College Senate Bulletin

Bulletin No. 14
Pages 133-154
April 7th, 2003

 

Agenda College Senate Meeting -8 April, 2003
Announcements:                      
Spring Senate Meeting Dates
Call for Nominations for Senate Officers
Minutes of the All College Meeting 11 March, 2003
Minutes of the College Senate Meeting 11 March, 2003
Minutes of the Policy Committee 18 March, 2003
Proposal to revise Academic Policy Appeal (Review) of Grades

Minutes of the Policy Committee 1 April, 2003

Proposals to revise SOE requirements for admission
Proposals to revise SOE requirements for student teaching

Minutes of Faculty Affairs Committee 18 March, 2003

Minutes of the Undergraduate Curricula Committee 4 March, 2003      
Minutes of the Undergraduate Curricula Committee 1 April, 2003          
UCC Proposal Summaries – considered at meeting 4 March, 2003
UCC Proposal Summaries – considered at meeting 1 April, 2003

 

Correspondence:  Terence Bazzett, Department of Psychology,

Sturges 34; e-mail: bazzett@geneseo.edu; phone: (245)-5248

 

College Senate Meeting Agenda

April 8th, 2003

Call to Order

Adoption of the Agenda

Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meetings

Current Senate Bulletin (pp. 137-142)

Senate Reports

President                    Christopher Dahl

Provost                       Barbara Dixon

Chair                           Terence Bazzett           

Vice Chair                  Charles Freeman

Treasurer                   Maryellen Schmidt

University Senator     William Gohlman

Central Council          Joshua Lieberman

 

Reports of the Standing Committees of the Senate

Undergraduate Curricula                   Joan Zook

First Reading (summaries in Current Bulletin)

   New Course

Engl 242 – Literature of the African (p. 150)

CDSC 201 - Oral Communication Lab for Non-Native Speakers of English (p. 150)
CDSC 243 - Fluency Intervention (p. 150)

CDSC 244 - Voice Intervention (p. 151)

Engl 332 – Early American Literature (p. 153)

Anth 396 – Teaching Practicum in Anthropology (p. 153)

Anth 325 – International Fieldwork: (region) (p. 153)

Mgmt 268 – Management Law and New Technologies (p. 153)

Geog 365 – The Geography of Islam (p. 153)

Math 228 – Calculus II for Biologists  (p. 153)

Biol 202 – Biological Issues (p. 153)

Biol 264 – Human Physiology (p. 153)

Biol 305 – Conservation Biology (p. 154)

   Course Revision

Thea 260 – Theatre Practicum (p. 149)
CDSC 100 – Functional Communication for Non-Native Speakers of English (p. 151)

CDSC 200 – Oral Communication for Non-Native Speakers of English (p. 151)

CDSC 300 – Advanced Oral Communication for Non-Native Speakers of English (p. 151)

                CDSC 238 – Clinical Observation and Management in Communicative Disorders (p. 152

CDSC 240 – Language Intervention (p. 152)

CSCI 241 - Principles of Computer Organization (p. 152)
CSCI 242 - Analysis of Algorithms (p. 152

Biol 306 – Evolutionary Biology (p. 154)

Plsc 228 – Title  “Politics in the Third World” to “Developing Third World Politics.” (p. 154)

Dance 240 – Stage Movement – Change prefix to Thea 240. (p. 154)

    Course Deletion

CDSC 202 – Remediation of Speech, Language, and Hearing Disorders (p. 151)

CDSC 368 – Advanced Speech Science (p. 151)

Mgmt 261 – Legal Environment of the Economy (p. 154)

    Revisions of Majors

Black Studies (p. 149)

Communicative Disorders & Sciences (p. 150)

Speech and Hearing Handicapped (p. 150)

Revision of a Major - International Relations (p. 152)

Revision of a Major- Business Administration (p. 152)

Revision of a Major– Biology (p. 152)

    Revision of a Minor

Africana Studies (p. 150)

    Revision of a Concentration
 
               History (p. 150)

 

Undergraduate Policies                     Edward Gillin

Proposal to revise Academic Policy Appeal (Review) of Grades (Current Bulletin - pp. 144-146)

Proposals to revise SOE requirements for admission and student teaching (Current Bulletin - pp. 146-147)

 

Graduate Academic Affairs   Dale Metz

Second Reading: (summaries in bulletins #12 & #13).

  Course Revisions/Modifications

SPED 503: Special Education: Foundation and Legal Issues  (p. 115)

SPED 504: Assessment and Program Evaluation (p. 116)

EDUC 504: Educational Research Methodology (p. 116)

SPED 505: Transition in Educational and Community Settings (p. 116)

SPED 506: Applied Behavior Analysis (p. 116)

SPED 507: Seminar in Special Education (p. 116)

SPED 515: Emotional Disturbance/Behavioral Disorders: Characteristics (p. 116)

SPED 516: Emotional Disturbance/Behavioral Disorders: Interventions (p. 116)

SPED 525: Academic Strategies (p. 117)

SPED 541 Learning Disabilities: Characteristics (p. 117)

SPED 542: Learning Disabilities: Interventions (p. 117)

  New Courses

SPED 525: Academic Strategies (p. 117)

                SPED 590: Master’s Project: Design and Implementation (p. 117)

                SPED591: Master’s Project: Dissemination (p. 117)

  Program Revision

Revised M.S. in Education: Special Education program (p. 115)

  Revised Course Descriptions

Curr 436: Teaching Young Adult Literature (p.129)

Curr 438: Teaching Literature, Birth Through Sixth Grade (p.130)

Curr 440: Content Area Reading/Literacy in the Secondary School (p.130)

Curr 479: Computers and Technology in Reading/Language Arts: Workshop (p.130)

Curr 510: Foundations of Literacy Education (p.130)

Curr 511: Materials and Methods in Reading/Literacy (p.130)

Curr 512: Diagnosis and Assess in Reading and Literacy: Early Childhood and Childhood (p.130)

Curr 517: Advanced Clinical Experience in Reading/Literacy (p.131)

Curr 520: Teaching of Reading for Secondary, College and Adult Students (p.131)

Educ 522: Diagnosis and Assess. in Reading and Literacy: Middle Childhood and Adolesc (p.131)

Curr 530: Language Arts Methods for the Elementary School (p.131)

Curr 535: Action Research in Reading and Literacy (p.131)

  New Courses

Curr 513: Practicum: Meeting the Needs of Diverse Readers: (Early Childhood OR Childhood

  OR Middle Childhood OR Adolescent) (p.131)

Curr 514: Reading and Literacy Learning in a Diverse Society (p.132)

  New Programs

M.S. in Education: Teaching of Reading and Literacy, Birth through Grade 6 (p.127)

M.S. in Education: Teacher of Reading and Literacy, Grade 5 to Adult (p.128)

 

Student Affairs                                   Michael Lynch

 

Faculty Affairs                                   Rosanne Hartman

 

Old Business

New Business

 

Announcements:

Spring 2003 College Senate Meeting Schedule: All meetings will begin at 4:00 P.M. and will be held in Newton 204.

·        April 8th

·         May 6th

 

Elections for Senate Offices

Elections for Senate officers are currently under way.  Members of the college community who are eligible to vote will receive information sheets in campus mail with a listing of candidates and instruction for electronic voting procedures.

 

Congratulations to our Provost

The Truman State University Board of Governors has appointed Geneseo's Provost Barbara Dixon as the fourteenth president of Truman State University. The appointment is effective July 1, 2003. Truman is an outstanding institution offering a tremendous opportunity for Provost Dixon to continue her career as an academic leader. Congratulations to our soon-to-be former Provost, and thank you again for your many contributions to the campus and the College Senate.

 

Minutes:

Minutes of the All-College Meeting

Newton 204

11 March 2003

 

Present: Present: Anderson, D., Annala, C., Bailey, S., Bazzett, T., Bearden, Buggie-Hunt, T., Chang, M.,  Cook, W., Cope, J., Cunningham, K., Dahl, C., Davies, K.,  Dingeldein, G., Dixon, B., Drake, G., Eisenberg, A., Freed, W., Freeman, C., Gifford, R., Gillin, E., Glass, B., Gohlman, B., Granger, D., Hall, L., Hartman, R., Hon, T., Johnson, D., Jones, K., Kirkwood, J., Kline, A., Lewis, J., Lima, M.,  Lynch, M., Mapes, K., Metz, D., Norris, D., Over, J., , Pogozelski, E., Pretzer, R., Rowley, C., Savellos, E., Schacht, P., Schmidt, M.E., Sheldon, A., Soffer, W., Spear, R., Stanley, A., Sutherland, M.,  Tang, J., Towsley, Weibel, A., Welker, B., Woidat, C., Young, R., Zook, J., Esch, M., Colosi, J., Fratto, M., Nash, B., Dance, E., Principe, J., Rice, J., Sergio, J., Wong, P., Zoller, L.

GUESTS:  Balajthy, E., Rozalski, M., Spicka, E., Frisch, S.

 

Call to Order

Chair Bazzett called the All-College Meeting to order at 4.04 PM.

Adoption of the Agenda

The agenda was adopted without corrections.

Chair Bazzett called for nominations from the Senate floor; hearing none, he presented the current slate:

 

Senate Vice Chair:                M. Lima, English

Senate Secretary:                 Position Open

Senate Treasurer:                 E. Putnam (School of Education)

Senator at Large,                 

Over Six Years:                     O. Nicodemi ( Mathematics); S. Landes (Library); E. Gillin (English)

Senator at Large,

Under Six Years:                   H. Myers (School of Performing Arts); Y. Tamura (Sociology); S. Schwartz and Linda Steet (School of Education)

 

Bazzett again called for nominations for Senators-at-Large; no one offered nominations.

 

Nominations Committee Chair A. Eisenberg (Sociology) said that her Committee’s members would be knocking on office doors soon. She asked those who wished to self-nominate to contact her or any Committee member. Bazzett echoed  the fact that Faculty could self-nominate and urged Senate members to nominate their colleagues. Dean of the College S. Bailey noted that the nominations pool would widen if Professional Staff were eligible for office.

 

Bazzett then closed nominations on the floor.

Old Business

There was no old business.

New Business

There was no new business.

 

Adjournment

Chair Bazzett adjourned the All-College Meeting at 4.08PM.

 

College Senate Meeting

Newton 204

11 March 2003

Call to Order

Chair Bazzett called the College Senate Meeting to order at 4.09PM.

Adoption of the Agenda

The Senate adopted the agenda without corrections.

Approval of the Minutes of the Previous Meetings

The minutes of the previous meeting (Senate Bulletin 12, pp. 108-115) were approved unanimously without corrections.

Senate Reports

President’s Report

President  Dahl outlined the College’s five points for Budget advocacy:

 

  1. Maintain the Core Instructional Budget for SUNY.  The $1.858 billion provided in the Executive Budget is absolutely essential to staffing classes and maintaining basic services. This is not an increase. The recommended funding merely keeps the SUNY appropriation at the 2001-02 level. In fact, even with this level of funding, in the current year Geneseo has been obliged to cut more than $1.5 million from its budget, and we will need to cut at least $6000,000 more to balance our Budget in 2003-04. The Executive Budget assumes a tuition level of $4600 ($1200 increase).

 

  1. Any reduction to the proposed tuition level is a direct cut to Geneseo’s Budget if the funds are not replaced. The Executive Budget calls for significant tuition increases, most of which will be covered for low and middle income families by the Tuition Assistance Program (TAP). Tuition increases are seldom palatable, and Legislators may wish to roll them back. If they do so without replacing the lost revenue, however, they will seriously endanger the quality of Geneseo’s programs. We ask that they replace any reductions.

 

  1. Support the proposed Five-Year Capital Plan. This is probably the only “good-news” item in the Executive Budget. The Capital Plan will provide much-needed funds for critical maintenance needs identified in a careful master-planning process conducted for all campuses. The $2.55 billion proposed in the Budget includes only the most urgent projects out of some $11 billion in identified needs. The capital program also includes a matching funds initiative that will leverage money raised by alumni and foundations on each campus. The costs of this capital program will have minimal impact on the State’s Operating Budget in the next three years. This is an economical way to address critical maintenance issues at Geneseo and other campuses, where eighty percent of the buildings were constructed in the 1960s and 70s and therefore need major attention.

 

  1. Restore the proposed cuts to the Educational Opportunity Program. The EOP program serves our neediest students and has compiled an outstanding record in ensuring access to high-quality programs for economically disadvantaged students throughout the State. We urge full restoration of funding to $16.4 million in order to avoid further enrollment caps or deterioration of program quality. Geneseo’s EOP graduates are among our most successful alumni.

 

  1. Restore funding for the Tuition Assistance Program (TAP). While TAP is not part of the SUNY Budget, in a year in which a large tuition increase is proposed, it would be helpful to avoid asking low- and middle-income students to take out additional loans to cover one-third of the cost of their TAP aid. It is important to maintain access to SUNY programs for families with incomes below $50,000, who are in many cases unable to incur additional indebtedness. More than 2750 Geneseo students receive TAP aid.

 

Dahl delineated two Budget “traps” that SUNY faced:

1. In the Executive Budget, TAP was cut on the assumption that it was a popular program which Legislators would  restore. Unfortunately, at that point, SUNY would be told, in effect, that they had already been saved, and we would then endure more budget cuts.

 

2. Yes, tuition increases would be unpalatable, especially if TAP aid would not be covering them. But any tuition rollback would in effect cut Geneseo’s Budget.  Advocates for tuition rollback should remind Legislators that this would mean Budget rollback when we were already cutting spending for salaries, services, and supplies to the bone. Careful, intelligent, and nuanced continual lobbying would be very useful for a long Budget season.

 

Dahl concluded that Budget projections were so bad that contacts from both parties have made very similar low estimates of expected revenues. He saw a difficult Budget year ahead and also saw difficulty in creating a simple message to advance the cause of all constituencies of the College. The Geneseo College Board, parents, Alumni, and other groups etc. would be contacting Legislators, and Dahl urged Senators to do the same.

Next, Dahl reported on the work of the Task Force on Community and Diversity. The Task Force was developing a strong and interesting statement that Dahl planned to share with Senate and Central Council for discussion and endorsement.

Dahl also reported on the work of the Task Force’s subcommittees working on a number of good issues. One issue is that of admissions and recruitment, especially recruitment of students of color. To that end, the College has hired Georgenson Anselme to work specifically with minority recruitment. Meanwhile, the Subcommittee on Community Building was looking at helping students for whom English was not the first language of the home. Finally, the Development Subcommittee was examining the relationship between the values of diversity and the notion of evaluations, roles, and rewards for faculty and staff.

 

In other news, Dahl encouraged Senators to submit nominations for PATH awards, and he praised the high commendations our Health Services received from recent accreditation visits.

 

Provost’s Report

1.Provost Dixon reminded Faculty that the Foreign Language requirement (through the 201 level) passed several years ago would apply to freshmen who would matriculate in Fall 2003.

2. Dixon said that she and Dean of the College S. Bailey have decided to send some recent grade grievance cases to the Policy Committee to clarify what constitutes a grade grievance.

3. The Task Force on Roles and Rewards has divided into Subcommittees. One of the Subcommittees was drafting a conceptual framework to add language to our current description of a teacher-scholar. Another Subcommittee would look at student feedback forms from many other institutions to compare with and perhaps revise the SOFIs. Yet another Subcommittee would study at peer review of teaching; some would be attending a weekend conference on  how other institutions have created new kinds of peer review. A fourth group was looking at contributions to the discipline to expand what we currently have in writing—especially to reflect Ernest Boyer’s work—and to make expectations clearer.

 

Anyone who has interests in or comes across literature relevant to any of these Subcommittees, Dixon urged, should email or send them such material or references. Anyone with specific concerns should talk to Subcommittee members. Dixon also invited Senators to let Task Force members know of any ideas to consider for a Faculty Development Program.

 

Chair’s Report 

Chair Bazzett thanked A. Eisenberg for taking the leadership of the Nominations Committee. He enjoined Departments to work with her, reminding the Senate that we were on a tight nominations schedule (not a fault of the Nominations Committee). Bazzett said the Senate would also be soliciting for the General Education Committee and the Committee for Leave Review.

 

Vice Chair’s Report 

C. Freeman noted three brief items:

1. Senators should return their PRS voting devices at the end of the meeting.

2. We would now be able to achieve real-time vote-counts with the electronic voting system a few minutes after the actual vote rather than after the meeting.

3. The Excellence Committee has made recommendations for the Chancellor’s Excellence Awards and has sent the requisite materials to Albany.

 

Bazzett added that we had been putting the final vote counts in the Senate Bulletin, but we could now access them more quickly.

 

Treasurer’s Report

 No report.

 

University Senator’s Report 

W. Gohlman said the University Senate would meet the second weekend in April. He invited Senators to forward him any items to take up with the University body.

 

Central Council Report

L. Dance reported the following:

1. Over twenty Geneseo students were at a Budget Rally in Albany today.

2. The vote to amend the Student Association Constitution was still going on.

3. Budget Advocacy Day (6 March) was a success.

 

Reports of the Standing Committees of the Senate

Undergraduate Curriculum Committee Report

J. Zook made the following motions on behalf of UCC:

Second Reading (summaries in Bulletin #11)

 

New Course

New Course – MATH 380 (p. 100)

The motion passed unanimously.

Course Deletion

Course Deletion – SOCL 285 (p. 100)

The motion passed unanimously.

Concentration Revision

Concentration Revision - SOCL Concentration (p. 100)

The motion passed unanimously.

 

Course Revisions-Zook grouped these by departments:

Course Revision - ANTH 202 (p. 100)

Course Revision - ANTH 207 (p. 100)

Course Revision - ANTH 211 (p. 100)

Course Revision - ANTH 215 (p. 100)

Course Revision - ANTH 229 (p. 100)

Course Revision - ANTH 310 (p. 101)

Course Revision - ANTH 321 (p. 101)

The motion passed unanimously.

 

Course Revision - EDUC 215 (p. 101)

The motion passed unanimously.

 

Course Revision - ECED 333 (p. 101)

Course Revision - ECED 331 (p. 101)

The motion passed unanimously.

 

Course Revision - COMN 363 (p. 101)

The motion passed unanimously.

 

Course Revision - THEA 225 (p. 101)

Course Revision - THEA 320 (p. 101)

Course Revision - THEA 333 (p. 101)

Course Revision - THEA 342 (p. 101)

Course Revision - THEA 344 (p. 101)

Course Revision - THEA 346 (p. 101)

Course Revision - THEA 311 (p. 101)

Course Revision - THEA 340 (p. 101)

Course Revision - THEA 330 (p. 101)

The motion passed unanimously.

 

Undergraduate Policy Committee Report 

E. Gillin said his Committee would meet in Welles 111 at 4PM next Tuesday; agendas would be forthcoming.

 

Graduate Academic Affairs Committee Report

D. Metz said that GAAC had acted on the Special Education Program and two new programs. He announced that he would present these courses in groups.

 

First Reading: (summaries in bulletins #12 & #13)

 

Course Revisions/Modifications

SPED 503: Special Education: Foundation and Legal Issues (p. 115)

SPED 504: Assessment and Program Evaluation (p. 116)

EDUC 504: Educational Research Methodology (p. 116)

SPED 505: Transition in Educational and Community Settings (p. 116)

SPED 506: Applied Behavior Analysis (p. 116)

SPED 507: Seminar in Special Education (p. 116)

SPED 515: Emotional Disturbance/Behavioral Disorders: Characteristics (p. 116)

SPED 516: Emotional Disturbance/Behavioral Disorders: Interventions (p. 116)

SPED 525: Academic Strategies (p. 117)

SPED 541 Learning Disabilities: Characteristics (p. 117)

SPED 542: Learning Disabilities: Interventions (p. 117)

The motion passed unanimously.

 

New Courses

SPED 525: Academic Strategies (p. 117)

SPED 590: Master’s Project: Design and Implementation (p. 117)

SPED591: Master’s Project: Dissemination (p. 117)

The motion passed unanimously.

 

Program Revision

Revised M.S. in Education: Special Education program (p. 115)

The motion passed unanimously.

 

Course Revisions

CURR 436: Teaching Young Adult Literature (p.129)

CURR 438: Teaching Literature, Birth Through Sixth Grade (p.130)

CURR 440: Content Area Reading/Literacy in the Secondary School (p.130)

CURR 479: Computers and Technology in Reading/Language Arts: Workshop (p.130)

CURR 510: Foundations of Literacy Education (p.130)

CURR 511: Materials and Methods in Reading/Literacy (p.130)

CURR 512: Diagnosis and Assess in Reading and Literacy: Early Child and Child (p.130)

CURR 517: Advanced Clinical Experience in Reading/Literacy (p.131)

CURR 520: Teaching of Reading for Secondary, College and Adult Students (p.131)

EDUC 522: Diagnosis and Assess. in Reading and Literacy: Middle Child and Adolesc (p.131)

CURR 530: Language Arts Methods for the Elementary School (p.131)

CURR 535: Action Research in Reading and Literacy (p.131)

The motion passed unanimously.

 

New Courses

CURR 513: Practicum: Meeting the Needs of Diverse Readers: (Early Childhood OR Childhood

OR Middle Childhood OR Adolescent) (p.131)

CURR 514: Reading and Literacy Learning in a Diverse Society (p.132)

The motion passed unanimously.

 

New Programs

M.S. in Education: Teaching of Reading and Literacy, Birth through Grade 6 (p.127)

M.S. in Education: Teacher of Reading and Literacy, Grade 5 to Adult (p.128)

The motion passed unanimously.

 

 

Student Affairs Committee Report

M. Lynch drew attention to two matters mentioned in the recent Bulletin. First, SAC was exploring Student Health and Safety Education Seminars and lectures; he said SAC would contact potential interested parties on campus for some initial plans. Second, the Committee was discussing whether a recent proposal about gaps in pledging policies lay in the Committee’s purview.

 

Faculty Affairs Report

R. Hartman said her Committee would meet next Wednesday at 4PM in Milne 208.

 

Old Business -There was no old business.

 

New Business - There was no new business.

 

Adjournment

Chair Bazzett adjourned the meeting at 4:45 PM.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

Graham N Drake

College Senate Secretary 

 

Minutes of the Policy Committee

18 March 2003

 

Present: D. Anderson, S. Bailey, T. Buggie-Hunt, E. Dance, G. Dingeldein, A. Eisenberg, E. Gillin, D. Grange, D. Johnson, M. Lima, J. Over, N. Passer, E. Pogozelski, P. Schacht, A. Sheldon

 

The meeting was called to order at 4:00 p.m.

 

The purpose of the meeting was to review Geneseo’s Academic Policy on Appeal (Review) of Grades. (A copy of the original can be found at the end of the minutes.)

 

E. Gillin said that the discussion would involve the decision about whether we should keep the old policy, accept/revise a draft that had been proposed by S. Bailey, or make a new policy.

 

M. Lima questioned the reason for the change.

S. Bailey:  Rationale for change: S. Bailey reported that the revision has been suggested because the old policy is too complicated and circular and does not specify the criteria for appeal.

  • It is too long.
  • It has been suggested that the new one stops at the Dean level instead of continuing up to the Provost. (Although all students have the right to continue any appeal to the Provost and the President if they wish.)
  • We need to maintain (as contracted) the faculty’s right to final say.  Neither the Dean nor the Provost can change the grade, although they can and do make recommendations.

M. Lima questioned whether the recommended changes are ever made.

S. Bailey: Recommendations are considered, but not always taken.  The Department Chair’s recommendation often has great influence.  The Dean’s office gets about 5-8 appeals per semester.

E. Pogozelski: Who initiated this review of the policy?  The students?

S. Bailey: Review of the policy was suggested by Provost Dixon in an effort to cut down on steps.  In her research of other colleges S. Bailey found that most colleges do not (as we do not) include the policy in their bulletin.  We have a reference to the policy that directs the student to the Office of the Dean.  Some of the policies are more specific than ours.  Some campuses have a committee to review grade appeals and that can help show the student that the decisions are not just arbitrary. We have not done that here.  Usually the chair talks with the faculty member; occasionally other faculty members are consulted. If that is not satisfactory, it comes to the Dean and then perhaps to the Provost.  The grounds for appeal in the proposed draft are based on the existing policy.

D. Granger: Shouldn’t it be clear in the syllabus how grades are determined?

S. Bailey: Yes, but there are some grades, such as S/U for Student Teaching which have no real grade equivalents. (Two have been appealed to the level of the Provost.)

A. Eisenberg: How many go beyond the Dean to the Provost?  2?

S. Bailey:  Yes, this would help limit the number of appeals that go on to the Provost. There is a mistaken belief that the Provost has the right to mandate a change of grade.  Occasionally we may offer a late withdrawal. (Though we don’t have a Withdraw/Pass or Withdraw/Fail: this would reflect a grade though.)

A. Eisenberg:  Do we have a limit on the decision on the appeal.

S. Bailey:  Good idea, the old policy has an 11-week limit.

A. Eisenberg: The revised draft is an improvement, but we should add a limit.

J. Over: Do the students have an advocate?

S. Bailey: No, but occasionally a student’s advisor gets involved.  We have no policy about advocates.

J. Over: Maybe we should offer? Either a peer or someone in the Dean’s office?  Professors can be intimidating.

E. Pogozelski: That would complicate what is a simple syllabus issue.

S. Bailey: Usually students come to the office and we talk it through. Students have never reported that they couldn’t talk to the professor.

M. Lima: What if the professor is the chair?

S. Bailey: Then the Dean’s office becomes the “chair”.

A. Eisenberg: Add line “The Dean’s office can serve as a resource for students wanting help in the process.”  We don’t want too many layers.

G. Dingeldein: What do the students here think?  Don’t think an advocate would be a good idea. Students need to take responsibility for themselves.

N. Passer: Good idea because it is an unequal relationship.

D. Granger: How often do students go to the Dean first?

A. Eisenberg: It happens. Students do come to her. She refers them to the faculty or the chair.  Again, suggests a line in the policy about seeing the Dean.

J. Rice: She probably would not challenge a grade because what if you have the professor again?  It wouldn’t be worth it.  You have more to lose than to gain. And it might take 11 weeks into the next semester.

N. Passer: It doesn’t seem to work.  He knows of recommendations that didn’t happen.

M. Lima: She agrees.  There is nothing objective about grading. She grades by portfolio and she has listened to students and changed grades.

J. Over: We are not talking about whether a faculty can change a grade if they choose.

P. Schacht: Contractually, faculty has the final say, so we cannot change that. So what is in question is the current policy. Students DO pursue.

Support a streamlined policy.  The draft is well written and clearer. 

E. Gillin: (Waiting for a friendly amendment.)

A. Eisenberg: Second the motion.

E. Gillin: Did someone offer an amendment?

G. Dingeldein: For the sentence that has “Only grounds…” we need to add “or an error”.

J. Over: Agreed

A. Eisenberg: Capricious, arbitrary or erroneous?

D. Granger: That could cause a problem.

P. Schacht: The appeal should be for unfairness.  If the student asks about an error, the professor says no… then it becomes capricious.

D. Granger: Agreed

N. Passer: Agreed

E. Pogozelski: Grading error is covered in the bullets. No need to add.

P. Schacht: The appeal is to rectify unfairness, not mistakes.  The bold typed sentence should be moved to the top. (If student….) Also, the intro to the bulleted list currently leads to an “if and only if” situation.  Perhaps substitute “For example?”

(Discussion by group of this suggestion)

A. Eisenberg: Perhaps add an example for each bullet? Better understanding for students. Make it easier for students to feel sure of themselves.

S. Bailey:  Like the one example there. Parenthetically after each bullet?

N. Passer: Perhaps “This includes but is not limited to?”

E. Gillin: Should we take this as a friendly amendment?

S. Bailey: Should we move the bullets too?

D. Granger: Reasons for appeal and then procedure.

S. Bailey: And add the “resource” sentence suggested earlier? (General group agreement)

M. Lima: Add the 11 week part right after the mention of the 4th week? (General group agreement)

And what happens after the 11th week? 

S. Bailey: Nothing.

N. Passer: Add something about what to do if faculty is chair?  (General discussion)

E. Gillin: It is understood that that is covered under the statement about consulting with the Dean’s office.  Where is that statement?  First paragraph?

A. Eisenberg: Suggested wording and build it into the first sentence of the second paragraph.

N. Passer: The Provost is removed from the process?

General discussion about the statement in the bulletin.  Recommendation by the Dean’s office.

P. Schacht: Question about what filing a written appeal is?  Perhaps “student may submit a letter of appeal”.

E. Gillin: Is the language and placement good?

S. Bailey: Made an suggestion for exact wording. (General group agreement)

E. Gillin: Read the current revision to serve as a motion to accept.

P. Schacht: Suggestion that “capricious and arbitrary” be used.  What about saying “ if student is unsatisfied”.

Discussion on the problems of use of the word “unsatisfied.” Could lead to misunderstandings. Suggestion “if student continues”.

D. Granger: Use “assigned” instead of “earned?”

Discussion about the problems associated with the student “earning” the grade, not “assigned” a grade by the professor. Also add “questions or concerns”.

A. Eisenberg:  “…appeal must be lodged” change to “appeal must be submitted”.

E. Gillin: Move to approve the draft to be circulated? Any fundamental issues left?

A. Sheldon: Should we add that any recommendations will be “seriously considered”? It would make the students feel better?

Group decided that it wouldn’t be a good idea, and that we start to get into making the statement too long again.

E. Gillin: Ask for a motion… Call the Question?  P. Schacht made motion, M. Lima 2nd the motion.

By voice count: Passed with no nays, one abstention (J. Over)

Vote on motion to circulate the draft to members of the committee for their final approval?  By voice count: Passed with no nays or abstentions.

 

New Business: None

 

Adjournment: Meeting was adjourned at 5:10 p.m.

 

Minutes recorded by Tabitha Buggie-Hunt

 

A copy of the old policy and the new policy draft follows.

 

STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE AT GENESEO

ACADEMIC POLICY

APPEAL (REVIEW) OF GRADES

 

Students who believe an instructor has assigned a grade which is unfair or punitive for academic or non-academic reasons and who have consulted the instructor and are still unsatisfied may request a review of the grade by using the following procedure.

 

A student may initiate a review of a grade up to the end of the fourth

week of the semester following the term in which the grade was received; the review shall be resolved by the end of the eleventh week of the term in which the review was initiated.

 

1.        The student should take his/her concerns to the department chairperson of the faculty under questions.  The department chairperson will review the matter with the student and with the faculty member to determine if unfair practices or punitive actions have been used by the faculty. The department chairperson may convene a committee selected from the department to review the student’s concerns.  If the appeal is against the department chairperson, the dean of the College shall request permission from the chairperson to convene a department committee to review the appeal.

 

2.        If the problem is not resolved to the satisfaction of the student, the student shall have the right to request a review of the instructor’s grade and the department chairperson’ decision to the dean of the College.  A review of the matter shall include the opportunity for both the student and the faculty member to present information considered by either to be relevant to the case.  The dean shall discuss with the student and the faculty member the concerns regarding the grading practices and shall attempt to resolve the problem.  The dean of the College may convene a committee of faculty to review the case and present a recommendation to the dean.

 

3.        If the problem is not resolved to the satisfaction of the student, the student shall have the right to appeal the instructor’s grade and the dean’s decision to the provost for his/her review.  A review of the matter by the provost shall include the opportunity for both the student and the faculty member to present information considered by either to be relevant to the case.  The provost may convene an all-faculty committee to review the case and present a recommendation to the provost.

 

Recommendations of department chairpersons, the dean of the College, a faculty committee and the provost are only advisory and are not binding upon the instructor.

 

Academic Policy: Appeal (Review) of Grades

[Proposed revision]

 

The College recognizes that it is the instructor’s prerogative to determine a grade.  Responsibility for resolving grading disputes is shared among the instructor, the student, the department chair and the Office of the Dean of the College.  The Office of the Dean can serve as a resource for questions or concerns about the process.

 

The only ground for appealing an instructor’s grade is a student’s belief that a grade has been assigned on a capricious or arbitrary basis.  This includes:

 

·         the assignment of a grade to a particular student on some basis other than her/his performance in the course;

·         the assignment of a grade based on more exacting or demanding standards than were applied to other students in the course;

·         the assignment of a grade by a substantial departure from the instructor’s previously announced standards (for example, using criteria not specified in the syllabus).

 

If a student believes that he/she has been graded capriciously or arbitrarily, the first step is to schedule a meeting with the instructor to discuss concerns.  If the student continues to believe that a grade is inappropriate, the student may submit a letter of appeal to the department or program chair.  The written appeal must be lodged no later than four weeks into the semester following that in which the disputed grade was assigned; the review shall be resolved by the end of the eleventh week of the term in which the review was initiated. 

 

After reading the written appeal, the department or program chair will consult with both the instructor and the student in reaching a recommendation on the appeal.

 

If the student is not satisfied with the departmental recommendation, she/he may submit a letter of appeal to the Dean of the College.  The Dean may convene a committee of faculty to review the case and make a recommendation to the Dean.

 

Recommendations of a department chairperson, the Dean of the College and faculty committees are advisory only and are not binding on the instructor.

 

Policy Committee Minutes

April 1, 2003

 

Present: P. Schacht, G. Dingleldein, T. Buggie-Hunt, M. Lima, M. Stolee (guest), N. Passer, J. Rice, A. Sheldon, J. Over, D. Johnson, D. Showers (guest), and E. Gillin

 

The meeting was called to order at 4:07 to discuss a proposed change in the admissions policy of the School of Education. 

 

D. Shower presented a brief rationalization for the proposed policy change which included:  (1) increasing the quality of teacher education candidates, (2) better aligning the program’s criteria with that of peer programs, and (3) limiting enrollments in education programs that have grown far beyond departmental resources.

 

A discussion on the student appeal process regarding the proposed admission requirements took place.  Concerns were raised regarding the balance between fairness (the need for constant standards) and flexibility  (the need to deal with exceptions) in the appeal review process.  D. Showers stated that the 3-membered panel, convened to review all appeals in a given semester, would attempt to balance these concerns and that the appeal process could be modeled after that used by the Academic Standards Committee.

 

D. Showers was asked if capping the number of applicants entering the program as opposed to using an arbitrary GPA requirement had been considered as a means to limit enrollment in the program.   He stated that capping the number of applicants would be far more difficult to administer and, therefore, was not proposed at this time.

 

D. Shower stated that the proposal had been reviewed and approved by the chairs of departments involved in secondary certification programs.

 

M. Stolee stated that the proposal was supported by the Dean’s office.  She was asked where the students required to leave the Education Department (as a result of the policy change) would end up.  She responded that the answer is unclear.

 

The Policy Committee voted unanimously in favor of passing the proposal.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:50.

 

Respectfully submitted,

D. Johnson

 

Proposals to revise SOE requirements for admission and student teaching

I. The School of Education proposes the following changes to admission to its programs:
Early Childhood (Birth-grade 2), Childhood (Grades 1-6), Childhood Special Education, Adolescence (7-12)

1.        2.75 GPA after 30 hours at Geneseo OR 3.0 Transfer GPA at the time of entry to Geneseo. 

2.        Students may appeal the admission requirements by sending a letter to the Director of the School of Education.  The Director will convene a three-member panel of program faculty to review appeals.

 

II The School of Education proposes the following changes to admission to Student Teaching:

1.        Admission to Student Teaching requires a 2.75 GPA overall, in the major, and in the concentration for majors.  AD Candidates must have a 2.75 overall, in the major, and in the certification courses*

2.        At any point, if a student’s GPA drops below 2.75, (s)he will have one semester to bring it above 2.75 or be suspended from Education course work until the GPA meets the requirement.

 

* INTD 203, EDUC 204, EDUC 215, SPED 205, subject methods courses (INTD 300, INTD 301, INTD 302, FORL 320 as required by the student’s specific program)

 

Implementation
The requirements described above will apply to freshmen admitted to the College as of fall 2003 and to transfer students admitted to the College beginning in fall 2004.

The process of Admissions will be:
1.      Geneseo students apply to the programs or file appeals
2.      Admissions, including appeal admits, are determined
3.      The remaining number of seats is determined
4.      Admissions is notified
5.      Transfers are offered admission
6.      The SOE application will include a statement that IF a student wishes (s)he may indicate a 2nd choice program to which (s)he would accept admission if the first choice is not available.  Applicants would also be allowed to indicate a third choice.

 

Minutes of Faculty Affairs Committee

March 18, 2003

Jones, Kathy, Colosi, Janelle, Lewis, Jani, Hartman, Rosanne, Herman, Andrew, Mapes, Kathleen, Pretzer, Ron, Savellos, Elias, Woidat, Caroline, Young, Richard

 

Old Business:

1. Students with Disabilities.

At the beginning of the semester, Tabitha Buggy-Hunt sent letters to department chairpersons requesting names of students who might be used as tutors for students with disabilities. It was suggested faculty receive an e-mail request early in the semester rather than the request going through chairpersons. The suggestion will be given to Tabitha.

2. Registration. 

The Dean’s Office is aware of problems associated with registration occurring during class times and has altered registration times this semester. First time registration hours are scheduled later in the day to decrease the impact of registration on class attendance. Two registration times are scheduled during the all college period: 12:50 and 1:20. Registration will also occur on Tuesday and Thursday from 3:30-5:30 and Friday afternoon from 1:30-5:30. These hours still provide students with support staff in the Registrar’s Office and CIT in the event of problems. Dean Bailey stressed this is not a finalized version of the process and would like feedback from faculty and students after the registration process.

 

New Business:

Guest: Provost Dixon

1. Intersession.

                Provost Dixon provided information about the history of intersession. Intersession was created by Provost Spencer for added income and to provide students the opportunity to take three week compressed classes. President Dahl appointed a task force on summer and intersession. The task force found students felt intersession was too long and that it was not as profitable as had been expected. Provost Dixon stated several discussion sessions were set up to gather faculty and student views about intersession. The sessions were discussions with chairpersons, two open forums, student government and e-mail. The overwhelming response was to get rid of intersession.

The current plan for calendar change would allow at least three weeks between the last day of the final exam schedule in the fall semester to the first day of the spring semester. Provost Dixon stated the president has the right to set calendar dates even though there is a history of faculty involvement in the decision at Geneseo.

Several programs were created for intersession: the Sienna Program, the London Theatre trip and the Geology field trip. Concern was expressed about the ability for these programs to continue should intersession be eliminated. Discussion centered on the possibility of having two weeks after January 1 to allow some of the programs to continue.

Faculty also raised concerns about the timeframe for the start of spring semester. Faculty suggested a two week timeframe in January be given prior to the start of the semester. It was noted most faculty begin planning for the semester, undertake research and regroup their energy after the January 1st date and the holiday season.

Finally, Provost Dixon noted summer sessions changes this year include guaranteed classes. Otherwise, summer session should not be affected by the change in calendar should intersession be eliminated.

 

Respectfully submitted,

Rosanne L. Hartman, Chairperson, Faculty Affairs

 

Minutes of the Undergraduate Curricula Committee

March 4, 2003

 

Members present:  S. Brainard, J. Cope, A. Kline, R. McEwan, D. Norris, K. O’Neill, A. Stanley, D. Sullivan, G. Towsley, B. Welker, J. Winkler, T. Zollo, J. Zook  Visitors:  K. Jones, M. Lima, E. Spicka

 

Chair J. Zook called the meeting to order at 4:00 pm.

 

The minutes of the February 4 meeting were approved unanimously.

 

Old Business.  Course revision Thea 260, which had been tabled at the last meeting due to a lack of clarity in the proposed changes, was reconsidered.  It passed unanimously without discussion.

 

New Business

               

New course Engl 242, Literature of the African Diaspora was considered.  Visitor M. Lima briefly described the course for the committee and clarified that the course number should be 242, not a slot course as part of Engl 241 World Literature.  The proposal passed unanimously.

 

Major revisions in Communicative Disorders & Sciences and Speech and Hearing Handicapped were considered next.  Both proposals passed unanimously.  After approving the changes in these majors, the committee considered the following related new courses, course revisions, and course deletions:

                New courses CDSC 243, CDSC 244, and CDSC 201

                Course deletions CDSC 202 and CDSC 368

                Course revisions CDSC 100, 200, 300, 238, and 240

All proposals passed unanimously.

 

The next item of business was the proposed revisions to the Black Studies major and the Africana Studies minor.  The proposals were approved unanimously without discussion.

 

The proposed revision to the history concentration was considered next.  It passed unanimously.

 

Two course revisions in computer science, CSCI 241 and 242, were considered last.  Both proposals passed unanimously.

 

J. Zook announced that the next meeting will be held April 1.  Departments with curriculum proposals that need to passed this semester need to prepare them in time for the April 1 UCC meeting.  This will allow time for both a first and second reading in the senate.

 

Respectfully submitted,

Joan Zook

 

Minutes of the Undergraduate Curricula Committee

April 1, 2003

 

Members present:  J. Cope, A. Kline, D. Norris, K. O’Neill, A. Stanley, G. Towsley, B. Welker, J. Winkler, P. Wong, J. Zook  Visitors:  C. Woidat, B. Howard, M.E. Zuckerman, E. Spicka, R. Goeckel

 

Chair J. Zook called the meeting to order at 4:00 pm.

 

The agenda was amended to remove the discussion about the abolition of Intersession.  The Provost announced this morning that a decision had been made to eliminate Intersession.

New Business:

Major Revision -  International Relations.  The motion passed unanimously after a brief description of the changes by R. Goeckel. 

Course Revision Plsc 228 – The motion passed unanimously without discussion.

Major Revision - Business Administration.  The motion passed unanimously after a brief description of the changes by B. Howard.

Course Deletion Mgmt 261 - The motion passed unanimously without discussion.

New Course Mgmt 268 - The motion passed unanimously without discussion.

Major Revision – Biology - The motion passed unanimously without discussion.

New Course Engl 332 - The motion passed unanimously after a brief description of the course by C. Woidat.

New Course Anth 396 - The motion passed unanimously after a brief explanation by B. Welker.

New Course Anth 325 - The motion passed unanimously without discussion.

 

New Course Geog 365 - The motion passed unanimously after a brief description by D. Norris.

New Course Math 228 - The motion passed unanimously without discussion.

New Course Biol 202 - The motion passed unanimously without discussion.

New Course Biol 264 - The motion passed unanimously without discussion.

New Course Biol 305 - The motion passed unanimously without discussion.

Course Revision Biol 306 - The motion passed unanimously without discussion.

Course Revision Dance 240 - The motion passed unanimously without discussion.

 

J. Zook announced that this was probably the last meeting of the semester and the meeting was adjourned at 4:35 p.m.

 

Respectfully submitted,

Joan Zook

 

UCC Proposal Summariesconsidered at the March 4, 2003 meeting

(Full text proposals are available for review by contacting the office of the Dean of the College.)

 

Course Revision - Thea 260 – Theatre Practicum.  Change number of hours from 3 to 4 and change from S/U to grades.  Rationale:  The theatre department wishes to exercise greater choice in the awarding of grades.

Major Revision - Black Studies – Change name to Africana Studies and Revise 39 credit hours to meet new criteria.  Rationale: We would like to change the name to emphasize the related nature of the programs and minimize confusion.  The college’s curriculum does not support the Black Studies major as it is currently laid out.  That is, the current major requires that students take Black Studies courses in disciplines that do not offer any.  Students occasionally look at the existing Black Studies major and think that any courses in those departments will work and are upset to learn that is not the case (despite the caveat about choosing classes under advisement.)  In the past several years, we have had a small but consistent number of students interested in the Black Studies major (including one who should graduate this Spring with a Black Studies major)  Whenever students have expressed interest, we have designed personalized programs grounded in our curriculum’s strengths in Africana/ Black Studies.  Our proposal seeks to clarify the requirements and formalize what we have been trying to do on an individual basis with particular students.  In the process, we are drawing on the growth of the Black Studies/Africana Studies curriculum and responding to the increased interest in the subject among students who have been exposed to the Africana Studies minor.

 

Major Revision - Communicative Disorders & Sciences – Change CDSC 241 into two courses, CDSC 243 and 244.  Reduce CDSC 228 to 2 credits.  Total requirements for major = 44 semester hours.  Rationale:  The decision to add 2 hours to our two degree programs is predicated on the need to educate our students more fully in the disorder areas they will encounter in professional work.  Voice and fluency intervention are two important areas to cover in such depth; in the current curriculum, they never receive the kind of attention they need.  In addition, the coverage in these areas in two courses rather than one allows for basic competencies to be addressed in each course which will transfer to work in other disorder areas.  The department was mindful of keeping the major low enough in hours so that our students have the time to receive a broader general education here at Geneseo.  Therefore, we reviewed all our courses and were able to cut one hour from CDSc 238 to make the final hour count only two more than it is currently.

 

Major Revision - Speech and Hearing Handicapped - Change CDSC 241 into two courses, CDSC 243 and 244.  Reduce CDSC 228 to 2 credits.  Total requirements for major = 62 semester hours.  Rationale:  Same as above. 

Minor Revision - Africana Studies – Revised 18 credit hours that meet new criteria.  Rationale:  The proposed changes reflect the growth the of the Africana Studies curriculum since the minor was developed in the mid-1990s.  The existing requirements do not include many of the available classes, particularly those that are most grounded in the subject matter.  Thus the proposed requirements more realistically reflect the College’s offerings, provide more concrete guidance for students, and require students to take a more demanding and cohesive set of classes. 

Concentration Revision – History – Require all the requirements for the History major except Hist 220 and the Senior Experience.  Rationale:  It brings the concentration more in line with the History major in terms of pedagogy and content. It also makes it easier for a student to become a double major. Advisement will be simplified with the major and concentration coordinated.

New Course - ENGL 242 – Literature of the African Diaspora.  Rationale:  Faculty members currently teach this course in Engl 241 with the subtitle "the African Diaspora."  The course should be included among Geneseo's Non-Western Core choices because students in this course study works of literature solely from non-Western cultures. This satisfies the Core Area Guideline that M/courses "focus the students' attention on ideas, experiences, and concepts outside of western traditions." It must not be forgotten that "non-Western" is less of a geographical designation than a cultural and political one. The countries in the Caribbean, for example, while hemispherically close to the United States, count as "non-Western" since they have become home to the African diaspora--among others.

New Course - CDSC 201 - Oral Communication Lab for Non-Native Speakers of English.  Rationale:  This laboratory experience is for those students who are non-native English speakers who desire more individual practice with their speech and language.  The increasing number of international students has warranted a need for individualizing teaching based on the communicative needs each student presents.


New Course - CDSC 243
- Fluency Intervention.  Rationale:  Currently the content of this proposed new course is covered in CDSc 241 along with the information on voice and voice disorders; the latter content is being proposed as a new course also.  The current 241course barely covers the content information in fluency and voice without adequately attending to the accompanying clinical competencies for evaluation and treatment.  Some of these competencies in both proposed new courses also generalize to intervention in other communication disorder areas, e.g. ear training and observational skills, connection of physiologies to pathologies, family work and counseling, team management.  Many other speech and language pathology programs have divided these content areas into two separate courses.

 

New Course - CDSC 244 - Voice Intervention.  Rationale:  This content area of voice disorder intervention is currently covered in half a semester in CDSc 241.   There is not adequate time to cover this area well.  A strong course is needed partially because our campus clinic population includes quite a few college students and others with vocal problems.  In addition, voice cases will be seen in all employment sites for the speech language pathologist.  Of necessity, this course must focus on normal and disordered voice; vocal parameters are harder for students to analyze out of the total communication event.  The student needs to hear and model normal vocal parameters and signs of vocal problems.  This ear training and imitation will serve as basic skills for other disorder areas as well.  This course must also clearly show the important clinical connection between anatomy and physiology of the vocal mechanism and vocal dysfunctioning.  Intervention in this area is built on problem solving skills as individual cases can vary widely. 

 

Course Deletion - CDSC 202 – Remediation of Speech, Language, and Hearing Disorders.  Rationale:  This course was offered for many years to students who needed remediation of communication skills.  They received services in the campus Speech and Hearing Clinic from supervised students and received one credit for this treatment.  Several years ago, a policy change led to only non-native speakers of English receiving credit for intervention, but this credit is available to them in the current CDSc200:  ESL Oral Communication Clinic and in the proposed CDSc 200:  Oral Communication for Non-native Speakers of English.  Additionally, with a proposed CDSc 201:  Oral Communication Lab for Non-native Speakers of English.

 

Course Deletion - CDSC 368 – Advanced Speech Science.  Rationale:  No one has registered for this course in many years.  The course material of two relatively new courses with student enrollment each semester (CDSc 393: Honors course in digital signal processing and CDSc 436: Research in Communicative Disorders) supersedes the material in CDSc 368.


Course Revision - CDSC 100
– Functional Communication for Non-Native Speakers of English.  Change in title (old title – “ESL Oral Communication”), change in description, eliminate the prerequisite of instructor permission, and increase number of credits from 2 to 3.  Rationale:  This course is the first in a sequence of courses for those students who are non-native English speakers.  The increasing number of international students has warranted a need for teaching the nuances and language of common interactions found in the United States and practical English survival vocabulary.

 

Course Revision - CDSC 200 – Oral Communication for Non-Native Speakers of English.  Change in title (old title – “ESL Oral Communication Clinic”), description, elimination of prerequisite of instructor permission, and increase the number of credits from 1 to 3.  Rationale:  This course provides non-native speakers of English with information concerning and practice in oral communication.  The college’s increase in a culturally diverse student body has necessitated the need for such instruction and practice.

 

Course Revision - CDSC 300 – Advanced Oral Communication for Non-Native Speakers of English.  Change in title (old title – “ESL/Advanced Oral Communication”), change in description, change prerequisite from CDSC 100 or 200 to CDSC 200, and change number of credits from 2 to 3.  Rationale:  This course provides practice in oral communication for more advanced non-native English speakers.  A prerequisite course CDSc 200 has been designed to meet the basic oral communication needs of this college’s culturally diverse population.  This advanced course will address higher-level communication needs.

 

Course Revision - CDSC 238 – Clinical Observation and Management in Communicative Disorders – Change title to “Fundamentals of Clinical Processes,” change course description, eliminates prerequisites, and changes the number of credits from 3 to 2.  Rationale:  The course has provided class time for the guided observation of clinical sessions through video tape analysis.  This is not a functional use of time; students can watch these videos as homework and discuss them in class.  With this guided observation removed, the course content can be covered in two class meetings per week rather than three.  Also, the old description mentions a unit on different service plans which is not appropriate at this level and has in the last years been taught in CDSc 331, the course students take while they are in campus clinic practicum.  The recommended course title change more accurately reflects the crux of what is taught in this course, the fundamentals of clinical processes.  Additionally, this content needs to be presented in the freshman year before students take disorder courses in their sophomore year.

 

Course Revision - CDSC 240 – Language Intervention.  Add CDSC 238 as a prerequisite.  CDSc 238 is a basic clinic course and with program guide adjustments can now be placed in the freshman year.

 

Course Revision - CSCI 241 - Principles of Computer Organization.  Delete prerequisite CSCI 221.  Rationale:  CSci 241 originally required Math 221 as a prerequisite in an effort to assure a general level of mathematical maturity among its students. With the integration of more mathematics into earlier computer science courses, this is no longer necessary.


Course Revision - CSCI 242
- Analysis of Algorithms.  Delete prerequisite Math 222.  Rationale:  CSci 242 originally required Math 222 as a prerequisite in an effort to assure a general level of mathematical maturity among students. With the integration of more mathematics into earlier computer science courses, this is no longer necessary. (But note that we retain Math 237 as a prerequisite, since it covers material that is directly used in CSci 242.)

 

UCC Proposal Summariesconsidered at the April 1, 2003 meeting
(Full text proposals are available for review by contacting the office of the Dean of the College.)

 

Major Revision - International Relations – PLSC 120 is being added in order to adequately prepare students in the domestic politics of foreign political systems so that they may master upper-level courses.  The minor in International Politics also requires PLSC 120; thus the change would bring greater consistency between the major and the minor.  Addition of a World Culture requirement.  Given the increasing interaction among cultures as a factor in international relations, students need a deeper understanding of socio-cultural patterns in the world, particularly as it relates to world religions.  A Capstone course, PLSC 345, will replace the menu of five rather diverse courses in order to add greater coherence to the major.  Changes in Regional Tracks.  All social science courses in the Asian and Latin American tracks are currently in the Third World Track, thus permitting students wishing to specialize in these regions to do so within this track.  The current reference to other sections of the catalog is confusing to students; by limiting the regional tracks to two (Developing World and European Systems) the major will be more streamlined and transparent.  Change in Name of Third World Track.  The end of the Cold War has brought a new nomenclature to the discipline.  Change in Courses in the Elective Tracks.  Additions and deletions reflect the changes in departmental offerings of those departments which are participating in the major. 

 

Major Revision - Business Administration – Requiring Mgmt 263 (Business Law I) instead of Mgmt 261 (Legal Environment of Economy).  Rationale:  The evolution of Mgmt 261 has resulted in considerable overlap with the content of Mgmt 263 (which is required for the Accounting major). Rather than have two similar courses, the School of Business proposes to eliminate Mgmt 261 and have Business Administration majors take Mgmt 263 instead. This modification also makes it easier for transfer students who typically have completed a Business Law course.

 

Major Revision – Biology – change description so that Biol 264 will no longer satisfy the integrated systems requirement for the BS.  Rationale:  Human Physiology, being a 200 level elective and being focused on the physiology of humans, does not constitute an integrated systems course for the BS.  It will still be a valuable biology elective in the diverse array of courses to which we expose our students.  Including human physiology as a biology elective will expand this selection while allowing students to step beyond a focus on courses in molecular biology.  Not including it as an integrated systems course for the BS degree will encourage students to take the more challenging Animal Physiology course (BIOL 364) which is a more intensive preparation for medical and graduate schools.  

 

New Course Engl 332 – Early American Literature.  Rationale:  Current offerings in 300-level American literature courses follow an unbroken chronological sequence that begins with American Romanticism, a study of literature of the pre-Civil War period (1821-61) and ends with Contemporary American Literature (1945-present).  The proposed course is designed to fill the historical gap in this sequence, which does not include literature written in America before 1821.  Until now, it has only been possible to study pre-1820 American literature by developing slot courses such as English 390 (Studies in Literature).  Engl 332 Early American Literature will complete the department’s coverage of American literary history in the regular course rotation. 

 

New Course Anth 396 – Teaching Practicum in Anthropology.  Rationale:  This proposal creates a vehicle for a teaching practicum that is currently being offered under the ANTH 399 -Directed Study.  The new course creates guidelines for the teaching practicum that parallel the offerings in other departments on campus.

 

New Course Anth 325 – International Fieldwork: (region)  Rationale:  Anthropology students are currently engaged in international fieldwork with our faculty and this new course number provides a vehicle to document that experience.  Currently, students are engaged in these classes under the ANTH 399 Directed Study course offering.

 

New Course Mgmt 268 – Management Law and New Technologies.  Rationale:  Technology has had a significant impact on the business law environment. This course will provide students with an opportunity to examine the role technology plays in legal transactions.

 

New Course Geog 365 – The Geography of Islam.  Rationale:  This course will expand the Geography Program's range of advanced regional course alternatives (of four currently listed on p. 243 of the Bulletin, only two, GEOG 362 and GEOG 366, are now taught on a regular basis).  The desirability of a course which engages the circumstances of the world's one billion Muslims scarcely needs emphasis.  Once established, GEOG 364 may be an appropriate addition to the Third World Track of the International Relations Major and the 'Relevant Course' options of the Asian Studies Minor.

 

New Course Math 228 – Calculus II for Biologists.  Rationale:  The course is designed as a service course for the Biology Department. Currently Biology majors take two semesters of calculus, and this course is designed to give these students a course that emphasizes differential equations and the applications of calculus to biology. The goal is to help these students appreciate the ways that mathematics is used in their field, and hence to help them appreciate the importance of quantitative methods and modeling in the biological sciences.

 

New Course Biol 202 – Biological Issues - This course will emphasize the application of biology to contemporary issues and questions.  The target audience includes second semester freshmen Biology majors that have tested out of the regular Biology lecture, prospective Biology secondary education students, students interested in the Biology minor, and Biology majors who want to explore how to integrate their knowledge of Biology with issues they hear about in the news.  It is meant to explore the interface between Biology as a science and its application.  We will also consider the science behind such ethical and practical consideration of diverse subjects such as human cloning, patenting genes and organisms, and creationism vs. science in the public schools.

 

New Course Biol 264 – Human Physiology - Human Physiology is a necessary prerequisite for students wishing to pursue graduate programs in physical therapy, physicians’ assistant, chiropractic school and several other areas.  The Biology Department does have an Animal Physiology Course (BIOL 364); however, this is usually not accepted as a prerequisite for the above programs.  Thus, students wishing to pursue these programs had to take Human Physiology at another university.  Offering this course in the Biology Department at Geneseo enables these students to work it in with their regular curriculum as well as give them continuity in their biology program.  The course differs considerably from the BIOL 364 in that it focuses on the human side of physiology.  There are more case studies involving human diseases and less analytical and theoretical comparisons between different organisms than in the Biol 364 course.  Biol 264 is designed for students at the sophomore/junior level pursuing a BA or BS in biology and wishing to continue in such fields of study as physical therapy or physicians’ assistant or students outside of the major pursuing degrees in psychology, education or other fields. 

 

New Course Biol 305 – Conservation Biology - Conservation Biology is a relatively new field of study in biology, but its implications are far-reaching as humans continue to impact habitats around the world.  Students of biology should have a knowledge and appreciation of the threats to biodiversity and the consequences of these threats.  The public has influence on policy decisions affecting conservation issues.  This course will enable students to assess the threats and understand the complexities involved in making informed decisions about conservation and management of populations, species and ecosystems of conservation concern.  This course will focus on the major issues in the field including: the definition and distribution of biodiversity, the major threats to biodiversity and the theory and practice of reserve design and other conservation measures used throughout the world.  An understanding of the biological basis for the threatened status of many populations will underlie our discussions of the theory and practice of biological conservation. 

 

Course Revision Biol 306 – Evolutionary Biology – Change the description to say that the course meets Basic Communication Research Outcome requirement and change credit distribution from 3(2-2) to 3(3-0).  Rationale:  When the present distribution of credits was first adopted, the enrollment in the class was evenly divided between undergraduates and returning students in the graduate program in secondary education.  The current format helped the returning students, many of whom had limited computer skills and limited retention of the content of the pre-requisite classes.  However, the number of students taking graduate courses in secondary education has declined while their preparation has improved.  Assignments and projects done previously in the laboratory block can now be done outside of class as homework assignments.  The present form creates problems in scheduling for both faculty and students. 

The revised description also reflects changes to the Biology program to incorporate the new SUNY Basic Communication – Research Outcomes requirement.

 

Course Revision Plsc 228 – Change title from “Politics in the Third World” to “Developing Third World Politics.”  Rationale:  The amended course title and description more adequately reflects the altered international system in the wake of the Cold War.  It is also reflective of general trends within the field which has generally agreed to utilize this terminology.

 

Course Revision Dance 240 – Stage Movement – Change prefix to Thea 240.  Rationale:  The course was created by a former member of the dance faculty, hence the prefix.  Since that member’s retirement, the course has been taught by a qualified member of the theater faculty.  Moreover, the course, regardless of prefix, addresses the needs of our theater students, not our dance students. 

 

Course Deletion Mgmt 261 – Legal Environment of the Economy.  Rationale:  The evolution of this course has led to a significant overlap with Mgmt 263. The elimination of Mgmt 261 is a part of a Program Proposal to replace Mgmt 261 with Mgmt 263 as a required course for the Business Administration major.