Faculty Senate Curriculum CommitteeMarch 21, 2007

Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee

Minutes from the March 21, 2007 Meeting

Present:

Prabhat HajelaLee Odell

David HessKen Warriner

June DeeryDick Smith

Sharon KunkelDavid Spooner

John Schroeder

Mike Wozny, chair

Regrets from Kevin Craig and Sam Wait

1)The minutes from the February 21, 2007 meeting were approved unanimously.

2)School of Engineering (SoE)- Dick Smith provided an overview of proposed course changes:

  • MANE 4260 Design of Mechanical Systemsdescription change
  • MANE 4860 Intro to Helicopter Designdescription change
  • MANE 4230 Air Vehicle Designtitle change

Course deletion:

  • DSES 2010 Statistics for Management

The Committee accepted the changes and deletion as presented.

3)School of Science (SoS) - Dave Spooner presented some course changes.

  • BIOL 4400 Bioterrorism–change in credit from 3 to 4 credits
  • ISCI 4510 Origins of Life Seminar- change in grading from S/U to regular letter grades. It needs an Academic Integrity statement.
  • BIOL 1010 – Introduction to Biology-new description which includes the laboratory component. Thisformat will put greater demand on the current classroom and lab facilities used for the course. The SoS is committed to do what needs to be done to offer it in this format.

Course Deletion:

BIOL 1020- Intro to Biology Laboratory

All of the changes and the deletion wereapproved subject to the minor changes suggested by the Committee.

4)School of Humanities and Social Science (SoH&SS) -Lee Odell provided the Committee with the rationale for their proposed changes.

  • A new concentration for the BS in Communication called Graphic Design: Theory, Research, Practice. The courses have been taught and there is enough faculty to teach the courses regularly. The template should be corrected to note that MATH 1500 is Calculus for Arch, Mgmt and H&SS.
  • Minor in Game Studies- L. Odell presented changes to the minor in Game Studies. The Committee recommended a change to the text “3 courses may include an independent study in one of the following areas”.

The FSCC unanimously approved the concentration and revisions to the minor in Game Studies subject to the suggested changes.

5)School of Architecture (SoA)- KenWarriner distributed a minor template change for the B. Arch program. The change was approved unanimously.

6)ABET Outcomes in Engineering- Dick Smith reviewed the ABET accreditation criteria for Program Outcomes and Assessment. He summarized how the SoE has met the ABET requirements.

  • Objectives are broad statements that describe the accomplishments you expect your graduates will achieve. The SoE uses an alumni survey and other survey instrumentsas well as an advisory council. The program outcomes are what we expect students to know and are able to do when they graduate. These are more difficult to measure and ABET wants colleges to use direct measures. Our Engineering departments are using specific languageand have included statements in the catalog to help with this assessment. Rensselaer can determine the criteria but ABET will map it to their defined program outcomes. Some criteria is more difficult to measure than others. The process is very similar to what has been discussed for the Institute, so the SoE is not uncomfortable moving to this campus-wide.

7)Core Outcomes and Assessment in H&SS- David Hess distributed a proposal that theSoH&SS departments have been developing. The proposal is oriented to the Middle States Outcomes and it has been an iterative process in the School. He’d like some feedback so the SoH&SS will have a sense if they are on track. A discussion followed:

  • Pg 1, item 3:Students who have completed the H&SS core should be able to: Make informed and principled choices and to foresee the consequences of these choices. This statement needs context. The word “principled” maydefine this outcome too narrowly. There are many principles based on business or country etc.
  • Assessment- This component of the proposal seems to make sense. The Committee suggested abetter last sentence.” Assessment will be conducted at a program level for the effectiveness of the H&SS core as a whole, not for individual courses. The four types of assessment will take place on a rotation. For example, one type might occur once each year”.
  • P. Hajela hasrecommended establishing a central assessment office on campus. D. Hess is worried about the faculty losing control if there is a central office. Faculty would need to be part of this kind of office. Their buy-in and support is critical. Providing faculty release time if they are staffing an assessment office might be an option.
  • Getting graduates to respond to surveys is difficult. A conference for different programs to survey the students would yield a better response. It might be possible to use the annual reunion or invite alumni here during the year which would give the undergraduates a chance to interact with them.
  • A portfolio can be done but it is time intensive and students are not always honest/reflective about their portfolio. Students have to be taught how to evaluate their own work honestly.
  • D. Hess would like to see a similar document coming from the SoS for the science core and perhaps at the major level. He suggested parsing these into 3 groups which will make it easier to understand who is doing what.From that we could identify any Institute wide outcomes. The more overlap the better. D. Hess agreed to parse the outcomes into 3 groups and will bring them back to the Committee for further discussion.
  • It’s important to keep this initiative on track. One suggestion was to hold a series of hearings sponsored by FSCC with a goal to produce a document by year end.
  • J. Deery suggested developing a sample or template process to help.
  • D. Spooner will see if he can provide something from SoS for next time. K. Warriner will see what he can do for the SoA. Management and Architecture don’t offer core courses so they will look at their programs.
  • No action was taken. The Committee will discuss further.

8)M. Wozny distributed the No Solicitation/No Distribution policy for information purposes. It will be discussed at the Faculty Senate meeting.

- 1 -