Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee
Minutes from the meeting of February 8, 2006
Present:
Nancy Campbell
Jeff Durgee
Prabhat Hajela
Amir Hirsa, chair
Chris McDermott
Wally Morris
Mike Hanna
David Hess
Dick Smith
Dave Spooner
Lee Odell
Ken Warriner
John Schroeder
Mike Wozny
Sharon Kunkel
Guest:
Lt. Heckel, USNA ROTC
1) The minutes from the January 25, 2006 meeting were approved unanimously with 1
abstention and with the following amendments:
a. Item 2 – “the increase in credit hours will have…”
b. Item 4- bullet 2 “Is there an immediate request for additional resources? When and
how soon…”
c. Item 5- “but there are requirements for admission to the program.”
2) Catalog Deadlines update- March 13 is the date course changes are due for the catalog.
February 10th is the deadline for degree templates. A FSCC meeting was scheduled for March
1 and the meeting scheduled for May 3rd has been cancelled. Once the catalog related items
are finished, the Committee will look at other issues.
3) Update on mid-term assessment- Nancy Campbell reported that there is no convergence yet
between the students and faculty on the issues.
4) School of Engineering (SoE) - Dick Smith distributed a packet of changes from the SoE.
a. Chemical & Biological Engineering template- The department added BIOL 1010,
removed Materials Science and added a new biotechnology lab in the senior year as an
option to the template. Committee members noted a couple of minor changes;
Organic Chemistry is now CHEM 2210 and suggested using the actual course titles in
the template rather than abbreviated titles. The motion to approve the changes was
approved by a vote of 10- 1 with no abstentions.
b. Biomedical Engineering- The template in the current catalog is incorrect. The revised
template includes 128 total credits, streamlined concentration courses with new
options, and BIOL 1010 (previously approved by the FSCC). D. Smith noted that a
non-engineering student could probably complete a dual in this program but it would
be very difficult. The motion to approve the new template was approved
unanimously.
Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee
Minutes from February 8, 2006
c. Electrical Computer and Systems (ECSE) - The revised template includes ECSE 2050
as a required course and CHEM 1100 instead of CHEM 1300. The motion to
approve the revised template was approved unanimously.
5) School of Humanities and Social Science (SoH&SS) - Lee Odell presented a number of
template changes. In most cases the change involved adding BIOL 1010 to the degree
requirements.
a. BS in Psychology- The Committee questioned why BIOL 1010 is required in the first
term. D. Smith expressed concern that the first term program doesn’t look like it’s
intended for psychology majors. The program includes a number of free electives but
this template is very similar to the current one. The Committee suggested adding a
footnote indicating that Introduction to Biology can be taken anytime during the first 2
years. The motion to approve the template with or without the footnote change
was approved unanimously.
b. BS in Communication with IT concentration- Mike Hanna indicated that the
department can decide to accept transfer credit or Biology AP or the department can
decide to give credit for a Biology elective. The Biology department is studying the
performance of students who taken AP to determine if current policy makes sense. D.
Spooner indicated that from IT point of view the Life Science requirement can be
taken at any time during the 4 years. M. Hanna believes that freshmen can benefit
from the course. The Committee would like to see the life science elective become
BIOL 1010. The template was approved unanimously.
c. A second motion to accept the template as is with suggestion that the course be
moved to an earlier term (4th term) was approved unanimously. The Committee
acknowledged their concern about the underlying issue that 1000 level courses
shouldn’t be offered in the upper level semesters.
d. A motion to approve the templates with the addition of BIOL 1010 to the
templates with the following exception, the BIOL 1010 requirement is not
intended for students completing dual majors with Engineering, was approved
unanimously with one abstention. This exception will be noted in the catalog.
Templates approved: Psychology
Philosophy
Economics
Electronic Arts
Electronic Media, Arts and Communication
Communication
Communication with concentration in Graphic Design
Communication- Web Design and Analysis Concentration
Communication with IT concentration
Science, Technology and Society
STSO- dual in Ecological Economics, Values and Policy
6) School of Science- S. Wait presented template changes for the following programs:
a. Accelerated Physician-Scientist
b. Biochemistry/Biophysics
c. Bioinformatics and Molecular Biology
-2-
Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee
Minutes from February 8, 2006
d. Biology
The 4 credit BIOL 1010 now includes a wet lab so the 1 credit lab is being dropped and 1
credit hour will be added to the Senior Culminating Experience. The motion to approve
the templates as presented was approved unanimously.
7) Lt. Heckel was back to follow-up on the proposed changes to the course USNA 1010. He
attended the SoE curriculum committee meeting to answer questions about the program. The
SoE curriculum committee now supports his proposal. The motion to approve the change to
the description, the title and increase the # of credits for the course, USNA1010, was
approved unanimously with 2 abstentions.
8) More on Mid-term Assessment- A brief discussion followed M. Hanna’s update which
included the following:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
l.
m.
It’s a student initiative.
“Mid-term grades” is not the right terminology. Assessment is a better term.
A student survey shows 89% in favor
Time commitment- it’s not a huge additional burden for the faculty
Many faculty are already doing something
Mandatory or voluntary?- Mandatory- the volunteers are already doing it
Who was surveyed? Was there feedback from all classes? Yes
The students cite egregious examples which is why they want the assessment to be
mandatory. Is there a way to handle these really outrageous cases?
Don’t punish those already providing feedback. Focus on the faculty who are not.
Maybe first year and very large courses should be targeted
How much work is it really?
If you are tracking assignments all along then it’s not really more work. It doesn’t
penalize those who are doing it.
The mechanism for assessment will be determined by the faculty.
-3-