Introduction: IDM becomes IDS
As of the October 18, 2011 Faculty Senate meeting and the subsequent approval of Chancellor
Wachter dated October 27, 2011, the “Individually Designed Major” (and Minor) have become the
Interdisciplinary Studies (IDS) Major (and Minor). The implications and challenges associated with
this program, in view of its history, current practice, and of this recent change, are several.
First, the equivalent of the home department of the IDS prefix is the Undergraduate Academic
Affairs Council (UAAC), as stated in the “Policy on Approval of Undergraduate Academic Matters”.
Therefore, UAAC now has responsibility for the oversight of the IDS program.
Second, our campus is in the process of integrating assessment of student learning into all academic
programs. Therefore, any oversight of the IDS program should encompass a program-level
assessment plan.
Third, the individually-designed majors fall into two categories, on-campus and distance; the latter
has seen much greater growth than the former in recent years. As part of its criteria for
accreditation, the Higher Learning Commission requires that all students in a program
demonstrably receive the same quality of instruction, independent of the delivery format of the
instruction. We need to ensure that both on-campus and distance students in the IDS program
receive the same quality of instruction.
Fourth, it is important to recognize that the IDS program is fast becoming one of the larger degree
programs at our institution, mostly because of the growth in the distance component, and as with
any academic program, a regular system of curricular planning, oversight, and assessment is
needed. There is currently no such system in place for the IDS program. Concerns have been raised
at least since academic year 2009-10 in this regard.
Of particular concern is the nature of the current process for approval (or revision) of an
individually designed curriculum. Currently, this approval is carried out on a student-by-student
basis. The IDS petition form requires the signatures of faculty constituting a “faculty panel
committee”, but in practice it seems that there is little or no communication among the faculty
signing off, or, occasionally, that only one faculty member has comprised the entire “panel
committee”. From here, final authority for approval resides with the Credits/Reinstatement
Committee. Because of a lack of policy guidance, limited disciplinary representation, and frequent
turnover (e.g., during summer, the Executive Committee of the Faculty Senate serves as the
Credits/Reinstatement Committee), the Credits/Reinstatement committee has shown inconsistent
degrees of willingness to exercise its oversight role for the petitions it is presented with.
History of Individually Designed Major policy discussion in Faculty governance, 2009-2011
Faculty Senate minutes Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Individually Designed Major
At the suggestion of the Provost Faculty Senate Executive Committee is recommending that the
UAAC be charged with reviewing the policies, procedures and practices associated with Individually
Designed Majors and Minors.
Are the guidelines adequate or should there be changes/clarification? Motion (Kronzer/Lynch) to
charge UAAC to review the policies, practices and procedures associated with Individually Designed
Majors and Minors. Discussion included different guidelines for on campus students and Distant
Learning students. Motion carried.
Faculty Senate minutes Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Individually Designed Majors and Minors – UAAC was asked by exec senate to conduct a review
of ID Majors and ID Minors, should there be policy added regarding those majors and minors. UAAC
has bounced back to senate asking senate exec committee to draft a proposal for them to look at.
(What is the issue). Question-why did this issue come up. Sipress-the Provost asked exec committee
to look at this and in part because exec committee agreed with the Provost because when exec
committee acts on petitions in summer in lieu of the credits committee there have been concerns
about the lack of policy guidance as to what constitutes an appropriate ID Major and Minor.
Example, there is no policy that the ID major and minor cannot have most of its credits from the
same discipline. Discussion. The distinction or the differences between criteria for Distance
Learning IDMs and on campus IDMs should be examined. Motion (Starratt/Jacobs) to request the
faculty senate exec committee draft a proposal regarding policy for ID majors and minors for future
consideration by UAAC. Motion carried.
Faculty Senate minutes Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Individually Designed Major and Minor Policy
Senate has asked Executive Committee to develop a proposal regarding policy changes for the
Individually Designed Major and Minor for submission for UAAC review. Due to crush of pressing
business, Executive Committee has tabled this item until next semester.
Faculty Senate Executive Committee minutes May 4, 2010
Individually Designed Major and Minor Policy
Discussion. Recommend to carry over to next year (2010/2011) for action.
Faculty Senate meeting Tuesday, November 16, 2010
(From the UAAC Report dated November 9, 2010): The individually Designed Major GPA
requirement for on-campus students was lowered to 2.0 to match the distance learning
requirements. This change also reflects the current usage of the IDM as a degree, not the original
intent, which was that of an honors track.
(From the Faculty Senate minutes for November 16, 2010): Motion (Einerson/Cleary) to approve
the change. No discussion. Motion carried.
Charge to the Undergraduate Academic Affairs Council
Design a comprehensive system of oversight for the IDS program which takes into account the
following requirements:







Ensure the alignment of the IDS program with the mission of the University of Wisconsin –
Superior
Ensure that the teaching and learning outcomes of the distance components and on-campus
components of the IDS program are equitable
Provide for the active assessment of student learning consistent with that of the university’s
existing academic programs
Ensure the integrity of each student’s curriculum within each discipline
Ensure the integrity of each student’s curriculum across the represented disciplines
Ensure the consistency and equitability of the approval process for IDS curriculum
Ensure alignment in criteria, process, and procedures between the online IDS and the oncampus IDS degree programs
To help ensure the consistency and integrity of the IDS curriculum, the UAAC is charged to examine
the possibility of recasting the IDS Major/Minor as a “General Studies” or “Liberal Arts”-type
major/minor, with a prescribed set of graduation requirements. This would eliminate the need for a
separate approval process for each student, and ensure an accepted level of consistency across all
IDS course arrays.
The UAAC should consult with committees and offices which it deems relevant to complete this
charge, and deliver a proposal to Faculty Senate in time for its April 17, 2012 meeting.