Attending Voting Members: Gruia Calinescu (CS), Promila Dhar (BME), Erin Hazard (HUM), Steve Kleps (CAEE), Kathiravan Krishnamurthy (FDSN), Eva Kultermann (ARCH), Nicole Legate (PSYC), Yuting Lin (BIOL), David Maslanka (AMAT), Erdal Oruklu (ECE), Victor Perez-Luna (CHBE), Ray Trygstad (ITM/Secretary), John Twombly (SSB), Murat Vural (MMAE), Ben Zion (CHEM), Fred Weening (Chair)

Also Attending: Daniel Bliss (SSCI), Anri Brod (Libraries), Diane Fifles (University Accred), Saran Ghatak (SSCI), Joseph Gorzkowski (AA), Kyle Hawkins (AMP), Melanie Jones (Armour Academy), Sang Baum Kang (SSB), Christopher Lee (Registrar), Melisa Lopez (Student Success & Retention), Gabriel Martinez (Armour Academy), Tracey McGee (ELS), Abby McGrath (Enrollment Services), Nick Menhart (DVP Accreditation), Jamshid Mohammadi (GSC), Kathleen Nagle (ARCH), Nichole Novak (Libraries), Shamiah Okhai (LCSL), Joseph Orgel (VPAA), Georgia Papavasiliou (Armour), Ayesha Qamer (Registrar), Markie Rhodes (UG Admissions), Hannah Ringler (CAC), Kelly Roark (CLI), Zipporah Robinson (Academic Success), Gabrielle Smith (AA), Mary Jorgenson Sullivan (ELS), Liad Wagman (SSB/CSL), Jeff Wereszczynski (PHYS/BIOL)

Prior to beginning the agenda, Chair Fred Weening welcomed Associate Professor Gruia Calinescu to the Undergraduate Studies Committee as the new representative for Computer Science.

1. Approval of minutes from 1/30/2024 meeting.

   The motion by Kathiravan Krishnamurthy to approve the 1/30/2024 minutes was seconded by Eva Kultermann and was passed by unanimous consent.

2. Updates from Academic Affairs.
   Joseph Orgel’s remarks in summary:
   Noting in the agenda that we have some approval items, anything under the incubator program is primarily something that combines 2 existing programs. THis does not mean that it has to involve more than one academic unit, just in in case that pertains to anything that we cover today. The incubator program is to encourage the prototyping of incubator opportunities through expediated temporary authorization, done in such a way that doesn't involve creating more busy work for us.

   In regard to early warning and early intervention, I made some remarks at UFC butI want to keep putting out the signal. Many of you receive those alerts from the new system. We're getting good feedback and good usage. If you have feedback on how to improve the system or to improve your understanding of the system, please send that to Early Intervention. Administrators. If you need to send that to me, by all means, and I'll forward it on as soon as I am able. Part of the reason why we started that process early is because of significant student challenges. We've discussed the probationary trends that we have, i.e. more and more students are not succeeding in their classes en mass. I believe the undergraduate side is certainly at a historic high; but we're talking about tenths of a percent historic high. But also remember previous to that we had done something amazing and reduced our probationary standing significantly. So we're coming back up to the old trends that we thought we had put behind us. One of the ways in which we're hoping to address this is by better using the integrated communications plan that we have with early warning early intervention. It is not an instant chat to somebody who's going to intervene immediately. It's a communication plan from the observations of instructors to the advisers, to the cohort leads and directors. We do have an extra step in the middle, which has a couple of my personnel reading through every single report in case we see something that might be more urgent—but we don't want an urgent message transmitted that way. If something's urgent, please reach out to the appropriate office to raise the alarm. If you're seeing something that seems to be of concern, go ahead and report that, and be appropriate in the message. One of the reasons why we have the personnel going through all of records is that it might be that an individual instructor sees something seems a bit hinky, but they don't know what it is—but an administrator will see 6 such messages and go “Oh, I see a heck of a pattern, or will see 2 messages and say, I think this is well worth a Resident Assistant making a knock on the door and checking in.” So that's the kind of process that we follow and it does lead to much more positive outcomes than we might see otherwise. Also keep in mind that our students are pretty delicate in unpredictable ways. We're seeing responses in terms of the student's overall health to the occasional terse remark or not feeling supported that are more extreme than we are normally used to. Just be mindful that whilst we are pressured, so are they, and they have less experience with dealing with it. Do with that information whatever you will, but the care of our students inside and outside of the classroom is a charge to the faculty and the Faculty Handbook. And again, the Central Administrative services will assist: that that's major reason why we're here is to help and assist and if you want that assistance to be a collaborative discussion—a check in talk—then we're perfectly willing to do that as well with you, not just with the students.

   The last item that I have prepared: discussion in the Graduate Studies Committee is going to affect and lead to discussions in UGSC in the near future. Tthe discussions are in the nature of the shared credits in the Co-Terminal / Accelerated Master's (AMP) programs. There is a desire by a number of units to increase system-wide the minimum level of shared credits. There is a mixed response. I just want to make sure that everybody is aware, and can start discussions in their units about the palatability of increasing the minimum number of shared credit credits in the AMP. I will say that although HLC says that we can go up to 50% of the shared credits, there's something to think about—I'm not sure the IBHE is as generous. I'm not sure other accreditors are as generous. I do know there is a business implication to increasing the number of shared credits in terms of enrolment income, and I have inquiries with enrollment, with senior leadership, and with accreditation on each of these questions. I want to roll that into the Graduate Studies initial conversation, report, and then bring that to UGSC, when that's a little bit tidier. Lastly, I want to point out that under our existing rules we are able to go up to 15 credit hours, if an academic unit that is interested in doing so asks and is approved. We actually have that structure right now, and we're developing guidelines to make that clearer and a process to make that smoother because it is really not used. Those are my initial remarks, and I'm open for questions, if you have any.

   Murat Vural asked a question regarding this possibility of increasing share credits from 9 to a higher value. What's the rationale behind that move? Our students can already complete an accelerated master's program within 5 years. So it doesn't make much sense to decrease up to 4.8 years, which is not going to be be possible anyway, and 50% reduction, if you go all the way to the 15 shared credits, it sounds way too much, and it will also create a significant imbalance between students pursuing an extrated masters here versus the international students who come here to get their masters degree. My department is strongly opposed to this change, but they want to know also the rationale behind such a consideration.

   Joseph Orgel replied, I will observe that I am not sure that there is a coherent rationale. I will tell you that I put it on the Graduate Studies Committee agenda because there were requests to discuss it. I think there is not a business case for it presented yet, there is not a way of dealing with each of the accreditation bodies, concerns for it, and to your point that has not been addressed. I will observe that we are an institution of multiple different disciplines, and while it's lovely that we find situations where one size does fit all we should not presume that because one size has fitted all we can keep increasing that size for all. So I think what you're saying makes sense for your discipline, and I don't imagine our committees would be willing to disenfranchise a single unit on an academic and brand point, especially when there's a business case attached to that as well. I think what will happen is we'll probably leave the AMP intact as it is, and and initiate an easier process for units that are able to support more credit sharing to do so. I think that structure already exists. We'll present that report this week, I believe we're almost ready with it. As to why, there is a vague suggestion that it will improve the recruitment of students. I haven't seen that being provinced yet. I haven't seen that in discussion. I'm sorry that that isn't very clear. And I'm looking for that clarity myself, too.

3. An overview of proposed changes to English Language Services courses to become for-credit courses for Fall 2024 was presented by Tracey McGee.
   Illinois Tech English Language Services currently offers discrete skills courses. That means that each of these English language communication courses focuses on listening or speaking or reading and writing. They're commonly referred to as PESL, which is their course code, but that tends to be how they're known at the university. There are numerous benefits to these. Ultimately it allows students who've been admitted below the minimum test scores to be admitted in such as way that we can help them and develop a new language, become acclimated to university life and studying in the US, with a cohort of their peers with working with qualified faculty, who are experienced in second language acquisition and working with international students. There have been challenges since the program as currently structured requires more coursework, often adding a semester and sometimes two to their degree programs. They are always scheduling conflicts with some some departments, and between core and major courses and PSL.

   

   The new program will feature courses known as CAPS: Communication for Academic and Professional Success, and will replace the existing PESL courses. These courses have been created in cooperation with the Communication and Humanities Core Curriculum Subcommittees to offer these courses within the Core Curriculum framework. We are also moving towards placement based on TOEFL/IELTS scores decreasing the need for in-person testing, benefiting students in terms of scheduling earlier degree completion, and allowing students to register in advance for their required English language courses. Currently these students show up and test with us in person before they can register. The Communications subcommittee has approved that the ELS Reading / Writing I course will be offered to required undergrads as COM 111, which is aligned to greatest possible extent with COM 101, with specific focus on language and acculturation needs of incoming international students; and the ELS Reading / Writing II course to be offered to required undergrads as sections of HUM 200, aligned to greatest possible extent with other HUM 200 sections, with specific focus on language acquisition through the lens of global issues and themes in selected pieces of literature. We are also requesting the Communication and Humanities Core Curriculum Subcommittees approve the ELS Listening / Speaking I course be offered as COM 112 with H and C designations, and the ELS Listening / Speaking II course be offered as COM 212 with H and C designations. There will also be a new non-credit advanced speaking course CAPS 039 Advanced Communication for Multilingual Speakers. These courses would also benefit multilingual students who are not required to take English language courses as a condition of admission but who would benefit from additional language support and instruction; these courses would provide them the opportunity to hone their communication skills while completing Core Curriculum requirements.

   Hannah Ringler added context from the humanities side and stated that they are super supportive of this. As the program is run currently, there is duplicative content between PESL and COM and HUM courses, which is a source of frustration for both faculty and students. Kathleen Nagle asked if this will reduce the number of ESL courses students will take, as currently they take as many as six, which in architecture makes it very difficult to try to figure out which other courses can be pushed back. Tracey McGee responded that as shown on the diagram above that eight courses would be reduced to four, not all students would bneed to take all four, and they would receive Core Curriculum or free elective credit for three of the four courses.

Following this presentation, Joseph Orgel brought up an urgent concern about making promises about professional certifications that we can offer articulation support for in the Coursera programbut without approvals being made through our customary processes. There is a need for those involved to make some entries into the approval process if there is a plan to offer professional certificates in place of credit bearing courses, and to make that presentation to UGSC or GSC as appropriate. At the moment we have a miscommunication between some academic units and our Coursera integration, where there appears to have been approval that is incomplete for certificates, unless everybody is missing something and we need to to clean this up. The proposals are to offer articulation credit for one or 2 classes per program and there isn't anything other than reasonable in a suggestion, but it's not just up to any one individual; it needs to be reviewed by the curricular reviewing authorities of this institution. This concerns professional certifications from, say IBM or Meta, or so forth. If those are going to be used as transfer credits that needs to follow procedure, we can do that student by student right now by applying as per normal and we can do that more en mass by coming to this committee and to Graduate Studies to get that approved. It is pretty straightforward, but it has now become urgent because of that miscommunication. The committee then returned to the agenda.

4. The recommendation of the (S) designator subcommittee for PSYC 330 was presented by the Chair Fred Weening.
   The assement documentation and the syllabus for this course were made available to the committtee, and Nicky Legate from the subcommittee was present to answer any questions. There no questions. Since the report came from a subcommittee no motion was necessary.

   The assignment of an (S) designation was for PSYC 330 was approved by a vote of 13-0.

5. The Second Reading of the new program Bachelor of Science in Public Policy was presented by Daniel Bliss.
   Public Policy will have 32 required credits with up to six credits shared with another major and is far more flexible to allow students to construct a specialization. This is in distinct contrast to this kind of program public universities but is in line with other private institutions and AITU competitors. The rationale for the program is to impart core social science skills such as critical thinking, analytical problem solving, a wide variety of research skills on both the quantum and the qualitative side of the spectrum, communication presentation skills including cultural competency, cross disciplinary understanding, and the ability to to contribute to multi-disciplinary teams in multicultural settings. The program as designed reflects the reality of the modern workplace, which is that public policy knowledge is increasingly important in various management and executive and consulting roles.

   A motion to approve the Bachelor of Science in Public Policy degree program was made by Ray Trygstad and was seconded by Eva Kultermann. The motion passed on a vote of 14 - 0.

6. A proposed change to the Bachelor of Information Technology and Management degree was presented by Ray Trygstad.
   The proposal is to add MATH 192 Finite Mathematics as an additional mathematics requirement for the Bachelor of Information Technology and Management and to subtract 3 hours of free electives. The ITM Department did not believe this to be a significant change to the degree. This would bring this program more in line with what are recognized mathematics knowledge areas for students in this particular discipline. Gruia Calinescu asked how many free electives are in the current degree and Ray responded three, so after this change there would be two required free elective courses; it was noted that this program also has a required minor.

   A motion to approve this change to the Bachelor of Information Technology and Management was made by Ray Trygstad and was seconded by John Twombly. The motion passed on a vote of 15 - 0.

7. A Report & Proposal C-designation learning outcomes was very briefly discussed by subcommittee chair Hannah Ringler.
   This updated proposal about the C learning outcomes includes a long justification of of the outcomes in terms of both current research and pedagogy, as well as what we've learned from our faculty and our kind of unique situation at Illinois Tech. She discussed the fact that there are perhaps some tweaks that need to me made in assessment and following that a further updated version of the report will be brought to the full UGSC at a future meeting.

8. Humanities programs requested to be put on hiatus were presented by Erin Hazard.
   Degree programs requested to be placed on hiatus are:

   • Bachelor of Science in Communication: Journalism of Science
   • Bachelor of Science in Communication: Journalism of Technology and Business
   • Bachelor of Science in Communication: Professional and Technical Communication
   • Bachelor of Science in Digital Humanities
   Minor programs requested to be placed on hiatus are:
   • English Language and Literature
   • History
   • Information Architecture
   • Linguistics
   • Literature
   • Philosophy
   • Policy and Ethics
   • Professional and Technical Communication
   • Science and Technology Studies
   • Urban Studies

   The Humanities Department would like to place these majors, these minors, plus the BS in general communication, on hiatus. Hannah Ringler will be presenting a BS in Data Visualization, Information, and Communication which would basically replace the old BS in general communication. Many of these programs are reliant on faculty no longer with the department or are not popular.

   A discussion followed regarding the need to teach out all of the programs with currently enrolled students, and it was pointed out the that the purpose of hiatus is exactly to do that; no new students are accepted but the program is not eliminated until all students have completed. It was requested that the Humanities Department provide current enrollment numbers for all of these programs. It was also asked if journalism will be a part of the new degree and the answer was not formally, because the department does not have the faculty to support journalism at this time. This was the first reading of this request so no vote was taken.

9. A proposal to phase out five Bachelor of Science programs in Chemistry was presented by Benjamin Zion.
   Degree programs requested to be placed on hiatus or eliminated are:

   • COMC Computational Chemistry and Biochemistry (on hiatus already)
   • ENCH Environmental Chemistry (place on hiatus for reformulation as a specialization)
   • FORC Forensic Chemistry (place on hiatus for reformulation as a specialization)
   • MEDC Medicinal Chemistry (place on hiatus for reformulation as a specialization)
   • BIOC Bioanalytical Chemistry

   The Chemistry Department is just stretched too thin to support all of these majors, and it was noted that most of them have have low enrollment.

   Again, following some brief discussion it was requested that the department provide current enrollment numbers for all of these programs. This was the first reading of this request so no vote was taken..

As there was no further time, the Chair adjourned the meeting at 1:46 pm.