GEORGE MASON
UNIVERSITY
APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE FACULTY SENATE
APRIL 5, 2000
Senators Present: K.
Avruch, A. Berry, E. Blaisten-Barojas, D. Boileau, L. Bowen, T. Brawley, B.
Brown, J. Censer, S. Cheldelin, S. deMonsabert, R. Ehrlich, E. Elstun, D.
Gantz, H. Gortner, M. Grady, L. Griffiths, J. Hale, M. Holt, C. Jones, A.
Kolker, M. Krauss, D. Kuebrich, L. Lederman, B. Manchester, J. Reid, L. Rigsby,
L. Rockwood, J. Scimecca, L. Seligmann, A. Sofer, P. Stearns, C. Sutton, P.
Wilkie, S. Zoltek
Senators Absent: K.
Alligood, L. Brown, R. Carty, R. Coffinberger, J. Crockett, R. Davis, M. DeNys,
T. Domzal, J. Flinn, T. Friesz, K. Gaffney, G. Galluzzo, E. Gunn, M. LeBaron,
A. Merten, J. Metcalf, J. Muir, L. Rikard, J. Sanford, P. So, D. Struppa, C.
Thomas, E. Thorp, H. Tongren, S. Weinberger, H. Williams, J. Zenelis
I. Call to Order
Chair D. Boileau called the meeting
to order at 3:05 pm.
Mark Grady, Dean of the School of
Law, welcomed the Faculty Senate to the first meeting of the Faculty Senate on
the Arlington Campus. He stated that
the journey demonstrated some of the difficulties of a distributed university,
but that he was pleased to have the Senate meet at the Arlington Campus and
looked forward to having future Senate meetings in Arlington.
II. Approval of Minutes
The Minutes of the March 8, 2000
Faculty Senate Meeting were approved as distributed.
III. Announcements
D. Boileau announced that there was
a very full Agenda for today’s meeting, and should a continuation be required,
it would occur in the Senate’s normal meeting location.
D. Boileau announced that a
tour of the Arlington Facilities was available after the Senate meeting today
for anyone interested. Additionally, F.
Wintrich, Assistant Dean of the School of Law, stated that a tour could be
arranged for interested Senators or faculty at some future time by contacting
him.
IV. Unfinished Business
2.
Academic
Policies Committee
H. Gortner introduced the recommendation from the
Committee regarding the Incomplete Procedure and Form (previously distributed
as Attachment B of the March 8, 2000 Agenda).
He explained that the form was recommended as a university-wide
form. He further explained that the Committee
felt it wise to advise departments to keep a paper file similar to the form
provided in the recommendations, but was not requiring all departments to do
so. Discussion ensued, and it was asked
if this procedure and form would apply to graduate as well as undergraduate
students. H. Gortner responded that the
form need not distinguish between graduates and undergraduates, and the use of
the form and to whom it applied were up to the individual departments. He stressed that the form was intended to be
a prototype form that could be modified and amended to fit the needs of each department. The question was called and the motion passed on a voice vote. A copy of the Form and Recommendations are
available in the Faculty Senate Office.
A. University Committee Reports
1. Minority and Diversity Issues Committee
Senate Chair D. Boileau indicated
that the Committee requested to report to the Senate at the May meeting because
the Committee will have additional information following a meeting with several
university officials later this week.
2. Ad Hoc General Education Committee
R. Sachs reported that the Board of
Visitors Faculty and Academic Standards Committee addressed the Senate approved
university-wide General Education proposal.
The BOV Committee also received a proposal by Visitor Herrity. It was announced that there would be an open
meeting to discuss the two proposals on Wednesday, April 12, from 5-7 PM in the
Johnson Center. Speakers at the meeting
would need to sign up in advance and will receive three minutes for
remarks. Additionally, the BOV
Committee would meet on April 19 from 4-6 PM and general education should be on
the agenda at that meeting. Discussion
about the open meeting on general education followed. R. Sachs was asked what his Committee’s role would be at the open
meeting. R. Sachs responded that the
Committee would provide information on the Senate’s proposal including a
handout with facts about the proposal, but that the format of the meeting did
not specify time for presentations/statements from the committee. Discussion about the meeting continued, and
it was stressed that the best approach for remarks at the meeting would be
emphasizing the Senate’s proposal rather than criticizing Visitor Herrity’s
proposal. It was suggested that the
Faculty Senate should make a statement at the open meeting. It was moved
and seconded that the Faculty Senate’s Executive Committee work with the
Senate Chair to produce a statement for the open forum and notify the members
of the Senate by e-mail. The motion passed by voice vote.
3. Non-Traditional, Interdisciplinary, and
Adult Learning Committee
D. Kuebrich reported that the
Committee met with the Organization and Operations Committee and developed a
broader scope of areas for examination which need faculty oversight that
included: testing/credit by examination; contract credit courses; certificate
programs; and, distance learning. The
Committee determined that the certificate program review would require outside
help and a great deal more time than available to do the job well. The other areas were addressed in the
Committee’s written report (Attachment A
to these minutes). D. Kuebrich
provided a summary of Section I. Credit Awarded By Examination. He summarized Section II. Contract Credit
Courses, and commented on the Office of Continuing Professional Education’s
growth. He stated that the table in
this section showed only one-third of the growth, because two-thirds of the
growth is from non-credit courses.
Additionally, he indicated that J. Niblock volunteered to update the Faculty
Senate in the Fall if desired. Finally,
he summarized Section III. Distance Learning, and provided several
comments. He commented that Vice
President of Information Technology, J. Hughes, and J. Niblock discussed the
need for GMU to expand the role of distance learning. It was discussed that increased emphasis on distance learning
courses should be examined, and that distance learning should be better
monitored by the university. It was
suggested that the Senate receive a report on distance learning at a future
meeting. Several questions followed D.
Kuebrich’s report, and he indicated that any further concerns/questions could
be addressed by contacting him or other members of the Committee.
B.
Senate
Committee Reports
1.
Executive
Committee
D. Boileau reported that aside from the Open Form on General Education, April 12, and the BOV Faculty and Academic Standards Committee meeting on April 19, the Executive Committee had nothing new to report at this time.
2.
Academic
Policies Committee
E. Elstun reported that the Committee had several
action items for this meeting (Attached
to these Minutes as Attachment B and as approved after discussion at the
current meeting) and wanted to notify the Secretary of a typographical
error in the first item. Since there is
only one Honors Program in General Education, the “s” making “Program” plural
should be eliminated. The Secretary
noted the correction.
Item One: Honors Program in General Education:
E. Elstun moved to the “Conclusions and
recommendations” section of the item.
D. Boileau indicated that for matters of discussion, the recommendations
would be addressed individually, but would be voted on as a whole. There was no discussion of recommendations
1-5. Addressing recommendation number
six, a friendly amendment was made by L. Lederman and discussion of the
amendment ensued. The amendment was
withdrawn, and another friendly amendment was made. The amendment changed recommendation six from:
6. that the Senate recommend to the Provost increased scholarship funding for this program, to provide at least 75% support to students in it (instead of the current 60%);
to:
6. that the Senate recommend to the Provost
increased scholarship funding for this program, with the intent of improving
the quality of the students in it;
The
amendment was accepted. There
was brief discussion of the remaining recommendations and the question was
called. The Committee’s recommendations on the Honors Program in
General Education passed by voice vote.
Item Two: Three-year Calendar
C. Jones presented the Committee’s
recommendation to adopt the proposed three-year university calendar for the
2001-2004 academic years. J. Censer moved to add a reading day on Wednesday
and begin and end exams a day later.
The motion was seconded and a
brief discussion followed. E. Elstun
stated that the Registrar was consulted on this matter and that the calendar
should be accepted as proposed. The motion to amend failed by voice
vote. The recommendation to accept the three-year calendar as presented by the
Committee passed by voice vote.
Item Three: Final Exam Policy
E. Elstun introduced the motion to reaffirm the final examination policy and
provided some background for the motion.
It was indicated that the policy applied to undergraduates. Concern was expressed about take-home exams,
but E. Elstun indicated that take-home exams were already addressed in the
catalog. Following additional brief
discussion, the motion to reaffirm
passed by voice vote.
Noting the time, Senate Secretary D. Gantz indicated
that the Seat Allocation for the 2000-2001 Faculty Senate had to be addressed
at this Senate meeting. Chair Boileau,
hearing no objections, moved the Seat Allocation action item up in the Agenda.
6. Organization and Operations Committee
The corrected seat allocation numbers were
distributed from the O&O Committee.
It was moved and seconded to
accept the report of seat allocations.
The motion passed. A copy of the seat allocation report is
available in the Faculty Senate Office.
Recess
It was moved to recess at this
time and continue this meeting on Wednesday, April 26, 2000, at 3:00 PM in
Robinson Hall, Room B113 on the Fairfax Campus.
Respectfully
submitted,
Donald
T. Gantz, Secretary
GMU
Faculty Senate
ATTACHMENT A: Report of the
Non-Traditional, Interdisciplinary, and Adult Learning Committee
NIAL
Committee: Initial Report April 5, 2000
I.
CREDIT AWARDED BY EXAMINATION (Office of Admissions and Testing Office)
GMU
students who receive credit by exam take tests created by national testing
associations or GMU departments. In
all cases, the criteria for awarding credit are determined by the appropriate
GMU department.
Over
the last three years, GMU has awarded the following amounts of credit by examination:
96-97 97-98 98-99
British
A-Level
Total
Students/Credit 7/30 6/26 6/18
Advanced
Placement
(AP)
Total
Students/Credit 837/2734 821/2697 1011/3223*
International
Baccalaureate
(IB)
Total
Students/Credit 49/159 51/158 81/247**
French
Baccalaureate
Total
Students/Credit 0/0 4/15 0/0
GMU
Departmental
Total
Students/Credit 1786/5035 1526/4288 1210/3397***
Sat
II Exams
Total
Students/Credit 0/0 3/9 5/15
College
Level Exam
(CLEP)
Total
Students/Credit 57/204 101/314 165/483
Life
Experience
Total
Students/Credit 4/18 1/6 1/6
A
few entering students receive about one year's credit by exam. In Fall, 1999 one student was awarded 40+ credits.
*One
explanation for the increase in AP credit in 1998-99 is that Fairfax County
mandated that all students in AP courses must take the AP exam (with the county
paying the exam fee).
**The
number of U.S. high schools offering the IB degree is growing rapidly both
locally and nationally, so in future years GMU will be awarding more IB credit.
***Nursing
awards the most credit by departmental exam: 2254 credits in 1988-99. Next are Modern & Classical Languages,
English, Psychology, and Computer Science respectively. The largest decrease
in credit by examination has occurred in Nursing.
_________________________________________________________________
II.
CONTRACT CREDIT COURSES
GMU
offers contract credit courses through three offices: the Office of Continuing Professional Education (OCPE) which brokers
requests for instruction from local government bodies and the business community;
the School of Education's Office of Adult Learning and Professional Development
(OALPD) which primarily provides graduate credit contract courses and degree
programs to the local school systems; and the College of Nursing and Health
Science's Office of Professional Development (OPD) which primarily serves
local health care organizations.
1)
Office of Continuing Professional Education
In
addition to its office in Krug Hall, OCPE has branch offices at the Prince
William Campus and at the Center for Innovative Technology in Herndon. A fourth office is planned for the Arlington
Campus. To date, OCPE has not marketed
its services for the simple reason that even without advertising, it is taxed
to meet existing requests. As the
following table shows, the OCPE has dramatically increased its contract courses
during the last three years. Continued
rapid growth is expected.
Credit
Courses
FY courses students gross
revenue
97-98 12
205 $102,609
98-99 47 881 $828,542
99-00 97 1,342 $1,128,268
Presently,
most of the courses arranged by OCPE are offered by professors at government
and business workplaces. In the future
OCPE anticipates teaching increasingly by internet and video conferencing.
The
"Academic Council," comprised of one faculty representative from
each school and institute, provides a needed connection between the faculty
and CPE office and also serves as an advisory board.
The Council meets monthly, including during the summer.
Non-Credit
Courses: Although this report only deals with credit
courses, it is perhaps worth noting (as an indicator of demand) that approximately
65% of OCPE's offerings are for non-credit courses and programs.
2)
Office of Adult Learning and Professional Development
In
recent years, OALPD has annually offered 150-200 contract courses, including
courses in three graduate degree programs.
Typically these courses meet at off-campus sites.
academic
year courses
Summer
98 53
Fall
98 82
Spring
99 47
Summer
99 40
Fall
99 71
Spring
00 52
3)
Office of Professional Development (Nursing)
In
recent years, OPD has annually offered about 30 courses with 150-75 students
per semester. The principal student
groups have been registered nurses at the INOVA Health Care System, Mary Washington
Hospital (Fredericksburg) and Winchester Medical System. Most of these students will eventually complete
a degree program in the GMU College of Nursing.
academic
year courses
Fall
98 14
Spring
99 15
Summer
99 8
Fall 99
10
Spring
00 12
_________________________________________________________________
III.
DISTANCE LEARNING
At
present, the delivery of higher education through distance learning (DL) does
not seem to be a priority at GMU. Neither
the administration nor most academic units have made this a major emphasis.
There has been no central GMU office responsible for determining how
DL should relate to the university's mission, for developing and implementing
DL policies, for providing needed faculty and student support services for
DL courses, or for keeping track of DL course offerings.
However, DL may soon become a growing priority. One reason for this may be perceived competition.
For instance, Julie Christensen states that both ICAR and Nursing report
that parts of their programs are being challenged by on-line courses from
other schools.
There
is no standard definition of a DL course.
SACS defines a distance course as one in which 50% of more of instruction
occurs when student and teacher are not in the same place; a DL program is
one in which 50% or more of the credits are offered in DL courses.
Using this definition, the Provost's Office has identified the following
distance learning programs:
MAIS
in Recreation Resources Management
MS
in Systems Engineering
MPA
Concentration in Nonprofit Management
Certificate
in Nonprofit Management
Certificate
in Computational Techniques and Applications
Certificate
in Network Science
Certificate
in Gerontology
Certificate
in Quality of Care and Health Outcomes
The
NIAL Committee has received a print-out that lists 56 courses for Spring 1999
that were either DL or that included a significant amount of DL instruction.
Of these, the identified mode of delivery is internet (20), TV (12),
www (12), email (3), videotape (1) and computer-assisted instruction (8).
GMU personnel who attend to this issue believe the number of DL courses
is increasing.
Currently,
a GMU task force headed by Linda Schwartzstein, Vice Provost for Strategic
Planning, is formulating a general framework which will assist schools and
institutes to develop policies for their DL instruction as well as become
SACS compliant. This will require
GMU to develop a working definition of DL courses and programs consistent
with the SACS definition and to maintain a record of its DL course offerings. In addition, SACS criteria require, among other
things, that a school must:
--"formulate
clear and explicit goals for its distance learning programs and demonstrate they are consistent with the institution's
stated purpose";
--"provide
students with structured access to and interaction with full-time faculty";
--"provide
a variety of facilities and instructional support services . . . which are
organized and administered so as to provide easy access for faculty and student
users. . . . These requirements apply [emphasis in original] to all programs
wherever located or however delivered."
--provide
"appropriate student development services" for both on-campus and
distance learning programs.
ATTACHMENT B:
Academic Policies Committee Action Items (as Approved by the Senate at
the current meeting)
TO: The Faculty Senate
FROM:
Senate Academic Policies Committee
DATE:
March 2000
SUBJECT:
Review of the Honors Program in General Education
Background Information. On 12 February 1997 the Faculty Senate
adopted a set of motions from its Academic Policies Committee, endorsing the
establishment of university-wide honors programs and provisionally approving
the conversion of PAGE to a university-wide honors program. Those actions included the stipulation that
after two years of operation (Fall 1997 through Fall 1999), the Honors Program
in General Education would be reviewed by the Senate’s Academic Policies
Committee. A subsequent Senate action
(22 April 1998) established minimum, university-wide criteria for honors
programs in general education and in major programs.
Review of the Honors Programs in
General Education. Using the
criteria established by the Senate, the Academic Policies Committee began its
review of the program by reading materials provided by the program director,
Professor Mack Holt (e.g., annual
status reports, a two-page flyer publicizing the program), and by visiting the
program’s web site to look at course syllabi and bylaws. Teacher/course evaluations by students were
also reviewed online. On 31 January the
committee met with Professor Holt and Professor Jonathan Gifford, who currently
serves on the faculty committee that shares governance and decision-making
responsibility for the program. On 14
February the committee met with four honors students—two in the first year of
the program, one in her last semester of it, and one who has completed it. (The Senate office will provide on request
the committee minutes of these meetings, with detailed summaries of the
discussion.)
Important points that emerged in the
committee’s discussion with Professors Holt and Gifford:
1)
Admission
standards have become more rigorous;
2)
The
curriculum has been strengthened in several ways, e.g., the original introductory course (Honors 110) has become an
introduction to research; the original computer course has been dropped, and
computer skills are taught across the curriculum; BSc students take a regular
science course and Math 113/114; for BA students the program includes an honors
version of Math 106/108 and satisfaction of the foreign language requirement;
3)
A
major problem is that the GMU program offers scholarship funds to only 60% of
the students (compared to the 100% support that honors students at UVA
receive);
4)
Faculty
turnover is very high; summer stipends in support of the demanding task of
preparing the program’s interdisciplinary courses would encourage more faculty
participation;
5)
Participation
by faculty varies greatly among academic units; generally, faculty from units
with extensive graduate offerings are not as active as those from units whose
primary emphasis is on undergraduate education;
6)
The
program does an excellent job preparing students for their majors.
The
students who met with the committee were, on the whole, positive about the
program, though not without criticism of some aspects of it. Positive points raised in the discussion
were:
1)
The
program is not just an array of courses; it fosters a strong sense of community
among students who are eager to learn;
2)
Faculty
involved in the program are excellent, both as teachers and advisors, and they
represent a variety of perspectives;
3)
Smaller
classes are more interactive, and permit each student to receive more
individual attention from the instructor;
4)
The
honors lounge is a valuable place for program participants to communicate and
help each other; honors housing also helps in this regard, but is not adequate
to accommodate all students in the program.
Criticisms expressed by the students included the
following:
1)
Syllabi
sometimes lack clarity with respect to the subject matter to be covered; course
objectives are sometimes too vague;
2)
The
present format of science courses (a lot of information, presented in a large
lecture section by different professors) is not good [the lab sessions,
however, were highly praised];
3)
Too
many students in the program plan to transfer elsewhere after they’ve completed
their first two years here.
Conclusions
and recommendations. On the basis
of its review, the Academic Policies Committee believes this program should be
continued, with the modifications set out in some of the recommendations
below. The Committee moves:
1. that the Honors Program in General Education be continued, subject to the same periodic review as other academic programs;
2. that the criterion adopted by the Senate in
1997 which calls for “flexibility of admission to allow qualified part-time and
transfer students to participate” be dropped, because it is not viable;
3. that the size of existing small classes be
maintained, and every reasonable effort be made to reduce the size of the large
science lecture;
4. that, in an effort to improve retention, the
program director initiate the practice of scheduling an advising session for
exiting students, at which academic units provide information about
opportunities for continued honors work in upper-division courses/major
programs;
5. that the program’s governance structure be
amended to provide that the selection of faculty occur through a process that
always involves not only the program director, but the supervisory faculty
committee as well;
6.
that the Senate recommend to the Provost increased scholarship funding for this
program, with the intent of improving the quality of the students in it;
7. that the Senate recommend to the Provost the
award of summer stipends to faculty engaged in the development of
interdisciplinary courses for the program; faculty earning stipends would, in
turn, be obligated to teach over two presentation cycles the course(s) they assisted
in developing, subject to the approval of the program director;
8. that the program director and others
responsible for its funding make every reasonable effort to compensate academic
units equitably for faculty “on loan” to the Honors Program in General
Education, so as to cover not only classroom teaching, but also such faculty
functions as advising, committee assignments, administrative duties, etc.; and
finally,
9. that, if the foregoing motions are adopted,
the persons to whom they are directed report to the Faculty Senate on their
disposition or implementation no later than September 2000.
Item Two: Three Year Calendar (available in hard copy
only – see last page)
The Academic Policies Committee recommends
the adoption of the proposed three-year university calendar for 2001-2004 by
the Faculty Senate.
TO:
Members of the Faculty Senate
FROM:
Senate Academic Policies Committee
SUBJECT:
Final Exam Policy - Item for Senate's April 5 Agenda
DATE: 23 March 2000
An
item of business referred to the Academic Policies Committee last fall was a
request to review university policy governing final exams for undergraduates
(for the full text, see the 1999-2000 University Catalog, p. 30), in particular
the following provisions: except in predominantly laboratory courses, finals
are to be given at the times and places announced in the Schedule of Classes,
unless changes in time and place have been approved by the appropriate
department chair and dean. If the final
is to be a take-home exam, students are to be so informed at the beginning of
the semester; such exams should be distributed at the beginning of the last
week of classes, and students cannot be required to submit them before the exam
date listed in the Schedule of Classes.
One
of the questions the committee was to try to answer was, how frequent and
widespread are deviations from those provisions? On 15 February the committee communicated with the local unit
administrators of all academic units in the university concerning that
question. The responses received led
the committee to conclude that there is no widespread abuse of the current
policy governing final exams at the undergraduate level.
Members of the committee believe that the current policy is sound, but that it should be more widely publicized than it presently is. Accordingly, the committee MOVES that
The Senate reaffirms the final examination policy for undergraduates, as stated on p. 30 of the 1999-2000 University Catalog; and instructs the Secretary of the Senate to communicate this action to all collegiate deans and institute directors for announcement to their teaching faculties, with the further request that information about the policy be provided at all orientation sessions for new faculty.