COMMITTEE: Academic
Standards Committee
MEETING DATE: April
21, 2008
PERSON PRESIDING: Linda
Wolfe
REGULAR MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE: Linda
Crane 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. Sharon Ballard (Chair of the
University Service Learning Advisory Committee), Dr. Nobuaki Takahashi
(Department of Foreign Languages—Japanese) and Dr. Michael Poteat
CALLED TO ORDER: 2:00 PM
ACTIONS OF MEETING
Agenda Item: Approval of the minutes from the 3/17/08
meeting
Action
Taken: Minutes approved
________________________________________________
Agenda Item: Discussion with Dr. Sharon
Ballard, Chair of the University Service Learning Advisory Committee, regarding
giving service learning courses that are approved by the committee and meet the
established criteria for a service learning designation that would appear in
the course catalog as well as the student’s transcript.
Discussion: Dr. Sharon Ballard explained that the
Service Learning Committee was formed to review courses that contain a
service-learning component and do so in a way that directly connects with the
course content. The committee wants to
propose a voluntary “Service Learning” designation for courses that include a
service-learning component. The
designation would be helpful not only to students to identify courses that
include such a component as part of the course requirements, but also later on
for potential employers who are interested in seeing such community service
when studying the transcript of a student applying for employment. She clarified that the committee has
emphasized that the service activities are integrated into course work because
service learning is not just volunteer work or community service. Academic study is the primary focus of all
“SL” courses and the service component is designed to enhance the academic
focus. She distributed to the members of
the committee a handout outlining the Service Learning Course submission
process and the submission form. One committee member asked that in making such
a designation if this is leading to an eventual requirement that more (or most)
courses taught at ECU should carry such a designation as a requirement. Dr. Ballard explained that the committee just
wanted to recognize those courses that included a component and to recognize
those instructors that took the time to include such a component as well as
those students who elected to pursue such a course. Dr. Bailey asked about those courses that do
include service learning—do all need to go through the process to get such a
designation—is it a requirement. Dr.
Ballard stated that the process is purely voluntary; courses may include
service learning and not request a review for the special designation. The committee has been actively trying to
look at all the courses that do contain service learning so that they can be
recognized as such. Dr. Griffin
explained that from her knowledge of being a member of the committee, that all
75 service-learning courses that were in existence at the time of the
committee’s formation were submitted and reviewed. The committee agreed that the process of
review and recognition by the “SL” designation seemed acceptable. A motion to approve the service learning
designation for courses so reviewed was brought forward.
Action Taken: The motion was approved.
_______________________________________________
Agenda Item: Discussion of INTL 2004
(Introduction to Japanese Culture), a revision of an previous course, for
Foundations Credit in the Area of Humanities
Discussion: The instructor proposing the course from the
Department of Foreign Languages, Dr. Nobuaki Takahashi, introduced the course
to the committee, discussed its content, and outlined how the course met each
of the three goals for Foundations credit.
He explained how the course was previously taught by a different
Japanese instructor who has now since left ECU, and that the course has been
redesigned to focus on issues of Japanese culture and how it differs from
American culture. Dr. Takahashi stated
that he had some difficulties in preparing the materials for our committee
(specifically understanding the three Foundation goals as they might apply to
this revised course). He tried in his
justification to address how students would be developing their writing skills
and brought some of the textbooks that will be used and cited Internet resources. He stated that he wants to seek Humanities
credit for this course (like similar courses in Korean and Chinese culture
already offered at ECU). One committee
member asked how he intended to have an insightful comparison with American
culture where there are no textbooks listed that that address this. Takahashi answered that students will compare
Japanese to American culture by drawing upon and sharing their own personal
experience of American customs. Dr.
Bailey asked Dr. Takahasi why he was asking for Foundations credit in the area
of Humanities rather than in the Social Sciences. From the types of textbooks used and the
nature of the activities described, it seemed more suitable for a course in the
area of Social Science. Dr. Wolfe
explained that she had discussed this with Dr. Takahasi and recommended that he
seek Humanities credit because in the organization of his course he doesn’t
plan to teach social science methodology—a requirement for any Foundations
course in this field. Dr. Bailey
countered, however, that the course as it now stands doesn’t truly reflect a
course in the Humanities—especially not a Foundations credit course that should
teach the research methodologies for courses in this discipline. He said the Foundation goals must be
addressed clearly—students MUST learn the methodologies for the discipline from
the Foundations courses. Bailey said
that students are taking courses for Humanities credit but not getting the
point of what the humanities are about.
Literature can put you in touch with what it is like to be
Japanese. Dr. Takahasi explained that he
wants to adapt the course so that it meets our requirements, and that he is
willing to change the course to get Humanities credit. Linda Wolfe recommends that Dr. Takahasi
think more about the revision of the course, seek help in reformatting the
course into a Humanities or Social Science course by work closely with Dr.
Michael Brown and Dr. George Bailey who offer their assistance, and return in
the fall with a revised course for new consideration.
Action
Taken: The committee agreed with Dr.
Wolfe’s recommendation and the revised course would be reconsidered in the fall
for Foundations credit.
________________________________________________
Agenda Item: Discussion of the use of the SOIS for an
instrument in evaluating teaching quality, the on-line version of the SOIS, and
the ability for faculty and administrators to securely access the SOIS survey
results on the internet.
Discussion: The committee discussed the posting of the
SOIS results on One-
Stop for access to specified faculty
and administrators. It was decided that
this could be acceptable only if this could be made secure—that faculty members
could only look at their own individual SOIS results through a secure
gateway. It was agreed that this should
be our suggestion to be taken to the Faculty Senate for approval. Additionally, the statement that the
committee drafted concerning the role of the SOIS in faculty evaluation of
teaching had been further refined—particularly with regard to how the data from
the SOIS was to be evaluated. Dr. Poteat
brought several handouts to share showing different statistical models and how
they demonstrated that the ratings from the SOIS instrument is not the best
indicator for teaching effectiveness.
The committee agreed to the following
revision of the statement that the ASC would take to the faculty senate for
their approval. It represents our
substitute proposal for the Appendix C. Section III statement of the Student Opinion
of Instruction survey. The statement
that the ASC would like the faculty senate to consider is as follows:
“The quality of teaching must be
evaluated by means of:
a. formal methods of peer review,
including direct observation of the classroom teaching of new and tenure-track
faculty
b. other methods of evaluation
including 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.
c. data from surveys of student
opinion when an individual faculty member’s data is consistently (more than 2
semesters) and significantly different (in the top 10 percent or the bottom 10
percent of the distribution) when compared to similar courses in the unit.
d. other procedures provided for
in unit codes.”
Action
Taken: A motion was offered and seconded
to approve the revised statement. The
committee approved the motion.
________________________________________________
ADJOURNED: 3:30 p.m.