University Governance
UNIVERSITY SENATE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
February 10, 2009
Provost’s Conference Room – 3:30 p.m.
Approved 02/17/09
PRESENT: Mary Berry, Nancy Kinnersley, Lisa Wolf-Wendel, Ben Eggleston, John Staniunas, John Stratton, Lisa Friis, Liz Kowalchuk, Mary Ann Baker, Paul Farran, Adam McGonigle, May Davis, Eric Foss, Dennis Constance, Jeannette Johnson
EXCUSED: Bill Walberg
ALSO PRESENT: Molly Mulloy, Governance; Prof. Barbara Phipps; Prof. George Bittlingmayer; Andy Hyland, LJ World; Mark Pacey, graduate student; Carol Seager, Student Health Services; Wendy McCarty, student; Lori Reesor, Student Affairs
SenEx chair Mary Berry called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. She announced that today’s special meeting had been called to finish business items from last week and to continue discussion of the Calendar Committee’s recommendations. She asked members of SenEx and the guests to introduce themselves.
MINUTES for 02/03/09 were approved.
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE CALENDAR COMMITTEE
Amendments to USRR 1.3.2
Calendar Committee chair Barbara Phipps explained that the new text is intended to clarify the rules regarding on-line and take-home exams. Jeannette Johnson/Lisa Friis moved to approve the changes. Passed. The amendment (bold text) is:
Section 3. Final Examination Schedules
…
1.3.2. A Comprehensive Final Examination is defined as an examination that tests over class content covering the entire term. A Section Examination is defined as an examination that tests over class content covering a unit, section, topic or part of the term, but does not cover the entire content of the class.
Normally the last examination in a course - whether a comprehensive Final Examination or a Section Exam - is administered at the appointed time during the regularly scheduled final exam period. An exam may be given during the last week of classes ONLY if it is a Section Exam preceding a Comprehensive Final Examination; this Comprehensive Final Examination must be administered at the appointed time during the regularly scheduled final exam period. If neither a Section Examination nor a Comprehensive Final Examination is to be given, the class is not required to meet at its appointed time during the regularly scheduled final examination period. If a “take-home” exam is given, the earliest date it may be due is during the regularly scheduled final exam period for the class. Likewise, if the last exam is on-line, the earliest required completion date and time is the regularly scheduled final exam period for the class. The above does not apply to assignments such as projects, performances, or papers. These may be due or take place during the last week of regular classes.
Amendments to USRR 1.4.1
Barbara Phipps explained that the new text applied to exams, quizzes and tests other than final examinations. The proposed amendment (bold text) is:
Section 4. Examinations, Quizzes and Tests Other Than Final Examinations
1.4.1 Examinations and tests other than final examinations shall normally be given during regularly scheduled class or laboratory hours. When the examination is on-line, the instructor shall designate one class period when the class shall not meet, so that students will have a regularly-scheduled class period in which to take the exam if they so choose. When the exam is “take-home”, it is recommended that the instructor also provide a compensatory class period.
In the lengthy discussion that followed, members made the following comments: 1) Should the words “in a class that has regularly scheduled hours” be added after the word “on-line” in the sentence “When the examination is on-line…”; 2) Why does the text say “shall” for on-line exams but “it is recommended” for take-home exams? 3) If just a ten-minute quiz is given, why should the instructor have to give up an entire class period? 4) This rule may prevent a teacher from giving a take-home or on-line exam or quiz because he/she doesn’t want to give up a class period; 5) At the bottom of the form an instructor must sign to have an evening exam, there is a printed policy stating that you must give up a class period; 6) The definitions of “quiz, exam, and test” should be defined clearly in the rules and regulations. Following much debate, Lisa Wolf-Wendel/Nancy Kinnersley moved to send USRR 1.4.1 back to the Calendar Committee with a request to address the following: a) Does taking away a class period in order to give an on-line exam benefit faculty or students? B) if so, could the committee clarify what is meant by “exam” and “quiz” and define the scope of the policy, e.g., does it apply to minor things as well as large? c) How will the policy affect classes taught predominantly online. Passed. Mary Berry noted that while the Calendar Committee deals with timing and schedules, the question of what constitutes an exam might be an issue for the AP&P (Academic Policies and Procedures) Committee. Members agreed that after the Calendar Committee reconsiders the proposal, it may need to be sent to the AP&P Committee for specific definitions.
Revised Academic Calendar
. Mary Berry explained the process for approval of KU’s academic calendar, noting that a calendar for 2012 will need to be approved by the University Senate, forwarded to the Provost for review/approval, and then sent by the Chancellor to the Board of Regents (BOR) for final approval. KU’s 2012-13 academic calendar needs to be sent to the BOR this spring.
Fall Break
Calendar Committee chair Barbara Phipps stressed that the committee recommends that Fall Break be changed to a Monday/Tuesday whether or not it is moved to Thanksgiving week. Lisa Friis said from a teaching perspective she supports keeping fall break in October, but does not object to moving it to a Monday/Tuesday. Many members agreed with Friis.
1st day of Class
Several members spoke in favor of starting classes on a Monday in the fall and on Tuesday in the spring, with a total of 148 instructional days.
Stop Day
Speaking in support of Stop Day, Adam McGonigle reported on numerous discussions he’s had with students who are adamant that two weekend days are not enough time to prepare for 4-5 comprehensive finals. Berry said another option would be to move Stop Day to the Monday following the 15th week, and to extend final exams to Saturday. Stratton said this would push finals up to December 24th every 7 years and would conflict with the Jewish Sabbath.
Guest Carol Seeger, director of Student Health Services, reported that the hospital and Lawrence police say alcohol-related incidents peak around Day. She said the academic nature of Stop Day needs to be reinforced if the day is continued.
Instructional Days vs. Instructional Minutes
McGonigle stated that it seems irresponsible to pass a proposed new calendar that requires a policy change by the Regents (reducing 150 instructional days) before it could go into effect. He believes the BOR may reject the idea of reducing the number of instructional days at KU from 150 to 148 and would not be persuaded by the data showing that many of KU’s peers have fewer than 150 days. He recommended that KU “sound out” the Regents on this idea before a modified calendar is submitted to the University Senate.
Ben Eggleston suggested that we ask the Regents to consider the quantity of instructional time in minutes per semester (in 75 class days) rather than the number of instructional days. Many SenEx members supported this idea, which would allow KU the flexibility to set the length of its class periods and academic calendar based on instructional minutes. Student Eric Foss, who was on a SenEx subcommittee last year on the academic calendar, stated that the BOR seemed to react favorably to the concept of minutes when approached about the idea. Foss added that the Law School cut two weeks off its calendar by going to 55 minute classes.
Liz Kowalchuk pointed out that 3-credit hour classes in some subject areas (for example, in the arts, music, architecture) actually meet six hours per week, so changing to minutes rather than “credit hours” would affect these anomalies.
Several members suggested that KU pass a calendar for 2012-2013 that conforms to the current rules, but also prepare a calendar based on minutes and on a Monday Stop Day that could be submitted to the BOR at a later time. Jeannette Johnson suggested that the Provost and Chancellor talk to BOR President Reggie Robinson for advice; if Robinson thinks there is no possibility that the BOR would consider the proposal, then we shouldn't waste time developing a plan.
Following much discussion, Mary Berry said that the academic calendar proposal will be removed from the agenda for the 2/12 Senate meeting so that SenEx can consider it further. She suggested at next week’s SenEx meeting that members develop specific questions that we would like for the Calendar Committee to address. Jeannette Johnson moved to table further discussion until next week.
No further business. The meeting adjourned at 5:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Molly Mulloy