Academic Standards Committee Minutes
February 9, 2000
Present: Marianne Taylor, Doug Goodman, Steve Rodgers, Yvonne Swinth, Matt McGinnis, David
Lupher, Jack Roundy, Brad Tomhave, Karen Porter, John Finney, Ron Fields, Robin Foster
Guest: Cindy Mowry
1. Minutes: The minutes of the January 26 meeting were approved with one correction: a query about
surveying students on their use of the Logger attributed to Porter was actually made by Foster.
2. Announcements: Goodman reported that he anticipates Wade Williams will resign from the ASC,
having made this request of Dean Cooney; a final decision will be forthcoming soon. Goodman also
reported that he and Finney have yet to establish the ASC’s spring schedule, but will do so in due course.
3. Petitions Committee: Tomhave reported petitions committee actions as below, adding: 1) 19 of Jan.
27’s petitions were routine registration matters (e.g., time conflicts) handled by the Registrar; 2) 8 of Feb.
1’s petitions were handled by the Registrar; 3) Feb. 8’s results (below) are an unofficial summary of
yesterday’s meeting; 4) with Williams’ departure and Matt McGinnis’ schedule conflict, he is seeking a
faculty and student replacement for the petitions committee. McGinnis offered to seek a student nominee
from the ASUPS president. Foster volunteered to take Williams’ place, pending a review of her schedule
to make sure she can.
Date
1/27/00
2/1/00
2/8/00
YTD
Approved
24
11
8
132
Denied
3
4
5
29
No Action
Total
0
0
0
2
27
15
13
173
4. Logger Revision: Finney reported that he, Dougharty, Marta Palmquist-Cady, and Sandy Sarr had
met to discuss Logger revision. Rather than reduce it in size or find a less expensive way to produce it,
they decided to expand it and try to make it more attractive without adding to current production costs.
Some ideas included: 1) renaming it something like “Logger and Student Planner;” 2) expanding and
jazzing up the calendar and moving it to the front ; 3) adding an introduction that includes University
history and traditions; 4) adding University organization charts and “where to go for” information; 5) folding
the Student Affairs publication “Life Off Campus” into the Logger; 6) beefing up the index; and 7)
developing a new design. Much of the inspiration for these changes came from a Willamette publication;
Finney expressed determination that we could and would develop something to outstrip their elegant
handbook. Logger changes won’t be fully implemented until academic year 2001-2002.
Goodman inquired whether the ASC needed to discuss the Logger further this year, and Finney replied
that he might make announcements from time to time, but further discussion wasn’t needed (though
member input is still welcome). McGinnis, noting the various additions proposed, inquired whether
anything might be removed from the Logger. Finney said he didn't think so. Goodman inquired whether
an events calendar might be included, and Finney thought it would, insofar as planned events were
known at the time of publication.
5. Transfer Credit: Tomhave introduced the discussion by declaring his intention to propose several
amendments to current Logger policy (pp. 52-55) to bring it up to date with the kinds of transfer credit now
being brought to us by students. Some background: our current transfer credit policy was built around the
rather clear distinctions that formerly obtained between Puget Sound’s contact-intensive classroom model
and traditional correspondence courses. Recent developments in online and distance learning have
blurred the lines and added new elements to our assessment of credit earned in non-traditional ways.
Tomhave’s proposed amendments included:
1) Add a paragraph to our general policy reserving the University’s right to limit transferability of courses
based on the source of credit or method of instruction. This stipulation would allow us to make and
enforce quality judgments in reviewing non-traditional transfer courses.
2) Under “Credit Limits,” reorganize items 7-10, moving “Independent Study” to 7, “Academic Pass/Fail” to
8, and eliminating 10 as currently written (elements from it will appear in a revised “Self-Paced Study”
section, moved from 7 to 9). The upshot would be in effect to group all non-classroom-based credit into
newly rationalized categories, numbered 9, 10, and 11.
3) Under “Credit Limits,” add a new paragraph 9, “Self-Paced Study.” This section would permit transfer
of up to 4 units of correspondence, programmed text, or telecourse credit, with the stipulation that these
courses do not meet University core requirements. The rules here approximate those formerly laid down
for “Correspondence/Self-Paced Study,” but give evaluators the discretion to accept high quality
telecourses.
4) Under “Credit Limits,” add a new paragraph 10, “Distance Education.” This section would permit
transfer of up to 16 units of distance education (online or electronic). These are all courses that have a
common calendar for beginning, ending, class “meetings,” and assignment/examination due dates. In
electronic courses, students may also have a common classroom where they learn by closed-circuit
television.
5) Under “Credit Limits,” add a new paragraph 11, “Extension.” This section would condition acceptance
of credit through “extension programs” on content and method of instruction. It would give evaluators
discretion in reviewing these courses, and would continue the University’s current policy of excluding
courses designed for specialized professional or personal interest.
Roundy inquired whether Tomhave envisioned providing precise definitions for his new credit categories.
Tomhave said he didn’t want to “go too deep” into such definition, since more general categories offer
flexibility for evaluators in making judgments in an area where modes of instruction are in significant flux.
Finney concurred, saying that at this level, the more general the definitions are, the better they are,
though he thought we might want to add further clarification to the use of the term “online,” since in some
cases what students think of as online we describe under “self-paced.” Foster observed that it would be
useful for faculty advisors to understand these new types of credit and how we are evaluating, though as
Rodgers pointed out, it may be largely the University evaluators to whom tricky transfer credit questions
are brought.
Roundy suggested that a practical way for the committee to proceed with Tomhave’s proposed
amendments would be for Tomhave to interpolate them into the Logger text as it stands and then allow
members to review the revised text. Goodman thought this idea would work, though he made it clear he
hoped we wouldn’t try to do word-by-word editing in committee; rather, our role should be to address the
larger policy questions. Finney agreed, saying he thought the ASC’s role in this was to educate ourselves
and formulate policy accordingly.
Goodman went on to invite guest Mowry to comment on her perspective as an evaluator and expert on
transfer credit issues. Mowry reported that when she started work at Puget Sound in 1998, no students
came to her asking about distance learning/online credit; this past summer, ten did. Tomhave, seeing the
development of this new kind of credit, asked her to investigate, and her research turned into her master’s
thesis for her degree at Seattle University. A most instructive look at these new kinds of courses can be
found at Washington Online (WAOL: http://www.WashingtonOnline.org/ ), a distance learning branch of
the Washington State community college system (likely, Mowry says, to become the state’s thirty-fourth
community college). Students taking WAOL course enroll through the nearest community college, but
take their courses online. The courses offered by WAOL are similar in most ways to courses we regularly
accept in transfer from community colleges; they are in-depth, rigorous courses with regularly structured
written assignments and exams. Other examples of available online courses include biology classes from
Iowa State, and similar regular courses given by UMass-Amherst and Penn State. A new player in this
field is the nation’s first online-only accredited institution, Jones International University. Another such
institution making its way to U.S. shores is the Open University based in England.
Foster observed that recent candidates for teaching positions at Puget Sound have included in their vitas
online courses taught through the regular curriculum at other institutions. If these courses are
“embedded” in the regular curriculum, how do we know that they are online courses when we get a
transcript? Mowry replied that we often don’t know. In fact, WAOL has a firm policy not to make a
distinction on transcripts between courses taught in classrooms and those taught online, so convinced are
they of their equivalence.
McGinnis wondered if the learning experience in online courses might vary by discipline; for example,
how could foreign languages be taught as effectively online as in a classroom (to which Rodgers added,
“You took the words right out of my mouth.”)? Mowry replied that she had seen no online foreign
language courses as yet (nor PE, either), perhaps because such courses are untranslatable to that
medium.
Foster wondered whether, if we don’t know the mode of instruction for a given course on a student
transcript, we simply have to accept it. In some cases, yes, replied Mowry, though the source of a course
will often tip us off. Thus, if we receive a transcript from Jones International, we’ll scrutinize it carefully,
because we know the course was given online and there are sometimes serious quality questions in their
courses. Finney added that if the faculty were to decide that Puget Sound should take no online
coursework, our evaluators could do a pretty good job of ferreting out which courses were taken that way,
though they would inevitably miss some.
Goodman interjected that the real question here is not the mode of instruction but its quality. Tomhave
responded by saying that Puget Sound’s bias has been that the mode of instruction affects quality, which
has led us to the limitations on credit transfer we have. Finney added that in working with students we
can always say that there are myriad ways to learn, and myriad instructional models whereby students can
be taught, but our measure of transferability hinges on the comparability of the learning experience to what
Puget Sound offers. Goodman observed that another factor that muddies the waters here is that Puget
Sound faculty themselves are using more and more electronic tools in their teaching. Finney replied that
the difference was that electronic tools used by Puget Sound faculty were in addition to, rather than
instead of, our baseline model of in-class, person-to-person instruction.
As the hour drew to a close, Tomhave agreed to bring a revised text for the Logger to the next meeting
for committee review.
With that we adjourned, at 8:56 a.m.
Respectfully submitted by the ASC amanuensis,
Jack Roundy