EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY FACULTY SENATE. ACADEMIC, APPELLATE, AND SENATE COMMITTEE
ANNUAL REPORT, 2005-2006 Academic Year
Academic Standards Committee
1. Membership (include ex-officio members).
REGULAR MEMBERS (with vote)
George Bailey, Chair, Jim Decker, Vice Chair, Kenneth Bass, Margaret Bauer, Thomas McConnell, Secretary,m Lora Smith-Canter, Mark Richardson
EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS (with vote)
Michael Brown, Rep. of Chancellor, Linner Griffin, Rep. of Provost, David Weismiller, Rep. of Chair of the Faculty, Zach Robinson, Faculty Senator, Charla Hodges,
2. Meeting Dates (include members present*).
August 29, 2005
REGULAR MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE: Bailey, Decker, Bass, Bauer, McConnell, Richardson
EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE: Brown, Griffin, Robinson
MEETING DATE: September 12, 2005
REGULAR MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE: Bailey, Decker, Bass, Bauer, McConnell, Richardson, Smith-Carter
EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE: Brown, Griffin, Weismiller
September 26, 2005
REGULAR MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE: Bailey, Bauer, Decker, McConnell, Richardson, Smith-Carter
EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE: Brown, Griffin
MEETING DATE: November 21, 2005
REGULAR MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE: Bailey, Bauer, Bass, Decker, Richardson
EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE: Brown, Griffin, Weismiller, Robinson,
MEETING DATE: February 6, 2006
REGULAR MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE: Bailey, Decker, McConnell, Richardson, Smith-Carter
EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE: Brown, Griffin, Weismiller
MEETING DATE: March 20, 2006
REGULAR MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE: Bailey, Bass, Decker, McConnell, Richardson, Smith-Carter
EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE: Brown, Griffin, Hodges (SGA)
MEETING DATE: April 17, 2006
REGULAR MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE: Bailey, Bass, Decker, McConnell, Richardson
EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE: Brown, Griffin, Byrd (SGA)
3. Subcommittees established during the year (include progress and/or completion of work). – None.
4. Accomplishments during the year, especially as addressed through committee goals. Please include recommendations made to any University agency other than the Faculty Senate that will be noted under #5.
§ Establised criteria for ranking of “Experimental Courses for the Liberal Arts Foundations Curriculum.”
§ Appointed Mike Brown (psychology) Service Learning Committee member from ASC.
§ Reviewed and ranked 17 Experimental course proposals. Ten proposals were approved, seven were rejected.
§ Approved for social science foundations credit: POLS 3270; POLS 3050; HIST 3460; HIST 3461; ANTH 1050; EXXS 1001; PHIL 1690; RELI 3930; HIST 3625; HIST 3626; HIST 3820; HIST 3830; SOCI 4400.
§ Approved for humanities foundations credit: ENGL 3770.
§ Discussed moving the SOIS to the web would save a lot of money. The response rate could be lower. Paper SOIS gets a 70% response rate. Web based courses get a 65% response rate. The time period it is up would have to be worked out. It could be done earlier in the term. Blackboard might be used. If this was decided in Spring 2006 it could be implemented in Fall 2006. The committee might want to modify the instrument.
§ Discussed that to remove GE credit from a course should require the same action as being granted credit, this action would protect students’ rights for access to GE credit, and allow discussion of such a request to remove GE credit.
§ Tabled agenda item: Economics asks for information or direction on whether a lab section receives academic credit. Discussion: Outside of the natural and physical sciences, the issue of lab credit is not well defined, but there is a precedent in Psychology, where the laboratory credit is embedded in the course credit.
§ Discussed which terminology to use for the new catalog to replace GE credit. Discussion: the changes in defining GE credit to more of the liberal arts or Foundations Credit need to go into the new catalog, which is being modified now for 2006-2007. Action Taken: Changed GE credit to Foundations Credit, or FC in the catalog.
§ Tabled agenda item: College Learning Assessment, how to pilot an assessment for a critical thinking component at ECU. Discussion: ASC needs to know: (1) what, precisely, will be assessed, and (2) if this is for the new Liberal Arts Foundation Curriculum goals, what are the intentions of the assessment committee for aligning the proposed assessment with the current Foundations Curriculum goals? Furthermore, there needs to be a dedicated committee (either Administrative or Faculty Senate, which also needs to be determined) that will have as its purview the assessment of institutional effectiveness.
§ Recommended to the Service Learning Advisory Committee that the definition and criteria for Service Learning courses be more precisely defined to distinguish Service Learning courses from community-based instruction and community-based internships.Agenda Item: The definition and the criteria for designation of a course as a Service Learning course, and how the designation of Service Learning affects the duties of the Academic Standards Committee (ASC). Discussion: The ASC is considering the issue of Service Learning courses because (1) ASC needs to establish criteria for academic credit, and these criteria cannot be established by an administrative committee, and (2) because the adoption of a definition/criteria for Service Learning is not an internship nor is it credit for community service, but it is for academic credit. Service Learning courses should be academic courses with strong academic content, and unless the course is designed to teach how to teach service learning, then the courses should not have “service learning” in the title of the course. The question, towards what end are we developing Service Learning courses, also arose. A related, more specific question also was asked: Does ECU plan on requiring any of these courses for graduation or departmental requirements? There was no clear directive related to either question.
§ Drafted guidelines for a change in outcome assessment for Foundations Curriculum courses at a future meeting. Outcomes assessment for learning outcomes in Foundations Curriculum courses. Discussion: Dr. Michael Poteat has been stressing the need for Outcome assessments in order to be prepared for future SACS reviews of ECU. The ASC will need to provide guidelines for assessing the three goals that have recently been set as criteria for Foundations Curriculum courses. There was also discussion on the need for a new independent committee dedicated to review the numerous assessments necessary for Foundations Curriculum courses, including new and past courses, and institutional effectiveness (see February 6, 2006 minutes).
§ Approved the proposed “Student Rights” proposed by the Student Government. Discussion: The proposed document represents the efforts of students in the Student Government Association of East Carolina University to ensure that the personal opinions and agendas of individuals in the academic environment are not inappropriately forced upon students, in particular when the opinions and agendas are irrelevant to the academic course at hand. Action Taken: The proposed document describing and listing students’ rights was revised to reflect the importance of introducing scholarly work and basic science research into the classroom, while avoiding the introduction of topically irrelevant and personal biased opinions that are not scholarly in nature. Recognition was made of the fact that the presentation and discussion of scholarly material, and in appropriate subject matter, scientifically valid material, precludes discussion of unscholarly material that may be popularized by individuals with a biased political agenda. The final revised document, verbatim as approved by the Academic Standards Committee, including the title of the document was approved by the committee.
§ Recommend that there be no change in in-state residency requirements for credit hours for ECU. Facts were presented to the ASC comparing the in-state residency requirements of ECU compared to several other NC state universities. ECU compared very favorably to the other institutions and, if anything, the in-state residency requirements of ECU were requiring as much or slightly more academic time and performance than several sister institutions.
5. Reports to the Faculty Senate (include dates and resolution numbers). – None.
6. Business carried over to next year (list in priority order).
§ Decide whether or not to recommend to the Faculty Senate moving the SOIS online.
§ Prepare guidelines for outcomes assessment and a schedule for assessment of foundations courses.
§ Motivate the formations of an assessment committee to review outcomes assessment reports from foundations assessment and unit graduating senior outcomes assessment.
§ Revise foundations credit proposal form as necessary.
7. Evaluation of the committee (include anything that hindered or assisted the committee's work during the year).
A. Charge: OK
B. Personnel: very good (those who attended)
C. Attendance: poor
D. Responsibilities: OK
E. Activities: very good
8. Suggestion(s) to the Chair of the Faculty and/or Faculty Senate for improving the effectiveness of the committee.
Replace members who cannot attend meetings.
9. Does the Committee’s organizational meeting next year need to be earlier than the date set this year? - No
Signed: Chairperson, George Bailey
Secretary, Thomas McConnell