myUMD | Search | People | Departments | Events | News

Graduate Program Council

November 13, 2012

Present: Faith Loven,  Bob Lloyd,  Mike Raschick, Diane Raushenfels, Julie Ernst (provided written comments), Fay Maas (ex officio)

Faith provided a rationale and background regarding creating a new course in CSD (5205) by reducing the content in a current course (5200). Why are they asking to split off some course material about pediatric dysphagia from 5200.  With increased research on adult and pediatric dysphagia there is more content that needs to be added in both areas.  This is creating more content than can be covered adequately in one course.  The pediatric dysphagia information will form the basis of 5205 and will no longer be covered in 5200.  5205 will become a 1 CH elective for those students who have a primary interest in infant anatomy and pediatric feeding disorders. 5200 will remain a 3 CH course with the additional info on adult dysphagia added to the current content.

Concerns were raised about whether students would need to have exposure to both adult and infant dysphagia.  If so would a better option be to slim down the content of 5200 and keep the pediatric information in that course.  Faith indicated there are some areas of speech and language pathology that would be considered advanced ant that the content of 5205 would be in that category. She thought that most students would take the course out of interest. She noted that the content was not specifically required for licensure.

CSD5205: The group requested that the assessment methods in #26 be modified to provide more specific information about the nature of the assessments beyond identifying the assessment method of exams.  Describe how exams will require students to use higher order thinking (application, synthesis etc).

Approve with minor revisions

CSD5200: Proof for typographical errors (e.g., 26 C).  The outcome stated in 26F is not listed in the conceptual outline.  Group requests revising the conceptual outline to include this concept so as to make the conceptual outline parallel with the learning outcomes.

Approve with minor revisions

Grad Program Proposal: Community College Teaching Program

Diane provided us with background information about the program proposal. J. Strand has been working with R. Carlson and J. Evans with the goal of providing graduate assistants with the opportunity to enhance their teaching skills and to encourage highly qualified STEM professions to become involved in the community and community college classrooms.


  • Group suggested providing spelling out the acronym STEM the first time for the readers not familiar with the meaning of STEM.
  • In Step 2  Is this program currently in place through CE? If so indicate that number of students in the program now to support your estimate of how many students you think will be enrolled.  Why do you expect 10? How many grad assistants are in the STEM disciplines? What proportion would you expect to take the certificate program?
  • In Step 4—Explain “courses will be taught concurrently with undergrad level. “  Does this mean that the courses will be taught by faculty in the department? Or that undergrads will be taking the course.  Would advanced undergraduates be able to be enrolled in these courses to finish their undergraduate program?
  • Review the numbering policy. If undergrads are not allowed to take the course(s) should courses be at the 8xxx level? Will taking courses at the 5xxx level impact STEM grad assistants?
  • Concern about how the program will this impact workload of faculty?  There will be a minimal numbers of students and will be structured to be taught over the summer or J-term. Faculty will have to agree to teach these courses beyond their normal workload.
  • Group questioned why a grad assistant at UMD would volunteer to earn this certificate. They have to fit it in on top of the degree program.  They would have to pay extra for it.  What would be the real benefit for the students? Is there evidence that having a certificate actually improves employability?
  • Suggest strengthening the rationale for the program. Go beyond noting there are no other programs and that a group of people think it would be a good idea—what data supports the need? Have you surveyed grad assistants level of interest in the program?
  • Group requested to see a sample program plan.


Deferred approval.  Group asked to have Joyce attend a special session on Tuesday Nov 20th so that the program could potentially be on the GPC agenda for Dec 6th. Group asked that Joyce bring any data she may have to support the rationale for the program.

EdSE5000: Tabled until next meeting