• Print

December 5, 2013

Academic Affairs Committee
DUC 211 A/B
3:00 - 5:00 PM

MINUTES
Present: E. Anders, M. Draheim, J. Haffner, Y. Kim, L. Fox, M. Lee, S. Merry, G. Rohlf, , L Fox, A. Gillen, L. Matz, M. Park, J. Uchizono
Guests: S. Carr-Lopez, K. Holland, C. Jenefsky, C. Lehmann, G. Randels, J. Schamber, L. Wrischnik
Not Present: L. Shing

Call to order at 3:00 pm


I. IEC, Annual Reporting and Program Review Cycles
Cyd Jenefsky, special advisor to the provost and Jon Schamber, co-chair of Institutional Effectiveness Committee (IEC) are presenting their progress on ensuring the quality of Pacific's academic mission through annual reporting, program review and the IEC. Members of the Academic Council Executive Board are also present to participate in this conversation (C. Lehmann, K. Holland, L. Wrischnik, S. Carr-Lopez).

Two handouts were distributed and discussed: A draft of the proposed workflow for Annual Reports & Program Review and a draft of the Proposed Steps in the Academic Program Review Process.

They began with the WASC requirements process that was complicated and thrown together quickly. The goal now is to revise and simplify the process. The academic review process has been separated from the administrative review process. The academic process has two components: The Annual Reports and the 7-year Program Reviews. The Deans/Provost will review the Annual Reports, not the IEC. They are working on ensuring that the data from the Annual Review fits into the Program Review Cycle, so there isn't unnecessary work required. The 7-year Program Review will go to the IEC. The Program Reviews will still include the external review and will require the creation of the action plan. The purpose of the IEC is to identify common issues and synergies that are being faced across the university. They will formulate priorities collectively for the university. This will take a few years to be appropriately implemented. The charge of the committee is to prepare a report with recommendations for priorities. They will report out to Cabinet, Deans, Program Chairs, Academic Council Academic Affairs and the Provost. They will also review the administrative program review reports.

The external review for administrative reviews has a question mark because currently both areas use the same guidelines, but they need to have their own administrative guidelines, and not use the academic guidelines.

A question was raised about year to year trends/issues/priorities. This will be accomplished by year three and with staggered terms for committee members. The AVP for planning should oversee the process and it should be transparent. Another issue was raised about reviewing the college as a whole versus individual departments. The college is too big and complex due to logistical issues. The Academic Planning and Alignment process is currently doing this. It is a comprehensive in-depth review and it is logistically difficult to do a comprehensive program review due to the staff that would be needed to accomplish this. Why have IEC? If the goal to have a strategic university-wide view, don't we already have the layers in place for this? Deans - Provost - Director of IEC, why a committee? Because we need the voice of the faculty and the committee will have 8 faculty members. Would faculty want to do this? Response was yes, this is an important function/committee. Why doesn't Academic Affairs do this? Why create a new committee? Who will be reviewing the reviews carefully, at a lower level than the IEC? The Assessment Working Group (charge is currently being reviewed also) would and the reports from IEC will come to Academic Affairs. What is the relationship to SPC? Can IPC or SPC replace IEC? The committees must talk to each other and many sources will feed information to the IPC and to SPC.

The current discussion on the composition of the committee calls for 8 faculty (4 elected and 4 appointed by AC) with 4 from COP and other 4 from other schools. The number of administrators hasn't been determined yet, but probably not as many and will also include ex-officio members with about 12 members total.

Who is this feedback for? What is the purpose? The entire university - issues of quality, priorities and recommendations. Program review is by discipline by definition. The college (university as a whole) can only benefit by looking at itself in the aggregate. The college can request that programs be looked at by division, Humanities, Social Sciences, Natural Sciences. For professional schools with external accreditation, the external review would be by the external accrediting team and the timeline would follow the accrediting calendar.

Additional discussion on the proposed process, timelines, action plans and annual reporting requirements, and final comments on the issue with ability to staff another committee as none have been deleted and more have been added.

II. Program Changes
College of the Pacific
Department of Mathematics
Revision
B.S. in Applied Mathematics (change in major requirements)
Reducing the number of electives and requiring COMP 51.

L. Fox Moves to approve, J. Uchizono seconds, unanimous approval.

III. Consent
Minutes - November 7, 2013

Course Changes -
College of the Pacific
Addition
HHUM 051 Introduction to Health & Humanities
Department of Psychology
Addition
PSYC 117 Clinical Psychology
PSYC 162 Ethical Behavior
School of International Studies
Revision
INTL 101 International Research Methods (change in title)

School of Education
Department of Curriculum & Instruction
Addition
SPED 131 Evidence Based Practices in Autism Spectrum Disorder
SPED 132 Juvenile Bipolar Disorder
Revision
EDUC 142 Visual Arts in Education (decrease in units)

School of Engineering & Computer Science
Department of Civil Engineering
Addition
CIVL 233 Advanced Hydraulic Systems Analysis
Revision
CIVL 22 Surveying (Title change)

L. Fox requests to pull HHUM 051 from consent agenda.

M. Draheim moves to approve consent agenda with the exception of HHUM 051, J. Haffner seconds, unanimous approval.

Discussion on HHUM 051 Introduction to Health & Humanities, Professor George Randels is present to respond to questions. What isn't going to be taught now that this is being added to the rotation of courses that he teaches. How does this fit into the general course offerings? It will impact the rotation of classes that George teaches now, however he will not be the Honors Program Director so he will be teaching more classes. There has also been use of adjuncts for traditional courses that he teaches.

Where would this be in the catalog? Purpose? Why not run as a 193 special topics class? This is currently a special topics course for spring and the new minor paperwork has been submitted, but both proposals have not made it through the process together. The course form has come forward, but the new minor program proposal has not. The intent form has been completed, but the provost's office hasn't seen it yet. No discussion in enrollment yet. This course will be under the Religious Studies department, until the new minor is approved. Enrollment for spring is low. In order for the minor to be available in the fall, it would have to be approved by February. Questions raised: Is there going to be demand for the minor? What is the origin of the minor? There are two enrolled currently in the special topics course.

S. Merry moves to table, M. Draheim seconds, unanimous.
Reason: The AAC would like to review the program proposal with this new course proposal as well. L. Matz will find out where the minor is in the approval process.

IV. Academic Calendars - Stockton Campus
2014-2015 Academic Calendar
8-year Academic Calendar Fall 2014-Spring 2022
Pharmacy Academic 8-year Calendar
Department of Physical Therapy 6-year Calendar
Physical Therapy 2014-15 Calendar

Ann Gillen presenting: The only change this year is that the homecoming dates are being added to the calendar. This committee requests that (classes held) be added to inform students that this is not a day off from classes. The calendars have been vetted by financial aid and financial accounting to meet the necessary number of days to meet requirements.

The schedule is tight at the beginning of the academic year with student life issues with no break between summer school session three and the first day of school. For Spring 2016 and 2017 on the 8-year calendar, the first week of school begins on the week of the MLK Jr. holiday.

J. Uchizono moves to approve the academic calendars, M. Lee seconds, unanimous approval.

Ann stated that the automated course approval/change forms (Course leaf) will be brought forward soon, and then they will work on the program proposal automated processes

V. New Academic Program Proposal Guidelines - Revision
Lou Matz presented a few revisions to the New Academic Program Proposal Guidelines that were approved last spring. Adding item III.h. Admission requirements Deleting item V.b. as the University Goals are already asked for in item IIIa. Adding a sentence to the new V.b. Existing Faculty - Do existing faculty have the level of training needed for the program? If not, what kind of faculty development is necessary to make the faculty capable of teaching in the new program? Proposed by Dean Gale.

M. Park moves to approve, S. Merry seconds, unanimous approval.

VI. What's on your mind?

A suggestion to request additional information on the course proposal forms regarding Resources, perhaps under the current number 18 on the form asking for an explanation. This could be handled during the course leaf vetting process.

Regarding the issue of what the course classification should be for ensembles, A. Gillen stated that the Registrar will not go back and change historical data. However, she is working on an action plan with Mike Rogers on how to proceed. It will be brought back to this body for approval.

Ash Brown will return next semester as the School of Engineering & Computer Science representative. This is Scott Merry's last meeting. Jeff Miles may also be finishing his replacement membership for Albert Huang.

Adjournment