WESTERN WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY

ACADEMIC COORDINATING COMMISSION MINUTES

Regular Meeting  --  November 15, 2005

Chair Tom Downing called the meeting of the Academic Coordinating Commission to order on November 15, 2005 in OM340 at 4:02 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 November 1, with minor corrections.

Study Abroad, Honors, Grading Policies, and Exceptions.  Commissioners discussed the question of how the grading works for study abroad and some consequences and exceptions that might impact Honors and major degrees and credits.  Provost Bodman suggested a review of the entire set of policies rather than any one item.  For the present time courses graded “S/U” will still be permitted to apply to satisfaction of major requirements in spite of the fact that the catalog can be interpreted as disallowing that.  Commissioners agreed that this is an important topic for a future agenda.

Action Items

Proposal to Rename Fairhaven College Fairhaven College of Interdisciplinary Studies

In two consecutive meetings Commissioners addressed the issue whether the name change will provide clarity to students coming to Western, and how they can identify the purposes of various colleges by their names, i.e., “Huxley College of the Environment”, etc. 

·    Commissioners acknowledged that there are many interdisciplinary subjects that reside outside of Fairhaven to which students have access, and that Fairhaven has no plans to expand beyond its present mission and size.  Dean Riggins provided some figures about degrees earned as a measurable product:  Last year American Cultural Studies granted 17 degrees to majors, 3 of whom were from Fairhaven; Canadian American studies: 2, East Asian Studies: 10; Liberal Studies, 14; Linguistics, 30; Fairhaven College: 98. Nevertheless, some urged that including “Interdisciplinary Studies” in the very name of the college might prove confusing to some students who were interested in such studies outside of Fairhaven.  

·   At Fairhaven College, interdisciplinarity is a result of the mission.  The courses themselves as taught within Fairhaven are “interdisciplinary”.  Students who are inclined to pursue a straight academic discipline are not encouraged to study at Fairhaven, but to pursue their degree elsewhere in the university.

Following discussion, Commissioners voted on the following MOTION brought forward by the Executive Committee at the request of Dean Ronald Riggins:

MOVED “that the name of Fairhaven College be changed to Fairhaven College of Interdisciplinary Studies”.

The Commissioners passed the motion, voting 10 in favor, 5 against, with 1 abstention.

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

CST Mins of 9/30/05 –Biology Majors (Handout) - Update from previous meeting – Accepted thru 2008:

BIOLOGY

Currently Biology wants to impose a GPA requirement for admission to the department.  Provost Bodman spoke to the entire idea of imposing restrictions on majors, not to just this proposal. 

·    Bodman stated that there is an underlying problem we need to address institutionally.  We advertise a wide range of majors in our catalog.   For reasons entirely local there are students denied access to these majors in spite of their good academic standing in the University.  This is a very serious “truth in advertising problem.”  Bodman asked that we imagine that all departments imposed admissions standards beyond the standards required to maintain good standing in the University; in this case students in good standing would have no access to majors.

·    Bodman okays the idea of addressing this in an ad hoc manner, but would like to impose a time limit on the response.  Commissioners were prompted make the connection with the continuing discussion on General Studies, and to reiterate previous questions related to grade inflation. 

·    Biology has several unique points to make:  over the years they have gathered the data about which combination of grades and courses is most predictive of student success in the major. 

·    Commissioners questioned the reasonableness of a department to devise a system to filter those who might not have the resources required to handle the work.  Some suggested that impacted departments go to the provost, and ask for more resources – otherwise, if you “monkey around”, you are trying to impose intelligent design on an evolutionary process.  If you limit enrollment for a period of time you may disguise the need for additional resources. Playing the admissions restriction game thwarts the natural evolution of resource allocation.    Biology’s problem is that they have had several retirements in succession, and are unable to find enough part-time faculty to teach the classes.  Commissioners asked if it was systematically measured as to what degree the students coming in to the first course get clear advice about how challenging the sequence might be?

·    Finally, is it fairer to students to have to use their GPA rather than have a single gateway course?  Perhaps if they are not so strong in one course their average will win them through.  There is more potential for success than in some departments with stiff “gateway” courses far along in the major.  Again the fairness to students – some may find themselves doing very poorly in the first course, but they found something they are interested in, and they persevere and succeed.  What the gateway course says is that the first time you do not have a “B” for example; you are out of the major. 

·    Student Balisky suggested a better presentation in the catalog would be less confusing:  A boxes for Phase 1, a transition box for Phase 2, and a Box or Phase 2 itself, for example.  .

·    Commissioners voted to approve Biology’s request, but added a sunset clause for 3 years.  Biology hopes to have full complement of tenure track faculty by then.  ACC in the interim will examine the issue and adopt a more uniform policy, enabling Biology to conform within the three years time limit.

Commissioners accepted the entire set of minutes – with approval of contents thru academic year 2008-2009.   

Future Issues to be considered regarding imposing restrictions on majors include:  qualifying courses; enrollment management problems; courses taken at other institutions which count the GPA for the major only; imposing a GPA requirement might encourage students to take only those courses that elevate their GPA; how various departments handle the problem -- the waiting list in English, for example.

Downing recapped the previous two discussions and suggested Commissioners did reach a consensus on some matters:

·    FIG instructors ought to be given faculty appointments and paid somewhere near the norm.

·    Old data on the FIGs is may not be particularly valuable since the FIGs program has changed so much, and the university is a different place than when the FIGs started (1998).   While the previous goal was improving grade point average and retention, recently the goals and outcomes are more aligned with FYE.  The structure is different than the pilot program.

·    The opportunity for students to integrate their two courses is preserved; however it is not the role of the instructor to pursue this relationship.  The students pursue the relationship themselves as a part of their assignments during the quarter.  Small classes give students an opportunity to interact with faculty, and provide an “opportunity for interdisciplinarity”, for enabling students to move beyond high school and begin to make connections between their courses.  Not all students have had such a guided opportunity to see the GUR connections. 

·    Commissioners asked if the new FYE courses, carrying GUR credit, will be significantly more attractive to students than the FIG seminars.  The answer is yes if students want to practice an economy of credits and head toward their major as soon as they can.  From pre-survey results in this quarter students are choosing FIGs because they are intrigued by the opportunity to join two of their courses, and have a small class experience.  There is certainly the possibility of the FIG structure becoming part of the GUR and counting as an FYE course.

·    The GUR committee would decide where that FIG seminar would go.  Up to now the biggest problem has been its pilot status, but it could be a FIG Sem 117.   ACC can pose that question formally to the GER committee.

·    During a typical Fall quarter, as few as five and as many as 11 FIG courses are offered; this quarter there are 9.

·    FIGs are ordinarily offered in Fall Quarter, however, there will be two FIG seminars put together in Winter Quarter this year.

·    Lapsansky thinks it is too early to say if FIGs can be subsumed into FYE courses; as the assessment of FYS is not completed.  Teaching an FYS requires a considerable amount of work.  There are only 3 FYSeminars now.

·    FYE could be taught by adjuncts.  Lapsansky recommends that ACC and the GER committee be extremely careful in looking at the FYE curriculum and how it is assessed.  A significant difference between FYSeminar and the FIG is the linking of the two GURs.  This should not in any way be overlooked.  

·    Some Commissioners urge that the FIGs run not as a pilot program, but as an additional offering as part of the FYE experience. This could provide an enriched FYE program with several options.   Course proposals for the FYE should be different than any other course proposals coming forward -- not only with regard to content, but also with regard to the criteria and outcome expectations that have been put in place.  These offerings will fulfill what we ought to be aiming at:  a menu of options for students in their freshman year.  The FIG is a very valuable one.  So is the FY Seminar.  Dozens of courses could be paired with the seminars, providing hybrid options.  These hybrids provide an entirely different experience than the intensity of an option in a discipline.

·    The FIGs and the outcomes are a progressively moving target.  Today’s concerns are somewhat different than in 1997, and it is understood that the small class experience is vital to freshman success. 

·    Assessment is deemed by some to be an important point – and with accreditation coming we will have to document student outcomes.  FIGs has been doing this all along. We will have to give the FYE the same degree of scrutiny.  The question of linkage of courses has to be better understood.  It is not necessary that the seminar instructor be an expert in both fields, but that she/he bring together the faculty from the two GUR courses, and help the students examine what is common between them.  Commissioners want demonstration of the “intellectual component”.

Commissioners request that the Executive formulate a motion that proposes, among other items:

Ø that the FIGs program for freshman, which is only offered in Fall quarter be eliminated; or

Ø that the FIGs program continue and be made a part of the freshman offerings known as First Year Experience (FYE); and

Ø that certain FIGs be considered for GUR credit; and

Ø that the FIG instructors be granted a kind of an interim faculty position; and

Ø that the outcomes of the FY Seminars that will be created as part of the FYE be scrutinized with the same rigor as the FIGs and require the same kind of preparation and assessment on the part of the instructors;

Thanks expressed to Janice Lapsansky, Director of FIGs

Provost Bodman expressed thanks to Janice Lapsansky for great effort and success in setting up and running the FIGs program this year.  Commissioners concurred.

Adjournment

Commissioners adjourned at 6:105  pm.

Rose Marie Norton-Nader, Recorder, November 15, May24, 2005

ACADEMIC COORDINATING COMMISSION 20054-20065 ROSTER

Adjournment

Commissioners adjourned at 6:105  pm.

Rose Marie Norton-Nader, Recorder, November 15, May24, 2005

ACADEMIC COORDINATING COMMISSION 20054-20065 ROSTER

Adjournment

Commissioners adjourned at 6:10  pm.

Rose Marie Norton-Nader, Recorder, November 15, 2005

ACADEMIC COORDINATING COMMISSION 2005-2006 ROSTER