ASCRC Minutes 2/14/06

 

Members Present: J. Campana, S. Derry, V. Hedquist, C. Johnston, J. Luckowski, D. McCormick, D. Potts, M. Roscoe, A. Szalda-Petree, H. Thompson

Members Absent/Excused: J. Eglin, C. Henderson, A.Walker-Andrews

 

Ex-Officio Present: L. Carlyon, M. Hoell

 

Guest: Len Broberg- Chair EVST

 

Chair Luckowski called the meeting to order at 2:15p.m.

 

The minutes from 1/31/06 were approved.

 

Communications:

 

·         Chair Luckowski notified the committee that the curriculum items were approved at the Senate and there was some concerns expressed regarding the proposed policy changes on internships and declaration of major.  Senator Hand from Social Work raised concern that internships provide students the opportunity to develop important skills.  Chair Luckowski has spoken with Professor Garthwait and the department is now in agreement that 6 credits in addition to the required practicum are sufficient. Other concerns were expressed by Management and Environmental Studies.

EVST Chair Len Broberg apologized for missing the initial discussion on the issue. EVST requires 3 internship credits in the program.  Many students take advantage of the PEAS supervised internship through EVST 590.  However, many of their students end up with employment from the internships and the credit limit would restrict further opportunities. EVST only offers internships for credit/no credit.  EVST faculty advise between 30-60 students.  The policy would make faculty work around the rule for students in special circumstances. This takes additional faculty time.  Perhaps a way to address the issue would be to alter the policy to indicate that students may not take more than 6 internship credits for a grade. He will follow-up with Internship Services to see how many EVST students take over 6 credits of internships.

The declaration of a major policy also met with some opposition.  Senator McNulty, who advises general studies students, shared with Professor Roscoe a letter she sent to Associate Provost Walker Andrews. He read the letter.  She believes that the proposal will not have the desired affect. She doesn’t want students who are unsure to be bounced around from advisor to advisor as they try different majors and is uncomfortable with enforcement of the policy.

Melanie Hoell agreed that the earlier students have an academic direction the better.  The Undergraduate Advising Center has tracked undecided students and very few settle in the sciences. Science majors have a required sequence of courses that start the first semester.  They don’t have time to explore courses the first year without adding additional time to their program. Approximately 30% of undeclared students are working on raising their GPA in order to be accepted into a program.  A significant number of undecided students are post-baccalaureate and have no intention of earning a second degree.  Teacher licensure students fall into this group.  The financial burden is big factor in students not completing their degree, not just failure to pick a major.

Professor Szalda- Petree said students should not feel they must stay in a major that is clearly not right for them. There is the possibility that forcing an earlier declaration could have a negative impact on retention.

The committee members agreed that it would be helpful to review the data distributed to the deans that initiated the request.   Camie will request the information from Associate Provost Arlene Walker-Andrews.

Old Business:

 

·         Professor Szalda-Petree was unanimously elected Chair-elect.  He replaces Professor Johnston who is resigning from the university this spring.

·         The committee discussed the proposed credit increase for CRT 108 Word Processing. It seems that the course is teaching a skill and should have a T designation.  The committee was not willing to increase the credits without the T designation.  The proposal was declined unanimously.

New Business:

 

·         It might be helpful to have a set of guidelines for the operation of subcommittees.   Membership seems to be fairly stable.  There are advantages and disadvantages to this. Continuity is beneficial because members are familiar with the process.  However, there could be some bias and occasionally inertia.  Subcommittee chairs typically have given the subcommittee the option to discuss the proposals electronically or meet in person.  The process is working fine.

Chair Luckowski received a call last year from a member on an FEC committee requesting information on one of the subcommittee member’s involvement.  A short year-end summary report from the subcommittee chair might be appropriate.  It would make the process more transparent and would give the next year’s subcommittee chair an idea of what to expect.  Professor Potts did not think this extra step is necessary. 

 

·         Professor Ausland requested in a memo that the committee “identify and, where appropriate, explain for the record the rules it means to use.”  He suggests that the committee regularly place “Unfinished Business” ahead of “New Business.” In the fall semester, in particular, it has been the committee’s practice to schedule each subcommittee group on specific dates, hence, this new business precedes any unfinished business.  This allows the subcommittee chair to know the date by which their subcommittee’s initial review of proposals is to be done.  As well, until each subcommittee group presents its report, the amount of follow-up is not known; the subcommittee chairs need sufficient time to get this work done.  Professor Johnston reported that it was somewhat frustrating to have had his follow-up information ready but have only a few minutes or no time at the end of a meeting to report and discuss it.  Professor McCormick pointed out that using the current system all curriculum proposals went before the Faculty Senate in time for including in next year’s catalog; with only a few exceptions all proposals were voted on by the Senate by December, 2005.  There was discussion that the chair might choose to take up unfinished business at the beginning of a meeting, especially if it was clear that items could be resolved quickly.  The scheduled subcommittee report could then follow.  Each ASCRC chair will, as is her or his prerogative, decide on the order of the committee’s business.

·         Some preliminary data has been collected on Preceptorship courses.  More information is required on how the courses are operated.

Committee Reports

·         The Writing Committee met last week and was updated on the Writing Center activities and the latest UDWPA data.  This information will be disseminated to ASCRC and Director Mattina will be invited to answer any questions.
The Director of Composition will present her idea for the writing program at the next Writing Committee meeting March 9th.

·         Both the Ethics Subcommittee and Natural Science Subcommittee will present on February 28th.

Good and Welfare

·         Members were curious about the recent memo from the Provost pertaining to the assignment of course grades.  Apparently it was in response to a grade that was temporarily changed by an administrator pending the outcome of a student’s grievance. The responsibility of grade assignment lies with the faculty and is codified in the collective bargaining agreement.



The meeting was adjourned at 3:50 PM.