Minutes of the 12/5/08 Meeting of the College of Arts & Sciences

No votes including proxies were taken.

Call to order: Prof. Sauer called the meeting to order at 3:39 pm.

Announcement: Sauer asked for a moment of silence for Prof. Paul Davis who had died the previous day. He will be remembered more formally at the next General Faculty meeting.

Approval of the minutes of October 29, 2008: Prof. Bowen, seconded by Prof. McSweeney, moved to approve; the minutes were approved with 1 opposed.

Proposal to add language about Program Directors to the College Governance Document: The proposed language had been presented at the previous meeting by Profs. Umansky and McFadden, but could not be approved because there was not a quorum. Sauer opened the floor for comments or questions and was asked whether there was a quorum. A head count indicated that 47 faculty members were present; 41 are required for a quorum. Dean Crabtree noted that neither Umansky nor McFadden could be there until later, but that the Program Directors had worked hard on this language. She urged the faculty to support it. Prof. Shanahan, seconded by Prof. Boryczka, moved to accept the proposed language and add it to the Governance Document. The motion passed, 38-1-1.

Election of the Arts & Sciences Planning Committee: Although an election was held at the previous meeting, the lack of a quorum negated its results. A ballot listing 5 nominees, Abbott, Drake, Epstein, Rakowitz and Sauer, was distributed. There were no nominations from the floor, so the slate was elected by acclamation.

Update on core integration initiatives

Prof. Miners noted that the core integration project has been going on for a couple of years now. It's the business of the whole university, but the College has a special part in carrying out the work. He went on to make a presentation that Prof. Nantz recently made to the College chairs. He distributed a handout recapping the activities of the last 3 years. 2006-2007 was marked by information, brainstorming and big splashy events to build a groundswell of support for core integration. The following year focused on more specific models and proposals, along with the first Faculty Learning Communities (FLCs), the first information session for students (Core Unmasked), the start of the Teachers Bureau website, and another retreat. This year is about institutionalizing the integrative model. There are 5 new FLCs, renamed, Faculty and Professional Learning Communities to mark their expansion to include administrators and professional staff. Miners mentioned research indicating that untenured faculty who participate in FLCs are tenured at higher rates than those who don't, but he noted that the finding was open to multiple interpretations.

At this point, core integration needs to become the work of the institution, not just of the Director of the core integration initiative, or of the CAE. Now teams will be visiting individual departments in the College and connecting to the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee as an entry point to faculty outside of the College. Miners then presented a diagram depicting the core literacies of scientific inquiry, quantitative literacy, critical thinking, diversity and global citizenship, communication skills and aesthetic literacy, in relation to the Ignatian paradigm of knowledge, context, reflection, evaluation and action.

He said that the model is a work in progress, an opening to conversations.

Miners then opened the floor to questions. Prof. Yarrington asked about whether the CAE would like to collect information about faculty who are already teaching in each other's classes, apart from the Teachers Bureau. Miners said that they would be interested in those data. Prof. Schwab mentioned a recent guest speaker who was not a faculty member; VP Frost spoke to an Honors class that was considering the theme of value. There were no further questions.

Report from the Chair of the Arts and Sciences Curriculum Committee

Prof. Petrino began with a review of the work of the Arts & Sciences Curriculum Committee. The committee evaluates courses, programs and degrees in the College. In order to get a new course approved, faculty fill out the new course submission form (available on the A&SCC page at http://faculty.fairfield.edu/cas ), present it to their department for approval, and thence to the A&SCC. The committee's job is to ensure that departments and programs have thoroughly and robustly reviewed the proposals and considered how the courses fit into their curricula.

She went on to review some trends in Fall course submissions. All courses listed learning objectives and goals, but the grading and evaluation methods weren't widely discussed. Few gave the students rubrics for how they would be judged. Only one course explicitly linked testing/evaluation to the Jesuit reflective tradition. The percent of the final grade assigned to the final assessment varied widely (from 20% to 50%) and some courses did not list a final exam or project. She pointed out that the university policy, found in the Journal of Record, is that the form of final assessment must appear on the syllabus and should contribute roughly one-third of the grade. She also noted wide variance in attendance policies. Often attendance and participation were grouped together and the weight of participation varied widely. There was generally little indication of how participation would be graded. Academic honesty was mentioned in most submissions, with many quoting the Catalogue language. Only two proposals mentioned policies regarding the accommodation of learning disabilities. She concluded by explaining that this presentation of trends was meant to prompt discussions.

With the floor open for questions, Miners asked for an overview of the number of courses approved. Petrino said that 15 out of 20 proposals were approved, and the others needed revisions and/or more information prior to approval. Prof. Rakowitz noted that the submission process doesn't require a syllabus, just key information that would be part of a syllabus. So some of the information not addressed in proposals might nonetheless appear in the syllabi presented to students. Petrino responded that in fact all of the Fall submissions did include a syllabus even though it wasn't required. Yarrington asked whether it would be appropriate to explicitly request a syllabus. Petrino said that the committee would rather be less directive and allow faculty more latitude. Prof. Umansky said that it's much more work to prepare a full syllabus than to prepare a list of topics and readings, so faculty should be educated on the fact that a syllabus is not required for new course submissions. Schwab talked about the importance of the primary responsibility for course review being in the departments. Petrino agreed and said that the committee isn't looking to nitpick, but that departments don't always answer the departmental questions on the new course submission form. Prof. Naser asked whether there were ongoing plans to look at these trends in future submissions. Petrino responded that it might raise interesting points. Crabtree reiterated that this whole discussion is not about proscribing, but about raising issues to consider; ongoing review of syllabi is departmental work. Miners took this opportunity to note that next week's Faculty Development day is about peer review and should include some discussion of the review of artifacts, including syllabi.

Brief remarks from the Dean

Crabtree thanked the attendees and explained that she and the College officers will work hard to make sure that there is substantive business at College meetings. The first meeting of the year always introduces new colleagues and the last celebrates faculty achievements and both are well-attended, but we need to engage in some business in between. She offered thanks to the department chairs and program directors. They are working harder than ever on leadership, professional development etc., and it has been a pleasure to work with them. She also thanked the A&SCC, pointing out that they have a full agenda this year, especially with many new hires, and the new courses they bring to the curriculum. She then thanked the newly elected planning committee in advance.

She said that there were lots of grant applications going on, including NIH, NSF and maybe NEH, and that some faculty are working with Rob Cottle on corporate grants. Budget requests are in and she will communicate to the chairs those items that didn't go forward as priorities in the College requests. She doesn't know how soon the A.V.P. will communicate the outcomes of the requests. She has talked to the Budget Committee and the A.V.P. about the importance of keeping salary money in the College and the need for travel funds and money for chairs' stipends.

Moving on to an update on searches in the College, she said that two (Politics and English) had already secured their top candidates. Religious Studies has an offer out, and finalists are being identified in Communication and Anthropology. Other searches are unfolding in a combination of excitement and fear that at any moment lines may disappear as hiring freezes happen around the country. She has enjoyed meeting with the candidates in this process.

On another front, conversations are unfolding about possible themes for programming, courses, and special events. The theme of Romeo and Juliet is related to a Board-funded project. Theatre Fairfield will be doing a contemporary production of the play in the Spring of 2010 with some visiting professional artists, and Prof. LoMonaco is the point person if people have ideas for connecting other events to this theme. Another theme is Latin America, involving several of the interdisciplinary programs. Profs. Sourieau and Gil-Egui are the point people for that theme. Finally, Boryczka is heading up a Year of Activism. These three themes might pull together in interesting ways to provide more coherent integration for the students.

Crabtree concluded with brief reflections on her first semester. She finds it deeply satisfying that her identity as a faculty member is still her primary identity; that's tough to maintain, but it's worth doing. She also is intrigued by how much of the work of the Dean is the same as the work of faculty members. It's very interesting, mostly fun, but occasionally comforting to know that her colleagues in Communication would probably take her back. Finally, she noted that these are difficult times for higher education. Faculty need to communicate to students the value of the education they're getting. Other investments might be failing, but investment in a Fairfield education will pay high dividends for life for the students themselves, their profession, and the community at large. There are many reasons to be hopeful and grateful despite the uncertainties nationally and at the university.

On that note, Sauer took the podium and said that items of business for the College should be brought to him or the Secretary (Rakowitz), the meeting was adjourned at 4:43.

Respectfully submitted,

Susan Rakowitz