Meeting Notes
University Studies Advisory Committee Meeting
August 31, 2011
2:00 p.m.
Leutze Hall 111
Participants
Cara Cilano
Curry Guinn
Kemille Moore
Michael Freeze
Bill Compton
Anita McDaniel
Phil Furia
Notetaker: Lea Bullard
Focus Topics
Purpose of the model syllabus
Prioritizing faculty senate motions
Discussion Notes
Re-review of submission revisions
• All revisions from departments are due September 1
• Hints for reviewing submitted revisions:
o University Studies Advisory Committee > Shared Documents > NEW status master and alignment
info > masterapproval.xlsx: In this spreadsheet, proposal numbers marked “R” indicate a first
revision, with an “RS” indicate a second revision, and/or with an asterisk indicate that there is
specific feedback available for you to reference when reviewing (see next bullet).
o University Studies Advisory Committee > Shared Documents > NEW Chair Feedback Phase II >
Component master lists: this folder contains lists (organized by component) of the feedback sent
to departments regarding the proposals that were returned for revision
Reworking forms
• Departmental Honors are being revised to include SLOs for Explorations
• OIP is doing the same for Study Abroad
• Internship and DIS form to be revised
Workshop
• There has been talk with CTE about having a workshop to get the word out about Explorations and
Clusters
• If all goes well at the Senate, we’ll look for this workshop to be the 3rd week of September. Having
committee members either available for the workshop or to act as point-people within their
departments to get the word out would be helpful.
Purpose of the model syllabus
• There is some resistance to including SLOs on the course syllabi
• CAS does not require SLOs on syllabus but does look to it as a specification of what the course will do
and to establish rigor
lrb
08/31/11
•
•
•
What purpose does the model syllabus serve?
o It doesn’t have to be restricting and doesn’t have to define specific assignments; doesn’t have to
be a burden
o Could be to provide objectives; as an example of how things line up
o It’s only a model…it is not a syllabus that a professor has to necessarily adopt in that form. It can
be considered more of a template.
o The syllabus that was submitted with the proposal for that course is not binding.
o It would be very hard to review the course proposal without the syllabus
Is it necessary that the SLOs appear on the syllabus that the student will receive?
o It’s useful for students who might compare syllabi between different sections of the same
course
o It’s a good source of insurance for the teacher for rationalizing why particular assignments are
assigned
o Perhaps the committee could craft a phrase like: the USAC strongly suggests that the model
syllabus includes SLOs
o Maybe a compromise is that the departments have to make the SLOs available to students in
some way; maybe on a departmental website
o SACS may not require it now, but probably will at some point. Anything you do assessment on
should be made clear to the student.
o Perhaps we can say “recommend” as a best practice and give multiple options for how the SLOs
can appear.
o We can say we need it for our process; we have no purview over whether professors actually
put it on their syllabus
Cara to get Linda’s input on this
Prioritizing faculty senate motions
• (referring to handout) Question regarding IIC: is that too much information?
o If you leave it out, it possible that the senate would ask if the committee had thought about how
it would happen?
o Since the senate has already approved Clusters, can they decide not to approve it based on this
process?
o It’s nice that we are not making the process mysterious.
o We don’t have SLOs for Clusters since the faculty will be generating those.
o Highlighting that this is JUST process might make it easier to accept.
• It was recommended that we list the proposals in order of importance in the senate document and
suggested that we could split the motions, but a problem happens if we split the proposal into separate
pieces since they need to all happen simultaneously as our process method relies on the Senate
document that hasn’t yet been approved.
 Possible solutions:
• For Clusters
o IIA and IIC are essentially the same thing and could be potentially
lumped together
o IIC: more of a priority that the approve the 2-step process than approve
specifics about HOW we do it
o IIB and D can perhaps be combined and move its priority down, going
for IIC first, followed by what is now IIA.
lrb
08/31/11
•
For Explorations
o Move IC above the current IA
Committee Action Items
•
•
Next meeting: TBA
Don’t forget: teammates to review and submit scores of proposal listed on handout by September 1st:
o Anne and Michael GS, IL and 758
o Phil, Curry, Bill 451-492 not including prop 564
o Heidi and Anita 625-753 not including 707, 746, 750-752 (anything IL or LGS)
lrb
08/31/11