COMMITTEE:   Academic Standards Committee      


MEETING DATE:   March 17, 2008




REGULAR MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE:  Stacey Altman, Mark Richardson, 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. Barbara Memory (Department of Music Therapy and Music Education), Dr. Michelle Hairston (Chair of the Department of Music Education/Music Therapy), and Dr. Michael Poteat 






Agenda Item:     Approval of the minutes from the 2/18/08 meeting


Action Taken:   Minutes approved


Agenda Item: Discussion with Michael Poteat on The Academic Standards Committee Report of Proposed revisions to Appendix C, Section II, Evaluation in reference to the Student Opinion of Instruction Survey and evaluation of classroom teaching.


Discussion:   It was agreed by most of the committee that the SOIS is given too much weight in faculty evaluations; hence the need for the revision to the evaluation of classroom teaching statement seems justified and needs to be adopted as soon as possible by the faculty senate.  Also agreed was with regard to the evaluation of faculty teaching, the SOIS instrument result should be moved further down the list of materials to be considered (after peer-review evaluations and review of course materials such as syllabi, reading lists, examinations, etc).  Further discussion centered on the how the SOIS results should be evaluated.  It was agreed that the data from surveys should be relevant only when an individual faculty member’s data differs consistently (more than two semesters) and significantly (more than 1 mean absolute deviation) from the unit’s median for similar courses.


Thus the proposal to revise Section III. Evaluation 1. Teaching in Appendix C of the ECU Faculty Manual is as follows:


“The quality of teaching must be evaluated by means of:

  1. data from surveys of student opinion, when such data have been gathered in accordance with established procedures of the department or the university, which guarantee the integrity, and completeness of said data.  As part of the effort to evaluate the teaching of faculty members, each unit shall either: develop and use its own instrument(s) as approved by the chancellor to determine student opinion of teaching or utilize the instrument developed by the Teaching Effectiveness Committee to determine student opinion of teaching.
  2. Formal methods of peer review, including direct observation of the classroom teaching of new and tenure-track faculty.
  3. Review by the unit administrator and/or peers of course materials such as syllabi, reading lists, outlines, examinations, audiovisual materials, student manuals, samples of student’s work on assignments, projects, papers, examples of student achievement, and other materials prepared for or relevant to instruction.
  4. Data from survey of student opinion when an individual faculty member’s data is consistently (more than 2 semesters) and significantly (more than 1 mean absolute deviation) different from the unit’s median for similar courses.
  5. Other procedures provided for in unit codes.


Action Taken:  Motion to approve was made and seconded.  The committee has approved the revised statement, so it will now be taken on to the Faculty Senate for their review.


Agenda Item:   Discussion of teaching outcomes and assessment for Foundations courses


Discussion:  Final discussion of the Outcomes Assessment of Foundations Courses prepared by George Bailey with the support of others on the committee and its new revision.


Action Taken:   The committee approves the Outcomes Assessment of Foundations Courses document.  Linda Wolfe will present this document along with the document outlining revisions to the evaluation of classroom teaching at the Faculty senate meeting on April 22, 2008.


Agenda Item:  Consideration of the request for Music in Therapy (MUSC 3677) for Foundations Credit in the area of the Arts


Discussion:  Dr. Barbara Memory, Professor of Music Therapy at School of Music, introduced this new course to the members of the committee as a course for which she is seeking Foundations credit in the Fine Arts.  She explained the nature of the course as one that reaches out to different disciplines such as the health sciences, psychology, early education, etc.  Music, she said, can be used to change behavior of individuals—to reach them in ways not available to other types of therapy.  The course would incorporate some elementary discussion of musical elements but more with regard to how these elements are discussed in the field of music therapy and how the research in music therapy can be helpful to a variety of other fields that try to reach out to people.  Memory explained that the course is not designed for music majors, but rather for non-majors that might be interested in music as it might help them in their discipline.  Dr. Brown asked about when music fundamentals would be covered in the course (as they are not listed in the syllabus or course outline) and those are necessary topics to cover in any introductory course taking the place of a course already receiving Foundations credit in the Arts (such as music appreciation).  Dr. Memory explained that the music fundamentals (such as melody, rhythm, harmony, etc.) would be addressed as these topics come up with specific musical examples used to illustrate music therapy concepts.  She said that music fundamentals would be introduced within the first three weeks of class.  Dr. Brown suggested that the music fundamentals be listed and covered specifically on the course outline as the course should be more of an introduction to music (if it is to receive Foundations credit in the Arts) rather than a course better organized for individuals seeking entrance into the field of music therapy.  Dr. Bailey suggested that this course is better suited for a course in the field of Social Science rather than in Music—especially with regard to courses at the Foundations course level.  He stated that Music should be the core of the course—not an auxiliary element—if the course is to receive Foundations credit in the Arts.  Here, he stated, it seems that music therapy is the aim of the course.  Several members of the committee suggested that the course would need extensive revision—especially to the core of the course itself to include the necessary coverage of musical elements, its genres, culture, history, and organization that lead to an appreciation of music as an art form—before the course could be reconsidered for Foundations credit in the Arts.  It would need to be a course designed in Music Appreciation with some secondary emphasis in Music Therapy to work.  Dr. Wolfe stated that it might not be worth Dr. Memory’s time to seek Foundations credit if the revisions would so change the nature of the course that she envisioned.


Action Taken:  The committee agreed that the course could NOT be approved in its current state for Foundations credit in the Arts.  Dr. Memory said that she would like to talk further to Dr. Brown and Dr. Bailey about ways the course might be revised so that the committee might reconsider it in the future. 



ADJOURNED:   4:00 p.m. 


NEXT MEETING:  April 21, 2008 (Last meeting of the academic year)


ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED:     Discussion of service-learning course designation and a revised course for Foundations credit in the area of the Humanities—INTL 2004 (Introduction to Japanese Culture).