agenda status: approved Agenda: AGENDA University Committee on Academic Policy Meeting of Thursday, October 11, 2007 10:15 a.m., Administration Bldg. Board Room
Attachments:
Request to add an Admission Requirement to the Bachelor of Fine Arts Degree in Studio Art minutes status: approved approved at meeting of 10/25/2007 UCAP Minutes for meeting held on 10/11/2007 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY University Committee on Academic Policy Thursday, October 11, 2007 Minutes Attendees: Rania Badin, Dennis Banks, Matthew Caramagno, R. Sekhar Chivukula, Peter Cobbett, Marty Crimp, Doug Estry, Richard Hallgren, Caroline Hartig, Linda Jackson, Carolyn Loeb, Helen Mayer, Matthew McKeon, Jerry Punch, Ralph Putnam, Michael Schechter, Michael Shields, Jim Smith, Amanda Venettis, Thomas Volkening, Chris Wenstrom The Agenda was approved. Minutes of the 9/27/07 meeting were approved with the addition of Chris Wenstrom as an attendee. Comments from the Chairperson Chairperson Chivukula thanked Ralph Putnam for chairing the September committee meetings. Chairperson Chivukula stated that, at the most recent meeting of the Executive Committee of Academic Council, the Provost reported it appears that the State budget will be fund Higher Education at the level anticipated. Professor Chivukula reported that the Faculty Council is still in the process of considering the proposed restructure of academic governance beginning with the executive committee. There is still time for committee members to provide input to their faculty council representatives regarding the changes to the composition of the steering committee. Chivukula thanked subcommittee members for their hard work and reiterated the current subcommittee structure as:
Religious Observance Subcommittee Undergraduate Learning Assistants Subcommittee Comments from the Associate Provost Associate Provost Estry discussed a spreadsheet, distributed prior to the meeting that detailed University programs with grade point requirements. He asked the committee to review the material and prepare to discuss at the meeting on October 25. Information regarding discussion and action on these types of programs from UCAP minutes will be distributed prior to the October 25 meeting. Request to add an Admission Requirement to the Bachelor of Fine Arts Degree in Studio Art Janet Swenson, Associate Dean, College of Arts and Letters Tom Berding, Chairperson, Art and Art History, College of Arts and Letters The committee unanimously granted voice to Associate Dean Janet Swenson and Chairperson Tom Berding. Professor Berding provided the rationale for the department’s request to add portfolio review to the admission to the major requirement in the Studio Arts BFA program. The change aligns the MSU program with peer institutions’ best practices, particularly CIC institutions. NSAD recommends portfolio review as an admission requirement making this a positive move toward accreditation if the department chooses to pursue that avenue in the future. Berding reiterated the department’s commitment to an open door experience for all freshman and sophomore who choose Studio Arts as a major. He stated that students who complete the first two years in Studio Arts and do not pass the portfolio review for admission to the BFA program could pursue the BA program, which does not require portfolio review, with little “backtracking” in coursework since the two programs have the same track for freshman and sophomore years. Berding suggested the best window for the portfolio review would occur at end of sophomore year. With the addition of portfolio, the process of selecting students for the BFA in Studio Arts would consist of portfolio review, short essay stating intent and contextualizing the portfolio, and an oral interview. The oral interview assures a connection between visual evidence of the portfolio, academic record, and essay. Motion by Jerry Punch passed unanimously: The committee endorses the request by the Department of Art and Art History to add portfolio review to the admission requirement to the Bachelor of Fine Arts Degree in Studio Art. Academic Integrity Study Janet Swenson, Associate Dean, College of Arts and Letters Associate Dean Swenson distributed a handout detailing preliminary results from a study-in-progress that examines the attitudes and practices of incoming freshman and transfer students regarding plagiarism. The results of the study will be used to create programs that would help to change the campus culture regarding cheating and reduce instances of cheating. Dr. Swenson reported the data suggest a gap between a student’s definition and understanding of plagiarism, and committing acts of plagiarism and acknowledging those acts as plagiarism. Students surveyed indicated they consider plagiarism a serious offense and feel that punitive measures are warranted in cases of plagiarism. Dr. Swenson suggested that more online resources are needed to educate students and faculty about academic integrity. She noted that a search of the MSU website for academic integrity does not generate much information and in the information found there is no common message. Discussion among the committee members led to the suggestion that academic integrity information, being of university wide importance, should be housed on a university level website rather than in the sites of individual units or colleges. Academic Dishonesty Policy Discussion Peter Cobbett, UCAP Academic Dishonesty Subcommittee Member Dr. Cobbett introduced a revised academic dishonesty flowchart that reflects the following: No penalty decisions being made at the department or college level Removal of mandatory sanctions Removal of academic probation marker Chairperson Chivukula summarized the goals of the committee regarding academic dishonesty policy, indicating the new flowchart reflects a large difference in the initial handling of any type of academic dishonesty (in current policy, there need not be any formal notification to anyone other than the instructor if a failing grade is not given in a course). He suggested that the committee come to agreement regarding the flowchart and the different elements that are part of it and begin constructing language for revision of the various university documents necessary to update policy. Areas in which the committee needs to reach agreement:
Is there agreement that all acts of academic dishonesty should be recorded? If so, where? Is there agreement that a university level hearing board be created? Is there agreement that an appeal can only be made to the university level hearing board? Professor Chivukula provided a brief history of UCAP’s consideration of academic dishonesty policy:
Last year the committee thought targeting behavior would be more effective and less punitive than a transcript marker. Recent conversation suggests a need for clearer recordkeeping or notation accessible at the decanal level. Dr. Swenson stated the need to create a university-wide conversation and emphasis on education about academic integrity. She cautioned the committee to seek to understand other campus constituencies as we codify academic dishonesty and to consider carefully recommending a single response or outcome to the wide range of behavior that falls under the heading of academic dishonesty. After committee discussion, Chairman Chivukula asked the Academic Dishonesty subcommittee to provide language that is more specific and framework regarding what triggers the system (scholarship and grades), recordkeeping, and a centralized hearing board at the next meeting for the full committee to discuss. Religious Observance Policy Discussion Ralph Putnam, UCAP Vice Chair Professor Putnam presented the new Religious Observance Policy subcommittee proposal, pointing out the new proposal deals only with student religious observance policy. UCAP will need to work with other campus groups to insure that faculty writes a religious observance policy. In addition to a simple student religious observance policy, Chivukula recommended providing faculty with boilerplate language that instructors could use in the syllabi. Chairperson Chivukula asked that the subcommittee draft any supporting or explanatory statements that would accompany the policy, so that the committee can consider the policy during their Oct. 25 meeting. There were no Roundtable comments. Meeting Adjourned at 12:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted by Sandra Walther |
Agenda/Minutes > 2007-2008 >