COMMITTEE ON COURSES OF
INSTRUCTION
ANNUAL REPORT
20021-20032
Preface
The Committee will have met 143 times (2
hours per meeting) by the end of this academic year. We substantially increased
the efficiency of the meetings by having all committee members review all
course requests on-line (before the meeting) and by having the chair select
only 5 – 10 problematic courses (based on committee on-line comments) for
discussion per meeting. The remaining courses were processed by the chair and
staff person without additional committee comment. We also improved efficiency
by informing college courses committees about common problems with course
requests. The college committees were asked to correct these problems before
approving courses to the Committee. The increased efficiency freed meeting time
for discussion of policy.
The workload of this Committee is extensive.
Committee members, and especially the chair and staff person, worked many hours
per week in addition to the time spent in meetings. If the workload increases
at all, the Committee will require additional staffing and restructuring.
Course Requests
The primary duty of the Committee is to review and
act upon requests from departments and programs to add new courses and change
or cancel existing courses. This year all courses but one were
received on-line. The following table summarizes our actions this academic year
(up to 218
May 20032).
|
|
New |
Change |
Cancel |
Total |
|
undergraduate |
|
|
|
|
|
graduate |
|
|
|
|
|
professional |
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
|
|
Associate Instructors
The Committee also is required to approve/reject
requests from departments to use advanced graduate students to teach
upper-division courses. The Chair normally does this without consulting with
the Committee (except as needed) and by following explicit Committee policy on
this matter. This year the Committee received and approved 55 75 Associate
Instructors from 20 different departments.
Undergraduate Teaching Assistants
The
Committee is required to approve/reject petitions for the use of undergraduates
as teaching assistants (this is an exception to policy). The Committee
developed a petition form and, during Winter and Spring Quarters, received and
approved 37 58 petitions from 10 8 departments.
Because both payroll numbers and petition numbers
were 15 for winter quarter, we conclude that all departments are properly
filing petitions before hiring undergraduate TAs.
Like undergraduate teaching assistants, undergraduate
readers are to be used only in exceptional circumstances. The Committee,
however, does not receive and review petitions for undergraduate readers. Payroll
records indicate that there were 213 undergraduate readers working during Fall
Quarter, 117 during Winter Quarter, and 204 during Spring Quarter.
The Committee must
approve requests from instructors of variances from a Pass/No-Pass or
Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory to a letter grade or vice-versa. Normally this task
is delegated to the Chair. Following the process described in the Committee web
page, variances in 4229
classes were granted.
In addition to its normal mandated duties, the Committee
considered the following policy issues:.
Increased and regular use of Associate Instructors for upper division
courses
Use of Undergraduate Tutors
to lead discussions or to be responsible for other contact hours
Changes to policy on internet courses
The Chair requested that the Committee on
Committees:
1.
initiate an independent review the online course approval form; the current
form creates too much frustration for instructors and too much work for the
committee.
2.
have college courses committees rather than the Graduate Council review
graduate course approval forms; the college committees are focused on reviewing course approval forms but
the Graduate Council is not.
The Use of
a Course to Limit Program Enrollment
As enrollment increases on
campus, teaching resources for some majors are inadequate relative to the
number of students in the major. One possible solution is to limit the number
of students in the major by requiring students to pass a particular course
designed to test student preparation for more advanced courses. The Committee
rejected this solution because our policy clearly states that the primary
purpose of a course must be to educate students (rather than to screen students
or to control enrollment in the major).
Pre-Approval of Courses
Taught at Foreign Universities for GE Credit
The Education Abroad Program
requested that the Committee review courses taught at foreign universities for
GE credit. The Committee denied this request because: a) the campus has an
abundance of GE courses, and students easily complete their GE requirement
before their junior year; b) the Committee has no authority or reasonable means
of interacting with foreign instructors or departments. This is important: in
determining whether a course satisfies GE, the Committee often asks questions
of instructors/departments and informs instructors/departments about GE
criteria; c) The Committee workload is heavy and we are barely able to review
submissions from our campus alone.
Policy for Approval of Undergraduate Teaching
Assistants
The Committee discussed and
approved new policy regarding undergraduate teaching assistants. This policy
(and related policy concerning undergraduate readers) is posted on the
Committee web site. A petition form was also created to simplify requests and
reviews of requests.
Online Course Approval Form
Because the Committee
continues to receive many incomplete or otherwise inadequate requests for
creating or changing courses, we have continued to modify the on-line course
approval. The goal is to inform instructors of Committee policy and
expectations before instructors submit requests.
General Education Writing
The Committee continued to
revise GE writing policy and to inform instructors about the changes. The goal
of GE writing should not be to encourage students to write a paper of some
minimum length. The goal of GE writing should be to help students write better.
Therefore, GE writing credit now requires that students receive feedback on
their writing and that students respond to that feedback.
Overall Committee Policy
The Committee read and
revised as needed our entire policy, which is posted on our web site.
The Committee wishes to
thank the staff of the Academic Senate office and the Office of the Registrar
for their excellent support during this year. Special thanks go to Marci Buell
in the Academic Senate office and Molly Theodossy in the Registrar’s office.
At-large
Members Ex-officio Members
Bruce Jaffee, Chair Richard Evans
Max
ByrdPeter Chesson Jack Farrell Robert Bell
Bryan
JenkinsFidelis Eke Emily
Goldman Richard Evans
Ron
PhilipsJoanna Groza G.J.
Mattey Jack Farrell
Janet
SmithMartha Macri Mark
Servis Emily Goldman
Peter
ChessonDino Tinti Richard
Spencer Scott Simon
Erik Wisner
Mark
Servis
Student
Representatives Academic
Federation Representative
Michael Lopez Pamela Demory
Salvador Mendez Cynthia Bates
Staff Consultant
Molly Theodossy