The meeting began at 10:47am. The minutes from the last meeting were approved with a small amendment to wording.
The consent agenda was approved by unanimous consent.
Course Proposal Process:
Dr. Malcolm Hill continued discussion on the course proposal process for the School of Arts & Sciences. Dr. Hill briefed Academic Council on the history of the course proposal process. Since the departmental curricula are so interconnected, the dean’s office suggests there is a need for faculty oversight and discussion of new programs and courses. Dr. Hill presented the current timeline for new course proposals. The timeline is designed around when courses will appear in the course catalog. These deadlines are not firm, however, they are recommendations made by the dean’s office. Dr. Hill explained that when curricular changes come to the dean’s office, an associate dean looks for possible staffing implications of the proposals. Afterwards, they are forwarded along for other approvals. The proposals are then placed on the consent agenda for Academic Council and final approval comes from the faculty by vote at the A&S faculty meetings.
Dr. Hill opened the floor for discussion regarding the process and how it could be improved. Dr. Hill posed three questions: What is the proper scope of Academic Council review in evaluating curricular changes? Should the current time-line be changed to accommodate the review process? Should Academic Council periodically review the documents associated with the course proposal submission process.
If Academic Council adopts a strategy similar to the General Education proposal below, approvals would be made two semesters prior to the course offering. Dr. Hill suggested an online submission process would improve the course proposal process.
General Education Proposal:
Dean Skerrett asked Dr. David Lefkowitz to discuss the General Education proposal. Dr. Lefkowitz explained that the proposal would formalize a process for curricular changes. It would also allow more time for the General Education committee to discuss courses in depth. The current process only gives the committee two days to review the proposals. The proposed changes are reflected in the handout except for the idea that submission must be made at least two semesters before the course is offered.
It was suggested that the proposal go before University Faculty Senate for approval rather than Academic Council. Dr. Lefkowitz responded by saying that they are not looking for approval, but for feedback regarding the proposed timeline. There was discussion around the proposal.
There was concern expressed regarding the feedback given after a negative decision has been made regarding a course proposal. Having a longer timeline for course approvals would allow for improvement of the feedback process. It was confirmed that the committee meets physically and feedback to proposals are given in a timely way. The dean asked if there were any challenges to the proposal. A member asked how the proposed timeline would affect junior faculty members. The dean offered that early career faculty could be instructed on course approval procedures at new faculty orientation and by department chairs. It was questioned if it would be possible to create an expedited process for new faculty. Dr. Lefkowitz answered that an expedited process would not allow enough time to review the proposal.
It was asked how many proposals come to the committee per semester. Dr. Lefkowitz estimated that there are about 5-7 proposals per year.
It was asked how resource issues would be addressed for minor and major proposals. Dr. Hill responded that this would be hard to predict. Dr. Hill stated that by having guidelines, there would be an evaluation structure for all courses.
The dean’s office will continue discussion on how Academic Council should handle course proposals or program changes. The dean stated that the current proposal form could be brought before Academic Council for consideration. It was suggested that individual fields of study be considered when reviewing the forms. It was suggested that a small group of faculty review the form. The dean’s office will follow up on this conversation and get feedback on the current form.
Department Merit Rubrics in the Annual Review Process:
The dean’s office would like to bring department rubrics for annual performance review before Academic Council. The dean believes it would be useful for council members to review department rubrics. If a department is unwilling to share its rubric, please let Dean Skerrett know.
Update on URC/UR Summer Fellowships:
Dr. Vincent Wang discussed the Undergraduate Research Committee process. This year 166 proposals were submitted to the dean’s office. This number was comparable to last year. A&S will refer its recommendations to the UR Summer Fellowship Committee along with its unfunded proposals. The Undergraduate Research Committee (URC) decided to recommend allocations of the same level of funding as last year, and the dean’s office has budgeted for a comparable number of faculty-mentoring stipends. Dr. Wang explained that three readers review each proposal and the faculty mentor’s opinion is taken into account very seriously as this would be the student’s mentor.
The meeting adjourned at 10:50am.
Respectfully submitted,
Zandria Haines
The consent agenda was approved by unanimous consent.
Course Proposal Process:
Dr. Malcolm Hill continued discussion on the course proposal process for the School of Arts & Sciences. Dr. Hill briefed Academic Council on the history of the course proposal process. Since the departmental curricula are so interconnected, the dean’s office suggests there is a need for faculty oversight and discussion of new programs and courses. Dr. Hill presented the current timeline for new course proposals. The timeline is designed around when courses will appear in the course catalog. These deadlines are not firm, however, they are recommendations made by the dean’s office. Dr. Hill explained that when curricular changes come to the dean’s office, an associate dean looks for possible staffing implications of the proposals. Afterwards, they are forwarded along for other approvals. The proposals are then placed on the consent agenda for Academic Council and final approval comes from the faculty by vote at the A&S faculty meetings.
Dr. Hill opened the floor for discussion regarding the process and how it could be improved. Dr. Hill posed three questions: What is the proper scope of Academic Council review in evaluating curricular changes? Should the current time-line be changed to accommodate the review process? Should Academic Council periodically review the documents associated with the course proposal submission process.
If Academic Council adopts a strategy similar to the General Education proposal below, approvals would be made two semesters prior to the course offering. Dr. Hill suggested an online submission process would improve the course proposal process.
General Education Proposal:
Dean Skerrett asked Dr. David Lefkowitz to discuss the General Education proposal. Dr. Lefkowitz explained that the proposal would formalize a process for curricular changes. It would also allow more time for the General Education committee to discuss courses in depth. The current process only gives the committee two days to review the proposals. The proposed changes are reflected in the handout except for the idea that submission must be made at least two semesters before the course is offered.
It was suggested that the proposal go before University Faculty Senate for approval rather than Academic Council. Dr. Lefkowitz responded by saying that they are not looking for approval, but for feedback regarding the proposed timeline. There was discussion around the proposal.
There was concern expressed regarding the feedback given after a negative decision has been made regarding a course proposal. Having a longer timeline for course approvals would allow for improvement of the feedback process. It was confirmed that the committee meets physically and feedback to proposals are given in a timely way. The dean asked if there were any challenges to the proposal. A member asked how the proposed timeline would affect junior faculty members. The dean offered that early career faculty could be instructed on course approval procedures at new faculty orientation and by department chairs. It was questioned if it would be possible to create an expedited process for new faculty. Dr. Lefkowitz answered that an expedited process would not allow enough time to review the proposal.
It was asked how many proposals come to the committee per semester. Dr. Lefkowitz estimated that there are about 5-7 proposals per year.
It was asked how resource issues would be addressed for minor and major proposals. Dr. Hill responded that this would be hard to predict. Dr. Hill stated that by having guidelines, there would be an evaluation structure for all courses.
The dean’s office will continue discussion on how Academic Council should handle course proposals or program changes. The dean stated that the current proposal form could be brought before Academic Council for consideration. It was suggested that individual fields of study be considered when reviewing the forms. It was suggested that a small group of faculty review the form. The dean’s office will follow up on this conversation and get feedback on the current form.
Department Merit Rubrics in the Annual Review Process:
The dean’s office would like to bring department rubrics for annual performance review before Academic Council. The dean believes it would be useful for council members to review department rubrics. If a department is unwilling to share its rubric, please let Dean Skerrett know.
Update on URC/UR Summer Fellowships:
Dr. Vincent Wang discussed the Undergraduate Research Committee process. This year 166 proposals were submitted to the dean’s office. This number was comparable to last year. A&S will refer its recommendations to the UR Summer Fellowship Committee along with its unfunded proposals. The Undergraduate Research Committee (URC) decided to recommend allocations of the same level of funding as last year, and the dean’s office has budgeted for a comparable number of faculty-mentoring stipends. Dr. Wang explained that three readers review each proposal and the faculty mentor’s opinion is taken into account very seriously as this would be the student’s mentor.
The meeting adjourned at 10:50am.
Respectfully submitted,
Zandria Haines
No comments:
Post a Comment