• Print

September 5, 2002

Academic Affairs Committee

Minutes of September 5, 2002

McCaffrey Center, Pine Room

 

Present:  Ron Hoverstad, Andrew Hudson, Jean Purnell, Eric Thomas, Rolando Lazaro, Bob Cox, Keith Hatschek, Therese West, Cecilia Rodriguez, Susan Sample, Ash Brown,

 

Absent:  Dennis Brennan, Jerry Hewitt

 

Guests:  Provost Gilbertson, Bruce La Brack, Ray Sylvester, Jon Schamber, Doug Tedards

 

I.       Chair Ron Hoverstad called the meeting to order at 3:10 p.m. and welcomed the committee members to the Fall 2002 session. 

II.     Chair Hoverstad gave a brief outline of the forms within the monthly packet.  There is one modification of a committee member list.  Therese West of the Conservatory of Music will replace Keith Hatschek. 

 

III.    Approval of the May 16, 2002 minutes

Motion: E. Thomas moved, R. Lazaro seconded to approve the minutes. 

Motion unanimously approved. 

 

IV.    Consent Agenda

         Motion: E Thomas moved, A. Hudson seconded to approve the consent agenda items. 

Motion unanimously approved

 

V.     AP/IB Policy Recommendations

         The Chair introduced the AB/IB Policy document by stating that last spring Jon Schamber addressed the committee on issues from the GE committee regarding assessment of the General Education program and introduced the one-page document as a forthcoming agenda item.  Jon Schamber/ director of General Education and Ray Sylvester, new incoming chair of the committee submitted a one-page description of the AP/IB policy recommendations.  Parts A, B and C of Item 1 are for the consideration of the Academic Affairs Committee.  Clarification of the recommendations was provided.  Item 2 will be presented to Academic Council.  Chair Hoverstad will write a memo to Becky Beal, Chair of Academic Council, stating the committee’s endorsement of the one-page policy recommendations and will attach the AP/IB document.

Motion: E. Thomas, seconded by B. Cox to approve the AP/IB policy recommendations. 

Motion passed unanimously.

 

VI.        Program Review

a. A draft list of the Program Review Panels, was supplied by Jean Purnell.  School of International Studies faculty conveyed concern that their panel as currently listed included only Engineering faculty.  R. Hoverstad clarified how the panels were formed.  Additional names of potential panel members will be submitted to the Chair from SIS.  The Committee on Graduate Studies will need to appoint or designate a liaison for the SIS panel.  The tentative Program Review Panels will be subject to department review.

 

b. The 12 proposed changes in the program review process were approved by the Academic Affairs Committee and accepted by Academic Council in May 2002.  A revised draft of the Program Review Guidelines incorporating the approved changes was provided to the members.  E. Thomas requested an amendment to Section D, first sentence to insert the word “or”.  The sentence should read …“either through its website or upon request from departments.” 

 

c. Provost Gilbertson explained the content of his March 1, 2002 memo to President DeRosa on Program Review recommendations and the Summary Document on Program Review Decisions that incorporated the: 1) President’s Decision, 2) Panel Recommendations and 3) Additional Recommendations.  The summary was prepared by Assistant Provost Purnell and reviewed by Provost Gilbertson and the school or college dean.  In order to effectively communicate the President’s decision both documents are considered necessary.  Because of its brevity, the memo to the president may appear to be vague but it is not meant to be.  The supporting summary document is detailed enough to be useful in future years.  Engineering: A master’s degree program in Bioengineering is expected to occur sometime in the next 5 to 10 years to heighten academic distinctiveness.  The Board of Regents designated an unrestricted gift of $200,000 from a foundation in San Francisco for Computer Science equipment.  Sport Science: In the Sport Sciences program, we need to identify support for equipment, facility renovation, development, and graduate scholarships.  The administration, funding, and role of the general service/physical activity courses should be re-evaluated and improved.  Psychology: The Psychology department’s collaboration with the Benerd School of Education’s Department of Educational Psychology will benefit both programs.  There needs to be a plan for computer equipment to develop in consultation with the rest of the College.  The Community Re-Entry Program is a multimillion dollar business that works with people who have severe mental illness.  This program has grown and space is a concern. 

 

d. The Provost referenced the packet of Program Review outcomes prepared by Purnell as demonstrating what has been accomplished in Program Review over the last five years.  A summary sheet shows actions taken on resource decisions.

 

VII.     No Program Changes

 

VIII.  Learning Assessment Report

   J. Purnell compiled a draft document dated August 28, 2002 listing learning objectives and assessment techniques of each academic unit.  The document, A Summary of Learning Assessment Plan Development and Implementation, shows the progress within the last five years of each unit.  This summary is a source of information that will be a valuable tool during the University’s 2009-10 WASC accreditation review as a plan that will show the development and implementation of assessment across the University. 

 

IX.    Adjournment

Motion: B. Cox moved, seconded by A. Brown to adjourn meeting.

Motion passed unanimously.   

 

         Meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m.

 

 

Submitted by

Rosie Fox, Academic Affairs Secretary