March 1 2012Minutes
Academic Affairs Committee
DeRosa University Center 211A/B
March 1, 2012
3:00 - 5:00 PM
Present: M. Battacharyya, E. Boyce, A. Brown, M. Draheim, B. Gundersen, A. Richard, G. Rohlf, E. Typpo, S. Waltz
Ex-Officio: P. Rosson, B. Shaw
Not Present: Q. Dong, A. Boboc, A. Dinh, M. Smith
Guests: P. Langham, S. Rowe
Call to Order @ 3:05 pm
I. Approval of Minutes
February 2, 2012
M. Draheim moves to approve, S. Waltz seconds, motion unanimously approved.
College of the Pacific
ENGL 105 Technical Writing
School of Engineering and Computer Science
Civil Engineering Department
CIVL 231 Surface Water Quality Modeling
CIVL 236 Physical and Chemical Treatment Processes
CIVL 237 Biological Treatment Processes
Computer Science Department
COMP 251 Multi-Agent Systems (title and prerequisite change)
Mechanical Engineering Department
MECH 200 Computer Aided Manufacturing
Conservatory of Music
The Brubeck Institute
MUBI 150 Brubeck Fellows Seminar
M. Draheim requests that MUBI 150 be pulled from consent agenda.
M. Draheim moves to approve consent agenda, E. Boyce seconds, motion unanimously approved.
M. Draheim moves to approve MUBI 150 with a friendly reminder to update the disability statement, E. Boyce seconds, motion unanimously approved.
III. Program Changes
Conservatory of Music
The Brubeck Institute
Brubeck Institute Fellowship
P. Langham, and S. Rowe, from Conservatory and Brubeck Institute in attendance to discuss proposal to integrate the Brubeck Institute Fellowship program into the Jazz Studies program in the conservatory. They will create an accelerated degree program option available for the Brubeck Fellows. This requires the creation of a new course including repertoire, composition, and styles. It provides the ability to avoid course duplication between the Jazz Studies Program and the Brubeck Institute.
S. Rowe stated that the Brubeck Institute has five full scholarship students, not degree seeking, staying for 1-2 years. We currently have two programs with no crossover. This proposal will allow them to bring both programs together. Students compete on a national level to receive a scholarship, with no end goal of obtaining a degree from Pacific. This makes it difficult to make students accountable. These are highly talented and highly academic students as well.
Comments: The admissions criteria in the proposal is not clear. Entrance as conservatory students is not clear in the document, a process is explained, but not criteria for admittance.
The assessment plan in the proposal is of the student, not the program. This body (AA) requires an assessment of the program and its ability to meet its learning objectives.
What are the risks of changing the program? This will totally change the complexion of a fellow, because now they will be in an accelerated 3 year degree program.
All fellows will now have to seek a degree. This is similar to advanced placement, getting credit for prior knowledge. Each student will have to be individually assessed.
E. Boyce moves for approval of the program based on review in one year of their assessment, motion withdrawn.
M. Draheim moves for approval, and asks that the assessment plan be brought to this committee at the April 26th meeting, and a friendly reminder to clarify disability language in syllabus, E. Boyce seconds. Also, add "must meet admissions criteria requirements for University." Motion unanimously approved.
IV. Credit Hour Policy
Discussion on lack of definitions in this document of types of courses. Working session to update policy. Final version attached to minutes.
G. Rohlf moves to approve, A. Brown seconds, motion unanimously approved.
V. Policy for Blended and Online Courses
Discussion and working session on policy. Final version attached to minutes.
G. Rohlf moves to approve, E. Boyce seconds, motion unanimously approved.
VI. Forms Update
VII. Syllabus Required Elements - Revision
VIII. Academic Calendar
IX. What's on your mind?
Meeting adjourned at 5:20
Did not discuss items VI-IX.
Attachments: Credit Unit Policy & Policy for Blended/Hybrid and Online Courses
CREDIT UNIT POLICY - 3.1.12
The designation of 45 hours of academic work is considered the standard to define a semester unit. However, since the amount of student work per unit generally includes an estimate of student preparation and studying, courses that come within 10% of meeting that requirement (at least 40.5 hours of academic work) will be determined to meet the designated level of student work for one semester unit. As stated in the University's Faculty Handbook in Section 11.10 Contact Hours in Relation to Hours of Credit, Lecture Courses will be scheduled to allow 15 hours of lecture (one lecture hour is equal to 50 minutes). This standard applies to face-to-face courses and synchronous online courses. Each unit of credit is further assumed to generate a minimum of 30 hours (2 hours per week during a traditional 15 week semester or equivalent) of additional outside-of-class work (e.g. study, exam preparation, etc.).
|Type of course||Instructor contact hours per semester unit||Student preparation hours per semester unit||Total hours per semester unit
|Internship, clinical, experiential||Variable||...||45|
On-line and blended/hybrid courses are expected to meet the same standards as traditional courses for "instructional" time. In these courses, contact with instructors may take place via various modes of distance technology.
Contact Hour Monitoring
Primary monitoring responsibility for courses rests with department chairs and/or academic unit administrators who have oversight responsibility for those courses. The Center for Professional and Continuing Education may provide support and assistance for monitoring to academic units for online and blended/hybrid courses.
All new courses are evaluated by a process which includes departmental and college reviews, academic committee reviews including Academic Affairs and other appropriate committees (See Faculty Handbook, 11.4 Curriculum Changes). This review process includes justification of the requested units to be assigned to the courses based on the definition(s) for what constitutes a credit hour relative to the expected learning activities to be performed by students. Formal monitoring occurs as a part of the regular Program Review process which includes evaluation of the appropriate allocation of units assigned to all coursework (See Faculty Handbook, 10.2 Review of Academic Programs).
Policy for Blended / Hybrid and online courses
1. A blended or hybrid course is defined as a course where a meaningful portion of the course is taught face to face and a meaningful portion of the course is delivered in an on-line or mobile learning setting(s).
2. the following guideline apply to blended and online courses
a. blended and online courses may be offered following consultation with the department chair, and must be approved by the appropriate committees including Academic Affairs. Approved courses being transitioned to blended/hybrid or on-line must be approved in the new delivery format
b. Blended/hybrid and online courses will be identified as such in the official schedule of classes and student will be made aware of any requirements for participation in synchronous class activities outside class session times indicated in the schedule
c. the course syllabus will indicate any software and/or hardware required for full participation in class
d. ownership of materials, faculty compensation, copyright issues and the use of revenue derived from the creation and production of blended/hybrid and on-line courses, including software, or other media products shall be in accordance with the policy on Intellectual Property
e. courses offered as online courses will meet all the standards for course approval
f. students enrolled in online and blended course will have the same rights (access to advising, grievances, and all other academic rights) and have the same responsibilities expected of all students
3. New on-line programs
a. Programs in which 50 percent or more of the courses are delivered online must be approved by WASC.