Index of Topics 1/18/2011

     For Approval  l2/1//11;  to Faculty Senate 2/28/ 2011

2.5 GPA requirement – Discussion & MOTION

 

History Revisions:  4-5 credits

 

Academic Honesty Policy & Procedure – MOTION to Approve

 

 

WESTERN WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY

ACADEMIC COORDINATING COMMISSION MINUTES

Meeting of January 18, 2011

 

Chair Roger Anderson called the meeting of the 2011 Academic Coordinating Commission to order at 4:05 pm on Tuesday, January 18, 2011.  There were twenty (20) people present including Commissioners, guests and recorder (see attached roster).

 

There were no announcements.

 

Approval of Minutes:  Commissioners approved the minutes of the meeting of January 4, 2011.

 

 

 

Committee

Action

 

45

College of Business and Economics

1/11/2011

ACCEPTED.

46

College of Fine & Performing Arts

12/6/2010

ACCEPTED, BUT NOT BFA ART – STUDIO

Commissioners request that a faculty member come to the ACC meeting to address concerns about increased credits.  Were they originally just Incorrectly listed and this is a correction?  3 credits from somewhere else?  115 to 119 is 4 extra credits in the Major -- a big jump, especially now with the pressure from the legislature to shorten time to degree.

 

Is there a backlog in the department terms of access?  That would make this credit increase particularly onerous. How can we defend this when the course load is so large already? 

 

 

QUESTIONS ON THE 2.5 GPA Requirement.

Is the deparment allowing this only for a quarter?  Or for 2 quarters before probation?  Is this a Gateway requirement?  Is the department overenrolled so is it “upping the ante to keep only those people who can cut the mustard?

 

Commissioners acknowledge some State requirements, as in Woodring require maintaining a 2.75 average.but other departments are imposing their own grade pt. average; some to enter, some to stay in the Major, and some to graduate.  Some departments seem to have data showing that students who maintain the higher average have been shown to be successful in the major.  But, is this specific language mentioned in the catalog for the departmental requirement?

 

Should a student be out if there is sickness or family crisis that might cause a drop in GPA for a particular quarter?  Probation should be allowed for 2 quarters with a warning.  Students removed from the major for a quarter meet difficulty because they cannot get into any other courses, and cannot repeat a course that is not offered for a year..

The concern is with students who are not understanding the material or working too much outside of school.  Keeping them out of a major has an overall effect on the university too.

 

Truth in advertising is also crucial.  We advertise “Come to Western for Vehicle program” but then there is no room.  Commissioners discussed the General Studies’ student enrollment increases.

 

Requiring a C+ to B- is going to put pressure to keep students at or above this grade.  This wiill create a conundrum about grading and grade inflation.

 

Commissioners concurred that one quarter probation is really uncomfortable, especially since the university itself asks for two quarters to build back the GPA.   If you are taking 18 credits one quarter, working, and not doing that well, even taking 10 credits the next quarter you might not be able to get the GPA up.

 

A motion was made by Yvonne Durham, seconded by Holly Post to recommend to the department that it consider two quarters of probation to raise the GPA, which passed.

 

 

Commissioners also discussed adding median grades to the transcripts and asked what other issues might arise related to this suggestion.  Apparently ACC and the Senate have looked into that a few times in the past, but nothing was done with it.  People are aware of standards at different universities or even programs, and do not expect equivalencies.  We mostly have higher students to begin with.

 

47

College of Humanities & Social Sciences

12/2/2011

ACCEPTED.

 

 

 

History Major Revisions:  4 credits to 5 credits.  – Kathleen Kennedy, Chair

Kennedy explained how the increase to five credits will work for the History Department.  Most of the descriptions were written by the person who taught the class the most.  Most approach history because it is bound more by thinking analytically and critically rather than empirically.  Discussion in the department was frequently about the role of prerequisites.  No Gateway requirements, but ask for a 2.5 exit grade, with one or two students a year having to ask for a waiver. 

 

Little impact on History/Social Studies Major which is designed around State competencies in education and has a State GPA requirement.  Course changes do not affect that major.  Courses now might have assignments configured differently, but the work load is the same.  History has developed a number of internal policies to have both MWF and T TH schedules to offer to students.  The descriptions justify how that will occur. In most cases there is an increase in Writing assignments and meeting times.  Where there were bottlenecks such as in American and Ancient history courses we equalized the number of students in each class:  35 in most 300 level classes; 15 to 20 in 400 level; 10 in 499 or graduate classes.  Students might see they don’t have as many seminars but exceptional students can take a graduate seminar in some cases.   We accommodate a lot of General Education students and Education Majors and this should help them get throught faster. 

 

Kennedy had sent a memo about the changes to everyone affected, and attempts will be made to help those students about to graduate.  Community Colleges already offer these courses for 5 credits, so this change should help.

Additionally, this provides service to the university in that we can make our courses even more writing intensive, even providing service to students with a class to talk to them about how to write a thesis.  Students frequently ask what is the difference between 4 or 5 credits, and creeping class expectations deserve the increase in credits.

 

 

48

College of Sciences and Technology

11/29/2010

ACCEPTED.  It is requested that minutes have page numbers so council members can locate specific items under discussion.

 

K.Kitto will check on credit range for Geophysics, BS Major

 

49

Fairhaven College

10/20/2010

ACCEPTED.

50

Fairhaven College

11/3/2011

ACCEPTED

Fair399b.   “Repeatable” means the course is repeatable with various topics.

51

Fairhaven College

11/17/2011

ACCEPTED. 

52

International Programs

12/7/2010

ACCEPTED.

53

Woodring College of Education

12/10/2010

ACCEPTED.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

       

APPOINTMENTSTo Graduate Council thru 2011:  David Fewings, Finance  

 

ACTION ITEMS:  

ACADEMIC HONESTY POLICY AND PROCEDURE – APPENDIX D

Commissioners reviewed the latest revisions to Appendix D with Debra Jusak and made some minor revisions.

One Commissioner had a student who when confronted about a “bought paper” simply did not show up for requested meetings, got a zero for the paper and flunked the class.  Even though the Commissioner never was able to meet with the student, it was determined that the form should be filed because there was enough evidence that the student had been contacted several times.  The student should also be notified that attempts have been made to contact him and that is will go on the record.  Students that do not respond to meeting requests waive their right to appeal is indicated right the beginning of the policy.

Ř  APPROVED:  Academic Honesty Policy & Procedure, Appendix D.  Timothy Fitzpatrick moved to approve the revised Appendix D, seconded by Billie Lindsey and the motion was passed by the Academic Coordinating Commission.  (Revised policy follows below).

 

 

BOLDED TEXT SHOWS NEW INSERTS 

(For deletions, please compare to Catalog)

Appendix D

Academic Honesty Policy and Procedure

1. Policy

Western Washington University students have an obligation to fulfill the responsibilities of their particular roles as members of an academic community. Honesty is essential to learning. Without it, fair evaluation for all is impossible. Academic integrity is demanded, and academic dishonesty at Western Washington University is a serious infraction dealt with severely. Students shall not claim as their own the achievements, work or arguments of others, nor shall they be a party to such claims. It is the instructor’s responsibility to confront a student and to take appropriate action if academic dishonesty, in the instructor’s judgment, has occurred.  For help and guidance with the academic honesty procedures, students should contact the Student Life Office. http://www.wwu.edu/dos/stulife/

Students who do not meet the deadlines given in the procedures shall be deemed to have waived their right to appeal. If any officer of the University or the Board fails to meet the deadlines established, the student may continue to the next level in the procedures. The deadlines are set to provide a rapid resolution of the incident. However, unforeseen circumstances such as illness or absence from the campus may result in an extension of a deadline. Such extensions shall be recorded in writing by the unit head, dean or secretary to the Board, as appropriate.  If the end of the quarter is reached during the process of following the academic honesty procedure, the remaining parts of the process will be considered at the start of the next academic quarter, not including summer. An effort will be made to resolve the issues as soon as possible when there are extenuating circumstances (e.g., a student is graduating).

2. Academic Dishonesty

Academic dishonesty is not qualitatively different from other types of dishonesty. It consists of misrepresentation by deception or by other fraudulent means. Academic dishonesty compromises the instructor’s ability to fairly evaluate a student’s work or achievement. It includes, but is not limited to, the following:

a.     Giving unauthorized information to another student or receiving unauthorized information from another student during any type of assignment or test.

b.    Obtaining or providing without authorization questions or answers prior to the time of an assignment or test.

c.     Using unauthorized sources for answers during any assignment or test.

d.    Taking part in or arranging for another person to complete an assignment or to take a test in place of another.

e.    Giving or receiving answers by use of signals during a test.

f.      Altering answers on a scored test and submitting it for a higher grade.

g.    Collaborating with others in a required assignment without the approval of the instructor.

h.    Stealing class assignments or portions of assignments, including electronic files, and submitting them as one’s own.

i.      Not crediting participants for their part in a group project or claiming credit for work not done on a group project.

j.      Plagiarism, which is presenting as one’s own in whole or in part the argument, language, creations, conclusions, or scientific data of another without explicit acknowledgment. Examples include, but are not limited to:

1.    Using another person’s written or spoken words without complete and proper citation.

2.    Using information from a World Wide Website, CD-ROM or other electronic source without complete and proper citation.

3.    Using statistics, graphs, charts and facts without acknowledging their source.

4.    Submitting a paper purchased from a term-paper service.

5.    Paraphrasing, which is imitating someone else’s argument using other words without acknowledging the source.

6.    Claiming credit for someone else’s artistic work, such as a drawing, script, musical composition or arrangement.

7.    Using someone else’s lab report as a source of data or results.

8.    Using one’s own or substantially similar work, produced in connection with one course, to fulfill a requirement in another course without prior permission. A student may use the same or substantially the same work for assignments in two or more courses only with written permission from the instructors of all the classes involved.

9.    Submitting the results of a machine translation program as one’s own work.

3. Procedures

Although instructors should make every effort to ensure that students are aware of the policies for academic dishonesty, it is the responsibility of students to read, understand, and uphold the standards of academic honesty. 

a.     An instructor suspecting an act of academic dishonesty shall discuss the matter thoroughly with the student involved. Arrangements for this discussion shall be made by the instructor within ten (10) working days after discovering the alleged violation. If the incident occurs at the end of a quarter, or in the event the student is absent from campus, the instructor shall attempt to contact the student via email and in writing at the most recent permanent address available in the Registrar’s Office.

Should the instructor be unable to arrange a meeting with the student to discuss the incident in question before final grades are due, the instructor shall submit a grade of X with a note to the registrar. The registrar shall in turn inform the student of his/her responsibility to contact the instructor. Should the student not respond to the faculty member by the 10th working day of the next academic quarter, not including summer, the grade will be changed to an F.

During the discussion between the instructor and the student, the student may be asked to explain his or her thought process and the sources of the information, ideas, data, or calculations presented in the work under dispute. Failure to give an adequate explanation can influence the instructor’s decision.

Following this discussion, the instructor shall determine whether or not an act of academic dishonesty has occurred.  Within ten (10) working days of this discussion and the decision by the instructor that an act of dishonesty has occurred, the instructor will submit E-form Report of Academic Dishonesty Incident summarizing the incident and attaching all evidence.  This form will be sent to the Vice President for Academic Affairs, the Registrar, university judicial officer, the dean’s office (see 3b), the unit head (the department chair or, in the case of Fairhaven, the Dean, or, in the case of the Library, the Dean of Libraries), and the student. A record of the violation is maintained in the Office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs and the Office of Student LifeIf the reported violation is the student’s first offense, the office of student life requires the student to complete a self-paced workshop on Academic Integrity.  If the reported violation is the student’s second offense, the student is required to appear before the academic honesty board with a recommendation that the student be permanently dismissed from Western Washington University.

No student shall be allowed to withdraw from a course or from the University to avoid the consequences of academic dishonesty.

b.    Appeal: A student accused of academic dishonesty and who feels wrongly accused by an instructor has recourse to an appeals process. Within five (5) working days of the finding of academic dishonesty the student may appeal to the unit head. The unit head shall make a ruling on the case within ten (10) working days of the appeal.

Either the student accused or the faculty member who initiated the charge may within five (5) working days appeal to the Dean of the college in which the academic unit resides. In the case where a faculty member from one college is teaching a course in another college, the appeal will go to the dean of the college where the course resides.
In the case where a faculty member is teaching for an all-university program not under the purview of a college dean, such as Honors or Women Studies, the appeal will go to the dean of the college where the faculty member resides.  The dean shall make a ruling on the case as to whether 1) the student in question committed an act of academic dishonesty; and if so 2) whether the sanction was appropriate, within ten (10) working days of the appeal.

Either the student or the faculty member who initiated the charge may appeal the findings of the Dean to the Academic Honesty Board within five (5) working days.

The Academic Honesty Board shall consist of two faculty members and two students to be selected from a pool of students and faculty.  The Vice President for Academic Affairs shall select the board members and appoint the chairperson. It is recommended that the students and faculty members appointed come from the college involved in the incident, as specified above.  The board’s findings are restricted to determining: 1) whether the student in question committed an act of academic dishonesty, and if so, 2) whether the violation was a major or minor one. A hearing shall be called within fifteen (15) working days of the filing of the appeal to the Academic Honesty Board unless both parties agree to a delay. Both the student and the instructor may be accompanied by one person, but that person may not speak on behalf of the student or the instructor. Both the student and the faculty member shall be invited to present evidence, make oral arguments, and call witnesses, all of which shall be restricted to the issues under consideration and matters already in the record. Members of the board may question either party. If the faculty member is on leave or is no longer employed by Western the unit head shall appear in lieu of the faculty member. If the faculty member is available, but does not appear at the hearing, the form that he or she submitted will be considered to be her or his statement. If the student does not attend the hearing, the student’s appeal shall be considered withdrawn, and the original finding of the faculty member shall be considered final. At the conclusion of the hearing, the board shall, in writing, a) find that there is insufficient cause to overrule the dean’s decision, or b) find that there is sufficient cause to modify or overrule the dean’s decision. The Academic Honesty Board shall send a written copy of its decision to the student, the faculty member, the unit head, the dean, the registrar, and the Vice President for Academic Affairs.

Within five (5) working days of the ruling of the Academic Honesty Board, either side may appeal all findings to the Vice President for Academic Affairs, whose decision is final.  The vice president for academic affairs will meet with the board chairperson if (s)he intends to overrule or modify the decision of the board.

At the end of every quarter, the Office of Student Life will report all cases of academic dishonesty to each college. 

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

 

Commissioners adjourned at 5:50 pm

Rose Marie Norton-Nader, Recorder

 

 

ACADEMIC COORDINATING COMMISSION 2009-2010 ROSTER

 

Voting Membership (terms ending 2012)

 

 

James Hearne, Chair 2009-2010

 

1

B –  Billie Lindsey, PEHR

P

 

Roger Anderson, Chair 2010-11

Yvonne Durham , Interim Vice Chair 2010-11

 

2

C –  Holly Folk, Liberal Studies, CUE rep Wtr Qtr

P

 

Ex Officio

 

3

 At-Lg: Kristi Tyran, Management

P

17

Steve VanderStaay, VPUE for Provost Riordan

  Debra Jusak, Special Assistant, Provost

P

p

4

I – Peter Smith, Library

P

18

Susanna Yunker, Registrar (nv)

P

5

F-John Bower, FAIRHAVEN

P

19

Lisa Zuzarte, Catalog Coordinator (nv)

P

6

Ramon Rinonos-Diaz,ASVP.Academics@wwu.edu

P

 

David Brunnemer

P

7

Morgan Holmgren Holmgrm@students@wwu.edu

P

 

Guests

 

8

Michael Renne: rennem@students@wwu.edu

P

 

 

 

9

Megan Housekeeper: mhousekeeper@students.wwu.edu

P

21

Lea Ann Martin – Associate Dean, CHSS

P

 

 

 

22

Kathleen Kitto – Associate Dean, CST

P

 

Voting Membership (terms ending 2011)

 

 

Debra Jusak

P

10

H-Tracy Thorndike-Christ, Spec Ed

--

 

Kathleen Kennedy

P

11

E- Yvonne Durham, Economics, Interim Vice Chair

P

23

Rose Marie Norton-Nader (nv), Recorder

P

12

D-Timothy Fitzpatrick, Choral Music Education

P

 

 

 

13

A-Roger Anderson, Biology, Chair,  UPRC rep

P

 

Members Present

16

14

A-Spencer Anthony-Cahill, SENATOR

--

 

Recorder  and Guests

4

15

G- David Shull, Huxley College

P

 

Special Mtg:  1/18/2011        TOTAL:

 

16

B- Kathleen Saunders, Anthropology, SENATOR

P

 

 

 

 Members (18):12 faculty (2yr terms) represent 9 areas and 1 at-large plus 2 Senators (1 yr terms).  6 additional members include:  Provost (v), Catalog Coordinator (nv), Registrar (nv) and 4 students (voting).  ACC sends reps to UPC and CUE.  Recorder attends (nv).