2016_10_18_ASCC

In attendance: Steven Bayne, Johanna Garvey, Terry-Ann Jones, David Lerner, David McFadden, Laura Nash, Giovanni Ruffini

Approval of minutes from last meeting

Motion: Johanna Garvey moved for approval. Laura Nash seconded. All in favor.

· A document has been passed down to each chair that specifies things that the Chair is allowed to do. This document says that the actions should be shared to the committee. The document needs to be updated into a governance document later this semester. This document may have been around since 2005. The committee should vote on the governance document so we are all in agreement.

This is an approved special topics course for Spring 2017; has not been approved as a regular offering for the future past Spring 2017. They missed the deadline for a regular course for Spring 2017.

Motion: Steven Bayne motioned to approve; Johanna Garvey seconded.

· David McFadden: seems like they have covered everything we ask for in the proposal.

o Steven Bayne: except for the attendance policy and the dishonesty statement is incorrect (on page 5)

· Steven Bayne: Who is Professor Caufield? On page 3 they mention “Grading Policy: *Adopted from Professor Caufield”.

· David Lerner: Page 7, minor typo Electronic Devises should be Electronic Devices

· Steven Bayne: It seems odd to have a final take home exam versus a final paper.

o Terry-Ann Jones: I think it is up to the professor to choose what’s best for the course.

Motion: Conditional approval; all in favor

· Terry-Ann Jones: Is there a message that ASCC is sending with all these provisional approvals? How can we ask for all these pieces/expectations? Would it be worthwhile to have a presentation at a Chairs meeting?

· Nash: This seems like more of a Chairs issue, they need to make sure everything is included and submitted properly. We include links to the appropriate JoR statements; it is their responsibility to follow through.

Motion: David McFadden motioned to approve; Steven Bayne seconded.

· Laura Nash: Class participation is not complete, there is no mention on how it impacts student’s grade

· David Lerner: Weekly descriptions’ starting at week 7 is confusing; they cover two weeks at a time later on.

o Terry-Ann Jones: It allows for some flexibly with snow days or longer discussions on a certain topic.

Motion: All in favor to approve.

Motion: Steven Bayne motioned to approve; Terry-Ann Jones seconded.

o Laura Nash: It is not mandatory. The fact that there is anything at all is good.

· David McFadden: Under Electronic Devices, it says the use of electronic devices the student will be marked absent for that day. That is interesting and rather weird.

o Steven Bayne: I read that as other than specified uses, the student will be marked absent.

o Giovanni Ruffini: The statement is grammatically incorrect. It needs more information.

o Terry-Ann Jones: This seems like more of a participation score versus an attendance score. I get the point but it seems like it should be a penalty for more participation.

o Laura Nash: Ask her to consider this. It is not required to change. The wording is problematic and needs to be fixed but where it fits into grade is up to her.

Motion: All in favor to approve with suggestions.

This is not a special topics course, they are asking for this course to be added to their course list.

Motion: Terry-Ann Jones motioned to approve; Johanna Garvey seconded.

· David McFadden: This cell phone policy affects participation grade. That makes sense.

· David McFadden: Minutes are very skimpy, it seems to be missing a lot of the discussion

o Steven Bayne: It seems like generally Biology’s minutes are insufficient as a whole.

· Laura Nash: Just mention to the new Chair Shelley Phelan to submit better minutes and use the Google Form for future submissions.

Motion: All in favor.

They are asking for this special topics course to be offered in Spring and Fall 2017 because of the 75^th anniversary of the topic, this should not be a precedent for all special topics classes. This course was approved last meeting, they are now asking us to approve it for two concurrent semesters.

Motion: Laura Nash motioned to approve; David McFadden seconded.

· Laura Nash: It makes sense to approve this for the 75^th anniversary and to grant the exception. This is a very specific case.

· Giovanni Ruffini: Just note that this does not set a precedent for all other special topics courses.

Motion: All in favor.

· Name Change: AY 168 from “Women and Men: The Anthropology of Gender” to “Sex, Gender and Sexual Orientation.” was sent to the Chair the course description did not change.

o Laura Nash: If there is a name change AND the course description is the same than it is ok for the chair to make a decision.

o Giovanni Ruffini: There is no mention of this in the document of Chair responsibilities. No guidance. What is the approval process for a course to become a hybrid?

o Laura Nash: This is an approved regular course and now they are asking for this to become a hybrid?

§ Giovanni Ruffini: Should this come through the committee again as a hybrid designation?

§ Terry-Ann Jones: International Studies did it for a course with an approval from an associate dean and no further approval process.

§ Laura Nash: Religious Studies had a hybrid course that did not come through ASCC.

o Laura Nash: How should we handle these from now on? Teaching online courses is really different than teaching a course in person. Suggest they talk to Jay Rozgonyi of CAE about what makes an online course great.

o Johanna Garvey: Maybe ask why this is better as a hybrid or online versus a normal class? Seems like an important question to ask

o Laura Nash: We can’t hold her accountable because we don’t have a standard, needs to talk to Jay to talk about how she can best become a hybrid.

o Giovanni Ruffini: In the future this committee should come up with clear guidelines on how to change a course form a regular course to a hybrid.