January 18, 2006

200 Bricker Hall Printer-Friendly Version

January 18, 2006

3:00-5:00pm

MINUTES

Present: Freeman, Fullerton, Halasek, Hathaway (Chair), Parker, Ransburgh, Smith (Vice Chair), Valco, Vaessin, Winer

Guests: Professor Craige Roberts, Department of Linguistics; Professor Earl Whitlatch, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Geodetic Science, and Edward McCaul, Program Manager, College of Engineering; Professor Edward H. Adelson, Associate Executive Dean, Linda Schoen, Assistant Executive Dean, and Jennifer Lando, Director, Colleges of the Arts and Sciences Curriculum Office; Thomas Schriner, Associate Director, Office of Enrollment Management and The First Year Experience; and Brad Myers, University Registrar .

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETINGS OF DECEMBER 1, 2004, AND JANUARY 5, 2005

Ransburgh moved approval of the Minutes of the Meetings of December 1, 2004, and January 5, 2005. Winer seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously.

COMMENTS FROM THE CHAIR – PROFESSOR JANE HATHAWAY

• The proposal to Establish an Interdisciplinary Master of Arts Degree in East Asian Studies was approved by the University Senate on January 13, 2005, and will go to the Board of Trustees for action on February 4, 2005.

• Action on the proposal to Establish the Department of Radiation Medicine by the University Senate has been delayed until the Faculty Council has had a chance to review it on February 3, 2005. The proposal should then go before the University Senate for action on February 10, 2005.

COMMENTS FROM THE VICE CHAIR – PROFESSOR W. RANDY SMITH

• The University Senate’s request to have the Faculty Council review the proposal to establish the Department of Radiation Medicine, because it would be an exception to the rule about minimum number of faculty for a department, is not routine process and Council needs to be sensitive to this issue. He contacted Professors Susan Fisher (Secretary, University Senate), Jack Rall (Chair, Faculty Council) and David Horn (Chair, Senate Steering Committee) to address this matter. It was agreed that this year the Faculty Council needs to (and will) revisit the Faculty Rule on minimum number of faculty, so that Council is not put in the position of continuously having to bring “exceptions” to the Rule forward, and then within that process, adding the step of consultation with Faculty Council, a step that is not routine process. In the interim, Council will meet with Faculty Council, for informational purposes, prior to its own vote on proposals relating to new departments (that are exceptions to the Rule) and on proposals for clinical faculty.

• Colleges that want to use the term “center” or “institute” for purposes other than a formal academic center, are required by University Rule, to seek approval by this Council. There has never been regular adherence to this process and so he has asked Colleges now to do so. As a result, he has received a request from the College of Medicine and Public Health to use the term for its Spine Center – an administrative unit that would coordinate related activities.

Similarly, in situations where large external grants have been received that “require” the use of the term center/institute as part of securing funding, even though no formal center proposal has been approved by Council, Council still needs to be informed and act. The expectation is that a formal proposal will come forward later. Such is the case for the College of Medicine and Public Health’s request for the use of the term for the Center for Population Health and Health Disparities.

Council had no objections to either request. Smith will send notification to the Office of the Board of Trustees to include these actions on the next Board Meeting agenda.

• On February 2, 2005, Council will meet with Professor Peter Pappas for a follow-up discussion from the December 1, 2004 Council meeting about “turnitin.com”. Council will then need to send its reactions to Executive Vice President and Provost Barbara Snyder.

PROPOSALS FOR ACTION– PROFESSORS JANE HATHAWAY AND W. RANDY SMITH, SUBCOMMITTEE D

Revision to the Bachelor of Science Major in the Department of Chemistry

Hathaway commented that the wording about the requirements had been somewhat confusing but Professor John Parson had made appropriate changes. The proposal now states that in order to fulfill the American Chemical Society (ACS) certification requirement (that not all students want), while still allowing students flexibility in choosing advance science electives, the Department proposes moving one required course, Chemistry 542, into the category of advanced elective options. In addition, the Department wants to ensure that majors gain research experience by taking one of the three-hour chemistry laboratories from their advanced science electives: Chemistry 542, 755, 585 or H783.

Subcommittee D moved approval and the motion passed with 8 votes in favor and 1 abstention.

Revision of the Minors in the Department of Linguistics. Guest: Professor Craige Roberts, Department of Linguistics

This proposal was to modify the minors in the Department of Linguistics and broaden the base of its undergraduate enrollment to include minors targeted to selected other majors. The Department has been primarily oriented toward graduate education, but now offers a range of undergraduate courses. Professor Elizabeth Hume-O’Haire had responded to all of Hathaway’s inquiries. The College of Education had provided concurrence, and numerous departments, schools and colleges had been consulted and gave their support.

Was there need to get concurrence from all the foreign language departments? No, but all had been consulted. In addition the proposal had the support of the Colleges of the Arts and Sciences Committee on Curriculum and Instruction.

Roberts reported that linguistics is a diverse field and one that is not well known to undergraduates. One of the ways to bring it to their attention is to develop minors in close consultation with majors.

• How many majors does the Department have? Roberts said there had been 9 majors when she started in 1989, and now there are more than 100. The curriculum has been changed dramatically. They have a faculty who permit undergraduate versions of courses that were established some time ago. The 500- level courses are taught by faculty. There is a very active undergraduate student organization.

• Asked about the requirements for minors listed in the back of the proposal, Roberts directed Council members to a generic minor (a more updated version) listed within the proposal. Discussion continued about concurrences from the foreign language departments, particularly Spanish and Portuguese, and East Asian Languages and Literatures. Roberts said that she and Hume had consulted with them. In addition they had consulted with six departments outside the Colleges of the Arts and Sciences. The proposal had the approval of the College of Humanities Curriculum Committee and the Arts and Sciences Committee on Curriculum and Instruction. Roberts said that she, along with Hume, had consulted with all the departments involved and written concurrences had been provided by most. If a student wanted to pursue graduate work in Linguistics or, say, teach Spanish, this would be highly recommended.

Council members thanked Roberts for taking time to develop the minors and for identifying courses that would be appropriate for students in majors such as English.

Subcommittee D moved approval, and the motion passed unanimously.

PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH AN UNDERGRADUATE MINOR IN ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING FROM THE COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING – PROFESSOR MARK FULLERTON, CHAIR, SUBCOMMITTEE C

Fullerton said the Subcommittee had no major concerns with this proposal. It was well presented and had the support of the departments involved. Some modifications had been made and the proposal was revised. Subcommittee C recommended approval.

• Council members asked about the infrequency of the offerings of required courses. Each required course was offered only once during the academic year. Even though they were only anticipating 15 students, what if the students could not take the course the quarter it was offered?

GUESTS: PROFESSOR EARL E. WHITLATCH, JR., DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING AND GEODETIC SCIENCE, AND EDWARD B. MCCAUL, JR., PROGRAM DIRECTOR, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING

Whitlatch said that they believe that the availability of the minor will appeal to students in many different programs. Environmental pollution is pervasive and is of importance to many people in their professional careers. Students would benefit from an introduction to how the engineering profession handles these problems.

• There was concern about the frequency of the offering of the three required courses. Asked if he was anticipating 15 students in the first year, then how could he expect all of them to take the courses, Whitlatch said there was not enough faculty to offer the courses more frequently. Early retirement had affected the number of faculty they have. He suggested that if enrollment increased to 30 students in 511, they could offer it two different quarters each academic year. 610 is a laboratory-based course and there are 25 students enrolled, but it is very time-intensive for the faculty, who need a teaching assistant to help. If the numbers increased to 30 they might react. If scheduling is a problem to students, they would react as well. There are 68 students enrolled in the minors and majors combined. When asked if it is likely that the staffing situation will change soon, Whitlatch indicated that it would not.

• What about implementation? The courses are available as early as Winter Quarter 2005. If they are taking them now they will be eligible to identify this major once it is approved by Council. Are current students interested in this minor? Students were not polled, but there is a core group who would be very interested. If you have not polled the students, how was the 15-30 student projection derived? Whitlatch said it is a “best guess” based on his experience in working with students. McCaul said they have students interested from the College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences - the Department of Food, Agricultural, and Biological Engineering particularly. They would meet the pre-requisites for these courses. Fifteen students would be a good ballpark figure. Were the colleges asked if there was an interest in offering this minor? No, but the departments were asked. Increasingly the Council is looking for more student input - something like exit polling to indicate interest. McCaul commented that there should not be a problem with this in the future because the College has enough professional student organizations that they could poll.

• Professor Edward Adelson, Associate Executive Dean, Colleges of the Arts and Sciences, indicated that it is standard policy for the Colleges of the Arts and Sciences (ASC) to review proposals for minors offered by other colleges to determine if ASC students are approved to enroll in them – with the decision based on the degree of alignment of the proposed minor with the guidelines for ASC minors. This proposal will now need to be reviewed in that manner.

For clarification, McCaul and Smith indicated that Council approval of this proposal was not contingent on approval by another college. Council can take action today.

Council members then expressed strong concern about the ability of one college (or group of colleges) to be able to mandate to its students whether or not they can enroll in a minor program in another college. The University is trying to encourage students to have minors, and increasing numbers of students are asking for them. Why would we do this?

Smith said that this is an outgrowth of the fact that different Colleges have different policies for minor programs. He and Adelson had discussed this issue at a meeting on October 7, 2004, following a review of all minors by ASC, and had agreed that a meeting of representatives from all colleges that offer minors needed to be convened during Winter Quarter 2005 to discuss the current variations that exist and the ASC policy of review. Smith plans to convene that group soon. Following that meeting, Council will be asked to review what the University policy on minors should be.

However, Smith stressed that this proposal from the College of Engineering does not have to wait for that process to begin.

Subcommittee D moved approval. The motion carried with 8 in favor and 1 abstention.

DISCUSSION OF THE ¬FRESHMAN SEMINAR PILOT PROGRAM 2003-2004 REPORT FROM THE COLLEGES OF THE ARTS AND SCIENCES – PROFESSOR EDWARD ADELSON, ASSOCIATE EXECUTIVE DEAN, AND LINDA SCHOEN, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE DEAN, COLLEGES OF THE ARTS AND SCIENCES

Adelson introduced the Report saying that two years ago President Holbrook had asked then-Executive Dean, Michael Hogan for a pilot program within the Colleges of Arts and Sciences (ASC). Schoen said they offered 30 seminars Winter and Spring Quarters of 2004, each worth one credit hour. The idea was to offer discussion groups on research and scholarly subjects led by faculty, where students could be exposed to a range of topics. The seminars covered cutting edge research and pressing social concerns. Primarily it was a way to introduce students to faculty. Faculty were offered a stipend of $1,000 if selected to offer a course in the pilot program.

Schoen reviewed that data in the Report. Evaluations by students were very positive and 85% of the faculty said they would like to teach again. One suggestion from students had been to increase the time from l hour to 2 hours to give more time for discussion. Some were frustrated by the lack of time to fully discuss a subject. The students liked getting together with their professors. Some started making decisions about their minors and majors. The major limitation for the pilot program had been having enough time to enroll students. So the enrollments had been low, but this year that issue had been addressed and the numbers increased.

Smith said that Council was expected to report back to Provost Barbara Snyder, and Vice Provost Martha Garland, with reactions to this Report.

• When asked, Schoen reiterated the goals: to give students an opportunity to meet with faculty in their freshman year when they might be taught by graduate student teaching assistants; to expose students to other areas that they were not familiar with; and to give them ideas on how research was done. The seminars provided students with an introduction to the academic environment. It is hoped that the seminars might be another way to interface with the Survey 100 course.

• Asked about the decimalized versions of the course, Schoen indicated that it was a way of registering students since a mechanism was not in place. Students could not waitlist for a specific seminar, and they had difficulty selecting a seminar based on a call number. That was why the decimal system was put in place. Those numbers change each quarter: they do not stay with the course. It was decided that the courses were owned by the faculty member who proposed them, so they could reuse the numbers each quarter.

Why was there a span between numbers such as 137.01-137.12 and 138. 137 is for a letter grade, 138 is for satisfactory and unsatisfactory (S/U). They were designated separately so students would know which way they would be graded. Does the faculty member decide whether the course is graded or S/U? Yes. Could the student decide? No.

Does the President or anybody know what would be the goal in terms of the numbers of seminars being offered and the percentage of students from the incoming class that would take them? One-third take them at the University of Georgia, but that percentage remains unspecified here. There had been some suggestion of there being up to 200 seminars. The ASC Committee on Curriculum and Instruction had asked that they not be offered in the Autumn, in part because we offer the Survey 100 course at that time. We have since learned that at other institutions the way to advise students into these courses is at Summer orientation. Next year, the recommendation will be to offer them in the Autumn. At Georgia, 160 of the 200 seminars are offered in the Autumn. Early enrollment seems like a good idea.

• Next year the proposal is to have a call for proposals throughout the University. How will this occur? Schoen commented that the relevant Subcommittee had met recently and looked at the guidelines. There will be a general call for proposals with web-based applications, so it will be easier for faculty.

Oversight of the program will continue with ASC. How does ASC have jurisdiction over coursework that other colleges are offering? Adelson replied that the Subcommittee will approve courses. It will be expanded so there is significant professional college involvement. ASC has strong interest in interdisciplinary activity, so if there is to be a “center” on an initiative like this, ASC is where it belongs.

Council members noted that philosophically it seems appropriate, at implementation, to ask which college gets credit for offering the course? The course is listed under Arts and Sciences, but what occurred last year and would occur henceforth, is to give 90% of the generated funds back to the participating college. Ten percent would be retained for administrative costs. Would those funds be used to offset the cost of the course? With the $1,000 stipend and if you are distributing it back to the department, then it is not coming back to Arts and Sciences to fund new courses. Adelson replied that this has been supported very generously by the President who might continue to do so.

Smith said that if it does move forward in this direction, it would be helpful to bring the curricular Associate Deans from colleges outside ASC together to describe the process. It would be a positive starting point. Adelson agreed, saying that the Interim Executive Dean, Jacqueline Royster, is very supportive of creating a bridge among the colleges and is starting a second initiative “Professional Pathways” as seminars for upperclassmen.

• It seems that, based on the student/faculty surveys, the program has accommodated two of the goals very well but not a third. “The Introduction To How Research is Done” and “Introduction to the Academic Environment” challenged the students, and the courses were appropriate for understanding research. The third, the goal of “courses facilitating connection with the faculty” fared less well with students. Asked if they could ask faculty for a reference letter, student responses ranked this as one of the lowest in the survey. Yet faculty felt they were in a position to write letters for students. Could you address this issue in the future? The other, is whether the program effectively “exposed students to unfamiliar subjects and areas?” These areas need attention.

Halasek asked about additional demographic information. Who took the courses? Were they students primarily from ASC or from other colleges? Do we know whether students had declared a major or were admitted to a college and then took courses from a different college? Were non-traditional students more or less likely to take these courses? Were commuting students affected, particularly on Fridays when the seminars were often taught? Were students in minority groups more or less likely to take the courses? Schoen responded that she did not have that actual information, but probably a majority were from ASC. As they move forward this type of evaluation could be done.

Other questions were raised. Will courses be on offered on other days besides Fridays? On Fridays more classrooms are available. There are a few seminars offered in the dormitories. Could you compare enrollments based on the days offered and what the topics were? Is enrollment higher in Winter Quarter with honors’ students? Are there firm guidelines on enrollments? Adelson said they set enrollment at 10-18. They set 10 students as the lower limit. A couple of seminars this year were limited to 15.

• Reconstituting the Subcommittee to include faculty from other colleges, and having on-line applications are important changes. What were the faculty concerns about it being too cumbersome? The initial materials for course proposals were very formalized – requiring information such as, “outline how the seminar will meet the goals,” “attach the syllabus”. It had four pages of instructions. That was changed somewhat this year. Adelson said that in the beginning when the Federation was being created, there were some concerns about this - the signoff for instance. At the University of Georgia, only the Dean needed to sign. Also, some of the proposed courses did not appear to be one credit. Schoen said they will be rewording the requirements so it is not so cumbersome.

• Smith said that this is a program that will need to be continuously assessed – almost on an annual basis. Adelson said he could see how the Council would require an annual report. Smith said that nationally freshmen seminars are becoming common and all institutions face similar implementation issues.

Valco moved to adjourn the meeting; Freeman seconded the motion; and it carried unanimously.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:02 pm.

Respectfully submitted,

W. Randy Smith

Joyce Rankin