Present: Aguinaga, Barrios, Bruns, Dowdy, Eddleman, Fluegge Woolf, Gathman, Hinkle, Jung, McDougall, McGowan, Rogers-Adkinson, Rosati, Ruediger, Timlin, and Weller-Stilson
Guests: John Kraemer, David Probst, and Irina Ustinova
A. MINUTES: Upon a motion by McGowan; seconded by Eddleman/Gathman, the minutes of April 2, 2013, were unanimously approved.
B. ACTION ITEMS:
1. Bachelor of Science in Emergency Preparedness – New Program
McGowan moved approval of a new Bachelor of Science in Emergency Preparedness degree; seconded by Eddleman. Kraemer explained that this is a new program that will be housed under the Environmental Science program. There is a need for the program as shown by discussions with Military Science and the Missouri National Guard, as well as others over the last two years. Emergency preparedness is a growing area, with estimated growth in employment over the next several years. The program will prepare students with an expertise in emergency management and planning, taking an all hazards approach. There are five new courses, which have already passed 30 Day Review. No new faculty or resources are needed to offer the program. Eddleman questioned if the other departments in which courses are required had been given notice of probable additional enrollment in those courses; Kraemer has spoken to those chairs. Hinkle commented that there may be a “doubling up” of hours by listing MA134 in the major requirements; Kraemer will adjust that as necessary. Kraemer further explained that the courses for the program were chosen by reviewing similar programs nationwide, and FEMA’s requirements, and our offerings. Rosati questioned whether accreditation or licensure would be sought; Kraemer responded that there is no accreditation, but they would look at FEMA endorsement for the program. Fluegge Woolf pointed out in the curriculum listing that PS425 has a spelling error; Kraemer will make that adjustment. Further discussion occurred. Smith will add the wording for seeking regional campus approval for the program, with notation of implementation as demand is needed. Motion passed unanimously.
2. TESOL Minor – Deletion of Minor
Barrios moved approval of the deletion of the TESOL (Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages) minor; seconded by Rogers-Adkinson. Ustinova explained that the MA TESOL and the TESOL minor were created at the same time, and while the MA was successful, the minor was not. Rosati commented that we do program review annually, but there was a state mandated review of minors this year, and there has been a request to eliminate any non-active minors. Barrios further explained that the minor was redundant with the MA TESOL program and the ESOL Certificate program. Motion passed unanimously.
3. Women’s Studies Minor – Deletion of Minor
Barrios moved approval of the deletion of the Women’s Studies minor; seconded by Rogers-Adkinson. Barrios explained that the minor has had a complicated history. Ustinova explained that the minor was created over a decade ago, and with the retirement of the key creator, the oversight was transferred to the College of Business, but the minor was officially still with the Department of English. There have been no declared minors in the past six years. Fluegge Woolf questioned if the minor should be terminated or could be suspended and possibly brought back if revamped. Gathman reiterated Fluegge Woolf’s suggestion of suspending the minor, or possibly terminating it and creating a new “Gender Studies” minor. Further discussion occurred. Gathman moved to table any action on the minor until October; seconded by McGowan. Motion to table passed unanimously.
4. New Course Approval Document (partially moved to Action Item – see full discussion
under Informational/Discussion Items, C2 below)
McGowan moved approval of the Course Approval Document, and the Course Approval Process (not the Course Approval Document Reference Sheet), with the understanding that the Syllabus Q2 Committee will seek feedback on the required elements of a syllabus (as listed on the Course Approval Document Reference Sheet) and that discussions on those required elements should be completed and approved by the end of Academic Year 2014; seconded by McDougall. Motion passed unanimously.
C. Informational/Discussion Items:
1. BS in Physics – Curriculum Revisions
McGowan asked Probst to speak to the curriculum revisions to the BS in Physics. Probst explained that they are adding a lower level 4 credit hour course, to replace 3 hours of technical electives. This revision is based on junior year electronics students being disadvantaged by not having the lower level course. The revision increases the overall program hours by 1 hour.
2. New Course Approval Document
Gathman explained that the Syllabus Q2 Committee has been working diligently on updating the Course Approval Document, as well as developing suggested required elements of a syllabus, and putting together a more detailed Course Approval Process. He explained that the new Course Approval Document has been revised to include Student Learning Outcomes, the Textbook section was removed, and there is a requirement to attach a copy of the department/class syllabus as an example. The Course Approval Process lays out the step by step process: 1) Department approval; 2) College Council approval Provost for 30 Day Review -> Provost notifies Department of any challenges; Provost notifies Department/Registrar of 30 Day Review approval -> Department sends CART document to Registrar. Rogers-Adkinson questioned that there was not a section under the required elements of a syllabus for expectation of course assignments; she explained that could be an accreditation issue; Gathman explained that there is nothing preventing colleges/departments from requiring more in a syllabus. Rosati questioned how to formalize the process; Gathman explained that the suggested required elements of a syllabus will be taken to the Faculty Senate Academic Affairs committee for review. McGowan moved approval of the Course Approval Document, and the Course Approval Process (not the Course Approval Document Reference Sheet), with the understanding that the Syllabus Q2 Committee will seek feedback on the required elements of a syllabus (as listed on the Course Approval Document Reference Sheet) and that discussions on those required elements should be completed and approved by the end of Academic Year 2014; seconded by McDougall. Motion passed unanimously.
1. Hinkle explained that students are still trying to drop classes, and she is encouraging Deans not to approve any of these requests. Currently, if a student comes to the Registrar’s Office requesting to drop past the deadline, she declines their request. If the student persists, she sends them to the Department Chair, and then the Dean. McDougall commented that the drop deadline was already extended from 10 weeks to 13 weeks, and questioned why the Registrar’s Office sends the students to the Chairs/Deans; he feels the Registrar’s Office should be the final say, and should not send the students to the Chairs/Deans. McGowan commented that there is a concern with no appeal process.
2. Hinkle asked the Deans to be aware of late adds as well.
3. Hinkle announced that grading is open through Monday, May 13th.
4. McGowan announced that this is Rosati’s last meeting; everyone wished him well.
Upon a motion by McGowan; seconded by Eddleman/Gathman, the meeting adjourned.