COMMITTEE: Academic Standards
MEETING DATE: November 18, 2002
PERSON PRESIDING: John Tilley
REGULAR MEMBERS IN
ATTENDANCE: Jim Decker, Joseph
Gershtenson, M. S. Ravi, Catherine Rigsby, and John Tilley
EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS IN
ATTENDANCE: Michael Bassman, Pat Dunn,
Purification Martinez, Dorothy Muller, and Katie Sagle
OTHERS
IN ATTENDANCE: Brian Harris, Michael
Poteat, Chuck Rich
ACTIONS OF MEETING
Agenda Item: 1: Call
to order
Action Taken: Tilley called meeting to order at 3:00 PM.
_____________________________________________________________________
Agenda Item: 2 Approval of minutes for the October 21,
2002 meeting.
Action Taken:
Rigsby moved for approval of minutes, seconded by Dunn. Martinez clarified her status as an Ex Officio
member. The motion was approved without
dissent.
Item Considered in Suspension of Agenda: Committee officials
Action Taken: Decker volunteered to serve as Secretary for
the meeting.
Agenda Item 3: Relationship between the General Education assessment
process and the current review of General Education program.
Discussion: Michael Poteat, Director of Institutional
Effectiveness, provided an overview of the ongoing General Education assessment
process. Dr. Poteat indicated the
recent SACS review was very favorable, yielding only nine recommendations. On August 27, 2002, ECU responded regarding
the nine recommendations. Response to
recommendation # 3 was to consider “oral communication” as part of the review
of General Education program. Dr.
Poteat suggested that this recommendation might be best met with an “Oral
Communication Across the Curriculum” schema, similar to the successful “Writing
Across the Curriculum” program. Tilley
spoke about the difference between General Education requirements and
graduation requirements. Poteat
articulated the SACS “core requirement” as articulated in the “Principles of
Accreditation” which can be found at http://www.sacscoc.org/accrrevproj.asp. Dr. Poteat also provided information attached,
which cites relevant SACS documents.
Action Taken: No action was taken at this time. However the committee reached consensus that
the committee’s job is to recommend the best possible General Education program
for students and should not be constrained by potential assessment challenges.
_____________________________________________________________________
Item considered in Suspension of Agenda: Student Opinion of Distance Education
Courses.
Discussion: Dr. Chuck Rich offered his assistance to
alleviate any remaining problems with the recently revised possibly on student
evaluation of distance education classes.
Tilley recommended adoption of a revised statement, which removes
ambiguity in the policy.
Action Taken Bassman
moved and Rigbsy seconded approval the following replacement
sentence.
“To increase student response
rates, all students enrolled in distance education courses will receive a
reminder e-mail prior to the deadline.”
The
motion passed without dissent.
Agenda Item 4: General Education credit petition for GRBK
2000, GRBK 4000, and GRBK 4999.
Discussion: Dr. Brian Harris described the purpose of
the proposed Great Books program and the petition for general Education
Credit. Rigsby questioned the wisdom of
approving new General Education course while a review of the en Ed program is
under way. Ravi indicated the committee
must be sensitive to Gen Ed changes at this time, however revision of the Gen
Ed program may be years away given the enormity of the task and numerous other
factors. Tilley suggested the course in
question might be particularly suited for “Writing Intensive” status. Harris indicated he would pursue WI stats
for these courses. Bassmen requested
honors section of the proposed classes be stabled. Harris indicated he would pursue honors section of the proposed
classes.
Action Taken: Rigsby moved and Bassman seconded approval
of GRBK 200, GRBK 4000, and GRBK 4999 for General Education credit. The motion was approved without dissent.
Agenda Item 9: Scheduling of a called meeting prior to the
next scheduled meeting.
Discussion: Tilley indicated the business before the committee necessitated
an additional meeting prior to the one scheduled in February 2003. Discussion of the business to be
accomplished and an interim report to the Faculty Senate was held.
Action
Taken: Committee
members agreed to meet Tuesday November 26, 2002 from 3:30 to 5:00 PM. Tilley will invite Provost Swart to attend
this meeting.
Agenda Item 6: Means of soliciting General Education input
from Students.
Discussion: Tilley described the dilemma of soliciting
input form students about the General Education program. Tilley recommended four committee members (Tilley,
Slagel, Bassman, and House) meet with the Student Government Association Senate
for the purpose of receiving input on General Education. Bassman suggested Honors program student be
solicited for input. Muller suggested
Teaching Fellow be solicited for Gen Ed input.
Ravi suggested The East Carolinian be approached to run a feature
on the General Education Review and solicit student input. Tilley indicated that Katie Slagel (Ex
Officio Committee member0 is a member of TEC editorial board. Tilley volunteered to discuss this with
Slagel.
Action
Taken: The
committee reached consensus regarding the following strategies: a) Tilley,
Slagel, Bassman and House will attend an SGA Senate meeting and solicit Gen Ed
input, b) Muller will make arrangements to solicit input form Teaching Fellows,
c) Bassman will make arrangements to solicit input form Honors program
students, and d) Tilley will work with Slagel to utilize The East Carolinian
to increase student awareness of the Gen Ed review and solicit student input.
Agenda Item 5: Discussion of the “Foundations Curriculum”
drafted by Rigsby.
Discussion: Extensive discussion was held in reaction to
the “Foundations Curriculum’ drafted by Rigsby. Suggestion for clarification, enhancement and extension the
concept were entertained and debated.
Related After extensive discussion Rigsby agreed to incorporate several
of the concepts offered and to construct a second raft of the proposal to be
discoed at the next committee meeting.
Action
Taken:
Dr. Muller volunteered to ascertain current relevant UNC System guidelines
regarding General Education. No other action taken at this time.
Motion to Adjourn: Passed at 5:24 PM.
NEXT MEETING: November 26, 2002 @ 3:30 PM
_________________________________________________
From Michael Poteat,
Director of Institutional Effectiveness
The first statement
concerning SACS requirements is from the SACS Criteria, which are being
replaced by the Principles. The criteria are, however, were the standards by
which ECU was evaluated. Note that this
statement reads that we must demonstrate that graduates are competent in, but
we only have to show that students have course work (catalog requirements) in
each area. We were judged to comply
with all areas except oral communication.
The 1998 criteria can be found at:
http://www.sacscoc.org/criteria.asp
The institution must demonstrate that its graduates
of 29
degree programs are competent in reading, writing,
oral 30
communication, fundamental mathematical skills and 31
the basic use of computers.
Effective with the class of
2004 (that is the the SACS term and it refers to the schools undergoing
reaffirmation visits in the 2004-2005 academic year), all institutions will be
under the recently adopted principles.
The principles are only 16 pages long compared to the approximately 80
pages of criteria. The must statements
are gone and there are far fewer specific requirements. The principles can be found at:
http://www.sacscoc.org/pdf/Proposed%20Principles%20of%20Accreditation.pdf
I
copied three statements, which I thought were of particular relevance to
general education and the assessment of institutional effectiveness, from the
principles. The first statement (the
one I inadvertently replaced with non-relevant text) reads:
c. offers a general
education program at the collegiate level that is (1) a substantial
component of each
undergraduate degree, (2) ensures breadth of knowledge, and
(3) is based on a coherent
rationale. For degree completion in associate programs,
the component constitutes a
minimum of 15 semester hours or the equivalent; for
baccalaureate programs, a
minimum of 30 semester hours or the equivalent. These
credit hours are to be
drawn from and include at least one course from each of the
following areas:
humanities/fine arts; social/behavioral sciences; and natural
science/mathematics. The
courses do not narrowly focus on those skills,
techniques, and procedures
specific to a particular occupation or profession. The
institution provides a
written justification and rationale for course equivalency. (This section is on page 9 and is part of the Core
Requirements. However, I am not sure of
its meaning if it is read within the context of the entire statement..)
Another core requirement
(page 8) states:
5. The institution engages
in ongoing, integrated, and institution-wide research-based planning and
evaluation processes that incorporate a systematic review of programs and
services that (a) results in continuing improvement and (b) demonstrates that
the institution is effectively accomplishing its mission. (This is, of course, what my office is
charged with facilitating.)
Finally, one of the two
principles that SACS had developed for the basis of reaffirmation is:
Quality Enhancement
The Commission on Colleges
expects institutions to dedicate themselves to enhancing
the quality of their
programs and services within the context of their missions, resources,
and capacities, and creating
an environment in which teaching, research, and learning
occurs.
The concept of quality
enhancement is at the heart of the Commission’s philosophy of
accreditation; this
presumes each member institution is engaged in an ongoing program
of improvement and can
demonstrate how well it fulfills its stated mission. Although
evaluation of an
institution’s educational quality and its effectiveness in achieving its
mission is a difficult task
requiring careful analysis and professional judgment, an
institution is expected to
document quality and effectiveness in all its major aspects.
(page 2-3)