COMMITTEE: Academic
Standards Committee
MEETING DATE: February
18, 2008
PERSON PRESIDING: Linda
Wolfe
REGULAR MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE: Stacey
Altman, Linda Mitchell, Mark Richardson, Nancy Spalding, and Yazid Finn
(Student Body President Representative)
EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE: George
Bailey, Michael Brown, Linner Griffin, and Mark Sprague
OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE:
Dr. Ellen Arnold (Director of Ethnic
Studies), Dr. Scott Curtis and Dr. Ron Mitchelson (Geography), Dr. Michael Spurr
and Dr. David Pravica (Math), Dr. Andrew Morehead (Chemistry), Dr. James Joyce
and Dr. Jeff Shinpaugh (Physics), and Dr. Catherine Rigsby (Geological
Sciences)
CALLED TO ORDER: 2:00 PM
ACTIONS OF MEETING
Agenda Item: Approval of the minutes from the 1/14/08
meeting
Action
Taken: Minutes approved
________________________________________________
Agenda Item: Review of the discussion from 1/14/08
meeting regarding the acceptability of ETHN 3501 Selected Topics in Ethnic
Studies, Humanities and ETHN 3502 Selected Topics in Ethnic Studies, Social
Science for Foundations credit.
Discussion: Dr. Ellen Arnold, Director of Ethnic Studies
returned to answer follow-up questions regarding ETHN 3501 and ETHN 3502 for
Foundations credit. After summarizing
the courses and foundation goals of each (and with a quorum of the committee
now present), a motion for approval was made.
Action
Taken: Motion approved.
_______________________________________________
Agenda Item: Discussion of teaching outcomes
and assessment
Discussion: Discussion of the Outcomes Assessment of
Foundations Courses prepared by George Bailey with the support of others on the
committee and its new revision. Dr.
Bailey explained the initiatives of the general administration as well as the
independent group formed for the UNC Tomorrow will likely have an impact on our
Academic Standards committee. He hopes
that we can begin to integrate these initiatives within existing courses. This will likely mean that the assessment of
Foundations courses will need to be more detailed with regard to critical
thinking skills and writing skills, and we need to think about what could be
built into the guidelines. Dr. Bailey
suggests that we need to distinguish standard outcomes from special circumstances
that occur from time to time (particular projects that the university
administration wants to monitor for a particular time such as writing
assessment). He is aware that the group
is concerned with students learning about global issues and leadership. Dr. Bailey stated that he would make changes
to the outcomes guidelines according to the results of these committees. He is working with the UNC Tomorrow group and
is also interested in our suggestions as he states that it is important that we
be proactive. When the question of
remedial courses was raised, Dr. Bailey clarified that SACs states that credit
cannot be given for remedial courses—all credited courses must be at the
university level. It may be possible for
Student Life to take over and organize remedial courses. The UNC Tomorrow’s report is recommending
that Foundations courses address globalization—but the recommendations are
rather broad and not pointing to any specific group. The skills that the administration wants us
to access are not just those for the Foundations courses, but also those that
involve mastering skills at the major’s level.
This will mean that the university will have to assess at the senior
level in each major to assure that all graduating seniors in each major master
writing skills. Some of these
assessments, however, do not fall on our shoulders; foundations courses are
designed for the first 2 years of study, while improvement of these skills (and
mastering these skills) is conditional with progress within the major.
Action
Taken: Dr. Bailey will keep our
committee informed of the recommendations of the UNC Tomorrow group and the
university administration; the topic of outcomes and assessment will be
revisited at a future meeting.
________________________________________________
Agenda Item: Consideration of the request for GEOG 1300
(Weather and Climate) to receive Basic Science Foundation Curriculum credit
Discussion: Dr. Scott Curtis (an Atmospheric scientist)
and Dr. Ron Mitchelson (Chair of ECU’s Geography Department) presented the
background of the course and the department’s desire to seek Foundations
credit. Dr. Mitchelson explained that
the study of meteorology has been under the direction of the Geography
department for many years—in fact, many of the faculty in his department are
trained in meteorology. Dr. Curtis, an
instructor who would teach this course, explained that most of the work would
be field-oriented (i.e. outside study of climate conditions). He stated that his background as well as that
of several of his colleagues in the department (4 other colleagues are also
atmospheric scientists) makes him well suited to teach such a course. He shared with the committee the textbook (Meteorology Today) that he would use for
the course as well as several technical instruments that the students would
have access to for field study. Dr.
Curtis explained the course proposal and how the course would meet each of the
Foundations credit goals.
There were a
number of faculty present from other departments that came to speak in
opposition to the proposal. The majority
of the college apparently did not approve the course, and many were present in
the room to voice their concerns.
Faculty members from the Math department (Dr. Michael Spurr and Dr.
David Pravica) are concerned that there are problems that need to be worked out
with the science department before Basic Science credit can be given. Could the Geography department not work out
this course in collaboration with the Geology department? How can Geography (a Social Science
discipline) bring forth a course for Basic Science credit? Another member explained that five members
voted against the course from the same area.
Dr. Andrew Morehead from the Chemistry department also raised his concern
regarding the classification of the course.
What exactly IS a Basic Science course vs. and Applied Science course
vs. a Social Science course? Drs. Jim Joyce and Jeff Shinpaugh from the
Physics department stated their concerns about teaching outside the boundaries
of the discipline without the input of other experts in the field (suggesting
the such a course should perhaps be cross listed and team taught). Dr. Joyce drew an analogy to campus courses
made into distance education courses—who exactly monitors these courses for
integrity? He explained that that the
Physics department has opposed any foundations courses that were
interdisciplinary, and the department also opposes any course that is not broad
enough for a Foundations course. He
explained that Physics 1050 covers much of the material in this course. Dr. Shinpaugh stated that if the course were
listed as a Basic Science course, students would gravitate toward this new
course rather than physics and chemistry because it is less demanding.
Dr. Catherine
Rigsby from the Department of Geological Sciences voiced her opposition to the
course as currently proposed. She
studies climate change—it is the specialty of her field—and she states that
this is more of an Applied science and not a Basic Science. She was involved on the Academic Standards
committee in the past when the Foundations goals were being defined, and she
explained that Foundations courses were designed to be a broad introduction to
a specific discipline—not specialized.
If you are going to allow such as designation for this course, then you
are going against the declarations of the written Foundations guidelines and
need to rewrite them. The GEOG 1300 as
proposed is more of an applied science course with overlap with other courses
in other disciplines such as Physics, Chemistry, Math, and Geology. Why could the course not be cross-listed and
an effort be made to teach it jointly with other departments?
Dr. Mitchelson
said that he had attempted to reach out to other departments as he sought
approval but his request was denied. He
explained that these types of meteorology courses are being offered at other
schools as Foundations courses and also taught by their geography departments.
It was
generally agreed that all of the disciplines seem to have a blurring of the
lines and a tendency to overlap in subject matter. Dr. Mark Sprague, a specialist in underwater
and atmospheric physics, stated that he teaches a physics course for non-science
majors that already covers many of the same subjects proposed in this new
course. He is concerned that the text
chosen for the course doesn’t even introduce the scientific method—how can such
a non-scientific text be used for a Basic Science Foundations course?
Additional
opposition to the GEOG 1300 course was introduced in the form of two memos: one
from Steve Culver, chair of the Department of Geological Sciences, who states
that Geography is NOT one of the core disciplines in the Basic Sciences and
that the course is actually not a basic science but rather an applied science
in atmospheric physics.; the other from John Sutherland, chair of the
Department of Physics, who states that the subject of GEOG 1300 is atmospheric
science which is an application of both physics and chemistry to atmospheric
processes which is already covered in PHYS 1050 Physics and the Environment
course.
Action
Taken: A paper ballot was distributed to
each voting member of the committee to vote for approval of the course for
Foundations credit. The response from the
Committee was evenly divided with 5 admitting the course and 5 denying the
course. Because there must be a majority
for approval, the proposed course GOEG 1300 was denied.
________________________________________________
_______________________________________________
ADJOURNED: 4:00 p.m.
NEXT MEETING: March
17, 2008
ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED: Discussion
with Michael Poteat on a revision of the statement on the SOIS and new courses
for Foundations Credit.