COMMITTEE: Academic
Standards Committee
MEETING DATE: November
19, 2007
PERSON PRESIDING: Linda
Wolfe
REGULAR MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE: Altman,
Lorenzo, Richardson, Smith-Canter, Spaulding
EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE: Bailey,
Brown, Griffin, Sprague
OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE:
Ray Drake, Joe Norris, Jack Brinn, Matt
Long
CALLED TO ORDER: 2:00 PM
ACTIONS OF MEETING
Agenda Item: Approval of minutes from 10/24/07 meeting
Action
Taken: Approved
________________________________________________
Agenda Item: Approval of Stacey Altman
(from Health and Human Performance) to replace Joseph Thomas as a regular
member the Academic Standards Committee.
Action
Taken: Approved
_______________________________________________
Agenda Item: Discussion of ITCS proposal
to change student e-mail
Discussion: George Bailey, on behalf of the Academic
Standards Committee, had initiated a survey with regard to the potential change
in student e-mail provider from in-house to Microsoft Windows that had been
proposed by ITCS. Bailey had sent the
results to the ITCS staff with a series of specific questions to be
answered. ITCS staff members in
attendance came prepared with a written response to the questions raised in the
Academic Standards survey. They
explained that the chief reason for the proposed change is to provide students
with more e-mail storage space; each student currently only has 50 MG. While ECU has the lowest technology fee in
North Carolina, we are one of the most efficient in our computer labs. Since the university does not have the budget
in the student fees, the ITCS staff began investigating how the problem of
limited student storage space might be resolved. It was explained that the change would affect
only the student e-mail accounts, not the faculty and staff who will continue
to use Outlook and have more storage space than the students (also aided by the
use of e-mail vaulting). The student
e-mail addresses will need to be changed, however, since the minimum length for
passphrases are 6 characters for Windows LiveID while the minimum is 8
characters for PirateID. Matt Long
explained that this would not be difficult to change and could also be changed
on Blackboard for the e-mail forwarding feature. Additionally, the routine change of password
for security would be synchronized with a change of the one on Windows
Live@ecu. The switch to Windows Live@ecu
allows for outsourcing of the student e-mail with a reputable company that will
service it and allow the students to have the storage ability and convenient
features that they have on many of their off-campus e-mail accounts and
maintain their ECU affiliation on their e-mail account. One question was raised concerning whether
students will be subjected to unwanted advertisements in using this new
provider; the ITCS staff stated that Microsoft has promised that there will not
be advertisements. Another committee
member asked if once we shift to this provider and we no longer maintain the
ECU system, if Microsoft will be committed to maintain its service. The ITCS staff responded that Microsoft has
so many accounts and is trying to build more that it is unlikely that it will
not support and continue this service—though they could add advertisements down
the road. ECU will need to revisit its
commitment to the plan if advertisements are later added. The e-mail will be secure and the e-mail
accounts will NOT be given to advertisers.
ECU will still own the name space and could back out and return to an
in-house system in the future. Regarding
the implementation, ITCS explained that there will likely be an opt-tin time
period with full implementation by Fall 2009.
As explained by ITCS staff members, with the Microsoft Live option,
students will actually have 2 physical accounts: one for LiveID for student e-mail and one for
PirateID for campus resources. Access to
student email will require the student to use their LiveID and LiveID
passphrase, while access to campus resources (such as Blackboard and Onestop)
will require students to enter their PirateID and PirateID passphrase. George Bailey stated that it would be best if
students did not know that they needed 2 password accounts. It was explained that eventually they would
just have one password account. Matt
Long explained that Blackboard actually pulls from the Banner accounts. There will be a separate account for ECU
alumni (alumni.ecu.edu), and graduates will be transferred to this
account. Students who did not graduate
and were not enrolled would, after a time, be automatically removed from the
system. There is also the possibility
for a person to have both a faculty/staff account AND a student account—in the
case a staff member, for instance, is also enrolled as a student. This is not possible currently.
Action
Taken: The committee has agreed to
ITCS’s proposal for the change to the Microsoft Live e-mail service for student
e-mail accounts, and we will present a report to the Faculty Senate presenting
the main concerns that we raised and that were answered by the ITCS staff as
well as the results of our survey.
________________________________________________
Agenda Item: Discussion with Michael Poteat about SOIS
on-line.
Action
Taken: Dr. Poteat is not available to
attend today’s meeting, so discussion of this topic will be postponed for a
future meeting.
________________________________________________
Agenda Item: Discussion of teaching
outcomes and assessment.
Discussion:
The committee discussed revisions to the draft of the document prepared
regarding the goals and the process of outcomes assessment of Foundations
Courses. The committee made the
following revisions:
Page 1: Before the numbered goals, the phrase
beginning “To earn Foundations credit . . “ should be changed to “Foundation
courses have the following learning objectives” and the “or” between numbered
goals 3 and 4 should be removed.
Page 2: Change the sentence “The purpose of outcomes
assessment is to improve the quality of Foundations courses by improving
student learning” to”The purpose of outcomes assessment is to improve student
learning by improving the quality of Foundations courses.”
Page 2: Item 3 has so many variables that this will
need to be broken down into several categories.
George Bailey agreed to work on this answer to revise it.
Page 2: With regard to Item 4 (frequency of
assessment), it was explained that there must be 2 outcomes assessments between
now and the SACS review.
Page 2: With regard to Item 5 (what must be
assessed), a question was raised regarding whether too many courses getting
GenEd credit. Should our committee
evaluate Foundations courses that were in practice before our review? George Bailey answered that the evaluation of
prior GenEd courses would not be very productive right now; wait until they
come up for scrutiny if assessed because they will be evaluated according to
Foundations goals.
Page 3: Under Goal 3 of Question 5, the three
examples given might be better in an attachment to the document. Perhaps there should be some examples of
questions on each learning outcome.
Perhaps also there might be an example provided of a report as an answer
to Question 8.
The assessment
goals and procedure will go into a computer software program for the actual
statistics. Our committee is simply
providing the procedures, while the administration will instigate the
operations. Assessment by the particular
discipline involved should be easier since they are most knowledgeable. One problem may arise in those courses that
were taught long before the Foundations goals were determined.
_______________________________________________
ADJOURNED: 3:50 p.m.
NEXT MEETING: January
14, 2008
ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED:
Courses for Foundations
Credit: ETHN 3501 and ETHN 3502;
Continued discussion of teaching outcomes and assessment; Continued discussion
with Dr. Michael Poteat regarding the SOIS.