Meeting Notes
University Studies Advisory Committee
Participants
Mahnaz Moallem
Martin Posey
Cara Cilano
Thomas Coombs
Anita McDaniel
Von Yeager
Linda Siefert
Paul Townend
Jennifer Horan
Michelle M. Vliem (to represent Dr. Myers)
September 11, 2013
DISCUSSION NOTES
• Proposed requirement regarding the residency requirement for EBC
o Currently a residency requirement is in place for EBC (and for the last
course of TTC). The committee discussed making a decision about if the
requirement needs to be fulfilled at UNCW (note that study abroad
experiences completed as a UNCW student do count toward the
requirement).
o The committee ended with the following idea:
 Credit for the competency will be awarded if the experience being
transferred in is credit bearing and the student prepares an
eportfolio about the experience and writes an essay addressing
SLO 2 and SLO 3 (which will be reviewed by Undergraduate
Studies). Cara will work on creating the guidelines, which the
committee will review later before continuing the discussion.
• Reviewing already-approved US courses
o The committee voted to implement an every-five-year recurring
assessment, cycling through all 17 US components across the 5 years. The
USAC would be responsible for the process, which is:
 Create a 5-year schedule for review/component
 Create a repository of all course syllabi, categorized by component
 Select a random sample of syllabi from each category (including
multiple versions of course syllabi if applicable)
 Form a review committee (composed of the USAC) and develop a
rubric against which the syllabi will be reviewed.
 Have reviewers assess the degree to which the component is
consistently taught in the courses.
 Have the USAC generate a report of the findings.
• Proposal reviews
o Revised and resubmitted proposals:
The committee voted to approve MGT 452, WGS 280, CIT 110, CIT
430 to be sent to Faculty Senate. (Note: MUS 106, though listed on
the Revise and Resubmit notes under AILP, was already approved
for AILP in the past. The department submitted it for LGS and it
was reviewed by USAC members for that component, and
feedback was sent to the department for revising the proposal. It
was revised and resubmitted as an LGS proposal. It appears that it
was miscategorized as AILP in this last round when a scorer either
scored the old proposal rather than the new one or entered “AILP”
rather than “LGS” in the rubric survey)
o New proposals:
 For Intentional Living, some additional work will be done to see if
it can be merged with an existing cluster theme.
 For INT 351 for HPA, it will be reviewed again by one committee
member
 For all other courses that had consistent and high scores, the
committee approved to send those to the Faculty Senate. Courses
without consistent scores or with lower ones will be re-reviewed.
o The Committee agreed to form proposal review subcommittees in order
to foster higher interrater reliability and greater expertise for the scoring
process. The subcommittees would consist of:
 Subcommittee #1 TTC and EBC (Anita M. requested to be on this
subcommittee)
 Subcommittee #2 Approaches and Perspectives
 Subcommittee #3 Common Requirements (no EBC)
o It was suggested that a flowchart be developed of the proposal review
process for both the committee and to add to the website.
