Minutes of the Academic Policies Committee
for April 24, 2002

The Academic Policies Committee met Wednesday, April 24, 2002 in CA 233. The meeting was called to order at 3:05 P.M. by E. Zepp, Chair. Also attending were A. Crist, D. Devinny, B. Lewis, R. Lott, M. Thomson, and L. White.

1) The minutes of the meeting of March 27, 2002 were approved as distributed by e-mail and hard copy (it was noted that the announced meeting of April 10 had been cancelled).

2) The committee responded to a request from the Modern Languages Department Chair (E. Zepp) to consider whether extension credits in a foreign language transferred to UW-Parkside should continue to be accepted as general electives credit only, or as fulfilling the language requirement. The first is the current policy, as approved by the M.L. Department in the past. Given some pressure on us to conform to the usage of other campuses, the M.L. Dept. felt a certain discomfort at deciding unilaterally on the policy for a requirement which is a general university requirement, although M.L. gladly offers its experience and expertise in the shaping of such a policy. The reasoning behind a refusal to accept extension credits as fulfilling the language requirement is that there is no oral component in extension courses; students are not engaged in meaningful communicative exchanges. Prof. Zepp noted that a proficiency exam, which would be a distinct "measurable outcome" for assessing the foreign language requirement, would render the means by which the proficiency is achieved less important than the final results. This option, however, is not likely to be approved in the near future. A motion to support the Modern Languages evaluation policy was made by D. Devinny, seconded by M. Thomson. The motion passed 6-0, with Prof. Zepp abstaining. It was also agreed that Prof. Zepp would ask the General Education Committee to consider the question as well.

3) The committee returned to the question of workload policy in the case of labs. The Chair distributed the new information she had received from some of the Department Chairs on campus (with a thank-you to them). She also mentioned that she had spoken with Prof. McKeever, Chair of theSubcommittee on Workload, and that we had agreed to share data we have.

Information received to this point:

DEPARTMENT POLICY

Teacher Education Supervision of 2 student teachers = 1 cr

Bioscience 101 3 hours of lab = 1 cr

Chemistry assigns contact hours for workload = actual # of contact hours = credit hours

Geology 3 hours lab = 1 cr

CSCI 241 2 hour lab = 1 cr
CSCI 375 informal lab component in course but not included in course schedule
CSCI 440 informal lab component in course but not included in course schedule
Computer Science counts the full number of hours spent in lecture and laboratory (contact hours) as contributing toward faculty workload.
Workload is thus measured in units of contact hours, not credit hours.

English No standing policy on such matters

Physics 1 hour lab or discussion = 1 hr lecture; each are worth a full credit-hour in computation of workload (an hour in
class is an hour in class, without regard to the nature: lab, lecture, discussion)

Engineering contact hours = credit hours = contact hours counted for workload

Art "labs" are not indicated as such in timetable, but require extensive instructor contact hours

The Committee felt there was more homogeneity in the application of workload = contact hours than there was in contact hours in relationship to credit for labs. For labs, it appears usage extends from 1 contact hour = 1 credit to 3 contact hours = 1 credit. Given the reluctance of many departments to have an additional numbers of credit hours attached to a major/minor by making lab contact hours = credit hours, the APC did not feel willing to try to impose a policy on departments in relation to this area, at this time. It did believe, however, that the question needs to be examined by the next APC, by departments, and by the faculty as a whole, in order to find a more equitable application of lab hours vs. credits.

However APC did pass the following resolution (moved B. Lewis, seconded M. Thomson) to send to the Workload Subcommittee and the U.C.: In evaluating workload, APC recommends that contact hours (time in class) should be equal to workload hours counted. The resolution passed 6-0 (one person having left the meeting).

The Chair thanked the Committee members for their good work this year.

The meeting was adjourned at 3:55 P.M.