Skip to main content

2017-09-26 Minutes

MINUTES
MEETING OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE BOARDS
of the General College and the College of Arts and Sciences
Tuesday, September 26, 2017
3:30–4:59 PM, 3020 Steele Building

Members in attendance: Rita Balaban, Amy Cooke, Mara Evans, Beverly Foster, Kelly Giovanello, Jennifer Larson, Lauren Leve, Christian Lundberg, Lee May, David Mora-Marin, Ted Mouw, Abigail Panter, Valérie Pruvost, Nick Siedentop, James Thompson, Frank Tsui, Charlie Tuggle, Jonathan Weiler

Absent: Rob Bruce, Claude Clegg, Kevin Guskiewicz, Richard Langston, Cary Levine, Doug MacLean

Guests: Kim Abels, Jay Aikat, Misha Becker, Jaye Cable, Kevin Jeffay, Rebekah Layton, Shannon McKeen, Andy Perrin, Adam Versenyi

Staff: Ben Haven

1. Updates and Remarks by Abigail Panter, Senior Associate Dean for Undergraduate Education (3:30pm)
Panter made introductions and welcomed new and returning members of the Boards to the first meeting of the 2017-2018 academic year.

2. Discussion of the September 18 New General Education Curriculum Draft (3:35pm)
Andy Perrin, Professor, Department of Sociology and Special Assistant to the Dean
Perrin and other members of the 2019 Curriculum Coordinating Committee (Cable, Panter, Versenyi) provided an overview of the distributed draft and then answered questions from the Boards.

The discussion of the new general education curriculum began 1 ½ years ago with a set of study questions: 1) What is the purpose of the curriculum? 2) What does UNC-Chapel Hill want its undergraduate students to be when they graduate? The proposal envisions a curriculum that has opportunities for structured learning initially, but is also flexible to accommodate and incorporate various areas of interest later on. The 2019 Curriculum has a structured framework for the first year, which will help students who may not be ready to think in terms of styles of discovery. Early focus will be on approaches to inquiry, interest building, and getting students excited about learning early on in their college careers.

The committee is currently holding town hall meetings to get campus feedback and comments on the curriculum proposal. Perrin encouraged Boards members to review the proposal and submit comments, and he asked their colleagues to do the same. There is no set date for the next curriculum draft release, but the Coordinating Committee will be meeting in the next two weeks to work through the comments. The goal is to implement the new curriculum effective with the fall 2019 term; however, this can be delayed if more substantive changes are made after incorporating feedback.

Members asked questions related to the history requirement, global/U.S. diversity requirement, the “life skills” course, the first-year cohort model, and placement out of ENGL 105, among others.

Perrin was invited by Panter to come back and give periodic updates to the Boards.

3. Learning Assistants in the Classroom Report (3:55pm)
Rita Balaban, Teaching Professor and Assistant Department Chair, Economics; Chair, Learning Assistants in the Classroom Task Force
Balaban discussed the survey the learning assistant task force sent to faculty across campus. The results indicate that learning assistants are more prevalent in STEM and lower-level courses; however, there is some use in the 400 and above levels as well. Currently, faculty identify the learning assistants and learning assistant compensation varies widely across departments. The most common compensation schemes include paying the learning assistants and giving course credit, but some departments don’t offer compensation.

Balaban highlighted some best practices:

  1. Hand-picking learning assistants is not transparent, and faculty may be missing out on good candidates. Some research has found that “A” students don’t always make the best learning assistants. An ability to help others learn by making the information more accessible is a better indicator of success as a learning assistant than GPA. A public application is recommended.
  2. Students should be qualified to serve as learning assistants after they have taken the learning assistant course, not after a certain number of credits in their major.
  3. Students need a course that offers training in pedagogy (EDUC 387 or ENGL 402). The training doesn’t have to be discipline-specific.
  4. There should be accountability with the supervision. It is recommended that instructors meet with their learning assistants weekly for approximately one hour. Assessment and evaluation must be a component of this process.
  5. This is a learning community with the learning assistants and their peers. As such, learning assistants should not be grading assignments or used to enforce classroom policies.
  6. Students should be paid for this work.
  7. The general recommendation is one learning assistant per 20 students in smaller classrooms and one per 40 students in a larger classroom.
  8. The campus should give recognition to those faculty who use learning assistants since the process can be time-intensive.

The University of Colorado has a good model for learning assistants in the classroom, which targets STEM students going into high school teaching. The program can be good for the learning assistant’s growth, but can it also have a positive impact on the enrolled students in the classroom.

The Boards did have some questions including the following: 1) How will the workload differ for undergraduate student learning assistants and graduate students who require teaching assistantships to get viable work experience and fulfill their degree requirements? 2) Is there a place where faculty can go to get best practices and policy guidance?

It was recommended that the task force share some applications to identify learning assistants. Balaban will add these to the report appendix. Balaban will incorporate the Boards’ feedback and come to a subsequent meeting with an update.

4. Graduate Certificate in College Science Teaching (revised) (4:10pm)
Rebekah Layton, Assistant Director for Professional Development in Graduate Education, School of Medicine
The proposal was revised in response to questions at the last Boards meeting held in April 2017. Layton discussed the revised proposal and then responded to additional questions from the Boards.

  • Time to degree will be monitored and should not be delayed since the certificate is intended to be a two or three-year program. There will be additional coursework, but it should not add a significant burden on students and the additional requirements are not outside the norm for a graduate certificate. In addition, preliminary evidence suggests that UNC students participating in professional development events do not appear to have delayed graduation rates. The teaching internship is a fundamental experiential component. Though the work is time-intensive, the Office of Graduate Education believes the benefits outweigh the inputs.
  • There is evidence to suggest that liberal arts and teaching colleges do look for certain materials and evidence of teaching excellence that can be bolstered by the certificate experience. The program also helps with teaching demonstrations.
  • This program should not contribute to tuition increases. Students must pay for subsequent courses in their fourth and fifth year, but they can take up to 5.9 credits without being charged extra. The Office of Graduate Education will work with student’s departments to be sure that their enrollment in the certificate doesn’t trigger a tuition increase.
  • It is difficult for instructors to get instructor of record experience, especially in science departments. This could provide students with an opportunity they otherwise would not have.

The Boards supported the revised proposal.

5. Independent Study Policy Task Force Report (reviewed in April 2017) (4:20pm)
Misha Becker, Professor and Chair, Department of Linguistics; Chair, Independent Study Policy Task Force
The proposal was revised in response to questions at the last Boards meeting held in April 2017. Becker discussed the revised proposal with responses to Boards’ April 2017 questions. The Task Force recommends the following changes to the Independent Study Policy:

  • Change registration deadline for independent study courses to end of the second week (fall, spring term), to align with all other undergraduate courses.
  • Remove the “traditional independent study” designation since it was unclear how this designation would be different from a “directed readings” course.
  • Exempt internships and practica from the 2 student-per-semester limit for faculty because the direct oversight is done by someone other than the faculty advisor.
  • All exceptions be approved by the Senior Associate Dean for Undergraduate Education, and that exceptions apply for a period of 3 years.

The Boards approved the updated proposal as distributed. The proposal will now be forwarded on to the Education Policy Committee for review.

6. Professional Science Master’s (PSM) in Data Science (4:30pm)
Jay Aikat, Chief Operating Officer, Renaissance Computing Institute; Research Associate Professor, Department of Computer Science
Kevin Jeffay, Professor and Chair, Department of Computer Science
Shannon McKeen, Research Professional, Renaissance Computing Institute; Lecturer, Kenan-Flagler Business School
Members of the Data Science PSM Committee discussed the Request to Plan proposal and answered questions from the Boards. The program is a team‐based, 12‐month, full‐time (30‐credit) Professional Science Master’s in Data Science. Students will apply through The Graduate School. Students accepted into the program will enroll for two semesters with a three-credit Data Science Essentials boot camp on the front end and a three-hour capstone team-based practicum as the final requirement. Once approved, implementation is planned for fall 2019 with a 20-student cohort (each having at least three years of outside work experience). Students will be expected to learn advanced tools and techniques to solve problems in a variety of areas, but there is also an option to specialize in a discipline (e.g., environmental science, social science, public health, pharmacy, public policy, and city and regional planning). Upon completion of the degree program, students will also understand the social and ethical implications of data science. The program will be collaboratively offered by several core units at UNC-Chapel Hill, and the program’s administrative functions will be housed in the Department of Computer Science. Additional funding has been secured from the Graduate School to hire a student services staff member to handle program logistics. The Boards supported the proposal as distributed.

7. Curriculum Committee Report (4:50pm)
James Thompson, Associate Dean for Undergraduate Curricula
The Boards approved the report as distributed.

8. Undergraduate Program Changes (4:55pm)
Nick Siedentop, Curriculum Director, Office of Undergraduate Curricula

The Boards approved the curriculum changes as distributed.

The meeting adjourned at 4:59pm.

UNC_CAS542_png

The Administrative Boards of the General College and the College of Arts and Sciences are responsible for advising the Dean of the College about the undergraduate curriculum, including changes in that curriculum, approving individual courses offered in Departments and Curricula of the College, and making decisions when requested on specifications for degrees.