WESTERN WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY

ACADEMIC COORDINATING COMMISSION MINUTES

Regular Meeting  --  May 24, 2005

Chair Tom Downing called the meeting of the Academic Coordinating Commission to order on May 24, 2005 in OM340 at 4:03 p.m.    There were fourteen (14) members present, three (3) guests, who were newly elected members,  one (1) recorder, and the Registrar for a total of nineteen (19).  (See attached roster).

Approval of ACC minutes

Members approved the minutes of April 26, 2005 as written. 

Election of Chair and Vice Chair

·    Chair Downing was nominated and unanimously re-elected as ACC Chair through Spring quarter 2006.

·    James Hearne volunteered and was elected as Vice Chair by the commission.

·    Linda Kimball was re-elected as ACC’s representative to the General Education Requirements (GER) committee.

·    Downing will continue as liaison with Extended Education and Summer Programs (EESP) Advisory Committee.

·    Vacancies:  Two additional faculty will be appointed to ACC.  Commissioners are also seeking a representative from ACC on the University Planning Council through Spring 2006.

Comments from Outgoing Members

Members commented that they had the following responses to serving on the ACC:

o     Disappointed that we were not able to submit more definitive proposals for the General Studies major that would either give it legitimacy or make it go away; also hoped to look at Grade Inflation issues..

o      Hope that in future meetings members look at the QSR part of the General Education Requirements (GER) program, and think about it more broadly, think about the upper division requirement mix, and what students really need to be able to do when they leave the university.

o     Students expressed appreciation for seeing on university level how it all works; Brian Gettman hopes this will help him become a better teacher.

o     One Commissioner considered membership an honor and later appreciation developed around the nice mix of tasks we were asked to accomplish:  some small ones, some problem solving mode of operation, had excellent discussions.  Another found this a great opportunity in which a lot was learned a lot about the faculty here and the commitment to students, structure of university, etc. in a very pleasant atmosphere.

o     A great way for a new faculty person at Western to get involved in issues.  Hopes to get back, and enjoyed it a lot.  Appreciated that we have done a lot of work, and liked the discussion based processes for GER and FIGs.

Election of Faculty to ACC Standing Committees

Commissioners elected the following faculty to two-year terms:

Admissions Committee:  Sylvia Tag, Library. Karen Bradley, Sociology

Assessment Committee:  Mike Mana, Psychology; Craig Moyer, Biology.  There are two additional vacancies.

Graduate Council: Dawn Dietrich, English; Gigi Berardi, Env Studies; Chris Suczek, Geology.   Lina Zeine had been elected but will serve as her college representative rather than from ACC (Deans appoint 6 faculty).

International Programs:  Amir Abedi, Poli Sci;  Maria Paredes Mendez, MC&L; Jonathan Miran, Liberal Studies

Honors Board:  5 faculty vacancies, staggered terms

AGENDA ITEMS

Action Items - College Curricular Minutes .  The following were reviewed and accepted by the Commission:

The Commission postponed action on the Graduate Council minutes of 5/3/05 pending receipt of the reports mentioned in those minutes regarding the evaluations of both the Master of Music and the Master of Environmental Education.

FINAL REPORT:  Ad Hoc Committee on Freshman Interest Groups (FIGs)  

·    The Freshman Interest Groups (FIGs) Report indicated that these linked seminars and courses provided a balanced introduction to college life, and give the students a way to view the disciplines through the seminars.  The report suggested putting more resources into the program to provide a review; get some resources for development; and enable participation in this or a similar seminar more than one quarter per year.  This might include taking a step back, and figuring out how many sections you can actually fund well.  Faculty repeated that the best part is when faculty are part of the seminar; the program needs to find a way to become more transparent.  Perhaps an objective third party could provide some oversight, receive proposals and make decisions on proposals.  This might be a reasonable charge for the new interdisciplinary committee.

·    Limited student input on the topic indicated an expectation for greater campus connections and academic and social resources to be provided, and appeared to expect courses to be much harder.

·    One of the problems is that faculty are impacted because participation in the seminar is an overload, without sufficient time allotted to do it.  One faculty explained a similar program where faculty got plenty of time to work together.  This made a big difference in student satisfaction and the product that emerged.  This requires resources and money.

·    Members seemed to want to increase the intellectual value of this, to organize some talks, and outside speakers.  This might increase interaction; the Pepsi funds (cold beverage contract) might be a source.  Perhaps a couple of controversial and semi-famous people who could bring interdisciplinarity as lecturers could be organized for all the FIGs, especially since students are seeking a way to connect the ideas of the GURs.  There is a need for academic rigor and intellectual excitement in their first quarter.  This requires effort and a particular kind of faculty member. The syllabus must be built from the ground up together.

·    Perhaps this type of seminar could be repeated in a more advance way at the junior level?  With writing?

·    Commissioners recalled a generic humanities course that was large, with many different perspectives being brought to play, including jointly taught sociology, political science, anthropology, and psychology.   Commissioners concluded that goals have to be realistic.  There is great value in the small group experience.

·    Marie Eaton likened the FIGs to courses in Fairhaven, where two courses are solidly linked at the points of four or five assignments.  Requires bringing multiple lenses to a common problem, that whoever is leading the seminar is there as well.  Those linkages can occur at four or five closely articulated places.

·    A lot of good ideas are in this report, one in particular is finding balance between students’ expectations and actual measurable learning outcomes, and continue to ensure that students’ expectations are communicated more and more clearly to students and faculty alike. 

·    Students interviewed on their FIG experiences wanted a strong focus on being able to read their assignments; being well-prepared to read them; the campus resources and social resources were not that useful.  They wanted better academic content.  Seminar instructors have participated in focus groups, and are able to take advantage of small group meetings and previous experiences. 

·    Jeff Newcomer observed that the personalities involved can make a huge difference in the personalities of the FIGs.  If the seminar instructor is the largest personality, it will be very different FIG than if the instructors dominate.  Writing is a linking bridge also. 

·    Commissioners asked why we decided not to make a writing course be the link?  They write about what is going on in the courses.  Another commissioner suggested a focused 24 hour working together, focusing on common planning, and where the courses are linked, finding those places.  Some faculty teams got together and worked for a short weekend.

·    FIGs are proposed as one alternative to 1^st year experience.  Are there other such experiences?  Stretch courses that are possible additions to the First Year Options?  Or some GUR courses where students struggle and could enroll in two extra credits to extend learning possibilities, and their skill level. 

·    The key is that every student who enrolls in a FIG is entitled to a small class of 25 students.  Resources have to be available to teach more.  Going to require fairly special personalities, working with incoming students who are struggling to find themselves and find their way around.  You can only do it if it is fun.

·    Provost Bodman thanked the preparers of the report, and suggested that we continue discussion of the report next year.  While the obligation to the Senate is discharged, let’s look at FY programs and FIGs in a systematic way.  No one doubts that it is a good thing that students have small classes, at least one in their first year, and in their first quarter.

·    The Provost also reported that there would be a published response to the report by people centrally involved in the FIGs program

·    Commissioners will wait to post the report to the web until further discussion takes place.

Discussion Items

Grade Distribution – Exhibit C

Ø Grade inflation appears to be a genuine problem at WWU. There are numerous programs and subject areas (29 –as the Registrar reckons these for purposes of registration) where the overall GPA is above 3.4. Some people may find this unobjectionable, but when we recall what grades are defined to mean in the General Bulletin (A - excellent, B – good, C – fair, etc.) it is clear to the fair-minded observer that these grades are too high (because they are inaccurate, given the definitions of the letter grades in the Bulletin.). That is not an empty claim: grading practices strongly influence student behavior. A fresh anecdote confirms this very nicely. The ACC Chair was at a meeting recently when a faculty member asked if those teaching large classes (well above 100) had problems with student attendance. The chair replied that in his large logic classes (180 + or -) the attendance was generally quite good. The questioner noted that in a large class (also 180 + or -) in her department the attendance ran around 15 or 20%, and she wondered why. The chair just happened to have the Winter Quarter grade report with him and noted, aloud, that the GPA in this class with such poor attendance was 3.45! The reason students don’t show up is that they don’t have to in order to get a good grade (whereas in the large logic class it is not uncommon for 6 – 10% of the students to fail the class). Bad grading practices produce bad habits in students, as well as failing to give proper feedback to the them, and as well as misrepresenting the quality of their work (as excellent, good, fair, etc.) to others.   (this section written by T. Downing)

Ø Jim Hearne reported that in 1997 the Senate passed a resolution that student transcripts should record not only the student grade, but also the average grade in the class.  This can also be included in the teaching evaluation, and, ideally, correlated. The Senate resolution was never implemented, presumably for technical reasons (and there was strong opposition in some departments and at least one college).

Ø If a course or department exhibits grade inflation, the exceptional student feels punished for working so hard so needlessly. This can cause students to become cynical, and even worse, perhaps, it can cause them to work less hard because they feel like suckers for working harder than they absolutely have to in order to get a good grade.

Ø Would we punish our students by getting honest?  Given national practices, would it hurt our students to be given accurate assessments of the quality of their work when the competition for jobs or graduate school were being assessed by far easier standards?

Ø Serious questions arise about what we can actually do about grade inflation, particularly when so many refuse even to regard it as a problem. Some candidates for addressing the problem include revisiting the 1997 Faculty Senate resolution, and also considering requiring that undergraduate programs with unrealistically high grades be compelled to grade S/U.  

Ø Some Commissioners noted that there may be a logical reason for grade inflation in certain departments.

Add/Drop Deadlines

We want to maximize the extent to which we satisfy student demand for classes (within the usual limits of class size, etc.), even if this involves late entry into a class because the it was closed for the first week of the quarter and only opened up due to drops after that week had passed. This seems fairer to students than just letting the newly opened seat remain vacant, and it may also be representative of the best use of our resources. Our current add/drop policy permits this. However, a number of faculty have expressed concerns arising from the fact that the policy permits entry into a class when close to 10% of that class has already taken place; in fact, there may already have been a quiz or an assignment due by the time the student even enters the class. This may be particularly true of five credit classes. As is common, we have to balance competing considerations, and it is worth revisiting the issue at hand to see whether we have struck the optimal balance with the current policy.

Commissioners agreed to place the topic on the Agenda for first meeting Fall Quarter.

Adjournment

Commissioners adjourned at 5:55  pm.

Rose Marie Norton-Nader, Recorder, May24, 2005

ACADEMIC COORDINATING COMMISSION 2004-2005 ROSTER