COMMITTEE: Academic
Standards
MEETING DATE: September
16, 2002
PERSON PRESIDING: John
Tilley
REGULAR MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE: Jim Decker, Joseph Gershtenson, Nancy House, M. S. Ravi,
Catherine Rigsby, and John Tilley
EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE: Michael Bassman, Pat Dunn, Dorothy Muller,
and Katie Sagle
OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE: Rick Niswander, William Swart
_________________________________________________________________________________
Agenda Item: 1: Call to order
Action Taken: Tilley called meeting to
order.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Agenda Item: 2 Approval of minutes for the
August 26, 2002 meeting
Action
Taken: Rigsby moved for approval of minutes. Motion seconded and approved without dissent.
Item Considered in Suspension of Agenda: Committee officials
Discussion: Tilley informed committee that
House will be unable to act as Secretary for Fall 2002 due to time conflict.
Action Taken: Gershtenson and Rigsby
volunteer to alternate as acting Secretary for remaining Fall 2002 meetings.
Item Considered in Suspension of Agenda: Committee membership
Discussion: Tilley informed committee that
Rick Bamberg has a time conflict for Fall 2002 and will be unable to attend
meetings and informed committee that Purificacion Martinez is in Spain. Asks if we should consider replacing members
on committee.
Action Taken: No one suggests that
replacements are necessary.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Agenda Item 3: Guests
Discussion: Dr. Rick Niswander (Vice Chair
of the Faculty) thanked committee members for serving and recognized the
importance of the system of shared governance at ECU. Dr. William Swart (Provost) also expressed thanks to committee
members and proceeded to outline some thoughts on the committee’s task of
considering possible alterations in General Education. Swart encouraged the committee to think
about the possibility of introducing “community-based projects” as part of the
General Education requirements. He
argued that having students work in teams on “real-life” community problems
would be consistent with University mandates (especially the economic development
mandate) and would be beneficial to both the community and to students. The community would benefit from the
resources of the University. Students
would be able to apply classroom principles and would be better prepared to
compete in the job market. Swart
acknowledged that logistical problems with implementing the projects exist, but
argued that the committee members should ultimately consider “what is right to
do?” for students in constructing General Education requirements and indicated
that his office would offer its support to the committee in proposing and
implementing changes.
After Swart
finished, a discussion involving Swart and committee members ensued. Rigsby indicated that the committee should
consider implications for faculty and departments (e.g. ability to generate
FTEs) in thinking about changes. Swart
said his office would help figure out “how to do it” if the committee came up
with a plan that was “right to do.”
Bassman noted that Arts & Sciences dominates General Education
requirements and that we should be more inclusive in our requirements. Swart suggested including technology as part
of General Education, mentioning the possibility of instituting a technology
certification requirement. Tilley
raised concerns related to unit requirements and the articulation agreement
with other schools, asking if General Education requirements was the best
manner in which to address some of the concerns being raised. Muller said that we can have have degree
requirements apart from General Education, and Swart indicated that he has no
particular attachment to General Education as the route for requirement
changes. Dunn argued that we should “be
willing to get out of the box” and Swart concurred that in thinking about
changes we should not be confined by what we have now. Tilley indicated that Bob Morrison views the
committee’s review of General Education in very broad terms, that we can
propose anything we want and that we have the time to do it.
Action Taken None.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Agenda Item 4: Report of the subcommittee on
student evaluation of distance learning courses (Gershtenson and Ravi)
Discussion: Ravi presented memo by the
subcommittee recommending that student evaluations in distance education courses
be due on the Monday following the last full week of classes. Discussion ensued about other issues
concerning the SOIS. Specifically,
Muller suggested having all evaluation take place on-line and also indicated
that a broader review of the SOIS instrument and process might be
desirable. Committee members agreed
that a broader review of SOIS is desirable, but that this option should not be
presented to the Faculty Senate at this time.
Action Taken: Motion that Tilley put
subcommittee recommendation as written before the Faculty Senate at its next
meeting, passed. Tilley to talk to Bob
Morrison about having Information Technology Committee examine issue of having
student evaluations of instructors for all classes be conducted on-line.
Agenda Item 5: Report of the subcommittee on the University
policy regarding the auditing of courses (Decker and Muller)
Discussion: Muller and Decker
presented an overview of issues related to auditing including the number of
permissible audits, the cost of auditing, the types of courses in that
individuals are permitted to audit, instructor/department permission to audit,
and the timing of students registering to audit. Discussion ensued regarding several of these issues.
Action Taken: Muller moves that we recommend
to the Faculty Senate the inclusion of language in the audit policy in the
University catalog creating a “limit of two audits per semester.” Motion passed and Tilley to report
recommendation to Faculty Senate at its next meeting.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Agenda Item 6: Review of the Annual Reports of the Honors
and Writing Across the Curriculum programs.
Action Taken: Decker moved to commend both
programs for their efforts, motion passed.
Tilley to send e-mails to both.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Agenda Item 7: Ongoing discussion of General Education
goals and objectives.
Discussion: Tilley reported that he
contacted Kris Smith regarding data related to General Education and was
referred to Michael Poteat. Tilley
arranged for Poteat to attend October meeting to discuss data. Ravi suggested that we get the data in
advance of the meeting to review.
Muller reported that the subcommittee to study general education
requirements at other universities had not yet met. Rigsby reported that she had spoken with individuals from
Educational Policies and Planning and Arts and Sciences regarding general education
and had received little response. She
suggested that we should seek faculty input as soon as possible in the
process. Tilley suggested that we are
now at the point of contacting faculty, unit heads, etc. to solicit input. A discussion of exactly how to proceed
ensued and the committee determined that Tilley should solicit possible
questions from committee members for inclusion in an e-mail memo to all faculty
regarding issues related to general education.
Tilley will send committee members an e-mail request for questions, to
draft a letter, to send letter to faculty.
Committee will look at data at next meeting. Rigsby will ask Lori Lee to establish a webpage to serve as a
general education discussion forum.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Motion to
Adjourn: Passed.
NEXT MEETING:
October 21, 2002