COLLEGE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
April 22, 2010
Office Of College Services Board Room
Joyce Breckenridge Charles Martoni
Maryann Anderson, College Council Chair, called the meeting to order at 2:35 PM.
AGENDA ITEM I: APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE
APRIL 8, 2010 MEETING
Mary Ellen Driver moved to approve the minutes of the April 8, 2010 meeting of College Council. Rita Gallegos seconded the motion. The minutes were approved as amended.
AGENDA ITEM II:SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS
Proposal: Medical Insurance Specialist Program (#595.1) and Course Revisions
Barbara Williams presented the proposal in which she had reviewed all syllabi and incorporated Bloom’s taxonomy where appropriate. In the catalog description for the program, the requirement of a 40 wpm typing proficiency was removed, because CIT 100 is a required program course. Additionally, the requirement for eligibility into ENG 100 was added. One credit hour was added to MIS 103, Medical Insurance Seminar, because of an increased need for legal issues content. MDA 211, Medical Financial Reimbursement Techniques, was deleted from the program because it is geared more toward hospital claims instead of outpatient/physician claims. MIS 105, Medical Insurance Applications, was added to provide more training in post-adjudication claims issues, as requested by employers.
Mary Ellen Driver asked why MIS 102 required acceptance into the program and couldn’t be taken as a stand-alone course. Barbara Williams explained that MIS 102 is a required course for her students and there are a limited number of seats.
Yvonne Burns moved to accept the proposal. Rachel Matheis seconded the motion and the motion passed unanimously.
Proposal: Electronic Engineering Technology (300) Proposal
Brad Sandrock presented the proposal which updates eight electronic engineering technology courses that have not been reviewed in many years. The prerequisite for EET 103 was revised to require a C or better for the one year of high school algebra requirement.
Steve Wells noted several typographical errors:
EET 130, Listed Topics #4, change “analysism” to “analysis.”
EET 202, Listed Topics # 5, change “bidierectional” to “bidirectional.”
EET 213, Listed Topics # 5, change “potentiomenters” to “potentiometers.”
Donna Imhoff moved to accept the proposal. Barbara Thompson seconded the motion, and the motion passed - 14 votes in favor and 1 abstention.
Proposal: Course revisions for Education courses
Stephanie Goloway and Brenda Trettel presented the proposal which reviewed and revised the one-credit Act 48 education courses. Act 48 courses are those that meet the Pennsylvania Act 48 certification professional development requirements. The following courses were revised according to Bloom’s taxonomy: EDU 201, EDU 115, EDU 130, EDU 132, EDU 139, EDU 141, EDU 142, and EDU 143. Additionally the title of EDU 141 was changed from “Multicultural: Is It True What They Say about the Village” to “Diverse Learners.” The following courses will be deleted because of lack of enrollment: EDU 136, EDU 137, EDU 138, EDU 150, and EDU 211. Because Act 48 courses are courses that are taken by teachers who are already in the field, the transferability of these courses is not a concern.
When questioned about EDU 201, Foundations of Education, Ms Goloway replied that the course has less transferability than it did previously, but still transfers to the University of Pittsburgh. EDU 125, Foundations of Mid Level/Secondary Education, which is transferrable, is often used instead of EDU 201.
Rita Gallegos moved to accept the proposal. Joanne Jeffcoat seconded the motion and the motion passed unanimously.
Proposal: Humor in the Classroom
Pat McKenna presented the proposal. This course has run successfully as an experimental course and would be added to the list of available Act 48 courses. The idea for this course came from questions regarding how we engage students. It was originally a 3-credit course, but won’t fulfill graduation requirements under the articulation agreements we have in place for education majors. It will transfer as a general elective. It is, however, very marketable as a one-credit course.
Mary Ellen Driver moved to accept the proposal. Toni Carney seconded the motion and the motion passed unanimously.
Proposal: Revisions to the Radiologic Technology (RAD) Program Description and Course Syllabi (as listed below) to include Learning Objectives and Additions to the Accrediting Agency Contact Information RAD107, RAD108, RAD157, RAD158, RAD207, RAD208, RAD217, RAD218, RAD258
Gus Kellermann presented the proposal which updates the learning objectives and program descriptions to be in compliance with Bloom’s taxonomy. Additionally, the accrediting agency has changed, and this information had to be corrected. Some courses dated from the late 80’s, but course descriptions and learning objectives could not be altered because the accrediting agency (JRCERT) and national board in Radiology (ARRT) wouldn’t allow corrections due to Scope of Practice Standards. With the change in the guidelines and the accrediting body last year, the Department was free to make the needed corrections.
Two typographical errors were noted:
RAD 107, Learning Outcomes #6, change “patent” to “patient.”
RAD 157, Catalog Description, change “complimentary” to “complementary.”
Joanne Jeffcoat moved to accept the proposal. Toni Carney seconded the motion and the motion passed unanimously.
Proposal: Health Unit Coordinator Program (#537) Deletion
Rick Allison who presented the proposal explained that this was a housekeeping issue. The program has not been offered in many years. Hospitals do use coordinators; however students do not need to go through a program to become one.
Carl Francolino moved to accept the proposal. Rachel Matheis seconded the motion and the motion passed unanimously.
Proposal: Revisions to the Respiratory Therapy (#540) Program Description to Include Program Learning Objectives and the Accrediting Agency Information
The accrediting agency changed and this was corrected, as well as the program learning objectives.
Rita Gallegos moved to accept the proposal. Mary Ellen Driver seconded the motion and the motion passed unanimously.
Maura Stevenson reported that faculty members have complained that there is an inconsistent application of the term “co-requisites.” Mary Frances Archey responded that ideally this means that courses are taken at the same time, however in some cases one course can be taken before the other. It was suggested that the definitions of “pre-requisite” and “co-requisite” be presented as a proposal. Dr. Archey will take her definition to the Academic Deans and out of that will come a proposal.
B. ACADEMIC PLANNING
Joanne Jeffcoat reported that there were five program reviews considered by the Subcommittee at the last meeting; two were presented at this meeting.
Program/Discipline Review: Art (026)
Joanne Jeffcoat stated that everything was in order for the Art Program Review. Max Blobner presented the review which focused on the need for resources and space at all campuses and additional faculty at Allegheny. Barbara Thompson said she noticed that the need for a full-time faculty member was not addressed for North Campus. This will be added to page 17 and 36 of the proposal.
Donna Imhoff moved to accept the Program Review. Joanne Jeffcoat seconded the motion and the motion passed unanimously.
Program/Discipline Review: Engineering
Robotics and Automated Systems Technology (435)
Integrated Systems Engineering Technology (720)
Integrated Systems Technology (721)
Manufacturing Technology (705.3)
Nanofabrication Technology (709)
Basic Machine (706)
Joanne Jeffcoat stated that everything in the Program Review was in order and noted especially that the External Evaluator’s review was excellent. Brad Sandrock remarked that although only the Robotics Program Review was mandated this year, the faculty decided to split the 22 programs into 5 sections and to have one section reviewed each year so that each program would be reviewed every 5 years.
Mr. Sandrock said that this year the Department will have a Minority Intern at South Campus that they hope will move into a full-time faculty position the following year.
Mr. Sandrock outlined some particular challenges. He said it is very hard to find adjuncts to teach during the day. They are severely challenged for space and equipment. Gretchen Mullin-Sawicki thanked Brad Sandrock and Dan Ference for their hard work on this review, especially in light of the fact that only the Robotics Program Review was required.
Carl Francolino moved to accept the proposal. Rita Gallegos seconded the motion and the motion passed unanimously.
C. ACADEMIC STANDARDS AND STUDENT AFFAIRS
Proposal: Tiered Probation Policy
Mary Kate Quinlan presented the proposal on behalf of Achieving the Dream and their mandate to look for ways to help students be successful. The proposal was the result of a study done by Institutional Research which showed that only 15% of students who are on academic probation move from probation to good standing. The proposal sets parameters that will hopefully allow students to be more successful. Those students having a GPA between 1.5 and 1.99 will be allowed to take a maximum of 13 credits, must meet with an advisor, may not take distance learning courses, must repeat any “F” courses in their major, and are strongly recommended to repeat courses in which they received a “D.” Those having a GPA below 1.5 must adhere to all of the steps above, but not be allowed to take more than 10 credits, and, further, must take SDS 102 provided it was not already successfully completed. Barbara Thompson asked why it was not recommended that they meet with a tutor. This will be added.
Steve Wells moved to accept the proposal. Mary Ellen Driver seconded the proposal and the proposal passed unanimously.
Proposal: Revisions to the Student Academic Complaint Procedure “Relative to the Associate Dean of Nursing”
Accrediting agencies always ask that all students be treated equitably. This proposal allows Nursing students to go to the Associate Dean of Academic Affairs on their campus during the formal stage of the Academic Complaint Procedure, as other students do. The Dean of Academic Affairs will confer, as needed, with the appropriate Program Dean at the appeal level.
Joanne Jeffcoat moved to accept the proposal. Yvonne Burns seconded the motion and the motion passed unanimously.
D. ASSESSMENT AND RESEARCH
Carl Francolino reported that the Subcommittee met for the last time on April 14. At this meeting, Mary Kate Quinlan gave an update of assessment. Under Classroom Assessment, 94 CAT’s have been submitted to date and are still being collected. Under Program Assessment – Academic, 31 of 61 plans have been collected and 13 program assessment reports have been collected. All eight units of Student Services are conducting assessments this year. In the General Education assessment, 437 student artifacts were reviewed.
Dwight Bishop provided a distance learning update. He reviewed the work done by the Distance Learning Task Force. For the Summer sessions, distance learning is up 15% and so far there is an increase for the Fall of 26% over this same period last year.
Dwight Bishop and other IT staff will receive special Blackboard training and certification.
Carl Francolino thanked Mary Ellen Driver for her work on the Subcommittee. Mrs. Driver will not be serving next year.
AGENDA ITEM III: UNFINISHED BUSINESS
There was no unfinished business.
AGENDA ITEM IV: NEW BUSINESS
Maryann Anderson reported that she had attended a President’s Council meeting on April 20. Topics included outcomes of the campus meetings with Math faculty members, essential personnel during snow storms, and budget discussions. Mrs. Anderson mentioned that it is very important that faculty attend graduation.
The next meeting of College Council will be on May 6. The meeting will start at 12:30 pm, with lunch provided at 12 pm.
There being no further business, the meeting ended at 5:10 pm.
College Council Secretary