• Print

December 6, 2012

Minutes
Academic Affairs Committee
DUC 211
December 6, 2012
3:00 - 5:00 PM

Present: A. Brown, J. Haffner, M. Draheim, L. Fox, L. Matz, A. Richard, G. Rohlf, E. Typpo, P. Rosson
Ex-Officio: A. Gillen
Guest: D. Hemenway, M. Rogers, J. Schamber, Joan Lin-Cereghino, Martin Camps, Susan Giraldez
Not Present: A. Boboc, J. Uchizono, Q. Dong

Called to order @ 3:04 pm

I. Approval of Minutes
November 1, 2012

M. Draheim moves to approve, A. Richard seconds, motion passes.

II. Course Classifications and Definitions - Dave Hemenway, Mike Rogers
This issue was tabled from the prior meeting because the committee had questions regarding the history of the definitions and how they will be used in the future. The classifications are used in banner, the primary issue is to define a lecture versus a seminar. The university needs/wants accurate data. This information is in banner, which is set up to track this data. The appropriate/accurate definitions would give us better data for grouping, facilities analysis and space utilization. This coding will also help to determine the average class size, which determines how many sections to offer. The definitions also help to categorize courses and determine trends. With facilities analysis, it helps assign the type of class to the right classroom.

Suggestions were made to add more descriptors that were discussed at the prior meeting. Add dissertation, change, non-university setting versus non-classroom for student teaching. Does student-teaching fit into the fieldwork or internship classification? It is currently listed as fieldwork. A suggestion was made to make the list as standard as possible, it is not necessary to reinvent the wheel. It is important to not use a variable for something it isn't intended for, you should create a new variable. According to Ann, it is important that we capture web based courses, this is something that we don't currently have. This is for Stockton campus only. Ann has the current list that her office uses; the list under review was created by Eric Boyce. The list should be shorter. Issue was raised on how Conservatory courses are coded.

The current list that the Registrar uses is needed for review along with the list presented to the committee. A subgroup will meet, revise and bring back to the full committee. The subgroup will be Ann Gillen, Eric Typpo, Greg Rohlf, Lou Matz and consult with Jim Haffner from the conservatory.

Motion to table and reconsider at the January or February meeting by G. Rohlf, J. Haffner seconds, motion passes.

III. Program Changes
College of the Pacific
Department of Biological Sciences
Revision
Biological Sciences

Joan Lin-Cereghino is present to answer questions. The Biological Sciences curriculum hasn't changed in over 25 years. The revision is to enable students to be more successful in the major. They are making evolution part of all of the core courses. And they are swapping the order of BIOL 51 and 61 to help students learn concepts from small to big like other institutions. Reducing math requirement to one course that all should take. They are changing the units to meet the university's new credit unit policy. An issue was raised by a member about the impact to non-bio transfer students if lab courses are going to be 5 units. If the transfer student has completed the general education requirements, they will only be able to take 3 lab courses without going into overload. And this also adds 3 units to the environmental sciences major

The overload issue and the impact of the new credit unit policy is something that Academic Affairs may want to pursue. Information from the office of institutional research will need to be gathered on the amount of students that this could potentially impact. This issue has been raised in the past with the Honors program and with the Conservatory. The registrar would want a policy and procedure in place and it would have to include input from finance as well.

Motion to approve Biological Sciences program change by A. Richard, second by L. Fox, motion passes.

Department of Modern Languages and Literature
Addition
Minor in Latin American/U.S. Latin@ Studies
Deletion
Inter-American Certificate (SIS-COP)
Revision
Major in French: French Studies
Major in French: Language and Literature
Minor in French

Susan Giraldez and Martin Camps are present to answer questions about the new Minor. A while back an outside consultant suggested offering an inter-American certificate as part of the Spanish Immersion initiative. This was a top-driven proposal, however the "certificate" is confusing for students, they understand "minor." The terminology (inter-American) is from the 1960's. The term is not used, it is now Latin American or U.S. Latin@. Last summer a group of students approached the President and wanted a major in Latin American Studies and US Latin@ studies. The faculty was already considering changing the certificate into a minor. The proposal is to have a minor instead of a major or a certificate. There was a question if this minor was going to incur additional costs? No, there are no new courses being created. The director is already an existing position. S. Giraldez is the director, Casa Jackson is funded by student life, and there is a current Programming budget from the Provost's office. There is an informal faculty board of the faculty teaching these courses. We are the only university among our peers that doesn't have a Latin-American studies program. Ethnic studies deals with ethnic populations in the US only.

Motion to approve minor in Latin American/U.S. Latin@ Studies by G. Rohlf, second by M. Draheim, motion passes.

Motion to approve the other program changes in French Studies by A. Richard, second by G. Rohlf, motion passes.

IV. Consent
College of the Pacific
Department of Biological Sciences
Addition
BIOL 124 Cancer Biology
BIOL 126 Neurobiology
BIOL 134 Comparative Physiology
Revision
BIOL 051 Principles of Biology (increase in units)
BIOL 061 Principles of Biology (increase in units)
BIOL 071 Human Anatomy (increase in units)
BIOL 081 Human Physiology (increase in units)
BIOL 101 Genetics (increase in units)
BIOL 145 Microbiology (increase in units)
BIOL 175 Ecology (increase in units)

Benerd School of Education
Revision
EDUC 155 Teaching in the Content Areas I (course description revision)
EDUC 165 Teaching in the Content Areas II (course description revision)

Motion to approve consent agenda by A. Brown, second by A. Richard, unanimous approval.

A discussion followed the motion regarding having Academic Affairs look into the credit unit policy with regard to lab classes and the impacts to faculty workload, overload of units, and additional overarching issues. Should lab classes be automatically adjusted based on the credit unit policy? Should the credit unit policy be applied across the board at the university? How many units should lab classes be? This will also affect the number of units for a major. Decision made to have Lou Matz, Eric Typpo and Lydia Fox gather information from Institutional Research , speak with the Natural Science division chairpersons of COP, and determine the impact and scope of the problem. They will inventory the number of lab classes offered, look at the current credit hours assigned by the departments and determine the number of students impacted. The committee stated that this issue should be looked into by this committee and make a recommendation to Academic Council if necessary. This should be done by the end of the spring semester.

V. Disability Accommodation Statement - Tabled

VI. Guidelines for Submission of a New Academic Program

Lou Matz presented the guidelines that schools would have to follow when recommending new programs for approval - a declaration of intent - which is mentioned on the new program approval form. This would be at the dean level. These guidelines are for degree programs, not minors. A declaration of intent form was never created even though it is referred to on the New Program Proposal form. The provost wants faculty governance review and approval of the guidelines.

Questions were raised by the committee: What is the source of the information they are asking for? Specifically item IV. Program Budget, Market Research, and supporting data? This would be at the Dean level - market research would be in collaboration with the provost's office.

Additional comments regarding the guidelines:
• No mention of accreditation costs - these are hidden costs, which can be sizable.
• Administrative feasibility - financial aid.
• Enrollment services, is the program feasible?
• For these guidelines, we should look at our current program review self-study guidelines and use consistent language to build in quality assurance and synchronize future data requests and information. Align the two documents (data & design)
• Have a better definition for what a new program is.

This committee is not ready to approve this document as written, they want to submit their recommendations and then vote on the revision, if/when the changes are accepted.

Programs come from the faculty and the faculty needs to be comfortable with the process. Issues were also raised regarding, where these guidelines fit into the current shared governance structure of proposing new programs. It appears that the provost and cabinet have first review and can turn down new programs before they go through the faculty governance process. If these guidelines are required to be followed prior to the current shared governance process, it seems excessive. Recommend that the intent form be a one page document that can be submitted to the provost with four main items: market research, enrollment projections, learning outcomes, and budget. Then the provost can help marshal resources of the university - IR, Alumni, communications, etc. These guidelines are excessive for a pre-review of a program.

The committee is concerned about the impact to faculty governance. In the past there has been confusion about the process of proposing a new program. New programs originate with the faculty and move up the chain, however there has been an informal process where the Provost is notified of the intent to create a new program, but there is no formal outcome. Is the gatekeeper going to be the provost and the cabinet? Or is it going to be faculty? If it is going to the provost and cabinet first, then this can stifle innovation. Are there two processes being suggested? When are these guidelines going to be used in the process? This committee is not comfortable giving the provost and the cabinet the authority to stop a program idea before it goes through the faculty governance process. Agree that the intent form needs to be codified, a response needs to be presented, determine the new process and revise the existing new program proposal forms to include the additional information sought in these guidelines.

Feedback will be submitted to the provost, item is tabled.

VII. What's on your mind?

The registrar's office wants to spend an hour with this committee to review the automated course revision forms and process. Meeting scheduled for Tuesday, December 11th at noon.

Motion to adjourn by G. Rohlf

 

 Minutes
Academic Affairs Committee - Special Topic
DUC 214
December 11, 2012
12:00 - 1:00 PM

Present: A. Brown, J. Haffner, M. Draheim, L. Fox, L. Matz, A. Richard, G. Rohlf, E. Typpo, P. Rosson
Ex-Officio: A. Gillen
Guest: M. Camino
Not Present: A. Boboc, J. Uchizono, Q. Dong

This special Academic Affairs committee meeting is with the Registrar's Office to review the new course inventory management system which includes the automation of the Academic Affairs forms. Today, the course forms will be demonstrated and there will be discussion and decisions made on the forms used to change, add and delete courses. This will be the new way the university does business and it will keep historical records. This new system can be looked at simultaneously by the various reviewers, it will be tied to banner, the catalog, and xml links will be available for department websites. The program change forms are not ready yet, and will be brought forward in the future.

Megan Camino demonstrated the new program: the userid will be the pacificnet id, and the link will be in insidePacific. For current courses, the new system will automatically populate the form with current information, and you will only need to enter the changes that are being made.

A decision is needed on the requested effective change date, which is the start date of when the course can be offered. The committee recommended one month out prior to the beginning of the schedule going live, beginning on the 1st of the month: September 1 for spring and February 1 for fall.

The course numbering process will remain the same: contact the registrar's office to receive available numbers.

The necessary signatures can be gathered simultaneously, such as Graduate Studies, Library, ELOC. This will be electronic and appear in the appropriate person's email inbox. Reminders will be sent out after one week of no action.

The program has the ability to include information buttons and add links if additional information is necessary to explain the questions on the forms. The registrar's office will have access to update this information, and they will automatically be tied to the webpages that are linked. The software company will provide training to the university community.

Additional items discussed included:
• The title still at 30 characters, if it goes longer then a short title field will appear.
• Catalog description and catalog prerequisites are 2 different fields.
• The forms will only come to academic affairs once all signatures are completed.
• "Does this course satisfy a requirement in your major/program?" The answer should be ‘No" if it is a general elective.
• Registration information (for banner)
• Relationship to other courses - cross listing - explained
• Final buttons: Cancel, save changes, admin save, save & submit
• Admin save will only be available to Lourdes Reyes (Academic Affairs Committee support) and the registrar's office.

The registrar's office would like to have 20 minutes at the January meeting of the Academic Affairs Committee.

Second topic of today's meeting: Review Academic Program Proposal Guidelines

Lou Matz met with the provost after the last Academic Affairs meeting and she provided additional clarification: These guidelines will be included in what will become the new program proposal form in the new automated form process. There will not be two separate review processes. This will provide full transparency. The provost will review new program proposals prior to going through the process, but regardless of her opinion of the proposal it will go through the review process. She will not have authority to block it. Ultimately, the board of regents have informed the president and the provost, that they will not approve any programs unless they have the president and the provost's support. The expectations for the market research, and the program budget are that the process of bringing forth a new degree program will include many conversations between the dean and the provost's office. The amount of market research necessary will depend on the cost of the program. If there is a need for external market research, the provost's office can help defray the costs.

This is good information, but it is not transparent in the guidelines. The multiple conversations between the dean and the provost and the non-binding review by the provost is not mentioned in the guidelines. There should be an outcome of these meetings, a document that results from these meetings, perhaps a summary or notes of her feedback. A suggestion was made to develop a flow chart of the process and the approval levels.

During stage 2, the initial review (current process) - the provost should articulate goals, and allocate resources. During stage 1, perhaps include the institutional effectiveness committee in the process. This will include program quality, as well as the business side of it, perhaps IPC?

Where is this process established? The faculty handbook? The provost's office? The committee believes that the declaration of intent form should be 1-2 pages. Perhaps have the dean versus the provost sign off on the intent form. The quality assurance piece should be involved as well - Institutional Effectiveness Director or committee member. Perhaps a member on the academic affairs committee.

Issue is tabled until January.

Meeting adjourned.