Index of Topics 11/16/2010

     For Approval  11/30/10;  to Faculty Senate 1/10/2010

Report on activities of CUE – Kathleen Kennedy, Chair




Creation of Faculty Teaching Handbook


Creation of Advising Handbooks


Chair of ACC as member of standing committees


Creation of E-Catalog committee


Review of Changes to Appendix F – Debra Jusak






Regular Meeting -- November 16, 2010


Chair Roger Anderson called the meeting of the 2010 Academic Coordinating Commission to order at 4:02 pm on Tuesday, November 16, 2010.  There were twenty-three (23) people present including Commissioners and guests (see attached roster).

Approval of Minutes:  Commissioners approved the minutes of November 3, 2010 as written.




Steve VanderStaay, VPUE reported that he is waiting to hear back from the accreditating agency on its recommendations. 

·            The Year One report is due in March and will be based on the Strategic Plan objectives.  The VPUE and UAAAC will attempt to define objectives and indicators of achievement and send them back to both UPRC and ACC by the end of February.

·            The accreditor who wrote the new standards will visit on January 26 and speak to a joint group of UPRC and the Senate.  VanderStaay plans a draft to enable questions.









International Programs Advisory Committee (IPAC)


Seth Feinberg, Chair.  CUP and Interntl Ed:  Discussions




Committee on Undergraduate Education (CUE)


Chair authority, Rubrics, Cross listing



Committee on Undergraduate Education (CUE)


Rubrics, Writing Proficiency




Committee on Undergraduate Education (CUE):  Kathleen Kennedy, Chair

Writing Petition for waiving WP.  Kennedy discussed the “writing petition” approval process in which students request certain courses to count for their writing proficiency credits:

ü  CUE is reviewing the writing petition to make recommendations to ACC.  Carmen Werder was appointed by CUE to make decisions re petitions this year and report back to CUE.  The form that is used requires approval of department chair and instructor so that students can  graduate.  Petitions, of which there may be no more than five or ten a year, may come from students who have taken a course that later becomes WP and they want the points, or it may be an alternative WP that is being allowed. 

ü  Tracy Thorndike Christ suggested that showing two different syllabi to a student will clear up why in a particular year a course may not be WP. 

ü  There seems to be some inconsistency in the use of the WP attribute in Banner.  Lisa Zuzarte will check.

ü  Kathleen Kennedy suggested that if standards are different for WP1 and WP2, then CUE needs to know the writing component in each level course.  It cannot be the same for a student who took three WP1 courses as it is for the student who took one WP3 course. 

ü  Chair Anderson responded by suggesting that some programs may want to consider that the minimum acceptable combination of WP credits should not be three WP1 classes, rather it must be one WP3 or one WP1 plus one WP2.

Review of Past year in CUE

Kennedy reported that having the dual charge of reviewing general education as well as working on a program of assessment makes a lot of work for the committee.  Last year was focused on the accreditation report less time could be spent on faculty concerns.  The reshaping of rubrics was done by a subcommittee.  Kennedy is concerned that only a few members on CUE teach general education courses which may create a creditability issue. 


Kennedy and CUE asked the following:

  • Where is general education scattered across the university?

  • Who are the general education stakeholders?

  • Who is doing assessment?

  • How can we bring those interests together?


Ø Kennedy added that departments are focusing on assessment already and it does not have to be that highly specialized nor does it have to use rubrics.  It can be done by asking a question as simple as:  “What is it you want to know about your students”?

Ø Kennedy would like to align “Surveys of Course Experience” with competencies in the syllabus.  Evaluative questions would actually ask the student how the course helped them meet a listed assessment competency.

Ø Kennedy reported not having very much success getting faculty who teach GURS to pilot a rubric.  Things are moving fairly slowly which might not be acceptable when we get the report.  It is manageable but we might want to change the structure at the end of this year.  

Ø Tracy Thorndike-Christ echoed the concern that there may be disciplinary silos where people are not concerned about fitting a particular course into the broader scope of general education.  Rather than seeing general education as an entire program it may be seen as a service course that a department provides as part of the general education requirements.  If faculty are enthusiastic about seeing GURs as an entire program that might enable students to see their utility also. This may be particularly important in the Humanities and Social Sciences, although Kennedy mentioned that the History Department endlessly discusses how to connect courses to the other humanities in fundamental ways.

Ø Kristi Tyran pointed out that it is not necessarily essential to have the experience of teaching the GURs in order to have an edge in talking about General Education as a whole.  And people may see assessment as being done in those places that are not particularly GUR producing.

Ø Holly Folk spoke about her experiences with the rubrics pilot and that there is not a lot of clarity about whether there is flexibility about  which rubrics to use and which to ignore because they are not very applicable to the course.  It seems like it might be very helpful to those who teach GURs to state which rubrics are useful and which are not.

Ø Thorndike Christ shared her view that that eleven rubrics for eleven competencies is far too many.  It is reasonable to assess a single competency with a single scoring system to compare among courses or before and  after programmatic changes.  Folk suggested that there will then be a lot of analyzing and narrative feedback with people who say they cannot get the rubric to work for a particular assignment.  Folk likes the top two or three assessment items; the more specific they are to the competency the less useful they are to the assignment.

Ø Kennedy added that there are many different models we can use from different universities; we are trying to find out their useefulness.  Being able to say one is useful and one is not is what makes your pilot successful.  So it may be we will end up saying these rubrics are not useful for us in this university at this particular point.

Ø  Kennedy encouraged ACC member Holly Folk to bring her comments on her rubric pilot program to CUE.  Kennedy plans to invite others who piloted rubrics to come and share their experiences.

Ø Kennedy summarized by suggesting that we do need to ask faculty to participate, perhaps every three or five years in a course evaluation and use that information to make program assessments.  Folk suggested the creation of a data base of useful questions from which to construct a rubric and make it available so faculty could choose rubrics that would work .  Kennedy added it would be great to have these put on the student evaluations relating to the competencies.




Revising the CUE charge:

ACC then recommended the following changes to the CUE charge to be presented formally next meeting:

  • Add two students who take GURS

  • Add two At-Large faculty who specifically teach GURs

  • Add a member of the Registrar’s office, ex officio, non-voting (currently Linda Luke regularly attends).

  • Stagger the 2 yr membership, by securing agreement from nearly half of the current 2009-2011 CUE members to remain on CUE through spring of 2012, and then electing a new half of CUE in spring 2011.


ACC and CUE will implement these changes this year if the revisions are approved.  Kennedy concluded by mentioning some topics that will appear in the next CUE minutes, including changing some language of the ACGM to make it clearer to students, and the effect of merging dance and theater arts on the GURs available to students.


In the next meeting, ACC will also choose an ACC representative to CUE as a winter quarter replacement of Tracy Thorndike Christ



Chair Anderson reminded Commissioners of the need to have electronic resources for faculty, staff and students, and that the following motions move us in that direction.  The creation of the handbooks enables us to support the strategic plan and branding initiatives by helping to propel us to new levels of excellence.  In that light the information on Bb and the links to other university handbooks are especially helpful.  Thorndike-Christ mentioned that Western already has developed a reputation for program assessment:  if one googles “program assessment guides or manuals”  the link to Western’s assessment guide is a primary link.  The document is known about across the country, but is comparatively unknown here on campus. 

1)      Anderson hopes to have a faculty member from ACC work with each ad hoc team that develops a handbook.   The idea is to pattern our handbooks on the electronically interactive handbooks available at some of the best universities.   An array of such handbooks will assist students and faculty to move in new directions in teaching, lectures, labs, and discussion courses, and will point handbook users to both on-campus and off-campus resources.  The motions today are just the initial proposals for developing electronic manuals.  More proposals are forthcoming.


MOTION ONE:  The ACC requests Steve VanderStaay, Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education, to form an Ad Hoc Committee to develop a Faculty Teaching Handbook under the aegis of the ACC, and to use resources available from CIIA, CUE and TLA.   Motion Passed Unanimously


2)      Anderson explained that some universities provide advising handbooks for faculty and academic advisors and then also have manuals for the undergraduate students, as advisees.   Not all students will use the manual, but redundancy of information sources, via both personal contact and electronic reference is useful.   Faculty are the nexus of career advising, given that career advising offices are typically just a handful of people left with the task of advising thousands of students from dozens and dozens of majors.  Faculty have to be more involved. 

Ø   Ramon Rinonos-Diaz liked the example provide in the ACC Academic Resources website on Blackboard that listed the expectations of advisors, and right next to each of those listed the corresponding expectations of advisees.  It is important to let students know “You are expected to make an appointment with an advisor”.  Perhaps the mandatory use of a form would be a starting point for the conversation with the advisor. 


MOTION TWO:  ACC will create an Ad Hoc Committee that works with Student Affairs and Academic Advising to plan and develop a Faculty and Academic Advising Handbook and Student Advising Handbook”.   (See ACC Bb site for examplesMotion Passed Unanimously



3)      Anderson mentioned that the Chair of ACC should be able to freely attend any of the standing committees’ meetings without needing to ask before attending.   Commissioners agreed.

MOTION THREE:  The Chair of ACC, or the Chair’s representative, shall be an ex officio, non-voting member of all ACC Standing CommitteesMotion Passed Unanimously


4)      The following motion had been proposed at the previous ACC meeting.

MOTION FOUR:  ACC will create an ad hoc e-catalog committee for 2010-2011.

 (This will be a combined committee to provide support/oversight of the e-catalog, advising handbooks, and other related web materials.  ACC will develop the charge and membership).  (Motion Passed Unanimously by show of hands)


Academic Grievance Policy Revisions -- Debra Jusak

Debra Jusak requested that ACC review changes to Appendix F on the Academic Grievance policy in the Catalog because frequently questions arise about where an appeal is supposed to go, and what is the specific timeline involved.

Ø  Commissioners will review the changes to Appendix F in the catalog along with a chart, timeline, and form for reporting.  ACC will revisit next meeting in order to approve.


Commissioners adjourned at 5:35 pm

Rose Marie Norton-Nader - Recorder





Voting Membership (terms ending 2012)



James Hearne, Chair 2009-2010



B –  Billie Lindsey, PEHR



Roger Anderson, Chair 2010-11

Yvonne Durham , Interim Vice Chair 2010-11



C –  Holly Folk, Liberal Studies



Ex Officio



 At-Lg: Kristi Tyran, Management



Steve VanderStaay, VPUE for Provost Riordan



I – Peter Smith, Library



Susanna Yunker, Registrar (nv)






Lisa Zuzarte, Catalog Coordinator (nv)



Ramon Rinonos-Diaz,






Morgan Holmgren



David Brunnemer, Associate Registrar



Michael Renne:



Kathy Kitto, Associate Dean, CST



Megan Housekeeper:



Lea Ann Martin – Assoc Dean, CHSS






Debra Jusak



Voting Membership (terms ending 2011)



Kathleen Kennedy,History, CUE Chair



H-Tracy Thorndike-Christ, Spec Ed, CUE  






E- Yvonne Durham, Economics, Interim Vice Chair



Rose Marie Norton-Nader (nv), Recorder



D-Mark Kuntz, Theater






A-Roger Anderson, Biology, Chair,  UPRC rep



Members Present



A-Spencer Anthony-Cahill, SENATOR



Recorder  and Guests



G- Patrick Buckley for David Shull, Huxley College



Date:  11/16/2010        TOTAL:



B- Kathleen Saunders, Anthropology, SENATOR





 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).