Arts and Sciences Curriculum Committee (ASCC)

Meeting of November 11, 2008

Minutes

Present: Robbin Crabtree, Jessica Davis, Bob Epstein, Shannon Harding, John Miecznikowski, Jim Shanahan, Nels Pearson, Elizabeth Petrino (Chair), Les Schaffer, Joan Weiss. Visitor: Assistant Dean Dawn Quintiliani. (Maggie Wills out due to illness.)

Meeting was called to order at 3:35pm.

1. ANNOUNCEMENTS. Petrino announced that the next meeting is scheduled for

December 9th. (Note: changed to December 15th.) Petrino also explained that Professor Torff's course, ASMU 403: Critical Issues in American Popular Music: Blues to Hip Hop, has been approved after several changes were made to the syllabus to meet the requirements of a graduate level course.

2. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM OCTOBER 21, 2008.

MOTION: To approve the minutes with minor changes. (Harding, Seconded by Miecznikowski.) Changes included:

Crabtree suggested using last names only in the future to be consistent. Crabtree made some small corrections which will be forwarded to Epstein about formalizing / normalizing curriculum to allow research courses to count toward teaching load. (page 3)

Crabtree then suggested changing one of the motions from the last meeting. As recorded in the minutes from the last meeting, the motion stated: "That the ASCC endorses the report of the subcommittee, with the understanding that its numbers are contingent and subject to review by the Dean, and that the report be passed on to the departments within the College with the encouragement that the document be used as a starting point for discussions of teaching load and credits" (Minutes, ASCC Minutes from Meeting of 10-21-08, page 4). Crabtree expressed concern for the wording of the motion, explaining that everything in the report concerns recommending things to the Dean and that some things should be referred to departments. Crabtree questioned whether we are asking departments to make department-specific plans to count as load. Crabtree explained that everything still needs to go through the Dean. Petrino then tried to clarify Crabtree's role on the committee. Petrino explained that the committee is being put in a position where the Dean is setting the agenda, and her role is "advisory". Discussion ensued about why the motion should be changed, how it should be changed, and the specific changes that should be made. Crabtree suggested that we should amend the motion to read that the report may be passed onto departments after review by the Dean, and the ideas therein shared with departments. Epstein reminded the committee that the minutes still needed to be approved. However, discussion continued about changing the motion from the last meeting. The way the former motion is worded, the departments will receive the document, then have discussions with the Dean. Crabtree would like to change the motion to read that the Dean will consider the report and, in consultation with university administrators, decide what might be appropriate to offer to faculty members. Weiss said that the way it reads now, departments have the document, then make individual decisions with the Dean. Crabtree explained that this is not what Professor Bayne and Dean Boquet intended or approved. Weiss said that Crabtree will read the document, then talk to departments. Schaeffer said that the document will be used as a starting point for discussions about teaching load. Crabtree clarified that it will be, on her direction. Petrino reminded the committee that we were only asked to endorse the document from the subcommittee, and called for a vote to approve the minutes with corrections.

The corrected minutes were approved unanimously.

Petrino suggested resolving the motion change before moving on to agenda items, since no action had been taken yet. Epstein said that he was okay with the idea of forwarding it to the Dean, and with the Dean forwarding it to departments. Epstein moved to amend the motion from the last meeting. The first step was to rescind the motion from the last meeting.

MOTION: To rescind the motion from the last meeting. (Epstein, seconded by Pearson.)

The motion carried with 8 in favor; 1 opposed.

Crabtree started to make a motion that the ASCC endorse the report of the subcommittee with the understanding that its contents are contingent upon and subject to review by the Dean. Petrino was unclear if Crabtree could make a motion. She explained that Crabtree is listed as ex officio on Eidos. Crabtree stated that she believes she has voting privileges. Weiss said that there was nothing in the governance documents about the Dean's voting rights and the ability to make motions. Petrino clarified that the governance document says that the Dean has an advisory role in this committee, but that nothing says that she is not a voting member. Crabtree said it was her understanding that she is a non-voting member on the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee, but a voting member of the ASCC. Shanahan suggested that the committee listing on Eidos could be a typo. Weiss stated that the membership listing on Eidos includes the members of the committee, but not the Dean as a voting member. Crabtree pointed out that the document needs revision.

Harding suggested that the new motion should still contain something that reflects that numbers can be discussed with the Dean, since that seemed to be the only part of the document that the committee did not endorse. Crabtree cautioned that it is not just about the numbers; that other content items are important as well. Crabtree expressed concern that the tone of the discussion was overly suggestive of specific agendas, particularly in the subcommittee. Crabtree continued that "numbers" is a narrow term, and explained that other things had been discussed.

The question remained as to whether the Dean could make a motion. Epstein suggested referring the matter to Committee on Committees. Crabtree said that the Committee on Committees did not have purview over this committee, since this is a college (i.e., not a university) committee. Crabtree asked if she could make the motion or just read it, and it was suggested that it was best if the motion was read by someone else.

MOTION: That the ASCC endorses the report of the subcommittee with the understanding that its contents (in particular its numbers) are contingent upon and subject to review by the Dean. (Epstein, seconded by Shanahan.) The Dean did not vote.

The motion carried with 4 in favor, 4 abstaining.

 

Crabtree expressed surprise that people would be willing to take nothing as opposed to something. She restated that although this may be hard to swallow for some, it is better than nothing. Schaefer explained his position saying that the report was good, but the only contention was the numbers.

Shanahan agreed, but said that if one department needs to make a case (and different departments might make different cases) this provides a starting point. Petrino felt that this would give departments the right to discuss issues with the Dean. Pearson said that he sensed the concern from the committee was the numbers, and that more flexible numbers may be obtained through negotiation. Schaffer explained that the initial motion was good, and that he didn't understand the objection. Crabtree explained that it was a routing problem. Weiss said that this will be a call to departments. Epstein expressed concern that the subcommittee tried to come up with standard, normalized patterns that would prevent individuals from going to the Dean, but that the recommendation of the committee still "lays it back in the lap of the Dean". Crabtree emphasized the need for departments to have a discussion about this and make sure before they come to the Dean they (1) make sure the curriculum is solid (via assessment) and (2) determine the intensive role for supervised research within a department. Epstein compared this process to merit pay, stating that trying to get uniformity across the college for merit is something we tried in the past, and attempts failed. The (previous) Dean didn't want uniformity, and departments didn't want to make their own plans (but made them), and in the end the plans did not meet the Dean's standards. Epstein stated that things may not be equitable across departments. Crabtree explained that this is why she is taking it into advisement, and why she wants to set parameters. Crabtree stated that she would receive the subcommittee's report, and will work with chairs to circulate it to departments. She expects to have it out to departments by the end of the academic year, to be implemented starting next fall.

3. OVERVIEW OF PATTERNS IN SUBMISSIONS FOR COURSE PROPOSALS.

Petrino took the floor to move on to the Agenda items. Petrino explained that Crabtree had asked the committee to gather information about courses submitted to ASCC for approval, and to provide a summary of trends / patterns that we have seen. Petrino summarized her findings in a handout that was circulated. Among the things she looked at were the fact that some important items on the course approval form were not always reflected in the minutes, including how often courses are offered and what they will replace. Petrino also read from the Journal of Record guidelines for final exams and discussed instructional policies (including what a typical syllabus should include) in the faculty handbook. Petrino explained that sometimes these things are followed, other times they are not. Petrino spent some time highlighting trends in the courses submitted for approval (summarized in the handout). Crabtree noted, as an interesting point of comparison, that undergraduate syllabi seem to be coming into the curriculum committee with more care than some graduate course syllabi, as evidenced by the materials included for the discussion today. Petrino agreed. There was some discussion about skill sets and learning goals in certain disciplines.

Petrino noted that few syllabi included rubrics for students to understand how they were going to be judged (one exception was Professor Simon's reflective assignment). She stated that we should work to improve that. Petrino also noted that final exams tended to count for 20-40% of the final grade. Shanahan added, with the exception of NM 310, where it was 50%. Petrino countered that since this was a high level course, the instructor argued why this was done, but that it would be difficult for students to know that the last third of their course would count so much toward the final grade. Petrino added that students have rights, and we have an obligation to them know when to use their time. Petrino also mentioned that four courses approved did not list a final exam or a final project, which is a problem. Epstein asked if it was 4 courses this year. Petrino answered yes, and that in those instances it was unclear if there was a synthetic final project. Epstein asked about the wording about finals and whether they had to be comprehensive. Petrino answered that the wording gives a wide latitude, but states that there should be a final. (Petrino then read the suggestions about the final from Journal of Record, which stated that finals should be written, should last 2-3 hours, and that the format of the final must be mentioned on the syllabus.) Shanahan noted that if this policy isn't followed, it seems like everyone has to be notified. Epstein explained that the wording was there to prevent cancellation from exam week and clarified the policy. Crabtree stated that the policies are not unclear, they are just not being followed, especially by new faculty, and that this is the job of this committee, regardless of whether the policies are right. She suggested that the committee make a report to the Arts and Science College faculty, including the positive and negative findings.

Petrino pointed out that she is trying to highlight patterns for discussion, and that it's important to consider how finals are given, how much time is given for student preparation, etc. Discussion ensued about the policy for finals that are not written. Crabtree pointed out that there are two issues: (1) Instructional Handbook policies should be enforced by the AVP (Petrino: this is the Journal of Record) and (2) the committee has the right to flag things that come through that don't follow the policy.

Petrino pointed out another trend concerning attendance policies, stating that this should not be graded. Epstein clarified that attendance is different than participation, and that participation may be an important part of learning objectives. Petrino expressed concern about how much of the grade was influenced by participation, with no rubric for grading it. Epstein shared his policies on participation with the group. Davis continued that participation may be discipline specific. She noted that in Chemistry, labs can't be missed and participation is critical. Petrino noted that Language courses had high points for participation. Epstein mentioned that attendance is required in (some) freshmen courses. Crabtree mentioned that this may be related to concerns about mental health of students. She then noted that time was getting late.

Petrino asked what should be done next. Crabtree suggested it might be worth a report to the college faculty. She noted that the last College meeting did not have a quorum, but said if information like this was being presented, the word would spread. Weiss noted that we don't submit a committee report to the college, only to the General Faculty. Crabtree suggested that the committee should report once a semester or once a year to the College to talk about improvement. Petrino agreed and said that she would prepare something with Shanahan. Crabtree suggested that Petrino get on the College agenda for the December 5th meeting. A round of applause was given to Petrino for her efforts.          

4. SUBCOMMITTEE FOR DEVELOPING GRADUATE COURSE GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS.

It was explained that the subcommittee will be given the charge to develop guidelines for graduate courses and establishing standards to recommend to ASCC. ASCC also endorses the formation of the subcommittee, which may be composed of Professor Shanahan, Professor Bayers, Professor Schlichting, and Professor Weiss (update: to date, all have accepted to join the subcommittee with the exception of Schlichting, whom we are waiting on.) Epstein asked if all of the graduate schools are represented. Crabtree explained that there were no representatives from the Masters of Fine Arts Graduate program, but that due to the intense nature of the program, it is quite different from the others.

MOTION: That the subcommittee will be given the charge to develop guidelines for graduate courses and to establish standards to recommend to the ASCC. (Epstein, seconded by Shanahan)

There was discussion about who should be the Chair of the subcommittee. Petrino suggested that they could be elected by the committee, with the proviso that they could come back to ASCC for suggestions. Crabtree asked if she was on the committee. Epstein commented that since Crabtree formed the committee, she should be on it. Shanahan commented that if Professor Schlichting is not on the subcommittee, he would work to find someone else. Shanahan said that he would contact the committee once everyone had accepted to be on it.

The motion passed unanimously.

5. GRADUATE AMERICAN STUDIES CURRICULUM REVIEW

Petrino explained that American studies had been informed that it had to do a review of its program. According to minutes from the ASCC in May 2006, new courses were required to go through the ASCC, but old courses were grandfathered in for two years. Shanahan stated that we seem to be continually giving extensions, and that the latest report is not very good. He suggested that we invite members from the American Studies Graduate program to come to the next committee meeting to explain the status of the review. Crabtree suggested that Dean Sue Peterson should attend, too. Epstein questioned whether the Chair of the American Studies program should attend. Harding pointed out where in the minutes the "grandfather" clause was. Discussion continued, with the suggestion that Petrino's invitation might help move the process along. Petrino asked what they should expect to address. Weiss answered that the discussion should be about the review of courses that have not been approved yet.

Shanahan volunteered to go through minutes to figure out the progression of events, and said that he would ask Professor Schlichting to come to the next meeting. He also stated that the formation of the subcommittee might help streamline the process. Petrino clarified that the purview of the ASCC is to make sure that the American Studies program has conducted a good review, but not to tweak courses. Harding questioned if determining whether the review was good was part of the subcommittee's charge. Shanahan answered no, that the subcommittee would only design the guidelines to be enforced by the ASCC. Epstein stated that although the graduate program has its own curriculum committee, courses still need to come through ASCC.

6. ADJOURNMENT

MOTION: to adjourn (Shanahan, seconded by Harding). All in agreement.

Meeting adjourned at 4:55.

Respectfully submitted,

Shannon Harding