WESTERN WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY

ACADEMIC COORDINATING COMMISSION MINUTES

Regular Meeting

January 4, 2005

Chair Tom Downing called the meeting of the Academic Coordinating Commission to order on January 4, 2005 in OM340 at 4:04 p.m.   There were fifteen (15) members present, and the Registrar (1) and recorder (1) for a total of seventeen (17).  (See attached roster).

Approval of ACC minutes

Members approved the minutes of November 30, 2004 with minor corrections. 

Appointments and Elections

Commissioners approved the following: 

Admissions Committee:  Michael Henniger, Associate Dean of Education, replacing Chuck Atkinson (retiring) for a two-year term ending Spring Quarter, 2007.

Honors Board.  A motion was made by Maryann Reynolds, seconded by Jeff Newcomer to approve a revised charge submitted by the Honors Board.  The revised text reads as follows

“The Honors Board consists of six seven members, five faculty and one student appointed by ACC; and the Director, ex officio, non-voting.  Faculty shall represent the academic disciplines broadly, Colleges of Humanities and Social Sciences and the College of Science and Technology. “

The motion passed in a unanimous vote.

Charge to the Ad Hoc Committee on the Assessment and Evaluation of the FIGs Program

Commissioners and Chair Downing thanked Marie Eaton for an excellent reworking of the draft charge

A motion was made by Karen Perry, seconded by Linda Kimball, to accept the charge to the Ad Hoc Committee on the Evaluation of the FIG program, which passed unanimously.  Text follows:

“Ad Hoc Committee on the Evaluation of the FIG Program

-This committee shall consist of five members, four faculty and one student.

-The Committee shall make an interim report to the ACC in advance of their final report to permit the ACC and Senate to include any additional questions that might arise from the initial data for the Committee’s consideration.  The interim report shall be submitted to ACC at the beginning of Spring Quarter with the final report shall be due no later than the end of Spring Quarter.

-The committee’s charge is:

1.        To gather the following information to provide a context for evaluation.

a.        A short history of the FIG program at WWU.(i)

b.      A short description of the current FIG program.(ii)

2.        To determine if the FIG program is meeting the desired outcomes, including (but not limited to) the examination of data sources that can provide information about the following: (iii)

a.        Student performance, in the FIG courses and in subsequent quarters, and as compared to non-FIG native freshman

b.        Student perceptions and evaluations of their experiences in the FIG Program

c.        Student retention

d.        GUR and Seminar Faculty perceptions and evaluations of their experiences in the FIG Program Cost of the program

3.        To answer the following questions and make recommendations to ACC.

a.  How does the FIG program fit into the first-year goals as stated in the first-year seminar criteria adopted by ACC?  What role should the FIG program play as the First Year Experience Program develops?

b.  What is the current model of supervision and curricular oversight for the program?  Should this model change?  If so, how?

c.  Given the outcomes, is the level of university investment in the program acceptable? What changes are suggested?

d.  What challenges does the FIG program currently face?  What are some possible solutions?

e.  Any other questions the Committee deems appropriate.

_______________________

[1] Some possible questions include: Why was the FIG program developed? To address which problems or needs?  How has the model and structure evolved over the life of the program? Why were these changes made?

ii Some possible questions include:

·          What are the FIG Program goals at WWU?

·          Are these goals and structural components similar to those of other First Year Experience programs at WWU?

·          What are the desired learning outcomes of the FIG seminar?

·          How many students enroll each year?

·          Are there certain components that are successful?  Unsuccessful?

iii Some possible sources include:

·          The Report From The Provost’s Task Force On Improving The Freshman Year Experience, May 1998

·          FIG 2001 Report by Kris Bulcroft and Gary McKinney

·          FIG 2003 Report by Carmen Werder and Gary McKinney

·          FIG 2004 Report by Carmen Werder and Gary McKinney

·          FIG Student Pre-Post Perceptions/Attitude surveys

·          FIG Student Portfolio analysis – Student performance measured against learning outcomes

·          Student retention data  - comparison of FIG students with other non-FIG students

·          CSEQ fall/spring – comparison of FIG students with other non-FIG students

·          Some select GPA comparison analysis  (Larry Symons from Psychology has some of this data, as might other GUR faculty who have taught with the program)

·          On-line surveys/end of quarter assessments from GUR Faculty, seminar facilitators and student seminar facilitators – anonymous from all three groups

·          Faculty focus group data

·          Feedback from GUR faculty who have taught with the FIG Program.

Most of these reports are available from Carmen Werder, Director of the FIG Program and Gary McKinney in the Office of Institutional Assessment, Research and Testing. Some other possible sources include Karen Perry, FIG Coordinator; Megan Otis, FIG Student Support Staff and Coordinator of FIG student facilitators, and Janice Lapsansky, Director of the FIG Program.”

-end of text

The Ad Hoc Committee will not have to start from scratch in obtaining data as there is much already in existence, and is expected to move quickly to item 3.

A motion was made by Grant Donnellan, seconded by Robert Thorndike, that the ACC select the chair of the Ad Hoc Committee, and that at least one member of the Ad Hoc committee be a member of the ACC. The motion passed unanimously.

AGENDA ITEMS - Action Items

Reading of College Curricular Committee Minutes.  The following minutes came before the Commissioners:

Admissions and Inter College Relations, 11/3//04  Accepted 

Admissions Committee

Jeff Newcomer noted that the Admissions Committee had elected Karen Copetas, Director of Admissions, as chair of the committee.  He and Provost Bodman both questioned the wisdom of this and urged that we consider requiring that all ACC committees be chaired by faculty members. Both Newcomer and Bodman took pains to praise Copetas and to note that their concern was a generic one.  We will return to the general issue.

College of Fine and Performing Arts CC: 11/1/04, 12/7/04.  Accepted except for DNC 120 (deferred).  Downing complimented the committee on excellent minutes.   The Commission deferred action on DNC 120 because it appears to be intended as a First-Year Experience course, but was not identified as such in the materials circulated to the members.  If it is intended as an FYE course, then it must have a prerequisite of “freshman standing” (or whatever – to be determined), and the materials we received contained no information regarding “rationale/goals”.

A typo on page 21 showed 46 credits which actually add up to 50 credits (300- or 400-level courses).

.College of Sciences and Technology CC: 11/24/04, 12/8/04.  Accepted.

General Recommendations for MINUTES

Commissioners requested the use of strike-through and underline to indicate old courses that are being deleted, and new courses or course numbers that are being added.   Occasionally the original is printed in color, but when the original is copied, both sides of the columns are GRAY, and it is impossible to distinguish what has been deleted and what has been added.  Strike-through and underline are standard and preferable.  In fact, the easiest and clearest is to keep the old text unchanged in the left column, and just repeat it with strike-through and delete in the right-hand column (such as in CFPA minutes).  Generally, it is also standard to identify the recorder of the minutes in case there are questions.  Page numbers are standard and are very helpful in finding items in long sets of minutes. 

Fairhaven College CC:  11/17/2004.  Accepted.  Commissioners requested that the student-designed courses or syllabi be identified or described.  12/8/04:  The Commission delayed action on the African American Studies Minor.  No forms or minutes were sent to ACC describing this program.

General Education Requirements (GER) Committee, 11/4/04.  Accepted.  The GER Committee established an important principle regarding which general education requirements a student must satisfy.  The rule is:  Each student must satisfy the general education requirements contained in a single issue of the University Bulletin.  This may be the Bulletin issued the year the student entered Western or any subsequent year.  Other rules at WWU require that for a student to claim the requirements in the Bulletin in effect at the time of matriculation, the student must not miss two consecutive non-Summer quarters. In any event, the new rule or interpretation of existing rules serves mainly to disallow picking some portions of one set of requirements and other portions of other requirements, but it does permit students to satisfy the most recent requirements regardless of which ones were in effect at entry into WWU.  The practical effect of this will be almost negligible. So far, the only case where courses in the old requirements do not contribute to satisfaction of the new requirements is in the case of CGM.  If a student took two courses in the same area (domestic or global), only one would count under the new requirements, and the student would still be required to take a course in the other area. It is always possible, of course, that some courses in other areas will be dropped from the GURs.

Commissioners requested broad campus discussion on the decision to allocate funds to the FYE courses vs. 2d year writing courses.  The GER minutes noted that the Provost “has also asked colleges to propose at least one new FYE section for each newly hired faculty member in the college, and anticipates about ten such sections next year. He hopes that with other FYE sections, including FIG, there will be enough seats in FYE sections in 2005-6 to serve about a third of the freshman class.”   Provost Bodman reminded members that resource allocation issues are not within the purview of ACC.

With regard to 2d year writing courses, Commissioners asked if more oversight was needed, or whether they are expected to come up “pell mell” to the Commission.  Commissioners agreed it may later wish to create a committee to evaluate these as meeting the intent of 2d year writing once they are established. 

Recommendations:  Commissioners recommended creating a course form specific to FYE courses.  The form would specifically list those characteristics required for the FYE right on the form.  Such a form would make life easier -- to centrally review all of the FYE proposals systematically, as well deciding which to include in the GURs. 

Commissioners noted that there are still questions about how FYE, residential programs, and FIG can all work together to serve freshmen, and agreed that retaining a variety of options is important.  A further question is whether departments that are participating in the FIG are thus discharging their obligation to the FYE.  All agreed that it is automatic that all courses go through the regular approval process.

Members also recommended that FYE courses go through the GER committee for right now.  Chair Downing noted that there will be very few such courses not carrying GUR credit (with the possible exception of Woodring College).  While this is outside the current charge of the GER committee, the ACC asks them to review these courses for right now.  The same thing will happen with the 2d year writing courses.  Commissioners thus agreed with GER: “The committee was strongly of the opinion that any course proposed for FYE status needs to be vetted by the GER Committee, and that any such course should arise from and be approved by an academic department or other academic unit such as the Honors program.”

Graduate Council.  11/9/04,  Accepted, except  GEOL 690 (deferred).  Members asked clarification of extending thesis credits to 15 when 12 is considered full-time for a graduate student. 

Graduate Council, 11/16/04,  Accepted, except for  ESCI 690 (deferred). The minutes seem to allow registering for 36 credits of ESCI 690. This appears to be impossible if it is to happen in a single quarter, and out of the ordinary in any event.  36 credits of thesis work is an unusually large component for a graduate degree.

International Programs Advisory Committee, 11/8/04.  Accepted.  However, Commissioner Kimball requested that the IPAC reconsider its policy related to removal of passport number and serious injury requests from a student I.D. card, in light of the recent tsunami tragedy.  IPAC is also asked to reconsider maintaining the requirement of carrying a bilingual medical dictionary.  The Chair will discuss with IPAC.

Teacher Curricula and Certification Council,11/9/04, 11/23/04.  Accepted.

Adjournment

Commissioners adjourned at 6:03 pm.

Rose Marie Norton-Nader, Recorder, January 4, 2005. 

ACADEMIC COORDINATING COMMISSION 2004-2005 ROSTER