Index of Topics 11/1/2005	Approved 11/15/05– To Faculty Senate 11/21/2005
International Programs – Report from IPAC members
GUR criteria – motion on prerequisites from GER Committee
FYE Courses Numbered 117 - *Motion*
Academic Calendars approved thru 2015 - *Motion*
Fairhaven College Renaming – Proposal

WESTERN WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY

ACADEMIC COORDINATING COMMISSION MINUTES

Regular Meeting -- November 1, 2005

Chair Tom Downing called the meeting of the Academic Coordinating Commission to order on November 1, 2005 in OM340 at 4:06 p.m. There were fifteen (15) members present, four (4) guests, one (1) recorder, and the Registrar for a total of twenty-one. (21). (See attached roster).

Approval of ACC minutes

Members approved the minutes of October 18, 2005 as written.

AGENDA ITEMS

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

POSTPONED FROM PREVIOUS MEETING

International Programs Advisory

3/07/05

5/23/05

6/09/05

Sponsored programs

Study abroad transfer credit

Program evaluations

Special Report: Vicki Hamblin, IPAC, and Cecile Hanania, IPAC Chair

As representatives of the International Programs Advisory Committee (a standing committee of ACC), Vicki Hamblin and Cecile Hanania were present to respond to Commissioners questions.

Ø Proposal: The International Programs Advisory Committee proposes that students who opt for academic credit in their study abroad can have the credits apply to their major or minor, and show up as department credits on their transcripts. A letter grade is an option or simply S/U. Part of the process will include quite extensive individual review of the student’s participation in the program, the level assigned, and an averaging upward or downward of the credits awarded based on the later evaluation. The new system is proposed to allow departments to have a better handle on the processes already in place in many instances. IPAC members stressed that the process does not impact decisions made by the student prior to studying abroad. Because of the nature of university study and measurement of equivalency, it is impossible to know exactly what the course will be, how the student will apply himself and how the coursework abroad will be applicable to future courses.

Ø Evaluation: Commissioners asked if there are evaluations of the study abroad programs. IPAC members reported that faculty visit the programs abroad, some faculty have spent over 10 years at universities abroad, and many of the programs are the same ones year after year so that advisors at Western are very familiar with the content and can predict outcomes. In general the courses offered correspond to what faculty think would be valuable courses for the Western experience. However, it is still not possible in any given year to know exactly what is going on in Madagascar, France, Quebec or Senegal, for example. Some courses have no course content announced until a week or so before students arrive. And with language courses there is no way to predict level or content, and how students can succeed, or whether the course is a repeat of material already learned. Students leaving for abroad who receive financial aid are co-enrolled at Western for 12 credits in order to get maintain financial aid eligibility, and they may then acquire between 12 and 36 credits abroad.

Ø Community College transfer grades at present do not transfer to the GPA record.

Ø Honors Calculation: At present it is difficult to calculate study abroad in Honors since study abroad grades do not have to be on the transcript. Study abroad can be evaluated as equivalent to courses in the major. As the IPAC members reported, for an official university record the grade is not kept. But as to whether the student has met the requirements for the major, the study abroad grade is counted.

Ø Specific Subject Registration: What is being proposed is that in most cases students studying abroad would actually be registered for classes in more specific subject areas, for example, an FR237. That would be treated like a Western course with specific subject and content as opposed to a more general “304” or “305”. In that event an “FR237”, for example would get a letter grade and be part of a cumulative GPA. An “S” grade neither helps nor hurts the GPA.

Ø Provost Bodman responds: The Provost found the notion worrisome that we are applying someone else’s grade to a Western transcript. How would a department such as Modern & Classical Languages, for example, propose to the Curriculum Council an entire series of courses from 100 to 300 level with variable credit taken abroad, and enable these to be appropriately evaluated? In addition, in a lot of programs a student will not be graded as in an American university; so how do we evaluate? Is it the intention of IPAC that every dept will make its own decision in this regard?

Ø Students can still choose S/U grade: IPAC members responded that the student can choose to remain with S/U grade if they wish, and any department that chooses to evaluate can do so if it so wishes. This option is used by many universities.

Ø Additional Questions: Commissioners asked about quality and consistency of evaluation. Can these classes simply be removed from the mix when determining honors? IPAC members responded that this not a good idea. Complaints from majors now include, for example: “I don’t know why I worked so hard to get an A+ in that class, it doesn’t count for anything.” One Commissioner asked “If you were able to count the classes toward their major, and satisfy them that way, and we were able to finesse this mechanism so they could still have Honors status, wouldn’t that satisfy both desires?”

Ø James Sanders was concerned that students would have to approach the departments after the course was finished, and have to “sell” their success in the course they already took overseas. Is there a way to evaluate this factor? IPAC members responded that it is impossible to know until the person is enrolled in the country and in place in the course. It is not so different under any other system.

Ø Commissioners agreed that passing these minutes does not commit departments to putting grades. Commissioners acknowledged that the difficulty is that some departments are willing to grant credits, and other departments are not. Nor is there anything written anywhere to guarantee ahead of time what the student will receive. Perhaps a minimum description should be presented so the student knows before he gets where he is going what will be expected upon his return. St. Hilaire compared this to how we treat transfer credits -- on an equivalency table, transferable but not exactly equivalent. Commissioners acknowledged that study abroad is a little different when we transcript them like our own courses. There is an additional problem that sometimes a student will place at the same level they completed at Western, and in language this may have to do with student proficiency; he or she simply cannot get any better than the 2d level for example.

Ø Topic Slated for Continued Discussion: Commissioners passed the minutes as presented, and agreed to invite the IPAC representatives for continued discussion at the next meeting.

Additional College Curricular Minutes - The following were reviewed and accepted by the Commission:

College of Sciences and Technology	6/2/05	Writing Improvement discussion
	Attachment will be action item next meeting.
Additional CST minutes not on Agenda	9/30/05	97 and 445 courses approved
GER Committee	5/19/05	EDF 109 as FYE and SS GUR Course prerequisites for GUR status* QSR courses; FYE seminar criteria
Change to GUR Criteria: Following acceptance of a motion from the GER Committee in the 5/19/05 minutes, ACC will add the following to the GUR criteria: “The GER Committee will not consider courses for GUR status if the course prerequisites already satisfy the GUR category for which the course is proposed.” (GER Cte Minutes of 5-19-05)

Agenda Item - Numbering of FYE Courses (117) – MOTION

Chair Downing distributed a proposal that FYE courses be given a generic number such as 117. FYE seminars, as distinct from FYE offerings of regular courses, would then be offered under this single rubric. This would avoid the unpleasant prospect of filling up the catalog with a variety of FYE seminars using a variety of numbers that would include many idiosyncratic courses that would likely be offered only once or by just one instructor. These courses offered under a variety of numbers would also not be easily identified as FYE seminars. Further, we would not require that each individual offering of an FYE seminar go through the entire approval process. Such an approval requirement would discourage faculty from offering FYE seminars or would require that they offer seminars under an existing and possibly restrictive description. Although individual 117s would not require specific approval, their contents would be reported to the college curricular and GER committees. So, with very slight changes to the chair’s proposal, James Hearne moved, and Robert Thorndike seconded the following motion:

“117” RESERVED FOR FIRST YEAR EXPERIENCE (FYE) COURSES*

· The number “117” is reserved for FYE courses of variable credit and variable content. Each department (or non-departmentalized college), division within a department (e.g., SPAN in Modern and Classical Languages) or program with a recognized course prefix (e.g., WMNS) will be assigned that number for the sole purpose of providing FYE courses.

· Units such as those described above will not be required to go through the entire approval process -- currently departmental or program curricular committee, college curricular committee, GER committee, ACC, Senate – for each individual offering of a 117. Units will, however, be required to supply the appropriate college committee and the GER Committee with a narrative describing the individual offering, a rationale as to how it meets the FYE criteria, and a justification for including it in the particular GER category in which they intend to offer it.

· As in the manner of x97s, these individual offerings will not require formal committee approval, but the committee can reject them if they have reason to do so. That is, the presumption is that the offerings are approved, and unless the committee in question specifically rejects them, they are. As in the case of x97s, brief descriptions of the offerings will be part of the minutes of the college curricular committee and the GER committee.

· Students are limited to one FYE course in their time at WWU.

--Motion of approval passed by the Academic Coordinating Commission 11/1/05

Comment: The Commission chose not to include a condition in the above proposal that would explicitly restrict FYE courses to students with fewer than 45 accumulated credits. The principal reason for not including this restriction is that it would exclude many students for whom the possibility of an FYE experience was intended, namely students who had accumulate a number of credits through AP, running start or simply having taken some classes at a community college.

By accepting the minutes of GER Committee from May 19, 2005, the ACC approved slight changes in the First Year Seminar Criteria, which now read as follows:

First-Year Experience Seminar Criteria

Scope

First-Year Experience (FYE) offerings are intended to:

· Give first-year students a small group experience to help them integrate into university life

· Give first-year students the opportunity for more interaction with faculty, fostering a stronger sense of academic community

· Communicate high academic expectations to students

· Help students recognize and take advantage of the roles that various campus resources play in their academic lives

A proposal for a First Year Experience SEMINAR should identify an existing course or propose a new course with the following features:

· First-year seminars will have significant academic content and be offered for academic credit (either as GUR or elective credits

· First-year seminars will be taught in small sections, with an expected maximum enrollment 30

· First-year seminars will restrict enrollment to first-year students

· The seminar may be a stand alone course or offered as part of a link or sequence of courses

· The seminar may be letter-graded or pass/fail if it is not offered as a GUR course

Learning Outcomes

In addition to mastery of significant academic content first-year seminars should be designed to meet at least two of the following learning outcomes:

· Demonstrate an understanding of inquiry and creative processes from disciplinary and/or interdisciplinary perspective(s)

· Articulate individual learning goals in the context of a liberal arts education and identify means for achieving these goals.

· Enhance competency in academic skills including: framing questions/posing problems, critical literacy, evaluating information sources, writing, oral communication, and collaboration

Proposal Development

· Courses in this group can be altogether new courses or special offerings of existing courses.

· Additional learning outcomes are strongly encouraged in the first-year seminars, and a comprehensive listing of the most common first-year learning outcomes and appropriate assessment methods will be available online to faculty as they design their first-year seminar.

Commissioners passed the motion unanimously.

Approval of ACADEMIC CALENDARS THROUGH 2015 - MOTION

Robert Thorndike moved and Marie Eaton seconded a motion to approve the Academic Calendars of Western Washington University through August 21, 2015. The Commissioners passed the motion.

Rosh Hashana falling on 1^st Day of Fall Quarter: In some years Rosh Hashana falls on the first day of class in Fall Quarter. The Senate and ACC have already reviewed the issue, and in those years students who are observing Rosh Hashana do not lose their status in class for not showing up the first day. An announcement to that effect is provided ahead of time to faculty and to students.

DISCUSSION

Proposal to Rename Fairhaven College: Fairhaven College of Interdisciplinary Studies

Ron Riggins, Dean of Fairhaven College, presented the rationale for a proposal to consider changing the name of Fairhaven College to “Fairhaven College of Interdisciplinary Studies”. Chair Downing and Dean Riggins had corresponded on the topic, presenting various arguments for and against the proposal, some of which follow:

Chair Downing: There are more problems with this (the name change) than you might imagine. You are, after all, moving from a proper name to a descriptive name, and that has consequences. First, it seems to signal a change in Fairhaven’s mission and character. Second, it does not describe Fairhaven in terms that distinguish it from the many interdisciplinary programs on campus. Third, just about everybody I’ve talked to who has heard about the proposal fears that the new descriptive name will give Fairhaven “ownership” of interdisciplinary studies on campus. There may be other problems as well.

Dean Riggins: Regarding the first point: The intent of the proposed change is to do the very opposite of what you suggest—it is to reinforce the most essential element of Fairhaven’s mission and character, which is that Fairhaven exists for the purpose of exploring academic topics, issues, and questions from interdisciplinary perspectives. In developing its curriculum, Fairhaven seeks to avoid replicating the discipline-based nature of curriculum found in traditional academic units. Furthermore, the proposed change reinforces, with regard to recruiting faculty and students, the unique nature of Fairhaven. Faculty who come here to teach, and students who come here to learn, should be committed to interdisciplinary approaches to teaching and learning. While a faculty member’s training may be in political science, art, or psychology, he or she will be required broaden the base of his or her inquiry, link with other faculty to develop team-taught thematic courses, etc. Students will be expected to develop academic concentrations (majors) that incorporate study in more than one discipline in order to address questions or issues reaching beyond the bounds of a single discipline.

Secondly , you say that “the proposed name change does not describe Fairhaven in terms that distinguish it from the many interdisciplinary programs on campus.” To me, the purpose of a name is to make clear the central function of an academic unit.

ü Woodring College of Education is not the only college that deals with “education,” but that is its fundamental mission. For example, the Department of Physical Education, Health and Recreation resides in the College of Humanities and Social Sciences.

ü Huxley College of the Environment is not the only college that addresses environmental issues or topics, but that is its fundamental purpose.

ü The College of Science and Technology is not the only college that addresses science or technology. Most colleges deal with some aspect of each. But science and technology are the primary focus of that college.

ü Similar examples could be cited for CBE and CFPA. So, to reiterate, the purpose of an academic unit’s name is not to distinguish but to represent (reflect, embody) that unit’s primary role or function.

Less important, but something that bears pointing out, is that you and I have different views regarding the number of interdisciplinary programs on campus. Your view is that there are “many.” Mine is that there are few. Thirdly: The proposed change will give Fairhaven no more “ownership” of interdisciplinary studies than Huxley College changing its name to Huxley College of the Environment gave ownership of studies about the environment to that college. Fairhaven’s faculty and administration have no interest in being academic expansionists.

Commissioners Comments (edited by the Chair):

o Fairhaven is not intended to be a college with a static sense of interdisciplinary studies, nor is it a free-standing college. Students take many courses in other units. Fairhaven would be self-defeating if trying to each every subject. When Fairhaven replaces faculty it doesn’t necessarily seek to replace an artist with an artist. A new position may be in another area altogether and that would change the approach.

o Does changing the name communicate the mission more clearly or does it create problems? Does it change people’s perceptions of the role of interdisciplinarity in the university? With so many interdisciplinary studies outside of Fairhaven, it seems strange to call Fairhaven the place where this happens. Academic views are unified by certain world views, and to have an academic unit addressed as “interdisciplinary” is problematic.

o Students or others may be confused; students may not be aware there are interdisciplinary studies anywhere else. There is a philosophical element to this discussion as well as the “epistemology” of naming.

o Do we know what a name means? Look at CFPA. Some areas of art are taught but not all. Every genre does not have to be taught. Marie Eaton confirmed that every student that applies is interviewed individually, and in the conversation it is discovered if there is a better fit than Fairhaven, could they go in either direction, or choose based on the number of credits to degree. Students “are not dumb”. They do a lot of their own exploration, and make a lot of their own decisions. They move around the university, they come to Fairhaven and they leave Fairhaven. Students tell parents, parents tell students.

o Commissioners suggested asking Women Studies, American Cultural Studies, etc., if they minded the name change. (edited by the Chair)

Provost Bodman:

Bodman proposed that there is a collision of two very interesting principles: one, that a college should describe its mission as at the heart of its proposal. Bodman is persuaded that there is no territorial ambition associated with this particular proposal. The second interesting point is what is meant by interdisciplinarity. Bodman expressed the hope that other programs are sufficiently sure of their own identity that they would be glad to see this title. Bodman thinks this title is central to Fairhaven’s mission and is happy to support the proposal.

Thanks expressed to Dean Riggins.

Provost Bodman expressed thanks to Ron Riggins for his excellent work, not only in Fairhaven, but throughout other areas of the university. Riggins had suggested that following next year he would be retiring.

Commissioners concluded that a formal motion on the name change will be brought to the next meeting.

Adjournment

Commissioners adjourned at 6:10 pm.

Rose Marie Norton-Nader, Recorder, November 1, 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 – David Wallin, Huxley	P
7	H – Marsha Riddle Buly, Teacher Ed, Woodring	P
8	A - Jim Stewart, Senator (thru 2006), CST	Exc		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		Vicki Hamblin, M&CL, IPAC		P
13	S - James Sanders, ASVP-Academics, 2005-2006	P		Cecile Hanania, M&CL, IPAC Chair Ronald Riggins, Dean, Fairhaven		P P
14	S - Chiho Lai, 2005-06	P		Susanna Yunker, Acad Advising		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		15 2 4
				*November 1, 2005* TOTAL		21

POSTPONED FROM PREVIOUS MEETING

International Programs Advisory

College of Sciences and Technology

Additional CST minutes not on Agenda

GER Committee

First-Year Experience Seminar Criteria