FAC Meeting Minutes 4/8/04 Attending: Micheline Chalhoub-Deville, Nancy Jackson, Joyce Moore, Dave Jepsen, Rahima Wade, & Ellie Herman Due to a report from the Curriculum Task Force, minutes were held for later in the meeting. Peter Hlebowitsh reported the committee’s preliminary findings on each of the following four charges: 1) Does course duplication exist and if so is there a solution? Using data generated from looking at syllabi for courses taught at least two times during the last three years, the committee found that there were 7 instances of possible course duplication. Most of the duplication occurred between courses in P&Q and CRSD. What can be done about the situation? It was decided that it could be worked out among programs. How can we avoid this situation with future courses? The committee felt that the current governance for course approval could still work to solve the problem if a conscientious effort to avoid duplication was raised amongst DEO’s. A surprise that the committee encountered was that it appeared that courses listed as “Special Topics” were often unnecessary and most were already being offered in other divisions. The committee felt that this occurred due to enrollment pressures since some key courses are over subscribed. Some courses are also listed as “equivalents” and Peter questioned whether this too was duplication? The recommendation was that departments audit for this to see why they are listed as equivalent. 2) Is there articulation between qualitative measurement courses? Committee found that there are 3 qualitative courses with 3 different titles in 3 departments. Enrollment involves students from in and outside of these departments. Faculty from these courses meet and discuss articulation but they agree that they all serve the same purpose with a slightly different perspective related to the faculty teaching the course. All three courses are full. The curriculum committee raised the question whether there should be course articulation such as “introduction,” “intermediate,” and “advanced” qualitative methods as found with quantitative courses. Recommendation was that perhaps during the summer with support from the Dean, that the faculty teaching these courses could look at developing a more coherent structure. 3) Is there viability for college-wide courses? The argument for college-wide courses would come under the realm that a Ph.D. degree should mean the ability to conduct research. With this in mind the committee recommended the development of an Ad Hoc committee to look at this and to set some standards for research for all Ph.D. students in the college. 4) Should there be a standing Curriculum Committee? Most of the committee felt that if consciousness was raised amongst DEO’s these issues could be addressed through existing governance structures. Minutes of the last meeting were read and approved with minor corrections. COE’s unique characteristics – much discussion about possible COE descriptors and their respective order. Rahima recommended that these be sent out to faculty for review and suggestions. She will revise the list and send a draft to Micheline. Micheline will develop a statement to encourage faculty to offer suggestions and email to FAC members for review before presenting to faculty. Discussion of Yearly Report to Faculty – Micheline will report on the following items: Remaining time was spent discussing the results of the Curriculum Task Force and whether the FAC should have a curriculum focus as an on-going charge. This will be revisited at a future meeting. Micheline asked Dave Jepsen to draft a statement that would summarize the FAC reactions to the Curriculum Task Force report. In order to meet prior to the last faculty meeting, our next meeting was rescheduled for Monday, May 3rd at 10:00. Respectfully submitted,
|
Faculty Advisory Committee
Please report web site problems to the College
of Education Webmaster
