Meeting of the Faculty Council

Friday, December 7, 2012 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

Twitter hashtag: #FacCouncil

Agenda

3:00 Chancellor’s Remarks and Question Period

  • Chancellor Holden Thorp

3:15  Chair of the Faculty’s Remarks and Question Period

  • Chair of the Faculty Jan Boxill

3:25 Provost’s Remarks and Question Period

3:45  Invited Guests

  • Prof. Hans Kellner, NCSU Chair of the Faculty
  • Student Body President Will Leimenstoll and Student Body Vice President Rachel Myrick
4:00  Campus Resource Introduction:  The University Ombuds Office
  • Mr. Wayne Blair and Prof. Laurie Mesibov, Ombudspersons

4:10  Update from the Faculty Athletics Committee

4:20  Update on Contextual Grading Project Implementation
  • Prof. Andrew Perrin and Mr. Chris Derickson, University Registrar

4:25  Current Issues in Scholarly Publishing and New Leadership at UNC Press

  • John Sherer, Spangler Family Director, UNC Press (introduced by Prof. Jack Evans)

4:40 Committee Reports (Received by Title)

4:45  Open Discussion

5:00  Adjourn

Journal of Proceedings of the Faculty Council

The Faculty Council of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill convened December 7, 2012, at 3:00 p.m. in the Hitchcock Multipurpose Room of the Sonja Haynes Stone Center for Black Culture and History.

The following 63 Council members attended: Bhardwaj, Boettiger Cooney, Boulton, Boxill, Bulik, Cavin, Chen, Chera, Cohen, Copenhaver, DeSaix, Eaker-Rich, Earp, Engel, Garbin, Gilland, Grabowski, Guskiewicz, Hackman, Heenan, Heitsch, Hill, Hirsch, Houck, Howes, Ives, Joyner, Koomen, Kramer, Kurtz-Costes, Lee, Leonard, Linden, McMillan, Milano, Miller, Miller, Moon, Moracco, Moreton, Nelson, Olcott, O’Shaughnessey, Palmer, Parker, Parreiras, Patel, Paul, Persky, Pertsova, Powers, Reiter, Renner, Rodgers, Schoenbach, Stenberg, Steponaitis, Swogger, Thorp, Waterhouse, H. Watson, R. Watson and Webster-Cyriaque.

 The following Council members requested and received excused absences: Bachenheimer, Balaban, Brice, Bunch, Chambers, Champagne, Chapman, Chenault, Collier, Ferrell, Friga, Gallippi, Gerhardt, Giovanello, Hess, Hodges, Jones, Kang, Lund, Maffly-Kipp, Mayer, Mayer-Davis, Parise, Shields, Spagnoli, Stewart, Toews, Wang and You.

Call to Order

Chancellor Holden Thorp called the Council to order at 3:00 p.m.  Chair of the Faculty Jan Boxill noted that Secretary of the Faculty Joseph Ferrell (who was recovering from surgery) was missing his first Council meeting in 17 years.

Chancellor’s Remarks and Question Period

Chancellor Thorp announced that nine faculty members have recently been named fellows of the American Association for the Advancement of Science: Prof. Howard Aldrich, Prof. Charles Carter Jr., Prof. Robert Duronio, Prof. Michel Gagne, Prof. Alan Jones, Prof. Ann Matthysse, Prof. Lishan Su, Prof. Kevin Weeks and Prof. Yi Zhang. The council applauded the achievements of their colleagues.

Addressing the forthcoming review of classes being conducted by former Governor Jim Martin and the Baker Tilly consulting firm, Chancellor Thorp said the report was expected at the December 20 meeting of the Board of Trustees.  The review, he noted, covers every registration in every class since 1994, and is the “most extensive academic investigation ever done.”  Thorp said he would be sending a message to the campus community about the findings after the report is released and thanked those who have worked on the review, including the University Registrar’s office and the Office of Institutional Research and Assessment.

There were no questions for the chancellor.

Chair of the Faculty’s Remarks and Question Period

 Prof. Jan Boxill updated the council on the activities of the Chancellor’s Search Committee.  She said that the committee has received many emails and has gathered feedback from forums and a survey. She reminded faculty that the committee is still taking suggestions for candidates at chancellorsearch@unc.edu.

She gave a brief update on the Strategic Plan process and the Faculty Advisory Council to the UNC Advisory Committee on Strategic Directions. Prof. Rachel Willis (American Studies) has been gathering faculty input. Prof. Catherine Rigsby, Chair of the Faculty Assembly, is chairing Faculty Advisory Council.

The Board of Governors has been discussing a new Drop/Add policy that she does not believe the faculty will support. The policy would considerably shorten the period of time students would be allowed to drop a class without receiving a “W” notation on their transcripts.  The Faculty Assembly discussed the proposal and Prof. Boxill believes that most other campuses are not concerned with potential change in this policy, but it would deeply affect students at UNC-Chapel Hill.  Her full remarks are included in Appendix A.

There were no questions for the Chair of the Faculty.

Provost’s Remarks and Question Period

Provost Bruce Carney briefly updated the council on the status of the promotion and tenure guidelines review. He explained that over the past year and a half, departments and schools have been asked to review their guidelines for tenure and promotion, as recommended by the 2009 Report of the UNC Task Force on Future Promotion and Tenure Policies and Practices. He reported that two-thirds of the appointing units have now submitted revised promotion and tenure documents for legal review.

Provost Carney presented on the university’s plan to design several Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). He gave an overview of current MOOC providers such as Khan Academy, Udacity, EdEx and Coursera. He explained that Coursera, unlike the other MOOC providers, is a for-profit initiative with financial backing from investors. Coursera is simply a platform for MOOC delivery and they are currently looking for a large sweep of courses. They partner with elite universities to develop course content.  The majority of courses offered tend to be in science, technology, engineering and math STEM fields.

Provost Carney explained that while MOOCs are gaining popularity, there are several concerns about the quality of online lectures. Students do not have the opportunity to interact with one another, making peer-to-peer review difficult. It is also difficult to verify the identity of the person taking the course, which makes cheating and academic dishonesty relatively easy. He explained that for these reasons, he does not think UNC-Chapel Hill would grant credit for MOOC courses.

Despite concerns about the quality of instruction, Provost Carney believes the university should design MOOCs in order to learn more about providing online education while providing a national and international public service. He believes the process of designing these courses could also help us redesign our large lecture courses.

The provost is having conversations with deans and has received positive feedback. The School of Information and Library Science has proposed courses, and the School of Public Heath, the School of Pharmacy, and the College of Arts and Sciences are interested.  An advisory council has been established to understand financial models, evaluate risks, and discover how to deliver a quality course.  They will research infrastructure needs and determine whether we can deliver the courses ourselves or if we have to use another platform. The goal is to deliver a few courses by Fall 2013. Provost Carney’s full presentation is included in Appendix B.

Prof. Jonathan Engel (Physics) noted that University of Virginia President Teresa Sullivan was temporarily fired over issues relating to online courses. He asked if there was external pressure guiding the decision to provide MOOCs.

Provost Carney responded that the Trustees are asking for the courses to be provided, but there is no real pressure to do so.  He said that we should have pursued developing MOOCs sooner, but he didn’t think it was possible without a clear financial model. He believes now is a good time to begin developing the courses.

Prof. Lloyd Kramer (History) asked how MOOCs will affect the Carolina Courses Online program currently offered through the Friday Center and how faculty will get compensated for free MOOC courses.

Provost Carney said that his office will pay for a course release and the costs of designing the course that can be run for a few years. He explained that Carolina Courses Online require tuition and offer courses for credit.  MOOCs will be free for students and will not be taken for credit.

Prof. Wendell Gilland (Business) pointed out that we already give credit for Carolina Courses Online and Semester Online, but not larger MOOCs. He asked what the distinction is.

Provost Carney explained that MOOCs have static delivery, no significant live engagement with the professor or peers, and no peer-to-peer engagement.

Prof. Gilland noted that a significant portion of the M.B.A. program (70%) is already online with a 30% interactive component. He asked what distinguishes those courses from MOOC courses.

Provost Carney said that it is possible that MOOCs could result in loss of many second tier university programs.

Prof. Andrew Perrin (Sociology) noted that the MOOC model of static delivery to the public at large and not our constituents is the kind of educational model the faculty aren’t interested in. He asked why the faculty should even consider it and how will faculty governance be involved in the implementation of MOOCs.

Provost Carney said that he welcomes engagement from other faculty, including the Educational Policy Committee.  He added that we should not just define the university by the students we admit.

Prof. Jim Hill (Medicine) asked how the university will accept MOOC credits for transfer and grad students if other universities are giving credit for MOOCs.

Provost Carney said that transfer students require course-by-course analysis already.

Prof. Harry Watson (History) commented on Provost Carney’s assertion that it is possible MOOCs could close other universities. He added that if MOOCs become popular enough and students receive credit for completing them, the size of the professoriate could be reduced dramatically. That would make it harder for graduate students to find jobs.

Provost Carney felt confident that people will still come to UNC and that it is possible MOOCs will not have a dramatic effect on the employment situation at universities.

Chancellor Thorp added that trying out the MOOC model is important for us in order to stay competitive and innovative.   In response to Prof. Perrin’s question, he believes that whether credit for such courses is granted could be decided by individual departments and if UNC decides to start offering MOOCs for credit, they would have to go through the usual channels to get approval.

Provost Carney explained that this kind of course will run into serious trouble with accrediting agencies like SACs.

Prof. Vic Schoenbach (Epidemiology) echoed Prof. Watson’s concern that the structure of higher education could be radically altered if we are able to educate masses of people using MOOCs.

Provost Carney agreed but asked the faculty to keep in mind that developing large classes online also can revamp the educational experience here.

Prof. Schoenbach asked if the committee studying MOOCs has come up with a set of objectives for these initiatives.

Provost Carney responded that they would like to establish a model for MOOCs and delivering large classes online.

Prof. Bruce Cairns (Medicine) commented that we need to be part of this movement to participate, be critical, and to analyze.  He asked if we are coordinating with system schools and with military at Fort Bragg.

Provost Carney responded that our delivery could be valuable to other system schools, but none of them are involved now.

Prof. Charlotte Boettiger (Psychology) commented that she conversed with a UCLA colleague who says there the faculty are all required to have their lectures videotaped and then have podcasts made. She asked if there are any plans for something like that here.

Provost Carney responded that they had not discussed anything like that and they are not intending to make faculty videotape their lectures.

Invited Guests: Hans Kellner, NCSU Chair of the Faculty

Prof. Hans Kellner introduced himself and thanked Prof. Boxill for inviting him to address the council. He gave a brief overview of the faculty governance structure at North Carolina State University.

Prof. Kellner explained that the faculty senate has reached its 59th year. The provost, chancellor, and approximately 38 people attend bimonthly meetings on alternating Tuesdays. He said the faculty senate agenda is usually very busy and that there has been a lot more open discussion in the meetings compared to previous years. The Chair of the Faculty serves a two year term as chair, but spends a year prior as chair elect and a year after as past chair. The chair of the faculty does not have the power to call a general faculty meeting.

Prof. Kellner said the issues the faculty are dealing with at Chapel Hill are similar to the issues at NCSU. The faculty are working toward getting an Ombuds Office set up on campus and would like to have a non-tenure track standing faculty committee.

He said that during his tenure as Chair of the Faculty, he has observed a move on the part of General Administration and the Board of Governors to make universities more centralized and coordinated. He believes that fears about centralization are warranted but that it is a good practice to have close working relationships with groups like the Board of Trustees so faculty can help guide change. He mentioned in the past the NCSU and Chapel Hill faculty executive committees would have joint dinners together. He said he would like to start holding those dinners again.

Prof. Kellner commented that with regard to athletics issues, neither university’s mission statements mention athletics and that faculty are always the ones to remind others that this is the case.

Invited Guests: Student Government President and Vice-President Will Leimenstoll and Rachel Myrick

Prof. Boxill welcomed Student Body President Will Leimenstoll and Vice-President Rachel Myrick. She congratulated Myrick on recently being named a Rhodes Scholar.

Mr. Leimenstoll introduced himself and thanked the faculty for inviting him to speak. He outlined a few of his cabinet’s initiatives for the year, including creating a website (money.unc.edu) to provide a search engine to helps students find internships, scholarships, and other types of funding for students.

He thanked Prof. Boxill, the Employee Forum and the Office of Faculty Governance for jointly sponsoring a rally in support of Chancellor Thorp. Mr. Leimenstoll has been appointed to the Chancellor’s Search Committee and Ms. Myrick is serving on the Provost’s Search Committee. Both encouraged faculty to contact them if they have input.

Ms. Myrick explained the Student Body Vice-President’s role and duties. She explained that she is the student representative on many university-wide committees and serves on the Student Advisory Committee to the Chancellor and Vice Chancellor Winston Crisp. The students have been advocating for a new dance minor.  On the Academic Plan Steering Committee, she said they are working on a faculty/student mentoring program. At system-wide meetings, she has opposed shortening the add/drop period on behalf of students. In the future, she will be working with members of student government on the development of online courses.

Campus Resource Introduction:  The University Ombuds Office

Mr. Wayne Blair and Prof. Laurie Mesibov (Government), the university ombudspersons, gave a brief overview of the work of the Ombuds Office.  Blair said that the office operates under the standards of the International Ombuds Association.  Conversations are informal, off the record, and independent; the office’s aim is to help people help themselves.  While the office has long served faculty and staff, Blair said, as of July 2012, its jurisdiction has been expanded to include students, who are coming in large numbers already.

Prof. Kellner from NCSU asked about data on the number of cases seen in the past few years.

Mr. Blair responded that in the past year from July 2011 to July 2012, they have had over 500 cases, one-third of which were faculty initiated. He said they see both tenured and non-tenured faculty.

Prof. Schoenbach (Epidemiology) asked if they could provide a brief summary of the categories of issues that people bring up.

Prof. Mesibov said that many cases involve communication and interpersonal issues.  Many student cases involve alcohol, drugs, or students with disabilities. She said they hear a wide range of cases.

Mr. Blair explained that many people are anxious and feel they are not good at advocating well for themselves. They come to the Ombuds Office to talk and think things through.

Prof. Copenhaver (Biology) asked if the office could be a place where people could report problems anonymously if people are afraid to come forward.

Mr. Blair responded that moving information from one source to another while not disclosing the source of the information is consistent with their practices.

Update from the Faculty Athletics Committee

Prof. Joy Renner (Allied Health) gave her monthly update from the Faculty Athletics Committee. Her full presentation is included in Appendix C.

Prof. Renner reported that the committee has assigned members to become topical experts and report back to the committee. October’s topic was the student-athlete experience. The committee would like to increase the number of student-athletes who respond to exit surveys in order to get better data. They are moving toward electronic surveys and oral interviews. The committee has partnered with the Odum Institute to provide training for sport administrators. The data will be housed in the Office of Institutional Research and Assessment, where it will be accessible in the future.

In the past, the Faculty Athletics Committee has done focus group interviews with seniors, but they found that participation had dropped off so the data was no longer representative. Moving forward, the committee will meet with the Student Advisory Committee, which includes athletes at all levels.

Prof. Renner explained that in November, the committee further defined the team liaison’s role and encouraged  team liaisons to find out who in the Athletics Support Center supports the team they are assigned to.

In December, the committee took up the topic of admissions. They spoke with Director of Admissions Steve Farmer and planned to have phone interviews with seven peer institutions’ admissions offices to understand processes in other places.

The committee has been communicating with groups on campus and receiving feedback about how to improve the on-campus experience for student athletes. Prof. Renner met with the athletics reform group about issues they are concerned about. She reminded the council that the Faculty Athletics Committee is elected and they are happy to receive input from other faculty.

Prof. Lloyd Kramer (History) asked if the committee has explored the role of tutors and role they are playing. He cited a recent article about a former tutor who did not think the paper assignments for student-athletes were rigorous enough.

Prof. Renner responded that the topic will be considered by the committee.

Prof. Schoenbach asked if the committee had discussed controversy surrounding the term “student-athletes.”

Prof. Renner explained that the term had been coined by the NCAA and that the committee will gather more information about it to discuss in the future.

Update on Contextual Grading Project Implementation

Prof. Andrew Perrin (Sociology) and Mr. Chris Derickson (University Registrar) presented an update on the Faculty Council-authorized (Resolution 2011-3) project to bring “contextual grade reporting” to UNC.  Perrin reminded Council members that the new reporting process, which will roll out in the spring of 2013, will feature contextual grade information on transcripts (beginning in the fall of 2013), an online tool providing additional information, and a tool for reporting to faculty about their grading patterns compared to other faculty.  Perrin said that due to outstanding work by the registrar and ITS, the tools for faculty will be even better than expected; he will provide a more complete introduction to them at the January 11, 2013 Faculty Council meeting.

Faculty Council members applauded Perrin’s and Derickson’s work.

Current Issues in Scholarly Publishing and New Leadership at UNC Press

Prof. Jack Evans (Business), chair of the Board of Governors of the University of North Carolina Press, introduced the press’s new director, Mr. John Sherer, who took over on July 30, 2012.  Evans noted that the press was founded in Chapel Hill in 1922 and has just celebrated its 90th birthday.  Its Board of Governors includes faculty from many of the UNC system schools as well as from Duke and meets six times annually to review book proposals.  The press publishes more than 100 hardcover, paperback, and electronic books a year.  Evans said that Prof. Eric Muller (Law) had chaired the search for a successor to previous press director Kate Torrey, who had recently retired after 20 years.  Sherer is a UNC alumnus (International Relations) who began his career in UNC Press’s marketing department in 1988 before working in the private sector, most recently at Basic Books, a publisher of high quality nonfiction.

Sherer expressed his gratitude to UNC’s faculty of 1988 for preparing him for his future career.  He summarized current industry-wide shifts in publishing, including major economic challenges and the shift to digital formats.  But he also noted that university press publishing also has its own set of challenges (diminishing state support, competition from free services, difficulty in articulating value, discomfort with role as a gatekeeper of knowledge, confusion over the array of digital tools becoming available) that add to those facing publishing in general.  Sherer said he is focused on three problems now. First, retaining more authorial talent; people love publishing first books with UNC but don’t always see it as the place to go for subsequent books, despite a positive experience.  Yet, second and subsequent books are often more risky, provocative, and lucrative for a press, and UNC does have the talent to handle second books and provide a level of attention that authors will not get from bigger publishing houses.  Second, adjusting to the effects of digitization on revenue, which means moving away from total reliance on one-by-one sales of individual books.  New revenue and sales models “look more like licenses than book sales” and allow both “chunking” of content into smaller pieces and aggregating content through consolidators like JSTOR, Project Muse, etc., who buy subject lists.  In other models, payment comes only when content is accessed (rather than up front via purchase of a book to sit on a library shelf).   All of these digital transactions permit “slicing and dicing” of press content in multiple ways  and may promise longer-term streams of revenue, but they also present a challenge in providing less revenue up front.  Third, adjusting to the digital shift in humanities scholarship.  The press is now publishing all of its new books simultaneously in print and digital format and is digitizing its 4,000-title backlist as well.  But the new challenge is to partner better with faculty who are also in the midst of the digital transition; the press has to do more than “wait for the Microsoft Word file to arrive,” he said, but instead must work with scholars who are doing multimedia, geomapping, data aggregation, and other innovative, digitally enhanced work.  The press must learn how to help scholars bring these other models to publication.

Mr. Sherer emphasized his confidence in the enduring value of the “long-form written text as a singularly powerful way to preserve and present scholarship,” and said this would always be a key part of the press’s work.  But he stated that it would increasingly be only a part of a dynamic suite of materials published together: e-pubs, web-based platforms, apps.  “Bring us your complicated projects,” he said; “we will work with you.”

Committee Reports

The annual reports of the Faculty Assembly Delegation and the Faculty Executive Committee were received by title.  There were no questions.

Prof. Boxill commented that the Faculty Nominating Committee will begin its work early in the new year with a survey inviting all faculty to express interest in service on faculty standing committees.  Responses to the survey will assist the Nominating Committee in developing a slate for the April 2013 faculty elections.

Open Discussion

Prof. Boxill opened the floor for any additional questions or comments from Council members.  Prof. Victor Schoenbach (Public Health) announced that the School of Public Health’s annual minority health conference would be held February 22, 2013.   Details are available at http://studentorgs.unc.edu/msc/.

Prof. Boxill highlighted that evening’s holiday concert at Memorial Hall featuring Prof. Jim Ketch and the UNC Symphony Orchestra.

Prof. Lloyd Kramer (History), a member of the Faculty Assembly Delegation, reported that there has been follow-through on Faculty Council Resolution 2012-14, in which UNC had supported the Assembly in requesting greater faculty representation on the UNC Advisory Committee on Strategic Directions, which is currently writing a strategic plan for the UNC system.  A Faculty Advisory Committee (FAC) to the strategic plan had been appointed, and Faculty Assembly discussed its report at its November 30 meeting.  The FAC’s report, Kramer noted, emphasizes core educational values and learning skills of concern to faculty.  It may be found online at https://www.northcarolina.edu/?q=leadership-policy/faculty-assembly.

Prof. Boxill concluded by thanking today’s guests, inviting all faculty members to join her at the December 16th Winter Commencement ceremony, and wishing the assembled a safe and happy holiday.

Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 4:44 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Anne Mitchell Whisnant
Deputy Secretary of the Faculty

Appendix A: Chair of the Faculty Remarks

Normally Provost Carney would give his remarks here, but we are changing things up a bit to help the flow of  the meeting, so my remarks will be short especially as it is Final Exam time and I know most of us have exams to deal with.  So much has happened during this term and you’ll hear from others about some, but I will mention a few:

1.           Chancellor’s Search: This is going along nicely as we expected. The Committee is diligent, has read an inordinate number of emails and other forms of input, including information gathered from the various forums and the surveys.  I believe the survey is still open until the 10th, so if you have not done it you still have time.  Also we are still taking suggestions for candidates, so feel free to email Chancellorsearch website or email.  For those who have given input we thank you.

2.           Strategic Plan and Faculty Advisory Committee: Chancellor talked about this.

3.           BOG Drop Policy: This is still being discussed and I am not confident that we will be happy with the end result.

4.           Honor System: I had hoped to have proposals to you for this meeting, but we have had to cancel many meetings due to various illnesses. I hope we will be able to have some proposals and a robust discussion for either January or February.

5.           Other announcements: Nominations are open for the Order of the Golden Fleece through Friday, January 11th. The Order of the Golden Fleece is the University’s oldest and highest honorary society.

Nominations are also open for Public Service Awards.

Nominations are open also for the O. Max Gardner award. Nominations are due at GA next Friday, December 14th, so if you want to nominate someone please do so as soon as possible.

Nominations for Honorary Degrees and special awards are due January 18th.

6.           December Commencement:  You received an email from me encouraging you to attend the December commencement on Sunday, December 16th at 2 p.m. at the Smith Center.  There are fewer graduates in December than in May, and the number of associated family and friends present is correspondingly smaller.  As a result you can play a large role in the life of December 2012 UNC graduates by joining the faculty who attend this climactic event.

One of our own will be the commencement speaker. Professor Myron S. Cohen, M.D., an acclaimed physician and researcher who has spent the last three decades studying the transmission and prevention of HIV/AIDS. So I encourage you to attend and invite your colleagues.

Other than that I hope you all have a wonderful holiday break.

Appendix B: Provost Carney’s Presentation on MOOCs at UNC-Chapel Hill

1.  Massive Open on-line Courses (MOOCs)

2.  A brief (and incomplete) history

—  The Khan Academy. Free on-line brief lectures prepared by Salman Khan has evolved into an enterprise with 3500 videos. The total number of lessons delivered exceeds two hundred million.  www.khanacademy.org

—  The effort is funded by foundations and individuals; volunteers act as coaches and teachers.

—  The lessons are quite good, although they’re necessarily static.

3.      The next steps:

  • Salman Khan Þ Sebastian Thrun + Peter Norvig.
  • July 2011 on-line course in Artificial Intelligence.
  • 160,000 enrolled; 28,000 completed.
  • Top 1,000 students were asked for resumes.
  • Three major platforms emerged quickly.

    4.      Udacity:

  • With funding from Charles River Associates, Thrun founded Udacity.
  • Courses, assessments, certificates are free.
  • Focus is on STEM courses.
  • Revenue generation uncertain but may come from modest per-student costs for tutoring, authenticated certificates, advertising, or, most likely, career placement services.

    5.      EdX:

  • Dec 2011: MITx; May 2012: joined by Harvard, each investing. $30M. UC Berkeley, Univ. of Texas system, and Wellesley have also joined. Non-profit,  led by Anant Agarwal from MIT.
  • The first course enrolled 122,000 students.
  • The revenue model has not been developed or, at least, it has not been revealed.
  • Courses have fixed terms, unlike Udacity.
  • Class discussion boards, automated assessment, lectures and quizzes. Cannot handle essays etc. yet

    6.      Coursera

  • Founded by Daphne Koller & Andrew Ng (Jan 2012)
  • It is a for-profit company, with significant backing, and appears to be driven to provide a larger suite of courses. The business model is unclear.
  • It partners only with “elite” universities, mostly schools in the U.S., and comparable foreign schools.
  • Coursera is primarily a platform, with faculty at member universities developing and delivering course content, exams, etc.

    7.      Issues requiring consideration

  • Quality of instruction: are static courses suitable, especially if they’re not residential?
  • Can student-only discussion groups work?
  • Credentialing the courses.
  • Course credit? Beginning to emerge in high schools and now at Antioch University.
  • Revenue generation?
  • How can development of such courses improve our residential courses, our new hybrid courses in particular?

    8.   Comparison of Course Offerings

FIELDS Coursera (199) Udacity (18) edX (8)
Computer Science 37 13 7
Other STEM 53 4 0
Bus./Finance/Econ. 23 1 0
Environmental Sci. 9 0 0
Social Sciences 15 0 0
Languages 0 0 0
Humanities/Arts 20 0 0
Health Affairs 39 0 1
Education 2 0 0
Law 1 0 0

 9.      Why should we engage?

  • Work with peer universities to learn how to provide quality on-line education, whether it’s to build up our “brand” or to provide major national and international public service.
  • Learn how to redesign our own courses.
  • Be part of the rapidly-evolving higher education endeavor.

10. What are we doing vis-à-vis MOOCs?

  • Conversations with the deans — identify a set of courses for initial offering.
  • Establish an advisory committee to help us identify opportunities and risks, both financial and instructional.
  • Are there selective, revenue-generating opportunities for us beyond the platforms desribed earlier?

11. Provost’s Task Force on MOOCs: Goals

  • Direct the development of 3-5 MOOCs.
  • Develop quality standards and a process for reviewing, approving, and establishing MOOCs at UNC-CH.
  • Evaluate infrastructure needs.
  • Explore development of MOOCs for improvements to residential courses, continuing education, and supplemental academic support.
  • Would like to deliver some by Fall 2013.

12. Provost’s Task Force on MOOCs: Membership

  • Carol Tresolini, Chair (Vice Provost)
  • Valerie Ashby (Chemistry)
  • Rob Bruce (Friday Center)
  • Larry Conrad (ITS)
  • Mike Crimmins (Arts & Sciences)
  • Gary Marchionini (SILS)
  • Bill McDiarmid (Education)
  • Sarah Michalak (Library)
  • Eric Muller (Law; Center for Faculty Excellence)
  • John Paul (Public Health)
  • Dwayne Pinkney (Vice Provost)
  • Doug Shackleford (Kenan-Flagler Business School)
  • Louise Spieler (Journalism)

13. Graduate On-line Courses at UNC

  • 2tor partnership: MBA@UNC. Small classes; mostly synchronous learning; equivalent to residential experience. Expensive: $89,000 for two years. 2tor does the recruiting; we control admissions; content; delivery.
  • 2nd 2tor partnership: MPA@UNC. A very similar program set up in the School of Government.

14. Undergraduate On-line Courses at UNC

  • 2U (= 2tor) Semester On-line (SON)
  • Synchronous instruction in small classes for credit.
  • Announced partners are Brandeis, Duke, Emory, Northwestern, Notre Dame, Rochester, UNC-CH, Vanderbilt, and Wake Forest.
  • MOU signed November 20, 2012.

15. Undergraduate On-line Courses at UNC

  • Cost to students is $1400/credit hour.
  • Universities may limit the number of their students taking such classes.
  • We will be offering a few classes, but via the Kenan-Flagler Business School.
  • For UNC, this business model probably cannot work at large scale.

Appendix C: Prof. Renner’s Update on the Faculty Athletics Committee

 Year Plan – presented in September

  • Topic Experts
  • Team Liaisons

Topics – Reviewed and/or monitored

–      Student Athlete Experience

–      Admissions

–      Academics

–      Advising

–      Academic Support

–      Policies and Procedures

–      Operations

October – Student Athlete Experience

  • 2009-2010  (N= 72), 2010-11 (N=59), and this year 2011-12 (N=46)
  • In 2011-12, there were a total of 123 senior student athletes; therefore the overall response rate was 37%
  • Overall Summary:  In general, senior student athletes who completed the exit surveys in 2011-2012 rated both the athletic and academic experiences at UNC quite favorably.  It is likely that many of the significant differences reported between revenue and non-revenue sport student athletes are the lingering effects of  the NCAA investigation and sanctions, and the heightened national and local press associated with the football and athletics program.   In spite of these stressors, senior student athletes were generally quite favorable about their time and experiences at UNC.
  • Surveys distributed and collected and input by athletics; analyzed by FAC and discussed; actions, if indicated, sent to the appropriate body; FAC with Athletics conducted  group interviews with exiting seniors
  • Odum Institute involvement with instrument design and training
  • Process changes

November – Student Athlete Experience Moving Forward

–      Still both written and oral exit data from seniors

–      FAC discussions with SAAC

November – Team Liaison Role

  • Communicating with the coaching staff of the team to discuss the student-athlete experience at UNC from recruitment through graduation;
  • Meeting with the team so that the student-athletes know that the faculty and the FAC are interested in learning more about their commitments as student-athletes;
  • Contacting ASPSA counselors and academic advisors assigned to their team to learn about any policies, processes, or support that might be needed; and
  • Representing the team in FAC discussions regarding the special needs of the sport.
  • Discussions  with and from

December – Admissions

–       Steve Farmer from UGA

–       Layna Mosley and Beverly Foster, FAC topic experts

January – Admissions Moving Forward

  • Questions raised by FAC and other faculty members related to admissions and answered
  • Outside input from peer institutions
  • Considerations for year end suggestions and recommmendations
  • Suggestions, Support, Recommendations, Requests that integrate all things academics and athletics from a well-informed Committee who has reviewed current practices and policies at UNC with additional support information from outside UNC
  • Connections – between many groups/committees related to athletics
  • Understanding – interrelationship of concerns and issues and successes
  • Informed discussion – FAC process
  1. Advising, Academics, Academic Support
  1. Conversations, Input, Discussions
  1. 9.      Conversations, Input, Discussions
  • Input from faculty members: The ARG requests that the University strike the terms “student-athlete” and “collegiate model of sport” from its lexicon.  Abundant evidence shows, and former NCAA president Walter Byers has admitted with regard to “student-athlete,” that these are intellectually dishonest terms invented for the purpose of preserving an amateur ideal that protects the NCAA’s financial interests.  There is no reason for UNC to use such morally compromised language with regard to its own activities.  “UNC athletes” and “UNC students” are sufficient categories.
  1. 10.  Conversations, Input, Discussions
  • The ARG requests that the athletics department explain what it regards as “countable hours” of sport-related activity for its sport teams.  We need to have accurate measures, and accurate measuring instruments, to determine the kinds of balances our athletes strike in their schedules.

11. Conversations, Input, Discussions

  • The ARG requests that the FAC propose (if not already policy) that, in the future, eligibility for membership on the FAC be restricted to faculty who teach undergraduates on some regular basis.  Many of the issues that arise from student involvement in athletics are understood well only by those who teach undergraduates and manage undergraduate classrooms.
Print Friendly, PDF & Email