INDIANA STATE UNIVERSITY
The Curriculum and Academic Affairs Committee (CAAC) met 24 times during the academic year and another meeting is scheduled.
CAAC Membership: Fall 2004
Officers and Executive Committee:
Chair: Michael Murphy, Psychology, Professor
Vice-Chair: Greg Bierly, Geography, Associate Professor
Secretary: David Malooley, ECT, Associate Professor
Earl Blair, HSEHS, Associate Professor
Susan Kiger, CIMT, Assistant Professor
Dianne Nelson, Nursing, Assistant Professor
Larry Rosenhein, Chemistry, Associate Professor
Pat Wheeler, ELED, Professor
Debra Worley, Communication, Associate Professor
Student Members/SGA Representatives:
Liaison from the Executive Committee to the CAAC:
Sister Alma Mary Anderson, Art, Professor.
Ex Officio Members:
Mary Bennett, College of Nursing
Amy Craddock, General Education (Spring)
Jay Gatrell, College of Arts and Sciences (Spring)
Jake Jakaitis, General Education (Fall),
Bruce McLaren, College of Business
Jeff McNabb, College of Technology
John Ozmun, College of Health and Human Performance
Ann Rider, College of Arts and Sciences (Fall)
Karen Schmid, Office of Academic Affairs
Stacy Thomas, Registrar's Office
The attendance record for members of CAAC is contained in Appendix A of this report.
CAAC reviewed and acted on modifications of 28 programs including elimination of three and modifications or revisions of ten majors or degree programs, approval of two new and revision of four minors, and elimination of one and modification of one concentration.
CAAC endorsed several recommendations from General Education Council including the approval of two General Education Capstone Courses, recommendations on programs for students who study abroad, and recommendations regarding quantitative literacy requirements and substitutions for SMS F,E GE 2000 credit.
CAAC has continued the revision of the Curriculum Approval Procedures Manual, CAPS Manual, to expedite curricular review and allow the Committee to address broader issues. Wherever difficulties with the CAPS manual were identified or sources of difficulty were encountered, recommendations were generated and were included in the revision. One new item addressed was the inclusion of procedures to consider resource issues. These are becoming increasingly vital in curricular review. Documentation was introduced to ensure that they have been addressed in the administrative review and approval process for the program. Also addressed in concert with the Graduate Council were guidelines for International Program offerings. The CAPS forms were revised and the format was changed from PDF to Word addressing problems that have been frequently encountered in preparing materials.
CAAC reviewed and recommended approval of the proposed departmental reorganization in the College of Education creating the department of Communication Disorders, Counseling, School and Educational Psychology, CDCSEP.
The majority of curricular proposals were reviewed and accepted by the CAAC Executive Committee that allowed meeting time to address issues impacting curricular and academic affairs. Ex officio members attended meetings regularly and had valuable input in Committee discussions. Two representatives from the Student Government Association, Kelly Aschliman and Tressman Goode, regularly attended and constructively participated in CAAC meetings. Ms. Aschliman and Mr. Goode consistently impressed Committee members with their conscientiousness and good work. Good communication between CAAC and the General Education Council and the General Education Coordinator has continued.
Charges From the Executive Committee and Action Taken on Each Charge
The Executive Committee forwarded two initial charges that were addressed by CAAC.
1. The Distinctive Programs Committee has been formed and has been charged. Sister Alma Mary Anderson is one of the representatives selected by the Executive Committee to be on this committee. The CAAC committee should give input on the procedures, criteria, and accountability of the Distinctive Programs Initiative for Sister Alma Mary Anderson to carry forward. The Distinctive Program Committee chaired by Dean Foster is to have its charges completed by October 1st, 2005. See documentation.
CAAC reviewed the materials that were submitted by the Distinctive Programs Committee. The CAAC found that the substance of the document was a thoughtful and reasonable framework for implementation of the distinctive programs initiative. The Committee also communicated several areas they believed would help clarify the process and strengthen the program. The memo that CAAC forwarded to the Distinctive Programs Committee is attached in Appendix C of this report.
2. Review the prioritization scheme developed in the book Prioritizing Academic Programs and Services. Then develop, with input from Grad Council and FAC, a set of criteria that can be used in evaluating program viability. We must not accept externally provided criteria without our modification and approval. This is our primary authority.
The focus should be on establishing a multiple criteria scheme that captures the many various contributions that programs make that allow the university to accomplish its mission. One size does not fit all.
CAAC devoted a considerable amount of time to reviewing and offering input to the Program Prioritization Task Force. CAAC was given a briefing at each meeting regarding development of the process. CAAC reviewed and provided feedback on the document, implementation of the training, and the process of rating and ranking. CAAC continues to work on Prioritization and has received the report on Prioritization of the General Education 2000 Program from the General Education Council.
CAAC initially worked in concert with the Faculty Affairs Committee and Graduate Council. The fact that the Chair of CAAC was also a Co-Chair of the Prioritization Task Force gave the opportunity for members to assist in shaping the process. CAAC had input into the definition of a program, the manner in which the review would be carried-out, the criteria that would be employed, and the system of weighting the criteria. When the documentation of the process was presented, input and suggestions from CAAC were incorporated into the document.
Items that CAAC Addressed During the Academic Year
CAAC addressed a number of items that were brought before the Committee or arose from issues or documents the Committee received. These included:
· Monitoring the Notebook Initiative and developments of Information Technology.
o CAAC met with CIO Ed Kinley and Kenneth Janz who provided an update on the instructional implications of student and faculty computing and other developments that will facilitate research and collaboration with other faculty and research centers.
· CAAC has continued to maintain contact with the Alliance for Excellence. Currently a proposal is under review for creating a course designator for service learning courses and establishment of a process for identifying and monitoring these courses.
· CAAC met with Robert Guell and Kathy Baker regarding the Task Force on the First Year. The focus was upon inclusion of the Statement of Philosophy and Goals in the Undergraduate Catalogue.
· CAAC is currently in the processing of reviewing the modified job description for the General Education Coordinator.
Summary of Actions Taken
FAST TRACK REVIEW
Approved proposal from English for elimination of the
Approved Life Science for revision of the B.A./B.S
Life Sciences - Clinical Laboratory Science curricula 8-0-0
Approved Music revision of the B.M.E. Music
Choral/General was made and passed 9-0-0
Approved proposal from Communication Disorders
for modification the B.A./B.S. Speech Language Pathology
to include the requirement of the Praxis I 9-0-0
Approve proposal from Physical Education
for revision of the Coaching Concentration 9-0-0
Approved proposal from Electronics and Computer Technology
for modification of the Computer Hardware Technology Minor 9-0-0
Approved proposal from Manufacturing and Construction
Technology for elimination of the AS in Printing Management 9-0-0
Approved proposal from Manufacturing and Construction
Technology for elimination of the BS in Printing Management 9-0-0
Approved proposal from Psychology for PSY 485, Psychology
and Society to be offered as a General Education Capstone Course 9-0-0
Approved proposal from Curriculum, Instruction, and Media
Technology for elimination of the BA/BS Teacher Education,
Library Media Major and Minor. 5-0-0
Approve proposal from Math and Computer Science
for revision of the Major and Minor in Math Education including
increase in hours from 40 to 43 on major and decrease from 26 to 25
hours on the minor 5-0-0
Approved proposal from Sociology for revision of the Sociology minor
reducing total hours from 19 to 18 Hours due to reduction of SOC 280
from 4 hrs to 3 hrs. 5-0-0
Approve proposal from the Industrial and Mechanical Technology
Department for modification of the Automotive Technology
Management BS Degree including addition of 1 hour and
addition and deletion of several courses 6-0-2
Approved proposal from Liberal Studies for elimination of the
A.A. Program in Liberal Studies 8-0-0
Approved proposal from the General Education Council and
Academic Programs Abroad for MCS:IC Substitution for Students
Who Study Abroad 8-0-0
Approved proposal and published it in Academic Notes for
Academic Programs Abroad for MCS:IC Substitution
for Students Who Study Abroad 8-0-0
Approved proposed guidelines for International Program
offerings including the insertion of “and off campus” following
“international,” and the insertion “Thus the program must undergo
all formal reviews to which on-campus programs are held accountable” 8-0-0
Approved proposal from African and African American Studies
for AFRI 470 to be a General Education Capstone Course 7-0-0
Approved proposal from Family and Consumer Sciences
for modification to the Family and Consumer Sciences Education Major.
Change the FCS 437 Infant Development --3 hrs. to FCS 237-
Child Development--3 hrs.; 7-0-0
Approved proposal from Family and Consumer Sciences for
modification to the Child Development and Family Life BS Degree.
Changes included major modifications of courses,
change of title to Human Development and Family Studies,
and increase of hours from 42 to 51 7-0-0
Approved proposal from Family and Consumer Sciences for
modification to the Child Development and Family Life Minor.
Changes include major modifications of courses and change
of title to Human Development and Family Studies Minor 7-0-0
Approved proposal from Criminology for the elimination of
the Criminology AS 5-0-0
Approved proposal from Communications for the elimination
of the BA/BS in Managerial Communication 5-0-0
Approved proposal from Recreation and Sports Management
for elimination of the Recreation Therapy Minor 8-0-0
Approved proposal from Math and Computer Science for
modification of the Information Technology BA/BS Major 8-0-0
Approved proposal from English for modification of the English
Teaching Major renumbering ENG 380 to ENG 486 and
adding 1 hour for ENG 402 8-0-0
Approved proposal from Industrial and Mechanical Technology
for revision of the B.S. degree in Mechanical Engineering
Approved proposal from Business: Analytical for a new Forensics
Accounting Minor 8-0-0
Approved proposal from the Organizational Department for
a New Minor in Motorsports Management, a 21 Semester hour
collaborative minor between the Colleges of Business, Technology,
and HHP 6-0-0
Approved modification of the Quantitative Literacy Requirement
to allow other Math to meet the Math 102 requirement 7-0-0
Approved ATTR 210/L and PE 220/L for Allied Health Professional
students as an acceptable substitution for SMS F,E GE 2000 credit 7-0-0
Modifications of CAPS Manual
Approved, with revisions, the proposed modifications to the
CAPS “COURSE PROPOSAL FORM 8-0-0
Approve, with revisions, the proposed modifications to the
CAPS “PROGRAM PROPOSAL FORM” 8-0-0
Approved proposed form “F-5 Unit and Deans’ Office Review
for Completeness and Accuracy” for CAPS Manual including
the addition of statements to the Course and Program Proposal forms 8-0-0
Approved, with amendments, the Revisions to CAPS Manual 7-0-0
Approve the merger of the three departments with a new
department name of “Communication Disorders, Counseling,
School and Educational Psychology” 5-1-0
Approved policy statement that length of time for program
completion to be three years for Associate and Baccalaureate programs
and one year for Certificates 8-0-0
Approved General Education Council resolution paper on the
Science Course (SMS F/E) listing issue 8-0-0
CAAC Memo on Distintive Programs Initiative
Date: September 26, 2005
To: Sister Alma Mary Anderson
From: Michael J. Murphy
RE: CAAC review of the Draft of the document develped by the Distinctive Programs Committee
In compliance with the charges from the Executive Committee of the Faculty Senate, CAAC discussed the draft of the document prepared by the Distinctive Programs Committee. The essence of our charge was “to give input on the procedures, criteria, and accountability of the Distinctive Programs Initiative for Sister Alma Mary Anderson to carry forward”. As you are aware, CAAC received the draft and discussed it at its meeting on September 22. I appreciated your presentation of the main elements of the draft and your input that assisted CAAC’s consideration of the recommendations contained in the document.
CAAC members found that the substance of the draft offered a thoughtful and reasonable framework for implementation of the distinctive programs initiative. The Committee identified several areas that members believe would clarify and strengthen the program and clarify the process.
I will summarize the issues raised by the Committee in the order in which the content is presented in the draft.
The draft begins with the articulation of two dimensions of distinction. The first is a vertical dimension that “may result when an individual or group of individuals accomplishes something that is highly valued by both external and internal audiences.” The second is a horizontal dimension that “occurs when something noteworthy happens across multiple programs, units, or even across the whole university.” Issues were raised by the Committee that focused on the concern that the emphasis in the remainder of the document was on the vertical dimension to the exclusion of the horizontal dimension, beyond mentioning the concept. Comments included that the emphasis is upon competition both for designation and funding. Neither the principles nor the criteria articulated in the document provided for collaboration. Furthermore, the draft does not state that programs that receive awards are expected to showcase their work so other programs can learn and replicate them. Finally, the criteria did not provide for consideration of those aspects of proposals that incorporate “horizontal” distinctiveness.
A second issue that cuts across all aspects of the draft is that the designation of distinctiveness and the award of funds are linked. Members of CAAC felt that there may be outstanding programs that do not apply or whose proposals are found not to address the criteria. The University would lose the opportunity to showcase these programs and recognize them in order to “bring a level of prestige and prominence to Indiana State University that can enhance our efforts to compete more successfully with other universities around the state and Midwest for well-qualified and motivated students, public recognition, and external support.” It seems that the only manner in which the University can advance distinctive programs is through funding. In fact the University has a variety of means for advancing programs. Therefore, CAAC members suggested that separate processes be developed for the identification of distinctiveness and for the selection from the group of distinctive programs those whose proposals merit funding.
Turning to the section of the draft that provided a “Statement of Purpose”, members of CAAC suggested that an additional consideration might be added that deals with the benefits associated with development of the application. The process of self-study, goal setting, and planning that are foundations for developing applications are valuable activities independent of awards of funding or designation of distinctiveness.
The section of the draft titled “Principles” should include points made above such as inclusion of items that address horizontal aspects of distinctiveness. In addition, one principle states the initiative would: “Include substantive investment by the University as a means of leveraging additional resources.” Members felt that the statement needed to clarify that resources are new or additional resources and would not become a part of operating budgets. As a consequence proposals that would fund faculty and staff positions would need to include mechanisms for generating external funds for continuing positions beyond the funding period.
As noted above, the vertical and horizontal dimensions are mentioned in the criteria. However, elements of the horizontal dimension are not elaborated in the criteria. It was also suggested that the need for external validation, noted in the document, should be reiterated as it applies to specific criteria.
The section “Resources Supporting the Initiative” does not address the number of programs that would be funded and it is assumed that some would not apply for the maximum funding available. Members felt that there was a high likelihood that the maximum funding designated would drive what was requested. Questions raised included the following:
1. Would the process allow for partial funding of proposals?
2. What would occur if some designations receive more requests than can be funded and others did not use all of the funds?
3. Why are awards for regional/state distinction limited to $75,000?
Would this provide an incentive for programs to apply under the Programs of Promise category?
We believe that clarification of this section would be helpful.
Under the section “Selection Process” it is stated that the members of the Distinctive Programs Committee would serve staggered terms but the length of each term is not specified. The section on dates states a date when “Pre-applications due to committee”. Below the term “preliminary proposals” is used and it is presumed these refer to the same document and a single term should be used consistently. Members of the Committee suggested that a preliminary budget be included with the preliminary proposals.
Committee members suggested that it should be stated that continuation of the initial award would be contingent upon the results reported in the annual report. Finally it was suggested that applicant be given feedback on proposals that are not funded in order to guide and encourage future applications.
The members of CAAC acknowledged the thoughtful and excellent work of the Distinctive Programs Committee. The suggestions that are offered are enhancements to a well done draft. If CAAC can provide additional information or clarification, please contact me. I would appreciate it if you would communicate to the Distinctive Programs Committee our deep appreciation of the efforts and good work.