WESTERN WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY ACADEMIC COORDINATING COMMISSION MINUTES

Regular Meeting -- October 4, 2005

Chair Tom Downing called the meeting of the Academic Coordinating Commission to order on October 4, 2005 in OM340 at 4:01 p.m. There were sixteen (16) members present, one (1) guest, one (1) recorder, and the Registrar for a total of nineteen (19). (See attached roster). Approval of ACC minutes Members approved the minutes of May 24, 2005 with minor amendments. Appointments and Elections Tom Downing was elected to serve as the ACC representative to the University Planning Council in a vote taken via email.

Announcements and Reports (Thomas Downing) The Chair reported that the effort of Princeton University and other to reduce the high number of “A”s granted at their institutions was reported in recent articles in the New York Times (September 20) and The Chronicle of Higher Education (September 30) (copies of the articles were distributed to the members and are available on the ACC link to the Faculty Senate website). These efforts obviously tie into our own efforts to consider a similar problem at WWU. The Chair directed the attention of the Commissioners to a remark of Nancy Malkiel, college dean at Princeton: “"If we're giving them the same grades for their very best work as for their good work," she said yesterday, "we're not giving them well-calibrated guidance about the difference between very good and best, and we're not challenging them to do their very best work." (Karen Aronson, Students Receive Fewer A's, and Princeton Calls It Progress, NY Times, September 20, 2005)

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

College of Humanities and Social Sciences 5/26/05 Interdisciplinary Majors, new 97 courses College of Sciences and Technology 5/19/05 SCED General Sciences course revisions**

Graduate Council. 5/3/2005 POSTPONED PENDING REPORTS

International Programs Advisory 4/7/05 Cosponsorship Approvals, November Symposium Extended Education and Summer Programs 4/28/05 (Postponed at committee request.) Emergency Mgmt. request

Minutes Discussion** Chair Downing explained the current Emergency Management Certificate offering, and reported that the administration is submitting (as part of an October Supplemental Budget Request) a proposal to have a major created and offered by Huxley. Chair Downing noted that he had postulated while sitting on the Executive Council the protocol problem of funding a major that ACC decided not to approve. The rejoinder is that ACC can look at the proposal simultaneously. He added that a new major requires HEC Board approval.

Jim Stewart responded to a question regarding the current grant for science and technology in which CST offers a connected sequence of earth, biological and physical science, and takes advantage for teachers of what we know about teaching and learning in the sciences. A “robust and carefully tested physics curriculum” will be used initially and succeeding courses will be structured in similar ways to the initial course. The proposal invites collaboration with Everett, Skagit, Whatcom and other community colleges, and entails a $12 million grant over a 5-year period. Part of original proposal was to collaborate with the Community Colleges that feed Western particularly to support people who plan to become teachers with their Associate Degrees. However, when they come here with an AS degree they will be deemed to have satisfied their GURs but in many cases a sufficient science background is lacking. People are coming from community colleges all over the state at present. The curriculum will be published (to other campuses as well) some time during first quarter of this academic year. Earth science and biological science will be published later.

DISCUSSION

Report on Freshman Interest Groups (FIG), with commentary on Rejoinder from Kris Bulcroft Chair Downing recapped the Senate’s original requested that ACC examine the FIG program. Downing’s plan is to discuss freely today, and set a structure for a more formalized report later. The Chair added that he is most interested in whether the seminars are academically respectable, and therefore appropriate for granting academic credit, and therefore should continue to grant academic credit. Commissioners remarked that: o Many students ending up in the FIGs appeared to have lower SAT scores. However there is no attempt to channel students into the FIG; the clusters were filled by July 1st, way before Summer Start this year, simply from the initial ads in “Window on Western” and seem to be mostly self-selected. It is also very easy to register through the Web page – they can register for an entire cluster. o Members suggested this fact might imply that the people who populate the FIG are sophisticated consumers of education; savvy and not poorly prepared academically. According to Janice Lapsansky, FIG Director, overwhelming anecdotal evidence indicates that “helicopter” parents have the largest influence on whether their son or daughter register for a FIG, suggesting that parental concern over students’ ultimate success in college may be a major driving force behind FIG popularity. o The FIG students were a more disadvantaged group academically, but were highly motivated, and through that able to sustain a relatively high GPA. o There is not much interest from the Commission in engaging as arbitrator between the initial report and the rejoinder. However, Commissioners would like the rejoinder to state what is good about the FIGs and why. They would like a well organized statement that presents evidence in a well organized manner. Commissioners are not in favor of academic debate on the merits.

Janice Lapsansky, newly appointed Director of the FIG program suggested it would be helpful to discuss those features that make a good freshman program, and pointed out that last year the ACC approve a set of goals and learning objectives regarding First Year academic programs prior to soliciting proposals for the stand-alone First Year experience seminars. Chair Downing shared a document with Commissioners listing the learning objectives for FIGs and those identical to FYE seminars. Commissioners agreed that discussion about the FIGs should be focused on desirable elements and noted that the following problems ought to be addressed: o This program may be a departure from normal personnel rules that govern universities…. o The vetting procedures and the evaluation procedures may need further review o A simple solution may be to give more funding to the non-faculty who teach. o The FIG program itself should not be blamed for administrative difficulties that occur. If given a proper budget, they might be able to make some other choices. o Is there too much reliance on volunteer instructors? o The Senate is concerned about what could almost be construed as mistreatment of staff. The small stipend recompense is not commensurate with what a faculty member would get. There is a further concern regarding the hiring of a graduate student in one quarter. The Senate is concerned about that and the fact that even if you are teaching two credits, you are adding a lot more time to your workload. There is an essential question of fairness. There is no doubt that in many cases people are as qualified as lots of adjuncts we have hired, and they might even do a more excellent job. o In formulating a procedure for discussion, Commissioners recommended that we consider the academic question separately from the procedural questions. o What makes a meaningful academic first year experience? o To what degree does the FIG program meet that? o Downing mentioned that four new First Year Experience courses are already on the books. But it is important to understand that the First Year Experience is a rubric of courses, and is not to be confused with the FIG, whose majority of clusters are offered ONLY in the fall quarter. A FIG CLUSTER is an academic course (Seminar 101) with other elements (clustered with 2 GUR courses). The FYE courses are standalones. o There is current effort to get the FIG seminars as First Year Experience courses. They would be included among the FYE in general, which includes Honors, University 197, and new FYE courses. (Reminder to change the rubric 197 which can be offered one time only). Director Lapsansky has worked with OIAT to initiate assessment in the FYE seminars and will continue assessment in the FIGs, in order to assist the ACC in the evaluation of these first-year programs. o Downing reported that Administration has imposed a requirement on departments or units about to hire new faculty that as a condition the department now has to offer a FYE course (not by the new faculty member necessarily). Hiring units are asked to submit proposals as a condition of getting new positions. o Commissioners asked if the FIG was intended as a pilot project that would eventually be scaled up. Will it be available to all freshmen? Will it be institutionalized? Or only available to those who get there first? The Gen Ed Task Force had made a strong recommendation that students be given a choice of multiple ways to meet the First Year Experience requirement.

Experience as a GUR instructor in FIG Grant Donnellan spoke about his experience teaching a GUR that was linked to another GUR and the FIG seminar. He noted that this was a natural for developing in students a way to think outside the box. He spoke about the cross-pollination between Music Survey and Music History and Geology which allowed him to contact other faculty that he would never otherwise be connected to, and find elements which have been represented in music. The seminar instructor is challenged, but meets with both GUR instructors on a regular basis, and serves to model the inquiry process and life-long learning for his students. Freshman sometimes come in like a bunch of “gerbils or lemmings”, and now they are reaching for freedom, and this necessitates adult choices and an active learning attitude. Donnellan emphasized that the sooner we can “kick them into high gear” and stimulate them as “active learners across the disciplines” the better. Better to do it immediately, and prevent the “lemming phenomenon.”

Preliminary Summary • Commissioners concluded that the FIGS should not stand outside a structure, but be looked at as part of the “smorgasbord” of the First Year Experience. The current FYE offerings include one in Liberal Studies, one in Dance, and two in History. They came about as a result of a series of reports and studies with lots and lots of discussions with faculty. Can we solve the procedural problems? • In raising the original question, there is the presupposition that the experiences described are valuable but are also a tremendous amount of work. If we can make it happen, it is a great thing. • Approval Process: ACC did approve the seminars, but there needs to be an ongoing body where these courses go for approval. Downing noted that the orphan programs that do not fit naturally are all going to be put under a single individual administratively and would all report under a single director, in a way similar to a college curricular body. Other programs to be included might be American Cultural Studies, Women’s Studies, East Asia Studies, Canadian American Studies, and Linguistics. Honors would not be included.

FOCUS DISCUSSION PLANNED

The next meeting will more formally focus the FIGs discussion. The Chair distributed the following questions for the consideration inviting Commissioners to add or otherwise modify them:

Guiding Questions Regarding the FIGs Program A. Impact of the FIGs program i. Has the FIGs program positively affected students’ achievement in other courses? If there is insufficient evidence that it has, should we insist that claims that the program does improve subsequent academic performance be removed from the advertising for FIGs? ii. Has the FIGs program improved retention? iii. Has the FIGs program achieved its end of forging enduring social bonds among the students in the program?

B. Costs/Resources/Staffing i. Is it fair to those teaching the FIGs seminars that they be granted no release time from their regular jobs and that the small stipend they are given is also supposed to be used for expenses in running the seminar (special events, travel, food, etc.)? ii. Are there hidden costs to the program, e.g., in the Center for Instructional Innovation? iii. Could the current resources devoted to the program be better used in some other way, say to offering more FYE courses or 2nd Year Writing courses? The same question goes to adding resources to the FIGs program. iv. If we decide to retain the FIGs program, should we end the reliance on volunteer instructors for the seminars? And again, if we decided that they should be paid the prevailing wage for a two credit course, would that be the best use of the resources required? v. What resources would be required to address the various shortcomings in the program, in particular, what resources would it take to get more regular faculty involved in the program?

C. Content/Academics i. Has the content of the seminars changed from academic and interdisciplinary (integration of the content of the associated GUR courses) to “community building” and orientation to the University and the academic life? The three items listed on the FIGs Webpage under What will I learn? – In the FIG Seminar the students will: 1. Ask questions to gain a deeper understanding of concepts in different fields of study. 2. Develop academic skills that can prepare them for future courses. 3. Identify college career goals and create a plan to achieve them. ii. Should courses that are intended as non-academic or only partly academic even be considered for the GURs? iii. If academic content of the seminars has been reduced, does it make sense to give academic credit for them? iv. Should the FIGs seminars be graded A-F or S/U? v. Are there enough faculty versed in the various disciplines to offer genuinely interdisciplinary and integrative seminars, or is that no longer the primary goal of the seminars? If it is no longer the goal of the seminars, why do we bother tying the FIGs seminars to a particular pair of GUR courses in the first place? vi. If we decide to retain the FIGs program, should there be a curricular committee to which the program reports? If so, should each seminar offering be vetted by that committee, in the manner, say, that Honors seminars are vetted by the Honors Board?

D. Varia i. If faculty in the associated GUR courses were to play a more active role in the seminars, would that unfairly give the FIGs students an advantage over the other students enrolled in the GUR courses? ii. Is it clear just for which students the program is primarily targeted, the academically marginal at-risk students, or the academically motivated? Does it matter? iii. On balance, do we have sufficient reason to continue offering the FIGs program?

Constituent Concerns One Commissioner asked about the connection between Extended Education and the Departments. Chair Downing reported that a representative from EESP would answer questions at the next ACC meeting.

Adjournment Commissioners adjourned at 5:25 pm. Rose Marie Norton-Nader, Recorder, October 4, 2005

ACADEMIC COORDINATING COMMISSION 2005-2006 ROSTER

Membership (term ending 2007) Chair – Tom Downing – 2004-2005 1 A - James Hearne, Computer Science, CST P Vice Chair – Jim Hearne

3. D – Grant Donnellan, Music, CFPA P Ex-Officio 4 E -- George Zhang, Decision Science, CBE P 17 Bodman, Andrew (Provost) P 5 F -- Marie Eaton, Fairhaven P 18 Perry, Karen (Catalog Coordinator) P 6 G – Kathryn Wayne, Huxley -- 7 H – Marshal Riddle Buly, Teacher Ed, Woodring P 8 A - Jim Stewart, Senator (thru 2006), CST P Registrar, Recorder Joe St. Hilaire, Registrar P Membership (term ending 2006) Rose Marie Norton-Nader, Recorder P 9 B – *Robert Thorndike, Psychology, CHSS P 10 AL – Linda Kimball, AT-LARGE (rep to GER) P 11 C - *Thomas Downing, Chair, (UPC, EESP) P Guests

12 I – Jeff Purdue, Library P Janice Lapsansky, Director, FIG P 13 S - James Sanders, ASVP-Academics, 2005-2006 P

14 S - Chiho Lai, 2005-06 P

15 S - -------------, 2005-06 -- 16 S- Lauren Balisky, 2004-06 P

*Not Eligible for Re-election (served 4 yrs)

Members (18) 12 faculty (2yr terms) rep each area. Provost, Catalog Coordinator (ex officio) 4 students (1 ASVP), 2 faculty Senators. ACC reps: to UPC, to GUR, to SenLegislCte. Guests: Registrar, Recorder Members Register, Recorder Guests 16 2 1

October 4, 2005 TOTAL 19