200 Bricker Hall
February 15, 2006
3:00-5:00pm
MINUTES
Present: Professors: Lora Gingerich Dobos, Richard Gunther, Kay Halasek, Raymond Noe (Chair), Electra Paskett, Nancy Reynolds, W. Randy Smith (Vice Chair), Harald Vaessin, George Valco
Student Members: Jane Evans and Scott Pearson (Council of Graduate Students); and Elaine Yeh (Undergraduate Student Government)
Guests: Professor Edward H. Adelson, Associate Executive Dean, Colleges of the Arts and Sciences; David Roy, Director, Diversity Services; Jed Dickhaut, University Registrar’s Office; Jefferson R. Blackburn-Smith, Undergraduate Admission and First Year Experience
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 1, 2006
Dobos moved approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of February 1, 2006, Pearson seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously.
COMMENTS FROM THE CHAIR – PROFESSOR RAYMOND A. NOE
• The University Senate approved the proposal to establish a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Cultures at its meeting on February 9, 2006.
• Met with Council’s ad hoc committee on Curricular Quality Control on February 6, 2006. This group has reconvened to discuss curricular issues and will need advice from Council on its future directions.
• On February 2, 2006, the Faculty Council voted on the proposed merger of the School of Public Policy and Management and the John Glenn Institute for Public Service and Public Policy. The proposal was approved with a 21-9 vote. Letters to Council from Professor T.K. Daniel, Chair, Faculty Council, and Executive Vice President and Provost Barbara R. Snyder will complete the process. Professor Terrence Conlisk, Jr., Chair, University Research Committee, will provide Council with any last reactions from that Committee before the Council meeting on March 1, 2006, when this proposal will be on the agenda for review/action.
COMMENTS FROM THE VICE CHAIR – PROFESSOR W. RANDY SMITH
• New proposals are being sent to the Subcommittees this week.
• At today’s meeting, Council will discuss the Report of the Committee on the University-Wide Review of Undergraduate Education. Professor Brian McHale, Chair of the Committee, will meet with Council on March 1, 2006.
DISCUSSION OF AMENDMENT TO THE “WITH DISTINCTION” GRADUATE HONOR FOR ARTS AND SCIENCES STUDENTS – PROFESSOR EDWARD ADELSON, ASSOCIATE EXECUTIVE DEAN, COLLEGES OF THE ARTS AND SCIENCES
Smith indicated that he had received a proposal from the Colleges of the Arts and Sciences relating to “with distinction” for honors students. Given the small number of agenda items for this meeting, he had added it to the agenda and asked Adelson to lead a brief discussion.
Adelson distributed a description of the “With Distinction” graduate honor and a “Whereas Statement” listing the three proposed changes. He explained that “With Distinction” is given to honors students who complete a research project and a senior thesis along with coursework in their major, but there are variations to this type of distinction. Students in performance art, and mathematics, for instance, do honors projects that do not fit in the traditional category of “research.” Students in interdisciplinary programs work with faculty in areas outside their major as well as in their major. So the Arts and Sciences Honors Committee met to make changes to the distinction that would better accommodate all of these students.
• Is “With Distinction” for those who complete a thesis? Yes. How, then, could No. 3 apply? Some faculty do not believe that it is germane to do a research thesis in some areas, yet they want to recognize students who complete honors projects.
• Why is there a distinction between No. 1 and 2 in the proposal? It is not entirely clear why those who do their thesis in a major area receive “with research distinction in _______” (name of major) and those who do work outside their major receive “with research distinction.” It seems that it would be important to faculty to name the area of study in both cases. Adelson said the Honors Committee wrestled with this decision for a long time.
Council Discussion:
Some Council members had concerns about giving research distinction to students who had not completed a thesis. Others felt that students in performance arts should have a separate recognition.
• “Research distinction” does not really address those students in the performance arts, mathematics or in interdisciplinary programs. It seems they should/could be given separate distinctions.
• Concern was expressed with the generic approach to this distinction.
• How does research in mathematics differ from traditional research? Students in mathematics do not follow the traditional research process, which is a product inquiry. They do a process inquiry.
• If a research distinction is for those who do an honors project in their major, then there should be a separate distinction for those who do projects outside their major.
Gunther moved approval, Yeh seconded the motion, and it carried with six in favor and five opposed. Given the split vote some Council members said that they would like to e-mail Adelson with suggested wording to a future amendment that better addresses a separate distinction for students outside the typical research areas. Smith will inform Adelson that some of the members will be contacting him.
DISCUSSION OF THE STUDENT EVALUATION OF INSTRUCTION (SEI) –
Gunther commented on an article in today’s edition of the student newspaper, the Lantern, on the Student Evaluation of Instruction (SEI). He expressed concern that the reporter had drawn conclusions about the SEI without using reliable data to support the statements. The SEI will be discussed at the next Faculty Council meeting, on March 2, 2006, and, if needed, he can address his concerns about this article during that discussion.
DISCUSSION OF THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE
UNIVERSITY-WIDE REVIEW OF UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION
Smith introduced the Report of the Committee on the University-Wide Review of Undergraduate Education saying that it has been widely distributed and is being discussed by various groups across campus. He suggested that rather than think of the Report in terms of approximately 20 individual recommendations, instead there are several broad categories of recommendations that could help structure discussion/reactions:
I reduction from 191 to 180 credit hours for graduation
II restructured GEC categories - Non-Major Requirements (Demonstrated Competency, Breadth, Skills) and Reduced GEC Hours
III Freshman Cluster/Senior Cluster
IV Flexibility (Exemptions, Substitutions, and Minors)
V Oversight (CAA)
VI Advising
Gunther distributed and briefly discussed a document that outlined his personal reactions to the Report. Halasek distributed a document (“McHale Committee Recommendations”) from the Colleges of the Arts and Sciences that summarized the major recommendations in categories.
Noe then asked for an open discussion.
• The Report does not state clearly/strongly enough what its committee members believe our goal for general education should be. Smith noted that the Committee supported the general learning outcomes as specified in the 1988 GEC documents. Gunther indicated that the Colleges of the Arts and Sciences had recently developed a related document that Council members should see.
• Clarification is needed from the Committee on the process that it used to develop its recommendations. Data were not provided to substantiate the changes recommended or to show comparisons with benchmarks institutions.
• The logic used in reducing the hours to graduation from 191 to 180 was baffling. This needs to be better understood.
• There is a “disconnect” between the recommendation to reduce 11 hours to graduation, but 30 hours in the GEC. How are these two recommendations aligned? Moreover, cutting credit hours from the GEC could result in “adding” hours to the major programs for budgetary purposes. Who will monitor this?
• There is a fear that we may be slimming down our requirements too radically. Do the changes really make it “easier” for students? Suggested changes to the GEC make it no easier to navigate than it is now. It would be helpful to see a sample curriculum to see what it looks like. What kind of documentation will be needed for students to get exemptions to the GEC? What kind of assumptions are being made?
• Smith noted that the “flexibility” concept brings with it issues relating to advising and that in recent meetings with advisers, three issues have emerged: the need for additional advisers, training them, and empowering them. And, not all departments have faculty advising, so there is that issue as well. In addition, does the Report advocate too many routes to flexibility. For example, allowing internships to count for a substantial component is problematic to many who have read the Report.
• How are we going to implement these changes and at what cost? Although the implementation process is not part of this Report and is not expected until a later date, how can we discuss these proposed changes without it?
• How could we make all these changes at once? Smith noted that we do not have to do so. It could be gradual or phased in. As the Council reviews the recommendations and the college responses, it could accept parts of it and delay other parts.
• There is concern about the Freshman Cluster, a three-quarter course sequence built around an interdisciplinary theme. The budgetary implications of supporting such a program are enormous. How could we afford the hiring of enough advisors, faculty, and students to do it? How free would faculty be to take on these new projects?
• Writing is seen as important. The first and second year writing requirements are fine as they are, but there are implementation issues relating to the third year writing requirement that extends into the major. How do we really make that work and monitor it? A pilot was suggested for the Freshman Cluster, but it might be better to try it with the Senior Cluster after students have gained a better understanding of the meaningfulness of writing. In addition the staffing of the Freshman Clusters raises issues about the training of graduate teaching associates.
• With regard to oversight, colleges outside Arts and Sciences have been concerned about their access to offering GEC courses and their involvement in routine assessment of it. The Report recommends that a small group needs to be watching this and reporting to this Council.
Council members acknowledged that it is worthwhile to have the courses monitored, but we cannot do so at the expense of creativity in course development and revision.
More broadly, the Report alludes to the use of some GEC courses as introductory courses to a major. Is that what we want them to be? The GEC courses were not meant to be used in that way. They were to provide a liberal arts education beyond the major. An example of a College doing well in this area is Biological Sciences. It offers introductory courses in biology to students who do not plan to be majors in those fields.
There ought to be an honest discussion of what is appropriate and what is not appropriate GEC coursework. We should be asking: what is a GEC course? This has not been discussed in the Report. In fact, how many faculty or graduate students who teach the majority of the GEC courses have had much/any background training on the GEC before they teach such courses?
• There is a fundamental philosophical difference in how people feel about the GECs. There is the broad range approach that gives students options, and the minimalist approach. Some students end up taking more courses than they need. Perhaps they could not find exemptions. Perhaps they did not really have a choice.
Council needs to formally request the data that the Committee used to support its recommendations. Smith will discuss this with the Provost. He also indicated that he is gathering additional information for the Council for its evaluation of this document and the responses to it.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:00pm.
Respectfully submitted,
W. Randy Smith
Joyce Rankin
