Minutes for ASCC Meeting April 9, 2013
Attending: Anita Fernandez,
Johanna Garvey, Giovanni Ruffini, Jerelyn Johnson, Scott Lacy, Tommy
Xie, Douglas Peduti, Vin Rosivach (Chair), David Sapp (Guest) Manyul
Im, Kathy Nantz
Rosivach used his prerogative as
chair to reorder the agenda for the meeting to discuss the Physics
Department’s proposal to change their policy about awarding AP credit
for Physics courses. Professor David Sapp, as a member of the
Academic Support Group, was invited to review the situation and to
entertain questions.
After reviewing the Journal of
Record, the Physics Department’s former policy, and precedents for the
use of AP credit at Fairfield University and other institutions, Sapp
explained that the Physics department’s request. Currently the physics
department only offers credit for PS 15 regardless of whether the
student has taken the B exam or the C exam (which is harder and more
inclusive). The Physics department would like to allow incoming Physics
majors to get credit for both PS 15 and PS 16 (this is 8 credits total)
for a score of 5 on the Physics C AP exam. This new policy would
not affect Chemistry, Biology or Engineering majors.
Sapp explained that the Physics
department correctly asserts that the Journal of Record gives
departments the jurisdiction to determine which AP exams qualify for
credit for which courses within the department. Thus the Physics
Department is entitled to decide which AP exams meet the requirements
for the various physics classes. However, the Journal of Record
does NOT give departments the power to award credit to a subset of
students who meet the qualifying standard on the AP exam. In
other words, it would be against precedent and Fairfield University
policy to award ONLY physics majors eight credits for a 5 on the
Physics C AP exam, and to award English majors only four credits for
the same test score on the same exam.
Several suggested that the motion
would be acceptable if it were applicable to all students and not just
physics majors. Johnson mentioned that the Physics Department
perhaps didn’t want to presume on the other departments whose curricula
require physics. Perhaps this is why they stated that their new policy
would apply only to physics majors. Johnson asked if other
science departments had been consulted about that and if they had an
opinion. Fernandez replied that she hadn’t heard about this
proposal in Biology Department meetings, but that she personally would
support it for biology majors; Pre-med students could be advised to
take PS 15 and PS 16 anyway if they wanted review physics for the MCAT.
Sapp also mentioned that if this were adopted then a Fairfield student
could be exempted from all natural science core if she excelled on the
physics AP. Sapp added that 8 credits seems like a lot, but other
departments (such as Math) award 8 credits for high scores on an AP
test. Nantz and others suggested that having a different standard for
different students would be confusing. Some students start out as
physics majors then switch to engineering, would such students have to
go backwards and take a lower-level physics course late into their
career at Fairfield? Im suggested that the Physics Department
could allow students with a 5 on the Physics C AP just 5 credits (for
PS 15), but also allow them to take upper-level physics courses for
which PS 15 and PS 16 were a prerequisite. This would allow such
students to take the upper-level courses immediately without having to
give 8 credits to everyone who did well on the AP. Many found
this solution confusing because it would mean placing an AP score as a
possible prerequisite to upper-level physics courses. In
addition, it would mean allowing students to skip PS 16 without
actually giving them credit for the course.
In addition, Rosivach mentioned
that the whole issue of how AP credits are treated and awarded would be
taken up by UCC next year. Thus whatever we decide now, there is some
chance that the UCC will change a policy that affects that decision.
MOTION: Reject the plan by the
Physics Department to award credit for PS15 and PS16 for physics majors
who score a 5 on the Physics C AP exam. (Ruffini, Garvey)
VOTE: 9 in favor, 0 opposed. MOTION PASSES.
MOTION: Revise the agenda to discuss approval of LS 515 next. (Ruffini, Xie)
VOTE: 9 in favor, 0 opposed. MOTION PASSES.
MOTION: Approve LS 515. (Ruffini, Fernandez)
Ruffini stated that Hohl was the
ideal person to teach this course and that this course is a very
important offering in the fledgling MLS program. Johnson
mentioned that the answer to 9b was insufficient because no clear
teaching rotation was defined. Ruffini responded that this case
is exceptional because it, like many courses in the MLS program, would
be taught by part-time faculty and often as an overload. Johnson
responded that this should be carefully spelled out in the 9b section
of the form. Garvey mentioned that different deans have had
different policies regarding whether a part-time faculty member’s
course proposal could be considered. Nantz added that we have
encountered a similar situation multiple times in which a part-time
faculty member submits a new course application. We have to be
careful not to be exploitative of our part-time faculty and we need a
better policy on how we treat them. Xie asked if LS 515, which is
essentially a history course, should really be an interdisciplinary
course since it is being taught in an interdisciplinary program. Garvey
replied that in the American Studies program there are courses that are
interdisciplinary and those that come strictly from one department, so
there is precedence for a variety of different types of courses within
an interdisciplinary program. Johnson asked why the course is not just
a History course as opposed to being an LS course. Ruffini agreed that
the History designation might be more appropriate, but the decision was
made to name the courses like this so it would be easier to
conceptualize the MLS program and to market it effectively.
Rosivach mentioned several issues
he had with this course proposal. First, the body that evaluates a
given course proposal must have expertise in that field. There were two
history department members on the MLS committee that vetted the
proposal, but perhaps history courses taught within the MLS should be
approved by the History Department. Rosivach’s second concern was
that there were no clear assessable learning objectives outlined in the
proposal. He expressed frustration that the ASCC has insisted
upon these previously but that no one objected in this case.
Discussion ensued on this point. Since the course approval form
asks for goals/objectives, many thought that we could not insist on
objectives because the way the form is written either goals OR
objectives were acceptable. Many also thought that until the form
was changed (which is an agenda item for today’s meeting) we cannot
reject courses because they lack of clear learning objectives.
Im suggested that the chair
should recommend that part 9b of the form be clearly explained, and
that the proposal should also include clear assessable learning
outcomes. He opined that these deficiencies should not delay
approval of the course proposal.
VOTE: 9 in favor, 0 opposed. MOTION PASSES.
MOTION: Approve the minutes from the last ASCC meeting. (Peduti, Lacy)
Nantz asked that the phrase “that
the departmental vote was missing from the minutes.” be added after the
phrase “It was my mistake.”
VOTE: 8 in favor, 1 abstention. MOTION PASSES.
MOTION: Change the wording of the
Course Proposal From from “Goals/Desired Student Learning Outcomes” to
“Goals and Desired Assessable Student Learning Outcomes” (Nantz,
Ruffini)
This will require approval by the
College Faculty because this change is a change in policy as well as
procedure. Im suggested that it would be better if we required
the Goals and Desired Assessable Student Learning Outcomes to be
spelled out on the form itself (and not just in the syllabus).
Xie added that there should be supporting information such that faculty
know what an assessable learning outcome is. Ruffini opined that
one way of educating the faculty in that regard is by rejecting courses
that don’t have assessable learning outcomes. He added that he
thought the ASCC was far too lenient.
VOTE: 8 in favor, 0 opposed. MOTION PASSES.
Rosivach agreed to bring up this
proposed change to the form at the next College Faculty Meeting on
April 24. He also suggested that we discuss the “sub-level shell
courses” at the next ASCC meeting. He requested new business for
the next meeting, and Nantz suggested that we should discuss course
numbering systems in the American Studies program and in the MLS
program. Should they be designated by their departments or their
interdisciplinary programs? There should be some consistent way to do
this. Ruffini added that these graduate-level courses should be
subject to approval (or rejection) by the appropriate departments.
Rosivach mentioned four items of
business that he had handled on his own as Chair of ASCC: approval of
change of VPA 306 to MU/TA 306, approval of change of CL/HI 302 to
CL/HI 325, approval of the course description for ENW 329 and BI 383
(both of these are instances of the “sub-curriculum shell courses” to
be discussed at the next meeting), and approval of change of PH 330 to
PH 217.
Nantz moved to thank Rosivach for
his excellent service as Chair, and everyone applauded. Rosivach
moved to thank ASCC for being present and prepared. He added that
the ASCC approves many courses because in the past it has rejected many
courses, and that this is has lead to a high quality of course
proposals.
Meeting was adjourned at 5:08 PM.
Respectfully submitted,
Anita Fernandez