COMMITTEE: Academic
Standards Committee
MEETING DATE: November
20, 2006
PERSON PRESIDING: Linda
Wolfe
REGULAR MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE: Bauer,
McConnell, Richardson, Lorenzo
EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE: Brown,
Bailey, Griffin, Sprague
OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE:
Nancy Spaulding and Rich Kilroy from
Security Studies and Political Science; Michael Poteat from the Department of
Institutional Planning, Research, and Effectiveness
CALLED TO ORDER: 2:00 PM
ACTIONS OF MEETING
Agenda Item: Approval of Minutes of 10/23/06
Action
Taken: Approved
________________________________________________
Agenda Item: Discussion of
next meeting date
Discussion:
Due to the need to discuss and settle several issues early in the semester
including several Foundations credit course proposals, discussion of the peer
review instrument, and the policy on classroom disruptions, and because the
next scheduled meeting is February 19, 2007, there is a need to set a meeting
in January. Since the regular meeting
date would fall on the MLK holiday (1/15/07), it was suggested that we meet the
following Monday 1/22/07.
Action
Taken: The committee agreed to meet at
2:00 p.m. on 1/22/07.
_______________________________________________
Agenda Item: Consideration of
a new course, SECS 1000 Introduction to Security Studies for Social Studies
Foundations Credit
Discussion:
Nancy Spaulding and Rich Kilroy introduced the
proposal from the Program of Security Studies in the Department of Political
Science. Dr. Kilroy, the instructor for
the course, explained how the course would fulfill the three Foundations goals
and the nature of the course. The
primary discipline for the course in Political Science but it also draws upon
History (one of the texts required for the course is a text written by a US
historian who is an expert on the Cold War).
A question was raised concerning a text for the research
methodologies. Spaulding responded by
stating most texts include components that either address this or that individual
instructors may bring in additional materials to supplement. Michael Brown asked if the syllabus might be
refined to address how each topic of the course fits into the course objectives
and support how the Political Science Foundations goals are being met. Kilroy responded in stating that the syllabus
could be further revised to tackle that issue.
Action
Taken: McConnell made the motion for
approval, and the committee unanimously agreed to approve SECS 1000 for
Foundations credit.
________________________________________________
Agenda Item: A Report from Michael Poteat and Linda Wolfe
on the November 7, 2006 meeting of the Faculty Senate in which the senate
deliberated the motion to move the SOIS to the web.
Discussion: Linda Wolfe announced that the Faculty Senate
approved the move of the SOIS to the web.
Poteat explained that the decision was made to “phase-in” the web-based
SOIS by doing a small pilot study in the Spring 2007, do all the summer courses
as web-based, and do 50/50 inn the Fall 2007.
He also stated that he wants to do more publicity and offer more
incentives to encourage students to take the survey on the internet. Poteat anticipates that there will be a few
technical bugs initially with moving the SOIS to work through the BANNER
system.
Action
Taken: No further action necessary at
this time.
________________________________________________
Agenda Item: Consideration of
outcomes assessment for current Foundation courses.
Discussion: Michael Poteat reviewed the topic of outcomes
assessment for Foundations credit courses.
He stated that we need to come up with a measurement of competencies
(SACS asks for this but gives no suggestions on how competencies should be
measured), though this will not be done with a standardized test. We need to form a committee to discuss these
issues and Poteat can provide some guidelines for assessment. George Bailey stated that it is helpful to
have goals clearly established in order to help with assessment. Bailey suggested that each department
administer tests but that Academic Standards could set the requirements. We need to devise the format and recommend
the structure for implementation—and to do so right away before the next SACS
visit. Evaluation of the students’
knowledge in the three goal areas must be made by the professors from each
department. Poteat recommends to the AS
committee that we come up with a General Education Institutional Effectiveness
committee to gather data and evaluate it from graduating seniors in the area of
one General Ed. Foundations credit course.
The result will be a report that contains data that can be used by
SACS. This new committee will have to
have oversight to see what each department is doing and not doing with regard
to assessment. Bailey explained that the
duties should not fall under our committee but rather is the job of the
Chancellor or General Faculty to form this committee. The more details we provide, the more likely
one of the two would form a committee.
Action
Taken: No further action at this
time. Michael Poteat will return at the
January 22, 2007 meeting to discuss further the outcome assessment of
Foundation courses.
_______________________________________________
Agenda Item: Report from Linda Wolfe on the October 25,
2006 meeting with the “Continuing and Career Education Committee.”
Discussion:
Linda Wolfe explained that the CCE Committee would like our approval in
proceeding with a Faculty and Administrator Survey of DE course practices at
ECU. They want to see how many
variations are found in practice. The
information will be summarized and used to make recommendations.
Action
Taken: The committee does not have any
strong objections to the development of a Faculty and Administrator Survey of
DE courses, though everyone expressed an interest in seeing the results of the
survey and if the CCE committee would reach any conclusions from these results.
ADJOURNED: 3:30 p.m.
NEXT MEETING: Monday,
January 22, 2007
ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED: Social Science Foundation Credit for several
Sociology courses and one Political Science course, report on Service Learning,
Peer Review of Teaching Instrument and Procedure, proposed policy on how to
handle classroom disruption, and further discussion led by Michael Poteat on
outcomes assessment for Foundation courses.