MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, OCTOBER 14, 1996

The University Senate met in regular session at 3:00 p.m., Monday,
October 14, 1996 in Room 115 of the Nursing Health Sciences Building.
Professor Jan Schach, Chairperson of the Senate Council, presided.
Members absent were: Allan Aja, M. Muhktar Ali*, Gary Anglin, John
Ballantine, Vasant Bhapkar, Patricia Birchfield, Terry Birdwhistell, Darla
Botkin, Joseph Burch, Mary Burke*, Lauretta Byars, Johnny Cailleteau, Joan
Callahan, Berry Campbell, Ben Carr, Edward Carter, Jordan L. Cohen*, Scott
Coovert, Philip DeSimone*, Andrew Dreibel, Richard Edwards, Robert
Farquhar*, Juanita Fleming*, William Fortune*, Donald Frazier*, Richard
Furst, Thomas Garrity*, Beatrice Gaunder, Philip Greasley, Ottfried Hahn*,
Christine Havice, James Holsinger, Robert Houtz*, Betty Huff*, Edward
Jennings*, James Knoblett, Craig Koontz, Thomas Lester*, G.T. Lineberry*,
C. Oran Little, M. Pinar Menguc, Douglas Michael*, Jenny Miller, Karen
Mingst*, David Mohney*, David Nash*, Phyllis Nash*, Wolfgang Natter*,
Anthony Newberry, Thomas Nieman, Michael Nietzel, William OConnor, Melanie
Shay Onkst, Daniel Reedy, Thomas Robinson, Michael Rohmiller, Avinash
Sathaye*, David Shipley, David Stockham, George Wagner, Jesse Weil*,
Charles Wethington*, Carolyn Williams*, Eugene Williams, Lionel Williamson,
Emery Wilson, Phyllis Wise, Craig Wood, Ernest Yanarella*, Elisabeth
Zinser*.
* Absence Explained
Chairperson Schach stated the Minutes of the September meeting had been
distributed and asked if there were any corrections or additions.
Professor Gretchen LaGodna asked that the questions following the
Presidents remarks be included in the minutes. The minutes were approved
as amended.
The Chair made the following announcements:
The Senate Council discussed the issue of Student Senator attendance at
the Senate meetings and whether they should be included in the policy of
three strikes and youre out. With careful consideration and consultation
with the student government president, Alan Aja, it was decided they should
be included in the attendance policy. In the future the policy will be
communicated to students who are considering running for those positions
and that their attendance in both the Senates is a part of that election.
The policy will be made more clear, so when those people consider running
they will adjust their schedules accordingly in the future.
A reminder about midterm grades and the Senate Rule regarding midterm
grades, Section 5.1.0.1 which states, by the last day of class before the
midterm withdrawal date all teachers must inform the undergraduate students
in their courses of their current grade based on the criteria within the
syllabus. October 25, 1996 is the last day to drop.
There was a decision by the Rules and Election Committee on a question
regarding the posting of syllabi on the Web or electronic posting. The
were problems regarding long paper syllabi that are being put on the Web
as a way to eliminate duplication and wasted paper. The Rules Committee
has decided that it is against the Senate Rule concerning providing free
copies of the syllabus to students. In the future all students must be
given a free paper copy of the syllabus. The students are now being
charged to print from the Web, so this was in contradiction to the rules,
according the to Rules Committee.
A point of order was raised from the floor concerning appointments to the
Senate Standing Committees. Four of the Standing Committees have non-
senators as chairs. Do the rules permit the Senate Council to make these
appointments? Rules and Elections, which seems to be a key committee, is
chaired by a non-senator, Academic Planning and Priority is chaired by a
non-senator who is not from an academic department. Is this appropriate
and within the rules?
Chairperson Schach said her understanding is that the Senate Council has
the ability to waive that rule. When senators are called to commit to
committees, it is difficult to get a yes answer, particularly when it comes
to the responsibilities of the chair of a committee. It is common practice
for the Senate Council to have to go outside the Senate in order to get
people to agree to serve. The Senate Council carefully considers people
they believe have strong backgrounds in that area and are committed and
responsible. Professor LaGodna said the same question was raised in a
previous year and the case was the same, that particular people are
selected to chair committees because of their background and expertise in
relation to the charge of that committee. The char of some committees
requires very specific types of background and sometimes that is not found
in the group of senators.
Chairperson Schach said she would be glad to explain the rationale for
the selection of those individuals in question. She stated the rule would
be reviewed before the next Senate meeting and presented then.
The Chair recognized Professor Loys Mather for a report on the activities
of The Council of Senate Faculty Leaders. Loys is the chair of that
committee. They have been quite active in working with the governors Task
Force on Higher Education.
Professor Mather made the following remarks:
I am here to bring you up to date on what is happening with COSFL and how
it is tied in with the Governors Task Force on Post Secondary Education.
What is COSFL? COSFL is the Coalition on Senate and Faculty Leaders for
Higher Education in Kentucky. It is made up of the University Faculty
Trustees and Faculty Regents from the eight public universities, the Senate
Chairs from each of the institutions, and one or two additional
representatives as the Senate Councils of the various schools might
designate.
We meet on a fairly regular basis. The major role of the organization is
to serve an advocacy role for higher education. In addition there is a
subgroup of COSFL, the faculty trustees and faculty regents which serves as
an advisory committee to the staff of the Council on Higher Education.
While that group was inactive for a good number of years, last year it
became quite active and now meets with the CHE staff on a more frequent
basis. We will be meeting with them next month to give faculty input into
the program review process that the Council has in place which they are
considering some modifications to.
The faculty trustees and regents are also involved with the Governors
Task Force and have been invited to serve as an advisory committee along
with various other groups for this commission on post secondary education.
The task force has had several public meetings. There was an
organizational meeting in the summer and a meeting in September when they
heard their first report from the consultants. The task force has hired
two consultants. One is from NCHEMS, which is a higher education
management consultant group. The second consultant is from the Education
Commission of the States. Both consultants are headquartered in Colorado.
I think both of these persons are providing some very useful overview and
insight into this process.
The advisory groups (faculty, students, employers, etc), have been
invited to present position papers to the task force. They will be due
very shortly. COSFL is also developing some papers to present. One of the
papers will deal with distance education, providing the faculty perspective
on the role of distance education. One will likely deal with technology
and the type of support that we feel is necessary from the faculty
perspective on increasing technology needs. One will address governance.
The Governor has specifically invited faculty to be a part of this process.
He has said publicly that one of the mistakes made with KERA was that
faculty were not involved at an early stage in the planning of KERA and
that he did not want to see that done a second time. We appreciate the
fact that we have been involved in the post secondary education review task
force and are supportive of the effort he is providing. On the other hand,
we feel in order to make a meaningful input as faculty, we need to be
involved on a continuing basis, so one of the proposals we will be making
to the task force is that a faculty representative be placed on the Council
on Higher Education or whatever successive body they might choose.
During the meeting this morning the consultants gave their presentation
on some alternative funding models for higher education. This included one
very excellent presentation on the state of existing funding for higher
education. Of even more interest was a second presentation by the
consultants on What are Some Alternatives and Where do We Go From Here."
Where is this review of higher education going to go? No one really
knows at this point. The Governor and the Task Force members have
indicated that these are basically public hearings and they are keeping an
open mind to the various viewpoints that are being presented. This is why
we as faculty decided we needed to make a response through our poition
papers. We felt is was important to at least speak our view points and get
them on the agenda. It does appear that the Governor seems to have an open
mind in terms of what direction the system might go. If there is a
preconceived plan then it has been very well concealed. It appears to be
an open agenda at this point and could involve funding or governance. The
next meeting will be a month from today in Frankfurt and the main topic
will deal with governance.
Professor Virginia Davis-Nordin asked if there were going to be open
hearings by the commission around the state and would he recommend faculty
attend.
Professor Mather said in the early stages they thought that would happen
but he had not hear any dates yet. He felt that is was imperative the
faculty, especially faculty senators attend. The task force needs to hear
from faculty and they especially need to hear from UK as the primary land
grant and research institution in the state. They need to hear our
perspective.
Chairperson Schach thanked Professor Mather for his great leadership of
that group. She has attended a number of meetings and can attest to the
fact that there are representatives from all the different schools with all
their different interests at these meetings and the group tends to wander.
Loys is able to manage the meeting extremely well.
AGENDA ITEM I: Proposal to amend University Senate Rules, Section V -
Oral Communication Requirement, University Studies Program.
Proposal
All programs currently offering alternative routes to fulfillment of the
USP oral communication requirement outside the Department of Communication
who wish to continue these offerings may submit requests for
recertification of those alternatives to the USP Committee over the next
three years (until the end of the 1998-99 academic year.) Those
alternatives not requesting and receiving recertification will no longer
qualify as alternative routes beginning in the 1999-2000 academic year.
During those three years a moratorium on any new alternative is declared
while the recertification process is completed and evaluated. At that time
a decision will be made regarding whether the moratorium should be lifted.
The USP Committee will develop, in cooperation with the Department of
Communication, a set of criteria outlining the basis for recertification
which will be made available to all programs currently offering alternative
routes for fulfillment of the oral communication requirement. The
Department of Communication will provide an evaluation of recertification
proposals to the USP committee prior to the USP Committees decision.
To be recertified, alternatives would typically satisfy the following
minimum criteria in addition to those developed by the USP Committee. For
those alternative routes composed of multiple course sequences it would be
expected that these criteria would be met by the sequence though perhaps
not by every course in that sequence.
-Students will receive instruction from instructors with appropriate
expertise in the development of oral communication ability
-Students will utilize substantial and credible resource material (e.g.,
textbooks
focused on oral communication skill development)
-Students will be provided substantial opportunity to practice, receive
feedback, and be evaluated on the core oral communication competencies
-Students will be required to develop the ability to communicate across
diverse
audiences
-A significant part of the final grade(s) offered in the course(s) will be
dependent on the acquisition of the oral communication abilities taught
This proposal is offered in the hopes of ensuring that students acquire
the oral communication skills necessary to fulfill their role as an active
member of a democratic society while recognizing the realities of the
current University environment. The ability to use language ethically and
effectively in oral communication contexts and across a diverse community
of interests is a quality of any liberally educated person in contemporary
society.
Rationale:
For the 1995-96 academic year the USP Committee reviewed the alternatives
routes for satisfying the Oral Communication requirement in general
education which were approved when the program first went into place in
1988. Some of these routes appear to be quite effective; other are little
more than superficial attempts to provide students with an opportunity to
speak in front of a group. In the latter case the USP Committee was
dismayed both by the absence of any special competency on the part of the
instructor and by the paucity of classroom instruction regarding the
principles and practices of public speaking or interpersonal
communication.
In addition, the USP Committee found that in alternative routes, the
focus of oral communication instruction was on communication practices
specific to particular professions rather than on the development of
general oral communication abilities applicable across a variety of
communication contexts. The goal of University Studies is to provide
foundational skills and knowledge which are applicable across many
different situations and circumstances. Courses in USP do not take as
their primary objective preparation for a particular major or profession
although academic programs typically do supplement areas of USP with
specific applications (e.g., in writing, history). General studies
courses in oral communication, like those in other areas, should prepare
students to function in a multiplicity of contexts and across varied
groups of people. For this reason, the USP Committee recommended that the
oral communication requirement be fulfilled with the foundation of
offerings in the Department of Communication, where highly qualified
persons in the field can establish a basis on which to add professionally
oriented courses in public speaking or interpersonal communication. The
Committee commended the efforts of some programs for creating such
specialized opportunities across the curriculum in hopes they would
continue those programs for their majors as supplemental to the general
education program.
The USP Committee believed that it was time to place the responsibility
for developing the students general oral communication skills precisely
where it belongs, in the Communication Department. For that reason the
Committee recommended to the Senate Council that all alternative routes
for fulfilling the oral communication requirement be eliminated over a
three year period.
However, after extended discussion with involved parties the Senate
Council arrived at the present compromise which allows for recertification
if alternative routes which meet criteria designed to ensure students
receive meaningful instruction in the development of oral communication
ability.
If approved, the proposal will be sent to the Rules Committee for
codification.
Implementation Date: Immediate
Chairperson Schach recognized Professor Jim Applegate, chair-elect of
the Senate Council for introduction of the item. Professor Applegate
reviewed the background of the proposal and stated it came with the
recommendation of the Senate Council.
Chairperson Schach then recognized Professor Lou Swift from
Undergraduate Studies to give some background on the original proposal by
the USP Committee. She stated Professor Swift is the chair of the USP
Committee and will be informing the Senate about what the original USP
Committee proposal was about.
Professor Swift made the following remarks:
The proposal you have to consider this afternoon is not the one
originally submitted by the University Studies Committee, but it resembles
in large measure the minority view of the Committee when a vote was taken
last spring about what we thought should be done. The majority of the
Committee on a very close vote recommended that over a period for three
years the alternate routes be discontinued and that students satisfy the
requirement through a course in the Department of Communication. I will
explain the rationale for this in a moment, but first let me provide a
little history of the general activities of the Committee and some of the
background on the Oral Communications recommendation.
For the past few years, the Committee has taken upon itself to review one
component of the University Studies Program each year. A few years ago we
focused on the cross-cultural component and actually changed the rule
regarding who should be covered by this requirement. Two years ago we
looked at the Cross-Disciplinary component, and most recently we spent most
of the academic year examining the Oral Communication Requirement. Our
procedure here was to invite a variety of programs to talk with the
Committee about what they were doing. Our intention was simply to
understand how things were going; we had no intention at the time to
recommend changes.
The results of our interviews were both positive and negative. Some of
the alternate routes were quite good. Faculty were working hard in
designing and implementing programs, and students were acquiring some
needed skills. In other cases this was not at all true. Individuals with
little or no knowledge or experience in oral communication were doing
their, best but one would be hard pressed to say that they were doing a
really professional job.
The second thing we discovered was that all of the alternate routes were
focused on developing a students skills either in connection with a
particular discipline or in preparation for a particular profession. We
commended and do commend those departments and colleges which are training
their students in particular areas or majors to communicate well. We hoped
that with the proposed change these departments would continue their own
programs and allow students to build upon the foundation acquired in the
Department of Communication.
In short, the Committee was dismayed over some of the alternate routes
currently in place, but the thrust of its recommendation really was not
predicated on that issue. The recommendation to discontinue the alternate
routes over a three year period was primarily focused on the fact that the
alternate routes really were designed for a particular purpose or a
particular field whereas the University Studies Program is intended to
address the generic training of individuals. The feeling of the majority of
the Committee was that, following the pattern of other requirements in USP
(e.g. the writing requirement is taught by English faculty, the Math
requirement by math faculty and the foreign language requirement by foreign
language faculty), the foundational course in oral communication belonged
in the College of Communication and Information Systems.
I think it is important to remember that the alternate routes were
established initially to solve a financial problem. When the Oral
Communication requirement was included in the USP program, there were not
sufficient funds available to provide enough resources to the Department of
Communication to handle all of the students who were covered by the new
requirement. For this reason the USP Committee originally spent at least a
year and a half reviewing proposals from a variety of units to provide
alternate routes. I should say that the sub-committee chaired by Mike
Kerwin did its work very well. At that time we established three criteria
for endorsing alternate routes. There needed to be some instruction in
communication, there needed to be a sufficient amount of time devoted to
practice, and there needed to be a grading system that primarily focused on
the students communicative skills as distinct from his or her command of
particular subject matter. The sub-committee did a consistent and careful
job of scrutinizing each of the proposals, and the result is that we now
have twenty two departments or colleges with alternate means of fulfilling
the oral communication requirement.
At this juncture I think it is fair to say that the criteria we employed
at the time have proven to be insufficient to assure quality of instruction
or the kind of broad focus which we thought was part of every USP offering.
Even the alternate routes which combine a one-credit course in the
Principles of Communications taught by the Communication Department with
senior seminars in the discipline have not proven very satisfactory. A
student can take COM 199 in her freshman or sophomore year and not use this
knowledge formally until her senior seminar. Needless to say, the two
components may be of little relevance to one another.
The Committee decided to recommend that the alternate routes be fazed out
over a period of three years. We knew that this proposal would require a
reorganization of departmental resources in the College of Communications
and Information Systems, and, indeed, we consulted with the chair of the
Department of Communication about this very point. He indicated to us that
he felt that over a period of time it would be possible to provide the
necessary sections to cover all student needs. The Committee agreed that it
is essential that this resource be in place before any of the alternate
routes are fazed out. We also knew that it would take some time for
departments and colleges across campus to adjust, and we considered three
years to be a reasonable transition phase.
Jan will describe for you the fate of the proposal as it was discussed by
the Senate Council, which initially endorsed it, and, then, when certain
issues were raised by a variety of departments on campus, the council
reconsidered its view. I was not privy to those discussions although I did
attend the initial session to explain where the Committee was coming from
and what were the issues which it discussed in arriving at its
recommendation.
Let me say a word, if I may, about the proposal which is in front of you.
It resembles in many ways the minority view of the Committee which was
voiced by individuals who felt that the original proposal was too draconian
and that we should not, as it were, penalize departments which were doing
a good job in order to correct ones which were less than adequate. I
should reiterate, however, that the decision was not based primarily on
whether some programs were good and some others not, but on the fact that
the alternate routes were developing students skills in a particular area
rather than along the broad lines which general education is supposed to
promote.
In any event, it is clear to all of the Committee members, that we need
to have more stringent guidelines in evaluating the alternate routes.
Since the alternate routes are tied to majors or professions, we have, in
fact, 22 different programs designed for 22 different clientele with 22
different foci. If we are going to keep these alternatives, and if we
choose not to endorse the proposal in front of you, I believe we will need
twenty-two sets of objectives and twenty-two plans for determining whether
individual units are achieving them. I am fully in favor of assessing
performance by results, but we should have no illusions about the
complexity of the task which lies ahead. It was partly for that reason, I
believe, that the minority on the Committee were well disposed to the kind
of criteria which are set forth in the proposal. These criteria, I gather,
do not imply that instructors teaching oral communication in alternate
routes need to have an academic degree in the subject but that they need to
have some training or experience in the general field.
Finally, some individuals have expressed concern about the whole matter
of recertification or the prospect of losing certification. Those of you
who have been at the University for awhile will remember that when the
University Studies Program was first approved, Loys Mather suggested that
there be a sunset clause attached to all the courses in USP. I do not
think that particular recommendation was adopted, but I know that the
notion of periodically reviewing USP courses was part of the initial
resolution. The Committee endorses that concept, and I think I speak for
all the members in saying that we feel rather strongly that all of the
courses in the University Studies Program ought to come up for periodic
recertification. In short, there ought to be some sort of a sunset clause
and that every five years or so each department which offers courses in the
USP ought to be asked to indicate why the courses which were initially
approved should be continued in the USP program. It is only in this way, I
believe, that we will be able to keep track of developments, and such a
system would give departments an opportunity to rethink what contributions
they want to make to general education.
I turn the floor back now to Jan Schach who will undoubtedly talk a
little bit about the discussions which took place within the Senate
Council and which led to the proposal we are examining. We all have a
common interest in providing the very best instruction for undergraduates
that we can. If we keep this objective in mind - rather than hours,
courses, and our own programmatic interests, I think all of us will
benefit. Thank you.
Chairperson Schach stated that the Senate Council approved the original
proposal from the USP Committee. That decision was communicated to all
the alternative programs and after that point in time a letter to the
Senate Council was received with multiple signatures containing a
compromise proposal. It basically asked that programs be allowed to
reapply as an alternative route under stated criteria and evaluated by the
USP Committee. Due to the number of signatures on the letter it was taken
to the Senate Council and they approved it for discussion. It was not put
into the form of a motion, because according to parliamentary procedure
the motion would have to be forwarded by someone who voted in favor of the
prior proposal and no one was willing to do that. In the interim, Senate
Council member Jim Applegate developed a compromise to the compromise that
you have in your hand. Jim will describe the rationale behind that.
Professor Applegate said they tried to create a compromise that
preserved the spirit of the proposal from the various alternative groups
allowing for recertification while acknowledging the good work of the USP
Committee and the causes they addressed. The USP Committee would try and
layout some basic criteria they felt anyone would want to see adopted for
any course meeting any University Studies criteria. That is, basically,
that instructors have appropriate expertise, they use good resource
material, they provide substantial opportunity to develop a skill and a
good part of the final grade would be tied to that particular skill. The
Senate Council considered the compromise to the compromise proposal and
thought it was reasonable and allowed for the programs that were
developing efforts in good faith. The Council hopes out of this process
would become better and stronger alternative routes. It was approved by
the Senate Council for referral to the Senate.
Don Sands (Chemistry) said that Chemistry was very alarmed by the
possibility that their oral communication program might be decertified.
They feel they have a good program, they use Communication 199 for one
credit and then the students take two semesters of Chemistry 572, a
Chemistry Seminar. This is a very effective program, it works very well
for Chemistry students. If this program were to be certified, probably
would continue requiring the two semesters of Chemistry Seminar, which
means the students would take two additional hours. At the same time they
strongly support the concept of evaluation, they feel all components of
University Studies should be evaluated and the oral communication
requirement should be evaluated regularly. We would hope that the present
proposal could be replaced by a proposal that would emphasize the outcomes
rather than the process and that would attempt to determine whether or
not student's communication skills are being developed adequately. We
realize this is a very difficult type of evaluation. We think this is the
kind of evaluation that is in keeping with the objectives of oral
communication requirement. We would hope that a new proposal would
provide mechanisms for cooperation between departments and the rest of the
University. We would welcome the advice and help of the Department of
Communications specifically on improving our program. We do not claim it
is perfect but feel it is a good one and would like the opportunity to
make it better. Finally they would like to see decertification used as a
last resort, not as the principle thrust of the proposal.
Hans Gesund (Engineering) asked if the oral communications course that
everyone would have to take would be taught by faculty or by TAs. If by
TAs, then he does not feel it is as good as what is now being done where
it is taught entirely by faculty in the various individual departments.
Jim Applegate said this is not a proposal to eliminate everything, but
would go through a process of evaluation and recertification. Speaking to
Professor Sands point of including outcomes, if you notice the second
paragraph, these are just presented as minimal criteria and the USP
Committee will develop their own criteria. There could be some outcome
criteria that we would all help to develop. In that respect we are not
talking about the elimination of every alternative, a number of
alternatives seemed to be doing a good job and I expect the USP Committee
will choose to leave those in place. In specific answer to the question,
many of the sections are taught by teaching assistants, 90 percent of the
courses are taught by people with masters degrees who are working on their
doctorates or ABD in doctorates. There are people with good
qualifications under direct faculty supervision.
George Blandford (Engineering) stated he had two problems with the
proposal, one the moratorium on new programs over the next three years,
and secondly, they are asked to vote on a proposal that is really not
complete yet. The USP is going to come up with criteria for evaluation or
recertification and they have no idea what that will be. He would like to
see the motion tabled until at least they find out what the USP Committee
plan is. The motion was seconded.
Dr. Swift asked if he was asking the committee to come up with one set
of criteria which will apply across the board to all departments and would
mean that the criteria would be generic in nature or if you asking for a
set of criteria which will probably include outcomes and is tailored to
the individual programs. The committee needs to know what is being
requested. This can be approached two ways. It can be endorsed but it
will not be put into place until they see the criteria, or you can ask to
see the criteria first and if you are talking about 22 programs you are
probably talking about 22 sets of criteria. If that is the case, he would
ask the departments and colleges that have such programs to develop the
goals they have for their programs.
Professor Blandford said that he would be asking for generic criteria
because if they are going to put in outcomes they can be defined by the
individual departments.
Pamela Kidd (Nursing) said they could not endorse the proposal in its
current form but would welcome input as a college into the debate
surrounding this and the development of outcome criteria. She feels they
are talking about core competencies and it is possible to develop outcome
criteria in relation to core competencies. They already have outcome
criteria for the specific competencies of communication within the 22
specialties. They would welcome the opportunity to serve in some capacity
with the task force or the USP committee to give some wisdom of how they
would like to see the core competencies evaluated, but definitely believe
there is room for core and specific in the current format.
Chairperson Schach asked if Professor Blandford was open to amending his
motion that there be consultation on the development of the general
criteria, that the USP consult with programs. Professor Blandford
answered yes.
Jim Applegate said that in the discussion of this that the Department of
Communication would like to make clear it that there are core competencies
in being a effective communicator in front of groups and making
presentations and engaging in the type of civil public discourse that we
see so lacking across the public sector today. When creating these there
is nothing wrong with specific competency in relation to programs and this
would be a wonderful idea. They are devoting faculty time to be a
consultant to the Teaching and Learning Center to work with different
programs to develop those. They have a consultant in the writing center
to coach individual students and people to develop this. Last summer for
these first time they put together an oral communication across the
curriculums seminar model lab, so they are totally in support of that. If
the USP Committees consideration of this is to hold onto the idea that
there are core competencies that are about being able to present ideas
effectively and civilly to various types of groups in the public sector
that go beyond professional interest and as long as we can hold onto that
then we have a meaningful requirement. I hope we will do that whatever
the outcome of todays discussion.
Tom Blues (English) wanted to point out that they were asking the USP
Committee to generate criteria for special interest when what they
originally did was to try to restore the communication requirement to the
general liberal education component. There is an interesting irony in
these requests since we are not yet discussing a really important
principle, whether we are talking about oral communication as part of a
liberal education or whether it should fit into the particular curricula
of individual disciplines. It goes back to the USP Committee to figure
out ways in which a group of biologists, mathematicians, English
professors, socialists, and others can figure out whether an ag economist
can effectively teach oral communications.
Horst Schach (Landscape Architecture) asked if they were starting to
look at outcomes measurement. Were there ever students who tested out of
communication courses. Is there a need and the mechanism to do that?
Professor Applegate said there was a bypass exam that was taken regularly
and passed.
Virginia Davis-Nordin (Education) felt that the motion should not be
returned to the USP Committee. She said there were people there who were
ready to discuss whether this should be a specific or a general program
and would like to hear the discussion and if it is referred back to the
committee they will not hear the discussion.
Gretchen LaGodna opposed sending it back to the USP Committee, she would
prefer that they endorse or not endorse the idea of the compromise and if
it is endorsed then the USP Committee can be asked to submit those
criteria back for Senate consideration.
Heath Lovel (Engineering) hated to see everyone made to take the
communication class and some departments still require more classes.
Mike Friedman (Theater) said that the recertification proposal is a good
one. No one can oppose the idea of examining on a periodic basis any USP
requirement. He felt that the department courses that fulfill the
requirement need rexamination. This proposal does not contain quite
enough details for support or condemnation. The criteria that are
presented are somewhat general, he supports an approach whereby any course
that meets this certification will meet general requirements and will be
discipline specific. He would like to know more about who will make the
decisions as to whether or not recertification will be forthcoming. He
would support an interdisciplinary advisory committee on this. Aas the
proposal is currently configured it is the department of Communication
that has an interest and advises the USP Committee. He supports the
decision to return to the USP and ask for more details.
Chairperson Schach clarified that the proposal states that the USP
Committee would make the final decision and it is about as cross
disciplinary as it is going to get. Professor Friedman stated it also
said that the Department of Communication would be the key advisors in the
decision. He knows from discussion with individuals involved that will
weigh heavily with the USP. He is asking that an interdisciplinary
approach be taken to the advisement as well as to the decision.
Professor Gesund said it specifically stated that the Department of
Communications will provide an evaluation of recertification proposals to
the USP Committee.
Professor Schach asked if they were ready to vote on the motion to send
the proposal back to the USP Committee to generate general criteria for
evaluation with consultation with interested parties.
The motion to send the proposal back to the USP failed in a show of
hands, 29 for, 35 opposed.
Joe Davis (Agriculture) said he would like to go back to 1988 when USP
was brought into existence. It was mentioned that they did not have the
resources at that time to be able to meet the demand for the communication
courses that had been approved to meet the USP oral communication
requirement. If you evaluate today where we stand, you will find at this
point that most of the classes are closed; that it is very difficult to
get into these classes. He does not want to return to 1988 when their
college was requiring Communication 181 as a college requirement before
USP started. At that point they could not get their students into that
class; they were not able to get them in until they were juniors and
seniors. Some of the same concept exists today. His evaluation indicates
that 27% of the students in Communications 181 are juniors and seniors.
Also in Communications 251 and 252 there are even a higher proportion of
juniors and seniors. If we are going to have this requirement
Communications must meet this requirement and have the resources committed
now that will say an appropriate number of sections will be added to cover
the students that will be coming into those courses as a result of
decertification. It has already been indicated that some of those
programs are going to be decertified. He would argue they should have
already been decertified if they are not meeting the requirements USP
designed for oral communications. He is not arguing that if they are not
meeting the requirement they should continue. Are the resources committed
to the Department of Communications to add the multiple sections that are
going to be required? They have a relatively small college, with about
200 freshmen coming. With 25 students to a section that is ten new
sections just for their college. How many sections would be required with
the other 21 programs? He has not heard any discussion about the source
availability to be able to meet this. The other issue has to do with
timing. The reason they left Communications 181 is because they could not
get their students in until they were seniors; they did not feel that was
early enough in the program. They were not able to use the materials, the
concepts, and the skills that are in communications in any of their
courses. So they instituted two new courses, one at the freshman level
and one at the sophomore level that in fact interfaces with the
communication requirement. Most of the programs would like to have the
oral communication requirement satisfied first semester or second semester
at the absolute latest so those skills and that knowledge could be used in
other courses as they go through the programs. So the issue is not only
enough sections but enough sections to get the students in the first
semester they are here. Their programs would require that, the alternate
route that they have is second semester at the latest. Transfers are
another issue. Do we have the resources? Have they been committed now,
not after decertification but before? He also has an issue with the USP
advocating their responsibility on deciding which programs meet the
requirements and which programs do not. If every program was evaluated
there must be a list of the ones they think do not meet the requirements,
and a list of the ones who do but needs some improvement. He would like
to see that come forth as part of the recommendation. In terms of
supporting the concept of sending it back to USP, he would like to put it
into USP hands so they are the ones that make the decision.
Monica Kerns (Psychology) said the criteria that she has the most
confusion about is what is meant by appropriate expertise in
communications. She wonders is the communications department will decide
that only communications faculty have an appropriate expertise.
Professor Applegate said that was left intentionally vague because that
is for the USP Committee to decide. Currently among the alternative
routes there are people with degrees, people without degrees with a lot or
professional experience, and people with a lot of training in the external
community. It was more specific before and the compliant from that draft
was it was too specific and we made it more general. It is curious that
we have alternate routes for communications and we do not for others. If
there were alternate routes for the sciences, if the USP Committee were
going to decide which nonscience courses counted as science than they
would want to consult with the people who teach science. Communications
only saw themselves as a resource; not an arbitrator. In looking at the
alternatives now, across the various units there are some very good people
teaching professionally oriented oral communications courses, with a
variety of backgrounds. There is no reason to believe since the USP
Committee approved them along the way that they will not again, as long as
there is some element as the appropriate expertise.
Professor Swift stated the Professor Davis point was well taken,
especially about the business of resources. All he can do is to assure
that the USP Committee is not going to decertify programs when they know
that the resources are not there. There are problems now with freshman
not being able to get into the communications. The discussion in the USP
Committee was if the resources are not there, this proposal is off. The
other point about the criteria for determining which programs are good and
which ones are not, the reason they went back to the Senate Council was
that initially they approved all the 22 alternate routes on three basic
criteria. They discovered, in looking at the programs, that those
criteria were not sufficient to guarantee quality over the long run.
There are a couple of issues floating around, should the USP courses be
tied to a discipline and the issue quality. That is why they have come
back and said they do not feel it is appropriate for someone who doesnt
know about oral communications at all to teach a course.
Brad Canon (Political Science) said he was chair of the Senate Council
when University Studies was put into place in 1988. They had long
conversations with Administration about resources after development of the
program and one of the reasons for the alternate routes was that there was
not sufficient resources in the Department of Communications to teach the
communications courses necessary if students were going to get them in
their freshman and sophomore years. He asked if there had been any new
discussion with Administration for funds?
Professor Swift said the answer to the question is to decide what is
academically desirable and on the basis of that go and talk about
resources, not the reverse.
Dan Fulks (Business and Economics) felt that the University has a long
history of making academic decisions based upon resources. It troubles
him to hear them say that they would pass judgment on what is a piece of
an academic program because there are not enough resources available
somewhere else. If a program is unworthy of being certified, they it
should be decertified. He has a problem basing the decision on the
question of whether or not resources are available.
Hans Gesund said he was somewhat disturbed by the fact that they are
being told oral communications now is being taught by people not qualified
to teach. He wonders that a faculty member who has been teaching for
years is not more qualified than a TA. Something that is being missed
here is that the budget is a closed system. Any additional resources that
are going to go to oral communications are going to come from other
departments.
The question was moved and seconded. The motion to stop debate passed
in show of hands 39 for, 18 against.
The proposal failed to pass in a show of hands; 25 for, 39 against.
AGENDA ITEM 2: Proposal to amend University Senate Rules, Section V -
Grades and Marking systems - to establish a plus/minus grading system for
the College of Social Work
Background
In the debate regarding instituting the plus/minus system for all
University undergraduate students, as well as solely in the College of A&S,
the College of Social Work supported enactment of the University-wide
plus/minus grading system. Following the Senate action in March 1996,
supporting the A&S proposal, and the Senate action in April 1996,
supporting the College of Communication and Information Studies College
Advisory Council request that their College be added to the list of those
wishing to have plus/minus grading, the College of Social Work faculty
formally requested that their College be added to the list.
Their proposal was accepted by the Chair of Admissions and Academic
Standards as an extension of the earlier debate. The Senate Council
recommends the proposal to the Senate.
Proposal: [Add to Section V - 5. 1.0 the bold sections below]
5.1.0 Grades and Marking Systems
College of Social Work
The following grades are given with the respective point value indicated
B+ 3.3 C+ 2.3 D+ 1.3 E=O
A 4.0 B 3.0 C 2.0 D 1.0
A- 3.7 B- 2.7 C- 1.7 D- 0.7
The use of the plus-minus system does not change any college or
university grade point average requirements, nor the method by which grade
point averages are computed, nor the interpretations of other grades
awarded, such as F, I, P, W, & S. (US: 9/20/93)
For all studio work in the College of Architecture, the minimum passing
grade from level to level in the studio sequence shall be a grade of "C".
(US:5/2/78; US: 9/20/93)
All students enrolled in courses using the plus/minus grading system
will have the appropriate point value calculated into their grade point
average regardless of their College of origin.
Rationale:
A +/- grading system will provide more precise and accurate evaluation of
student performance. The distinctions are seen as especially helpful in
courses that carry a large number of credit hours. Other units which have
+/- grading systems have been satisfied with the process.
Implementation Date: Fall, 1997
Note: If approved, the proposal will be sent to the Rules Committee for
codification.
Chairperson Schach recognized Professor Jim Applegate for introduction
of the item. Professor Applegate reviewed the background and recommended
approval of the item.
Mandy Lewis (Social Work - Student) stated she was not in favor of the
proposal and neither are most the students in her college that she has
spoken with. Most Social Work majors require classes that are in Arts and
Sciences that are already on the plus/minus grading system.
Heather Burris (Allied Health - Student) stated she was against the
plus/minus system for any college, not just Social Work, because of
inconsistencies between universities when applying to different selected
programs. The students who last year might have taken a very hard course
and got a 90% received a 4.0, but a student in the same situation this
year will get a 3.7. This makes a big difference when applying to
graduate schools. She believes it is just more stress on the students;
she does not believe you should be punished for making a 95 instead of a
96. She also feels the faculty should ask the students, not just the
student senators, and maybe poll the entire college (not just something in
the Kernel.) She believes many students are against plus/minus.
Michael Thomlin (Graduate School - Student) was concerned about the way
the Senate was embarrassing itself in front of the colleges and
universities across the state. He had talked to about 280 students and
less than 3% of the students are in favor of plus/minus. Plus/minus
grading hurts graduate students who are TAs, it hurts undergraduate
students, especially the excellent students, it hurts in admissions to
graduate and professional schools, it hurts as far as obtaining and
retaining merit based scholarships, and it hurts in awards and honors.
The first proposal that came was one for university-wide and that was
defeated which means that the Senate is not particularly interested in
plus/minus grading system for the university as a whole.
The proposal failed in a show of hands; 33 for, 40 opposed.
AGENDA ITEM 3: Proposal to amend University Senate Rules, Section V -
Grades and Marking systems - to establish a plus/minus grading system for
the College of Human Environment Sciences
Background
In the debate regarding instituting the plus/minus system for all
University undergraduate students, as well as solely in the College of A&S,
the College of Human Environmental Sciences supported enactment of the
University-wide plus/minus grading system. Following the Senate action in
March, 1996, supporting the A&S proposal, and the Senate action in April,
1996, supporting the College of Communication and Information Studies
College Advisory Council request that their College be added to the list of
those wishing to have plus/minus grading, the College of Human
Environmental Sciences faculty formally requested that their College be
added to the list.
Their proposal was accepted by the Chair of Admissions and Academic
Standards as an extension of the earlier debate. The Senate Council
recommends the proposal to the Senate.
Proposal: [Add to Section V - 5.1.0 the bold sections below]
5.1.0 Grades and Marking Systems
College of Human Environmental Sciences
The following grades are given with the respective point value indicated
B+ 3.3 C+ 2.3 D+ 1.3 E=O
A 4.0 B 3.0 C 2.0 D 1.0
A- 3.7 B- 2.7 C- 1.7 D- 0.7
The use of the plus-minus system does not change any college or
university grade point average requirements, nor the method by which grade
point averages are computed, nor the interpretations of other grades
awarded, such as F, I, P, W, & S. (US: 9/20/93)
For all studio work in the College of Architecture, the minimum passing
grade from level to level in the studio sequence shall be a grade of "C."
(US:5/2/78; US: 9/20/93)
All students enrolled in courses using the plus/minus grading system will
have the appropriate point value calculated into their grade point average
regardless of their College of origin.
Rationale:
A +/- grading system will provide more precise and accurate evaluation of
student performance. The distinctions are seen as especially helpful in
courses that carry a large number of credit hours. Other units which have
+/- grading systems have been satisfied with the process.
Implementation Date: Fall, 1997
Note: If approved, the proposal will be sent to the Rules Committee for
codification.
Chairperson Schach recognized Professor Applegate for introduction of
the item. Professor Applegate reviewed the background of the proposal and
recommended approval.
Dean Retia Walker (Human Environment Sciences) said the proposal was
supported by the faculty.
Carolyn Brock (Arts & Sciences) said this was their first semester with
plus/minus grading and she is not looking forward to her class of 200 CHE
107 students because now there will be three times as many borderlines to
defend as she did before. The difference between an A and a B is always a
borderline decision, now there will be three times as many. In Chemistry
they were always opposed to plus/minus. It seems insane having different
systems in different colleges and that voting on things and what passes
and what doesnt depends on whom has already left to go home.
Chairperson Schach stated that the discussion on the university-wide
system was taken up in the Senate Council. The discussion was along the
lines that why should the Senate make decisions for colleges, that
colleges should make such decisions for themselves. That is why we see
individual colleges coming forth with proposals.
Laura Keith (Human Environmental Sciences - Student) said she believed
the faculty in that college did support plus/minus system, but as far as
the students she has spoken to none of them have supported it, including
the Student Advisory Council.
Kaveh Tagavi (Mechanical Engineering) was surprised that there was no
supporting evidence from those who are proposing plus/minus. He has seen
reports from schools that went to plus/minus and after so many years they
went back and counted all the pluss and minuss and they canceled each
other, meaning that this really has no effect. Regarding defending
borderline, under plus/minus there are smaller stakes, so it is easier to
defend.
Gretchen LaGodna said that when the original proposal was made to the
Senate, they did at that time present some evidence from other schools
that overall the pluss and minuss balanced out and it and did not hurt
students grade point average. Anecdotally, faculty reported having fewer
kinds of issues over grade disputes.
The question was moved and seconded. The motion to stop debate passed
in a show of hands.
The proposal was defeated in a show of hands; 26 for, 33 opposed, 4
abstentions.
A motion was made for the Senate Council to reconsider the issue of
plus/minus proposals, whether passed or not passed by all departments that
want to do it and have a written vote on that principle.
Tom Blues proposed an amendment to authorize the Senate Council to
consider, discuss, and bring a recommendation back to the Senate on the
question of plus/minus.
The Chair said that the Senate Council had already discussed the subject
and asked under what circumstances would they rereview what they had
already discussed. Professor Blues said the circumstances had just been
expressed, there is one system in Arts and Sciences, and other systems in
various colleges. There are wide areas of dissatisfaction.
Pam Kidd (Nursing) said she believed from last year they would look at
some data based evaluation of the system. There are some colleges that
are trying to survive it for the first time. She asked if there was a
mechanism in place for consistent evaluative criteria to be applied across
the colleges that are trying out the system, so an informed decision could
be made.
The Chair said she was not aware of any.
Loys Mather (Agriculture) said if he understood the motion, it was being
asked for the Senate to revote on separate actions that had been taken in
the past and he thought they only way that can be done is to move to
reconsider on a case by case basis.
The Chair asked for the amendment to be restated. Professor Blues said
the amendment was to bring the question of plus/minus to the Senate
Council for discussion and then to bring to the Senate whatever
recommendations or advice that might be deemed appropriate by the Senate
Council. The amendment was seconded.
Dan Fulks said that as a past and present member of the Senate Council,
the Council had discussed this more than once and brought a proposal to
the Senate for university-wide plus/minus grading system that was not
approved at the time. After which, separate colleges have come forward.
The Senate rules say that the Senators present will vote and transact
business, if senators are not present that is a problem for the colleges
to deal with. The system is those who show up vote. The Senate Council
will take back the issue to discuss and will probably come back with the
same thing they did last time. It is a very important matter that should
be addressed at least by the full Senate and probably by the full faculty.
Chairperson Schach said the amendment was to send the discussion of
plus/minus grading system back to the Senate Council to consider the
recent actions of defeating motions and to look at what is in the best
interest of the entire University with respect to plus/minus grading.
The amendment passed in an unanimous voice vote.
The question was called. The motion to stop debate passed in a voice
vote.
The motion passed in an unanimous voice vote.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:50 p.m.

Betty J. Huff
Secretary, University Senate

* Mary K. Kelly * University of Kentucky Registrar's Office *
* 12 Funkhouser Bldg., Lexington, KY 40506-0054 *
* mkell01@ukcc.uky.edu * (606)257-7169 *