2011- 2012 Standing Committee Annual reports
Report of the Academic Affairs Committee
To the Faculty Senate
2011-2012 Academic Year
A. Committee Members:
Denise Celestin (Chair) Fine Arts
Sue Abdinnour Business
Ngoyi Bukonda Health Professions
Jodie Beeson LAS Social Sciences
Jeri Carroll Education
Kerry Maris Student Representative
Prakash Ramanan Engineering
Nick Solomey LAS Math/Natural Sciences
Mary Walker University Libraries
(Vacancy) LAS Humanities
B. Meeting Schedule:
First and third Mondays of the Month: 11/7, 11/21, 1/30, 2/6, 2/20, 3/5, 4/2, 4/16, 4/30
C. Committee Activities and Pending Issues:
1. Incomplete Grade Processing: The Registrar's office recommended that the faculty
consider changing the timeframe for completing coursework for an I grade to one year
after the I is given. Currently, the timeframe for completion is by the end of the
next term in which the student is enrolled. Problems result because Banner cannot
enforce an indefinite timeline. The process is entirely manual. Incomplete grades
can remain on some students' records indefinitely, if they do not return to WSU. Currently,
faculty members do not have the ability to adjust the date of completion of coursework
when they submit the I grade. An amended definition of the I grade, allowing for entry
of a default grade and the addition of the definition of IP (In Progress) were also
recommended for committee consideration.
Action taken: The committee approved recommended changes: the timeframe for completion of the I grade to one year after the I grade is given, and utilization of capabilities in Banner to assign default grades. An amended definition of Incomplete, and wording for the Undergraduate Catalog copy were forwarded to the Faculty Senate president for Senate consideration.
2. Guidelines for Undergraduate Certificate Programs, Gainful Employment: The US Department of Education has issued a set of program integrity regulations for certificate or other non-degree recognized credentials. (i.e., a program that is at least one year in length, leads to a certificate or other non-degree recognized credential, and prepares student for gainful employment in a recognized occupation). Associate Provost Richard Muma asked the committee to examine potential language related to this federal requirement to be included in the Guidelines for Undergraduate Certificate Programs. At a later meeting, Faculty Senate president Steven Skinner advised the committee that the issue would be brought to the Senate Executive Committee, before possibly being forwarded again to the Academic Affairs Committee.
3. Grade Repeat/Replacement Policy (Pending Activity): The Registrar's office informed
the committee of complications using the Banner system in recording repeated courses
and replacement grades. With the current academic policy, limitations in Banner necessitate
manual selection and entry of very large numbers of student grades. The committee
is currently examining this issue.
4. Majors and Minors at WSU (Pending Activity): Most majors and minors at WSU, with
the exception of the Barton School of Business, do not specify that their requirements
be met by courses taken at WSU. Discussions focus on the issue of WSU's credential
of competency, and the percentage of courses in the major taken at WSU. The committee
is currently examining this issue.
5. Double Major Counting (Pending Activity): In the Inter-College Double Major, one
course may be counted for both majors. This is currently not allowed for double majors
within the same college. The committee is currently examining this issue.
Respectfully submitted,
Denise A. Celestin
April 4, 2012
WSU Court of Academic Appeals
Annual Report for Year 2011-12
Members:
1. Rajiv Bagai, College of Engineering, Chair
2. David Soles, College of LAS (Humanities), Member
3. Frank Rokosz, Member
4. Michelle Dreiling, SGA Graduate Representative Member
5. Samantha Ridder, SGA Undergraduate Representative Member
6. Laura Zellers, School of Business, Alternate Member
7. Ray Hull, College of Health Professions, Alternate Member
8. Orren Dale, LAS (Social Sciences), Alternate Member
9. Margaret McKibben, SGA Graduate Representative Alternate Member
10. vacant, SGA Undergraduate Representative Alternate Member
Meeting Schedule and Committee Activities:
The Court meets whenever appeal cases are presented to be heard. Hearings are conducted
following careful review of the documentation presented. The year 2011-12 hearings
so far have been:
? September 9, 2011 (involving ArtF 145)?
? September 30, 2011 (involving SOC 111)?
? October 14, 2011 (involving CJ 541)?
? November 4, 2011 (involving HMCD 622)?
? November 18, 2011 (involving AE 528/628)?
? March 30, 2012 (involving EE 282, cancelled upon appealing student request)?
Pending Issues:
None.
Recommendations:
None.
Respectfully Submitted,
Rajiv Bagai
March 30, 2012
Executive Committee
Executive Committee 2011-12
MEMBERS:
Steven Skinner President
Frederick Hemans Past President
Robert Ross President 鈥� Elect
Peer Moore-Jansen Vice President
Walter Horn Secretary
Executive Committee Rhonda Lewis Silvia Carruthers
Appt. by the President Robin Henry
The Executive Committee met the first and third Monday of the 2011-2012 academic
year. The committee established the agenda of the Faculty Senate and provided advice
to the senate president and university provost. The committee also sent forth proposals
to the Senate including revisions to Policies and Procedures and General Education.
Faculty Affairs
Faculty Affairs Committee
Annual Report for Academic Year 2011-12
Committee Members:
Brien Bolin, LAS Social and Behavioral Sciences
Terence Decker, Business
Lorraine Madway, University Libraries
Aleksander Sternfield-Dunn, Fine Arts
Will Klunder, LAS Humanities
Walter Horn, Engineering, (chair)
Carol Bett, Health Professions
Chris Rogers, LAS Math/Natural Sciences
The Faculty Affairs Committee deals with the relationship between the WSU Faculty
and the University and the State of Kansas. Specific areas of responsibility are the
following:
1. Terms of employment, tenure policies, tenure and promotion guidelines, salary,
fringe benefits, retirement, life insurance, health insurance, leave procedures, faculty
benefits and responsibilities, dismissal policies and conflict of interest policies.
2. Issues of faculty statues within the University.
3. Academic freedom policies of the University and the State, including review of
current policies, recommendations for changes, and review of any changes proposed
by the University or the Board of Regents.
The committee met two times this semester and developed a proposal for the establishment
of Research Professional positions at 红领巾瓜报. The document was submitted to
the Senate Executive committee for its consideration.
Respectfully Submitted,
Walter Julian Horn
May 2, 2012
Faculty Support
Re: Report of Faculty Support Committee
For the 2011-2012 Academic Year, the Faculty Support Committee consisted of Rick LeCompte, Linda Mitchell, Julie Scherz, Jay Price, Tom Wine, Rhonda Lewis, Krishna Krishnan, and Ginger Williams , with David McDonald serving as ex-officio member. Jay Price is currently serving as chair. The committee could not have done its work without the enthusiastic support of Cindy Miller
The committee does not have set meeting times, gathering when there is a need to go through proposals, which this year, meant for several lengthy but productive meetings late in the Fall 2011 semester and early 2012 at the offices at NIAR.
The committee reviewed 4 Multidisciplinary Research Project Awards(MURPAs), 2 awarded, 2 declined.
The committee reviewed 8 Awards for Research/Creative Projects in the Summer (ARCS), 5 awarded, 3 declined.
The committee reviewed 11 applications for sabbatical and forwarded them to the Provost w/recommendations.
The committee selected 3 excellence awards out of 12 nominations
The final task for the committee is an upcoming meeting to assess applicants for the Flossie West program for faculty doing cancer research. The meeting for that will take place in April.
Jay M. Price
Director, Public History Program
红领巾瓜报
316-978-7792
jay.price@wichita.edu
General Education
Report of the Standing General Education Committee 鈥� 2011-2012 Academic Year
Chair: D. Paul Rillema
Committee Members: Ted Adler, Ikram Ahmed, Chris Broberg, Stephen Brady, Janice Ewing, Lyn Goldberg, Natalie Grant, Jeffrey Hershfield, Cathy Moore-Jansen and Bill Wynne (ex officio)
The committee met on the first and third Mondays of the month from 12:30 鈥� 2:00 pm in the Faculty Senate Conference Room. The year was spend discussing an number of issues related to general education and procedures currently followed in allocating general education credit for basic, introductory, further studies and issue and perspective courses.
The committee approved ENGL 344, 鈥淩egional Literature,鈥� and PSYC 320, 鈥淏iological Psychology,鈥� for further studies credit. BIOL 220, 鈥淚ntroduction to Microbiology,鈥� BIOL 223, 鈥淗uman Anatomy and Physiology,鈥� and HS 290, 鈥淔oundational Human Anatomy and Physiology鈥� were approved for general education introductory credit. The committee approved the recommendation that the university catalog clearly state that students cannot get credit for both HS 290 and BIOL 223. Two courses from Newman University, HUM 2883, 鈥淐lassical Humanities and the Foundation of Western Civilization: Pilgrims and Poets,鈥� and HUM 4883, 鈥淐lassical Humanities and the Foundation of Western Civilization: Orators and Poets,鈥� were approved by ENGL and PHIL for general education further studies course credit.
A number of issues related to granting general education credit for courses were discussed.
鈥� Bill Wynne followed our procedure entitled 鈥淲orking Guidelines for Review of Transfer
Courses for General Education Credit.鈥� All further study courses, with exception to
those approved by departments for credit by title, and I & P courses were sent to
departments for approval. He provided a 67 page table (49 entries/page) of General
Education Attribute Decisions dated 06/04/10-08/17/11. The chair of the Gen Ed Committee
has also been copied on all correspondence to departments related to Gen Ed course
evaluation requests.
鈥� The executive committee requested a recommendation on the policy of: 鈥淐ourses within
a student's major department shall not count in fulfilling general education requirements鈥�.
The committee noted that the catalog clearly states the policy and it is currently
followed. No action was needed on the matter.
鈥� Issue and Perspective courses are interdisciplinary but are classified by division
resulting in discrepancy in wording when describing the requirement for further studies
and issue and perspective courses in the catalog. The new wording recommended is:
Students must take at least on I&P course and one Further Studies course, for a total
of three courses between I&P and Further Study. If a student takes two Further Study
courses and one I&P course, the two Further Study courses must be distributed over
two divisions. If two I&P courses are taken out of the three, a divisional distribution
is not required.
鈥� General education credit for cross-listed courses, advising and academic issues
related to them, and whether or not to adhere to the current policy or replace it
was discussed. Due to the complexity of the situation, no further action was taken
although it was a noted loop-hole in the system.
鈥� Bill Wynne reported that there had been some confusion as to where Gen Ed exceptions
were made. His understanding is:
a. Global decisions 鈥� applies to more than one person
If a transfer course has been evaluated as NOT a General Education course, the student
or their advisor can appeal that decision. It goes to the appropriate academic department
who makes a recommendation to the General Education Committee and that group makes
the final decision. That decision then applies to anyone transferring that course.
b. Individual 鈥揳pplies to only one person
When a student or their advisor suggests substituting a non-Gen Ed course for a Gen
Ed requirement, or graduation with less than the required 42 hours of General Education,
the appeal goes to that student's college Exceptions Committee, then to the University
Exceptions Committee. The Exceptions Committee handles individual exceptions to academic
policies.
In both cases the final decision is made by a committee of the Faculty Senate
鈥� Bill Wynne raised a question about wording used in stating the prerequisites for
ENGL 344. The wording reads: 鈥淓NGL 102, and, for students seeking general education
credit, 230 or 232.鈥� Further investigation of the catalog revealed that this language
appears in the entries for many of the 300- and 400-level classes offered by the dept.
of English Language and Literature. Wynne's concern is that such a disjunctively worded
prerequisite is unenforceable. The committee recommended asking for a clarification
from the English Department, but this matter was not pursued.
The committee charge specifies the need to assess the general education program.
Rick Muma presented information on a pilot assessment plan of general education outcomes, preparing for an outcomes based curriculum. Rick stated that this pilot is a worthwhile project and encouraged the committee to remember a pilot is a place to begin from and learn.
David Wright and Rick Muma discussed plans with the committee for conducting a pilot study to assess general education outcomes in light of moves by the faculty towards the creation of an 鈥渙utcome-based鈥� general education program. The study would focus on a single outcome, with the results being gleaned from classes designated as Introductory Courses in the current general education program (thereby excluding Basic Skills, Further Studies, and Issues and Perspectives courses). David Wright shared with the committee a number of desiderata for conducting such a study so as to yield statistically significant results:
鈥� The study would comprise 鈥渟ix course sections [two from each of the three LAS divisions] from courses which have had 30 or more students per course section in each of the last three Fall semesters (20th day).鈥� The idea is to ensure a large enough sample size.
鈥� To avoid sample bias as best as possible, 鈥渢he selection of course sections will be based on a stratified random sample, stratified on LAS division (two from each), time and day of week and instructor type (regular and non-regular faculty)鈥� (ibid.), with courses 鈥渞estricted to those offered on the main campus鈥� (ibid.). Ted Adler expressed concern that the College of Fine Arts, which does offer introductory general education classes, was inadvertently but unfairly being excluded, and asked that one such class from Fine Arts be included in the sample. David Wright seemed amenable to that suggestion provided there was one that fit the specifications needed to avoid sample bias.
鈥� Students will be tested at the beginning and at the end of the course, with the evaluations being done by 鈥渆xternal reviewers.鈥� In order to 鈥渢est for evaluator validity each course section will be scored by 3 reviewers鈥� (ibid.).
鈥� David Wright pointed out that a more fine-grained, and thus potentially more informative, sampling would be made possible by allowing him access to student IDs; however he recognized that instructors may want to preserve the anonymity of students being evaluated. He conceded that much useful information could still be gleaned even without being able to identify students individually. Finally, some committee members expressed concern with the idea that testing be done at the beginning and end of the semester. The worry is that this could easily be construed as a test of the effectiveness of the class itself (and/or the instructor teaching it) rather than a test of the entire general education curriculum, which is what it is supposed to be.
Kathy Coufal from the Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders presented a CSD pilot assessment held in mid-Spring 2011. Adler queried about the additional load and the faculty's reaction to it. Coufal's response indicated about 15 minutes of grading time per paper, with about 7-8 papers per evaluation. The papers were uploaded in Blackboard in pdf format. Adler further queried whether the faculty was embracing the feedback. The response was not clear. However, it was noted that the assessments were 鈥渕andatory鈥�.
The discussion moved on to deciding which particular AACU Rubric to choose for our
Pilot Assessment. Hershfield moved that the 鈥淲ritten Communication Value Rubric鈥� be
adopted. This motion was unanimously approved.
Basic skill course assessments: (available in the Office of the Faculty Senate)
The report from Math is attached as a pdf file. (available in the Office of the Faculty Senate)
Communications: In the Comm. 111 program, the score on the last major speech (Policy Persuasive Speech worth 100 points) is considered to be the main indicator of progress in attaining proficiency in basic public speaking. A score of 80 or above out of 100 is considered to be an acceptable level of proficiency. The composite score on this speech for the 2011 academic year was 87 across all sections of Comm. 111.
About every five years additional data is gathered for assessment on the course. This fall, a survey will be conducted of all Comm. 111 students to determine their perceptions about the course and whether it was helpful to them. The survey will feature a pre and post-test design. The plan for this fall semester assessment initiative is attached for review.
Darren Defrain is on sabbatical leave; hence no report from English is attached.
Honors
To: WSU Faculty Senate Committee
From: WSU Faculty Senate Honors Committee
Date: April 3, 2012
Re: 2011-2012 Committee Annual Report
The members of the 2011-2012 University Faculty Senate Honors Committee were as follows:
Elaine Bernstorf, Gemma Blackburn, Ken Ciboski, Yanwu Ding, Holger Meyer, Johnnie
Thomson (on sabbatical, spring), Larry Spurgeon, Will Klunder, Annette LeZotte (Director
of Emory Lindquist Honors Program), Trisha Self (Committee Chair). This committee
met one time each month for one hour throughout the fall and spring semesters.
The committee charges were as follows:
1. Counsel the Emory Lindquist Honors Director and review the Director's activities.
2. Review and recommend changes as needed to the Honors Program.
3. Recommend changes in the rules and policies under which the program functions.
4. Consult with the Director regarding students who want to undertake independent
study leading to a degree with departmental honors.
5. Annual reports to the Senate shall include recommendations made to and actions
taken by the Honors Director.
The issues discussed by the committee, as well as the activities and the actions taken
by the committee this academic year were as follows:
During the first meeting in the fall of 2011, Dr. LeZotte provided the committee
with a report summarizing an internal academic audit of the Emory Lindquist Honors
program that she had completed the week of June 8-13, 2011. The following is a summary
of the information provided in that report:
鈥� At the end of the spring 2011 semester, 390 students were listed in the Honors
student database. Of those 390 students, 145 or 37% had never taken an Honors class.
Of the 145 students who had never taken an Honors course 39 had an overall GPA of
below 3.0. At the time of the report, 117 of the 145 students were dismissed from
the program; the remaining 28 students were admitted in the Fall of 2010 and were
sent letters informing them of the requirement to take at least one Honors course
per year.
鈥� After the 117 dismissals, 273 students remained in the database. Of these 273 remaining
students 112 or 41% were on probation. Of the 112 students placed on probation 49
or 43% were on probation for not meeting the minimum GPA requirements. An additional
63 students were placed on probation for failing to take an Honors course within the
last year.
鈥� At the time of the report, 123 Honors students were maintaining their grades and
were making good progress towards finishing the requirements of the Honors Program.
Four students completed the requirements and needed to maintain their GPA to graduate
with the Honors Program designation. Another 11 students needed to take one more Honors
option class to finish the Program requirements.
鈥� It was determined that many of the students who were making timely and significant
progress through the Honors Program were enrolled in departments that offered consistent
departmental honors track opportunities (i.e., science and engineering).
鈥� Based on this report, the Director proposed the following agenda/discussion items
for the academic year 2011-2012:
? Secure priority enrollment for all Honors students.
? Revise learning objectives and desired learning outcomes for the Honors Program,
especially for Coop and internship credit.
? Review issues related to departmental honors tracks.
? McGregor Scholarship: establish a calendar for review of applications and interviews.
? Explore opportunities for Honors credit outside of official coursework.
Priority Enrollment: A letter was submitted by the committee to the University administration
requesting priority enrollment for Honors students on September 21, 2011. During the
February 6, 2012 meeting, it was announced that this request had been approved by
the administration. Honors students enrolling for the summer 2012 semester will be
afforded priority enrollment.
Cooperative Education/Internship Opportunities: The committee recommended that these
experiences should be 鈥渟pecial/unique鈥� to honors students. Ideas considered were as
follows: (1) design experiences that were interdisciplinary in nature; (2) consider
using a team-based model (possibly made up of a group of student cohorts); (3) require
a reflective activity (TBD) at the end of the learning/working experiences to be presented
to a larger forum. Proposed learning objectives were drafted by the committee in coordination
with the Honors Director. The new objectives are still under development and will
be ready for the fall, 2012 semester.
Departmental Honors Tracks: SGA requested a meeting with Dr. LeZotte. She met with
them in October to discuss concerns the committee had relative to the university and
departmental honors programs. Members of the SGA committee indicated that they would
like to see more departments offer departmental honors track programs; as, they felt
there was an increasing number of honors students who would like to take advantage
of this opportunity. This issue was discussed; however, no decisions were made. In
a follow-up meeting, SGA indicated that they were interested in surveying students
campus-wide to determine why some students chose to be a part of honors (if eligible)
and others do not. More details about this process will be available as SGA continues
to explore strategies for administering this type of student survey.
McGregor Scholarship: New guidelines were developed for the McGregor Scholarship
Competition for 2011-2012. To be eligible for the McGregor Scholarship, worth $26,000,
students must: (1) meet the minimum eligibility criteria for admission to WSU's Emory
Lindquist Honors Program (i.e., high school GPA of 3.7 or an ACT score of 27 or above);
(2) be admitted to WSU by October 5, 2011; and (3) be willing to participant in and
complete the requirements of the Emory Lindquist honors Program if awarded the scholarship.
To apply for the scholarship students were required to: (1) complete an application
form; (2) provide a copy of their high school transcript; and (3) write a two-page
essay. All of the applications were reviewed, and in-person interviews were scheduled
for the selected semi-finalists in December, 2011. The awardee for the scholarship
is pending.
Additional Honors Credit Opportunities: This past academic year several opportunities
were offered to students enrolled in the Honors Program. Students were encouraged
to attend the WuCamp experience offered during the summer of 2011. Honors students
were also provided with the opportunity to attend a law review seminar that was organized
by the Director of the Honors Program. Six new Honors courses were offered during
the fall 2011 semester. A 2-day leadership academy was developed for students to take
through CSSR. This opportunity will potentially be offered during the next academic
year, depending on student interest.
Administrative Structure of the Honors Program: The committee discussed the structure
of the administrative support within the Honors program. It was determined by the
committee members that the amount of time allotted for the Director's position needed
to be increased. Currently, the position is a 0.5 FTE. The committee discussed, and
unanimously agreed, that a full-time 1.0 FTE director was needed to allow the director
to continue to develop and enhance the program, so as to continue recruiting and retaining
strong, eligible students. In the interim, it was determined that a student assistant
should be made available to the Director. During the spring 2012 semester an Honors
student was hired for 20 hours in the Honors office. This student reported directly
to the Director.
Current enrollment data for AY 2011-2012:
Overall, the statistics for the program have continued to improve since the time
of the internal audit completed during the summer, 2011. The data is as follows:
鈥� 18 students will be awarded the 鈥淓mory Lindquist Honors Program Graduate鈥� notation
on their transcripts this May, 2012. This is an increase from the previous year.
鈥� There are 290 students currently in good standing in the Honors Program. Recruitment
is underway for the fall, and the program is on track to admit a similar number of
students as in previous years. This is an increase from the previous year.
鈥� In 2011-12 HNRS and H classes produced 972 SCH. (This does not include any classes
students took to fulfill a departmental honors track). In addition, 74 students arranged
鈥淗onors Options鈥� in regular courses in fall 2011; 50 more are in progress for spring,
2012.
Honor's Director Position: In March, Dr. Annette LeZotte resigned as Director of the
Honors Program. An internal advertisement has gone out and interested faculty members
have been asked to apply by April 13, 2012. The new director will begin work July
1, 2012 on a 12-month contract, 0.75 contract.
The committee has been pleased to consult with the Director on the new initiatives
she has implemented this academic year. We recommend that next year's committee continue
to monitor implementation of the changes approved last year and to actively consult
with the new Director on continued Program improvement efforts.
Respectively submitted,
Trisha L. Self, Chair
Library
FROM: Bob Feleppa, Chair, Faculty Senate Library Committee
SUBJECT: 2011-2012 Committee Activity Report
Committee Members:
Kim McDowell, Education
Amy Baker-Schwiethale, Fine Arts
Robert Feleppa, LAS Humanities (Chair)
Tim Craft, Business
Peer Moore-Jansen, LAS Social Sciences
Bill Hendry, LAS Math/Natural Sciences
Robert Manske, Health Professions
Charles Yang, Engineering
Ex officio
Donald Gilstrap, Library Dean
Kathy Downes, Associate Dean
Nan Myers, Director of Public Services
Cathy Moore-Jansen, Coordinator of Collection Development
Meetings Schedule:
The Committee had three regular meetings during the academic year. It also conducted
some of its official business by e-mail vote.
Main Items of Business:
1. The Committee assisted in Departmental Library Serials reviews and streamlining.
2. The Committee discussed and advised the Library concerning new library services
and collections and concerning library instruction services.
3. The Committee discussed and advised the Library concerning implementation and
possible expansion of the Shocker Open Access Repository.
4. The Committee discussed means for soliciting faculty input concerning library
services, and assisted in the construction of a survey which was submitted to faculty
in late April.
Pending Business for 2012-2013:
The library will discuss the results of the faculty survey and make recommendations
to the Library and Senate as needed.
Planning and Budget
Annual Report of the Planning & Budget Committee 2011- 12
MEMBERS:
Susan Matveyeva University Libraries
Victoria Mosack Health Professions
Silvia Carruthers Fine Arts
Terence Decker Business
Johnnie Thompson Education
Peer Moore-Jansen LAS Social Sciences
Will Klunder LAS Humanities
Mehmet Yildirim Engineering
Ken Miller LAS Math/Natural Sciences
Steven Skinner Chair 鈥� Faculty Senate President
Frederick Hemans Past President 鈥� Faculty Senate
Robert Ross President Elect - Faculty Senate
The Planning and Budget Committee met the first and third Friday of the 2011-2012
academic year. This year the committee's work included providing feedback to the provost
on facilities proposals, and soliciting and selecting proposals for student retention
and success in response to Foresight 2020. Members of the committee were also instrumental
in vetting the presidential candidates for the Faculty Senate.
Scholarship and Student Aid
2011-2012 Faculty Senate Committee Annual Report
Scholarship and Student Aid Committee
Members of the Committee
Doug English ( LAS Math/Natural Sciences)
Douglas Parham (Health Professions)
Jodi Pelkowski (Business)
(Fine Arts)
Craig Torbenson [Chair] (LAS Humanities)
Mark Vermillion (Education)
Melissa Mallon (University Libraries)
Dan Close (LAS Social Sciences)
Gamal Weheba (Engineering)
Ex-Officio Members
Deb Byers (Financial Aid)
Kim Sandlin (Admissions)
Sheelu Surender (Scholarships/Financial Aid)
Student Member Vacant
Meeting Schedule
Meeting minutes are available on the Faculty Senate website.
Http://webs.wichita.edu/?u=facultyseante&p=/1011/comm.minutes/committeeminutes/
The committee gathered together for:
3 fall meetings (9/14, 9/28, 10/5)
1 spring meeting (4/4)
Committee Activities
1. Distinguished Scholarship Invitational 2011
a. Committee met three times to discuss issues related to the DSI
b. Solicited scenarios from philosophy, political science, business. Recruited Nick
Wyant, Assistant Professor and Research and Information Services Librarian, to revise
a scenario from one of the case study books the committee examined.
c. Assisted with recruitment of DSI volunteers
d. Reviewed and assembled DSI questions
e. Received report from Admissions regarding DSI participation and results:
1. 359 student participants (all of whom had at least a 24 ACT score and a 3.5 GPA)
from all across Kansas and 11 other states.
2. 52 semi-finalists - four from out of state
3. 11 finalists were interviewed for the Gore Scholarship. (Note: The Chair of the
Scholarship and Student Aid Committee serves on the Gore Scholarship Committee.)
4. 114 total observers
a. 20 from Academic Affairs- 10 faculty members
b. 25 alumni/friends of WSU
c. 28 CLUR staff
d. 1 Foundation staff member
e. 39 Student Ambassadors and students
f. 1 unknown
f. Scholarship and Student Aid Committee members participated in the review of
applications and/or served as an observer.
g. Chair participated in the selection of the Gore finalists and in the interviewing
process of the finalists for determining scholarships.
2. Selected Chair for 2012-13
Doug English LAS Math/Natural Sciences
Recommendations
The Scholarship and Student Aid Committee recommends the encouragement of faculty across campus to participate in DSI opportunities that include reviewing applications or serving as an observer when students attend the DSI competition day.
Undergraduate Research and Creative Activity Forum 鈥� 2012
List of Committee Members
Chair: Lawrence Whitman, Professor, Engineering, 2013
Steven Oare, Assistant Professor, Fine Arts, 2014
Douglas Parham, Assistant Professor, Health Professions, 2014
Masud Chand, Assistant Professor, Business, 2013
Jay Price, Associate Professor, LAS Humanities, 2014
Hussein Hamdeh, Professor, LAS Math/Natural Sciences, 2012
Susan Matveyeva, Associate Professor, University Libraries, 2012
Kim McDowell, Associate Professor, Education, 2013
Michael Hall, Associate Professor, LAS Social Sciences, 2012
William Vanderburgh, Executive Director, Office for Faculty Development and Student
Success
Meeting Schedule
The URCAF committee met once after event last year and again at the start of the Fall semester. Then, we met twice in the Spring to finalize plans and will meet after this year's event as well. URCAF has a Web Site (/urcaf) and continued with on-line registration and submission of abstracts. The 2012 Undergraduate Research and Creative Activity Forum contained 17 oral presentations and 8 poster presentations. Submissions were from the College of Business, College of Engineering, College of Fine Arts, College of Health Professions, and the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences. Funding was provided by the College of Engineering, the University Library, the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, the College of Education, College of Fine Arts, the Honors Program, and the Office of Research Administration.
Pending Issues
The goals in 2012 were to maintain variety and improve the quality of the submission. The conference office followed up with each submission to ensure that a faculty sponsor agreed with the submittal. There is still the issue of whether to allow multiple submittals per faculty. The moving of the 2011 URCAF on campus and continued in 2012 was well received. In 2013, the URCAF will be back at the Hughes Metropolitan Complex due the RSC renovation. The event will be held Tuesday, April 9th, 2013.
The University Admissions and Exceptions Advisory Committee (UAEC)
2011-2012 Annual Report
April 20, 2012
1) The University Admissions and Exceptions Advisory Committee currently consists
of the following members: Mehmet Barut (Chair; Business), Rachel Crane (University
Libraries), Stephen Hathaway (LAS Humanities), Kirsten Johnson (Fine Arts), and Bin
Shuai (LAS Math/Natural Science). We currently have four vacancies in Education, LAS,
and Health. Starting in August 2012, Dr. Gregory Houseman has agreed to replace Bin
Shuai; and Dr. Ramazan Asmatulu from engineering will also be serving in the committee.
We also hope to have a non-voting student representative from Center for Student Leadership.
In our current list, we have non-voting Ex-officio members including William Wynne,
Gina Crabtree, Sally Fiscus from the University Registrar Office; Wade Robinson, the
VP for Campus Life and University Relations; and Booby Gandu from Undergraduate Admissions.
2) Mehmet Barut is re-elected to serve as the chair of the UAE Committee for the AY 2012-2013.
3) The committee meets on pre-determined schedule that will serve the student best. We meet more frequently at the beginning and end of each Fall and Spring semesters with extended meeting hours up to five hours when the number of petitions is at the peak. Thus, meeting schedule for the following academic year 2012-2013 is as follows:
Meeting No Date Place Time
1 August 2, 2012 CH 326 1:00 鈥� 6:00 PM
2 August 16, 2012 CH 326 1:00 鈥� 6:00 PM
3 September 20, 2012 CH 326 2:00 鈥� 5:00 PM
4 October 11, 2012 CH 326 2:00 鈥� 5:00 PM
5 November 15, 2012 CH 326 2:00 鈥� 5:00 PM
6 December 13, 2012 CH 326 2:00 鈥� 5:00 PM
7 January 10, 2013 CH 326 1:00 鈥� 6:00 PM
8 January 17, 2013 CH 326 1:00 鈥� 6:00 PM
9 February 14, 2013 CH 326 2:00 鈥� 5:00 PM
10 March 7, 2013 CH 326 2:00 鈥� 5:00 PM
11 April 11, 2013 CH 326 2:00 鈥� 5:00 PM
12 May 2, 2013 CH 326 2:00 鈥� 5:00 PM
13 May 30, 2013 CH 326 2:00 鈥� 5:00 PM
14 June 20, 2013 CH 326 2:00 鈥� 5:00 PM
15 July 18, 2013 CH 326 2:00 鈥� 5:00 PM
Meeting agendas are comprised of petitions ruled on by college-level admissions and exceptions advisory committees. The university level committee reviews the college-level rulings on qualified admissions, readmission following dismissal, late add, drop, and withdrawal requests, and other exceptions to established rules. The committee has reviewed a total of more than 900 petitions since last August.
4) Besides the petitions, the following major issues are discussed:
鈥� We discussed the issue of vacant positions and the importance of filling the empty position as soon as possible.
鈥� We have discussed and decided to examine the dismissal behavior of returning students through exceptions. To improve the process for re-admission petition decisions, and improve the student success, we suggested LAS advising center to collect and organize data since Fall 2009. Data is now available to be analyzed during the next academic year.
鈥� Jane Rhoads, Director of undergraduate success program, and her team have been working on designing a one-credit hour course that will focus on strategies for student success. University Exceptions committee is in favor of making such class mandatory for all returning students through exceptions. The class proposal has been presented to the committee members and was well received. We also discussed the 鈥渞eadmission contract,鈥� similar to that of in other institutions such as KU, and provided our positive feedback. We hope this will be accepted in the near future so it can be implemented. We are expecting this will improve the success and reduce the recurring dismissals.
5) The following issues are planned to be visited during the next academic year.
鈥� Committee's rules and guidelines are almost two decade old. We are planning to re-visit, revise and update the guidelines, procedures, pre-approval list, and other requirements.
Respectfully submitted,
Mehmet Barut, UAE Committee Chair
Associate Professor
Barton School of Business