Minutes - Faculty Senate Academic Affairs Committee
March 9, 2017
Present: Rodney Bransdorfer, Clem Ehoff, Christos Graikos, Dan Lipori, Danielle Neal, Lindsey Brown, Tim Englund
Absent: Janet Finke, Deepak Iyengar, David Martin, Matt Altman, Wendy Cook
The meeting was called to order at 3:33 p.m.
Minutes of Feb. 23, 2017 were approved.
Chair updates:
a. Provost’s response to Final Exam Week question
A question regarding the final exam week policy came up at the end of fall or beginning of winter quarter. Dan reported that he contacted the provost to get her interpretation of the policy. Specifically he asked for an interpretation of “expected” in the policy, but received a response that wasn’t much different from the actual policy and didn’t clarify things. Lindsey added that the policy needs to be updated to state that final exam week is Tuesday – Friday, not Monday – Thursday as currently stated. The current policy also says Safari but should say MyCWU.
Rodney indicated that finals week is part of the required contact hours. If faculty aren’t meeting, someone could potentially get upset over that. He suggested asking the provost if she would like to see the AAC replace “expected” with “required” because technically finals week is required class time in order to meet instructional hours. Lindsey explained that 50 instructional days are required per quarter, and winter is the hardest time to meet that due to the number of holidays. Finals week helps with meeting that requirement.
Clem asked if faculty could give an exam the previous week and then do something different (e.g. a “culminating experience”) during finals week. Lindsey and Rodney indicated the recent policy stating that any test given the week before finals week can’t be more than 20% of the total course grade.
Dan suggested surveying the college deans to find out how they interpret “expected.” If a faculty member were to challenge the policy because it doesn’t say “required,” it would go to a dean for review, then to the AAC. Tim indicated that his position as a dean would be to require an exam. Rodney pointed out that changing “expected” to “required” would eliminate the ambiguity. He suggested contacting the Associate Provost of Accreditation since it relates to meeting contact hours required for accreditation. Dan will contact Bernadette about the issue.
b. Other
Dan reported that there is still no word on the college reorganization policy. Also, the admissions policy was taken off the table right before the Senate meeting. International Programs wanted to look at it again.
Old Business
a. Interdisciplinary Programs Policy
Dan indicated that there isn’t really anything new to discuss with the policy after the numerous revisions were made at the last two meetings; however, Janet Finke emailed a minor wording suggestion:
Part 2 Program Director, Part C – change “get” to “receive.”
The policy was approved as amended.
b. Interpretation of CWUP 5-90-040(30) Course Substitutions
Lindsey indicated that she found some course substitutions that are not consistent with the B.AS degree, which came up last time when trying to define “similar in content.” This is not being used in just the B.AS degree but also the B.S. degree, and mostly in ITAM. Rodney pointed out that last time the committee decided it was a bad idea to be that specific in the policy. Dan indicated that that was the reason for adding the dean, so that there’s someone who can be accountable.
Suggestions for wording changes:
Rodney – take out “with” in the second sentence.
Clem – replace “meet” with “satisfy”
Danielle – “as determined per…” doesn’t sound right.
Rodney – change “as determined per…” to “as determined by the dean.”
The policy was approved as amended.
c. Diversity Syllabi Statement
Rodney questioned “B. University Mandated Requirements.” What are those other requirements, where are they, and should they be mentioned or linked in this policy? Tim indicated that they are in part A of the policy, but Rodney pointed out that part A says “should” and part B says “must.” Dan also questioned “University Mandated Requirements” – what are they? ADA, etc.? University mandated means someone else is telling us something has to be there. Rodney indicated that he would expect academic dishonesty to be included there, but it’s in the “should,” not “must” category.
Dan pointed out that some of part A should be listed under “must.” As the policy currently reads, even the course title and location can be optional on the syllabus. Rodney indicated that number 8 (schedule) is the only thing that should be optional because there has to be some flexibility there. Dan added that number 4 (course special conditions or requirements) are optional in most circumstances unless it’s an online or hybrid course. He mentioned a policy on electronic devices, which instructors often add to their syllabi, but it’s not a requirement.
Lindsey questioned if the university ADA statement can be added to the policy. Tim indicated that everything mentioned on the policy should be required content for syllabi. He questioned what differentiates the academic dishonesty statement (under part A, “should”) from the disability statement (under part B, “must”). Rodney added that if the ADA statement is the only “university mandated requirement” then saying “requirements” in part B of the policy implies that there are multiple requirements, which evidentially there are not.
Dan suggested changing “must” to “should” in part A of the policy.
New Business
a. Proposed changes to Acceptance of Transfer Credit Policy/Procedure (CWUP 5-90-030 & CWUR 2-90-030)
Policy - Lindsey reported that Cambridge will now be accepted. International Baccalaureates will earn 15 quarter credits toward Gen Ed, which will be distributed among the three breadth areas for the student. Community College of the Air Force was removed, and DANTES was updated. Also in 3.F, students can petition the dean for consideration of acceptance of credit. That used to be in policy and somehow got dropped off; the Registrar’s office thought it should be put back in.
Dan questioned the repetitive use of CWU in 2.D. Lindsey explained that it was done intentionally to make it clear that remaining credits are to be taken here at CWU, especially in situations where students are transferring credits from multiple colleges or have a DTA. However, it mostly affects ITAM.
Tim questioned how this policy affects students at centers where Gen Ed courses are not offered. Lindsey explained that those students would either have to finish a DTA at the one of the centers or take our Gen Ed courses online. When they have transfer credits, they tend to be heavy on sciences but are missing arts & humanities, especially A.S. and A.AS students. Dan suggested that those students could take what they’re missing here and then transfer them back. Tim indicated that that students at the centers who need Gen Ed courses would be forced to take them online, which doesn’t seem like a good idea. Online courses don’t work for some students’ learning styles.
Dan indicated that, as long as the wording seems to work, he is generally fine with the changes made by those who know about International Baccalaureates. He questioned 3.D (which falls on page 2) – the sentence stating that “A student may transfer no more than 135 credits…” is crossed out, but has it been put back into the policy elsewhere? Lindsey explained that it was put back under 1.B and is still part of total transfer credits.
Tim added that he still has a problem with requiring students to take Gen Ed classes at CWU. It seems like they should be able to go to a community college during the summer and take a class there, when they’re home, then transfer that credit back to CWU, and still be under the 105-credit limit. This part of the policy doesn’t seem student-friendly. Lindsey indicated that she can look into ICRC. However, because we are awarding a CWU degree, the students are required to take our Gen Ed sequence. Students have to take ENG 102 plus 15 additional credits in humanities/behavioral sciences, which is more than they’ll be allowed to transfer in anyway. Clem pointed out that it really sounds like an issue of who is granting the degree. Rodney questioned if this is an external rule required by an outside body. If so, than we need it and should be consistent. But if there’s not an external rule somewhere, then why are we making students do this? If it’s not mandated, we don’t need to keep it. Danielle agreed, but added that she can see why it also could have issues. Christos said that he thought it should be kept flexible; Clem agreed.
Dan recommended removing “at CWU” in part 1.D and leaving it as is originally written,
provided the inclusion of “at CWU” is not mandated by an outside body. Lindsey will check. The changes to the policy were approved pending what Lindsey finds out.
Procedure - Lindsey explained that the goal here is to make the procedure compatible with policy. A law exists that says we must have a policy in place regarding reverse transfer.
Rodney suggested adding commas and capitalizing “Higher Level” in the first sentence of 3.C. He also questioned the wording of the sentence and suggested getting rid of “with exceptions” and restating to say “CWU will grant course credits toward a major, minor, or elective depending on the situation.” Lindsey explained that state regulation was trying to make it similar to what we do for AP. Rodney will think about it and work on rewording.
Lindsey suggested capitalizing “Higher Level” in the last sentence of 3.C for consistency, and also changing “students’” to “student’s.” She added that students now get military credits as opposed to DD214; however, if the department tells the Registrar that something should be articulated as course credit, it will be done.
Danielle suggested adding a comma after diploma (in 3.C) in the sentence reading “after receipt of diploma, credit will be awarded…”
b. AAC meetings during finals week
Dan explained that the AAC has an odd structure for its meeting schedule, which causes meetings to fall during finals week in fall and spring quarters. Restructuring those could be a possibility for next year. The first meeting of the year doesn’t occur until the second Thursday in October, so we could meet on the fourth Thursday in September instead. Rodney added that, in order to avoid a meeting on finals week, the committee could meet the week before, but he would prefer starting earlier than meeting two weeks in a row.
Dan suggested that using the fifth Thursday in March as a way to avoid meeting during spring quarter finals week. He will come up with a tentative schedule for next year’s dates, but also suggested changing this year’s schedule to meet on March 30th instead of June 8th. Danielle moved, and Rodney seconded, to approve the change. Motion approved.
Meeting adjourned at 4:58 p.m.
Next Meeting:
March 30, 2017, 3:30 p.m. – SURC 271
AAC Minutes3.9.2017Page 1 of 4