UCAP Meeting of 09/30/99
1999-2000
agenda status: approved
Agenda:
minutes status: approved
approved at meeting of 10/14/99
UCAP Minutes for meeting held on 09/30/99
4
Approved 10/14/99
University Committee on Academic Policy
Minutes
September 30, 1999
Present: Linda Anderson (substitute for Patricia Edwards), Kathryn Baker, Eric Bonten,
Howard Bossen, Joe Chartkoff, George Cornell, Rachel Fisher, David Imig, Fred
Jacobs, Gerald Osborn, Jon Patterson, Jon Sticklen, Jeanne Wald, Winston Wilkinson,
Others Present: Cassandra Book, Renee Canady, Paul Hunt, Lou Anna Simon, Barbara Steidle
Called to order by Jeanne Wald at 10:21 AM
1. Agenda was approved.
2. Minutes of 9/2 and 9/16 meetings were approved.
3. Comments from Chairpersons deferred.
4. Comments from Assistant Provost deferred.
5. Winston Wilkinson elected to the Military Education Advisory Committee (MEAC).
6. Brief comments were given by Cassandra Book, College of
Education re: document, “
Criteria for Progression to the Internship.”
The document was accepted with minor changes. Questions centered also
upon decision to use 2.5 GPA rather than a higher standard. Book
explained this is consistent with national standards and replaces no
grade point standards being in place in the past. The Committee voted
to approve the document.
7. Renee Canady, Director of Student Affairs, College of
Nursing presented the document re: “
Student Performance Policy.”
The document is a response from College of Nursing Faculty who must
deal with inconsistencies in the professionalization process of some
nursing students. Other CIC nursing schools were consulted and the
document reflects policies consistent with similar schools. Discussion
included issues of “Warning Status,” specific language (i.e. will vs.
may) and (psychological vs. behavioral), and due process and appeals.
The majority of discussion centered around the relationship between
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Guidelines and specific inclusions
in the policy. Canady explained the Office of Student Affairs is very
sensitive to the issue of balancing support for students with
disabilities and minimum competencies necessary for the safe and
successful practice of nursing. Barbara Steidle confirmed the document
had already been reviewed by legal counsel. The document takes into
account licensing requirements and legal requirements of the Nurse
Practice Act and Criminal Codes. There was some further discussion
regarding pre-admission counseling for students with disabilities.
Some advice was provided in respect to making the document more explicit
about who will be making decisions in the dismissal process. Canady
indicated that the Student Affairs Committee makes decisions regarding
academic dismissals. The Dean is the final point for appeals of
academic decisions. The committee voted to approve the document. UCAP
will receive a finalized copy of the document.
8. Provost Simon engaged UCAP members in a discussion about
Student Laptop Computer Proposal.
Provost Simon set the context for referral of the laptop computer
proposal to UCAP in its capacity as an advisory body regarding admission
requirements. There is another body, Communications and Computing
Systems Advisory Committee (CCSAC), which includes both faculty and
students and advises her on technology issues. She sees the computer
requirement as a means to promote computer literacy for all MSU
students. She was hoping for general agreement in principle to move the
process forward prior to solving all the technical issues. Her primary
concern was that the UCAP advice to her included that the “Student
Laptop Proposal be referred back to the originating committee” to
address the 7 listed issues. She is concerned about the level of detail
and specificity UCAP has requested prior to its support of the
document. She was hoping, for example, that UCAP would have strongly
supported the proposal in principle so that it might move on to the
Academic Council for further discussion.
The Provost explained that she conceptualizes the requirement that
undergraduate students buy laptop computers as equivalent to the
expectation that students buy required texts. The purpose of the
proposal is to promote computing skills because these are essential for
success in students’ day-to-day life in their future work.
Approximately 60% of freshman undergraduates arrive on campus with
computers already and more have some level of computer skills. Most
faculty already incorporate computer skills into their teaching. A
driving consideration in making this a requirement is that poor students
do not arrive with equivalent equipment or skill. In order to bring
the cost of the computers into the financial aid calculations, the
expectation must be stated as a requirement. However, there is no more
intent to check each student for compliance than we currently have with
regard to textbooks.
The Provost described the requirement as “Pragmatic Idealism” propelling
the rate of change in computer literacy for all students. The
requirement will help poorer students by making the purchase of a
portable computer a legitimate issue in their applications for financial
aide. She acknowledged that this will cost students approximately an
extra $1000.00 for a portable computer with the recommended
capabilities. It will not be a requirement that students buy the
computers from the university.
From the pedagogical side, the requirement is intended to assist
faculty to help students learn more efficiently and expeditiously, not
to manipulate or constrain teaching styles. Faculty will continue to be
the determinants of how their classes are conducted and what, if any,
technology is used. From the Provost’s perspective the proposal speaks
fundamentally to helping faculty teach and students learn in the future.
There are technical issues which will require solutions prior to
implementation but these should not prevent the proposal from moving
forward.
Some discussion centered on the requirement specifically of a “laptop”
vs. “a computer.” The CCSAC has recommended specifically a laptop. The
Provost wants students to have experience with technology they take
with them; however, this is one of the particulars on which UCAP advice
would be helpful.
All UCAP members who spoke strongly endorsed the concept of increasing
MSU students’ computer literacy and most felt the document advising the
Provost stated this. The Provost reiterated her concern that UCAP
recommended referral back to the originating committee. There was
agreement that some miscommunication may have taken place.
The discussion turned toward more technical issues. 2001 was chosen
as the implementation date because this is when all residence halls
will be appropriately wired and 90% of undergrads live in the residence
halls. Off-campus connectivity can be indirectly fostered but cannot be
guaranteed as it will require “leverage points” to encourage this.
Plans also exist to add DHCP ports to an increasing number of
classrooms. The classroom scheduling website indicates the current
technology capabilities of classroom sites. The Provost feels it is
unrealistic to expect an individual port at every classroom seat in the
near future, but this is not inconsistent with the expectation that not
all faculty will choose to incorporate classroom use of computers.
Connectivity will continue to unfold over the next five years.
Student UCAP members asked specifically about enforcement of the
policy. The Provost reiterated the spirit of the proposal is to
increase student computer literacy. She used the analogy that at
present there is no policy to enforce the purchase of required texts.
Students can expect that an increasing number of courses will have
requirements for computer skills. Students without skills and their own
equipment will be at an increasing disadvantage. This is a challenge
to a University with such a heterogeneous student body.
The next issue discussed involved questions to the Provost over the
level of detail UCAP should be expected to request in order to provide
conscientious advice. The Provost responded that all new issues involve
details (devil in the details). She felt sufficient detail had already
been provided and the number and specificity of questions by UCAP
indicated that there might be disagreement with the policy and the
advice to refer back to committee suggested possible obstructionism that
she had not sensed when she talked to the committee last year.
A miscommunication issue was acknowledged by both UCAP and the
Provost. Paul Hunt expressed surprise that he had not been invited back
to answer technical questions. He offered to meet with UCAP in future
to address concerns. The Provost asked for UCAP advice in respect to
(a) the principle involved; (b) specific language, i.e. would the policy
be more palatable if the requirement were to be “a computer”, or “a
computer, preferably a laptop,” or other more descriptive language.
Other questions the Provost asked were “Is the target implementation
date appropriate?” “How should faculty/student input be appropriately
expanded beyond CCSAC?” The Provost asked UCAP at the end to provide
her with advice on these points and to define any further roles the
committee believed appropriate for itself in later stages. She would
like to be able to provide her public response by January, 2000. The
report would then go to Academic Council, along with UCAP’s advice. It
would ultimately be considered by the Board of Trustees.
There was brief discussion after the Provost left to review the
level of detail we have requested and rewriting the UCAP advice
document. The next meeting will focus upon issues and questions. Paul
Hunt would be invited, if necessary and appropriate, to a subsequent
meeting to respond to UCAP questions.
The meeting adjourned at 12:17.
Respectfully Submitted,
Gerald G. Osborn, D.O., M. Phil.
UCAP9.30.99.doc
