MSEPD Council Meeting Minutes

October 21, 2010, 9:00

Present: John Zbikowski-chair, Liesl Hohenshell, Kelly Witte, Ellyn Dickman, Steve Albrechtsen, Edric Johnson, Matt Vick, Richard Mason, Eileen Schroeder, Scott Peters, Ann Ruff, Virginia Pease

1. Approval of agenda: The agenda was approved by consensus

2. Minutes: The minutes of the September 16 meeting were approved by consensus. 3. Announcements:

a.  Self Study due date now set to October 2013: John emphasized the rationale for the new due date that was approved by Barbara Moffett. MSEPD in its current format started admitting students in 2008 so the 5-year cycle report date is 2013.

b.  Send blurbs for spring and Winterim special courses to be included in mailing to current students: John asked everyone who wanted to communication with all MSEPD students about a spring or Winterim course to email the course information ‘blurb’ to him within the next 2 weeks. He will direct student workers to send out the information as a single communication. John said that MSEPD also uses the QEI site to advertise courses. There was some question about who the current COE contact person was for QEI.

4. Report: Status of student tracking system: Liesl projected a model D2L structure that was created to manage student checkpoints for the MSEPD program. She featured an example using one student’s record. The D2L Grade tool was the main organizer. Discussion and questions were directed to Liesl and the group. What if the capstone doesn’t apply to our area (only applies to 7/10 areas)? Who will keep and enter the data? How can this be linked to verification for graduation? Can students put their goals and proposals in a place, like a D2L drop box? Other questions about the Capstone project and advising blended seamlessly into agenda item 5.

5. Discussion: Program curriculum and advising:

a.  Standards for project approval: A question was raised about the “approved capstone” entry that was “what does approval mean? Who has the final say, the capstone advisor or the advisor?” It was clarified that proposals are approved by the Planning for Change instructor with advisor input and that finished project reports are approved jointly by the Capstone Project Seminar instructor and the advisor. Several students from the old M.S.-C&I program who were not required to take Planning for Change have been enrolling in the Capstone Seminar with a proposal done but not to the expected quality. This suggests the need for standards. The rubric being used for projects in the current Capstone Project Seminar was distributed.

b.  Availability of advisors: it was noted that “getting advisors is problematic.” Discussion continued about the current assignment of students only to graduate faculty as advisors and the statement that advising is a responsibility that is not reflected in the workload.

c.  Difference between capstone project and thesis: Ideas were offered as to rigor, application, and the 5-chapter structure. There was a summary report that students in the current class are intending to engage in a diversity of projects.

d.  Next question was “What do we need to guide students through the thesis or capstone document?” Students’ lack of background in research methodology, and the difficulty of providing that background adequately in the Planning for Change course was discussed. Scott has students develop a research question in one of the initial courses in the program, Reading…Educational Research. Others discussed how this question might be developed beyond the initial course. Elective course work in research methods is not an option in several emphasis areas such as Information, Technology, and Libraries. Limited advisor contact with students throughout the program in some cases compounds the problem of weak project methodology.

e.  Eileen suggested having the Planning for Change instructor serve as project advisor for everyone. John mentioned that having 13 students in Planning for Change in the summer seemed like a full-time load. Edric suggested a limit of 10 students. Edric further suggested changing the nature of the capstone experience as discussed at the May 6 meeting, to make it more similar to the model in use at Western Michigan and Ohio State universities. Liesl raised the issue of FTE and load for this midpoint course teacher.

f.  Eileen asked: Do we need a capstone?
--Steve: historically we didn’t but outside reviewer said we needed it. We had had 3 options and #3 (additional course work and short paper) was too easy. Many chose the easy option so we added the capstone.
--Scott: If we require the capstone/thesis versus 6 extra credits, most students will take the credits.
-Eileen: In her consortium (Eau Claire, Superior, Oshkosh and Whitewater) none have a capstone.
-Steve: If we keep it we need it reflected in load. This used to be to NCATE standards. It is a standard in the MBA program on this campus.

g.  Rick redirected discussion to Edric’s idea of replacing the current thesis-like project report with something like a portfolio. In the Educational Leadership program students must do portfolios now because it is tied to licensure. Edric noted that we wanted students not to be frustrated. Steve: one idea is a capstone course without a required written capstone project. This might be a 3-credit capstone seminar for students from different areas who come together to share what they learned. Edric pointed out that this was what the term seminar refers to. This format reflected the real world, Steve noted. Eileen noted that in the funded project in Information Technology students
have to do a service project within 2 years that is outside of the school as a condition of their participation.

h.  IRB role in Planning for Change and course certification for the Capstone Project Seminar: in response to comments from Rick and Steve, John explained the blanket procedure established by the UW-Whitewater IRB, at their initiative to reduce the paperwork backlog, for students in EDUINDP 789 the Capstone Project Seminar to claim exemption from full board review of their projects. Essentially, following a standard procedure for courses, the IRB has deputized the course instructor and advisor to make the determination as to whether a project is subject to full board review. Students in Planning for Change currently submit the same two-page proposal form with IRB check-off that was designed by the Office of Research and Sponsored programs for use in the old M.S.-C&I, though it had initially been hoped that this paperwork step wouldn’t be necessary in the MSE-PD. John noted that 90% of them came in indicating exempt.

i.  Survey of advisors and students to clarify perceptions of the program: does the capstone work? Do students receive adequate information about how to plan their projects? Do projects allow students to synthesize and apply knowledge they acquired throughout their course work, or are they just an add-on? Liesl mentioned that students do need an idea of what a capstone is, and it was mentioned that initial instructors of Capstone Advising I weren’t aware that they needed to assign a grade for their students. John distributed the memo sent out to new advisors and the What Is a Capstone Project working document.
-John: Discussion wrap up. Send interview and practical questions for recent grads to John about capstone and about advising. He will complete a survey in the next couple of weeks. Liesl demonstrated how to use D2L to create survey questions.

Meeting adjourned at 10:27 AM

Meeting notetaker,

Ginny Pease