Academic Plan
Action Item #2 Working Group
Monday, November 5, 2012 1:30 – 2:30 p.m.
Building 250, Room 308
Minutes
ITEM
1.
ATTACHMENT
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 1:35 p.m.
2.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA / MINUTES:
2.1. Approval of Agenda
3.
CHAIR’S REPORT
4.
BUSINESS ITEMS:
rd
4.1. Format, tasks, duties, and desired outcomes for November 23 community consultation
















Possibly split into groups. If we want a broader discussion stop people from nit picking
Small group approach; question might be what should be left out; what omissions are there that
should be included; is there anything missing etc.
Allow people to choose groups, give time to read document/information because they usually don’t
have time to read it beforehand
Check if Liesel Knaack is available
Give an overview of what we mean by outcomes; spend some time on what it is, why it's a good idea
then move to sketching out six or seven broad areas, ask what is missing or unnecessary; lead us to a
granular level that someone might want to talk about
Handout- Integrated Planning Overview- layout at least 3 integrated planning items
Similarity/relationship of integrated planning action items to our work; some work will overlap with
student services, experiential learning; #19 Educational Standards is just turning to it now ("Learning
outcomes")
IT Plan #1-Develop a set of student competencies; a subset of learning outcomes
Steve had a request to join our group from Tina McComb, Director of Enrolment Management. She
is basically responsible for the Enrolment Management Plan (middle column of the meeting handout
"Integrated Planning Overview")
Action: Invite Tina McComb to join the working group as a member.
Get a report back from small groups; how do we make it/what do we do with documents, lists etc. of
outcomes; how do we try to implement the thinking
Steve wants to use Learning Outcomes to support agenda item #4 –new degree initiatives (1-2-1) ;
that’s a winner; John Black made a report on it –we should start working on it; what would a
Foundation year look like etc.; speaks to what Tina is working on
How do we actually start to implement it? Steve wanted to talk to Fred Macdonald about Trades as
well
Is it realistic? What to do about curriculum design, funding, transferability
Proposal about carpentry; they're changing what they do – start on carpentry courses then take
university general courses as well; this gives them a range of options at the 1st year level
Honor red seal ticket in Denmark to go into Engineering; don't do that here












Some students in Trade programs desire to latter into other degrees, such as Management; sense that
students can use it
University developing students who are educated –set a tone of educated citizens
What outcome do we want?
New Student Experience survey that Brandon Nelson is doing in University Planning and AnalysisUPA version of a NSSE, in-house
Trying to get feedback; more data hunger in Academic Plan items
Student data that is longitudinal, year after year
Craig gave them ideas for the survey; it talks about extrinsic goals but not intrinsic (enjoying
education)
NSSE results were not great- went down on all indicators from 2008; before that VIU was going
down or staying level, with only a few indicators rising
Student engagement, faculty student engagement levels
The question on whether school was intellectually challenging went down yet grades were higher in
2010; that's when the comparison table of letter grades changed, so grades went up; a counterintuitive
thing
Basically they devalued the currency and students were alert to that; they want a challenge not easy
"A"s
Leave the community session trying to get a sense of confirming our beliefs around learning
outcomes, then work towards any new degree proposal structures that are intended to better reach
those outcomes
4.2. Review draft report to Planning and Priorities Committee







1
In the working group's original terms of reference we are supposed to report on everything
Originally the report was supposed to be presented in October but the Planning and Priorities agenda
was quite full so we agreed to wait until November
Anything they want to add or delete?
A progress report- asking to keep working; a summary of what we’ve been doing
Second page, second paragraph- impressive turnout not "pretty good"
What’s our original requirement reporting back to Senate? It is fairly aggressive: implement
initiatives then report back in 2012; we have come at it from different directions and have a path
that’s clear; possibly update membership or adjust timeline
Steve will edit some wording then send the document to Ranelle and Barbara to include in the
Planning and Priorities agenda package
4.3. Relation of our work to other Academic Plan tasks




Is there any possibility of collaborating with Educational Standards Committee? Is there a more
efficient way forward with how we’d relate to the groups in Steve's handout?
Educational Standards Chair Daniel Burgoyne - a joint meeting might be in order; new groups getting
a sense of where others are
Educational Standards Committee- haven’t formed a group yet
First year experience- Flesh it out more in a report? Definition to something that is intended to be
interdisciplinary and collaborative- speaking in terms of experimenting with first year curriculum;
sent around Globe and Mail articles a month ago; The AAC&U Institute conference is tied to that
Action Item #2 working group November 5, 2012
Page 2







Steve can do that
Action item 19- strategic outcomes including literacy
One set of institutional outcomes- makes sense to work together; broader sense of learning outcomes
here; would it make sense to ask Daniel to have a group come to our meeting. Start with what we
have and get their feedback, different concerns or is that too pushy? Pushy might be good; what’s
already out there being done, this is an important piece that may have to be included
Faculty-Student Engagement Report; one of the reports we looked at
Student life, reading writing technological competencies- should be considered
It is a March 2013 task for Educational Standards; detail will have to be at program or department
level
Steve will touch base with Daniel- sounds a lot like what we’ve been up to- sell it to them
4.4. New degree initiatives: getting to work on 1-2-1, Foundation Year

















Dave Witty liked 2-2 while we have 1-2-1; what policy, curricular, administrative and budgeting
changes have to be made to make this happen? A real sense of 1st year with foundation year
experience- hoping to farm out some tasks and start to think about it seriously
Dave modified 2 + 2 plan – 1+1
When we get Tina McComb on board, have Tina, Craig and Mark lead the project of a 1st year
experience
Capstone year idea – a way to give those who don't have practical experience the opportunity to
obtain occupational practice; perhaps create two subcommittees? Capstone and foundation year
Article Craig sent out had some information on first year legacy program at UBC that went belly up
because it was too expensive; problems in the transition from 1st to 2nd; Social Sciences wouldn’t
accept legacy program
Creative way for 1st year students- not mandatory; should make it possible for students (not penalized
for doing it); Could be issues around how to get departments on board with this
UBC- English, History, Philosophy- get credit; (similar to Liberal Studies 111, 112)
Have a 4 year model for Arts 1-2-3-4; developing that; they have a science one; perhaps it launched
and fizzled? John Black will look into it
Are people open to it? Sensitivity across institution to deliver degrees in a way they're not used to?
Observation in Social Sciences- too many departments. Too small to offer standard degrees- some.
teaching outside of comfort areas; some cases it’s a strain- who’s going to do what
Core faculty of 4-5 people. Some sectionals- very tough to offer degrees; Dean tries to talk about why
they do things – what they want to do is offer whatever program is necessary for employment in the
province- didn’t mean to pick on subjects
Same in Arts and Humanities- if under stress they focus on tasks in front of them don’t tend to look at
global view
Interdisciplinarity- Global Studies has taken off- interest is there with students, as it is growing quite
quickly
About 5 departments are involved and the core courses are sometimes team taught
Outcomes become important; problems facing students need to be looked at through different
perspectives
Problem based approach to education makes a lot of sense; it brings Sciences in too
How do we put existing pieces together that address that as a student need/desire- Global Studies
success is a good example- students like it
Action Item #2 working group November 5, 2012
Page 3

























5.
Don’t go into it looking to close down departments but to cross list- faculty are excited- come up with
incentives and the impediments for these sort of things
In terms of budget and administrative structure it has to be supported and not a one off; choose an
interesting and sustainable new path and discover ways to keep it going
Should it have central oversight (Provost Office) or work with the Deans? What does it look like,
figure that stuff out
Idea- pilot in Cowichan where it could be contained; maybe it’s best to think about it in beginning
stages as something that could draw on a few key departments; have a vision about how it might
expand but first get key players/departments involved that might want to design a pilot project with
various stages of growth so it is scalable
Unattainable to make Cowichan a scaled down Nanaimo campus; it's not sustainable; there are lots of
nontraditional students but faculty have to agree to it –Powell River too
Take faculties who are interested; at the community consultation do an evaluation of who is
interested
Powell River tried it on their own 5 years ago- University 101 course- launch was unfortunate
Was happening in isolation, not enough support of that activity
Could be a magnet for students at those campuses; lots of creative ways to do it; doesn’t have to roll
out to every student- unproven concepts adapted wholesale can be threatening
6 credits for the whole year- maybe go to minimum full time enrolment of 9 credits that flows back to
credit of individual courses; could do one that has more Social Sciences
Thematic variance; different course equivalencies; each have a different completion
Course clusters- weren't integrated enough
9 credits, 3 courses
What happened? Soft money- pilot project- wasn’t supposed to be its own department, it was just a
structure; thus develop a structure then repopulate it with different people/structures
English History, or English Psychology?
Team teaching
Had full classes of 34 people- had a package of 3 sections of 34
Team-teaching; at one point they got together for a lecture
Have an incentive with professional development or release time; construct it more or less tightly
with integration; have people in cohort with outcomes
Aim at 9 credits, already have 6 credits in Liberal Studies; can have different flavors depending on
who participates- 3 departments
Perhaps choose regular faculty; doesn't want it to turn into something faculty turn over to temporary
professors; want your good people doing it; those who are passionate about retaining students and
excited about their discipline; people who are committed
Bring people into it cyclically- embed it in the place, not the same thing every year
As long as demand doesn’t exceed our resources; it must be scalable
Some students know exactly why they’re here but there are many who don’t- validate that its ok to
not know why you’re here
More exclusive at UBC because there is a high GPA requirement- probably avoid that but it should
have some cache- don’t want it to be the opposite though- also need enough students to register in it;
give it a good name as well
INFORMATION ITEMS:
5.1. AAC&U Institute at Portland State July 2013
Action Item #2 working group November 5, 2012
Page 4
















6.
Steve got an email from the Association of American Colleges and Universities
July 10-14, 2013. AAC&U is holding an institute on Faculty Leadership for the 21st Century
Multiple disciplines; had all our learning outcomes language in it
Took it to Dave Witty to take a team of people (5 minimum to go) and he agreed
First 5 seats are taken: Terri Doughty, Marni Stanley, Mark Blackell, Greg Arkos
Opportunity to add more team members; who- David went to Provost advisory group
Have a look at it; happy to argue for more money for more people to attend
Important- frames a timeline in sense that if we can get detailed work done by say may then group
can go to Portland and get excited about things; then vision- come back in august 2013 proposal with
budget to be implemented September 2014
Doesn’t preclude piloting for next year but that’s his vision
Actually put in a request to cost it, and hopefully get money to launch something in 2014
The working group agreed that it makes sense
Mechanism to put cluster s together etc.
May want to pitch to David that Cowichan principle to be hired, faculty from there to go
Library person as well
Interested in disciplinary distinctions, how one can have learning across disciplines, one of the things
we’re trying to grapple with- good though
Committed and interested in it- find them- English, Liberal Studies already have the interdisciplinary
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
N/A
7.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 2:25 p.m.
Next meeting: November 23rd 1:00 – 3:00 p.m.: Community Consultation on Institutional Learning
Outcomes
Action Item #2 working group November 5, 2012
Page 5