EFC 2002-2003

Engineering Faculty Council
Academic Year 2002 - 2003

EFC Meeting # 1
May 17, 2002
Minutes

1.    The meeting was called to order by Professor Arora at 8:15 am in 3501 SC
        Members present: Andersen, Arora, Swan, Robinson and Wiencek
        Deans present:  Butler

2.    The EFC thanked the outgoing members of EFC, Professors Dasgupta and Abdel-Malek, for their service and dedication to the Council.

3.    EFC Officers and Liaisons for the next year were selected.  Prof. Andersen will serve as Chair of EFC and Prof. Wiencek will serve as Secretary of EFC.  Liaison appointments for the next year are:  Curriculum – Prof. Swan; Promotion & Tenure - Prof. Arora; Teaching – Prof. Robinson

4.     The EFC expresses its thanks to members of the various EFC committees.  A brief discussion of potential replacements ensued.

5.    Draft charges for the committees will be developed by the liaison for each committee and circulated prior to the next meeting.  Discussion and finalization of the charges will occur during the next EFC meeting.

6.    Section 21 of the Manual of Procedure states, “The secretary of the Engineering Faculty Council shall make prompt written reports to the members of the faculty on all council proceedings.”  The EFC interprets this statement to include electronic written formats and all future EFC reports to the faculty will be distributed in electronic format.  The minutes will posted at:

                        http://www.engineering.uiowa.edu/~efc/

7.    The EFC adjourned at 9:45 am.  The next meeting is tentatively scheduled for June 11, 2002.

Respectfully submitted,

John M. Wiencek, Secretary

EFC Meeting # 2
June 11, 2002
Minutes

1.    The meeting was called to order by Professor Andersen at 9:00 am in 3501 SC
        Members present: Andersen, Arora, Swan, Robinson and Wiencek
        Deans present:  Butler, Holly

2.    Minutes of the May 17, 2002 meeting were discussed, modified and approved.

3.    The EFC Committee Memberships were discussed, with most positions being finalized.  Committees still needing members include Curriculum (chair) and Teaching (chair).

4.    The EFC Committee Charges were discussed at length.  Each EFC liaison distributed a draft of charges and charges were modified or added after discussion.  Each liaison will summarize these modifications and provide an updated list of Committee Charges to the next EFC meeting where it is anticipated they will be finalized.

5.    New Business.  Dean Holly requested an immediate EFC review of College policy for students who are currently in the curriculum and desire to switch to the new curriculum.  A variety of options were discussed including:  forbidding any transitions; departmental definition of course-equivalency guides to allow students to transition to the new curriculum provided the students are below some certain total semester hour accumulation; or total flexibility for departments in establishing transition plans.  It was noted that a policy for GEC has already been established and approved by the faculty.   In particular, any student enrolled in the CoE in Spring 2001 or earlier has the option of choosing Soc/Hum courses based on the old or new guidelines.  This was approved at the May 2001 CoE faculty meeting.  After some discussion, the EFC determined that due to variations in curricula between programs, such policy is best developed and implemented by the individual programs concerned, rather than on a college-wide basis.

6.    The EFC adjourned at 10:25 am.  The next meeting is tentatively scheduled for 8:30 am, Aug. 30, 2002.

Respectfully submitted,

John M. Wiencek, Secretary

EFC Meeting # 3
August 30, 2002
Minutes

1.    The meeting was called to order by Professor Andersen at 8:30 am in 3511 SC
        Members present: Andersen, Arora, Swan, Robinson and Wiencek
        Deans present:  Butler, Holly

2.    Minutes of the June 11, 2002 meeting were discussed, modified and approved.

3.    The EFC Committee Memberships remain a topic of discussion due to some unanticipated vacancies that arose over the summer months.  In particular, the Curriculum Committee membership is set but the chair position is unassigned.  The Teaching Committee has two vacancies and also needs a chair.

4.    The EFC Committee Charges were brought forward in written form.  Each EFC liaison distributed a draft of charges.  The Promotion and Tenure Committee charges were approved as submitted.  The Teaching Committee charges were discussed and minor revisions suggested.  The Curriculum Committee charges were likewise discussed and additional charges will be included as discussed in New Business below (items 5b, 5c, 5d).  Each liaison will provide an updated and finalized list of Committee Charges to the next EFC meeting.

5.    New Business. 

a)  Clarification of GEC statement on language courses.  The faculty early approved the motion, “Foreign language courses beyond those required to meet the basic language requirement are acceptable humanities courses.”  The wording on the current GEC requirements summary sheet is confusing and modified wording was proposed and approved.  The new wording will be, “Foreign language courses beyond those required to meet the basic College of Engineering foreign language requirement (satisfactory completion of 2 years of one high school foreign language, or 1 year of one college-level foreign language, is required for first-year students graduating from high school in 1990 and after; transfer students, 1991 and after) are acceptable humanities courses.”

b)  GEC Policy on 24 hr Rule.  The 24 hr rule for handling Humanities and Social Science electives transferred from other Colleges allows for waiving some or all upper level Humanity/Social Science elective requirements.  In lieu of the new GEC course requirements, Dean Holly requested the EFC to consider modifying this current policy.  After discussion, the EFC decided the current policy can be used as stated but the Curriculum Committee should consider whether the policy should be modified in the future.

c) Regression Policy.  The College of Engineering does not currently have a published regression policy.  A draft proposed policy was presented by Dean Holly.  The EFC has forwarded it to the Curriculum Committee for evaluation.

d)  Sustainability of  ABET assessment of the core courses.  The summary of the College’s ABET committee discussion of this issue were discussed.  This committee agreed that the COW – EASY – CAR procedure is sustainable; however, the archiving of student work in core courses may not be necessary.  Instructors should collect sufficient student work during the semester to aid in developing the CAR, but such materials can be discarded after the CAR is submitted.  The EFC concurred with this recommendation.  The EFC has forwarded it to the Curriculum Committee for evaluation

e)  Common Course Timetable.  The common course policy approved by the faculty will allow for the continuation of some 057 courses, in addition to the new 059 courses.  ABET assessment of these courses is currently the responsibility of the Curriculum committee.  Dean Holly requested the EFC to advise on the timetable for transferring such responsibility to the relevant department and has resource implications.  This has implications for administration of course assessment during the present Fall semester.

f)  Software Allocation and CSS Interaction.  Dean Butler requested EFC to consider forming a committee to develop a software allocation process for core courses.  In addition, EFC should find means for the faculty to be more actively involved in CSS decision-making activities.

g) Faculty Perceptions of Administrators.  Two DEOs will be evaluated this year and EFC will appoint the review committees and manage the review process in routine accordance with College policy.

h)  Manual of Procedures.  The EFC will consider and discuss the current College of Engineering Manual of Procedures and whether modifications are needed.

6.    The EFC adjourned at 9:55 am.  The next meeting is scheduled for 8:30 am, Sept 6, 2002.

Respectfully submitted,

John M. Wiencek, Secretary

EFC Meeting # 4
September 6, 2002
Minutes

1.    The meeting was called to order by Professor Andersen at 8:30 am in 3511 SC
        Members present: Andersen, Arora, Robinson and Wiencek
        Deans present:  Butler, Holly

2.    Minutes of the August 30, 2002 meeting were discussed, modified and approved.

3.    The EFC Curriculum Committee charges were briefly reviewed and finalized.

4.    The EFC Teaching Committee Charges and Membership were discussed and finalized.  Dean Holly suggested
adding an additional charge to evaluate, and potentially recommend acceptance of, the new EASY browser format. 
The EFC recommended waiting until the beta testing on the new software is complete.  The EFC also discussed the
need for interim reports from all of the committees and agreed that interim reports would be due on Jan 17, 2003,
with final committee reports due on April 15, 2003.

5.    New Business. 

a) CSS Liaison/Oversight.  EFC seeks a mechanism or format which will allow for a productive, collaborative effort
between CSS and the faculty to maintain and enhance the College of Engineering’s Computer Systems and Services. 
Professors Arora and Wiencek agreed to meet with Doug Eltoft and faculty representatives to acquire some understanding
of the history of faculty-CSS interaction as well as to develop some ideas to improve the collaboration.

b)  Core Course Software Allocation.  EFC discussed some means of allocating resources to the core.  One idea is to treat
the core in a fashion similar to the departments in the College and apply the EAC software acquisition policy.  The EFC
Curriculum Committee, CSS liaisons or the Core Course coordinators could comprise the membership of such a Core
Course Software Selection Committee.  In addition to selecting software, such a committee would need to develop guidelines
for phasing in or out the various selected software titles as well as coordinating / negotiating joint acquisitions with individual departments.

c) Faculty Perceptions of Administrators.  The Civil & Environmental Department as well as Chemical & Biochemical Engineering 
DEOs will be evaluated this year.  The review procedures are attached to the minutes.  Prof. Andersen will contact the DEOs for
suggested membership of the review committees.  Using this information and suggestions from the EFC, EFC will appoint the review committees.

6.    The EFC adjourned at 9:40 am.  The next meeting is scheduled for 8:30 am, Sept 13, 2002.

Respectfully submitted,

John M. Wiencek, Secretary

----

Procedures for Faculty Perception of Administrators
The College of Engineering policy requires that the EFC annually seek inputs on the Faculty Perception of the Dean, DEO’s and the Center Directors. The policy states that these inputs be obtained via a questionnaire sent to all tenure track faculty in the College (for the Dean) and the unit (for DEO/Directors). In the recent past the response to this questionnaire has been very poor and of limited value in both assessing and improving the administration of the various units in the College. At the same time the EFC believes that meaningful survey of faculty perception of administration is important. Effectively conducted, it can provide valuable feedback that is bound to benefit the College and its units.

The EFC feels that the lack of recent success of the current system can be attributed to the nature of the current procedures, and the frequency with which they are undertaken. In particular, annual administration of these procedures is too frequent and by its very nature provides inputs that are based on inherently transitory perceptions. Further, the questionnaire is very long and requires substantial investment of faculty time. Some of the questions concern matters that not all faculty members can answer. In view of these facts the EFC makes the following motion.

The EFC moves:

That the procedures outlined in the attached document entitled College of Engineering Policy on Obtaining Faculty Perception of Administrators, be adopted effective AY 1998-1999.

----

College of Engineering Policy on Obtaining Faculty Perception of Administrators

Faculty perception of administrators (FPOA) shall be obtained in the third year of each of the following administrators term: the Dean, the DEO of each of the six College of Engineering Departments, and the Director of the each Center/Institute attached to the College.

The procedures will have the following parts. A questionnaire comprising the questions set out below shall be administered by the EFC to the all faculty members holding primary tenure track appointment in the administrator's unit.

(1) The administrator is an effective leader of the unit.

(2) The administrator has a clear vision of the units future direction.

(3) The administrator performs his/her tasks in a timely fashion.

(4) Overall the morale of the unit is high.

(5) The administrator makes effective use of resources.

(6) The administrator fosters individual faculty development.

(7) The administrator is committed to the academic development of graduate and undergraduate students.

In addition, the EFC will appoint a three member committee comprising faculty members of the cognizant unit. This committee will analyze the numerical scores and the written comments generated by the questionnaires. Further, in case of the DEO's and Directors, the committee shall individually interview all faculty members holding primary tenure track appointments in the pertinent unit. For the Dean, the committee shall interview the DEO's, the Directors and such members of the College faculty as the committee feels may have information pertinent to this excercise.

Based on its analysis of the questionnaire results and the oral interviews, the Committee shall submit a written report to the EFC chair. The EFC chair will transmit the Committee report, the numerical results of the survey and the typed written comments from the survey, to the administrator in question and all tenure track faculty members of his/her unit.

EFC Meeting # 5
September 13, 2002
Minutes

1.    The meeting was called to order by Professor Andersen at 8:30 am in 3511 SC
        Members present: Andersen, Arora, Robinson and Wiencek
        Deans present:  Butler

2.    Minutes of the September 6, 2002 meeting were discussed, modified and approved.

3.    The EFC Committee charges were briefly reviewed and finalized.  The charges are attached.

4.    Faculty Perceptions of Administrators. Professor Andersen reported his discussions with Professor Ettema and Professor Scranton regarding potential members of their respective review committees.  EFC discussed the constituency of the respective committees and will finalize the committees during the next EFC meeting.

5.    CSS Liaison/Oversight.  Professor Arora summarized background collected from Doug Eltoft and representative faculty regarding the history of CSS/faculty interaction.  In summary, the prior committees (serving as Dean Advisory Committees) were not effective due to lack of open communication from the committee back to the faculty body.  In addition, policies or procedures recommended by such committees were subject to the Dean’s approval or veto.  The committees had no power to enact their recommendations and, thus, were ineffective.  One recommendation that could be implemented immediately is to have appropriate CSS staff visit during the individual department faculty meetings.  This visit should be used to update the faculty on important CSS activities as well as to collect feedback and concerns of the faculty about computational issues.  In addition, the departments could send a faculty representative to the monthly CSS staff meeting for comparable communication of information.  Any oversight committee that EFC may form will be most effective if charged with the allocation of CSS resources.  Dean Butler discussed ongoing issues in the allocation of CSS resources.  Software allocation decisions have been effectively vested in the individual departments and executive decisions within CSS currently focus on hardware and service issues.  In these areas, the Dean’s Office relies on the mandated mission of CSS and State Law on use of student computer fees to guide its decisions.  Professor Arora recommended the formation of an EFC committee to provide an open forum for identifying and suggesting remedies to problems with the College’s Computer Systems and Support unit.  Professor Wiencek raised concern about the precious value of faculty time and against formation of a committee unless empowered with resources by the Dean’s Office.  Professor Andersen requested that Professors Arora and Wiencek work on a draft document outlining the mission, structure and charges for such a committee.

6.    The EFC adjourned at 9:40 am.  The next meeting is scheduled for 8:30 am, Sept 20, 2002.

Respectfully submitted,

John M. Wiencek, Secretary

----

Curriculum Committee Charges and Membership

Members                                            Term Expiring
David Murhammer, CBE, (Chair)        May 2004
Steve Collins, ECE                              May 2004
Ray Han, ME                                      May 2005
Keri Hornbuckle, CEE                        May 2003
John Lee, IE                                        May 2003
Joon Park, BME                                 May 2004

Standing Charge:

The Curriculum Committee shall be responsible for reviewing and evaluating existing and any proposed curricula within the college, for reviewing and evaluating all existing and any proposed courses taught within the college or required in any of its curricula, and for making appropriate recommendations to the dean and the faculty.
 
Additional Charges:

1.    Consider and address sustainability issues in the course evaluation processes that have been developed and implemented over the past two years to meet ABET requirements.

2.    Given the new mathematics sequence in the core curriculum, develop mathematics credit and placement guidelines for students transferring into the CoE from other schools, or for students who have taken and passed advanced placement tests (APTs).  The guidelines developed by Associate Dean Forrest Holly in April 2002 should be utilized as the point of departure.

3.    At the College of Engineering faculty meeting May 15, 2002, policies and procedures for common courses among departments were passed although a number of concerns were raised by DEOs (especially those of ECE and MIE).  [See Motion 4 below.]  At the meeting it was agreed that the EFC should revisit this issue during AY 2002-03.  The Curriculum Committee is charged to revisit the policy passed at the May 15, 2002 faculty meeting and in doing so to consult with all CoE DEOs.  If the Curriculum Committee deliberations lead to the conclusion that a revised policy is needed, then the committee is charged to draft such a policy and submit it to the EFC for further consideration and approval by the faculty.

4.    Study the course objectives and current curriculum content of EPS II and formulate a suggestion on whether or not this course should undergo a significant restructuring and re-design as Engineering I did in the transition to EPS I.

5.    The Student Development Center has a “24-semester hour GEC Policy” that it uses when advising students transferring into the CoE.  Consider this policy and whether or not it should be kept, dropped, or revised.

6.    Consider the current policy for managing and maintaining the common Freshman Seminar courses and suggest new policy if any is needed.

7.    When students take courses out of sequence in the College of Liberal Arts, in particular taking an advanced course that requires a prerequisite followed later by that prerequisite, the student may not, in some cases, receive credit for the prerequisite.  This is called regression.   The curriculum committee is charged to explore whether or not this policy has a significant impact on engineering majors, and if so, to develop policy recommendations on regression as applied to all courses in the College of Engineering curriculum.

8.    Submit an interim report to the EFC on committee accomplishments and considerations during the fall semester by January 17th and a final report on the same for the entire academic year by April 15th.
 
9.    Keep minutes of formal meetings of the committee, and regularly transmit them to the EFC.
----

Motion 4

The College of Engineering Faculty adopts the following Policies and Procedures for Common courses among Departments.
 

POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR COMMON COURSES AMONG DEPARTMENTS
As adopted by faculty, 15 May 2002

1. Courses required in programs of two or more departments shall constitute a set of common courses.  They shall be called “Elective Engineering Core Courses,” and will be 57-numbered.

2.    The DEOs of the involved departments shall be the Committee that shall monitor the Elective Engineering Core Course common among their departments. The Committee shall appoint a Course Coordinator for a term of 4 years.

3.    The Dean’s Office in consultation with the DEOs of the involved departments shall assign the teaching responsibilities to the departments for Elective Engineering Core Courses.

4.    The Course Committee shall consist of instructors teaching the course during an academic year and the instructors who taught the course in the immediate past academic year, including at least one representative from all departments requiring the course.  The Committee shall meet at least once per course offering to review the course learning objectives, course content and pedagogical approaches for the course.

5.    The Course Coordinator shall be responsible for preparing the Course Description, Course Outcomes Worksheet (COW), and Course Assessment Reports (CAR), with input from the Course Committee, and submitting these reports in a timely manner to all departments requiring the course.
 
6.    The Elective Engineering Core Courses shall have same priority for resource allocations, such as TA, laboratory, software, etc., as the College Core Courses.
 

Cross-Listed Courses
 

All undergraduate and 100-level courses that are cross-listed between two or more departments shall undergo the ABET assessment process for each course offering. In such cases the DEO of the department listed as the administrative home for a course has the responsibility for ensuring that the Course Description, COW and CAR forms are generated and distributed to all other departments cross-listing the course on a regular basis. Departments are also encouraged to include a representative of all departments cross-listing a course in the course assessment committee.
 

----

Charges to the Promotion and Tenure Committee for 2002-2003

          Membership
                                                                 Term Expires
1.    Christoph Beckermann, ME                May 2004
2.    Gene F. Parkin, CEE                          May 2005
3.    Thomas L. Casavant, ECE (Chair)      May 2003

           Standing Charge

The Promotion and Tenure Committee shall review procedures used in all decisions concerning faculty promotions, tenure, and new appointments in the college and make such recommendations to the Dean and the faculty as it deems necessary. The review shall monitor implementation of and compliance with written college and university policies for new appointments and promotion and tenure evaluations completed prior to the current academic year.

           Specific Charges

1.    In carrying out the standing charge, use the attached memo to DEOs.

2.    Review the procedures used in all departments of the College for peer evaluation of teaching and external peer evaluation of scholarship. Consult Dean's office and the College's P&T Advisory Committee on this issue and recommend any revisions to these processes.

3.    Recommend specific charges for the 2003-04 P&T Committee.

       Submit an interim report by January 17, 2003, and final report by April 15, 2003.

----

 
ATTACHMENT

Memorandum

To:        CoE DEO

From:    CoE P&T Committee

Date:    Start Fall Semester

The P&T Committee requests that you report any departures or problems in implementing the Guidelines for Tenure and Promotion Decision-Making at The University of Iowa (http://www.uiowa.edu/~provost/docs/pandt97.htm) summarized below for the promotion decisions made in your department during the past academic year.  We request that the report be submitted by (give a date) for consideration and inclusion in the Committee’s report.

Overview of Promotion Decision-making Procedure

 

Graph of Overview of Promotion Decision-making Procedure

---- Teaching Committee Charges and Membership

Members                          Term Expiring

Wilfrid Nixon                    May 2005
David Rethwisch               May 2003
Milan Sonka (Chair)          May 2004

        Standing Charge

The teaching Committee shall be responsible for all matters relating to evaluation and improvement of the quality of instruction in the college, and for making appropriate recommendations to the dean and the faculty

        Specific Charges

Charge 1:  Review the feasibility of a single electronic evaluation of student perception of teaching combining electronic ACE and EASY.

Charge 2:  Propose robust security and control procedures in light of the EASY data loss Spring term 2002 and the potential vulnerability of the database to corruption identified by last year’s committee.  Work with the Dean’s Office to implement these procedures.

Charge 3:  Develop an appropriate a policy on course assessment tools and instructor evaluation.

Charge 4:  Recommend to the Dean the College of Engineering’s nominee for the annual Collegiate Teaching Award.

Charge 5:  Provide an interim report to the EFC by January 17, 2003 and the final report by April 15, 2003.

Charge 6:  Recommend specific charges for the 2003-2004 Teaching Committee.

EFC Meeting # 6
September 20, 2002
Minutes

1.    The meeting was called to order by Professor Andersen at 8:30 am in 3511 SC
        Members present: Andersen, Arora, Robinson, Swan and Wiencek
        Deans present:  Butler

2.    Minutes of the September 13, 2002 meeting were discussed, modified and approved.

3.    Faculty Perceptions of Administrators. Professor Andersen reported that the DEO review committees were finalized.  For Chemical and Biochemical Engineering, Professors Rethwisch, Wiencek and Peeples will serve.  For Civil and Environmental Engineering, Professors Bhatti, Krajewski, and Alvarez will serve.

4.    CSS Liaison/Oversight.  Professor Arora circulated a draft statement of committee charges.  Subsequent discussion focused on means to enable the committee to bring its recommendations into action.  The idea of faculty forums was popular.  Such forums would allow for College-wide discussion on pressing issues and the outcome would be documented as recommendations to the Dean.  Such documents would become part of the official EFC record and would provide the Dean’s Office with a clear picture of the College-wide faculty consensus on important CSS related issues.

5.    Ad-Hoc Group to Review the Manual of Procedures.  The EFC will carefully review the current Manual of Procedures with the goal of identifying ambiguities in the document as well as outdated material.  Each EFC member will report any identified issues to Prof. Andersen by November 1, 2002.  The EAC will also be invited to identify such issues.  The November 15 EFC meeting will be devoted to discussing these issues.

6.    Presidential Search Committee.  The EFC may want to provide some input to the Campus-wide University of Iowa Presidential search committee.  As a first step, EFC will invite our College of Engineering representatives to this search committee, Professors Schnoor and Dasgupta, to report on whether our College’s perspective is adequately addressed in this Presidential search.

7.    The EFC adjourned at 9:25 am.  The next meeting is scheduled for 8:30 am, Sept. 27, 2002.

Respectfully submitted,

John M. Wiencek, Secretary

EFC Meeting # 7
October 11, 2002
Minutes

1.    The meeting was called to order by Professor Andersen at 8:30 am in 3511 SC
        Members present: Andersen, Arora, Robinson, Swan and Wiencek
        Deans present:  Holly

2.    Minutes of the September 20, 2002 meeting were discussed, modified and approved.

3.    The Teaching Committee Chair, Prof. Sonka, requested clarification of charge 3.  EFC acknowledged that the third charge was not clearly tied to charge number one as intended.  EFC suggested combing charge one and three into a new charge – call charge one – with the following wording added after the current wording of charge one, “If combining ACE and EASY is feasible, then propose an appropriate policy on separating course assessment information and instructor evaluation information”.

4.    CSS Liaison/Oversight.  Professor Arora circulated by email (prior to the meeting) a revised draft statement of committee charges.  One of the charges discusses the empowerment of such a CSS committee by providing some control over budgetary allocations.  Subsequent discussion focused on whether the Dean’s Office would be able to allow such budgetary management by a committee.  Another approach was suggested which would put the committee into the budgetary process by providing an opportunity for the committee to propose the budgetary allocations, with final approval coming from the Dean’s Office.  Based on this discussion, Professor Arora will once again revise the draft of CSS committee charges for further discussion.

5.    Ad-Hoc Group to Review the Manual of Procedures.  Professor Andersen reminded EFC members that they are to report any identified issues for discussion (with respect to the Manual of Procedures) by November 1, 2002.  The EAC will also be invited to identify such issues and Professor Andersen will contact them this week.  The November 15 EFC meeting will be devoted to discussing these issues.

6.    College Ombudsperson.  After a brief discussion and review of the role of this position, the EFC recommended that Prof. Andersland continue to serve as the College of Engineering’s Ombudsperson.  The role of the ombudsperson is outlined in the College’s Undergraduate Handbook.

7.    CASE Teaching Award.  This national award will allow two nominations for The University of Iowa.  The Teaching Committee will be requested to provide our nominee to the Provost and EFC encourages the Teaching Committee to put forward the faculty member receiving the College of Engineering Teaching Award for this year.

8.    Mid-Term College of Engineering Faculty Meeting.  EFC will be scheduling a meeting with the single agenda item of the state of the College address by Dean Butler, per the College’s Manual of Procedures.

9.    The Curriculum Committee Minutes were reviewed and discussed.

10.    Professor Collins of ECE has brought a procedural issue to EFC’s attention.  The University of Iowa’s Guidelines for Tenure and Promotion states that candidates must include all student teaching evaluations in her or his custody for each course taught.  The College of Engineering’s policy is that only evaluative aspects of the evaluations, and not formative, will be included in the promotion dossier.  EFC will request the Provost for a formal clarification of University policy that would define student teaching evaluations as only those materials intended by the College of Engineering’s policy to be used for evaluative purposes.

11.    Faculty Perceptions of Administrators (FPOA).  EFC discussed the College of Engineering FPOA policy and timetable.

12.    Dean Holly reported that the Web based EASY is nearing completion and will likely be beta tested soon.

13.    The EFC adjourned at 9:50 am.  The next meeting is scheduled for 8:30 am, Oct. 18, 2002.

Respectfully submitted,

John M. Wiencek, Secretary

EFC Meeting # 8
October 18, 2002
Minutes

1.    The meeting was called to order by Professor Andersen at 8:30 am in 3511 SC
        Members present: Andersen, Arora, Robinson, Swan and Wiencek
        Deans present:  None

2.    Minutes of the October 11, 2002 meeting were discussed, modified and approved.

3.    CSS Liaison/Oversight.  Professors Arora and Swan circulated by email (prior to the meeting) proposed drafts of the statement of committee charges.  The two drafts differed mainly in the lines of management and reporting structure.  One draft proposes that all reports and communications with the Dean’s Office would funnel through the EFC; whereas, the other draft would have direct reporting by the committee to all concerned parties including the Dean, the EFC and CSS.  Discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of each structure ensued.  Professors Swan and Arora will continue to work on a statement of charges which will be discussed further at the next EFC meeting.

4.    Mid-term Faculty Meeting.  A mid-term faculty meeting will be convened to allow Dean Butler an opportunity to address the faculty and staff on the state of the College, consistent with policy outlined in the Manual of Procedures.

5.    Faculty Perception of Administrators.  The EFC discussed the appropriate timing to initiate this required review for Dean Butler.  The matter will be addressed in the Spring 2003 semester.

6.    Old Business.  The Curriculum Committee expressed some confusion on the charge relating to an evaluation of EPS II.  The EFC discussed the matter and quickly came to the consensus that this charge is consistent with the Curriculum Committee’s mission.  The EFC is looking to the Curriculum Committee to evaluate the current offering and suggest modification only if warranted.

7.    New Business.  None.

8.    The EFC adjourned at 9:27 am.  The next meeting is scheduled for 8:30 am, Oct. 25, 2002.

Respectfully submitted,

John M. Wiencek, Secretary

EFC Meeting # 9
October 25, 2002
Minutes

1.    The meeting was called to order by Professor Andersen at 8:30 am in 3511 SC
       Members present: Andersen, Arora, Robinson, Swan and Wiencek
       Deans present:  Butler and Holly

2.    Minutes of the October 18, 2002 meeting were discussed and approved.

3.    Ombudsperson.  Dean Butler concurred with EFC recommendation and appointed Prof. Andersland as the College of Engineering Ombudsperson.

4.    CSS Liaison/Oversight.  EFC continued discussion on this proposed committee.  The EFC came to the consensus that such a committee would report directly to EFC only.  A final version of charges was developed.  The EFC unanimously approved the list of charges for this Ad Hoc committee (charges attached).  The initial committee membership and other specific charges will be addressed in the EFC meeting.  It is anticipated that the initial membership of this committee will be appointed through May 2004.

5.    New Business.  The EFC will need to hold a special election to replace Prof. Arora during the Spring semester.  He will be on a faculty semester assignment.  Prof. Wiencek, EFC secretary, will initiate the process immediately.

6.    The EFC adjourned at 9:35 am.  The next meeting is scheduled for 8:30 am, Nov. 8, 2002.

Respectfully submitted,

John M. Wiencek, Secretary
 
-----

Computing Services Committee (CSC)
of the
Engineering Faculty Council

General Description (For Manual of Procedures?)

The Computing Services Committee (CSC) shall be responsible for gathering faculty input on policies and budget issues governing hardware, software and computing services provided by Engineering Computer Services and Support (ECSS) service unit and making appropriate recommendations to the faculty and the dean. 

Standing charges to the Computing Services Committee: 

1.    Maintain minutes of their meetings and distribute them regularly to the EFC.
2.    Gather input from faculty and all other important constituencies on computing services issues by any effective means it deems appropriate, including surveys, forums, etc.
3.    Make recommendations to the Engineering Faculty Council for matters requiring faculty approval.
4.    Make recommendations to the faculty and dean on the budget for the College of Engineering Computing Services and Infrastructure.
----

Draft Specific Charges

1.    Meet with each program and major unit in the College consistent with standing charge 2
2.    Review peer institutions CSS equivalents
3.    Assess appropriate use of student computer fees, especially the appropriateness of using such fees to pay for backup services for faculty files.
4.    Assess and identify issues relating to the wireless network in the College
5.    Assess and identify issues relating to the operating systems utilized in the College

EFC Meeting # 10
November 8, 2002
Minutes

1.    The meeting was called to order by Professor Andersen at 8:30 am in 3511 SC
       Members present: Andersen, Arora, and Robinson
       Dean present: Butler

2.    Minutes of the October 25, 2002 meeting were discussed and approved.

3.    The EFC considered revisions to the Manual of Procedure.  Since no changes to the Manual were proposed, the EFC decided not to pursue this matter any further.

4.    CSS Liaison/Oversight.  The EFC discussed specific charges.  It is anticipated that the final wording can be resolved by the next EFC meeting via email exchange.

5.    New Business.  The EFC discussed participation in the strategic planning process.  Professor Andersen, as Chair of the EFC, is a member of the Strategic Planning Committee.  It was agreed that the EFC should be involved in the process; particularly in reviewing, promoting, and implementing metrics.  To be continued.

6.    The EFC adjourned at 9:05 am.  The next meeting is scheduled for 8:30 am, Nov. 15, 2002.

Respectfully submitted,

John P Robinson, ad hoc secretary

EFC Meeting # 11
November 22, 2002
Minutes

1.    The meeting was called to order by Professor Andersen at 8:30 am in 3511 SC
       Members present: Andersen, Arora, Robinson, Swan and Wiencek
       Deans present:  Butler and Holly

2.    Minutes of the November 8, 2002 meeting were discussed and approved.

3.    Old Business.  No discussion

4.    Curriculum Committee Recommendations.  The College Curriculum Committee suggested four motions be presented at the next College faculty meeting and put to a vote (attached).  The fourth motion on discontinuing the 24 semester hour GEC policy will be put forward at the College faculty meeting this Fall.  The committee did an excellent job of outlining key background and rationale for all of the motions.  EFC carefully reviewed the other three motions and had some suggestions for modification of the motions.  In order to share information and come to the best possible set of motions, the EFC will hold a joint meeting with the College Curriculum Committee to arrive at a final set of motions.  Any remaining motions will be considered during a College faculty meeting next Spring.

5.    College Faculty Meeting Agenda.  A draft agenda was circulated and approved by EFC for the Dec. 18, 2002 College faculty meeting.

6.    The EFC adjourned at 9:35 am.  The next meeting  will be joint with the Curriculum Committee and is scheduled for 8:30 am, Dec. 6, 2002.

Respectfully submitted,

John M. Wiencek, Secretary

 ----

College of Engineering Curriculum Committee Motions Forwarded to the EFC on
November 21, 2002

Motion 1
Students who score 4 or higher on the Advanced Placement Program (APP) Calculus AB test or with credit for 22M:025 or its equivalent may satisfy the 22M:031 graduation requirement by earning a C- or better in 22M:026.

Students who score 3 or higher on the Advanced Placement Program (APP) Calculus BC test satisfy the 22M:031 graduation requirement.

Students with credit for 22M:028 satisfy the 22M:032 graduation requirement.

Background for Motion 1
The following table would result from approval of Motion 1.

University of Iowa Engineering Mathematics Credit Policy Under New Curriculum

Student Category                                          Advanced Placement (AP) Status                           Mathematics Credit Towards Degree
1st semester new student with high
school calculus course                                      AB (4-5)                                                              22M:031 satisfied upon earning C- or better in either                                                                                                                                                     22M:026 or 22M:031*
1st semester new student with high
school calculus course                                     BC (3-5)                                                               22M:031 satisfied
Transfer student with 22M:025 or
equivalent                                                                                                                                    22M:031 satisfied upon earning C- or better in either                                                                                                                                                    22M:026 or 22M:031
Transfer student with 22M:025-026
or equivalents                                                                                                                              22M:031 satisfied
Transfer student with 22M:025-026-028
or equivalents                                                                                                                              22M:031 and 22M:032 satisfied
*Should the College of Engineering faculty decide to create a math incentive program, then it would be possible for the most outstanding students (i.e., those for whom taking 22M:031 would be a waste of time) to take 22M:032 directly.

Note that AB(4-5) status results in receiving credit for 22M:031 in the currently used CoE mathematics credit policy.  The change proposed here (i.e., AB(4-5) status receiving credit for 22M:025, not 22M:031) represents the only change in the Mathematics credit policy currently used in the CoE.

Motion 2
The EFC shall charge the College of Engineering Curriculum Committee with exploring the possibility of developing an Engineering Math Incentive Program (EMIP) for the faculty to consider.  This program would allow students to petition to participate in EMIP based on high school GPA, math placement test (MPT-3) score, ACT scores, etc.  Only students who would be wasting their time taking 22M:031 would be permitted to participate, i.e., this option would only be used for the most outstanding students.

Background for Motion 2
Currently, the mathematics department has a Math Incentive Program (MIP) that provides incoming freshmen students an opportunity to enroll in 22M:032 without previously taking 22M:031 or the equivalent.  Recommendations to enter this program are based primarily on scoring well on the Math Placement Test (MPT-3).  In this program the student receives credit for 22M:031 if they receive a grade of B or higher in 22M:032.  If the students receive a B- or lower in 22M:032, then they do not receive credit for 22M:031 and must take an upper level mathematics course to receive the credit hours required for graduation.  They cannot take 22M:031 since that would violate the current regression policy.  If Motion 2 is approved, then the Curriculum Committee will revise the participation criteria to make it more likely that only the most outstanding students participate in the program.  Note that the MIP currently utilized for College of Engineering (CoE) Students has not been approved by CoE faculty.

Motion 3
The new College of Engineering Regression Policy Covering College of Liberal Arts and Sciences (CLAS) courses shall be as follows:
“The College of Engineering policy on regression is intended to provide an incentive to students to adhere to prerequisite requirements and to take courses in a pedagogically sound sequence.  Regression occurs when a student takes a College of Liberal Arts and Sciences course that is a prerequisite for, is equivalent to a prerequisite, or consists of material covered by a course in the same department or equivalent department at another institution for which the student has already earned credit toward graduation.  Hours of regression do not count toward graduation.”

Background for Motion 3
This policy is a modified version of the CLAS policy.  The first sentence in the recommended policy defines the basis on which decisions would be made on student petitions asking for an exception to the regression policy.  Courses “equivalent to a prerequisite” includes cross listed courses, courses taken at another university, and courses that cover the same material (e.g., the various versions of calculus).  The statement “consists of material covered by” is intended to prohibit students from taking an upper level course and then getting credit for a lower level service course intended for nonmajors or a remedial course that present at a lower level all or a substantial portion of the material included in the upper level course or its prerequisite (e.g., 22S:105 Statistical Methods and Computing followed by 22S:002 Statistics and Society or 22:016 Computer Science I followed by 22C:001 Survey of Computing).

Motion 4
The “24-semester hour GEC policy” currently used by the Student Development Center shall be discontinued.

Background for Motion 4
The currently used “24-sh GEC policy” provides the means to waive the upper-level social science and/or humanities requirements for students who have taken many lower-level courses in these areas.  Implementation of this policy required (i) at least 24 sh of social sciences and/or humanities on the student’s DELI and (ii) at least 12 sh of either social sciences, humanities, or both; if there are over 12 sh of one, then that upper-level is waived, if there are 12 sh of each, then both upper-levels are waived.  The current GEC policy approved by the faculty contains more flexibility than the old policy and in the absence of the “24-sh GEC policy” students could transfer up to 9 sh of lower level GEC courses, i.e,. they would only need to take 6 sh of upper level GEC courses.

EFC Meeting # 12
December 6, 2002
Minutes

1.    The meeting was called to order by Professor Andersen at 8:30 am in 3511 SC
        EFC Members present: Andersen, Arora, Robinson, Swan and Wiencek
        Curriculum Committee Members present:  Lee, Murhammer, Han, Park
        Deans present:  Holly

2.    The EFC reviewed the motions with the Curriculum Committee (CC), thanked them for the excellent service and carefully drafted motions.  The fourth motion would be put to the faculty this Fall and the other three motions were subsequently discussed.

3.    Motion 1.  The motion deals with appropriate allocation of AP math credit as well as transfer credit for math courses taken outside of The University of Iowa.  The AP AB Calculus test is equivalent to 22M:025 but this course is lacking some components of the College’s course suggestion of 22M:031.  The CC and EFC agree on this point and the discussion focused on how best to address this issue during transfer credit assessment.  The discussion came to the conclusion that the 25/26/28 math sequence would be viewed as equivalent to the College’s recommended 31/32 sequence and that AP credit would be applied for 22M:025 (for the AB test) or 22M:031 (for the BC test) as appropriate.

4.    Motion 2.  Both the EFC and CC believe the math incentive program might not be serving our students well.  Thus, this motion really is not needed and the College will defer action until the effectiveness of the program is more thoroughly evaluated.

5.    Motion 3.  EFC was concerned about timeliness of notifying students that they are at risk of violating (or have violated) the regression policy.  Ongoing improvements to the University’s registration system should allow for such a forewarning in the future.  CC made the point that there is always the petition process for those few cases where the advisor or student make a minor mistake and violate the policy.

6.    CC / EFC adjourned at 9:45 am.  The next meeting of EFC is scheduled for 8:30 am, Dec. 13, 2002.

Respectfully submitted,

John M. Wiencek, Secretary

EFC Meeting # 13
December 13, 2002
Minutes

1.    The meeting was called to order by Professor Andersen at 8:30 am in 3511 SC
        EFC Members present: Andersen, Arora, Robinson and Wiencek
        Deans present:  Holly and Butler

2.    The minutes of meetings 11 and 12 were read, revised and approved.

3.    Dean’s Advisory P&T Committee.  Dean Butler reviewed the function and operation of this committee and consulted with EFC on his selections for membership.

4.    Enhanced Vector Calculus Course (Tentative Name to be Math V).  A list of topics to be covered in this course was presented and briefly discussed.  There were no major comments or concerns at this time.  One suggestion was to list the course as 100 level course to allow some flexibility in offering the course to some graduate students needing to sharpen their skills in vector calculus and partial differential equations.

5.    New Business.  Membership of the Computing Services Committee must be identified soon in order to address some issues this Spring.

6.    Thank You!  The EFC expressed its warm thanks to Professor Jasbir Arora for his service and leadership while a member of the EFC over the past three years.

7.    EFC adjourned at 9:00 am.  The next meeting of EFC is scheduled for 8:30 am, Jan 24, 2003.

Respectfully submitted,

John M. Wiencek, Secretary

EFC Meeting # 14
January 28, 2003
Minutes

1.    The meeting was called to order by Professor Andersen at 8:30 am in 3511 SC
        EFC Members present: Andersen, Beckermann, Robinson, Swan and Wiencek
        Deans present:  Butler

2.    The minutes of meeting 13 were read, revised and approved.

3.    Faculty Perception of Administrators.  The review materials are complete for the ECE department and CBE will be forwarding their report shortly.  EFC is working with the Provost on the FPOA for Dean Butler.

4.    Early Spring Meeting.  March 13, 2003 was set as a target date for a mid-semester faculty meeting to discuss and vote on the remaining motions anticipated from the Curriculum Committee.  The EFC will contact the Curriculum Committee and request that they attempt to have their motions complete within the next few weeks.

5.    Ad-Hoc Computing Services Committee (CSC).  Professor Wiencek was appointed to be the liaison for this ad-hoc committee.  Potential membership for this committee was discussed.

6.    New Business.  Several items were presented:

a.    Global Context in Core.  It was proposed that EFC consider the value of having a uniform exposure of the Global Context of Engineering as part of the core.  This item will be discussed in future EFC meeting(s).
b.    Promotion & Tenure Guidelines.  Dean Butler proposed that EFC consider whether the wording of the  College guidelines on promotion and tenure should be altered to be more consistent with the wording of the University guidelines.  In addition, a more clear and definitive policy regarding peer observation of teaching may be needed.  EFC will add these items to the Promotion & Tenure committee charges for 2003-2004.
c.    Thanksgiving Recess Proposal.  A proposal to modify the Thanksgiving break period to include the entire week of Thanksgiving was discussed.  The EFC decided to gather input from the faculty via an email solicitation before coming to any final recommendation.

7.    EFC adjourned at 9:18 am.  The next meeting of EFC is scheduled for 8:30 am, Feb. 4, 2003.

Respectfully submitted,

John M. Wiencek, Secretary

EFC Meeting # 15
February 4, 2003
Minutes

1.    The meeting was called to order by Professor Andersen at 8:30 am in 3511 SC
        EFC Members present: Andersen, Beckermann, Swan and Wiencek
        Deans present:  Butler and Holly

2.    The minutes of meeting 14 were read, revised and approved.

3.    Ad Hoc Computer Committee.  Several members for the committee were contacted and have agreed to serve.  The committee membership will be complete by the next EFC meeting.  The specific charges will be finalized at the next EFC meeting as well.  A first agenda item for this committee is to provide feedback on a proposed Desktop Computer Support Policy and Procedure which has been furnished by CSS and Dean Butler.

4.    Curriculum Committee Replacement.  EFC discussed possible replacements for Professor Park on the Curriculum Committee.  Professor Park and will not be able to serve on the committee this spring.

5.    Thanksgiving Recess Proposal.  A proposal to modify the Thanksgiving break period to include the entire week of Thanksgiving was discussed.  The EFC gathered input from the faculty via an email solicitation over the past week.  All material available to the EFC was sent to the faculty.  Twelve faculty were in favor of the proposal, one was against the proposal.  Some comments furnished by the faculty were discussed.  There is no cost associated with the proposal and, thus, no financial impact on the College or the University’s budget.  The proposal allows for a consistent delivery of course material since it would result in both the Fall and Spring semesters having the same number of lecture periods.  Further, the proposal would bring The University of Iowa in alignment with the other Iowa Regents Institutions in terms of the number of lectures per semester.  For these reasons, the EFC unanimously endorsed the proposal.

6.    Old Business.  The EFC discussed the status of the various committees and each committee liaison will check on the progress of the committees and provide a brief update at the next meeting.

7.    EFC adjourned at 9:00 am.  The next meeting of EFC is scheduled for 8:30 am, Feb. 11, 2003.

Respectfully submitted,

John M. Wiencek, Secretary

EFC Meeting # 16
February 11, 2003
Minutes

1.    The meeting was called to order by Professor Andersen at 8:30 am in 3511 SC
EFC Members present: Andersen, Beckermann, Swan, Robinson and Wiencek
Deans present:  none

2.    The minutes of Meeting #15 were read, revised and approved.

3.    Ad Hoc Computer Committee.  The membership of the committee was finalized (see attached).  In addition specific charges supplemental to the standing charges were drafted and approved.

4.    Curriculum Committee Replacement.  EFC will contact a possible replacement to serve in place of Professor Park for the remainder of the Spring 2003 semester.

5.    Teaching Committee.  It is expected that this committee will be recommending implementation of Web ACE based on its satisfactory performance during the Fall 2002 semester.  The EFC will invite the Teaching Committee chair to a future EFC meeting to discuss related issues.

6.    Math Placement / AP Credit.  The Curriculum Committee recommendations regarding math placement and AP credit are imminent.  Upon receipt of these recommendations, the chair of EFC will contact the chair of Mathematics to gain feedback on these recommendations prior to the March 13 faculty meeting.  It is anticipated the proposed policy will be subject to a faculty vote at that time.

7.    EFC adjourned at 9:45 am.  The next meeting of EFC is scheduled for 8:30 am, Feb. 18, 2003.

Respectfully submitted,

John M. Wiencek, Secretary
 
-----

Charges to the Ad-Hoc Computing Services Committee for 2003-2004

Membership
                                                                            Term Expires
1.    Joe Reinhardt, BME                                        May 2004
2.    Ashgar Bhatti, CEE                                         May 2004
3.    Geb Thomas, MIE                                          May 2004
4.    Gary Christensen, ECE (Chair)                        May 2004
5.    Julie Jessop, CBE                                            May 2004

Standing Charge

The Computing Services Committee (CSC) shall be responsible for gathering faculty input on policies and budget issues governing hardware, software and computing services provided by Engineering Computer Services and Support (ECSS) service unit and making appropriate recommendations to the faculty and the dean. 

Standing charges to the Computing Services Committee: 

1.    Maintain minutes of their meetings and distribute them regularly to the EFC.
2.    Gather input from faculty and all other important constituencies on computing services issues by any effective means it deems appropriate, including surveys, forums, etc.
3.    Make recommendations to the Engineering Faculty Council for matters requiring faculty approval.
4.    Make recommendations to the faculty and dean on the budget for the College of Engineering Computing Services and Infrastructure.

Specific Charges

1.    Develop a working structure for the committee that is consistent with the standing charges.

2.    Review CSS equivalents at peer institutions.

3.    Act on specific items forwarded to the committee by EFC as needed.

4.    Assess appropriate use of student computer fees.

5.    Identify and propose resolutions for pressing College issues consistent with standing Charge 2.  For example, EFC has identified the following issues as potential areas to be addressed:  choice of operating system on CSS hardware; support of faculty allocated hardware and software (e.g. back-up storage space, memory, software support); and the wireless network in Seamans Center.

6.     Submit an interim report on April 15, 2003, another interim report on January 15, 2004 and a final report on April 15, 2004.  The final report should offer recommendations on the continuing status of this committee:  i.e. whether it should become a standing EFC committee, remain an Ad-Hoc committee of EFC, or other.

EFC Meeting # 17
February 25, 2003
Minutes

1.    The meeting was called to order by Professor Andersen at 8:30 am in 3511 SC
        EFC Members present: Andersen, Beckermann, Swan, Robinson and Wiencek
        Deans present:  Holly

2.    The minutes of Meeting #16 were read, revised and approved.

3.    Teaching Committee Update.  The Teaching Committee chair, Prof. Milan Sonka, presented an overview of the Electronic ACE / EASY recommendations.  The committee is recommending the College to adopt this paperless review process.  The issue of compliance of students requested to take the surveys is an issue that was discussed at length.  In addition, some concerns about a shift in the scoring distributions may be of some concern.  The committee suggests that compliance can be improved by offering a small reward of some sort to students taking the survey.  This list of complying students would be offered to the instructor after the course evaluations are complete under this scheme.  The EFC offered that alternatives such as an automatic change of grade to an Incomplete or providing a list of non-complying students to the instructor before the end of classes might be more attractive to the faculty.  For now, EFC suggests we continue to test the system on a wider scale and get faculty feedback on the compliance issue.  A motion to proceed in this manner is attached and will be presented to the faculty for a vote at the March 13 meeting.

4.    Math Incentive Program.  The Curriculum Committee and EFC have assessed this program.  The program offers little or no benefit to our students and is often detrimental to their ability to move through the math sequence in a seamless and timely manner.  Prof. Manderscheid, the Chair of Mathematics, reviewed this recommendation and was satisfied that this program should be discontinued for our students.  A motion was presented by Prof. Beckermann to discontinue the Math Incentive Program in the College of Engineering, seconded by Prof. Wiencek.  The motion was unanimously approved.

5.    Placement / AP Credit.  The Curriculum Committee recommendations regarding math placement and AP credit were forwarded to EFC last week.  These motions were shared with Prof. Manderscheid, the Chair of Mathematics to allow comments and suggestions.  The suggestions were substantial and the EFC is recommending that the Curriculum Committee and Prof. Manderscheid meet to discuss the matter.  The motion will be presented to the faculty in late April after these discussions are concluded.

6.    EFC adjourned at 9:45 am.  The next meeting of EFC is scheduled for 8:30 am, March 4, 2003.

Respectfully submitted,

John M. Wiencek, Secretary
---- 
Motion

The College of Engineering should continue to assess the Electronic ACE/EASY student survey with a goal of implementation by the Fall 2003 semester.  For Spring 2003, all faculty are invited to use the electronic ACE/EASY evaluation in lieu of the normal paper survey.  The electronic ACE evaluation and the paper ACE evaluation will be considered equally valid for all College of Engineering purposes such as promotion and tenure assessment. 


EFC Meeting # 18
March 4, 2003
Minutes

The meeting was called to order by Professor Andersen at 8:30 am in 3511 SC
EFC Members present: Andersen, Beckermann, Swan, Robinson and Wiencek
Deans present:  Butler, Scranton

1.    Electronic EASY/ACE Motion.  The motion to be discussed and presented for a vote was reviewed.  The EFC discuss the advantages and disadvantages of requiring students to go to a computer instructional lab to fill out the forms during class versus email requests for voluntary participation.

2.    Dean’s Review.  EFC and a representative from the Provost’s office will meet at 8 am on March 25, 2003 to discuss how to proceed with reviews that are required by both the College of Engineering as well as the Provost Office.

3.     EFC adjourned at 9:00 am.  The next meeting of EFC is scheduled for 8:00 am, March 25, 2003.

Respectfully submitted,

John M. Wiencek, Secretary

EFC Meeting # 19
March 25, 2003
Minutes

The meeting was called to order by Professor Andersen at 8:00 am in 3511 SC
EFC Members present:   Andersen, Beckermann, Swan, Robinson and Wiencek
Deans present:  none

1.    Dean’s Review.  Associate Provost Steve Hoch presented the requirements for the Provost Office review.  The review process differs from the standard College of Engineering procedure only in that an external faculty member and a staff member typically participate in the Provost review committees.  The compromise review panel used for Dean Miller’s review in 1996 was discussed as well.  The EFC will recommend a procedure to the Provost’s office and provide a written memo to the faculty explaining the review process.

2.    Curriculum Issues.  AP Math credit policy was discussed as well as the use of certain business courses in proposed EFAs within some programs.  These issues will be discussed in more detail at a future meeting.

3.    EFC adjourned at 9:20 am.  The next meeting of EFC is scheduled for 8:30 am, April 1, 2003.

Respectfully submitted,

John M. Wiencek, Secretary

EFC Meeting # 20
April 1, 2003
Minutes

The meeting was called to order by Professor Andersen at 8:30 am in 3511 SC
EFC Members present: Andersen, Swan, Robinson and Wiencek
Deans present:  none

1.    Minutes.  The minutes of meetings 17-19 were read, revised and approved.
2.    Dean’s Review.  The memo describing the review process was forwarded to the Provost last week and is attached.  EFC developed a list of potential members for the committee which will be forwarded to the Provost this week.
3.    EFC adjourned at 9:00 am.  The next meeting of EFC is scheduled for 8:30 am, April 8, 2003.

Respectfully submitted,

John M. Wiencek, Secretary

EFC Meeting # 21
April 8, 2003
Minutes

The meeting was called to order by Professor Andersen at 8:30 am in 3511 SC
EFC Members present: Andersen, Beckermann, Swan, Robinson and Wiencek
Deans present:  Butler and Holly

1.    Minutes.  The minutes of meeting 20 were read, revised and approved.

2.    Curriculum Committee Report.  The report was discussed in detail especially the proposed motions for the upcoming faculty meeting.  The report is attached and the revised motion outlined in item 2 will be forwarded to the faculty for a vote.  In addition to the five points of the motion, an additional sixth point will be added which states, “6.  The EFC will continuously monitor the impact of these transfer guidelines on Engineering students and make recommendations regarding modification if necessary.”

3.    Technical Communication Course.  The Center for Technical Communication runs a course in the Spring semester which is currently numbered 59:004.  The course will likely be offered in both the Fall and Spring semesters in view of its increasing enrollments.  The course number assignment will be re-evaluated next Fall as part of an EFC charge to the Curriculum Committee.  In the mean time, the course number will stay the same.

4.    General Education Course.  The list of acceptable GEC in the College’s Student Development Office is not intended to be a comprehensive list.  As some programs and students seek to utilize GECs not currently on this list, there needs to be clearly outlined guiding principles and procedures to allow for such course selection.  ABET criteria (a-h) as well as guidelines on GECs (anything consistent with the University’s mission) are two guiding principles but the College may need to provide more guidance.  EFC agreed that a process for gaining approval of a given course for GEC credit should be developed by the Curriculum Committee early next Fall.  This issue should be dealt with in a timely fashion since EFAs developed in Chemical & Biochemical Engineering need some additional Business College courses to be approved as acceptable GECs.

5.     Remaining meetings and issues.  The EFC will have, at most, four more meetings this Spring.  One meeting will be devoted to the College’s budget situation.  Betsy Altmeier will gather input on the current University promotion and tenure policy in another meeting.  Other meetings will be devoted to reviewing the various committee final reports and working on the elections of new EFC members for next year.

6.    EFC adjourned at 9:30 am.  The next meeting of EFC is scheduled for 8:30 am, April 15, 2003.

Respectfully submitted,

John M. Wiencek, Secretary

----

Final Report for the 2002-03 CoE Curriculum Committee
April 7, 2003

Committee Members:   David Murhammer, CBE (Chair), Steve Collins, ECE, Ray Han, ME, Keri Hornbuckle, CEE, John Lee, IE, Joon Park, BME

Summary
The CoE Curriculum Committee (CC) met 9 times during the Fall 2002 semester and 5 times during the Spring 2003 semester.  In addition, some members of the committee met with the EFC to discuss recommended motions that were forwarded to the EFC (details discussed below) and the chair of the CC met with representatives of the Mathematics Department and the EFC to develop a compromise on the math placement policy that resulted in the recommended policy given below.  The final responses to the 9 charges given to the CoE CC are summarized below (charges given in bold).

1.    Consider and address sustainability issues in the course evaluation processes that have been developed and implemented over the past two years to meet ABET requirements.
The CC recommended that the current COW/EASY/CAR ABET process used to assess CoE core courses should be critically evaluated and updated for effectiveness and efficiency.  This process should result in an assessment process that (i) is designed to improve course quality, (ii) provides information that programs will find useful in demonstrating that they have satisfied their program outcomes (a)-(k), (iii) directly assesses the achievement of the course learning goals (the specific course learning goals should also be reevaluated), and (iv) make wide use of assessment tools other than EASY (currently, there appears to be too much emphasis on EASY for assessment).  Furthermore, it is recommended that the use of EASY be reevaluated to ensure that useful information is obtained and that the students’ time is effectively used in completing them.  Finally, individual programs should critically examine their ABET assessment methods, in general and in conjunction with core course assessment.

2.    Given the new mathematics sequence in the core curriculum, develop mathematics credit and placement guidelines for students transferring into the CoE from other schools, or for students who have taken and passed advanced placement tests (APTs).  The guidelines developed by Associate Dean Forrest Holly in April 2002 should be utilized as the point of departure.
The CC recommended the following motion regarding math credit policy for 1st semester College of Engineering Students and transfer students.  The effect of this proposed policy is illustrated in Table 1 given below.

Motion
1.    Students may satisfy the 22M:031/22M:032 graduation requirement by completing the 22M:025/22M:026/22M:028 sequence.  This alternative is most suitable for students who have transfer or AP credit for 22M:025 and who would not benefit from repeating some introductory calculus concepts by taking 22M:031.
2.    Students who score 4 or higher on the Advanced Placement Program (APP) Calculus AB test or with credit for 22M:025 or its equivalent may satisfy the 22M:031 graduation requirement by earning a C- or better in 22M:026 .
3.    Students who score 3 or higher on the APP Calculus BC test receive credit for 22M:031.
4.    Students with credit for 22M:028 satisfy the 22M:032 graduation requirement.
5.    Students without a high school calculus course should take either elementary functions (22M:009) or 22M:031 depending upon the student’s overall record.
 
See Table 1. College of Engineering Mathematics Credit Policy For 1st Semester and Transfer Students

As a result of the modifications given in Table 2, the motion was modified:

Motion (revised)
1.    Students may satisfy the 22M:031/22M:032 graduation requirement by completing the 22M:025/22M:026/22M:028 sequence.
2.    Students who score 4 or higher on the Advanced Placement Program (APP) Calculus AB test or 3 or higher on the APP Calculus BC test receive credit for 22M:031.
3.    Transfer students with credit for 22M:025 or equivalent should receive credit for 22M:031, unless her/his preparation is deemed inadequate, in which case s/he should take both 22M:031 and 22M:032.
4.    Students with credit for 22M:028 satisfy the 22M:032 graduation requirement.
5.    Students without a high school calculus course should take either elementary functions (22M:009) or 22M:031 depending upon the student’s overall record.

Furthermore, the CC recommended that the College of Engineering no longer participate in the Math Incentive Program (MIP).  The CC wants to make certain that all students have a firm grasp of the 22M:031/22M:032 material.  Given that the Math Incentive Program (MIP) is not restricted to highly qualified students for whom taking 22M:031 would be a waste of time, the CC believes that MIP students who skip 22M:031 are at risk of not gaining a solid math foundation and thus undermining their entire engineering education and perhaps jeopardizing their prospects for ultimately graduating.  In addition, the issue of how to handle MIP students that do not receive at least a B in 22M:032 is problematic.

1.    At the College of Engineering faculty meeting May 15, 2002, policies and procedures for common courses among departments were passed although a number of concerns were raised by DEOs (especially those of ECE and MIE).  At the meeting it was agreed that the EFC should revisit this issue during AY 2002-03.  The Curriculum Committee is charged to revisit the policy passed at the May 15, 2002 faculty meeting and in doing so to consult with all CoE DEOs.  If the Curriculum Committee deliberations lead to the conclusion that a revised policy is needed, then the committee is charged to draft such a policy and submit it to the EFC for further consideration and approval by the faculty.
This issue was resolved by the EAC; thus, no action was required by the CC.

2.    Study the course objectives and current curriculum content of EPS II and formulate a suggestion on whether or not this course should undergo a significant restructuring and re-design as Engineering I did in the transition to EPS I.
The CC believed that it is premature to consider restructuring EPS II at this time and that doing so would put the CC in the undesirable position of second guessing the decisions of the College faculty before those decisions had been implemented.  (Note that the CoE faculty approved the general content and course description of EPS II in May 2001 and May 2002, respectively.  Furthermore, the approved course will be offered for the first time during the Spring 2003 semester.).  The CC suggests that EPS II restructuring should not be considered until there have been at least two offerings of the course, i.e., data are needed for this endeavor.

3.    The Student Development Center has a “24-semester hour GEC Policy” that it used when advising students transferring into the CoE.  Consider this policy and whether or not is should be kept, dropped, or revised.
The CC recommended that the CoE discontinue the 24-semester hour GEC policy.  This was subsequently approved by the faculty at the Fall 2002 faculty meeting.

4.    Consider the current policy for managing and maintaining the common Freshman Seminar courses and suggest new policy if any is needed.
The CC recommended that in the short term that Nancy Schneider, the Common Freshmen Seminar facilitator, fine tune the seminar content in consultation with the EPS I course coordinator and the instructors of the departmental freshmen seminars.  Furthermore, it is recommended that in the long term that the relevant Common Freshmen Seminar material be incorporated into EPS I.  This is a logical solution to student apathy towards a 0 s.h. seminar course given that it contains material of significant importance to the students’ professional development.

5.    When students take courses out of sequence in the College of Liberal Arts, in particular taking an advanced course that requires a prerequisite followed later by the prerequisite, the student may not, in some cases, receive credit for the prerequisite.  This is called regression.  The curriculum committee is charged to explore whether or not this policy has a significant impact on engineering majors, and if so, to develop policy recommendations on regression.
The CC recommended the following policy (this was subsequently modified slightly by the EFC and will be presented to the faculty for a vote during the Spring 2003 semester):
The College of Engineering policy on regression is intended to provide an incentive to students to adhere to prerequisite requirements and to take courses in a pedagogically sound sequence.  Regression occurs when a student takes a College of Liberal Arts and Sciences course that is a prerequisite for, is equivalent to a prerequisite, or consists of material covered by a course in the same department or equivalent department at another institution for which the student has already earned credit toward graduation.  Hours of regression do not count toward graduation.

Background information on the above proposed regression policy
This policy is a modified version of the CLAS policy.  The first sentence in the recommended policy defines the basis on which decisions would be made on student petitions asking for an exception to the regression policy.  Courses “equivalent to a prerequisite” (in line 4 above) includes cross listed courses, courses taken at another university, and courses that cover the same material (e.g., the various versions of calculus).  The statement “consists of material covered by” (in lines 4-5 above) is intended to prohibit students from taking an upper level course and then getting credit for a lower level service course intended for nonmajors or a remedial course that present at a lower level all or a substantial portion of the material included in the upper level course or its prerequisite (e.g., 22S:105 Statistical Methods and Computing followed by 22S:002 Statistics and Society or 22:016 Computer Science I followed by 22C:001 Survey of Computing).

6.    Submit an interim report to the EFC on committee accomplishments and considerations during the fall semester by January 17th and a final report on the same for the entire academic year by April 15th.
The interim report was submitted January 10th.  This document is the final report.

7.    Keep minutes of formal meetings of the committee, and regularly transmit them to the EFC.
Minutes were kept for all 15 CC meetings and forwarded to the EFC.

Other Accomplishments of the Curriculum Committee
•    Approved Asghar Bhatti as new Statics course coordinator.
•    Approved Ed Dove as new math liaison.

EFC Meeting # 22
April 22, 2003
Minutes

1.    The meeting was called to order by Professor Andersen at 8:30 am in 3511 SC
        EFC Members present: Andersen, Beckermann, Swan, Robinson and Wiencek
        Deans present:  Butler

2.    Minutes.  The minutes of meeting 21 were read, revised and approved.

3.    EFC Election.  The EFC election process has been initiated and nominations are being accepted for the one open seat.

4.    Ad-Hoc Computer Support Committee.  The CSC provided an interim report, primarily focusing on the proposed CSS desktop computer support policy and procedures.  The EFC discussed the report and will provide some feedback to the CSC.

5.    College of Engineering Faculty Meeting Agenda.  The agenda for the May 12 Faculty Meeting was reviewed and approved by EFC.  It will be circulated to the faculty shortly.

6.    Remaining meetings and issues.  The EFC will have two more meetings this Spring.  One meeting will be devoted to the College’s budget situation.  Betsy Altmeier will gather input on the current University promotion and tenure policy in another meeting.

7.    EFC adjourned at 9:10 am.  The next meeting of EFC is scheduled for 8:30 am, April 29, 2003.

Respectfully submitted,

John M. Wiencek, Secretary

EFC Meeting # 23
May 5, 2003
Minutes

1.        The meeting was called to order by Professor Andersen at 3:30 pm in 4505 SC
            EFC Members present: Andersen, Beckermann, Swan, Robinson and Wiencek
            Deans present:  none

2.    University promotion and tenure policy review.  Prof. Glenn Story represented the University Senate’s Committee charged with this review.  He provided an overview of the Committee’s charges and an open discussion followed on the current promotion and tenure process.  The Senate will provide a summary report of the Committee’s findings to the faculty community next Fall.

3.    EFC adjourned at 4:30 pm.  The next meeting of EFC is scheduled for 8:30 am, May 6, 2003.

Respectfully submitted,

John M. Wiencek, Secretary

EFC Meeting # 24
May 6, 2003
Minutes

1.    The meeting was called to order by Professor Andersen at 8:30 am in 3511 SC
        EFC Members present: Andersen, Beckermann, Swan, and Wiencek
        Deans present:  Holly and Butler

2.    Minutes.  The minutes of meeting 22 were read and approved.

3.    Review of College & University Budget.  Dean Butler provided an overview of the budget for the next fiscal year.

4.    EFC adjourned at 9:15 am.  The next meeting of EFC is scheduled for 8:30 am, May 13, 2003.

Respectfully submitted,

John M. Wiencek, Secretary

EFC Meeting # 25
May 13, 2003
Minutes

1.     The meeting was called to order by Professor Andersen at 8:30 am in 3511 SC
        EFC Members present: Andersen, Reinhardt, Swan, Robinson and Wiencek
        Deans present:  none

2.    Dean’s Review Committee.  A staff member will be added to the Dean’s review committee per the Provost’s recommendation.  EFC forwarded the names of three College of Engineering staff for the Provost’s consideration.

3.    Election of New Officiers.  Professor Colby Swan was unanimously elected to Chair the EFC for the next year.  Professor John Robinson will serve as EFC Secretary

4.    Resignation.  Professor Wiencek was officially appointed DEO of Chemical & Biochemical Enginneering effective June 1, 2003 and thus, will resign his current position on EFC.

5.    Liaisons to EFC Committees.  The assignments for the next year are:  Teaching Committee – Prof. Robinson; Ad-Hoc Computer Services Committee – Prof. Reinhardt; Curriculum Committee/Promotion & Tenure Committee – Prof. Andersen / New EFC Member (will be finalized after new person is elected to EFC).

6.    Thanks!  The EFC extends a warm thank you to Professor Beckermann for serving on EFC this last semester as well as Professor Andersen for his outstanding leadership over the last year as Chair of EFC.  Finally, thank you to all the committee members and committee Chairs for their service to these important College missions.

7.    EFC adjourned at 9:30 am.  The next meeting of EFC is scheduled for 8:30 am, May 20, 2003.

Respectfully submitted,

John M. Wiencek, Secretary