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.