Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee s2
Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee Minutes from April 4, 2007
Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee
Minutes from April 4, 2007
Present:
June Deery Lee Odell
Kevin Craig John Schroeder
Lester Gerhardt David Spooner
David Hess Mark Steiner (for Engineering)
Prabhat Hajela Sam Wait
Sharon Kunkel Ken Warriner
Chris McDermott Mike Wozny, chair
Wally Morris
1) The minutes from March 21, 2007 were approved unanimously.
2) School of Engineering (SoE) - Mark Steiner presented some changes from the School.
Course Changes:
· ENVE 4330- title change to Intro to Air Quality
· ECSE 4670 Computer Communication Networks -description
· ECSE 6660 Broadband and Optical Networking - description
New Course:
· ECSE 6220 Physical Foundations of Solid State Devices- The FSCC asked for a more detailed Academic Integrity (AI) statement with specific penalties noted. The course has been offered at least 3 times.
The motion to approve, subject to revising the AI statement for, ECSE 6220 was approved unanimously.
3) School of Science (SoS) - Sam Wait presented 2 Chemistry courses (CHEM 4020 Exp Chem III and CHEM 4120 Exp Chem IV) that have been approved as Communication Intensive. The changes were approved unanimously.
4) Outcomes and Assessment Discussion
S. Wait reviewed a proposal from the SoS on outcomes and assessment. The School feels that the IDEA questionnaires are not as effective and the SoS is considering other options for their courses. The IDEA surveys provide consistency across the campus but it’s time to revisit them. S. Wait would like to have a broader discussion and believes it would be appropriate for the FSCC. We get comparative data from other schools using the IDEA survey as well as broad learning objectives information. The survey data is used here for tenure, promotion etc. Rensselaer can add our own questions to the form although the SoE does not use the results from the added RPI questions.
There are questions that appropriately don’t apply to all courses. These questions can frustrate the students. J. Schroeder expressed concern that the surveys come too late to be effective. If they came earlier, the instructor could address the student concerns. However, faculty generally don’t see the survey until after the grading is complete.
The MANE department does a mid-course assessment survey on-line thru Web CT. This makes sense particularly with the new mid-term assessment policy. S. Wait would like to hear from the students about the surveys. Not everyone was convinced that the IDEA survey is broken. More information is needed on how it impacts the annual review.
S. Wait also distributed a Learning Assessment Plan dated February 2005 that was used for Middle States. The SoS is very interested in what our graduating students do next. Are they going on to Graduate school or working and if so what companies are hiring them into what kind of positions. The School is working now with Jack Mahoney to develop a survey of their graduates.
The Committee discussed the next steps for completing the Core Outcomes. M. Wozny would like to proceed with our discussions and identify commonalities as we proceed. It’s important to think about assessment and tie it to the outcomes and objectives. L. Odell emphasized the need to connect them.
D. Hess asked how all students would meet the Science core. As it’s written now in the SoS proposal, a student who takes 4 CSCI courses and 2 MATH courses wouldn’t meet the core. The proposal reads “All students who have completed the SoS core should have:
A fundamental understanding of the scientific method of inquiry with a basic understanding of both the physical and biological world.” If it read “natural” science that would allow more flexibility for students. S. Wait was asked to follow up with more assessment detail and how it ties to objectives in the SoS. He raised the issue of entrepreneurship and suggested inviting R. Chernow to a FSCC meeting to discuss his ideas on entrepreneurship.
P. Hajela asked the Committee to weigh in on this issue. Should it be physical and biological? What is right for our students? It will limit some of our students. M. Wozny would like to see more from the other Schools. He asked Committee members to bring information from their specific Schools. He’d like to keep the current methodology in place and build on it. More discussion will follow at a future meeting.
5) New business: Improving the course approval process
June Deery recommended providing information on the web site along with periodic reminders to the faculty/Schools/ to help address the same questions that come up over and over. The FSCC can do a better job communicating back to departments and faculty so they know what needs to be done before a course proposal is submitted for review.
Some schools have a searchable catalog that is linked to the class schedule. Some even have links to the course syllabus. S. Kunkel will check with the catalog editor to see what is possible. The Committee discussed options for expanding the FSCC web site to include helpful tips and instructions on the course approval process i.e. what is a good Academic Integrity (AI) statement. M. Wozny suggested a point person on the Committee who would identify what information should be extracted from the minutes and highlighted on the site. J. Deery and L. Odell volunteered to help develop the guidelines for AI statements. The FSCC recommended an annual memo to the faculty with deadlines and instructions would also be useful. L. Odell will bring the checklist that is used by H&SS.
There are 2 more meetings this year. At one of those meetings, Mike Wozny would like to have the Committee discuss “Grades during the freshmen year”.
- 3 -