Senate Minutes 4-20-10 by pengtt

VIEWS: 11 PAGES: 12

									CENTRAL MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY
ACADEMIC SENATE
Bovee University Center 108
Web Site: http://academicsenate.cmich.edu
E-mail: acadsen@cmich.edu
Phone: 774-3350

Membership: Jeff Angera, Mahmood Bahaee, Brigitte Bechtold, Michelle Bigard, Tim Brannan, Dave Breed, Bill
Brevda, Christi Brookes, Lori Brost, Rachel Caspari, Debasish Chakroborty, Roger Coles, Mark Cox, Brian DeJong,
Harvey Dorrah, Nancy Eddy, Maureen Eke, Cam Enarson, Donna Ericksen, Joe Finck, Sandy Folsom, Ray Francis,
Mark Freed, Laura Frey, Pam Gates, Solomon Getahun, Salma Ghanem, Joseph Graffeo, Denise Green, Merodie
Hancock, Philip Hertzler, Sean Howard, Zhenyu Huang, Chris Ingersoll, Aaron Kalloch, Kathy Koch, Vern
Kwiatkowski, Mark Lehman, Jane Matty, Bill Merrill, Mark Minelli, Thomas Moore, Clark Most, Concha Neeley,
Leigh Orf, David Patton, Orlando Perez, Katrina Piatek-Jimenez, Rose Prasad, Dean Pybus, Stuart Quirk, Killian
Richeson, George Ronan, Bruce Roscoe, George Ross, John Scheide, Gary Shapiro, David L. Smith, Andrew
Spencer, Phil Squattrito, Michael Stinson, Herm Triezenberg, Dan Vetter, Denise Webster, Patty Williamson


                                            CMU ACADEMIC SENATE
                                                   April 20, 2010
                                               Minutes of Meeting
                                             Phil Squattrito, Presiding

                                                 Summary of Actions

1.    Approved curricular changes to Environmental Studies minor.
2.    Approved new designator ECE to identify Early Childhood Education courses.
3.    Approved new graduate program Master of Arts in Teacher Leadership.
4.    Elected Senators Williamson, Minelli, and Frey to Senate Nominating Committee for 2010-2011.
5.    Elected Senator Webster to the Undergraduate Extended Degree Programs Council.
6.    Elected faculty and students to various committees as presented by the Committee on Committees.
7.    Approved May 2010 Graduation List.
8.    Approved charge to ad hoc committee to study Senate Constitution.
9.    Approved CAD Implementation Plan.
10.   Discussed Implementation Plan for General Education.

Present: 52 of 65 members

Absent: Brian DeJong, Pam Gates, Joseph Graffeo, Denise Green, Zhenyu Huang, Thomas Moore, Leigh Orf,
Killian Richeson, George Ross, Michael Stinson, Dan Vetter
______________________________________________________________________________________

1.    Announcements
      Squattrito: Welcome to the next to last senate meeting of the semester. My single announcement is a reminder
      that the budget forum will in fact be held April 26, next Monday, from 3-5 pm in the Bovee Auditorium.

2.    Approval of Minutes from April 6, 2010
      Squattrito: [called for corrections/comments/concerns about the April 6 minutes]. Seeing no corrections, we will
      let the April 6 minutes stand as submitted.

3.    President’s and Provost’s Reports
      Squattrito: The president will not be here today. I now call the provost—who is here—forward for his report.
      Shapiro: I walked over from my office and had remembrances of my student days, which is, why are classes
      held on a warm day? I have an update about searches. We are moving forward with a number of senior officer
      searches, and are close to making offers soon; we hope that we will have acceptances in time for me to make an
      announcement prior to the end of the semester. The committees have done a very good job identifying excellent
Academic Senate Minutes
April 20, 2010
Page 2

     candidates. I have a number of informational issues. I have asked the deans to submit requests for tenure-track
     positions for next year. I will review these and make decisions together with the deans to determine which
     positions we will be able to authorize a search for. We want to conduct our searches as early as possible. I will
     be able to announce to the deans which positions have been authorized prior to the summer. If we do a search, it
     needs to be done actively and with an early timeline. Tomorrow, there is a book recognition event at the library,
     for colleagues who have had books published in the previous year. We recognize it takes a lot of time and
     ability to complete a book. Friday afternoon, in Finch Fieldhouse, we have the SRCEE, beginning at 1 pm. This
     is an opportunity to showcase the research done by our students. There are many poster presentations and a
     formal program. This is perhaps the 10th or 12th year—we have done this for many years. It is really a good
     opportunity to stop by and talk to students about their research. There are also many other events on campus,
     and I do want to recognize one of them, the Orchesis Dance concert on April 22-24th and April 25th, under the
     direction of Yvette Crandall. This is her final performance. She has been at CMU for 41 years. I anticipate a
     wonderful concert. Lastly, a number of years ago, the Academic Senate requested that a general education
     coordinator be hired. If the Academic Senate is able to adopt a feasible and operational general education
     program, the provost’s office is committed to advertising and searching for a full-time general education
     coordinator. We are committed to making the general education program work. Finck: I believe this year is the
     19th year that SRCEE is held. [Ed.: This year was the 16 th SRCEE.]

4.   Elections –
     A. Senate Nominating Committee
         Squattrito: [referring to the slate on the visualizer]: The slate you see is also on the back of your agenda.
         First, we have to populate the Senate Nominating Committee. At this point, we need at least three more
         faculty members. Are there nominations for faculty to serve on the Senate Nominating Committee?
         Williamson: I nominate myself. Squattrito: We accept your nomination. Are there others? Minelli: I
         volunteer and nominate myself. Squattrito: We accept that nomination. There is one more open slot.
         Brookes: What if you are on sabbatical? Squattrito: You would then be replaced as a senator, and cannot
         serve on this committee. Frey: I nominate myself. Squattrito: Accepted. Any other nominations at this
         time? [None.] I will accept a motion at this point to elect the three candidates. Moved and seconded
         (Ericksen/Prasad) to approve the slate. Motion CARRIED. Squattrito: A reminder to those elected that your
         terms will start in the fall.

     B. Undergraduate Extended Degree Programs Council (need one Senator to represent the Senate; term to
        coincide with Senator’s term)
        Squattrito: The next Senate Committee on the slate is the Undergraduate Extended Degree Program
        Committee. Webster: I volunteer to serve on this committee. Squattrito: I now call for a vote to elect
        Senator Webster. CARRIED.

     C. Committee on Committees Meeting Minutes, March 25, 2010, III.-IV.A.-U.
        Squattrito pointed to the slate. This is the result of the mailing that went out from the Committee on
        Committees to faculty. Normally, we would have a motion to approve the entire slate. Moved/seconded
        (Scheide/ Francis). A question was raised concerning eligibility as a temporary faculty. Motion CARRIED
        pending verification of temporary faculty status.

         Elected:
         A. Assessment Council
             Rose Gubele (ENG)                        2010-2013 CHSBS

         B. Athletic Committee
            Leslie Hildebrandt (HEV)                  2010-2012 CEHS
            Gary Miller (SASW)                        2010-2013 CHSBS
            Brad Safnuk (MTH)                         2010-2013 CST

         C. Committee on Committees
            Jonathan Truitt (HST)                     2010-2013 CHSBS
            Dillip Mohanty (CHM)                      2010-2013 CST
Academic Senate Minutes
April 20, 2010
Page 3

            Jonathon Russell (ART)             2010-2013 CCFA
            Zachary Williams (MHSA)            2010-2013 CBA
            Dustin Himebaugh                   2010-2011 (Student nominated by SGA)

       D. Degrees, Admissions, Standards, and Honors Committee (DASH)
          Shanthakumar Palaniswami (MGT)      2010-2013 Faculty
          Yeon Hyang Kim (MTH)                2010-2013 Faculty
          Nicholas Cassavaugh (PSY)           2010-2013 Faculty
          Kirsten Andrews                     2010-2011 Student

       E. Excellence in Teaching Award Committee
          Kenneth Cherry (MHSA)            2010-2013       CBA
          Scott McNaught (BIO)             2010-2013       CST
          Rachael Barron-Duncan (ART)      2010-2013       At Large
          Dawn Decker (CSE)                2010-2013       At Large

       F. Faculty Center for Innovative Teaching Advisory Council
          James McDonald (TEPD)                2010-2013 CEHS
          Robert Fanning (ENG)                 2010-2013 CHSBS
          Sandy Folsom (LIB)                   2010-2013 Library/Counseling
          Elina Erzikova (JRN)                 2010-2011 Faculty (Group IV-C of U.P.)
          Phillip Zerull                       2010-2011 Undergraduate Student

       G. Faculty Research and Creative Endeavors Committee
          Benjamin Tigner (BCA)              2010-2011 CCFA
          Mona Sirbescu (GEO)                2010-2013 CS&T

       H. First Year Experience Advisory Council
          Lindabeth Binkley (MUS)            2010-2013     CCFA
          Thamizhisai Periyaswamy (HEV)      2010-2013     CEHS
          Xiaolan Wu (GEO)                   2010-2013     CST
          Kirsten Andrews                    2010-2011     Student

       I.   Graduate Council
            Norma Richardson (FLLC)            2010-2013 CHSBS
            Richard Backs (PSY)                2010-2013 At Large
            Mihai Horoi (PHY)                  2010-2011 At Large

       J.   Honors Council
            Carl Johnson (PSY)                 2010-2013 CHSBS
            Merlyn Mowrey (PHL/REL)            2010-2013 At Large

       K. International Education Council
          Richard Forest (ENG)                 2010-2013 CHSBS
          Mikiyasu Hakoyama (HEV)              2010-2013 CEHS
          Catherine McDevitt (ECO)             2010-2013 CBA

       L. Library Committee
          Roger Lee (CPS)                      2010-2013   Faculty
          Nicole Sparling (ENG)                2010-2013   Faculty
          Andrew Blom (PHL)                    2010-2013   Faculty
          Axel Mellinger (PHY)                 2010-2013   Faculty
          Emily Krause                         2010-2011   Student
Academic Senate Minutes
April 20, 2010
Page 4

         M. MSA Council
            Jeff Drury (CDA)                           2010-2013 Interpersonal Communication

         N. Multicultural and Diversity Education
            Aparna Zambare (LIB)                 2010-2013 Faculty
            Steve Colarelli (PSY)                2010-2013 Faculty
            Hyun Kyung You (HEV)                 2010-2013 Instructor, IVC

         O. Professional Education Assessment Committee
            Laura Frey (CSE)                   2010-2013 CEHS

         P. Professional Education Curriculum Committee
            Steven Berkshire (HSC)             2010-2012 CHP
            Debra Linton (BIO)                 2010-2013 CST
            Maud Dogoe (CSE)                   2010-2013 CEHS

         Q. Professional Education Selection, Admission, and Retention Committee
            Darren Doyle (ENG)                   2010-2013 CHSBS
            Norma Bailey (TEPD)                  2010-2013 CEHS (from TEPD)

         R. Public Broadcasting
            Sterling Johnson (PSC)                     2010-2013 At Large

         S.   Speakers Series Committee
              Chin-Yi Jean Chan (MTH)                  2010-2013     Faculty
              Sue Ann Martin (CDA)                     2010-2013     Faculty
              Barry Heath                              2010-2011     Student
              Emily Krause                             2010-2011     Student

         T. Undergraduate Curriculum Committee
            Koblar Jackson (PHY)            2010-2013                CS&T
            Sabastian Szyjka (TEPD)         2010-2011                CEHS
            Greg Falls (ECO)                2010-2013                CBA
            Phillip Zerull                  2010-2011                Student

         U. University Grievance Review Committee
            Regina Umpstead (EDL)             2010-2013 Faculty
            Brian Smith (SASW)                2010-2013 Faculty
            Janet Helfrich (PES)              2010-2013 Faculty

5.   Curricular Items -

     A. Undergraduate Curriculum Committee Minutes, March 17, 2010

         1.   Moved and seconded (Spencer/Patton) and CARRIED to approve the curricular changes to the
              Environmental Studies Minor.

              Squattrito: The first of the three curricular items is a change in the Environmental Studies Minor. The
              main change is that previously, this minor was only available on two university degrees, and the
              proposal is to have the degree be available under all degrees. There is also a minor change is in the
              ESC electives and the number of hours of prerequisites. Freed: I want to go back to the slate on the
              Committee on Committees. There is an error in section G, which lists a nominee from the English
              Department who is not a regular faculty member. Squattrito: We will check into the eligibility of that
              individual. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Let us return to the curricular item. Webster: I
              have a question about the number of hours that need to be taken under a minor. Looking at the
Academic Senate Minutes
April 20, 2010
Page 5

           prerequisites, we are looking at potentially a 40-hour minor. This concerns me. Squattrito: Not all
           minors or majors list how many prerequisites are needed. Webster: Are these hidden prerequisites?
           Squattrito: No, in this program, they are open requirements. Finck: This is not unusual in the sciences,
           where prerequisites often are mathematics classes. Moved, and seconded (Spencer/Patton) to approve
           the changes in the Environmental Studies Minor. Piatek-Jimenez: I was not sure about ESC 201 and
           ESC 240 being struck. It was not explained in the rationale. Squattrito: I believe there was a curricular
           change that removed this designator. Scheide: ESC was redistributed between Geography and
           Geology. Matty: ESC 201 is now GEO 201 and it is in the electives list. Piatek-Jimenez: So, then, my
           assumption is that the courses overlapped with other content. Is this overlap now allowed? Patton:
           GEO 201 stresses more climate content than in the past. So, there is now less overlap than existed in
           the past. Motion CARRIED.

FROM:

               As of: 02/12/2010     MAJOR/MINOR INFORMATION                            MN-ENV
                              Environmental Studies Minor

               Existing Information From SAP
                  Module Group:         MN-ENV
                  SAP Title:         Environmental Studies Minor

               Owning Department or Council:        Environmental Studies

               Degrees under which this program is offered:
                  BAA        Bachelor of Applied Arts
                  BSBA        Bachelor of Science in Business Admin

               CURRENT PROGRAM:

               This minor, available to students on the B.A.A. degree and B.S. in B.A. degree, offers an
               interdisciplinary program in environmental studies for students earning degrees where completing
               a second major would not be feasible.

               For additional information, please contact Tom Rohrer, Director, 989-774-4409, 318 Brooks Hall,
               tom.rohrer@cmich.edu; http://www.cst.cmich.edu/units/env/.

                Required Courses I (3 hours)
                 Select one of the following:
                 BIO 240 - Conservation of Natural Resources 3(3-0)
                 GEO 330 - Resource Perception and Utilization 3(3-0)

                Required Courses II (9 hours)
                 BIO 340 - Ecology 3(2-3)
                 ENV 101 - Introduction to Environmental Studies 3(3-0)
                 PSC 261 - State and Local Government 3(3-0)

                Required Courses III (3 hours)
                 Select one of the following:
                 BLR 521 - Environmental Law and Policy 3(3-0)
                 ECO 301 - Environmental Economics 3(3-0)

                Required Courses IV (4-8 hours)
                 Select one of the following options:
                 Option A (4 hours)
                  CHM 120 - Survey of Chemistry 4(4-0)
Academic Senate Minutes
April 20, 2010
Page 6

                  Option B (8 hours)
                   CHM 131 - Introduction to Chemistry I 4(3-3)
                   CHM 132 - Introduction to Chemistry II 4(3-3)

                Electives (6-7 hours)
                 Select hours from the following:
                 ANT 370/SOC 370 - Global Environmental Issues 3(3-0)
                 BIO 334/GEO 334 - Soil Science 3(2-2)
                 CHM 342 - Survey of Organic Chemistry 4(3-3)
                 ENV 310 - Environmental Issues Management 3(3-0)
                 GEL 100 - Introduction to Earth Systems 3(2-2)
                 GEL 101 - Physical Geology 3(3-0)
                 GEL 105 - Dangerous Planet 3(3-0)
                 GEL 130 - Earth Processes 3(2-2)
                 GEO 201 - Weather and Climate 4(4-0)
                 HSC 352 - Environmental Health 3(3-0)
                 MET 240 - Meteorology 3(2-2)
                 PSC 210 - Introduction to Public Administration 3(3-0)
                 PSC 514 - American Public Policy Making 3(3-0)

                  You cannot take both ESC 201 and ESC 240. You cannot take more than one of GEL 100, 101,
                       105 or 130.

                  Other electives may be allowed with the consent of the advisor.

               Total: 25-30 semester hours (plus 0-6 hours of prerequisites, depending on the electives chosen)

               For additional information, see the list of advisors in the Class Schedule Booklet.

       TO:

               MAJOR/MINOR INFORMATION               MN-ENV
                         Environmental Studies Minor

               Existing Information From SAP
                  Module Group:         MN-ENV
                  SAP Title:         Environmental Studies Minor

               Owning Department or Council:       Environmental Studies

               Degrees under which this program is offered:
                  BAA        Bachelor of Applied Arts
                  BSBA        Bachelor of Science in Business Admin
                  ALL DEGREES

               CURRENT PROGRAM:

               This minor, available to students on the B.A.A. degree and B.S. in B.A. degree, offers an
               interdisciplinary program minor in environmental studies for students earning degrees where
               completing a second major would not be feasible.

                Required Courses I (3 hours)
                 Select one of the following:
                 BIO 240 - Conservation of Natural Resources 3(3-0)
                 GEO 330 - Resource Perception and Utilization 3(3-0)
Academic Senate Minutes
April 20, 2010
Page 7


                Required Courses II (9 hours)
                 BIO 340 - Ecology 3(2-3)
                 ENV 101 - Introduction to Environmental Studies 3(3-0)
                 PSC 261 - State and Local Government 3(3-0)

                Required Courses III (3 hours)
                 Select one of the following:
                 BLR 521 - Environmental Law and Policy 3(3-0)
                 ECO 301 - Environmental Economics 3(3-0)

                Required Courses IV (4-8 hours)
                 Select one of the following options:
                 Option A (4 hours)
                  CHM 120 - Survey of Chemistry 4(4-0)
                 Option B (8 hours)
                  CHM 131 - Introduction to Chemistry I 4(3-3)
                  CHM 132 - Introduction to Chemistry II 4(3-3)

                Electives (6-7 hours)
                 Select hours from the following:
                 ANT 370/SOC 370 - Global Environmental Issues 3(3-0)
                 BIO 334/GEO 334 - Soil Science 3(2-2)
                 CHM 342 - Survey of Organic Chemistry 4(3-3)
                 ENV 310 - Environmental Issues Management 3(3-0)
                 GEL 100 - Introduction to Earth Systems 3(2-2)
                 GEL 101 - Physical Geology 3(3-0)
                 GEL 105 - Dangerous Planet 3(3-0)
                 GEL 130 - Earth Processes 3(2-2)
                 GEO 201 - Weather and Climate 4(4-0)
                 HSC 352 - Environmental Health 3(3-0)
                 MET 240 - Meteorology 3(2-2)
                 PSC 210 - Introduction to Public Administration 3(3-0)
                 PSC 514 - American Public Policy Making 3(3-0)

                  You cannot take both ESC 201 and ESC 240.
                  NOTE: You cannot take more than one of GEL 100, 101, 105 or 130.

                  Other electives may be allowed with the consent of the advisor.

               Total: 25-30 semester hours (plus 0-6 3-10 hours of prerequisites, depending on the electives
                        chosen)

               For additional information, see the list of advisors in the Class Schedule Booklet.

                                 IMPLEMENTATION DATE: Fall 2011
                                 [Reference: CST CCC Minutes, 2/15/10, I.C.2.a.]

   B. Undergraduate Curriculum Committee Minutes, March 24, 2010

       1.      New Designator

               Moved and seconded (Merrill/Francis) and CARRIED to approve the new designator ECE (Early
               Childhood Education) which will be assigned to courses in the Teacher Education & Professional
               Development Department in the College of Education and Human Services.
Academic Senate Minutes
April 20, 2010
Page 8


                 Squattrito: This is a curricular change that involves a new designator, ECE. Moved, and seconded
                 (Merrill/Francis) to approve. Motion CARRIED

                          IMPLEMENTATION DATE: Spring 2011
                          [Reference: CEHS CCC Minutes, 2/1/10, IV.B.2.a.]

    C. Graduate Council Minutes, March 17, 2010

        Squattrito: This final curricular item is a MA in Teacher Leadership. Please project it on the overhead.
        There is a slight change in the wording. The department has a series of emphases, and they all have a
        common core. The department’s intent was for this new program not to be yet another emphasis but to be a
        stand-alone program. Hence, the sentence that you see is changed on the overhead. Moved, and seconded
        (Francis/Dorrah) to approve the Master of Arts in Teacher Leadership. Piatek-Jimenez: I was interested in
        learning more about the leadership internship. Squattrito: The department chair is here today, and can speak
        to this. Gilbert: It involves working in the field in particular areas, with learning plans, activities and
        evaluations in the context of the programs. Dorrah: The students establish a learning plan, and their
        internship will reflect that plan. Prasad: This is still pretty vague. What exactly will they be doing?
        Administrating? Teaching? Dorrah: The plan reflects the program. Their experience will be to work under
        someone who is a leader in the field, so they will be directly supervised by the leader who is teaching in the
        field. Squattrito: We may also assume that this is an existing course with an approved master course
        syllabus. Ronan: Does the number of credits reflect the number of hours in the field? Affirmed by Gilbert.
        Webster: I have a question about the END designator. Francis: This should be EDU. It is a typo. Squattrito:
        This is why we need proofreading of curricular materials. Perez: Is this program intended solely for online
        students? Gilbert: No, it is not solely for online, but also for on-campus students. Motion CARRIED.

Requested Bulletin Copy:

Master of Arts in Teacher Leadership

Minimum Totals for Graduation: 33 hours

The Teacher Leadership program prepares teachers to be formal or informal leaders who strive for school
improvement and increased student learning.

Students enrolled in the Master of Arts in Educational Leadership degree with an emphasis on Teacher Leadership
this program will take 33 credit hours, selected with their advisor, from the courses listed below:

Core Courses (9 hours)
EDL 600 – Research for Educational Leadership 3(3-0)
EDL 651 – Program Review and Evaluation 3(3-0)
EDL 660 – Principles of Educational Administration 3(3-0)

Emphasis Area (18 hours)
To be selected in conjunction with the student’s advisor.
EDU 540 – Literacy Education: Theory and Practice 3(3-0)
EDU 590 – Advanced Technology in Education 3(3-0) OR
EDU 642 – Instructional Multimedia 3(3-0)
EDU 602 – Strategies and Techniques for Teaching 3(3-0)
EDU 613 – Current Education Issues 3(3-0)
EDL 620 – Administration within Diverse Populations 3(3-0)
EDL 650 – Professional Studies 3(3-0)
EDU 662 – Applied Educational Measurement and Evaluation 3(3-0)
EDL 690 – Administration of Elementary School Curriculum 3(3-0) OR
EDL 691 – Administration of Middle School curriculum 3(3-0) OR
Academic Senate Minutes
April 20, 2010
Page 9

EDL 692 – Administration of Secondary School curriculum 3(3-0)
EDL 773 – Instructional Supervision for Educational Leaders 3(3-0)
EDL 765 – Organizational change in Educational Institutions 3(3-0)

Capstone Experience (6 hours)
Students earning a degree in Teacher Leadership will meet Plan B requirements by completing a Professional
Portfolio that consists of additional evidence of significant scholarship and ability relating to competence in teacher
leadership. Materials for the portfolio will be compiled throughout the program and will be submitted and assessed
during EDL 698 Master’s Colloquium.

Plan B
EDL 698 – Master’s Colloquium 3(3-0)
EDL 699 – Leadership Internship 1-15(Spec)

Total: 33 semester hours

                  IMPLEMENTATION DATE: Fall 2010
                  [Reference: PECC Minutes, 2/4/10, III.B.3.a.; EHS CCC Minutes, 12/7/09, IV.B.3.]

6.   Approval of May 2010 Graduation List
     Squattrito: This is everybody’s favorite item. It shows the number of students receiving different degrees.
     Moved, and seconded (Lehman/Neeley) to approve the list. Motion CARRIED.

7.   Charge to ad hoc committee to study Senate Constitution
     Squattrito: You will remember two weeks ago, you approved the format for the ad hoc committee that consists
     of three former chairs of the senate. I promised I would come back to the senate with a proposed charge for the
     committee. The proposal is to look at the entire constitution, but particularly the section that has the points of
     contention. The senate will have to approve any proposed changes before they would go to the entire faculty for
     their vote. I have not yet contacted anyone to serve, because I want to have the charge approved first. Moved,
     and seconded (Chakraborty/Spencer) to approve the charge. No discussion. Motion CARRIED.

8.   CAD Implementation Plan
     Squattrito: On the back of the same document, you will find the CAD implementation plan. A few more points
     have been raised, namely in relation to undergraduate certificates. We will clean this up, and there will thus be
     one additional iteration in the dissemination of the CAD. I would like to set August 16 as the official date for it
     to take effect. After that date, any curricular item submitted will be under the new CAD. This plan includes the
     proposals we discussed to assure that there is a common Sharepoint website, proofreading in place, etc. The
     senate chair will also do his best to catch typos. Moved, seconded (Webster/Bahaee) to approve the CAD
     Implementation Plan. Smith: I am worried about the process of proofreading. Serving on the UCC, I see how
     not checking connections and not working closely with departments involved can cause major problems. There
     is more involved than just proofreading. Squattrito: We are not just looking for a proofreader to catch typos, but
     rather a person with sufficient knowledge of the curricular process. Smith: What prompts my question is the
     sentence on your overhead related to proofreading only being needed until an automated system is in place.
     Squattrito: There is a movement toward an automated system. Whether that system will be smart enough to
     catch everything and therefore eliminate the need for manual checking, is still unknown at this point. Motion
     CARRIED.

9.   Implementation Plan for General Education
     Squattrito: We now come to the pièce de resistance, the implementation plan for the General Education
     Program. You have in your packets a pink document, and on Friday we sent you an additional document
     containing the implementation plan along with a memo from me. The General Education Subcommittee,
     together with the composition working group faculty, concluded that there needed to be revisions to the new
     General Education program. The pink document shows what was approved last spring, with the changes shaded
     on it. The section on writing is essentially rewritten. We should first tackle the changes to this document, and
Academic Senate Minutes
April 20, 2010
Page 10

   then move to the document about implementation. We can start this by means of a motion. Moved, and
   seconded (Ronan/Breed) to approve the document.

   Perez: What do the authors mean by ―reasonable instructor-to-student ratio?‖ Squattrito: I will ask if any of the
   authors who are present can speak to this question. Perez: Also, perhaps the provost can address the question as
   well. Lee: This language circumvents the provost’s objection to having exact enrollment caps placed on writing-
   intensive courses. There are no hard enrollment caps in courses such as ENG 101 and ENG 201. The caps are
   negotiated between the chair and the dean. Additionally, there are no enrollment caps on any courses at CMU,
   except lab courses, for which caps are determined by the exact number of seats in the lab rooms. If there is
   sufficient trust between faculty members, deans and the provost, this can work. Shapiro: I’d like to thank
   Professor Lee for bringing up the case of ENG class sizes. As dean of the college, I have had discussions with
   the English Department to assure the best class sizes, recognizing also the financial issues involved. In 2004, we
   proposed raising the numbers in one of the classes, but not in the other, and the English Department came back
   with a proposal to raise all class sizes by a little bit because they felt that would work better. We are committed
   to having a Gen Ed program that works as intended.

   Freed. I have two reservations: Even the ENG 101 and ENG 201 classes cease to be efficient as enrollment goes
   up. In the profession, there are very clear limits to recommended class sizes. I am nervous that, with no
   specification about what a reasonable ceiling might be, that these writing-intensive classes will not become
   what the senate thought it was agreeing to. Crawford: I will speak to the field, which comes under the topic of
   writing across the curriculum. Unlike specific composition courses, writing-intensive courses do not have
   specified caps in the universities that have them. The field itself does not recognize a cap. Freed: That’s my
   point. I’d like to see some recommendation about a number that relates to guidelines. Brevda: I don’t see how
   anyone can object to a recommendation by the senate. Squattrito: Part of the problem is that there are now two
   categories of writing courses. Perez: This particular section, i.e. the first section, concerns quantitative
   reasoning courses, and the recommendation was to cap them at 40 students. I don’t understand why this
   recommendation was made. I do understand the recommendation of the cap on writing-intensive courses.
   Piatek-Jimenez: I can speak to that. A quantitative reasoning course is very writing intensive. Students are
   looking at a problem and at all possible situations that are involved in this problem, for example, whether it
   would make sense to trade in your current vehicle for a hybrid car. Students are also expected to make a
   proposal, get feedback from instructors, and revise the proposal. So, this type of course is similar to writing-
   intensive courses. Ronan: The writing committee has creative ways of dealing with the problems. Squattrito:
   Not just the writing committee, but also the General Education Committee. The idea is that, once we have a
   General Education Coordinator, courses can be checked to see if they function as intended.

   Smith: In my department, we do a lot of work in the University Program. Many of us are worried that
   implementing this change would degrade what we do with our students. We would have to at least impose caps
   on ourselves. 35 would be the absolute maximum for these courses. We would then have to raise caps in some
   of our other courses. One proposal from some of my colleagues is that the number of pages be reduced from 18
   pages. Has anyone else been concerned with the same issues, i.e. that writing would actually decrease overall on
   campus. Squattrito: Just as a reminder: the senate did reduce the percent of writing in the University Program
   courses to 20% instead of 50%. Perez: The concern is that only those courses that are designated as writing-
   intensive or as quantitative-reasoning will have this mandate of having reasonable instructor/student ratios.
   Other courses with some writing but without such designation could have their caps raise ad infinitum, because
   they are not seen as having as much writing.

   Finck: My concern on the quantitative-reasoning change—it is easier to implement—is one where I can easily
   see pressure to raise the caps. I see this first suggestion as: OK, we will give up this little bit to the provost, but
   all it takes is a compromise, so we should get something in return. Items 5 and 6 [in the guidelines for
   quantitative reasoning courses] are very prescriptive, however. Haven’t we learned that when we get
   prescriptive in the senate, it just does not work? If we are going to weaken the administration’s commitment, I
   would like the administration to weaken what we are supposed to do, e.g., change items 5 and 6. Shapiro: As a
   member of the administration, I can say I was not a proponent of #5 or #6. It is a question about quality. The
   senate has been mandating inputs, while the concern should be about outputs. I think that what would be better
   is that the General Education Committee be given proposals for courses, with explanations: This is how I want
Academic Senate Minutes
April 20, 2010
Page 11

   to teach this particular quantitative-reasoning course. The emphasis should be on outcomes rather than
   prescribing specific inputs. I want to point out that we did not specify the number of pages and written
   assignments. Perez: I want to say that I actually agree with the provost here. But, having chaired the General
   Education Subcommittee, I can say it is very hard to look through syllabi and find out how they are going to do
   things. It is much easier to look at numbers and qualitative/quantitative standards. We essentially just look at
   whether they fill in blanks and boxes.

   Frey: I agree that we should be looking at the ―how,‖ but the ―how‖ changes when the number of students I
   have goes up in a class. I do not know anyone in this room who would disagree that we have to focus on the
   how, but the reality needs to change. Freed: The how takes place under certain circumstances. I’d like to see the
   administration commit reasonable resources to make this work. If they have resources for a medical school, they
   should have sufficient resources for this.

   Perez: I have a question on #1 under section III: Can someone explain the difference between this language and
   the original language? Is it just a matter of clarifying the language? Newland: There were 2 sets of problems
   brought up by the provost, the caps and the logistical issues brought out by Academic Affairs. One issue was
   that audits are extremely confusing if what counts for IV-A is a particular set of courses for some students, but a
   different set of courses for another group of students. This proposal will deal with that confusion. Perez: So,
   there will be categories B and C, but no A. Newland: Correct.

   Shapiro: I want to bring up a different issue related to writing-intensive courses. The writing group pointed out
   that there are two sets of writing-intensive courses: ―writing to learn‖ and ―learning to write.‖ Under the
   proposed plan, all required courses could be taken in the University Program, and there would not be any
   obligation of taking writing-to-learn courses. Under the current system there is no requirement that students take
   a writing-intensive course in their discipline, and I think this is a weakness of the plan. Crawford: I agree
   completely, it is potentially problematic, but we do not yet know that it is actually going to be problematic. It is
   not likely to happen if we have majors that require writing at the upper level. Squattrito: Part of the difficulty is
   too that we do not know how many discipline-specific courses there will ultimately be. Piatek-Jimenez: I do not
   think either of these courses are what the senate was originally looking for. The ―writing to learn‖ was not what
   we were looking at, but learning to write in general is what we were concerned with. Newland: I was just going
   to add that, if it is the case that a lot of departments do not have learning to write courses already in place, we
   would in fact be requiring them to be created, and that this is outside the purview of what we were asked to do.

   Lehman: Given all the resources that will be thrown into this, is there already a plan in place that will assess this
   program, to see if it will be any better than what we had before? Squattrito: When we adopted the assessment
   plan for general education, there has never been a comprehensive working plan, since the coordinator position
   was open. That is why we have pushed very hard to get a coordinator position in place. The program needs
   leadership by a person who is responsible for shepherding it. It always struck me as a program difficult to
   assess. So there is no comprehensive plan now, but the goal is to have one in the future. Lehman: But, could one
   assess the writing intensive part, or could one assess the quantitative reasoning part separately? Squattrito: I
   believe they would be assessed separately, yes. Newland: In addition to the coordinator position having a
   crucial impact on our ability to assess, the role of the new writing committee in relation to assessment is also
   described in the plan. Crawford: Regarding assessment for writing, in 2002 we did a survey and held focus
   groups, and a couple of things were revealed that in fact led to the proposals. Faculty admitted that they were
   not adhering to the 50% writing requirement. Also, in asking faculty what they expected students to know about
   writing, there was a long list, but the essay exam was the predominant instrument used. So, students were not
   exposed to a wide variety of writing types.

   Finck: Is there a motion on the floor? I expect that there will be amendments. [To Squattrito] What is your
   intent today? Squattrito: My sense is that we will not agree to pass the document today. We can either ask the
   group to incorporate tweaks and bring it back to us in two weeks, or we can amend the document on the fly and
   see what happens. Finck: Just as a heads up: there will be something about quantitative reasoning. Squattrito:
   The General Education Subcommittee left the quantitative reasoning part alone, because it was quite extensive
   already. Smith: I was going to fold the concern about quantitative reasoning in together with my concern about
   the prescriptiveness in the proposal. It seems to me that both of these should be sent back to the General
Academic Senate Minutes
April 20, 2010
Page 12

    Education Subcommittee instead of us trying to amend the document on the fly. Ronan: Are you referring to
    specific places in the document? Smith: I am referring to #5 and #6, and to #1 on writing intensive course
    guidelines in section 4, i.e., the reference to at least 18 pages of writing. Brevda: I don’t have a problem with the
    18 pages, but I would like to recommend deleting the sentences that refer to finished and unfinished products.
    The term ―unfinished product‖ has a negative connotation and is counter to the promotion of a writing culture.
    Squattrito: There was some concern that it may be an unreasonable expectation to have all 18 pages be finished
    product. Brevda: But 3 pages as finished product and the rest as unfinished is disturbing.

    Prasad: It seems strange to me that we are OK with vague guidelines, but we have problems with caps. So, we
    could end up with a cap of 25 students, and then have only 3 finished pages. We want something firmer than
    ―reasonable student/faculty ratio,‖ but then we are not firm about finished pages. Smith: The argument about
    specific pages had to do with the kind of pressures that would occur in the absence of caps. The 18 pages force
    us to make decisions about raising caps in some courses and lowering in others, to the detriment of general
    education. Ericksen: The caps in the quantitative reasoning courses came about as a result of extensive
    discussion. The 18 pages and the discussion of caps requires additional resources. If we do not get the resources
    from the administration, then let us just stick with what we have. I think there is an expectation under this new
    program that there will be new resources. If they are not forthcoming, let us stick with what we have.
    Williamson: I remember that, when we talked about page limits, all straw polls with specific numbers were
    voted down.

    Brookes: I’d like to be the wild herring and ask: where does Foreign Languages fit in all of this? Students do a
    10-page research paper, and in the learning objective it says to use standard written English. Foreign Languages
    doesn’t fit in this.

    Perez: I have both a comment and a question. This program is essentially the foundation of the liberal arts
    mission of the University. If it is important, then it requires resources. I do not want to criticize the medical
    school, but if we can find resources for that, we need to find resources for this. I also wonder if provost Shapiro
    can expand a little more on how he sees the position of the General Education Coordinator, considering that the
    senate recommended that this person be a faculty member and a member of the bargaining unit. Shapiro: It is
    my intention to advertise for a director/coordinator of general education. This position will be posted for an
    internal search only, with preferences given to regular faculty, although temporary faculty will also be
    considered. We have not had many people apply in the past. So, I want to give first dibs to regular faculty. If we
    have a failed search, however, I would intend in the future to hire someone from outside the university. In
    regards to the second issue: Would it be a 12- or 10-month appointment? Initially, it would be a 12-month
    appointment. This will be re-examined on a regular basis. It may well be that it needs to be a 12-month
    appointment for the first few years, but does not need to be a 12-month appointment in the long run. To the
    bargaining unit issue: I am saying that it is a regular faculty member who applies, but I am not saying that it is a
    bargaining unit position. I looked into the Honors director position, and was told by Bob Martin that this job
    description was the result of a grievance filed in the early 1990s. Traditionally, it was a position held by a
    bargaining unit member. The administration started a grievance and, as a result of that grievance, the honors
    director is still a bargaining unit member. The MSA director, however, is an administrative position. So, yes, it
    will be a regular faculty member. It would not be a member of the bargaining unit. The key components are:
    The position will be advertised in the fall with starting date of early January. We are committed to general
    education, and we want a coordinator who can do this job. Douglass: The application deadline will be
    September 15 or September 30. Shapiro: There will be a faculty advisory committee to help with the search.

    Moved, seconded (Finck/Lehman) to postpone this item until May 4th. Motion CARRIED.

10. Other - None

11. Adjournment - Squattrito: Since we are past the hour, we will move to adjourn. [All rose.]

Respectfully Submitted,

Brigitte Bechtold, Secretary

								
To top