldon with a standing ovation. Dr. Sheldon expressed his thanks for the award and for his 28 years on Carolina’s faculty.

 Chancellor’s Remarks and Question Period

Chancellor Thorp touched on the following topics in his formal remarks:

  • This year’s entering class set a record for the number of applications; there were more than 24,000.
  • Research funding this year will top $788 million; last year’s total was a little over $800 million, but included $124 million in federal stimulus money.
  • Private fund-raising in 2010-11 came to $277 million, the second highest yield ever.
  • This year, Carolina will absorb a 17.9% cut in State budget funding. Cuts were allocated among the 17 UNC systems by a formula that took into account revenue from other sources, graduation rates, and the percentage of students from low-income families. Carolina’s substantial income from other sources, and $20 million transferred from UNC Hospitals, were the primary factors for our budget reduction being larger than other institutions.
  • Karol Kain Gray, vice president for finance and administration at Stony Brook University, has been named vice chancellor for business and finance, effective December 1.
  • Carolina’s response to the notice of allegations lodged by the NCAA with respect to the football program will be released Monday; we are set to meet with the NCAA Committee on Infractions on October 28.

Chancellor Thorp responded to two questions that had been submitted by a Council member in advance of the meeting: (1) are you satisfied that the football program has been fully reformed, and (2) will there be a cap on the salary of the next football coach.

The chancellor replied that he is satisfied that strong steps have been taken to address issues that have arisen in the course of the NCAA investigation, and he is confident that these steps will result in strengthening the football program. As for the coach’s salary, he said that he is committed to success in both athletics and academics. Success in athletics means that we, like nearly all of our peer institutions, will remain competitive in “big-time” sports. Given the realities of the competitive situation that now exists in the revenue sports (football and men’s basketball, primarily), it is unlikely that we will impose constraints on salaries that are not market driven.

Prof. Emeritus Elliot Cramer asked the chancellor to comment about the privacy of faculty email communications and the chancellor’s decision to block access to Prof. Cramer’s UNC email and website accounts. Chancellor Thorp relied that all email messages sent on the UNC system are public records open to public inspection unless they are protected by federal or state laws concerning privacy of student records and personnel records. As for the incidents that led to denying Prof. Cramer access to UNC email and websites, the chancellor expressed regret that the incidents had arisen but remains confident that the decision to block the accounts was appropriate given the circumstances.

Prof. Jo Anne Earp (Health Behavior & Health Education) asked for comment on potential budget cuts for 2012-13. The chancellor replied that at the moment state revenue collections look promising, giving rise to optimism for next year. He noted that the legislature usually makes only minor adjustments in the budget in the second year of the biennium, and concluded by saying that he is not contemplating issuing instructions asking units to plan for specific percentage cuts in 2012-13.

A Council member asked for comment on experience with the weather alert system during the recent tornado warning. Director of Public Safety Jeff McCracken acknowledged that there had been some confusion, but he felt that this has been exacerbated by there having been a warning, followed by an “all clear,” followed by a second warning. He thought that the mechanics of the system had functioned well, but he said that his staff would be working on clarification as to how faculty, staff, and students should respond should a similar situation arise again. Chancellor Thorp added that “this is a very difficult thing to get right, but we are working on it.”

A Council member asked what the faculty can do to help with the state budget cuts. Chancellor Thorp replied “write, teach, practice medicine, conduct research, and do community service with vigor and enthusiasm.”

Provost’s Remarks and Question Period

Provost Bruce Carney announced that Susan King, vice president for external affairs for the Carnegie Corporation of New York, has been appointed dean of the School of Journalism and Mass Communication and John Thomas Kerr Distinguished Professor. Pending approval by the Board of Trustees, her appointment will begin January 1, 2012. He also reported that the search process for vice provost for diversity and multicultural affairs is nearing its conclusion.

Provost Carney also touched on the following topics:

  • The Academic Plan Steering Committee has been activated and is at work. It is co-chaired by Prof. Alice Ammerman (Nutrition) and Prof. Regina Carelli (Psychology).
  • Enrollment and tuition increases are helping offset the impact of state budget cuts. All new revenue from these sources is being directed solely to academic uses.
  • We are re-evaluating our list of peer institutions and anticipate some adjustment. Approval of a new list by General Administration is anticipated in October.
  • We are looking for alternatives to PeopleSoft for graduate admissions.
  • It has been reported that some faculty members continued to teach during the recent tornado alert warnings. Faculty who are teaching in classrooms with exterior windows are expected to terminate class and direct students to a safe part of the building in such cases.

Chair of the Faculty’s Remarks

Prof. Jan Boxill spoke of her plans for the work of the Council in the coming year. See the full text of her remarks in Appendix B.

Remarks by Invited Guests

Mary Cooper, President of the Student Body, and Zealan Hoover, Vice President of the Student Body, brought greetings to the Council.

Missy Julian-Fox, Director of the Visitors Center, brought greetings to the Council and spoke of the mission of the Visitors Center.

Prof. Richard M. Davis, M.D., Research Navigator of the North Carolina Translational and Clinical Sciences (NC TraCS) Institute, brought greetings to the Council and spoke of the work of NCTraCS.

 Quality Enhancement Plan

 Prof. Bobbi Owen, Senior Associate Dean for Undergraduate Education, presented her fifth annual report on implementation of the Quality Enhancement Plan.  See Appendix C for an outline of her PowerPoint presentation.

Annual Report of the Research Committee

Prof. Kerry Bloom (Biology) said that the principal focus of the Research Committee for the coming year will be to address ways to enhance research opportunities, especially for young faculty who find it difficult to secure their first grant. One idea is to formalize an in-house grant review panel. Currently there are many groups meeting for that purpose on an ad hoc basis. He noted that collaboration and interdisciplinary interactions are transforming the way research is being conducted, and that writing grant applications is become more and more difficult as time goes on. He said that the Committee has talked about these issues with the Center for Faculty Excellence.

Prof. Barbara Entwisle, Vice Chancellor for Research, spoke to the role of her office in supporting research and scholarship. Although the office tends to focus more on activities that generate outside funding, she is also concerned with supporting scholarship that does not attract grant funding. Her office oversees sixteen research centers, and works in research development. She said the mission of her office is to facilitate the work of the faculty.

Sakai Migration Update

Kim Eke, Senior Manager of ITS Teaching and Learning Interactive, spoke briefly about the transition from BlackBoard to Sakai. This semester 1,500 courses are using Sakai. Last semester there were 225. A survey of the faculty indicates that 450 are planning to move to Sakai in the near future.

Center for Faculty Excellence

Dr. Todd Zakrajsek, Executive Director of the Center for Faculty Excellence, gave a brief overview of the work of the Center.

Adjournment

Its business having been completed, the Council adjourned at 5:05 p.m.

Respectfully submitted

Joseph S. Ferrell
Secretary of the Faculty

Appendix A

 Citation for the 2012 Thomas Jefferson Award
Presented to George F. Sheldon, M.D., Zack D. Owens Distinguished Professor of Surgery

I am honored to have the privilege of sharing with you the highlights of the illustrious career of our friend, George F. Sheldon, M.D. Dr. Sheldon’s tireless work to further the field of surgery, the University’s School of Medicine and the way health care is provided in this county ensures a long and admirable legacy. His dedication to leadership, mentoring and teaching make that legacy all the more important for those of us at UNC and make him a perfect recipient of the Thomas Jefferson Award.

Dr. Sheldon’s noteworthy career was centered in excellence long before he came to UNC. After earning his undergraduate and medical school degrees from the University of Kansas, he completed his internship at Kansas University Medical Center and later served in the Coast Guard Medical Corps in the Marine Hospital Service of the United States Public Health Service. He then completed a fellowship in Internal Medicine at the Mayo Clinic, surgical residency at the University of California-San Francisco Medical Center in 1965, a Special Postdoctoral Fellowship of the National Heart Institute and a Research Fellowship in Surgical Biology at Harvard Medical School at Peter Bent Brigham Hospital in Boston. Throughout these early years of his education and career, Dr. Sheldon displayed the academic, service and leadership skills that later became the hallmark of his career.

Though Dr. Sheldon honed his excellent teaching skills earlier in his career, he first achieved the rank of professor at the University of California School of Medicine in 1980. There he helped found one of the first Trauma Centers in the country at San Francisco General Hospital. His trauma service to San Francisco was lauded later with a Proclamation of Appreciation from then-Mayor and later Senator Dianne Feinstein. Among other accomplishments during that time, Dr. Sheldon was one of the first physicians to feed patients via hyperalimentation and to investigate the effects of intravenous feeding on the immune system. His interest in nutrition and trauma continued as a scholarly pursuit throughout his career.

Dr. Sheldon came to UNC in 1984 as the chairman of the Department of Surgery. When he arrived, our School of Medicine was poised to grow dramatically. His national acclaim helped establish UNC as one of the leading medical institutions in the country. His reputation also helped UNC to expand, attracting more than 100 of the best and brightest medical faculty in the nation. Under his stewardship, the School became a leader in transplant, oncology, critical care and pediatric surgery. Dr. Sheldon also helped to advance Area Health Education Center (AHEC) programs. His leadership in AHEC led to the development of trauma systems, database registries and new opportunities for medical education and outreach across our state.

Perhaps his greatest contribution to the UNC School of Medicine, however, is the example he sets for other faculty as a teacher and mentor. Dr. Sheldon’s aptitude for designing teaching programs and expertise in developing curriculum has led to unparalleled expansion in the training programs of all surgical specialties. Today, General Surgery receives applications from more than 600 medical students throughout the country for only six positions.

Dr. Sheldon is a member of the state-wide Faculty Assembly of the University of North Carolina System, as an alternate; and he was elected to the oldest Honorary Society on the University campus, the Order of the Golden Fleece. He is also one of fewer than five non-Afro-American surgeons to be awarded an Honorary Fellowship in the Society of Black Academic Surgeons.

On the national stage, Dr. Sheldon’s accomplishments are as well-noted as they are at UNC. He is one of fewer than 20 surgeons in the last 100 years to have held the post of President or Chair of every major surgical organization in the United States. His passion to advance health care also has led him to national prominence on legislative and policy issues. He has testified before Congress several times and was appointed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services as one of the 17 founding members of the Council on Graduate Medical Education. Today, he continues to build on his reputation as an expert in health services as an author and is highly regarded as an expert in surgical workforce.

In 2001, Dr. Sheldon stepped down from his position as Chair of Surgery at UNC. Since that time, however, his pace has not let up. We are grateful that he continues his service to the University in many ways. For example, in 2001 he established a course through the Department of Social Medicine. He also continues to be a prolific writer and researcher, a pursuit largely fulfilled as the founding editor-in-chief of the web portal, e-FACS.org, which attracts more than 12,000 unique visitors each quarter for the American College of Surgeons.

Dr. Sheldon is the recipient of countless awards and is regularly recognized for his varied interests and passions. These accolades are more than just awards on a list; they signal his true character. They speak to the remarkable passion of a man who has lived a life devoted to hard work and tireless commitment to students, patients and the field of medicine. Like Thomas Jefferson, Dr. Sheldon is a true life-long learner, with interests in many and varied academic pursuits. We are extremely proud today to see our friend receive the distinguished Thomas Jefferson award, and we know that he exemplifies the Jeffersonian characteristics we hold in such high regard

William L. Roper, M.D.
Stuart Bondurant Distinguished Professor and
Dean of the School of Medicine

Appendix B

 Remarks to the Faculty Council, September 16, 2011
Jan Boxill, Chair of the Faculty and Senior Lecturer in Philosophy

Welcome to the first Faculty Council meeting of the Academic Year. I am honored and privileged to be serving as your Chair.  I want to thank all of you for the support you have shown in electing me to the role and during these first few months, especially the Faculty Executive Committee and in the Faculty Council retreat.  I must say it has been a very busy few months.  I had hoped to take the summer to get up to speed, meeting with former chairs and others who are leaders in the Council, but this didn’t quite happen as I had planned.  In this first meeting we are looking to implement some interesting changes, and so this may not go exactly as planned either! One thing important for all of us is that the Council has gone “green” – all of the materials are compostable or recyclable.

My Vision and Plans for 2011-2012

It is daunting to follow such successful Faculty Chairs, with McKay Coble being my immediate predecessor.  I want to follow McKay’s legacy and build on what she and the Faculty did last year.  In the survey she created at the end of last year as well as the one we did for the retreat this year, and the information gathered at the retreat itself, you gave us terrific information about your concerns, so I want to address and build on some of these. One issue that came up was that Council members wanted to be engaged, not just passive recipients of reports. McKay promoted this by having small discussions.  There were other means of engagement that were done as well.  I want to continue this so that the Council meetings become something people WANT come to, that they look forward to coming.  So with this in mind I have some procedural changes to change the climate of the Council,  some of which are obvious already and some are on the Agenda.

  1. Seating:  As you notice you are at tables.  This is to promote more engagement and to get to know one another.  We experimented with this at the retreat last Friday and found it successful.
  2. More discussion:  Even if the agenda is packed, I want to schedule more time for discussion. With this in mind you noticed that after the Chancellor and Provost gave their comments we used 2 minutes for you to discuss it among the members at your table what you thought were the most important questions to ask.
  3. Discussion Forum on Sakai: To help promote and have more time for discussion, we have set up a discussion forum on Sakai for you to ask questions ahead of time for the Chancellor and the Provost. That way they can tailor their remarks to address some of these. We would want them at least ___ days in advance.   We had some of those for today’s meeting.  Also there is a thread on the discussion forum on Sakai for general questions.
  4. Responders to Committee Reports:  One thing that people said was that they didn’t just want to be passive listeners of reports which they could read.  So you will notice on the Agenda for every committee report, there will be the “first responder.”  The idea is that these people will have read the report/presentation ahead of time with special care and attention and will have thought about a question or      comment that they     can make to catalyze a bit more discussion among        the Council as a whole. After this meeting we will have an on line     sign-up sheet for any of you would like to be responders to various reports.
  5. PollEverywhere:  Also, at the end of each meeting we will have time for open discussion and also use the technology we experimented with at the retreat called “polleverywhere.com”, which allows you to use your cell phone, iPad, or computer to give us immediate feedback.  What we will be asking you to tell us is one thing that went well, & one thing that could be improved.  You’ll see how this works at the end of today’s meeting. If any of you want a tutorial on poll everywhere, contact Suzanne Cadwell at the Center for Faculty Excellence.

All of these things are being done to help create a more dynamic and engaging council meeting, but more than that.  We are all aware of or have felt the impact of the budget cuts.  As difficult as it will be, I want to do what I can in my role to lessen that impact.  We are always being asked to do more with less, and while at a certain point this borders on the absurd, there are some things that may be possible.  In nearly every meeting I had this summer with various committees, one of the biggest impacts that the budget cuts has had on us is our MORALE.  How can we be expected to do our jobs with fewer resources and no pay raises?  These increase tensions among us and pull us apart.

One of my themes in my life, in my teaching, and in my administrative roles is that we are all partners.  Indeed we NEED each other as partners to do our jobs well.  None of us can go it alone.  We are a diverse set of units and individuals, yet we are all the same: we want to be respected for who we are and what we do.  The University is not just a set of separate, independent units, students, staff, faculty and administrators; divisions of Arts & Sciences, Health Affairs, Athletics, Centers, etc.   Lots of money allowed us to be islands, perhaps to our detriment.  But we are interrelated and interdependent units, as well as individuals, who must work and pull together to fulfill the mission of the university of teaching, research and service,  enhance our own goals,  and enrich each other.

If we think holistically we will be stronger through shared governance to resist external forces that threaten faculty issues.

We reciprocate and complement one another, and in this way we become partners. As I already said, now more than ever, we NEED each other as partners because we can’t do all we might like to do and we can’t do it alone. I know you all already know that, but it is through this partnership that we achieve self and mutual respect, which is the basis of morale. We have a great many CREATIVE BRILLIANT people on this campus that can enrich us all.  I know some of you are thinking that in the abstract this sounds fine and that I am too much of an optimist; you are likely correct. But given all the bad press I think we need to think and act this way.  As President Ross said this morning in the Faculty Assembly meeting, we have to establish a new norm.

HOWEVER, that said, make no mistake, as passionate as I am about this partnership, I  am  equally, if not more,  passionate about advocating for our needs to maintain that partnership, to retain that brilliance that makes this an outstanding university, and also to think creatively and effectively against those external pressures that threaten our academic mission and academic freedom.  This is NOT EASY because it requires us to reason with people who are not always on the same page or in some cases don’t care.  This is why in discussing any issue, we need to have a model to work from which I advocate.  I use a four-part model for this: What is the goal we want to attain; where are we with respect to this goal—i.e. what are the facts of the situation?  Why are we where we are?  And only then look at the strategies for going from where we are to where we want to be. By using this model it forces us to think analytically, forces us to see how they interrelate, and also helps us identify where we disagree and where we may be talking across one another. It also forces us to see that no policy likely to be perfect. Everyone will have positives and negatives, but we can see just where they are .

So with this philosophy in mind, here are a few other concrete things I want to do to accomplish this:

1.           One you are going to see in a few minutes and is on your agenda.  I realized from surveys and my discussions with others that in many cases we just don’t know each other. Council members didn’t know each other.  Taking that further, we don’t know what resources exist to help us in our work.  So after the opening remarks of each meeting I will have “invited guests”  who will be given 2 minutes to tell us who they are, where they can be reached, and what they have to offer us.

Over the summer representatives from student government came to ask what they could do to help with morale and with faculty retention.  We had some interesting discussions, so I asked the student body president and vice-president to come to introduce themselves to us.  I also learned we have a wonderful resource in the Visitors Center.  So I asked the Director to come as well. We get emails regarding the NCTracs, few of us outside sciences are aware of who they are, so invited them today as well.  Next meeting we will have others.  I would welcome and appreciate recommendations or suggestions from all of you.

2.           To protect the academic core, centers and institutes have suffered a great deal from the budget cuts.  Each Center wants to survive, so I plan to work with them to do more collaboration so that programming becomes more efficient with less duplication of similar events.   This will be something that the Academic Plan can help with.  I think this will not only help the centers thrive, but also make it much more productive and enriching for the University community.  To take a quote from the DTH: Collaborators create results.  This fits into what President Ross advocated this morning; He advocates collaboration not just within the campuses, but among the campuses.

We can start here, which takes me to the Academic Plan.

3.           I am committed to the Academic Plan and will work on its implementation.  This plan offers us an opportunity to create a new model for higher education.  Many of the recommendations can be accomplished without a great deal of extra dollars. For example, Theme One: Work as an integrated university to attract, challenge, and inspire students through transformative academic experiences.  This involves the very idea of collaboration.  Some details have to be worked out, but for years the university has advocated interdisciplinary teaching and scholarship;  there are obstacles that have made this very difficult. But they are not insurmountable.  I want us to work together, faculty, staff and administration, to overcome these barriers.

4.           I will be re-establishing four dormant committees: Faculty Advisory committee to the Honor System (already in the works); Faculty Welfare Committee;   Copyright committee (also already in the works) and Committee on Diversity and Community (before I do this I will wait for the naming of the new Diversity officer to be in place.

I would ask that if any of you are interested in serving on any one of these committees to please email me.

5.           And finally, one area already talked about that has affected us deeply here at UNC is Athletics.   I know you are aware that Coach Everett Withers has reached out to all of you; he is genuine and wants to be a part of the solution and work with us as partners as well.   In the meantime you know we are conducting a search for a new Athletic Director.  I am on that Search Committee.  But in the spirit of not knowing others, it came to light that few faculty know just what an Athletic Director does.  So with a recommendation from both the Faculty Executive Committee and the Faculty Athletic Committee, Steve Resnik and I will be arranging a forum with our present AD, Dick Baddour and our present and past Faculty Athletic Representatives to educate us on their roles.

We have lots of challenges before us, but together I am confident we can overcome them and become a stronger university that we all can be proud that we share in—the key word being SHARE.  As I saw on a banner on Franklin street during Rush last week: “The best just got better.”  My hope for this year and for my three years in this position is that we can truly not just SAY that, but FEEL and KNOW it.

Again, I thank you for your support. It is truly an honor and a privilege to serve as your Chair and be your advocate.   THANK YOU.

Appendix C

Making Critical Connections
Quality Enhancement Plan
Annual Report #5
Faculty Council September 16, 2011

  • Making Critical Connections
  • The Quality Enhancement Plan, “Making Critical Connections,” was developed and adopted in April 2006 as part of the University’s decennial reaffirmation of accreditation process.  It focuses on innovative educational programs, undergraduate research, and international activities.  The full report is available at http://www.unc.edu/inst_res/SACS/sacs.html.
  • The implementation committee is appointed by the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences.  Since I last reported, it has met twice.  It also maintains a listserv.

Implementation Committee

  • Peter A. Coclanis, Albert Ray Newsome Distinguished Professor of History and Director of the Global Research Institute (as Director of the GRI)
  • Winston Crisp, Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs (as Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs)
  • Lydia Lewallen, undergraduate student, Womens Studies and Sociology, Class of 2011 (student at large)
  • Erika Lindemann, Adjunct Professor of English and Comparative Literature and Associate Dean for Undergraduate Curricula (as Associate Dean)
  • Bobbi Owen, Chair, Michael McVaugh Distinguished Professor of Dramatic Art and Senior Associate Dean for Undergraduate Education (as Senior Associate Dean)
  • Patricia Pukkila, Professor of Biology and Associate Dean and Director of the Office for Undergraduate Research (as Associate Dean and Director)
  • J. Steven Reznick, Professor of Psychology (Academic Affairs faculty member-at-large)
  • Lily Roberts, undergraduate student, Peace, War & Defense and English, Class of 2012 (student at large)
  • Gwendolyn Sancar, Professor of Biochemistry and Biophysics (Health Affairs faculty member-at-large)
  • Lynn Williford, Assistant Provost for Institutional Research and Assessment (as Assistant Provost)
  • Jan Yopp, Professor of JOMC and Dean of the Summer School (as Dean of the Summer School)

Leadership

  • Dr. Peter Coclanis, Albert R. Newsome Professor of History and Director of the Global Research Institute, leads the internationalization implementation;
  • Dr. Patricia Pukkila, Professor of Biology and Associate Dean and Director of the Office for Undergraduate Research, leads the research implementation;
  • Dr. Erika Lindemann, Adjunct Professor of English and Comparative Literature and Associate Dean for Undergraduate Curricula, has led the curricular innovation implementation;
  • Professor Jan Yopp, Professor of Journalism and Mass Communication and Dean of the Summer School, is implementing Maymester;
  • Dr. Lynn Williford, Assistant Provost for Institutional Research and Assessment, leads the assessment effort.
  • Goals
  • Connecting the learning expected inside the classroom with what happens outside it – and enhancing the connections between and among courses;
  • Making research a critical connection between the curriculum and the faculty and the students;
  • Internationalizing the undergraduate experience.
  • Accomplishments:  Curricular Innovations

Maymester

  • Maymester 2010 ran 24 courses (418 students) across 15 units; Maymester 2011 ran 34 courses (487 students) across 21 units; 25 courses satisfied Gen Ed requirements.

Interdisciplinary Cluster Program

  • 12 clusters exist; among them are Border Crossings; Defining Difference; Evolution; Global Environmental Change; Human Rights; Knowledge at the Crossroads; Medicine and Culture; War, Revolution, and Culture;
  • Obstacles remain.
  • Accomplishments:  Undergraduate Research
  • Four Distinguished Term Professors in Research and Undergraduate Education have been appointed. Dean of Arts and Sciences recently distributed a call for new nominations.
  • GRC Program exceeds all projections:

–      Fall 2010 – Spring 2011: 161 courses with 4,500 students enrolled;

–      Fall 2006 – Spring 2011: 463 courses with over 13,000 students enrolled

  • SURF grants: 80 grants awarded for Summer 2011
  • CRSP: 40 students received the Carolina Research Scholar notation in 2010-2011 and 88 since the inception of the program in 2008. 493 students have registered for CRSP as of May 2011.
  • Accomplishments: Internationalization
  • Embedding internationalization as deeply as possible in the curriculum is critical in our global society.

–     The improvements, via supporting people and programming, to UNC-Chapel Hill’s “international infrastructure” have proven useful although challenges remain including the recent cuts to our Title VI centers.  And, the two ESL positions in the Writing Center struggle to meet campus-wide demand;

–     The recent implementation of the UNC Global Travel Registry is a valuable resource for tracking contact information on UNC personnel.

  • Assessing Outcomes of the QEP
  • Goal — To measure the effectiveness of the QEP initiatives in enhancing student learning outcomes, including:

–      Integrating and applying knowledge from various disciplines, and

–      Making connections between classroom learning and the outside world?

  • Methods used:

–      Longitudinal study of the entering first-year class of 2006 and later cohorts, comparing outcomes to those of pre-2006 cohorts;

–      Tracking course-taking patterns and out-of-class activities;

–      Pre- and post-assessments of the impact of study abroad and research experiences;

–      Intensive interviews of sophomores and seniors; and,

–      Focus groups and surveys of faculty and students.

  • Evidence of Effectiveness:
    Maymester Experience
  • Students reported:

–       High levels of satisfaction with:

  • Interactions with faculty  – 96%
  • Quality of instruction – 95%

–       Enhanced ability to:

  • Integrate knowledge across disciplines – 86%
  • Connect knowledge and skills acquired in different courses  – 87%
  • Explore subject areas outside their majors – 86%
  • Become actively and deeply engaged in a subject  – 92%

I really appreciated being able to focus, very intensively, on one topicthe three-week structure left me hungry for more and allowed me to pursue further reading after the course was over.

  • Faculty also highly satisfied  – 95%

“…Among the peak teaching experiences of my 30-year career at UNCenthusiastic participation by every student on a regular basis.

  • Evidence of Effectiveness:
    Undergraduate Research

Typical student feedback:

Its so exciting to learn how the scientific process goes on from observing a problem to asking questions to finding ways to answer those questions.  Thats something you only read about in BIOL 101 in a chapter.  To live through that for a year is very instructive.

Graduate Research Consultant   (GRC) Program

  • In 2009-2010 and 2010-2011:

–    Over 90% of graduate student consultants rated the program to be valuable or very valuable

–    Almost 95% of participating faculty indicated that they would use this model of instruction again.

  • GRC Program Outcomes
  • From a faculty member:  Having a GRC allows me to turn over management of the mechanics of the research component of the course to a grad student who, in turn, brings fresh perspective to the project and suggests things to the students of which I might not be aware.  This has both greatly facilitated the development of the student projects and enriched them.
  • From a GRC:  This experience has provided me with an exceptional growth opportunity. I have learned from the professor, had occasion to reflect on my own pedagogy, and participated in the students’ research development.
  • From an undergraduate student:  Not only did our GRC help us with learning about these methods, but he also shared his personal experiences, gave us feedback and suggestions for ours, and helped us see how the methods we learned could be applied to a broad variety of subjects.
  • Carolina Research Scholars
  • 2010-2011 student feedback:

–     90% rated their experience as valuable or very valuable.

–     Self-reported gains from participation:

  • More comprehensive understanding of the breadth of “research” as a field;
  • Increased ability to apply skills learned in classes to research;
  • Increased self-confidence in conducting research and interpreting that of others;
  • Improved critical thinking & writing skills;
  • Closer relationships with faculty; and,
  • Better preparation for graduate school.
  • Graduate Mentor Program

98% of the mentors reported positive mentor-mentee relationships and enhanced professional growth from participating in this program.

It is really rewarding to work with another person so interested in science and to be able to teach someone who is excited to listen and learn. This mentoring experience has solidified my desire to teach and mentor others throughout my career in biology.

  • Summer Undergraduate Research Fellowship (SURF) Program
  • 100% of participants between 2007 and 2011 reported that their mentored research experiences had been positive.
  • Reported gains:

–     Research knowledge and skills;

–     Development of new attitudes toward scientific research;

–     Increased commitment, dedication, flexibility, perseverance, and ability to work with others.

  • 80% reported SURF experience confirmed or reconfirmed their future plans to continue their research, write an honor’s thesis,  pursue graduate studies and a career in research.
  • Study Abroad Experience
  • Administered the “Global Perspective Inventory” to three groups of students:

–    Pre-study abroad

–    Post-study abroad

–    Control group: students who did not study abroad.

  • Findings indicated that students who participated in study abroad demonstrated increased international and intercultural competencies and a stronger sense of global citizenship.
  • Longitudinal Cohort Study
  • 4-year study of over 400 students of the 2006 cohort
  • 287 interviews were conducted with 247 students, including 40 students who were interviewed in both their sophomore and senior years in spring 2008, spring 2009, fall 2009, and spring 2010.
  • Findings from the Interviews
  • Critical connections (moments in which students drew connections between academic experiences and the larger, “real” world) are made by:

–    Original research

–    Study abroad

–    First-year seminars

–    Service learning and community service

–    Interactive and hands-on learning experiences.

Questions?

 

Pdf of meeting materials

Print Friendly, PDF & Email