Undergraduate Education Academic Council (UEAC)
Minutes – October 14, 2014
Committee members present:
Asao B. Inoue, Director of Writing,
Brian Goda, Institute of Technology
Deirdre Raynor, Director of OUE
Emily Sanchez Ignacio,Associate Dean of Students, IAS
Julie Masura, IAS
Jill Purdy, Milgard School of Business
Kelvin Keowan, Teaching and Learning Center
Kim Davenport, OUE
Laura Feuerborn, Education
Linda Hurley Ishem, Urban Studies (excused)
Nicole Blair, Asst. Director OUE
Tarna Derby McCurtain, Social Work
Tanya Velasquez, IAS
Christine Stevens, Nursing and Healthcare leadership, Chair
Invited guest: W. Kunz, acting vice chancellor
The meeting was called to order at 3pm.
I. Bill Kunz summarized the purpose of the taskforce report as addressing retention and to make schools and program more responsible to the Core. Bill stated that the taskforce memo would move the CORE in another direction and we needed to do something right now. Kunz stated that a solution might be to put the administration of the Core into the School of IAS.
II. Dr. Raynor reported to the group that her comments to the final taskforce report were not added and she was invited to share those comments in this meeting. Those points include:
a. OUE Task Force recommendations will provide a starting point for discussing structure of OUE
b. need to pay some attention to the retention consultant's report and make sure that whatever model we implement will incorporate some of the strengths of core as identified by the consultants.
c. the proposed plan may work especially well with students who know what they want to do in terms of major; however, do not believe that most of the students we serve know what they want to major in upon their arrival. Whatever model we use has to account for folks who do not know what they want to do.
d. We also have to make sure that we build and maintain a community of learners and teachers, especially for the freshmen, and both could easily be lost if we implement the new model without acknowledging the need for creating a sense of community among the freshmen and the people teaching them(i.e. faculty development is crucial).
e. advisors need a chance to weigh in to make sure we do not inadvertently place students at a disadvantage in terms of when they declare majors, what grade must be earned for let's say a composition courses, etc.
III. Concern expressed by members of the committee were:
a. Where is the data and evidence that this taskforce used to produce the document?
b. Retention is a crisis and we have best practices to address issues of retention right now. Why can we not implement those right away and take time to think about the revision of the CORE? (WHERE IS THE RETENTION REPORT?)
c. If Retention is the reason for moving quickly, why is there no mention of retention in this taskforce memo? How does this memo address retention if that is the focus ?
d. What is the role of faculty in this curriculum development? What is the role of the directors and who has the authority?
e. Need to have a framework where faculty have input into the process
f. Have we looked at any other models?
g. Why is the timeline so tight? Change is needed but a longer timeline might make sure it is done in a thoughtful vision and action
h. What are the support structures? what about the resources needed for this change?
i. Need cross campus conversation about the core
j. What about the students?
i. How to establish learning communities and what framework are we using?
ii. What about best practices in teaching, faculty development, curriculum development?
iii. What about freshman seminars?
iv. What about developing best practices around diversity in teaching, faculty?
v. What data do we have about retention practices targeted to our students?
IV. Agenda for the next meeting
a. Provide Chancellor and Vice Chancellor with a document about our concerns about rapid implementation of taskforce memo
Respectfully submitted
Christine Stevens – Chair UEAC
FINAL AUG 29 2014
To: Kenyon Chan, Chancellor
From: Ali Modarres
CC: Bill Kunz, Interim Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs
Nicole Blair, Sharon G. Fought, Cedric B. Howard, Ginger MacDonald, Deirdre Raynor, Christine Stevens
Date: August 27, 2014
Re: Undergraduate Education
The ad hoc task force on undergraduate education has been meeting since late July to discuss options for the freshman and sophomore experience and curriculum, transition to majors, and related undergraduate education topics at UWT. The primary goals of the task force were to:
1. Design a seamless undergraduate experience for our students.
2. Offer recommendations for reorganization and/or renaming of the Office of Undergraduate Education (OUE).
Design for Seamless Undergraduate Experience
Given our collective desire for efficiency and a smoother student transition into majors, we agreed to recommend a model that:
1. can be used by all academic units (through faculty input on all curricular and programmatic issues);
2. uses as many current 100-level and 200-level courses as possible (including current TCore courses that could be converted and offered by the relevant academic unit, under our collective desire for ‘truth in labeling’ with respect to having specific, descriptive course titles and descriptions); and,
3. allows for the creation of new 100 and 200 level courses, as needed
Using the university schedule for proposal and review of new courses, we also offer a timeline for the adoption of the new model.
With these goals and objectives in mind, we developed a simplified student decision model to guide students for the first two years toward a seamless transition to majors, (see last page for a graphic illustration of the model). In other words, we wanted to remain cognizant of all possible situations, including freshman admit, early admission to a major, community college transfer, change of major (due to degree requirements for a particular major or student initiated change), etc. In all cases, we wanted to insure that the Areas of Knowledge (AoK)[1] and other General Education (GE) courses taken during the first two years are counted toward completion of all undergraduate degrees. As such, we adopted the following four principles:
1. The first year and the second year should be viewed as gateways to degrees.
2. Transfer students will have their transcripts evaluated to determine which courses meet the AoK/GE requirements (as is done currently).
3. Pathways to degrees planning documents should incorporate the first and the second year educational experiences of our students.
4. AoK/GE courses should be taken in the first two years (for freshmen). However, students should not be penalized if some AoK/GE courses are taken later in their time at UWT.
Based on the student decision model (see last page) and the four principles above, we outline our detailed recommendations below:
1. The 1st year will consist of 9 courses in existing AoK/GE:
· All freshmen will take one composition course to fulfill that requirement.
· All students starting as a “freshman admit” should take 9 AoK/GE courses; one or more of these courses can be chosen to meet admission requirements to the majors
· Freshmen without a major designation will take 9 AoK/GE courses (those with an inclination toward particular majors should be advised to take one or more of these courses in their areas of interest).
2. Given the importance of adequate orientation and retention of students, the university should consider having a course in introduction to higher education for ‘first time in college’ freshmen. The staffing and operational aspects of such a course need to be fully discussed. There are a number of universities that offer such a course. However, the model varies in content and delivery methods.
3. The faculty teaching first year courses across different academic units are encouraged to collaborate on themes.
4. Students who have not yet been admitted to a major by the end of the 1st year will take 9 additional AoK/GE electives during their 2nd year at UWT. With help from the advising center and academic programs, these 9 courses should bring students closer to being admitted to a major.
5. For those students who are not admitted to their desired majors or wish to change major, special advisement will be required.
6. By the end of the second year, advisement will be needed for those students who are still not admitted to a major or have not decided on or applied to a major.
7. If all goes according to the plan, a significant majority of students should have a major designation by the end of their second year (or equivalent to finishing the required 18 AoK/GE courses).
By the beginning of the 3rd year, every student should have a major designation. With the help of their academic advisors, programs will monitor the progress of students along their related academic program of study.
Academic Unit Responsibilities
8. All new and converted (from TCore designation) 100-level courses should request designation as an area of knowledge (with full consideration of the “Washington 45” requirements; see appendix I). However, the title and description of the course should be changed to follow the principle of “truth in labeling.”
9. Academic units will schedule their own AoK/GE courses. However, OUE should be informed about the pattern and the number of sections on a regular basis.
10. Since these courses act as gateways to disciplines, choosing which faculty members teach them is important.
11. Academic units may want to evaluate the possibility of giving special considerations for teaching AoK/GE courses.
12. Academic units should be encouraged to design a 1st year seminar course and a capstone course for the senior year within the major. The 1st year course should be forward looking and prepare students for their 2nd year, as well as helping them map the remainder of their academic experience at UWT. The curriculum committee in each academic unit will make the final determination regarding the necessity and the design of such courses.
13. Academic Pathways for each major should be designed with the 18 AoK/GE courses in mind. Degrees that require more than 90 credits of prescribed disciplinary courses should pay particular attention to this issue. In such cases, the inclusion of their own AoK/GE courses as a part of the degree requirement may be considered a solution.
14. In designing their academic pathways, each academic unit should consider all possible ways in which our students arrive on campus (freshman admits, transfer students, etc.). Based on the adopted model, however, most students with a designated major will join a program after the completion of 18 AoK/GE courses. As indicated above, transfer students will have their transcripts evaluated to determine which courses meet the AoK/GE requirements.
15. Given that courses will no longer be labeled as TCORE XXX, we need to label courses according to appropriate AoK (in compliance with “Washington 45” requirements, See Appendix I).
16. Creating a sense of community will become a campus-wide and program-based activity.
Timelines:
If UWT decides to implement this model by Autumn 2015, the following timeline needs to be used:
1. By November 2014 (based on the university schedule), all modifications and new course proposals should be approved by School/Program Curriculum Committees. Related program revisions should be submitted at the same time.
2. By December 10, 2014, all approved course proposals should be forwarded to APCC.
3. By Jan 15, 2015 programs should also prepare and submit a new Academic pathway program document that incorporates the proposed changes (for each degree).
4. By January 15, 2015, the structured model must be adopted for implementation (for students entering Fall 2015). SAES will need approval of revised model prior to admission of incoming students.
OUE (Roles and Responsibilities):
We agree that the Office of Undergraduate Education should report directly to the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and not be affiliated with any one program.
If we implement this model, OUE should have a role in planning, implementing and evaluating the model. Details will need to be worked out with VCAA.
Furthermore, the university (i.e., VCAA) should identify any and all relationships between Undergraduate Education Academic Council, future OUE, and academic units.
Assessment:
In conjunction with the UWT Office of Academic Affairs, a plan should be designed for formative assessment (each year) and summative assessment (at the end of year three) of the operation of the new model. It is beyond the scope of this committee to create such a design. However, we offer the following as items to be considered/included in the assessment document (but it should not be limited to these items only):
1. Prior to Fall 2015, establish a baseline in relation to item 2 (below) for comparative purposes.
2. Major Designation and Retention Data
a. Autumn 1 to Spring 1 (Major designation) – Given that we admit students every quarter, we suggest that quarterly reports be generated. This data will report students who have finished three full quarters (equivalent to 45 credits) at UWT.
1. Number of students who have completed 3 quarters
2. Count by major and total
3. Number of students without a major
Autumn 1 and 2 to Spring 2 (Major designation) – For the reason stated above, quarterly reports will be necessary for all students who have completed six full quarters at UWT (equivalent to 90 credits).
1. Number of students who have completed 6 quarters
2. Count by major and total
3. Number of students without a major
3. The number of required advisement interventions at the end of year 2 (or completion of 90 credits); also provide total number of students in that cohort.
4. Before the end of the 1st year (or equivalent of 45 credits), OUE will identify and alert academic units about the number of freshmen interested in the majors.
5. For transfer students
i. Autumn 1 # without and with major designations: count by major and total.
ii. Spring 1 no major designation or changed majors: count by major and total.
6. DWIF Report
7. Identify roadblocks (e.g., courses, quarters, etc.). For this report, we may need to create surveys.
Resources:
OUE
In order to implement this model, we recommend resources including and not limited to:
1. Director
2. Assistant Director
3. Program coordinator
4. Program Analyst
5. Program Administrator
6. Office staff
(These items are to be determined and negotiated with VCAA)
Faculty Related Resources:
1. Faculty resources for teaching any new courses (to be determined by Deans and Directors, in collaboration with their faculty members).