Oakland University Senate

Sixth Meeting
Thursday, January 31, 1974
3:15 p.m.
128-130 Oakland Center

AGENDA

Submitted by Frederick W. Obear, for the Steering Committee

A. Old Business

1. Motions from the Academic Policy Committee (Mr. Feeman)

a. THAT ONE CREDIT UNIT IS EQUIVALENT TO A TOTAL OF THREE HOURS OF WORK PER WEEK INCLUDING 50 MINUTES OF CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION AND THE ESTIMATED TIME THAT AN AVERAGE STUDENT SPEND IN OUTSIDE PREPARATION EACH WEEK.

Second reading, eligible for final vote.

Amendment to item A.I.a. proposed by Mr. Matthews (seconded by Mr. Krompart):

That the word "SCHEDULED" be substituted for "CLASSROOM".

b. THAT THE STANDARD OAKLAND UNIVERSITY COURSE IS A 4-CREDIT COURSE WHICH  MEETS 200 MINUTES PER WEEK AND REQUIRES THE EQUIVALENT OF 12 HOURS OF WORK PER WEEK.

Second reading, eligible for final vote.

Amendment to item A.l.b. proposed by Mr. Hetenyi (seconded by Mr. Johnson).

That the words ''IS SCHEDULED" be substituted for "MEETS".

Comment: In January, 1973, Provost Obear charged the previous Academic Policy Committee, under the chairmanship of Dean Howard Witt, with a study of the University's credit structure. This was done for internal reasons and external reasons. Internally, the Senate legislation of April 22, 1965, was still operative. In it one credit unit was defined to be the equivalent of 3 hours of work per week including classroom time and estimated time for outside preparation. However, no specific time for instruction was included. The 1965 legislation also stated that 4-credit courses would require at least 12 hours of work per week. This legislation opened itself to various interpretations. Some departments, such as mathematics and those in the sciences, adhered rather strictly to the statement of the legislation, roughly equating the concepts of credit hours and contact hours. That is, 4-credit courses met 4 hours per week and frequently more than 4 hours per week with the advent of problem sessions and laboratories. Other departments, many in the humanities, used a different interpretation. Classes met three times a week with multiple texts required. Such courses, in addition to the large amount of reading required, also required one or more major research papers and extensive use of analytical thinking and criticism on examinations. In short, the sciences and mathematics used the fact that 4x3=12 while the humanities used 3x4=12. Recently there has been some uneasiness expressed internally by the scheduling of 4-credit courses only 3 times per week (that is, for three 50-minute periods). In addition, students who experience this practice in some classes pressure faculty members in classes scheduled to meet 4 periods per week to reduce the number of sessions. Thus it was felt that a study of the matter was in order.

Externally, the state auditors raised the same question. They asked why a course is taught at Oakland meeting three hours a week while delivering four credits and is taught elsewhere for three hours a week delivering three credits. In a report from the office of the Auditor General, they state that in the Fall Term, 1971, 52.4% of our undergraduate courses delivered 4 credits for three contact hours. Excluded from this study were all 500 and 600 level courses, considered as graduate courses, and special courses such as directed and independent reading and research. They argued for uniform standards of measurement and recommended that Oakland University take an active part in developing these standards. Our own internal audit disputed the 52.4% reported by the state auditors, but only slightly. The practice, even though justifiable on educational grounds, was quite widespread. A recent report prepared by the staff or the Michigan Council of State College Presidents in response to legislative requests shows the following results:

A contact hour is defined as one clock hour per week spent in regularly scheduled instruction for which credit is offered, while one credit unit is as given in our existing legislation. In the above table Oakland is conspicuous in that it is the only one on the list in which the credit hours exceed the contact hours. The legislative committees which deal with appropriations use these reports. As a result, pressure has been applied for us to change our ways. One possible outcome if we don't is that appropriations may be reduced accordingly.

On the basis of the above information and the results of a questionnaire that appears in Provost Obear's memorandum of December 12, 1973, to the faculty announcing the open hearing of January 10, the Academic Policy Committee recommends the adoption of Motions 3(a) and 3(b). In effect, they are restatements of the 1965 legislation to include a specified class time per credit. With regard to the student work load, the intent of the motion is to maintain the standard 4-credit course as the equivalent of 12 hours of work per week.

Should this motion be adopted, the Academic Policy Committee recommends that it appear prominently in the catalog to replace the present statement on page 15 of the 1973-74 catalog that "The unit of credit is the semester hour," and on the key to the transcript which accompanies all transcripts issued by the Registrar's Office.

Finally, two additional comments must be made. First, there is reason to believe that a graduate credit should differ from an undergraduate credit. The Academic Policy Committee has jurisdiction only over undergraduate matters, but it has recognized this as a source of some difficulty. The problem here is compounded by the fact that many undergraduate courses may count toward graduate credit. This is true in the Mathematics M.A.T. program and in other Master's programs. Generally speaking, the rule is that the student may use the credits earned toward the Master's degree if that same course has not been used toward the Bachelor's degree. Therefore the Academic Policy Committee recommends that the Graduate Council consider this issue as it relates to various graduate programs. Significantly, the state auditors have excluded 500 and 600 level courses from their study. They say nothing about 300 and 400 level courses which serve dual purposes.

Second, there are no difficulties with our present Spring and Summer schedules. Classes there are taught in 1 1/4 hour segments, five days per week, for eight weeks. This is equivalent to 3,000 minutes of instruction, or at the rate of 200 minutes per week, the equivalent of 15 weeks of study in a regular term. Therefore there is no need to reexamine the situation in these short sessions.

Obviously the implementation of this new definition of credit requires a different type of schedule matrix than that used at present. This is the substance of the next motion.

2. Motion from the Academic Policy Committee (Mr. Feeman)

THAT THE SCHEDULE MATRICES FOR DAYTIME AND EVENING UNDERGRADUATE CLASSES APPENDED TO THIS AGENDA BE ADOPTED EFFECTIVE WITH FALL 1974 CLASSES.

Second reading; eligible for final vote.

Comments: These schedule matrices have been designed to implement Motions 3(a) and 3(b), that is, that the standard Oakland course be a 4-credit course which meets 200 minutes per week. Two matrices have been designed because of the differing needs of the programs. The evening matrix is composed of two types of modules�two 2-hour blocks or one 3 1/2 -hour block. Each permits 200 minutes of instruction per week with break time. In general the single 3 1/2 hour block will be used. The two 2-hour blocks will be permitted in special cases. The evening matrix has been approved by the Evening Council. Graduate courses do not have to adhere to these modules.

The daytime matrix is the result of considering the faculty's primary concern for flexibility. Three day a week 65-minute classes were discarded as both unwieldy and pedagogicaIly unsound for those courses that function well now by meeting 4 or 5 days a week. To fit in both produced too much overlap and dead time. Also, as desirable as having one morning or afternoon per week set aside for meetings, speakers, etc. is, the resulting matrix was inadequate in providing for enough classes to fulfill the faculty's requests to meet 2, 3, 4, or 5 times per week. The daytime matrix has been examined carefully by Registrar Ruggles, and an empirical test finds it to be workable, subject to the following conditions:

(a) All departments must adhere to the matrix in formulating schedules. Exceptions can be made for rooms set aside for exclusive use, such as in music.

(b) Courses for less than 4 credits must use the matrix codes. One hour courses should be fit in on specific days, such as Monday or Wednesday, thus automatically specifying slots for three-credit courses. Two-credit courses fit naturally into the matrix.

(c) Full use must be made of classrooms from 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. daily.

(d) Recitation and laboratory sessions must be fit into the matrix.

(e) Attempts must be made to prevent further transfer of classrooms to office use.

(f) Daytime graduate courses should be fit into the matrix even if a full code is not used.

The following are the most important features of the matrix:

1. Students may carry full loads by attending

(a) mornings only 5 days a week
(b) afternoons only 5 days a week
(c) all day on Tuesday, Thursday
(d) all day on Monday, Wednesday, Friday
(e) all day on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday.

2. It allows classes to meet 5 days for 5 credits; Codes V, W, X, Y, Z along with V', W', X', Y", Z' slots.

3. Classes may meet 4 days a week: V, W, X, Y, Z codes. Four of these modules occur before 2 p.m., which is important for mathematics, science, and engineering because of afternoon laboratories.

4. Classes may meet 3 days a week: A, B, C, D codes.

5. There are ample 2-hour sessions, popular in Education courses and various laboratory sessions.

6. Codes for 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. classes appear only 3 or 2 days per week.

7. C and D are inverted versions of A and B. This provides a consistent arrival and departure time for students and faculty sharing rides.

8. Afternoons are still available for laboratories. Wednesday morning will be improved and Friday afternoon laboratories will have to become more prevalent.

9. Plant utilization is improved, assuming the constraints imposed by Mr. Ruggles are considered.

The Academic Policy Committee feels that these matrices have many desirable features, are workable, and permit the implementation of the previous motions. It recommends their adoption for undergraduate classes, effective with Fall 1974 classes.

Note: The term "12 a.m." should be read as 'noon" wherever that term appears on the proposed daytime matrix.

3. Motion from the Steering Committee (Mr. Obear)

THAT THE SENATE RECOMMEND TO THE PRESIDENT A UNIVERSITY CALENDAR FOR 1975-76 AS SET FORTH ON THE ATTACHMENT TO THIS AGENDA.

Second reading; eligible for final vote.

B. New Business

1. Motion from the Steering Committee (Mr. Obear)

THAT THE FOLLOWING BE APPOINTED TO THE ADMISSIONS COMMITTEE FOR TERMS AS INDICATED:
Wm Moorhouse, Ch. (2 years)
Howard Witt (I)
Karl Gregory (2)

Procedural motion, eligible for final vote.

Comment: Mr. Gregory was previously appointed by the Senate as chairman of the Admissions Committee. He has resigned as chairman but is willing to serve as a member of the committee. The motion above will effect that, will name a new chairman, and will fill the new faculty seats authorized at the January 24, 1974, Senate meeting.

2. Motions from the Academic Standing and Honors Committee (Ms. Bingham).

a. THAT MOTION b. BELOW BE APPROVED FOR FINAL VOTE AT THIS MEETING.

Procedural motion.

b. THAT THE FACULTY OF OAKLAND NOMINATE FOR THE BACHELOR'S DEGREE, CONFERRED AS OF DECEMBER 19, 1973, THE STUDENTS NAMED ON THE LIST DISTRIBUTED WITH THIS AGENDA.

Office of the Provost/ss
1/25/74
Attachments