July 26, 2011

Shared Governance Committee: Chris Pastore, Rob Fleming, Nancy Howard, Rachel Wilson, Valerie Hansen, Barbara Kimmelman, Rick Shain, Randy Swearer, Gwynne Keathley

Red text is current charges (either pulled from Nancy’s charges document or GK document on a committee charge)

Student Learning and Assessment committee

Membership (16 total)

Elected faculty (2 from each college) = 6

Assessment Advocates (ex officio) = 3

Appointed members: Information Literacy; Student Life; Writing; Learning & Advising, Director; Provost office representative, CPS = 6

Chair, faculty elected at large = 1

Charges of the current assessment committee (taken from Gwynne’s notes on the committee - need to be reviewed and updated)

  • coordinates the University assessment of student learning
  • provides information for institutional learning outcomes review and assessment
  • defines process and guidelines for development of program goals and learning outcomes
  • coordinates the assessment of learning outcomes, determines the benchmarks for review and analysis, and the process for responding to the assessment
  • works with School Education Committee’s to perform assessment measures on a timely basis
  • reviews course proposal formats to ensure assessment and alignment of program goals and outcomes

Academic Standards and Integrity

Membership (13)

Chair faculty elected at large = 1

Advising advocates (ex officio) = 3

Elected faculty = 1 from each college

Appointed (advisory, vote on appeals): Registrar, Admissions, Learning and Advising, CPS, Dean of Student, honors? (6)

In addition to the charges below (from discussion and Nancy’s charges document in red), this committee will create the college mechanism and provide guidelines to the colleges for reviewing academic integrity cases.

Charges:

  • Presents guidelines for faculty to follow for academic integrity process at college level and appeal to the ASI committee
  • Appeals process, aging credits, transfer advising
  • Recommend policy
  • Survey of academic integrity
  • Retention
  • Review and make recommendations for approval to the University faculty for changes to policies and procedures concerning academic progress toward fulfillment of each undergraduate student’s degree requirements
  • Review and make recommendations for approval to the University faculty for changes to policies and procedures concerning criteria for undergraduate scholastic probation, terminal probation and dismissal of undergraduate students who have not demonstrated reasonable progress toward fulfillment of their degree requirements
  • Review and make recommendations for approval to the University faculty for changes to policies and procedures concerning the hearing of appeals from undergraduate students dismissed from the University for not demonstrating reasonable progress toward fulfillment of their degree requirements
  • Hear appeals of academic dismissal from undergraduate students and act on those appeals
  • Review and make recommendations for approval to the University faculty for changes to policies and procedures concerning the University grading system, grading options (e.g., CR/NC, INC, AU) and grade inclusion/exclusion when repeating courses or changing majors
  • Review and make recommendations for approval to the University faculty for changes to policies and procedures concerning students changing between day and evening divisions, leave-of-absence and re-entry to the University
  • Review and make recommendations for approval to the University faculty for changes to policies and procedures concerning evaluation of transfer, AP or CLEP credits, transfer of credits after matriculation, “aging” of credits (including transfer credits), residency requirements and placement testing
  • Initiate research into the academic performance, remedial placement rates and probation and dismissal rates for the undergraduate student body, and report on these annually to the faculty

Student Conduct Committee

  • Run by Student Life
  • Can pull from Academic Standards committee, as needed
  • Students serve on it
  • Faculty pulled in as needed (pool of faculty)

Academic Opportunities & Oversight

Membership

Nexus advocates (ex officio) = 3

Chair elected at large

Advisory: Library Staff, OIT

Charges

Addresses curriculum and issues that are not college-based such as:

New program development

Promote Nexus Learning pedagogy

Co-curricular and FYE

(College Studies)

Information literacy

Study abroad

Honors Program

  • Subcommittees with elected people + appointed people
  • Big committee meet once a month and the subcommittee would meet once a month (so each member has a meeting every 2 weeks)
  • Include topics related to teaching and learning in the classroom (Holistic approach to teaching and learning and curriculum and teaching)

How it would work:

Task Forces/Ad hoc subcommittee to be created when needed to address charges on an intensive basis, which may become permanent if the task force/ad hoc committee persists and the need for ongoing work becomes apparent. Any entity of the University, including faculty committees, Deans, representatives from the Provost’s office and other offices could approach this committee (through the Shared Governance Committee?) and others when needs for task forces/ ad hoc committees arise.

  • Subcommittee could meet for as long as needed to accomplish a task, create guidelines, etc.
  • Once established, the big committee would assume the responsibility (check in on the task).

General concerns/questions

  • Concern about effectiveness of subcommittees
  • Concern about communication. We need to ensure communication with this new structure
  • How do we create a committee like new programs that can be about incubation, creativity, synthesis, integration, growth? Do you want to look at this committee to say yes/no? This committee can find ways to combining them or leveraging them off other programs. Also want to support new program development at college level.
  • Concern about relinquishing control of the college studies program in terms of content. Much of what colleges want would not be taught with the same liberal arts critical perspective if it were taught in the majors.

College studies committee proposal

  • Create a sub committee of the education committee of C-SHLA, with an advisory board from majors

Counter proposals:

  • College Studies should be separate from the college committees. It is too important and relates to all undergraduate programs and curricula.
  • A university-wide committee that addresses curricula that cuts across colleges. It captures the emerging concepts for new program development of subject-ecosystems that tie programs, courses, and offerings together around a core capability within the University (i.e. sustainability, fashion). It also addresses college studies and its integrative role with all of the majors. [Randy had a proposed title for this committee – “Academic Integration Committee.”] Leveraging and Ecosystems Committee?

How can we focus on the mechanism of the committee structure (and not get tied down with discussions of teaching, content, subject-matter, etc.)?

COMMITTEES WE DID NOT DISCUSS:

(but some discussion and work at other meetings generated suggested charges, etc.)

Shared Governance Committee

Membership?

Function?

Charges?

Promotion and Tenure Committee

Membership?

Charges?

Budget and Resources Committee

Membership?

Charges?

The College-level committees