The Faculty Senate of Fort Lewis College charged the Credit Task Force (March 13,
2013, from a document approved February 6, 2013) to gather comprehensive information
and make a recommendation concerning the current practice of offering both 3- and 4credit courses. This conversation has been ongoing for decades (with the past decade
being the most pronounced) and the upcoming (2015) Higher Learning Commission
Accreditation visit has apparently put it in something of a spotlight.
The Task Force therefore was charged with the need to “[c]ollect and systematize
information about the practice of offering both 3 and 4-credit courses. . . ,” and make
possible recommendations on two charges: Charge A: “concerning the optimal coursecredit model from both a student and a faculty perspective. Recommendations might
include keeping the practice as is, switching to all 3-credit courses, switching to all 4credit courses, adjusting faculty workload in non-credit related ways, etc.”; and, Charge
B:, “concerning strategies for shifting to a new model in the event that the full faculty
votes to change or in the event that state mandates compel a change.”
To address Charge B first, the Task Force felt that attempting to define strategies for
as yet, if ever, non-existent circumstances was not an appropriate or valuable use of our
time. Speculating as to how the state might operate is, at best, futile; besides, a statemandated change would not require a strategy as such, rather, compliance (as when we
were forced into gt-Pathways). The course credit issue has been a contentious one on
campus for some time. Recall for instance the outcome of the 2005 Faculty Senate vote
where Issue 1 (of 4) asked “Should Gt Pathways courses be reduced to 3 credits or kept a
mix of 3 & 4 credit courses?” This happened during the process of moving to the current
gt-Pathways program (a vote which later then-Provost Steve Roderick allowed the Senate
to rescind after several concerns were raised about the ballot, primarily by AHSS
Faculty). Speculation for shifting to new models would require much in the way of
impact studies, analyzing other colleges who have used such systems, etc., and we were
not allotted enough time to do such in an effective, efficient, or complete manner to
provide an appropriate recommendation. However, Point #8 below would be as close as
we might be able to offer for Charge B.
In addressing Charge A, the Task Force sent out a brief survey (April and September
of 2013), focused largely on wording about lecture-style courses (lab hours/credits were
not asked about in the language, but some responses did reference them). Our Task Force
received responses from 19 out of 27 Department Chairs (the total number does not count
separately the different options in SOBA, as they do not have ‘departments’ per se, and
therefore SOBA provided one collective statement). From those results (and analyzing
the remaining departments for credit type offered), those who have 3-credits totals 7
departments; those who have a mix totals 12; those who have all 4-credits totals 11 (see
Appendix A for specific breakdowns, as well as language of survey questions). From
anecdotal conversations had, those who have an all 4-credit model are fine with a mixed
model as well; they are not asking that FLC convert to an all 4-credit model. No 3-credit
departments suggested a need to return to all 3 credits as they too preferred their model.
For some 3-credit programs, part of the discussion often overlooked though is not always
about merely staying or going to one model over another, but the ability to do so should a
program elect (e.g., programs with labs or accreditation issues who do not have the
ability to convert to a 4-credit model).
The student representatives (first Alexander Thompson, then Philip Carter), provided
feedback from a small group of students that demonstrated (anecdotally and, admittedly,
a small sample size that was not a formal survey) that a move to all 3-credits resulting in
5 courses/term would not be desired [for a narrative, see Appendix B.]
The Task Force also found that it was important to keep certain issues in mind while
considering our recommendation:
 Student success should always be kept at the forefront of all discussions on
this matter;
 A number of academic departments already offer a mixed 3 and 4 credits or
all 4 credit hour courses (again see Appendix A for breakdown), and in
examining the surveys, for some departments this seems to work better
whereas 3 credits either works better for others or they seem to not have the
option to move to 4 in the current workload/lab structure/enough faculty lines
concerns;
 The number of 4-credit courses has increased over the past decade, for various
reasons: assessment-based, intellectual, pedagogical, and workload (all
reasons that have been found acceptable by HLC in the past in accrediting our
institution);
 The mix of 3- and 4-credit courses has admittedly complicated scheduling,
course caps, and classroom space issues;
Thus, utilizing conversations across campus, the Task Force survey, anecdotal
evidence from conversations with faculty and students, and Task Force meetings
discussions, the Task Force makes the following recommendation:
THE COURSE CREDIT TASK FORCE RECOMMENDS THAT FORT LEWIS
COLLEGE CONTINUE TO OFFER A 3- AND 4-CREDIT MIXED MODEL AS IT
BEST ADDRESSES OUR LIBERAL ARTS MISSION BY OFFERING BREADTH AS
WELL AS DEPTH ACROSS THE DISCIPLINES AND FACILITATES STUDENT
SUCCESS.
HOWEVER, let it be known that this is not a recommendation for supporting merely a
status quo on the Fort Lewis College campus. In coming to this recommendation, the
Task Force has found, through the tasks we were given to assist us in arriving at this
recommendation, some associated issues that must be addressed next (we recommend the
process to be determined by the Faculty Senate). The points below have been rearranged
from the original bullet point tasks into the order of: 1) Completed Tasks; 2) Findings;
and, 3) Tasks that need additional consideration.
A. Completed Tasks
1. Federal requirements of 12 credit hours/semester to receive aid seems not to
be at issue as most students can and do maintain that amount; rather, the
definition we will require Fort Lewis students to complete their degree in a timely
fashion (which appears to be 15 credits/semester, with a caveat that they not take
courses during summer semesters) is a different issue that requires understanding
aid impact for students taking more than 120 credits, as well as the issue
addressed in the following point;
2. Issues related to transferability of credits were not considered in the work of
this Task Force. The Quality Initiative Task Force worked on that issue with
respect to the creation of degree maps for transfer students; in addition,
information from the above-cited impact study from August 22, 2003, reported
that for students transferring out of FLC, for example to CSU, CU-Boulder, or
Metro, were not disadvantaged because of the credit issue (p. 7). Students
transferring in are usually handled at the department level and the impact study
found that it was only at graduation petition time that concerns used to be raised
about deficient credits in programs, but that the “problem has been somewhat
abated with the implementation of the automatic graduation petition process after
students complete 80 hours” (p. 5), a situation that has been further refined and
improved with the new graduation petition policy where students may only
petition in the semester immediately preceding graduation;
B. Findings
3. Department Chairs expressed that their current models work well for not
only their majors, but for all students they engage with (e.g., gt-Pathways
courses), which is where the emphasis should be for these discussions. In
describing the pedagogy of 3- vs. 4-credit courses, faculty have varying opinions
about the effectiveness of 3- vs. 4-credit pedagogical issues that relate to
discussions regarding breadth vs. depth for a liberal arts college. Also, the Chairs
indicated they would prefer to maintain curricular autonomy which should remain
largely in the hands of the Faculty and not revert to the Administration (budgetary
constraints of course requiring administrative input and being an administrative
component but one that could be more transparent in its functions and cooperation
with faculty curricular decisions). Some of the many examples for the varied
pedagogies include:
 increased writing expectations in courses [History; English; Writing
Program];
 changes in program best practices [Art];
 increased use of new Learning Management System and flipped
classrooms/hybrid courses [SOBA; History]
 active-learning models [Teacher Education; Adventure Education]
 national accreditation issues [Physics & Engineering; Chemistry; Music];
 knowledge base for a particular field is growing [Exercise Science];
 lab or studio contact hours v credit hours [Biology; Chemistry; Art;
Theatre];
 some institutions have even higher credit hour expectations [FLC Math
and Modern Languages both offer 4 credit courses whereas other
institutions do have 5 credit math and language courses; e.g., Mesa St. and
Adams St. for math; Community College of Aurora for Spanish];
4. Discussions with faculty and students seemed to indicate that a mixed model
will not detract from a student’s progress with a four-year graduation plan.
At all 3 credits, a student must take 5 courses/semester where with a mixed model
students need only take 4 courses/semester to finish on time; also, considering the
various constituencies that Fort Lewis College serves, we must take their issues
and concerns into account (e.g., information regarding Native American students
seemed to indicate that a move to all 3-credits (with 5 courses/term) would not
prove beneficial for retention of students as many of them often take 13-14
credits/term, and a move to 15 credits comprised of 5 classes would probably not
be manageable (from conversations had with Richard Miller, and Adam Beales,
Student Success Advisor in Native American Center). Non-traditional students’
concerns in these regards also need to be studied. Psychology expressed concerns
that for the many students who work outside jobs an additional course may
impede their progress toward graduation (although this concern was noted as a
potential negative for moving to a 4-credit model from 3-credits by Sage
Colleges’ report, p. 3), especially if they cannot receive additional aid to
supplement lost work hours. Additionally, according to a University of Rhode
Island report, “Interviews with many academic administrators around the country
reveal that this pattern [students registering for five classes only to have a
majority drop one during semester] is not unusual, and most express belief that
five classes are simply too many for many students to ‘wrap their minds around’.”
p. 1);
C. Tasks that need additional consideration
5. The question regarding the liberal arts package provided at Fort Lewis
cannot be answered without further clarification as to what the ‘liberal arts
package’ is. Is it gt-Pathways core? Teaching style v content? Majors/minors in a
liberal arts model? The overall path a student takes to graduate with 120 credits?
The liberal arts question might be served better by the Higher Learning
Commission Criterion One Team which is analyzing the Mission of the college.
Interestingly though, with regard to “Institutional Policies on Credit Hours”, it is
acceptable according to the Higher Learning Commission’s Federal Compliance
Worksheet for Evaluation Teams, p. 12, that “an institution may have a single
comprehensive policy or multiple policies;” AND, according to the University of
Rhode Island report, p. 3, that at least “90% of the top 50 liberal arts colleges use
a four credit system”; however, a report by Sage Colleges, p. 1, reported that
“90% of the Top 100 liberal arts colleges are four-credit institutions” (emphasis
ours). Also, according to some reports, the liberal arts model (package?) is what is
necessary today for students of all disciplines to gain employment (e.g., cf.
DiSalvio, Levinson, and Pope articles, esp. Pope);
6. The activities of overall degree planning, scheduling, and space requirements
could be brought together to better facilitate student success in graduating in
four years. There are three points here:
a. Overall degree planning. In determining the relationship between the
number of course credits and student success, including timely graduation and
student load, the Quality Initiative Task Force had completed that portion of our
task in assisting Departments in creating degree maps and four-year instructional
plans.
b. Scheduling and credit hour policy. Information in an impact study from
August 22, 2003 did conclude that “The College could eliminate student schedule
conflicts and maximize room utilization by scheduling all lecture/lab classes in
55-minute blocks” (p. 8), an idea which to date appears to have not been followed
up on. In coordination with that, FLC does need to generate a better uniform
credit hour policy. At present, the credit hour for lecture courses is calculated as 1
credit = 55 minutes OR 1 credit = 60 minutes (and sometimes at 52.5 minutes: 4
credit courses scheduled MWF in a 70 minute time slot = 210 minutes. 210/4 =
52.5 minutes on average per credit earned. For labs, this is even more
complicated. The Uniform Scheduling should also be reexamined in collaboration
with this credit policy issue (an argument that has come up time and again over
the past several years). [The Higher Learning Commission allows at minimum 1
credit = 50 minutes, according to the Higher Learning Commission’s Federal
Compliance Filing by Institutions form, p. 8.] For an overview of how
complicated the process has become, see Course Credit Policy in Appendix C.
c. Space requirements. A study regarding this has been initiated by Provost
Morris but no results as yet have appeared.
7. FLC needs to clearly define what is a peer institution (aspirational,
COPLAC, Colorado, student make up, size) before we can explore teaching,
scholarship and service models. Currently, the teaching loads at peer institutions
as defined by “Methodology for Identifying Peer Institutions for Fort Lewis
College” (from a Board of Trustees October 5, 2012 report, p. 59, peer institution
data from the performance contract), peer institutions in that report all have a
mixed credit hour model of some design, some less mixed than FLC (Adams
State, CSU-Pueblo, University of Alaska-Fairbanks SE Oklahoma State, Mesa
State), a few comparable to FLC (Cameron University, Calif. St. Univ.Monterey). University of Minnesota-Morris, an HLC accredited and COPLAC
school would appear, from a suggestion provided by Richard Miller, to be our
best bet for a peer institution: it is a primarily 4-credit model institution (has been
since c. 1996), with 1900 students, 20% students of color, 15:1 ratio, 99% of
faculty have highest degree in field, and is a liberal arts institution [cf. Appendix
C for comparison of FLC and UMM retention and graduation rates; UMM has
better numbers than FLC in both arenas];
8. Budgetary and practical feasibility of shifting from current 3- and 4-credit
courses to a different model for the College seems not to be a consideration
currently (see discussion above regarding Charge B). On a departmental level,
budgetary concerns for creating workload models that work are quite necessary.
The consultant hired by Provost Morris came in Spring 2013 and reported to
various campus communities, including our Task Force, in Fall 2013 about his
findings. His primary work was to provide a data model that would help
investigate opportunities for greater efficiencies in faculty hiring and staffing
patterns. His overall findings seemed to offer little evidence with respect to our
particular charge. The evidence seemed to indicate a switch to all 3 credits would
not produce significant savings within most departments (a ‘wash’ was the term
often cited). The finding that “3x4” = “4x3” is mathematically sound from his
data model, but seems neither pedagogically nor workload sound. And moving to
a full course model, should FLC become a semi-private institution down the road,
could be considered but a multi-year study of the process, impacts, outcomes, and
benefits should be implemented before any discussions regarding such a
significant academic and cultural shift were to take place (again, time this Task
Force was not allotted; see a brief summary of issue in Appendix E);
9. Ancillary Recommendations. As the Task Force’s charge was to factor in but
not to resolve the workload issues connected to the 3- and 4-credit mix
(specifically; making a recommendation regarding “adjusting faculty workload in
non-credit related ways”), and considering how there is great disparity regarding
the many ways faculty workload/compensation occurs in a 3- vs. 4-credit model
(especially: impacts on course sizes; (in-)ability of departments to move to 4credits should they desire to do so; impacts on contact hours v credit hours;
impacts on the need for adjunct instruction; impacts on faculty scholarship and
service obligations; impacts on individual disciplines; impacts on course
preparations/year), there are some ancillary recommendations that our Task Force
would put forth:
a. The Handbook Committee should continue looking at taking away
credit assignment language, and contact hours language should be the
next focus. They should look at how departments, especially those with
lab/studio hours (e.g., Art, Biology, Chemistry, Music, Theatre), distribute
and utilize those hours so that a 12-credit/contact hour load/semester
might be adjusted accordingly so that someone during a particular
academic year, e.g., teaching 22 or 23 credits-contact hours/AY would not
be penalized;
b. FLC should continue to review its workload findings and create
recommendations for an equitable workload model for Fort Lewis
College through a separate Task Force. This separate Task Force should
continue (finalize?) the work the Task Force on Hiring and Retaining
Quality Faculty began [Final Report submitted May 2009]. As to specific
elements, in our research and conversations, we have found that there are
considerable concerns regarding the following: contact hours v credit
hours v course models [again, see Appendix E for a more complete
summary discussion of this issue]; ability to do scholarship and research;
committee workloads; replacement of permanent faculty lines (and an
appropriate policy regarding such especially considering the significant
drop in lines from 170 in 2000/2001 to 130 in 2013/2014); appropriate
scheduling format(s) to accommodate teaching loads as well as student
course loads. For complete Workload recommendations made by Task
Force in May 2009 report, especially pp. 21-32, 43, and 61-67.
c. Mandating a “return” to all 3-credit hour courses from 4-credit hours
could result in intense curricular and cultural changes (including an
increase in course load and work for students per semester, possibly
disrupting academic program integrity, program development, or
integration of new faculty expertise), as well as resistance from many
faculty members and entire departments.
SOURCES:
Board of Trustees Report, Fort Lewis College. “Methodology for Identifying Peer
Institutions for Fort Lewis College.” October 5, 2012.
DiSalvia, Philip, et al. “New Directions for Higher Education: Q&A with AAC&U
President Carol Geary Schneider on Liberal Education.” The New England Journal of
Higher Education. September 16, 2013.
http://www.nebhe.org/thejournal/new-directions-for-higher-education-qa-with-aacupresident-carol-geary-schneider-on-liberal-education/
DiSalvio, Philip, et al. “New Directions for Higher Education: Q&A with Carnegie
Foundation President Anthony Bryk about the Credit Hour.” The New England Journal
of Higher Education. April 29, 2013.
http://www.nebhe.org/thejournal/new-directions-for-higher-education-interview-withcarnegie-foundation-president-anthony-bryk-about-the-credit-hour/
Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes. Fort Lewis College. October 12, 2005; October 26,
2005; November 09, 2005; December 07, 2005; February 01, 2006; February 22, 2006
(Special Meeting).
Fine-Dare, Kathleen. “Resolution Regarding 4-Credit Hours Courses.” March 20, 2002.
Higher Learning Commission Policy Book. June 2013.
Higher Learning Commission Federal Compliance Filing by Institutions. August 2013.
Higher Learning Commission Federal Compliance Worksheet for Evaluation Teams.
August 2013.
Levinson, Eric, AtlanticNews (MSN News), October 31, 2013.
http://news.msn.com/graduating-with-a-liberal-arts-degree-wont-ruin-your-job-hopes
Pope, Justin. “Liberal arts colleges forced to evolve with market.” Associated Press/MSN
News. December 30, 2012.
http://news.msn.com/pop-culture/liberal-arts-colleges-forced-to-evolve-with-market
Sage Colleges. “Four-Credit Proposal: Executive Summary.” 2010.
Smith, Carol and Beverly Chew (main authors). “Maps to Student Success:
Implementation of a Degree Tracking System.” Year 1 Annual Report of Quality
Initiative Task Force. July 29, 2013 (preliminary draft copy only).
Taylor, Joseph K., Fort Lewis College, Internal Auditing Department. “The Impact of
Four Credit-Hour vs. Three Credit-Hour Courses on Students.” August 22, 2003.
University of Rhode Island. “Reasons for Shifting from a Three-Credit Curriculum to a
Four-Credit Curriculum.” 2005.
http://www.uri.edu/facsen/documents/2FourCreditSystem.pdf
U.S. News and World Reports. “National Liberal Arts College Rankings.”
http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-liberalarts-colleges [last accessed October 1, 2013]
Walker, Deborah (main author), et al. “Report of the Task Force on Hiring and Retaining
Quality Faculty.” May 2009. http://www.fortlewis.edu/Portals/129/Docs/FacultySenate/FinalReport_HiringRetaining.pdf
College and University Websites:
[* indicates a Top Ten Liberal Arts school as identified by 2013 U.S. News and World Reports.]
Adams State University
http://www.adams.edu/
Amherst College*
https://www.amherst.edu/
Bowdoin College*
http://www.bowdoin.edu/
[They have an interesting definition of how liberal arts works for them: “A liberal arts education at
Bowdoin isn’t about being small and safe—it’s about having the support to take surprising risks. Students
undertake this journey with faculty members who are scholars and artists of distinction who actively shape
their fields. From their first-year seminar through their senior year, students are immersed in subjects with
teachers who illuminate their learning with their own passion for their discipline. Faculty and students work
together in small classes, in labs, in performance halls, and in the field where students are active
participants in performing real-world research.”]
California State University-Monterey Bay
http://csumb.edu/
Cameron University
https://www.cameron.edu/
Carleton College*
http://www.carleton.edu/
Claremont McKenna College*
http://www.claremontmckenna.edu/discovercmc/index.php
Colorado Mesa University
http://www.coloradomesa.edu/
Colorado State University-Pueblo
http://www.colostate-pueblo.edu/Pages/default.aspx
Davidson College*
http://www.davidson.edu/
Middlebury College*
http://www.middlebury.edu/
Pomona College*
http://www.pomona.edu/
Southeastern Oklahoma State
http://www.se.edu/
Swarthmore College*
http://www.swarthmore.edu/
University of Alaska-Fairbanks
http://www.uaf.edu/
University of Minnesota-Morris
http://www.morris.umn.edu/
Wellesley College*
http://www.wellesley.edu/
Williams College*
http://www.williams.edu/
APPENDIX A
Credits for Required Lecture Classes (does not include all options separately):
11 departments: 4 credits only
7 departments: 3 credits only
12 departments: 3 and 4 credit mix
Department/Major
Accounting
Adventure Education
Anthropology
Art & Design
Athletic training
Biology*
Business Administration
Chemistry*
Economics
Education
Engineering*
English
Environmental Studies
Exercise Science
Course Credits
4
3
3 and 4 (mostly 4)
4
3
3
3 and 4 (mostly 4)
3
4
3 and 4 (mostly 3)
3
4
3 and 4
3 and 4
Gender & Women’s Studies 3 and 4
Geology*
3
History
4
Liberal Studies
3 and 4
Marketing
4
Mathematics
3 and 4
Modern Languages
4
Music
3
Native Amer & Ind Studies 4
Philosophy
4
Physics*
3 and 4 (only one course is 4)
Political Science
4
Psychology
3 and 4 (mostly 4)
Public Health
3 and 4
Sociology/Human Services 4
Theatre
3 and 4
*Departments with mostly 4-credit lab classes; note that physics only has one required 4-credit lecture
class.
Survey Language:
Intent: The 3/4 credit task force is gathering information about the current lecture course*
offerings and the intent of departments in making those offerings. We are requesting your
assistance in this endeavor and request that you take the time to give us a short (half-page)
response to the following questions. This is a complicated issue that encompasses student
experience, pedagogy, faculty workload, and other issues; we are interested in your responses
from any or all of these perspectives, and in hearing what your department considers to be the
highest priorities in addressing the issue.
1) Is your department currently offering all 3-credit, all 4-credit, or some mix of lecture courses?
If you offer a mix, what mix? Do you have a clear criteria used to determine which lecture
courses should be 3 and which 4 (or any other credit count), and if so, what?
2) How well do you feel your choice of lecture course credits are working? In what way(s) are
your department’s lecture course credit offerings successful at enhancing the quality of
instruction you offer?
In what ways are they causing problems? What aspects of your
department’s lecture course credit offerings would your department like to keep, and what would
you like to see changed?
*We are differentiating between lecture/seminar and labs for the sake of clarity.
APPENDIX B
(submitted by Philip Carter, student member)
[Again, this is anecdotal and not from a formal survey taken.]
Many students have voiced concern about the switch from the mixed credit
system to a potential all three credit system. Common sentiments are that college
education should focus on depth rather than breadth, that some classes SHOULD be more
rigorous than others (warranting the disparity in credit hours), and that taking five classes
a semester would be overwhelming.
Many faculty also feel that this would negatively impact their curriculums. Justin
McBrayer (Philosophy) said that if the change were to occur, the "debates" section of his
Moral Philosophy would likely be cut. I believe that I am not alone in thinking that these
hands on, experiential sections of class are the lessons that the students retain most.
Charlie, a sophomore, majoring in Adventure Education said, "It doesn't make
sense for them to raise the class requirement in the name of us 'finishing in four.'"
Charlie's concern is that many students will be unable to fully apply themselves to five
classes every semester and will either suffer academically, or end up taking several years
longer to finish their degree. "I'd be pissed." Charlie said when asked what her views
would be if all classes were to be switched to three credits next fall. Charlie also
mentioned interest in the course model.
I have had in the ballpark of 20 brief interactions with students regarding this
issue. Of those asked, ~70% had strong opinions for maintaining both 3 and 4 credit
classes. The remaining 30% were undecided, or claimed they did not know enough about
the system to form an opinion. Not a single student asked gave support to the 3 credit
only model. Most of these students were underclassmen.
The HLC does not require a single credit level system. Though the switch to a
three credit only system would put us more in line with peer institutions, it is worth
mentioning that most students did not come to Fort Lewis for a "normal" college
experience. We came here for a small, alternative, somewhat quirky, liberal arts
education perched high in the mountains. We came here for a school that wasn't about
check marks and standardized tests, but that focused on personal relationships and quality
education. Often times quality education requires more than three hours a week.
I ask, as the representative voice of the student body, that no choices are made at
the expense of us, the students. I understand that the mixed credit level poses serious
scheduling complications, but from the student's perspective, it's a worthy price.
APPENDIX C
Course Credit Policy:
CCHE requires 750 minutes of seat time per 1 credit hour in a standard lecture course. Since FLC
has a 14-week semester (not including final exam week), the following table gives the total
number of minutes for various formats.
Total Minutes Credit Hours:
55 minute 1 time a week 770 1 [+20mins]
55 minute 2 times a week 1540 2 [+40 mins]
55 minute 3 times a week 2310 3 [+60 mins]
70 minute 3 times a week 2940 4 [-60 mins]
80 minute 2 times a week 2240 3 [+10 mins]
120 minutes 1 time a week 1680 2 or 1 two-hour lab [+/- 0]
120 minutes 2 times a week 3360 4 [+/- 0]
185 minutes 1 time a week 2590 3 or 1 three-hour lab [+340 mins = 3 hrs, 40 mins]
The permitted formats are:
MWF are divided into blocks whose starting times are:
55 Minute blocks 8:00, 9:05, 10:10, 11:15, 12:20, 1:25, 2:30, 3:35, 4:40
70 minute blocks 8:15, 9:35, 10:55, (30 min break), 12:35,1:55, 3:15
120 minute blocks 8:00,10:10, 12:20, 2:30, 4:40
185 minute blocks 8:00, 1:25, 2:30
TH are divided into blocks whose starting times are:
55 minute blocks 8:00, 9:05, 10:10, 11:15, 12:20, 1:25, 2:30, 3:35, 4:40
80 minute blocks 8:00, 9:30, 11:15, 12:45, 2:30,4:00
120 minute blocks 8:00,10:10,12:20,2:30, 4:40
185 minute blocks 8:00, 1:25, 2:30
All courses will be offered in one of the following formats:
1 hr lecture 55-minute block any day
2 hr lecture 55 minute block TH
120-minute block any day
2 hr lab 120-minute block any day
3hr lecture 55-minute blocks MWF
80-minute blocks TH
3hr lab 185-minute block, any day
4hr lecture 70-minute blocks MWF
120-minute blocks TH
Note on classrooms:
The MWF schedule is divided into two alignment periods: the morning period (from 8:00 AM to
12:10 PM) and is repeated as an afternoon alignment period (from 12:20 PM to 4:30 PM). The
TH schedule is divided into three alignment periods: The first is 8:00 AM to 11:05 AM and
repeated from 11:15 AM to 2:20 PM and again 2:30 PM to 5:35 PM. To ensure a high utilization
of classroom space, on MWF in a general-purpose classroom a mixture of 55 minute and 70
minute classes will not be permitted within either alignment period. Similarly, on TH a mixture of
55 minute and 80 minute classes will not be permitted within any of the three alignment periods
http://www.fortlewis.edu/registrar/tabid/4548/mid/6081/dnnprintmode/true/Default.aspx?
SkinSrc=%5BG%5DSkins%2F_default%2FNo+Skin&ContainerSrc=%5BG%5DContain
ers%2F_default%2FNo+Container
APPENDIX D
[Fort Lewis College data on next page]
APPENDIX E
Issues Surrounding Credit Hours v Contact Hours v Course Modeling
Equalizing workloads by having all faculty teach roughly equivalent contact hours,
understanding that with a 3-4 credit mix, that faculty “load” will take different
conformations (i.e. 3-3-3-3, 4-3-3-3, 4-4-3, 4-4-4) with a range between 11-13 contact
hours each semester. To make this accounting system equitable across campus,
labs/studio instruction contact hours would count for the specific number of contact hours
faculty and students spend in a given lab or studio (i.e. 3 hour lab would equal 3 contact
hours). This accounting system will likely require the least number of new faculty lines,
however, the number may still be substantial. Even with this model, equity is not perfect,
as most faculty may still have 4 preparations (labs/studio instruction would count as a
preparation) in addition to set-up time, while other faculty with 4 credit courses, may
only have 3 preparations with minimal set-up time.
Given a 3-4 credit mix, accounting via the number of courses would potentially put
faculty with labs, studio instruction, or individualized instructional time, at an even
greater disadvantage. If we adopted a 3-3 course model, and counted labs/studio
instruction as a course, then the college would have to dedicate a significant number of
new faculty lines in each of those departments who have labs/studio instruction to reach
equity.