Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee
Minutes from the September 29, 2005 Meeting
Present:
Jeff Durgee
Nancy Campbell
Mike Goldenberg
Prabhat Hajela
Mike Hanna
Amir Hirsa, chair
Sam Wait
Carlos Lopez
Sharon Kunkel
Julie Leusner
Chris McDermott
Lee Odell
Dick Smith
Dave Spooner
Ken Warriner
Mike Wozny
1) The minutes from the September 14th meeting were approved unanimously with the following
amendments 1)Pg 2 dual majors “2 or 3” 2) Pg 2 P. Hajela has asked the Faculty Senate to
look at the deans list and mid-term grades 3) pg 1, the use of modifiers at the discretion of the
faculty.
2) School of Engineering-Dick Smith presented a course change for information. MANE 4710,
title change from Advanced Heat Transfer to Heat Transfer.
3) Grade modifier issue- S. Kunkel read the ballot (see attached) used for the faculty vote on
grade modifiers. M. Hanna reiterated his concern about the interpretation of the transcripts if
some faculty were using modifiers and others were not. He asked if we had benchmark data to
know how other schools have handled the transition. C. McDermott asked if 7000 level courses
can be graded with modifiers this fall. The implementation this fall includes both 6000 and
7000 level courses. The Committee agreed that it was very important for courses with multiple
sections to be graded consistently across all sections. M. Hanna noted that since there is some
confusion perhaps A. Hirsa should discuss the FSCC’s concern about multi-section courses
with the executive committee of the Faculty Senate (FS). The Committee agreed that we should
not revisit the approved grade modifier policy until it is fully implemented. The Committee
unanimously approved the following motion: The FSCC asks the FS to clarify the language on
+- grades so all sections of the same course are graded consistently either with or without the
modifiers.
4) L. Odell suggested the following charge for the Task Force on the Implementation of the
Communication Requirement 1) establish criteria for communication intensive courses 2)
articulate criteria for communicative competencies and 3) spell out 2 or 3 scenarios where
assistance would be needed and the resources available. The Committee agreed to this charge.
L. Odell hopes to have the names of the Task Force members by the next meeting. He also
would like to have an outline of the implementation plan by the end of this term.
5) The Committee then began to prioritize the agenda items for the upcoming year:
a. Core Outcomes- this is the top priority
b. 4x4- The Committee discussed a number of issues related to 4x4 including the
following:
i. There is no prohibition on 3 credit hour courses but there will be practical
constraints i.e. classroom, and appropriate space
Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
Minutes from the September 29, 2005 Meeting
ii. Some of what we learned is being ignored. 2 hour slots were intended to allow
for more creative teaching, group interaction, team work, etc
iii. It’s important to have a structure to accommodate the pragmatic needs i.e.
classrooms, avoiding student schedule conflicts
iv. If a 4 credit course becomes a 3 credit course then the course content must be
revised. The FSCC needs to oversee that process.
v. Not all courses are created equal. Some 3 credit courses require more work than
others
vi. Many classes only last 1.5 hours rather than the full 2 hours
vii. In Engineering, many courses now meet 3 days a week. There are fewer faculty
to teach so the classes are larger
viii. We could look at constraints on times and classrooms to gather the data now
ix. In the SoS, there is no indication from the faculty that they are ready to do the
work to revise the curriculum. The first step is to go back to departments for
feedback and find out what the faculty want to do.
x. Let pedagogy drive the changes.
xi. Weigh the academic issues against the pragmatic concerns.
xii. In H&SS, some would welcome additional exposure with eight 3 credit courses
rather than six 4 credit courses.
TA concerns in Mathematics- Don Drew will be at the next meeting to discuss the TA
issue. Other departments are also using undergraduates as TAs.
Rules for dual majors and double- S. Kunkel will provide the Committee with data on
the number of students completing dual majors. The Committee agreed this is a low
priority. It may be more of an advising issue. D. Spooner agreed that the issue of dual
majors for ITEC students was not a priority.
Time limits on graduation for undergraduates are a higher priority.
Undergraduates and the limit on transfer credits- S. Kunkel will discuss the issue with
Admissions to understand what the problem is and find out how many students are
affected.
Biology and AP credits- The School of Science is discussing so the FSCC will defer to
them on this issue.
Mid term grading- Achille Messac indicated that the Executive Committee is not
interested in pursuing this issue. The students are interested and consider mid-term
grading an important issue. P. Hajela has asked for a discussion in the FS.
-2-
Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee
Minutes from the September 29, 2005 Meeting
Dear Colleague,
This email constitutes your ballot on the +/- grading proposal. To vote, please
return this email to its sender, Francine Fredette with either APPROVE or
DISAPPROVE marked below. Votes will be counted through 10:00am on Monday, April
26.
For your information:
1. The proposal incorporates revisions developed in cooperation with the Student
Senate intended to minimize the impact on students currently enrolled.
2. The adoption of the proposal given below would allow but not require individual
faculty to use grade modifiers.
Thank you.
Cheryl Geisler
PLUS/MINUS BALLOT PROPOSITION
1. Grade Scale:
For undergraduate students: A, A-, B+, B, B-, C+, C, C-, D+, D; F
For graduate students: A, A-, B+, B, B-, C+, C; F
2. Numeric equivalents:
A = 4.00, A- = 3.67, B+ = 3.33, B = 3.0, etc.
3. Conditions for probation:
Same as before
4. Graduation requirements: Same as before
5. Application of new system:
follows:
The new grading scheme will be applied as
* to 1000-level and 6000-level courses beginning in Fall 2005
* to 2000-level courses beginning in Fall 2006
* to 4000-level courses beginning in Fall 2007
APPROVE ________
DISAPPROVE ________
-3-