1

UNIVERSITY SENATE Fourth Meeting, Monday, 23 January 2012, 2:30 p.m.

Room 302, Stewart Center AGENDA 1. Call to order Professor Morris Levy 2. Approval of Minutes of 21 November 2011 3. Acceptance of Agenda 4. Remarks by the President President France A. C·rdova 5. Remarks of the Chairperson Professor Morris Levy

6. R®sum® of Items Under Consideration For Information

by Various Standing Committees Professor Timothy Folta 7. Question Time 8. University Senate Document 11-1 For Action

Revisions of the Research Faculty Policy Professor David Williams

9. University Senate Document 11-3 For Action Open Access Policy Professor A. Paul Schwab

10. University Senate Document 11-7 For Discussion

Undergraduate Core Curriculum Professor Teri Reed-Rhoads 11. New Business 12. Memorial Resolutions 13. Adjournment

2

UNIVERSITY SENATE Fourth Meeting, Monday, 23 January 2012, 2:30 p.m.

Room 302, Stewart Center

Present: Morris Levy, (Chairperson of the Senate) presiding, Professors: Walid G. Aref, Thomas W. Atkinson, Zarjon Baha, Ebony M. Barrett-Kennedy, Patricia E. Bauman, Alan M. Beck, Evelyn Blackwood, J. Stuart Bolton, Danita M. Brown, Sharon A. Burns, Donald D. Buskirk, Stephen R. Byrn, Joseph W. Camp Jr. (Secretary of Faculties and Parliamentarian), Natalie A. Carroll, France A. Córdova, Carlos M. Corvalan, Richard A. Cosier, William A. Crossley, Marius D. Dadarlat, James R. Daniel, Jenny L. Daugherty, Alphonso V. Diaz, Frank J. Dooley, Janusz Duzinkiewicz, Nancy E. Edwards, Peggy A. Ertmer, Levon T. Esters, Melissa E. Exum, Timothy B. Folta, Michael J. Fosmire, Geraldine S. Friedman, Joan R. Fulton, Kevin D. Gibson, Matthew D. Ginzel, Gabriele F. Giuliani, James P. Greenan, John B. Grutzner, Chong Gu, Sally A. Hastings, Patricia Y. Hester, Brett R. Highley, Michael A. Hill, Peter M. Hirst, William L. Hoover, Christine A. Hrycyna, Chad T. Jafvert, Steven D. Johnson, Richard D. Johnson-Sheehan, Patrick P. Kain, David L. Kemmerer, Cheng-Kok Koh, Charles M. Krousgrill, William G. Krug, Robert A. Kubat, James S. Lehnert, Rebecca A. Logsdon, Martin A. Lopez-de-Bertodano, , William D. McInerney, Robert E. McMains, Robert W. Morman, Mary B. Nakhleh, Douglas C. Nelson, Abdelfattah Nour, James G. Ogg, Suzanne L. Parker, D. Marshall Porterfield, Phillip L. Rawles, Teri Reed-Rhoads, J. Paul Robinson, Alysa C. Rollock, Sandra S. Rossie, Timothy D. Sands, A. Paul Schwab, Cleveland G. Shields, Louis A. Sherman, Thomas H. Siegmund, Mark J.T. Smith, Glenn G. Sparks, Keith M. Stantz, J. Jill Suitor, A. Charlene Sullivan, Elizabeth J. Taparowsky, Thomas J. Templin, Marion T. Trout, Feng-Song Wang, A. Dale Whittaker, David Williams, G. Thomas Wilson, Fenggang Yang, Li Zhang

Absent: Professors:. President France A. Córdova, Robert A. Barrett, Barrett S. Caldwell, Wei K. Cui, Beverly Davenport Sypher, Edward J. Delp III, John P. Denton, Paul B. Dixon, R. Neal Houze, Mark J. Jackson, Rosemary L. Kilmer, Harold P. Kirkwood, Stephen F. Konieczny, Eric P. Kvam, Mark A. Lawley, Michael Levine, W. Gerry McCartney, Rabindra N. Mukerjea, Craig L. Miller, Zygmunt Pizlo, Darryl Ragland, Jean-Christophe Rochet, Ronald Sterkenburg, Lynda J. Thoman, Samuel S. Wagstaff Jr, Jeffrey X. Watt. Guests: Richard Buckius, Teresa T. Doughty, Audeen Fentiman, Nancy Gabin, Barbara Golden, Craig Hamaker, Bruce Harding, Marietta Harrison, Luis Lewin, Abigail Maurer, Clarence Maybee, Miranda McCormack, Beth McNeil, James L. Mullins, Valerie O’ Brien, Patricia Peng, Pat Romano, Steven Scott, David Scherer, Scott Seidue, Chris Sigurdson, Matt Swiontek, John Terhune, Mark Tucker, Sharon Weiner, Lauren Westberg, 1. The meeting was called to order at 2:35 p.m. by Chairperson Morris Levy. 2. The minutes of the meeting of 21 November 2011 were approved as distributed by

unanimous voice vote. 3. The agenda was accepted as distributed by unanimous voice vote.

4. President France A. C·rdova could not attend the meeting so Provost Timothy Sands

spoke in her stead (see Appendix A).

5. Professor Levy presented the report of the chairperson (see Appendix B).

6. Professor Timothy Folta, Chair of the Steering Committee, presented, for information, the R®sum® of Items under Consideration (ROI) by Various Standing Committees (see

3

Appendix C). Professor David Williams, Chair of the Faculty Affairs Committee (FAC), said that the FAC will form a subcommittee to review the online system that is currently used by students to evaluate faculty members. The formation of this subcommittee is in response to numerous concerns about the system that have been expressed by Purdue University faculty members. Professor Charlene Sullivan will serve as the chair of the committee. Professor Sally Hastings, Chair of the Student Affairs Committee (SAC), reported that the SAC had received a request from the Steering Committee and the Regional Campus Senators to revisit the Grief Absence Policy for Students (GAPS) to determine if revisions can be made to better suit the Regional Campuses unique student bodies.

7. At ñQuestion Timeò several questions were directed to Provost Sands concerning the

proposed trimester system. Concerns centered on faculty involvement in the decision, the timetable for the plan and the participation of other stakeholders in the final decision. Detailed information that answers many of the concerns of faculty members can be found in a letter from Provost Sands to the Purdue University community. The letter can be found at this link: Letter from the Provost.

8. Professor David Williams, Chair of the Faculty Affairs Committee, introduced Senate Document 11-1, Revisions to the Research Faculty Policy. Following the motion and second, discussion of the document occurred. Professor Michael Hill asked for clarification about the teaching status of research faculty. He asked if there would be an expectation that the research faculty (RF) would teach up to 25% of the time they were working. He stated that he found the document to be vaguely worded in this respect. He also asked if they would be eligible for awards that can be garnered by faculty. Associate Vice President for Research Marietta Harrison addressed his questions. She said that there is no expectation that the RF will teach 25% of the time even if they are funded at 25% from general funds. She also said that there is no University policy on the eligibility of RF for awards. However, they would be eligible for awards that are given by the Office of the Vice President for Research (OVPR). Colleges, departments and/or other units will have to determine on their own if RF are eligible for awards. With the exception of Discovery Park, RF are associated with a specific department, school or college. Hence, these units can determine the eligibility, or lack thereof, for awards. Professor Levy related a question that he had received via email. The individual noted that there are currently relatively few RF and there is not a large amount of money from general funds being paid out to these few individuals. However, what will happen if many more RF are hired? Where will the money come from when budgets are already tight? VP Harrison said that she did not know but did not expect a surge in hires, but more of an incremental increase in RF numbers over time. The current discussion of the changes to the RF policy has brought the issue to the attention of many people on campus and more units might consider hiring RF once the policy is implemented. VP Harrison noted that Purdue had significantly fewer Research Faculty then some of our aspirational peers that have hundreds of them. Professor Paul Robinson noted it is likely that because our aspirational peer institutions have hundreds of RF in their employ it is one of the factors that led to a decrease in tenured faculty across academia from approximately 70% to approximately 30% of the total faculty over the last few decades. Professor Robinson asked if this was an attempt to replace tenured and tenure-track faculty with non-tenured faculty. VP Harrison said she did not envision this as such an attempt. The revised policy will provide more flexibility to units that want to hire RF by allowing them to use general funds up to 25%, but there is no requirement that 25% of the pay must come from general funds. Professor Paul Schwab noted that the RF Senate Document from 2005 was very specific about teaching and RF. He said that most of that language was gone in the current revision. VP Harrison stated that if RF are to teach, each proposal must be considered on a case-by-case basis before there is

4

any approval to teach. Although the language may be different from that in the original Senate Document, the process has not changed. She also noted that there was never a real university policy created by the administration from the original Senate Document. The current policy takes the language from the original Senate Document, combines it with the Vice President for Research Office guidelines from 2005 and updates the wording to create the revised RF policy. Professor Natalie Carroll recalled that there was discussion about a cap on RF numbers when the original Senate Document was approved. VP Harrison said that there has never been a cap and we do not need one because we have so few RF. Professor John Grutzner said that the term ñExtramural Fundsò was used throughout the document, but in one place the term ñFederal Fundsò was used. VP Harrison said this was merely an oversight and could be easily corrected. Professor Grutzner also noted that there appeared to be a disagreement between the NSF interpretation of what a RF can do while funded by NSF versus the Purdue University interpretation. For example, Purdue University states that the NSF will not allow a RF to write another grant proposal while funded 100% by NSF or attend outside conferences not directly related to the ongoing research. Professor Robinson said that he had contacted the Inspector Generalôs Office of the NSF to ask questions about these apparent discrepancies in interpretations. The details of his conversation with the NSF representative are posted at the Senate web site for the January 2012 meeting, but that some of the things that were claimed by VP Harrison and VPR Buckius at the previous Senate meeting appeared to be incorrect based on his discussion with the NSF. For example, the Senate had been told that a 100% NSF funded investigator could not have a graduate student or attend graduate committees and could not attend a conference all of which were identified by NSF as being incorrect. Professor Robinson asked the representative from the Inspector Generalôs Office if an RF on 100% funding could write a grant proposal outside of normal work hours. He was told it was permissible to write a grant proposal outside of work hours, but not during work hours. In response to this, Vice President for Research Richard Buckius noted RF are allowed to attend conferences, deliver presentations, write reports and articles and consult with other professionals as long as these activities are directly related to the research subject that is funded by NSF. He noted that RF are not allowed to write other grant proposals when they are funded 100% by NSF as it is considered an indirect activity not related to the funded research. In fact, when Purdue was audited by the NSF, the audit included language specifically prohibiting the writing of grant proposals. Hence, the need to have flexibility to pay RF out of non-NSF funds up to 25%. VP Buckius stated that the NSF policies can be found in OMB circular A21 which is readily available and offered to provide the documentation provided from NSF detailing their response to Purdue (Link to NSF Audit). Professor Michael Hill asked why a RF would not seek the full 25% of funding from general funds. VP Buckius said that there is no incentive for units to fund RF at less than 100% NSF funding. However, the ability to use some general funds provides flexibility, as already mentioned. Professor Stephen Byrn stated that a quick calculation suggests that Purdue can garner $100 million dollars in direct costs and $50 million in indirect cost by hiring 100 RF. The discussion ended and a friendly amendment was accepted to allow the change of ñFederal Fundsò to ñExtramural Fundsò in the one occurrence in the document. The question was called and the document was approved by an overwhelming voice vote with a few votes in opposition. Professor Williams thanked all involved and expressed appreciation for the shared governance between the faculty and administration. Senate Document 11-1 now passes to the administration for promulgation.

9. Professor A. Paul Schwab, chair of the University Resources Policy Committee (URPC), presented, for Action, Senate Document 11-3, University Open Access Policy. This document serves as an endorsement of Purdue Universityôs proposed Open Access Policy. His motion to approve was seconded by Professor Alan Beck. Mr. Brett Highley,

5

President of the Purdue Student Government (PSG) said that this issue had been discussed and PSG passed a resolution in support of this policy (See Appendix D). Rebecca Logsdon, President of the Purdue Graduate Student Government (PGSG), said that her group also passed a resolution in support of the policy (See Appendix E). There was no additional discussion and the document passed by unanimous voice vote.

10. Professor Teri Reed-Rhoads, chair of the Educational Policy Committee (EPC) presented, for Discussion, Senate Document 11-7, Endorsement of the Proposed University Core Curriculum. Professor William Crossley rose to mention that faculty members from Aeronautics and Astronautics had created a document providing feedback on the Core Curriculum proposal. This document can be found at the Senate web site for the January 2012 meeting. It was noted that the co-chair of the Core Curriculum Task Force, Professor Teresa Doughty, has started making brown-bag lunch presentations with the various colleges to help faculty understand the proposed Core Curriculum and specific features such as the learning outcomes. The learning outcomes already map well with the current curricular outcomes of many degrees. The current learning outcomes are often included in accreditation requirements for many of the disciplines. Professor Doughty said that the task force is trying to have presentation for all of the colleges on campus. Professor Carroll said that the College of Agriculture faculty have some concerns, but are generally supportive of a university-wide Core Curriculum. Two specific concerns were:

• That the Technology and Computer Science outcomes be removed, or if left in, the STEM discipline definition should include the College of Agriculture, and

• Each college should have the authority to select its representative to the University Core Curriculum Oversight Committee

It is already expected that each college will select its own representative. Professor Doughty said that the task force members had gone back-and-forth on the computer science outcome. For now, it was left in the proposal, but the task force will let the Senate decide what is best. The interim head of the Computer Science Department, Sunil Prabhakar, was recognized by Professor Levy and he spoke to the concerns about the computer science learning outcome. Professor Prabhakar stated that all graduates of Purdue University have experience with computational thinking, if not with computer science, per se. Computational thinking is involved in all aspects of life in our current society. He supports including this learning outcome in the Core Curriculum. Professor Doughty suggested that it might serve as one of the courses under the ñTechnology and Societyò heading. Professor Folta asked Professor Reed-Rhoads about potential downsides to the Core Curriculum. Professor Reed-Rhoads said that some of these are determining how to track progress, getting agreement on courses among the varying faculties and setting up a functioning process for the Core Curriculum. Professor Thomas Siegmund expressed the concern that his department (Mechanical Engineering) might have to accept something from another department that was not a prerequisite in the Mechanical Engineering curriculum. Professor Reed-Rhoads said that she could not be certain what exactly would happen, but the departments will maintain control. Professor Sandra Rossie said she had a hard time understanding if the goal was to have a common learning experience or was it to help students graduate more expeditiously or are they both goals? The intent of the Core Curriculum is to have curricula and outcomes that lead to quality and consistency of the educational experience for our graduates. Professor Fulton noted that the various faculties approve who gets degrees and control the curricula and the academic calendar. Furthermore, Purdue (and higher education, in general) is getting pressure from state legislators and the Board of Trustees to move students through their curricula successfully and without bankrupting the students and their parents. She emphasized that we do need to move forward with what we can agree on and make changes as needed. Professor Levy stated that one of the hardest things to accomplish will be to determine the foundational courses for STEM

6

for all students. Professor Rossie said that it is hard to imagine how the Core Curriculum will be implemented. It appears complex and will challenge students, academic advisors and faculty once implemented. Professor Reed-Rhoads said that each member of the current Core Curriculum task force has provided examples of how it would work in their respective curricula, but these examples are not in the document. If they are compiled, they could be posted at the Senate web site. Professor James Lehnert expressed skepticism that the PSG has endorsed this proposal as it will add another layer of approval bureaucracy to the undergraduate experience. He thinks that this will add both financial and administrative burdens to the university. Vice Provost for Undergraduate Academic Affairs Dale Whittaker said that the current penalty for students who CODO is fairly high. He hopes that once the foundational outcomes courses have been approved by each unit that they will be available on Banner. By accessing Banner, a student should be able to determine if a foundation course in one area will apply to another area before the student goes through the CODO process. On the other hand, embedded outcomes will be discipline-specific. With respect to concern about a layer of approval bureaucracy, Professor Levy noted that we already have this level of approval for graduate courses. Every graduate-level course must be approved by the Graduate Council. Hence, this type of approval process is not new to the university, but is new to the undergraduate programs. Professor Rossie suggested that if the proposal was to consider the existing core curricula across the colleges, it might meld better. She also suggested that having a trimester system might help students, especially working students, get done in a timely fashion. Professor Janusz Duzinkiewicz said that when Purdue North Central instituted a core curriculum it turned out to be very beneficial to students. However, their core curriculum does not deal with embedded outcomes. He wondered if it would be possible to have a system-wide core curriculum. Professor Patricia Bauman said that the Mathematics Department is supportive of the proposal, but they have concerns as they already have to meet many varied requirements for mathematics courses for the existing curricula across campus. They want to ensure that they will continue to serve students in the various curricula. She asked: What will be the process from approval of the Core Curriculum framework to implementation of the Core Curriculum? Professor Doughty said that the areas of mathematics and science have been difficult for the task force in its deliberations. The task force members have considered having clusters or tiers to handle the needs in these areas. It will be very important to work closely with faculty members from Mathematics and Science to determine what courses should be used in these clusters or tiers. Vice Provost Whittaker said that these discussions have already begun and will continue. It is hoped that clusters or tiers will allow greater portability across the university. Students and academic advisors must also be involved in these discussions. Professor Doughty said that there are no specifics at the moment, but she hoped they would be available in the next month. Professor Patricia Hester asked if Senate Document 11-7 would be brought to the February meeting in its current form or if it would be revised. Professor Reed-Rhoads said that the task force and the EPC are both willing to take suggestions from Senators as well as faculty across campus and bring back a revised document in February. Professor Reed-Rhoads said that the suggestions need to be received by her and/or Professor Doughty within two weeks of todayôs date in order for the EPC to bring a revised version to the February Senate meeting.

11. Under New Business Senior Vice President for Business Services James Almond presented a report from the Retirement Plan Committee (See Appendix F). Also under New Business Professor Levy mentioned that an email had been sent to each Senator with Presidential Special Advisory Committee final report. He thanked the SAC members for their efforts. He elaborated on what was done by the committee and said that a system-wide survey had been distributed as part of the SAC efforts. He noted that at

7

least 7000 people expressed opinions concerning the next President of the University. The survey included all stakeholders across the system and faculty from IUPUI. Finally, he thanked Registrar Bob Kubat for his assistance in getting the survey distributed.

12. Memorial Resolutions had been received for Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry Bernard Axelrod, Professor Emeritus of Food Science James V. Chambers, Founding Department Head of Engineering Education Kamyar Haghighi, Professor of Mathematics Samuel Kaplan, Professor Emeritus of Animal Sciences and Assistant Dean of Resident Instruction Jack Long, Professor Emeritus Robert L. McIlwain, Professor Emeritus Norbert J. Moeller and Professor of Mathematics Justin J. Price. Following the reading of the names, the Senate members stood for a moment of silence to honor their departed colleagues.

13. The meeting adjourned at 5:10 p.m.

1

Decadal Plan Update

January 23rd, 2012 Å University Senate Å Tim Sands

CONTEXTÅ Purdue invested ~$1B over the past decade 80%

above inflation to grow the discovery enterprise and the faculty

Å With declining state appropriations, the

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%Tuitions

State Appropriations

primary source of funds was tuition and fees

Å NOT SUSTAINABLE, yet we need to continue to invest

0%

10%

Fiscal Year

1995es 20112002

2

FISCAL CHALLENGES

Å F&A recovery from sponsors falls short by about $0 25 for every dollar of sponsored program$0.25 for every dollar of sponsored program awards

Å R&R not reliably funded by the state, nor is new construction

Å State appropriations decline by ~1% per year in real dollars; >4% annually over the past tworeal dollars; >4% annually over the past two biennia

STRENGTHS

Å Steadily increasing level of academic preparation and diversity among applicant pooland diversity among applicant pool

Å Significant improvements in all measures of student success

Å Very strong global reputationÅ Statehouse recognizes economic impact of Purdue >$10 for every $1 of operationPurdue, >$10 for every $1 of operation appropriation.

3

DECADAL FUNDING PLAN

Å Envision Purdue in 2022; plot trajectory and stay on iton it

Å Continue to save (Sustaining New Synergies at $67M recurring)

Å Find new sources of revenueÅ Unleash/enable/incentivize creativity and talent of faculty staff and studentsfaculty, staff and students

PROCESS

Å March 2011 ï Solicited Big Ideas from faculty and staffÅ March, April ï Formed Steering Committee with 13March, April Formed Steering Committee with 13 resource-area subcommittees

Å March-June ï Faculty roundtables; Cornell visit; nine peer institutions benchmarked

Å April-July ï ideas vetted, refined by subcommitteesÅ June, July ï nine Big Ideas in three categories selected for further developmentfor further development

Å August - present - financial models and preliminary implementation plans developed; Plan presented and discussed with stakeholders

4

DECADAL INITIATIVES

InnovativePurdue

GlobalPurdue

Efficient and Effective Purdue

Sustaining New Synergies

Academic Program Assessment

Improving Utilization of

Innovation &CommercializationCenter

Applied ResearchInstitute

Expanding Purdue's Footprint

Bringing the World to Purdue

Purdueect e u due

Assets ï Towards Balanced Trimester International

Academy

Reinventing Purdue Online

Private Giving

Information Technology

Legislative Support

Transformative Budget Model

Enablers

SUMMER STATUS

Å Purdue ï WL campus largely idle in the summer; 6 000 undergraduates; 7% of fall creditsummer; 6,000 undergraduates; 7% of fall credit hours

Å Disincentivizing budget model; lack of course offerings; compressed schedule

Å Lack of summer academic options limits fall/spring internships for students; fall/springfall/spring internships for students; fall/spring travel and research for faculty

Å Only 42% of baccalaureate seekers complete in four years

5

A PLAN FORWARDÅ Build summer credit hours from 7% to 35% of fallof fall.

Å Flip calendar in ~2020 from two semesters of 15 instructional weeks to three trimesters of 13 instructional weeks.B ild t i tÅ Build summer trimester to 70% of fall, with >20,000 students in residence and an annual increase of 25% in student credit hours

BENEFITSÅ More flexibility for students; Increased 4-yr graduation rates

Å More flexibility for facultyï Some may teach three trimesters for additional compensation

ï Some may choose fall or spring as a ñresearchò trimesterï Minimal disruption for those who stay on fall-spring cycleN t ti t d t $40M llÅ Net revenues estimated at $40M annually ï revenue of $190M ï cost of $150Mï Better utilization of fixed assetsï Faculty numbers will need to increase

Å Enhanced local economy

6

CAVEATS AND CONDITIONS

Å Current momentum in enhanced undergraduate applicant profile and demand must be maintainedapplicant profile and demand must be maintained

Å Budget model must incentivize summer for both students and faculty

Å Calendar will not be altered until summer utilization is substantially enhanced (target: 35% of fall)of fall)

UNIVERSITY SENATE ROLE

Å Building Summer (2012-2020)Å Calendar change to Trimester (~2020)Å Calendar change to Trimester (~2020)

ï M-F scheduling (e.g., move to 60 and 120 minute standard periods; accommodating blended learning)

ï Academic Calendar (e.g., start fall after labor day, end spring in late April; breaks; holidays; exam schedules; modular trimesters).

ï Definition of faculty academic year and compensation options

ï Definition of full load for faculty and studentsï Timing of transition

7

Å Purdue is strong in discovery and start-ups (#6 last year) but weak in net licensing revenue ($4 2M in

NEXT: INNOVATION & COMMERCIALIZATION CENTER

year), but weak in net licensing revenue ($4.2M in 2010 compared to mean of $32.4M for top 15 public universities)

Å Seed grant, step-up funds and supporting resources for Purdue faculty, staff and students who wish to enhance the value of their inventionswho wish to enhance the value of their inventions and move them faster toward commercialization

Å Initial funding of $1M from alumni gifts ï no general funds

Å More details tomorrow morning...

Decadal Plan Update

January 23rd, 2012 Å University Senate Å Tim Sands

Thank you

University Senate Jan 23, 2012Trimester PROPOSAL‐ Excerpts from an email message from Pres. Córdova toTrimester PROPOSAL Excerpts from an email message from Pres. Córdova to 

Morry Levy and Teri‐Reed‐Rhoads”

* We made it clear today that the design and content of the curriculum, and the y g ,structure of the school‐year, is the purview of the faculty, and also that it would take many years to fully develop this. My exact quote was: "We are announcing this initiative first because our analysis shows it will have great benefits for our students yet it will need time to develop thoroughly We entrust this developmentstudents, yet it will need time to develop thoroughly. We entrust this development to our faculty, who have provenance over the curriculum." 

* Faculty approvals would be sought at every juncture. The process could take eight years, we said. 

* We recognize that there would likely be funding needs as a balanced trimester is developed by the faculty Any funding requests would come to the trustees at thedeveloped by the faculty. Any funding requests would come to the trustees at the annual presentation of the budget. Such requests would follow in concert with approvals by the appropriate University Senate bodies. 

* We made it clear in our remarks, after consulting with the regional campus chancellors, that for the time being at least, this is a WL initiative only. 

University Senate Jan 23, 2012

http//www.purdue.edu/faculty/meetings.cfmPlease visit the Senate website and examine thePlease visit the Senate website and examine the posted documents.Questions/suggestions should be addressed to h hthe Committee Chairs, Morry Levy or Joe CampIf useful, plan to have a departmental, college or school Forum on issues‐ we will provideschool Forum on issues‐ we will provide spokespersons who can answer questionsAs always, all proposals are subject to y p p jamendment  and, if approved, to revision as their effectiveness becomes clearer 

Purdue University Senate Special Advisory Committee Report

Submitted to the Presidential Search Committee of the Board of Trustees

Background: In September of 2011, at the request of the Chair of the Presidential Search Committee, Trustee Michael Berghoff, a Special Advisory Committee (SAC) of the Purdue University Senate was formed by the Chair of the Senate, Professor Morris Levy. The 24 members of the SAC included representatives from the University Senate leadership, as well as representatives from each of the regional campuses, the Administrative and Professional Staff Advisory Committee (APSAC), the Clerical and Service Staff Advisory Committee (CSSAC), the Purdue Student Government (PSG), the Purdue Graduate Student Government (PGSG), and the Diversity Staff. The chief mandate for the SAC was to formulate recommendations to the PSC regarding the desired expertise of the next President as well as strategic priorities for the next administration. The SAC solicited comments on these issues from the entire Purdue community via an on-line survey; additional information was gleaned from Open Forums conducted by the Search Committee and other entities at all Purdue campuses as well as other surveys conducted within specific constituent groups. This report reflects the SAC’s recommendations based on our collective wisdom and using the totality of more than 6000 respondents whose opinions we have accumulated. The format of the report includes an Executive Summary, summaries or excerpts of responses from various constituent groups, and an appendix of supporting documents.

Executive Summary

The President of Purdue should focus the strategic missions of our land-grant institution and facilitate the productivity and wellbeing of the faculty, staff and students at all levels of the University. It is essential that the next President be a recognized scholar with academic credentials equivalent to a tenured Full Professor. A successful President must understand the culture of a successful academy in order to convey that perspective to the Board of Trustees for policy decisions that advance the academy. Those advances should include recognition and promotion of the contributions of all sectors of the Purdue community, including the regional campuses. It is also essential the next President have a scale of administrative experience and creativity necessary to lead Purdue in a new generation of fiscal management. A successful President must set the tone to sustain the economic vitality of future Purdue. Establishing wise spending priorities, developing new sources of income and modernizing operational costs should highlight the future Purdue business model.

Several dominant themes emerged from Purdue faculty, staff and student opinions on the major challenges facing Purdue and on desired improvements in the work and educational environment. The primary challenge is to provide sustainable resources for the preeminent research and teaching missions of the University. Recurrently, faculty (all levels) and staff advocate reducing excessive administrative infrastructure and costs as a fundamental necessity.

More resources have to be devoted to support faculty and staff productivity as well as to incentivize the teaching mission. Moreover, the President needs to change the atmosphere between the administration and all other sectors of Purdue's employees. Morale isn't where it needs to be, especially for staff and graduate students. The regional campuses feel largely ignored yet find their evolving aspirations diminished by West Lafayette directives. Many faculty and staff employees feel overworked, undervalued and disrespected. Students (all levels) are clearly concerned about rising costs of their education and new opportunities for financial support. But they also want Purdue to maximize the quality of their education and preparations for a successful career in the modern world.

All constituencies express great appreciation and genuine affection for the land-grant mission of Purdue. What they want is a clear and creative communicator to focus that mission and develop the resources that allow Purdue faculty, staff and students to achieve it. There are other important improvements desired (e.g., in facilities and services, and diversity). But the most important leadership quality the next President should have is to persuade, by his/her actions, that all sectors of the Purdue community are truly members of the same preeminent team. In capsule form, the next President's actions should serve to inspire, empower and recruit faculty, staff and students throughout the Purdue system.

Constituent Excerpts / Summaries

West Lafayette Faculty:

Distinguished or Chaired Professors: The primary challenges are to repair dwindling departmental budgets with new revenues; greatly reduce administration and focus management; attract and retain world-class faculty; improve visibility and trust via transparency and clear communication, including with Indianapolis; improve staff incentives and development; control tuition costs while maintaining employee benefits, especially health insurance. The highest priority work place improvements are improving facilities, services and support staff; providing greater incentives for faculty and staff including salaries; reducing wasteful expenditures and administrative costs; improve diversity; restructure departmental leadership; in short, inspire, empower and recruit.

Full Professors: The major concerns are the non-sustainability of the current funding model and an improved strategic budgeting; administrative bloat and its impact on faculty productivity and morale; the need for greater clarity in leadership with input from the faculty; improvement in fundraising for the educational and research missions; improvements in infrastructure and facilities for teaching and research; and improving undergraduate student quality.

Associate Professors: There is a strong and repetitive belief that the administration has grown to excessive and detrimental levels to the point of being a hindrance to effective implementation of teaching and research initiatives. Faculty are overworked, underpaid, lack support, and unappreciated. There are deep concerns on monetary issues at the university, department, and individual levels. They desire an updating and renovation of spaces across campus, and express a general dissatisfaction over building support services. Along with demand for more research

support and funding there was an almost equal need for greater emphasis on teaching; better teaching, balanced teaching loads, more teaching faculty. The associate professors are concerned about rising tuition costs, student retention, and retaining high quality students. An underlying theme across many of the comments is a subtle crisis in morale. The associate professors believe that Purdue can achieve great things, that they are conducting valuable research and providing valuable instruction to students. However, they do not feel that the administration is fully behind them and that the next President needs to come in and be willing to carry their banner with strong dynamic leadership. The President needs to lead and to listen. Assistant Professors: Assistant Professors recognize the following priorities for improvements: budgets, undergraduate teaching support; diversity; research funding; reducing administrative bloat; improving fund raising for academic and research purposes; reducing tuition; improving faculty retention with higher salaries and improving interdisciplinary programs, including the criteria for evaluation in tenure and promotion considerations.

Other Faculty: The individuals in this category included non-tenure track faculty such as research faculty and clinical faculty. The most frequent concerns were about the university budget, including fund raising, research funding and the endowment. Student-related concerns included increasing the quality of applicants, the technology available for students, diversity, scholarships and educational value while lowering tuition and grade inflation. Innovation and/or Business Development were also mentioned. Administrative bloat was not a major concern for this group. In summary, at least for this small group of faculty, money-related issues and student-related issues seem to be the most important issues for our next President.

West Lafayette Staff:

Clerical and Service Staff: The overall consensus of the clerical and service staff is for a President with a strong academic background, experience leading a complex organization, as well as the ambassadorship to represent Purdue University. The President should communicate a clear vision and direction, lead by example and set the tone for all interaction at the university. The President should have a demonstrated ability to handle complex institutions with fiscal responsibility. The President should find creative ways to make staff at all levels feel appreciated in a difficult economy. The President should be committed to reducing administrative bloat and raising wages with special consideration given to those who are earning below poverty level. The President should understand the land grant mission and effectively work with state legislatures. Survey results indicate the following common themes: there is low morale with an abundance of red tape, lack of empowerment and disrespect; total compensation is low; staffing levels are inadequate to maintain support to the university mission; and there is a strong desire for more professional development and educational opportunities (many peer institutions offer 100% tuition reimbursement).

Administrative and Professional Staff: More than eight hundred survey responses reveals a certain consistency in the leadership qualities AP staff would like to see emphasized during the selection process. The specific words and phrases repeated include: fair, balanced, connects with all stakeholders equally (students, faculty, staff and alumni); humble, common sense approach, mid-western roots, conservative; accessible, egalitarian, leads by example; experienced fund

raiser, understands legislative climate; strong, effective communicator, someone who inspires confidence, listens. The voice of the AP staff is loud and clear on one point – they do not want a President who is seen as a “hit and run” administrator. With regards to workplace issues, AP staff expressed several concerns in common with our clerical and service staff coworkers, including recruitment and retention (i.e., compensation issues), inadequate staffing and unrealistic workloads, and a desire for senior administrators to demonstrate appreciation for the contributions made by support staff to the university’s success. Among the most frequently cited issues is a perceived lack of respect for staff.

West Lafayette Students:

Undergraduate: Above all, students believe the next President must demonstrate a profound understanding and appreciation for the culture and mission of Purdue University. There also is sincere desire to see a President who is “student focused.” Students believe the best candidate will strive to improve the fiscal state of the university through responsible use of resources and lowering or maintaining the cost of attendance. While slightly less important, students wish to see a President who values inclusion and diversity as well as interested in helping establish “real world” relations and career opportunities for graduates. Students do not place an especially high value for an individual of a particular background, whether it is academic, political, or business, nor an emphasis on locating a candidate specifically experienced in the STEM fields. They are also opposed to the idea of a President being strongly supportive of Purdue athletics over academic programs. Other strategic priorities of the undergraduates include: maintaining highest quality faculty, improving the academic reputations of many degree programs, and expanding fellowship and financial aid opportunities. Graduate Students: The next President should: come from an academic background and have a PhD or equivalent degree; maintain an internal focus—working closely with students, faculty and staff to make decisions at the University; prioritize building the infrastructure of Purdue in order to create a more sustainable and efficient University; promote global collaborations to expand the reach of the Purdue brand; focus on expanding and incorporating the Liberal Arts and Humanities along with STEAM (Science Technology Engineering Agriculture Math); increase the graduate student population by improving and creating resources and attracting the highest quality graduate students from around the world; remain in residence for more than four years in order to grow programs, infrastructure, and projects, The most important improvements for graduate students include higher stipends, lower fees and improved research support opportunities. Diversity & Inclusion Forums: Participants want a President who: holds fast to the land grant mission of the university, has demonstrated success with diversity and inclusion and is sensitive to the importance of both symbolic and material acts in this arena. Highest priority is for a President who embodies the belief that diversity and inclusion are integral to academic excellence and implements an aggressive diversity agenda supported by measures of accountability.

Regional Campuses:

Calumet: All constituencies strongly believe that it is essential that the new President have academic credentials equivalent to a tenured full professor. In addition they strongly believe that it is essential that the new President have administrative expertise in leading a large and complex institution, taking into account all of the regional campuses. A continuing message from all Purdue Calumet constituencies is the concern regarding budgets and lack of resources. These range from too few tenure track faculty members to upkeep of facilities to not enough support for regional student athletics. The new President of Purdue University should: expand regional campus governance input to system wide governance based upon total student enrollment; improve student retention with resources/support to enable student persistence and graduation; improve the ability to attract, retain, and support outstanding faculty in their teaching and scholarly activities; hire more tenure track faculty; enable more autonomy of regional graduate programs; provide more support and funding for student athletics at regional campuses. Ft. Wayne: The most common challenge listed by all constituents is the increasing cost of education vs. decreasing state funding. Clearly this is a challenge that will pursue higher education for years to come. Faculty and staff are concerned about the rising cost of fringe benefits, while students’ main concern is the rising tuition cost. Another important trend is maintaining the academic excellence the Purdue system is known for. The effect of technology on the education process is understandingly at the forefront of challenges singled out by the IPFW constituency. Of particular importance for IPFW, being a local campus is the “building of a positive rapport with all regional campuses”.

North Central: All constituencies strongly believe that the new President must meet the standards established for a successful faculty member at Purdue (excellence in scholarship, teaching and engagement) and must be a proven, effective administrator. Both sets of skills are essential; neither is sufficient by itself. The President should provide a coherent vision of Purdue as a system and provide effective leadership to maximize its system-wide effectiveness. A new balance between autonomy and cooperation is needed. The President should restructure fund-raising and resource allocation to better serve Purdue as a multi-campus System. The President must deal effectively with State, business and other non-academic entities to ensure a healthy future for the University as true academic leader. The President should seek to contain the cost of education to Purdue students. The President should reduce the top-heavy administration and bureaucratic inefficiencies and channel the savings into improved instruction. There is a strong perception, likewise, that regional campuses have been neglected and underappreciated. The new President should provide appropriate leadership for the Purdue system, including reevaluating the evolving missions, and distinct needs and accomplishments of regional campuses. IUPUI: Purdue faculty (37) and staff (5) from this Indiana University governed campus responded to the survey. Their most frequent comments concerned regional campus issues, especially the need for better collaborations (especially for Engineering) and less bureaucracy between campuses; increased financial support for faculty, research and teaching programs; and improvements in faculty-staff relationships. There also was a strong desire for more effective leadership at all levels and for improving the rank/reputation of programs at IUPUI. Respectfully submitted by the Special Advisory Committee: Morris Levy (Chair), David J. Williams, Joseph W. Camp, Alan Beck, Natalie Carroll, J. Stuart Bolton, Felica Ahasteen-

Bryant, Ebony Barret-Kennedy, Robert W. Morman, Brett R. Highley, Rebecca Logsdon, Charles R. Winer, Arthur P. Schwab, George T. Wilsom, A. Charlene Sullivan, Sally A. Hastings, Thomas J. Templin, Teri Reed-Rhoads, Janusz Duzinkewicz, Harold P. Kirkwood Jr., William J. McInerney, Joan R. Fulton, Paul J. Robinson, Peter D. Dragnev

Appendices

1. New Presidential Criteria (Qualtrics) Survey Results: Response distributions and Importance of Academic credentials and administrative expertise.

2. West Lafayette Distinguished/Chaired Professor Response Summary

3. West Lafayette Full Professor Response Summary

4. West Lafayette Associate Professor Response Summary

5. West Lafayette Assistant Professor Response Summary

6. West Lafayette Clerical and Service Staff Response Summary

7. West Lafayette Administrative and Professional Staff Response Summary

8. West Lafayette Undergraduate Student Executive Summary

9. West Lafayette Undergraduate Students Executive Summary

10. West Lafayette Graduate Student Survey Results

11. West Lafayette Graduate Student Executive Summary

12. West Lafayette Graduate Student Report

13. Purdue Calumet Response Summary

14. Purdue Fort Wayne (IPFW) Response Survey

15. Purdue North Central Executive Summary

16. Purdue North Central Response Summary

17. West Lafayette Other Faculty Response Summary

18. Summary of Search Committee Listening Sessions

19. Summary of Diversity & Inclusion Forums

20. Wordle Diagrams (Students)

21. Wordle Diagrams (Associate Profs. Challenges; Work Environment)

23 January 2012

TO: University Senate FROM: Timothy Folta, Chairperson, Steering Committee SUBJECT: R®sum® of Items under Consideration by the Various Standing Committees STEERING COMMITTEE Timothy Folta, Chairperson foltat@purdue.edu The primary responsibility of the Steering Committee is the organization and distribution of the agenda for each meeting of the University Senate. This committee also receives communications from any faculty member or group of members and directs such communications to appropriate committees or officers for attention. ADVISORY COMMITTEE Morris Levy, Chairperson of the Senate

levy0@purdue.edu The responsibility of the University Senate Advisory Committee is to advise the President and/or Board of Trustees on any matter of concern to the faculty. NOMINATING COMMITTEE Natalie J. Carroll, Chairperson ncarroll@purdue.edu The Nominating Committee is responsible for presenting nominations for the University Senate and University committees. In filling committee vacancies the Nominating Committee seeks to have all interested Senators serve on at least one committee. EDUCATIONAL POLICY COMMITTEE Terri Reed-Rhoads, Chairperson trhoads@purdue.edu 1. Student access and success 2. Review of GPA requirements in early years 3. GPA requirements after readmission 4. Transfer credit 5. Evening Exams 6. Honors College 7. Core Curriculum 8. Academic Program Assessment FACULTY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE David J. Williams, Chairperson djw@purdue.edu 1. On-line Course Evaluation System   STUDENT AFFAIRS COMMITTEE Thomas J. Templin, Co-Chairperson Sally Hastings, Co-Chairperson ttemplin@purdue.edu sahnolte@purdue.edu 1. Student Conduct UNIVERSITY RESOURCES POLICY COMMITTEE A. Paul Schwab, Chairperson pschwab@purdue.edu 1. Open Access to All Scholarly Articles Published by Purdue Faculty 2. Changes in the Business Operation Model for Purdue Employee Travel Chair of the Senate, Morris Levy, levy0@purdue.edu Vice Chair of the Senate, J. Paul Robinson, jpr@purdue.edu Secretary of the Senate, Joseph W. Camp, Jr., jcamp@purdue.edu University Senate Minutes; http://www.purdue.edu/faculty

University Senate Document 11-1 12 October 2011

Revised 7 November 2011 (Page 1 of 2)

TO: The University Senate FROM: Faculty Affairs Committee SUBJECT: Research Faculty Policy and Change in Guidelines for Research Faculty DISPOSITION: University Senate for Information and Endorsement REFERENCES: Research Faculty Policy 2011

Guidelines for Research Faculty Appointment 2011 Background and Summary of Changes Frequently Asked Questions Members Research Faculty Working Group Senate Document 04-4 Research Faculty Implementation Guidelines 2005

Currently, Purdue documents pertaining to Research Faculty consist of: 1) University Senate Document 04-4 passed in 2004, which defined the position of Research Faculty and; 2) Research Faculty Implementation Guidelines that were issued by the Office of the Vice President for Research in 2005. Two new documents, which are slated to supersede the current documents, are being presented to the University Senate for endorsement. The Research Faculty Policy 2011 is a new policy in Purdue’s official policy format that combines the original Senate Document 04-4 and Research Faculty Implementation Guidelines 2005 into a single document. Details of the appointment process for Research Faculty are now contained in a document entitled “Guidelines for Research Faculty Appointments 2011”. Two revisions to the original Senate Document 04-4 and the original Research Faculty Implementation Guidelines issued in 2005 are contained in the Research Faculty Policy 2011 and the Guidelines for Research Faculty Appointments 2011. These revisions were proposed by the Research Faculty Working Group that was convened in the spring of 2010 by the Vice President for Research to study the policies relating to Research Faculty at Purdue University.

CURRENT (from Senate Document 04-4) Research Faculty will be supported only from extramural funds.

PROPOSED (from Research Faculty Policy 2011) Research Faculty positions must be primarily supported from extramural funds. It is recognized that certain effort (e.g. proposal writing, serving on graduate student advisory committees and other activities not related to the objectives of funded research projects) may not be compensated by federal funds. Therefore, at the discretion of the appointing

University Senate Document 11-1 12 October 2011

Revised 7 November 2011 (Page 2 of 2)

No provision for Research Faculty not appointed to academic units (e.g., interdisciplinary centers) to serve as major professors of graduate students

unit and subject to the availability of funds, alternative sources to federal/extramural funding, including non-restricted university funds (e.g., gift funds and general funds), may be appropriated by the appointing unit for partial support, not to exceed 25% of the total annual compensation of each Research Faculty position. Non-academic units (e.g., interdisciplinary centers) may seek to establish a departmental affiliation for Research Faculty appointed in their center. Departments must approve any affiliation and bear no financial responsibility for affiliated Research Faculty. Research Faculty affiliated with an academic unit may serve as major professors of graduate students in the department, subject to the policies and procedures of the affiliating department and the Graduate School.

Discussion with Beth Strausser NSF Policy.docx Page 1 of 3

Discussion with NSF Staff member after request by J. P. Robinson to Alison C. Lerner, NSF InspectorGeneral. Discussion with MS. Beth Strausser on issues of NSF Policy

Date: October 3, 2011 5:30pm. Detailed notes taken by J. P. Robinson.

Outline: This request for clarifications was based on the issues addressed by the Purdue office of theVice President of Research. In short, Purdue has used the issue of NSF policy to be the primary drivingforce to create a major change in Purdue’s policy on research professors. The primary argument hasbeen that NSF policy prevented faculty who were 100% funded on NSF from participating in a number ofactivities. It has been stated multiple times in both private meetings and in the senate that a person on a100% NSF appointment:

1. Could not submit a grant or a resubmission during the time they were 100% NSF employed2. Could not mentor a graduate student3. Could not attend a conference4. Could not attend graduate committee meetings

Based on my conversations with OIG, basically NSF policy is according to the OMB Cost Circular, and inessence states that 100% of time if paid by NSF must be related to the grant or contract. In plain English,this means that when you are paid 100% on NSF funds, you are obligated to 100% of your time on thefunded project. However, the first thing that was stated during our conversation was that this is in fact a“gray area”. In expanding this statement, it became clear that the policy as stated above, is not as cutand dried as it sounds and in fact that “no clear policy may be applied”.as has been stated at Purdue.

To better clarify the issues, I asked specific questions and I received quite specific answers. I have listedthe questions and the answers I received (based on detailed notes I took) below.

First, it was mentioned that it is rare that anyone is on this 100% status with the exception of those onsummer support. Summer support is usually 2 months, and on rare occasions, 3 months.

Question: Can you write a grant to renew the grant you are on?

Answer: Not in work time, but there is nothing to stop you writing that grant outside of the normal100% time paid for by the grant. i.e., if the institution says a work week is defined as 8-5 Monday toFriday, then before 8, after 5 and at lunch time is your own time and you can do whatever you wantincluding write and submit grants. If you submitted that grant written on your own time, then this isperfectly allowable. In other words, like everyone else at the university, it is rare that anyone works just8 hours a day, but the facts are, that if you are paid as a 100% funded NSF individual, this ONLY appliesto the 8 specific work hours of your employer. At Purdue, the work day is as I understand it defined as 8-12 and 1-5pm. These then are the ONLY times that restrictions apply.

Question: Can you mentor a graduate student who is working on the funded project?Answer: “Yes of course you can”.Question: Can you attend a graduate committee meeting for that graduate student?Answer: “Yes”Can you manage an undergraduate student, graduate student or postdoc who is working on your grant?Answer: “Yes you can”

Discussion with Beth Strausser NSF Policy.docx Page 2 of 3

Question: Say the graduate student did poorly on their preliminary exam, could you discuss that at thegraduate committee meeting?Answer: Not on NSF time as this is not related specifically to your grantQuestion: Can you attend a conference to present your work?Answer: Yes.Question: Even if you are giving a poster or a talk that may be only 1/40 of the time you are away?Answer: Yes no problems. Conferences are ok.Question: Could you attend a faculty meeting?Answer: No, it is not working on your research contractQuestion: Can you write a paper on your work during normal working hours?Answer: Yes of course.Question: Can you attend a departmental seminar?Answer: No, unless it is directly on your research projectQuestion: Can you attend a school-wide seminar?Answer: No (as above)

Question: A Nobel prize winner is giving a university seminar on their work, can you attend?Answer: No. Only in your own time, you cannot bill that time to the contract. So the university mustdetermine that you have not attended during the time they are paying you!Question: You are on a summer appointment paid 100% on NSF funds. You wish to perform other tasksduring this time such as participate in another project, write a book, give some lectures. Can you dothis?Answer: The rules are that you are obligated to perform your NSF contract during the time you are onthat contract. However, this is strictly restricted to the “normal and accepted working hours” of yourinstitution. So, if this is defined as an 8 hour day, you may do any of the above activities outside of thesehours. So, you can teach at lunch time for 1 hour, you can teach at 5pm or before 8am, you can writeyour book at lunch time, and after work, you can write your grant resubmission before or after work andyou can submit this in work time as you did not do the work during NSF paid time.

My evaluation of the current situationThe primary argument made by the office of VPR is that we need to change the rules of our currentpolicy because the NSF rules prevented research professors performing any other activities. I requesteddocumentation from several of the administrators pushing this policy. At the FAC meeting, fouradministrators attended and stated in the strongest terms that NSF policy precluded several activitiesthat justified changing the policy. When pressed, they would not or could not provide anydocumentation, or even names of people they has spoken with at NSF. Because of this, I spent aconsiderable amount of time, investigating this issue myself.

Based on the discussions I had with the Office of the Inspector General, it is clear to me that the policyof the NSF is not as clear-cut as Purdue administrators have led us to believe.

As I understand it, some administrative units at Purdue are pursuing this policy with some vigor butbased on my discussions with OIG, Purdue’s interpretation of NSF policy may not stand to critical

Discussion with Beth Strausser NSF Policy.docx Page 3 of 3

evaluation. If a faculty member is on 100% NSF funding, what they do during that funding period, isimpacted ONLY during very specific hours – that is the hours that the institution claims are normalworking hours. Since no Purdue employee is allowed to claim more than 100% of time, this 100% isrepresented by exactly 40 hours, and only during the advertised work hours.If faculty actually only did work during those 40 hours, we would mostly achieve little of what we areexpected. Indeed, I do not know of any faculty member who only works 40 hours a week. However,because NSF policy specifically and ONLY requires a person on 100% appointment to work those 40hours during a specified time– you are not obligated to NSF for a single minute more.

This opens up all sorts of opportunities for 100% NSF funded individuals to do many things during thattime which would be TOTALLY and completely LEGAL. Purdue has, as I understand it, even gone as far astaking legal action against people they believe may have performed other tasks during the time theywere funded 100% on NSF grants. It is not at all clear that Purdue would be on solid ground pursuingthis policy since individuals may perform other tasks as long as they are outside the precisely specifiedwork hours. Purdue has no control over these other tasks. Indeed, after my discussions with NSF it is notat all clear that Purdue’s use of NSF restrictions as a basis for changing the research faculty policy is at allvalid.

University Senate Document 11-3 21 November 2011

To: The University Senate

From: University Resources Policy Committee

Subject: University Open Access Policy

Disposition: University Senate for Information and Endorsement

The University Resources Policy Committee recommends that Purdue University adopt a

policy that advances and supports deposit to the Purdue e-Pubs digital repository all

scholarly articles published by Purdue faculty, thereby enabling open access in addition

to and beyond the published, citable article.

Respectfully submitted on behalf of the Purdue University Senate Resources Policy

Committee,

A. Paul Schwab

Chair, University Resources Policy Committee

Purdue University Senate

Approving: Disapproving: Absent:

Michael J. Fosmire Alphonso V. Diaz

John B. Grutzner Wei K. Cui

William L. Hoover Geraldine S. Friedman

Nick King Richard D. Johnson-Sheehan

Rebecca A. Logsdon Eric P. Kvam

Douglas C. Nelson Morris Levy

Joseph W. Rust Robert E. McMains

A. Paul Schwab Keith M. Stantz

Louis A. Sherman

Marion T. Trout

_____________________________ _______________________________ PGSG President Chair, Legislative and Strategic Planning Committee

Purdue Graduate Student Senate

Resolution Number: 2011-0016 “Open Access”

Author(s): Rebecca Logsdon

Sponsor(s): Sarah Rutkowski

Date of Meeting: 05 December 2011

Recommendation:

President, PGSS: Ms. Rebecca Logsdon

WHEREAS

Purdue University is a Land-Grant University with a mission and duty of disseminating knowledge and education to the public; and

WHEREAS

The Purdue University Libraries already have a free, online, open-access repository, e-Pubs (http://www.purdue.edu/epubs), for scholars to submit their work to that also allows tracking of the number of downloads of articles and the locations of downloads of the articles; and

WHEREAS

Universities that adopt open access policies may gain competitive advantages, potentially in increasing citations and certainly in promoting usage of research beyond the academy and internationally1; and

WHEREAS

Harvard University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford School of Education, Duke University, the University of Pennsylvania, Princeton University and the University of Kansas (a public school) have all adopted policies that ‘encourage or require’ their faculty to deposit their publications in the institutional digital research repository;

BE IT RESOLVED

That the Purdue Graduate Student Senate, on behalf of graduate students at Purdue University, West Lafayette recommends that the Graduate School at Purdue University and Purdue University adopt a policy that advances and supports deposit to the Purdue e-Pubs digital repository all scholarly articles published by Purdue faculty and graduate students, thereby enabling open access in addition to and beyond the published, citable article; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED

That the Purdue Graduate Student Senate, on behalf of graduate students at Purdue University, West Lafayette recommends that the Graduate School at Purdue University adopt a policy that advances and supports deposit to the Purdue e-Pubs digital repository all theses and dissertations published by Purdue graduate students, thereby enabling open access in addition to and beyond the published, citable article.

1 Davis, P. M. Open access, readership, citations: a randomized controlled trial of scientific journal publishing. FASEB

J. March 30, 2011 fj.11-183988. <http://www.fasebj.org/content/early/2011/03/29/fj.11-183988>

1  

University Senate Document 11-7 21 November 2011 TO: Steering Committee of the University Senate FROM: University Senate Educational Policy Committee SUBJECT: Undergraduate Core Curriculum and Administration & Oversight Structure DISPOSITION: University Senate for Discussion The Educational Policy Committee hereby forwards to the University Senate the attached report and proposal about the proposed new Core Curriculum and Administration & Oversight Structure. This report provides the background information and confirms that there has been active faculty involvement in the discussion and planning for the creation and implementation of the new core curriculum and oversight structure.

PROPOSED

Motion: To approve the core curriculum framework with identified essential learning outcomes and rubrics AND to appoint an undergraduate core curriculum administration and oversight committee with the responsibility for the ongoing governance of the core curriculum with rotating faculty representation from every College/School and the Libraries. 1. Purdue Undergraduate Core Curriculum The need exists at Purdue University to provide a means by which undergraduate students share a similar educational experience and in so doing achieve a set of common goals or outcomes required of all graduates. The core curriculum is such a mechanism that is grounded in a framework for building common knowledge and intellectual concepts in students and facilitating the development of skills and knowledge considered important for all Purdue graduates. It is intended to impart a common set of educational outcomes that will better equip students for success in tomorrow's global marketplace.

2  

Foundational Outcomes Rubric Level 1* 1.Written communication* Select ONE: (Courses TBD) 2. Information Literacy* Select ONE: (Courses TBD)

3.Oral communication* Select ONE: (Courses TBD)

4. Science, Technology and Mathematics Select ONE of EACH (Specific courses TBD)

• Science (Physical and Life Sciences)

• Technology and Computer Science

• Mathematics, Statistics

5. Human Cultures Select ONE of EACH (Specific courses TBD)

• Humanities • Behavioral/Social Sciences • Technology and Society

*Foundational outcomes also should be embedded within disciplinary areas and students are expected to demonstrate higher levels of learning in each area as indicated within rubrics. 

• More than one learning outcome may be satisfied in an individual course if that course is approved by Administration and Oversight Committee as fulfilling the requirements of each learning outcome rubric.

• Students receiving credit by exam for a course listed within the core will also fulfill the requirements of the specific learning outcome(s) tied to the course.

• Students will be able to satisfy the

requirements of the core in multiple ways (e.g., co-curricular activities such as learning communities and a common reading program, service learning, course content requirements).

3  

Framework: Through successful completion of a Purdue undergraduate program of study, students will acquire competencies rooted within a common set of foundational and embedded learning outcomes (see Appendix A for learning outcomes). Students will experience common coursework focused on foundational outcomes (see Table above) in written and oral communication; information literacy; science, technology, and mathematics; and human cultures. Foundational courses will equate to approximately 24-27 credit hours and center on a “developing” skill level (rubric Level 1). Multiple outcomes may be satisfied by a single foundational course. In addition, most courses will be considered potentially portable and transferable across all Purdue Colleges/Schools. The exception is for science and mathematics courses tied to the content learning outcome of Science, Technology, and Mathematics. Courses associated with these outcomes would be listed in “clusters” according to the common requirements for certain programs. For example, students might take mathematics content in the differential calculus cluster or the algebra & trigonometry cluster. Disciplines in which calculus or algebra/trigonometry is considered an entry point will be clustered to better enable students to complete their coursework. By highlighting common content requirements for program areas, planning should be more efficient for students who are considering a change in major. Students must work with university academic advisors to identify the courses that best meet the requirements for their major or potential majors as well as for meeting the learning outcomes.

Embedded Outcomes (enhanced within disciplines) Rubric Levels 1-3* 1. Creative Thinking

2. Critical Thinking

3. Ethical Reasoning

4. Global Citizenship and Social

Responsibility 5. Intercultural Knowledgea 6. Leadership and Teamwork 7. Quantitative Reasoningb 8. Integrative Learning 9. Written Communication (Levels 2, 3) 10. Information Literacy (Levels 2,3) 11. Oral Communication (Levels 2,3)

• aSome foundational coursework from Humanities may meet rubric Level 1 for the learning outcome Intercultural Knowledge

• bSome foundational coursework from Mathematics, Statistics may meet rubric Level 1 for the learning outcome Quantitative Reasoning

4  

Embedded learning outcomes addressed within courses and typically taught within a specific discipline or major are creative and critical thinking, ethical reasoning, intercultural knowledge and effectiveness, information literacy, global citizenship and social responsibility, quantitative reasoning, oral and written communication, and leadership and teamwork skills (see Table above). As outcomes are embedded within courses in each disciplinary structure, students will experience and be assessed on broad, deep areas of learning as reflected in the learning outcome rubrics indicating levels of knowledge and skill development increasing from “developing” (Level 1) to “emerging” (Level 2) to a “proficient” (Level3) level (see Appendix B for rubrics) (see Appendix C for sample assessment mapping). It is expected that all students will meet the embedded outcomes at a Level 3 by graduation. Operation: Beginning Fall 2013, all newly admitted undergraduate students will be required to complete the targeted learning outcomes of the core curriculum during their undergraduate program of study. Students will have the entire duration of their undergraduate program to meet these outcomes. Students who were enrolled prior to Fall 2013 will not be required to complete the core curriculum requirements. Students who transfer to Purdue or those who enter with AP course credit may receive credit for their previous coursework if those courses have been approved as equivalent courses.

Development of Core Curriculum Framework, Learning Outcomes, and Rubrics. During Phase I of the core curriculum development, committee members identified some courses meeting foundational learning outcomes that will be portable across all Purdue programs. In addition, learning outcomes and their rubrics were developed and refined. Following initial approval by the Faculty Senate, core curriculum development will move to Phase II.

Development of Assessment System and Program Alignment to Learning Outcomes. In Phase II, core curriculum committee members will focus efforts on 1) working with Colleges/Schools to nominate foundational courses that meet learning outcomes at the foundational level and aligning their programs illustrating how students will meet embedded learning outcomes at increasing proficiency levels, 2) working with the Registrar’s Office and Purdue’s Director of Assessment to design a system for monitoring student progress through the core curriculum as they achieve learning outcomes, and 3) outlining recommendations for the ongoing administration and oversight of the core curriculum (e.g., auditing programs, approving new courses as part of the core curriculum for meeting learning outcomes).

Portability: With the exception of science and mathematics courses tied to the content learning outcome Science, Technology, and Mathematics, courses meeting foundational learning outcomes will be portable across all majors (approximately 24-27 credit hours).Courses in which embedded learning outcomes are met may not be portable across all majors and may be specific to students’ individual majors. Thus, students who change majors must work closely with their academic advisors to identify those learning outcomes associated with the courses that will transfer to their desired program of study.

5  

2. Core Curriculum Administration and Oversight Structure The need exists at Purdue University to provide a means by which ongoing administration and oversight of Purdue’s undergraduate core curriculum can occur. To meet the ongoing workings of a sustainable core curriculum, faculty-led structures must be in place for determining and carrying out the operational guidelines associated with implementing elements of the core curriculum. Among the range of issues to be addressed by the faculty administration and oversight committee are approval of courses for inclusion within the core, establishment of guiding rules, regulation and monitoring of approved courses, and resolution of issues related to transfer students. It is recommended that this committee be established no later than the Spring 2012 semester. Initial Recommendations for Administration and Oversight of the Core Curriculum: Principles:

• The core curriculum will be faculty-governed. • Learning outcomes within the core curriculum are designed to prepare students for

continuous learning and expertise within disciplines. Purdue’s core curriculum will be one that is outcomes-based.

• The core curriculum maintains high academic standards within the disciplines. • The goal of the core curriculum is to design mechanisms to permit flexibility for both

academic programs and students in meeting learning outcomes.

Procedures: • This committee will be comprised of at least one faculty representative from each

College/School and the Libraries as voting members. In addition, Ex Officio members will be added to include: regional campus representatives, Purdue Student Government representatives, and a head academic advisor. Faculty members will serve a 2-year term. It is recommended that faculty representatives serve no more than two consecutive terms before new faculty representatives are appointed.

• As the need arises for introducing new learning outcomes or eliminating those that are no longer relevant for Purdue graduates, it will be the responsibility of this committee to identify and vet those through a regular (at least every 5 years) reevaluation process.

• Any course accepted for Purdue’s core curriculum must be approved by a majority vote of faculty members on this committee.

• All courses (or non courses) used to fulfill Purdue’s core curriculum are limited to those or equivalencies approved by this committee.

6  

Respectfully submitted on behalf of the Purdue University Senate Educational Policy Committee, Teri Reed-Rhoads Chair, Educational Policy Committee Purdue University Senate Approving: Disapproving: Absent: Danita M. Brown Joan R. Fulton James R. Daniels Ronald J. Glotzbach Frank J. Dooley Chong Gu Peggy A. Ertmer Katherine Horton R. Neal Houze Christine A. Hrycyna Harold P. Kirkwood Robert A. Kubat Martin A. Lopez-de-Bertodano Lindsey Payne Teri Reed-Rhoads Thomas H. Siegmund Glenn G. Sparks Matthew Swiontek A. Dale Whittaker

  1

CORE CURRICULUM PROPOSAL APPENDICES

Appendix A: Learning Outcomes

Foundational Learning Outcomes 1. Written Communication* -- Clear expression of ideas in writing; includes grammar, organization, and structure. Varying levels and types of writing skills are required for different jobs. The ability to convey ideas concisely and coherently is important.

Key Skills: • Demonstrates understanding of context, audience, and purpose that is responsive to

the assigned task(s) and focuses on all elements of the work. • Uses appropriate and relevant content to explore ideas and/or demonstrate mastery

of the subject, conveying the writer’s understanding, and shaping the work. • Demonstrates attention to and successful execution of organization, content,

presentation, format and stylistic choices in writing. • Demonstrates use of credible, relevant resources to support ideas that are situated

within the discipline and genre of writing. • Uses language that effectively communicates meaning to readers with clarity and

fluency. 2. Information Literacy*–Information literacy is the ability to recognize the extent and nature of information need, then to locate, evaluate, and effectively use the needed information. It involves designing, evaluating and implementing a strategy to answer questions or achieve a desired goal. Key skills

• Determine the extent of information needed (define the research question, determine key concepts and types of information needed)

• Access information using effective, well-designed search strategies and relevant information sources.

• Evaluate information and its sources critically (analyzes assumptions and evaluates the relevance of contexts when presenting a position)

• Communicate, organize and synthesize information from several sources. • Access and use information ethically and legally (citations and references;

paraphrasing, summary, or quoting; distinguishing between common knowledge and ideas requiring attribution)

• Propose a solution/hypothesis that indicates comprehension of the problem and is sensitive to contextual factors as well as the ethical, logical, or cultural dimensions of the problem.

• Demonstrate an understanding of the ethical and legal restrictions on the use of published, confidential, and/or proprietary information.

3. Oral Communication* – activity of conveying meaningful information verbally; communication by word of mouth typically relies on words, visual aids and non-verbal elements to support the conveyance of the meaning. Oral communication is designed to increase knowledge, foster understanding, or to promote change in the listener’s attitudes, values, beliefs, or behaviors.

Key Skills:

  2

• Uses appropriate organizational patterns (introduction, conclusion, sequenced material, transitions) that is clearly and consistently observable when making presentations

• Uses language that is thoughtful and generally supports the effectiveness of the presentation (and is appropriate to the audience).

• Uses appropriate delivery techniques when making a presentation (posture, gesture, eye contact, vocal expression)

• Effectively uses supporting materials in presentations (explanations, examples, illustrations, statistics, analogies, quotations)

• Clearly communicates a central message with the supporting materials

4. Science, Technology and Mathematics -- the ability to understand and apply basic scientific, quantitative, and technological knowledge.

Key skills: • Apply basic scientific, quantitative, and technological methods and knowledge of

nature to the solution of scientific problems • Utilize the scientific method and theories to analyze questions in the physical and

natural world • Provide scientific explanations of the nature of the universe, the earth, and life forms

and be able to distinguish these explanations from non-scientific explanations • Understand issues and apply basic skills of computing and information science as it

relates to security, privacy, and the proliferation of global information 5. Human Cultures -- the ability to recognize one’s own cultural traditions and to understand and appreciate other cultural traditions and languages. Key skills:

• Discuss history and the basic principles and operation of government with a view to being a responsible citizen

• Discuss economic, social, and cultural diversity within a global context • Describe the cultural, social and historical dynamics that influence individuals and

groups • Explain the perspective of the culture of another country through the study of world

languages, arts, spiritual traditions, mythology/literature, and/or through study abroad • Understand and reflect upon the complex issues raised by technological change and

its effects on society and the global world by making sense of, evaluating, and responding to present and future technological changes that shape individuals’ work, public, and personal lives.

* Foundational outcomes also should be embedded within disciplinary areas and students are expected to demonstrate higher levels of learning in each area as indicated within rubrics.

Embedded Learning Outcomes

1. Creative Thinking – the capacity to combine or synthesize existing ideas, images, or

expertise in original ways and the experience of thinking, reacting, and working in an imaginative way characterized by innovation and divergent thinking.

Key Skills:

  3

• Acquires strategies and skills within a particular domain: adapts an appropriate exemplar to his/her own specifications; creates an entirely new object, solution or idea appropriate to the domain; evaluates creative process and product using domain-appropriate criteria

• Takes risks: considers new directions or approaches; incorporates new directions or approaches to the assignment; actively seeks out and follows through on untested directions or approaches to the assignment

• Solves problems logically and using a plan; considers consequences and alternatives

• Includes, incorporates, and integrates alternative or divergent perspectives or ideas. • Experiments with, creates, and extends a novel or unique idea, question, format or

product to create new knowledge or knowledge that crosses boundaries. 2. Critical Thinking -- “...mode of thinking about any subject, content, or problem in which the thinker improves the quality of his or her thinking by skillfully taking charge of the structures inherent in thinking and imposing intellectual standards upon them.” It is a habit of mind characterized by the comprehensive exploration of issues, ideas, artifacts, and events before accepting or formulating an opinion or conclusion. Key Skills:

• Examines explanation of issues: Issue/problem to be considered critically is stated clearly and described comprehensively delivering relevant information necessary for understanding

• Evaluates evidence: Information is taken from source(s) with enough interpretation/evaluation to develop an analysis or sythesis. Viewpoints of expers are questioned thoroughly.

• Questions assumptions: Analyzes own and others' assumptions and carefuly evalutes the relvance of contexts when presenting a position.

• Assumes/takes a position on a topic: Specific position (perspective, thesis/hypothesis) acknowledges different sides of an issue.

• Identifies conclusions: Conclusion is logically tied to information (because information is chosen to fit the desired conclusion); related outcomes (consequences and implications) are identified clearly.

3. Intercultural Knowledge and Effectiveness -- Defined as a set of behaviors, attitudes, and policies that come together to enable systems, agencies, or professionals to work effectively in cross-cultural situations. Culturally effective systems integrate and transform knowledge about individuals and groups of people into specific standards, policies, practices, and attitudes used in appropriate cultural settings to increase the quality of services; thereby producing better outcomes. Culturally effective services are respectful of and responsive to the beliefs and practices, and cultural and linguistic needs of diverse populations. Cultural competence is a developmental process that evolves over an extended period. Both individuals and organizations are at various levels of awareness, knowledge and skills along a cultural competence continuum.

Key Skills: • Identifies, recognizes new perspectives, and articulates insights into own cultural

rules and biases • Demonstrates understanding of other cultures in relation to history, values, politics,

communication styles, economy, or beliefs and practices.

  4

• Identifies, recognizes, and interprets intercultural experiences from the perspectives of one and more than one worldview

• Identifies, recognizes, and articulates understanding of cultural differences in verbal and nonverbal communication

• Asks questions about other cultures, seeks out information about other cultures. • Interacts with culturally different others.

4. Ethical Reasoning – is reasoning about right and wrong human conduct. It requires students to assess their own ethical values and the social context of problems, recognize ethical issues in a variety of settings, think about how different ethical perspectives might be applied to ethical dilemmas and consider the ramifications of alternative actions. Students’ ethical self-identity evolves as they practice ethical decision-making skills and learn how to describe and analyze positions on ethical issues.

Key Skills: • Articulate one’s ethical beliefs and approach to ethical decisions; • Identifies major theories supporting ethical perspectives and concepts • Recognize ethical issues in personal, professional and civic life; • Identify competing values in ethical dilemmas; Understand different ethical

perspectives and ethical concepts; • Defend a position with good reasoning and consideration of opposing views.

5. Global Citizenship and Social Responsibility -- Civil discourse on complex issues, Ability to appreciate and critique multiple perspectives including one’s own, Self-reflective examination of values, Self-reflective awareness of oneself as a global citizen, Ethical citizenship and leadership in a global civil society, Commitment to community service. Key Skills:

• Understanding of a citizen's responsibilities to others, to society and to the environment:

o Examine the meaning of democracy and citizenship from differing points of view including non-dominant, non-western perspectives.

o Explore the rights and obligations that citizens have in their communities, nations and in the world.

o Discuss or write about their lives, careers, and interests in relation to participatory democracy and the general welfare of the global society.

o Explore the relationship of global citizenship and responsibility to the environment.

6. Integrative Learning -- Integrative learning is an understanding and a disposition that a student builds across the curriculum and co-curriculum, from making simple connections among ideas and experiences to synthesizing and transferring learning to new, complex situations within and beyond the campus. Key Skills:

• Connects relevant experience with academic knowledge • Makes connections across disciplines, perspectives • Adapts and applies skills, abilities, theories, or methodologies gained in one

situation to new situations • Demonstrates a developing sense of self as a learner, building on prior

experiences to respond to new and challenging contexts (may be evident in self-assessment, reflective, or creative work).

  5

7. Quantitative Reasoning -- Quantitative literacy is knowledge of and confidence with basic mathematical/analytical concepts and operations required for problem solving, decision-making, economic productivity and real-world applications.

Key Skills: • Explains information presented in mathematical forms (e.g., equations, graphs,

diagrams, tables, words) • Converts relevant information into various mathematical forms (e.g., equations,

graphs, diagrams, tables, words) • Competently performs basic computational/arithmetic operations • Makes judgments and draws appropriate conclusions based on the quantitative

analysis of data while recognizing the limits of this analysis • Makes and evaluates important assumptions in estimation, modeling, and data

analysis • Expresses quantitative evidence in support of the argument or purpose of the

work 8. Leadership and Teamwork – Leadership and Teamwork are interpersonal skills and behaviors under the control of individuals and team members (effort they put into team tasks, their manner of interacting with others on team, and the quantity and quality of contributions they make to organizational and team discussions). The leader is one who practices management as a trainable skill with technical and administrative aspects which serve to direct people for the good of the enterprise. Leadership is the art and science of getting the job done through the willing efforts of others. Key Skills

• Facilitates change for the good of the organization • Contributes to team meetings, discussions, and work products • Facilitates the contributions of team members • Individual contributions outside of team meetings • Fosters constructive team climate • Responds to conflict

Appendix B

Learning Outcome Rubrics

  6

CREATIVE THINKINGRUBRIC

Definition

The capacity to combine or synthesize existing ideas, images, or expertise in original ways and the experience of thinking, reacting, and working in an imaginative way characterized by innovationand divergent thinking.

Proficient

3

Emerging

2

Developing

1

Acquiring Competencies

This step refers to acquiring strategies and skills within a particular domain.

Reflect: Evaluates creative process and product using domain-appropriate criteria.

Create: Creates an entirely new object, solution or idea that is appropriate to the domain.

Adapt: Successfully adaptsan appropriate exemplar to his/her own specifications.

Taking Risks

May include personal risk (fear of embarrassment or rejection) or risk of failure in successfully completing assignment, i.e. going beyond original parameters of assignment, introducing new materials and forms, tackling controversial topics, advocating unpopular ideas or solutions.

Actively seeks out and follows through on untested and potentially risky directions or approaches to the assignment in the final product.

Incorporates new directions or approaches to the assignment in the final product.

Considers new directions or approaches without going beyond the guidelines of the assignment.

Solving Problems Not only develops a logical, consistent plan to solve problem, but recognizes consequences of solution and can articulate reason for choosing solution.

Having selected from among alternatives, develops a logical, consistent plan to solve the problem.

Considers and rejects less acceptable approaches to solving problem.

Embracing Contradictions Integrates alternate, divergent, or contradictory perspectives or ideas fully.

Incorporates alternate, divergent, or contradictory perspectives or ideas in a exploratory way.

Includes (recognizes the value of) alternate, divergent, or contradictory perspectives or ideas in a small way.

Innovative Thinking

Novelty or uniqueness (of idea, claim, question, form, etc.)

Extends a novel or unique idea, question, format, or product to create new knowledge or knowledge that crosses boundaries.

Creates a novel or unique idea, question, format, or product.

Experiments with creating a novel or unique idea, question, format, or product.

Connecting, Synthesizing, Transforming Transforms ideas or solutions into entirely new forms.

Synthesizes ideas or solutions into a coherent whole.

Connects ideas or solutions in novel ways.

Adapted from AAC&U Core Value Rubrics

  7

CRITICAL THINKINGRUBRIC

Definition “...mode of thinking about any subject, content, or problem in which the thinker improves the quality of his or her thinking by skillfully taking charge of the structures inherent in thinking and imposing intellectual standards upon them.” It is a habit of mind characterized by the comprehensive exploration of issues, ideas, artifacts, and events before accepting or formulating an opinion or conclusion.

  8

Proficient

3

Emerging

2

Developing

1

Explanation of issues Issue/problem to be considered critically is stated clearly and described comprehensively, delivering all relevant information necessary for full understanding.

Issue/problem to be considered critically is stated, described, and clarified so that understanding is not seriously impeded by omissions.

Issue/problem to be considered critically is stated but description leaves some terms undefined, ambiguities unexplored, boundaries undetermined, and/or backgrounds unknown.

Evidence Selecting and using information to investigate a point of view or conclusion

Information is taken from source(s) with enough interpretation/evaluation to develop a comprehensive analysis or synthesis. Viewpoints of experts are questioned thoroughly.

Information is taken from source(s) with enough interpretation/evaluation to develop a coherent analysis or synthesis. Viewpoints of experts are subject to questioning.

Information is taken from source(s) with some interpretation/evaluation, but not enough to develop a coherent analysis or synthesis. Viewpoints of experts are taken as mostly fact, with little questioning.

Influence of context and assumptions Thoroughly (systematically and methodically) analyzes own and others' assumptions and carefully evaluates the relevance of contexts when presenting a position.

Identifies own and others' assumptions and several relevant contexts when presenting a position.

Questions some assumptions. Identifies several relevant contexts when presenting a position. May be more aware of others' assumptions than one's own (or vice versa).

Student's position (perspective, thesis/hypothesis)

Specific position (perspective, thesis/hypothesis) is imaginative, taking into account the complexities of an issue. Limits of position (perspective, thesis/hypothesis) are acknowledged. Others' points of view are synthesized within position (perspective, thesis/hypothesis).

Specific position (perspective, thesis/hypothesis) takes into account the complexities of an issue. Others' points of view are acknowledged within position (perspective, thesis/hypothesis).

Specific position (perspective, thesis/hypothesis) acknowledges different sides of an issue.

Conclusions and related outcomes (implications and consequences)

Conclusions and related outcomes (consequences and implications) are logical and reflect student’s informed evaluation and ability to place evidence and perspectives discussed in priority order.

Conclusion is logically tied to a range of information, including opposing viewpoints; related outcomes (consequences and implications) are identified clearly.

Conclusion is logically tied to information (because information is chosen to fit the desired conclusion); some related outcomes (consequences and implications) are identified clearly.

• Adapted from AAC&U Core Value Rubrics

ETHICAL REASONINGRUBRIC

Definition

Ethical Reasoning is reasoning about right and wrong human conduct. It requires students to be able to assess their own ethical values and the social context of problems, recognize ethical issues in a variety of settings, think about how different ethical perspectives might be applied to ethical dilemmas, and consider the ramifications of alternative actions. Students’ ethical self-identity evolves as they practice ethical decision-making skills and learn how to describe and analyze positions on ethical issues.

Proficient

3

Emerging

2

Developing

1

Ethical Self-Awareness Student discusses in detail/analyzes both core beliefs and the origins of the core beliefs and discussion has greater depth and clarity.

Student discusses in detail/analyzes both core beliefs and the origins of the core beliefs.

Student states both core beliefs and the origins of the core beliefs.

Understanding Different Ethical Perspectives/Concepts

Student names the theory or theories, can present the gist of said theory or theories, and accurately explains the details of the theory or theories used.

Student can name the major theory or theories she/he uses, can present the gist of said theory or theories, and attempts to explain the details of the theory or theories used, but has some inaccuracies.

Student can name the major theory she/he uses, and is only able to present the gist of the named theory.

Ethical Issue Recognition Student can recognize ethical issues when presented in a complex, multilayered (gray) context AND can recognize cross-relationships among the issues.

Student can recognize ethical issues when issues are presented in a complex, multilayered (gray) context OR can grasp cross-relationships among the issues.

Student can recognize basic and obvious ethical issues and grasp (incompletely) the complexities or interrelationships among the issues.

Application of Ethical Perspectives/Concepts

Student can independently apply ethical perspectives/concepts to an ethical question, accurately, and is able to consider full implications of the application.

Student can independently apply ethical perspectives/concepts to an ethical question, accurately, but does not consider the specific implications of the application.

Student can apply ethical perspectives/concepts to an ethical question, independently (to a new example) and the application is inaccurate.

Evaluation of Different Ethical Perspectives/Concepts

Student states a position and can state the objections to, assumptions and implications of and can reasonably defend against the objections to, assumptions and implications of different ethical perspectives/concepts, and the student's defense is adequate and effective.

Student states a position and can state the objections to, assumptions and implications of, and respond to the objections to, assumptions and implications of different ethical perspectives/concepts, but the student's response is inadequate.

Student states a position and can state the objections to, assumptions and implications of different ethical perspectives/concepts but does not respond to them (and ultimately objections, assumptions, and implications are compartmentalized by student and do not affect student's position.)

• Adapted from AAC&U Core Value Rubrics

  9

GLOBAL CITIZENSHIP/SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITYRUBRIC

Definition

Global citizenship and social responsibility iscivil discourse on complex issues, Ability to appreciate and critique multiple perspectives including one’s own, Self-reflective examination of values, Self-reflective awareness of oneself as a global citizen, Ethical citizenship and leadership in a global civil society, Commitment to community service.

Proficient

3 Emerging

2 Developing

1

Diversity of Communities and Cultures Demonstrates evidence of adjustment in own attitudes and beliefs because of working within and learning from diversity of communities and cultures. Promotes others' engagement with diversity.

Reflects on how own attitudes and beliefs are different from those of other cultures and communities. Exhibits curiosity about what can be learned from diversity of communities and cultures.

Has awareness that own attitudes and beliefs are different from those of other cultures and communities. Exhibits little curiosity about what can be learned from diversity of communities and cultures.

Analysis of Knowledge Connects and extends knowledge (facts, theories, etc.) from one's own academic study/field/discipline to global engagement and to one's own participation in civic life, politics, and government.

Analyzes knowledge (facts, theories, etc.) from one's own academic study/field/discipline making relevant connections to global engagement and to one's own participation in civic life, politics, and government.

Begins to connect knowledge (facts, theories, etc.) from one's own academic study/field/discipline to global engagement and to tone's own participation in civic life, politics, and government.

Identity and Commitment Provides evidence of experience in civic-engagement activities and describes what she/he haslearned about her or himself as it relates to a reinforced and clarified sense of civic identity and continued commitment to public action.

Provides evidence of experience in civic-engagement activities and describes what she/he has learned about her or himself as it relates to a growing sense of civic identity and commitment.

Evidence suggests involvement in civic-engagement activities is generated from expectations or course requirements rather than from a sense of civic identity.

Communication Tailors communication strategies to effectively express, listen, and adapt to others to establish relationships to further civic action

Effectively communicates in civic context, showing ability to do all of the following: express, listen, and adapt ideas and messages based on others' perspectives.

Communicates in civic context, showing ability to do more than one of the following: express, listen, and adapt ideas and messages based on others' perspectives.

Action and Reflection Demonstrates independent experience and shows initiative in team leadership of complex or multiple civic engagement activities, accompanied by reflective insights or analysis about the aims and accomplishments of one’s actions.

Demonstrates independent experience and team leadership of civic action, with reflective insights or analysis about the aims and accomplishments of one’s actions.

Has clearly participated in civicallyfocused actions and begins to reflect or describe how these actions may benefit individual(s) or communities.

Adapted from AAC&U Core Value Rubrics

  10 

INFORMATION LITERACY RUBRIC

Definition

Information literacy is the ability to recognize the extent and nature of information need, then to locate, evaluate, and effectively use the needed information. It involves designing, evaluating and implementing a strategy to answer questions or achieve a desired goal

Proficient

3 Emerging

2 Developing

1

Determine the Extent of Information Needed

Effectively defines the scope of the research question or thesis. Effectively determines key concepts. Types of information (sources) selected directly relate to concepts or answer research question.

Defines the scope of the research question or thesis completely. Can determine key concepts. Types of information (sources) selected relate to concepts or answer research question.

Defines the scope of the research question or thesis incompletely (parts are missing, remains too broad or too narrow, etc.). Can determine key concepts. Types of information (sources) selected partially relate to concepts or answer research question.

Access the Needed Information Accesses information using effective, well-designed search strategies and most appropriate information sources.

Accesses information using variety of search strategies and some relevant information sources. Demonstrates ability to refine search.

Accesses information using simple search strategies, retrieves information from limited and similar sources.

Evaluate Information and its Sources Critically

Thoroughly (systematically and methodically) analyzes own and others' assumptions and carefully evaluates the relevance of contexts when presenting a position.

Identifies own and others' assumptions and several relevant contexts when presenting a position.

Questions some assumptions. Identifies several relevant contexts when presenting a position. May be more aware of others' assumptions than one's own (or vice versa).

Use Information Effectively to Accomplish a Specific Purpose

Communicates, organizes and synthesizes information from sources to fully achieve a specific purpose, with clarity and depth

Communicates, organizes and synthesizes information from sources. Intended purpose is achieved.

Communicates and organizes information from sources. The information is not yet synthesized, so the intended purpose is not fully achieved.

Access and Use Information Ethically and Legally

Students use correctly all of the following information use strategies (use of citations and references; choice of paraphrasing, summary, or quoting; using information in ways that are true to original context; distinguishing between common knowledge and ideas requiring attribution) and demonstrate a full understanding of the ethical and legal restrictions on the use of published, confidential, and/or proprietary information.

Students use correctly three of the following information use strategies (use of citations and references; choice of paraphrasing, summary, or quoting; using information in ways that are true to original context; distinguishing between common knowledge and ideas requiring attribution) and demonstrates a full understanding of the ethical and legal restrictions on the use of published, confidential, and/or proprietary information.

Students use correctly two of the following information use strategies (use of citations and references; choice of paraphrasing, summary, or quoting; using information in ways that are true to original context; distinguishing between common knowledge and ideas requiring attribution) and demonstrates a full understanding of the ethical and legal restrictions on the use of published, confidential, and/or proprietary information.

• Adapted from AAC&U Core Value Rubrics

  11 

  12 

INTEGRATIVE LEARNINGRUBRIC

Definition Integrative learning is an understanding and a disposition that a student builds across the curriculum and cocurriculum, from making simple connections among ideas and experiences to synthesizing and transferring learning to new, complex situations within and beyond the campus.

Proficient 3

Emerging 2

Developing 1

Connections to Experience Connects relevant experience and academic knowledge

Meaningfully synthesizes connections among experiences outside of the formal classroom (including life experiences and academic experiences such as internships and travel abroad) to deepen understanding of fields of study and to broaden own points of view.

Effectively selects and develops examples of life experiences, drawn from a variety of contexts (e.g., family life, artistic participation, civic involvement, work experience), to illuminate concepts/theories/frameworks of fields of study.

Compares life experiences and academic knowledge to infer differences, as well as similarities, and acknowledge perspectives other than own.

Connections to Discipline Sees (makes) connections across disciplines, perspectives

Independently creates wholes out of multiple parts (synthesizes) or draws conclusions by combining examples, facts, or theories from more than one field of study or perspective.

Independently connects examples, facts, or theories from more than one field of study or perspective.

When prompted, connects examples, facts, or theories from more than one field of study or perspective.

Transfer Adapts and applies skills, abilities, theories, or methodologies gained in one situation to new situations

Adapts and applies, independently,skills, abilities, theories, or methodologies gained in one situation to new situations to solve difficult problems or explore complex issues in original ways.

Adapts and applies skills, abilities, theories, or methodologies gained in one situation to new situations to solve problems or explore issues.

Uses skills, abilities, theories, or methodologies gained in one situation in a new situation to contribute to understanding of problems or issues.

Integrated Communication Fulfills the assignment(s) by choosing a format, language, or graph (or other visual representation) in ways that enhance meaning, making clear the interdependence of language and meaning, thought, and expression.

Fulfills the assignment(s) by choosing a format, language, or graph (or other visual representation) to explicitly connect content and form, demonstrating awareness of purpose and audience.

Fulfills the assignment(s) by choosing a format, language, or graph (or other visual representation) that connects in a basic way what is being communicated (content) with how it is said (form).

Reflection and Self-Assessment Demonstrates a developing sense of self as a learner, building on prior experiences to respond to new and challenging contexts (may be evident in self-assessment, reflective, or creative work)

Envisions a future self (and possibly makes plans that build on past experiences that have occurred across multiple and diverse contexts).

Evaluates changes in own learning over time, recognizing complex contextual factors (e.g., works with ambiguity and risk, deals with frustration, considers ethical frameworks).

Articulates strengths and challenges (within specific performances or events) to increase effectiveness in different contexts (through increased self-awareness).

• Adapted from AAC&U Core Value Rubrics

INTERCULTURAL KNOWLEDGE AND EFFECTIVENESS RUBRIC

Definition

A set of behaviors, attitudes, and policies that come together to enable systems, agencies, or professionals to work effectively in cross-cultural situations. Proficient

3 Emerging

2 Developing

1

Knowledge Cultural self- awareness

Articulates insights into own cultural rules and biases (e.g. seeking complexity; aware of how her/his experiences have shaped these rules, and how to recognize and respond to cultural biases, resulting in a shift in self-description.)

Recognizes new perspectives about own cultural rules and biases (e.g. not looking for sameness; comfortable with the complexities that new perspectives offer.)

Identifies own cultural rules and biases (e.g. with a strong preference for those rules shared with own cultural group and seeks the same in others.)

Knowledge Knowledge of cultural worldview frameworks

Demonstrates sophisticated understanding of the complexity of elements important to members of another culture in relation to its history, values, politics, communication styles, economy, or beliefs and practices.

Demonstrates adequate understanding of the complexity of elements important to members of another culture in relation to its history, values, politics, communication styles, economy, or beliefs and practices.

Demonstrates partial understanding of the complexity of elements important to members of another culture in relation to its history, values, politics, communication styles, economy, or beliefs and practices.

Skills Empathy

Interprets intercultural experience from the perspectives of own and more than one worldview and demonstrates ability to act in a supportive manner that recognizes the feelings of another cultural group.

Recognizes intellectual and emotional dimensions of more than one worldview and sometimes uses more than one worldview in interactions.

Identifies components of other cultural perspectives but responds in all situations with own worldview.

Skills Verbal and nonverbal communication

Articulates a complex understanding of cultural differences in verbal and nonverbal communication (e.g., demonstrates understanding of the degree to which people use physical contact while communicating in different cultures or use direct/indirect and explicit/implicit meanings) and is able to skillfully negotiate a shared understanding based on those differences.

Recognizes and participates in cultural differences in verbal and nonverbal communication and begins to negotiate a shared understanding based on those differences.

Identifies some cultural differences in verbal and nonverbal communication and is aware that misunderstandings can occur based on those differences but is still unable to negotiate a shared understanding.

Attitudes Curiosity

Asks complex questions about other cultures, seeks out and articulates answers to these questions that reflect multiple cultural perspectives.

Asks deeper questions about other cultures and seeks out answers to these questions.

Asks simple or surface questions about other cultures.

Attitudes Openness

Initiates and develops interactions with culturally different others. Suspends judgment in valuing her/his interactions with culturally different others.

Begins to initiate and develop interactions with culturally different others. Begins to suspend judgment in valuing her/his interactions with culturally different others.

Expresses openness to most, if not all, interactions with culturally different others. Has difficulty suspending any judgment in her/his interactions with culturally different others, and is aware of own judgment and expresses a willingness to change.

• Adapted from AAC&U Core Value Rubrics

  13 

 LEADERSHIP AND TEAMWORK RUBRIC

Definition

Leadership and Teamwork are interpersonal skills and behaviors under the control of individuals and team members (effort they put into team tasks, their manner of interacting with others on team, and the quantity and quality of contributions they make to organizational and team discussions). The leader is one who practices management as a trainable skill with technical and administrative aspects which serve to direct people for the good of the enterprise. Leadership is the art and science of getting the job done through the willing efforts of others.

  14 

Proficient 3

Emerging 2

Developing 1

Contributes to Team Meetings Helps the team move forward by articulating the merits of alternative ideas or proposals.

Offers alternative solutions or courses of action that build on the ideas of others.

Offers new suggestions to advance the work of the group.

Facilitates the Contributions of Team Members

Engages team members in ways that facilitate their contributions to meetings by both constructively building upon or synthesizing the contributions of others as well as noticing when someone is not participating and inviting them to engage.

Engages team members in ways that facilitate their contributions to meetings by constructively building upon or synthesizing the contributions of others.

Engages team members in ways that facilitate their contributions to meetings by restating the views of other team members and/or asking questions for clarification.

Individual Contributions Outside of Team Meetings

Completes all assigned tasks by deadline; work accomplished is thorough, comprehensive, and advances the project. Proactively helps other team members complete their assigned tasks to a similar level of excellence.

Completes all assigned tasks by deadline; work accomplished is thorough, comprehensive, and advances the project.

Completes all assigned tasks by deadline; work accomplished advances the project.

Fosters Constructive Team Climate Supports a constructive team climate by doing all of the following:

• Treats team members respectfully by being polite and constructive in communication.

• Uses positive vocal or written tone, facial expressions, and/or body language to convey a positive attitude about the team anditswork.

• Motivates teammates by expressing confidence about the importance of the task and the team's ability to accomplish it.

• Provides assistance and/or encouragement to team members.

Supports a constructive team climate by doing any three of the following:

• Treats team members respectfully by being polite and constructive in communication.

• Uses positive vocal or written tone, facial expressions, and/or body language to convey a positive attitude about the team and its work.

• Motivates teammates by expressing confidence about the importance of the task and the team's ability to accomplish it.

• Provides assistance and/or encouragement to team members.

Supports a constructive team climate by doing any two of the following:

• Treats team members respectfully by being polite and constructive in communication.

• Uses positive vocal or written tone, facial expressions, and/or body language to convey a positive attitude about the team and its work.

• Motivates teammates by expressing confidence about the importance of the task and the team's ability to accomplish it.

• Provides assistance and/or encouragement to team members.

Responds to Conflict Addresses destructive conflict directly and constructively, helping to manage/resolve it in a way that strengthens overall team cohesiveness and future effectiveness.

Identifies and acknowledges conflict and stays engaged with it.

Redirecting focus toward common ground, toward task at hand (away from conflict).

Adapted from AAC&U Core Value Rubrics

  15 

 ORAL COMMUNICATION RUBRIC

Definition

Activity of conveying meaningful information verbally; communication by word of mouthtypically relies on words, visual aids and non-verbal elements to support the conveyance of the meaning. Oral communication is designed to increase knowledge, foster understanding, or to promote change in the listener’s attitudes, values, beliefs, or behaviors.

Proficient 3

Emerging 2

Developing 1

Organization Organizational pattern (specific introduction and conclusion, sequenced material within the body, and transitions) is clearly and consistently observable and is skillful and makes the content of the presentation cohesive.

Organizational pattern (specific introduction and conclusion, sequenced material within the body, and transitions) is clearly and consistently observable within the presentation.

Organizational pattern (specific introduction and conclusion, sequenced material within the body, and transitions) is intermittently observable within the presentation.

Language Language choices are imaginative, memorable, and compelling, and enhance the effectiveness of the presentation. Language in presentation is appropriate to audience.

Language choices are thoughtful and generally support the effectiveness of the presentation. Language in presentation is appropriate to audience.

Language choices are mundane and commonplace and partially support the effectiveness of the presentation. Language in presentation is appropriate to audience.

Delivery Delivery techniques (posture, gesture, eye contact, and vocal expressiveness) make the presentation compelling, and speaker appears polished and confident.

Delivery techniques (posture, gesture, eye contact, and vocal expressiveness) make the presentation interesting, and speaker appears comfortable.

Delivery techniques (posture, gesture, eye contact, and vocal expressiveness) make the presentation understandable, and speaker appears tentative.

Supporting Material A variety of types of supporting materials (explanations, examples, illustrations, statistics, analogies, quotations from relevant authorities) make appropriate reference to information or analysis that significantly supports the presentation or establishes the presenter's credibility/authority on the topic.

Supporting materials (explanations, examples, illustrations, statistics, analogies, quotations from relevant authorities) make appropriate reference to information or analysis that generally supports the presentation or establishes the presenter's credibility/authority on the topic.

Supporting materials (explanations, examples, illustrations, statistics, analogies, quotations from relevant authorities) make appropriate reference to information or analysis that partially supports the presentation or establishes the presenter's credibility/authority on the topic.

Central Message Central message is compelling (precisely stated, appropriately repeated, memorable, and strongly supported.)

Central message is clear and consistent with the supporting material.

Central message is basically understandable but is not often repeated and is not memorable.

Adapted from AAC&U Core Value Rubrics

QUANTITATIVE REASONING RUBRIC

Definition

Quantitative Reasoning –is knowledge of and confidence with basic mathematical/analytical concepts and operations required for problem-solving, decision-making, economic productivity and real-world applications.

Proficient 3

Emerging 2

Developing 1

Interpretation Ability to explain information presented in mathematical forms (e.g., equations, graphs, diagrams, tables, words)

Provides accurate explanations of information presented in mathematical forms. Makes appropriate inferences based on that information. For example, accurately explains the trend data shown in a graph and makes reasonable predictions regarding what the data suggest about future events.

Provides accurate explanations of information presented in mathematical forms. For instance, accurately explains the trend data shown in a graph.

Provides somewhat accurate explanations of information presented in mathematical forms, but occasionally makes minor errors related to computations or units. For instance, accurately explains trend data shown in a graph, but may miscalculate the slope of the trend line.

Representation Ability to convert relevant information into various mathematical forms (e.g., equations, graphs, diagrams, tables, words)

Skillfully converts relevant information into an insightful mathematical portrayal in a way that contributes to a further or deeper understanding.

Competently converts relevant information into an appropriate and desired mathematical portrayal.

Completes conversion of information but resulting mathematical portrayal is only partially appropriate or accurate.

Calculation Calculations attempted are essentially all successful and sufficiently comprehensive to solve the problem. Calculations are also presented elegantly (clearly, concisely, etc.)

Calculations attempted are essentially all successful and sufficiently comprehensive to solve the problem.

Calculations attempted are either unsuccessful or represent only a portion of the calculations required to comprehensively solve the problem.

Application / Analysis Ability to make judgments and draw appropriate conclusions based on the quantitative analysis of data, while recognizing the limits of this analysis

Uses the quantitative analysis of data as the basis for deep and thoughtful judgments, drawing insightful, carefully qualified conclusions from this work.

Uses the quantitative analysis of data as the basis for competent judgments, drawing reasonable and appropriately qualified conclusions from this work.

Uses the quantitative analysis of data as the basis for workmanlike (without inspiration or nuance, ordinary) judgments, drawing plausible conclusions from this work.

Assumptions Ability to make and evaluate important assumptions in estimation, modeling, and data analysis

Explicitly describes assumptions and provides compelling rationale for why each assumption is appropriate. Shows awareness that confidence in final conclusions is limited by the accuracy of the assumptions.

Explicitly describes assumptions and provides compelling rationale for why assumptions are appropriate.

Explicitly describes assumptions.

Communication Expressing quantitative evidence in support of the argument or purpose of the work (in terms of what evidence is used and how it is formatted, presented, and contextualized)

Uses quantitative information in connection with the argument or purpose of the work, presents it in an effective format, and explicates it with consistently high quality.

Uses quantitative information in connection with the argument or purpose of the work, though data may be presented in a less than completely effective format or some parts of the explication may be uneven.

Uses quantitative information, but does not effectively connect it to the argument or purpose of the work.

Adapted from AAC&U Core Value Rubrics

  16 

WRITTEN COMMUNICATION RUBRIC

Definition

Written communication is the development and expression of ideas in writing. Written communication involves learning to work in many genres and styles. It can involve working with many different writing technologies, and mixing texts, data, and images. Written communication abilities develop through iterative experiences across the curriculum.

Proficient 3

Emerging 2

Developing 1

Context of and Purpose for Writing Includes considerations of audience, purpose, and the circumstances surrounding the writing task(s).

Demonstrates a thorough understanding of context, audience, and purpose that is responsive to the assigned task(s) and focuses all elements of the work.

Demonstrates adequate consideration of context, audience, and purpose and a clear focus on the assigned task(s) (e.g., the task aligns with audience, purpose, and context).

Demonstrates awareness of context, audience, purpose, and to the assigned tasks(s) (e.g., begins to show awareness of audience's perceptions and assumptions).

Content Development Uses appropriate, relevant, and compelling content to illustrate mastery of the subject, conveying the writer's understanding, and shaping the whole work.

Uses appropriate, relevant, and compelling content to explore ideas within the context of the discipline and shape the whole work.

Uses appropriate and relevant content to develop and explore ideas through most of the work.

Genre and Disciplinary Conventions Formal and informal rules inherent in the expectations for writing in particular forms and/or academic fields (please see glossary).

Demonstrates detailed attention to and successful execution of a wide range of conventions particular to a specific discipline and/or writing task (s) including organization, content, presentation, formatting, and stylistic choices

Demonstrates consistent use of important conventions particular to a specific discipline and/or writing task(s), including organization, content, presentation, and stylistic choices

Follows expectations appropriate to a specific discipline and/or writing task(s) for basic organization, content, and presentation

Sources and Evidence Demonstrates skillful use of high-quality, credible, relevant sources to develop ideas that are appropriate for the discipline and genre of the writing

Demonstrates consistent use of credible, relevant sources to support ideas that are situated within the discipline and genre of the writing.

Demonstrates an attempt to use credible and/or relevant sources to support ideas that are appropriate for the discipline and genre of the writing.

Control of Syntax and Mechanics Uses graceful language that skillfully communicates meaning to readers with clarity and fluency, and is virtually error-free.

Uses straightforward language that generally conveys meaning to readers. The language in the portfolio has few errors.

Uses language that generally conveys meaning to readers with clarity, although writing may include some errors.

Adapted from AAC&U Core Value Rubrics

  17 

    

Appendix C  

Sample of Assessment Mapping for 1) Education major and 2) Chemistry major  

    

  18 

  19  Adapted from IUPUI Assessment framework

  20  Adapted from IUPUI Assessment framework

_________________________________________________________________________________

ARMSTRONG HALL ■ 701 W. STADIUM AVENUE ■ WEST LAFAYETTE, IN 47907-2045

(765) 494-5117 ■ FAX (765) 494-0307 ■ https://engineering.purdue.edu/AAE/

SCHOOL OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS

MEMORANDUM

To: Prof. Timothy Folta, University Senate Steering Committee Chair; Prof. Teri Reed-Rhoads, University

Senate Educational Policy Committee

From: Prof. William Crossley, Senator from Aeronautics and Astronautics (crossley@purdue.edu)

Date: January 6, 2012

Subject: Feedback from Aeronautics and Astronautics faculty regarding the Undergraduate Core

Curriculum as described in University Senate Document 11-7

CC: Prof. Morris Levy, University Senate Chair; Aeronautics and Astronautics Faculty

In late November, the faculty in the School of Aeronautics and Astronautics held a meeting solely to discuss the core curriculum. As the senator for Aeronautics and Astronautics, I gathered comments and feedback from colleagues both at the meeting and after the meeting, allowing for iteration on this document through January 6, 2012. I am providing this to the University Senate Steering Committee and Educational Policy Committee.

Summary

The Aeronautics and Astronautics faculty are supportive of making it easier for undergraduates to change majors / degree during their first several semesters at Purdue and that the concepts behind the “foundational level” of the core curriculum are acceptable, but that there needs to be additional detail included about courses in the foundational level.

The faculty in Aeronautics and Astronautics are very unhappy about the “embedded outcomes” concepts presented in the document. The consensus is that the embedded outcomes, as presented, do not improve the experience of our students and that the administration and oversight of this would be expensive and time consuming.

Comments recorded and paraphrased during the meeting and / or provided to me after the meeting

The concepts behind the “foundational level” seem well presented, with the important exception that no example courses are provided in the table of the “Foundational Outcomes”. Without any examples, it is difficult to discern what kinds of courses the committee has in mind. The discussion later in the Document 11-7 says that the committee identified some courses meeting foundational outcomes. These should appear in the document.

The “embedded outcomes” far exceeds the original notion of a core curriculum that facilitates change of major / degree objective.

Page 2 of 2 Memorandum: Feedback from Aeronautics and Astronautics faculty regarding the Undergraduate

Core Curriculum as described in University Senate Document 11-7

The “embedded learning outcomes” presents concepts that individual faculty would need to implement in courses – but a vaguely-described oversight committee would appear to have final approval of the course content. Who has time and / or financial resources for this?

It appears that instructors will not only have to develop the content of their course, but they will also need to develop content that meets “embedded outcomes” defined by an external committee. For instance, would a fluid mechanics course need to contain “intercultural knowledge”?

It is unclear who would be responsible for tracking whether students demonstrate “level 3” outcomes. Is this done as part of the course? Is it possible that we should fail a student for not demonstrating these outcomes? How does a faculty member measure the level of proficiency the students have obtained?

The proposal has vague and worrisome intimations of one or more large committees to oversee outcomes testing. The proposal has vague and worrisome intimations of faculty filling out rubrics of a dozen or more performance measures for the hundreds of students we teach every year. Where will the time for this onerous campus-wide effort come from? This proposal is based on assumptions that money and faculty time are boundless resources.

The proposal for “embedded outcomes” levies additional reporting and educational requirements on our program. The feedback mechanism and precise satisfaction of levels for the embedded outcomes is unclear.

The Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology regularly reviews our curriculum to help insure that we are providing our students with an appropriate educational experience and foundation to be aerospace engineers. Is this current process not sufficient in ensuring that students in Aeronautics and Astronautics are obtaining the proper “embedded outcomes”? Should the “embedded outcomes” for students in one academic unit really be the same for students in other academic units? Is not that the point of having separate academic units?

We see a risk of further centralization of authority, which we oppose. The University is made up of separate Colleges and Schools because we serve different groups of students seeking different kinds of educations in order to work in different fields with different expectations and standards. Centralization and the imposition of some kind of uniform standards risks the addition of expensive and hobbling bureaucracy that is counterproductive. Any new 'core curriculum' must be carefully designed and implemented to minimize these kinds of negative outcomes.

1

Retirement Plan Committee Report

January 23, 2012

UNIVERSITY SENATE MEETING

2

In January 2011, a new investment platform was

implemented and Fidelity Investments became the record

keeper for the University's defined contribution and

voluntary savings retirement plans

• Background

– Retirement Plan Review

– Opportunities for Improvement

• Retirement Plan Changes

– Plan Structure

– Investment Structure

– Retirement Plan Committee

RETIREMENT PLAN: ONE YEAR UPDATE

3

• Co-Chairs:

– Jim Almond – Business Services

– Mike Atallah – Computer Science*

• Faculty/Staff:

– David Denis – Management*

– Julie Mariga – Computer and

Information Technology/Faculty

Compensation and Benefits*

– Julio Martinez – Civil Engineering*

– John McConnell – Management*

– Joe Hornett – PRF/Related

Foundations

– Scott Seidle – Investments

• Regional Campuses

– Steve Turner – North Central/Staff

– Dolores Rinke – Calumet*

– Robert Barrett – Ft. Wayne*

– Carol Sternberger – Ft. Wayne*

• Employee Groups/Retirees

– Dan Schuster - APSAC

– Cynthia Dalton - CSSAC

– Martha Chiscon – Purdue Retirees

Association*

RETIREMENT REVIEW TASK FORCE

* Faculty representatives

4

The Task Force Review spanned 18 months, and included:

– Engagement of external investment consultant

– Review of incumbent service providers, fees and

investments

– Formal RFP and vendor presentations

– Recommendations to the Board of Trustees

– Conversion to new record keeper and investment

platform

Task Force communications occurred throughout the

review process, including formal campus presentations.

RETIREMENT REVIEW PROCESS & TIMELINE

5

Opportunities to make positive changes

• Investment options complex and redundant

• Fees higher than desired for Total Plan Assets

• Independent investment advice

• Opportunities exist to improve investment platform

• Ongoing monitoring necessary to produce the best

outcome for participants

PREVIOUS RETIREMENT PLAN

6

• Single service provider

• Transparent fee structure

• Lower administrative and investment fees, including a

flat administrative fee

• Open architecture and investment choices to meet a

range of investment styles and approaches

• Standing Retirement Plan committee

NEW PLAN STRUCTURE

7

INVESTMENT STRUCTURE

Tier Participant Type Option Type

Tier 1 Inactive Investor DOL Qualified

Default Investment Alternative

Target Date Retirement Funds

Tier 2 Knowledgeable and Cost Aware

Index Funds

Tier 3 Active Investor Diversified Actively Managed Funds

Tier 4 Investment Savvy Self-Directed Brokerage Window

8

PARTICIPANT AND INSTITUTION BENEFITS Participant Institution

Open Architecture Investment Platform, with low cost index funds and Self-Directed Window

Single provider reduces data flows, facilitates self-service, compliance

Objective investment guidance Flexibility to change investments

Transparent fees • Institutional class investment fees • Flat administrative fees

Unbundling recordkeeping and investment services to provide best-in-class services

State of the art technology tools Targeted communications

More $ working for participant Retirement readiness

9

Established as part of the Defined Contribution

Retirement Plan Investment Policy approved by the Board

of Trustees

• Committee membership

– Includes representatives from APSAC, CSSAC and

the Faculty Senate

• Review performance of investment options

• Review and monitor plan costs

• Discussion of future opportunities and any operational

issues

RETIREMENT PLAN COMMITTEE

10

CURRENT PLAN ALLOCATIONS

Tier Option Type Total Assets

% of Plan

Assets Tier 1 Target Date

Retirement Funds $196,360,000 62%

Tier 2 Index Funds $37,845,000 12% Tier 3 Diversified

Actively Managed Funds

$70,150,000 22%

Tier 4 Self-Directed Brokerage Window

$12,275,000 4%

Total $316,630,000 100%

No forced mapping of existing balances - Approximately

2,200 participants have transferred balances of $221M+ to

the new plan structure

11

• Fidelity has been a good partner

– Local office and campus presentations

– Participant communications

• Separation of recordkeeping from investments

• Simplified investment platform

• Enrollment easier for University and voluntary

contributions

• Access to institutional class investment fees

• Participants have more of their $’s working for them

MAKING A GOOD PLAN BETTER

Memorial Resolution for

Bernard Axelrod Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry

Faculty Member 1954-1985

Bernard Axelrod was Professor Emeritus and former head of the Department of Biochemistry at Purdue University. He received his B.S. degree in Chemistry from Wayne State University in 1935. Shortly afterwards, he joined the United States Department of Agriculture in Washington, DC. While there, he pursued advanced degrees, obtaining an M.S. degree in Organic Chemistry from George Washington University (1939) and a Ph.D. degree in Biochemistry from Georgetown University (1943). He remained with the USDA until 1954, eventually rising to the position of Head of the Enzymology Division of the Western Regional Laboratory in Albany, CA. Between 1950 and 1952 he took leave from the USDA to work as Senior Research Fellow at the California Institute of Technology where he performed cutting-edge research in the new field of plant biochemistry. In particular, he and his collaborators established the presence of the pentose phosphate shunt, an important alternative pathway for the metabolism of glucose and other sugars, in higher plants. He also developed methods to isolate intact mitochondria and study their role in the energy production system of plants. His work was recognized by a USDA Distinguished Service Award in 1952.

In 1954 Dr. Axelrod joined the Department of Agricultural Chemistry at Purdue University. Here, his laboratory pursued a research program that focused on enzymatic phosphate transfer reactions, carbohydrate metabolism, and on the properties of lipoxygenase isoenzymes in soybeans. During his tenure at Purdue, Dr. Axelrod was the major professor of over 30 graduate students. Dr. Axelrod also played a major role in planning and implementing a reorganization of the department he had joined. These efforts culminated in the establishment of a re-named Department of Biochemistry in the School of Agriculture. In 1964 he became the new department's first Head. During the eleven years of his headship he was able to triple the size of the faculty, oversee a significant increase in research support from such agencies as the NSF and NIH, more than triple student enrollment in the department's undergraduate program, and give the department national and international recognition. In 1972 he was appointed Adjunct Professor at the Indiana School of Medicine, Lafayette Center of Medical Education, where he developed and taught a highly acclaimed course in Biochemistry for Medical Students. These efforts resulted in his receiving the Outstanding Teacher Award from the Indiana School of Medicine in 1982.

Dr. Axelrod retired in 1985, but continued to work in his laboratory and to publish papers for many more years. In 1984 and later, colleagues at Purdue and elsewhere, friends, and relatives contributed funds to establish an annual Bernard Axelrod Lectureship in Biochemistry that has since brought distinguished scientists from all over the world to the Purdue campus. Dr. Axelrod was a member of several professional societies and a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. In 1960 and again in 1970 he was awarded a Senior Postdoctoral Fellowship by the National Science Foundation. In 1989 he was awarded an Honorary Doctorate by Purdue University.

Dr. Axelrod will be remembered for his love of science, his benevolent concern for his students, his colleagues and the institutions he was part of, and, maybe most of all, his indefatigable sense of humor.

Memorial Resolution  

For 

James V. Chambers 

Professor Emeritus of Food Science 

March 12, 1935 – October 10, 2011 

 James V. Chambers, 76, of Fort Wayne,IN,  passed away on October 10, at home. Born March 12, 1935, in Pekin, Illinois, he was the son of the late Hurshel Owan Chambers and Clela (Stoops, Chambers) Brown. In 1953, he graduated from high school in Bedford, Ohio, and was inducted into the 2005 Bedford High School Distinguished Alumni Hall of Fame. He served in the U.S. Navy from 1953 to 1958 and was ranked 2nd Class Petty Officer as a Hospital Corpsman. From The Ohio State University, he earned a BS degree in Medical Microbiology, an MS in Dairy Technology, and a Ph.D. in Food Science and Nutrition.   During his career, Dr. Chambers served as Corporate Microbiologist, Ross Laboratories, Division of Abbott Laboratories; Director, Foods, Dairies and Drugs Laboratory, Ohio Department of Agriculture; and Assistant Professor of Food Science, University of Wisconsin at River Falls. In 1974, he joined Purdue University, West Lafayette. He retired in 2000, as Professor and Extension Food Scientist. During his Purdue tenure, he and three colleagues were granted a U.S. Patent for a whey lick block for feeding supplements to ruminant animals. He was involved with international outreach programs in Taiwan, Indonesia, Guatemala, Honduras, Poland, Morocco, and Jordan on food quality, and delivered Better Process Control Schools at Purdue and at food companies nationally and internationally, including Thailand and Sweden. He authored numerous publications and served in the public sector on many advisory committees dealing with milk quality. He was a consultant for food companies on wastewater treatment and unit operation management. In 1998 he testified before the U.S. Congressional Committee on International Affairs on food safety issues impacting U.S. trade relations with the European Union. Included among his list of professional memberships were the Institute of Food Technologists (elected Fellow in 1994) and the American Dairy Science Association (received the Alpha Laval Award in 1992). He was a member of Taylor Chapel United Methodist Church.   Dr. Chambers’ lifelong goal was to leave this world a better place than when he entered it. His hobbies included travel, genealogy, and videography. He is survived by his wife of 20 years, Midge (Blinn, Merritts) Chambers; a daughter, Deborah E. Chambers, Brooklyn, New York; step‐daughters Polly M. (Jacob) Bonilla of Spring, Texas; Melinda S. (Richard) Cope of Stevenson Ranch, California; Nancy A. (Joseph) Wever of Indianapolis; Kathy E. (Bradley) Bakle of Fort Wayne; a brother, John E. Chambers of Arlington, Virginia; and 11 step‐grandchildren.  

Kamyar Haghighi (October 13, 1950 – May 9, 2011) In memoriam As founding head of Purdue University’s School of Engineering Education (ENE), Dr. Kamyar Haghighi was a powerful force for engineering education reform based on research and scholarship.

In his six years as head (2004-10), Kamyar guided the transformation of the School of Engineering Education from a service department into a full-fledged school. Under his leadership, ENE launched the world's first PhD program in engineering education; attracted a critical mass of nationally and internationally recognized faculty; created INSPIRE, the Institute for P-12 Engineering Research and Learning; saw the ABET accreditation of the undergraduate Multidisciplinary Engineering Program; and transformed the First-Year Engineering Program with a design-focused curriculum—aligned with the "Purdue Engineer of 2020" paradigm—that integrates seamlessly with the new Ideas to Innovation (i2i) Learning Laboratory. Kamyar also oversaw the creation of ENE’s first strategic plan, the development of three thriving advisory boards, and the establishment of the Engineering Education Outstanding Alumni Awards. The tremendous growth of the School over Kamyar’s six years as head—the increases in the student population (undergraduate and doctoral), faculty, and staff, and the number of engineering education Ph.D. graduates (now more than 20)—is a further testament to his impact.

In 2009, the American Society for Engineering Education honored Kamyar with the Chester F. Carlson Award, which recognizes an individual innovator in engineering education who, by motivation and ability to reach beyond the accepted traditions, has made a significant contribution to the profession.

A professor of agricultural and biological engineering as well as ENE head, Kamyar also received the 2009 American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers Distinguished Service Award, and was recognized at the society's 2009 Annual International Meeting through a special session in which former students gathered to present research. He received the Outstanding Undergraduate Teaching Award of Purdue’s Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering in 1992, 1998, and 2002.

We owe Kamyar an enormous debt of gratitude for all he did for the discipline of agricultural and biological engineering and for the emerging discipline of engineering education, not least for his vision, drive, tenacity, and leadership in founding the School of Engineering Education at Purdue. He joined people together and helped them achieve more than they ever could have done individually, and we are grateful that his name lives on in the Kamyar Haghighi Headship. Our collective success is his legacy.

― The faculty of the School of Engineering Education and the Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering

Ah, fill the Cup – what boots it repeat How Time is slipping underneath our Feet: Unborn Tomorrow, and dead Yesterday, Why fret about them if Today be sweet!

From the Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám

Memorial Resolution Samuel Kaplan

1916-2010 Samuel Kaplan, a member of the Purdue Mathematics Department faculty between 1961 and his retirement in 1986, passed away October 10, 2010 in Marshfield, Wisconsin. Sam’s roots were in Detroit, where he was born September 13, 1916 and grew up with three brothers and a sister. His father owned a retail fish market in Detroit, and while growing up, the younger Kaplans had the largest newspaper route in Detroit. Sam entered Wayne State during the Great Depression, but as his father’s business improved, he transferred to Ann Arbor, where he continued as a graduate student and received his Ph.D. in 1942, the topologist R. L. Wilder as supervisor. Wilder’s own supervisor was the famous topologist R. L. Moore, who was equally famous for his special approach to teaching: no texts or lectures, students are in charge, and they solve and discuss the problems organized by the instructor. Sam used this method at Purdue, especially with the nine graduate students who received their degrees under his supervision, 1965-82. (At present he also has nine mathematical grandchildren.) World War II was raging at the time, and he then enlisted in the U. S. Army (Signal Corps), stationed in the Pacific. On return to civilian life, Sam received a grant for research at the Institute for Advanced Study during 1946-49, after which he returned to Wayne. In 1953 he married Marjorie Penniman. By that time he had changed his research interests from topology to functional analysis, especially to a long a detailed study of the bidual (second dual) of C(X), the continuous functions on a metric space X. This lasted well into his retirement years and was the source of most of his papers in his final forty years’ activity. Undergraduates are taught that the linear functionals on a vector space V themselves form a vector space, known as V* (the “dual space” of V), and the most familiar vector spaces, even in infinite dimensions, have the property that (V*)* = V. The simplest example where this is no longer valid (so that (V*)* contains V properly) is the vector space C(X). Sam became a leader in identifying this space and its properties, with his magnum opus published in 1985, The bidual of C(X) [North-Holland]. The reviewer in Mathematical Reviews deemed it “indispensable to everyone who works in ordered linear spaces and […] warmly recommended to those who are looking for a streamlined introduction to this field.” Much later, in 1996, Sam developed Lebesgue theory in this bidual, in a Memoir of 127 pages. Sam often proclaimed how happy he was with his mathematical life. He would contrast his own life with those of some of his siblings, who had been very successful in business, who had far less control of their own lives. Most of his research on campus was at a carrel in the main library, but one favorite activity was walking throughout the town while thinking of mathematics. His book and Memoir were projects of many decades of thought. Sam and Marge loved interacting with their colleagues and students, and many would feel part of their extended family, which included their children Kathy Kaplan (now married to Daniel

Schenkman, son of Eugene and Agnes Schenkman; Gene was also a member of the Purdue mathematics faculty) and David. The Kaplans were active supporters of the local cultural scene and had a deep love for literature and theatre. This also reflected the influence of Marge, who received a master’s degree in English at Purdue and subsequently taught here. After retirement, the Kaplans relocated to North Carolina and Wisconsin to be near their children, but also managed several ambitious trips, including returning frequently to England. Many of us fondly remember the enthusiasm and delight with which they would recount their activities and friendships from there. Marge passed away April 16, 2011. Sam activities at Purdue centered on his teaching and research, and he was less involved with the operations and management of the department. His dignity and leadership in his area of research and the successes of his students remain permanent testimony to his many years as a colleague here.

Owen Burkinshaw David Drasin Christine Dombrowski Shannon

Memorial Resolution for

Jack Long Professor Emeritus of Animal Sciences Assistant Dean of Resident Instruction

May 12, 1921 – July 6, 2011 Dr. Jack Long, 90, died Wednesday, July 6, 2011, at Westminster Village in West Lafayette, Indiana. Dr. Long was born May 12, 1921, near Chandler, Oklahoma. In 1943, he received a B.S. in Poultry Science from Oklahoma A & M College. While in college, Dr. Long joined ROTC and entered the Army in April 1943. He served in Europe between January and December 1945 as a second lieutenant in the 65th Infantry Division. Following discharge from the Army, Dr. Long was accepted into graduate school at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, where he completed a Master’s and Ph.D. in poultry genetics. He returned to Oklahoma State in 1950 as an assistant professor of Poultry Science. In 1951, he was recalled by the military to serve in Korea. While there, he was awarded the Bronze Star for meritorious achievement as an operations officer in the 40th Division Intelligence Section. He returned to Oklahoma State in 1952 and taught there until he moved to Purdue. Dr. Long served in the Army Reserves for twenty-five years, retiring at the rank of Colonel. Dr. Long joined the Purdue faculty in 1955 as a member of the Poultry Science Department. In 1961, he received the Ralston Purina Outstanding Teacher Award, an annual award from the Poultry Science Association recognizing the outstanding teacher among faculty in Land Grant colleges. After the Poultry Department became part of the Department of Animal Sciences, Dr. Long taught the introductory animal sciences class for many years. He retained that responsibility in 1972 when he was named assistant to the dean of agriculture with a focus on resident instruction, a post he held until his retirement in 1986. For 12 of his years as assistant dean, Dr. Long also was in charge of the Winter Short Course offered by the School of Agriculture. In addition to teaching and administration, Dr. Long served as adviser to several student organizations and helped to found the Purdue chapter of the scholastic honor society, Phi Kappa Phi. During the 1970s and 1980s, Dr. Long and his wife, Bertanell, were Faculty Fellows at student resident halls. In 1996, Dr. Long was honored by the Purdue Agricultural Alumni Association. The citation noted that “although not a native of Indiana or a graduate of Purdue University,” the association recognized Dr. Long for his dedicated service to agriculture in the state of Indiana. Since his retirement in 1986, Dr. and Mrs. Long enjoyed travel, reading, and spending time with their three children and six grandchildren.

Respectively Submitted, Mark Diekman

In Loving Memory of Robert L. McIlwain

Robert Leslie McIlwain Jr (Bob), 82, of Portland,

Oregon, formerly of Lafayette, died after a short

illness on Friday, August 26, 2011, at Willamette

View Health Center, Portland.

He was born on April 16, 1929, in Lancaster, S.C.,

and was the son of the late Robert and Mary

Draffin McIlwain. He resided in Pittsburgh, Pa and

Princeton, N.J., before moving to West Lafayette

in 1962. He moved to Portland in 2006.

Bob graduated from Carnegie Institute of

Technology (now Carnegie Mellon University) and received his Doctorate in Physics

from Princeton University in 1962. He then joined the Physics faculty at Purdue

University where he remained for 32 years until he retired in 1994 as an Emeritus

Professor.

According to colleagues, Bob was an electronic guru who was instrumental in

establishing the technical reputation of the Purdue High Energy Physics Research

Group. He was an excellent teacher and mentor of graduate students. During his

career Bob worked at Physics laboratories around the world including C.E.R.N. in

Switzerland, Saclay in France and Stanford.

Bob was a member of the Unitarian Universalist Church, The Tippecanoe County

Historical Society and the ACLU. His interests included electronics, computers,

travel, woodwork, leaded glass, Paris, good wine and food, languages and books.

Surviving are his three children: Robert L. McIlwain III of Austin, Texas, Elizabeth

McIlwain Prior (husband: Nigel) of Brisbane, Australia, and Thomas W. McIlwain

(wife: Lisa) of Oregon City, Oregon. Also surviving are sisters, Mary Beth Schertz

(husband: Allen) of Libertyville, Illinois and Lois Cathcart of Columbia, South

Carolina and brother James McIlwain (wife: Anna) of Talladega, Alabama.

Also surviving are grandchildren, Marina McIlwain of Issaquah, WA, Hope Asher of

Portland, OR, Juliette and Nicholas Prior of Brisbane, Australia and Julian Ostmo of

London, England.

He was preceded in death by Joan, his devoted wife of 54 years, in 2008.

He was a beloved Father, Grandfather, Brother, Uncle, Friend and much admired

Colleague. He will be greatly missed.

A memorial service will be held on Wednesday, December 21, 2011 at the

Willamette View Auditorium, 12705 SE River Road, Portland, Oregon.

Memorial Resolution for

Norbert J. Moeller Professor Emeritus of Animal Sciences

October 2, 1921 – March 15, 2011 Norbert J. Moeller, 89, of Richmond died Tuesday, March 15, 2011, at Friends Fellowship Community. Born October 2, 1921, in Greensburg, he had lived in Richmond since 2000. He was a 1939 graduate of Greensburg High School and graduated from Purdue University in 1943 with a degree in animal science and did post-graduate work at the University of Wisconsin. Mr. Moeller was a first lieutenant in the Army, serving during World War II. He worked for Kraft Foods for five years, then joined the Purdue faculty as an Extension Dairyman. He retired after 30 years as a professor of dairy science, and during his last eight years, he was in charge of the research herd. After retirement, he remained active in agriculture as a herd evaluator for the American Breeders Service. Mr. Moeller was very active in 4-H throughout the state in dairy judging. He wrote many books and pamphlets on the care of dairy cattle. He was secretary/treasurer of the Indiana State Dairy Association for 25 years. He was a member of Holy Family Catholic Church, was an avid gardener, and enjoyed fishing, traveling and spending time with his family. Survivors include his wife of 65 years, Julia Goodwin Moeller; five children, two sisters, 11 grandchildren and 15 great-grandchildren. Respectively Submitted, Mark Diekman

Memorial Resolution Justin J. Price

1930-2011

Justin J. (JJ) Price, 80, of West Lafayette, died at home surrounded by his family on March 12, 2011. He was born June 18, 1930, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and grew up in Philadelphia. He received his B.S. and M.S. from the University of Pennsylvania, and in 1956 he earned his Ph.D. in Mathematics, also from the University of Pennsylvania. On August 19, 1956, he married Lillian Shulman in Philadelphia. She survives along with their two daughters, Ruth and Jane, and their families. In 1963, Professor Price came to Purdue University as an Associate Professor of Mathematics. Previously he had taught at the University of Pennsylvania and at Cornell University. In 1964-65, he was a member of the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton. His research was in classical analysis, especially orthogonal expansions. He became full Professor at Purdue University in 1968. Together with Harley Flanders, he was the author of textbooks in calculus, pre-calculus, and college algebra. In 1976, Professor Price was asked to revitalize MA 301 (aimed at Math Education majors), and his professional focus then shifted from mathematical research in classical analysis to teacher training. One component of the new MA 301 that Professor Price devised was an emphasis on writing. He rapidly developed the point of view that it was vital for mathematics students, whether they intend to become research mathematicians or school teachers, to learn to write mathematics. This emphasis on writing, which was quite exceptional in the 1970’s, has recently been accepted by professional organizations as fundamental. In 1976, he was awarded the Lester R. Ford Award for excellence in expository writing by the Mathematical Association of America. In 1993, he received the Mathematical Association of America Award for Distinguished College or University Teaching, Indiana Section. In 1994, he received the national Mathematical Association of America Award for Distinguished College or University Teaching. This award, for which Professor Price was nominated by his colleagues, is granted annually to one mathematics professor in the United States. Professor Price was voted numerous times as one of the “Outstanding Teachers in the School of Science,” and he is recognized in the Purdue University Academy Park for Teaching and Scholarship. Testimonials from his colleagues and letters of testimony from former students attest to Professor Price’s remarkable activities as a brilliant, approachable, and humane teacher and mentor of students aiming for careers in mathematics. After his retirement from Purdue in 2004, Professor Price volunteered frequently and enthusiastically at LARA (Lafayette Adult Resource Academy). E.C. Zachmanoglou Professor of Mathematics

CALENDAR OF STATUS OF LEGISLATION

SENATE DOCUMENT

TITLE

ORIGIN

SENATE

10-14* Medical Amnesty or PurdueCares

Student Affairs Committee

Approved 12 September 2011

11-2* Endorsement of COACHE Survey Purdue Faculty

Faculty Affairs Committee

Approved 24 October 2011

11-4* Undergraduate Admissions Policy

Educational Policy Committee

Approved 21 November 2011

11-6* Senate Reapportionment Steering Committee Approved 21 November 2011

11-1* Revised Research Faculty Policy

Faculty Affairs Committee

Approved 23 January 2012

11-3* University Open Access Policy

University Resources Policy Committee

Approved 23 January 2012

11-7 Undergraduate Core Curriculum

Educational Policy Committee

For Discussion

*Approved