Instructional and Student Services Committee Meeting
September 20, 2013
Members Present: Breana Bayraktar, Alton Carroll, William Preston Davis, Marilyn Deppe,
Stephanie Harm, Beth Harper, Nelson Kofie, Charles Korn, Molly Lynch, Patty Ottavio, Barbara
Saperstone, William Schran, Elizabeth Sears, Kevin Sheehan, Tonda Shine and Frances
Villagran-Glover.
Members Absent: Joan Blankmann, Zaimah Khan, Maria Nieto-Shahsavarian, Linda
Rodriguez, Mel Schiavelli, Erica Smith, Alison Thimblin and Kelly Usher.
College Recorder: Norie Flowers
Chair, Dr. Lynch called the meeting to order and welcomed Committee members who
introduced themselves.
Review of the Role of the ISSC
Dr. Lynch went over the official Faculty Handbook language for the role of the Committee which
states:
The Instructional and Student Services Committee (ISSC) receives proposals from the
College Senate, Campus Councils, Working Groups, and College community and makes
recommendations pertaining to the quality of education in the College, student life and
the welfare of the student body of the College. The committee studies, gathers
information, conducts discussions and surveys the intellectual and/or student
environment, academic standards and teaching-learning conditions in the College.
Dr. Lynch reiterated the importance of the ISSC and asked that if a given Committee member
could not attend, that an alternate be asked to attend in place of the Committee member. She
also encouraged Committee members to talk to their Campus Councils, explain the function of
the ISSC, and update the Councils on all Committee actions.
Dr. Lynch gave an overview of the topics raised last year:
 English redesign presentation
 NOVACares presentation
 Adjunct Faculty Evaluations (tabled until the full-time faculty process is finished)
 Dual enrollment discussions
 QEP updates
 General Education Council presentation
 Developmental Math Update
 Democracy Commitment Presentation and request for the College to become a
member
Instructional and Student Services Committee
September 20, 2013
Page 2 of 4
Requirement for a Proctored Exam
This issue arose over concern expressed last year from an Annandale Assistant Dean that a
faculty member was giving all exams online, and they were therefore not proctored. The
additional concern was raised over student identity verification.
The Faculty Handbook regulation on tests and final exams does not appear to address the issue
and states:
3.1200 Tests and Final Examinations
Students are expected to take tests and examinations at the regularly scheduled time;
exceptions are to be arranged in advance with the faculty member. Tests and
examinations should be kept in the personal possession of the teaching faculty or under
lock until the scheduled time. Faculty may use the writing/testing centers to administer
exams. In this situation, writing/testing centers personnel are responsible for the security
of the exams. The faculty member is responsible for the direct supervision of the test or
examination. If a student fails to appear for a scheduled test or examination, the student
must contact the faculty member to make appropriate arrangements. Each teaching
faculty member is required to give a final examination, or provide an appropriate
evaluation, or continue instruction during the scheduled final examination period. It is the
faculty member's responsibility to consult with the division dean concerning the method
to be used, reaching an agreement that is consistent with the content/concept of each
course. Divisional files must contain copies of all such agreements, appropriate
evaluative instruments, and final examinations for institutional self-study. Teaching
faculty is required to keep the final examination papers and evaluative instruments of
students on file for one semester, in case any question arises concerning grades.
Students have the right to review final exams for one semester after the end of the term
in which the final exam was taken. Any deviation from the final examination schedule
must be approved by the provost or designee.
Dr. Lynch provided the ELI policy which mandates some proctored activities:
ELI Requirement for Proctored Activities
In order to meet accreditation standards, ELI requires all courses to have a minimum of
two proctored activities that, together, constitute a significant enough component of the
course grade that students cannot pass the course without passing the proctored
activities. “Proctored” means that students’ photo IDs are checked and their work is
monitored and assessed; this could take place in a number of ways, such as in an exam
setting, a classroom or lab activity, or a clinical experience. “Significant component of
the course grade” could mean by mathematical weight, or by required passing
regardless of mathematical weight.
NOTE: There is NO requirement for the proctored activities to count a certain
percentage toward a student’s grade. Counting the proctored activities as a significant
portion of the grade is just one way to ensure that students cannot pass the course
without passing the proctored activities.
Instructional and Student Services Committee
September 20, 2013
Page 3 of 4
Dr. Davis representing ELI confirmed that for ELI accreditation identity verification was required
for all ELI students, and that a minimum of two proctored activities were mandatory for all ELI
courses. Because there is nothing in the handbook that specifically addresses the issue of
requiring a proctored activity or verifying identity in face-to-face courses, Dr. Lynch launched the
question of whether Committee members felt a change was needed to the regulations.
It was pointed out that without identity verification a student could pay someone else to take an
exam for him/her. The committee seemed to feel that even if this was not happening very often,
requiring a proctored activity and verifying identity helps maintain the integrity of the course.
This might be particularly important in programmatic coursework.
Committee members seemed to think that requiring at least one proctored activity where the
NOVA student ID is checked per course was acceptable. It needs to be made clear that group
presentations and writing projects, in addition to exams, would be considered proctored
activities.
In making this change there would need to be changes to the language in the Faculty handbook
especially with regard to the vague language about consulting with the Dean. Furthermore, the
student handbook should be updated to say that student ID cards are required.
Members elected to forward the issue of requiring proctored exams and verifying identification
to the Academic Deans Council. Dr. Lynch asked for input from the campuses on these issues
and will develop a proposal to be reviewed first by ISSC members before sending to the
Academic Deans Council.
Discussion of Mandatory College-Wide Policy Statements for Syllabi
Dr. Lynch stated that the College Senate forwarded ISSC a proposal from the Alexandria
Campus Council to have standard college-wide policy statements placed on course syllabi.
Committee members felt it would be a good idea to have some guidelines for syllabi collegewide. After much discussion the following was decided.
Each syllabus should have the following sections which the individual instructor can tailor to his
or her class:
 Course objectives
 Grading policy
 Attendance policy
 Required materials (which may now include a NOVA student ID)
 Schedule
Each syllabus should also include standard policy statements for:
 Communication (NOVA Alert, Closing Information, and Blackboard, and students must
use NOVA email)
 Safety and Security
 Special Needs and Accommodations

Academic Integrity
Instructional and Student Services Committee
September 20, 2013
Page 4 of 4



Course Drop/Withdraw
Mental Health Issues
Discrimination and Sexual Harassment
Dr. Harper indicated an updated special needs statement was being developed and would be
forwarded to Committee members. Her office can also propose some language about mental
health issues, discrimination and sexual harassment. Dr. Lynch will ask the Director of
Emergency Management for a short description on safety and security.
It was noted that when the template is developed, it will be necessary to determine who will be
responsible for yearly policy statement updates. It was also noted that the description of what is
required in a syllabi in the Faculty Handbook will also need to be updated.
For the next meeting, Dr. Lynch will gather language for the required policy statements and draft
a template for review.
Plans for Committee for the Year
Committee members chose the following topics for future meeting discussions:








Update on Developmental English
Changes to Student Handbook/“At NOVA, Expect the Best” document
Parking – for the spring
Update about implementation of QEP - GPS/student success policy changes
Starfish and CRM
Syllabi
Veterans Program
Final Exam Schedule
Future Meeting Dates





Friday September 20
Friday October 18,
Friday November 15
Friday January 17
Friday February 21
A motion was made to adjourn the meeting at 11:30 a.m., seconded and carried. The next
meeting is scheduled for Friday, October 18, at 9:30 a.m. in the President’s Dining Room in the
Ernst Cultural Center on the Annandale campus.