APC 2014/2015:02
Academic Policies Committee
Minutes
Thursday, October 2, 2014
Ellison Campus Center, Metro Room
Meeting: APC 2014/2015:02
Convened
3:20 p.m.
Attending
Celena April (Vice Chair), Brewer Doran, Susan Edwards, Bonnie Galinski, Mindy Jeon, Chad
Leith, Pamela Leong, Harry Pariser, Ken Reker, Arthur Rosenthal, Steven Silvern, and Peter
Walker (Chair).
Guest(s)
Megan Miller, Registrar
Sheila Shea, Computer Science
Steve Dion, Sports and Movement Science
Joseph Gallo, Sports and Movement Science
Documents 15:008 original proposal with revisions
(attached)
I.
Approval of Minutes
It was noted that the September 18, 2014 APC meeting minutes should include the two
documents that Joseph Cambone provided to the committee: The Campus Engagement
Report: College Readiness and the Massachusetts Definition of College and Career
Readiness.
Motion
Motion to approve.
Motion made by: Celena April
Seconded by: Bonnie Galinski
Vote.
In favor (10). Against (0). Abstentions (1). Motion passes.
II.
Chair’s Report
Chair P. Walker indicated that the academic integrity policy needs to be discussed at
length.
There is an introduction of the meeting guests.
Proposal 15:100 (Recommendation to Discontinue Computer Competency Requirement)
cannot be acted upon today because the proposal is not in proper form.
III.
Old Business
A. 2016-2107 Academic Calendar (15:026)
B. Galinski, a member of the academic calendar subcommittee, indicated that there is no
urgency in reviewing the academic calendar. This agenda will remain postponed until a
later date, and B. Galinski will report back to the committee upon the subcommittee’s
1
APC 2014/2015:02
review.
B. Level I Competencies
Level I Competency (General):
M. Miller (Registrar) explained that the President’s Advisory Group on General Education
(PAGGE) decided that they could not address level I competencies, as they had to deal
with the general education requirements first.
M. Miller outlined the evolution of level I competencies at Salem State. She noted that
Salem State has had the level I competencies as academic requirements, but the reading
and math competencies really represent placements into college-level foundational
courses. She pointed out that a lot of Salem State students who have not completed the
foundational courses still make it near to graduation. Their trajectory seems to indicate
that the competency requirements are not serving the student population--or at least the
competencies were not accomplishing their intended objectives, particularly with respect
to transfer students, of placing students appropriately.
The Board of Higher Education came down with new guidelines. It was said that public
institutions of higher learning needed to present clear pathways to academic success.
For 2014-2015, the Board of Higher Education wants public institutions to pilot some of
the guidelines. Salem State currently has a pilot that involves about 200 incoming
freshmen. Regardless of the results of that pilot, the Board of Higher Education is
expecting the public institutions to head in one direction. And unless the pilots across the
institutions show something radically problematic, M. Miller expects a proposal regarding
the math competency coming forth soon.
Regarding transfer students, M. Miller underscored how the competency system was not
designed for transfer students; rather, they were designed to evaluate freshmen. For
transfer students, though, the registar’s office examines Accuplacer scores from the
sending institutions.
It was observed that recent changes have made it harder for students to register for
classes, as holds are placed on student accounts if they fail to satisfy certain classes or
competencies. A question was raised about whether imposing the holds on student
accounts motivated students to make the necessary changes. M. Miller replied that it has
been very effective, in that it has motivated students to take the Accuplacer tests more.
On the other hand, there were loopholes. Students, for instance, may register for a course
such as MAT 90, which will remove their holds, and once the hold is removed, a student
may then drop MAT 90.
The student portal has been very effective, according to M. Miller. Once a student logs
into the portal system, s/he is confronted with a list of “to do” items, and this list follows
the student around from screen to screen until the student completes all tasks on the “to
do” list. There has been overwhelming student response to the “to do” list; students have
2
APC 2014/2015:02
become more motivated to satisfy incomplete academic work.
Computer Competency:
S. Shea (computer science) provided her perspective on the proposed elimination of the
computer competency requirement. She was asked about how her department would
feel about eliminating the requirement.
She indicated that the computer science
department chair was very supportive of the change, and that she herself, who has taught
ITC 100 (Computers and Their Uses) for years, did not feel students should take a course
that they did not need, nor did she believe that the school needed to mandate that every
student take a course to satisfy the computer competency requirement. She indicated
that perspectives on the computer comptency requirement will vary widely, depending on
whether it is faculty, administration, or students who are making the assessment.
Are students computer savvy? According to S. Shea, not really. But what is it that
students need to know? Students, however, feel confident in their own computer
competency. S. Shea believed that a good percentage of students felt that they did not
need to take computer competency courses. But what can students take or do to improve
their computer skills and to keep these skills updated?
ITC 100 is the course that will be replaced. S. Shea suggested that in place of ITC 100,
maybe the school can offer a contemporary computer class that can be aligned with a
general education category (for instance, personal growth).
For more quantitatively oriented majors (e.g., biology majors) who might use software and
programs such as Excel, S. Shea indicated that the computer science department would be
willing to work with the departments to provide support courses. This led to a question
about how to determine whether a student is computer-competent. Do students simply
self-diagnose themselves as computer-competent? Under the self-diagnosing model,
students would self-assess themselves as needing computer support courses or not. S.
Shea recognized the dilemma associated with student self-diagnosis, and indicated that
there would also be a coordinator to establish the computer competency program.
Regardless of whether or not the determination of computer competency was student
self-diagnosed or not, it was evident to S. Shea that support courses needed to be in place
for students. An example might be a drop-in center (like Mapworks or a math/I.T. lab).
Guest M. Miller (Registrar) indicated that discussion has occurred regarding a selfplacement tool that guides students to assess whether they need additional computer
skills or not. S. Shea mentioned that other tools included a short version of a program that
could assess students’ incoming technical skills, as well as a drop-in center that could
evaluate students’ computer skills.
C. April observed that the movement was leading to a recommendation model, rather
than a required model for computer competency.
M. Miller noted that while there was a shorthand way of determining student computer
3
APC 2014/2015:02
competency, individual departments may want to include a statement in their course
descriptions that states that students needed to demonstrate competency in a specific
technical skill for that class, with a recommendation to visit the drop-in center if the skill
has not been met. A recommendation for a co-requisite for such courses was suggested
by a committee member.
S. Shea then stressed that the technical skills required of students would include not just
the mechanics, but research skills involving the computer.
Chair P. Walker stated that certain courses might require a computer competency, but
wondered if people or even whole departments might “fall through the cracks” with the
elimination of the computer competency requirement. It was indicated that the business
school has a safety net in place regarding the computer competency requirement, as does
the biology department. It was also noted that the proposal to review the Level I
competencies came from the President’s Advisory Group on General Education (PAGGE), a
committee with diverse representation across disciplines, which should help moderate
concerns about departments falling through the cracks with the elimination of the
computer competency requirement. S. Shea further pointed out that the department
chairs are all well aware of the phasing out of the computer competency requirement, and
seem prepared for it.
Dean of the Bertolon School of Business K.B. Doran stated that an initial assessment in the
business school found that students are proficient in Powerpoint and Word, but not Excel.
It was pointed out that the Salem State computer competency requirement did not match
up with the computer competency obtained by transfer students.
S. Shea will return and attend an Academic Policies Committee meeting once a formal
proposal recommending the discontinuation of the computer competency requirement
has been submitted. It was indicated that APC should have a formal proposal at the next
APC meeting.
Math Competency:
According to M. Miller, because so many majors require math, there are pretty clear math
pathways for the majors. Some of those math requirements have been repackaged into
the freshmen advising seminars, but it is still not clear what constitutes “college ready.”
Research has shown that high school performance (GPA) is a better indicator of math
performance than SAT scores and other assessment tests.
It was concluded that the Academic Policies Committee need not review the math
competency portion, as that process is already underway. Thus, until an official proposal
is presented, the committee need not act.
Reading Comprehension Competency:
M. Miller noted that little was done in AY 2012-2013 in terms of evaluating the reading
4
APC 2014/2015:02
competency requirement. She indicated that reading competency is really the only
competency that is not associated with a course that students can take. Thus, what is a
more appropriate measurement of reading competency? There are students with
challenges in this area, but Salem State does not have good support services to help
students develop their reading comprehension skills.
At the state level, there are problems defining what constitutes “college readiness.” There
is no clear guidance on the reading placement standards. Math has been examined on
several occasions in the past ten years, but reading comprehsnion has not, which
complicates Salem State’s ability to redefine what counts as reading competency.
According to M. Miller, right now, Salem State is mandated by, and tied to, the Accuplacer
test.
M. Miller anticipates that developments in reading competency are forthcoming.
Motion
Motion to table Proposal 15:026 (Level I Competencies) and Proposal 15:100
(Recommendations to Discontinue Computer Competency Requirement).
Motion made by: Brewer Doran
Seconded by: Celena April.
Vote
IV.
In favor (11). Against (0). Abstentions (0). Motion passed unanimously.
New Business
A. Athletic Training Major Entrance and Professional Phase Requirements (15:008)
Motion
Motion to approve Proposal 15:008
Motion made by: Brewer Doran
Seconded by: Celena April
DISCUSSION:
Present were guests Steve Dion (SMS chair) and Joseph Gallo (SMS athletic training
director).
J. Gallo described the athletic training program, which is classified as an allied health
profession. The accrediting body, the Commission on Accreditation of Athletic Training
Education (CATTE) requires a first-time pass rate of 70% or more on the Athletic Training
National Board of Certification Examination. If a program wants to continue, this passing
rate must be satisfied. However, J. Gallo pointed out there that there actually is no
evidence to suggest that a person who passes the second time is less able than a person
who passes the first time.
Right now, Salem State’s athletic training program has a 60% first-time pass rate. Last
year, the program had a 75% pass rate. This year they are at 66%. According to J. Gallo,
students who did not enter with a 3.0 GPA are most at risk for not passing the National
Board of Certification exam. Last year, Salem State’s athletic training program was on
track for an 87.5% pass rate, but one student in a cohort of eight brought the pass rate
5
APC 2014/2015:02
down considerably. The size of a cohort, thus, will shape a program’s first-time pass rate.
In a small cohort, the underperformance of even a single student may drag down the pass
rate to below acceptable levels.
The SMS department was asked to write their report for the year. If the program goes into
probation, then revocation of accreditation could ensue. The program is good until 2021
though.
M. Miller (Registrar) pointed out that the nursing program also has high-stakes testing.
Might there not be recommendations embedded into the athletic training report? J. Gallo
responded by stating that ATR 479 (Senior Seminar in Athletic Training) is largely a boardexam prep class. Thus, there is a system in place to help prepare students for the board
exams. In addition, in each year in the program, students are evaluated. Some students
may need to remediate upon evaluation.
There was an inquiry about the first-time pass rates for SSU students, current standards
vs. post-test standards. J. Gallo noted a 100% pass rate for the students in the last three
cohorts who already met the standards proposed in 15:008. If they meet the profile, they
should have a 100% rate, which is not uncommon across institutions.
J. Gallo pointed out that Bridgewater State has an approximate 60% first-time pass rate.
The trends are similar at peer institutions. Another trend is that students who have high
GPAs and score highly on entrance exams also tend to pass the board exams the first time
around.
M. Miller noted one discrepancy in the proposal. She clarified whether the requirement
was that students must receive a grade of C+ or better in all ATR classes or just specific
ATR classes. J. Gallo replied that students need to earn a C+ or better for all ATR classes
and a C or better for support courses. Page 4 of the proposal, thus needs to be revised to
reflect this.
Motion
Motion to amend the Proposal 15:008: the second bulleted paragraph on the proposal’s
final page should read: “A grade of C+ or better in each of the athletic training courses
and C or better in support courses. Failure to maintain this level may result in dismissal
from the program.”
Motion made by: Celena April
Seconded by: Bonnie Galinski
Brewer Doran accepts this as a friendly amendment.
Vote
On motion to approve 15:008 as amended:
In favor (11). Against (0). Abstentions (0). Motion passed unanimously.
B. Recommendation to Discontinue Computer Competency Requirement (15:100)
A discussion of the computer competency requirements preceded the official introduction
of “new business.” Therefore, please refer to pp. 3-4 of these minutes for the discussion
6
APC 2014/2015:02
of the computer comptency requirements. At this time, no action will be taken regarding
the elimination of the computer competency requirement. According to M. Miller, the
revised proposal has been submitted, and the committee should receive it by the next APC
meeting. The proposal also will be sent to the curriculum committee.
C. Academic Integrity
There was an Academic Policies subcommittee formed in AY 2011-2012 to evaluate the
academic integrity policy. A survey was constructed and disseminated to all Salem State
faculty. The subcommittee then recommended a review of the policy. The emphasis at
the time was the procedural issues for faculty reporting of academic dishonesty. The
provost’s office was going to construct forms to streamline and make more uniform the
reporting process. Unfortunately, there has been no movement in terms of streamlining
the reporting process. No forms have developed, and no training program has been
established for faculty. This has led to faculty’s continued lack of understanding of the
academic integrity policy.
M. Miller hypothesized that the recent request to review the academic integrity policy
likely arose from more recent academic integrity cases that involved sanctions.
It was pointed out that there is now an ad hoc committee on academic integrity.
There also is a judicial body of academic integrity that attends academic dishonesty
hearings.
It was suggested that the Academic Policies Committee wait for the ad hoc academic
integrity committee, who are convening soon. It was suggested that the Academic Policies
Committee also have a conversation with the judicial committee for academic integrity.
As there is no tracking number attached to the request to review the academic integrity
policy, no action can be taken by this committee on this matter. The discussion about the
academic integrity policy, therefore, was for informational purposes only; it is not official
business.
D. Academic Probation, Dismissal, Reinstatement
There is no tracking number attached to the request to review the policy on academic
probation, dismissal, and reinstatement. The committee will postpone a discussion on this
matter.
V.
Other Business
VI.
None.
Adjournment
Motion
Motion to adjourn.
Motion made by: Celena April
7
APC 2014/2015:02
Seconded by: Ken Reker
Vote
Adjourned
In favor (10). Against (0). Abstentions (0). Motion passed unanimously.
at 4:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Pamela Leong
Next Meeting: Thursday, October 16, 2014 at 3:15 p.m. in Ellison Campus Center, Metro Room
Attachments: 15:008, amended proposal; Vision Project Final Report from the Task Force on
Transforming Developmental Math Education
8