CLAS Home > For Faculty > Faculty Governance > Faculty Assembly >

Minutes of the College of Liberal Arts Faculty Assembly

Attending: Anderson, Arnone, Arthur, Atkinson, Beckman, Boggess, Broffitt, Dettmer, Duarte, Ehrstine, Franklin, Freeman, Gross, Hanley, Heard, Heineman, Honey, Jones, Kuntz, Lang, Lara-Braud, Lindberg, Maynard, Mendez, Nagel, J. Nelson, Norbeck, Polumbaum, Simon, Slatton, Solow, Stroyan, Ton-That, Trachsel, Troyer, Valentino, Young

Excused absence: Buss, Guentner, Hesli, Markovsky, Marvin

Absent: Abbas, Adams, Babb, Creekmur, Darling, DiPardo, Erickson, Farrell, Fielding, Finamore, Gölz, Heilenman, Hochstrasser, Kleiber, Lafky, Lewis, Lu, Mills, Murty, Oden, Peters, Pietrzyk, Randell, Rigal, Robertson, Rushton, Sáenz, Schnell, Shih, Soloski, Spiess, Squire, Thomas, Tomblin, Weirich, Whitmore, Wilcox, Woodard, Woodworth

Guests: Nancy Baker, University Librarian; JoAnn Castagna, Educational Policy Committee staff; Mary Johnson, The Daily Iowan; Doug Lee, Director of Summer Session; Lola Lopes, Associate Provost for Undergraduate Education; Michael O'Hara, Associate Dean for Research & Development; Edward Shreeves, Director of Library Collections and Information Resources

1. The minutes of the special faculty meeting of 14 February 2001 were approved as submitted.

2. The minutes of the Faculty Assembly meeting of 21 February 2001 were approved with corrections to the attendance record.

3. Library acquisitions policies and procedures. Chair Honey introduced Nancy Baker, University Librarian, and Edward Shreeves, Director of Library Collections and Information Resources. Baker thanked the Assembly for its invitation to address the topic of library acquisitions, noting that the discussion was quite timely given the recent announcement of budget cuts.

Shreeves presented some general background information on inflation rates and library budgets. Over the period 1986-99, inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index was 52%. During that same time, the price of journals increased 207% and the library's acquisitions budget increased 111%. The number of journal titles acquired went down slightly during that time, as did the number of monographs acquired.

Shreeves said that the library has responded to the increase in costs by selectively canceling journal subscriptions, reducing acquisitions of monographs, making cooperative agreements with other libraries for the purchase and use of periodicals, contracting with improved document delivery systems, and investigating other alternatives, such as electronic editions. The library cancelled about 2,500 journal titles in four rounds of cancellations during the 1990s, though the net loss was less than 2,500 because some new titles were also acquired during this interval.

Shreeves maintained that the UI was doing slightly better, on average, than peer libraries with respect to increases in acquisitions budgets. The criteria used for the allocation of the acquisitions budget involve the rate of inflation in the subject areas (which varies greatly), demonstrated and projected changes in demand on campus (new programs, hot topics, major research initiatives), and historical factors (past underfunding that needs to be corrected). He emphasized that there are no across the board percentage increases-allocations are always made strategically.

Mike O'Hara (Associate Dean for Research & Development) asked how quickly the library's periodical holdings were becoming electronic. Shreeves responded that some fields were proceeding very aggressively. The reason is partly economic--electronic holdings can be less expensive--but in many cases the library has no choice. Many publishers of journals say that they do not expect to publish in print much longer. He said there are still quality issues to be resolved in electronic publications, especially with respect to graphics. Maintaining a dual system (print/electronic) is expensive, but necessary at this point.

Baker added that another major issue in electronic publishing was archiving. Libraries do not trust publishers to archive their electronic publications successfully. Doug Jones (Computer Science) said that he was extremely distrustful of electronic archiving. Formats are always changing, as well as the equipment that reads them. One hundred years from now, he maintained, only preliminary paper copies of electronically published articles will be readable. O'Hara asked who had the responsibility for archiving--publishers or libraries? Shreeves replied that it was not yet clear. He maintained that librarians are more aware of the general principles and issues related to archiving information. Consequently, they will probably have a great deal of input in whatever system is worked out.

Ed Norbeck (Physics & Astronomy) noted that the cost of monographs had not increased nearly as much as the cost of journals, yet the reductions in monograph acquisitions were greater. He expressed concern that this trend favored research faculty at the expense of students, who use books more than periodicals. Baker responded that cutting serials takes more planning than cutting monographs, because it generally involves multi-year subscription contracts. When the cost of journals skyrocketed in the 1980s, no one knew that the high rate of increase would continue over such a long period. At that point, Baker said, cutting monograph acquisitions seemed to be a prudent budgetary move in response to a crisis. Since the crisis has continued, the library has tried to take a more balanced approach to allocations. She noted, however, that researchers are more forceful than students when it comes to making their preferences known, and the library budget reflects that to some extent.

4. Formation of a nominating committee for the election of next year's Assembly officers. Chair Honey proposed a committee consisting of members Helena Dettmer (Classics), Lisa Troyer (Sociology), and Gregg Oden (Psychology). A motion to form the committee with that membership was made, seconded, and approved.

5. Motion regarding General Education courses offered during the three-week summer session or winter term. Chair Honey turned to the following motion, which was submitted to the Faculty Assembly by the Educational Policy Committee (EPC):

Resolved: Lower-level General Education courses are not appropriate for the three-week summer session or the winter term unless the General Education Curriculum Committee has specifically approved such offerings in a prior review.

JoAnn Castagna (Liberal Arts Administration, EPC staff) addressed the Assembly, explaining that the EPC has had concerns regarding General Education courses offered during the three-week summer session since 1997. She said it was a quality of education issue. The EPC was especially concerned that first- and second-year students may not have the skills to deal with the compression of such courses. The EPC believes that the General Education Curriculum Committee (GECC) should review the mode of delivery as well as the content of General Education courses.

Lola Lopes (Associate Provost for Undergraduate Education) said that she was unaware of the EPC's history with the issue. In a recent call for Winter term course proposals in the fyi, it was mentioned that general education-approved courses were particularly welcome. Lopes said that was not a statement of policy on the part of the Provost's office, but simply a recognition of the feedback they get from students. Students ask for more General Education courses in the compressed formats, and evaluations show that they like the courses that they take in that format. She said that 12 out of 16 three-week summer courses are taught by tenured or tenure-track faculty, and that 8 are taught by full professors.

Doug Lee (Director of Summer Session) stated that both faculty and students want three-week courses in the summer, because they fit in better with other obligations they have at that time of the year. Summer session makes a big difference in the graduation rates of students, and the three-week session has seen 20% increases in participation each year. He said that evaluations show that students enjoy the intensive contact they have with faculty, particularly senior faculty. He took issue with the EPC's contention that few students would have the energy or desire to take on a full-semester course taught in a highly compressed period, saying that many students want just that.

Member Alan Nagel (Cinema & Comparative Literature), a former member of the EPC, commented that General Education courses require a significant writing and speaking component that makes a highly compressed format strenuous for both student and professor. Though certainly not impossible, he has found that teaching in that format can require eleven or more hours a day at times.

Member John Nelson (Political Science) stated that he does not want a committee that has prejudged an issue to tell faculty what they can and cannot do regarding that issue. He has asked several times whether the EPC has surveyed faculty or students regarding prevailing practice or gathered any information at all as evidence that General Education courses cannot be successfully conducted in a compressed format, and he has been told that they have not. In his view the motion would put an undue burden of proof on faculty when their courses are reviewed by a biased committee.

Member Keith Stroyan (Mathematics) said that GECC, not the EPC, would review the courses. As a member of GECC, which is a little over a year old, he thought that variations in format for General Education courses should be part of the committee's regular review and that GECC currently does discuss the mode of delivery when reviewing courses.

Member Carolyn Lara-Braud asked what would happen if a department offered a GER-approved course in an unapproved format. Would it be clear to students that they would not get GER credit for taking the course? Castagna responded that the EPC would probably ask the department to assign a different course number for the compressed-format course.

Member Jon Simon claimed that General Education courses have a connection to other faculty in the College that non-GE courses do not, and if the mode of delivery changes the educational experience, the College does have a right and responsibility to review that to assure that General Education standards are met. He added that a highly compressed format obviously presents a different educational experience than the traditional format.

Nelson said that he is not opposed to GECC reviewing the format of courses as a part of their normal review, but the current motion would ban the compressed format for lower-level GER courses until GECC was able to review that format. That could put some courses on hold for five years, or else force GECC to drop everything they are currently doing in order to review the courses for the three-week summer session. He moved to amend the resolution as follows:

Resolved: Whether lower-level General Education courses are appropriate for the three-week summer session or the winter term is to be addressed when the General Education Curriculum Committee reviews such offerings for initial or continued approval.

Stroyan seconded the motion.

Member Sarah Hanley (History) said that she thought lower-level General Education courses simply were not appropriate for the three-week summer session or the winter term and would favor a resolution that said as much. Member Adriana Méndez Rodenas (Spanish & Portuguese) said that would make sense in her discipline as well. She believed upper-level courses might work in a compressed format, but not lower-level courses. She would not like to see that strong stance lost, as it would be in the amended resolution.

Member Jones commented that the compressed format really works for some students. He pointed out that Cornell College offers nothing but compressed courses. Castagna said that the EPC was interested in the Cornell model. She noted that Cornell offers an 18-day session, rather than a 15-day session, resulting in 15 fewer hours of class time. Lee countered that because of differences in the length of the school day the exposure time was virtually the same for students.

Chair Honey noted that many individuals in the UI community will be very unhappy if the courses they planned to teach or take this summer for GER credit will not be offered for that credit. Having GECC review the mode of delivery made sense to him, but the Assembly should not do anything that would change the courses offered this summer.

Nagel said that the amended motion would mean that some courses might be offered for five years before they come up for review by GECC. He asserted that the motion would basically invalidate four years of work by the EPC. Nelson countered that if the work done in that four years was bad, it did not deserve to be validated.

Member Judy Polumbaum (Journalism & Mass Communication) expressed surprise that anyone would try to offer a General Education class in a compressed format if the content was not adaptable to that format. She said that it was incumbent upon departments to ensure that the allure of offering a three-week class did not override the basic requirements of the General Education program. Nelson commented that he believed good sense does prevail in the judgment of departments as far as summer session offerings are concerned, and that no one has provided evidence that there is a problem with inappropriate classes being offered. Member Jerry Maynard (Exercise Science) asserted that the mode of delivery for a course was a departmental rather than a College issue.

Member John Solow (Economics), a former member of the EPC, suggested that the Assembly send the motion back to the EPC rather than reject it outright. Chair Honey asked for a motion to table the resolutions until the Assembly's next meeting, when representatives from the EPC and GECC could present more information. A motion to table was made, seconded, and approved.

6. Discussion of the College's efforts to create administrative structures to support interdisciplinarity. Chair Honey invited member Helena Dettmer to present information on the College's new Division of Interdisciplinary Programs, of which she is interim director. Dettmer explained that the new division is an effort to provide assistance to small interdisciplinary programs, primarily in the areas of visibility and support staff. The administrative structure consists of the director of interdisciplinary programs; a curricular point person for each program, called a coordinator; and an advisory body for each program, usually called an executive committee or a steering committee, composed primarily of faculty. The programs currently under the Division's umbrella are Literature, Science & the Arts, Environmental Science, Aging Studies, American Indian and Native Studies, Medieval Studies, Museum Studies, and Sexuality Studies.

Honey asked how the coordinators would be compensated. Dettmer replied that that is still under discussion. She is not in favor of considering the coordinator positions as simply part of the faculty member's service. Member Russell Valentino (Russian) asked whether the heads of interdisciplinary programs were compensated before the Division was formed. Dettmer replied that most were, but that the compensation was modest.

Member Méndez asked what efforts were being made to promote such interdisciplinary activities as the development of new courses and colloquia, or funding for travel. Dettmer replied that the Division was concerned with supporting small interdisciplinary programs, and that the College sees the Division as an incubator for such programs, nurturing their growth until such time as they may become departments on their own. Honey commented that it sounded more like the creation of new disciplines than the support of interdisciplinarity. Member Simon agreed, and noted that much interdisciplinary activity existed outside the Division, and that he would like to see the College foster double majors and minors. JoAnn Castagna said that the new Division was only a small part of the College's overall plan to promote interdisciplinarity.

7. Adjournment. The time for adjournment having arrived, the meeting adjourned without discussion of other agenda items.

Respectfully submitted,
Ken Kuntz
Secretary, 2000-01