Minutes from Social Sciences Task Force Meeting of November 14, 2008
The Social Science Task Force met Friday, November 14, 2008 from 1:00 PM to 3:30
PM at Rio Grande Campus in Room 125. The following faculty members were in
attendance: Geoff Andron, Karen Bell, Mary Beth Booth, Kristyn Brown, Jack
Bucco, Mary Chipley, Clint Davis, Carol Hayman, Sherry Heiden, James Hill,
1. The agenda for the meeting was approved.
NEW
Agenda:
1.
Approve agenda.
2.
Approve minutes from last meeting which can be found at: http://www.austincc.edu/SOCSCI/Minutes/meet_09_19_08.htm.
3.
Discuss developing THECB/SACS pre- and post tests for ANTH 2351 or ANTH 2302,
ECON 2301, and GEOG 1302 or GEOG 1303 for next academic year. Since we are
supposed to rotate through the courses we teach and the exemplary learning
objectives each course is supposed to achieve when we do our annual evaluations
of course effectiveness, we need to move on to evaluate different courses next
year. Hence we need to form committees for each discipline that will develop
evaluation instruments that we can use to such purpose next academic year.
4.
Discuss and take action on Master Syllabi for Geog 2471 (modifications),
GISC 1421, and GISC 2401.
5.
Discuss and possibly take action on changing the wording of the course
description of ANTH 2389, Academic Cooperative, so that it is not just for
Archaeology.
6. Discuss
and take action of a proposal to create an IA position in
anthropology/geography with the $20K of hourly money in the anthropology
budget. Mike Pool will make the presentation.
7.
Discuss the cancellation of the Peruvian Study Abroad Summer Program for the
coming summer. The Task Force chair will outline the chain of events that
led to this situation. Carol Hayman, the programs creator and director, will
then comment on the situation. Discussion will follow and, if needed, motions
will be entertained for Task Force statements or actions.
8.
Discuss and possibly take action on the Summer Institute in
9.
Textbook approvals:
A) Sherry Heiden would like to present
a new lab manual for approval to be used in Honors Physical Anthropology.
It's
by Samantha M. Hens, title: Method and Practice in Biological Anthropology (A
Workbook and Laboratory Manual for Introductory Courses),
ISBN-13: 978-0-13-225006-1 and available through Prentice Hall.
B) Approve a textbook for GEOG 1421,
raster-based GIS.
10.
Discuss whether faculty in the department would be interested in a late spring
party in which participants would chip in to rent a party boat on
11.
Remind faculty of the Social Science Book Club. The club will meet immediately
after the task force meeting ends to discuss the book: The
Mind of the Market: Compassionate Apes, Competitive Humans, and Other Tales
from Evolutionary Economics -
Michael Shermer. Six faculty development hours will be awarded to those
who participate. The discussion will take place in the same room as the task
force meeting. At 5 pm we will retire to the Tavern for further discussion.
12. Adjourn.
Discussion: Since we are supposed to rotate through the courses we teach we need to move on to evaluate different courses next year. Hence we need to form committees for each discipline that will develop evaluation instruments that we can use to such purpose next academic year. Jim mentioned that Rachel had sent out the EEO post tests to all professors that were teaching 16week lecture Physical Anthropology, Physical Geography and Microeconomics courses. If you have not received your post tests please contact Rachel at 223-8132 or rdayton@austincc.edu. Jim reminded everyone to send their completed post tests and materials back to Rachel at the Pinnacle by the end of the semester. Jim mentioned that we are currently using the same EEO’s that we used in the spring. We need to change our educational goals for next year for some of our objectives or choose other courses to evaluate. EEO #12 only applies to Cultural Anthropology and Archaeology but not to Physical Anthropology. Jim mentioned that the Economics department would need to create pre/post tests for Macroeconomics for next year. The Geography department would now conduct pre/post tests on Cultural Geography. The Anthropology department would now conduct pre/post tests on Cultural Anthropology. Jim suggested that the questions for Anthropology be reviewed and possibly made more difficult since there was not much variation between the pretest and the post test in Physical Anthropology. Jim also requested that Don look at the Geography questions because one of them seemed simple enough for a student not taking Geography to get correct. Don Jonsson asked if the old SACS questions for Cultural Geography would be suitable to use again. He also asked if there was any data on the results for these questions when used as SACS questions to see how well the students did. Mary Beth believed that only Economics had provided a breakdown of the questions or statistical analysis of which items proved too easy or too difficult. She believed that Anthropology and Geography simply reported overall results. Jim said he would look to see if there was data on these questions and results for Geography and Anthropology. Jim asked for volunteers to for each discipline to create new questions for the next Academic year.
Decision: The Economics department would need to create pre/post tests for Macroeconomics for next year. The Geography department would now conduct pre/post tests on Cultural Geography. The Anthropology department would now conduct pre/post tests on Cultural Anthropology. The volunteers from each department are as follows: Lizzie Pintar and Karen Bell for Cultural Anthropology; Don Jonsson for Cultural Geography and Al Slivinske and Marianna Sidoryanskaya for Macroeconomics.
Discussion: The only change to the master syllabi for GEOG 2471 was the course name. Mary Beth mentioned that the course name had been changed to GIS II which will hopefully go into effect in the fall of 2010 once it was approved by the Curriculum Committee. The task force agreed to let the department change the course name on the master syllabi for GEOG 2471 to GIS as soon as it is approved by the Curriculum committee without having to represent the item to the task force. The master syllabi for GISC 1421 and GISC 2401 is set by the Curriculum Board and has to include the exact course description and course outcomes and objectives without any variations. Please click here for GEOG 2471, GISC 1421, and GISC 2401.
Decision: The task force approved the master syllabi.
Here is the current course description for the Academic Cooperative: ANTH 2389 ACADEMIC COOPERATIVE IN ANTHROPOLOGY (3-1-5). Integrates on-campus study with practical hands-on experience in anthropology. In conjunction with class seminars, the student will set specific goals and objectives in the study of anthropology, especially archaeological methods and processes. Insurance: $3.50Skills: I Prerequisites: ANTH 2302. ( ) Course Type: T
Discussion: Clint Davis asked for the course description of ANTH 2389 to be more general. There was discussion on including the word mentoring in the course description to give students a better idea of what the course would involve. Jim explained that the course included a 3-1-5 designation. The three stands for the amount of credit hours the course is worth. The one stands for the amount of time the students will need to meet in the classroom and the five stands for the amount of time the students should expect to put into the class per week. There was discussion on how the professor teaching the Academic Coop was paid in leh. Mary Beth explained that for every three students registered in the course the instructor is paid one LEH. A motion was made to cross out the following from the course description, “especially archaeological methods and processes”. The task force would then like to add the words “or archaeology” in place of the stricken phrase. Sherry Heiden expressed a concern that students were not aware they had the option of doing field work and that they should be given examples of what had previously been done. Clint suggested that the course description should indicate that the professor would be in a mentor situation and that the course would meet in a small group. Carol Hayman suggested that we take out the Archaeology 2302 prerequisite. Mary Chipley suggested that the students should have at least taken one Anthropology course in order to be able to complete the work in Anthropology 2389. The task force discussed adding the three Anthropology courses and the word OR to indicate that any Anthropology course would work as a prerequisite for ANTH 2389. Their concern was that students attempting to take ANTH 2389 without prior knowledge of Anthropology would not be familiar with the concepts and therefore unable to apply them. Jim asked whether or not the course description should say directed study or was the task force suggesting mentoring? Jim explained that the Government Academic Cooperative was set up more as an internship where the students were given opportunities to work with legislators or other officials. Mary Chipley explained that her Academic Cooperative courses have so far been more like a directed study and not an internship. She explains that they are supported research projects. Carol Hayman suggested that the students could be enrolled concurrently in an Anthropology course and the Academic Cooperative. The task force discussed adding the two other Anthropology courses as prerequisites or dropping the prerequisite requirements for ANTH 2389 altogether. The task force suggested adding the phrase one on one in the course description. Karen Bell suggested adding an explanation that concurrent registration would be acceptable. Mary Beth suggested that the course description include instructor approval.
Decision: The task force approved a motion to cross out the following from the course description, “especially archaeological methods and processes” and replace them with the words “or archaeology.” The sentence affected would now read, “In conjunction with class seminars, the student will set specific goals and objectives in the study of anthropology or archaeology.” Another motion was made to change the prerequisite for the course from ANTH 2302 to ANTH 2301 OR ANTH 2302 OR ANTH 2351 OR by instructor approval. This motion passed by unanimous consent.
Discussion: Karen Bell asked if anyone other than Mike Pool would qualify to be an IA in Anthropology and Geography. Mike explained that he was trying to make the instructor associate position more attractive to the dean by having students in two disciplines receive tutoring. Mary Chipley asked how the 20 hours per week would be allocated. Mike mentioned that the IA could spend time in the learning labs and or creating contact lists for the Academic Cooperatives. He mentioned that the IA would be split his time between the Northridge campus and the South Austin Campus. Mike explained that discipline based tutoring for Anthropology and Geography is not available on campuses. He felt that students taking Physical Anthropology have basic questions in mathematics that the tutors should be willing to assist them with but are not currently helping them with. Mary Beth mentioned that she would be happy to keep the IA busy with the numerous questions she receives from GIS students that want additional tutoring. Michael Petrowsky asked if we could have the IA act as a mentor. Clint asked if we could eliminate the word tutor. There was discussion on whether the IA could help with the Academic Cooperatives but it was said that the dean felt this was the responsibility of the faculty teaching the Academic Cooperative courses. Mary Chipley asked who the IA would report to and Jim Sondgeroth said that the IA would report to the department chair. Jim mentioned that IA’s would be able to receive fulltime benefits. Clint Davis made a motion to drop the A item from the proposal and add Econ to B. Jim mentioned that ECON 2389 had not been approved by the task force to be offered at ACC. Mary Beth mentioned that we could put ECON 2389 pending approval by task force. Some felt the inclusion of the word tutor would strengthen the proposal and some felt that mentioning tutoring would hurt the proposal. James Hill asked if the instructional associates would be working out of the learning lab. Jim said he thought the I A’s work out of numerous offices. Jim mentions that if this proposal is approved by the task force it would then be sent to the dean for approval. If the dean approves the proposal it would still need to be sent to the Vice President and so on. Then the position would have to be posted and interviews would be conducted. Clint asked for a motion to remove the word tutoring from the proposal. The motion did not pass but many were abstaining from the vote.
Decision: Mary Beth made a motion to add Econ 2389 if approved by task force at future task force meeting. She suggested removing the word “if” to add Geog as elective. Motion seconded. Passed 5 to 4. A motion was made to approve Mike Pool’s proposal. The vote was taken by secret ballot. Jim summarized the motion to change the proposal by removing the word Hourly position in the title and hourly in the 1st sentence. 16 for, 1 abstain, 4 against. The motion was approved.
Presentation: James Sondgeroth presented this item. There were a couple of complaints regarding the Peruvian program this past summer. One student went to Frank Flauto, director of International Programs, and the other student and her mother met with Donetta Goodall, VP of Academic Affairs. Frank invited Jim to a meeting he had arranged with student #1. He assured Jim that the complaints were financial in nature and did not involve any sort of professor complaint so Jim did not attend the meeting with student #1. In hindsight, Jim admitted that not attending this meeting was a mistake, though he should have insisted that all complaints about courses and programs under our task force’s auspices should be directed to the department chair of the task force. Student #2 went directly to the president who sent the student to Donetta Goodall. Neither Jim nor Carol Hayman was consulted regarding either of the students’ concerns. In particular, Carol Hayman was not asked by either Frank Flauto or Donetta Goodall for her side of the story in each case. With the help of the Dean Jim obtained the telephone numbers of each student. Jim called the two students and requested a meeting with them to discuss their issues. The first student complained that she had to pay too much extra to have her own room. Jim’s position after looking at the complaint was that the student was told by Carol that she would have to pay 300.00 extra for their own room ahead of time. The student agreed to pay this amount. Later because of problems with one of the three hostels used wanting more money, students came to believe that $8.00 per day had been budgeted for lodging. All sorts of invidious comparisons about the quality of the rooms and how many students were in each room sprang up because of this belief. Students #1 then asked Carol for a receipt for her private room. The receipt showed the room cost $370.00. Student #2 hence believed that she had been overcharged since the regular program charge included a budget of $240 for lodging ($8*30 days) and she paid an extra $300 for a private room bringing her total costs for lodging to $540. She felt she had been overcharged by $170. Jim felt this was similar to ordering a la carte and accepting the prices until you find out how much the ingredients costs. Jim’s written response to this complaint, with the student’s information redacted, can be found here: http://www.austincc.edu/SOCSCI/Complaints/complaint1Peru.doc.
Student #2 and her mother met with Donetta Goodall. The
mother’s charges were quite inflammatory and led to an angry meeting between
the VP and Frank Flauto immediately after the meeting. With the help of the
Dean, Jim acquired the student’s phone number and met with the student and her
father in his office. What follows is a partial compendium of her complaints:
1) The hostel/hotel she stayed in was of poor quality; 2) That she had to sleep
with damp sheets one night in the cool but humid desert air of Lima; 3) There
was a terrible mold problem in the hostel/hotel to which she had horrible
allergies; 4) The student’s life was put in danger because of the altitude sickness
during a train trip to a weekend visit to Juancayo. The student claimed that
Carol abandoned them and said they were on their own on the trip there and once
they arrived. The student claimed that she had an anxiety attack while on the
train because of the thinness of the air and she thought she was going to die.
That Carol and her husband had taken altitude sickness pills before the trip
but had not offered any to the students. 5) The student complained that Carol’s
husband accompanied the group saying that this was just a vacation for Carol. 6)
The student complained that they were told by Carol they would be able to get a
cell phone for use during the course. Apparently the only place to get a cell
phone, according to the student, was at the airport. The student claims Carol
did not help them find one at the airport. Once the student left the airport,
again according to the student, there was no way to obtain a cell phone. 7) The
student was upset that there were men going on the trip and was told that the
men and women would be staying at different hostels. This was true except that
the hostel that the women stayed at was not for women only and therefore had other
men not on the trip staying there. 8) Carol claimed the program ended on July 2nd
but apparently the program ended on June 25th. The students were
told they could then tour
Because the student provided Jim with an email from Carol saying that the program would end on July 2, Jim decided he would refund the student four days of the estimated lodging budget of $8 a day, or $32. This he did pay to the student out of his own pocket. The letter he sent to the student with the student’s identity redacted can be found here: http://www.austincc.edu/SOCSCI/Complaints/complaint2Peru.doc.
Jim reviewed the complaints and made recommendations to make clear the classes end sometime before the 29th. The students should be told they can leave anytime after the Blessing of the Fishes. Jim recommended that much more money be asked from the students but Carol wanted to leave the program as affordable as possible so that more students could have this experience. Jim recommended that the students be required to stay at the same hotel as the professor.
Jim found out that the international programs office had already removed the Peruvian program from their summer 2009 fliers before discussing anything with Carol or himself. When Carol learned this, she met with Frank Flauto who told her he was recommending that the Peruvian program be canceled permanently. When asked for the reasons behind this decision, he listed a number of them but would not provide anything in writing to her. She was not allowed to defend herself against the charges.
Jim then complained to the Dean that this recommendation was made without looking into the other side of the stories. Indeed at this time neither Frank Flauto nor Donetta Goodall had invited Carol to visit with them to give her side of the story. The Dean talked to the interim VP of Academic Affairs, Mike Midgley, who then agreed to hear from Carol, Karen Bell, and Jim. Mike Midgley heard them out and said he would talk to others before he made the decision. On November 5th the Vice President still had not told Carol or Jim what the decision was regarding the Peruvian program. The international Program committing had a meeting on Friday November 7th and Jim recommended to Carol that she ask that an item regarding the Peruvian program be added to the agenda. Carol requested the item, and an item was added that said “any other issues” as the last item on the agenda. Jim told the Dean that a decision had not been made as of Nov. 5th and that he had recommended that Carol put the item on the International Programs Committee meeting of the 7th. Carol was notified on Nov. 6th that the interim VP had decided to cancel the program for this year, leaving open the chance that it could continue in future years if Peruvian programs problems with organization and communication were resolved. The letter sent to Carol by email did not specify what those problems were or suggest how to correct them.
Jim said there were two major problems with this whole story: First- The Administration did not follow their own Administrative Rules on how such complaints were to be handled. That is that all such complaints should be referred to the Department Chair over the programs, courses, or faculty members against whom complaints are being lodged. Jim felt that not having experience in dealing with such complaints they panicked and made some bad decisions. Second: The Administration did not meet with Carol until quite late in the game (when Mike Midgley met with her) after the program had already been informally cancelled even if the formal decision had not been made. Carol was not provided with an itemized list of what needed to be improved and what improvements needed to be made; they just simply cancelled the program.
Discussion by task force: Michael Petrowsky asked that a secret vote be taken and that the task force go to the board to ask that the Peruvian program be reinstituted in the summer of 2009.Michael added that Carol should have been notified of the necessary changes in writing and that he feels this department needs to take a stand on this. Al Slivinske added that the evaluation procedure involves a needs improvement category and that there has to be some sort of process followed to let a faculty member know what improvements need to be made and then give them a chance to improve them. Al felt that the Vice President has done a great job as the interim vice president but that he felt this decision should also be reviewed by the new Vice President. Mary Booth mentioned that any concerns or complaints that have to do with our programs should be directed to the Department Chair. Mary Beth mentioned that this whole process was not an example of shared governance. Michael Petrowsky made a motion that any student complaint be directed to the appropriate department chair and not to the international programs committee or director. Gary Smith mentioned that they don’t seem to understand that the prices for things change and factors change and it is difficult to anticipate this when planning a trip abroad a year ahead of time. Things can’t be iron clad. Clint Davis mentioned that his program in Mexico has a built in 15% increase to anticipate the budget on the lowest number of students that way he is always able to cover cost increases later on down the line. Jim mentioned that there had been some prior complaints regarding program. Don Tompkins mentioned that he was not informed enough about the Peruvian program to support it but he felt we needed to support Carol Hayman because the appropriate processes were not followed and that the task force should protest the way it was handled in that Carol was not given a fair hearing.
Decision: Michael
Pool asked the task force to pass a resolution to the Faculty Senate and the
Adjunct Faculty Association. Please see the below resolution:
The Social Science Task Force rebukes and
censures the Administration for violating the principle of “shared governance”
in cancelling the International
The Task Force also asks the Faculty Senate and the Adjunct Faculty
Association to investigate the situation and issue a similar rebuke and
censure.
The motion for this resolution was approved. A motion was made
to support Carol Hayman and her program and ask that the changes be outlined
and in writing. Jim mentioned that he felt Carol should make it clear in the
literature for her program that if the student wants a single occupancy room
they will be required to pay an extra amount. Jim asks that the task force
support Carol’s program and ask that the technical changes be made and that the
program be reestablished for the summer 2009. The motion was put to a secret
vote. The motion passed with 18 for and one against. A second motion was made
that all future complaints directed towards our Social Science International
programs be directed to the department chair and not to the International
programs chair. This motion was approved. Jim will ask what it takes to get an
item on the agenda at the Faculty Senate meeting.
Discussion: Jim
Sondgeroth asked if this program would be in anyway connected to Clint Davis’s
study abroad
Decision: There was a motion to approve Don Jonsson’s
Cultural Geography 1302 addition to the
A) Sherry Heiden would like to present a new lab manual for approval to be
used in Honors Physical Anthropology.
It's by Samantha M. Hens, title: Method and Practice in
Biological Anthropology (A Workbook and Laboratory Manual for Introductory
Courses),
ISBN-13: 978-0-13-225006-1 and available
through Prentice Hall.
Sherry also presented the a book for the Physical
Anthropology approved list: How Humans
Evolved, Fourth Edition by Robert Boyd, University of California, Los
Angeles, Joan B. Silk, University of California, Los Angeles ISBN
0-393-92628 2006 (waiting for response from Sherry about 4th or 5th
edition)
B) Approve a textbook for GEOG 1421,
raster-based GIS.
(wait for Mary Beth to let me know hard back or soft cover)
Decision:
All textbooks were approved.