---

agenda status: approved

Agenda:

AGENDA

University Committee on Academic Policy

Meeting of Thursday, January 27, 2000
10:15 a.m., Board Room, Administration Building




1. Approval of Agenda

2. Approval of Minutes of the January 13 Meeting (Attachment A)

3. Comments from the Chairpersons

4. Comments from the Assistant Provost

5. Discussion of SIRS Report (Attachment B)
Please read SIRS attachments and be prepared to discuss at meeting

6. Sub-committee Reports

7. Graduation with Honor/High Honor (Attachment C)

8. Roundtable


Jan27UCAPagenda.doc

Attachments:
A. Meeting Minutes of January 13
B. SIRS Subcommittee Report; Draft Proposal: Policy Statement on Student Public Evaluation System
C. Graduation With Honor/High Honor Documents


Please phone or E-Mail Robin Pline (353-5380; pline@pilot.msu.edu) if you cannot be present.

---

---

minutes status: approved

approved at meeting of 02/10/2000

UCAP Minutes for meeting held on 01/27/2000

Present: Kathryn Baker, Stephen Bentley, J. Roy Black, Eric Bonten, Howard Bossen, Joe Chartkoff, Rachel Fisher, Cindy Gibbons, David Imig, Fred Jacobs, Kurt Lausman, Folke Lindahl, Gerald Osborn, Laura Roehler, Jon Sticklen, Jeanne Wald, Winston Wilkinson

Others: Barbara Steidle (Assistant Provost)

1. The meeting was called to order at 10:25 a.m.

2. The agenda was approved.

3. The minutes of January 13, 2000 were approved.

4. Chairperson's comments:
a) Encourage someone from UCAP to attend the March 31 Lilly Seminar

on student evaluation.

b) The awards report passed in Academic Council.

5. SIRS Report (Jacobs)

a) There was a general discussion of the issues involved as pertaining to the SIRS Subcommittee
Report of October 28, 1999 (objective of releasing SIRS data): are
two different forms needed?
Is there a need for "expert" assistance?
b) The UCAP task is to recommend (or not) a policy statement that would in effect formalize a policy on public SIRS for students that would assist the students in their selection of courses and instructors. Subsequent discussion should address the issue of the University–based SIRS forms and their uses and the issue of other modes of evaluating teaching.
c) Discussion addressed the issue of one versus two course evaluation forms. UCAP members agreed that a two form approach was most appropriate.
d) It was agreed that a course evaluation expert (s) representing different viewpoints would meet with UCAP at the next meeting

6. Other Subcommittee Reports
a) Mid-Semester Break - A report was distributed. The subcommittee

recommended: 1) a one-day break in mid-October, and a break date on Good Friday. Discussion followed. A motion was made to reject the sub-committees recommendation. A second motion was made to split the original motion into two parts reflecting the sub-committee recommendation. The original motion was restated as a positive motion. The first part of the sub-committee recommendation passed (7 yes, 6 no), and the second part of the recommendation was rejected (11 no, 2 yes). An alternative to the second motion, setting a fixed Friday in spring semester as a break, was rejected (10 no, 3 yes).

b) Grade Marker Proposal - A report was distributed. The sub-committee

recommended that a grade marker be used to distinguish those students receiving a 0.0 as a consequence of failing to attend class and complete the required course assignments from those students attending class and completing the required course assignments and receiving a 0.0 final course grade. Comments addressed the issue of a student officially withdrawing from the University. It was discussed that a 0.0 is a 0.0, and what is to be gained by using a grade marker? It was asked if the option of a student retaking a course with this marker was affected? The answer was no. The breadth of the range of questions indicated the need for more systematic discussion at the next meeting.

7. Meeting was adjourned at 12:00 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,

David R. Imig

UCAP1.27.00.doc

---