View in portable document format.

D 11499-11503

DOCUMENTS OF THE GENERAL FACULTY

REPORT AND PROPOSAL FROM THE AD HOC COMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY-ENHANCED EDUCATION

On behalf of the Ad Hoc Committee on Technology-Enhanced Education, Committee Chair Michael White (classics and religious studies) submitted the following report and proposal to create a technology-enhanced education oversight standing committee. On October 21, 2014, the Faculty Council Executive Committee presented a report to Faculty Council, which briefly described the need for such a committee and its suggested function (D 10711). Faculty Council Chair Hillary Hart appointed an ad hoc committee to formalize the function and composition of the committee. The Graduate Assembly voted to endorse the ad hoc committee’s proposal, specifically regarding the provisions for Graduate Assembly and the Graduate Student Assembly representation. On March 27, 2014, the Committee on Committees also voted to endorse the proposal. On March 27, 2014, the Committee on Committees also voted to endorse the proposal.

The Secretary has classified this as general legislation. The Faculty Council will act on the motion at its meeting on April 14, 2005.
neikirk signature
Dean Neikirk, Secretary
General Faculty and Faculty Council



Posted on the Faculty Council website on March 31, 2014.



REPORT AND PROPOSAL FROM THE AD HOC COMMITTEE ON TECHNOLOGY-ENHANCED EDUCATION

 Members of the Ad Hoc Committee
Andrew Clark, Senior, College of Liberal Arts, President, Senate of College Councils
Elizabeth Gershoff, College of Natural Sciences, FCEC
Omar Hinai, Graduate Student, Computational and Applied Mathematics, Vice-President of the Graduate Student Assembly
Harrison Keller, Vice-Provost for Higher Education Policy and Research, Director of the Center for Teaching and Learning
Chang Liu, College of Communication, chair of the C-13 Information Technology Committee
Patricia Roberts-Miller, College of Liberal Arts, C-4 Educational Policy Committee
Lynn Westbrook, School of Information, FC
*L. Michael White, College of Liberal Arts, FCEC, chair of the Graduate Assembly
Charge of the Ad Hoc Committee

To make recommendations to the FCEC and FC regarding the formation of a standing C-14 Technology-Enhanced Education Oversight Committee, specifically regarding the composition of the proposed standing committee and its rationale, function, and charge.
GF documents D 10711 (FCEC 21 Oct. 2013): "The members [of the ad hoc committee] will be charged with evaluating the [proposed standing] committee's function, and if necessary, suggesting modifications, and [with] defining the composition of the committee, which will be presented to the Faculty Council for consideration in early spring."
Proposal and Recommendations

  1. Function of the Standing C14 Committee

    Standing Committees of the General Faculty
    TYPE C: INSTITUTIONAL POLICY OR GOVERNANCE

    C14 – Technology-Enhanced Education Oversight Committee
    Function:
    To evaluate and formulate policy on technology-enhanced education and make recommendations on such matters to the Faculty Council and to the University's Steering and Strategic Policy Committees1 on Technology-Enhanced Education. To ensure that initiatives in technology-enhanced education further the University’s mission to be a university of the first rank by reviewing the following:
    programmatic proposals;
    technology-enhanced courses and curricula offered by the University and certificates and degrees associated with such
    academic quality of other on-line resources
    use of on-line materials for credit toward University degrees (including transfer credits and dual credits)
    overall impact of such offerings on workload, intellectual property, and promotion/tenure issues for faculty and instructional staff
    student issues, such as privacy

  2. Composition of the Standing Committee
    Composition: Five voting members of the General Faculty for three-year staggered terms appointed by the president through the regular procedures of the Committee on Committees, two staff members for two-year staggered terms from college or departmental student development/advising staff (and each from different colleges/schools), and three student members. The president shall appoint one from a panel of names submitted by the Senate of College Councils, one from a panel of names submitted by Student Government, and one from a panel of names submitted by the Graduate Student Assembly. The Graduate Student Assembly panel shall include at least one graduate student who is or has served as an assistant instructor or teaching assistant in an undergraduate course at the University (and all those on the list who meet this criterion shall be indicated). The students shall be from different colleges or schools. Each year the chair of Faculty Council shall appoint two voting members of Faculty Council for one-year terms. One of these faculty members should be from the C4-Educational Policy Committee and one from the Faculty Council Executive Committee.2 Each year the chair of the Graduate Assembly shall appoint one voting member from the Academic Committee of the Graduate Assembly for a one-year term. Each year the committee shall elect its own chair and vice chair from among the voting faculty members of the committee. Two members of the provost's senior staff shall serve as ex-officio members without vote. They should include the vice provost for higher education policy and the chair of the Steering Committee on Technology-Enhanced Education.3 The president will appoint three representatives from the following list to serve as administrative advisors without vote (only one representative per category):
    Center for Teaching and Learning
    College and School Instructional Technology Services
    College and School Academic Affairs (Assoc./Asst. Dean)
    Office of Graduate Studies Academic Affairs (Assoc./Asst. Dean)
    UT Libraries
  3. [18 Total: 13 voting members; 5 non-voting members.]

  4. Other Recommendations: Reporting and Consultation
    a. In light of the academic policy and oversight functions of the Standing C14 Committee, it is recommended that the committee make recommendations not only to the Faculty Council but also to the Strategic Policy Committee on Technology-Enhanced Education, which in turn will set policies and priorities for the Steering Committee on Technology-Enhanced Education.
    b. It is recommended that regular consultation between the Standing C14 Committee and other educational and academic policy committees of the General Faculty and Graduate Assembly be facilitated by cross-over membership, as reflected in the committee’s constitution, as listed above.
    c. It is recommended that the chair of the Steering Committee on Technology-Enhanced Education serve as an ex-officio member of the Standing C14 Committee (as listed above).
    d. It is also recommended that both the chair of the Standing C14 Committee and the chair of Faculty Council be appointed as voting members to the Strategic Policy Committee on Technology-Enhanced Education.

  5. Other Recommendations: Review Committee Function


  6. The ad hoc committee recommends that the Technology-Enhanced Education Oversight Committee review its function, scope, and flow of business after the first and second year, and propose changes if deemed necessary.

  7. Endorsements & Approvals
    Emended by FCEC (28.ii.2014); endorsed by Graduate Assembly vote (19.iii.2014); emended and endorsed by A3-General Faculty Committee on Committee (27.iii.2014); endorsed by FCEC (28.iii.2014).


1The titles and configuration of these committees have not been set. The terms used here (and below, highlighted in blue) are taken from the draft document "Governance for Technology Enhanced Education at the University," dated April 26, 2013. Once the organizational structure is established by the Office of the Provost, this wording may need to be adjusted.
2The second might be drawn from the C13-Information Technology Committee.
3Per the April 26, 2013 document (see n.1 above), it is assumed that this Vice-Provost (who currently serves as Director of the Center for Teaching and Learning) will also serve as chair of the Steering Committee on Technology-Enhanced Education. In the event that these are the same individual (as is presently the case), the Provost may designate the second representative; it was suggested that the Vice-Provost/Registrar would be a good option.




POLICY IMPACT STATEMENT FOR
FACULTY LEGISLATION IMPACTING THE HOP

Please submit one Policy Impact Statement for each policy under consideration.

Submission Date: March 31, 2014


Sponsor: Faculty Council
Contact within Faculty Council Office: Debbie Roberts x1-8506
Executive Level Sponsor:  Executive Vice President and Provost
Corresponding Faculty Legislation Number: D 11499-11501
Policy Memorandum (PM) Title:Standing Committees of the General Faculty-Institutional Policy or Governance Committees
HOP # (if revision): 2-1060-PM

  1. Background and Policy Rationale
    1. Why is this policy or revision necessary?  
      Legal       
      Financial   
      Regulatory
      Social Requirement
      UT System driven   
      Operational/Operational Efficiency
      Current University policy is outdated        Technological
      Other: Oversight of new technologies in courses and curriculum.
    1. Please provide a brief supporting explanation.
      The new committee is being formed to address issues related to the use of new technologies in courses and curriculum at UT Austin.
    2. What foreseeable advantages will this policy bring to the University?
      Advances in technology will have significant impact on the means of delivery and the quality of education at the University. To ensure that initiatives in technology-enhanced education further the University’s mission to be a university of the first rank, the new committee will review initiatives using new technology, such as online courses, MOOCs (massive open online courses), and blended learning.

  2. Policy Impact
    List University community members affected by this policy: General Faculty members, Graduate Assembly, Faculty Council, graduate and undergraduate students, members of the Senate of College Councils, Student Government, and Graduate Student Assembly.

  3. Policy Development & Approval
    1. Identify key stakeholders, affected parties and governance groups who have been consulted in review of this faculty legislation: The following key players discussed and agreed upon the creation of the new committee: the president, provost, and other key administrators in their offices. The Faculty Council Executive Committee, Graduate Assembly, and the Committee on Committees voted to endorse the creation of the new committee. The Faculty Council discussed the creation of the new committee in October 2013. On April 14, 2014, The Faculty Council will vote to accept the composition and function of the committee as defined by the Ad Hoc Committee on Technology-Enhanced Education.
      General Faculty Standing Committee: Faculty Welfare Committee
      Faculty Council Executive Committee Faculty Council Provost’s Office
      University Policy Office Legal Affairs     

    2. Institutional approval of this policy memoranda amendment resides with:
      Executive Vice President and Provost     President

    3. Following institutional approval, this faculty legislation requires:
      UT System review and approval
      No further notification required
      UT System notification
Attached to this Policy Impact Statement form is the proposed policy showing tracked revisions. If this is a new policy, label it as “New” in the header box of the policy.
Submitted by:
Dean Neikirk's signature
                                                 
 Authorized Signature- Responsible Policy Owner




March 31, 2014  



Questions about this form may be directed to: Leekeshia Williams,
leekeshia.williams@austin.utexas.edu, or by calling 471-0594.

For University Policy Office Administrative Review Below

Assigned Policy Office Case Number: