COMMITTEE: Academic
Standards Committee
MEETING DATE: February
19, 2007
PERSON PRESIDING: Linda
Wolfe
REGULAR MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE: Bauer,
McConnell, Richardson, Lorenzo, Thomas, Wolfe
EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE: Brown,
Bailey, Griffin, Sprague
OTHERS IN ATTENDANCE: Dr. Charles
Garrison, Chair of the Department of Sociology, Dr. Rebecca Powers, Dr. Christa
Reiser, Dr. Dorothy Muller, and Dr. Michael Poteat.
CALLED TO ORDER: 2:00 PM
ACTIONS OF MEETING
Agenda Item: Approval of Minutes of 1/22/07
Action
Taken: Approved
________________________________________________
Agenda Item: Date of next meeting
Action
Taken: Due to new courses to be
considered for Foundations Credit, it
was decided
the committee should meet on Monday, March 19, 2007.
________________________________________________
Agenda Item: Re-consideration
of the following courses from the Department of Social Sciences for Social
Science Foundation Credit: SOCI 3219 (Sociology
of Immigration) and SOCI 4300 (Sociology of Emotion)
Discussion of
SOCI 3219 (Sociology of Immigration):
Dr. Rebecca Powers, the instructor of the course, explained that in
response to our questions from the last meeting, changes had been made to the
syllabus (including a new approved course number) to address the foundation
goals and prerequisite. Dr. Bailey
raised a question regarding Goal 3 and how this would be addressed in the
course, namely how sociological knowledge benefits the general public—what is
its importance to understanding the world.
Dr. Powers agreed to further explain that goal in the syllabus.
Action Taken:
The committee agreed to accept the revised SOCI 3219 for Foundations Credit
with the understanding that Dr. Powers will make the change to clarify Goal 3
in the finished versions of the syllabus.
Discussion of
SOCI 4300 (Sociology of Emotion): Dr. Christa Reiser, the instructor of the
course, explained that in response to our questions from the last meeting,
changes had been made to the syllabus (including a new approved course number)
to address the foundation goals. The
committee suggested that the foundation goals be included in the syllabus (and
not just the formal request for Foundations Credit) so that the students will
see exactly what the goals of the course are.
This will also help with outcomes assessment.
Action
Taken: The committee approved SOCI 4300
for Foundations credit but requested that changes be made to the syllabus to
make the Foundation goals clear; Dr. Reiser agreed to revise and submit the
updated syllabus to the committee.
________________________________________________
Agenda Item: Consideration of MATH 2151 (Engineering
Calculus I), MATH 2152 (Engineering Calculus II), and MATH 2153 (Engineering
Calculus III) for Mathematics Foundations Credit.
Discussion: One of the math instructors in attendance
explained that these math courses would be required for engineering
students. Currently they are taking a
sequence of three calculus courses that are not specifically designed for
engineering students (and thus they are missing many of the fundamental
applications of calculus to the discipline of engineering). The courses that MATH 2151-2153 are replacing do currently carry Foundations credit, but
those were granted that status under a different series of goals. One question was raised as to whether these
courses are open to anyone, since they are Foundations courses, or would they
be restricted only to engineering majors?
It was explained that while these courses are designed for engineering
majors, the Engineering department could not restrict them since the Math
department is offering them. The math
department is simply trying to work with the engineering department to devise
courses that contain math applications that are more applicable to
engineers. The committee agreed that
these courses are acceptable so far as all the requirements are being met that
the math department deems necessary.
Action
Taken: The committee agreed to approve
MATH 2151, 2152 and 2153 for Foundations Credit.
________________________________________________
Agenda Item: Consideration of the revised Peer Review of
Teaching Instrument and Procedure
Discussion:
Dr. Dorothy Muller brought a spreadsheet and memo to explain the process in
compiling statistics from each department regarding how often and in what
manner the peer review instrument is used by each department—this is in
response to the faculty senate resolution that requested a review of the use of
the revised Peer Review procedures and Peer Review instrument. She explained that the PAD submitted for
tenure review should ideally contain a total of 8 peer reviews, but that there
seems to be some discrepancy between units.
The purpose of peer reviews was to evaluate teaching and provide
feedback to instructors regarding the effectiveness of the teaching
methods. This is not a validity study
but rather an evaluation study. Dr.
Bailey asked Dr. Muller what our committee is being asked to do. It seems that one problem is that the required
number of reviews are not being done
consistently. Should it not be specified
that a review should be done every semester or every year? By simply requesting a total of eight peer
reviews without a timeline could mean that they are all provided in the last
year. Dr. Bailey explained that the
Faculty senate tried to make the process standardized, however, some
departments were too small and their objections led to revisions. Each unit annual report should state how many
peer reviews were done. A question was
raised as to whether the peer review process should be formalized and put into
the schedule for tenure. One of the main
issues seems to the consistency of the number of reviews. Dr. Muller suggested that it might help to
facilitate consistency by putting the training materials and forms on the
web. If two people
review simultaneously (as suggested on the new peer review instrument), then
this counts as two reviews. In
the new process, it is clear that Pre- and Post- consultations are necessary. If the unit is NOT using the Faculty Senate
Model, then the peer review instrument must be in the spirit of the Faculty
Senate Model and be approved by the Department and Provost. The survey and summary provided by Dr. Muller
was
praised
by Dr. Brown, and he further suggested that our committee should devise a
couple of questions and then make a recommendation. One of the issues our committee might address
is the frequency of peer reviews.
Action
Taken: The committee agreed that a
subcommittee should be formed to review the issues. Linda Wolfe and Michael Brown volunteered to
study the issues and make a recommendation regarding what the Academic
Standards committee should review and recommend on this topic and these
recommendations could be discussed at our next meeting.
_______________________________________________
Agenda
Item: Consideration of the proposed
policy on how to handle classroom disruption
Discussion: Dr. Michael Brown provided a draft of a
Proposed Policy on Disruptive Academic Behavior that he stated was his attempt
to take the initial policy and condense it into a statement that could be
included in the undergraduate catalog as well as the Faculty manual (Part V,
Section 1). He mentioned several issues
the committee might consider including:
1.What
is the policy for due process? We have
to make everyone aware of the policy.
2.We
can consider if we want an appeal process; Student Life wanted us to consider
the appeal process—something more than just a judicial review. Perhaps it should be a policy likened to
Academic Dishonesty Policy?
3.What
should be done when the students appeal but are not attending class? Should the appeal be made to the Dean of the
College? What about a faculty committee
to investigate the situation? There
seems to be a need for a substantial review process and this policy needs to be
documented. In researching the topic of
Disruptive Academic Behavior policies on the websites of several universities,
there does not seem to be an appeal process documented.
Action
Taken: Dr. Brown asks that the
committee consider the proposed policy he has drafted for both the
undergraduate catalog and the faculty manual and recommended that the topic be
revisited at our next scheduled meeting so that committee members may bring
forward any suggested revisions, additions, and comments.
________________________________________________
Agenda Item: Discussion with Dr. Mike Poteat on the
assessment for Foundation courses.
Discussion: Dr. Poteat provided a handout (from the
University of Wisconsin) that outlines the direct and indirect methods for
assessing General Education over a five-year period. He clarified that an individual instructor
cannot do the direct methods, while the indirect methods make use of surveys,
evaluation of syllabi, external reviews (the types of assessment used by
SACS). The capstone projects would
involve all of the general education goals (in the form of a research
paper/presentation). The capstone
projects then could be compared with testing of incoming freshmen. He explained that the testing would be
mandated to take samples rather than to test every student.
CLA was
mentioned as a possible tool in assessment; we are now awaiting instructions
from the President of the UNC campuses regarding the use of CLA. There is a recent push for an International
Equivalence of Degrees—led by a subgroup of CHIA—that want to make degrees
equivalent in the international market.
This reflects
an opportunity for education reform.
There will be assessment when students enter college, then at the end of
general education courses, then a comprehensive exam at the end of the degree
program. There is a need to devise a
plan to assess general education; the CLA really is assessing writing. Individuals who wish to see a more real-world
application within our general education courses devised the CLA.
Dr. Bailey
stated that our committee is limited to recommendations concerning our
Foundation courses; we will recommend assessment by discipline and according to
the three goals established. We have to
devise a recommended schedule, and then establish that the results will be used
to assess and make changes. There will
need to be documentation to show the steps to be taken to improve things. With regard to the bigger picture, do we just
deal with the SACS review or deal just with what we can at this point?
Action
Taken: The committee will hear further
reports on assessment from Dr. Poteat at the next scheduled meeting. In the meantime, Dr. Bailey said that he is
working on a draft of outcomes assessment to be used for Foundation Credit
courses.
_______________________________________
ADJOURNED: 4:00 p.m.
NEXT MEETING: Monday,
March 19, 2007
ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED: Consideration
of Foundations Credit for MRST 2400, MRST 2500, CLSD 2600, CLAS 3600, GRK4001,
and GRK 4002; continued discussion of the Classroom Disruption Policy, the Peer
Review of Teaching Instrument and Procedure, and Assessment for Foundation
courses.