• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Missouri University of Science and Technology Scholars' Mine Minutes & Agendas Faculty Senate 01 Jan 2003 Faculty Senate Minutes 2002 - 2003 Missouri University of Science and Technology Faculty Senate Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/facsenate_min Recommended Citation Missouri University of Science and Technology Faculty Senate, "Faculty Senate Minutes 2002 - 2003" (2003). Minutes & Agendas. 31. https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/facsenate_min/31 This Minutes is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars' Mine. It has been accepted for inclusion in Minutes & Agendas by an authorized administrator of Scholars' Mine. This work is protected by U. S. Copyright Law. Unauthorized use including reproduction for redistribution requires the permission of the copyright holder. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PHILOSOPHY & LIBERAL ARTS G-4 Humanities-Social Science Building 1870 Miner Circle Rolla, MO 65409-0570 Telephone: (573) 341-4869 FAX: (573) 341-6312 January 8, 2003 TO: Richard Miller, Chair, PLA Len Koederitz, President, Academic Council f • FROM: Lance HaynesAi"-~' SUBJECT: Curriculum Review Processes After reading the recent e-mail exchanges between Professors Cohen and Swenson on the subject of the curriculum approval process (copies available on request), I have grown concerned. The UMR Faculty Bylaws explicitly assign responsibility for curricula to the faculty at each level. Even a cursory reading of our bylaws shows that the academic shape and integrity of each unit is the responsibility and prerogative of the faculty. The supposition that faculty are responsible for curricula and administration for structure is based on a false dichotomy: structure and curricula are not divisible. Changes in the structure of academic units affect curricula and vice-versa .. If changes in either are to succeed, due deliberation and consultation among all affected parties in order to create consensus must occur. When I came to UMR in the 1980s, college and campus curriculum committees were considered the most important and prestigious committees of the faculty, and rightly so. Their members met monthly to weigh and consider issues of disciplinary overlap, of the academic merit and curricular impact of new courses, of changes to existing degree programs, and, most certainly, of new degree program proposals. The reasons such importance is assigned to the committees' function are obvious. We tenured faculty have committed our academic careers to this campus and changes in the nature of our academic programs can be as profound as a change in one's family, the birth of a new child, or the loss of a spouse. Although the vast majority of such changes are not so deep or wide in scope, the featured importance of curricular responsibilities in the bylaws testifies that, occasionally, curricular changes are of the utmost gravity. During the 1990s, the CAS Curriculum committee waned in importance. The calm, collegial, and consultative nature of the administration during that decade offered little reason for concern. Indeed, as a member and officer of the Academic Council during that time, I carefully read each CC-l and EC-l and rarely noted anything remarkable enough to question. An equal opportunity institution -2- Recently, however, a growing number of initiatives seek to radically alter campus academic structure and curricula. The move to create a new school and to move an entire department from CAS to that school, although now a/ail accompli, should have been taken through the curriculum approval process because the departure of Economics from CAS profoundly changes the appearance and strength of the college. I was pleased to learn that the Academic Council has taken steps to ensure future changes of this type are carefully scrutinized. In light of the Cohen­ Swenson exchange, however, I want to urge that more be done. First, Dick, I would like to ask you to raise the issue of the CAS curriculum committee's membership and procedures with the CAS department chairs. An approval process that provides only a brief time for faculty review of proposals, does not provide for regular meetings, and assumes approval by default, is most unwise in an era when attempts to radically change the college are rife. Indeed, it is my understanding that the current highly-abbreviated procedures are themselves the product of an abbreviated, default-based, approval process. This suggests that faculty have carried the unconcerned attitude of the 1990s over into the current era. I hope that department chairs will discuss the issue of curriculum approval within their departments and consider whether or not, in these times, it is wise to have any but our most senior and experienced facuIty on the Curriculum Committee. There are apt to be weighty issues ahead and our wisest minds should be engaged. Membership on committees can, of course, often be changed simply by collegial assent. Second, Lenn, I urge you and the RP &A Committee to conduct a review of department, college, and campus curriculum approval processes. The Academic Council, of necessity, relies heavily on the recommendations of its standing committees and the process by which these committees reach their recommendations is of great importance. Although such processes may be, ultimately, the prerogatives of the respective colleges and departments, our faculty deliberations are--one hopes--collegial ones. With this in mind, a review of these processes should be welcomed by all concerned, and any ensuing recommendations would no doubt be equally welcomed. This procedure would, at the very least, renew the faculty's awareness of our curricular responsibilities. In conclusion, I was troubled to read the current advertisement for a new Chair of the English Department. In this ad, the statement is made that "the name of the department will be changed to English and Technical Communication"when the new degree is approved (emphasis mine). The assumption that a new degree will be approved strikes me as premature and misleading--but it also may indicate the degree to which the faculty's responsibility to determine the campus curricula has been discounted by the current administration. I urge you both to act swiftly and aggressively to further address this situation. cc. Dean Lutz, Professors Cohen and Swenson An equal opportunity institution Student Conduct Committee Survey An unofficial survey taken at the May 2002 Academic Council meeting resulted in an indication among that body that "academic dishonesty" was an increasing problem on the UMR campus. The Student Conduct Committee believes that a more official faculty survey should be conducted to determine if the Committee should consider the matter in-depth. Your input on this issue would be appreciated. Please answer the following questions, then accordion fold and drop in campus mail by February 7. 1. Which of these types of academic dishonesty have you observed in your classes at UMR? o Copying homework o Loading equationslinformation on calculators when it is prohibited o Plagiarism o Cheating during examinations DOther ______________________________-- _________________ 2. How many students in your classes do you strongly suspect commit academic dishonesty? o All 0 Most 0 Many 0 Some 0 Few 0 None 3. How many incidents of academic dishonesty have you identified in the last 3 years? 4. Of the incidents you identified in question 3, how many of these did you report to the Provost's Office? o All 0 Most o Less than half o None o Not aware of Provost's reporting process 5. Do you perceive that there is an increasing amount of academic dishonesty on the UMR campus? DYes 0 No 6. How serious is the problem of academic dishonesty on the UMR campus? o Very serious 0 Serious 0 Somewhat serious 0 Not very serious 0 Not a problem 7. Any additional comments and/or suggestions? Please fold and place in campus mail. Thanks! Student Conduct Committee Survey j I j '1','J , irAI ' ~\ :<..., Which of these types of academic dishonesty have ou observed in your classes at UMR? Copying homework Loading Info Plagiarism Cheating Other :~ i .... ") , .,,;Ii ., l.:::~ .;J. Lj lj ' , '" ,. '-- iY p- 3 i ...., ;;.; , ~-; ;; ? !\.j 17 i -"-.,..... - \ l , "' / ';'7 -; /)'~) n '" l':"'-'7 /_, How many st ud en t s In' -'your c asses do you s rong y suspec t comml't aca demlc 'd' IS hones t y,? All Most Many Some Few None I .....< ,) {; -; /'7 IS I "; I I \ '2 1(1 ~ I \ ~ 13 ..,...'=< ) ), (p :;J ()) ® (IV (35) I~ 69 (j) , ,<.' How many incidents of academic dishonest have you identified in the last 3 ears? Of th e mCI' 'd en t s you I'd en tTI Ie d'In ques t'Ion 3, how many 0 f th ese dOdI you repo rt t 0 th e Provos t' s OffIce, ? All Most Less than half None Not aware I y 3 13 g /2- 4 \ IS .::; \ ~ I Ie:,-'" y .... \ I I$? 0 ~ ~) 0) @ ~2 Ig 6Y 5 Q ,;? @ Do -'you perceive that there is an increasing amount of academic dishonesty on the UMR campus? Yes No 1;;;2. IS IL J (p )5 IG, 7 1.5 How serious ,IS th e pro bl em 0 f aca demic d'IS honesty t on t he UMR campus,? Very serious Serious Somewhat serious Not very serious Not a problem -;-. ,).. ~ S ~ l~ ~ 5' 1/ \ .....\ ;J., ,.. / l- f! ~ 7 I - I ) q 7 :3 '-I 4 Q> (iv ~ 3 00 (J~ GD 7 ® ;Z ® Student Conduct Committee Survey ;-tJl Wh'IC h 0 f th ese t[ypes 0 f aca d emlc'd' IS hones ty have you 0 bserve d'In your c asses at UMR? Copying homework Loading Info Plagiarism Cheating Other abed c..{- h \J lc- \ th (ftb ce+-~ ') \ry. ~ b h ('(\ 'y\ rj' 'v It·, f___7 j ,-:;>k/' IvJ L{ t.

Load more

  307

Copy Link