.

To_

SENATE

six

SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

?

MEMORANDUM

From

?

SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE

STUDIES

Date ?

JUNE

19, 1974

FOR INFORMATION

Subject ?

REPORT ON COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES TO

STMIER,

1974

---

SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

?

S. 74 -

yf

?

.

?

MEMORANDUM

?

To

?

From . SENATE ?

.....

?

IES

Sub

?

BE1RT ?

a

AITfl ACI'IVITES TO

?

Date

June 19, 1974

Subject ......OM°,....

j74

....................................................................

1. Establishment, Terms of Reference and Operating Procedures

of the Committee

A.

Establishment of the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies

At the Senate meeting of January 18th, 1971, a number of items

such as majors, minors, double majors, major/minors, deferred grades,

etc., were discussed. At that time, these items were referred to the

Academic Planning Committee for its recommendations; but, because of

the nature of the duties and the pressures on that Committee, a

decision was made to establish a new Senate Committee on Undergraduate

Studies. At the same time, it was decided to discontinue the Senate

Committee on Examination and Grading Practices, a number of whose

• duties were to be taken over by SCUS.

The recommendation to establish the Senate Committee on Undergraduate

Studies was presented to Senate as Senate paper S71-35, which was

amended and approved by Senate at its March meeting in 1971.

B.

Terms of Reference

The terms of reference for the Committee were established by

Senate paper S71-35 as was the original membership of the Committee. A

copy of these terms of reference is included as attachment I; and the

membership of the Committee is discussed further below.

C.

Operating Procedures

The operating procedures for the Committee were considered

initially at the Committee's first meeting on 7th June, 1971 and

approved at a later meeting on 28th June, 1971. Further discussion

on operating procedures and the routing of papers to Senate was under-

taken at the meeting of July 26th, 1971. This question was placed on

the agenda of August 9th, 1971 but not discussed; and the operating

procedures were finally amended and approved at the meeting of

September 13th, 1971.

?

This action was followed by distribution

throughout the University. A copy of the revised versions of

papers SCUS71-9 and SCUS71-10 are included as attachment II.

•

The terms of reference and operating procedures of the Committee

have remained the same since their approval in 1971.

/ .......

---

. ?

.2

2. Membership

A. Initial Membershi

was initially laid down, with

971-35. A copy of the original

May, 1971, is included as

The membership of the Committee

the terms of reference, by Senate paper

membership of the Committee, dated 15th

attachment III.

B.

Restructuring of the Committee

The original structure of the Committee remained in force

through the first year of its operation; but a proposal for

restructuring, the Committee was considered at the meeting of 21st

November, 1972 with the result that Senate paper 873-14 was placed

on the agenda, amended and approved by the January Senate meeting of

1973. A copy of the revised Senate paper S73-14 is included as

attachment IV.

C.

Committee Chairmanship

The originally and currently approved membership of the Committee

nominate the Academic Vice-President as Chairman of the Committee, but

allow him to name a designate to act for him in this capacity. The

Academic Vice-President chaired the first meeting of the Committee,

but later designated the Academic Planner, Dr. J.S. Chase, who sits

on the Committee as a non-voting member, as Chairman from June, 1971.

Dr. Chase chaired the Committee from that time until the end of

April, 1972, when, following his appointment as Assistant Vice-

President, Academic, Dr. I. Mugridge was designated Chairman of the

Committee, effective May, 1972. He has chaired the Committee since

that time.

D.

Present membershipf the Committee

For the information of Senate, a list of the present members

of the Committee is included as attachment V.

3. Actions taken under the Terms of Reference

A. To consider and make recommendations to Senate on all existing

and proposed courses taking into consideration; i) the University's

academic standards; ii) the need for coordination of all undergraduate

activities within the University.

The major part of the Committee's time is spent in fulfilling

. ?

this part of its charge. While it is not intended to report in detail

on some parts of these activities since its results are brought

before Senate meeting by meeting, it should nevertheless be noted

that the Committee is obliged to spend a great deal of its time

considering the following questions:

/ ......

---

•

?

.3

1. the approval of new courses with, in some cases, the

attendant deletion or modification of existing courses;

ii.

the approval of departmental proposals for revisions

to their courses, programs and regulations for inclusion

in the Calendar each year. In this area, major revisions

have been considered as a result of submissions by such

departments as Philosophy, Economics and Commerce and

Modern Languages. ?

Major changes have also been

considered in the reorganization of the Faculty of

Education and the development of its new programs; and

iii.

the detailed consideration of new programs, referred

by the Academic Planning Committee and the making of

recommendations to that Committee. In this area, major

items include consideration of new programs in

Communication Studies, Computing Science and Kinesiology.

In addition to the detailed consideration of new courses and

programs outlined above, the Committee has also devoted considerable

attention to the second part of charge A, that of coordinating

undergraduate academic activities within the University. In this

area, considerable attention has been given to the development of

policies for double majors and major/minor degrees; and these

questions were eventually brought to Senate at its August meeting

1972. Copiesof Senate papers S72-91 and S72-92 are included as

attachment VI.

?

Consideration has also been given to the develop-

ment of new instructions, of somewhat altered policies and of a

revised new course proposal form for use within the University.

These items were brought to Senate for its information at its

November meeting in 1973; and a copy of Senate paper S73-122 is

included as attachment VII.

Another question in this area to which considerable attention

has been devoted is the question of overlap between departmental

offerings in similar areas. This question has also received some

attention in Senate debates on SCUS submissions; and courses have

been referred back to the Committee for further. investigation of

problems of overlap. While it is likely that no final solution to

this problem exists, it is hoped that the inclusion of a requirement

in the revised new course proposal form that departments report on

this question and the inclusion, in the recently approved rules for

routing of proposals to Senate, that Faculty Undergraduate Curriculum

Committees should be regarded as the major investigatory body in the

examination of new course proposals will, to a large extent, over-

come the problem that exists at present.

0

/ ......

---

S ?

.4

Finally, in the area of coordination of undergraduate academic

activities, the Committee has, over a long period, considered a

number of issues pertaining to undergraduate education at the

University. These originally came from a letter addressed by the

Vice-President, Academic to Senate, dated 25th November, 1971,

a copy of which is appended as attachment VIII. This document

and discussion of it in SCUS and Senate led to specific referrals

and the establishment of sub-committees of SCUS and the Senate

Undergraduate Admissions Board. For the purposes of reporting on

this portion of the Committee's activities, the relevant sub-

committee is the Chase Committee, which dealt with the issues

outlined in its final report. This Committee reported to SCUS

early in the Spring, 1973; and its recommendations were

extensively discussed at meetings in April, August and October,

1973, with the result that the report mentioned above was presented

as amended to Senate at its November, 1973 meeting. A copy of this

report is included as attachment IX.

?

Some items were referred

back to the Committee for reconsideration and these were brought

forward again to Senate at its meeting of March, 1974. A copy of

the report on the referred items is included as attachment X...

One item from the original list of referrals from Senate, that of

dropping of courses, was deferred by the Senate Committee on

Undergraduate Studies and remains to be considered.

B.

To review the results of current evaluation processes and

bring significant discrepancies to the attention of Senate, the

Faculties and the Departments concerned.

C.

To recommend to Senate grading' and examination practices

appropriate to the University's educational process to ensure:

1) reasonably consistent and equitable evaluation practices within

and across courses; ii) continued maintenance of high academic

standards.

The Committee's activities related to these two charges have

been very limited. At the same time as the Chase Committee, mentioned

above, was established, a joint SCUS/SUAB sub-committee was also

set up to deal with a number of topics related to grading which had

been on the agenda of SCUS for some time without adequate resolution.

This was the Wells Committee, a copy of whose charge is appended

as attachment XI. This Committee produced an interim report, which

was transmitted to SCUS and SUAB in August, 1972, at which time it

was agreed by both Committees that, since most of the items referred

to lay most properly within the province of SCUS, it would be

discussed first by that Committee and also that consideration of

this report should be deferred pending receipt of the Chase report.

This situation has continued; and, now that the Chase report has

. ?

been fully considered, except for the item mentioned above, the

Committee has begun to consider the questions raised by the Wells

report. This consideration was begun late in the Spring semester,

at which time extensive discussion took place and the Academic Planner

was directed to procure further information before the discussion was

continued. It is anticipated that these questions will be taken up

again in the very near future.

---

I

.

?

.5

Beyond these discussions, little attention has been paid to

these parts of the Committee's charge, and, in particular, to charge

B. Indeed, some doubt exists as to the appropriateness of this part

of the Committee's terms of reference; and it is anticipated that,

when the Committee returns to the question of grading and related

issues, discussion of this charge will be initiated and appropriate

recommendations brought to Senate. Now that the issues dealt with

in the Chase Report have been resolved, it is hoped that, during

the coming year, the Committee will be able to give more attention

to the questions discussed in the Wells Report and to related

problems so that recommendations should be brought to Senate in due

course.

\/A

I. Mugri ge

ams

att.

.

[1

---

1\ tcr

SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

?

S.

71-35

MEMORANDUM

?

*

To

?

SENATE

?

S

?

From

?

AC\DE; Ii 1. PLCSNN rN(:

?

¶ ITT

SENATE LNUERCKAIfl;ATE STUDIES

Subject

?

COMMITTEE, S.71-35

?

Date ?

F' EB RU APSY 5 19 *7

1

MOT ION :

"That Senate establish a Senate Committee on

Undergraduate Studies (standing) with membership,

terms

o

f office and terms of reference, including

organization, as outlined in Paper 5.71-35."

- ?

1

---

The chairman of the Committee will be designated by the Vice-President

Academic.

A quorum will consist of the chairman of the Committee and one

representative

from each of the Faculty Undergraduate Curriculum Committees.

Terms of Office

The representatives from the

Faculty

curriculum committees and the

..2

?

2

4.

SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

?

S

71-35

MEMORANDUM

To

................................ Members. of, Senate.

... ... .. ...... ..... ..... ...... ....... .

From.. ?

Academic Planning Committee

Subject ..... .................

Sena t,e..Und.ergraduate.

Studies. ?

..

IDate..

?

..February 5...1971....

.......

.... .......

RECOMMENDATION

That Senate establish a Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies

(standing) with the following membership, terms of office and terms

of reference:

.

Membership

Vice-President Academic or his designate

Two faculty from each Faculty Undergraduate Curriculum

Committee elected by the members of those Committees

T

q

o

student senators

Dean of Arts or his designate

Dean of Education or his designate

Dean of

Science

or his designate

Dean of the

Division

of General Studies or his designate

Registrar ?

ex-officio ?

secretary

Librarian

Academic Planner

One person appointed by the President

(non-voting)

(non-voting)

---

.'-

. . 2 .

O

?

student senators will normally serve a two-year term and will be

eligible

for reappointment. In the first instance, it is recommended

that the Faculty Curriculum Committees elect one of their members

for a one-year term and the other for a two-year term; Senate in

electing the student senators to the Committee should also name

one to serve a one-year term and the other to serve a two-year

term. Such an arrangement will ensure continuity and

overlapping

membership.

PURPOSE

A.

To consider and make recommendations to Senate on all existing and

proposed courses taking into consideration:

(I)

the University's academic standards

(2) the need for coordination of all undergraduate academic

Activities

within the University

B.

To

review

the results of current evaluation processes and bring

significant discrepancies to the attention of Senate, the Faculties

and the departments concerned.

C.

To reconmand to Senate grading and examination practices appropriate

to the University's

educational process to ensure:

(1)

reonably conoiteflt and equitable evaluation practices within

and acroso courses

(2)

the continued maintenance of high academic standards

BAC

?

D

The nature of the degree and program offerings at Simon Fraser University

has, until recently, reflected primarily a departmental orientation.

AD

In

planning the undergraduate curriculum at the University, it has

been possible to

vest responsibility

for curriculum recommendations in

the hands of departments and

in

•ulty curriculum committees with

responsibility for final appr

?

pf

new program and/or course offerings

vested with Senate.

3

---

fl

?

. 3 . .

Recently, however, several inter and multi-departmental courses and

programs have emerged as well as a Division of General Studies

charged with offering experimental courses and programs. Furthermore,

Senate has now approved the establishment of a Bachelor of General

Studieo, defined minor and double minor degrees and will soon be

examining double major degrees and other proposed curricular changes.

To m.ny, it is becoming readily apparent that with the expansion of

the proreia and degree options available to students, the resulting

inter-relationship

among programs will require a much

greater degree

of coordition

and integration in the various facets of the under-

graduate curriculum than hitherto. In both the program and degree

areas, there is a need to

ensure

that course offerings, pre-réquisites

and co-requisites reflect the programs that have been established,

• ?

that unnecessary duplication is avoided, that inter-relationships

among programs are identified, and that standards once set are

maintained.

Furthermore,

there is a need to ensure that the implementation of

these nowdegrecand

prograuiadoes

not result in an unnecessary

proliferation

of different degree requirements at this University.

Finally, inextricably lied to the whole undergraduate curriculum

is the

ieuci

of grading and

examination practices.

At the present

time, there exiets a Senate Committee on Grading and Examination

Prccttcoo. Zaccuce we find it difficult to separate the curriculum

iao%zCo ?rci the grading and

examination practices issues, we are

reca=ozding

that reoponeibilitica in both of these areas be integrated

into c coiittee. In so doing, we recognize that we are imposing

a hor

-my reconoibility on one committee. However, we believe with

the s2fccZ9ve

ucilietion of staff assistance, the actual work of the

corfttoe ers can

be considerably lessened.

The Committee should

elo point out its

concern about the proliferation

of committees at

chic

?

coity ond hopes, by thi!s mechanism, to set a favorable example.

.. ; ?

. . .4

?

4

---

J,.

:

..4..

?

0 ?

•$'

ORGANIZATION

This proposal is intended to provide at the undergraduate level a

curriculum review structure which is similar to that at the graduate

level. The existing curriculum committees in each of the three

faculties would be retained and, thus, recommendations would emerge

from departments, be. reviewed at the faculty level and then carried

to the Senate Undergraduate Studies Committee for review froua

University perspective. The recommendations of the Committee would,

in turn, be forwarded to Senate for its consideration.

The work of the Senate Undergraduate Studies Committee would be

expected to complement that of the Academic Planning Committee.

While the latter would maintain responsibility for reviewing and/or

developing new program proposals for submission to Senate and for

recommending academic priorities, the Undergraduate Studies Committee

would review and recommend to Senate on those curriculum matters

affecting all programs implemented at the University.

;jj

5

---

Ali r\

Sc.-us

'11

SiMON F.ASER UNIVERSITY

?

As amended b:,'

SCUSSept(.tnber

. ?

JThCJJ

?

971.

Members of Faculty

?

From..... Dr. John S. Chase, Chairman

Senate Committee on Undergraduate

Studies

Subject .....

Srna.te...Cmm.ite. ....

.

on ....... .... .... ....... .... ...........

Date

.....August. .4th.,...1971.

Undergraduate Studies

INTRODUCTION

At its March meeting, Senate approved the establishment of an Undergraduate

Studies Committee and specified its membership, terms of office and terms of

reference. In the process of considering specific proposals which have sub-

sequently come before it, the Committee has sought to identify within its

terms of reference, the items which it ought to review as well as its pro-

cedures for review and communication of its recommendations. My purpose in

writing is to convey to you the areas in which the Committee is now or intends

to become involved as well as its procedures for review and recommendation.

Charge to the Committee

The charge from Senate to the Committee was:

A. To consider and make recommendations to Senate on all existing and proposed

courses taking into consideration:

1)

the University's academic standards.

2)

the need for coordination of all undergraduate academic

activities within the University.

B. To review the results of current evaluation processes and bring significant

discrepancies to the attention of Senate, the Faculties and the departments

concerned.

C. To recommend to Senate grading and examination practices appropriate to

the University's educational process to ensure:

1)

reasonably consistent and equitable evaluation practices

within and across courses.

2)

the continued maintenance of high academic standards.

a ?

6-

.2

---

I.

?

-2-

.,

Areas to be Explored

Within these terms of reference, the Committee initially intends to review

and make recommendations on the following;

a)

new course proposals and modification of existing courses.

b)

new degree programs, e.g. double majors, joint majors major/

minors, etc.

c)

the definition of grade categories, e.g. deferred grades.

d)

calculation of graduation grade-point requirements.

e)

weighting of course credit and course contact hours.

f)

current evaluation processes and revisions thereto.

Procedures to be Followed

Within its terms of reference, the Committee will serve as both a reactive

and an initiating body.

Reactive Body

In its reactive role, proposals originating with departments and/or program

committees and approved by their respective Faculties or Divisions will be

directed to the Committee for review and recommendation.

After review, the Committee will either:

a)

forward the proposal as received to Senate with an affirmative

recommendation.

b)

forward the proposal as received to Senate with a negative

recommendation (with the originating body to be informed in

advance to provide opportunity for modification or withdrawal).

c)

modify the proposal as received and forward to Senate with an

affirmative recommendation provided that --

i) first, if in the opinion of the Committee the

changes which it proposes are substantive, the

proposal will be returned to the appropriate

body in the originating unit for comment or

withdrawal.

. ?

ii) if, in the opinion of the Committee, the

changes which it proposes are editorial, the

'-1 ?

proposal will be forwarded direct to Senate with

a copy, including the modifications, returned to

the originating unit for information.

7...:

---

-3-

Initiating Body

As an initiating body, the Committee will identify issues requiring

analysis and seek either faculty or staff assistance in order to perform

the studies required; the studies will serve as a basis for the formu-

lation of recommendations to Senate. Any recommendations emerging from

the Committee will be circulated to the Faculties for comment before

forwarding to Senate for its consideration.

q

?

8

---

/

?

SiMON 1RASER UNIVERSITY.

?

71-10

• Members ?

Seüat ..Commite.e on

Undergraduate Studies

Sub1ect..

?

Proedur.e.

From .........

.JohnS.. ?

Chase.,

?

Chairman...........................

Senate

.

Committee on Undergraduate

Studies

Date..... .... ..... August .4th, .1.971...............

INTRODUCTION

At the July 26th meeting of S.C.U.S., procedures relating to the

distribution of papers reviewed and approved by S.C.U.S. were discussed.

This paper is intended to ref]ct the procedures adopted in-principle

at that meeting and is transmitted to you for formal approval.

Recommendations Affecting a Single Faculty

1.

The recommendation with supporting documentation will be transmitted

by the Chairman of S.C.U.S. to the Chairman of the Senate Agenda

Committee for placing on the agenda for the next Senate meeting.

2.

The Academic Vice-President will present the recommendation to Senate.

3.

The Dean of the Faculty affected will speak to the recommendation.

Recommendations Affecting All Faculties

1. The recommendation with supporting documentation will be transmitted

by the Chairman of S.C.u.s. to the Chairman of the Senate Agenda

Committee for placing on the agenda of the next Senate meeting.

9

---

2. The Academic V:ice-President will present the recommendation to

Senate.

3. The Academic Vice-President will speak to the re.iumendation.

- ?

10

---

11.

SENATE

COMMITTEES

May 15, 1971

?

MA

C

8 Ink

rvTL!L

S

11. SENATE COMMITTEE ON

UNDERGRADUATE STUDIES

(standing)

Members

?

Conditions ?

Term

?

Date

Vice-President,

Academic or his

designate

Name

B. C. Wilson

(is

Faculty Member

?

Elected by

(Arts)

Faculty Member

?

and from

(Arts)

Faculty Member

?

Faculty

(Education)

Faculty Member

(Education)

?

Undergraduate

Curriculum

Faculty Member

(Science)

Faculty Member

?

Committees

(Science)

Student Senator

?

Elected by

Student Senator

?

Senate

Student - Arts

?

Elected by

and from

Student - Education Faculty

Undergraduate

Student - Science ?

Curriculum

Committees

1 year ?

Sep 30/71

2 years Sep 30/72

1 year ?

Sep 30/71

2 years Sep 30/72

1 year ?

Sep 30/71

2 years Sep 30/72

1 year ?

Sep 30/71

2 years Sep 30/72

2 years Sep 30/72

2 years Sep 30/72

2 years Sep 30/72

H. Sharma

C.

A. Rheumer

E. W. Banister*

B. R. D'Aoust *

L. K. Peterson

D.

L. Sharma

C. Donetz

J. R. McAninch

No students on

U.C.C.

R. W. Lindsay *

Student may be elected

later.

C.

Dean of Arts or

?

D. H. Sullivan

his designate

Dean

his designate

of Education ?

S. T. Stratton

Dean

his designate

of Science or

?

'

?

J. S. Barlow

Dean of the Division of

General Studies or his

designate

?

R. C. Brown

Registrar ?

Ex-officio, Secretary (non-voting)

?

H. M. Evans

Librarian ?

D. A. Baird

Academic Planner (non-voting)

?

J. Chase

President's appointee

?

To be appointed.

* Elected on an interim basis. When the membership of the Faculty of

Education

Un

dergraduate Curriculum Committee is confirmed for the -

71-2 semester a permanent membership will he elected.

11

---

1 ?

FRASER UN!V1RSITY

?

S

73-14.

S ?

S

?

A'c

/M&

SEMTJ

L ?

. ?

OLTTEE

ON

U

1*QRA1XJATE STt1D1

. ?

.. ?

.

? .. ?

..

.

•

t

?

S

.;

RE CtWWG O1S*A.COIthEE

?

.. ?

. ?

.

. ?

' ?

LIE 8bIZ

?

1$I

D!CF)Ib $, 1972

.,

"That

Senate

0014vettti

?

ii ?

tIe

Sate GçisThftt*t

a Vnd*rgr

B

ZIStT)d*e$, a*

f p rth

j

*

S

?

wtth

?

si d quop

______

?

. ?

.,. ?

.

?

. ?

,.

?

.

?

.•. . .4

.

?

. ?

. ?

.,.,

1

________

?

* ?

ø

rUe

______

?

R4giw'Z*!

?

-v4ng s.creta4

viol

r

...

?

.. ?

. ?

.

?

i'.,..

1haiu n

en

01

?

cu1CMJte fOAft

?

I

?

Educatk9n

etd

?

eniscI,1t'a

ww

I

?

Deaa c

the

$ftiet

?

.

_______

?

.'

?

et.i1nt £enatqf etet.d 1 Sat

? - .-

uoru*

Qfte ?

-

?

votirg *,a't$ of tb

.

____

?

. ?

t, ?

Cq$te ?

h at 2eaet

?

'a 4

?

one .r

of ea

ch

Ticulty

?

k

deans)

__

?

: ?

-? ?

5•;

?

.. .

?

.;.

?

I

S

_____

---

SC4 72-.-

As arnende a

?

approved

by

cus ?

vember 21

?

i.'.

S.

7fr/4

S

To

Subject

MEMBERS OF THE SENATE

COMMITTEE ON

UNDERGRADUATE STUDIES

RESTRUCTURI

NG

OF SENATE COMMITTEE

ON UNDERGRADUATE STUDIES

IAN MUGRII)CE

From

AS1STANT V10E_PRESt)ENT, ACADEMIC

OCTOBER 19, 1972

Date

I would like to present

?

the following proposal for restruc-

turing this Committee.

?

At present it COflSIStS of twenty members, of

whom seventeen are voting.

?

This membership is as follows

The Vice-President Academic, or his designate, as Chairman

The Registrar as non-voting Secretary

The Academic Planner, non-voting

The

Two faculty

Deans of

elected

the four

by

Faculties

and from the Curriculum Committees

of each of the Faculties

Two

One

student

student each

Senators

from

elected

Arts,

by

Education

Senate

and Science, elected

by and from the Faculty Curriculum Committees

The Librarian

The President's appointee.

.

The principal problem with this Committee is that it is

have

far too large and unwieldy.

?

Since I have been Chairman,

?

there

to attend; and

been no meetings which the full membership was able

it ?

in the presence of

there has been at least one when

?

proceeded

I

?

therefore suggest the follow-

about a third of the members.

?

would

would cut the total membership of the Committee

ing composition which

and the voting membership to nine:

to twelve

The Vice-President Academic, or his designate, as Chairman

The Registrar as non-voting Secretary

The Academic Planner, non-voting

the Curriculum Committees for Arts, Science

The Chairmen of

and Education (and of General Studies when this Division

should have a Curriculum Committee)

the Division of

The Deans of the Faculties and the Dean of

General Studies

Two student Senators elected by Senate.

In the present Committee, a quorum exists when one repre-

if

sentative from each Faculty is present.

?

I would propose that,

is

the new Committee along the lines 1 have suggested

?

established,

of ?

the Committee with

a quorum consist of half of the voting members

Faculty or Division

?

(which could include

at least one member of each

Deans).

40

- ?

13

---

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

MEMORANDUM

From

SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE STUDIES

.0

To ?

SENATE

RESTRUCTURING OF

SENATE COMMITTEE

Subject

?

ON UNDERGRADUATE STUDIES

Date DECEMBER 13, 1972

The Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies has

considered the restructurin

g

of the Senate Committee on

Undergraduate Studies, as set forth in SCUS

72-34, and

recommends to Senate that this restructuring be approved.

.

-

-,

14

---

SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

MEMORANDUM

S

To..

Members of Senate

Subject

Restructuring of Senate Committee on

Undergraduate Studies

From

?

• Mugridge

Chairman

Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies

Date

December 18, 1972

.

It should be noted that the motion presented to Senate for

its approval is not that passed by the Senate Committee on Under-

graduate Studies. The question of restructuring SCUS was discussed

by that Committee before the establishment of the Faculty of

Interdisciplinary Studies; but it was the Committee's understanding

that should this Faculty be established, appropriate changes would

be made in the proposal.

One of the principal questiotis raised in the discussion of

this proposal was that of including a provision which would allow

Deans to send designates to meetings of the Committee. It is

currently the practiceto permit

'Deans to do this; but such a

provision has been omitted from this proposal. The Committee was

divided on this question, but a majority approved the proposal as

originally written.

I. Mugridge

:ams

.

15

---

5

?

SENATE COMMITTEES ?

)h7,1t1trX'

JUNE 19,1974

13. SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE STUDIES (standing)

(Reporting Category "B")

Cond

itions

?

Term

?

Expiry Date

?

Name

Vice-President,

?

Chairman ?

B. G. Wilson

Academic, or his

(I. Mugridge)

designate

Registrar ?

Non-voting Secretary

?

H. M. Evans

Academic Planner Non-voting

?

J. Chase

Arts ?

Chairmen of

?

L. A. Boland

Education ?

Undergraduate

?

M. S. O'Connell

Interdisciplinary Curriculum

Studies ?

Committees ?

J. J. Weinkain

J. S. Barlow

Dean

Science

of Arts

?

W.A.S. Smith

Dean of Education

?

D. R. Birch

S ?

Dean of Interdisciplinary Studies

?

R. C. Brown

Dean of Science

?

S. Aronoff

Student - Arts

?

Student ?

D. Stone

Student - Educ.

?

elected ?

R. Parker

Student - Science Presidents

?

M. Shillow

Alternate ?

Student

Alternate

?

?

Senators

?

J. P. Daem

Chairman The Chairman of the Committee will be designated by the Vice-

President, Academic.

Quorum:

?

One half of the voting members of the Committee with at least

oie member of each Faculty (which could include Deans).

Purpose: A. To consider and make recommendations to Senate on all existing

and propoaed coutses taking into consideration:

(1)

the

University's academic standards;

(2)

the need for coordination of all undergraduate academic

activities within the University.

D. To review the results of current evaluation processes and bring

significant diseapancies to the attention of Senate, the

Faculties and the Departments concerned.

C. To recommend to Senate grading and examination practices ap-

propriate to the University's educational process to ensure:

S ?

(1) reasonably consistent and equitable evaluation practices

within and across courses;

(2) the continued maintenance of high academic standards.

Original approved by Senate March 1, 1971.

Membership and quorum revised January 8, 1973.

-

?

16

---

SRMGN FRASER UMVERSITY

?

S.72-9/

MMO . RANDUM ?

PmxomnV7 V/

To

?

SENATE

?

From ?

SENATE

COMMITTEE ON

UNDERGRADUATE

STUDIES

Subject

?

DOUBLE MAJOR

PROGRAMS

?

Date ?

JULY 17, 1972

Senate is requested to approve the recog-

nition of Double Major Programs as set forth

in Paper S.72-91:

MOTION: ?

A. ?

"That Senate formally approve the recognition

of a double major program, with entry of both

majors completed to appear on transcripts.

B.

?

That the student electing a double major be

required to complete at least 28 hours of

upper division courses in each of the two

subjects in which majors are to be claimed.

The subject matter to be taken for each

major will be defined by the Department

concerned Subject to approval by the Faculty

and by Senate, as in current practice.

D. ?

That the student electing a double major be

required to complete (i) the lower division

requirements for each

of the major subjects

selected, and (ii) all other requirements of

the

departments

concerned in which he takes

majors, and (iii) the requirements of the

Faculty in which he will

receive his degree.

-

?

17

---

• ?

'-2-

D. That upon successful completion of the program

the Bachelor's Degree awarded will be deter-

mined according to the Faculty for which all

requirements have been met or, if the require-

ments of more than one Faculty have been met,

then from whichever one Faculty the student

selects."

If the above motion

is approved, the following motion will be made:

"That Notes 1, 2, and 3 of Paper S.72-91 form

part

of the calendar entry:

1.

?

For the requirement of at least 28 hours of upper

division

courses in each of two subjects the

student cannot use the same upper division course

for formal credit toward both majors. One course

might fulfill "content" requirements of two

related areas

but in such a case additional

replacement credits in upper division work satisfactory

to one of the Departments must be taken in one of the

subjects to fulfill overall credit requirements for the

joio. At the lower division level a single course

could fulfill both content and

credit requirements as

u prerequisite but no course can carry double credit

value towards total credits needed for a degree.

•

?

2. Students are cautioned to refer carefully to overall

requirements

of the Faculties and

Divisions

of the

University for degree requirements, as the requirements

---

-3-

for a specific degree must be fulfilled. If in

doubt

seek

advice from the Office of the Dean, or

from Departmental Advisors, or from the Academic

Advice Centre. Note that some Departments require

specific prerequisite courses for entry to some upper

level courses, and some Faculties require completion

of a minimum number of upper division courses taken

during the upper levels of study to fulfill degree

conditions. Some Faculties require completion of a

minimum number of credits within that Faculty to

qualify for a degree. In some instances, therefore,

a student for a double major involving subjects in

more than one Faculty may require more than 120 semester

hours to fulfill the requirements of the General Degree

with two majors.

3. A student who may have elected a double major degree program

may change decision to graduate with a single major and may

do

80

provided the normal requirements for the single major

and requirements for the Faculty concerned have been

fulfilled. Notification of such changes should be filed

with the Departments concerned and the Office of the

Registrar."

- ?

19

---

S-72- qi

1hI1:

To

?

SENATE

?

From

I. MUGRIDGE, CHAIRMAN

SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE STUDIES

Subject ?

DOUBLE MAJOR

PROGRAMS

?

Date JULY 17, 1972

The Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies has approved

the recognition

of Double Major Programs, as set forth in SCUS 72-11,

and recommends approval by Senate.

If the recommendation is approved, the Committee further

recommends the inclusion

of Notes 1, 2, and 3 to form part of the

calendar entry.

I. Mugridge

20

---

I ?

I

JS

To

SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

As

sous

72-//

amended and approved

MMO&A14UM ?

by SCUS, July 10 1972.

ALL MEMBERS - SCUS

?

From

?

H. N. EVANS, SECRETARY

SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE STUDIES

Subject

?

DOUBLE MAJOR PROGRAM

?

Date ?

JULY 20, 1971

RECOMMENDATIONS

A.

That Senate formally approve the recognition

of

a double major

program, with entry of both majors completed to appear on

transcripts.

B.

That the student electing a double major be required to complete

at least 28 hours of upper division courses in each of the two subjects

in which majors are to be claimed. The subject matter to be taken for

each major will be defined by the Department concerned subject to approval

by the Faculty and by Senate, as in current practice.

.

?

C. That the student electing a double major be required to complete (i) the

lower division

requirements for each of the major subjects selected, and

(ii) all other requirements of the departments concerned in which he

takes majors, and (iii) the requirements of the Faculty in which he will

receive

his degree.

D. That upon successful completion of the program the Bachelor's Degree

awarded will be

determined according to the Faculty for which all re-

quirements have been met or, if the requirements of more than one Faculty

have been met, then from whichever one Faculty the student selects.

I

Note:

1.

For the requirement of at least 28 hours of upper division courses in

each of two subjects the student cannot use the same upper division

course for formal credit toward both majors. One course might fulfill

"content" requirements of two related areas but in such a case addi-

tional replacement credits in upper divison work satisfactory to one of

the Departments must be taken in one of the subjects to fulfill overall

credit requirements for the majors. At the lower division level a single

course could fulfill both content and, credit requirements as a pre-

requicite but no course can carry double credit value towards total

credits needed for a degree.

2.

Students are cautioned to refer carefully to overall requirements of the

Faculties and Divisions of the University for degree requirements, as the

requirements for a specific degree must be fulfilled. If in doubt seek

advice from the Office of the Dean, or from Departmental Advisors, or

from the Academic Advice Centre. Note that some Departments require

specific prerequisite courses for entry to some upper level courses, and

some Faculties require completion of a minimum number of upper division

- ?

21

---

F'

-2-

courses taken during the upper levels of study to fulfill degree

conditions. Some Faculties require completion of a minimum number

of credits within that Faculty to qualify for a degree. In some

instances, therefore, a student for a double major involving subjects

in more than one Faculty may require more than 120 semester hours to

fulfill the requirements of the General Degree with two majors.

3. A student who may have elected a double major degree program may

change decision to graduate with a single major and may do so provided

the normal requirements for the, single major and requirements for the

Faculty concerned have been fulfilled. Notification of such changes

should be filed with the Departments concerned and the Office of the

Registrar.

= =

= ==

Explanation and Some Implications of the above Recommendations

A.

Section A recognizes that for some time some students have fulfilled

degree requirements including requirements of more than one full

departmental major, - with a unique situation of indicating only one

major on transcript but filing a special letter in the student's

docket in the Registrar's Office to state completion of two majors.

It

regularizes

entry of both majors on transcripts. The remainder

5 ?

of the

paper sets

conditions to be fulfilled.

B.

Section B follows current practice requiring that the student complete

at least 28 hours

of upper division work as set forth by a Department

(approved

by Faculty and by Senate) to complete the major course

requirements.

No change in operating practice is intended. (Note that

at present in Arts the requirement is 30 upper division hours taken in

the upper

levels; in

Science the requirements is 28 or more upper

division

hours usually taken in the upper levels because of prerequisites

and Calendar wording; and in Education is normally 30 upper division

hours taten in the upper levels with provision for minor + minor = major.)

C.

Section C identifies that to qualify for a given major the normal current

requirements for the major of the Department must be fulfilled (including

credits, specified courses, grade points, etc.) and that the Faculty

requirements for a given degree must be fulfilled, i.e. B.A., B.Sc.,

B.Ed. etc.

D.

Section D stipulates that for any degree, the requirements of the Faculty

for that degree must be completed. It assumes that within a Faculty

there is reasonable likelihood of a double major situation without

requirement of extra credits needed for the degree (e.g. History!

Geography). It permits of a double major situation across Faculties

(e.g. Economics/Mathematics) requiring completion of the technical

requirements for each independent department's major (as apart from the

. ?

conditions of both Faculties) but completion of the full requirements

of at least the one Faculty from which the degree will be obtained. If

- ?

22

S

---

.. ? -3-

a student fulfills requirements of more than one Faculty he can select

whichever one of the degrees he desires.

E.

The notes set forth conditions allowing certain recognition of "content"

without double

•

credit recognition; advise students to observe most carefully

the Faculty requirements and seek advice; allow the student to opt for a

single major.

F.

The overall paper is designed to recognize current regulations but to set

a condition of overall policy allowing for regulation changes within

Faculties without necessity of immediately resubmitting these broad

principles and regulations for immediate further change at Senate.

.

-

?

23

---

To

Subsd

SIMON FRASER

iMOANU

UNIVERSITY

?

S71-9z

SENATE

?

From ?

SENATE COMMITTEE

ON

UNDERGRADUATE

STUDIES

1AJOR-MINOR .....

PROGRAMS ?

Date ?

JULY 17, 1972

Senate is requested to approve the introduction

of Major-Minor Programs as set forth in Paper

S.72-92:

MOTION: ?

A. ?

"That Senate formally approve the introduction

of major-minor programs with entry of both major

and minor completed to appear on transcripts.

B. ?

That the student electing a major-minor program

be required to complete at least 28 hours of upper

division courses in the subject in which a major

is to be claimed and at least 14 - 18 hours of

upper division credit in the subject in which a

minor is to be claimed.

?

(a) The subject matter

to be taken for the major will be defined by the

iapartment concerned subject to approval by the

Faculty and by Senate, as in current practice.

(b) The subject matter to be taken for the minor,

end the establishment of the number and nature of

lower division requirements will be determined by

the Department of the minor or the appropriate

program committee in the Division of General Studies,

subject to approval by the Faculty or Division and

by Senate, as in current practice.

24

---

-2-

C.

That the student electing a major-minor program

be required to complete (i) the lower division

requirements for the major subject selected, and

(ii) all

other requirements of the department

concerned in which he takes a major, and (iii)

the lower division requirements and upper division

requirements for the minor selected, and (iv) the

requirements of the Faculty in which he will

receive his degree.

D.

That upon successful completion of the program the

Bachelor's Degree awarded will be determined

according to the Faculty in which the major has

been completed, with fulfillment of all requirements

of the Faculty.

If the above motion is approved, the following motion will be made:

"That notes 1, 2, and 3 of Paper S.72-92 form

part of the calendar entry:

1. For the requirement of at least 28 hours of upper

division courses in the major subject and of 14-18

hours of upper division courses in the minor subject

the student cannot use the same upper division course

for formal credit toward both major and minor. One

course might fulfill "content" requirements of two

related areas but in such a case additional replace-

ment credits in upper division work satisfactory to

one of the Departments or program committees must be

-

?

25

---

taken in one of the Subjects to fulfill overall

credit requirements for the major plus minor.

At the lower division level a single course could

fulfill both

content and credit requirements as a

prerequisite but no course can carry double credit

value

towards total credits needed for a degree.

However note that, in a number of combinations

possible in the BA or BGS degrees at the lower

division or upper division levels (since many usable

courses for both of these degrees are offered through

the Faculty of Arts), there are certain constraints

on multiple usage of both lower and upper division

courses.

2.

?

Students are cautioned to refer carefully to overall

requirements of the Faculties. and Divisions of the

University

for degree requirements, as the requirements

for a specific degree must be fulfilled. If in doubt

seek advice from the Office of the Dean, or from

Departmental Advisorc or from the Academic Advice

Centre. Note that some Departments require specific

prerequisite courses for entry to Some upper level

c@raes, and some Faculties require completion of a

minimum number of upper division courses taken in the

uer levels of study to fulfill degree conditions.

e Faculties require completion of a minimum number

of credits within the Faculty to qualify for a degree.

- ?

26

---

-4-

In some instances, therefore, a student for a major-

minor involving subjects in more than one Faculty or

division

may require more than 120 semester hours to

fulfill the requirements of the General Degree with

a major-minor.

3. A student who may have elected a major-minor degree

program may change decision to graduate with a major

only and may do so provided the normal requirements

for the major and requirements for the Faculty concerned

have been fulfilled. Notification of such changes should

be filed with the Departments concerned and the Office

of the Registrar."

- ?

27

---

'S

To

Subjict

SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

?

S72z

MIMORANDUM

SENATE

?

From ?

I. MUGRIDGE, CHAIRMAN

SENATE COMMITTEE ON IJNDEIGRAD1JATF. SflJI)tE

MAJOR-MINOR PROGRAMS

?

Date ?

JULY 17, 1972

The Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies has approved

the introduction of

Major-Minor

Programs, as set forth in

SCUS 72-12, and recommends approval by Senate.

If the recommendation is approved, the Committee further

recommends the inclusion of Notes 1, 2, and 3 to form part of

the calendar entry.

I. Mugridge

S

0

---

SU)5 72-IL

SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

As amended and approved

MIMORANDUM

?

by SCUS, July 10, 1972

To

?

ALL MEMBERS -. SCUS

?

From ?

H • M. EVANS, SECRETARY

SENATE COMMITTEE

ON

UNDERGRADUATE

STUDIE

Sub j.ct

?

MAJOR-MINOR PROGRAMS

?

Date ?

AUGUST 30, 1971

RECOMMENDATIONS

A.

That

Senate

formally approve the introduction of major-minor programs

with entry of both major and minor completed to appear on transcripts.

B.

That the student electing a major-minor program be required to complete

at least 28 hours of upper division courses in the subject in which a

major

is

to be claimed and

at least 14-18 hours of upper division credit

in the subject in which a

minor is to be claimed. ?

(a) The subject matter

to be taken for the major will be defined by the Department concerned

subject to approval by the Faculty and by Senate, as in current practice.

(b) The subject matter to be taken for the minor, and the establishment

•

of

the number and nature

of

lower division requirements will be deter-

mined by the Department of

the minor or the appropriate program committee

in the Division of General

Studies, subject to approval by the Faculty or

Division and by Senate, as

in current practice.

C.

That

the student electing

a major-minor program be required to complete

(1) the lower division requirements for the major subject selected, and

(ii) all other requirements

of the department concerned in which he takes

a major, and (iii) the lower division requirements and upper division

requirements for the minor selected, and (iv) the requirements of the

Faculty in

which he will receive his degree.

D. That upon successful copletion of the program the Bachelor's Degree

awarded will be determined according to the Faculty in which the major

has been completed, with fulfillment of all requirements of the Faculty.

Note:

1. For

the requirement of at least 28 hours of upper division courses in

the major subject and of 14-18 hours of upper division courses in the

minor subject the student cannot use the seine upper division course for

formal credit toward both major and minor. One course might fulfill

"content" requirements

of two related areas but in such a case addi-

tional replacement credits in upper division work satisfactory to one

of the Departments or program committees must be taken in one of the

. ?

subjects to fulfill overall credit requirements for the major plus minor.

At the lower division level a single course could fulfill both content

and credit requirements as

a prerequisite but no course can carry double

- ?

29

---

•

credit value

towards total credits needed for a degree. However note

that, in a number of combinations possible in the BA or BGS degrees at

the lower division or upper division

levels

(since many

usable

courses

for both of these degrees are offered through the Faculty of Arts),

there are certain constraints on multiple usage of both lower and upper

division courses.

2.

Students are cautioned to refer carefully to overall requirements of

the Faculties and Divisions of the University for degree requirements,

as the requirements for a specific degree must be fulfilled. If in

doubt seek advice from the Office of the Dean, or from Departmental

Advisors, or from the Academic Advice Centre. Note that some Departments

require specific prerequisite courses for entry to some upper level courses,

and some Faculties require completion of a minimum number of upper division

courses taken in the upper levels of study to fulfill degree conditions.

Some Faculties require completion of a minimum number of credits within

the Faculty to qualify for a degree. In some instances, therefore, a

student for a major-minor involving subjects in more than one Faculty or

division may require more than 120 semester hours to fulfill the require-

ments of the General Degree with a major-minor.

3.

A student who may have elected a major-minor degree program may change decision

. ?

to graduate with a major only and may do so provided the normal requirements

for the major and requirements for the Faculty concerned have been fulfilled.

Notification

of such changes should be filed with the Departments concerned

and the Office of the Registrar.

Explanation and

Implications of the above Recommendations

A.

Section A recognizes the provision for a major, for a minor, and for entry

of both on transcripts.

B.

Section B sets the minimum conditions for a major and for a minor, and for

the defining of the requirements for a given major and for a given minor,

with no change in procedures already approved.

C.

Section C identifies that to qualify for a given major the normal current

requirements for the major of the Department must be fulfilled (including

credits, specified courses, grade points, etc.), and that similarly require-

ments as specified for the minor must be fulfilled, and that Faculty re-S

quirements for a given degree must be fulfilled, i.e. B.A., B.Sc., B.Ed., etc.

D.

Section D stipulates that for any degree the requirements of the Faculty

must be met, with the degree dependent upon the Faculty in which the major

has been completed. It assumes that within a Faculty there is reasonable

• ?

likelihood of a major-minor situation without requirement of extra credits

needed for the degree (e.g. Major History/Minor Geography).

?

It permits of

a major-minor situation across Faculties and Divisions (e.g. Economics!

Mathematics, History/Canadian Studies) requiring completion of the technical

requirements for the major and for the minor (as apart from the conditions

of both Faculties) but completion of the full requirements of the Faculty

from which the degree will be obtained.

?

- ?

30

---

-3-

E.

The notes set forth conditions allowing certain recognition of "content

without double credit recognition; advise students to observe carefully

the Faculty or Division requirements and seek advice; allow the student

to opt for a single major.

F.

The overall paper is designed to recognize current regulations but to

set a condition of overall, policy allowing for regulation changes within

Faculties without necessity of immediately resubmitting these broad

principles and regulations for immediate further change at Senate.

It recognizes that some combinations of major-minor could be immediately

instituted as

soon as a department defined a minor, with approval of

Faculty and Senate.

The

general

paper on minors earlier approved by Senate makes no reference

to the levels in which the upper division courses needed for a minor must

be taken. The question could arise on submission of a recommendation to

Senate covering a minor. The current regulations of the Faculty of

Education stipulate requirements for its minors to be upper division

courses taken

in the upper levels. The requirements of the Division of

General Studies

do not call for this. Nothing in this paper restricts a

Department or Faculty in terms of the recommendation it would make or has

made to Senate on this topic. It will be obvious, however, that if there

arise significantly varying

requirements within a given Faculty, it will

be essential

that these be clearly delineated and that students and faculty

be able to fully recognize the specific regulations or there will be innum-

erable

cases of students anticipating use of an upper division course in a

subject as useful for either major or minor credit in that subject, whereas

it might be suitable for minor but not major solely because of the study

level in which taken. Further it could be acceptable within the one Faculty

or Division

in which given for either purpose, but be applicable for no

purpose because of the level in which taken if the degree is to be from

another Faculty. Due cautioning of students would be essential.

This

could be particularly true

if a student, for example, embarked on a

minor in Latin-American

Studies but through exposure to courses of that

program decided to change his"major, or to change to major/major. Any

of the upper division courses which would normally be acceptable toward

the new major could not be credited toward the upper level requirements

in Arts

if they had been taken in the lower levels for the minor. The

student would be well advised to have full assessment made to identify the

manner in which his work to that point could be utilized.

- ?

31

---

a

S.

73-122.

0.

?

' .

?

1?7cI'/.qD%rr

ZEE

T

?

SENATE - FOR INFORMATION

?

From

SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE STUDIES

COVERING MEMORANDU M

?

Date OCTOBER 15, 1973

The Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies approved

the new Course Proposal Form and the covering memorandum attached.

Departments have been notified that this new form should

be introduced for use immediately for any new proposals being

initiated. It is not required but preferred, that the new form

be utilized for items which have cleared Departmental Committees but

which aa going forward to the Faculty Committees for consideration.

Senate, therefore, will be receiving some proposals on

the old form and some on the new - with the new form to be fully in

effect as quickly as is reasonable.

I. Mugridge

Ik y.

- ?

32

---

a

SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE STUDIES

01.

?

NEW COURSE PEOPOSAL FORM

Calendar information

Abbreviation Code:________

Title of Course:

Calendar Description of Course:

Nature of

Course

Prerequisites

(or special instructions):

What course (courses), if any, is being dropped from the calendar if this course is

approved:

•

2.

Schedulin g

Row frequently will the course be offered?

Semester in which the course will first be offered?

Which of your

present

faculty would be available to make the proposed offering

40'

?

possible?

3.

Objectives of the Course

4.

budgetary and Space Requirements (for information only)

What additional

resources will be required in the following areas:

Faculty

Staff

Library

Audio Visual

Space

Equipment

5.

Approval

Date:

Department Chairman

?

Dean

?

Chairman,

Department:

Course Number:

?

Credit Ilours:

?

Vector:_________

SCUS 73-34b:-

(When completing this form, for instructions see

Memorandum SCUS 73-34a.

Attach course outline).

?

- ?

33

---

S

RN

?

Sc.0

SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

MMOANDUM

I

pyartifleflt Chairmen,

Faculty Curriculum Committees,

Deans of Faculties

!,1L1 (nurse P

From

?

I. Mugridge

Chairman

Senate.COflUIlitte

e

on Undergraduate

Studies

Dat.

?

October 1. 1973

The Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies offers the following

information to departments and to Faculty Curriculum Committees in clarifica-

tion of the new course proposal form. It should be emphasized that the

information required is regarded as a minimum necessary for inclusion on the

agenda

of the Committee and that the Committee has authorized the Chairman

and Secretary to examine in detail each new course proposal submitted with a

view to determining whether the information provided meets these minimum

requirements. Should they consider that these requirements have not been

met, proposals will be returned to the relevant committee and department

before they are included on the agenda of SCUS.

i. Calendar Information - this section-should include the

information exacy

.

as it is intended for inclusion in

• ?

the

University Calendar. The "Calendar Description of

•

1thp. (n,ire"

q

høi,

li

ni,tllflP briefly the subject area to

be covered in the course. "Nature of Course" refers to

whether the course is lecture/tutorial, lecture/tutorial/

lab, seminar, independent study, independent research, etc.

2. Schedulin

g

- it should be borne in mind by departments

submitting new courses that Senate regulations provide

for an eight month lead time between the approval of a

course and its first offering. Provision should there-

fore be made so that this rule may be observed; and

where this is not possible departments should provide

justification for a request that the rule be waived.

Indicate which of your present faculty would be available

to make the proposed offering possible. If additional

faculty will be required see item 4.

3

?

jç4veS of the Course - the statement of the objectives

of a proposed course should address itself to:

a) a statement of the objectives of the course in itself.

.

?

?

This statement should reflect those ends which the

?

instructor of the Course seeks to have his or her

students acquire by the completion of the course.

Thin statement should be accompanied by an outline

0

Z

the

course, noting the major topics to be dealt

- ?

3:4.

/2

---

- ?

-

.

with, the relative emphasis which will be placed

on each of the topics and a sample reading list.

b)

a statement of how the objectives and content of

the course fit into the program in which the

course is to be included.

c)

a statement of the extent to which, if any, the

objectives and content of the proposed course over-

lap with those of other courses already existing in

the University.

4.

Budgetary and Space Requirements - it is presumptive that

departments proposing new courses will have received con-

firmation from the appropriate University authority that

the necessary resources exist or that, in the case of

courses where additional resources are requi-red, they will

be available

by the time the

.

course is offered.

5.

Other Information - the departmental or Faculty curriculum

committees may wish to provide comments on the action rec-

ommended by them. If so, these should be incorporated in

A, separate memorandum addressed to the Chairman, SCUS.

L. Mugridge

/w/jb

- ?

35

---

SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

(S , 7/-,130

MMOADJM ?

S.

'71

=

/

From

B.G. WILSON

?

074Cfi

ulv

1fA/7

VI!/

VICE-PRESIDENT, ACADEMIC

CURRICULUM AND CALENDAR CHANGES

?

Date NOVEMBER 25, 1971

- FACULTY OF ARTS

MOTION: 1. "That Senate refer the broad issues set forth in

Papers S.71-130, 130a, and related issues to the

Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies for its

consideration • and recommendations to Senate.

2.

That Senate now consider directly each of the

S

current proposals from the Faculty of Arts sub-

mitted by the Senate Committee on Undergraduate

Studies."

S

To

?

SENATE

Subject

S

36

---

SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

57/i3O

MEMORANDUM

To ?

SENAT

?

From B.

C. WILSON

Subject

CURRICULUM _Xp_

?

DateNOVEMBER 25. 1971

- FACULTY OF ARTS

The Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies recently

reviewed a large number of proposed curriculum and calendar

changes proposed from the Faculty of Arts and encountered some

difficulties. Attached is a report to me from the Chairman of

the Committee raising a number of issues, and a further report

from the Secretary requested by the Senate Agenda Committee.

The Committee has made specific recommendations con-

cerning the submission on Archaeology, Economics and Commerce,

and the Department of Modern Languages. It has also transmitted

to Senate for Senate's direct action the submissions of Philosophy,

Psychology and PSA. The two attached reports identify a number of

.

?

reasons for the actions taken by the Committee following its

considerations. It is to be noted that some of the issues raised

apply to the submissions for which specific recommendations are

made, and not only to those without specific recommendations.

This was recognized by the Committee.

The Committee was established during the current year to

consider Undergraduate submissions and to coordinate these. Its

first meeting was held in June. A number of issues which have

been raised have been with the University for some time, but

without being directly considered. As suggested by the Committee,

principles and policies are unclear in a number of areas. It is

my view that it would be inappropriate to expect immediate resolu-

tion of each of the stated and related issues, and that due time

is required for satisfactory resolution and coordination.

Senate could deal with the specific recommendations, and

not consider those items for which specific recommendations have

not been made by SCUS pending such recommendations. It will be

noted that the recommendations have been approved by the Faculty

of Arts - the only procedure which would have pertained prior to

the establishment of SCUS. Alternatively Senate could consider

each of the submissions, utilizing such information as provided

by SCUS. The Committee could then be given broad charge to con-

sider all items already approved by Senate including any new

is ?

whichnow made, Or to further consider those new items about

which Senate may have doubt at this time and which it may refer

to the Committee.

- ?

37

---

S ?

"-2 -

It is my intention to ensure that there is resolution as

rapidly as possible of a number of the issues raised, to clarify

policies to ensure that similar difficulties will be unlikely to

be encounted in submissions for future years.

I recommend:

1.

That Senate refer the broad issues set forth in Papers

S.71-129, 129a, and related issues, to the Senate

Committee on Undergraduate Studies for its consideration

and recommendations to Senate.

2.

That Senate now consider directly each of the current

proposals from the Faculty of Arts submitted by the

Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies.

S

S

.1'l

---

o

To.

Subect....

iv'' W

,

Iir

Pr. L,G.,. Wls

,

pn

.

ça4emic

V1!ç

.

e

?

esi,dent

-CUM

09^4W-4TP

-

F4cu

U

From. Dr,

J.

Chase,

,

C

ha

irman

?

.

Senate Committee on Undergradta

....

St-u.ies

Date.. November 17th,. .1.971

The Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies at its meeting on

November 15th, 1971 considered recommended calendar revisions submitted

by Departments in the Faculty of Arts and approved by the Faculty of

Arts Curriculum Committee. In the course of its review,

,

a series of

issues were raised for which there are no corresponding University

policies. In the absence of such policies, and given the time constraints

confronting the Committee, the recommendations from the Departments of

Philosophy, Psychology and Political Science, Sociology and Anthropology

S

have been forwarded without action from the Committee to Senate for its

consideration. While the Committee took specific action on the proposals

submitted by the Departments of Archeology, Economics and Commerce and

Modern Languages, the issues raised below should be considered applicable

to these departments as well.

Issues Arising from Consideration of Calendar Revisions

1. Course Numbering - there is a total absence of stated University

policy relating to the differences between courses at the 100, 200,

300 and 400 level.. In the absence of policy, it is difficult if

not impossible for any University body to rule on the merits of

proposed numbering changes when there is no clear rationale offered

for the changes proposed or when there are no criteria against

which to evaluate a rationale when offered.

Several examples may suffice to demonstrate the nature of the

problac involved:

39,

---

-2-

Discontinue Ec/Com 235-3 and renumber as Ec/Com 332-3

Discontinue Ec/Com 236-3 and renumber as Ec/Com 333-3

Discontinue Ec/Com 380-3 and renumber as Ec/Com 280-3

Discontinue Ec/Com 323-5 and renumber as Ec/Com 223-5

Discontinue Phil. 205-3 and renumber as Phil. 341-3

Discontinue Phil. 208-3 and renumber as Phil. 344-3

Discontinue Psych.*220

?

and renumber as Psych. 302

Discontinue Psych.*230

?

and renumber as Psych. 303

Discontinue Psych.*240 and renumber as Psych. 304

* The rationale offered by the Psychology Department is that

there is no real difference in the level of these 200 level

courses as compared with the level of the 300 level courses.

2. Permission of Instructor - under the mail pre-registration system,

the accomodatioti of the requirement of "permission of instructor"

and/or "permission of the department" has been identified as a

significant problem area. While a student who is currently on

campus may seek approval of the instructor/department prior to the

pre-registrat ion procedure, this provision may cause some concern

for students not on campus with potentially adverse results in

enrollments in those particular courses.

While some departments have taken steps to specify their course

requirements with maximum clarity, others continue to rely heavily

on the use of permission of instructor/department.

For example: ?

-

Philosophy 150-3 at least 1 - 100 level course, or permission of instructor

Philosophy 203-3

?

Philosophy 100 or permission of instructor

Philosophy 210-3

?

Philosophy 110 or permission of instructor

Philosophy 250-3

?

Philosophy 150 or permission of instructor

-

10

---

-3-

.

For admission to its upper level seminars, the Department of Psychology

proposes that a minimum of fifth level standing be required for

admission and that in addition, admission to any upper level seminar

require the permission of the instructor.

While the Committee believes there is some merit in retaining

"permission of the instructor" for directed readings and directed

studies courses, it is not convinced of the necessity of its

utilization in other circumstances, e.g., the cases cited above.

3 ?

Permission to Waive Requirements - both in the current calendar and

in the calendar revisions proposed, numerous course descriptions

continue to provide for either fulfillment of course pre-requisites

or "permission of the instructor." University policy is silent on

the general question of whether the instructor alone shall have the

right to waive pre-requisites for the particular course which he

or she is teaching although in practice this right has been acknowledged.

Furthermore, can an instructor waive course pre-requisites only when

"permission of instructor" is stipulated?

4. For Approval? For Information? By Whom? To Whom? - under present

operating procedures of the Registrar, a.change in title, major

change in course description, or change in credit hours requires a

new courco number and approval of Senate. The rationale for this

approach is that information on courses is contained in the University's

calendar; because the calendar is the official publication of the

University, significant changes thereto require approval of the

University's Senate.

The recommended calendar revisions for the 1972/73 year contain the

following kinds of changes:

- ?

4.1

---

S

a)

new

course proposals

b)

changes in course

pre-requisites

c)

major changes in course descriptions

d)

changes in course title

e)

changes in course credit hours

f)

changes in the general requirements for majors or honors in

individual departments

g)

major changes in general-calendar statements

Present procedures require that all

of the above be submitted to the

Senate Coninitteeofl Undergraduate

Studies

for review and then to

Senate for approval. Because all of the

above changes

now are given

equal consideration, it is extremely difficult for Faculty or

University bodies external to the department to determine what

substantive changes are being proposed and to

assess

in any

5 ?

meaningful way the impact of those changes.

We believe that evaluation of proposed curricular changes would be

enhanced by clarifying:

a)

which curriculum changes require approval and by whom, and

b)

which curriculum changes can be submitted for information only

and to whom

The Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies is prepared to take up

immediately each of the above issues and prepare recommendations for

consideration by Senate. However, given deadlines for submission,

approval and publication of calendar materials, there is insufficient

time to both resolve the aforementioned issues and review in any

meaningful way the submissions from the Faculty of Arts (it is. understood

that submissions from the Faculties of Science and Education will be

forthcoming). Under these conditions, the Senate Committee on Undergraduate

5 ?

Studies agreed to request that the recommendations from the Faculty of

Arts be submitted to Senate and to further request that they be

accompanied by a copy of this letter to you.

42

---

S,

7/us

130.

SiMON

FRASER

UNIVERSITY

. ?

MEMORANDUM

I

?

From

SECRETARY

Subject

-

DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY

- DEPARTMENT OF PSA

The Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies gave

consideration to the submissions of the Department of Philosophy

and of Psychology and noted that a number of issues raised to

a limited degree in the discussions on the proposals from

Archaeology, Economics and Commerce, and the Department of

Modern Languages continued in these proposals, some were inten-

sified and additional ones were observed.

Lengthy discussion was held to determine the most

appropriate action to be taken. This discussion included:

•

?

1. Some consideration of earlier actions as taken by Senate, e.g.

the numbering of courses, and lack of clear policy, as debated

recently on Kinesiology, with approval of the submission then

made; Philosophy 207-3 - Selected Topics which was approved by

Senate some considerable time ago, but the concern of some of

the members in providing selected topics at that level, now

brought to attention by the renumbering system in Philosophy;

the frequency of use of "permission of instructor," as exem-

plified in the Psychology submission as a requirement for

admission to any upper level seminar, but already approved by

Senate and appearing in the calendar as it does for many courses.

2.

Some discussion of the matter of items which clearly must be

placed before Senate and some which might not, but without

clear delineation - resulting in large volume of materials

difficult to follow, under time constraints, lacking clear

policy.

3.

The difficulty of identifying what clearly is policy, what might

be policy because of precedent actions, or what might have been

single action without policy implication.

4.

A consideration of the terms of reference of the Committee, of

which body appropriately would undertake to clarify a number of

the Issues raised, and desirability of clear charge from Senate

to undertake study.

.

- ?

43

---

5.

A concern that holding the material in attempt to consider and

resolve all possible policy issues would constitute significant

change in practices without reasonable notification of policies

which might be applied - a change of rules In mid-flow.

6.

The standard operating procedures of the Committee, as announced

to the University, that if substantive changes were made or pro-

posed by the Committee the item would be referred back to the

initiating body for its acceptance of the changes, or for further

modifications, but with the proviso that if the initiating body

desired the original submission to go forward to Senate this

would be done, with the Committee presenting its position with

the submission and the initiating body adding to its submission

any further data it desired. (The lack of clarity on policies

would inhibit clear-cut statements.)

7.

The lack of members in attendance from the Faculty of Arts to

respond to questions of concern to the Committee, and the im-

possibility of scheduling a special meeting to provide for this

prior to consideration of the material by the Senate Agenda

Committee for presentation to the December meeting of Senate,

as generally desired.

Following consideration of the above and other factors,

the Committee agreed that all of the submissions received from

the Faculty of Arts be sent forward to Senate for its consideration,

with the Chairman of the Committee to write to the Vice-President,

Academic identifying a number of the issues, notably those arising

from lack of clear policies, and identifying the willingness of

the Committee to take up the issues to make recommendations thereon

to Senate. It was understood that resolution of a number of the

issues

would take considerable time, but that it was desirable that

they be initiated quickly for resolution hopefully in time that

similar issues would not arise in consideration of items for the

1973-74 calendar.

It was requested that copy of the communication from the

Chairman to the Vice-President, Academic accompany the bulk sub-

mission of the Faculty of Arts proposals to Senate.

(This explanation is provided at the request of the Senate Agenda

Committee.)

.

.

44

---

i

73-IL

SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

MMOADUM ?

•ci

A 7M In k

,s't

2Y

From ?

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

UNDERGRADUATE STUDIES

S

b

SENATE

Subject

REPORT ON CURRICULAR ISSUES RELATING1 Date

?

OCTOBER 18, 1973

TO UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION

Issue 1 - PROCEDURES FOR

REVIEWING

AND

APPROVING CURRICULUM

CHANGES

MOTION: ?

"That Senate approve, as set forth in S.73-125,

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

be received by the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies

5 ?

except under four conditions.

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 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

- ?

45

---

MM

.

is

Curriculum ConirnitLec(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 do not conform to Senate policy or to the

department's previously stated policy."

Issue 2 - OVERLAP OF COURSE CONTENT BETWEEN COURSES OFFERED WITHIN A DEPART-

MENT, WITHIN A FACULTY, ACROSS FACULTIES

NOTION; ?

"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, the issue be 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."

Issue 3 -

P

ROLIFERATION 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 offerings

- ?

46

---

-3-

• ?

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 Under-

graduate 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 reviewing

course offerings under this ruling and making appropriate

recommendations to Senate."

•

Issue 4 - USE

COURSES

OF DIRECTED READINGS, DIRECTED STUDIES AND DIRECTED RESEARCH

MOTION: ?

"That Senate approve, as set forth in S.73-125,

a) That the offering of all directed reading, directed study and

directed research courses offered within a department be

approved by the Departmental Chairman.

b) That the chairman's approval be based upon a submission by the

instructor covering each of the following:-

1)

a statement of how the course is to be conducted

2)

a statement of how the student's performance will be

assessed for grading purposes

3)

a written statement by the student justifying his need to

take this particular course in lieu of one of the regular

courses offered by the department.

c) That the present practice of having Senate approve the estab-

lishment of directed research/readings/and study courses for

departments but not the content of such courses be continued.

WI

---

-4-

•

?

d) As a general principle, that an instructor in a directed

research/readings/or study course should expect to meet with

his students singly or together for weekly consultation.

e)

That departmental and Faculty curriculum committees be charged

with the task of standardizing the credit hours assigned to

their directed research/readings/and study courses.

f)

That only upper level students (those who have completed at

least 60 semester credit hours) be eligible to enrol in directed

research/readings/and study courses.

g)

That all Faculties be required to recommend to Senate policies

regarding the maximum number of such courses (or credit hours)

a student must take for credit toward the degrees of that

Faculty.

h)

That vector numbers for all directed research/readings/or study

courses be deleted from both the University's Calendar and Course

• ? Guide.

i)

That directed reseach/readings/or study courses not be permitted

as substitutes for either required courses or special topics

courses."

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 opportunity

to learn wht 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:

I.]

---

-5-

• ?

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.

is

i) As a guiding principle for special topics courses, that one

contact hour be set equal to one credit hour.

- ?

49

---

T ?

-6-

. j) That where a dcp3rtmcnt wishes to deviate from principle i)

above, a

jutificaLlon for the variance must be prov:Med to

the Faculty and Senate Undergraduate Curriculum Committees

and to Senate."

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 total 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.73-125,

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."

Issue 7 - USE OF VECTOR PATTERNS (FOR REGULARLY SCHEDULED COURSES

MOTION: ?

"That Senate approve, as set forth in S.73-125,

a)

That all vector patterns be eliminated from University Calendars.

b)

That each course description contained in University calendars

- ?

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 under-

graduate cirriculum committee, the Chairman he permitted to vary

the vector pattern. Such vector patterns to reflect only the in-

class requirements and the calendar description of the course.

d)

That vector patterns for all regularly scheduled courses be

included in Course Guides.

50

---

•

a) That only departmental approval be required for all course

• ?

vector atterns to be included in the Course Guide; depart-

mental approval to be in writing and submitted to the

Registrar."

Issue 8 - RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CONTACT HOURS AND OUT-OF-CLASS PREPARATION

TIME

?

MOTION: ?

None.

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. A change of major or

honors field will be deemed a new declaration."

Issue 10 - MORATORIUM ON CALENDAR CHANGES

MOTION: ?

None,

?

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

- ?

51

---

I

-8-

S

departments in determining the number levels to be assigned

individual courses:

1)

000 level cOurses

2)

100 level courses - are designed to introduce students to a

discipline at the University level; 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 although previous

learning experiences in the discipline or related disciplines

at the secondary school level may be recommended or required.

3)

200 level courses - assume either previous learnir.g experiences

in the discipline or related disciplines; both content and

teaching level will be more advanced than courses offered at

the 100 level; 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 level courses - assume a substantive amount of previous

learning experiences in either the discipline or related dis-

ciplines; both content and teaching level will be more advanced

than courses offered at the 200 level; students will normally be

expected to enrol in such courses during their fifth and sixth

levels of University; only in exceptional circumstances will

courses offered at this level not have pre- and/or co-requisites

associated with them.

5)

400 level courses - assume a substantive amount of previous

learning experiences in either the discipline or related discip-

lines; both content and teaching level will be more advanced

than courses offered at the 300 level; students will normally be

expected to enrol in such courses during their seventh and eighth

levels of University; pre-requisites will always be demanded for

courses offered at this level."

C

- ?

52

---

-9-

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 acade.ic transfer credit. (The waiver does

not include the granting of additional formal semester hours

Li

?

credit, but may remove the necessity of undertaking certain

prescribed courses.)

3)

where departmental programs have changed and eliminated

courses or otherwise substantially chaged 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 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."

Li

- ?

53

---

SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

?

S.73

-

a:

y

MEMORANDUM

From..

Senate

C.orittee .Qn...Undergraduate

Subject ...... .)PORTON CURRULA

.

•

1S.JES

..LAT.IN.0,

TO UDERGRADUATE EDUCATION

.

?

.............Studies

.......................

Date....

October. 18,

?

.19.7.3...................................................

The Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies has approved the attached

recommendations on a series of issues referred to it by the Vice-President,

Academic. The process by which these recommendations was produced is

dscrihed on pages 1 and 2 of the report.

It should be noted that all of the questions referred to the Committee have

been dealt with in this report with one exception. That is item 9, the

period and mechanism for dropping courses, which was discussed at length

but deferred until fill consideration has been given to a report on grading

which is also before the ConTnittee at this time.

The procedure adopted by S.C.U.S. in discussing this report was to consider

and approve each item separately, following which the report as a whole was

approved for transmission to Senate. In order to facilitate discussion,

.

however, each recommendation has been made the subject of a separate Senate

motion.

?

.

.J

I. Mugridge

/mt

End.

-

?

54

.

---

• As Revised October 9, 1973

1• ?

S

REPORT TO

SENATE

FROM

SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE STUDIES

REGARDING

CURRICULAR ISSUES RELATING TO UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION

S.

AT

SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

Dr. I. Mugridge

Chai man

-

?

55

---

El

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

CO

?

CHARGE TO THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE STUDIES

Pursuant to discussion with the Senate Committee on Undergraduate

Studies and the Senate Undergraduate Appeals Board, Dr. B.G. Wilson, Academic

Vice President, requested in March 1972, that the Senate Committee on Under-

graduate Studies examine the following questions:

1.

The relationship between credit and contact hours and

the continued use of vector numbers.

2.

The overlap of material between courses and between

departments.

3.

The proliferation of course offerings.

4.

The use of directed studies courses, especially special

topics courses and reading courses.

5.

The procedures for reviewing curriculum changes and

Li

?

policies affecting retroactivity of curriculum changes

especially the applicability of such changes to students

who enrolled before they were made.

6.

The criteria for numbering of courses.

7.

The use of introductory courses at the 300 level for

non-major students.

8.

The mechanics for waiving course requirements.

9.

The period and mechanism for dropping courses.

In response to Dr. Wilson's request, the Senate Committee on Under-

graduate Studies appointed a Sub-Committee consisting of Professor I. Allen,

Faculty of Education (Chairman); Professor H. Sharma, Faculty of Science;

Professor J. Tietz, Faculty of Arts; and Dr. J. Chase, Academic Planner, to

Li

examine the issues raised by Dr. Wilson and report back to it at the earliest

possible date.

- ?

56

---

-2-

Evidential Basis for the Report

To provide a basis for its recommendations, the Sub-Committee sought

information on both present practice and alternatives to those practices. In

this regard, it has:

I. ?

met with members of the Registrar's Office staff and administrative

representatives of the Dean's Office of each Faculty.

2.

met with members of the joint Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies!

Senate Undergraduate Appeals Board Sub-committee charged with examining

and recommending on:

a) the academic probation system

b)evaluation mechanism(s) for students

c) specification of University standards relating to the significance of

specific grades in terms of performance

•

?

d) graduation grade point average.

3.

formulated a questionnaire based on the issues under review: within the

Faculty of Science it was circulated to all departmental chairmen for

written response; within the Faculty of Arts, Professor Tietz conducted

personal interviews with each of the departmental chairmen; within the

Faculty of Education and the Division of General Studies, personal inter-

views were conducted with each of the chairmen and directors by Professor

Al len.

4.

met with each of the student senators to seek their opinions on the issues

identified in the questi9nnaire.

5.

solicited opinions from the University community.

On the basis of its discussions with Deans, Departmental Chairmen,

faculty members, students and administrative staff, the sub-committee of the

. ?

Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies offered a series of recommendations

to the full Committee. Following discussion of this report with departments

and within the Committee, the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies now

makes the following recommendations to Senate.

?

57

---

-3-

1.

?

Issue

PROCEDURES FOR REVIEWING AND APPROVING CURRICULUM CHANGES

Recommendations

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 be received

by the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies except under four conditions.

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 which has not been adequately dealt with by the

Faculty Curriculum Committee. The difference from the first

condition is that SCUS must state specifically 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 do

not conform to Senate policy or to the department's previously

stated policy.

I,J

---

-4-

Rationale

Curriculum changes encompass:

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 are approved by the Registrar,

the remaining curriculum changes wind a laborious route through departmental

undergraduate curriculum committees, Faculty undergraduate curriculum

committees, the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies and Senate. Since

the role to be performed in the curriculum revision and review process of

each committee and Senate have not been clearly delineated, unnecessary

duplication, and much time consuming effort occurs because each feels obligated

to undertake a comprehensive review of all that has gone on before. These

problems have been further compounded by the lack of a standardized format

for submitting proposed curriculum changes for review.

We do not believe it is desirable to eliminate any of the review bodies

from the review process. Rather, we believe that most difficulties can be

minimized by clearly designating one body as being the major investigatory

body in matters pertaining to curriculum and review. This body, we believe,

should be the Faculty Curriculum Committees.

I-,

?

2. ?

Issue

OVERLAP OF COURSE CONTENT BETWEEN COURSES OFFERED WITHIN A DEPARTMENT,-

?

59

WITHIN A FACULTY, ACROSS FACULTIES

---

-5 -

Recommendations

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 forthcoming from

the departments involved, the issue be 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.

3. ?

Issue

PROLIFERATION OF COURSE OFFERINGS

Recommendations

a) At the time of internal or external departmental review, departments

-

?

60

---

be required to review all of their course offerings 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 Undergraduate 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 reviewing course offerings under this ruling and making appropriate

recommendations to Senate.

Rationale

Most departments do review their programs yearly. While no department 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 departments. 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.

4.

?

Issue

USE OF DIRECTED READINGS, DIRECTED STUDIES AND DIRECTED RESEARCH GOURSES

Recommendat ions

a) That the offering of all directed reading, directed study and direcied

research courses offered within a department be approved by the

Departmental Chairman.

Li

-

61

---

-7-

S

S

b) That the chairman's approval be based upon a submission by the

instructor covering each of the following:

I) a statement of how the course is to be conducted

2)

a statement of how the student's performance will be assessed

for grading purposes

3)

a written statement by the student justifying his need to take

this particular course in lieu of one of the regular courses

offered by the department.

c)

That the present practice of having Senate approve the establishment

of directed research/readings/a

nd

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 singly

or together for weekly consultation.

a) That departmental and Faculty curriculum committees be charged with the

task of standardizing the credit hours assigned to their directed

research/readings/and study courses.

f)

That only upper level students (those who have completed at least 60

semester credit hours) be eligible to enrol in directed research/

readings/and study courses

g)

That all Faculties be required to recommend to Senate policies regarding

the maximum number of such courses (or credit hours) a student may take

for credit toward the degreesot that Faculty.

h)

That vector numbersfor all directedresearch/readings/or study courses

be deleted from both the University's Calendar and Course Guide.

I) That directed research/readin

g S/

0r

study courses not be permitted as

substitutes for either required courses or special topics courses.

Rationale

Most departments offer such courses. While their purpose has never been

formally defined, patterns of use have become established. These courses

62

---

MOM

are seen as (1) provi.dng oportunities

for

students wantiMg either in-depth

treatment of particular areas s'timmartly covered in lecture or seminar courses,

or new topics of mutual Interest to students and faculty, (ii) being

appropriate only for students enrolled in the upper levels, and (iii) being

appropriate for groups of students as well as students working independently.

The directed readings/studies/research labels have been utilized where the

mode of operation is essentially one of reading or 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 undergraduate curriculum committee.

Unfortunately, use of these courses has been subject to some abuse, the

extent of which has been impossible to ascertain. However, it is clear

that such courses have now become an almost integral part of the curriculum

which was not the original intent. Furthermore, they have been used to

substitute for required courses, contrary to Senate 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 or 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 the abuse of such

63

---

courses. To this end, we have JDâde the above recommendatona.

5.

?

issue

USE OF SPECIAL TOPICS COURSES

Recommendations

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 inittal contact would give departments

an o

p

portunity to learn what special topics students want to see initiated

and thus facilitate the introduction of special topics courses.)

b) That, as general University

g

uidelines, special topics courses should

be utilized to:

I) fill a particular gap in a department's curriculum

2)

respond to

stu

dent/faculty interests which are worthwhile at the

moment but not necessarily of continuing relevance to a department's

program

3) e

xperiment with a particular subject matter area before considering

it for introduction into the regular curriculum.

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 establishment 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 Undergraduate

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:

- ?

64

W1,

---

I) the calendar description of each course offered, including the

course number, credit hodrs, 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

Li

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 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 worthwhileat the moment but not necessarily of continuing relevance

to the

deparrnents

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 sti I I other cases, special

topics courses are taken as teaching overloads by members of regular faculty.

-

?

65

---

S

S

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 establishment

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.

6. ?

Issue

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 total number of contact hours per week in

lecture, tutorial, seminar or.Iaboratory as approved by Senate.

66

---

- 12 -

Recommendation

(

1. ?

That the determination of th& 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.

Rationale

For both lower and upper division courses within 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.

Within the Faculty of Interdisciplinary Studies, practices differ.

?

In

Communication Studies, a one-to-one relationship generally exists although

laboratory and tutorial contact hours in excess of credit hours are some-

times required for upper division courses.

?

In Kinesiology, lower division

courses operate on aone-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 although follow-up is weak.

For lower div

i

sion courses offered by the Faculty of Arts, contact hours

equal credit hours.

?

This ?

is true irrespective of whether the contact

hour is

?

in lecture, tutorial, seminar or laboratory.

?

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.

Li

The major point of variation within the Faculty of Arts is that different

departments, and sometimes different courses within the same department,

67

---

-13-

•

?

do not require the same amount of in-class time for a five credit hour

course. Some require five hours of in-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 enrollee in 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 in-class seminar work.

All departments in the Faculty of Science equate one credit hour to 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 Biological 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 unanimity as to a proposed standard. The options expressed were:

a)

relate 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

c)

relating credit hours to the amount of outside work required

d)

relating credit hours to the amount of both in-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,

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.

- ?

68

---

- 14 -

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 thelack of definitive 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 class assignments or difficulty

of course material. Thus, only options (b) and (f) appeared to merit

further consideratiOn.

Implementation of eitheralternative (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 relationship between credit and contact hours is

desirable in an ad novium situation, the Committee is convinced that the

costs involved in a major restructuring of the presentcurriculum of two

Faculties far outweigh the benefits to be derived from implementation of

a University or even Faculty-wide credit/contact hour relationship.

Our recommendation, therefore, is that the determination of the credit/

contact hour relationship for particular courses be left to the discretion

of departments proposing.the course; departments should, however, be prepared

to justify their recommendations before Faculty Curriculum Committees, the

Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies and Senate.

7. Issue

USE OF VECTOR PATTERNS (FOR REGULARLY SCHEDULED COURSES)

Recomendati 'ons

a)

That all vector

patterns

be eliminated from University Calendars

b)

That each course description contained in University calendars be

accompanied by an indication of the nature of the course, e.g. lecture!

- ?

69

---

- 15 -

tutorial, lecture/tutortal /laboratory, seminar, etc.

c)

That within the total number*of contact hours assigned to a course, and

subject to theaproval of the departmental undergraduate curriculum

committee, the Chairman be permitted to vary the vector pattern. Such

vector patterns to reflect only the in-class requirements and the calendar

description of the course.

d)

That vector patterns for all regularly scheduled courses be included in

Course Guides.

e)

That only departmental approval be required for all course vector patterns

to be included in the Course Guide; departmental approval to be in writing

and submitted to the Registrar.

Rationale

There is considerable confusion regarding vector patterns. This is attributable

• ?

to the multiple uses for which they are currently uti I ized. in some cases

vector patterns indicate the lecture, tutorial, laboratory pattern of a course.

Others uti lize 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 1-o 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

e)

would be of assistance to students if placed in the Course Guide provided

they carried a consistent meaning.

Because teaching method and content influence students' choice of courses, it

is reasonable to expect that accurate inform-l-ion on both will be supplied to

- ?

70

---

16

students in advance of the course. We recognize that individual faculty

members will vary in their teaching approach to the same course and that the

once-a-year publication of the University's Calendar does not provide an

opportunity to 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 Simon Fraser, we have rec-

ommended 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 belie vethat it is the appropriate place in which to incorporate

course vector patterns.

8. Issue

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CONTACT HOURS AND OUT-OF-CLASS PREPARATION TIME

Recommendation

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 semesterhour of credit.

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

?

71

---

-17-

• ?

no practical way in which It can exercise its responsibi I ity. Therefore, while

the Committee recognizes that a principle or guideline would be desirable, il

is not prepared to recommend that 'which cannot be enforced.

9. ?

Issue

RETROACTIVITY OF CALENDAR CHANGES AS THEY AFFECT GRADUATION REQUIREMENTS

Recommendation

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 declaration. 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

Li

?

as indicated in the publ [shed Calendar in effect at the time of declaration.

A change of major is deemed to be a new declaration. A declaration 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 complicates both

academic advising and departmental and Faculty Curriculum Committees' consideratio'

of whether individual students have fulfilled graduation requirements. Second,

and more serious, is that substantial numbers of students take considerably

- ?

72

---

- 18 -

*

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. Furthermore,

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 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 des-

cribed 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 specificcalendar.

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

nay 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.

73

---

-

19 -

10.

0

0•

.

Issue

MORATORIUM ON CALENDAR CHANGES

Recommendations

None

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 dep-

artments 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

implications 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 new

programs clearly demand that opportunities be provided to them for experimentation.

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.

11. ?

Issue

CRITERIA FOR NUMBERING COURSES

?

- ?

74

---

-20-

Recommendations

a) That the following criteria be established as guidelines for departments

in determining the number levels to be assigned individual courses:

1)

000 level courses

2)

100 level courses - are designed to introduce students to a discipline

at the University level; 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 although

previous learning experiences in the discipline or related disciplines

at the secondary school level may be recommended or required.

3)

200 level 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 level; 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 levd 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 courses offered at the

200 level; students will normally be expected to enrol in such courses

during their fifth and sixth levels of University; only in-exceptional

circumstances will courses offered at this level not have pre- and/or

co-requisites associated with them.

5)

400 level courses -- assume a substantive amount of previous learning

experiences in eithe the discipline or related disciplines; both content

and teaching level will be more advanced than courses offered at the 300

level; students will normally be expected to enrol in such courses

during their seventh and eighth levels of University; pre-requisites

will always be demanded for courses offered at this level.

-

?

75

---

- 21 -

Rationale

Currently, there are no University guidelines available for determining the

appropriate numerical level, i.e. 100, 200, 300 or 400 to be assigned individ.

courses. Lacking such guidelines, departments have had to use their own dis-

cretion 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 numberH

policy. For example, the Department of English has no 300 level courses. Suc.

deviations from the recommendations should be permitted provided they are

acceptable to the Faculty Curriculum Committee, Senate Committee on Undergrad

Studies and Senate.

12. ?

Issue

OPERATING PROCEDURES FOE

.

. WAIVING COURSE, DEPARTMENT AND FACULTY REQUIREMENTS

Recommendations

a)

That departmental chairmen be empowered in special cases to waive depart-

mental 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:

I) where a student has been misadvised and can provide substantive evidence

. ?

2) where a student can demonstrate to a department that he has formal traini

or background for which he did not receive direct course academic transfc':

credit. (The waiver does not include the granting of additional formal

semester hours credit, but may remove the necessity of undertaking

orescribed courses.)

---

S

- 22 -

3)

where departmental programs have changed and eliminated courses or

otherwise substantially changed the graduation requirements affecting

the student

4)

whore a student has satisfied the spirit but not the letter of

University, Faculty or departmental regulations.

c) 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 wherd affirmative action has been taken

on a waiver request.

Rationale

Practice varies throughout the University particularly as regards departmental

regulations. In some cases, departments ratain 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 recom-

mendation 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 practicds also vary. In some cases, documentation is maintaine'

by the Department for its own majors and honors students, in other cases

77

---

-

23 -

S

by 'the Dean's offices and in still others, by both. Clearly thereis

Insufficient communication with

'

tho Registrar's Office for the purpose

of formal ly 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 pot icy.

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

regulations, 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.

ru

---

L ?

(_.,;

r

:

?

,ir:iT

?

c r

?

(.1

c Ink la

2(

?

• ?

f'.7T:•.'1'

•

?

;em.

j.

p ?

FE1P)JARV_l1,1974

1 ss ?

I. ?

roc.:r)u1(.s

)TO: ?

.: ?

c':r ?

.;:

(,flAN1;'.S

(I"I1)N :

?

''That. Senate approve , an :cL forth in

a)

That SCIJS normally w 11 consider t:iic Fcul ty Curricu.lu'n

Coil11

ttccs to be thct major nvet

i

C

Lory body

'iiia:rs

relating

to

CurrjcuJ.u.tnd review

b) ?

That ?

th

?

c eeor-mendat.j;;

?

of

?

Facul.t:y C'irriculiu ?

Conittces

an

approved ny the

re.J.evEnl

Fvctdtv

wi

ll

be re turned to

t.h ?

Faculty after considrratjoi

?

b y

the Senate Ccimittac on

1.indnroradiate ?

Studfe

?

f

one

?

or

rI ?

of ?

the ?

fo.i1.owjn

condi

tions obtain.

i) ?

The dOcooient4tjofl of

?

the

CO'rE' ?

rrpe.cd or

Change is inadecivate, i.e.

?

the answers on ftc course

proposal fox

?

and ?

pc'rtinc

?

l;ioraida where 2pptopr

?

to

do not ?

.nd.cate how

?

the ?

ccaarse

?

'

1

J

.

-U;

?

into

?

the proi-ic1 ?

ft

too vaucly ?

.'ordt.'c1 ,

?

etc

ii)

?

There i

?

a spcciic reason, such an course overlap with

With

another

?

by ?

?

the

epartrnout

?

Fncul.Ly ?

,

which

Ciirricu.

not

hs

i : ?

been

Coinni

accquate1y

ttee.

?

The ?

d:i.fie

dea

y

J:

n ce

from the first conch

1

1

-

Lon is

?

int SCUS must state spcc

Ca

fly ?

reason for referral. ,

?

..0

ca

?

under the firs

I

coil ditj.o. ,

?

it ?

in.-y

?

simply ?

refcr by

?

indict:

?

areis

of

lnSUfJj.cianI ?

d:entat.on.

) ?

hicrc ?

ac:ul ty

?

Cu ?

r.cLJl;:1 ?

Co:i ?

t:te ?

is ?

;ablo ?

to

TCL:O

].ve

I

?

s

hnJ(

?

cicarJ' ?

ta. ?

LhC

?

nttiic ?

of ?

the

)i ir ?

to ?

CU ?

f'r

?

a ?

'1Lft)rj ?

?hl

?

Oh ?

i:ic.•t. ?

th1! ?

O('

.

or;) ri.\,e:h

?

\

?

t.h' ?

(!'. :

?

rt.'; ?

() ?

.'eu1

?

y

?

(.'or r A

;

cu1.u;n

Co:

:it:.(;) ?

eai

iti(:

?

'OIVed ?

:;re

?

[O

di.;::a. ?

l.hn ?

u: ?

(d

?

b y ?

t... ?

a

• ?

'r

?

rc:,J ?

LJuu.

', ?

wt

?

. ?

..

?

ii

?

..

C11Cl•

?

?

t

?

;i ro: c':;I ?

a

79

---

V ?

•

?

0

-2

-

do not conform to Senate

policy

or to the clepnrtirieiit 's

previow;ly stated policy."

Issue

I. ?

USE OF Dl

T :CTEDPJ:,\p

1cs/IREcTED

STuDTE ?

AND iuucrnRESEA}C1l ?

GU'

MOTION: ?

"That Senate approve,

as set forth

in S.74-

n) ?

That each offering

of a direct reading, ?

directed study or

directed research

course w

th:in

a deprt:nent

require the

approve], of the Den rtnen tal Cha:Lrman

b) That the cha:i.rman t

s

approval be based upon a submission

by the instructor covering

each of

the. foi

l

.] owing:

I. a description of the

content of

the course.

2.

a statement of how the course Is to he conducted

3.

an assessment of the relation between workload and

credit hours assigned to the course

4.

a statcent of how the student's perforoance will

he assessed for grading purposes

S. a written

statement justifying

the need for the

particular

course rather thcn one of the regular

courses offered by the department.

c)

That the present

practice of having Senate approve the

establis1inrnt of directed research/readings/and study

courses for departments but

not the

content of

such

ourscs be continued.

d)

As a general prInciple,

that

an

instructor in a

directed

research/redi.nc;/or study course should

'expect

to meet

with his s tucn ts at Jo as t weekly.

e)

That vector mi:bers for all directed research/readings/or

study courses he delct:ed from

both the

University's

Cale ' idr and

Coi.'.rse ?

Guide.

f)

?

That ?

di roe tedi

resear:h/

rcncitngs/or

study

courses not be

pei:ait td

?

(:

.

:t:t:

ueder the

circumstances

provided in

Senate

'i ?

-i: ?

,

12,

i

?

C) ?

ii tu Les

for

?

e.1 Lhi ?

rn1

rH

in I ?

topIcs ?

courses.

FIIIIE

---

-

3 -

Issue 6. COURSE/CONTACT 11OU R1LATiONSflJP (FOR REGULAPJ.Y sc1{Em'L:n

COIJ1SES ONT.Y)

A

A 7'c(Ju1.aiy sc1i2cduZecl course

?

rlarincd

(W

a 3c'::cter length

coU'C CXpCCtCa to 1J? r!ee t.nj

foi' ?

r.

' r2JtnninCd nwicr cf

?

contact

hourv

' .'a'

wa1< in lecvura 't;iori(7i, ominar or

laboratorij as ariprov by

&nate.

NOTION: "That Senate a

p

prove, as set

forth in S.

1.

?

That the determination of the appropriate relationship

between

credit and conl:act hours rest

with depar tmnntal undergraduat.e

curriculum Committees subject to the approval. of Faculty

Curriculum Commi t[:ees, the Senate Com:ittee on

Undergraduate

Studies and Senate."

I

If Motion 1 is passed,

"That Senate approve,

?

as set

?

foytii

in S.

74-

2.

That motion i) of issue 5 - 1.he of Special Topics Courses -

contained in S.

73

-1.25

arid approved at ?

the November 1973

meeting of Senate:

?

'As ?

a

principle.

g1I

(!'Ln5

?

for special

topics courses, ?

that one contact hour be set equal

to one

credit hour' be deleted."

Issue ?

7.

USE OF VECTOR_PATTP.NS ?

(ITOR ?

ECULAflL\ SCIIEDULEI) COURSES)

MOTION:

"That. Senate a

p

prove ?

as set

?

forth in S.74-

a)

That all vector patterns he eLiminated

from

the

University

Calendar.

b)

That each

?

course descrit>t. on

?

r.oiita ned in

?

the University

Calendar be accompanied by an indi

c.iton of the nature of

the ?

course,

?

e.g. ?

l(cture/tut:orai, ?

lecture/tutorial/

laboratory, ?

sejrLnar,

?

etc.

c)

That,

within ?

the. ?

total ?

nuriber of contact hours

?

assincd

to

?

a ?

course,

?

nod

?

;uhj

oct ?

La

?

?

the

0),"I ?

J;11

?

of

?

the ?

depart nit .m tat

ur i

dtr;iadn:

to

?

cii'. ri

?

1 o

?

C:.1 t

?

, ?

t: .. • ?

(:h:tirnOln ?

he

?

per-

iitt'il

?

to

?

'nr' ?

t1i ?

\'ol ?

i ?

:o:h ?

vector

?

r't:rns ?

to

on

1';

?

?

h. ?

,1

:n: ?

t

?

.

?

. ...

?

cat ?

iJ;Jr

descrip-

y

?

tI ?

(..C)I 1

?

( ?

ho

81

---

f

—

l' s

-.

i.n)uded in th

?

co'ur ?

Ciie; 1)cpnrt:i:cnit;i 1

JioV1

;.'ill

be in wci ting

IT

?

su5:itt ?

to the Ruçistrar.

II.

?

1rFkI\

V5)fl

?

DI RCT !Ti) 1'SEAc,fl

REAl) i :cs ANt) si Lh;' ccu

?

:\:;t S'C1 AL TOPICS cut: Si::s )

?

MOTION: ?

"That Senate anpio')e, as

set: forth in S.

74-

a) 'rh.t the foi].oirc; criteria be established as tuide].ines

for departments in dctc:iriLng the niier

dlvi sion to be

assigned individual cenisec.

000 division courses arc credit or non-credit courses of

a general nature dasigrieci to

introduce a studint

to

a

broad area of learning. Such

courses are

designed to

provoke

thought rind to s t:Lrlulate a desire.

for further

exploration of the field(s). They ma

y

be diseip:tinnry

or inter-discipiLrsar y

iii nature— Such

courses arc open

to all students

and do not carry pre- or co-requisites."

•:

Li

55fl

q

82

---

(

1

SIMON FAS UfP/ESfl

1 Y

Senate ?

..

From

Senate Committee on Underqradu:-

Studic:

Further Report - Curricular

Subject .

?

issues RoJiting to Undergraduate

?

Dte 11

February, 1974

Education

The Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies submitted

its initial report on curricular issues related to undergraduate

education to the November meeting of Senate. These

recommendation::

were contained in Paper S.73-125. At that meeting, Senate

approved the majority of the recommendations of SCUS; and,

for

the information ofSenators, a copy of S.73-125, as amended at the

November 5th meeting of Senate, is attached.

The following issues were referred hack to the Senate

Committee on Undergraduate Studies:

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 only)

Issue 11 - Criteria for Numbering Courses (Item 1 concern inq

000 courses only).

The Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies has now reconsidered

these items and now transmits thorn to Senate for its reconsiderat:ie:

I. Muqridqe

Chairman

ind

att.

reiv

---

S

Issue I - FROCEDUFJS FOR REVIEWING AND APPROVING CUR31'C1TLTJN CHANGE-l-')

M(YTION: "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 h' the relevant Faculty will be returned to

the Faculty after consideration by the Senate (ommittee on

Undergraduate Studies if one or more of the following

conditions obtain.

S

1) The documentation of the coarse proposed or program

change is inadequate, i.e. the answers on the course

proposal form and supporting mnoranda 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 specific-

ally the reason for referral, whereas under the first

condition, it may sim

p

ly 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

"

'

OlUtiOthl, Will

be

forwarded to Set ite

1'oj'

reoiuti

ut 1.

/.......

MWI

FOW

---

....2

iv) Where Faculty Undergraduate Curriculum Committee

proposals do not conform to Senate policy or to the

departrrient'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

e) changes in course content

d)

changes in course numbering

e)

changes in course credit assignments

f)

changes in course vector patterns

g)

chariges in pre- and co- requisites for

individual courses

h)

changes in Faculty graduation requirements

1) .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 tune 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 lnvest:tgitory

body In mAtters of curriculum revi:;ion and review. Thi:; body, we believe,

should be the l'acul ty Curriculum Committees.

---

• "

Issue 4. USE OF DI1ç

1

fD

pADINs/Di.FçTE STS AND DIRECTED srri

COURSES

1'4GrION: "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 cenducted

3.

an assessment of the relation between workload

and credit hours assigned to the course

14

•

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 st

l

dy

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.

1) That directed research/readings/Or study courses not be

permitted (except under the circumstances provided in

Senate paper

S.73-

12

5,

Issue 12, Motion C) as substitutes

for either required courses or special topics cours;."

/.......

---

S

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 opportunit

i

es for students

wanting either indepth treatment of particular areas summarily 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

5 ?

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 de

partments,

the topics

of such courses must he approved usually by the departmental under-

graduate curriculum cormittee or the chairman. Unfortunately, use of

these courses has been subject to some abuse, the extent of which it

has been im p

ossible 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

subst1tu1r

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 aeproval of the department, Faculty, the Senate Couinittee on

Undergrduatc Studies and Senate. We are conv iced that such courses ciji

be beneficial to both students and faculty, but

we

are equally convinced

thnl; each department should be ob"Hi

r

ed to de-,reInp

r)roteri. I

'JO

IIi('chantnms

which will ru;,rii :ir,aJnst their :il)usc. ?

87

---

r

. . I • I

RATIONALE (continued)

In its initial report to Senate on this issue, the Committee on

Underraduate Studies recommended that: (1) 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 sucli courses.

Upon rebonsideration, 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 accordin

g

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 own 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 reseai'ch/reádiflgS/Or study courses not be permitted,

except under the circumstances specified in S.73.1

2

5,

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 sudents wanting in-depth treatment of particular

areas summarily covered in lecture orseminar' 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

Co;!Enittee to be unduly rest'ictive to limit enrolment to upper level

student;. Further, since enrolment in such courses normally requli 'es

the

approval. of

the i nstructOrr and i

f

'

thc:;e

pronosil:; are adopted, ol'

the depa r'tincnt chinn

- 1n-adequate

sa

g

e f

uar'd',;

CX

i ul: to ensure that only -

1

Myol

---

I • .

1.6

Issue 6. COURSE/COACP HOUR RELATIONSHIP (FOR REGULARLY SCHEDULED

COURSES* ONLY)

*) 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.

NOTION:

1.

That the detennination of the appropriate relationship between

credit and contact hours rest with departmental undergradiate

curriculum committees subject to the approval of Faculy Curriculum

Committees, the Senate Cornnittee on Uhdergraudate Studies and

Senate.

If Motion 1 is passed.

2.

That motion 1) of Issue

5 -

Use of Special Tcp.cs Cours - contained

in

3.73-125

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 contaôt hour is in lecture, tutorial, seminar

or laboratory for.

In the Faculty of Interdisciplinary Studies, practices vary from

department to department. In Coninunicat ion Studies, a one-to-one

relationship generally, exists although laboratory and tutorial, contact

• ?

hours in excess of credit hours are sometines

required

for upper division

courses. In Kinesiology, lower division courses operate on a one-to-one

b;isis but

the

amount of contact tThe per credit hour

,

Increases with

upper division ëour'5e3. In other areas of the ]':mcuity or IntercJlscipi.in:u'y

the re1ation:1 ii p depends pr'lmm'l 1 y on the diIOUflt of out :i.(1e

C :i

a;s

mi

---

I

.7

• ?

Rntionalc (continued)

For lower division courses r1ciod by the Faculty of Arts, contact

hours eqwJ crc1lt hours. fl-• is

true

whether the contact hour is in

lecture, tutorial, seminar or laboratory fonu. The only Identified

exc:(pt .1 ons to t115 Ol:Icy are Cc iice

223-5

and tI

ii

'ee or four- D .14 .I.

Your'

(1'('Iil

?

OUfY. ?

Cr'1.ft ror

tt'i

dvhhn ?

i;U

offered by the 1aeu.1.ty of Arts is eithi' two, tllr'ec?

?

' Llv(' I vw':; . 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 recuire 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'

,

-.ours 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 de p

artments recognized the need for University standards in

this area, there was no agreement on such a standard. The o

p

tions 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 requiri nr' a greater nwiber

of contact hours per hour of credit

/

-

?

90

---

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 difficult

y

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.

rfl. 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 courscs. 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 reorganizatio

n

of the curricu].urn 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 retructUr.r1g of the present;

curriculum of two Faculties far outweigh the benefits to he derived from

implementation of a University or even Faculty-Wide credit/contact hour

relationshi

p.

Our 'econnendat ion, therefore, is that the deter',

ninatio

of the credit/contaCt hour re]atiOnSl

i

lP for particular courseu he left to

the discretion of dcpartmefltS propodn the course. Dcpar'tmcnt;S must,

/ ?

91

---

• ?

.9 ?

'.0

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 reconmends that the policy regarding the appropriate

relationship between credit and contact hours

.

be

the same for both

regularly scheduled and speial topics courses.

Upon reconsideration, the Committee is convinced that the policy

recommended for regularly scheduled courses is the most appropriate and,

therefore, recommends the substitution contained in the above recommendations.

92

/.....

---

.

?

.10

Issue 7 USE OF

r

EC1'OR PAITERNS (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/

laboratóry, 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 problis 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 cour;e is actually

taught.

c)

wi) 1 vary

from semester to semester for individual courses

de pendent

upon the instructor.

d) serve no useful purpose in the University's Calendar

/ ?

93

---

S

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 accu

r ate inforriiation

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 Simon Fraser, we have recommended that

5 ?

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 enester

course offerings, we believe that it is the most appropriate place

in which to incorporate course vector patterns.

94

---

.12

0

?

Issue I I. CRITERIA- FOR NIRING COURSES EXCrjJDINGDICTED

RESEARCH, READINGS AND STUDY COURSES AND SPECIAL TOPICS

COURSES)

Motion: ?

a) That the following criteria be established as guide-

lines for departments in detenrilning 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 cparses are

open to all students and do not carry pre- or co-

requisites.

Rationale

Currently, there are no University guidelines available for detennin-

ing the appropriate riurneridal division, i.e. 100, 200, 300, or 400 to be

assigned individual courses. Lacking such guidelines, deoartments 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 Coriunittee 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,

1

100 course numbering poi icy.

For example, the Department of Eng].i.h has no 300 divbon courses.

?

u:Ii

devl.at:1.ons from the recoianendationr, should be penni LLcJ

prv1ded they aic

acceptable to the Faculty Curricu]iL

r

n Corinittce, Senate Cxinittec on tinder-

Graduate Studies and Senate.

:arris

'cbru:n'y 11

,1974

95

---

4 ?

4

S1MOI\ FRASLh. UMVRSfl

Y ?

Motions s ancmd:

approved by

.

?

its meeting of No'..

1973.

?

wrF ?

NOTE ?

The

S t:i ?

From

lo ?

si

____ _________________

?

5LJA11 CO1M1fl 1 Oh

U ?

ND ERG

Rid

III A

of

t r.t

tiLiut

ct

?

(I I

t1

Ft HI

?

I

RtJrI

?

>.iji ?

ii

Subject

?

HFI'ORI' ON CURRICULAR ISSUES RELATINI;

? ?

Date

OCTOBER .1i ,

1973 ?

a ?

rI of

ii

10UD

?

AlIT 3TTATTON

?

-__ ?

_______

Issue 2 —

PThL_

OVERLAP OF COURSE

WITHIN

CONTENT

A FACULTY,

BETWEEN

ACROSS

COURSES

FACULTIES

OFFERED WITHIN A

?

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, the issue be 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,

front 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-

?

96

---

miz

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 he charged each semester with review-

ing course offerings under this ruling and making appropriate

recommendations to Senate."

Rationale

Most departments do revew 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 semcster

.

?

1965 and the fall semester 1972 was 1161. Considering only the period from

Spring semester 1971 through the fall semester 1072, 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 arid 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

?

7

---

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 COUrSCS he 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.

3)

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 Curri. ulum 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 Und

erg radUte Curricuit-m Committee; others on

the basis of faculty preference again with the approval of the Departmental

MLOJ

---

-4-

SUndergraduate

Curriculum Committ:ec. ?

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 cbntrol without individually approving the

content of each course offered.

Issue 8 - RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CONTACT HOURS AND OUT-OF--CLASS_PREPAEATION

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.

---

S

?

-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

QUIRE!1ENTS

NOTION: ?

"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 he 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 ir, 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 ch;tng lug from a major to an honors

program (or vice versa) within the

S,111W depar truen t should not be considered as

changing the calendar gove rning him.

IL

shou id I)e the one in force at the I Inc

1 0 0

---

I

• ?

-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. lie 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

reconunending 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 tli.it

.

?

would be permitted to pass in order to allow adequate assessment of the implica

dons of the changes on both student: 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 uimorknblc , it

should be corrected at the earl lest possible date. Second, the Introduction of

101

---

f

?

-7-.

mentation.

new programs

Third,

clearly

and

demands

probably

that

most

opportu

important,

nities

we

be

were

provided

unable

to

to

them

agree

for

on

experi-

a

workable

In

definition of "substantial

r

evisions to its undergraduate curri cul."

the absence of such a definition, we foresaw endless and what appears to us

that

could

to be,

Faculties

be

U

njustified

introduced

and

d

debate

epartments

for

cons

over

ideration.

provide

whether

SuffiCj(2flt

or

For

not

these

proposed

r

time

easons,

to

curriculum

pass

we can

that

only

changes

previously

suggest

introduced curriculum changes may he adequately assessed.

Issue 11 - CRITERIA FOR NUMBERING COURSES

MOTION:

?

"That Senate approve, as set forth in S.73-125,

d

That the following criteria be established as guidelines for

epartments in determining the riimther 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

will

their

not

first

demand

and

p

second

rerequisites

levels

at

of

the

U

niversity;

University

such

level

courses

of

study although previous learning experiences in the

discipline or related disciplines at the secondary school

level may he

r

ecommended or required.

3)

200 division courses - assume either previous learning

experiences in the discipline or related

dis

ciplines;

both content and teaching level will, be more advanced

than courses offered at the 100 (

i

i.v:isioii; students will

normally be expected to enrol in such courses during

requisites

their third

may

and

be

fourth

identified.

levels of

U

niversity; pre- and co-

4) 300 division courses - assume a substantive amount of

or

previous

related

learning

d

isciplines;

experiences

both content

in either

and

the

teaching

discipline

level

will be more advanced than for coursc'c

Offered

at the

in

200

such

division;

courses

students

during their

will nonna.11y

fifth and

be

sixth

e

xpected

levels

to

of

enrol

University;

courses offered

only

not

in

have

exceptional

pre- and/or

circumco-

stances

requisites

will these

associated with them.

5) 400 division courses - assw a substantive amount of

previous learning exper i&flce in either the (Usci plinc

will

300

or

r

division;

elated

be more

di

advanced

scipl

studcnt;

ines

tli;in

wf

;

1)0111

1.1

for

no1a]

contiit

con

?

y be

's

and

Off(-',-(,d

expected

teaching

at

to

the

level

enrol

wi

University;

courses

in

th

such

them

not-.iinv&

courses

on Jy

?

during

In

i--

CXct'pl

;IIRI/or

their

I (n;l

?

'o-

1.

Vcn1h

ci

rquI

rcuns

and

si

tlfl('

ei

t(;

glith

?

assuef

ill

levels

ated

these?

of

---

S

S

-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 he understood that adoption of these

guidelines does not carry with it a corunitment 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 rcconrnendations

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 he 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)

whcrç departmental programs have changed and eliminated