?
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
?
S-73-12S
0
?
MEMORANDUM
To
-
?
SENATE
?
From ?
SENATE COMMITTEE ON
UNDERGRADUATE STUDIES
Subject
?
REPORT ON CURRICULAR ISSUES RELATINGJ
Date
_OCTOBER 18,1973
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
•
except under four conditions.
1) The documentation of the course proposed or program
change is inadequate, i.e. the answers on the course
proposal form and supporting memoranda where appropriate
do not indicate how the course fits into the program, is
too vaguely worded, etc.
ii) There is a specific reason, such as course, overlap with
another department which has not been adequately dealt
with by the Faculty Curriculum Committee. The difference
from the first condition is that SCTJS must state specif i-
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
.
S
-2-
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."
Issue 2 - OVERLAP OF
COURSE CONTENT BETWEEN COURSES OFFERED
WITHIN
A DEPART-
IIENT, WITHIN A FACULTY, ACROSS FACULTIES
MOTION: ?
"That Senate approve, as set forth in S.73-125,
a) That, In all cases where overlap in course content exists,
Faculty Curriculum Committees be charged with requiring jointly
approved and justified course proposals to be submitted by the
departments involved. Such charge
.
to apply to both departments
within a single Faculty and across Faculties.
b)
That, where a jointly approved course proposal is not forth-
coming from the departments involved., 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 - PROLIFERATION OF COURSE OFFERINGS
MOTION: ?
"That Senate approve, as set forth in. S. 73-125,
s
a) At the time of internal or external departmental review,
departments be required to review all of their course offerings
-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 OF DIRECTED READINGS, DIRECTED STUDIES AND DIRECTED RESEARCH
41
COURSES
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.
-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 research/readings/or study courses not be permitted
as substitutes for either required courses or special topics
courses."
Issue S - 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 what special topics students want to see initiated and
thus facilitate the introduction of special topics courses.)
b)
That, as general University guidelines, special topics courses
should be utilized to:
-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 departments program
3)
experiment with a particular subject matter area before
considering it for introduction into the regular curri-
culum.
c) That all Faculties recommend policies to Senate regarding the
• maximum number of such courses (or credit hours) a student may
include for credit toward the degrees of that Faculty.
d) That the present practice of having Senate approve the estab-
lishment of special topics courses for departments but not the
contents of such courses be continued.
e) That the Chairman, on the advice of the Departmental Under-
graduate Curriculum Committee, be charged with approving the
content of all special topics courses offered.
f) That once each semester, Deans of Faculties report to Senate on
topics covered under special topics, such report to include:
1)
the calendar description of each course offered, including
the course number, credit hours, vector description, course
description.
2)
a detailed description of the specific courses offered
including the name of the responsible faculty member, a
course outline and/or syllabus, a reading list, and method
of instruction.
3)
the number of students enrolled in each course.
g) That special topics courses be regarded as regularly scheduled
courses, i.e. that class meetings are held on a regular basis.
h) That vector patterns for special topics courses be deleted from
the University Calendar and incorporated into the Course Guide.
. ?
i) As a guiding principle for special topics courses, that one
contact hour be set equal to one credit hour.
• j) That where a department wishes to deviate from principle i)
above, a justification for the variance must be provided to
the Faculty and Senate Undergraduate Curriculum Committees
and to Senate."
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 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.
t
?
'S
-7-
• ?
e) That only departmental approval he required for all course
vector patterns 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
TINE
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,
0 ?
That the following criteria be established as guidelines for
-8-
40 ?
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 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."
.
is
-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 academic transfer credit. (The waiver does
not include the granting of additional formal semester hours
credit, but may remove the necessity of undertaking certain
prescribed courses.)
3)
where departmental programs have changed and eliminated
courses or otherwise substantially changed the graduation
requirements affecting the student
4)
where a student has satisfied the spirit but not the letter
of University, Faculty or departmental regulations.
c) That departmental 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."
SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
?
73,.
MMOAM
To ?
, ?
From.
Studies
.
Subject ?
L4ATIN.G.
Date.
Qc1ob.er ... 18., ... 19.73
.
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
w
produced is
described 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 Pull consideration has been given to a report• on grading
which is also before the Committee at this time.
The procedure adopted by S.C.U.$. 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,
S
however, each recommendation has been made the subject of a separate Senate
motion.
?
.
? . . ?
. ?
.
I. Mu'idge.
/mt
Eric 1.
As Revised October 9
)
1973
REPORT. TO
SENATE
FROM
SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE STUDIES
REGARDING
CURRICULAR ISSUES RELATINGTO UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION
I,
AT
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
Dr. I. Mugridge
Chairman
P.,
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
.9
?
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.
Is
?
5. The procedures for reviewing curriculum changes and
• 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. Alien,
Faculty of Education (Chairrnan);Professor H. Sharma, FacUlty of Science;
Professor J. Tietz,. Faculty of Arts; and Dr. J. Chase, Academic Planner, to
examine the issues raised by Dr. Wilson and report back to it at the earliest
possible date.
-2--
Evidential BaLs 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 acadmc 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 hàien and directors by Professor
Al ten.
4.
?
met with each of the student senators to seek their opinions on the issues
identified in the questionnaire.
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 Uniergraduate Studies now
makes the following recommendations to Senate.
-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 SCUSmust 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. ?
.
-4-
Rationale
Curriculum changes encompass:
a)
changes in departmental graduation requirements for major
and hohOrs 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.proces. 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.
2. Issue
OVERLAP OF COURSE CONTENT BETWEEN COURSES OFFERED WITHIN A DEPARTMENT,
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 orFaculty level, the issue be resolved by Senate upon
the recommendation of the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies.
Rationale
We agree that course content overlap maybe 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 therecommendation 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
I
-6 -
be required
1-0
review all of their course offerings with a view to
,eliminating those no longer appropriate to the department-
I s objectives.
b)
That justification for the continuance of any specific couse 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 11.61 courses have not been offered at all. It is on the basts of
these statistics that we-offer our recommendations for consideration.
4. ?
Issue
USE OF DIRECTED READINGS, DIRECTED STUDIES AND DIRECTED RESEARCH COURSES
Recommendations
a) That the offering of all directed reading, directed study and directed
research courses offered within a department be approved by the
Departmental Chairman. .
4 ?
'1
-7.-
b) That the chairman's approval be based upon a submission by the
instructor covering each of the following:-
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
1-his 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/and study courses for departments but
not the content of such courses be continued.
d) As a general principle, that an instructor in a directed research/
readings/or study course should expect to meet with his students 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 may take
for credit toward the degreesof 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 research/readings/or 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
•1
?
-8-
are seen as CO provLdng opportuntes for tudenta w.anting either i..n-depth
treatment of particular areas sumrnarFly covered i'n lecture or seminar courses)
or new topics of mutual interest to students and faculty, (ii) being
appropriate only for students enrol led.in the upper levels, and (iii) being
appropriate for groups of students, as well as students working independently.
The directed readings/studies/research l'abels'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 aone
hour meeting per week for a three credit curse, 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.aH 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 Seháte.
• ?
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
• ? -9 -
courses. To this end, we have made the ahové recornmsndatLons.
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 initial contact would give departments
an opportunity to learn what special topics students want to see initiated
and thus facilitate the introduction of special topics courses.)
b) That, as general University guidelines, special topics courses should
be utilized to:
I) fill a particular gap in a department's curriculum
2)
respond to student/faculty interests which are worthwhile at the
moment but not n.ecessarily
.
of continuing relevance to a department's
program
3)
experiment 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 max.lmum
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:
- 10.-
I) the calendar description of each course offered, including the
course number,.credit hours, vector description, course description.
2)
a detailed description of the specific courses offered including
the name of the responsible faculty member, a course outline and/or
syllabus, a reading list, and method of instruction.
3)
the number of students enrolled in each course.
g)
That special topics courses be regarded as regularly scheduled courses,
i.e. that class meetings are held on a regular basis.
h)
That vector patterns for special topics courses be deleted from the
University Calendar and incorporated into the Course Guide.
i)
As a guiding principle for special topics courses, that one contact hour
be set equal to One credit hour.
j)
That where a department wishes to deviate from principle i) above, a
Justification for the variance must be provided to the Faculty and
Senate Undergraduate Curriculum Committees and to Senate.
Rationale
Special topics courses are currently offered by departments in all four
Faculties.
Some departmônts 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 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 sti I I other cases, special
topics courses are taken as teaching overloads by members of regular feculty,
Special topics courses become part of the regular curriculum only i
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/.tudies/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 spedial 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
40 ?
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
S
lecture, tutorial, seminar or laboratory as approved by Senate.
- 12 -
is
Recommendation
1. That, the determination of the appropriate relationship between credit
and contact hours rest with departmental undergraduate curriculum
committees subject to the approval of Faculty Curriculum Committees,
the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies, and Senate.
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 a one-to-one basis but the amount of contact time per
credit'hour Increases with Upper division courses. In other areas of the
Faculty of -Interdisciplinary Studies, the relationship depends primarily
on the amount of outside class work required although follow-up is wék.
For lower division 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.
The major point of variation within the Faculty of Arts is that different
departments, and sometimes different courses within the same department,
p
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
r
.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 onehour
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 redit
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 relations hip 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.
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 the lack 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 tomerit
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 p
p esent
r cirriculum 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 Comittees, the
Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies and Senate.
7. Issue
USE OF VECTOR PATTERNS
.
(FOR REGULARLY SCHEDULED.COURSES)
Recomendations
a) That all vector
patterns
be eliminated from University Calendars
b') That each-course description contained in University calendars be
accompanied by an indicati:on of the nature of the course, e.g. lecture/
• :.. ?
. ?
- 15 -
tutortal , lecture/tutortal /lahoratory seminar, etc.
c)
That within the total number of contact hours assigned to acoure, and
subject to the approva.l 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+he 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] h 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 utilized. In some. cases
vector patterns indicate the lecture, tutorial, laboratory pattern of a course.
Othersutl.11ze 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 hot bear any relationship to either the contact hours of the
course or the credit hours assigned to it.
b)
need not reflect the way in which the course is actually taught.
c) will vary from semester to semester for individual courses dependent upon
the instructor
d)
serve no useful purpose in the University's Calendar
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 information on both will be supplied .to
•1
?
MVIE
students in advance of the course. We recognize that individual faculty
0
?
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 believethat 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 semester hour 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
17
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.
9. ?
Isje
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
as indicated in the published Calendar in effect at the time of declaration.
A change of major is deemed to be a new declaration. A 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 ofany 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' consideration
of whether Individual students have fulfilled graduation requirements. Second,
and more serious is that substantial numbers of students take considerably
0
0
-
18 -
longer than fOur or five
,
ears 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 thm 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 i'sable to build adegree program on the graduationre,quirements
contained in a specificcalendar.
The primary lisadvantage3 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
My change.'
I
We see advantages to both approaches. However, given the extent to which
4
departmental and Faculty graduation requirements have changed since the inception
of the University, we are more inclined toward the latter than the former approach.
I
10. ?
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 cth'ric1um. 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. F*rst, 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
i
:
ntroduced curriculum changes.niay be adequately assessed.
ii; Issue
CRITERIA FOR NUMBERING COURSES
C ?
-
20 -
Recommendations
a) That the following criteria be established as guidelines for departments
in determining the numbér4evels 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 orrelated 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 thêir•third'añd 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 disciplines; both content
and teaching level will be more advanced than courses
:
offered, at the
200 level; students will normally be expected to enroll in' such courses
during their fifth and
.
sixth levels of University; only ineexceptional
circumstances will courses offered at this level not have pre- and/or
co-requisites associated with them.
5)
400 level course's
assume
--
assubstantiveamount of'previous learning
experiences in eithe-'the discipline or related disciplines; •bothqntent
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.
d
-21-
Rationale
,
?
Currently, -there are n University guidelines available for determining 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 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 tOO, 200, 300, 400 course numbering
policy. For example, the Department of English has no 300 level courses. Such
deviations from the recommendations shou$d.be permitted provided they are
acceptable to the Faculty CurricUlum Committee, Senate Committee on 'Undergraduate
, ?
Studies and Senate.
12. ?
Issue
OPERATINGPROCEDURES FOR 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:
1)
where a student has been misadvised and can provide substantive 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.)
-!
.
-22-
3)
where departmental .
programs have changed and ci imtriated courses or
otherwise substantially changed the graduation requirements affecting
the stdent'
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 whereaffirmative 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 practices also vary. In some cases, documentation is maintained
by the Department for its own majors and honors students, in other cases
a
23
by the Dean's offices and in stH I others, by both. Clearly there is
insufficient communicaton with the 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 Th
which waivers are granted. We recognize, however, that such cases occur and
that provision needs to be made for them in the context of University policy.
To ensure as much consistency as possible in the granting of waivers across
the University, we believe that only departmental chairmen should be
empowered to waive departmental regulations and deans to waive Faculty
regulations, upon the recommendation of departmental undergraduate curriculum
committees and Faculty undergraduate. curriculum committees respectively.
We do not envision however, that all individual cases wi I I 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.
?
.
0
