Academic Governance Report 11-27-06

Academic Governance Committee Report

Given to the University Senate Monday, November 27, 2006

submitted by Dr. Mike Gleason

I have four motions to present to the senate today, but first I’ll discuss other matters from our November 3^rd Academic Governance meeting, that will be taken up again at our meeting in January.

A proposal that was initiated from Dr. Gormly’s office concerning the Faculty Research Committee and its function was discussed. Donna Douglas, having been involved with the committee the longest, gave a historical perspective. Concerns from the Academic Governance Committee were the following: 1) whether members to the committee should be appointed as the proposal suggests or elected by schools as is currently done and countered proposed by Karynne Kleine, and 2) concerns about the appropriateness for funding faculty research in scholarly and creative products under “Scholarship of Discovery”, but not fund research under “Scholarship of Application”, “Scholarship of Integration”, and “Scholarship of Teaching and Learning”. The concerns about limiting Boyer’s areas were based on the opportunity for all schools, such as Education and Nursing who may use other areas of Boyer's to conduct research, to be funded since the omission of these could negatively impact researchers in these schools. Autumn Grubb cautioned that although mini-grant money is available it does not compare to the money allocated by the Research Committee nor does it convey the same status and seriousness. Autumn Grubb also stressed the importance of including all areas of Boyer’s, as three of the four schools have or are in the process of accepting Boyer’s model as a way to define scholarship in Tenure and Promotion policies. By indicating the Research Committee would not fund three out of the four types of scholarship would have significant ramifications for Tenure and Promotion. Although not discussed before the entire group, Karynne Kleine also wanted to have the AGC consider the wisdom of tripling the membership of the Faculty Research Committee for Arts and Sciences faculty when the school already is funded at a much higher rate than are other schools. Further discussion was postponed until our Friday, January 12th meeting.

We did not consider a proposed definition of what the word “policy” should mean and will discuss this at our next meeting.

One item you will not see today as a motion is one that the Executive Committee felt needed further review to decide if the substance of the proposal rises to the nature of material—that is an official motion to the Senate—that would need to come before the Univ. Senate and obtain the approval of this body. It was argued both ways in Executive Committee. As such this approved proposal will be returned to AG for review on this question alone.

The proposal in question deals with changes to our Academic Dishonesty procedures, for example how to handle cases of plagiarism that are appealed by a student. The approved proposal represents work—now about two years in the making—that was in principle approved by AG last Spring after an Ad Hoc committee report of this committee was accepted. At our first regular meeting this year the AG committee requested clarification of it. At our November meeting Dr. Roy Moore presented the requested details and the AGC confirmed their approval. I then submitted this as a motion to the Senate.

The gist of the question raised by the Executive committee at their subsequent meeting in November was “do these changes constitute only changes in procedures OR are the changes substantial enough to rise to a change in policy?” Assuming, we find that there is no substantial change in policy, the procedural changes as approved will not come before the full senate. If it goes the other way, it will. Either way I’ll keep you informed of our decision on the changes to the way Academic Dishonesty is to be handled here at GC.

And now to the motions—my apologies to the motion writers as in the interests of brevity I will be using many their words and sentences in describing each of these.

Motion number 0607.AG.002.O
Subject: Movement Arts Therapy Minor
Originated on 11/12/2006

Our first motion is a proposal to add a Movement Arts Therapy Minor to the Department of Music Therapy’s offerings of a Bachelor in Music Therapy and a Minor and Degree Equivalency Program in the same. This new minor in movement arts therapy would significantly add to the value of credentialed graduates that this SOHS program produces. The Music Therapy degree is recognized by the American Music Therapy Association, National Association of Schools of Music, and its graduates can sit for the examination offered by the Certified Board of Music Therapists after graduation. This 18 hr minor will require fourteen of the hours in SoHS. Three new courses in movement (MOVT) and two existing courses in Kinesiology taught by SoHS faculty will provide this coursework. Additionally the minor will require a 1 hour course in DANCE improvisation and three of five elective one hour courses in DANCE that are offered by the SoLAS’s Department of Music and Theatre. The proposed minor is similar to those offered elsewhere—five programs in DanceTherapy exist in the US—and will require one part-time summer faculty position in School of Health Sciences to teach the core Movement Arts Therapy courses, and a modest increase in School of Health Sciences library holdings. There is one Registered/Certified Dance Therapist on the faculty of GC&SU. There are other qualified dance therapists in the southeast.

Motion number 0607.AG.003.P
Subject: Change Excellence in Teaching Awards guidelines
Originated on 11/12/2006.

Our second motion is one of two motions before you today dealing with Teaching Excellence Awards. This proposal suggests the following changes to the

GCSU EXCELLENCE IN TEACHING AWARDS GUIDELINES:

First, to designate one of the three annual recipients of the teaching excellence awards as winner of the “Distinguished Achievement in Teaching," to be further named as GCSU's nominee for the BOR Teaching Excellence award.

Second, to align the eligibility criteria, nomination process, and documentation standards with those of the BOR Teaching Excellence awards and standards for teaching excellence

Rationale

There is a mismatch between the BOR criteria for teaching excellence awards and our institution’s criteria for the Distinguished Professor award, which makes it difficult for us to send strong portfolios on to Atlanta. To date none of our faculty nominees have ever successfully won a BOR award in the teaching excellence category. Currently GCSU’s Distinguished Professor is automatically the institution’s nominee for the BOR awards. It should be noted that the GCSU Distinguished Professor award emphasizes research and service in addition to superlative teaching, while the BOR awards focus solely on teaching excellence. Consequently, the portfolios of GCSU nominees often reflect emphasis on areas that are not focal points for the BOR awards without adequately addressing BOR criteria. No changes are proposed to the criteria for the GCSU Distinguished Professor award. However, it is proposed that the winner of this award should no longer automatically be the institution’s nominee for the BOR teaching excellence awards.

Instead, one of the winners of the teaching excellence awards, if one is acceptable, that person should become the institution’s nominee for the BOR award nomination. In order to facilitate the nomination process for the BOR award, the Awards committee should designate one portfolio from the winners of the teaching excellence awards that most closely matches the criteria and rubric for the Distinguished Achievement in Teaching award. This nominee should also receive recognition on campus as the winner of the “Distinguished Achievement in Teaching” award and should become the university’s nominee for the BOR award. (Further, the president shall have the discretion to nominate a faculty member for the BOR teaching excellence award or to create an alternate process for selecting a campus nominee [faculty members might be invited to apply for that privilege, for example].) Nominees for the Distinguished Achievement in Teaching award shall be full-time faculty who have completed at least five years of full time teaching at GCSU. (Currently, the requirement for teaching excellence awards is for three years of full-time teaching, but a quick look at BOR winners since 1997 illustrates that all but one had attained the rank of associate professor or above at the time of the award.) A third point is to forbid a student nominations for Excellence in Teaching Awards as some students have reported feeling pressured to nominate candidates for teaching awards. (The BOR is moving away from this policy as well.)

Motion number 0607.AG.004.P
Subject: Create Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Award
Originated on 11/12/2006.

The next motion proposes that a new category of faculty excellence at GC&SU be recognized. This new category would in the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.

Rationale

GCSU’s current criteria for the Distinguished Professor Award do not match the BOR Teaching Excellence criteria and neither do those of the teaching excellence awards. The BOR awards emphasize documentation of student learning as an indicator of teaching excellence, which reflects a national shift from a teacher-centered model towards an emphasis on outcomes and student learning, evident in current SACS accreditation requirements. No changes are proposed for the Distinguished Professor Award, which recognizes areas beyond teaching, but we do propose changes to the criteria for the teaching excellence awards to align them with BOR and national standards.

This proposal reflects the BOR emphasis on a scholarly approach to teaching and learning, as it sponsors a state-wide award for the scholarship of teaching and learning (formerly called the research in undergraduate education award). This change is based on the experience of Dr. Vess, who has served on the BOR committee for five years. Where the proposed criteria and documentation differ slightly from current BOR criteria, this is based on her experience of the deliberations of the committee and knowledge of the revisions under way for the next round of awards.

Motion number 0607.AG.005.P
Subject: Participation in Commencement Activities
Originated on 11/12/2006.

Our final motion for today is brought to you by a majority vote of the AGC. This motion would change current graduation policy in that

Effective for Spring 2008, in order to participate in Spring Commencement, students must complete all degree requirements. (The only exceptions to this rule will be those degree programs that require a final capstone experience that is scheduled in the summer) Students must apply for Spring Commencement by September 1. By February 1, a final degree audit will be conducted to ensure that students who have applied for graduation have enrolled in their final course requirements. Any students who are not on track for completion in the spring term will be informed that they will not be allowed to participate in Spring Commencement. (Note: Students who complete their degree requirements in August or December will have this noted on their academic transcript and a diploma will be issued by the Registrar’s Office. They may elect to participate in Commencement activities in the following spring.)

(CURRENT POLICY: Students graduating during the spring semester, Maymester, and summer semester may participate in the spring ceremony. Students graduating during the fall semester will participate in the December ceremony.)

Rationale

Over the years, despite the stated policy for participation in commencement, a significant number of students who walked in the spring ceremonies did not complete their requirements in the subsequent summer term. Some students who participate in Commencement fail to complete final requirements and thus remain on our books as students who have not graduated. There is no process in place to follow up on students who are close to but have not completed all requirements. The proposed policy will provide a powerful motivation for students to graduate “on time.” It will also make the commencement ceremony more meaningful knowing that all the students participating are indeed set to graduate.

The information gathering group determine the problem is sizable and made several recommendations that would be implemented along with this policy

The majority report accompanying this vote mirrors that already described.

The minority report was written by the Committee Chair, the sole “no” vote on the motion before you. My discomfort with the motion was based on the feeling I’m certain that many if not all of us share one that can be characterized as a caring and compassionate community of faculty and staff that rightly seek to accommodate students that would like to share this ritual of passage with their peers and family.

Under current practice the problem is sizable and largely dealt with by the Registrar, though if the AG’s information gathering group’s recommendations are implemented I think these instances may dramatically decrease. With the new system a well-meant accommodation will take the form as an official petition to be exempted from the enforcement of the policy. It was on this last point that I decided to vote against the proposal. My reasoning was two-fold. First the committee did not propose any guidelines for what constitutes an acceptable exemption from the proposed commencement policy, and although I understand the arguments against formal exemptions, they do create a vacuum that in my opinion will be filled in as gray area that will not be uniformly applied. And second, we did not provide a procedure of petition that provides for a detached review of the academic and non-academic merits of student’s request. Thus leaving open emotionally charged situations that may again be unevenly dealt with depending on advisors, departments, and other administrators.

Post Senate Meeting notes: This motion engendered much interest and discussion. Principal points of concern were fairness, whether Sept 1 and Feb 1 were the right deadlines, and the exception clause. The motion was tabled (it require a 3/4 vote to take it off the table). It was argued that AGC had thoroughly discussed the proposal and aside from minority considerations, the rest of the committee present on November 3^rd felt each aspect of the the motion sent forward had been thoroughly considered.

Our next meeting will be Friday, January 12th at 12:30 p.m. in A&S 2-51 and you are welcome to join us.

Respectfully submitted, Mike Gleason, 11/28/2006