APC Annual Report for Academic Year 2006-2007

20 April 2007

The bulk of the APC’s work this year revolved around the Provost’s charge to review the Habits of Inquiry report. In the Fall, the committee resolved to handle the review in two phases. Phase one was to consist of a review of the learning outcomes in sections I-V of the document to determine of they captured the ideals of a university education in the Catholic and Marianist traditions. Concluding that the report had met these criteria, the committee appointed a subcommittee of Darrow, Duncan, O’Gorman and Penno to determine whether or not the university community as a whole agreed. After conducting a series of open forums and individual presentations, the subcommittee presented its findings to the APC, which then reported them to the Senate on 30 November 2006 (Appendix A).

Anticipating approval during the Phase I review process, the APC began developing a series of guidelines for Phase II—the review of the recommendations section of the HIR document. For this purpose, the committee designed a system of working groups to review individual sections of the document recommendations with the goal of fulfilling its charge to “generate a set of recommendations regarding specific programs, infrastructure, faculty development, and resources necessary to realize the educational aims and learning outcomes.” The committee devised a draft charge to the working groups (for the latest vesion see Appendix B). Originally, the committee proposed the creation of five working groups that divided the task of review into the following categories:

Working Group #1 First Year Seminar, Humanities Base, & General Education

Working Group #2 Service & Experiential Learning, Multi/Interdisciplinary Programs

Working Group #3 Intercultural and Global Learning

Working Group #4 Student Scholarship and Culminating Experiences

Working Group #5 Faculty Development, Communication, &Pedagogy

Each of the working groups was to be chaired by one or more members of the APC. Initial discussions in the winter term resulted in a decision to postpone the convocation of the fifth working group until the APC had processed interim reports from the other WGs. The original draft charge to the WGs contained certain recommendations connected to their membership. It was with these recommendations in mind that the APC began assembling lists of faculty and staff to be invited to serve as WG members in the Winter term. This proved to be a rather drawn out process, as the preliminary lists required amendment after the initial round of invitations failed to yield adequate representation from each of the divisions of the university. There was also some question as to the wording of the charges to the WGs. As such, the process has moved at a disappointingly slow pace. To date, only WG #1 has met. Discussions in the working group are headed in the direction of first, trying to determine what students should get out of a first year seminar. The following questions were raised: What is the purpose (or what ought to be the purpose) of the seminar? Are students’ educational and developmental needs best addressed through a seminar, or would they be best served by a quilt or tapestry of experiences to accomplish these goals? The WG will pick up with these questions in the fall. Hopefully, each of the other WGs will be able to have at least an electronic organizational meeting (e.g., circulation and submission of F 07 availability) before May 15.

In addition to this work, the APC reviewed and commented on the draft of an ENG department proposal to revise the current writing course sequence to make it more consistent with student developmental needs. Rather than frontloading the writing into the first year, the proposal would spread the two required semesters over the first year and sophomore year. This would also address the well-documented issue of the dramatic dip in student writing that occurs on campus between the first year and junior/senior years.

The Committee also worked with the calendar committee on the next round of academic calendars. Discussions produced a consensus to work with thee registrar over the long term to increase the length of the break between fall and winter term, when possible. The calendar discussion also raised the need to continue to exam the general exam period guidelines to ensure an adequate distribution of the study days throughout the exam period.

Much of the committee’s work was hampered, in both semesters, by the difficulty of raising a quorum. We urge the Senate to consider policy changes that will ensure either the replacement of faculty on leave or who resign and that will provide a mechanism for conducting routine business when a quorum cannot be assembled because of conflicting schedules.

APPENDIX A

Report of the Academic Policy Committee

Subcommittee on Habits of Inquiry and Reflection

November 30, 2006

The APC charged the subcommittee with ascertaining whether or not the campus community believed that sections I-V of Habits of Inquiry and Reflection (HIR) captured the ideals of a university education in the Catholic and Marianist traditions. To this end, the subcommittee, comprised of D. Darrow, C. Duncan, J. O’Gorman, R. Penno, created a program that would a) review the provenance and contents of sections I-V; b) present this review to a wide audience, and; c) collect feedback from the campus community. The subcommittee presented this program and plan of action at the Senate meeting of October 13. The subcommittee then presented this review at (in addition to the already-mentioned Senate meeting) two widely-advertised open forums on October 31, and November 15; a full faculty meeting of the School of Business Administration on October 20; a meeting of the Library faculty on November 16; and a meeting of the College of Arts and Sciences chairs and program directors (CCPD) on November 8. The topic was also discussed at the fall Humanities Base faculty meeting on November 1 (approximately 20-25 regular faculty were in attendance). The School of Engineering forwarded its comments from a full faculty discussion last year as its contribution to this process. The Dean of the School of Education and Allied Professions (SOEAP) encouraged the faculty to attend one of the forums. In addition, the SOEAP Dean had each department chair share the document with his or her department and be certain their members understood the document and its implications.  SOEAP will also use Habits to review the conceptual framework of the unit in preparation for our accreditation visit.  

The open forums were lightly attended. The subcommittee has no data to explain this and so must speculate that the lack of attendance was due either to apathy or the fact that the open forums were not the first opportunity that faculty have had to discuss the document. Each of the other presentations took place before a large audience. At the end of each of the open forums and the presentations to the other groups the audience was asked to indicate by a show of hands whether or not it believed that sections I-V of HIR captured the ideals of a university education in the Catholic and Marianist traditions. The membership of the CCPD gave sections I-V near unanimous approval.[1] The SBA faculty also gave sections I-V near unanimous approval.[2] The Library faculty fully supported the document. The results of the Humanities Base presentation discussion were inconclusive.

Most significantly, in each case there were no participants who registered a “no” vote (i.e., did not agree that sections I-V captured the ideals of a university education in the Catholic and Marianist traditions). Each of the events produced a rich conversation about the report and its place in the Catholic intellectual tradition. In general, there was much curiosity about HIR and its role as an extension of the UD mission statement, the Vision of Excellence, Characteristics of Marianist Education, and other key documents. The presentation prompted several inquiries into what was meant by Catholic social teaching. Indeed many of the questions seemed to be as connected to an exploration of what UD is all about as much as to the document itself. The fact that many faculty were eager to move on to a discussion of the recommendations also seemed to indicate that the document has already done much to stimulate thought about current and future curricula.

Concerns about the document expressed at the each of the meetings centered on three issues: scholarship, sacramentality and process.[3] The question on scholarship emerged in the discussions with the SBA, where several faculty members simply wanted to know more precisely what constituted scholarship as defined by the document. The resultant discussion seemed to satisfy their curiosity. Some Humanities Base faculty expressed concern that the document, in their reading, did not say more to promote academic rigor. One department suggested that, although the document was certainly a good Catholic and Marianist document, it was a substantial departure from the direction UD had been heading over the last decade.[4] There were also some concerns and confusion about the process by which the document came to and was being processed by the Senate. The most frequent and pointed concern, however, was over the term sacramentality. For some faculty the term was too Catholic. For others, the way the term is used in the document is not Catholic enough. Some faculty noted that the explanatory paragraph and subsequent discussion provided an adequate explanation of what was meant by “seeks knowledge in a sacramental spirit.” They also indicated that they understood and agreed with the intent of the term. They were concerned, however, that as the phrase would not always be accompanied by the explanatory paragraph that people would come to view “sacramental” in the same context as the Seven Sacraments. Some faculty also expressed the concern that using the term would make UD appear less inclusive to the outside world. At the same time, none of the participants in the discussion was able to provide an alternative term. The subcommittee recognizes these concerns and concludes that, given the fairly even split between those concerned that the use of the term was too Catholic and those who believed that the way the term is used is not Catholic enough, that perhaps the document did, in fact, use the term “just right.”

Recommendation: After the many campus conversations, the subcommittee concludes that the university community believes that HIR captured the ideals of a university education in the Catholic and Marianist traditions. As such, the subcommittee recommends that the APC endorse sections I-V of the document as having captured the ideals of a university education in the Catholic and Marianist traditions, communicate this to the Senate, and proceed with an examination and discussion of the recommendations in the concluding sections of the document.

Attached:

Sense of the Student Academic Policies Committee regarding DOC I-06-09

Minutes of the Department of Philosophy Meeting of Friday, October 20

Response from the Department of History

School of Engineering Response to the Marianist Education Working Group Document

APPENDIX B

DRAFT #6

Charge to APCAS Working Groups (WG) on HIR

GUIDING PROFESSIONAL PRINCIPLES

· Curricular change is a faculty responsibility

· Neither the Provost not the Deans have the level of responsibility for the curriculum as does the faculty.

· Neither ECAS nor APCAS has the responsibility for “doing the work” of curriculum design, revision, or development as does the faculty.

· Therefore, the goal of the HIR review process is to move the work to the faculty as soon as possible.

PLAN

By 11/30/06, answer the question of Phase 1 and determine plan for addressing Phase 2

PHASE 1 “Does the Senate believe that the MEWG captured the ideals of a university education in the Catholic and Marianist traditions? If so, I respectfully request that

PHASE 2 “ the Senate take appropriate action on the document through its committee structure in order to generate a set of recommendations regarding specific programs, infrastructure, faculty development, and resources necessary to realize the educational aims and learning outcomes.”

Although the APCAS has designed a two-phase process regarding HIR, the goal is to engage in an integrative and holistic study. The Catholic and Marianist Tradition provide UD not only the ground for these recommendations, but also the generative culture for ongoing exploration. As the report states on p. 9:

As well as reflecting the discussions initiated by the Working Group, these recommendations draw upon other work on the curriculum being done by the First Year Team, the Humanities Base Committee, the Cluster Coordinating Committee, the Committee on General Education and Competencies, and faculty involved in various academic excellence initiatives funded by the provost. These recommendations are also designed to advance the seven strategic goals set out in A Vision of Excellence.

CHARGES COMMON TO ALL WGs

· Determine appropriate working relationships with existing UD teams/committees/working groups.

· Determine a structure and set of procedures for the WG.

· Determine appropriate membership beyond the core established by APCAS.

· Review the assigned curricular recommendations from HIR.

· Identify critical connections/overlaps with other WGs and/or recommendations. These interrelationships should be forwarded to the HIR Steering Committee on a regular basis.

· Identify educational infrastructure issues to be forwarded to the HIR Steering Committee on a regular basis.

· Consider means by which the implemented recommendations might be assessed.

MEMBERSHIP

· A member of APCAS will chair each WG. The core membership of each WG will be determined by the APCAS.

· Other Senators can volunteer for the WG or their choice.

· Other Senators can nominate non-Senate members (nominations to be sent to WG chair).

· Each WG should invite members from key stakeholder groups.

TIMELINE

• An Initial Report is due from each WG by May 15, 2007.
• An Interim Report is due from each WG by November 1, 2007.
• A Final WG report is due by February 2008.
• The HIR Steering Committee’s Interim Report will include any changes in the charges for the WGs as well as more specific guidelines for the final report due in March 2008.

OVERSIGHT

The HIR Strategic Task Force Steering Committee, led by APC members with representatives from Student Development and Campus Ministry, will monitor the necessary steps to encourage holistic and integrated work across the Working Groups; it will also monitor the “infrastructure and implication” issues identified by the Working Groups. The Steering Committee will also function as the “writing committee” for the final version of HIR.

Working Group #1

First Year Seminar, Humanities Base, and General Education

Membership

David Darrow and Chris Duncan, Co-Chairs

R. Alakkad

R. Berney

M. Daniels

C. Daprano

M. Donahue

D. Doyle

K. Henderson

C. Merithew

D. Pair

C. Schramm

L. Scott

J Shishoff

C. Sullivan

K. Webb

S. Wilhoit

CM, Senators, students

Charge

· Determine an efficient structure for conducting the work of the WG.

· Determine appropriate membership beyond the core established by APCAS.

· Determine appropriate working relationships with existing UD teams/committees/working groups or individuals.

· Develop a plan to reform and revitalize ASI 150 into a 3-hour first-year seminar (FYS) that fosters engaging academic inquiry and reflection and orients students to the nature and purposes of a University of Dayton education.

· Review the existing system of general education in light of the learning outcomes contained in parts I-V of the HIR report.

· Develop model to align Learning-living communities (LLC), with the Humanities Base Program (HBP), and general education over four years.

· Consider models to conceptually expand the HBP to include the new FYS and the incorporation of the lines of inquiry from Arts Study, Science, and Social Science.

· Identify critical connections/overlaps with other WGs and/or recommendations. These interrelationships should be forwarded to the HIR Steering Committee on a regular basis.

· Identify educational infrastructure issues to be forwarded to the HIR Steering Committee on a regular basis.

Timeline

· An Initial Report is due by May 15, 2007. The report should describe how the WG plans to conduct its work (e.g., division into subcommittees, consultation with existing university committees, etc.)

· An Interim Report is due by November 1, 2007. The report should contain preliminary recommendations related to an FYS, conclusions from the review of current system of general education and a plan for aligning the FYS, HBP and general education with LLCs.

· A Final Report is due February 2008.

Focus

In conducting its work, the WG should consider the following recommendations from the HIR report:

VI.A. Recommendations for the first year of study.

1. Revise first-year seminars substantially to become academically challenging courses that foster engaging academic inquiry and reflection and orient students to the nature and purposes of a University of Dayton education. First-year seminars should be designed to promote the core learning outcomes, especially in scholarship, diversity, community, and vocation. They should also be coordinated with the Humanities Base Program. Some seminars may be offered in conjunction with first-year learning-living communities. First-year seminars should require that students begin construction of academic portfolios and also offer opportunities for service-based learning, focused partly on the campus community. First-year seminars would also be powerful vehicles through which to promote student learning about health and personal discipline in the context of students’ educational development. In order to achieve these aims, first-year seminars should be expanded in curricular significance, either by counting for 3-4 semester hours of General Education credit or through linking with General Education courses. Ideally, these should be small, interdisciplinary, writing-intensive courses. The University should explore the possibility that writing-intensive seminars might replace one of the English composition courses in the first year. Collaboration with the Libraries, Student Development, and Campus Ministry will be essential to future development of first-year seminars. [Learning outcomes 1, 3-4, 7]
2. Revise the Humanities Base Program to lay the foundation for all core learning outcomes for the common academic program and to facilitate coordination with the objectives of first-year seminars and first-year learning-living communities. In particular, all Humanities Base courses should contribute to students’ examination of faith traditions and to their academic encounters with diversity. As expressed in the current Humanities Base goals, all Humanities Base courses should actively support consideration of global perspectives. [All learning outcomes]

VI.B. Recommendations for the first and second years of study

1. Expand Arts Study offerings for first- and second-year students. Some of these courses should be coordinated with first-year seminars, Humanities Base courses, and first-year learning communities. Some Arts courses might be coordinated with proposals below for the second or third years of study. Study of, and active participation in, the arts provide uniquely powerful occasions to explore modes of inquiry, reflection, and experiential immersion in the world that advance the proposed student learning outcomes. [All learning outcomes]
2. Incorporate scientific inquiry, as pursued in the natural sciences, mathematics, engineering, and technology, more deliberately in the first and second years of study. Inquiry using the methods of these fields should be pursued in some first-year seminars. Some introductory science courses in General Education should be coordinated with courses in the Humanities Base or with first-year courses in the social sciences or arts. Courses that explore the distinctive methodologies and habits of mind in scientific fields advance learning outcomes for scholarship, community, practical wisdom, and critical evaluation of our times. Scientific inquiry is also inherently a form of global, transnational learning that relies on collaborative, communal work.