September 5, 2013
Academic Affairs Committee
3:00 - 5:00 PM
Present: M. Draheim, J. Haffner, Y. Kim, L. Fox, M. Lee, L. Matz, S. Merry, G. Rohlf, J. Uchizono
Guests: Eileen McFall, Provost Maria Pallavicini, Pete Schroeder
Not Present: Q. Dong, A. Huang
I. Welcome by Chair Greg Rohlf
II. Review Committee Charge
Chair Rohlf reviewed the committee charge FHB 6.2.1 Academic Affairs Committee (AAC). As chair he would like to consider expanding the purview of the committee and encompass the current issues at the university above and beyond the curriculum itself. This will include assessment and academic program review. He invited Eileen McFall, Director of Learning and Academic Assessment, today to provide an update on the current status of assessment and program review. Academic Affairs used to have oversight over Academic Program Review, but two years ago the Institutional Effectiveness Committee (IEC) was created as a pilot and this responsibility was suspended from the AAC. The committee charge is in need of review and possibly updating. In the past, AAC members would assist in producing Program Reviews and was in integral part of this process. Although the old process was flawed, the new process has not improved the process and it may be worse than in the past. Dave Chase will discuss Institutional Effectiveness in the future. This committee will continue to be responsible for quality assurance of new and revised programs and courses, and ensure unit curriculum committees are doing their job well. With the passage of the new processes and requirements for curricular proposals passed by this committee last academic year, the current committee charge requires updating. The goal will be that by the December 5th meeting, the executive committee will meet and prepare revised language, which will then be forwarded to the Professional Relations Committee and then to Academic Council.
III. Election of Chair-Elect
L. Fox nominates Jim Uchizono, L. Matz seconds. Jim is elected with one abstention.
IV. Academic Assessment - Eileen McFall, Director of Learning and Academic Assessment
Status of academic assessment at the university: She is going to focus on WASC requirements because we are trying to meet accreditation requirements in a way that is useful and meaningful for academic programs. We need to articulate what we want students to learn and gather, analyze and interpret data and make decisions so that programs are happy with what students are learning and making useful decisions. The catalyst is WASC but we get to determine how we do it and how useful and relevant it is to us. She brought the WASC rubric to assess institutional effectiveness. In spring 2015 we need to produce an interim report showing that we have developed a system of assessment of student learning. The details can be found on the provost's webpages. To develop a method to follow the rubric: degree programs need to articulate student learning outcomes, collect student work/data, or meaningful external assessments (capstones, proof that students are achieving knowledge and skills that the faculty want the students to achieve). The business school uses a testing model. She is not sure that the entire university wants to follow this model. We also need to develop a system to collect data on students after they graduate.
Assessment Working Group - formed in spring 2010 by Provost Gilbertson with initial charge to bring together representatives from all schools to coordinate what they are doing in regards to assessment. This is not a formal committee, they can recommend policy, but not set it. This committee meets 1x month during the academic year. This working group can help AAC with reviewing assessment plans for new programs that come before AAC. Networking and communication is its strength. This working group will play a role in the preparation of the interim report. Scott Merry would like to offer his expertise to Eileen since he has been part of six ABET accreditations.
There is a new WASC requirement and a new accreditation handbook was developed this summer, with additional assessment requirements. Perhaps Eileen should be an ex-officio member of this committee? This is something to consider when revisiting the charge of the committee.
V. Program Changes
College of the Pacific
Department of Health, Exercise & Sport Sciences
BS Health and Exercise Science
Pete Schroeder, chair of department presented this new program. This department has about 300 students with half (150) enrolled in the BA in Health and Exercise Science program. The BA is heavily science based with students planning on various different directions for this major. The program is too big and needs more structure. Offering a BS would provide additional structure, with the plan of revising the curriculum once the BS is established. The department is not looking to grow, but is interested in offering their students that are strong in science another avenue. The department chairpersons of the various science programs have reviewed and provided their sign off on this new major.
L. Fox moves to approve, M. Draheim seconds, motion passes with unanimous approval.
MA Food Studies and Certificate Program
This item was passed at the April 25th meeting, subject to review of the budget. The committee still has questions about how to review the budget proposals and what to look for when reviewing them. For example, is there a specific number or range to look for? Do programs that are housed in SAC or SF have to pay rent to that campus? What has been the process for this specific budget? What happened since our last meeting? Gregg Jongeward, COP Associate Dean, responded to the provost's office's questions. The President has asked what the impact is to current programs. She wants specific details on when specific classes will be taught and what the delivery method will be. The Dean of the college also supports the need to answer these questions and delay the regent's approval until these questions are answered. Dean Fraden has asked some questions that may delay the start of this program as well.
The provost stated that specific targets have not been set, but we can't bring on new programs that don't generate revenue. The indirect costs have not been worked out yet, but this shouldn't hold up the proposal. There are no space issues, the dental school will be moving in the summer, so fall 2014 is still feasible.
S. Merry moves to table per the response from the dean's questions regarding staffing issues and Lydia's question regarding impact to other programs. No second.
J. Haffner moves to approve the budget, M. Draheim seconds, 1 abstention, motion passes.
Greg will email Dean Fraden the concerns of this committee (the impacts to undergraduate programs on the Stockton campus) and ask that she respond to the provost and cc this committee with her response.
Minutes - April 25, 2013
Course Changes -
Eberhardt School of Business
BUSI 278 International Entrepreneurship
College of the Pacific
Department of Communication
COMM 156/256 Public Relations Campaigns
COMM 152 Public Relations Administration
COMM 252 Public Relations Administration
Benerd School of Education
Department of Curriculum & Instruction
EDUC 254 Productive Learning Environments for Diverse Secondary Classrooms
EDUC 156/256 Content Area Literacy Development in Secondary Schools (Change in title and prerequisites)
School of Engineering & Computer Science
Department of Civil Engineering
CIVL 141 Foundation Design (Title change)
Department of Mechanical Engineering
MECH 140 Engineering Design/Senior Project I (Prerequisite change)
MECH 175 Systems Analysis and Control (Change in course description)
M. Lee would like to move MECH 140 and MECH 175 out of the consent agenda for discussion.
M. Draheim, moves to approve the rest of the consent agenda, J. Haffner seconds, consent agenda passes unanimously.
MECH 140: Objectives need to follow Bloom's Taxonomy
MECH 175: Needs a grading scale
L. Fox moves to approve MECH 140 and MECH 175 subject to submission of revised syllabi, S. Merry seconds, unanimous approval.
VII. BA/MBA International Commerce - update [L. Matz]
VIII. Provost - Maria Pallavicini
There are new WASC core competencies that as a University we are going to have to adhere to for accreditation and we have to show progress by spring 2015. We need to assess our Institutional Learning Objectives (ILO's), in a uniform manner throughout the University. The provost will be presenting this document at the Academic Council meeting next week and propose that the focus change to these 5 core competencies and move away from those ILO's where assessment is difficult, such as leadership. Currently, quantitative reasoning is not part of our ILOs, but it is one of the 5 core competencies required by WASC. Faculty will be going to WASC workshops to learn how to incorporate this criteria. She has asked the dean's for names of faculty to send to these workshops. We must show progress, collect and use data for our accreditation. All WASC accredited universities are required to do this.
The provost also presented her priorities for the Academic Division in a handout. All faculty and staff must strive for excellence. As a committee we need to keep these priorities in mind and use this when revising our charge.
A question was raised about evaluation of new program budgets. It's important to look at new programs using a "reasonable" standard, critically review the narrative, ask ‘does it make sense?' We need to do the best we can and learn from each new program that comes forward. We would like new programs to be revenue generating, but this doesn't necessarily happen in one year. We want sustainable revenue streams.
When looking at new programs, ensure they are aligned with Pacific 2020. Review delivery of the program, ensure high quality. An Audiology program is coming forward soon. This committee should look at the new program criteria when evaluating programs. Academic components versus business components - How deep should this committee look into the business aspects? The budgets are put together by a team (C. Darnall, S. Roeny, J. Parra). The budget should be in good shape by the time it comes to Affairs. This committee should have an understanding of the budget and raise questions. The committee can decide if it is to approve the academic components only or include the budget as well, or this can be left to resource management to approve. The provost will accept the review of the academic components only. The purview of the faculty is the curriculum and how courses are delivered. Resource management is the purview of the deans.
IX. What's on your mind?