DRAFT Questions for Breakout Sessions
Strategic Planning Audit and Implementation chairs were asked to jointly identify 3-4 specific questions or issues or sticking points related to their goal that would most benefit from brainstorming and discussion in breakout sessions at the Stakeholders Conference
What is an appropriate rate of change?
Are we producing what we really want?
1. In order to support teaching and learning as the central focus of the institution, the Implementation Team has thus far used funding to:
- Send faculty and students as participants in workshops, conferences, and international travel
- Set up Brown Bag lunch sessions to disseminate information from the above professional development opportunities
- Established several learning communities
In addition, a subcommittee has submitted several grant applications. Faculty development weeks, retreats by some departments, and committees designated to study Liberal Studies, Outcomes, and Assessment have been established to address the transition to a fully outcomes-based institution.
- a. What are some other ideas that would support teaching and learning as the central focus of the institution?
- b. What other funding opportunities might we seek?
2. Maximizing facilities (virtual and physical) for effective teaching and learning has been difficult to achieve during the first two years of implementation. Minimum classroom standards have been identified, but only limited recommendations were made knowing that funding and staffing will be issues.
- a. What suggestions do you have for making our current facilities more effective for teaching and learning?
3. What recommendations do you have for adjusting the Goal 1 timeline for the next three years?
1. How can we get area businesses more involved to create PRODUCTIVE partnerships?
2. Ideas and a vision to start a speaker’s bureau.
3. How can we get our extended service area to become more actively involved in campus activities?
1. Does Fairmont State want to expand community education outside the Fairmont/Marion County area? If so, how important is it to do so? At what expense? What is the value of expanding it? Is it important enough to devote the necessary resources to the venture? Can we do this outside of the model being used now?
2. How will or should we prioritize community education for the remainder of the strategic plan? Currently, the director is paid from Gear-Up, from the university side, and the director and Community Education reside in the Pierpont Community & Technical College. How important is the continued funding of this position? Any suggestions on how to fund it after the end of the Gear-Up grant?
3. To date, there have not been any tools available from the institutional administrative system, Banner, that allow community education personnel to pull the data essential for analysis of statistical information on the growth of the community education program during the first two years of the strategic plan. This means that the program personnel lack the data to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the community education program The lack of sufficient IT personnel and the low priority of community education on the list of programming needs has left this goal without any way to meet the Success Indicator task for year two: “Track community education inquiries. Compare year two data to year one baseline data. Determine the strengths and weaknesses of program. Revise efforts as necessary.” How can or should these issues be resolved?
4. How can we incorporate all the things that the school (institution) does (that are typically identified as "extension" at other institutions) and achieve better economies of scale for communication, marketing, ticketing, coordinating, etc., without violating the various departments' stake in these activities that arise through separate departmental goals and interests? How can we provide true "value-added" services through Community Education that will better bring these various activities to the community at large?
1. Action Step 1 requires the establishment of a baseline of faculty and graduate assistantships in graduate programs be established with future assessment of this baseline. How best should this baseline be developed?
2. Graduate assistantships currently stand at a total of 10. Six of these assistantships are funded through resources other than the Office of Graduate Studies. What general guidelines should the Office of Graduate Studies follow in awarding graduate assistantships (i.e. proportional to enrollment in the graduate programs), and what expectations exist for funding additional G.A.s in the future (i.e. from the Office of Graduate Studies, or from individual schools and/or offices)?
3. What is the appropriate level, or expectations, for the “reinvestment in graduate education” of additional funding from the net revenues generated by graduate education at Fairmont State on an annual basis?
4. What ways can we further meaningful professional development offered to graduate faculty, and should this support be expected to come from each School or from the Office of Graduate Studies?
1. Our team feels that the best way to increase participation in co-curriculum activities is for a total campus commitment consequently we are looking for suggestions for ways to get faculty to encourage more students to attend and also for more faculty to attend, any suggestions?
2. It was suggested that certain incentives be part of the curriculum to encourage students to attend more programs we have recommended some but we are looking for others.
3. In the student open forum it was recommended that work on having more traditions on campus, any suggestions?
1. Action Step 1 breakout question: How can we best measure the effectiveness of Action Step 1? Should the measure focus solely on our ability to communicate the expectations? Or, are we assuming that our communicating the expectations will translate into the students’ knowledge of and use of those expectations? Does the Action Step wording need to be revised?
2. Action Step 2 breakout question: Action Step 2 asks that we improve the availability of student services, but does not mention improving the quality of the services. Does the Action Step 1) need to be revised to include quality and availability, 2) need to focus on quality and not availability, 3) need no revision at all?
3. Action Step 3 breakout question: How can we get faculty support for increasing the number of introductory and 1100-level courses that either 1) include credit options for attending at least one co-curricular lecture or event that relates to the course, 2) require at least one assignment that is related to a co-curricular lecture or event, or 3) adopt a book by an author who is presenting at the Celebration of Ideas lecture series?
4. Action Step 4 breakout question: For Action Step 4 to be successful, we need faculty and staff participation and engagement. What are the most effective ways of reaching the largest number of faculty and staff? How can we best increase awareness of student development, safety, diversity, and social justice issues across campus?
1. Action step two calls for a faculty/staff gathering space to foster a sense of community and shared mission. In Year One, the Falcon Center Board room was identified as this gathering space, with the hours of 11 to 1 each weekday dedicated to availability for faculty and staff. The hours were expanded this year to 10 to 2. Anecdotal evidence indicates this space is not being widely used by faculty and staff. What recommendations do stakeholders have regarding a dedicated space for this purpose? Should the Falcon Center Board Room continue to be used as such a space, and if so, what could be done to increase usage?
2. Action step two also called for the establishment of a tradition of celebrating group achievements. What ideas do you have for accomplishing this action step?
3. Action step three called for the development of policies that enable job flexibility. The Board of Governors now has in place a job flexibility policy that predominantly impacts staff. Last year the Faculty Welfare Committee did not indicate great interest in pursuing additional policies for faculty. This year an expanded Ad Hoc committee has also had difficulty in gaining any traction. Is there sufficient interest in this step at this time?
4. Action step five calls for the establishment of a technology innovations award program. This step has also not gained traction. Do you think this step remains relevant, and if so, what ideas do you have for moving this step forward?