Regular Meeting of the
Date and Time: Tuesday, January 31, 2006, 2pm
Location: The President’s Board Room,
The meeting was called to order by Dr.
Attendance
Dr.
Dr.
Dr.
Dr. Sharon Mailey – Voting
Dr.
Dr.
Dr. Cindy Chance – Non Voting
Mr.
Ms. Candice Washington – Non Voting
Dr.
Agenda of Meeting
Meeting Minutes
Agenda Point 1 – Role
of the SPS CAP
Dr. Burke reviewed the role of the CAP as outlined in the Framework for Academic Governance. Dr. Burke stated that she had asked Dr. Volpe to co-chair the CAP committee, as described in the Governance document, and that he had agreed.
Agenda Point 2—Make
Up of the SPS CAP
Dr. Burke introduced a proposal that would expand the SPS
CAP to include within the SPS CAP some faculty representation from non-SPS
departments within
From the previous agenda point and with this new proposal, a discussion ensued about the make-up of the SPS CAP’s faculty representation, and it was determined that the School had not fully defined how faculty representatives are constituted as CAP Committee members. As discussion on this point progressed, it was also noted that the recommended number of faculty representatives was 6, and that SPS had already grown to the point where the School would require a process to decide how the 6 members were selected. It was determined that because the School CAP lacked this process, further discussion of constitution of faculty representation should be tabled until such a process could be proposed.
A motion was made by Dr. Iodice to table this decision and assign a workgroup to address the issue in depth
The motion was seconded by Dr. Jones
The motion to table passed – 6 for (5 faculty plus the dean in favor), 0 opposed, 0 abstentions
Agenda Point 3 –
Proposal to Add a Course in Communication at the Graduate Level
Dr. Burke brought to the committee’s attention a proposal to add COM 691 – Communications Internship, a new graduate level course in the communications program, from Drs. Mello and Piland of the Communications Department
A motion was made by Dr. Nemani to pass the course with three emendations:
1. The proposal must reflect current university policies with respects to internships.
2. The proposal must establish learning outcomes and provide descriptive evidence of how they will inform continuous improvement of the program.
3. The language of the proposal must be revised and corrected in places.
The motion was seconded by Dr. Volpe.
The motion to accept passed – 6 for (5 faculty plus the dean in favor), 0 opposed, 0 abstentions
Agenda Point 4 --Proposal
to Approve or Disapprove a Proposed School Policy Concerning Undergraduates in
Graduate Courses
Dr. Volpe brought to a proposal to the SPS CAP for allowing undergraduate students to take graduate courses in their senior year. It was noted that the graduate Communication program already does this, and it was believed by a faculty workgroup that other graduate programs might benefit from a school-wide policy. The proposal outlined the terms under which undergraduate students would be allowed to take graduate courses for credit, including completion of 90 undergraduate credit hours and a minimum GPA of 2.8. Discussion focused on several areas in the proposal that will require additional research: a thorough explanation of how credit will be awarded, program-level restrictions that might be applied, and an account of how peer institutions and programs are handling similar situations within “4+2” programs.
A motion was made by Dr. Volpe to table the discussion and return with information that addresses the areas requiring additional research.
The motion was seconded by Dr. Jones
The motion to table passed – 6 for (4 faculty plus the dean in favor), 0 opposed, 1 abstention
Agenda Point 7 (taken out of order) -- Proposal to change the Graduate student overload policy
Dr. Burke recommended that this agenda item be taken out of order to coincide with discussion of graduate student issues. This proposal was presented by Dr. Volpe with the intention to add specific, clarifying language to an existing SPS policy. The suggested language or addition was: “No graduate student may register for more than twelve credits per semester without first obtaining permission from the student’s faculty advisor.” As discussion ensued, it was clear that the proposal did not address upwards limits of credit that could be taken, and that there might be some confusion among advising faculty about how to interpret it.
A motion was made by Dr. Volpe to table the discussions so that answers could be found for the following concerns
1. Will there be an upwards limit to the number of credits graduate students can take, or will that be left to the advisors?
2. What measures will be taken to ensure consistency of implementation among faculty advisors? If so, what?
The motion was seconded by Nemani
The motion to table passed – 6 for (5 plus the dean in favor), 0 opposed, 0 abstentions
Agenda Point 5 -- Proposal to Accept Revised Core Curriculum from Dr. Chance
Dr. Chance represented a faculty workgroup on SPS undergraduate curricula in requesting consideration of a revised CORE curriculum. The proposal from the workgroup called for significant revisions to the CORE, based upon defined adult student learning outcomes and desirable goals and objectives for adult learners. The CAP committee spent considerable time debating several key components of the proposal, and moved to accept the proposed CORE with some emendations to the proposal document.
Dr. Iodice moved to accept the proposed new CORE, with the following recommendations/amendments as derived from the discussion:
1. Add a 4-credit lab course as an option under Understanding the Scientific Method to facilitate students whose majors or concentrations might require a lab science.
2. Add
language to state that additional courses will follow the approval process for
inclusion in CORE, as defined by the
3. Add language to state that disciplines under the areas defined as CORE areas could be flexible. However, any discipline modifications to the current proposal would need to be brought before SPS CAP for approval.
4. It was also recommended that the workgroup do a “catalog scrub” to see if additional existing courses might qualify as meeting the criteria for inclusion in CORE. Once identified, those disciplines and departments could petition the SPS CAP for inclusion.
The motion was seconded by Dr. Volpe
The motion to accept passed – 5 for (4 for, (1 in absentia) plus the dean), 0 opposed, 1 abstention
Agenda Point 6 -- Proposal
for the Bachelor of Arts in Liberal Studies
Dr. Chance also presented a proposal from the faculty workgroup on undergraduate curricula related the Liberal Studies curriculum. The proposal presented a recommendation for including concentrations under the Bachelor of Liberal Studies that would appeal to adult students and allow for consolidation of small, under-enrolled majors and minors in SPS. There was considerable discussion about this proposal and a number of areas for further research were recommended.
Dr. Volpe moved to table BLS discussion with the following recommendations for further thinking and research:
1. Look again at the lists of proposed and potential concentrations presented in the proposal and clarify the relationship (if any) between these two categories. Also, add specific language stating that new concentrations must follow the approval process outlined by the SPS CAP.
2. Make a recommendation with respect to the type of degree to be offered if a degree change from the Bachelor of Arts is warranted.
3. Provide some analysis of how and why the recommended concentrations were chosen, and, specifically, how these concentrations and courses might prepare able students for further graduate work.
4. Analyze and present data relevant to the frequency of course offerings and enrollments within the recommended concentrations.
5. Make a recommendation for how current students are to be grandfathered in under the old model, allowed to transfer into, or forced to abide by, the new model. If the recommendation is for students to be grandfathered, how long will the old curricula be “taught out”? How will students be informed?
The motion was seconded by Dr. Jones
The motion to table passed – 6 for (5 plus the dean in favor), 0 opposed, 0 abstentions
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 2:15 pm.
Respectfully submitted,