From SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE
STUDIES
To
?
SENATE
SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
?
3.7443
.
?
MEMORANDUM
ruLInEd' L'..ErunJ. -
Subject
?
RELATING TO UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION
?
Date
FEBRUARY 11, 1974
Issue 1. PROCEDURES FOR REVIEWING AND APPROVING CURRICULUM CHANGES
MOTION: ?
"That Senate approve, as set forth in S.74- 43
a)
That SCUS normally will consider the Faculty Curriculum
Committees to be the major investigatory body in matters
relating to curriculum and review.
b)
That the recommendations of Faculty Curriculum Committees
as approved by the relevant Faculty will be returned to
the Faculty after consideration by the Senate Committee on
Undergraduate Studies if one or more of the following
• ?
conditions obtain.
1) The documentation of the course proposed or program
change is inadequate, i.e. the answers on the course
proposal form and supporting memoranda where appropriate
do not indicate how the course fits into the program, is
too vaguely worded, etc.
ii)
There is a specific reason, such as course overlap with
another department, which has not been adequately dealt
with by the Faculty Curriculum Committee. The difference
from the first condition is that SCUS must state specifi-
cally the reason for referral, whereas under the first
condition, it may simply refer by indicating areas of
insufficient documentation.
iii)
Where a Faculty Curriculum Committee is unable to resolve
an issue, it should clearly state the nature of the problem
and refer to SCUS for a recommendation which must then be
approved by the department(s) and Faculty Curriculum
. ?
Committee(s) concerned. If the parties involved agree to
disagree, then the issue accompanied by the alternative
solutions will be forwarded to Senate for resolution.
iv)
Where Faculty Undergraduate Curriculum Committee proposals
-2-
do not conform to Senate policy or to the department's
previously stated policy."
Issue 4. USE OF DIRECTED READINGS/DIRECTED STUDIES AND DIRECTED RESEARCH COURSES
MOTION:
?
"That Senate approve, as set forth in S.74-43
a) That each offering of a directa4reading, directed study or
directed research course within a department require the
approval of the Departmental Chairman.
b) That the chairman's approval be based upon a submission
by the instructor covering each of the following:
1.
a description of the content of the course
2.
a statement of how the course is to be conducted
3.
an assessment of the relation between workload and
credit hours assigned to the course
4.
a statement of how the student's performance will
• ?
be assessed for grading purposes
5.
a written statement justifying the need for the
particular course rather than one of the regular
courses offered by the department.
c) That the present practice of having Senate approve the
establishment of directed research/readings/and study
courses for departments but not the content of such
courses be continued.
d) As a general principle, that an instructor in a directed
research/readings/or study course should expect to meet
with his students at least weekly.
e) That vector numbers for all directed research/readings/or
study courses be deleted from both the University's
Calendar and Course Guide.
f) That directed research/readings/or study courses not be
permitted (except under the circumstances provided in
Senate paper S.73-125, Issue 12, Motion C) as substitutes
for either required courses or special topics courses."
F
r
.
.
? -3 -
Issue 6. COURSE/CONTACT HOUR RELATIONSHIP (FOR REGULARLY SCHEDULED
COURSES* ONLY)
A
regularly scheduled course is defined as a semester length
course expected to be meeting for a predetermined number of
contact hours per week in lecture, tutorial, seminar or
laboratory as approved by Senate.
MOTION: "That Senate approve, as set forth in S.74-43
1.
That the determination of the appropriate relationship between
credit and contact hours rest with departmental undergraduate
curriculum committees subject to the approval of Faculty
Curriculum Committees, the Senate Committee on Undergraduate
Studies and Senate."
If Motion 1 is passed,
"That Senate approve, as set forth in S.74-43
2.
That motion 1) of Issue 5 - Use of Special Topics Courses -
contained in S.73-125 and approved at the November 1973
meeting of Senate: 'As a guiding principle for special
topics courses, that one contact hour be set equal to one
credit hour' be deleted."
Issue 7. USE OF VECTOR PATTERNS (FOR REGULARLY SCHEDULED COURSES)
?
MOTION: ?
"That Senate approve, as set forth in S.74- 43
a)
That all vector patterns be eliminated from the University
Calendar.
b)
That each course description contained in the University
Calendar be accompanied by an indication of the nature of
the course, e.g. lecture/tutorial, lecture/tutorial/
laboratory, seminar, etc.
c)
That, within the total number of contact hours assigned
to a course, and subject to the approval of the departmental
undergraduate curriculum committee, the Chairman be per-
mitted to vary the vector pattern. Such vector patterns to
reflect only the class requirements and the calendar descrip-
tion of the course.
d)
That vector patterns for all regularly scheduled courses be
.
? -4-
included in the Course Guide; Departmental approval will
be in writing and submitted to the Registrar."
Issue 11. CRITERIA FOR NUMBERING COURSES (EXCLUDING DIRECTED RESEARCH,
READINGS AND STUDY COURSES AND SPECIAL TOPICS COURSES)
?
MOTION: ?
"That Senate approve, as set forth in S.74- 43
a) That the following criteria be established as guidelines
for departments in determining the number division to be
assigned individual courses.
000 division courses are credit or non-credit courses of
a general nature designed to introduce a student to a
broad area of learning. Such courses are designed to
provoke thought and to stimulate a desire for further
exploration of the field(s). They may be disciplinary
or inter-disciplinary in nature. Such courses are open
to all students and do not carry pre- or co-requisites."
0
4,
S.
?
SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
?
S
MEMORANDUM
.
To ?
Senate
Further Report - Curricular
Subject ?
I ssues ... ReIat . i .
ng
...
t....Undergraduate-
Education
From
.......Senate Committee pn., ?
. gr..u.ate
Studies
Date
11
February,1974
The Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies submitted
its initial report on curricular issues related to undergraduate
education to the November meeting of Senate. These recommendations
were contained in Paper S.73-125. At that meeting, Senate
approved the majority of the recommendations of SCUS; and, for
the information of Senators, a copy of S.73-125, as amended at the
November 5th meeting of Senate, is attached.
The following issues were referred back to the Senate
Committee on Undergraduate Studies:
Issue 1 - Procedures for Reviewing and Approving Curriculum
Changes
0 ?
Issue 4 - Use of Directed Readings, Directed Studies and
Directed Research Courses
Issue 6 - Course/Contact hour relationship (for regularly-
scheduled courses only)
Issue 7 - Use of Vector Patterns (for regularly-scheduled
courses only)
Issue 11
-
Criteria for Numbering Courses (Item 1 concerning
000 courses only).
The Senate Committee on undergraduate Studies has now reconsidered
these items and now transmits them to Senate for its reconsideration.
(.
L 9
..
I. Mugridge
Chairman
att.
Issue I - PROCEDURES FOR REVIEWING AND APPROVING CURRICULUM CHANGES
MOTION: "That Senate approve,
a)
That SCUS normally will consider the Faculty Curriculum
Committees to be the major investigatory body in matters
relating to curriculum and review.
b)
That the recommendations of Faculty Curriculum Committees
as approved by the relevant Faculty will be returned to
the Faculty after consideration by the Senate Committee on
Undergraduate Studies if one or more of the following
conditions obtain.
i)
The documentation of the course proposed or program
change is Inadequate, i.e. the answers on the course
proposal form and supporting memoranda where appropriate
do not indicate how the course fits into the program,
Is too vaguely worded, etc.
ii)
There is a specific reason, such as course overlap with
another department 1 which has not been adequately dealt
with by the Faculty Curriculum Committee. The difference
from the first condition is that SCUS must state specific-
ally the reason for referral, whereas under the first
condition, It may simply refer by indicating areas of
Insufficient documentation.
iii)
Where a Faculty Curriculum Committee is unable to
resolve an issue, it should clearly state the nature
of the problem and refer to SCUS for a recommendation
which must then be approved by the department(s) and
Faculty Curriculum Committee(s) concerned. If the
parties involved agree to disagree, then the Issue
accompanied by the alternative solutions will be
forwarded to Senate for resolution.
/.......
U,
.
iv) Where Faculty Undergraduate Curriculum Committee
proposals do not conform to Senate policy or to the
department's previously stated policy."
Rationale
Curriculum changes are defined as:
a)
changes in departmental graduation requirements
for major and honors students
b)
additions and deletions of course offerings
c)
changes in course content
d)
changes in course numbering
e)
changes in course credit assignments
f)
changes in course vector patterns
g)
changes in pre- and co- requisites for
individual courses
h)
changes in Faculty graduation requirements
i)
editorial changes
With the exception of the latter, which may be approved by the
Registrar, curriculum changes follow a lengthy route through departmental
undergraduate curriculum committees, departments, faculty undergraduate
curriculum committees, faculties, the Senate Committee on Undergraduate
Studies and Senate. Since the role of each committee and Senate in the
curriculum revision and review process has not been clearly delineated,
unnecessary duplication and much time consuming effort occurs because
each feels obliged to undertake a comprehensive review of all that has
gone before. These problems have been further compounded by the lack
of a standardized form for submitting proposed curriculum changes for
review.
We do not believe it is desirable to eliminate any of the review
bodies from the process. Rather, we believe that many difficulties can be
minimized by clearly designating one body as being the major investigatory
body in matters of curriculum revision and review. This body, we believe,
should be the Faculty Curriculum Committees.
/......
I,
• ?
....
Issue 4. USE OF DIRECTED READINGS/DIRECTED
STUDIES AND DIRECTED RESEARCH
COURSES
MOTION: "That Senate approve,
a) That each offering of a directed reading, directed study
or directed research course within a department require
the approval of the Departmental Chairman.
b) That the chairman's approval be based upon a submission
by the instructor covering each of the following:
1.
a description of the content of the course
2.
a statement of how the course is to be conducted
3.
an assessment of the relation between workload
and credit hours assigned to the course
4.
a statement of how the student's performance will
•
?
be assessed for grading purposes
5.
a written statement justifying the need for the
particular course rather than one of the regular
courses offered by the department.
c) That the present practice of having Senate approve the
establishment of directedresearch/readings/and study
courses for departments but not the content of such
courses be continued.
d) As a general principle, that an instructor in a directed
research/readings/or study course should expect to meet
with his students at least weekly.
e) That vector numbers for all directedresearch/readings/or
study courses be deleted from both the University's
Calendar and Course Guide.
f) That directedresearch/readings/or study courses not be
permitted (except under the circumstances provided in
Senate paper S.73-125, Issue 12, Motion C) as substitutes
for either required courses or special topics courses."
0 ?
/.......
.
Rationale
Most departments offer such courses. While their purpose has
never been formally defined, patterns of use have become established.
These courses are seen as (1) providing opportunities for students
wanting either indepth treatment of particular areas stiftmarily covered
in lecture or seminar courses, or topics of mutual interest to students
and faculty not covered by formal courses, and (ii) being appropriate
for groups of students as well as students working independently. The
directed reading/studies/research labels have generally been used where
the mode of operation is essentially one of individual research or
tutorial. Where lectures and more formal instruction are given, a
special topics label is generally considered more appropriate.
Student contact
,
hours vary considerably. Some departments
require a one hour meeting per week for a three credit course; some
two hours per week for a five credit course; and some simply leave it
to the instructor and student to arrange an appropriate number of
meetings.
There is no uniform relationship between credit and contact
hours ?
However, general agreement exists that credit should be
based on the amount of work required rather than on the amount of time
spent with the instructor. In some but not all departments, the topics
of such courses must be approved usually by the departmental under-
graduate curriculum committee or the chairman. Unfortunately, use of
these courses has been subject to some abuse, the extent of which it
has been impossible to ascertain.. However, it is clear that such courses
have often become an almost integral part of some departmental
curricula though this was not the original intent. Furthermore, they have
been used to substitute for required courses; and this is contrary to
Senate's expectations. Together with the special topics courses, they
are the only courses given in the University whose content does not
require the approval of the department, Faculty, the Senate Committee on
Undergraduate Studies and Senate. We are convinced that such courses can
be beneficial to both students and faculty, but we are equally convinced
that each department should be obliged to develop protective mechanisms
which will guard against their abuse.
?
/.
I.
.5 ?
0 ?
RATIONALE (continued)
In its initial report to Senate on this issue, the Committee on
Undergraduate Studies recommended that: (i) departments and Faculties
seek to standardize the credit hours assigned to directed research/
readings/and study courses; (ii) Faculties establish limits on the
number of such courses or credit hours a student may take for credit
toward the degree of that Faculty; and (iii) only upper level students
be permitted to enrol in such courses.
Upon reconsideration, it is our opinion that standardization
of credit hours assigned to direct research/reading and study courses is
neither desirable nor possible. Because of the nature of such courses,
the workload will vary according to what the instructor and the student
seek to accomplish. For these reasons we have recommended that the approval
of the departmental chairman for each such course offering be required and
that this approval be based partly upon an assessment of the relation
between workload and the credit assigned. Regarding limits on the number
of such courses or credit hours which a student may take for credit toward
his degree, the Committee is of the opinion that, providing the practice
is not abused, a student may receive a better education more closely
related to his on interests, through maximizing his use of such courses
than mightbe obtained through enrolling simply in regularly scheduled
courses. To prevent abuse however, the Committee continues to recommend
that directed research/readings/or study courses not be permitted,
except under the circumstances specified in S.73.125, Issue 12, Motion C,
as substitutes for either required courses or special topics courses.
As noted, directed research/readings and study courses provide
opportunities for students wanting In-depth treatment of particular
areas summarily covered in lecture or
seminar courses, or new topics
of mutual interest to students and faculty. While students who have
previously been exposed to the area through regularly scheduled courses
will be the prime beneficiaries of such courses, it seemed to the
•
?
Committee to be unduly restf'±ctive to limit enrolment to upper level
students. Further, since enrolment In such courses normally requires
the approval of the instructor,-arid If these proposals are adopted, of
the department chairman-adequate safeguards exist to ensure that only
those who would truly benefit from such a course are admitted,,
,. ?
•'•
?
.6
S
S
.
Issue 6. COURSE/CONTACT HOUR RELATIONSHIP (FOR REGULARLY SCHEDULED
COURSES* ONLY)
*A regularly scheduled course is defined as a semester length
course expected to be meeting for a predetermined
number of contact hours per week in lecture, tutorial, seminar
or laboratory as approved by Senate.
MOTION:
1.
That the determination of the appropriate relationship between
credit and contact hours rest with departmental undergraduate
curriculum committees subject to the approval of Faculty Curriculum
Committees, the Senate Committee on Undergraudate Studies and
Senate.
If Motion 1 is passed.
2.
That motion i) of Issue
5 -
Use of Special Topics Courses
-
contained
in
S.73-125
and approved at the November
1973
meeting of Senate:
"As a guiding principle for special topics courses, that one contact
hour be set equal to one credit hour" be deleted.
Rationale
a. Motion 1
Lower and upper division courses in the Faculty of Education,
contact hours generally equal credit hours. This relationship applies
irrespective of whether the contact hour is in lecture, tutorial, seminar
or laboratory form.
In the Faculty of Interdisciplinary Studies, practices vary from
department to department. In Communication Studies, a one-to-one
relationship generally exists although laboratory and tutorial contact
hours in excess of credit hours are sometimes required for upper division
courses. In Kinesiology, lower division courses operate on a one-to-one
basis but the amount of contact time per credit hour increases with
upper division courses. In other areas of the Faculty of Interdisciplinary
Studies, the relationship depends primarily on the amount of outside class
work required.
/
Rationale (continued)
For lower division courses offered by the Faculty of Arts, contact
hours equal credit hours. This is true whether the contact hour is in
lecture, tutorial, seminar or laboratory form. The only identified
exceptions to this policy are Commerce
223-5
and three or four D.M.L.
four credit language courses. Credit for upper division courses
offered by the Faculty of Arts is either two, three or five hours. For
both the two and three credit hour upper division courses, two laboratory
hours equal one hour of credit while one hour of tutorial, seminar or
lecture equals one credit hour. The major point of variation within the
Faculty of Arts is that different departments, and sometimes different
courses within the same department, do not require the same amount of
class time for a five credit hour course. Some require five hours of
class time, others three. So far as it has been possible to establish,
no seminar meets for less than three hours per week although two
departments sometimes allow a seminar to meet two hours per week provided
the faculty member sets aside a fixed time for individual instruction
for each member of the seminar, usually one hour per student. In
general, most departments in the Faculty of Arts give five hours of credit
for three hours of class seminar work.
All departments in the Faculty of Science equate one credit
hour with one lecture hour. Tutorial contact hours are not counted.
Practice varies regarding laboratory hours. The Department of Chemistry
sets one credit hour equal to two laboratory hours. In the Department of
Biolgoical Sciences, the relationship is one to three. In the Department
of Physics, one credit hour equals two laboratory hours, three credit
hours equal four laboratory hours and four credit hours equal six laboratory hours.
While departments recognized the need for University standards in
this area, there was no agreement on such a standard. The options expressed
were:
a)
relating credit hours solely to lecture hours taught
b)
one-to-one relationship for non-laboratory courses with
courses involving laboratory work requiring a greater number
of contact hours per hour of credit
/.......
• ?
.8
c)
relating credit hours to the amount of outside work required
d)
relating credit hours to the amount of both class and out-
of-class time required for the course
e)
relating credit hours to difficulty of materials encompassed
by the course
f)
one-to-one relationship for all lower division courses. For
upper division courses, no less than two contact hours for
a two credit hour course, no less than three contact hours
for a three credit course, and no less than four contact
hours for a five credit course. No distinction to be made
between lecture, tutorial, seminar or laboratory contact
hours.
The difficulty with option (a) is that it forces all courses to
be offered on a lecture basis since the proposal would provide no credit
for seminar courses. Options (c), (d) and (e) would be difficult, If
not impossible, to legislate because of the lack of defined norms against
which to measure either the amount of outside work spent on the course
or the difficulty of course materials. Moreover, the amount of time
spent by individual students on a given course is as much a function of the
student's interest and ability as it is of class assignments or the
difficulty of course material. Thus, only options (b) and (f)
appeared to merit further consideration.
Implementation of either alternative (b) or (f) or some combination
thereof would require a major reorganization of the curriculum in both
the Faculty of Arts and the Faculty of Science. While there was no
disagreement with the principle that a defined relationship between credit
and contact hours is desirable in a new situation, the Committee is
convinced that the costs involved in a major restructuring of the present
curriculum of two Faculties far outweigh the benefits to be derived from
implementation of a University or even Faculty-wide credit/contact hour
•
relationship.
of the credit/contact
Our recommendation,
hour relationship
therefore,
for particular
is that the
courses
determination
be left to
the discretion of departments proposing the course. Departments must,
/......
. ?
.9
however, be prepared to justify their recommendations before Faculty
Curriculum Committees, the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies
and Senate.
b. Motion 2
Since special topics courses are regarded as regularly scheduled
courses, the Committee recommends that the policy regarding the appropriate
relationship between credit and contact hours be the same for both
regularly scheduled and special topics courses.
Upon reconsideration, the Committee is convinced that the poU.áy
recommended for regularly scheduled courses is the most appropriate and,
therefore, recommends the substitution contained in the above recommendations.
is
.
/.....
1.
.
?
.10
Issue 7 USE OF VECTOR PATTERNS (FOR REGULARLY SCHEDULED COURSES
MOTION
a)
That all vector patterns be eliminated from the University
Calendar.
b)
That each course description contained in the University
Calendar be accompanied by an indication of the nature
of the course, e.g. lecture/tutorial, lecture/tutorial/
laboratôry, seminar, etc.
c)
That, within the total number of contact hours assigned
to a course, and subject to the approval of the depart-
mental undergraduate curriculum committee, the Chairman be
permitted to vary the vector pattern. Such vector patterns
to reflect only the class requirements and the calendar
description of the course.
d)
That vector patterns for all regularly scheduled courses be
included in the Course Guide; Departmental approval will be
in writing and submitted to the Registrar.
Rationale
There is considerable confusion about vector patterns. This is
attributable to the many uses to which they are currently put. For
some courses, vector numbers indicate the lecture, tutorial, laboratory
pattern, while others use the first vector number to indicate the amount
of outside work required. Seminars present special problems with some
departments indicating vector patterns of 0-5-0 and others the vector 2-3-0.
There is agreement, however, that current vector patterns:
a)
often do not bear any relationship to either the contact
hours of the course or the credit hours assigned to it.
b)
need not reflect the way in which the course is actually
taught.
c)
will vary from semester to semester for individual courses
dependent upon the instructor.
d)
serve no useful purpose in the University's Calendar
/......
. ?
I.
. ?
.11
e) would be of assistance to students if placed in the Course
Guide provided they carried a consistent meaning.
Because teaching method and content often influence students'
choice of courses, it is reasonable to expect that accurate information
on both will be supplied to students in advance of the course. We
recognize that individual faculty members will vary in their approach
to the same course and that the annual publication of the University's
Calendar cannot therefore reflect these semester changes. Furthermore,
the University's Calendar is a statement of general policies and
principles and we find little justification for the continued inclusion
in it of vector patterns. Because the Calendar is used to determine
transfer credit for students enrolling at other universities who have
taken courses at this University and because it is a general guide
for students taking courses at Son Fraser, we have recommended that
• ?
each course description contained in the Calendar be accompanied by
a general description of the manner in which the course will be taught.
Since the Course Guide provides information on individual semester
course offerings, we believe that it is the most appropriate place
in which to incorporate course vector patterns.
. ?
.12
Issue 11. CRITERIA. FOR NUMBERING COURSES (EXCLUDING DIRECTED
RESEARCH • READINGS AND STUDY COURSES AND SPECIAL TOPICS
COURSES)
?
Motion: ?
a) That the following criteria be established as guide-
lines for departments in determining the number division
to be assigned individual courses.
000 division courses are credit or non-credit courses of
a general nature designed to
introduce
a student to a
broad area of learning. Such courses are designed to
provoke thought and to stimulate a desire for further
exploration of the field (s). They may be disciplinary
or inter-disciplinary in nature. Such cpurses are
open to all students and do not carry pre- or co-
requisites.
Rationale
Currently, there are no University guidelines available for determin-
ing the appropriate numeridaJ. division, i.e. 100, 200, 300, or 400 to be
assigned individual courses. Lacking such guidelines, departments have
had to use their own discretion with the result that differences in number-
ing philosophy have become apparent producing both endless and fruitless
debate in Faculty Curriculum Committees, the Senate Committee on Under-
graduate Studies and Senate. To minimize the debate relating to number-
ing changes, we have recommended a set of criteria to be utilized in
establishing numbers for individual courses. It should be understood
that adoption of these guidelines does not carry with it a commitment
that all departments adopt a 100, 200, 300, 400 course numbering policy.
For example, the Department of English has no 300 division courses. Such
• ?
deviations from the recommendations should be permitted provided they are
acceptable to the Faculty Curriculum Committee, Senate Committee on Under-
Graduate Studies and Senate.
ams
February 11,1974
SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
MEMORANDUM
From
SENATE CONMITTEE
UNDERGRADUATE
STUDIES
'-4
SENATE
To
_______________
Subject
_REPORT ON CURRICULAR ISSUES RELAT
?
OCTOBER 18, 1973
S.73-/Zs
Motions as amended and
approved by Senate at
its meeting of Nov. 5,
1973.
NOTE: The statements
of rationale are ex-
tracted from the
support paper and are
not a part of the
Issue 2 - OVERLAP OF COURSE CONTENT BETWEEN COURSES OFFERED WITHIN A
DEPARTMENT, WITHIN A FACULTY, ACROSS FACULTIES
MOTION: ?
"That Senate approve, as set forth in S.73-125,
a)
That, in all cases where overlap in course content exists,
Faculty Curriculum Committees be charged with requiring
jointly approved and justified course proposals to be
submitted by the departments involved. Such charge to
apply to both departments within a single Faculty and
across Faculties.
b)
That, where a jointly approved course proposal is not forth-
coming from the departments involved, theissuebe referred
by the departments involved, to the Faculty Curriculum
Committee(s) for resolution.
c)
That, where an overlap in course content cannot be resolved
at either the department or Faculty level, the issue be
resolved by Senate upon the recommendation of the Senate
Committee on Undergraduate Studies."
Rationale
We agree that course content overlap may be justified in those
instances where, depending on the focus and integrative framework of the
lecturer, similar materials are approached in quite different fashion. In
our review, we have found a number of existing areas where appreciable and,
from our point of view, unjustified course content overlap exists. We have
no panacea for such problem areas. At a minimum, however, we believe it is
essential that Faculty curriculum Committees be charged with requiring
jointly approved and justified course proposals from those departments
where overlap in course content exists. Where the problem is not resolvable
at the departmental or Faculty level, it will have to be resolved by Senate
upon the recommendation of the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies.
Issue 3 - PROLIFERATION OF COURSE OFFERINGS
MOTION: ?
"That Senate approve, as set forth in S.73-125,
a) At the time of internal or external departmental review,
departments be required to review all of their course offer-
O-2-
ings with a view to eliminating those no longer appropriate
to the department's objectives.
b)
That justification for the continuance of any specific course
offering may be requested, at any time, by the Faculty Under-
graduate Curriculum Committee, the Senate Committee on
Undergraduate Studies or Senate.
c)
That any course not offered within a six semester period be
deleted from the Calendar unless adequate justification for
retaining the course is presented to the Senate Committee on
Undergraduate Studies and Senate. The Senate Committee on
Undergraduate Studies to be charged each semester with review-
ing course offerings under this ruling and making appropriate
recommendations to Senate."
Rationale
Most departments do rev
4 ew their programs yearly. While no depart-
ment has a defined procedure for undertaking the review, such factors as
changes in graduate school emphases, changes in the academic complexion of the
department due to new hiring and replacement, student inputs, and inter-
disciplinary factors are considered by all department. Even so, the number
of individual undergraduate courses offered and taken between the fall semester
. ?
1965 and the fall semester 1972 was 1161. Considering only the period from
Spring semester 1971 through the fall semester 1972, 266 of the 1161 courses
have not been offered at all. It is on the basis of these statistics that we
offer our recommendations for consideration.
Issue 5 - USE OF SPECIAL TOPICS COURSES
MOTION:
?
"That Senate approve, as set forth in S.73-125,.
a)
That departments include in the University's Calendar and Course
Guide a general statement to the effect that special topics
courses are offered and that students should obtain further
information from the department prior to registration.
(Note: This initial contact would give departments an oppor-
tunity to learn what special topics students want to see
initiated and thus facilitate the introduction of special topics
courses.)
b)
That, as general University guidelines, special topics courses
should be utilized to:
1) fill a particular gap in a department's curriculum
. 2) respond to student/faculty interests which are worthwhile
at the moment but not necessarily of continuing relevance
to a department's program
3) experiment with a particular subject matter area before
considering it for introduction into the regular curri-
culum.
c) That all Faculties recommend policies to Senate regarding the
maximum number of such courses (or credit hours) a student
may include for credit toward the degrees of that Faculty.
d) That the present practice of having Senate approve the estab-
lishment of special topics courses for departments but not
the contents of such courses be continued.
e) That the Chairman, on the advice of the Departmental Under-
graduate Curriculum Committee, be charged with approving the
content of all special topics courses offered.
f) ?
That once each semester, Deans of Faculties report to Senate
on topics covered under special topics, such report to include:
1)
the calendar description of each course offered, including
the course number, credit hours, vector description, course
description.
2)
a detailed description of the specific courses offered
including the name of the responsible faculty member, a
. ?
course outline and/or syllabus, a reading list, and method
of instruction.
3)
the number of students enrolled in each course.
g)
?
That special topics courses be regarded as regularly scheduled
courses, i.e. that class meetings are held on a regular basis.
h)
?
That vector patterns for special topics courses be deleted
from the University Calendar and incorporated into the Course
Guide.
i) ?
As a guiding principle for special topics courses, that one
contact hour be set equal to one credit hour.
j) That where a department wishes to deviate from principle i)
above, a justification for the variance must be provided to
the Faculty and Senate Undergraduate Curriculum Committees
and to Senate."
Rationale
Special topics courses are currently offered by departments in all
four Faculties.
• Some departments determine special topics courses on petition of
students to the Departmental Undergraduate Curriculum Committee; others on
the basis of faculty preference again with the approval of the Departmental
L•
Undergraduate Curriculum Committee. In general, topics are approved which
fill a particular gap in the department's curriculum or which suit student/
faculty interests which are worthwhile at the moment but not necessarily of
continuing relevance to the department's program.
Staffing practices vary. In some cases, it is by the faculty
member proposing the course and is considered as part of his regular teaching
load. In other cases, staffing is on a surplus basis, while in still other
cases, special topics courses are taken as teaching overloads by members of
regular faculty.
Special topics courses become part of the regular curriculum only
if successfully offered at least once and are judged to be central enough
to the department's curriculum to be recommended to Senate as a regular
course offering by the department's undergraduate curriculum committee.
Notice of special topics courses is provided to students in a variety of
ways - Course Guide, departmental Student Guides, and public advertising
both in the Peak and via posters and notices.
Like directed research/studies/and reading courses, the establish-
ment of such courses is approved by Senate but not the actual content.
We have uncovered no evidence that such courses are being abused
by any department of the University. At the same time, we note that some of
. ?
the special topics courses have been subdivided, thus having the effect of
greatly increasing the number of such courses which can be offered by a
particular department or Faculty. We believe that this practice is contrary
to the intent of Senate and should not be permitted.
We have carefully considered whether or not to recommend that approval
of the content of special topics courses be handled in the same way as for
regularly scheduled courses of the University. Because a given special topic
is normally offered only once, we believe that responsibility for approving
the content of particular offerings should rest with departmental chairmen.
To guard against possible abuse, we have recommended that each department,
through the Faculty Dean, report each semester to Senate on its offerings.
In this way, Senate can maintain control without individually approving the
content of each course offered.
Issue 8 - RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CONTACT HOURS AND OUT-OF-CLASS PREPARATION
TIME
MOTION: ?
None.
Rationale
Present practice varies. Two departments indicated approximately
three to four hours of outside preparation for each contact hour in lower
• ?
division courses; three departments indicated two hours for every weekly
contact hour for all courses. One department indicated three hours per week
of outside preparation for each semester hour of credit.
. ?
-5-
As previously noted, out-of-class effort on the part of students
is as much a function of their interest and innate ability as it is the
amount of work required or the difficulty of the assignment. Furthermore,
while the University theoretically has some responsibility to ensure that
the amount of outside class work demanded by individual course instructors
is reasonable, there Is no practical way in which it can exercise its
responsibility. Therefore, while the Committee recognizes that a principle
or guideline would be desirable, it is not prepared to recommend that which
cannot be enforced.
Issue 9 - RETROACTIVITY OF CALENDAR CHANGES AS THEY AFFECT GRADUATION
REQUIREMENTS
MOTION: ?
"That Senate approve, as set forth in S.73-125,
Before or upon entering the final 60 credit hours (72 credit hours
for the Honors program) students must make a formal Declaration of
Major (or Honors) with this formal declaration to establish the
requirements for graduation as indicated in the published Calendar
in effect at the time of the declaration or future calendars at
the student's discretion. A change of major or honors field will
.
?
be deemed a new declaration."
Rationale
Within the Faculty of Arts, students must make a formal Declaration
of Major and this formal declaration establishes the exact requirements for
graduation as indicated in the published Calendar in effect at the time of
declaration. A change of major is deemed to be a new declaration. A declara-
tion of a major is valid for five calendar years.
Both the Faculty of Education and the Faculty of Science are silent
as to the effect of Calendar changes on graduation requirement.
University opinion is divided on what policy ought to apply. Some
believe that a student should be able to graduate under the requirements of
any calendar published during the period in which he is enrolled at Simon
Fraser. They argue that the graduation requirements contained in all calendars
are subject to Senate approval and students might reasonably be expected to
have made program decisions on the basis of any of the Calendars to which they
were subject. The disadvantages of this approach are twofold. First, it com-
plicates both academic advising and departmental and Faculty Curriculum Com-
mittees' consideration of whether individual students have fulfilled graduation
requirements. Second, and more serious, is that substantial numbers of
students take considerably longer than four or five years to fulfill graduation
requirements. If such a policy were enacted, It would permit students to
• ?
graduate under regulations no longer deemed appropriate or desirable.
Others believe that the Calendar governing the student should be the
one in force at the time of the students' major or honors declaration. Further-
more, it is generally agreed that a student changing from a major to an honors
program (or vice versa) within the same department should not be considered as
changing the calendar governing him. It should be the one in force at the time
.
? -6-
of his first declaration in the department. The reason for this is that the
major student takes many of the same courses as does the honors student and
has to fulfill many of the same requirements. He has fitted himself into a
pattern which contains upper division work for both majors and honors students
as described in the Calendar of his declaration. This is the pattern he
should stick with since, for the most part, changes from major to honors
programs (and vice versa) will involve upper level students and should not
commit them to what sometimes is a totally different set of regulations.
The advantages of this approach are:
a)
it facilitates the task of both academic advising and
Departmental and Faculty Curriculum Committees who must
review the work performed by individual students before
recommending them for degrees and,
b)
the student is able to build a degree program on the
graduation requirements contained in a specific calendar.
The primary disadvantage of this approach is that:
a) majors of students may be, and often are, changed several
times prior to graduation in each of which instances, the
requirements for graduation may change.
We see advantages to both approaches. However, given the extent to
which departmental and Faculty graduation requirements have changed since the
inception of the University, we are more inclined toward the latter than the
former approach
Issue 10 - MORATORIUM ON CALENDAR CHANGES
MOTION:
?
None.
Rationale
Over the past six years, the program requirements and course offerings
of many departments have changed frequently. This situation poses a number of
difficulties for students and for other departments whose programs interact
with those which are revised. Furthermore, it appears to us that because depart-
ments have been changing their programs so rapidly, there has often been
insufficient time to obtain adequate assessments of the strength and weaknesses
of their existing programs.
For these reasons, we believe it would be desirable to impose a two
year moratorium whenever a Faculty or department has made substantial revisions
to its undergraduate curriculum. This moratorium is the minimum time span that
would be permitted to pass in order to allow adequate assessment of the implica-
tions of the changes on both students and other departments.
We are not prepared, however, to offer this as a formal recommendation
for the following reasons. First, if an action taken has proven unworkable, it
should be corrected at the earliest possible date. Second, the introduction of
.
?
-7-
new programs clearly demands that opportunities be provided to them for experi-
mentation. Third, and probably most important, we were unable to agree on a
workable definition of "substantial revisions to its undergraduate curriculum."
In the absence of such a definition, we foresaw endless and what appears to us
to be, unjustified debate over whether or not proposed curriculum changes
could be introduced for consideration. For these reasons, we can only suggest
that Faculties and departments provide sufficient time to pass that previously
introduced curriculum changes may be adequately assessed.
Issue 11 - CRITERIA FOR NUMBERING COURSES
MOTION:
?
"That Senate approve, as set forth in S.73-125,
That the following criteria be established as guidelines for
departments in determining the number levels to be assigned
individual courses:
2)
100 division courses - are designed to introduce students
to a discipline at the University level of study; students
will normally be expected to enrol in such courses during
their first and second levels of University; such courses
will not demand prerequisites at the University level of
study although previous learning experiences in the
. ?
discipline or related disciplines at the secondary school
level may be recommended or required.
3)
200 division courses - assume either previous learning
experiences in the discipline or related disciplines;
both content and teaching level will be more advanced
than courses offered at the 100 division; students will
normally be expected to enrol in such courses during
their third and fourth levels of University; pre- and co-
requisites may be identified.
4)
300 division courses - assume a substantive amount of
previous learning experiences in either the discipline
or related disciplines; both content and teaching level
will be more advanced than for courses offered at the
200 division; students will normally be expected to enrol
in such courses during their fifth and sixth levels of
University; only in exceptional circumstances will these
courses offered not have pre- and/or co- requisites
associated with them.
5)
400 division courses - assume a substantive amount of
previous learning experiences in either the discipline
or related disciplines; both content and teaching level
will be more advanced than for courses offered at the
• ?
300 division; students will normally be expected to enrol
In such courses during their seventh and eighth levels of
University; only In exceptional circumstances will these
courses not have pre- and/or co- requisites associated
with them.
-8-
• ?
Rationale
Currently, there are no University guidelines available for deter-
mining the appropriate numerical level, i.e. 100, 200, 300 or 400 to be
assigned individual courses. Lacking such guidelines, departments have had
to use their own discretion with the result that differences in numbering
philosophy have become apparent producing both endless and fruitless debate
in Faculty Curriculum Committees, the Senate Committee on Undergraduate
Studies and Senate. To minimize the debate relating to numbering changes,
we have recommended a set of criteria to be utilized in establishing numbers
for individual courses. It should be understood that adoption of these
guidelines does not carry with it a commitment that all departments adopt a
100, 200, 300, 400 course numbering policy. For example, the Department of
English has no 300 division courses. Such deviations from the recommendations
should be permitted provided they are acceptable to the Faculty Curriculum
Committee, Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies and Senate.
Issue 12 - OPERATING PROCEDURES FOR WAIVING COURSE, DEPARTMENT AND FACULTY
REQUIREMENTS
MOTION: ?
"That Senate approve, as set forth in S.73-125,
a) That departmental chairmen be empowered in special cases to
waive departmental regulations on the recommendation of the
•
?
departmental undergraduate curriculum committee; that Deans
of Faculties be empowered in special cases to waive Faculty
regulations on the recommendation of Faculty undergraduate
curriculum committees.
b) That the primary criteria under which waivers may be granted
be established as follows:
1)
where a student has been misadvised and can provide sub-
stantive evidence
2)
where a student can demonstrate to a department that he has
formal training or background for which he did not receive
direct course academic transfer credit. (The waiver does
not include the granting of additional formal semester hours
credit, but may remove the necessity of undertaking certain
prescribed courses.)
3)
where departmental programs have changed and eliminated
courses or otherwise substantially changed the graduation
requirements affecting the student
4)
where a student has satisfied the spirit but not the letter
of University, Faculty or departmental regulations.
c) That departmental chairmen be empowered in cases where the
. ?
unavailability of required course offerings might cause undue
delay to graduation to allow substitution of directed study/
research/reading courses.
-9-
d)
That departmental offices, in the case of departmental waivers,
and dean's offices, in the case of Faculty waivers, maintain
documentation on all waivers granted and advise in writing the
department concerned, the student and the Registrar where
affirmative action has been taken on a waiver request.
e)
That the Registrar report to Senate all cases of departmental
waivers and Faculty waivers on a semester basis.
Rationale
Practice varies throughout the University particularly as regards
departmental regulations. In some cases, departments retain the right to
waive their own regulations through their undergraduate curriculum committees.
In other cases, dean's approval is required. Dean's waivers are generally
not given without a favorable department recommendation though a favorable
departmental recommendation might be refused.
The criteria for granting waivers also varies. In some departments
and Faculties, the criteria vary but the general principle followed is that
they will be given only to very good students in exceptional circumstances.
Other departments and Faculties are more lenient on the grounds that many
departmental and Faculty requirements have changed substantially each year
of the last six years with the result that students have been misadvised
. ?
and regulations have been adopted, the implications of which for individual
students have not been fully understood. Under such conditions it is agreed
that it is patently unfair to apply these regulations to students simply
because they are the existing University regulations.
Documentation practices also vary. In some cases, documentation
is maintained by the Department for its own majors and honors students, in
other cases by the Dean's offices and in still others, by both. Clearly
there is insufficient communication with the Registrar's Office for the
purpose of formally recording the approved waiver.
We are of the opinion that there should be relatively few instances
in which waivers are granted. We recognize, however, that such cases occur
and that provision needs to be made for them in the context of University
policy. To ensure as much consistency as possible in the granting of waivers
across the University, we believe that only departmental chairmen should be
empowered to waive departmental regulations and deans to waive Faculty regu-
lations, upon the recommendation of departmental undergraduate curriculum
committees and Faculty undergraduate curriculum committees respectively.
We do not envision however, that all individual cases will have to go before
departmental or Faculty curriculum committees since it is expected that case
law principles can be developed to provide general operating guidelines for
departmental chairmen and deans.
We believe it is essential that such waivers be formally recorded
• ?
and have, therefore, recommended that where affirmative action is taken on a
waiver request, the departmental chairman or dean concerned advise in writing
the student and the Registrar of the action taken.
.
- 10 -
INFORMATION ON PREVIOUS MATERIAL
At its meeting of November 5, 1973, Senate approved the
previous motions. Note that the rationale statements are
extracted from the support paper and do not form a part of
the motion approved.
The following items, which formed a part of the paper
as originally submitted, have been referred back to the
Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies for further con-
sideration:
Issue 1 - Procedures for Reviewing and Approving Curriculum
Changes
Issue 4 - Use of Directed Readings, Directed Studies and
Directed Research Courses
Issue 6 - Course contact hour relationship (for regularly
scheduled courses only)
Issue 7 - Use of vector patterns (for regularly scheduled
courses
Issue 11 - Criteria for numbering courses (Item 1 concerning
000 courses only)
0
