44th Faculty Senate
February 11, 2010 – 3:30p.m.
Robert C. Voight Faculty Senate Chambers – 325 Graff Main Hall
Vol. 44, No. 9
I. Roll Call.
Present: J. Anderson (excused), C. Angell, J. Baggett, S. Brokaw, D. Buffton, V. Crank (excused), G.
Cravins, T. Gendreau, J. Heim, K. Hoar, J. Holman, D. Hoskins, K. Hunt, D. Lake, R. LeDocq, A. Loh,
C. Lee, R. Mikat (absent), J. Miskowski, S. Shillinger (excused), R. Smith, M. Tollefson, B. Van
Voorhis and M. Wycoff-Horn
II. Minutes of January 28, 2010 were approved.
III. Reports.
a. Chair’s Report.
i. Thank you to those who attended the open and/or governance body forums for the
Assessment Coordinator candidates. There is no more news at this time.
ii. Senate elections information was sent out via email and the petitions are posted to the
main FS web page. Please encourage colleagues to run, as we have had a shortage of
candidates for the last few years. Nomination petitions are due in the FS Office by
4:00pm on Friday, February 19.
iii. The BOR approved the Academic Initiatives proposal on Friday, February 5th.
iv. The FS chair will be the UWL representative at the February 19 Faculty Reps meeting,
as Joe Heim will be unable to attend. Educational Attainment is a topic of discussion.
v. The White Privilege Conference registration information will be sent out via email
tomorrow. UWL faculty and staff costs have changed, as we cannot get the non-profit
pricing.
vi. Note about the recent passing of two former UWL faculty – George Gilkey (history)
and David Mewaldt (music). George Gilkey “started faculty senate” at UWL. He
served on FS for 12 years and was FS chair for 3 years.
vii. Teri Hinds introduced Marv Notlze, the new Institutional Research Analyst
b. Student Association Report (Erik Kahl). UWL SA is coordinating with other student
associations to mark March 3rd as Haiti: Day of Action.
c. Faculty Rep’s Report.
i. Short overview of the upcoming appellate court elections.
ii. Distributed handout of collective bargaining FAQs. This handout has been posted to
the main FS web page.
iii. Joe Heim is the sole faculty member on the Competitive University Workforce
Commission – this committee is investigating higher salaries for UW faculty.
IV. Approval of 2011-12 Academic Calendar.
FS was originally asked to approve the 2012-13 calendar as well. This was delayed until the end
of Spring 2010 semester to allow the Ad Hoc Calendar committee time to make recommendations
that could be incorporated as early as Fall 2012.
Motion to approve the 2011-2012 Academic Calendar. Motion Approved.
V. SEC Nominee to replace Deb Hoskins on Committee on Committees – Kerrie Hoar.
a. Deb Hoskins is no longer a senator; therefore, ineligible to serve on CoC.
Motion to replace Deb Hoskins on Committee on Committees with Kerrie Hoar. Motion
approved.
VI. SEC Recommendations for Ad Hoc Calendar Committee Membership.
a. There were a total of nine volunteers for this committee – no volunteers from CBA.
b. If her name is forwarded, Betsy Morgan would be the convener of the committee. Renee
Redman was recommended because she teaches laboratories. Labs are an important
consideration in scheduling.
Motion to approve Betsy Morgan, Eric Kraemer and Renee Redman as Faculty Members on the
Ad Hoc Calendar Committee. Motion approved.
VII. Response from APR on Special Charge (Sandy Grunwald).
a. Special Charge: Review the role of the Provost in the Academic Program Review process.
Consider whether the Provost, in addition to the appropriate Dean, should be able to review
the proposal and provide suggestions prior to the final report being sent to APR.
b. Background: For academic program review, departments complete a self-study. The next
step is to invite in an external reviewer or accreditation agency to review the self-study and
visit with the department. Once complete, the report goes to the Academic Program Review
committee and then to Faculty Senate. The time lag between completion of the self-study and
presentation at FS can be as much as 3 years. The Provost is requesting access to the selfstudy prior to FS approval.
c. Recommendation: APR recommends adding the following language to both the review
process for both accredited and non-accredited programs to allow the Provost to have access
to APR reports after the external/accreditation agency review: APR administrative
consultants or their designated representative will be granted electronic access to APR
documents. Deans review the final package and prepare a summary including
recommendations.
d. Discussion:
i. The Provost is responsible for the academic integrity of UWL programs; therefore,
should have access to these reports at an early stage of the process to allow her to help
the program overcome any challenges and to attain their program goals.
Motion to approve the APR recommendation. Motion approved.
VIII. Response from UCC/GCC on Special Charge (Cynthia Berlin and Carol Angell).
a. Special Charge:
i. UCC: (1) Review existing policies to determine whether they are sufficient for the
review of courses with an online component. (2) As stated on the Records and
Registration webpage, the LX 138C Form is “used to make any change to a course
including description, prerequisite(s), credits, title, grading pattern, instructional
pattern, course number.” This would seem to indicate that UCC/GCC approval is
required for a change in course format, in particular a shift to offering a course as a
hybrid or online course. Discuss the question of what changes should require
UCC/GCC approval and, if needed, develop policies to re-review existing courses
undergoing such changes. Make any appropriate recommendations to Senate.
ii. GCC: (1) Review existing policies to determine whether they are sufficient for the
review of courses with an online component. (2) Discuss the question of what types of
changes to a course (e.g., change in course format – shift to hybrid/online, lab to
lecture) should require GCC approval and, if needed, develop policies to re-review
existing courses undergoing such changes. Make any appropriate recommendations to
Senate.
b. After extensive discussions, UCC put together an ad hoc committee to investigate the issue.
They looked primarily at whether an existing course, planning to go online, should go to UCC
for re-review. Both UCC and GCC recommend that existing face-to-face courses not be
required to be re-reviewed in the event that the course moves to an online format. This is the
purview of departments. UCC is also working with Chris Bakkum to determine what changes
to courses should require submitting LX forms. The same recommendations apply to hybrid
courses. All new courses, however, are required to go through UCC/GCC regardless of
instructional pattern.
c. Recommendations:
i. UCC: Existing courses that are already taught online or have an online component
should not be required to return to UCC for re-review. In addition, existing courses
that are converted to online format also should not be required to return to UCC for
re-review. Instead, these course changes should be noted by the registrar and sent to
the UCC as an informational item. The decision to place a course online should be
made by the department, since they are best suited to judge the appropriateness of the
course material for online instruction.
New courses proposed to UCC that will be taught online or have an online component
as a hybrid course should have “online format” included on the LX form (as a checked
box) and include appropriate documentation.
Motion to approve UCC recommendations. Motion approved.
ii. GCC: The existing policies are sufficient for the review of all university courses
regardless of delivery format. The delivery method (online, hybrid, face-to-face) is the
duty of the academic department and should not change the course content and
objectives put forward on the LX form. Review of course components is consistent
across delivery method(s) selected on the LX form. GCC does not recommend any
change to the existing course review policy
The current LX form and proposed LX form, not yet shared campus-wide, contains
checkboxes at the top indicating the types of changes being made to a course. Each of
these changes when proposed must come before GCC for consideration and approval.
Currently, all changes indicated on the LX form are brought forward for committee
consideration and approval. GCC does not recommend re-review of existing
university course LXs when the mode of delivery is changed. GCC recommends that
when the new LX form is released for use that departments check all modes of delivery
that may be used to deliver course content.
Motion to approve GCC recommendations. Motion approved.
IX. Discussion of Online Handbook (Brian Udermann & Kristin Koepke).
a. SEC discussed endorsement of the Policies only. The Guidelines are best practices and FS
does not need to approve this section. Brian and Kristin would like to have the handbook
endorsed as a unit.
b. This handbook came about through discussions with departments who are considering
developing such a document for their department.
c. Addressing the SEC Concerns:
i. Online Instructor Training Requirement: Anyone teaching an online course for the
first time at UWL would need to complete this training. It will be required of all online
education grant recipients in order to receive the second stipend. Currently, if an
instructor has had similar training or certification, he/she can request to have this
requirement waived. The Online Advisory Group has not discussed a waivor in the
event that an instructor has online course experience, but not training.
ii. Policies for Online Education **This section is appropriate for Online courses that are
also offered face‐ to‐ face. Fully online programs need to contact program directors to
determine appropriateness of the policies for the program: This statement was added to
address fully online programs that have different start/end dates, etc. Suggesting rewording would be: There may be exceptions to this policy in fully online programs.
iii. Drop Procedure: Chris Bakkum distributed a handout with a revised policy.
Draft Procedure for Dropping Online Courses
This policy applies only to online courses dropped during the normal drop/add period for the course.
1. Online students can drop an online course by e‐mailing the instructor during the normal
drop/add period for the course (in which instructor or advisor signature is required to drop).
2. Second, the instructor forwards the student’s e‐mail to the Records Office (records@uwlax.edu)
from the
instructor’s UW‐L e‐mail account so the Records Office can process the drop. The drop will be
dated with the day the student originally e‐mailed the instructor.
3. Third, the Records Office will print and file this e‐mail with the other drop slips in the Records
Office. The student and the instructor will receive a confirmation of the drop from the Records
Office once the drop is processed.
If the course is the only course a student is registered for, a withdrawal from the university will be
required and the student will be referred to the Office of Student Life to initiate the withdrawal process.
Another Process to consider:
Procedure for Dropping Online Courses
All UW-L policies related to schedule changes, withdrawal from classes, and withdrawal from the
university also apply to online courses. However, since online students may not be able to come to
campus to withdraw from a class, the following procedure has been developed to facilitate this process
electronically (applies only to online courses dropped during the normal withdrawal from classes period
for the course).
1. Instructors of online courses using D2L should set up a Drop Box in the course named
“Request to Withdraw” and should notify students in the class that should they wish to
withdraw from the course, they will need to send a request to this Drop Box prior to the
deadline for withdrawing from the class. (Note: Any student may drop the class using WINGS
during the normal drop/add “schedule change” period – usually the first 5 days of the semester
for full semester courses; pro-rated for shorter courses and summer courses, so the Drop Box
would not need to be active until after that period). This Drop Box should be inactivated once
the deadline to withdraw from the course has been reached. Instructors should not delete the
contents of the Drop Box.
2. Students wishing to withdraw during the first half of the course should submit the request to the
Request to Withdraw Drop Box.
3. Instructors should monitor the Request to Withdraw Drop Box and respond immediately to any
requests from students to withdraw. This allows the instructor a chance to communicate with
the student to find out why they wish to withdraw and to advise them on the decision.
4. To withdraw a student from the course following the request from the student, the instructor
must immediately e-mail the Registrar’s Office to complete the withdrawal from the class for
the student. The e-mail must include the student’s name, ID number, class information (ie: SPA
101, section 1), and date the student requested the withdrawal. The e-mail should be sent to
Records@uwlax.edu. UW-L policy does not allow an instructor to withdraw a student from a
class without the student’s permission (exception to this can be found under “Class Drops at
the Discretion of an Instructor, pg. 45 UW-L Catalog).
5. Online students who are able to complete the withdrawal process in person should be
encouraged to do that.
6. The Records Office will print and file the instructor’s e‐mail with the other drop slips archived
in the Records Office. The student and the instructor will receive a confirmation of the drop
from the Records Office once the drop is processed.
If the course is the only course a student is registered for, a withdrawal from the
university will be required and the student will be referred to the Office of Student
Life to initiate the withdrawal process.
d. Discussion:
i. Do we really need a separate set of policies for online courses? Most appear to be the
same as those for face-to-face courses. Why not just say that all of the current policies
apply to online courses with the exception of. . . (e.g., drop procedure, sole ownership,
required courses must also be offered as face-to-face, etc.)
ii. Who enforces these policies?
iii. Should the training be required? There is a training requirement to teach writing
emphasis courses.
iv. Should we be requiring a specific software package? What happens if we change
software packages.
e. An Ad Hoc Faculty Senate committee should be formed to investigate this issue and
bring recommendations to FS.
X. Discussion of Educational Attainment:
a. It is very important that faculty speak up and be involved in the discussion of this proposal;
however, the timeline is not allowing this. The template is due on February 17. This is two
days before the Faculty Reps meet to discuss the proposal and a week before the next UWL
Faculty Senate meeting.
b. A draft response could be shared with other institutions at the February 19 Faculty Reps
meeting. This response will require an email approval from senators if FS wishes to forward it
to UWS prior to our next FS meeting on February 25.
Sense of the FS: Does the FS wish to draft a response to this initiative? Yes (unanimous)
XI. Adjournment at 4:52 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Kerrie Hoar