红领巾瓜报

2012/2013 AY summary of the
Academic Affairs Committee

Prof. Nick Solomey, Physics
Academic Affairs Chair

Committee Members:
Sue Abdinnour (College of Business)
Prakash Ramanan (College of Engineering)
Mary Walker (University Library)
Jodie Beeson (LAS Social Science)
Phylis Jacobs (College of Health)
Dan Krutha (College of Education)
Robert Bubp (College of Fine Arts)
Doris Chang (LAS Humanities)
Nick Solomey (LAS Science/Math)

Meeting Times:
? Meetings were held on Tuesday
? Except we did not meet on the first Tuesday
of the month
? At 1:00 to 2:30 PM
? In Jabara 046 Physics Conference room.

Issues Addressed:
? Revised policy on repeating and replacing
class grades, presented to Faculty Senate
and approved in Fall 2012.
? Minimum classes needed from WSU to get
a WSU degree, only the degrees in LAS
were problematic and so we asked the College
of LAS to fix the problem.
? Double majors, degrees and minors double
counting classes towards graduation,
presented today.

Double Dipping Changes
The Academic Affairs Committee (AAC) has reviewed the current catalog policy related
to duplicate use of courses in majors, minors and degrees.
Page 28 of the 2013-14 catalog under 鈥淩equirements for Graduation鈥� reads:
鈥淭he same hours cannot be used to satisfy the requirements of two or more majors, or a
major and a minor in the same area.鈥�
Page 28 of the 2013-14 catalog under 鈥淪econd Bachelor's Degree from Wichita
State鈥� reads:
"The same hours cannot be used to satisfy the requirements for two or more majors
or minors or combination thereof."

Double Dipping Changes
After discussion by the committee and with faculty across the colleges, the AAC recommends
the following policy be approved.
The same hours can be used to meet the requirements of more than one major or
minor or combination thereof within the following conditions:
1. At least 12 hours of unduplicated coursework beyond the duplicated hours must be
completed in each major. This rule applies to second majors earned in the same
degree as well as to second degrees.
2. In minors requiring 15 hours or less, at least three hours of unduplicated coursework
must be completed in each minor.
Courses in the major include all courses beyond general education and college requirements
which are required to achieve that major; this would include courses in
subject areas outside the major subject area.
Colleges and/or departments may impose further restrictions on the use of duplicated
hours for their programs, majors and/or minors.
Double majors across colleges (DMAC), defined as a primary major in one of the
professional schools (Business, Education, Health Professions, Fine Arts, Engineering)
and secondary major in Liberal Arts and Sciences may continue to use duplicate
coursework without limitations.

Next Year
? For AY 2013/2014 Mary Walker was elected
to be the chair of Academic Affairs
Committee.

WSU Court of Academic Appeals
Annual Report for Year 2012-13

Members:
1. Rajiv Bagai, College of Engineering, Chair
2. David Soles, College of LAS (Humanities), Member
3. Frank Rokosz, College of Education, Member
4. Michelle Dreiling, SGA Graduate Representative Member
5. Caleb Davis, SGA Undergraduate Representative Member
6. Laura Zellers, School of Business, Alternate Member
7. Ray Hull, College of Health Professions, Alternate Member
8. vacant, Alternate Member
9. vacant, 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 2012-13 hearings so far have been:
?
? October 19, 2012 (involving ME 750F)?
? March 6, 2013 (involving SCWK 402)?
? April 3, 2013 (involving AE 227)?
? April 12, 2013 (involving CJ 407)?
Pending Issues:
The Court has also received the following two appeals:
?
? Hearing scheduled for May 15, 2013 (involving PSY 111)?
? Hearing not scheduled (involving CJ 407), due to inability to contact appealing student?
Recommendations:
None.
Respectfully Submitted,
Rajiv Bagai

Faculty Affairs Committee
Annual Report for Academic Year 2012-13

Name College box ext e-mail Term ends
Will Klunder LAS Humanities 45 7747 will.klunder@wichita.edu
2013
Fred Besthorn LAS Social Sciences 154 7230 fred.besthorn@wichita.edu
2013
Walter Horn (chair) Engineering 44 3410 walter.horn@wichita.edu
2013
Carol Bett Health Professions 41 5711 carol.bett@wichita.edu
2014
Chris Rogers LAS Math/Natural Sciences 26 6767 chris.rogers@wichita.edu
2014
Joseph Mau Education 142 6295 joseph.mau@wichita.edu
2014
John Perry Business 88 324 john.perry@wichita.edu
2015
Betty Monroe Fine Arts 153 3383 betty.monroe@wichita.edu
2015
Lorraine Madway University Libraries 68 3590 lorraine.madway@wichita.edu
2015
Standing Charge of the Committee
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:
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.

Primary Issue of 2012-13
In November 2012 The KBOR Council of Faculty Senate Presidents (COFSP) modified a University of Kansas position statement regarding 鈥淧ost Tenure Review鈥� to the following:
鈥淔ollowing discussions among the various faculty senate presidents, it is very evident that currently our universities employ robust, regular, working forms of faculty evaluation following tenure, which include annual reviews of faculty performance and goal setting. There are also measures in place to prevent, identify and remedy chronic low performance.
The COFSP believe that tenure is fundamental to the success of the university; it carries both rights and responsibilities. Tenure is essential to attracting and retaining exceptional faculty and fostering the marketplace of ideas.
Yearly appraisals of faculty performance are an integral part of a tenured faculty member's ongoing professional development and contribution to the university. We believe post-tenure review could potentially augment this process.
That said, we believe that post-tenure review must be developed and carried out by faculty, and each campus should create and implement its own plan. Post-tenure review should be developmental in nature and not infringe upon academic freedom and (the concept of) tenure. It needs to support professional development and responsibility. In the spirit of shared governance, it would be more efficient to envision a seven-year review interval rather than the proposed five-year assessment of faculty.
Beyond the present, robust and effective faculty review process, we acknowledge the Regent's call for a post-tenure review process that complements the current procedure at the Regent's institutions.鈥�
The Regents discussed Post-Tenure Review in more detail at their Thursday morning session. The major modification to their proposal (which will be voted on in December) is to change the frequency of review to 鈥�5-7years.鈥� The proposal, if passed, would take effect in June 2013, with implementation planned for fall 2014.
President Bardo asked the Faculty Senate to task a committee to develop 红领巾瓜报's policy on Post-Tenure Review. Guiding principles for his policy are as follows:
1. Unique to WSU
2. Developed by the Faculty and approved by Administration
3. Designed in such a way as to minimize effort involved to implement
4. Designed to be complementary to the Regent's Policy
The Faculty Affairs Committee was tasked with developing the WSU policy on Post Tenure Review.
After discussions within the Faculty Senate Executive Committee the following additional characteristics were suggested and supported by the Executive Committee:
1. The process should be as simple as possible
2. It should have a minimum impact on faculty workload
3. Current Faculty Activity Reports should be utilized as much as possible; perhaps a five year summary of activities in the identical format
4. Consider a one-page summary of faculty activities
5. The Post Tenure Review will be done within the Department; Department Chair evaluates the faculty member and reports his results to the Dean of the College
6. No faculty committee of peers will examine the supporting documents except in the case of a negative evaluation by the Department Chair and College Dean.
7. Procedure for rebuttal of negative review must be developed.

The committee met two times this year and developed a proposal for the WSU Post Tenure Review Policy and Procedure. The document was submitted to the Senate Executive committee for its consideration and was subsequently forwarded to the Faculty Senate for approval. The Senate approved the following Policy and Procedure with no dissent at the Senate meeting of March 25, 2013.

红领巾瓜报 Post Tenure Review Policy and Procedure
3/20/13
Post Tenure Reviews of all tenured faculty members shall be conducted at five-year intervals, with the first review five years after tenured employment is initiated. If a tenured faculty member receives a promotion in rank or a Professor Incentive Review (PIR) within five years of the anniversary of their previous review, the next review shall be conducted five years after the promotion or PIR salary increase takes effect. If a tenured faculty member becomes an administrator (reports to an administrator higher than a department chair or equivalent) the schedule of performance reviews shall be suspended until the faculty member returns to faculty status. If the term of administrative duties exceeds two years, the next review will be rescheduled for five years after the resumption of faculty duties. The schedule for reviews may be delayed by one year in order to accommodate a sabbatical leave, a major health issue, or some other compelling reason provided both the faculty member and the academic supervisor (department chair or equivalent) approve.
All tenured faculty members of the University are required to undergo a performance evaluation annually. This process consists of a Faculty Activity Report, evidence of effective teaching/instruction for the calendar year, and a statement of Goals for the ensuing calendar year. The Post Tenure Review shall be based upon an evaluation of the materials submitted for the previous five annual performance evaluations. Based upon an evaluation of these materials, the faculty member's academic supervisor shall provide an assessment of the faculty member's performance for the past five years in each area of responsibility. The faculty member shall be given a copy of the academic supervisor's evaluation.
The department academic supervisor must select one of the following three outcomes:
a. The faculty member's performance meets expectations, and no further action is necessary.
b. The faculty member's performance does not meet expectations in two of the five annual evaluations, and remediation is recommended.
c. The faculty member's performance does not meet expectations in three annual evaluations within a five year period, and the academic supervisor, in conjunction with the dean, may recommend to the Vice President of Academic Affairs that the Dismissal for Cause Policy be invoked (See Section 4.23 of the WSU Policies and Procedures Manual.)
If remediation is recommended, under (b) above, the academic supervisor shall meet with the faculty member and discuss his or her performance and types of remediation that are available and appropriate. If the faculty member requests a review of that determination, three tenured faculty members from outside the department/unit but within the same college shall review the faculty member's annual evaluations and other relevant documents. The faculty member and the academic supervisor shall each select one reviewer, and the two reviewers shall jointly select the third reviewer. The three reviewers shall submit a written report to the faculty member, the academic supervisor, and the dean stating that by majority vote they have verified that departmental guidelines were followed and concluded that either remediation is necessary, or no remediation is necessary. The dean will then make the final decisions regarding remediation after meeting with the faculty member and the academic supervisor.
If remediation is necessary, the academic supervisor will discuss the faculty member's performance with the faculty member and suggest types of remediation that are available and appropriate. The remediation may include appropriate provisions for faculty development, such as counseling, leave of absence, or a change in teaching assignments. Other remediation steps may be offered, subject to review by the Faculty Affairs Committee of the Faculty Senate and the Vice President of Academic Affairs. Remediation should begin as soon as possible and will be funded by the University. The faculty member's annual review document for the subsequent year should reflect the method of remediation and document its level of success.
Respectfully Submitted,
Walter Julian Horn
April 24, 2013

To: WSU Faculty Senate Committee
From: WSU Faculty Senate Honors Committee

Date: April 22, 2013
Re: 2012-2013 Committee Annual Report
The members of the 2012-2013 University Faculty Senate Honors Committee were as follows: Elaine Bernstorf, Gemma Blackburn, Yanwu Ding, Holger Meyer, Larry Spurgeon, Will Klunder, Clay Stoldt, Mel Kahn, Kimberly Engber (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 issues discussed by the committee, as well as the activities and the actions taken by the committee this academic year were as follows:
Dr. Kimberly Engber was introduced as the new Honors Director to the current Honors Committee members. During the first meeting in the fall of 2012, Dr. Engber provided the committee with a report summarizing an internal academic audit of the Emory Lindquist Honors program that she had completed prior to the start of the fall 2012 semester. The following is a summary of the information provided:
鈥� 275 students were enrolled in Honors for Fall 2012
鈥� 13 were placed on a one semester probation due to GPA dropping below 3.0
鈥� 9 were dismissed from the program (not in the 272 count)
鈥� 48 of the 275 are in their first year (slightly lower that than fall 2011 recruitment numbers)

Additional information reported at the first fall meeting included the following:
鈥� Priority enrollment was implementedsummer 2012 and was in place for fall 2012 Honors students.
鈥� Sarah Carlson was selected as the McGregor Scholar for 2012. Miss Carlson enrolled in WSU fall, 2012.
鈥� Officers for the Emory Lindquist Scholars, anewly formedstudent group, were self-selected. These officers representdifferent programs and colleges. There are approximately 20 members. The goals of the group were as established: (1) Active involvement in the Honors Program; (2) Social gathering opportunities for program members; (3) Establish criteria for membership; (4) Advertise Honors events & attend; (5) Support leadership, Community, and Academics and Social aspects of Honors students' lives; and (6) Present a series of workshops on stress management, volunteerism with community events, etc.

Honors Web Page Updates: Dr. Engber made updates to the Honors web page. She provided the committee with a sample of those changes. Updated information (i.e., requirements, curriculum, activities, and resource and admission links) has been provided to give students easy access.
McGregor Scholarship: Thong Huy (Tom) Tran, a senior at the International Baccalaureate program at East High School in Wichita, KS accepted the McGregor Endowed Scholarship.

Curriculum Changes: Changes to the prerequisite requirements for various Honors courses were presented to the Honors Committee. These proposed changes were discussed and approved with modifications. Dr. Engber was to submit these changes for approval at the university level.

Student Assistants: It was determined that there will be two student assistants to the Honors program starting fall 2013.

Concept Proposal for an Honors College at WSU: It was agreed that the committee would support the development of this type of concept proposal. Further, it was agreed that a working group would be formed to develop this proposal to bring back to the Honors committee at large.
鈥� Two of the spring Honors Committee meetings were held in conjunction with the Honors College Working Committee. The two committees worked to edit drafts of the Honors College concept proposal that was prepared by the working committee.
鈥� The Honors College Concept Proposal was submitted to the Honors Committee by the Honors College Working group for approval.
鈥� The Honors committee made the final edits and Drs. Engber and Self presented it to Provost Pickus and Dr. Rick Muma on March 6, 2013.
鈥� This proposal was presented to the University Faculty Senate Committee on March 25, 2013. The concept of an Honors College was affirmed by the Faculty Senate Committee.
鈥� The next steps for this process were discussed. Dr. Engber was directed to set up an appointment with Dr. Muma. Additional committees will be formed to continue to draft out the Honors College proposal.
鈥� A call for Honors Faculty Fellows was posted within the university. Five Honors Faculty Fellows will be selected to serve a one-year term (with renewal for one additional year) beginning June, 2013. Each Fellow will receive a summer stipend of $2,000. The Faculty Fellows will assist with Honors College curriculum development, serve on Honors College task forces, and determine future needs for Honors at WSU.
Current enrollment data for AY 2012-2013:
鈥� 18 students will be awarded the 鈥淓mory Lindquist Honors Program Graduate鈥� notation on their transcripts this May, 2013.
鈥� There are 215 students currently in good standing in the Honors Program.
鈥� An additional 19 students are on probation for Spring 2013 for falling below 3.0 overall GPA.
鈥� There are 61 new admits for Fall 2013.
End of year celebration/recognition. The committee discussed the possibility of holding an Honors Graduation Celebration/Recognition. This event will be held on Friday, May 10, 2013.

Respectively submitted, Trisha L. Self, Chair

Faculty Senate Rules Committee Annual Report (AY 2012-2013)

Date: April 26, 2013
Names of Committee Members: Julie Bees, Daniel Bergman, Dharam Chopra, Barbara Hodson, Krishna Krishnan, Cathy Moore-Jansen, Peer Moore-Jansen, Victoria Mosack, Christopher Brooks, Clyde Stoltenberg, Carolyn Shaw
Approximate Meeting Schedule: 2nd and 4th Friday of each month
Summary of Committee Charge: The committee makes recommendations for changes to the Senate rules and constitution, bylaws of the faculty senate, Senate committee structure, and faculty grievance procedure. The committee also makes nominations for committee appointees, interprets the rules of the Faculty Senate, and coordinates the implementation of the faculty grievance procedure.
Summary of Activities and/or Decisions:
鈥� The committee extensively reviewed the revised pending WSU Policy and Procedure: 5.06: Resolution of Internal Disputes and made recommendations to the Senate.
o The revised policy, approved by the Faculty Senate, is currently under review by university administrators.
鈥� The Rules Committee established and maintained a pool of faculty to serve as potential Review Committee members.
鈥� Last fall, the committee heard comments about a past grievance, and received two new grievances brought forward by faculty members from two different college units.
o The rights of the members of the past grievance were acknowledged, without further action of the Rules Committee.
o Two (grievance) Review Committees were formed to hear the facts of the issues from the involved parties.
? Both Review Committees have adjourned and the reports of each committee's proceedings, conclusions, and recommendations have been forwarded for review and action at the administrative level.
鈥� With grateful assistance from the Faculty Senators, the Rules Committee worked throughout the academic year to fill vacancies in the Senate Standing Committees
o A slate with nominations for standing committee appointees has been developed for review by the Senate Vice-President and submission to the Senate for approval.
鈥� Other than the recommended revision of WSU Policy and Procedure 5.06: Resolution of Internal Disputes, the Rules Committee recommends no changes to the Faculty Senate constitution, rules, bylaws, Senate committee structure, or faculty grievance procedure.
Recommendations for Future Rules Committee Work:
鈥� Request that the new Vice-President of Academic Affairs meet routinely with the Rules Committee
鈥� Regarding the revised pending WSU Policy and Procedure: 5.06: Resolution of Internal Disputes 鈥� Assist in communicating the policy and procedure, as well as any changes as may arise.
Respectfully submitted,
(electronic signature)
Victoria Mosack, Chairperson
Faculty Senate Rules Committee (AY 2012-2013)

May 17, 2013
2012-2013 Results of the Tenure and Promotion Decisions

* 2 abstentions for promotion to full professor and 1 for PIR
** There are no departmental votes from the University Libraries.

This report is respectfully submitted by the 2012-2013 University Tenure and Promotion Committee. Committee members: Rachel Crane, Chair; Rodney Boehme, Business; Marlene Schommer-Aikins, Education; Janet Twomey, Engineering; Royce Smith, Fine Arts; Phyllis Jacobs, Health Professions; Tom DeLillo, Liberal Arts and Sciences; Mehmet Barut and David Soles, at-large.

Recommendations of the University Tenure and promotion Committee, 2012-2013.

From the University Tenure and Promotion Committee Meeting of May 15, 2013, the following Committee concerns and recommendations are noted . Members present were Barut, Boehme, Crane, DeLillo, Jacobs, Schommer-Aikins, Soles, and Twome. Also in attendance was ex-officio member Abu Masud.

鈥� The Committee recommends the institution of a 3-year review process at the departmental level.
鈥� The Committee recommends that the Faculty Senate develop a policy on the use of web-based, open source information, for consultation in the course of Tenure and Promotion Committee deliberations.
鈥� Departments should provide some method of establishing the quality of journal titles
鈥� Recommendations should be put forth regarding different ways to demonstrate or determine teaching effectiveness and excellence.
鈥� Mentoring should emphasize expectations for teaching.
鈥� Mentoring from college deans should commence in the first year of faculty hire.
鈥� Objectivity in external reviews needs to be emphasized.
鈥� We recommend an avenue to reward faculty demonstrating outstanding teaching and service, exclusive of research/scholarship, and outside of the awards of tenure and/or promotion.
鈥� Current tenure and promotion policies and procedures do not reflect the changing applications of scholarship, or the demands of current teaching and service overloads, throughout the University. Therefore, tenure and promotion policies and procedures should reflect broader concepts of what constitutes scholarly research. Departments should clarify these concepts in advance of University deliberation.
鈥� Much discussion has taken place over the sloppy organization of dossiers. We recommend that the form for the Primary Dossier be analyzed and updated so as to highlight activity details such as the level of contribution or the refereed status of any given publication.
鈥� The Committee also recommends that there be an acknowledgement added to the Tenure and Promotion Policy that some service is required, to the University or the Profession, in addition to the requirements of teaching and research.
鈥� The School of Business did not submit a current tenure and promotion guidelines for review as requested. It is recommended that they do so in this next fiscal year.
鈥� The College of Health Professions tenure and promotion guidelines were reviewed and were deemed to be satisfactory.

FS UR Committee 2012-2013 Final Report April 16, 2013
Parham (UR Chair) Page 1 of 6
WSU Faculty Senate
Undergraduate Research Committee: 2012-2013 Final Report

1. Undergraduate Research Committee: 2012-2013 Membership
Name
College
Term ends
Animesh Chakravarthy
Engineering
2013
Kim McDowell
Education
2013
Masud Chand
Business
2014
Vacant
LAS Humanities
2014
Steven Oare
Fine Arts
2014
Douglas Parham (Chair)
Health Professions
2014
Kyoung Lee
LAS Social Sciences
2015
Vacant
LAS Math/Natural Sciences
2015
Nicholas Wyant
University Libraries
2015
Kimberly Engber
Director, Emory Lindquist Honors Program
N/A
Vacant
Student Member
N/A
2. Undergraduate Research Committee: 2012-2013 Charge
The 2012-2013 charge of the Undergraduate Research (UR) Committee was to organize, administer, and review the 13th Annual Undergraduate Research and Creative Activity Forum (URCAF) that took place on Tuesday, April 9, 2013, at the Eugene Hughes Metropolitan Complex. The UR Committee was assisted greatly in its URCAF charge by Anna Weyers, Commencement Officer and Conference Coordinator, and Jennifer Harry, Conference Registrar, Office of Continuing Education. Their contributions were essential to the overall success of this year's URCAF.
FS UR Committee 2012-2013 Final Report April 16, 2013
Parham (UR Chair) Page 2 of 6
3. 2013 URCAF Budget
In early March 2013, the UR Committee Chair (D. Parham) and the Commencement Officer and Conference Coordinator (A. Weyers) revised the 2013 URCAF budget in anticipation of the potential for reduced financial support for the URCAF. The final budget was as follows:
ESTIMATED BUDGET of CONFERENCE OFFICE EXPENSES
UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH AND CREATIVE ACTIVITY FORUM
April 9, 2013
Based on 30 undergraduate participants
Estimated Conference Office Expenses
Judges' Folders $10.00
Judges Coffee/Snacks $150.00
Media Resource Center* $250.00
Poster Boards $25.00
Registration expenses** $150.00
Event subtotal $585.00
10% misc. $58.50
Conference Office Fee $1,000.00
URCAF Awards $1,750.00
Total estimated expenses $3,393.50
*Estimate reflects Metropolitan Complex data projectors, laptops and MRC student for morning hours.
**Registration expenses include: badges, certificates (for first and second place winners; others will be emailed to students for their participation), duplicating, table tents, etc. Plaques will not be made for 2013 due to cost cutting measures.
FS UR Committee 2012-2013 Final Report April 16, 2013
Parham (UR Chair) Page 3 of 6
4. University Support for the 2013 URCAF
In early February 2013, the UR Chair contacted specific University and Faculty Senate divisions to request financial support for this year's URCAF. The UR Committee is very grateful that most of WSU's University and Faculty Senate divisions provided financial support and/or judging support for this year's URCAF, as listed in the table below. The final financial report was not available at the time this report was completed. We also had a total of 17 judges who volunteered from across the University, as represented in the following table:
WSU University division/
Senate division
Financial
Support ($)
Judging
Support (n)
Office of Research and Technology Transfer
Yes ($1,000)
N/A
Fairmount College of Liberal Arts and Sciences
Yes ($750)a
Yes (4)
College of Health Professions
Yes ($500)
Yes (5)
College of Business
Nob (N/A)
Yes (1)
College of Education
Yes ($500)
No
College of Engineering
Yes ($500)
Yes (1)
College of Fine Arts
Yes ($500)
Yes (3)
Emory Lindquist Honors Program
Yes ($500)
Yesc
University Libraries
Yes ($500)
Yes (2)
Campus Life and University Relations
N/A (N/A)
Yes (1)
Total Across WSU
($4,750)d
(17)
aPledged funding is still in process. bThe College of Business sponsors its own research competition. cOne judge (K. Engber) is counted within Fairmount College of Liberal Arts and Sciences. dThe final financial report from the Office of Research and Technology Transfer was not available at the time this report was completed; it will be added as an addendum to this report when it becomes available.
FS UR Committee 2012-2013 Final Report April 16, 2013
Parham (UR Chair) Page 4 of 6
5. WSU Student Participation in the 2013 URCAF
The UR Committee focused its attention during the Fall 2012 and early Spring 2013 academic semesters on URCAF submission recruitment across the University's Colleges. As a result of this effort, at least one student from all six of WSU's Colleges submitted a research presentation for this year's URCAF. We had a total of 49 undergraduate students presenting this year, resulting in 37 submissions. There were only two withdrawals this year (one student withdrew prior to the event and one student cancelled the presentation on the day of the event due to illness). The College- and category-specific submissions are presented in the following table:
Oral Presentations
Poster Sessions
WSU Senate division
NS & Ea
SS & Hb
CA & Pc
NS & Ea
SS & Hb
College of Business
0
1
N/A
0
0
College of Education
0
1
N/A
0
0
College of Engineering
8
0
N/A
5
0
College of Fine Arts
N/A
N/A
2
N/A
N/A
College of Health Professions
0
2
N/A
0
2
Fairmount College of Liberal Arts and Sciences
3
7
N/A
5
1
Total Across Colleges
11
11
2
10
3
aNS & E = Natural Sciences and Engineering. bSS & H = Social Sciences and Humanities. cCA & P = Creative Activity and Performances.
FS UR Committee 2012-2013 Final Report April 16, 2013
Parham (UR Chair) Page 5 of 6
6. 2013 URCAF Highlights
a. The number of student submissions was high compared to previous years.
b. The number of Faculty/Staff judges was high compared to previous years.
c. Multiple observers (judges and non-judging faculty and staff) positively commented about the overall level of quality in this year's presentations. Whereas the winners in the five URCAF competition categories demonstrated exemplary work, all of the undergraduate students displayed impressive expertise in their respective research areas, and professionalism in their presentations. (A list of the 2013 URCAF winners can be found at https://wichita.edu/?u=URCAF&p=/2013/2013_URCAF_Winners/.)
d. The 2013 URCAF had wider financial support from WSU's University divisions and Faculty Senate divisions compared to previous years (see Section 3 above).
e. The 2013 URCAF not only was under budget, but will carry a surplus forward to the 2014 URCAF.
f. Three representatives from Tulsa Community College (TCC)鈥攊ncluding TCC's Dean of Global and Engaged Learning鈥攃ontacted the UR Chair in early March to ask about suggestions for organizing an URCAF-type event at TCC. The UR Chair contacted the TCC contingent and provided information about the URCAF, including a welcome to the URCAF. On the day of the URCAF, the UR Chair and the Emory Lindquist Honors Program Director personally met with the TCC contingent to provide specific strategies for organizing an URCAF-type event at TCC.
g. Undergraduate presenters were provided with specific feedback from a minimum of three judges in the week following their presentations.
FS UR Committee 2012-2013 Final Report April 16, 2013
Parham (UR Chair) Page 6 of 6
7. Recommendations for the 2014 URCAF
a. Develop improved judging rubrics. Action Plan: The UR Committee will identify/develop judging rubrics that more appropriately reflect the needs of the specific presentation types.
b. Increase the number of undergraduate student presenters across WSU. Action Plan: The UR Committee, working in conjunction with the Emory Linquist Honors Program, will begin the recruitment of undergraduate student researchers early in the Fall 2013 semester.
c. Increase the number of undergraduate student presenters specifically from the College of Fine Arts. Action Plan: The UR Committee will publicize the purpose and importance of the URCAF during the Fall 2013 semester at faculty-specific events for the College of Fine Arts.
d. Reduce the UR Committee's annual requirement to self-fund the URCAF. Action Plan: The UR Committee will express to the Faculty Senate the importance of a dedicated University-level budget line to support the annual URCAF, particularly given the importance of undergraduate research at WSU.

The University Admissions and Exceptions (UAE) Committee
2012-2013 Annual Report

1) The University Admissions and Exceptions Advisory Committee currently consists of the following nine members: Mehmet Barut (Chair; Business), Ramazan Asmatulu (Engineering), Susan Castro (LAS Humanities), Dharam Chopra (LAS Math/Natural Science), Rachel Crane (University Libraries), Janice Ewing (Education), Lyn Goldberg (Health Professions), Kirsten Johnson (Fine Arts), and Sam Yeager (LAS Social Sciences). We 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 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) The committee meets 15 times a year, three of which during the Summer. 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. As of now, May 13, 2013, the committee met 12 times and spent more than 36 hours actual meeting time. We reviewed more than 800 student petitions since August 1, 2012. The committee will be meeting three more times during the Summer 2013.

Besides the petitions, the committee received a briefing on March 7th, from Professor Wright and Associate Provost Rick Muma. They shared and presented the overall performance of students who took WSU 101 versus those who did not. Mr. William Vanderburgh also shared more detailed data specific to those who took WSU 101 and failed. The proposed change to the grading schemes is to have hybrid grading that consists of both letter grades and Credit/No Credit. Message received. Exceptions Committee discussed the impact of proposed change for WSU 101 and commented the following:
鈥� The committee acknowledges that as long as the threshold for credit no credit is kept below the letter grade C such change will not impact our decision. Students admitted by exception will still be dismissed if they do not get C or better. Concerns include:
o Giving the fact that half of the students don't attend or don't do any homework for WSU 101; and the fact that those who perform very poor in it also perform poor in other courses, the question is what benefit do we get by giving No credit versus a grade of F. Students getting 鈥淣o credit鈥� will still get F in other courses.
o The proposal seems to be an immediate reaction to the low performance, and aims to cosmetically remove the low grades (Ds and Fs) and their impact from GPA. Negative correlation between taking WSU 101 and GPA may be due to content related issue or instructor related due to the fact that this course is taught by either administrators or administrator assistants, or advisors.
鈥� The committee however has ethical issue with such hybrid application. In the past no such grading policy has existed. A grading scheme of Credit/No Credit only would be the best for the interest of the University.
鈥� Based on feedback, the proposal has changed to include a new section of WSU 101 with Credit/No Credit grading scheme and be open to those who are admitted by the Exceptions committee and are required to take it. We hope the content will be tailored accordingly to have positive impact on students' performance.

3) Susan Castro from LAS Humanities is elected to serve as the chair of the UAE Committee for the AY 2013-2014.

4) The meeting schedule for the following academic year 2013-2014 is fixed as follows:

Meeting No Date Place Time
1 August 8, 2013 CH 326 1:00 鈥� 6:00 PM
2 August 15, 2013 CH 326 1:00 鈥� 6:00 PM
3 September 12, 2013 CH 326 2:00 鈥� 5:00 PM
4 October 17, 2013 CH 326 2:00 鈥� 5:00 PM
5 November 21, 2013 CH 326 2:00 鈥� 5:00 PM
6 December 19, 2013 CH 326 2:00 鈥� 5:00 PM
7 January 9, 2014 CH 326 1:00 鈥� 6:00 PM
8 January 16, 2014 CH 326 1:00 鈥� 6:00 PM
9 February 13, 2014 CH 326 2:00 鈥� 5:00 PM
10 March 13, 2014
(Chair Election) CH 326 2:00 鈥� 5:00 PM
11 April 17, 2014 CH 326 2:00 鈥� 5:00 PM
12 May 8, 2014 CH 326 2:00 鈥� 5:00 PM
13 May 29, 2014 CH 326 2:00 鈥� 5:00 PM
14 June 26, 2014 CH 326 2:00 鈥� 5:00 PM
15 July 17, 2014 CH 326 2:00 鈥� 5:00 PM

5) The following issues are planned to be visited during the next academic year.

鈥� The committee will be revisiting the guidelines, procedures, pre-approval list, and other requirements for the exceptions.

Respectfully submitted,
Mehmet Barut, UAE Committee Chair
Associate Professor
Barton School of Business