IIII'IIIIIIIIIPV

mews lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

31293 01706 994

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

A CASE STUDY OF A PUBLICLY FUNDED INSTITUTION OF HIGHER
EDUCATION: A CHANGE FROM TERMS TO SEMESTERS

presented by
DONALD R. JACKSON

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph . D . degree in Educational
Administration

Major professor

Date May 21. 1997—

MSU i: an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

 

LIBRARY
MIchIgan State
University

+

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN Box
to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1/98 chleflS—p.“

 

AICASI STUD! 0!.3 PUBLICLX FUNDIE INSTITUTION O! BIflHHR
EDUCATION:.A.CHINGI IRONITIRIS TO ENNISTIRB

By

Donald R . Jackson

A DISMMIGI
Suhnitud to
Michigan Stat. Univaraity

in partial fulfill-ant of tho roqnimta
for the doqroo of

DOCTOR O? PHILOSOPHY

Mart-ant of ldncational ministration

1997

ABSTRACT

A.CISI STUD! OPII.PUBLICL! FUNDED INSTITUTION OF HIGHER
IBUCATIONX A.CHINGI IROMITIRNS TO SIMISTIRS

By

Donald R. Jackson

The literature indicates a large percentage of
institutions have changed to a semester format and have
reported mixed results. There are administrative concerns
from a logistics and cost effectiveness point of View and
educational concerns that may take priority and affect the
change process depending on whether you are faculty, student
or administrator.

This research performs a case study analysis of a
university in Michigan to determine if the process used in
converting from academic quarters to a semester system was
consistent with the suggested guidelines for the planning
and implementation of a calendar change as recommended by
leading authorities.

Using a case analysis methodology, key factors are
identified that will guide other institutions interested in

developing effective calendar conversion processes.

Copyright by
Donald R. Jackson

1997

The genesis of this long journey began with the
encouragement of my dear friend and colleague, Dr. Marshall
Giller. In addition, the support and mild cajoling of Dr.
Rosanne Swartz and Dr. Fred Swartz provided the needed push
to complete my studies.

I am particularly indebted to the kind assistance of
Dr. Fred Whims as my Dissertation Advisor and the other
members of my guidance committee; Dr. Louis Hekhuis, Dr.
Marvin Grandstaff and Dr. Eldon Nonnamaker.

A project of this magnitude could not be accomplished
without the patience and support of my wife Shirley and our
children; Lynn Jackson, Laurie Potter and Robert Jackson.

Lastly, it is with enormous gratitude that I dedicate
this writing to my father, Reginald Jackson and in memory of
my mother Kathleen Jackson. Their love and encouragement

makes all the effort worthwhile.

1V

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ......................................... VII

LIST OF FIGURES ....................................... VIII

LIST OF APPENDICES ...................................... IX

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION ............................................. 1
Statement of the Problem ............................ 4
Methodology ....................................... ..9
Organization of the Study .......................... 10

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ............................... 12
Factors Influencing Conversion ..................... 15
Definition Issues .................................. 16
Calendar Formats ................................... 18
The Conversion Process ........................... ..24
Conversion Timetables .............................. 28
Approaches to Calendar Change ...................... 31

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY ............................................. 36
Case Study Method .................................. 38
Strengths of the Case Study Method ................. 41
Limitations of the Case Study Method ............... 43
Design of the Study ................................ 49
Subject of the Present Case Study .................. 49
Selection of Interview Subjects .................... 50
Instrumentation .................................... 53
Comparative Analysis ............................... 54
Summary ............................................ 56

CHAPTER 4

CASE STUDY OF FERRIS STATE UNIVERSITY ................... 57
Introduction ....................................... 57
Context of the Results ............................. 57
Profile of FSU ..................................... 59
The FSU Academic Calendar .......................... 63
Semester Feasibility Task Force .................... 66
Calendar and Academic Policy Subcommittee .......... 66

V

Curriculum, Field Experience and Workload .......... 69

Financial Impact ................................... 74
Student Life and Services .................. . ....... 77
Recommendations of Semester Feasibility Task Force .81
Recommendations of University Academic Affairs ..... 83
Reasons for Calendar Conversion at This Time ....... 84
Benefits of Semesters for Ferris State University ..86
The Semester Transition Team ....................... 88
The Process of Implementation ...................... 92
Summary ........................................... 109

CHAPTER 5

INTERVIEWS WITH ADMINISTRATORS AND FACULTY ............. 110
Summary ........................................... 132

CHAPTER 6

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS ................. 134
Phase One - Initiating the Process ................ 136
Phase Two - Evaluation and Recommendation ...... ..138
Phase Three - Planning ............................ 146
Phase Four - Organizing ........................... 150
Phase Five - Implementation Process ............... 152
Phase Six - Implementation and Evaluation ......... 156
Summary ........................................... 159
Conclusions ....................................... 160
Implications for Further Study .................. ..162
Personal Reflections ............................. .162

REFERENCE MATERIALS
Appendices ......................................... 164
References ......................................... 255

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 - Recommended Conversion Process ................ 37

Table 2 - Influence and Involvement of Participants ....ll4

vii

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

LIST OF FIGURES

Flow Chart of the Case Study Process .......... 49

Organizational Chart:
Semester Feasibility Task Force ............... 65

Organizational Chart:
Semester Transition Team (STT) ................ 89

Course Proposal Flow Chart ................... 104

viii

Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix

Appendix

Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix

Appendix

Appendix
Appendix
Appendix
Appendix

Appendix

LIST OF.APPENDICBS

Interviewee: Consent Agreement ........... 164
Interview Guide .......................... 165
Campus Map: Ferris State University ...... 167

Survey Form: Faculty and Administration ..168

Questionnaire:
Student Survey, Quarters VS. Semesters ...169

Academic Calendar ........................ 171
Time Schedule For Classes and Exams ...... 173
Process Timeline ......................... 174
Testing Of Interview Instrument .......... 175
Interview Transcripts .................... 183
Recommended Conversion Process ........... 235

Organizational Charts:
Academic Affairs Division/Office Of

Academic Affairs 1991-94 ................. 236
FAST 93 .................................. 239
Course Mapping Form ...................... 243
Course Completion Agreement (CCA) ........ 245
Explanation Of Terms ..................... 247

Comparison of FSU with the
“Benchmark” Process .................... 253

ix

INTRODUCTION

Little is currently known about the conversion process
used to change the calendar system in institutions of higher
education. Indeed, the questions of why colleges and
universities feel compelled to change calendar formats and
how their decisions structure the process have rarely been
raised or studied systematically.

Among the areas of deepest concern for institutions has
historically been the effect of calendar changes on student
learning and retention rates. The problems experienced by
students in any calendar format are varied. There is
concern however, that the problems created by changes in a
school's calendar may be serious enough to impact dropout
and/or transfer rate or, at the least, may not result in the
anticipated gains in student learning. The decision making
process used to facilitate the change could make the
difference. It is often argued that there are many reasons

semesters may offer educational advantages over the quarter

system: the most common being the longer exposure that
semesters allow students to study specific subject matter.
Who makes the decision as to how long the academic calendar
will be or the length of class periods? For example, one of
the reasons to change from quarters to semesters described
by the Council to Review Undergraduate Education in its
report, Opportunities for Renewal, (CRUE, 1989) at Michigan
State University was the enhancement of opportunities for
students to develop capacities for critical and analytical
thinking. There remains a question as to whether this goal
was realized, particularly whether the conversion process
incorporated provisions to evaluate outcomes against
measurable objectives.

A study by Waltz, Overturf, Frazier, Baker, & Copple
(1977) of national calendar changes indicated mixed reviews
of the benefits in changing, depending on the group
affected. It was reported that the quarter system favored
instructional, administrative, and faculty issues while the
traditional semester system favored student needs and
curriculum or instructional concerns. Absent in their
investigation was how the process of calendar change was
structured, whether there were differences in the expected
benefits among the institutions and in their decision making
procedures. Many questions remain about the reasons for

procedures used to facilitate a change and the factors

affecting consideration given to faculty, students, and
administrators.

Not all reasons for calendar changes are student
related, of course. Elsewhere in academia, such changes
have been promoted as a way to reduce administration costs
as a result of fewer registration periods and integration
with other institutions on the same calendar system. Areas
impacted are student transfers, faculty recruiting, and
shared resources. These claims have been offered as goals
but have not been substantiated in the literature with
reference to measurable calendar change expectations.

Even the most basic concepts of Management By
Objectives (MBO) would suggest the process include the
development of specific performance measurements. (Albrecht,
1978 p.75)

A review of the literature offers a recommended
calendar conversion process which is described by such
recognized authorities as Dr. Orville C. Walz, Leonard L.
Overturf, Joseph E. Frazier, Roger D. Baker and Lewis J.
Copple (Walz et al., 1977). It is incorporated in this
standard procedure, or more appropriately termed “benchmark
process,” that an institution would address the reasons for
calendar change in terms of goals and objectives. While
much is written about the outcomes of calendar change

experiences, the actual planning, decision making protocol,

and process implementation are rarely documented. This is
particularly evident in relation to what is expected:
procedures dealing with controllable and non-controllable
factors and a measurement system designed to evaluate the
outcomes.

This research project is focused on the recommended
process of conversion which begins with support of the idea
by an institution's president, governing body or a state
commission. A “blue ribbon committee” representing the
institution constituency is appointed and implements the

first of six phases which span a suggested two year period.

Stat-Innt of tho Prdblun

Support is thus given for an examination of the
question: Was the process used by the case study institution
in converting from academic quarters to a semester system
consistent with the suggested guidelines for the planning
and implementation of the change as recommended by leading
authorities?

The questions driving the current case study relate to
the conversion process. How did the case institution deal
with the factors involved in implementing the change?

Specifically, they include the following:

1”.What were the goals and objectives to be achieved by
changing the calendar format from quarters to semesters?

2. Who was involved with the decision making, and what
outside factors influenced the conversion process?

13.What processes were incorporated to measure whether the
desired outcomes were accomplished?

44.What process was implemented and from the participants
perception, was it successful?

There is no disagreement, however, that any change in
the college calendar has a major impact on almost all areas
of college and university life.

Coleman, Bolts and Franklin (1984) are among those who
have previously looked at the effects of converting from one
calendar system to another in academic settings. They found
that changing from terms to semesters resulted in a
reduction of the average student credit hour load and, in
addition, there were reduced course completion rates. Their
conclusions lead to the question: was this result
anticipated, and what decision making protocol was
incorporated in the process to deal with it?

A position paper on converting to the early semester
system at the University of Georgia, (Hand, 1983), reported
strong consensus that the students would be better served by
semesters. There were, however, numerous documented student

concerns after the fact that indicated the implementation

did not completely address student needs. Little is written
on whether the process of implementation at the University
of Georgia was focused by specific student related
objectives.

Barstow College, California, also studied the issue of
the most appropriate calendar format for the institution.
The college converted from semester to terms in 1971 and
subsequently evaluated the advantages and disadvantages of
the change. Specific objectives were not reported as
driving the conversion process. One of the outcomes was the
impact on student course completions and student retention
rates, with a greater percentage of students completing the
quarter (88% in 1971) than completed the semester (68% in
1970). Moreover, the switch to quarter calendar was
believed to result in increased student enrollment from 1971
to 1975. Dr. Reeb points out that, during the change to
terms, a data processing system was put in place making it
easier to document student statistics which improved the
accuracy of the data than when done by hand in prior years.
He notes that the average daily enrollment, course
completion rates, etc., generally were somewhat higher in
the 1970's than the 1960's, that it's quite possible this
would have been the case even without changing to the

quarter calendar because of other variables that were not

considered in the conversion process, or not accounted for

in the expected results (Reeb, 1980, pp.9-10).

Dr. Carole E. Clark studied the 1984 change from terms
to semesters at Central Missouri State University (CMSU),
(Clark, 1986 p.2). She indicated that it took place under
the direction of the Board of Regents to deal with several
concerns:

1” There was a lack of articulation with other institutions
as most used the semester system.

2. The shorter terms seemed to move too quickly to allow
adequate reflection time between classes for students and
faculty.

13.The term system included an awkward winter session which
was divided by Christmas vacation.

I4.There were possible costs savings with a reduction of
administration activities from three to two times per
academic year.

Her study reports that, although academic calendar
changes have become quite common, few institutions
incorporate follow-up evaluations of the results of the
change. CMSU did, however, evaluate the calendar format
after the second year, but no formal institutional study had
assessed the impact on student progress. This lack of

follow-up of the calendar conversion was the source of

interest and focus of Dr. Clark’s study assessing the
factors affecting students and the results.

Community colleges have also been affected by the
changes in calendar. A study was conducted at Virginia
State Department of Community Colleges when they changed
from terms to semesters in 1988 (Puyear, 1989). This study
was conducted after the first year to determine the effect
on enrollment and retention and compared the first year of
operation with the previous three years under the term
system. The study did not report efforts of the conversion
process to meet specific objectives; however, it indicated
that, in Virginia’s 23 community colleges, there was a
general increase in the rate of retention of full-time
degree students from 76.5% to 83% attributed to the change
to semesters. Overall enrollment increased at the same
level as that of the previous two years in 21 institutions
with two schools reporting a decline. Larger and smaller
colleges tended to experience a lower rate of retention
increases than medium-sized institutions (Puyear, 1989,
p.13)

From a review of the existing literature on the process
and effects of the change from.terms to a semester format,
no clear picture emerges of the impact of such change on
student life in general nor on other aspects of academia.

Most have focused narrowly on student retention outcomes

with little evaluation of other dimensions such as the
process utilized or the complex educational and social
milieu of the college campus.

In addition, a considerable period of time has elapsed
since this topic was examined. Much has changed in the
post-secondary environment since the 1970's and 1980's, when
most of the earlier works were undertaken. The overall
economic context, student assistance programs, funding
levels, social issues, and family structures are different
now, making a new look at this topic timely and relevant.

The question remains: Was the process used by the case
study institution in converting from academic quarters to a
semester system consistent with the suggested guidelines for
the planning and implementation of the change as recommended

by leading authorities?

Mbthodology

The methodology will be a detailed exploration and
descriptive case analysis of a publicly funded university in
Michigan. The study will concentrate on one institution
which undertook this transition from term to semester format
within the last 10 years and has two years experience with
the new semester calendar. Comparisons with the recommended

standard will be made of the decision making process and the

10

procedures of the case institution in changing from a term
(sometimes referred to as quarter) of approximately 11 weeks
to a semester of 15 to 17 weeks.

Ferris State University was chosen as meeting the
necessary criteria and willingly released its conversion
documents. Furthermore, the key administrators and
transition team members were identified and were willing to
be interviewed to explain the controllable and
uncontrollable factors in the decision making process. In
addition to interviews, the transition documents and
university publications were explored to chronicle the
procedures used.

The constituents affected by the conversion process
were the administrators, faculty, and students. A
qualitative case study approach was selected with the goal
to extrapolate principles from this research on the
conversion process in order to guide other institutions

through similar calendar change experiences in the future.

Organization of tho Study

This chapter has identified the problem, prior
research, and purpose of the study. A brief review of the
literature on calendar conversion was included and will be

elaborated upon in Chapter Two.

11

The material in Chapter Two provides a foundation for
the methodology described in Chapter Three. Justification
of a case study approach, the selection process and data
gathering techniques are presented in Chapter Three.

Chapter Four provides documentation of the actual
conversion process of a public institution of higher
education experiencing change from terms to semesters.

Chapter Five reports on interviews with administrators
and faculty who were directly involved with the decision
making process of changing the calendar format.

Chapter Six offers conclusions and recommendations
derived from comparing the recommended standard with the
actual process and interviews with those entrusted with the
conversion task. It will focus on answering the question:
Was the process used by the case study institution in
converting from academic quarters to a semester system
consistent with the suggestedguidelines for theyplanning
and implementation of the change as recommended by leading

authorities?

 

CHAPTER.2

RIVIII’OF TE! LITIRATURB

Chapter Two provides a historical background of the
trends in calendar formats for colleges and universities
over the last three decades. The factors identified in the
literature as motivation for switching calendars are
described as well as definitions of the many types of
calendar systems. This chapter addresses the main focus of
this project by describing the research of leading
authorities on the conversion process. Included is a
recommended procedure and conversion process which is the
benchmark for the analysis of the case study institution.
The literature review served to identify the mixed results

reported by many institutions and the lack of adherence to a

 

uniform conversion process. The literature provides a

 

foundation for later chapters which investigate the main
question: Was the process used by the case study
institution in converting from academic quarters to a
semester system consistent with the suggested guidelines for

the planning and implementation of the change as recommended

12

13

by leading authorities? Calendar change research in higher
education has been very limited with most studies focused
either on the number of institutions adopting new calendar
formats and/or on administrative costs associated with such
change.

It would appear from the literature which does exist,
however, that the search for the perfect calendar format for
colleges and has been relentless-~at least over the past 35
years.

In January, 1960, the American Council on Education, in
cooperation with the Office of Statistical Information and
Research, surveyed the 1,058 regionally accredited colleges
and universities in the United States. Information was
gathered on the type of calendar used and what changes were
occurring. Results of the study indicated that, during the
four-year period 1956-1960, there were 28 institutions that
had made revisions involving quarter to semester or semester
to quarter format shifts (Wells, 1961 p.5).

A similar study in 1967 by the American Association of
Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers reported that,
between 1965 and 1967, over two hundred collegiate
institutions engaged in calendar change (Wells, 1970, pp.2-
110).

As early as 1963, Stickler and Carothers studied the

year-round operation of institutions of higher learning in

14

terms of rationale, status, trends, and financial
implication. They predicted a time would come when the use
of interchangeable academic terms with equal character,
length, and enrollments would be almost universal in higher
education.

Between 1969 and 1975, one-half of the colleges and
universities in the U.S. changed calendars according to
Smith (1975) and Rosselot et al.(1978). They reported that,
from 1970 to 1978, 1,084 institutions of higher education
made changes in calendar structure.

When surveying all states to determine how many
maintained a common calendar for every one of its public
institutions Oleson et al.(1971) found that the greatest
trend was to the “early” semester system. Of the 46 states
responding, five states reported a common quarter system
with two planning to implement such a system, while six
reported a semester system with one planning to adopt this
method. A “calendar revolution” was described: Of 2475
higher education respondents, 1,130 were planning or in the
process of changing their academic calendar from the
traditional semester to the early semester system.

Even though the number of American institutions of
higher learning increased substantially over the years

leading up to Oleson’s study, it became apparent that

15

calendar revisions were occurring in 1969-1972 at an

unprecedented rate.

Factors Influonoing Convoroion

Registrars of 925 institutions were surveyed in an
attempt to ascertain what factors were inputs in the
decision process leading to numerous changes that had been
occurring. Fifty influential factors were identified which

fell into five areas or categories to be tabulated:

l.Administration-Faculty Considerations
2 . Articulation

.3.Curricula-Instruction Concerns
4.51nances-Recruitment

5.Student Needs

Results of the study ranked the category of greatest
importance as an input in the calendar revision process.
For example, the category mentioned the most as being of the
greatest importance leading to calendar change was “to meet
student needs,” followed in second rank of importance by

“curricula—instruction concerns.”

16

A summary of the findings reported the two top ranking
categories of most important influential factors within each
calendar type were as follows:

1” Traditional semester calendar
student needs curricula
0 instruction concerns

 

2. Early semester calendar
0 student needs curricula
0 instruction concerns

 

13.9uarter calendar
0' curricular-instruction concerns
0* administration-faculty considerations

 

I4.Trimester calendar
0 curricula-instruction concerns

0 tie for second rank between finances, recruitment and
student needs

 

5. The 4-1-4 calendar
0 curricula-instruction concerns
0 student needs

 

6.0ther calendar formats
0 curricula-instruction concerns
0 student needs

 

Dotinition Ioonoo

In the process of settling on a suitable format,
someone or some group evaluates many issues and contemplates
the following; How long is a semester? From where or what
authority do the number of days required in the calendar

come? Who defines what a semester is?

17

The American Council on Education, in its 1986-87 Fact
Book, defined a semester calendar as a “college year divided
into two parts, each of about 17 weeks, running from
September to June.” The number of instructional days in a
semester is mandated at most schools, but the authority who
creates the mandate varies. Most of the time (55.7%), the
Governing Board determines the number of instructional days
with faculty determining this length 17.9% of the time
(Munson, 1990, p.181).

Little is reported of the decision making process and
procedures; however, most institutions have developed a set
of established guidelines which make the annual or biannual
procedure of calendar formatting relatively simple. These
guidelines address tasks such as determining when to begin,
when to end, how many recess days and when they fall, and
other regularly occurring events.

The individuals or groups responsible for formulating
the academic calendar are most often the dean or vice
president academic affairs/provost (30% of the time),
registrar (26.6%), administrative Committee (16.6%), and
Faculty Committee (10.2%) (Munson, 1990, p.182).

While most institutions have the authority to approve
their own calendars, many state schools and some private
ones must secure the approval of a board of regents or

trustees. Coordination of calendars with other institutions

18

that may be involved in cooperative programs can be a major
factor.

Calondar Formats

Five calendar formats are most often referred to in the
literature, along with a wide variety of combination plans
usually referred to as “other formats.”

In most instances, a traditional semester is divided
into two academic units of 15 to 17 weeks. The first
semester begins about the middle of September and is
concluded about the middle or end of January. The second
semester begins in early February and is concluded about
the first week in June. Until 1971, this was the most
common calendar.

The early semester is also divided into two units of
15-17 weeks, with the first beginning near the end of
August and concluding about the 20th of December. The
second semester begins the middle of January and concludes
about the middle of May. This became the most widely used
calendar in 1971.

The quarter system divides the academic year into three
units--fall, winter, and spring--of approximately 11 weeks.
Under the traditional quarter system, the fall quarter
starts late in September and finishes before Christmas. The

winter quarter starts after the first of January with a

19

short break between it and the spring quarter which
concludes the first part of June.

The trimester is an attempt to divide the calendar year
into three equal units to encourage year-round education.

The 4-1-4 is a four month session, followed by a one
month short session and another four month session. It has
been described as four courses, one course, and four
courses. It is quite similar to the early semester plan
except for the addition of the short session (Minkel &
Norman, 1984).

Florida Presbyterian College (now Eckerd College) was
the first to utilize this format in the 1960-61 academic
year. Although the idea of a winter term originated in a
communal family of colleges in Massachusetts (Smith, Mount
Holyoke, Amherst, and University of Massachusetts), Florida
Presbyterian College was the first to utilize it for an
entire institution (Cahow, 1973, p.356). There are now
several variations in form and emphasis in use such as
1-4-4, 4-4-1, 4-0-4, and the 4-1-4. The short term
represents a departure from the traditional courses for on-
campus projects, community service, laboratory involvement,
off-campus, and overseas supervised and independent study
activities.

Other calendar configurations are combinations of

existing formats with modifications. An example of “other”

20

type of calendar formats is that adopted by Colorado College
in the fall of 1970 (Cahow, 1973, p.342). A century of
tradition was swept aside by the elimination of the semester
system with its rigid calendar. In its place was
substituted a highly flexible, nine block, modular system.
In this arrangement, the school year is divided into nine
blocks of three and one-half weeks' duration. Each block is
divided by a four and one-half day break beginning at noon
on Wednesday of the fourth week and ending at 9:00 A.M. on
the following Monday. The school year begins September lst
and commencement is June lst. A three week Christmas
vacation and a ten day spring vacation are included in the
schedule. The greatest single advantage has been the
ability to utilize a variety of learning formats.

In 1968, Furman University changed to a 3-2-3 format
which is based on 4 semester hour courses. The fall and
spring terms are 3 courses (12 semester hours), and winter
term is 2 courses. Classes are generally scheduled to meet
five days per week, 50 minutes a day in the fall and spring
terms and 75 minutes in the winter term. Adopting the 3-2-3
format allows students and faculty to focus on a smaller
number of courses which are intended to provide a more “in-
depth” knowledge of the material, greater suitability for
special courses, independent study courses, and off-campus

activities.

21

An evaluation committee comprised of faculty, students,
and administrators concluded that there is no “best”
academic calendar for Furman but that there are several
which would be satisfactory, including the 3-2-3.

Statistical data results of the conversion after three
years indicated that the grade distributions changed
appreciably. While higher grades were reported, the data
are not conclusive as there are many variables in which the
conversion process were neither controlled nor measured.
Moreover, at that time the trend appeared to be nation-wide,
growing at an accelerating rate on campuses across the
country although faculty did not agree on the reasons why
(Peterson, 1972).

Surveys of faculty and students indicated satisfaction
with the independent study and special course features of
the system. Some faculty disagreed as a shortage of support
staff prevented them from taking full advantage of the
opportunity. Many students disliked the 75 minute class
periods of the winter term.

The administration favored the simplicity of scheduling
classes; however, the greatest disagreement centered around
the four semester courses that caused articulation problems
with South Carolina requirements for teacher certification.
In general, the 3-2-3 calendar is reported to be

satisfactory at Furman(Cahow, 1973, p.352).

22

During academic year 1969-70, the Alaska Methodist
University adopted a 11-4 calendar which is actually a
sixteen-week semester divided into two terms. The 11-week
term provides for three four-semester hour courses and the
four-week Intensive Study Term (IST) for one four-semester
hour course. The IST was presented as a term where learning
experiences not practicable in the usual semester could be
taken as well as regular courses. Class periods were 90
minutes, four days a week for the 11-week term. The IST was
very flexible, and each instructor determined the time
needed including a grading of credit or no credit. On the
basis of three years of calendar experience, it was reported
that the 11-4 calendar met the needs of most students with
the exception of those in natural science and mathematics
programs. An increased load on administrative duties was
evident with increase in registration activity and classroom
scheduling problems(Cahow, 1973, p.359).

It is important to note that the choice of a suitable
calendar has usually been a reflection of personal
preferences of the faculty, administration, and student
body. It is also significant that a review of the
literature describes goals of the three constituency groups
but the process of documenting measurable objectives is
rarely indicated. Walz et al., (1977, p. 725), report that

there are many new forces which go beyond internal academic

23

needs that influence calendar decisions. In addition to the

previously mentioned preferences, an institution’s calendar

may also reflect the wishes of a state legislature or the

state's higher education commission. Three factors are

emerging as very influential forces in adopting specific

calendar format:

1.

Institutional administrative costs

 

An extremely critical factor for both public and private
institutions is the decision or necessity to reduce
administrative costs in order to preserve academic
programs. Substantial cost savings may be realized from
the type of academic calendar utilized.

State System Of Higher Education

 

By 1971, 11 states had adopted a common calendar and 3
more were considering uniformity. One-half of them
adopted a semester calendar, and the other half chose a
quarter system. The trend continues with the semester
format being the most common.

New Educational Markets

 

With additional dimensions in educational delivery
systems, e.g. evening programs, weekend college,
continuing education, education by television, the
institution's calendar must be flexible and adaptable to

students needs. This drive to be responsive expands or

24

is designed to expand educational markets to offset

declining enrollments and changing demographics.

The variety of calendars in use in higher education
leaves in doubt which type is best. Dr. Orville C. Walz et
al., (1977, p. 726), indicates that the most popular is the
early semester which combines the uniqueness of the four-
one-four's interim period and earlier starting and stopping
dates with the strengths of the traditional semester system.
He also emphasizes that there is no clear, conclusive
evidence as to which format is best academically for
enhancing the learning process or for promoting the best

learning climate.

Tho Convoroion Prooooo

A review of the literature documents a recommended
calendar conversion process described by such recognized
authorities as Dr. Orville C. Walz, Leonard L. Overturf,
Joseph E. Frazier, Roger D. Baker and Lewis J. Copple (Walz
et al., 1977, pp.726-734). It is this model set of
guidelines that this research project will use to compare
the efforts of the case institution when changing calendar

formats.

25

How does a college or university proceed with a
calendar conversion? The genesis, or phase one, is when
the idea is seriously considered by the institution’s
president, governing board, or state commission. It must be
approached in an organized, systematic way leading to the
second phase, where the most common vehicle suggested is the
“blue ribbon committee.” Of great importance is that the
entire institution’s constituency be represented.

The coordinating committee would have representatives
from all colleges and departments, students, student service
areas including faculty, general administration, and office
of admissions and records. Listed below are the steps such
a committee would usually follow:

1” Conduct a Fact-Finding Project

 

Sufficient study is extremely important. There is no
need for institutions to reinvent the wheel. The fact
finding activities can provide the opportunity to present
the pros and cons of the various academic calendars in
operation at other institutions. A visit to other
institutions which have recently completed the conversion
process can be extremely helpful.

2. Gain Concurrence of Top Administrators

 

Without financial and emotional support, it will be very
difficult for an institution to implement a new academic

calendar. The influence of the academic vice

26

president/provost and the president are extremely
important to the outcome of the calendar study.

Provide For Student Input

 

Students are the life blood of an institution. Dependency
on them increases in direct proportion to the increase in
tuition costs each year. It is important to provide
students with the Opportunity to discuss, debate, and
vote on their calendar preference. Students tend to
support a calendar with which they are the most familiar.
Let us assume that an institution is considering a
conversion from the quarter calendar to a semester
calendar. It is very probable that sophomores and
juniors will vote in favor of the current quarter
calendar and the freshman class vote in favor of the
semester calendar.

Secure Faculty Support

 

It is the faculty who must be involved in course
conversion, program conversion, and teaching
responsibilities under whatever calendar system is
adopted. Many colleges and universities depend heavily
upon the faculty to bring in research and grant dollars
to help support the institution. Thus, the calendar
under which an institution operates must have the support
of the faculty because it has a direct influence on the

faculty and their activities. Without their support and

27

the opportunity to continue in research and creative
activities, the institution may not long survive.

Prepare a Detailed Position Paper

 

As a result of a fact-finding project, it is important to
prepare a detailed position paper identifying the facts
to be considered in the conversion. It is important the
position paper deal with all areas of the institution and
the effects on these areas. It is beneficial to present
realistically the strengths and weaknesses of the current
calendar. Financial implications should be discussed,
identifying conversion costs as well as long-range
effects.

Conduct Discussion Sessions

 

Open hearings are valuable to address issues, air
questions, and handle concerns. These hearings can be
combined sessions for faculty and students or separate
sessions for each group. The number of sessions needed
will be determined by the response received during the
early sessions.

Widely Publicize Major Issues

 

Most institutions have a faculty newspaper, and certainly
every institution has a student newspaper. It is

important to publicize the major issues coming out of the
discussion sessions. Adequate airing of all issues prior

to a vote will make the final hurdle much easier.

28

8. Final Step - The Faculty Vote

 

The final decision on academic matters at most
institutions is made by a faculty council or faculty
senate. As previously stated, securing faculty support
is extremely critical because, in the final analysis, the
vote of the faculty senate is a vote of the faculty. If
adequate advanced work has been done, the final process

may not be as big a hurdle as might be expected.

Based upon the study of a number of conversion
projects, Orville C. Walz et al. have prepared what they
consider an ideal timetable for the complete transition.

After the first step, which is a commitment to consider
a change, two years is recommended for the study and
implementation of a new academic calendar. This will
provide enough time for the work to be done properly and

could be segmented into a remaining five specific phases.

Convoroion Tinotabloo
1” Phase 1
The institution makes a commitment to consider a change
in calendar format.

2. Phase 2 - Four Months

 

During this period an institution announces the idea of

converting from one calendar system to another. The

29

various types of academic calendars are studied, adequate
debate is provided, and a vote is taken.

Phase 3 - Four Months

 

This period is used to identify all the tasks to be
accomplished. Policy decisions are made, and guidelines
are developed and distributed to assist colleges,
departments, and administrative units in the conversion
process. Timetables are established within the various
units of the institution for procedure completion.

Phase 4 - Twelve Months

 

This is the time detailed work takes place. The academic
community must develop the new courses. The colleges and
departments must develop their programs of study. The
Office of Admissions and Records, the Office of Financial
Aid, and all units highly dependent on computer systems
begin work converting to the new calendar. Tasks are
identified, and assignments are made to insure that the
work is accomplished.

Phase 5 - Four Months

 

This is the culminating activity of the conversion
process. Work has been completed in Phase 4, and the
results are ready for publication. In addition to
publishing all information about the new calendar, it is

important to conduct a series of workshops for advisers,

30

students, faculty, and administrative units to insure
that the implementation phase is as smooth as possible.

6. Phase 6 - Implementation

 

The recommended time for incorporation of the change is

fall semester.

The coordinating committee is the driving force behind
the complete process. It should have the responsibility to
assemble the policy recommendations and submit them to the
institution’s faculty council or senate for approval.

A calendar conversion process presents opportunities to
evaluate all aspects of the institution's policies,
procedures, and forms. New ideas and new approaches to
current procedures can be considered. Examples are listed
below:

1”.Course Numbering System

 

No better time will present itself than now to refine the
course numbering to better serve the academic community
and state reporting requirements.

2. General Education Remiirements

 

The transition provides one more chance to debate this

sensitive issue and implement changes.

31

Program Of Studyypefinitions

 

Evaluate more efficient methods of describing or
structuring major/minor systems, double majors,
interdisciplinary studies, certificates, etc.

Graduation Requirements

 

All phases of credit should be evaluated from upper-
division course requirements to total credits needed to
graduate.

Academic Calendar

 

Identify specific dates for the proposed calendar format.

Academic Standards

 

Review the institution's academic standards policy.

A recurring reminder is mentioned in the literature to

involve representation of the Office of Admissions and

Records on the coordinating committee and on key sub-

committees. A smooth transition by this administrative unit

is vital for a successful conversion.

Approaohoo to Calondar Chango

Based on the experiences of other institutions and

research by Dr. Walz (1977, p.731), there are many suggested

approaches to facilitating the variety of tasks.

1.

32

New Academic Courses

Using a preliminary list of courses that each department
plans to offer, other departments can be informed about
prerequisites. Old course numbers along with the new
ones in addition to numbering for combined courses will
aid in student advising. This preliminary listing will
stimulate discussions between departments to allow
adjustments to take place prior to finalizing of courses.

The Mini Catalog

 

To assist advisors, faculty and students in their
planning, a mini catalog should be published after all
decisions have been made. It will list graduation
requirements, calendar dates, and course conversion
details along with a cross reference for old courses to
new ones.

Preventive Advising Program

 

To avoid students being penalized by the conversion
process, an advising check sheet is recommended. This
will list courses completed and major departmental course
requirements and electives yet to be completed. During
the year just prior to converting to the new calendar,
students would be encouraged to complete sequence courses
to prevent scheduling conflicts after course changes are

made.

33

4.Academic Appeals Committee

 

If students feel unfairly treated due to proposed
departmental requirements, they should have an
opportunity to have their situations reviewed by an

institutional appeals board.

.Transition Courses

 

Some students will have completed one course in a three-
course sequence and will be facing a new semester course,
that two-course sequence will have provided insufficient
background to do well in the second course. Short
courses to cover necessary material offered frequently,
including during summer, will help minimize these
conversion problems.

The Summer Session

 

Students should have the opportunity to earn a number of
credits during the summer session prior to conversion
equal to what can be earned during an academic term.
This recommendation is to serve upper-division students
wishing to complete their degree requirements before
conversion takes place.

Computer System Consideration

 

Prior to modifying the computer system, the academic
policy and procedure decisions must be made. Current
operating systems must continue and merge with the new

system according to a detailed schedule of events.

34

8. Introduction Of New Teaching Concepts And Programs
New flexibility in programs of study are possible.
Faculty will have the opportunity to upgrade their course
content.

9 . Color-Coded System

 

Communication is critical during the conversion process.
Color-coding forms, memos, and documents for distribution
will draw attention to the document and suggest a
priority.

10.Academic/Administrative Policy Handbook
Now is the time to start a new policy handbook with
reference to policies that have been formed or revised in
the conversion process.

11.1mplementation Term
Fall term is the recommended period of implementation as
summer pre-registration activities provides time to solve
any last minute problems with students' courses and
schedules. The summer preceding fall implementation can
be used to complete a sequence of courses before the new
semester or term formatted courses are in place.

12.Provide for Articulation
Transfer guides should be updated and made available
prior to the spring quarter or term of the
junior/community colleges. Contractual agreements with

four year or community colleges will need to be reviewed.

35

This chapter has presented a history of calendar
changes and described the various calendar formats, examples
of their use, and reports of some experiences during
application. The conversion process and suggested
guidelines explain the challenges facing the administration,
faculty, and students as their daily routine becomes
restructured.

Through proper planning as outlined by the conversion
process model in this chapter, the implementation can be
facilitated smoothly toward stated objectives. There has
been general agreement that the mere changing of the
academic calendar does not guarantee academic excellence.
The most essential ingredient remains a well structured plan
coupled with qualified and dedicated faculty.(Walz et al.,
1977, p731).

Support is thus given for an examination of the
question: Was the process used by the case study institution
in converting from academic quarters to a semester system
consistent with the suggested guidelines for the planning
and implementation of the change as recommended by leading

authorities?

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

Chapter Three describes the methodology used to
investigate whether the case study institution was
consistent with suggested guidelines by leading authorities
for the planning and implementation process when converting
from terms to semesters.

The structure of the inquiry focuses on the role played
by the three key constituents of the institution in the
conversion process: Students, faculty, and university
management. The case study method of research will be
described along with its benefits and the limitations of
this approach for the study at hand. A review of the nature
of exploratory and descriptive research is presented plus
the specific types of data collection techniques, including
procedures used to gather and analyze data that are
appropriate for this investigation.

The underlying framework for analysis of the case
institution is the recommended conversion process that was

presented in Chapter Two.

36

37

This procedure, outlined in Table 1 has six phases and
will be used as a benchmark for the comparative analysis.

Tablo 1

RECOMMENDED CONVERSION PROCESS
(Hal: ot al., 1977)

Phase 1
The Decision To Consider Changing Calendar Format
Phase 2 (4 Mo)
Appoint Committee of Administrators/Faculty/Students
Establish a Fact—Finding Project
Secure Concurrence of Top Administrators
Obtain Student Input
Secure Faculty Support
Develop a Position Paper
Conduct Open Discussion Sessions
Publicize the Major Issues
Schedule a Faculty Vote (Council/Senate)
Phase 3 (4 Mo)
Organize the Implementation Team
Identify Tasks
Develop Policies & Guidelines
Establish the Time Table For Procedures
Color-Code Forms & Documents
Phase 4 (12 Mo)
Review General Education Requirements
Develop Program Definitions
Develop and Approve New Academic Courses
Develop and Approve Codify the Course Numbering System
Establish the Graduation Requirements
Develop and Approve the Calendar Format
Develop and Approve Summer Sessions Format
Develop and Approve New Academic Standards
Develop and Approve Transition Courses
Develop The Computer System Procedures
Establish New Teaching Programs
Develop and Approve Articulation Agreements
Phase 5 (4 Mo)
Publicize Information About the New Calendar
Workshops For Students, Advisors, and Administrators
Develop Mini-Catalog
Schedule Advising Activities To Prevent Problem
Set Up an Academic Appeals Committee
Phase 6
Implement The New Format And Evaluate

38

Tho Caoo Studyllothod

The case study approach to research is described by
Orum, Feagin and Sjoberg (1991) as an in-depth, multifaceted
investigation of one social phenomenon using qualitative
research methods and several data sources. Some case
studies use both qualitative and quantitative methods;
furthermore, some have involved a small number of cases
conducted in a comparative framework.

The focus of such research can be an organization, a
role or role-occupants, a city or an entire group of people.
Because only a single phenomenon is being investigated, data
collection procedures are utilized to examine this
particular instance in great depth and detail. Orum et
al.(1991) considers the case study to be a qualitative
method of inquiry, usually of one of three types:
1.Ethnography:

Referred to as field research, ethnography is the
detailed study of the life and activities of a group of
people. Firsthand observation of actions, beliefs, and
feelings is obtained in many cases by participating in
the activities, as is the case with many anthropologists
when observing a specific group over a long period of
time. Examples of this “participant observation”

research are Whyte's (1943) classic research study on

39

street-corner life in East Boston and Stack’s (1974)
ethnography of black families in a ghetto.

Sociobiography:

 

Sociobiography is the study of a particular social type
or social role, primarily using in-depth interviews. The
social biographer attempts to understand the nature of
the role of a social type. Examples are studies of the
life histories of hoboes (Anderson, 1923) and of black
domestics (Rollins, 1985).

Social history of a social group:

 

This is research conducted on the past experiences of a
group and seeks to provide insights that can illuminate
the experience of other, similar groups. It seeks to
construct a record of the past, to tell a story of the
life and times of a specific group of people. It
involves investigation of historical documents and may
utilize personal interviews to discover those historical
continuities and changes that may exhibit a pattern over
time. Examples of this type of case study research are
Bahr and Caplow's Middletown As an Urban Case Study

(1991) and A Tale of Two Cases (Orum and Feagin, 1991).

A more technical definition of a case study according

to Yin (1994, pp.11-13) is: an empirical inquiry that

investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life

4O

context, especially when the boundaries between phenomenon
and context are not clearly evident. Case study methods are
useful when you deliberately wish to explore the contextual
conditions in the expectation that they are pertinent to the
phenomenon under study.

The case study inquiry copes with the technically
distinctive situation in which there will be many more
variables of interest than data points. Another result
relies on multiple sources of evidence, with data converging
in a triangulating fashion. There are also benefits from
the prior development of theoretical propositions to guide
data collection and analysis (Yin, 1994, p.13).

Yin notes there are exploratory, descriptive, and
explanatory case studies. There is also experimental
research involving these three categories. What distinguish
the experiment from the case study are the qualifying
conditions, such as:
1.The type of research question posed.

.2.The extent of control an investigator has over actual
behavioral events.

.3.The degree of focus on contemporary as opposed to
historical events.

Case study questions typically deal with the
operational links traced over time rather than with the

number of occurrences, more commonly used in quantitative

41

research. The case study approach is preferred when
explaining contemporary events when relevant behaviors
cannot be manipulated.

Because answers to the “how” and “why” questions posed
by this research project are principally expected to be
explanatory in nature, a case study analysis is considered
to be the most effective approach.

The two most persuasive elements supporting the utility
and appropriateness of case study analysis in this effort
are the ability of the researcher to make direct
observations of the calendar change process and the
opportunity to conduct personal interviews with key players
that participated in the decision making activities. These
individuals were directly involved with the formulation and
implementation of the calendar transition.

As a research strategy, the case study has been
described as illuminating a decision or set of decisions:
why they were taken, how they were implemented, (Schramm,

1971), and, indeed, that is the purpose of this study.

Strongtho of tho Caso Study Mothodology
Case study methodology has been used extensively by
anthropologists, sociologists, political scientists,
psychologists, and others because it can provide a detailed

analysis of micro events and social structures that

42

constitute social life. Its benefits have been described by

Orum et al.(1991):

1.

“It permits the grounding of observations and concepts
about social action and social structures in natural
settings studied at close hand” (p.5). The argument is
made that case analysis permits the observer to describe
a social action in a manner that comes closest to the
action as it is understood by the participants
themselves.

“It provides information from a number of sources and
over a period of time, thus permitting a more holistic
study of complex social networks and of complexes of
social action and social meaning” (p.5). The case study
permits the researcher to examine not only the
complexities of life in which people are involved but
also the impact on beliefs and decisions of the complex
web of social interaction.

“It can furnish the dimension of time and history to the
study of social life, thereby enabling the investigator
to examine continuity and change in lifework patterns
(p.5).” The case study permits the discovery of sets of
decisions and allows the researcher to determine the
effect of these decisions over time.

“It encourages and facilitates, in practice, theoretical

innovation and generalization (p. 5).” The case study

43

approach allows the researcher to see human beings up
close and get a sense of what motivates them. It permits
the investigator to examine the way people define the

situation of their lives.

Limitations of tho Caoo Study’lbthod

A traditional criticism of case study research is that
it provides limited opportunity for scientific
generalization, a concern emanating from quantitative
research with a focus on theory testing and generation.
Generalization--it develops from measurement of variables
and the extrapolation of findings from those measurements
from the original set of data (or sample) to a larger set of
data (the population).

In contrast, the case study has limited statistical
generalization because it is representing the investigation
of a single instance of the phenomenon of interest. The
sample size of one limits the degree to which a researcher
can claim that the findings hold in similar instances.

To address this limitation, certain distinctions must
be made to clarify what is being generalized. In the study
of a social process, for example, such as the development of
an ethnic group, then it is the population of such

processes, not the population of the people, to which the

44

researcher can generalize. As Orum et al.(1991) suggested,
generalization “is not merely a question of how many units
but rather what kind of unit one is studying”(p.15).

Another approach to this limitation in single-case
research such as this investigation is to take particular
care in establishing and demonstrating that the specific
case studied is highly representative of the larger
population to which the results are generalized. For
example, in Lynd and Lynd's (1929), notable research on
Muncie, Indiana, the argument was advanced that the city was
representative of many midsize American communities of the
period and, therefore, its social and economic patterns
could safely be generalized widely to other locales.

Another example is Becker et al.(1961), who presented
the argument that the University of Kansas Medical School
was similar enough to all other medical schools in the
United States and that claims about Kansas’ students'
cultural experience existed in other American medical
schools as well.

A similar argument is presented for this research
project in that the selected case institution, Ferris State
University (FSU), has common interests with other publicly
funded institutions of higher education. Support is given
by reference to a study by the Calendar and Academic

Policies Subcommittee submitted on March 16, 1990, to the

45

FSU Semester Feasibility Task Force. Forty-six institutions
were studied that were in some manner similar to the
demographic characteristics of FSU or other state supported
sister institutions. Nineteen of the related schools
selected were those considered to be “representative of the
characteristics” of Ferris State University in the Egg;

Institution study prepared by the FSU Office of Planning and

 

Development on September 10, 1986.

Fourteen of the forty-six institutions studied were
technical schools with similar programs to those offered by
the College of Technology at FSU.

The assertion is that FSU is widely comparable to other
institutions and that this specific case study is highly
representative of the larger population to which the results
are generalized. This is particularly well established when
considering that it is the population of such calendar
change processes, not the population of the people, that the
conclusions from this project may be generalized.

For some, a second limitation of the case study method
is its limited relationship to previous research, how or
whether they cast light on propositions derived from earlier
studies and on variable interrelationships (Nachmius et al.,
1976, p.42). Such critics argue that, to establish that two
separate phenomena are related, the connection between the

two must be demonstrated. The very nature of a single case

46

study usually precludes such a demonstration. Although case
studies may suggest covariance with other previously
demonstrated phenomena, quantitative assessment and analysis
of the relationships between variables is not possible.

There are instances, however, when the study of a
single case believed to represent a deviant situation is
used to examine theory by exception. A classical single-
case sociological research by Lipset, Trow and Coleman
(1956) was able to make a powerful statement by exception in
its examination of the prevalence of democracy in the
International Typographical Union in the face of its absence
in other unions.

Still another approach to this limitation is to use
multiple case studies in a comparative framework to evaluate
covariation of multiple phenomena.

Reliability is usually interpreted as the ability to
replicate the original study methodology using the same
research instruments and secure the same results. This is
often difficult in the case study method.

Because of the simplicity of much quantitative
methodology, its emphasis on a few controlled variables of
specific interest, and the objective character of numerical
(as contrasted to narrative) data, many suggest that
quantitative research is more reliable than qualitative

research, such as the case study.

g -1.-

(n
(D

A
.3;

47

Case studies frequently make up for this potential
limitation by providing a depth of information about a
particular phenomenon during a specific period of time
rather than more shallow perspective on a few aspects of the
phenomenon that are stable over time, that is, suitable for
the determination of reliability. This tension between the
ability to secure a depth or breadth of information means
that, although case study results may be less easily
duplicated (reliable), they are more information-rich and
descriptive of the real event or phenomenon of interest.

There are also techniques which can increase the
reliability of case study information. One technique is the
use of a team of observers who compare and cross-check their
observations or findings with each other. As Singleton et
al.(1988) noted, “a complement of several observers makes
possible the intersubjective evaluation and confirmation of
brute data and thereby satisfies a crucial dictum of social
science research” (p.32).

Another technique involves cross-comparisons among
several studies of the same period and same phenomenon. In
the field of urban sociology, for example, there are case
histories of different cities, all covering about the same
historical period. This permits researchers to make

comparisons of patterns of urbanization.

no
in

A.

VI-

4r
on

(I)

5n
4»

H
r!)

h !
l'c

‘o
‘u

at

‘1‘
0-1

I

.7
r_
[h

48

Validity of case study results is often considered
breached by the specter of researcher bias; however, in
other respects, the method offers a clear advantage over
other methods of research in terms of this consideration.
Case studies have often been described as more vulnerable
than quantitative methods to the introduction of bias by the
investigator. While it is true that the methodology must
rely on considerable judgment by the investigator, the great
strength of this form of research is that it does permit the
observer to assemble complementary and overlapping measures
of the same phenomena based on observation and personal
reflection.

In the situation at hand, researching the process of
calendar change in higher education, there are several
sources of overlapping data available. Examples are the
institution’s public financial records; student data;
institution records, including a body of studies and
reports; and information from personal interviews with
administrators and faculty who were directly involved in and
affected by the change process.

This strategy is called the “triangulation of sources”
and serves to support the validity of the case study

methodology.

49

Dooign of tho Study

The design of this case study is patterned after a
process recommended by Yin, Batement, & Moore (1983). The
process is graphically represented by the flow chart of

Figure 1.

 

CLARIFY THE PROBLEM

 

 

 

 

 

SELECT CASE METHODOLOGY and PROTOCOL

i

COLLECT DATA

1

EVALUATE DATA
WRITE REPORT

L

[DRAW CASE CONCLUSIONS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

lDEVELOP POLICY IMPLICATIONS

 

Figuro 1

[LON CHART OE THE CASE STUD! PROCESS

Subjoot of tho Prooont Caao Study

The institution selected for this case study was Ferris
State University located in Big Rapids, Michigan. The

calendar transition, which was the specific phenomenon of

50

interest, was implemented at the start of the 1993 fall

semester. This subject exhibited the following

characteristics:

1.

The institution had experienced a change from terms to
semesters within the last ten years.

The institution had at least two years of experience
since changing to a different calendar.

The subject was a State of Michigan, publicly funded,
accredited four-year institution of higher education.
The key administrators and many of the calendar
transition chairpersons actually involved with the
transition were identified and available for
participation in the research. These individuals
expressed a willingness to be interviewed for the study.
The institution was willing to share transition process
documents and data relating to the quality and results Of

its efforts during this transition period.

Solootion of IntorvioM’Subjooto

A purposeful sampling methodology was employed to

select at least eight case study participants who were most

able and qualified to provide the data of interest to this

inquiry (Patton, 1990). These individuals were considered

“information rich” resources who were substantively involved

’f.’

51

in and/or had affected the calendar transformation process
at Ferris State University.
All interviewees were informed about the purpose of the
research and expectations for their participation and that
information provided by the interviewees would be maintained
as confidential. Interviewees signed a consent agreement
prior to being interviewed. A copy of the Interviewee
Consent Form is provided in Appendix A.
Interviews were scheduled with key administrators and
faculty who were directly involved in the planning,
administration, and implementation of the conversion
process. An Interview Guide (Appendix B) was used to
provide consistency in the information gathering phase.
Written data was gathered such as:
1”.Documents Of preliminary studies made to determine
feasibility and reporting of level of agreement among
administrators, faculty and students.

2.Arreport describing the goals and objectives for making
the transition.

3.Copies Of minutes Of committee meetings that provide
insight to the decision making process and issues under
consideration.

4.Published financial reports dealing with the anticipated

cost of the transition change.

52

EL University published reports Of a self-study which
reflect the institution's Operations and university life
over the period when transition occurred.

6.Semester conversion documents and forms used by the
institution in the planning, administration and

implementation processes.

The period Of analysis and comparison begins in late
1989 when a commitment was made to initiate serious
consideration Of changing the calendar format. Elements Of
the change process are studied which evolved from January,
1990, until the implementation in fall semester of 1993.
In-depth information was gathered on the following:
l.Administrative issues, including Operating costs that
influenced the calendar format, organizational structure,
student information systems, transition procedures, and
articulation agreements, interviews of administrators who
were involved in the decision process to Obtain
viewpoints of management issues dealing with the goals,
Objectives, and processes.
2.Student issues addressed in the conversion process such
as the students’ role in the decision making activities
that affect student life experiences before and after the

calendar transition.

53

3.5aculty issues, including input to the conversion
planning and the process Of implementation.

‘4.Environmental issues were also explored which are not
directly related to the calendar format change but which,
during this time period, may have impacted on the
process, for example, change in administrative
leadership, labor union issues, local community
involvement, state funding, and administrative procedures

impacted by outside agencies such as accreditation.

Inotrunontation

An instrument developed by the researcher specifically
for this project (Interview Guide) was used as one means Of
collecting information, specifically information from
individuals. A copy of this guide is provided in Appendix
B. and was pretested to assess its reliability and validity.

It is expected that the information secured on this
instrument will be non-proprietary, perhaps even published
information, which can be easily Obtained with a high level
of accuracy and Objectivity. A description Of the interview
instrument testing is contained in Appendix D. The pretest
was conducted with administrators and faculty members to
verify the instrument's content and face validity. This

will make certain that the terminology used actually

54

describes the information desired, is universal, and will
result in an accurate response from all participants with

comparable data.

Co-parativo Analysis

The analysis Of the information was principally focused

on examination of the question: Was the process used by the

 

case study institution in converting from academic quarters

 

to a semester system consistent with the suggested

 

guidelines for thegplanning and implementation of the change

 

as recommended by leading authorities?

 

The research goal was used to describe accurately the
process of calendar transition experience at Ferris State
University from 1989 to 1993.

The analysis involved several phases, similar to the
process summarized by Croteau & Lark (1995) in an
examination of student affairs practices in higher
education.

In Phase 1, the data was separated into discrete bits
of information (Garnets et al., 1991; Kuh & Andreas, 1991;
Lincon and Guba, 1985.) This phase involved generating a
complete set of the many components of the change process,
described by the participants, or as can be discerned from

written documents used by the case institution in the

55

planning and implementation process of converting to
semesters. The chronological order of the conversion
process with decision milestones as components was
documented.

In Phase 2, these components were examined with the
purpose Of comparison to a standard procedure described in
chapter two and three (Table 1), noting the consistencies
and discrepancies.

Phase 3 involved selecting units of data which were
most illustrative Of each component and developing a written
description Of categories, subcategories, and illustrations.
These were revised frequently to reduce the number of
categories and/or improve their clarity.

Phase 4 required testing the categories by sharing them
with individuals familiar with the phenomenon, in this case
with the calendar transition process. This phase involved
personal interviews with administrators and faculty.
Information gained from document analysis was cross checked
with key interviewees. In addition, during the interview
process cross checks were made among the interviewees in
order to improve the validity of the interview information.

Finally, a person was selected from the list of
transition team members to critique the gathered information
Obtained to verify accuracy and relevance. It provided the

researcher with a check on whether the categories and sub-

56

categories had accurately captured the process and whether
they meaningfully communicate this to those who actually
experienced it.

In Phase 5, the data are organized by creating larger,
more abstract themes. The purpose Of this phase was to
derive meaning from the data at the highest level of
abstraction possible, tying them to other, similar

phenomena.

Summary

This chapter has described the case study approach and
its suitability for analyzing the process of the calendar
change at Ferris State University. The structure and
procedures to be undertaken in the effort have been
explained including the method of analysis. The outcome of
this analysis will answer the question: Was the process
used by the case study institution in converting from
academic quarters to a semester system consistent with the
suggested guidelines for the planning and implementation of

the change as recommended by leading authorities?

CHAPTER 4

CASE STUD! OF EERRIS STATE UNIVERSIT!

Introduction

Chapter Four describes Ferris State University and the
actual planning process and procedures used to implement the
change from quarters to semesters.

The three constituencies studied in terms of the
process used for this transition were administrators,
faculty, and students. The sources of information included
published reports of studies, statistical data, and

university bulletins plus minutes of committee meetings.

Contort of tho Rosults

A description Of Ferris State University (FSU), Big
Rapids, Michigan, provides a context for better
understanding the results Of this study. This description

flows best from the statement of this organization's mission

57

58

and statement of purpose. The following was approved by the
FSU Board Of Control on August 3, 1991:

Ferris State University is Michigan's applied
polytechnic university. Its mission is to teach
students in a number of applied technology fields and
in other selected professional fields where there is
sustained and significant career potential. Ferris
educates its students to be employable and capable of
professional growth, and further, to contribute to
their profession and to a constantly changing, global
society.

OUR STUDENTS

We are committed to providing our students with strong
curricula emphasizing practical, usable skills blended
with a relevant general education foundation. This is
accomplished in a caring environment with personal
attention and close faculty-student interaction. We
Offer educational opportunity, with an “open door”
admission component, to a diverse array of students,
including high school graduates, transfer students from
other colleges and university, as well as non-
traditionally prepared students. We also foster
positive co-curricular experiences leading to a
fulfilling student life.

OUR PROGRAMS

We are committed to keeping our educational programs
and services responsive to the changing needs of
manufacturing, business, health care, and other
industries and professions which are critical to
Michigan's economy. We achieve this by actively
fostering mutually beneficial relationships with those
who employ our graduates.

OUR EMPLOYEES

We are committed to high standards Of performance and
pride in accomplishment, with the understanding that
the strength Of our organization is in our people. We
embrace the concepts Of equal Opportunity, affirmative
action, and cultural diversity. We encourage teamwork,
professional growth, acceptance of responsibility, and
recognition of achievement.

OUR COMMUNITIES

We are committed to being good neighbors with full
participation in community life and community service.
We share access to educational experiences, business

59

Opportunities, cultural events, leisure pursuits, and a
variety of other activities with our communities.

OUR STATE

We are committed to contributing to the economic

vitality of our state by providing a well-trained and

educated workforce. We are actively involved in

applied research relative to the transfer, application

and management of technology, and its relationship to

our society.

This statement of mission was supplemented by a Board-
approved Strategic Plan of August, 1993, implemented in
1994.

Profilo of ISO

Ferris State University is nestled on a GOO-acre campus
in Big Rapids, a city Of 12,600, located in the vacation and
recreation area of West Central Michigan, 54 miles north of
Grand Rapids and within 200 miles Of both Chicago and
Detroit. (Campus Map see Appendix C)

FSU teaches technical skills and applications focused
on solving real problems and produces a graduate that is
more practical than theoretical, and more active than
contemplative. It provides a diverse array Of technical and
professional programs which results in one of the state's

highest placement rates--93 percent Of the most recent

60

graduates surveyed found jobs or continued their education
(FSU Quick Facts, 1996). Accreditation is by the North
Central Association of Colleges and Schools and is certified
by the State Approval Agency of the Department of Education
and the Veterans Administration for the education and
training Of veterans to attend under the provisions of Title
38, United States Code.

The institution is named for its founder, Woodbridge N.
Ferris (1853-1926), a Michigan educator and politician, a
two term Michigan governor and United States Senator.

Ferris established a private industrial school in Big Rapids
in 1884 under the name Of the Big Rapids Industrial School.
Shortly thereafter the school changed its title to Ferris
Industrial School. In 1899, the School became Ferris
Institute, which became part of the State's higher education
system in 1950. By an act Of the Michigan Legislature in
1963, the school became Ferris State College. In 1987 the
Legislature granted university status and changed the name
to Ferris State University.

Woodbridge N. Ferris had retraining of out-Of-work
lumberjacks in mind when he started the institution 112
years ago. His concept of training students for a changing
society is just as relevant today.

With a 1995 enrollment Of approximately 9,700 students,

FSU provides more than 100 academic programs through its

61

seven colleges: Arts and Sciences; Allied Health Sciences;
Business; Education; Optometry; Pharmacy; and Technology.
In addition to certificate programs, associate's and
bachelor’s degrees, there are Offered two master’s degrees
and professional doctorates in optometry and pharmacy.

Selected programs are also Offered at off-campus
locations through the Northern Michigan Regional Center in
Traverse City, Southeast Michigan Regional Center in Flint,
and Southwest Michigan Regional Center in Grand Rapids. As
an applied polytechnic university, Ferris is a key
contributor to Michigan’s economic base.

The institution is governed by a gubernatorially
appointed Board. In 1995 the Board was changed from a Board
of Control to the current designation as a Board of Trustees
whose members serve a term of eight years. The Board
ultimately is responsible for the academic and fiscal
policies of the university and appoints the president,
administrative Officers, and full-time faculty.

Financial resources are primarily derived from state
support, tuition, gifts, and investments.

The faculty at Ferris are qualified people in their
particular fields, whether by experience or by education.
Of the faculty members, over 30 percent possess earned
doctorates, while an additional 56 percent have master's

degrees and beyond. Eight faculty members have been awarded

62

Fulbright grants in recent years. Numerous faculty have
earned other state, national, and international honors.

While the primary emphasis is on classroom instruction
(teaching institution), the faculty are engaged in a variety
of scholarly activities, including publishing text and other
books; as consultants in business and industry; in editing
and publishing in learned journals; in performing research;
and in writing plays, poetry and articles, both in the U.S.
and abroad.

The students represent a wider cross-section of the
population than is to be found on some campuses. A future
manufacturing engineer may be actively involved with the
Associated Student Government senate together with a
pharmacy student.

The majority of students come to Ferris directly from
high school, but an increasing number are students Older
than average who are changing careers or are taking
advantage of advanced training opportunities after missing
out earlier in their lives. The many Ferris laddered
programs provide training to move up to a better career
level. Approximately 56 percent Of the students are in
baccalaureate degree programs

Unlike many four-year institutions, Ferris serves as a
community college for the Big Rapids area of Michigan by

Offering a variety of two-year associate degree programs.

63

Laddering programs allow credits earned the first two years
Of study to be transferred into the final two years of a
wide variety of compatible baccalaureate degree programs.

Sixty percent Of the student population are male
students, and 40 percent are women, but the percentages of
coeds has been gradually increasing.

Every county in Michigan is represented by the student
body which provides a diverse background including the
highly industrialized southeast and the recreational areas
of the north. Approximately 25 other states are also
represented in addition to foreign countries on five

continents.
Tho FSU'Aoadmmic Calondmr

On several occasions in the past 25 years, the issue of
the academic calendar change at Ferris State University has
been considered. As early as January 17, 1972, it was
announced that Ferris would convert to a semester format for
academic year 1974-1975. Minutes Of the Board of Control of
March 4, 1972, indicate the planned change was discussed,
but no action taken at that meeting. Minutes of the
December 16th, 1972, meeting show that the planned calendar
change was not considered feasible for two reasons: First,

many programs were predicated on students entering every

64

quarter; secondly, the shorter, twelve-week summer session
under semesters compared with the sixteen weeks summer
session under terms was deemed unworkable.

Adjustment to the quarter calendar in 1973 was made
that facilitated the fall term starting two weeks earlier.
This was done so that the school year finished in mid-May,
allowing students looking for summer employment to have a
competitive Opportunity for summer jobs with those attending
institutions on semesters who also finished in May. This
format continued until the issue surfaced again in 1989 and
a Feasibility Committee was formed to evaluate a transition
to a semester system. The faculty was asked, as part of a
general survey, how they felt about a sixteen week semester
system. NO other semester Options were considered. Of the
352 responses, 50.8% were strongly Opposed, 39.8% expressed
support, and 9.3% expressed no Opinion. Then-president
Popovich requested that the Academic Senate create a

Semester Feasibility Task Force which met for the first time

 

on January 12, 1990. Its mission was to “study the
advisability of Ferris State University’s conversion to the

semester calendar system.” (see Figure 2)

65

 

 

CHAIRPERSON - Alan Pochi

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SUBCOMMITTEES:
'_——__—_f CALENDAR & ACADEMIC POLICIES
CURRICULUM, FIELD EXPERIENCE, AND
WORKLOAD
——1 STUDENT LIFE AND SERVICES j
———[ FINANCIAL IMPACT |
Members: April, 1990
Alan Pochi Ferris Faculty Association (FFA)
Ken Acton Technology
John Alexander Administrator
David Baker Student
Richard Bethel Academic Senate
Thomas Colladay Administrator
Ed Hengesh Pharmacy
Garth McHattie Education
Paul Prins Administrator
Margaret Robbins Business
Patricia Russell Arts and Sciences
Paul Schnept Administrator
Colin Skelding Student
Joan Totten Library/Counselors
Allyn Uniacke Optometry

Thomas Walsh
Jackie Wheeler
Meg White

Professional Staff
Allied Health
Student

Figuro 2

ORGANIZATIONAL CHART: SEMESTER EEASIBILIT! TASK FORCE

66

Somostor Fbasihility Task Ebrco

The areas to be evaluated were assigned to four working
subcommittees, described as follows:

1” Calendar and Academic Policies
0 .Administrative and academic policies

0 .Academic calendar relationships with other Michigan
college/university calendars

 

2. CurriculumL Field Experience and Workload
0 Curriculum planning and development
0 Faculty workload
0 Field experience education

 

3.Einancial Impact

 

4.Student Life and Services

 

The chair of each group prepared a position paper on
the task assigned. Composition of the subcommittees
represented specific interest areas or expertise. The
results of each subcommittee's findings were reviewed for
purposes Of understanding the environment within which the

administration made decisions to change.

Tho Calondar and Acadaic Policy Subco-ittoo

The task assigned the sub-committee for the Calendar
and Academic Policy was to study what the effects of

converting to a semester system will be upon registration,

67

advising, final exams, drop/adds, calendar length, the
beginning and ending dates Of the semester, breaks, and the
calendar's relationships with other Michigan colleges and
universities.

Forty-six other institutions were studied to evaluate
their calendar formats. The schools selected were other
State of Michigan-supported institutions or in some way
similar to the demographics of FSU. The Ferris Office Of
Planning and Development had earlier prepared a Peer
Institution Study in 1986, and 19 of the 46 institutions
studied were selected from this peer cohort.

The Big Rapids School District’s calendar was also
studied to look at the coordination of school breaks and
vacations which permit faculty and staff and their children
time Off together.

The impact of the Grand Rapids Junior College calendar
on the FSU courses being jointly taught at the Applied
Technology Center was also considered.

Of the 46 institutions studied, 36 were on or were
committed to changing to the early semester calendar. Some
42 had a type of final examination period after the end of
formal class sessions.

The Subcommittee's review of the early semester system
(FSU, 1990, Appendix II) suggested that this system had

these characteristics:

l.

68

Semesters will eliminate the interruption in instruction
which now occurs during the winter quarter as a result of
Christmas. Spring break, however, interrupts instruction

during spring semester.

2.AIspring break that coincides with the Big Rapids school

systems will be advantageous for faculty and staff.
Semesters will allow FSU students an Opportunity for
summer employment at the same time as students from the
other eleven state-supported schools on semesters. It
was also found to be more compatible with the Grand
Rapids Junior College system.

Semesters will eliminate a major enrollment period that
involves admissions, advising, registration, fee
collection, financial aid distribution, and grant
processing.

Transfer credits would not need tO be converted for
students attending all but one of the other state
universities and most community colleges.

Student advising is more critical as students
experiencing difficulties in a course will have lost 15
weeks of effort rather than only 10 weeks if they elected

to drop or had failed.

The committee's recommendation for conversion to the

semester calendar was based on the belief that this would

69

align the FSU Ferris calendar with those of other state
supported universities and most other peer institutions.
While other factors were important, this was clearly the

most significant.

Curriculum, Fiold Imporionoo, and Workload

The task assigned this committee was to compare the
strengths and weaknesses Of the quarter and semester systems
in areas of curriculum planning and development, field
experience education, and faculty workload.

There were five Objectives chosen which were to be
served by a three-item questionnaire (FSU, 1990, Appendix
III) using the descriptive survey method (see questionnaire,
Appendix D):

1” To raise the consciousness of the faculty and
administrators to a possible need to change calendar.

:2.TO measure faculty and administrative support for a
possible conversion to semesters.

13.TO identify the reasons, particularly those unique to
Ferris, for either staying on the quarter system or
converting to semesters.

I4.To determine which system would best serve students,

faculty, and administrators.

7O

£5.TO determine the perceived and/or anticipated faculty and
administrative workload that would be required for

conversion.

A summary Of the responses and first-hand comments
Obtained from the subcommittee members revealed some
expected and unexpected feelings.

When describing the strengths of the quarter system,

curriculum it was reported that quarters were considered

 

traditional at Ferris and favored by the majority Of
faculty, students, and adult learners. The format divides
the year conveniently into 4 time periods with as many
points of entry which facilitates the marketing of programs.
The natural summer quarter works well for remedial or
acceleration purposes.

Quarters allow easier packaging of course content into
distinct units with greater variety of offerings thus
increasing flexibility of course scheduling and establishing
prerequisites.

With more concentration Of material in a shorter
period, the emphasis is on a need to know rather than a
nice to know basis. Also, the intensity promotes higher
level of student interest, less chance for boredom and
unfavorable interactions or conflicts between students and

faculty.

71

Students may find that classes meeting more frequently
each week may promote greater retention of material which
would be important to those less academically qualified.

With a shorter course length the student performance
feedback is more rapid. A poor course grade has less impact
on an overall GPA, and more retake Options are available,
thus reducing grade stress.

Survey results indicated that field experience

 

activities under the quarter system had some good points.

Multiple entry points (4) to programs of shorter
duration allowed for a variety of experiences with more than
one internship site. The ten week internship appeared to be
preferable in that the student spent less time away from
formal studies, fulfilled some program internship needs
without redundancy, was highly favored by seasonal programs
such as Professional Golf Management, and easily
accommodated some certification programs requiring twenty
week sessions to accumulate necessary hours.

In terms of workload issues, the quarter system allowed

 

more efficient utilization of full-time faculty and greater
flexibility in recruitment of part-time faculty.
Strengths of the semester system were summarized from

the survey data and, in terms of curriculum, indicated that

 

it is important to be aligned with calendars of most other

state and national colleges and universities.

72

Semester curriculum reduces the number of school
session startups and wind-downs, decreasing repetition and
introductory material including course preparations, which
leaves more time for research and academic development.

Textbooks are generally written for semester courses,
and semesters present more opportunities for class projects,
field trips, outside speakers, and researching reports.

Problems transferring college credits to and from
Ferris with most other institutions by students would be
alleviated. Also, the conversion Of reporting data
transmitted between Ferris and State of Michigan officials
would be no longer be required.

With a more leisurely, less structured pace, a broader
and/or more in-depth coverage of material would be possible
and more conducive for development Of student-faculty
rapport.

With a longer course format of 15 weeks, there is more
time between exams, allowing students more time to recover
from poor academic performance.

With regard to field experiences, the semester calendar

 

has a better fit for student teacher placement arrangements
with K-12 schools, allowing more time for pre-placement
orientation and integration with ongoing course work.
Fieldwork would be a longer uninterrupted time on task which

is more consistent with real world experience.

73

The workload under semesters would be significantly
affected as all processes that occur quarterly would occur
one time fewer per annum. This would impact student
counseling, pre-registration, registration, financial aid
assessment, grade collection and reporting, graduations,
etc.

The use of library resources and personnel would be
more spread out with the fewer circulation periods and
reduced competitive pressure placed upon resources.

While the Curriculum, Field Experience, and Workload
Subcommittee did not take a firm stand one way or another,
it did Offer recommendations in the event of a final
decision to convert.

A summary of the recommendations includes that:
1”.An implementation task force be established to facilitate

the transition.

:2.A at least two years duration be established to inform
faculty and students as to what is happening and how it
will impact them.

23.Recommendations of the General Education Task Force be
assimilated into conversion plans.

‘4.The institution take this opportunity to evaluate the
directions of programs and course content fully.

5.Atan early semester calendar with the first semester

ending at Christmas be established.

74

6.Time for final examinations be allotted.

7.The conversion factor from quarter hours to semester
hours be two-thirds with the normal course load being 15
hours for a four-year graduation expectation.

8.The relative current minimum.number Of credit hours
needed for graduation (180) be maintained after
conversion to semester hours (120).

9.A.credit hour would be the traditional 50 minutes Of
course instruction with one credit hour for three hours
of contact for laboratory experience.

10.The faculty workload not increase as a result of
conversion.

11.Course content be structured to minimize the need for one
or two credit hour courses.

12.The content of service courses be developed with input by
those served with enough additional course sections
Offered routinely to offset the sections lost because Of

the conversion.

Financial Impact

The Financial Impact Subcommittee was charged with

 

determining what costs would occur and be ongoing as a

result of the change from quarters to semesters.

75

While significant costs are involved with the move from
one system to another, particularly in adapting student
record keeping, there was not enough evidence to show
conclusively that there are higher specific costs associated
with one system or another. The minor exceptions are for
costs of residence hall maintenance and keeping residence
halls open with food contracts, faculty contracts, etc.

The costs Of changing the student record keeping system
are partially Offset by the elimination of the staff's time
currently used to convert records to a semester equivalent
for state accounting purposes.

The subcommittee did not discover any major ongoing
administrative Costs favoring one calendar or another with
one minor exception: the possibly increased faculty costs
of the examination period extending the contract work
schedule. Since most other staff are on a twelve month work
schedule, the change from terms to semesters would not have
as obvious an effect. The subcommittee recommended that two
semesters' tuition should cost students the same as three
quarters and proportional costs for summer sessions. While
students would pay more when registering for a semester than
a quarter, the tuition would be the same for a full school
year period. Students would realize some cost savings with
one fewer set of textbooks needed for two semesters per year

compared to three quarters.

76

Those units on campus that would be affected by the
conversion estimated the following financial impact on the
institution.

Operations:
Estimated savings in cost of forms $ 3,000

 

Physical Plant:
Possible savings in utilities $ 5,000

 

Bookstore:
Reduction in textbook revenue ($400,000)
Savings from reduction in labor $ 15,000
net cost ($385,000)

 

 

 

 

Business Office: (One less billing cycle)
Savings on -billing forms $ 750
-postage $ 1,500
-Overtime $ 100
$ 2,350
Registrar:
Postage savings from one mailing
- of grades $ 3,300
- pre-qtr info to students $ 120
- intern/coop mailing $ 200
$ 3,620
Administrative Services: NO change N/A

 

Total of the above estimated annual change in
costs/revenue that would be ongoing due to the
change from terms to semesters ------------- ($361,030)

The estimated costs of the calendar change
implementation are:

Information Services and

Telecommunications:

Implementation of the Student Information $ 40,000
system (SIS new or modification of current

system)

 

Academic Affairs Office:
Estimated costs for the 1993-94 Semester
Implementation
Year One, 1990-91
Faculty release time, Semester
Implementation Team Formation ($ 80,000)
Secretarial, supply and expense ($ 20,000)
net cost $ 100,000

 

 

77

Year Two, 1991-92
Semester Implementation Team,
One faculty member @ 100% release
for STT Chairperson ($ 40,000)
Seven faculty @ 50% release ($160,000)
Secretarial, supply and expense ($ 50,000)
net cost $ 250,000

 

Year Three, 1992-93
Semester Implementation Team ($200,000)
Secretarial, supply and expense ($ 50,000)

net cost $ 250,000

 

Year Four, Implementation Year 1993-94
SIT Chairperson, 50% release time($ 20,000)
Secretarial, supply and expense ($ 25,000)

net cost $ 45,000

 

Total estimated costs of implementation ----- $ 685,000

Studont Lifo And.Sorvioos:

The subcommittee for Student Life and Services focused

 

on concerns of the students and implications for services
Offered them in view of the changes being considered.

The results of a marketing research class project were
used to determine the attitudes of students toward a
possible change in the academic calendar from quarters to
semesters.

Comments were also solicited from department heads in
the Student Services section of the Business Operations
Division. They were asked to review their areas of
responsibility to estimate the impact both financially and

by service to the students if a change took place. A basic

78

assumption was that the current 30 week format would be
retained and comparisons are made based on three 10 week
quarters and two 15 week semesters.

Summaries of the comments from Student Services staff
follow:

Housing and Food Service:

Switching to a two semester system could reduce some Of
the financial costs of three quarters because of one fewer
Opening and closing Operation. Student retention might
improve as the current quarter system appears to create more
drop out opportunitiesz.

Athletics:

 

There would be advantages for sports participants as
well as spectators with a semester calendar as sporting
events could be scheduled to fit with other institutions'
schedules which are predominately semesters.

Intramural athletics might be more attractive to some
students with longer seasons under semesters.

Bookstore:

Two book buying rushes and buy-back periods rather than
three would result in some labor cost savings. With a
semester format they would reduce text book purchases for

students by one-third.

79

CounselinggArea:

 

While strictly conjecture, students may experience less
pressure in class situation with longer semester, but longer
periods between breaks could create more anxiety.

Judicial Services:

Difficult to identify any major impact of change.
Student Activities:

The short (ten week) term calendar creates some
scheduling and advertising problems for events which would
be alleviated with more time to plan and execute under

semesters.

Student comments were gathered using a problem
statement: “What percent Of Ferris State University students
would favor switching to a semester system of some kind?"
During the 1987-88 school year, a marketing research class
collected 716 surveys from randomly selected classrooms
across campus, Obtaining a representative proportion of each
of the seven schools at the university as well as from each
of the class levels (freshman, sophomore, junior, senior,
and graduate students). The surveys were quantitative
descriptive data gathering tools, focused on the problem
statement and seven Objectives (see Appendix F, sample
questionnaire: student survey--quarters vs. semesters).

The survey results used demographic variables such as sex,

80

class, and school to determine by the triangularity method
whether the study is representative and results could be
judged valid. The results were reported as having a
confidence level of 95% with a confidence interval of
approximately +/- 5%.

The executive summary Of the results reports “Students
who would favor switching to a semester system of some kind
were a minority. Of the students surveyed, only 32.9%
(22.6% for 15 week and 10.3% for 16-17 week) favored
switching to a semester system.” The report mentions that
“when cross-tabulated by demographic variables, it was found
that 73.7% of the students with a GPA of 3.0 to 3.4 wanted
to stay on the 10 week quarter system (FSU, 1990, Appendix
IV, pp.65-69). Many students cited (29.1%) that the main
advantage that quarters had over semesters was the ability
to Offer a wider variety of classes. This was extremely
important to the students because many (38.3%) planned to
pursue a minor degree, with a large percentage (26.6%)
undecided. The data indicated that all of the schools on
campus were equally likely to want to stay on a quarter
system. Of the students poled, 57.2% felt that quarters
Offered a higher quality Of education, with 7.3% saying that
the more intensive quarters made them work harder and learn
more” (FSU, 1990, Appendix IV, pp.57-59). The results

indicated that 32.3% Of the sample were semester transfer

81

students with experience under a semester calendar and that
73.6% of those students would prefer the current term
format. The principal Objections mentioned for the semester
system.are a reduction in class variety, a lower frequency
of breaks, and a greater chance of getting tired of a class
or a professor.

It was the recommendation of the study Of student
Opinions that, pending proof that semesters Offer a higher
quality of education, that Ferris State University stay with
its then present 10 week quarter system.

The subcommittee on Student Life and Services felt
that, under semesters, there would be no major changes if
conversion went ahead, other than the length Of residence
hall and food service contracts. Advising would be less
hectic but more crucial because students encountering
difficulty face a more severe penalty for poor academic
performance. Students would have more time to adjust to
various courses with longer sessions, but there is a great
deal of resistance by the students to making that change.

This would have to be dealt with in transition planning.

muons of tho Suostor l'oasibility Task l'oroo

On April 16, 1990, with the four sub-committee reports

completed, the final recommendation was submitted to

 

82

President Helen Popovich and the Academic Senate and stated

the following:(FSU, 1990, p.2)

1.

That the university convert to a semester system, to be
effective no earlier than fall, 1992, which should
provide enough time to implement necessary changes in

curriculum, student record-keeping, and scheduling;

.That the semesters consist of fifteen weeks of

instruction, containing seventy-five class days, and a
sixteenth week during which final examinations may be
administered. The fall semester should start at or near
the end of August, include a break from the Wednesday
before Thanksgiving until the Sunday after it, and
conclude at least one full week before Christmas. Spring
semester should start the first full week of January,
include a spring break that coincides with that of the
Big Rapids School District (if possible), and should end
about the first week Of May. Summer school could be
constituted as one fifteen week session from late May to
mid-to-late August, but other possibilities should be
explored;

That an implementation team be created to facilitate the

conversion and address the problems of the actual

°conversion process;

83

4.That the usual rate of conversion be in a ratio of 2/3,
so that an associate’s degree should contain about 60
hours, and a bachelor's about 120. The conversion factor
should apply across all course components Of a
curriculum;

5.That the standard lecture-only course consist of three
credit hours for three class meetings per week of fifty
minutes each;

6.That the standard student workload be fifteen hours per
semester for students intending to complete a degree in
four or two years;

7.That students enrolled during the transition process not
suffer and lose time for courses completed immediately
prior to the implementation of the new calendar;

8.That faculty workload not be increased because of the

conversion.

Roco—ondations of tho Univorsity Acadomic Affairs Offioo:

From an independent review Of the literature and
contemporary practice in American higher education, plus the
report from the Semester Feasibility Task Force Of the
Academic Senate, the university administration recommended

changing to the Early Semester System.

84

An executive summary report of September 18, 1990,

indicates that the semester calendar will commence with the
The summary goes on to suggest that

1 993-94 academic year.
“the semester format will provide greater opportunities for

Ferris students to assimilate material and to successfully
That with today’s

complete a rigorous academic program.

emphasis on critically important written and verbal
the semester system also gives this

communication skill,
institution a better opportunity to produce graduates with

(FSU Academic Affairs Office, 1990, p.1-2).

those skills”
In addition, one fewer registration process will produce

operational savings and more efficient use of time by

faculty, staff, and students.
The Academic Affairs Office report also states that the

Studies completed indicate that the semester system is

thought to be superior from a pedagogical standpoint, and
provides weaker students an advantage resulting from the

greater time availability between classes in a fifteen-week

caJ—endar rather than a ten-week calendar.

Roasons For Calondar Convorsion At This Timo

The many issues involved can be categorized into

s . .
eVeral basic areas as reported in the Executive Summary of

85

the FSU Academic Affairs Office, Calendar Recommendations

( FSU Academic Affairs Office, 1990, pp.1-3) .

3L .. Crimdng:
During the 1993-94 academic year, there are several
important activities and events.

0' The next North Central Association accreditation
site visit is scheduled for 1993-94, and the
conversion process will demonstrate progress in a
number of concerns voiced by the last visiting team.

0 The new general education requirements have been
committed to be in place by fall, 1993. This will
require review of the proposed curriculum models and
would be appropriate when the curriculum must be
addressed anyway with a change to semesters.

0 .A new student information system (SIS) has been
purchased by the Board of Control from Information
Associates, and most likely that package will be
implemented during 1993-94. Now is the most time
and cost effective period to convert to semesters:
when the new SIS system is being installed and
incorporating changes to the curriculum.

:2'- <Z<>ngruence With Contemporary Calendar Practice:
With the literature documenting a trend over the last
twenty years of a conversion from terms to the early
semester system in American higher education, the
problems of articulation surface. At the time of this
decision, thirteen Of the fifteen state universities in
Michigan are either on semesters or have made a
commitment to change from terms to semesters.
Northwestern Michigan College and Lansing Community
College are the last remaining community colleges at
the time of this decision to use the term format, but
both have indicated their intent to convert to
semesters by 1993-94.
Ferris has a very close relationship with Grand Rapids
Community College (GRCC) which is on a semester
calendar. The collaboration of programs with GRCC
through the Applied Technology Center in Grand Rapids
complicates the articulation process.
There are benefits to the administration, students, and
faculty to work under a calendar format that is
relatively consistent.

86

3 , Curriculum Revision:

 

Conversion to the semester system provides the
Opportunity for a fundamental review and possible
revision to the university curriculum at the elemental
level. With the concurrent implementation of new
general education requirements a comprehensive review
Of Ferris programming is possible. “The need to
effectively communicate and compute must receive the
very highest priority in curriculum planning.”

Bonofits of Somostors to: Forris Stato Uhivorsity

As part of the academic calendar recommendations, the

.Zaczaicieamic Affairs Office described the following benefits to

be derived from semesters conversion for students, faculty,

EiIICi Ianiversity management (FSU Academic Affairs Office,

1990, pp.3-5).

JL'- Eésgvantages For Students:

More out-Of-class time is available for the
assimilation Of material presented in class and for
the preparation of term papers and other out-Of-
class assignments.

The slow pace Of the semester course allows students
with weaker academic preparation more time to absorb
course material and more opportunities to interact
with faculty.

Students would have to purchase fewer textbooks,
resulting in a reduction of some educational
expenses.

The semester system with one fewer registration
period will detract less from the student's
educational experience at Ferris.

Short term absences from class (e.g. illness) can be
more easily accommodated in the semester system--
i.e. a 15-week semester gives students more
opportunity to “recover” from illness or overcome
academic deficiencies.

Both writing skills and the use of information
resources (i.e. library bibliographic instruction)
would be strengthened by more time being available

87

for course projects using and reinforcing those
skills.

Because approximately 25% Of the first-term students
at Ferris transfer from a community college or other
college/university and almost 40% of Ferris students
have some transfer credit, the compatibility of
calendars will facilitate ease of transfer of
credits (most community colleges and universities in
Michigan are on the semester calendar).

The early semester calendar would allow Ferris
students to compete favorably with students from the
other state universities for summer jobs.

:2...Zxcivantages For Faculty:

EB

 

The semester system allows faculty more time to get
to know students and to plan course activities and
objectives and also provides increased time to
improve the basic reading and literacy skills of the
students.

Textbooks and the organization of the material in
most texts are Often designed for the semester
system; consequently, course planning and lecture
assignments would be facilitated by the conversion.

The semester calendar would be more congruent with
the Big Rapids school calendar, allowing faculty
with children in the Big Rapids school system to
have common vacation times.

Faculty time currently assigned to registration-
related duties would be reduced by one-third, making
that time available for other faculty activities
such as course/curriculum planning, research, or
other scholarly activity.

The semester system allows more faculty time for
grading examinations, preparation of course
materials, and scholarly activity.

The semester calendar would eliminate the split
winter quarter and the loss of valuable course time
resulting from the break in class presentations.

SEESEDLantages For University Management:

 

0 One fewer registration cycle will result in a saving

of paperwork and staff time for admissions,
registration, financial aid processing, fee
collection, grade processing, etc. Staff time may
be utilized in other functions.

The less-hurried pace of the semester system will
give the administrative staff more time to process
all Of the paperwork associated with admission,

88

registration, tuition payments and grade reporting
of students.

0 The semester system will allow for more effective
forecasting and planning.
With the implementation of new general education
equirements and a new student information system currently
cheduled for the 1993-94 academic year, it was determined

hat. this would be the optimum time to change to semesters.

ThoISomostor Transition Toam

The first item of business was the establishment of the
emester Transition Team (STT) in December, 1990, and the
ppointment of Dr. James Maas as chairperson (Figure 3).

The chair reported directly to the Vice President for
Claciemic Affairs, the executive Officer responsible to the
Dard Of Control for the academic calendar. Dr. Maas was
i-Ven the responsibility for the planning, management, and
DOJ:‘<:lination of the implementation of the early semester
1:Lendar. He directed the activities Of the STT and
>0It‘dinated all aspects of the implementation process.
1e Semester Transition Team of 19 people was responsible
)3: the coordination of the curriculum change with the
iJIlecbus colleges of the university, the Academic Senate,

1dr essentially, the overall management of the conversion

rocess.

89

 

['CHAIRPERSON - Dr. James Maas

 

 

 

Subcommittees:
LAB COURSES

 

 

[ ROOM UTILIZATION

 

 

LPUBLICITY

 

 

SUMMER SCHOOL

 

 

 

CURRICULAR CONSULTATION PROCESS

(FORMS)

 

 

 

 

LIBRARY CONSULTATION (FORMS)

L.

 

 

MAJORS (HOURS)

 

 

 

EXAM WEEK

L

 

m—

 

Members: December,

Kenneth Acton
Dick Bethel
Lisa Boda
Julie Coon
Trish Coyle
Jeff Cross
Kelly Green
Ed Hengesh
Matt Klein
Jim Maas
Kitty Manley

Elaine Nienhouse

Terry Nerbonne
Mike Ryan

Paul Schnepf
Joan Totten
Al Uniacke
Tom Walsh

Ken Whitelaw

CALENDAR

1990

Technology

Part time Faculty
Student

Allied Health Sciences
Public Affairs
Lifelong Learning
Student

Pharmacy

Deans Offices
Chairperson
Academic Affairs
Library

Education

Arts & Sciences
Registrar

Senate

Optometry

Student Affairs
SIS

Figuro 3

<JRGANIEATIONAL CHART: SEMESTER TRANSITION’TEAII(STT)

90

With approval Of the Board of Control, a set of
guidelines were formulated in December, 1990, for the STT to
develop the actual mechanical process for the conversion.
Examples of the Board's suggestions follow: (FSU, 1990)

Students enrolled during and after the conversion
process must be able to complete their program and graduate
in the same length Of time they would have under the quarter

System.

The FSU 2+2 laddering concept must continue under the
Semester calendar.

Students will complete an academic year at least as
early as those at the other state universities to be
competitive for permanent employment and summer jobs.

Academic programs with special calendar needs will have
the conversion flexibility to meet those special needs.

The conversion will include a comprehensive review of
the curriculum with an emphasis on reduction of course
dup 3— ication .

Baccalaureate degree programs should have 120-130
cI‘eClit hours and associate degrees 60-65 credit hours.

Three and four credit semester courses should be the
norm with only a limited number of one and two credit
Q<>LIJl‘ses.

Faculty teaching loads must not increase as a result of

th
6 conversion to a semester calendar.

91

The cumulative impact on curriculum should be a one-
third reduction in the number of courses Offered for each
department and college.

The total number of course sections and the total
number of section credits Offered over an academic year must
decrease by approximately one-third.

The average number of students/sections enrollments per
terrn must remain constant.

The Board also provided the (STT) team a specific list
Of directions: (FSU Academic Affairs Office, 1990)

1 - Establish the guidelines for the conversion of courses
and programs, including detailed directions for course
numbering, credit hours in associate and baccalaureate

Slegree programs, meeting general education requirements
in the semester format, etc.

2 ° After consultation with faculty groups, propose a summer
calendar which will have the flexibility to meet the
3 Ileeds of a diverse student population.

Prepare guidelines for the number Of credit hours in both
accalaureate and associate degree programs and a process
<=> ensure that each college has carefully reviewed the

4 Va rious components of its programs.

‘ carefully review the need for an exam week (or final exam
fiia 3(3), and submit a recommendation to the Vice President

5 in this regard.

PJZ‘epare and submit no later than May, 1992, specific

ca-Jendars for the 1993-94 and 1994-95 academic years

6 ( including summer semesters).

’ acilitate the incorporation of the new general education
requirements through dialogue and coordination with the

7 geIneral education council.
ork closely with academic programs offering cooperative

ecilacation and clinical internship and/or externship

§Xperience to facilitate the inclusion Of such experience
in the semester calendar. The team is to be especially

Sensitive to the needs of this type Of educational

e3‘errience, and novel and innovative ideas are to be

8 erAcouraged.

.he team should propose a mechanism to keep students

lnformed about the status of the conversion and, at the

92

appropriate times, prepare information booklets for
students enrolled at FSU during the transition year.

9 - In conjunction with the other state universities while
undergoing the conversion, the team should plan for the
specific problems associated with the 1993-94 academic
year and how students will be advised during this
critical period.

10 - The team will have to deal with a variety of issues, not
all of which can be envisioned at this time--e.g., role
of service courses, duplication Of courses across the
campus, class size/number of section Offerings to meet
student demand, the potential for enrollment decline
experienced by other institutions in the conversion, etc.

11 - Oversee the preparation of conversion tables or
equivalency forms for individual courses.

12 - Plan for a training staff to serve as counselors to
students for the year prior to the conversion.

13- Publish, on a regular basis, a newsletter to keep
faculty, staff, and students apprised Of the progress and
issues related to the transition.

14 . Provide consultation on the conversion process to assist
COJIeges and departments in solving specific problems.

Finally, the Board requested a plan and timetable for
the ~conversion to be submitted to the Academic Affairs

Office no later than the end of the winter quarter, 1991.

Tho Procoss of Implantation

'I'
l'1€’\Academic Calendar:
One of the most pressing issues was the establishment

of an acceptable calendar for the students, faculty, and
administration. The STT gathered data from 945 institutions
which were on the early semester system and in January,
1991 . reported the following trends:

1
‘ Most schools on an early semester calendar use a

Monday-Wednesday-Friday, Tuesday-Thursday calendar. The

93

typical M-F classes (82%) are 50 minutes long, and the

t:ypical T-R classes (65%) are 75 minutes long.
2. The majority of schools use a ratio to convert contact
time to credit hours. Of these schools, 58% use a 750

minutes per credit hour ratio.
80% of the schools started Fall classes

3. Last year,
between August 22 and September 2; 88% ended Fall classes

between December 5 and December 17; 79% started winter
classes between January 8 and January 21; and 67% ended

winter classes between May 1 and May 13.
Eighty three percent Of the schools had between 66 and 80

4.
instructional days during fall semester, and 84% had
between 66 and 80 instructional days during winter

8 emester .

Following the national trends, a semester calendar for

1993—94 and 1994-95 was constructed (see Appendix F).

During the fall and winter semesters, the classes would

be 50 minutes long on M-W-F and 75 minutes long on T-R. The

SUIDIIIer classes would be 60 minutes long on M-W-F and 90

minutes long on T-R; which would shrink the number of weeks

neeCled to complete a semester's work.
With the 750 minutes per semester credit guideline, a 3

credit course would require 2,250 minutes of class time.

FOI‘ fall or winter semester, this led to 45 M-W-F sessions

and 30 T-R sessions. For summer semester, this guideline

r -
equ :Lred 38 M-W-F sessions and 26 T-R sessions. A split

h
alf‘summer semester would result in 19 M-W-F sessions and
1
3 Tr-R sessions.
The time for spring break was an issue that required a

Co . . . . .
111p1!:‘0mise. To be compatible with the MOISD School District

We
uld put the break very close to the end Of the semester.

94

The STT decided in favor Of scheduling the break slightly
past the halfway point which is when the break occurs for

all Michigan Public Universities which are on the semester

system. The committee felt that it would also be best to

start classes on Monday.

Cl a s 5 Scheduling:
It was recommended by the STT that Ferris State

University should adopt a M-W-F and T-R class scheduling
concept. Also, the point was made that classes not be held
from 11:00am to 12:00 noon on Tuesdays and Thursdays to

Provide time slots for meetings. Previously, on quarters,

0111 y- Tuesdays at the 11:00 hour were free of scheduled

CléiSses.
A list of scheduling guidelines was recommended for use

with the semester format:

If the class is scheduled for two lecture hours per week,
those hours should be scheduled in one of the following

c O nfigurations:
0 MW or MF or WF for 50 minutes.

0 TR for 50 minutes.
0 Any day for 100 minutes if the class meets at 5:00

2 p.m. or later.
‘ I f the class is scheduled for three lecture hours per
We ek, those hours should be scheduled in one of the
f0 .llowing configurations:
0 MWF for 50 minutes.

0 TR for 75 minutes.
0 MW for 75 minutes if the class meets at 3:00 p.m. or

3 I later.
’ f the class is scheduled for four lecture hours per

wéek, those hours should be scheduled in one of the

Q llowing configurations:
0 Any four days for 50 minutes.

1-

95

MW for 100 minutes if the class meets at 5:00 p.m.

or later.
TR for 100 minutes if the class meets at 5:00 p.m.

or later.
4 . If the class is scheduled for five lecture hours per
week, those hours should be scheduled in one of the

following configurations:
0 MTWRF for 50 minutes.
0 MW for 50 minutes and TR for 75 minutes if the class
meets at 5:00 p.m. or later.
5. Laboratory hours may be scheduled any day Of the week.
However, if a class requires multiple weekly laboratory
sessions, they should be scheduled in either TR or MWF

t ime blocks .

Sumter Session Format:
Most other universities have two separate sessions.

The students served in the two sessions tends to be quite

different. Several registrars of the schools that were

contacted indicated that few students enroll in both

SeSsions, with a 25 percent overlap. For this reason, the

STT recommended that most summer Offerings be placed in a 30

day session. It is anticipated that many continuing

students will enroll in the first summer session. There are

reE><>:l':ts that larger numbers of graduate students and

e11139-‘c‘ing freshmen enroll in the second summer session.
The two summer sessions would permit a student to

cOHIEI’ZLete a two semester course sequence in an accelerated

fer!“
at.
The STT ended up recommending three formats for the

s
“rattler session to provide flexibility for students

at:
£23 lerated programs or remedial Opportunities:

96

Lecture courses meeting in the summer sessions shall
require 750 minutes of instructional time per credit hour,

as with lecture Courses meeting during the fall and winter

A 2-credit class requires 1,500 minutes, a 3

s eme sters .
a 4 credit class 3,000 minutes,

credit class 2,250 minutes,

and a 5 credit class 3,750 minutes.

30 day Summer Sessions:
The first summer session in 1994 was scheduled for May

17 through June 28, and the second summer session for June

29 through August 10. All Of the summer Offerings were

SCheduled in one Of these two sessions, and most students

attending one of these sessions would enroll in two classes.
Each 3 credit lecture class would meet 2,250 minutes.

This could be accomplished by meeting on MTWR for 100

minutes each day (two 50 minute blocks). Because there are

24 M'J‘WR days during each session, the class time would

emu late to 2,400 minutes. The instructor would indicate on

the course syllabus three 50 minute blocks in which the

Clas 8 would not meet, reducing the class time from 2,400

Inlrll-lt:es to 2,250 minutes. For example, an instructor who

planned to give 3 exams might opt to eliminate a 50 minute

b
1°C: 1: on each of the exam days.
Each 4 credit lecture class would meet 3,000 minutes.

T .
his could be accomplished by meeting on MTWRF for 100

m.
lnutes each day (two 50 minute blocks).

97

Each 5 credit lecture class would meet 3,750 minutes.

This could be accomplished by meeting on MTWRF for 125

minutes each day (perhaps with a 75 minute block followed by

a 50 minute block.

60 day Summer Classes:
It was determined that it may not be pedagogically

sound to offer a certain type of class over a 30 day

session, such as case studies and research project oriented

courses. The class may be much better suited to a 60 day

time period. This type of class would begin on the first

day of the first summer session and would end on the last

day of the second summer session. Classes offered during

the 60 day period should be the exception, not the rule.

15 day Summer Classes:
This format is appropriate for a course designed

 

specifically for a group of students in the same academic

program. A student would enroll in only one 15 day class at

a time. It is anticipated that there would be very few
c2‘3‘--1-t‘ses offered using this format.

Each 3 credit class would meet 2,250 minutes. This
could be accomplished by meeting daily for 150 minutes

(three 50 minute segments).

Each 4 credit class would meet 3,000 minutes. This

c:
ould be accomplished by meeting daily for 200 minutes (four

5
O II'linute segments).

98

Examination Week:

The committee also had extensive discussion of the
concept of an examination period at the end of the semester.
All other state universities in Michigan which are on the
early semester system have either a five or a six day

examination period at the end of the session (except EMU,

which has a four day exam week). It would add no additional

instructional days to the calendar since the examination

time is considered instructional time. The early committee

consensus was that an examination period should be held and
that an instructor who did not wish to have an examination
during the scheduled time must meet with his or her class
during this time and conduct an appropriate educational
act ivity. A sub-committee was selected to further
inve stigate the examination period at the end of the term

and bring back the results of its study to the full

COMittee .

The sub-committee’s findings indicated that, with the

Seme ster system, a typical student load would be either five

0 - I O I O
r S :Lx 3 credit classes. Not hav1ng an exam1nation week

w
cult: place an extreme burden on many students who would be
(2
0:11: rented with five or six examinations in a two day
per 1 ed
The Director of Public Safety contacted the other

D a
11:3 Ctors of Public Safety at Michigan schools which have

99

final examination weeks. He found that there is no

noticeable increase in problems during examination week.

The STT reported that, for some classes at Ferris State
University, a mandatory final examination makes little
sense. For those classes which are laboratory intensive
classes, a '75 instructional day period could be employed.

All. other classes would meet during a 72 instructional day

period, followed by the five day examination week. Non-

laboratory intensive classes in which a final examination is
nOt appropriate would meet during final examination week at

the scheduled examination time and conduct appropriate

educational activities. The criteria for laboratory

intensive classes and the logistics of scheduling
eJ‘Karninations are explained in the Semester Transition Team's

April 10, 1990, report on recommended policy for exam week.

Wination Week Recommendations: (see Appendix G)

1 ‘ There should be a 5 day final examination week. There
Sl'uould be at least one calendar day between the end of
c3.1asses and the beginning of examination week to be used
as a reading/study day. For all courses, major projects

2 sluould be completed prior to final examination week.

‘ chere should be two types of classes: (a) laboratory
lhtensive classes and (b) non-laboratory intensive
cZLasses. A laboratory intensive class is one in which
o‘rer 50 percent of the scheduled class time is in a

3 aboratory environment.

" Laboratory intensive classes may elect to meet on the
first three days of examination week at their normal
t imes or may elect to meet during the scheduled 100
1"121nute examination time. The instructor must inform his
§tudents on the first day of classes, and this
lhformation must appear on the course syllabus. Should
the instructor opt to meet at the normal times, a test
may be given; however, it should not be comprehensive.

9-

100

No more than 10 percent of the grade should be determined
during examination week.

Iflon-laboratory intensive classes should meet during a
scheduled 100 minute examination time in examination
week. For these classes, examinations are optional.
Should the instructor deem that a final examination is
inappropriate, the class shall meet during the scheduled
100 minute examination time in examination week, and
other appropriate educational activities should take

place.
Makeup times should be built into the examination

schedule. The examination schedule should be published
in the Time Schedule of Classes.

Mass examinations must not occur during the first three
days of examinations in the 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. time slot.
This is to minimize the chance of interference with
laboratory intensive classes.

On a Saturday only class, the final examination should be
held during the first evening mass examination time.

In the event that a scheduled examination conflicts with
a laboratory intensive class, a student may elect to
reschedule the examination. In the event that three or
more final examinations are scheduled on the same day
during the final examination week, a student may elect to
take only the first and last of those regularly scheduled
on that day. In either case, notification of such
election by the student to the affected instructor must
be made no later than two weeks prior to the examination
date. It will be the responsibility of the student to
present authentication to the instructor of the course
affected. The rescheduled examinations will then be
taken on another day during the final examination week as
arranged by the student and the course's instructor.
Instructors are responsible for proctoring their own

e x aminations .

10 - Instructors are encouraged to turn in course grades
All

Wi thin 48 hours of the completion of an examination.
c<>urse grades must be turned in by 9:00a.m. on the third

calendar day following the last day of examinations.

'I'
Mourse Numbering System:

The guidelines developed by the STT for the semester

c
aleI‘idar format recommended a four character subject prefix

101

followed by a three digit number which reflects the year

usually taken, for example: PHIL 205.

The First Digit:

 

001 through 099

De ve lopmental

Freshman 100 through 199
Sophomore 200 through 299
Junior 300 through 399
Senior 400 through 499
Graduate 500 through 799

Lower-division courses (100 and 200 level courses)
generally do not have college-level prerequisites (aside

from preceding courses in their own sequence.
While many restrictions exist, many lower division
Courses are open to all students, not just those majoring in
tiles field.
Survey courses which are general introductions to a
fie 1d of study offered for non-majors are lower-division
cOurses, as are orientation courses.

gpper division courses (300 and 400 level courses)

requ :‘Lre substantial college-level preparation on the part of

the student. Ordinarily this should be indicated in the

c2c>‘-1I‘se description by a discussion of prerequisite
bacT’ltsground which will describe to both students and advisors
what is expected.
Graduate courses (500, 600 and 700 level courses) are
Usua 11y open only to graduate students who have been

f
ormally admitted to a graduate program at the university.

102

Some upper—division courses may be applicable for an
advanced degree at the university within limitations of
general university requirements and the appropriateness of a
course to a particular degree, but this does not change the
level of credit.

Courses may be cross-listed between departments but

must bear identical course descriptions, numbers, credits,

and titles.

The Last Two Digits:

Each department/unit is to develop a rationale for the
numbering system that will be used within a subject prefix.
The following ending digits are reserved and shall be used

on 1 y as specified .

Ending in 90 Cooperative Education Courses
Ending in 91 Cooperative Education Projects
Ending in 92 Cooperative Work Experience

Ending in 93 Internship
Ending in 95 Special (Experimental Courses)

Ending in 99 Special Studies Courses

Special Topics (Experimental Courses) such as ABCD 295,
495 ' 695 are reserved for courses in which the content or
format of the course might vary from one term to another.

T .
hls provides an opportunity to test courses for content or

format prior to formal adoption.

Special Studies Courses such as ABCD 299, 499, and 399

are reserved for courses of independent study by students of

the university.

103

This opportunity to review and update the entire course

numbering system will facilitate a smooth and logical

approach to the conversion for the students, faculty, and

administration .

3:16 Curriculum Transition Process:
The procedures and rules through which curricular

preposals (courses and programs) were prepared and approved

for the transition from terms to semesters was extremely

labor intensive and complex. The University Curriculum

Committee (UCC) received all transition course and program

Existing college/department curriculum committee

proposals .
As with

structure was used during the transition period.

all curriculum proposals, course and program transition
Proposals are reviewed and voted upon by department faculty.

The protocol for course proposals originates with the

Offering department and ends with final approval of the

Board of Control. The course proposal flow chart of Figure

4 - illustrates the approval process.

104

 

 

 

 

’rhcpnmusqunvmhflwofihmgdqnmman
, I ..........................
Library AllCourss Offering Tia 1&2 User
Departmentfi ......................... Departments

 

 

 

Direct V
C°nver 31°“ ‘W‘
& Revised
Offering |
College , General
Education
Dean Certification
7 Body

1'

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Semester
Transition UCC &
Team ..___.
Office Senate It Certified
Vice
President
Academic
Affairs

 

       

Board of
Control

 

(E753IJ.. 1991, Semester Transition Curriculum Procedures)
Figure 4

COURSE PROPOSAL EEO! CHAR!

.A comprehensive review of the curriculum in each
r
p c>g-‘l':am was made. In some cases, new courses were

es | o
ESQ31'1‘tially a direct converSion of old courses. However,

‘Nltltl ‘the opportunity to carefully review the curriculum,
many courses turned out to be modifications or combinations

of existing courses and in some situations were entirely new

105

courses. Each program had this opportunity to design the

best curriculum for its students within the guidelines set

forth.

For service courses, it was critical that there be a

constructive dialogue between the offering department and

the user departments. The users were asked to make their

concerns known to the offering departments early in the

process. The offering departments, taking into advisement

the concerns and requests of the various users, created

courses that were in the best interest of the students of

the user groups involved.

The conversion committees and librarians worked

together to incorporate library instruction into appropriate

courses. For all new courses and for courses in which there

might be additional use of the library, departments

consulted with their library representatives early in the

p’:‘<><=ess.

Cu:':‘\-‘ll‘iculum Conversion Guidelines: (FSU, 1991)

l ’ Conversion should be based on an evaluation of the place
earch course has in the whole curriculum. Conversion is
an opportunity to evaluate the whole curriculum, not just
<2(Durses, and to consider innovative delivery systems.

2‘ The converted curriculum should be able to be implemented

uSing current total faculty, staff, and space resource
evels. The total number of student credit hours offered

over the academic year must decrease by one third, but
the average number of students served must remain the

5Same.

3‘ A two-year model for course and faculty schedules should
be developed to assure that the average yearly faculty

106

teaching loads do not change as a result of the
conversion to a semester calendar.

4-- Students enrolled during and after the conversion process
must be able to complete their programs and graduate in
the same length of time they would have under the quarter
system. Program requirements for graduation need to be

adjusted for these students.

55- Academic programs with special calendar needs will have
the conversion flexibility to meet these special needs.
For these programs, course lengths may be altered when
there are strong educational reasons to do so.

6 - The Ferris State University laddering concept should
continue under the semester calendar.

'7 - The ratio of technical to general courses should remain
approximately the same.

8 - The graduation requirement target is 128 semester hours
for a baccalaureate program and 64 credits for an
associate degree. Baccalaureate degree programs should
contain 124-132 credit hours and associate degrees 62-66

czredit hours.

9 - Conversion must involve consultation between the
department offering a course and the programs requiring

that course .

10 - Other universities should be surveyed for comparable
Courses. Transferability and compatibility with other

universities should be maximized.

11 - Programs are encouraged to consult with their
éccreditation bodies and their established program
lhdustry advisory committees in the review of their

curricula .

1 .
2 ‘ Three and four credit semester courses shall be the norm.
SDecial studies courses and activity courses may differ

tom the norm.

1'3 ~ Course configuration (number of lecture and laboratory
Ours per week) should be appropriate for the course
Objectives and content.

14 -Clearly stated prerequisites should be established for
each course.

107

115.Redundancy should be minimized by course deletion and
consolidation. Course duplication should be reduced.
Courses not offered in the last 3 years should be strong

candidates for deletion.

16.Some courses may be directly converted to semester
courses. When this is not possible, courses may be
converted to the semester system by combining existing

courses or by expanding the course material.

Lime-Lines For Courses And Programs:

A four tier approach was used to schedule completion of

tzrle course transition. Courses classified as Tier One

c:c>urses completed the approval process first to prevent all
c:<>urse proposals from entering the system at the same time
aazuci to better facilitate program planning, approval process
before submitting courses classified as Tier Two. etc.
Tier One courses attracted cross-unit student clientele
.azucfl. have a three term enrollment of 100 or more students.
For a user department to have input into the conversion
Of Tier One courses, that department submitted its concerns
tc’ 1:11e department responsible for the course by March 25,
1991 - Tier One course proposals were submitted to the

UlFleV-reersity Curriculum Committee by September 30, 1991. The

UCC acted on Tier One courses by October 14, 1991.

Tier Two courses were those required in programs of

departments other than the department offering the course.

They generally attracted a three-term enrollment of under

100 students .

 

108

For a user department to have input into the conversion
of Tier one courses, that department submitted its concerns

two the department responsible for the course by March 25,

Tier Two course proposals were submitted to the

13991.
1991. The UCC

(Jluiversity Curriculum Committee by October 7,

aaczted on Tier Two courses by October 28, 1991.

Tier Three courses were primarily elective courses, are

r1<>t required by any current program. All new elective

<3<>urses were in Tier Three. Tier Three course proposals

vveere submitted to the University Curriculum Committee by

C>crtober 21, 1991. The UCC acted on Tier Three courses by

November 11, 1991 .
Tier Four courses were those used predominantly by

students in the department offering the course. These

courses were not required by any programs outside the

Offering department. Tier Four course proposals were

sukDIlflitted either prior to, or concurrently with, program
These proposals were submitted to the University

proposals .

Cu:"~‘3'1‘:"Lculum Committee by February 17, 1992. The UCC acted on

trLe3£3€a course proposals courses by April 6. 1992.

EEESZSIEEam Proposals:

Program proposals were submitted either concurrently

These

 

“1th, or following, Tier Four course proposals.

proposals were submitted to the University Curriculum

109

Committee by February 17, 1992. The UCC acted on program

gproposals by April 6, 1992.
The complete time-line upon which the aforementioned

activities in this chapter had to coordinate is listed in

Appendix H and titled Process Timeline.
Summary

In Chapter Four, the semester conversion process used
k>§r Ferris State University has been described in terms of

their public documents, procedures, guidelines, and

rationale. This information provides insight to one leg of

the conversion process at FSU. The following chapter will

document the process through personal interviews with the

Participants.
The conversion activities will be compared and analyzed

in Chapter Six to answer the question: Was the process used
by the case study institution in converting from academic
quaJi‘ters to a semester system consistent with the suggested
guidelines for the planning and implementation of the change

as recommended by leading authorities?

CHAPTER?!“

Interviews with Administrators and Faculty

The previous chapter presented the structure,
procedures, and documents used in the calendar format
Jreastructuring to semesters at Ferris State University.
Chapter Five will report on the views and comments of the
people directly involved with the calendar change process.

The question driving this study is whether Ferris State
University was consistent with those guidelines suggested by

leading authorities for the planning and implementation
process of converting from terms to semesters. Information
desCribed in this chapter will be analyzed in Chapter Six by
Cc“IIEDaring the change process of FSU as determined from
published conversion documents and university records with
the interviewee comments. A comparative analysis will be
made with the recommended procedures indicated in the
litalrature.

Before tabulating the comments received in reply to the

28 questions asked, the methodology of the interview process

“1 l 1 be described .

110

111

The instrument used to gather observations,
recollections, and feelings was developed with a focus on
the recommended conversion process incorporated in the
problem statement of this thesis. The questions were
formulated to result in reliable information gathered from
different people attending the same activity. Several
versions of the instrument were tested with mock interviews
and resulted in the final interview guide used for this
research. A more detailed explanation is contained in
Appendix I, Testing of the Interview Instrument.

Interviewees were selected from a pool of candidates
that were listed in university documents as committee
members and executive level administrators involved with
conversion activities. In that several years had passed,
Some of the candidates were not available and were deleted
from the list.

Three categories of involvement were targeted:

1- Executive level administrators such as Board Members,
President, and Vice Presidents.

2 - Members of the Semester Feasibility Task Force who were
involved with the study and the recommendation for the
conversion.

3 - Members of the Semester Transition Team which was
responsible for the planning, organizing, and

implementation of the change to semesters.

112

To insure a well balanced overview of the events, a
random sample method was used to select ten of the viable,
available interview candidates. The objective was to secure
in-depth personal interviews from at least two executive
level administrators, four members of the Semester
Feasibility Task Force, and four members of the Semester
Transition Team. It was also felt important to select a
fair balance of faculty versus administrators from among the
committee members who were involved.

The interviewees were shown the “interview guide”
(Appendix B) and informed of the specific questions that

applied to them and how their comments fit into the overall
study. A signed consent form (Appendix A) was obtained from
each individual with the promise to keep his or her name and
3013 title at FSU confidential. This was done to encourage
more freedom to express candid feelings, and with the
understanding that proprietary or confidential information
was not being solicited.

Complete transcripts of the recorded interviews are
inc3J—L1ded in Appendix J and are identified as interviewee A
thr<>ngh K. What follows is a report of the majority
comments received from the participants dealing with each

clueS‘t:.ion on the interview guide.

113

Question 01:
In the overall conversion, initially and later on
during the conversion process, what in your opinion was the

level of influence and level of involvement of the
fOIlowing? (scale of 1 for low level and 5 for high level)

The numbers suggested by each of the subjects to

indicate their perception of the level of effort, were
placed on the chart of the interview guide. A comparison

.matrix of the results is illustrated in Table 2.
Columns are provided that indicate the average rating
arnd the standard deviation, for responses from the eleven

interviewees .
The data of this chart represent the influence and

irlxrolvement during the initial process when change was

cxorisidered, and at a later time when conversion was in

process .

114

Table 2

INFLUENCE AND INVOLVEMENT OF PARTICIPANTS

INFLUENCE OF PARTICIPANTS WHEN INITIALLY CONSIDERING A CHANGE

INTERVIEWEES A - K (1=low 5=high)
A B C D E F G H I J K AVG STD\DEV
3d of Control 1 1 5 5 5 1 1 2 5 2 3 2.82 1.83
President 3 5 1 5 5 2 1 4 4 5 5 3.64 1 .63
ProvosWP’s 2 3 1 4 5 5 5 4 4 5 3 3.73 1 .35
Administrators 2 1 1 4 1 3 5 1 1 1 3 2.09 1 .45
Faculty 2 2 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 .55 1.21
Students . 3 2 1 3 2 0 1 1 O 3 O 1 .45 1 .21
Community 0 O O O O 0 1 O O O 0 0.09 0.30

INVOLVEMENT OF PARTICIPANTS WHEN INITIALLY CONSIDERING A CHANGE

INTERVIEWEES A - K

A BC 05 F G H I J K AVG STD\DEV
BdofControl 1 1 0 3 5 1 1 4 4 0 1 1.91 1.76
President 3 5 3 4 5 1 1 2 4 1 5 3.09 1.64
ProvostNP’s 2 3 5 4 5 5 5 3 5 1 5 3.91 1.45
Administrators 2 1 1 4 3 3 2 1 1 4 3 2.27 1.19
Facuity 1 1 1 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1.36 0.67
Students 2 1 1 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0.73 1.01
Community 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0.09 0.30

115

Table 2 (cont'd)

INFLUENCE OF PARTICIPANTS DURING THE CONVERSION PROCESS

INTERVIEWEES A - K

A B C D E F G H I J K AVG STD\DEV
Bd of Control 1 '1 1 3 0 1 1 2 1 0 1 1.09 0.83
President 1 2 1 4 2 1 1 2 1 4 3 2.00 1 .1 8
ProvosWP’s 1 1 1 3 5 5 2 4 1 5 3 2.82 1 .72
Administrators 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 4 1 5 3 4.27 1 .27
Faculty 5 5 5 5 5 2 4 2 5 3 5 4.18 1.25
Students 5 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 0 4 0 1 .73 1 .62
Community 0 0 5 2 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0.91 1.51

INVOLVEMENT OF PARTICIPANTS DURING THE CONVERSION PROCESS

Bd of Control

President
ProvosWP’s
Administrators
Faculty
Students
Coinmunity

ONmmd-AA)

O-‘UIUI-lN-tm

Gammon-too

INTERVIEWEES A - K

mum-500.5000

O-KUI-FN-hom

NNU’IUQ-‘d'l'l

NAANN-s-LG)

ONOIUUN-FI

OOUINN-A-t—

assaults-nos.

‘OQU’INU-‘dx

AVG
1.18
1.73
2.64
3.73
4.91
2.18
0.84

STD\DEV

1.25
1.19
1.21
1.19
0.30
1.47
0.92

116

Question #2:
HOW did you personally influence the conversion

process?

Replies to this item reflect the role each

Note:
such as on one of the

person played in the process,
committees or as an advisory role as an executive level

administrator.

--As a program coordinator, my involvement was to make
sure the curriculum modifications did not harm our situation

in terms of the students, faculty, and staff.
--I did my best to express the hardship semesters will

.bring to our program. Obviously I did not influence the
final decision but made sure our area was well covered as
.fiar as meeting the deadlines needed in the conversion

process .
--I don't know if I influenced the process, but I said
I chaired one of the

.myr piece and listened to other people.
snip-committees and spent considerable time developing items

such as the mascot for student communications on the

process .
--We worked many hours in getting this thing done, but

I couldn’t change the decision. We at least got all the
issues on the table; I did that for sure!
influence was in the area of student life and

_-.My
services, to see things from the students’ side, if
possible.

--As a committee member,[--]planned the implementation

Process and directly influenced the meeting of deadlines and

tasslcss.

P11... 1 Initial Decision To Consider Calendar Change (1989)

1Question 03:
What factors during 1989 influenced the decision to

cons.ider changing the calendar?
—-At that point I think it was mostly calendar--simply

m‘3‘t-<-‘—11ing the public schools' systems to Ferris.
-- Probably the most important was the need to be in

sync with other institutions in the State of Michigan

lncllilcling the community colleges.
~- The big factor was Michigan State was going to

semeSters and we did not want to be the last school in

Mlclligan to go to semesters.
'—- We needed to conform more to other institutions in

the state. That was the most overriding factor.

117

-- We wanted to bring the calendar in alignment with

other institutions.

Question #4:
In your opinion, who was involved and what roles did

they play in the decision to change?

--We had two educators on the Board of Control at that
time, Archie Bailey and Pat Short. They were urging that we
look at it--very seriously. I thought if we were going to do
it, that was the time when the SIS was switching over, so we
could go through two major conversions at the same time and
the expenses that are associated.

--The president decided a study was needed.
--The president--she has come from semester schools,

arnd she kind of implied that was a better way of doing it.
--I think the Board of Control pretty well mandated

that we were going to make the conversion--I think the

prwesident, with blessing of the board, said, let’s set up

the STT and let’s move it.
--I think it was the president, the vice-president for

academic affairs, and perhaps the Dean’s Council.
--Gary [VP of Academic Affairs] made the decision.
--The VP of Academic Affairs definitely wanted to do
it.- The other administrators were involved but were not all
in agreement.

--The VP of Academic Affairs was Gary Nash, and, in his

oPinion, we should go to semesters. We surveyed the
students--the Senate--the first vote declined changing to

semesters--the second vote 51 against and 49 for--it was
Stlercztly an administrative decision based on some criteria,

30 titlat is the way it was going to be.

Phase 2 Evaluation 5 Recommendation

(1990, Semester Feasibility Task Force)

Question #5:
What do you recall were the primary goals and/or

ObjSCtives for FSU to change to semesters?

1°C>k: --First of all, it was time that the university took a

of at their[31c]courses and we have created a curriculum

we c(Durses with some tremendous overlap with other courses--

lit‘ganted to find some engine to let us weed this out a

con 1e bit to consolidate and upgrade courses-—it was a
cert), and Helen Popovich[then president]saw that.

118

--We were looking at changes in the general education

requirements and installation of a new student record system
(SIS)--that was a combination that needs to be in place by
the time of the North Central visit---maybe that is why we

were looking at semester conversion.(timing)
--Being on the same calendar as the rest of the state

and a new computer system would please the North Central
1993.

Accreditation Team--they had planned to visit in fall,
--Changing of general education requirements,
transferability of credits, North Central accreditation

visit.

--Compatibility with other institutions; reevaluate the
curriculum, courses, and programs; revise the general
education requirements; do away with the Christmas break
‘that broke up the quarter.

--The chance to improve curriculum--this was a great
opportunity to do this because we have[sic]a lot of new

faculty.
--Timing--change semesters at the same time we bring in

new general education requirements plus a new SIS system.
--The calendar issue, the transfer issue, more time to

teach courses, compatibility with other institutions.

Question 06:
HOW closely do you believe the committee (Semester

Feasibility Task Force) acted in regard to the stated goals

and objectives?

--We looked at what was happening at FSU and felt that
and the committee did its

semesters was the best for FSU,
Tok3..
--The committee did not go off in different directions;

we Stayed focused.
--The issue was to consider whether we should be the
sauna; as other schools, and that's what was evaluated, among

013118 1: things .
—-There were compromises but still within the goals set

out:.,
Most everyone did what

--Very well in my estimation.
was needed for their[sic]program or area.

Question #7:
HOw was the charge to the Semester Feasibility Task

E017C=<31committee determined and communicated?

up --The Academic Senate formed the instructions and set
be 'EFlle committee. The charge was discussed at one of the
g 3- nning meetings .
--It could have been a joint thing---the Senate as well

as tille President. The chairperson, Alan Pochi, really gave

119

the directions when we first met, and I suppose he received
the information from the VP of Academic Affairs.

--The VP of Academic Affairs really took care of the
details in setting up the committee structure and time
lines.
--I don't remember who it was, but it was someone who
gave the structure--we just want you to look at every
possible thing you can think of and consider it and make a
recommendation--I don’t recall any ongoing visits by senior
administrators to see how we were[sic]doing and to influence
us.
--We received the charge from the President's office.
It was brought to the academic senate--it was either the
President or VP of Academic Affairs, Gary Nash, I think,
'that gave the formal request to do this study and make a
recommendation--and a committee was formed.

Question #8:
How was the makeup of the Steering Committee and each

Sub—commi t tee determined?

—-It was primarily volunteers for both, actually--once
we got some volunteers, then we took a look at the makeup
and said--we need another administrator or some students
here--to make sure we had representation of the whole

carnqpus.
--I am reasonably certain President Popovich had so

Imar132 administrator slots that she could put there and I was
once ‘that represented an academic area. It probably came out
Of Helen's office; that’s that way it was; then we divided
ourselves under the four groups(sub-committees) .

--I don't know who selected Alan Pochi(chair). Each
c“Pl-lege had the ability to place two people on it, plus the
11t>13eary. Each major academic unit had the opportunity.
they were not selected by the Senate or the President. The
su15><2<>mmittees were developed from expertise within the group

0f ‘\7<>lunteers.
--You volunteered in the area of your interest and

e"‘pelctise.
--If I remember, I was asked to serve because of my
WOITk: on curriculum, Each person had some special interest.

I 9“less the colleges were asked to supply representatives.
--To tell you the truth, I think it was an appointed

52:119. I don’t recall an election or anything. I think I
'Eisked to serve, maybe, through the Senate.
Chii' --I think individual members were voluntary and the
sublr was appointed. I volunteered for the minority
C=<>nmuttee. I guess there was a formula so that every

ar .
e a was involved .

120

--You recruited people in positions that you wanted to
represent. It had to balance, not by gender or race--but it
probably wasn't a perfectly created committee.

Question #9:
HOw was the chairperson selected for the Steering

committee and each sub—committee?

--I think I walked into the room and was told this was
the (steering committee) chairperson. The subcommittees
were not appointed, but, as I remember, it depended on who
had the most interest or some experience and led the
discussion and then handled the follow-up. Seemed more like
a leader rather than a formal process.

--As I recall an extensive search and evaluation of the
potential chairpeople that could be used for this very
important assignment. Only the chairs of the steering
committee were appointed by administration. Jim worked for
me before--I know his strengths--he could be trusted, and he
had the background to make it happen--he has ties to MSU who
had just done their conversion.

--Chairpersons (steering committee) were designated by
administration. I think the VP, but I’m not sure.

--Alan Pochi was appointed, and I think in my sub-
committee the chair had a strong feeling about the subject
area and just put his energy to work and we split up the
things needed to be done.

Question #10:
What methodologies were used by your committee in

making decisions?

--We just gathered information--and discussion until we
felt we had enough--not so much like voting--we had to
compromise in order to satisfy the rest of the campus.

--We just basically got in a committee and talked it
through--tried to get all the viewpoints that we could and
as a consensus we should come to agreement--well, I could
live with that if you could live with this--it was pretty
much by consensus--it wasn't one individual that rammed
their[sic]opinion home or dictated.

--Just kicked things around and came up with a
COnsensus--there was no real voting.

--We had voting-—we invited people to come in and ask
questions and voice opinions--sometimes we just seemed to
alflrive at a point where no more discussion was needed, and
WE! did not need a vote, but it was obvious what the majority
feeling was--then everyone just seemed to go along with the
Jrecommendation by the chair or someone else.

121

--Obviously some things we kind of voted on at least by
expressing our view we voted, and the chair could see which
direction we were headed but did not tell anyone what was
going to happen or force a decision if it did not seem right
for the group.

--Lots of discussion, lots of input from every aspect
of the campus. Everybody sort of had their[Sic]own agenda
and passion. It was mostly worked on verbally--the
discussion went on until a vote or consensus came about--
usually we just kind of agreed or were willing to agree.

--It certainly was not bureaucratic or political. It
came to a consensus, probably using good rational--there
were questions we would ask, get everyone’s ideas-~consensus
that came together was based upon surveys-~the majority
ruled on the consensus.

Question #11:
In your opinion, explain which methodologies were most

effective?

--While I don't recall a vote, we agreed on solutions
that were for the good of the greatest number.

--I think just allowing people to talk through worked
the best-~more decisions were made by consensus than by
vote--everybody had the opportunity to speak--I sensed that
everybody seemed to go with the better for the most--there
were also a few arguing for whatever; then they would come
to a consensus, even if they didn't like it.

--Talking it over to hear each persons perspective and
then see what is best in the long run.

--That everyone was willing to listen and go along with
the majority, even though they may disagree.

--Sometimes by talking it seemed a little like a vote
process, and we would discuss the issues--then we would all
kind of agree--that’s what I mean by consensus.

Question #12:
In your opinion, explain which methodologies were least
effective?

--When some people became enraged at changing the
‘general education requirements as it would seriously affect
their programs--it was difficult to reach agreement, and a
Vote was taken.

--When we would not be able to satisfy everyone and
tIflen we all agreed--some people were backing down or living
”ltih the result of most people--it would work best if
eVeryone spoke their[sic]mind.

122

--I guess when we did not have enough discussion and
some people did not want to go along with the group

decision.
--Like an administrative point was made that this is

the way it must be done and when--what do you call this

type--political?
--Some things we kind of voted on, at least by

expressing our view, and the chair could see which direction

we were headed but did not tell anyone what was going to
happen or force a decision if it did not seem right for the

group.

Question 013:
Please describe the most controversial issue

encountered and how it was resolved?

--The laddering of requirements such as a three level
conversion process for freshmen, sophomores and juniors.
The Senate had to approve these changes, so I think, by
giving up something and compromising, we were able to get

that through.

--How are we going to get quarterly hours into semester
hours? How is it going to affect programs like PGM? (also
technology) They won't get good jobs out there. We
researched that and found that only a half dozen good jobs
there in the first place depended on getting out before
Other schools that were on semesters. Of course, if you
d-‘f-dn’t know otherwise, this is what you believed. We
qlscovered that, during semester transition, a lot of mis-
1nf<>rmation floating around the campus. There was a real
lack of communication sometimes that caused conflict, but
whatever we passed on, in fact that whatever we do, has to

be communicated on a daily or weekly basis to be sure

eve ryone is notified.
--How students would lose contact hours with us in my

pr3C>gram if we went to semesters. They listened but just
neVer understood. I didn't like it and still don’t like it,
but I am supporting the committee's recommendation.

--The level of defiance about the issue of changing to
semesters--I would say the people concerned were facilitated
a¥ allowing expression. Usually the person would go along

ter given their[sic]point, even if still not sold.
Cal --The union was a major one as semesters shifted the
Se endar and moved the vacation time. It was resolved by
anveral of our administrators sitting down with the union

d talking it out. They worked out the impact on the

Cont ract .
--One of the big controversial issues was that the

s .
mzmester system gave more time for them to learn the
terial but you reduced the number of choices a year a

out

123

student could make. That issue was discussed but never
resolved. A formal vote was taken. It was close.

--The major issue was how vocal that technology and
allied health among others were trying to show it was not
idise to move to semesters. The major concerns were allowed
‘to be heard, but the issue of transition of the institution
vmas bigger than the parts involved. It was felt that
:semesters would not affect negatively any one component
(drastically. I have accepted it, but, from my area,

quarters is a better fit!
--A major issue was that a lot of the programs

ijndicated they enter a new class every three months. After
studying it, we realized that most programs were not doing
‘tlaat anymore. They did not have four classes in progress,

ma ybe two .

Question #14:
Describe the constraints on the committee that

influenced committee action, positively or negatively.
Itilme? Finances? Support Staff?

--There were real time constraints as we had to throw

this together in about ninety days. This was positive in
tlléat: it put pressure on dealing with issues and not

fiesstzering.
--We had time constraints that caused some problems but

InC>St.ly a positive to get it done.
--Deadlines probably helped the process.
--We were given a deadline to make the recommendation--

this was good as it was a target and provided energy.
--Time lines made the committees efficient, knowing

tlléi1t: they had an end point.
--It was difficult to get the committees and faculty to

Come up with proposals in a timely fashion.
--There were no financial constraints as far as I know.
--As far as funds go, we were able to support some of
ttléift: activity out of our existing budget to put faculty on
other campuses for study purposes of the change.
an undue expense but was expend for the department. I
Eemember the Vice President's office helping us out with
tudget relief because we had to send out so much paper work
0 faculty.

--There were no staff problems.
--We used our own secretarial staff and the Academic

:Tnate support if needed. There were no negative
ltuations.

It was not

124

Question .15:
In retrospect, as a member of the Semester Feasibility
Task Force, what would you like to have done differently in

the conversion process and why?

--My recollection is that we did not have a strong
chair, and I think we could have benefited from a strong

chair--to keep things smooth and moving along quickly.
--I hoped the VP’s office would have given a bit more

direction at the time--established a uniform standard across
the whole campus--for the role of Arts and Sciences versus
the rest of the school. This has been one of the most
successful and most difficult projects here at Ferris of the

l a st decade .
--I would not want to change it--I think the stars were

running it--Allan Pochi, Jim Maas, and others were very
diplomatic, well thought of, and kept the local dissension

down to a minimum.

--Probably wished there was less dissension or concern
from each side of the issue to change. Not many people
changed their minds about changing to semesters.

--It was so difficult get a strong commitment from the
administration to the costs of funding and conversion. They
were very wishy-washy on it. We couldn’t get a commitment
from them of what dollars were available to pay for
Conversion. This was the start of the “fiscal

We could not

res tructuring"--—no one really talked money.
solid financial information, so that issue came up in

open meetings we had across campus but never adequately
I

get
the
addressed, in my mind.

--I don't know what I would have done differently.

tried hard to change the decision.
--I would like more student input. I don't know how
are able to make sure that happens--we had students that

You
invited, and they did not always show.

we

Phase 3 Planning (Dec 1990 Suester Transition Team)

Phase 4 Organising (1992)
Phase 5 Impl-entation Process (1992-1993)

Question #16:
What do you recall were the primary goals and or

obj ectives for FSU to change to semesters?

Se Note: Comments to this question from members of the
qumester Transition Team were included in answers to
eStion #5 from the Semester Feasibility Task Force.

125

Question #17:
HOw closely do you believe the committee (STT) acted in
being consistent with the stated goals and objectives?

--It was quite clear that the conversion was to take
place and the other things that were going on, so we did
what had to be done--there wasn’t much deviation, really.

--There were compromises but still within the goals set
out.

——There was no real document--we just did it and got
input from other institutions by phone or visit and tried to
put it together and meet FSU needs. It got finished and
went very, very smoothly.

--Completely in-line from my point of view; Jim Maas
was an excellent chairperson, and we met deadlines and
objectives.

--We were concerned about all aspects such as fairness
to students and revamping the curriculum properly.

Question #18:

What role or functions did the Semester Transition Team
committee perfOrm that influenced the implementation
(process?

--We, or more appropriately Jim Maas, set the time-
frames, gathered much of the information, and helped us
identify all the tasks that needed to get done--the STT took
a strong leadership role and followed up on the conversion
process as each college and program made the changes needed
in the curriculum.

--I would say a leadership role in that we contacted
other schools and asked them about their experiences,
gathered inputs from many people, and laid out what had to
be done and the timeline--we certainly had a significant
influence on making sure semesters was[sic]ready and the
students ready.

--Everything actually--at least the planning,
structure, timing, and follow-up--no one else was tracking
it, only the STT--no question about it--the planning, the
booklets, the forms--we were set up and supposed to be for
major problems, but I don't think we did have any real big
ones.

--Well, we had to do the organizing or figure out the
tasks, plan what needed to be done and when--there was no
roadmap--this was done as needed or as problems surfaced.

--Mostly common sense as to what next needed to be
done--Jim Maas was the detail person.

126

Question #19:
HOW was the charge to the Semester Transition Team
committee determined and communicated?

--The VP, Gary Nash, he was the man involved. The
charge was made clear prior to my accepting the chair. When
we started, we knew what had to be done.

--Prom Jim Maas, the chairperson who was in regular
contact with upper administration, the president, and the
VP, I think.

--Jim Maas was the person in charge from the beginning,
and he expressed what needed to be done. I believe he was in
constant contact with upper level administration as to our
process.

--Jim Maas gave us the specific areas we had to
address--at that time we needed to present how the
transition would take place.

Question #20:
HOw was the makeup of the Steering Committee and of
each Sub-committee determined?

--the makeup of the committees were[siclappointed by
the chairpeople.

--Basically, if you were interested in it, you just
jumped in there-—a little bit more informal than the task
force--we were not going to spend a lot of time having a
formal organization--we tried to get somebody from every
area--it wasn't any kind of elected process--a lot of the
feasibility task force members carried right over to the
transition team.

--Sub-committees were determined basically by
volunteer--Jim would say, “all right, one of the first
things we have to do is take a look at how we are going to
get course evaluations--I would like for three people to do
this--who would like to do this”--it was all volunteer
basis-~30 if you have some leaders in an area that is what
you are attached to--we didn’t have a nice and neat, formal
structure that one person was chair of a committee all the
time.

--If I recall, we volunteered or suggested our
preference.

—-They had representatives for each of the schools--I
don't think it had to do with the number of people from each
school--they did bring in the Senate, the EPA as there was
concern about contracts-~we were in the middle of contract
revision--the system of selection was about hitting all the
various colleges to get some representative, and there was
the other levels, who volunteered.

127

--The steering committee was put together by Nash--he
told me who the members were going to be--he tried to get a
broad cross section of people from the campus--I don’t know
how the students were picked; I think he asked the ASG for
two students who would be willing to serve.

Question #21:
HOw was the chairperson selected for the steering
committee and for each sub-committee?

--As I seem to remember, an extensive search and
evaluation of the potential chairpeople that could be used
for this very important assignment--personalities and
leadership style were critical and significant in the final
outcome, which was considered very successful.

--Chairpeople for the subcommittees--we had people of
different backgrounds and experience--what we did was set up
the task of the week--we would discuss that task in full
committee, then I would try to get a flavor of what people
thought about the task--then I would perhaps see a need to
have a sub—committee of about three peOple--I tried to pick
people from what I viewed as the extreme points of the
issue--either side of the issue--when the sub-committee
would come to an agreement, then I felt we had something to
bring to full committee.

--The chairs for the Feasibility Task Force and the
Transition Team were appointed and given (released} time to
get it done. The sub-committees were picked by us or at
least volunteered.

--The STT started off with Jim Maas to be the person in
charge—-it was a smaller committee than the Feasibility Task
Force--I don't think we really had chairs--what I remember
from that is we had responsibilities; that was a better way
to address it--we really didn't have a chair on sub-
committees, but on paper there were chairs listed as those
responsible for pulling together reports to the steering
committee.

--If I recall right, we volunteered or suggested our
preference--the subcommittees kind of naturally put
chairpeople in who had the notes or desire to take charge--
got it--it didn't matter who was chair everyone got it done
that was involved, although not everyone was totally
involved, if you know what I mean!

Question #22:
What methodologies were used by your committee in
making decisions? (voting, consensus, etc.)

--I don’t know except for leadership in making sure we
had all the information to evaluate alternatives--much the

128

same methods as with the Feasibility Task Force--maybe a
little more informal, but more issues to decide on.

--There was a whole lot of debate here--we usually
ended up agreeing on the process and willing to go long.

--Basically, let’s try this and see how it works; we
had really no research; not many schools kept any kind of
records of how they did this; let’s play with it and build
a model.

—-It was basically after the sub-committee reported, we
would have full committee decision, generally come to
consensus if we could before voting. If we were not at
consensus, we asked the subcommittee to reconsider some of
the issues; then we would bring it back up at the next
meeting--eventually we voted on it.

--We talked most things through until there was
agreement. We used everyone we could as a resource to get
the facts and evaluate each side until it was clear which
would be best for the students and FSU.

--Same as the other committees. It was consensus.

Question #23:
In your opinion, explain which methodologies were most
effective?

--By discussion it was apparent who needed more
information, and we held off making a decision until that
was done. That was effective.

--Votes, particularly when they were close. In
subcommittees it was mostly consensus. Ultimately we had
some votes.

--Getting somewhat of an agreement before actually
deciding which direction we must go. Consensus was very
important and effective, as we needed support to get things
done. Getting all the issues discussed until everyone had
their say, or we went out and came back with more data.

--Jim pretty much set the priorities and organized the
tasks. He was of course talking to the Vice President of
Academic Affairs and called meetings. He would get
reactions, so he was giving direction, and from that he
would communicate back to us. We were out digging up
information and throwing out ideas. We would just sit there
and put things up on the board and say--“that’s not going to
work,” and “that will cause a conflict.” It was not a
perfect system and we had to develop an orderly process.

-—Sometimes situations could be nipped in the bud
before they got to the worker level. That was probably the
most productive--if it was an administrative situation, we
just got a decision right now!

--The most effective is when everyone got involved and
contributed--It worked when people listened!

129

Question 524:
In your opinion, explain which methodologies were least
effective.

--Probably when someone felt they[sic]were not being
listened to and then got frustrated and we could not get
agreement on how to proceed or finalize something.

--People against the conversion dropped out of
committee involvement after the decision was made--they
threw up their hands and said “the hell with it”--they might
have been somewhat slow in developing material. We had to
go after them. So they could get angry, but they still had
to come up with the information. Mostly everyone on the
committee was for it. We were going to meet the deadline.

--We had trouble when some faculty members felt their
program would suffer and they did not want to let go. They
had trouble looking at the good of all the students. They
were unhappy when a decision was obvious by the comments of
most of the committee without having to vote--agreement was
facilitated.

--None that I seem to remember. Jim Maas was such a
well organized person; he kept us focused on the task at
hand. When we had problems, he tabled the issue, and we
researched it some more and came back to the steering
committee.

--Jim made us reach agreement by discussion.
Consensus.

--It was difficult to get consensus all the time, or at
least full cooperation. We had good team members in that
they communicated, at least the main core of the committee.

Question 025:
Please describe the most controversial issue
encountered and how it was resolved?

--Should Easter break be scheduled with the winter
semester or the local public school system? Everything was
dealt with in committees--we got input from other sources
and brought it to committee, even had open hearings to air
the issues.

--There were lots of them, but each subcommittee made a
pitch, and we discussed. I think one of the most
controversial was what credit hours would pay extra, would
it be 16 or 19? I think it was voted on. We had people in
from the business office. I can't remember voting, but we
did have people disagreeing and some for, and then the issue
was resolved.

--Probably exam week. Everyone was listened to and
gave their[siCJinput, and, while we did not to vote or
anything like that and Jim would put items on the board, we

130

could see what's best. Not everyone was happy, but they
went along.

--The calendar. How can we fit the courses into the
fifteen weeks. What other courses should we have? Should
we have an exam week? There were people from technology on
the team that had a problem with the fifteen weeks. They
said “we had a lot of lab time we need.” So there was a lot
of vocalization with that. Jim, as chair, with his easy
going way, suggested alternatives, and we looked at them to
facilitate the problem.

--Perhaps the polarization feeling people had. I don’t
think it was totally polarized. Perhaps it was a fear of
the unknown rather than people speaking from positions of
knowledge. We changed the calendar to an extra week.

That’s about the most controversial. We just researched the
alternative and got enough information to get agreement on
the best way.

Question #26:

Describe constraints on the committee that influenced
committee actions positively or negatively: Time? Finances?
Support Staff?

-—We had to come alive September ‘93-—the time frame
was placed on them. I had a series of things that had to be
done and an order for them to be done in. I got agreement
from the committee on the timeline and tried to hold the
university to them. That put a lot of negative pressure on
a lot of people to get their work done, such as training and
curriculum changes. In a positive way, the time schedule
gave us direction and a progress status.

-—We were on a pretty tight time schedule as far as
deadlines which, in some ways, helped to move items along.

--Those time constraints that were imposed had an
impact on how many people participated. I would say the
deadlines were positive most of the time.

--There were time deadlines that caused problems. We
had to push to get other people to stay on the conversion
process track.

--I don’t recall any financial problems with operations
on this committee.

--Pharmacy is different because we have some resources
that we can use outside of the university. Jim had a budget
for the committee, and we had no difficulties that I'm aware
of, at least that were negative on the process.

--Money that was needed was provided.

--Finance, we ran it bare bones. I was not given any
financial constraints. I was told if I had any financial
constraints to talk to the Vice President. I never did.

The funding was just my salary on released time and the

131

person replacing me in the classroom and a part time
secretary.

--As far as help, he (chairperson) had computer access
and secretarial help. It was primarily his. The committee
would get together in the Presidents' Room or South Commons,
and he got an office in the Northeastern Community Education
building.

--There were no support problems other than deadlines
to get all the paperwork done, but that was not for lack of
secretarial support.

Question #27:

In retrospect, as a member of the Semester Transition
Team, what would you like to have done differently in the
conversion process and why?

--I cannot think of a thing. Committees were a little
big; that is it.

--My experience was great. We weren't skipping around
doing bits an pieces; everything flowed together. No egos
were involved. There was no “doctor this, doctor that.”
Everyone had a chance to voice some ideas we thought out.

It was a lot of mental experiments. We had to learn the
process; we had to select members of the faculty to deal
with this. We had to train them sufficiently so that they
can answer students' questions; so that the counselors were
knowledgeable of what we are doing.

--I would not change a thing. What we hammered out
just worked. Only because we had a good, strong leader, Jim
Maas.

--I thought it worked well. If another university
would do it, I would recommend before they get started they
should bring in a panel of four or five people who have
chaired other committees. To show pluses and minuses. That
would be a good source of experience.

--Perhaps this process could have been done
differently; I don’t know; there was no guideline to
follow; we were developing the process, or at least Jim
Maas was organizing the jobs.

--Prob1ems were resolved as they surfaced. Our people
did a smooth job compared to some of the disasters we heard
about from other institutions.

Phase 6 Incorporate Change To Semesters (Aug 30, 1993)

Question 028:

What methods were placed in the conversion process to
evaluate the results of the calendar format change with
reference to the stated goals and objectives?

132

--None that I am aware of. No study. Problems were
dealt with.

--None that I recall, as it was all done and no turning
back. Problems were resolved as they surfaced. Our people
did a smooth job compared to some of the disasters we heard
about from other institutions.

--None that I’m aware of other than the student appeal
process if they have a problem with their conversion
process.

--Our team recommended, as far as the calendar goes,
that the summer calendar should be reviewed after a few
years in place. The first summer would not be a good
indicator because so many students in transition were close
to graduation. We thought “let's give it a chance for a few
years.” The recommendations were verbal. I cannot remember
writing them down. We recommended to the VP to review in a
few years. As far as I know, it has not been reviewed yet.

--The only thing I recall is, in case of major mess up,
we could have been called back. There was a panel for
student appeal, but I don’t know who was on it or if it was
used. One thing that was said--that students will not
suffer because of the conversion.

--No, I think people are afraid to ask. The students
who experienced quarters are gone-—we got the transition in
place, and now it is no longer a transition.

--We continued to meet after the implementation as Jim
Maas still had some released time for follow-up. He was
monitoring the difficulties, and we would address any
difficulties. After the classes were being offered during
the semester, it became “who’s going to show.”

--Nothing formal. I think we were so busy trying to
put all these pieces together that you didn't spend a lot of
time evaluating how we were doing; we would just do it.

The whole process was evaluated on how efficiently that
system was working.

SUMMAR!

It is worthwhile to observe that in this Chapter Five,
the people interviewed may not have totally agreed with each
other’s observations while serving on the same committee.
The interviewer was not insistent that, in order to create a

true understanding of the events, each individual had to see

133

the situation in the same way. One has to make the case
that truth is a multiplicity of realities and that the
comments offered are a synthesis of the various
perspectives.

The information gathered in this chapter was used to answer
the question: Was the process used by the case study
institution in converting from academic quarters to a
semester system consistent with the suggested guidelines for
the planning and implementation of the change as recommended

by leading authorities?

CHAPTER 81!

Summary, Conclusions, and.Implications

The experiences of an institution going through the
semester conversion process are rarely documented.

Chapter Six presents a comparative analysis of the
experiences of Ferris State University with a recommended
standard process (Walz et al., 1977) presented in earlier
chapters. As a result of this analysis, conclusions were
drawn with implications that may be useful to other
institutions of higher education, when making major
administrative changes such as calendar format conversion.

A review of the literature in Chapter Two documented
historical perspectives of calendar changes and the trend to
the semester format. In addition, there is described a
recommended calendar conversion process by such recognized
authorities as Dr. Orville C. Walz, Leonard L. Overturf,
Joseph E. Frazier, Roger D. Baker and Lewis J. Copple (Walz
et al., 1977). It is their set of guidelines for the
process that this research will serve as the “benchmark.”

An outline of the process is listed in Appendix K.

134

135

Using the case methodology described in Chapter Three,
the conversion to semesters by Ferris State University was
compared with the “benchmark” process. For reference, a
timeline schedule of the process used by FSU is listed in
Appendix H.

Two sources of information were used for the
comparative analysis:

1” Published documents plus other university records,
reports, and forms used in the process as explained in
Chapter Four.

2L Personal interviews with faculty and administrators who
were directly involved. Comments are summarized by the

interview guide questions and listed in Chapter Five.

Chapter Six follows the recommended process, step by

step, to address the thesis question: Was the process used

 

by the case study institution in converting from academic
guarters to a semester system consistent with the suggested
guidelines for thegplanning and implementation of the change

as recommended by leading authorities?

136

Phase One - Initiating the Process

Recommendedgprocess states support of high authority:

 

The literature suggests that the institution's
president, governing board, or state commission usually play
a role in initiating the decision to consider a change. The
experts point out the need for support from the highest

level of authority to generate a rigorous study.

Case Study:

 

It is noted in board minutes of March 4, 1972, that
Ferris State University (FSU) was planning a change;
however, the minutes of December 16, 1972, report that it
was dropped because it was not considered beneficial at that
time.

Interview comments suggest that, in 1989, President
Helen Popovich approached the Board of Control with the idea
and found the interested ears of two board members: Mr.
Archer Bailey and Mrs. Pat Short. These board members had
backgrounds in higher education and were sympathetic to the
problems facing FSU as one of the few remaining institutions
in Michigan that were not on semesters. Reports of the
actions by the Academic Affairs Office indicate that the
vice president of academic affairs directed a general survey

of the faculty to solicit their feelings about a sixteen

137

vveek semester format and that a literature search be
conducted on the calendars of other institutions. While
results of the faculty survey did not support a change in
calendar (50.8% opposed, 39.8% support, 9.3% no opinion),
interview comments indicate that Dr. Gary Nash, who was the
Vice President of Academic Affairs, had very strong feelings
that further effort should be expended to study a change of
calendar format. In response to the leaning toward
semesters by the vice president, President Popovich formed
the Semester Feasibility Task Force which convened for the
first time on January 12, 1990.

Who had the most influence and involvement in the process?

 

The reports are further substantiated by responses to
the first question asked of all interviewees, reported in
Chapter Five, (Table 2), dealing with influence and
involvement during the initial stage of the change process.
On a scale of one to five with five representing a high

level, the highest average score for influence was given for

 

the president with 3.64 followed by the vice president with

3.73 and 2.82 for the board of control. Involvement during

 

the initial phase had the highest average score given for
the Vice president. at 3.91 followed by the president with
3-09 and administrators at 2.27.

In summary, FSU was consistent with recommended

991delines in the initial decision to consider a change as

138

the president, the board of control, and the vice president

of academic affairs were all involved. Furthermore, it

resulted in appointment of a blue ribbon committee.

Phase Two - Evaluation and.Recommendation

Recommended process includes representation:

 

The recommended approach incorporates a coordinating
committee with representatives from all areas of the
institution to carry out the steps of the next phase in
approximately four months.

Case Study:

 

The FSU committee was set up by the Academic Senate at
the request of the president and was officially named the
Semester Feasibility Task Force. The charge directed by the
Academic Senate was to “study the advisability of Ferris
State University’s conversion to the semester calendar
system.”

In comparing the process activities of the steering
committee with the recommended guidelines for phase two,
many elements were verified.

Appointment of the committee:

 

While the appointment of the chairperson, Alan Pochi,
was directed by the vice president. of academic affairs, the

make-up of the committee was well represented across campus

139

divisions by faculty, administrators, students, and the
Ferris Faculty Association (FFA). Interview comments reveal
that the vice president. and the associate vice president.,
Mr. Sid Sytsma of the Academic Affairs Office were
influential in the selection of committee members by
recruitment based upon interest, experience, or expertise in
a given area. The organizational chart of the Academic
Affairs Division and Office of Academic Affairs (Appendix L)
clearly illustrate the relationships of the executive
administration.

Fact-Finding Project:

 

A thorough investigation was implemented by the
Semester Feasibility Task Force with the forming of four
sub-committees:

J”.Calendar and Academic Policies
:2.Curriculum, Field Experience, and Workload
J3.Student Life and Services

4.Financial Impact

The tasks given the sub-committees were to look at the
pros and cons of the various calendars in operation at other
institutions and the impact on students, faculty, and
administrative operations as applicable to FSU. Each sub-
committee prepared a position paper for the steering
committee which was incorporated into a final position

report.

140

Students, administration, faculty, and the community
were consulted. This involved surveys, publication of major
issues, and open hearings.

Results of the Fact-Finding:

 

Based on the results of a survey by the sub—committee
on curriculum, field experience, and workload, conditional
support for semesters was given by administrators and
faculty.

A report of surveys of students by the sub-committee on
student life and services indicated that students favored
remaining on quarters.

The committee on financial impact found no significant
financial difference to the institution under a semester
calendar. There would be a modest cost savings to students
as one fewer set of coursebooks would be needed with
semesters compared to quarters. The estimated cost of
implementing the change was $685,000 which includes expense
items such as $40,000 for the SIS system that would occur
even if the institution remained on quarters.

Final Report of the Semester Feasibility Task Force:

 

The final report was a recommendation in support of
semester conversion and was submitted to the president and
Academic Senate on April 19, 1990. Before discussing action

taken on the report by the Academic Senate, the activities

141

of this process need to be described as related by the
participants in the process.

Interview comments confirm that the primary goal for
FSU to change was essentially the need for congruence with
the calendars of other state institutions. The difficulty
for transfer students and student recruitment was well
expressed in interviews with faculty and administrators. In
addition, everyone was aware that the new student
information system (SIS) was scheduled for installation in
fall, 1993, plus a visit by the North Central Accreditation
Team at that time. To add to the burden on faculty and
administrators, the Academic Senate had proposed that new
general education requirements be incorporated by fall of
1993, which would require a complete curriculum revision.

It is apparent from interview comments that faculty and
administrators were evenly split on either side of the
change idea when they were first involved with the committee
and for the most part remained so at the end of the process.
Those few who were neutral became advocates of the semester
calendar.

Methodologies Used to Resolve Issues:

 

What is interesting about the committee process is the
methodologies used to arrive at agreement on issues. In
response to questions asked about the most effective and

least effective measures used to arrive at closure, the

142

majority of interviewees stated that consensus was
predominant as most effective and it appeared ubiquitously.
The least effective methodologies were efforts to move the
process along without allowing the desired discussion and
airing of feelings. None of the participants interviewed
expressed a sense of pressure to reach a specific
conclusion, and all indicated that the steering committee
chairperson assigned tasks for study in a very diplomatic
fashion. Even the leadership of the sub-committees was
expressed in interviews as self-governing with very little
arm twisting, and few if any egos or political agendas were
pushed. One member expressed regret that the chairperson
was not a stronger leader while most others suggested his
style of facilitation and mild cajoling was appreciated.

In describing the methods used to resolve very
controversial issues, most of the interviewees mentioned
compromise for the good of the majority interests. This
state of compromise was only reached after being able to
freely express personal points of view. Some members said
they did not recall a vote on issues; others mentioned
occasional situations where a vote was taken but not because
it was an unusual situation. The general approach to
closing an issue seemed to be through discussion until it
was apparent what the majority feelings were. This was

termed consensus by the interviewees in that they reached

143

agreement of support of the group but not necessarily in
principle.

Recommended Time Period for the Process:

 

The recommended guidelines suggest a four month period
to conduct an evaluation and recommendation.

Case Study:

 

The Semester Feasibility Task Force completed its
assignment in this time frame which was described as rushed
by committee members but a positive influence in reaching a
conclusion to the change that was considered very
controversial on campus.

In line with the recommended guidelines, the university
documents reveal that financial and secretarial support was
made available to the committee. Interview comments concur
with this fact and that the process was adequately
supported.

While this phase of the conversion process at the case
study institution was consistent with recommended
guidelines, a question remains: what could have been done
differently?

Members of the Semester Feasibility Task Force who were
interviewed were asked “what you would like to have done
differently in the conversion process and why?”

For the most part the members were quite satisfied with

the process, but two comments deserve mentioning:

144

1.The lack of verifiable, financial information for the
costs savings touted by advocates of the semester
calendar vs. quarters was considered frustrating. In all
fairness to FSU administrators that were solicited for
their estimation of cost differences, the Financial
Impact Committee found equally vague responses from other
institutions that were asked about their calendar change
experiences.

2. Another wish was for greater student involvement,
notwithstanding the fact that students were invited and
placed on the committee. Interview comments indicated
that students were sincerely interested in committee
participation but found it very difficult to attend on a
regular basis and, as a result, may not have been fully
utilized.

Final Recommendation of the Semester Feasibility Task Force:

 

The final recommendation of the task force to the
Academic Senate was that conversion to semesters was in the
overall best interests of Ferris State University.

Recommendation of the Academic Senate:

 

Documents from the Academic Senate proceedings
indicated that, following the recommendation and discussion
of the fact-finding study, a vote would be taken by the

Senate.

145

The final outcome of the senate vote was a
recommendation that FSU remain on a quarter calendar.

Comments from several interviewees substantiated the
report that the vote was very close with the quarter system
slightly favored.

Recommendation of the University Administration:

 

The final decision was in the form of the Academic
Affairs Office making a recommendation to the president and
the board on September 18, 1990. The message was that the
university should proceed with conversion to semester
calendar for the following primary reasons:
1.Timing:

01 The north central accreditation visit scheduled for
1993-94.

0 The Academic Senate approval of the new general
education requirements which had to be in place by fall
of 1993.

0 Purchase of the new Student Information System (SIS)
which was scheduled for installation in 1993.

2.Congruence with contemporary calendar practice.
3.0pportunity for curriculum revision at the elemental
level.

University documents report that the president and the
board supported the recommendation and that the president
directed that a transition team be formed by the Academic
Affairs Office.

Interview comments of the administrators directly

involved substantiate the series of events described. It

146

was an upper level administrative decision to convert to
semesters, even though there was not a significant majority
for either side of the decision. In personal interviews it
was expressed that there was emotion and passion for and
against conversion; the university community was polarized
but fairly evenly split, slightly favoring remaining on the
quarter calendar.

In summary, the findings show that FSU has been
consistent with the recommended guidelines for this phase of
the conversion process.

The remaining steps or phases of the benchmark process
are to be compared with the activities of the Semester

Transition Team(STT).

Phase Three - Planning

Recommended Time Period for the Process:

At least 4 months should be allocated, according to the
experts, to perform the planning functions.

This period is used to identify all of the tasks to be
accomplished. Policy decisions are made, guidelines
developed, and timetables established for procedural
completions. The planning document, including color-coding
of forms, is to be used to assist all participants in the

CODVGISiOD process .

147

Case Study:

 

The planning phase for Ferris State University began in
December of 1990. With the approval of the Board of
Control, the Vice President of Academic Affairs appointed
Dr. Jim Maas as chairperson of the Semester Transition Team.
A set of guidelines was formulated including a specific list
of directions for use in the planning, organizing, and
implementation phases. A plan with a timetable for
conversion was to be submitted to the Office of Academic
Affairs before the end of winter quarter, 1991.

Conversion documents reveal that the steering committee
was composed of 19 people with representation across all
college divisions, students, Academic Senate, and
administrative functions such as Public Affairs and the
registrar.

Structure of the Semester Transition Team (STT):

 

It is important to take this opportunity to analyze the
structure of the transition team because the benchmark
process places significant weight on the composition of this
group. The Semester Transition Team was responsible for not
only the planning but also the organizing and implementation
phases which will be discussed later.

The interview guide was structured with a group of

questions specifically applicable to the transition team.

148

Participants in the personal interviews reported they
were aware that the steering committee chairperson, Dr. Jim
Maas, was appointed by Dr. Gary Nash of the Academic Affairs
Office.

Comments relate an extensive search for and evaluation
of potential chairpeople with the desired experience,
leadership style, and personality. One interviewee said
“Jim is a detail, analytical person and handled the
logistics very nicely, as I knew he would.”

Selection of the committee members is not totally clear
in that some interviewed committee members said they
volunteered and some said they were recruited. It is
apparent from the interviewee’s experiences that some form
of organized selection was used by Jim Maas and the Vice
President of Academic Affairs to create a balance of
representation across campus. They pointed out that the
committee was large in numbers but not everyone attended
meetings on a regular basis, that a core group really
represented the committee. Some people served only as
needed.

They were not consistent in recalling a formal
organization of the sub-committees but described a
comfortable, natural formation as the need arose, for
instance, when a task-of-the-week was introduced by Jim

Maas, he would encourage discussion of the opposing issues.

149

From comments of the committee members he would request that
two or three people form a sub-committee to study the task
and report back to the steering committee. One criterion
mentioned for the grouping of sub-committee members was for
sub-committees to consist of people at opposite ends of
agreement to assure a full range of study. Interview
comments indicated that, on occasion, membership was
voluntary if you had special interest, expertise, or
experience.

The chairpersons of the sub-committees were not
entirely by appointment, based on some comments from
interviewees. They did not recall a formal, permanent
chairperson; the role changed over time when the same group
of people was involved with different tasks. For example, a
committee assigned to work with publicity might have a
designated leader (chair) for exploring and scheduling
public hearings across campus. A different leader might
volunteer when developing communications for one of the
student newsletters, called FAST 93 (Appendix M). The
minutes of the STT occasionally noted that a member was
appointed to follow-up on a task and report back. A chair
was recognized as one with strong interest or expertise in
an area or the willingness to take over the organization of
material, scheduling sub-committee tasks, and report-writing

duties. It is noteworthy that four members of the Semester

150

Feasibility Task Force carried over as members of the
Semester Transition Team. Interviewee comments indicated
that their specific participation was volunteered or
recruited based on past performance and willingness to serve
plus some expertise or experience to contribute.

Interview comments suggest that there was full
knowledge at this time of the goals and objectives of FSU to
change to semesters and that the committee was responsive to
those ends. The charge to the STT committee was by written
communication from the Board of Control via the Academic
Affairs Office and is described in Chapter Four.

When asked about the team’s charge, interviewees were
unaware of all the details at the onset but received their
tasks from the chairperson in a structured manner each week.
This was accomplished at regularly scheduled Friday
afternoon meetings.

On the basis of interview comments and evidence of the
documents produced by the STT, it is apparent that the case
study institution was consistent with the planning phase of

the recommended process.

Phase Four - Organising

Recommended Time Period for the Process:

 

A minimum period of 12 months is suggested for the

tasks of organizing the conversion of calendar formats, and

151

for FSU this was accomplished in 1991 and 1992 as an
extension of planning activities.

Recommended Functions of the Organizing Process:

 

Program definitions

New general education requirements
New academic courses

New course numbering system
Graduation requirements
Calendar format

Summer sessions

New academic standards
Transition courses
10.Computer system procedures
11.Teaching programs
12.Articulation agreements.

\DmxlmUIIbWNI-d

Case Study:

 

Verification of the efforts used by FSU in its
organizing activities is contained in the FSU Semester
Transition Curriculum Procedures Manual. It was approved by
the Academic Senate on February 11, 1991; however, the
procedures manual was a dynamic tool, continually under
revision as policies were reviewed (FSU, 1991).

For instance, developing the time schedule for classes
and exam week (Appendix G) was a formidable task due to the
parochial interests of various programs. Additional
concerns with workload issues were expressed by the Ferris
Faculty Association (FFA) and by those involved with lab
intensive courses.

The academic calendar (Appendix F) was structured for

compatibility with the early semester format and to provide

152

a spring break period amenable to faculty and staff with

children in the local school districts.

A significant aspect of the organizing tasks involved
timely scheduling of the curriculum changes to courses and

programs and getting approval from the University Curriculum

Committee (UCC) of the Academic Senate. A four-tiered

system, as explained in Chapter Four, was set up to

prioritize the course submission process. Articulation

agreements and transfer guides were developed for use with

other institutions of higher education.
In comparing the tasks performed by the STT with the

recommended list, it is verifiable with conversion documents

and interviews that FSU is consistent with the benchmark

process referenced in this thesis.

Phase rive - Implementation Process

Recommended Functions for the Implementation Process:

There are five recommended functions for successful
implementation with four months allocated to the process:

1- Puhlicize information about the new calendar.
2- Schedule workshops for students, faculty-advisors, and

administrators.
3- De‘relop a mini-catalog.
4° Incorporate preventative advising programs.

5- Form an academic appeals committee.

153

Case Study:

 

In September of 1992, the STT published the 160 page

Semester Transition Manual. It was targeted to students for

 

use in conjunction with the 1992-93 School Bulletin, which
contained information on quarter system courses. Also,
transition program advising materials to plan for the
completion of academic programs, during the transition
period.

In addition, during the fall of 1992, a student guide
called Semester Transition 93 was produced by the students
in the technical communication seminar class.

Every two weeks the STT placed notices in the student
newspaper, The Torch, to keep the campus informed and to
answer questions. A news release, called the PAST 93
(Ferris approaching semester transition 1993, Appendix M),
was published periodically to answer anticipated questions
students may have had and to stimulate their preparations
for semester implementation.

A mini-catalog was developed with course equivalents
listed and conversion data along with transition courses
scheduled for summer session.

Many workshops were held across campus by members of
the STT, counselors, and other knowledgeable volunteers, to
train faculty advisors, administrators, and staff and to

answer students' questions.

154

Practice advising sessions were scheduled for all
faculty to prepare for advising activities that would touch
virtually every student. Transition students, defined as
having earned more that 26 quarter credits, were required to
check with their academic program advisor before registering
for semester classes.

The primary documents used to assist transition
students were the course mapping form (Appendix N) and the
course completion agreement(Appendix 0). To further assist
advising efforts, there were brochures and an explanation of
transition terms(Appendix P).

An academic appeals committee was formed for use by
students who felt they were treated unfairly in the
conversion process. Comments by some of the interviewees
suggest this committee was rarely consulted because the
process had been structured to prevent problems from
arising.

The work of the Semester Transition Team continued
through the summer session of 1993, albeit with only the
chairperson, Jim Maas, and a few committee members as
needed.

While there is an abundance of evidence of what the STT
accomplished, the interview guide used in the research
contained several questions dealing with the committee

process.

155

For instance, “how closely did the committee act in
regard to the stated goals and objectives, and what role did
the members play in the process?”

Interview comments suggest that the stated goals and
objectives of the institution in the charge to the committee
were fulfilled in large part due to the leadership style of
the chairperson, Jim Maas. The interviewees expressed the
feeling that they were inventing the process as they went
along because there did not seem to be any formal process.

Methodologies Used to Resolve Issues:

 

The methodology used in the committee decision making
was reported as being consensus with rare occasions when a
vote was necessary. In the minutes of the STT, there are
numerous notations of votes being taken, but the
interviewees consistently suggest that they reached
agreement through discussion. In relating the most
effective and least effective methodologies for handling
sensitive issues, the comments were similar to those of the
Semester Feasibility Task Force: that the gathering of more
information and allowing everyone ample time to express
viewpoints seemed to allow compromise for the good of the
process and majority viewpoints. This result may best be
explained by defining consensus as agreeing to support a

position 100% but only buying into it 70%.

156

Again, the least effective methodologies used in making
decision were reported to occur when people felt they were
not listened to or that an issue was being decided that they
did not fully understand. One comment from the interviews
noted the talent the chairperson exhibited by reducing
conflict and confusing terms to diagrams on the blackboard
until everyone understood.

In handling most controversial issues, two comments are
worth quoting:

--probably exam week. Everyone was listened to and gave
their input and, while we did not go to vote or anything
like that, Jim would put items on the board; we could see
what’s best. Not everyone was happy, but they went along!

--the calendar. How can we fit the courses into the
fifteen weeks? What other courses should we have? Should
we have an exam week? There were people from technology who
were on the team that had a problem with the fifteen weeks.
They said they had a lot of lab time needed. So there was a
lot of vocalization with that. Jim, as chair, with his easy
going way suggested alternatives, and we looked at them to
facilitate the problem.

Based on the implementation documents and comments of
interviewees, it can be said that FSU was consistent with

the recommended benchmark process for the implementation

process phase.

Phase Six - Implementation and.lvaluation
Recommended Process for Beginning the Calendar:
The recommended process suggests beginning the

semesters calendar in the fall. Also, incorporate a

157

preceding summer session with opportunities to complete
course sequences under the quarter format.

Evaluation of the institution's goals and objectives
for converting to semesters is not specifically required but
is implied in the literature.

Case Study:

 

The Semester Transition Team was diligent in training
advisors to inform and encourage students to attend summer
sessions. The intent was to offer additional opportunities
for completion of their degrees under quarters or with a
sequence of courses structured under quarters.

Interview comments substantiate this effort to meet
those objectives in preparation for semesters beginning in
fall of 1993.

There does not appear to be any documented evidence of
an intent to measure attainment of the goals and objectives
of the institution's conversion to semesters. This question
was asked of all interviewees, and there was an indication
by some comments of some worthiness to evaluate the summer
calendar in a few years. Another comment was offered that
evaluation was done as the process was implemented, and, if
problems arose, they would be dealt with immediately.

To further understand the influences of the
constituents and committee members, the interview guide

included questions about time, financial, and support

158

constraints. Similar to the feasibility task force
committee experiences, interview comments indicated that
there were no time or financial constraints on the
committee. The time schedule was reported as a pressure
problem, but, from the descriptions of difficulties, the
schedule seemed to be motivating others to meet process
deadlines. For the most part, the time period allotted
enabled the group to function in a positive way. The
chairperson was the only person with released time from
teaching duties, an unrestricted budget, and secretarial
support.

The committee members used their respective departments

or the transition office secretary for secretarial support.

Who Had the Most Influence and Involvement in the Process?
A question asked of all interviewees was summarized in
Chapter Five (Table 2) comparison matrix of influence and
involvement. The question asks about their opinion of the
levels of influence and of involvement for various
constituents during the conversion process.
On a scale of one to five with five representing a high

level, the highest average score for influence was given for

 

the administrators with 4.27, followed by faculty with 4.18,
and 2.82 for the vice president of academic affairs.

Involvement during the conversion process had the highest

159

average score given for the faculty of 4.91, followed by
administrators with 3.73, and the vice president with 2.64.

One of the last reflections requested of interviewees
who had served on the STT was, in retrospect, “what would
you like to have done differently in the conversion process
and why?” There were very few regrets expressed and glowing
memories of a successful, smooth conversion process.

The most constructive suggestion was to bring in a
panel of experienced people who had served or chaired

transition activities at other institutions.

Summary

Chapter One introduced the lack of documentation
available describing the actual process experiences of
changing a calendar format. A need surfaced as a basis for
this inquiry.

The purpose of this research project was to examine the
question: Was the process used by the case study
institution in converting from academic quarters to a
semester system consistent with the suggested guidelines for
the planning and implementation of the change as recommended
by leading authorities?

A thorough literature search in Chapter Two provided an

overview of the history and trends of calendar formats over

160

the past three decades. Also reported was a recommended
conversion process by leading authorities in the field that
is used as the benchmark or standard by which the case
institution was to be measured. This chapter was followed
by a discussion of the research methodology and a
justification for the case study method explained in Chapter
Three.

The conversion process from quarters to semesters by
Ferris State University has been documented in Chapter Four
and is the second leg of the research analysis.

Lastly, a summary of transcripts of personal interviews
is described in Chapter Five with reference to the interview
guide. The eleven interviewees are representative of the
participants in the conversion process at Ferris State
University, and their insightful comments close the triangle

in the comparative analysis of this project.

Conclusions

The comparative analysis in this chapter of the case
study institution, Ferris State University, supports the
findings that the conversion process was definitely
consistent with the suggested guidelines. A comparison of
the activities incorporated by FSU with the “benchmark”

process is illustrated in Appendix Q.

161

The success of the endeavor was the result of several

things:

1.

The one, most compelling factor that can be concluded
from the documented process and interview comments was
the choice of the transition team chairperson. One
interview comment summarized it well: “I would not
change a thing [sic], what we hammered out just worked
[sic], only because we had a good, strong leader in Jim
Maas.”

The committee decision process of extensive discussion
and airing of opposing viewpoints was the key to arriving
at a consensus. This facilitating leadership style
allowed people to feel comfortable in giving 100% support
to the group effort but on a personal basis, holding less
than full support in principle.

University documents and interview comments indicate the
strong influence and background involvement of Dr. Gary
Nash, the Vice President of Academic Affairs, was a major
contribution in structuring the implementation process.
The willingness of President Helen Popovich to support

her vice-president.

.Selection of chairpeople with the proper characteristics

and a balanced representation on the committees.

162

Implications to: Further Study

In the literature review of Chapter Two, and the
reports of discussions of semester benefits by
administrators and faculty, there is the perception that
semesters provide a better quality learning experience for
students. This appears to be an elusive concept to document
let alone measure and is the source of much debate. With
the well recognized trend to variations of semester formats,
this perception would be well served by further study and

analysis.

Personal Reflections

It is this author’s opinion that the only area of
concern is the lack of a method built into the conversion
process to measure and compare with the outcomes, the
original objectives given the Semester Transition Team. One
day this may be accomplished.

During the interview process, free discussion of the
committee activities was encouraged in addition to answering
the specific questions of the interview guide. It was
interesting to hear, in the tone of their voices, the level
of passion and sometimes frustration they felt. Some still

feel very strongly either for, or against, the change in

163

calendar format from quarters to semesters. The intensity
of negative feelings by some of their colleagues during the
process was even directed at transition team members on a
personal basis. On a positive note, most experiences of the
participants were of professional cooperation and produced
the very enlightening observation about the working
definition of consensus: full support for the cause but not
always with full agreement. All participants demonstrated
the ability, willingness, maturity, and fairness to make
compromises with their own personal feelings and support to
the fullest what was in the best interests of the group and
of the students of Ferris State University.

A reflection that holds the most powerful message is
that the selection of the right people for the task is
critical. To lead a group in a complicated process, the
personality style and leadership qualities of the
chairpeople make the difference between success and a not-

so-successful outcome.

APPENDICS

APPENDIX A

164

JUEPIDHDIZIIK

INTERVIEWEE: Consent Agreement

Thank you in advance for sharing YOUR experiences and information about
the semester conversion process at FERRIS STATE UNIVERSITY.

Your involvement will entail a 30 minute discussion session with
possible phone call follow-up.

ABSTRACT OF RESEARCH PROJECT:

A STUDY OF A PUBLICLY FUNDED INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION: A CHANGE
FROM TERMS TO SEMESTERS:

The literature indicates a large percentage of institutions have changed
to a semester format and have reported very little information about the
conversion process.

There are administrative concerns from a logistics and cost
effectiveness point of view and educational concerns that are impacted
in different ways depending on whether you are faculty, student or
administrator.

This research involves a case study analysis of Ferris State University
to describe the decision process and procedures used in the curriculum
transition which took place during fall semester, 1993.

Using a case analysis methodology, key factors will be identified to
guide other institutions interested in developing effective calendar
conversion processes.

NOTE:
While your comments and observations may be used in the final research

report, your name and title will be held confidential.

CONSENT AGREED TO BY: INTERVIEWER:

Name Donald R. Jackson
Doctoral Student

Michigan State University
Title c/o 5428 Edgelawn SE
Kentwood, MI 49508
(616)534-9714

Address

 

MSU Advisor:
Dr. Frederick Whims
(517)355-6580

 

Date Signature

 

APPENDIX B

165

APPENDIX B

INTERVIEW GUIDE - “MASTER LIST OF 28 QUESTIONS”

INTRODUCTION: Purpose of the study - Case study analysis of the decision process and procedures
used by Ferris State University in the calendar transition fi’om quarters to sonata-s in Fall Sancctcr
I993.
Nahncofintcrvicw—descriptive—-‘howdidyoudccidconthcproccdm'cstodothingsandwhodid
them?”

Interviewee background: (will be kept confidential)
Name, title, telephone
Explain intervicwce’s role in semester conversion activities.

1. In the overall process, initially and ongoing , what in your opinion was the LEVEL OF INFLUENCE
and LEVEL OF INVOLVEMENT of the following :
(scale of 1 for low 16ch and 5 for high level)

DURING
INITIALLY CONVERSION PROCESS
Influence Involvement Influence Involvement

 

 

The Board of Connol
The President

The Provost/VP.s
The Administrators
The Faculty

The Students

The Community

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. How did you personally influence the conversion process?
PHASE 1 INITIAL DECISION TO CONSIDER CALENDAR CHANGE (1989)

3. What factors during 1989 influenced the decision to CONSIDER changing the calendar?
4. In mopinim, whowasinvolvcdandwhatrolcsdidthcyplayinthcdccisiontochangc?

 

5. Whatdoywrccallwu'cthcprhnm'ygoalsand/orobjcctivcsforFSUtochangctoscmccta's?

6. I-Iowclosclydoyoubclievc the committee actcdinrcgardtothcstatcdgoals and objectives?

7. How was the charge to the Semester Feasibility Task Force committee determined and
communicated?

8. How was the makeup of the “steering committee” and each Ham-cannincc determined?

9. How was the chairperson selected for the “steering committee” and each “nib-committee”?

10. What methodologies were used by your committee in making decisions? (voting, consensus, ctc. )

11. In your opinion, explain which methodologies were gag cfl’cctivc?

I2.
13.

14.

IS.

166

APPENDIX B

In your opinion, explain which methodologies were least effective?
Please describe the most controva'sial issue encountered and how resolved?

Describe constraints on the committee that influenced committee action, positively or negatively:
a. Time?
b. Finances?
c. Support stafl?

In retrospect, as a member of the Semester Feasibility Task Fcrg, what would you like to have done
differently in the conversion process and why?

PHASE 3 PLANNING (Dec 1990 - Semester Transition Team formed)
PHASE 4 ORGANIZING (I992)
PHASE 5 IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS (1992 - 1993)

Observations based on 101_1r m'cimtion in committee activity during this phase:

l6.
I7.

18.

19.
20.
2 I .
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.

27.

Whatdoyou rccaflwactheprimarygoalsand/crobjectivesfchSUmchangetosanestas?
How closely do you believe the committee acted in being consistent with the stated goals and
objectives?

What role or functions did the Semester Transition Team peform that influmccd the implementation
process?

How was the charge to the Semester Transition Team committee determined and communicated?
How was the makeup of the “steering committee” and each “sub-committee” determined?

How was the chairperson selected for the “steering committee” and each “sub-committee”?

What methodologies were used by your committee in making decisions? (voting, consmsus, etc.)
In your opinion, explain which methodologies were M efl‘cctive?

In your opinion, explain which methodologies were Lg effective?

Please describe the most controversial issue encountered and how resolved?

Describe constraints on the committee that influenced committee action, positively a negatively:
a. Time?

b. Finances?

c. Supportstafl?

In retrospect, as a memba' of the Semester Transition Team what would you like to have done
difi‘craitly in the conversion process and why?

 

PHASE 6 INCORPORATE CHANGE TO SEMESTERS (Aug 30, 1993)

28.

What mahods were placed in the conversion process to evaluate the results ofthe calendar format
change with reference to the stated goals and objectives?

APPENDIX C

167

APPENDIX C

CAMPUS MAP: Ferris State University, Big Rapids, Michigan

FERRIS STATE UNIVERSITY
3 Walter

VISItOfS Map 5mm?
Visitor parking marked in blue. ’_ _- "ML—11
Please report to Public Saftey

for a permit.

     
   
 
  
  

Parking

      
  

 

Vlsitor EE-
5% Si
[5% _

 

 

- ”-[4‘4 (A

168
APPENDIX D

SURVEY FORM: FACULTY AND ADMINISTRATION

SEMESTER FEASIBILITY TASK FORCE
(SUBCOMMITTEE ON CURRICULUM, FIELD EXPERIENCE AND WORKLOAD)
To: Faculty and Administration

Fran: Seneste' Feasfliility Task Force Curriculum,
Field Experience, and Workload subcommittee

Date: Fclruary 2, 1990

We solicit your input into the determination of the strengths and weaknesses of the quarter system and
the semester systun as they may pertain to programming at Ferris State University. Areas of particular
cmcrrn are curriculum, field experience (including internships, externships, co-op, etc.) and the impact
ofcither system on faculty and administrative workload. Please complete the following survey, fold in
thirds so that the mailing address on back is showing, staple, and mail.

1. Curriculum: Quarter Semester

Strmgths:

Weaknesses:
Semester

Field Experience: Quarter

2.
Strmgths:

Weaknesses:
Semester

3. Workload Quarter

Comments:

Please check the following as it pertains to you.

Fatality Allied Health Optometry Administration
Business Technology Education

Arts and Sciences

_.———-_

 

Pharmacy Other

ease complete the survey andretum bchbruary lS.
rrieulurn, Field Experience, and Workload Subcommittee

mate Oflioe Starr 301

APPENDIX B

 

 

169

APPENDIX I

QUESTIONNAIRE: STUDENT SURVEY - QUARTERS VS. SEMESTERS
FERRIS STATE UNIVERSITY STUDENT SURVEY

This survey is being conducted to find the majority cpinion of the students of the issue of switching from
10 week quarters to semesters. Could you please take a few minutes ofyour time to complete me

following questionnaire. Place a check next to your response. Ifyou have already filled out a survey
pleascraiseyour hand andwewillpickupthcblanksurvey.

F.S.U. has been contemplating a change of its academic calendar fi'om the presait 10 week quarters to 15-
17 semesters. On a sanestcrsystcmthercwouldbetwotermspcryearplus summerta'm. Thetcrms
wouldnormallybe l4wcekslcngwithanextrawcckjustforexams,ortcrmsjustcouldbc lSweckslong
withnoexamwcck,or lchckswithanexamwcek..etc.,. thiswouldmcanscveralthingstoF.S.U.
students, notice the following primary advantages of each system.
Advantages ofSemestcrs

a)Easier transferal of credits between unive'sities.
b)Mcre time to cover a book or course material (probably

less rushed)
Advantages of Quarters
a)Ablc to ofi‘er more minor degrees or variety of classes
b)Mcre opportimities for Co-cp
1) What is your gender? l)_Male 2) Female
2) What is your class standing? I) Freshman 2) Sophcrnore 3)_Junicr
4) Senior 5)_Other
3) What is your school of study? l)_Business 2) Technology 3)__Arts & Sciences
4)_Educaticn 5) Allied Health 6)_Pharmacy 7)_Optcmctry
4) What is you GPA? l) 4-3.5 2)_3.4-3.0 3) 2.0-2.5 4) 2.4-2.0
5)_l.9-l.5 6)_ Below 1.5

__Yes 2)_No (If No go to question #8)

6) Do you prefer semesters over quarters? l)_Yes

5) Haveywevcrattcndcdacollcgeortmiversitythatwasonasemestu' system?
1)

2) No
7) Did you encounter any trouble when transferring? l)_Yes 2)_No
8) DidyoucometoFerris, in part, because ofthe shorta- tams?
l)_Yes 2)_No
9) If Ferris switches to sanestas my grades will probably: l)_Improve
2)_Remain the same

3) Decline

 

 

 

 

170

APPENDIX E

10) Whattypeofsystcmwmldyoumostliketosceathrris?
l) lOwcckquarters 2) 14wcck semester+examweek
3) lSweeksemester 4) lSweek semestcr+examwcek

5) l6wccksemester 6) l6wcck semesta-i-cxamweck
7) l7wcekscmester

ll) Whichsystemtoyoufcelofi‘emahigherqualityofeducatim?
1) Quarters 2) Semesters

12) Do you plan to pursue a minor degree? l)_Yes 2)_No 3) Undecided

13) HowlikclywouldywbetoleaveFerrisifitwer-etochangetoscmeaers?
l)___ 2)__ 3)
Very Likely Not likely likely

 

 

14) Would you favor going to semestas if the adiool year started earlier in Septunber or got out later

in may? Please Commmt:

15) Whatdoyoufcelwmddbemegrcatestadvantageofswitchingtosemesta‘s?
Please Comment:

16) Whatdowacelisthegrcatestadvantagcofstayingwiththequana‘systcm?
Please Comment:

(1987-I988) Marketing/Research Course Dr. Marilyn Kiegley

 

APPENDIX 3'

171

.APPINDIX F

ACADEMIC CALENDAR

Semesters of the proposed calendars for the 1993-94 and
21994-95 school year have 75 instructional days. These could
apply to laboratory intensive classes including 45
iJustructional days on Monday, Wednesday or Friday and 30
instructional days on Tuesday or Thursday. All other classes
would be scheduled over the first 72 instructional days, and
would be completed during a 5 day final examination week.

Fall Semester 1993
Registration

Classes begin

Labor Day - no classes
Classes resume

Thanksgiving Recess begins
Classes resume

Last day of classes
Examination Week begins

Last day of Examination Week

Winter Semester 1994
Registration

Classes begin

MLK Day - no classes
Classes resume

First Spring Recess begins
Classes resume

Second Spring Recess begins
Classes resume

Last day of classes
Examination Week begins
Last day of Examination Week

First Summer Session 1994
Registration

Classes begin

Memorial Day - no classes
Classes resume

Last day of classes

August 26 & 27 Thursday/Friday
August 30, Monday

September 6, Monday

September 7, Tuesday

November 25, Thursday

November 29, Monday

December 13, Monday

December 10, Friday

December 17, Friday

January 6 & 7 Thursday/Friday
January 10, Monday
January 17, Monday
January 18, Tuesday
March 5, Saturday
March 14, Monday
March 31, Thursday
April 4, Monday
April 29, Friday
May 2, Monday

May 6, Friday

May 16, Monday
May 17, Tuesday
May 30, Monday
May 31, Tuesday
June 28, Tuesday

172

APPENDIX E

Second Summer Session 1994
Registration

Classes begin

Fourth of July - no classes
Classes resume

Last day of classes

Fall Semester 1994
Registration

Classes begin

Labor Day - no classes
Classes resume

Thanksgiving Recess begins
Classes resume

Last day of classes
Examination Week begins
Last day of Examination Week

Winter Semester 1995
Registration

Classes begin

ML King Day - no classes
Classes resume

First Spring Recess begins
Classes resume

Second Spring Recess begins
Classes resume

Last day of classes
Examination Week begins
Last day of Examination Week

First Summer Session 1995
Registration

Classes begin

Memorial Day - no classes
Classes resume

Last day of classes

Second Summer Session 1995
Registration

Classes begin

Fourth of July recess begins
Classes resume

Last day of classes

June 28, Tuesday
June 29, Wednesday
July 4, Monday

July 5, Tuesday
August 10, Wednesday

August 25 & 26 Thursday/Friday
August 29, Monday

September 5, Monday

September 6, Tuesday

November 24, Thursday

November 28, Monday

December 9, Friday

December 12, Monday

December 16, Friday

January 5 & 6 Thursday/Friday
January 9, Monday
January 16, Monday
January 17, Tuesday
March 4, Saturday
March 13, Monday
April 13, Thursday
April 17, Monday
April 28, Friday
May 1, Monday

May 5, Friday

May 15, Monday
May 16, Tuesday
May 29, Monday
May 30, Tuesday
June 27, Tuesday

June 27, Tuesday
June 28, Wednesday
July 1, Saturday
July 5, Wednesday
August 10, Thursday

APPENDIX G

173

APPENDIX G

TIME SCHEDULE FOR CLASSES AND EXAMINATION WEEK

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Class Time Schedule ' Examination Schedule
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri
8:00 8:00 8:00 8:00 8:00 8:00 8:00
8M 8X 9M 9X ME
9:00 9:00 9:00 9:00
9:30
10:00 0:00 10:00
11X 11M 10X+ ME 10M
11:00 1:00 9:30
12:00 12:00
12M 12X MU 1M ME
1:00
2:00 2:00
2X 2M 3X 3M MU
3:00
4:00 4:00
4M 4x+ 5X 5M
5:00 3:30
(”0° 6:00
7M+ 7X+ 6M 6X
7:00 6:30 6:30
8:00 8:00
ME ME 8M 8X
9:00
Campus meeting times are on Tuesday All Exams are scheduled for 100 minutes.
and Thursday at 1‘00 p.m. M =Class meets Monday ME=Mass Exam

X = Class does not meet Monday MU=Makcup

APPENDIX B

 

174

JUEEENEIEK I!

ruuxcasurirrmuurnua

FERRIS STATE UNIVERSITY - CONVERSION FROM QUARTERS TO SEMESTERS

 

 

 

PHASE 1 - DECISION TO CONSIDER CHANGE

1989 Feasibility Committee formed by President Helen Popovich
Survey of faculty support.

PHASE 2 - EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Jan 12,1990 Academic Senate formed Semester Feasibility Task Force

 

Chair: Allen Pochi 1. Calendar & Academic Policies
2. Curriculum, Field Experience, & workload.
3. Student Life and Services
4. Financial Impact
Apr 16, 1990 Recommendation of the Semester Feasibility Task Force
to President and Academdc Senate to convert to
Semester System in Fall 1992. ( Later changed to

 

 

Fall, 1993)

May 8 - 14, 1990 Open hearings for faculty, students, administrators,
community.

Sep 18,1990 FSU Academic Affairs Office Executive Summary of

calendar recommendation: Identified reasons for
calendar conversion at this time.

 

 

PHASE 3 - PLANNING
Dec, 1990 Established Semester Transition Team (STT)
Chairperson - Dr. James Maas

19 Committee members (including chair)

 

PHASE 4 - ORGANIZING Semester Transition Team (STT)

Mar 25, 1991 to April 4, 1992
Tier One - Tier Four Course Proposals and Program Proposals
User departments notify department responsible of any
concerns, responsible department submits Course Proposals
to University Curriculum Committee (UCC) for approval.

 

 

 

May 13, 1991 Academic Calendar recommended by STT

Sep 5, 1991 Academdc Senate approved Semester Transition
Curriculum Procedures Manual

PHASE 5 - IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS Semester Transition Team (STT)

Sep, 1992 Semester Transition Manual (student manual)

 

Advising - Course Completion Agreements

 

PHASE 6 - INCORPORATE CHANGE TO SEMESTERS
.Aug 30, 1993 Incorporated conversion to Semester Calendar Format

APPENDIX I

175

APPENDIX.I

TESTING OF THE INTERVIEI’INSTRUMENT

As Anthony M. Orum et al. (1991) suggest, reliability
is usually interpreted as the ability to replicate the
original study using the same questions and get the same
results(p.17).

To address the issue of RELIABILITY, the interview
instrument was tested with mock interviews and subsequent
revisions to where each question produced similar results.

The nature of the interview is descriptive--“How did
you decide on the procedures to do things and who did them?”
The initial instrument was developed by structuring
questions into phases of the conversion that focused on two
schedules:

1. The Ferris State University (FSU) Conversion Process
Timeline (Appendix H)

2. The Recommended Conversion Process (Appendix K)

A set of questions was prepared and structured into three
different interview guides. They were grouped for Executive
Level Administrators, such as Board Members, President, and
Vice—Presidents (Provost), members of the Semester
Feasibility Task Force, and members of the Semester

Transition Team.

176

APPENDIX I

INITIAL INTERVIEW GUIDE

INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR EXECUTIVE LEVEL ADMINISTRATOR

INTRODUCTION: Purpose of the study - Case study analysis of the decision process and
procedures used by Ferris State University in the calendar transition fi'om quarters to semesters in
Fall Semester 1993.

Natureofintcrview— desaiptive-‘howdidywdccidcontheproccdmestodothings andwho
did them?”

Interviewee backgrmmd: (will be kept confidential)

Name, title, telephone

Explain interviewee’s role in semester conversion activities.

In the overall process, what in your opinion was the level of influence and/or involvement of the
following :

(scale of l for low level and 5 for high level)

 

 

 

 

Influence Involvement
l. The Board of Control?
2. The President?
3. The Administrators?
4. The Faculty?
5. The Students?
6. The Community?
7. Personal
PHASE 1 DECISION TO CONSIDER CHANGE (1987)

8. What factors during 1987-88 influenced the decision to consider changing the calendar?

9. In your opinion, who was involved and what roles did they play in the decision to change?

10. In retrospect, what would you like to have done difl‘erently in the conversion process and
why?

INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR SEMESTER FEASIBILITY TASK FORCE MEMBER

INTRODUCTION: Purpose of the study — Case study analysis of the decision process and
proceduresuscdbchrris StateUnive'sityinthecalcndarUansiticnfi-omquarterstosemestersin
Fall Semester 1993.

Nature ofinterview - descriptive - “how did you decide on the procedures to do things and who
did them?”

Interviewee background: (will be kept confidential)

Name, title, telephone

177

APPENDIX I

Explain interviewce’s role in semester conversion activities.

In the overall proeess, what in your opinion was the level of influence and/or involvement of the
following : (scale of 1 for low level and 5 for high level)
Influence Involvement

 

l. The Board of Control?

2. The President?

3. The Administrators?

4. The Faculty?

5. The Students?

6. The Community?

7. Personal

PHASE 1 DECISION TO CONSIDER CHANGE (1987)

8. What factors during 1987-88 influeiccd the decision to consider changing the calendar?
9. Inyouropinion,whowasinvolvedandwhatrolcsdidtheyplayinthedccisimtochange?
PHASE 2 EVALUATION & RECOMMENDATION (1990 - Semester Feasibility Task
Force)
10. What mymnopinionwaetheprhnu'ygoalsmd/orobjccfivesfachmgingtosunestas?
11. What were the goals and/or objectives that were not widely stated?
Observations based on 'ci 'on in committee activi durin this
12. How was the charge to the committee determined and communicated
13. How was the makeup of the “steering committee” and “sub-committees” dctamincd?
14. How were individual members and chairpersons selected?
15. What methodology was used in your committee to resolve issued? (voting, consensus, etc.)
Please describe the committee:
16. a. Time constraints
17. b. Financial constraints
18. c. Support stafi?
19. Give an example of how unexpected situations were facilitated?
20. Describe the most controversial decision your committee dealt with and how it was resolved?
21. In retrospect what would you likctohave done difierently in the conversion process and
WW?
22. Whatmcthodswhereplaccd intheconversion processtoevaluatetheresultsofthecalendar
format change with refermce to the stated goals and objectives?

      

INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR SEMESTER TRANSITION TEAM MEMBER

INTRODUCTION: Pmposeofthestudy—Casestudyanalysisofthedecisionprocessand
proceduresusedbyFerris State Universityin the calendar transition fi'om quarterstoscmestcrs in
FaIlSemester 1993.
Natureofintcrview-desaiptive—‘howdidyoudccideontheproccdm’estodothingsandwho
didthem?”

Interviewee background: (will be kept confidential)
Name, title, telephone
Explain interviewee’s role in semester conversion activities.

   

178

APPENDIX I

In the oveall process, what in your opinion was the level of influercc and/or involvenert of the
following
(scale of l for low level and 5 for high level)
Influence , Involvement
The Board of Control?
The Preside1t?
The Administrators?
The Faculty’?
The Students?
The Community?
Pesonal

$9999.“?

PHASE 1 DECISION TO CONSIDER CHANGE (1987)

8. What factors during 1987-88 influerccd the decision to conside changing the calendar?
9. In youropinion, whowasinvolvedandwhatroles didtheyplayinthedccisiontochange?

PHASE 2 EVALUATION & RECOMMENDATION
(1990 - Seneste Feasibility Task Force)

(Questions 10 - 21 do not applyto this inte'view)
PHASE 3 PIANNING (Dec 1990 - Semester Transition Team)
PHASE 4 ORGANIZING (1992)

Obse'vations based on your m'cim'on in committee activity during this phase:

22. How was the charge to the committee dete'mincd and commrmicatcd

23. How was the makeup of the “stceing committee” and “sub-committees” dcte'mincd?

24. How were individual members and chairpesons selected?

25. What methodology was used in your committee to resolve issues? (voting, consersus, etc.)
Please describe the committee:

26. a. Time constraints

27. b. Financial constraints

28. c. Support staff?

29. Give an example of how unexpected situations wee facilitated?

30. Describe the most controve'sial decision your committee dealt with and how it was resolved?

31. In retrospect, what would you liketohave done difl‘erently in the convesion process and

why

PHASE 5 IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS (1992 - 1993 Seneste' Transition Team)

32. What role or fimctions did the Seneste Transition Team perform that influenced the
implenertation process?

PHASE 6 INCORPORATE CHANGE TO SEMESTERS (Aug 30, 1993)

33. What methods where placed in the conversion process to evaluate the results of the calendar
format change with refeerce to the stated goals and objectives?

179

APPENDIX I

The initial instrument was tested by mock interviews
with two people; an executive level administrator and a
faculty member who had served on both the Semester
Feasibility Task Force and the Semester Transition Team.

During the interviews it became necessary to explain
some of the questions for the respondents, and it was
apparent that overlap occurred between questions.

For example, question #7 asked about personal influence
and involvement which was really addressed to some degree in
questions 1 through 6. Also, question #10 was not clear and
confused goals and objectives of the institution with those
of the administration, faculty, and committees involved with
the conversion process. Question #19, 20, 29 and 30 seemed
to ask about the same incidents, at least in the minds of
the interviewees, and needed clarification. Questions #16-
18 and #26-28 seemed to elicit confusion about whether they
referred to constraints placed on the institution or on the
committee.

One rather surprising result of the mock interviews was
uncovering an incorrect date in the published reports of the
.Academic Senate Semester Feasibility Task Force. This date
;placed the sequence of events two years ahead of schedule

and created a large gap in being able to document the

180

APPENDIX,I

process. With the correct date identified, the timeline was
consistent with interviewee comments.

The second revision of the interview instrument was
constructed and tested with three mock interviews. Again,
an executive level administrator was used plus a faculty
member who served on the committees.

The results of this round of testing the questions
proved very satisfactory with little clarification needed.
The responses reflected different points of view of similar
experiences and issues.

Only one area of confusion needed to be addressed. The
questions asked of each person as to the level of influence
and involvement seemed to elicit inconsistent answers.
There was clarification needed to determine the influence
and involvement of each constituent at the beginning of the
decision to convert and that constituent's level of activity
later on in the actual conversion process. The constituent
category of “administrator” was broken into two levels;
provost/vice presidents and lower level administrators.

Also, the questions were structured into a master list
of 28 questions, and it was apparent that one interview

guide instrument would be more effective rather than

181

APPENDIX.I

breaking it into three sections, the reason being that each
of the test interviewees was interested in the information
being gathered from other participants; plus, some of the
interviewees participated on both committees. Using one
list of questions and asking each group to respond to just
the questions that applied to it would remove any mystery
about the interview process and generate greater comfort in
being candid.

The final interview instrument, consisting of 28
questions (Appendix B), was used to gather comments from
representatives of the following groups:

1” The executive level administration
(board member, president, provost/vice-presidents)

2. Faculty and administrators involved with the Semester
Feasibility Task Force Committee.

3. Faculty and administrators involved with the Semester
Transition Team.

As a sincere effort to communicate the results with a
high degree of verisimilitude, the extensive process used to
develop reliable questions was fruitful.

In terms of validity of the reported experiences, a
case study approach, even one using a single case, can be
‘very effective. A gathering of independent sources of

information on the calendar conversion process will be used

182

APPENDIX I

to cross-check and validate the interviewees' observations.
Examples of overlapping data will be the actual process
documents used by Ferris State University; minutes of
committee meetings; published reports of the process; and
literature documenting the recommended approach to
conversion by leading authorities. This procedure, called
the triangulation of sources by Norman Denzin (1989), serves

to validate the research instrument used in this project.

APPENDIX J

DJ)
A)

DJ)

183
APPENDIX J

INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPTS
INTERVIEW A

Inte'viewe'
Peson being inte'viewcd

Your assistance is sinceely appreciated by sharing your expe'ieices through your involveth in
the change activities ficm quarters to semestes at Ferris. In the first section, I would like to
inset a numbe' from one to five, five being the highest level of efi‘ort represeiting the amormt of
influercc and the amount of involvenert with the conversion process. These questions are
focused on the actual conversion process and procedures of changing to the new caleidar format.
The questions are broke) into two time pe'iods such as whet the idea or discussion of changing
was being consideed and at a later time during the actual convesion proeess. To the best of
your recollection, as an administrator what, is your feeling about the following chart listed on the
questionnaire guide? Can you suggest some number with 1 being low and 5 a high level? The
administration category is divided by vice presiderts and othe' administrators such as program
directors, deans and department heads.

DURING

INITIALLY CONVERSION PROCESS

 

Influence Involvencnt Influence Involvencnt

 

Bd of Control

 

President

 

Provost\VP

 

Administrators

 

Faculty

 

Students

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OwNNqu-n
ON—Nqu—o
cumulus—..—
ONMMH—t—o

Commrmity

 

A)

DJ)

A)

DJ)

A)

I don’t recall much activity pesonally from the president or VICE PRESIDENT Acadenic
Afi‘airs’ oflice but undestand that they wee heavily involved initially. The administrators such
as the deans, assistant deans, program administrators and department heads were deeply involved
with the implenentation afie‘ the final decision was made to go ahead.

Inthisnextarca, question #2, Iwmldlikctoaskhowyoupe‘sonallyinfluerccdthe convesion
process?

As a program coordinator my involvenent was to make sure the curriculum modifications did
notharmom'situationinte'msofthestuderts, ficultyandstafil Theeweremeetingsseveal
timesawcek,andldidmyuunosttoecpressthchardshipthat seneste'swillbringtoour
program. Obviouslyldidnotinfluencethefinaldecisionbutmadesureourarcawaswell
covercdasfarasmectingthedeadlinesneededintheconvesionprocess.

Questions #3 and #4 deal with the 1989 pe'iod, wher fire decision to change was being
consideed. What facta's were involved initially? Who wee involved, and what roles did they
play in the decision process?

Weweepollingallthetime. Theewasafaerltyan'veyandastudertsm'veyinthe'l‘mch.
Thereweretwofactors. Onewasthemost overiding inthat4ofthe l4unive'sitieswcre1’ton

DJ)

A)

DJ)

A)

DJ)

A)

DJ)

A)

DJ)

A)

DJ)

A)

A)

DJ)

184

APPENDIX J

senestcrs. Michigan State, Fe'ris, Michigan Tech, and LSD. That was the first overiding
factor.
Why was that?

Thetransfcr ofcrcdits! Itwassomuch casietotransfe'outandhaveom'credithom'sevaluatcd.
That was a real problen because, wher they left Ferris to transfer to another college, they lost
credit. The second one as an administer at that point was the constant scheduling process of
scheduling classes. That takes a fair amotmt of work to constantly—four times a year-schedule
and loadclassestodoallthatstufi‘. ThePresidentIthinkmadethedccisiontogoahcadever
though the surveys wee not conclusive, as I recall.

Inthe next stageofevaluatingachangeyouwerconthc Semeste' Feasibility Task Force.
BeginningwithQuestion#5,Iwouldliketoaskaseiesofquestionsdcalingwiththis
committee. WhatdoyourccallweetheprimarygoalsandorobjcctivesforFSUtodsangeto
seneste's?

Wemetinataskforceintotalbutwealsohad4subcommittees. Gere'alEducation
rcquirencntswasonc. Thatwasanarcaofconccntration. Theu'ansfe'abilityofcrcditswas
anothe' one. We did not get into the saving of administration costs at all.

What about accreditation?

AcecditationwastlrethirdThankyou. NotthatNorthCertaltoldustodoitbutIthinkthe
institutionsortoferhanccdtheevaluations. Backtothetaskforce—thebigge’taskforcewas
concerned about General Education, transfer of credits, and also how was it going to affect these
various facets of the institution in tears of the curriculmn, calerdar, studert life, and financial
impact. Wherwc,asataskforcc,met,weaskedomselvesthatparticrflarquestion: whatwculd
bethemaja'areasoftheinstimtionthatitwouldafi‘ect? Thosefourarethemajorareas. So
thenweecatcdthesesubcommittcestolookatflratandreportorntothemainccrnmittee.

Oftheaefourcatcge'ies,weetheyassigned,ordidyoudevelopthcmasacommittce?
Theyvveepmtoftheoveaflobjectivegandwewantcdtostaycntrack. Wedevelopcdthenasa
committee. Theyareobvious,b1n,lmcan,theycmddabomhavebee1assignedlamsmewe
talked about a lot ofthings; they all seem to have firllcn into those four categories.
Howwasthcdrargetothe Seneste' FeasibilityTask Force detemincd and communicated?

Thechargeofthecommittcewastostudytheimpactoftheu'ansition from quartestosenestes
would make on the institution.

It came fiom what authority’?

It camefranthepresidert’s oficc. But I havctobecareful aboutthatbccausethatcouldhave
beer a joint thing; it could have been out of the Senate as well as the President.

Ithinktthhairperson,AlanPochi,reallygavethedirectionswherwefirstmetmndlsuppose
he received fire information firm the VICE PRESIDENT of Academic Afl'airs.

Question #8 deals with the make up of the committee and chairs and how they were selected.

A)

DJ)
A)

DJ)

A)

DJ)
A)

DJ)

A)
DJ)
DJ)
A)

A)

DJ)

A)

185

APPENDIX J

lthinkthctaskforcewasoriginally—Idon’tknowwhoselcctchllanPochi. I-Iewasinthe
library, if I recall. Each college had the ability to place two people on it. Plus the library. Each
major academic unit had the opportunity. They were not selected by the Serate or by the
Presidert. They wee allowed to be selected within drose acadenic units. The subcanmittces
wee developed fiom expe-tise within the group of vohmtces as I mertioncd carlie.

So they asked for nominations?
The individual colleges did it. Yes.

To refresh your menory, may I show you a list ofcornmittce participants and a copy ofthe
documert put out as the senester fcasrhility task force recommendation docmnert.

I am wrong. Appareitly the Presidert must have had some input into committee makeup. Thee
weesomanyadministrata'son it, mdhccauseofmyenfierltnnexpetiseandworkonNorth
Central, sol was selected. That’s how it was. On this particular one. Ken Actin at that time
was involved in the curriculum committee for the College of Technology; he might have been a
chair-peson. Soitjustmadegoodsersethathewouldbe.

Selectionwasbyareasofetpertiseinthatarca?

Right. Now, howthe CollegeofBusiness sclectcdtheirpe-scnldonotknow. ButIam
reasonably cetain Heler Popovich had so many administrators’ slots that she could put one thee
and I was one that represented an academic area. Tom wasn’t a dean at that time. You have Paul
hen the registrar’s omce. That’s the way it was. It was allocated out by a difl’e'ert formula
than what I said earlier. It probably came out of Helen’s oficc. Ther we divided otrrselves—
this was the committee as a whole. Then we divided ourselves under the four groups. Then,
okay—I was on the curriculum group field expe'ierce and work load

So the menhers of the overall stceing committee were selected by a rcpresertation formula, and
the President had some influence?

TthresidertortheSeratedid. Orsomcagrcenertbctweerthetwo.
Thesuhcommittees,weetheybyaformula?
I-Iowweethechairsdete-minedforthesub-committees?
Idonotknodeon’tknowwhoom'chairwas. Itwasinformal.

They fell out of inte'cd areas. People had the opporttmity to place thenselves on the area they
felt they wee best at. Voltmtce's.

Question#IOasksabGnthemehcdologythatwasuscdmymucommhtceinmakingdecisims.

Wedideve'ythingagainintheerrriculaarca; wesub-divideddownthosethingsthatwefelt
wouldhcafl‘cctedineachofthosearcas. Builtsm'veysandsm'veycdtheconstimerts,bcthey
studentsfawltyorwhat.Ihavcnoideawhercthcsm'veyinstrumentsare,butwedidnothave
any hearings, at our level. At the bigger task force level wehad open hearings.

01)

A)

DJ)

A)

DJ)

A)

DJ)

A)

DJ)

A)

A)

A)

186

APPENDIX J

Inyomcommittcework,whenyouhadasituationandyouhadtomakeadccisionorhad
conflict,howwasitsettlcd?

Itce'tainlywasnotbmeaueaticallyorpolitical. Itcametoaconscnsus,probablyusinggood
rationaleintemsoftryingtodefincinthosegroupsweweeinchargeof Theeweequestions
wewouldask. Getevcryone’s ideas.

Betwcerflremaintask forcecommittceandthesub—committces,wastheeanypartierlar
methodology used to settle issues?

Eachindividualcommitteehaditsowncharge; tolookatthatareaandusewhatcvedevicesyou
wantcdtogetthatinput.

Inyoursub-committce,wasa1rivingatareccmme1dationfortogoornottogoto semestersa
consersusorsomeothemanne?

Consensus,hn,agaimthcconsensusthatcametogehewasbascdupmsmveys. Sothe
committeeusedaconsersusofthesm'veys. Inom'situationwejustmovedthecmsersus
forward. Themajorityrulcdontheconsersus.

Questions# 11 and 12 dcalwithwhichmethodologywasmostcfl'ectiveandwhichwaslcast
cfi‘ective.

Theejustdidnotsccmtoheanyproblensothethanwhcthesenestesfittechnology
instructionmcthodsofshe'tu-ainingpeiods. Whfleldon’trccaflavcteweagrcedon solutions
thatwercforthegoodofmegreatestnumbe.

Question #‘13 pcrtainstothemost controvesialissueercormtecdandhowitwasresolved?

Yes. Inourparticular group, I couldnotrenenbeorrccall anyconflictsatallwheetheewere
anydcbatesastohowthingsweewordcdorwhatquestimswereaskcd. Also,hccausewewee
so cut and dry. Field Expeierccd group coves all co-op and intern areas. We simply developed
an instrument that could go to any faerlty mcmbe or students that wee involved in that
expeicnce. That would determine what would he the effect if we moved fi'om quartes to
semestes. I can sit bee and tell you right now, when it comes to the Field Expeience
compone1t,thatlhadstrongopinionsahoutallthisstufll

IfIrccalLtheeweesanegreatdcbatesahotnGerealEducationatthattime. No, ldon’twant
tomixthatupwiththeGenealEducationtaskforce. WelLthetugofwars,theconflictswee
rcallynothadandweercallyexpected

The most controvesial was an area that was the College of Technology. Allied Heath and
omselvesweetryingtoshowitwasnotwisetomoveawayfiomquartestosenestes. Sowe
wee thosetwormitswhowcretryingtheirhesttoinfluercethcprocesstokccpcnquartehours.
Themaficoncensweeheardandallowedtobeinputtcd. Thciswcoftransitionofthe
institution was bigge than the parts involved.

DJ)

A)

DJ)

A)

DJ)

A)

DJ)

A)
DJ)
A)
DJ)
A)
DJ)
A)
DJ)
A)

DJ)

187

APPENDIX J

Itcamedowntoavote,ordidtcchnologyagrcethatyes,youwecprobablyrightintheoveall
schenesofthings. Was itconsersus,orwasitvotedon?

Icanhonestlysaywher ital] cametogetheinareportthatwerttothepresidertldon’tthinkit
camewith total agrcencnt. Theewerc lOyesand4 votesno. Idon’trccall that forsure,
though. I think the report from all the facets showed overwhelmingly that thee was great
sentiment amongst the whole univesity to make a transition. And it wouldn’t effect negatively
any one component drastically. Ever though two of the schools like I just mentioned wee most
vocalaboutrenainingthstwayonquartes. Thecmighthavehcenanothe one. Ican’trccall.
Irepresertcddratfcefingbccauselfeltthatweshorddhavestayequuma Stilldol

Therywdidnawppatthechmgeatmebeginnmgmdhavcnotchmgedmfcefings?
Ihaveacccptedithrtfi'ommyareaquartesisabettefit.

Question #l4coversconstraintson thecommitteethatinfluerced committeeaction, positivelyor
negativelysuchastime,finances,suppcrtstafl?
Iknowflreewasacalerdarthatweweeopeatingunde. Ilmowpeoplewerttoothearcasto
gctidcasfi'omtheircxpeierces. Oneofthethingsthatwedidatthatpointcarlyonwasothe
campus visits. [know that Sid and the VP oflice helped out with this, identifying institutions
thataresimilartousarormdtheUSA. Irenenhelookingattheucatalogsandldoknowthat

parties,groupsofpeoplc,we1ttothoseinstitutions. I’msuretheewasahudgct. Iamsurethat
mmeywasbudgetedfa'thiscfl‘ort. Nottopaypeopletodoworkbuttosupporttraveltogo

placesandpapefcrsm'veys. Theeweenostafi‘problems.

Inquestion#15,lwouldliketoaskthat,inrct1ospect,asamembeoftheSenestchasibility
Task Force,whatwould youliketohavc done diffeently intheconvesionprocessandwhy?

I think the people thought we should have stayed and htmg in thee all the way.

People that did not want a change didn’t sofien. They could just have lived with it?
No,thepcoplethatwantcdtogotosemestesweenot inteestcdin stayingonquartes.
So, in the process, people held their positions?

I think people held their positions vey well.

The cndresultwasthattherecanmendationwastcgo?
Apparertlythcpeoplethatwantedtostayonquartesweealessegroupthanthewhole.
Wee you involved with the Phase 5 level? The Seneste Transition Team efforts?

I was not. But they used our expetise in the implenentation process.

InPhase6,whersenestesbegan,doyourecallanythingtmecpectedwhcnthesenesteformat
started that the convesion process could have influenced difl‘eently?

A)

DJ)

A)

DJ)

D1)

188

APPENDIX J

I recall that I was impressed with how sooth the transition went. I really believed that it was
goingtobeinreal chaos. IwasimpresscdthatPresidcntPopovich madeadccision onceagainto
take a seious look at going to senestes. We got to give our humble opinion, but she had he
mind made up. By the same token, if eveyone would have beer overwhelmingly against it, she
would not have done it. But I think, as a presidert, she felt that the school had to go that way.
Seveal times before we have taker this

voteandnever did it. Sheeeatcdthetaskforcetostudytheclemertsandthatwaswiseonhe
part. Wher she broke it all apart to the elenents and studied it, it made serse and a consensus to
do it. With a couple ofholdouts not to do it by a couple of colleges for their own reasons. The1
putting Jim Mass into it was brilliant. Because he had a good mind for organizing stufi'. He laid
itall outintoacalcndar andlaiditalloutintoaprocessthattookawhiletogct italldownatthe
program level. I think it went smooth. I was amazed at our univesity going ahead with it, ever
though I still didn’t want to. I still think technology education can best be delivecd in small
courses rathe than in large chunks. But I also tmdcrstand we are a big 1mivesity and we have to
do what is best for the whole univesity. It did give a chance once again to look at courses and
curriculum and modify things. I have been a studeit in both before; I have taught and managed
inbothsystensbeforc. Technologyeducation l’drathetcadrinqtrartesandbcastudcntin
quartes but an administrator in senestes.

Lastly,whatmethodswercplacedintheconvesionprocesstoevaluatethcresultsofthecalerdar
formatchangewithrefecncetothestatcdgoalsandobjectives?

None that I am aware of. No study. Problens wee dealt with.

In closing, may I sinceely thank you for your candid comments and sharing thoughts on the
convesion process. Irealizeithasbeerafewyearssinceymrecpeicncesbuttheragain,the
most menorable everts are what may help to documert FSU’s process.

INTERVIEWS

Thanks forthe opportunitytoaskyou some questionsaboutyourexpeiences during the
convesion process fi'om quarters to semestes at FSU.
The first question is what you recall about the level of influeice and involveneit initially, about
1989 to 1990, and during the actual convesion process. With 1 being low level and 5 high
level, may I ask your recollection and some numbers that reflect the situation and put on this
chart in my interview guide?
DURING
INITIALLY CONVERSION PROCESS

 

Influence Involvencnt Influence Involvencnt

 

Board of Control

 

President

 

ProvostWP

 

Administrators

 

Faculty

 

Studerts

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Onto—won—
cs—s—r—owMe—r
ONMUIv—N—
O—MMI—Nu—

Commrmity

 

D1)

DI)

DI)

DI)

3)

DJ)
3)

DJ)

3)

DJ)

B)

DJ)
B)

DJ)

B)

DJ)

B)

189

APPENDIX J

How did you pesonally influence the convesion process?

Well, with many, many hours of meetings to get things acccrnplishcd and regular Friday
meetings, I was involved with the Seneste Feasibility Task Force to evaluate the idea of
changing, again, and with Jim Maas on the implenertation team. I don’t know if I influenced
the process, but I said my piece and listered to people. I chaired one of the sub-committees and
spent consideable

time developing itens such as a mascot for student commrmications on the process. That kind of
fell out as the suggestions for mascot or logo wee meaningless or had othe connotations.

In the initial phase, what factors, at least during 1989 to 1990, influenced the decision to
conside changing the calendar?

Probablytbemost importantwasthenccdtobein sync with othe institutions inthe State of
Michigan, and the community colleges.

In your opinion, who wee involved, and what roles did they play in the decision to change?

Well, as indicated on the chart with level of involvenert or influence, I think the Board of
Control pretty well mandated that we wee going to make the convesion. The presth was Dr.
Popovich at the time. Sol think the president, with a blessing of the board, said, let’s set up the
STT, and let’s move it. So she was the geneator hee. This is something that she wanted to
accomplish. Most people and the othe administrators went along with this. So thee was this
strong feeling that we’d bette do it this time because, prior to this time, thee wee seveal othe
attenptstoconvertthetmivesitytosenestes. In fact,theewasanexte1siveattenpt,andit
hadgonethroughthewholeprocessandwasveoedtherbyadifi‘eentpresideit

That was in 1972, wasn’t it?

Yes, sotheeweealotofpeoplewhorenenbethatandweelookingatthislikewell, heewe
go again. This is going to fizzle out; we’ll preterd to go along, butweknow that itwill not
cometofiuition.Thecwasquitcabitofdividedopinionthee, and, ifyouscalcdittoa 100%,
youcouldsaythat52%weeagainstitand48°/owasforit.

Arcyouaretalkingaboutetecutivelcvel adminisu'atorsordcansanddepartmertheads?
Lowe level ministration and program directors such as ATC, Lifelong Learning. Yes.

Sothepresidcntwasspcarhcadingit. ThcboardwasgoingalongwithitTheadministr-ators’
attitudewasnottopushitonewayoranothe?

They wee1’t enthusiastic for it because some ofthem had gme though the othe process. And
thought, well, we will just go though this and it will die out and that is the end of this story.
We’ll put this on the back burne like the othe one. The faculty was ever more divided, I think,
and that the resistance, it came fi'om difi‘erert schools. I know in the marketing areas at the
College of Business thee was a lot of opposition. A lot of opposition fiom PGM. They thought
this was going to destroy the program. Dr. LeClaire was up in arms about the whole thing. He
couldn’t ever talk to you rationally about it. He thought this was teriblc; this is the worst thing.
Icouldrccall seveal othe facultyinthefinancedcpartmertthatwon’tevertalktomctothis
day. Theyweejust upset attheprospcctofchange.

DJ)
13)

DJ)
3)

DJ)

13)

DJ)

13)

DJ)

B)

DJ)

B)

190

APPENDIX J

A lot ofthe faculty wee divided. So how was this handled?

It seencd as though nobody was really concencd. This was the leadeship of the 1mivesity by
Dr. Popovichwhosaidwewilldothis. Youhadyourchancetomakeyourcommertbutyou
ween’t going to deail the process.

That was in the beginning?

Youweenotgoingtodeailtheprocessbasedonfeasibility. Inthe processwehadanynumbe
of meetings. In the evening , during the day. Like most of these things, you have concencd
firerltythatworrldshowupandusuallybetheonesagainstittherstartattackingyoupesonally.
Itwasjustaforumtoecpresstheiridcasandaskquestionsandletpcoplcvent.

Inphasetwowheethechangewastobestudied,whatdoyourecallweetheprimarygoalsand/
orobjcctivesforFSUtochangc?

Oh,Ibclievcitwastheneedtobein Iinewithothe institutionsplusrcdoingflreGereal
Education requirenents and pm of a curriculum change as the North Central accreditation team
was going to visit again in 1993. Transfer students wee coming with seneste' credits, and it
causedproblems. Thenew SIS computesysten couldbedoneatthesametimeaschangeto
senestessothetimewasrighttodoeveythingatonce.

Question #6 deals with how closely you believe the Feasibility Study Committee acted in regard
to the stated goals and objectives.

Idon’trccalltheguidelinesinwriting,butwehadgoodlcadeshipastowhatwasto be
accomplished. The committee activity completely met the goals, as least for the most part for
most people. The committee did not go ofi‘in difl‘eent directions. We stayed focused.

Inyourdealingwiththespecialfeasibilitytaskforce,question#7asksaboutthechargetothe
committceandhowitwascommunicated.

That was brought to the acadenic seiate. It was eithe the president or the VICE PRESIDENT
ofAcadcmicAfl'airs, GaryNash,Ithink,thatgavethe formalrcquesttodothisstudyandmakea
recommetdation. And a committee was formed. We received the charge fiom the president’s
ofice. They, the Senate, wee asked to set up this feasibility task force to explore the possibility
of Feris State Univesity going from quarters to scmestes. That was our charge. We met in the
Presiderts’ Room at Rankin Ccnte. Thee wee probably 15 membes on that committee. The
firstwcckor sowetalkcdaboutthechargeandwhatresponsibilities, andthcnwestartcdgoing
back to the process of gathering information. We gatheed information by contacting othe
tmivesities that had switched by getting their catalogs; we spent time on the phone with othe
1mivesities that had switched ove. Basically, our job was to create a report listing the pros and
consofswitching ove, alsotheprocess. Weheldmectingsatvariousspotsaeosscampusto
hearouttheconcensoffacultyandtohearwhatflreyhadto say.

Howwasacommittecmakcup formedbytheSenatc? Was itdifieertforthestceingcommittce
thanthesub-committces?

Itwasprimarilyvohmtcesforboth, actually. Oncewegotsenevohmteestherwetookalook
atthemakeupofthecommittceandsaid, “Ithinkwenccdanotheadministratororsomc

DJ)

3)

DJ)
B)

DJ)
3)

DJ)
B)

3)

DJ)
B)

DJ)
13)

DJ)

B)

 

191

APPENDIX J

students hee.” Okay, so once we got the core of the committee, we wanted to balance that out.
To make sure we had representation of the whole campus. It was just common seisc.

Lctmeask—in themakeupofthiscommittcc,youhadacoregraip. Wasthccaegroupfathe
change a against the change? In anothe words, wee they recruiting people that felt the same
way?

No. I think it was mostly people on the committee that wee in the middle. It wasn’t any bias.
We won’t any smoking gims. We weei’t going to ram this down the throat of anybody.

Theiyourecruitcdpcopleinpositionsthatyouwantcdtorepresent?

Right. Theiweaskedfaaddifimalrccommeidafionsfapeoplefianthosethatweealredy
on the committee. We wanted the Associated Studmt Government (ASG) on the committee. We
said to the ASG we wanted student representation, “would you provide us with sane menhers?”
Theydid, but, withthestudeit participation, thcywould caneforacoupleofweeksthei
acadenies would get in the way. The1 they would cane and go.

Any consideation othe man the numbe of people and the colleges they represeitcd?
We had it balanced.
By Geide or?

Youhadtobelievethatthetimewasrighttoconsideachange,thatwewouldsecitthrough,yet
thcquartesystenprescntlydidn’tfeelitwasworkingaswellasitshouldhave.

Just by represeitation.
Race?

Thatldon’tthink, figuredin somuch. Thatpointintimewedidnothaveawhole lot of
minaity students. It was minimum, really. So that really didn’t; we did want a mix of males
and females. We did want to bear in mind that some colleges are bigge than othes, so that
meant more represeitation. But it wasn’t any, it probably wasn’t a pe'fectly created committee.
Again, if you volimtcecd to be on this canmittee, you became a target. People asked, “why are
youevenstudyingthis?” Sotheewasalotoffaailtythatwerecitheinorait. Andsoitwasn’t
only ifyouweeapproachcd; youwantedtobe involved with theprocess.

HowwasthedrahpesmselcdcdfaflreStcethommiflcemdfacadrsub—commiflce?
I’mnotsure. AlanPochiwasthechair,and,asthesub-canmitteesevolved,whoeve hadthe
mostinteestintheareaofstudytookthechairposition. Itwasn’tappointcd,aslrccall,butit
couldhavebeen.

Whatmcthodologies (question #10) weeuscdbyyourcommittceinmaking decisions? Like
wheiyaihadastifl‘caseofissiiesoncachsidewhatdidyoudo?

Wejustbasicallygotinacanmittceandtalkeditthrough. Triedtogetalltheviewpointsthat
wecould,andasaconsensuswewouldcometoagieenent—“well,Icouldlivewiththatifyou
couldlivewiththis.”

Di)

W)

B)

W.

DJ)
3)

DJ)

3)

DJ)

B)

DJ)
B)

DJ)
3)
DJ)
3)

192

APPENDIX J

Soitwasbyconseisus?

It was pretty much by conseisus. It wasn’t one individual that rammed their opinion bane or
studybccauseoneofthcthingswefoundait,thatin aconvesiaiproeesswastheewasn’trcally
any dictated; it was pretty much a conseisus thing. We tried to caiside all factors that we could
at that point, based on all the information that you could get. It was kind ofinteesting what you
wee going to plans for these things to happei. Eve'ybody went through it. Everybody could
describe something, but no me could really sit down and tell you the whole process. Evei the
investigation of switching by contacting othe institutions. So our committee— we didn’t have a
whole lot of infamation, it just wasn’t out thee. So we tried to take advantage of all of us that
had bee) in semeste education or taught in seneste education. So that was important. To
imaginewhat itwasgoingtobcliketoteach inquartes andgo into senestes bee, andwehad
various ideas of semestes. Some people liked fifieei week senestes, sixteei, seveitcei, and
eighteen weeks, so all had some semeste background. That sort of helps geicrate the questions
of the committee. Based on our expe'iences and then fi'om their co-workes and othe people
who had more seneste expeieice might explain things. Some people with mac quarter a
term expeieicehadsanegoodpoints. Itwasprcttymuch aconseisus.

While you indicated the most common methodology of resolving issues was by consensus, wee
thee othe ways sticky issues wee handled?

Sanetimes,by talking, itseenedalittlelikeavoteprocess, andwewoulddiscusstheissues.
Thatwasthemost efl‘cctive. Theiwewould all kind ofagrcc. That’s whatlmeanbyconscnsus.

What was the least efi‘cctive method? (queseion #12)

Wheiwewaildnotbeabletosatisfyeveyoneandtheiweallagrccd. Theemusthavebeen
sanepcoplebackingdownorlivingwiththeresultofmostpcople. Itworkedbestifeveyone
spokethcirmind.

Describe the most controvesial issue eicountecd and how it was resolved.

Howthehellarewego’mgtodoit? Howarcwegoingtogctquartelyhoursintosenestehairs?
Thehardisaeofcansewashowisitgoingtoafl‘cctcauseslikePGM? Thatwasacaistant:
“Ohmygod,thesekidsaren’tgoingtogctaitoftheirintens. Theywon’tgetgoodjobsout
thee. Theirprogramsaregoingtofallofl‘flieedgeoftheworld.”

You meition one program that was basically against it. Wee thee othes?
The School of Technology was against it.
Howdidyaidcalwithfliosetwosystensthatweesopassimatelyagainstit?

Wejusttookahardlineandsaidbaloney. BecauseflieotheschoolsthathadPGMweitto
senestes; Pein State, New Mexico State, Mississippi went to senestes and cetainly their
programsarenot dying. Bothsides right thee, from Doc’s point ofview,was“0hmy god, the
reasonwhyairprogramwassogoodwasbecauscthesckidsgctaitfirst. Theygetthebestjobs.
That was a big magnet to get kids to come to Feris State Univesity.” We researched that, and
theeweeailyhalfadozeigoodjobsouttheeinthefirstplace. Mostofthesekidsweitouton
intenshipsandworkcdatproshopsa'workingongolfcarts; itwasnotthatbigofanadvantage

DJ)
3)

DJ)

3)

DJ)
B)

DJ)
13)

DJ)

13)

DJ)
B)

DJ)

193

APPENDIX J

togetthisout. Ofcourse, ifyoudidn’tknowothewise,thisiswhatyouhelievcd. Technology
didnot like itbecausetheyfigured itwas—“nowwehavcallthistimewhatarewegoingtodo
with this time?” They did not imdestand that the total class numbe of hairs was not that big of
an increase. Buttheysce it fiom tcnweeksto fifteen weeks—areyoucrazy, what arcthcygoing
to do for five weeks. So they did not undestand. I think the whole part of the problen was a
pie attempt and this attempt was the fact that things wee being commrmicated not as clear as
they should have been. I think one of the things that we wee discoveing was that a semeste
transition has a lot of misinfamation floating around the campus about this concept. We
surveyedthc facultyandhadthen fill outsurveysandusedthat survcyatmcctings; and someof
thefacultygotupinarms. “Youdidn’taskusanything,youdidn’tquestionusyoujustweit
aheadenddidthiscrazything.” When, infact,theinformationwehadwasfi'omsurveysthey
filled ait.

Howdidyoudealwiththegapsyaimeitioncd?
TheewasarelhckofcommmicafimsomfimesfirflwhatevewepassedmmMfliat
whatevewedo,hastobecanmmietcdaiadaflyaweeklybasistobesineevemeis
notifiedandknowswhatishappcning.

Question number #14, involving time constraints, financial consideations and suppa't stafl‘,
wee thee any that influeiccd the canmittce’s actions positively a' negatively?

Theewasarealfimeconsu'aintaswehadtothrowthistogeheinabannineydays Thiswas
posifiveinthathprhpressmemdcalingwithissuesqrdcklyandeestehg. Ithinkwe
hasicallydidmostoftheworkoveawintequarte.

ThetaskforcewasformedonJanuary 12,1990, and madetherccommendationonApril 16,1990.
Yes, wehadaboutthrcemonthstogctitgoing.

Sothatwasasborttimetogetitgoing?

Yes, itwas. TheChargecamedown fromtheMountain— “listei,lwantthisrepa'tonmydesk
by April 16.” I guess the deadline came fran the V.P.’s office.

Wastheeanyfinancialconcenabaitthemoneythatyaispeitonthestudy? Oranythingsaid
that helped or hurt the committee process?

No

Howaboutthcsupportstafl?
lthinkweweeprcttybarcboncdwheiitcamedowntofinancialconstraintsandsuppa'tstafl;
tobehonestwithyou. Icanrenembeasthecanmittceweiton; theinteestwaveedalittlc
bit,andweeidedupwithbasicallyacoreofabaitfiveorsixpcoplethathelpedputfliat

recommeidation togethe.

Question numbe #15 relates to your work on the Seneste Feasibility Task Force. In retrospect,
what would you like to have done difl’eently in the convesion process and why?

3)

DJ)
B)

DJ)
B)

DJ)

3)

DJ)

194

APPENDIX J

It was so dificult to get a strong canmitmcnt fiom the administration as to the costs of finding
any convesion. They wee ve'y wishy-washy on it. We tried to pin them down as far as funds
and we could neve get a solid answe. So we sort of hurried the issue a little. We couldn’t get a
canmitmcnt fi'om then of what dollars were available to pay for conversiai. You have to
rcmenbe, this was the start of all that fiscal restructuring. Down-sizing and restructuring. No
one really talked money. Hee we did some pretty bare’ boned studying. We did night and days
todoit. Wecouldaccessthemajorityofinfamation, butweweeeicairagedtolookatothe
imiversities a colleges that had switched. We talked to other people. Take a look at our
We, and how do we think this is necessary for Ferris State University; and so our
committee went to outside resources and talked to people who, in ten, worked with the
committee. Some menbesofairgrouphadtalkcdtopcoplethathadbceiaroundinthe70’s
whcn,onceagain,thishadcaneupforconsideation.

Asfarashowmuchwasgoingtobcsavedbygoingtosenestes?

Yes,howmuchwasgoingtobesavcd. Yaicaildnotgetanysolidinformationforfinancial. So
thatissmcamewhflreopmmedhgswehadaeosscampushnwasneveadcquately
addressed,inmymind.

Sothatiswhatyaiwouldaddressinmaedetaihifdoncove?

FirstofalLyouhavetomakesm‘ethatknowledgeisaccm'ate. Knowledgegetsdistatcdinthe
canm1mication when you got more than one agency sending out information. Our
rccanmendations wee “ifwe’re going to do this we are not going to have eighteen difl’eent
people working on this. We are going to have one cae committee which has the responsibility to
get this conveted. And they are going to have the power and the people to make this convesion
work. We are not going to have thirty voluntce administrata's and fifty faculty voltmtces
because building of a horse we are going to build a camel.” We discove'ed in the feasibility study
fliat all we wee doing thee was giving the idea that—-some of the people considecd the task
force was the engine that was changing. We wee just studying it. We didn’t say yes or no. We
wecjustgatheingthefactsandprescntingtheninalogicalfamatbasedonfacultyinput,
administrators’ input, outside information, so we can make a solid rccommcndatiai to the
administrationandtothe Senate. Yes,wcshoulddothisandputitupforavotetodecidcit.
Thatwasairjobasafcasibilitygroup.

Sothchasibility Task Forcemadethcir recanmendation totheAcadenic Seiatetogotoa
seneste caleidar?

Yes,wepreseitcdittothcAcadenicSeiatc. Itwasdcbatcdinthesenate. Ithinkitwas
defeatcdinthescnatc. Veynairowly,buttheiI-IeleiPopovichwantcdtogothoughwiththis.
She was a strong lady at this point because she felt ve'y strongly about this. She felt that is what
thisUnivesityneeded. Ithinkshe feltthisway; firstofalLitwastimc that theunivesitytocka
look at their courses, and we have created a curriculinn of courses with some treneidous ovelap
withothecourses. Wewantcdtofindsomeeiginetoletuswcedthisoutalittlebitand
consolidatethesecan'sesandupgradeothecairses. Itwasaconcern,andI-Icleisawthat.

One ofthe things that was influencing the decision was concen about curriculum evaluation?

B)

DJ)
3)

DJ)
3)

DJ)

DJ)

B)

195

APPENDIX J

Yes, it’sjust likcyou gothrough your closet at home and throw awayyour old shoes and pants
you don’t wear anymore that are out ofstyle.

It is an Why to evaluate and modify flie curriculum?

Right. Anothefadathatlcmclcarlyrenenbewastheewascmcenabadhmsfesmdeits.
That became important. Fran the GRCC and fian othe community colleges. They were all
semeste. Weweeoneofthrec schools lefiinthestatethatwasnotin senestes. IthinkNMU,
MTU, LSD and eveyone else was on senestes. Well, we began to see it is complicated to get
fliese transfe students; we wanted to make it easy. It became a selling point at the univesity.
transfering to Feris. We had to do this to get in step. Now anothe concern was fact that MSU
had just gone through this a little befa'e we have done this. Sane of the bigge state schools
havedonethisprocess, andwe fcelthatit istimethatFeris State lookcdatthisand, ifitwas
feasible, go ahead and do it. Anothe factor was that we were looking at the student body; we
have done any ninnber of studies before. We histaically have an opei admission policy, a lot of
the stude coming to us with ACT some about jr. college level. Thee was sane concen that
quartesystenwasgoodcducatiai; yougotagoodqualitystudeitthatcoulddigestalotof
infamation quickly. Well we found out a lot of students couldn’t. They came to us with weake
skills. They were not college prepared; they were not college prep students fi'om high voltage
high schools. Heeweareputtingthcm fian semeste education inhigh schooltoaquarte
systen hee. Theywon’tdovcrywell. Isthisafairsystem? Wecouldgiveupthestandards and
get a bette quality student that can digest and incorporate the information, a we can begin to
think about this and change the acadenic caleidar and spread the calendar out longe and give
the student pehaps more time for tutoring help or time engaged in one-ori-one tutorial help from
professors. Alotofpeopledidnotlikethattwowcckdcalwehadatthecndoffall senestes.
Yaiwafldgohomcfatwoathreewceksthei comebacktoschool. Thatwasprcttymucha
matte offactfi’ommypesonalexpeieice, I didn’t like itbccamcyoucamebackandyouhad
to learn the stufl' all we again.

Soyouweitahcadwithiteveithoughflieseiatedcfcatcdit?

Itwasveryclosc; theewasonlyatwoathreevotedifl'eencchee. Soagainthisrcflcctcdthe
fcelingoncampus. TheArtsandScieicespeopleweemuchmorefathissencaethan
business and technology. The biggea complaint in the Business College was with the PTM and
PGMTheyweeveyvocalaboutit.

Thenertphaseoftheproceesinvolved the planning, organizing, and impleneitationprocess
whichwashandlcdbytheSenesteTransitionTeam. Iwaildliketoaskyousanequestions
aboutthisiflmay.

You wee also involved with the Seneste Transition Team (ST'I') which was formed in
Dccenbe,1990. Aslmdestandyauwa'konthisgraipcovecdplanning, organizing,and
developing the implemeitation process fi'om 1990 to 1993. I would like to ask you a series of
questions about this committee. The questions are similar to what I have asked about the
Seneste Feasibility Task Force. Question #17 deals with how closely you believe the STT
commiuceaacdmbengcmsistmtwithmestatcdgodsmdoljccdvesofmemiveshy.

Thiscommittcewaswellstructmcdtofollowtheobjectiveslaidout. Theyweeconcendabout
aflaspeas,sichasfahnesstostudcntsandrevampingtheenfieflumpropely.

DJ)

3)

DJ)
B)

DJ)

3)

DJ)
B)

DJ)

B)

DJ)
3)

DJ)
B)

196

APPENDIX J

What role or fimctions did the Semester Transition Team perform that influenced the
implementation process? (Question #18)

They planned and organized the entire process, including timelines of implementation.
Everythingwasscheduledin detaiLbutaswewent alongtherewasva'y littleanoroadmap.
Mostlycanmon senseastowhatnextneededtobedone. Jim Maaswasthedetailperson.

How was the charge to the STT determined and communicated? (questiai #19)

JimMmsmsmepasmmchugefianmebeginMngmdheexpressedwhatneededtobe
done. [believe hewasinconstant contact withupperleveladminisu'ationastoanprocess.
GaryNash, the VICE PRESIDENT AcademicAfl‘airs, I think.

I have a gram of questions dealing with the Sanester Transition Team committee structure that I
asked abait the Swede Feasnhility Task Force canmittee. How was the makeup of the steering
committee and of each sub-canmittee determined? (question #20)

Basically, ifyouwere interestedin it,youjustjumpeda1tha-e.
Similar to the Task Force Feasibility committee?

Wemlevmfliinkitwasalittlebitmoreinfamalthanthetaskforce.Wewerenotgoingto
spaidalotoftimehavingaformalorganimtion. Ifymwaeintaestedinthecalaflarismefiy
god,yougot active. Ya: foundartwhat informationyouhadtohave andwhatinfamation the
university had, and you did it.

Onthetransitionteam,howdidya1detaminehowmanymembersandhowmanyfi’an each
college or area ofinteest?

Weleetrytoget somebodyfi’omeva'yareasowecaildskewthea-ganization. Thequestions
involved studalts and library people and administrata's. It wasn’t any kind of elected process or
something. A lot of the feasibility menhers carried right over to the transition team.

You mention a smaller team. Was it by design?

Yes,Ithinkso.Weknewwhatweweregoingtodoatthispointintime.Everybodyonthe
committeebelievedthis. Wewam’twariedabart—“isthisadriveyet,”webelievedthis. We
weregoingtodoit,andeveryoneontheteamwantedtoseethistothemd.

I-iowwerethesesub-committeesorganized?

Well, usuallyyouwouldget intomeeting, andJimwaildsay,“allright, oneofthefirstthingswe
havetodoistakealookathowarewegoingtogetcanseevaluations. I-Iowwillwedothis? I
would like for three people to do this. So who would like to do this.” It was all on a voltmteer
basis. So,ifyouhavesaneleadersinanarea,thatiswhatyaiattachedto. Iworkedonthe
examweekthing. Iworkedonpublicity. OnceJimhadtwoa‘threepeopleinta’estedinthat
area,thenwewouldmeetandsay,“Whydon’twegetthisinformafimwhydon’twetalkto
these people.” We all had responsibilities. We would go an pesonally, a use the telephone and

DJ)

B)

DJ)

3)

DJ)
3)

B)

197

APPENDIX J

as a committee, to represent an'selves as a manba' of the transition team. People many times
were cooperative; sometimes we had to go antside the university to get infamation. Most of the

time we caild get information. We didn’t have a nice and neat formal structure that one person
waschairofacanmitteeallthetime. Thaewasalot ofcrosspowaofcommittees. ltwas
primarily an interest in the area and voltmtea. If ya: had some part of this that ya: were
unfamiliar with or you wanted to explore, that’s what you did. It seaned to work well. Because
people that got involved in that area had some interest, it wasn’t okay if you got to do this, and
that you would say, “Oh shoot, I don’t like that.” Jim was organizing all of this. He pretty much
hadascheduleofhispria’itiesastowhathewantedtodoandwhaewehadtostartapecking
ordaof whatwa'ethemostimportantthingswehadtodo?

How was the chairperson selected for the steering committee and for each subcanmittee
detamined? (questiai #21)

TheST'l’startedofl‘with Jim Maaswasgoingtobethepa'son in charge. Itwasasmalla'
committee than the Feasibility Task Fa'ce. I don’t think we really had chairs. What I rananba
fi'om that is we had respaisibilities. That was a better way to address it; we really didn’t have a
chairor sub-committees, butai papathaewaechairslistedasthoseresponsiblefapulling
togetha‘ reports to the steering canmittee.

Thisiswhatlgotfrom saneoftheminutes. Butmaylaskwhatmethodologieswaeusedby
your canmittee in making decisions? How did the canmittee manbers decide to do things, and
who would do than? (question #22)

Oneofthethingswedidha'ewaswehaddonealotofcommtmicationwith Michigan State,
because they hadjust undagone this, and a lot ofthing were still fresh in their minds. So we
ba-rowed fran State. Wegot acopyoftheir transition catalog, andwetooka lookatthingsthey
addressed. Here it is. All the means, we are not a whole lot different fran than, except they
have more studaits in the classroom than we do. We met on a regular basis in the Presidents’
Roan and that moved to the transition office in South Commais. We said “What are sane of
the things we have to do? We have to take a look at scheduling, publicize this, how are we going
to make the conversion, curriculum development, and how are we going to commrmicate to the
departments and the schools? To have than take a look at this; How are we going to aganize
thefaailtysoflieycanthraighanevaluaticnprocessoftheauriaflmn?’ Wehadanothadebate
an examweek. Also, shaildweorshouldn’twegetintohowwouldwenmthelabcan'ses?

Caddywacpmdmwhatmahodologieswaeusedbyyaacommifleemmakingdecisims?

No,itwasthesameasthefeasibilitytaskfa’ce. Smprisingly,asitbegantomfold,itgoteasia.
Wefirst lookedatthisp-“Ohgod, wha'edowestartwiththis? Whatdowedo?” Westartedto
get intothis, and things startedtofall int0place. Therewasnotawhole lot ofdebate hae. We
usually aided up agreeing on the process and willing to go along.

Jim prettymuch setthepriaities andaganizedthetasks. Yes, Jim did. Hewas, ofcourse,
talking to the vice president of the academic afl‘airs and called meetings. He would get reactions.
Sohewasgivingdirection and from that hewould communicatebacktous. Wedidreallyneed
other canmittees to break down the elanaits. Basically, we were the gnmts; we were an
digging up infatuation and throwing out ideas. I could remanba' any numba' of Friday
aftanoaiswithKai,Bd,Matt,Mike, andEd. Wewouldjust sittha'eandputthingsupcnthe

DJ)

B)

DJ)
B)

DJ)
B)

DJ)

13)

DJ)

13)

DJ)
13)

DJ)

B)

198

APPENDIX J

board and say, “That’s not going to work,” and “that will cause a conflict.” It was not a W
system,mdwehadtodevelopan adalyprocess.

Therewa'ereallynodirectionscrmanualstodothis?

Basically, “Let’strythisandseehow it works. Let’s play with it and buildamodel.” We had
really no research. Not many schools kept any kind of records of how they did this. We just got
togethaanddecidedtodoit. Itwasn’tarealsophisticatedprocess. Itwasinonesaise,inthat
wehadsomegreatpeoplewithsomerealgoodthatghts.

What methodologies were the most efl‘ective? (question #23)

Idon’trecallanyaisisorsihnationwhaewehadtocallameeting. Wemeteveryweek. We
were in constant canmunication with Dr. Popovich and Gary Nash. Sometimes situations could
benipped inthebudbeforetheygottotheworker level. Thatwasprobablythemostproductive.
Ifit was an administrative situatiai, we just got a decision right now!

What methodologies were the least efl’ective?

Probablywhen someonefeltfliey[Sic]waenabeinglista1edtoandthaigafi'ustratedandwe
caildnotgetagreanaitonhowtoproceeda'finalizesomething.

Soevayonewascommittedtogoingaheadbecauseitwasgoingaheadevaiiftheyagreedor
not?

Thiswasgoingtobedone. Eva-yonehadtogoalongeventually—byconsensus.

Wa'e any ofthese people on the committee opposed to it aim to this time and changed their
mind?

Itwasdonesomewha'ein aneutral position. I don’tthinktherewasanyoneon that transition
teamthatwasreallyopposed. Theywereforitormiddleofthegramd.

Sothepeopleagainstitdroppedaitofcommittee involvanattafterthedecisionwasmade?

Theythrewtheirhandsupandsaid,”lhehellwithit.” Theymighthavebeensomewhatslowin
developingmaterial. Wehadtogetafterthem. Oncethedecisionwasmadebythe
administration, it communicated down to the department level, in fact we will do this. Ifyou
wanted to or not, it was god givai these people need this information, so get it done. So they
canldgetangry,buttheystillhadtocomeupwithfl1einformation. Thiswassomethingthatwas
goingtogetdcne. Mostlyeva'yonecnthecanmitteewasforit. Iftheythoughtitwasagood
idea,theywalldgowiththetimingnecessary. Wewa'egoingtomeetthedeadline.

Could I ask you to describe the most controva'sial issue encamtered and how it was resolved?
(question #25)

Probablyexamweek. Everyonewaslistenedtoandgavetheirinput,and,whilewedidnotgoto
voteoranythinglikethatandfnnwaildptnitansontheboard,wecatldscewhat’sbs&. Not
everyone was happy, but they wait along.

DJ)

B)

DJ)

13)

DJ)
13)

DJ)

3)

DJ)

199

APPENDIX J

Question #26 deals with constraints on the canmittee that influenced action positively a'
negatively, such as time, finances, and suppa't staff.

Wewa'ecnaprettytighttimescheduleasfirasdeadlines, which insanewayshelpedtomove
itansalong. Ithink Jim hadabudget, buttherewasnoproblan gettingbackingtodosanething
that I recall, Money that was needed was provided. As far as help, he had computer access and
secretarial help. It was primarily his (chairperson). The canmittee would get together for a
meeting in the Presidents’ Room or Saith Commons, and he got an oflice in Na'theasta'n
Community Education Building. That was actually central. If he had any infa'mation to share,
we would meet there or in a small classroom and generally get the information that was needed.
Basically, wewaildtalkabattthetopiesthatwaild ccmeupthatneeded sanewcrk. Wewould
call the canmittee togetha and say, “Hey, we have some work to do.”

Questiai #27 pa-tains to, if you wae involved again in the Sanesta Transition Ts. activity,
what would you do difl‘eraitly?

Myexpa'iaicewasgreat. Jim didawaiderfuljob. Hewasrespectedbythepeople. I-Iewascn
top of all the stufl‘. He was va'y diligent. Eva'ything was va'y logical. We waaft skipping
aramd doing bits and pieces; everything flowed together. I was va'y happy with the people I
worked with. They weren’t theaetical. No egos wha'e involved. There was no one “Doctor
this, docta'that.” Everyonehadadiancetovoicesaneideaswethoughtalt. Itwasalot of
maital expa'imcnts. We all tried to involve our pa-sonal expaiaices to the situation.

Wa'e thae graip dynamics? Did people have constant roles?

Maybetheonlythingwasthepeoplewhohadbeaiteachinglcnga'wa'emcrehelpfill asfaras
providing sane guidance in can-se development. No one W was downed; everyone was
listaied to. Everything was explained, so the least expaienced pa-son could undastand. Thae
was the publication of the transition book. We had to make sure evayone got that in their hands.
We had to make sure that everybody that was going to be an educator in the conversion process
wastrained. Wehadtobesurethattheirknowledgewassolidsothestudentwould notbe
confused. Everybody took some of the wa'k load. There were sane difl‘eraices in the committee
make up of the transition team canparcd to the feasibility task force canmittee. Just a little bit
ma'e involvanait with the departmait heads. They were more involved with the deans and
departmait heads. That they made sure that they knew who the transition studaits me We
hadtoleamtheprocess; wehadtoselectmanba’softhefilafltytodealwiththis. Wehadto
train than suficientlysothattheycananmsmdaits’ questions. Thatfliecounselcrswere
knowledgeable of what we were doing.

In this actual implemaitaticn pria' to the start of the sanesters, when was the team involved with
publicizing what is going to happai? What is going to happai? How is it going to happai.?
How should the advisors deal with the studaits? Was thae any particular pm on the team
thatwascalledupon todothistask?

Well, ofcansetheleadpasmwasJimMaasandEd Theywaethetwothatlcanthinkof
thatworked aramd the mivasity that weareall familiar with.

So thae was a chair, thai one otha canmittee manba?

B)

DJ)

13)

DJ)

3)

DJ)
3)

DJ)

3)

DJ)
3)

200

APPENDIX J

Itwasabartathreeorfan'pasonteam. IthinkEdandJimdoingalotofthatwork. Itwas
availabilityoffaailty.

One last question (#28) deals with the methods that we placed in the convasion process to
evaluatetheresults ofthe calaidarformatchangewith refaaicetothestatedgoalsand

objectives?

Yes,tha'ewasinfactthat,tomakeairgoalcometrue,wehadtokeepeva'ybodymoving
forward by requiring than to do steps. For example , like the evaluation ofthe curriculums.
Thatwasva'ycritical. Wewantedtoseeifcom'sescaildbecombined. Couldtwocoursebe
made into one. Sowehad to keep pressure on. Iguessthe wordwasputonthe colleges, the
departments and individuals to evaluate their courses. So that was a critical step. To reach that
goaloftheova'allevaluationofthean'rianlmn,wehadtohaveallthewa'kdonebythefaculty
altime. Wehad tohaveitdoneonaihirlyregularschedule. Wehadtohaveastandardform
so eva'ybody across campus could he at the same level.

Soareoftheobjectiveorgoalshadtodowiththeanriarlmnevaluations. Thatwasdonewith
thefan'tierlevelofcairsa. Forthatyanhadatimeframemtime refaatce,soyouca11dcheck
than ofi'andsay“Yeswehavemetairobjectives.” Howaboutsomeoftheotha objectives?

Publiclywasone. Thatwasonatimeline, sowedecidedthatthebestwaytocommmicatethe
progressofthe canmitteewastocomeoutwith amonthlynewsletta'oraweeklynewsletta'.
Thesehadtobecranked out. Whaearewenow? Whatdowenced? Thesewaesilva'ware.
Thae was a newsletter that came out. Thae was infamation constantly put in the Tach. So
that those interested could follow right along with the process. We want keep the idea of
raninding you and informing you of this; that is not sanething that sits on the back burner. We
have to keep this idea going. We were trying to gaiaate enthusiasm vasus a wishy-washy
attitude. Wehadtogaia'ateenthusiasm. Weweregoingtodothis; wehavethreeyearstoget
this going.

How did you measure whether you we reaching that objective or not?

Measm’edbymnewaywastheamamtofquestionswegot. Orinsanecasesthelackof
questions becausewewa'en’t providing enaigh information that were answering questiais. We
were va'y conscientious about making sure every questiai asked was answered directly with no
beating aramd the bush. No dodging the bullet. The question was asked, then you would
probably respond to it with the best infamation we had at the time. We wanted eva'ybody to
knowthiswashappaiing,andthiswasan'targetdatetomakeithappai,andthisiswha'ewe
areatintheprocessnow.

Were thae any otha' goals or objectives whaeyou inca-poratedan evaluation process? Like,
let’sdoastudyafia'wardtoseeifthiswasaccomplished?

Nothing jumps in my mind at the momait.
Nothingformal?
No,Ithinkwewa-esobusytryingtoputallthesepiecestogetha'thatyaididn’tspaidalotof

timeevaluatinghowwewaedoing; wewouldjustdoit. Thismaysoundalittlefimny,but
antside of commmications and making sure that the curriculum was getting reviewed in the

DJ)

201

APPENDIX J

propa'stepsandpropawayconstantaaosscampusorthefactpublicitywasdoingagoodjob
and keeping everybody infa'med. I think those were really the only two measurable things we
wanted to make happen. The other things were wa'k that the commmity was doing. Nobody
has been through this process before. So this was working training for a lot of us. We tried to
take care of any problems that jumped up as quick as we could and named as many questions
that we caild coming fran the administrators, faculty, or students. We tried to really emphasize
communication. How quickly and how efl'iciaitly we were converting the students. Thae was a
concern that that these had to be done accurately. Students knew what was going on. The whole
process was evaluated on how efficiaitly that systan was waking. A few glitches hae and
thae, but it wa'kal eficiaitly because the studaits seemed to be satisfied.

WING

ThanksforagreeingtoshareyourexperiaicesintheconversionprocessatFSUbyansweringa
sa'ies ofquestions I have prepared.

In the first sectiai, let’s call it question #1, I would liketo ask your impressiais ofthe level of
influence and involvanent of the variars graips that dealt with the convasion of the calendar
fa'mat. Two time pa'iods are of interest, during the initial paiod of raiewed intaest, 1989 to
1990, and during the conversion process.

Canyousuggestsanenumberwith l beinglowands ahigh level? Theadminisu'ationcatega'y
isdifidedbyvimpraidmtsmdomalwelofadmmisuaasanhuprogmdheaasdeans
and department heads.

DURING
INITIALLY CONVERSION PROCESS

 

Influence Involvanent Influence lnvolvanait

 

Board ofCaitrol

 

Presidait

 

ProvostWP

 

Administrata's

 

Faculty

 

Students

 

 

Oa—s—o—su—ou—M
Qa—nu—su—stjgwo

MHMM—It—tu—s
Oummmv—O

Canmmity

 

 

 

 

 

 

DJ)
C)

DJ)

How did you personally influence the convasion process?

I was involved with both canmittees. The Semester Feasibility Task Force canmittee and the
Sanester Transition Team committee. We worked many bans in getting this thing done, but I
couldn’t change the decision. I was against changing to semesters because of air program that
I’m in, and, as a faculty, it don’t[Sic]wa'k, in my opinion. We at least got all the issues on the
table; I did that for sure!

Ifyou don’t mind, wewill deal with issues ofthe Feasibility Task Force first.
ThisiswhatIcallPhaseOneandhadtodowiththeinitialdecisionpreparingtoconsidera
change. What factors during 1989 influaiced the decision to consida' a change?

C)

DJ)
C)

DJ)

C)

DJ)

C)

DJ)
C)

DJ)

C)

DJ)
C)

DJ)
C)

202

APPINDIX J

I think a maja' factor was Michigan State making the change.
In this decision, who was involved, and what role did they play?

lthinkitcamedownfi‘antheboardandthepresidaithl indicatedinthechartofquestion #1.
They, I think, had it figured tomake the change a' die trying.

In Phase Two which was evaluating and recanmending a change ornot, the Feasibility Task
Forcewasformedin 1990. Question #5 pertainstothispointintime.Whatdoyou recallwere
the primary goals and/a objectives forFSUtochangeto sanesta's?

Theykeptaitellingusthattha'ewasamoneysavings, becausewewouldonlyhavethree
registratiai dates instead of four. Nobody knew how much. The evidaice showed. We went to
the University of Tamessee. We looked at the University of Iowa State. The Univasity of
Tennessee report stated the aftermath was a disaster. Whateva' you do, don’t make more than
one change at one time. If you are going to semestas, that’s all you should do. What did we
wanttodo?? Wewantedtobring inthenewGaia'al Education requiranaitsatthe sametime
plus a new SIS systan. Itwaswrong, andwe should not have donethat. Ithink the onlyreason
wegotthroughthiswasbecauseofJim Mass. Ifwedidnahavesomeonewiththecaliba'of
Jim, it would have been a disasta.

So, timing was impa'tant because everything could be date atthe same time? Such as gaieral
educationandthedesireforan'riculumevalmtion. Waethereotha'sthatwa‘enotnecessary
stated?

Ihadahardtimewiththis. Ifalghthardtofindattwhattheadvantageswa'e. Icouldneva'
seeany. ltimpactedus(an'program)inanegativeway. Wehadtoputcan'sestogetha'that
waetaallytmrelated.
Question#6dealswithwhetha'thecommitteeactedinregardtothestatedgoalsandobjectives.
Idon’trananber. lntheaid,ancommittee,awasitfl1eacadanicsaiate,votedonthechange.
Idon’t rananba howmanywas[sic]on there,butIthinkitwasabout9-3. Itwasnotrecorded,
but I think thae Msicp of us that hung tight against.
l-lowwasthechargetothecanmitteedetaminedand canmunicated?

Ithinkthechargewasgiventous. Idon’trananber. Thattheconvasiontosanestaswas
neededtobeevaluatedandforustomakerecanmaidations.

How was the make up of the steering and subcommittees determined? (question #8)

Thatwasonavoluntarybasis. Eva‘ygraiphadtoberepresaited. Iguessthaewasaformula
sothateva'yareawas involved. lvolunteered forthe mina-ity subcommittee.

How we individual manbers and chairpa'sons selected?

Ithinktheindividualwasvohmtary,andthechairl’mnotsmeaba1t.Ithinkthechairwas
appointed.

DJ)
C)
DJ)
C)
DJ)
C)

DJ)
C)
DJ)
C)

DJ)
C)

DJ)
C)

DJ)
C)

DJ)

C)

DJ)
C)

DJ)

203

APPENDIX J

What methodologies wae used by your canmittee in making decisions?

Wejust kicked things aramd and came up wifli a consensus. There was no real voting.
Wa'e thae any methodologies that were the most efl‘ective?

I dai’t rananba.

In your opiniai, can you explain which methodologies were the least efi‘ective?

I guess when we did not have aiough discussion, sane people did not want to go along with the
group decision. We tried to reach consaisus, agreanait.

Desaibe the most controva'sial issue encamtered and how it was resolved? (qusmiai #13)
Wewouldargueoverthetable. We’dthrowitonthetableandcometoacaisaisus.
Can you think ofan issue?

Iworkeduparepatonhowstudentswouldlosecontacthourswithusinmyprogramifwewent
tosemesters.

How was that resolved?
They listaied but just never undastood.
Was that a controva‘sial issue that the committee had to deal with?

Yes. Irananba'howthecan’sesandlabcan'sesweresetupforanprogram. Howthey
transferredintosanesters.

How did you feel about the committee decision that was against your strong feeling?
I didn’t and still don’t like it, but I am suppa'ting the committees’ recanmaidation.

Describe constraints on the canmittee that influenced the committee action, positively or
negatively. Such as time.

We had a time constraint to cane with a recanmendation. It caused some problans but mostly a
positive to get it done.

Howaboutfinancialsuppa'tandsupportstafl’?
Aslmaitionedbefa'e,wecouldnotgetfinancialdataontheconva'sion savings,butasfaras
financialbudgetforfliiscommittee,Ithinkthatanytravelwaspaidfaandthaewasnota
problan. Eadlofususedsea-etarialhelpinan'owndepartmenta'school. Itworkedan—OK.

Relative to your work on the Feasibility Task Force, what would you like to have dale difl’a-aitly
in the convasion process and why? (question #15)

 

DI)

C)

DJ)

C)

DJ)
C)

DJ)
C)

DJ)
C)

DJ)

C)

DJ)
C)
DJ)
C)

DJ)
C)

DJ)

204

APPENDIX J

I don’t know what I would have done difi‘erently. I tried hard to change the decision.

In this next phase of the conversion, the planning, organizing, and implanaitation, the
Sanesta Transition Team headeduptheefi‘at. Inthatyouwereamanberofthisgroup also, I
am interested in how this group activity was diffa'ait than the Feasibility Task Face.

Question #17 deals with how closely do you believe this committee acted in being consistait with
the stated goals and objectives.

Thaewasnoreal documait. Wejust did it andgot input fi'an other institutionsbyphoneor
visit and tried to put it togetha' and meet FSU needs. It got finished and went very, va'y
smoothly. We were surprised.

What role a- fimctions did the STT perfa'm that influaiced the implemaltation process?
Eva'ything actually. At least the planning, structure, timing, and follow-up. Jim Maas made it
happen, propaly and on time. No one else was tracking it, only the STT. No question about it,
theplanningthebooklasandtheforms. Itwasagood, srnoothjob. Weweresetupand
supposedtobefa'major problans, butldon’tthinkwedid haveanyreal big ones.

Question #19 asks how the charge to the canmittee was deta'mined and commmicated?

Again,lthinkthatitwassetupagain. Bywhanldon’tknow. Idon’tknowifitcamefianthe
presidait or the board or Gary Nash, the vice presidait.

How was the makarp of the steaing canmittee and of each subcanmittee deta'mined?

SameastheFeasibilityTaskForce. Volunteerorjust seanedtobeoncommitteewhenaskedto
save. A similar representation as the other committee. We wanted all points of interest.

Howwasthechairpa'sa) selectedfa'thestea'ingcanmitteeandeachsub-canmittee
determined? (question #21)

ldon’tranemba. Wejustsa'tofgottha'emdisaissingthetasksorareasneedingwork. Jim
Maas,Ithink,wasappointedoratleastldon’trananba—Ithinkhewastha'eatthestart.

Question #22 dealswith whatmethodologieswaeusedbythe canmittee in makingdecisions.
Itwasthesameastheothercanmittee. Itwasconsensus.
Were thae any methodologies that you could idaitify as most efl‘ective or least efl'ective?

No. By discussion it was apparent who needed more information, and we held ofi‘ making a
decision until that was done. That was effective.

Any method that did not work?
JimMaasmadeusreachagreanentbydiswssion. Consensus.

Question #25 deals with the most caltrova'sial issue arcamtered and how it was resolved.

C)

DJ)
C)

DJ)
C)

DJ)

C)

DJ)
C)

DJ)
C)

DJ)

C)

DJ)

C)

DJ)
C)
DJ)
C)

D1)

205

112me J

Thaewaelotsofthan,btneachwbcommitteemadeapitchandwediswssed. Nothingthatgot
hot. Ithink one of the most controvasial was would the studaits have to pay. What credit hours
wouldpayextra. Wadditbe16a19.

Howwasthatresolved?

Ithinkthatwasvotedon. Wehadpeopleinfi'anthebusinessomces. Therestwasminor.
Sane situations you would take a vote?

I’m not to sure. I can’t ranemba voting, but we did have people disagreeing and some for, and
that the issue was resolved.

Describe the constraints on the committee that influenced canmittee action, positively or
negatively? Such as finances, time or suppa't stafl‘.

No, not to my knowledge.

Suppa't stafl’?

Not at the subcommittee level, and Jim had a STT ofice set up with help.
Any time constraints?

Yes. Wehadafinal daythatwehadtohavethis in.

Inretrospect, asamanba' ofthe STT, whatwatldyouhavedonedifi‘a'ait intheconversion
process and why”? (question #27)

Iwouldnotchangeathing. Whatwehamma-edaitjustwa-ked. Onlybecausewehadagood
strongleader,JimMaas.

What methods were placed in the conversion process to evaluate the results of the calendar
format change with refaaice to the stated goals and objectives?

Theonlythinglrecallisincaseofmajormessupwecarldhavebearcalledback.Thaewasa
panelforsttxlaitappeathnIdon’tknowwhowasonitorifitwasuscd.Onethingthatwas
said: that students will not sufl’a’ because of the conversion.

Thatwasagoal?

Yes.

Howdoyouknowthatgoalwasaccomplished?

No canplaints that I know of.

Thanks again for your candid canments and assistance.

DJ)

DJ)
D)

DJ)

D)

DJ)
D)

DJ)

206

APPENDIX J

INTERVIEW!)

Thanksforseeingmetodayand sharingyan'expa'iaiceinflleconva'sion processatFSUby
answeringsomequestionslhaveprepared Inthefirstsection,lwould liketoaskyourabartthe
level of influence and involvanent of the various graips that dealt with file conversion of the
calendar format.

Two time pa’iods are mentioned, during the initial period of renewed interest, 1989 to 1990, and
during the conversion proesss. Can you suggest sane number with 1 being low and 5 a high
level? The administration category is divided by vice presidents and other types of administrata's
such as program directors, deans and departmait heads.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DURING
INITIALLY CONVERSION PROCESS
Influence Involvanent Influaice Involvanent
Board of Control 5 3 3 3
President 5 4 4 4
ProvostWP 4 4 3 3
Administrators 4 4 4 4
Faculty 5 3 5 5
Students 3 3 3 3
Canmunity 0 0 2 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

How did you pasonally influence the conversion process?

If I ranember, I was a'iginally involved on the Feasibility Task Force and ma volunteered or
actuallywasrequestedtoserveontheSanesterTransitionTeam. Myareaofinterestwasasa
camsela andalsoactivewith the Senate. Myinfluencewasintheareaofstudent lifeand
services, to see things Iran the studalts’ side, if possible.

Inphaseone, the initial decisiontoconsider calendar changewasthe issue. Whatfltcta'sduring
1989 influaiced the decision to consida change, do you recall?

At that point, I think it was mostly calaidar. When it came through simply matching the public
schools systems to Ferris.

In your opinion, who wae involved and what roles did they play in the decisial to change?

Then in my opinion, who were involved, what roles did they play, the point that we did decide to
change. Lata on, maybe I amjumping ahead. It was mac thanjust a calaidar thing. I think it
was the concern that the other institutiais in Michigan have gone to semesters. That’s when we
hadstudentswhowereinomprograms andthentriedtou‘ansfertoother institutiaiswhowere
semesters experienced a loss of credits. I think that was one of the big factas. The other thing
thatIknowistrueisweascamselaswereconcernedabouttheotherway, peoplecomingfran
otha' institutions to Paris. We weren’t so much concerned about the fact that they would not
have that covaage in their courses. Obvious they had mac coverage butjust in being able to

, keep the minimal time for studaits to achieve a B.S. degree.

In your work on the Feasibility Task Force dealing with evaluation and recommendation of
whether to change, what in your opinion were the primary goals and /or objectives for FSU
changing to sanesters?

D)

DJ)

D)

DJ)
I3)

DJ)
D)

DJ)

I3)

DJ)
D)

DJ)
D)

207

APPENDIX J

Yes,wedidsetupsevaalobjectives.Wedidconsiderthecalardarissuethetransfaissuemndl
believe there was a notiai that it would give us mac time toteach causes. Sowe waild have
mac opportunity within the semesta'. Althoughwedidhavcahardflmewetriedtomeasm‘e
dollarsandcreditssointhefinalartcomeitwarldbefairtothestudart. Wejustfelttobein
step with the other institutions, that is what we need to do.

How close do you believe the committee acted in regard to the stated goals and objectives?
(question #6)

Wetriedtosurveythc students. In factlrananba' it well, the Senate- thefirst votedeclined
changingtosemesta's. Itwasthcsecondvote, 51 against and49 for. Soitwasstrictlyan
administration decision. The vice president of academic affairs at that time was Gary Nash, and,
in his opinion, we should go to semesters. I am not sure if that vote was eva' known. We also
tried to look at what students thought and how they would feel abatt it. Frankly, my recollection
was that time were mac against the transfa than fa. It was an administrative decision based
on saneaita-ia, sothat isthewayitwasgoingtobe.

How was the charge to the canmittee deta'mined and commrmicated?

From the presidait, I think. The committee was famed bythe Acadanic Senate to do the study.
Weexaminedallofthcprosandconsfaquarta'sandsanesta'sandsoon. Tharwaetomake

recommaidations. The committee, I felt, by and large was fa the transition to semeucrs. People
onthecommitteefcltthatitwalldbebetta'withallofthethingsthatwelookedat.

How was the make-up of the Mg committee and of sub canmittee detamined? (question #8)

Idon’t recall how itwas detamined. Ofcoursethis committeewas simply represaitatives ofall
ofthccolleges Ibelievetherewasafamula. Iwasaskedtorepresent counselas and librarians,
andtha1,asyoucanseefiomthecanmitteelist,therewaesaneaitaia—itmayhavebeai
accordingtosize. I’msmetherewasstructuretha'e.

Howwasthechairperson selectedfaflicstea'ingcanmittecandforeadlsub-committee
deta'mined?

Totellyarthetutthhinkitwasanappointedthing. Idon’trecallanelectionaanything. I
thinklwascafledandaskedtosavelthinkmaybethroughtheSaiate. Ithinkthatthe
chairpasonwasanappointedposition.

What methodologies we used in your canmittee in making decisions?

We had voting. We invited people to cane in and ask questions and voice opinions. Sometimes
wejustseanedtoarriveatapointwha'enomaedisanssionwasneededandwedidnotneeda
vote,butitwasobviouswhatthemajaity feelingwas. Thaieveryonejustseanedtogoalong
with merecommaidation bythe chair a saneone else.

In your opinion, explain which methodology was most efl‘eetivc.

What everyone was willing to listen and go along wifll the majority, even thaigh they may
disagree.

DJ)

D)

DJ)
D)

DJ)

D)

DJ)
D)

DJ)

D)

DJ)

D)

DJ)

D)

D1)

208

APPENDIX J

In yair opinion, explain which methodology was least efl’ective. (question #12)

Whatlikeanadministrativepointwasmadethatthisisthewayitmustbedoncandwhen—
What do you call this type?-—political?

Please describe the most controversial issue alcountered and how it was resolved?

Well, if anything was unexpected a really controva'sial in my recollection, it might have been
the level of defiance about just the issue of changing to semesters. I would say they, the people
concerned, were facilitated by allowing expression. There wasn’t any problem with giving
saneoneachancetospeak. Most ofthctimeitwasmpportedbysomedocmnattation. Ifcltthat
thaewasopportunity, andofcan’setha‘ewasdiscussionthatfollowed. Usuallytheperson
waddgoalongaflagivingtheirpoinaevaiifstillnotsold.

Wae thae constraints on the canmittee that influaiced committee action, positively a
negatively? Such as time, finances, a stafi‘ suppa't?

Yeswehadccrtainmeetingtimes. Wehadtomakcarecanmaidationbyaccrtaindate. This
putarushonsomeofthcwakbutwasnotanegative. Dcadlineeprobablyhelpedtheprocess.

Financial constraints?
No. Andthaewasnoproblanwithh'avelarpenseaseaetarialhelp.

Inretrospect, asamanba ofthe Sanester FeasibilityTask Face, whatwouldyou liketo have
done difl'erently in the conversion process and why? (question #15)

Iwould have likedtohave mac student input. [don’t know howyalareable to makesurethat
happens. Wehadstudartsthatwcinvitedmndthcydidnotalwaysshow. Itwouldhavebeen
much mac helpful and meaningful if they would have been there.

In the next part of the process which involves the planning, aganizing, and implanentation I
would like to ask sane questiais abait your involvemalt as a member of the Sanester

Transition Team (STT). How closely do you believe the committee acted in being consistent with
the stated goals and objectives? (questiai #17)

Itwasquiteclearthattheconvasionwastotakeplaceandtheotherthingsthatwaegoingon,
sowedidwhathadtobedone. Thaewam’tmudldeviafimreally.

What role a flmctions did the STT pa'form that influaiced the implanentation process?
(question #18)

We, a mac appropriately, Jim Mass, set the time-flames, gatha'ed much of the infamation,

andhelpedusidentifyallthetasksneededtogetdare. TheSTTtodtastrongleadashiprole
mdaauallyfonowedupmmecmvasimprocessaseachmnegemdaogrammadedimges
neededinan‘riatlum, etc..

How was the charge to the committee determined and commmicated?

D)

DJ)
D)

DJ)

D)

DJ)

D)

DJ)

D)

209

APPENDIX J

Wedidhaveacharge; wedidhavcatargetdateandthechairpasai; JimMaasgaveusthe
specific areas we had to address. At that time we needed to present how the transition would take
place. The representation was there fian all of the colleges; I believe they had that chance as
well. I cannot say enough for Jim Maas’s leadership. That was the key. There was a lot of
people that did not want to make that transitiai, but he had the ability to just somehow get it
done without ruflling feathers. The first thing we did was take a look at the issue at stake. The
chair helped us with a great deal of infamation flan otha colleges, at least what we could get.
Which savedalot. Even though weknewwcwaenotthe sameassomeofthelargercollegeswe
did follow a lot of their suggestions and forms. One of the things that they

did was to start publicizing. In fact, befae we eva' went to studaits and started saying, “Let’s
make it happen,” we started putting questions and answers in the Tach. Our plan was to make
infamatiai available to take a look at, to see what otha institutions have done, to have a date-
lineatime fiamesoca'tainaspectsofthetransition wouldbedonc. Thefinalthing, thebig
fliing,waswestartedhavingan'publichearings. I-Iehadtheprograms showinghowtheywere
going to convat.

Howwasthemakarpofthcstea'ingcanmitteeandofeadlsubcommitteedeta'mined?

Ofcarrsetha'ewa'esomepeoplewhoknewmaeabattsanesubjects. IfIrecallright,we
vohmteered a suggested airprefa'ences. Itwaswha'eva air expatisewas. Similartothe
Feasibility Task Face sub-committees, maybe al lot mac infamal, as there were many mac
graips. Thechairpason,Jim Maas, wasappointed, aatleastlthinkheactuallygotthc
canmittee aganized from the start. The subcanmittees kind of naturally put in chairpeople who
had the notes a desire to take charge—got it. It didn’t matter who was chair; cva'yone got it
done that was involved. Although, not we was totally involved, ifyou know what I mean!

What methodologies were used by your canmittee in making decisions? (question #22)

No,Idon’trecallexceptfaleada-shipinmakingsm-cwehadallmeinfamationtoevaluate
altanatives. Much the same methods as with the Feasibility Task Face, nothing really difl‘aait,
maybe a little mac infamal but mac issues to decide on.

Which mediodologies were the most efl’ective? Which were least cfi‘ective, in your opinion?

The most effective is wha) everyone gets involved and contributed. I waked what people
listened. We had trouble what some faculty manbas felt their program, would sufl‘er and they
did not want to let go. They had trouble looking at the good of all the stridents. They wae
unhappywhai a decision was obvious bythe canmaits ofmost ofthecanmitteewithart having
to vote—agreanalt was facilitated.

Fa question #25 would you describe the most controva'sial issue alcountered by the STT and
how it was resolved?

Thecalendar. Howwecanfitthecairsesintothefifleaiweeks.Whatothacairseshalldwe
have. Shouldwehaveanexamweck. Soweneedtodosomekindoffairthing. Therewa'e
people from Technology whowereon theteam thathadaproblan with the fifteen weeks. They
saidwehadalotoflabtimcwcneed. Sothaewas alotofvocalizatiaiwiththat. Jim,aschair,
with hiseasygoingway,suggestedaltanatives, andwelookedatthantofacilitatetheproblan.

DJ)

D)

DJ)
D)

DJ)

D)

DJ)

D)

DJ)

DJ)

210
APPENDIX J

Describe constraints on the canmittee that influarced committee action, positively a negatively.
Caistraintssuchastime, finances,astafl‘suppat.

Allofthehearingsandprocesshadtobedonebycatain dates. Thaewaetimedeadlinesthat
caused problans. We had to push to get otha people to stay on the convasion process track.

Howaboutfinancesastafl'suppat?

No. I did not expaiarce anything. I don’t recall any financial problans with opaations on this
canmittee. Thae were no suppat problans otha than deadlines to get all the papawak done,
butthatwasnotfalackofsecretarial suppat.

Inretrospect, asamanba ofthe Sanesta Transition Team,whatwouldyouliketohavedone
diffaaitly in the convasion process and why?

At this point I don’t recall anything that we could have planned difi‘aartly. We did try to go
back to our units and train and get infamation. That was impatant to help the faculty.
Evayare had their need to go though the cause completiai agreement. There was a lot of
debate on who was going to do this. So that’s why we came up with the expats. It was
necessary that everyone had to show sane kind of documentation on how they were going to
adapt quarters to semestas. At the hearing we looked at them. To see if they met catain
objectives. Pahaps this process could have bear done difiaartly; I don’t know; thae was no
guidean to follow; we wae developing the process; a, at least, Jim Mass was aganizing the
jobs.

Last question #28, what methods wac placed in the convasion process to evaluate the results of
the calendar famat change with rcfaarce to the stated goals and objectives?

Noncthatl’m awareofothathan the studentappeal process iftheyhaveaproblan withtheir
carvasion process.

Thanks again, sincaely, fa your help in answaing my questions and sharing your expaiarces
of the convasion process.

INTERVIEW!

Yarr assistance is gently appreciated by sharing your expaiarces and involvanart in the change
activitiesfian quartastosanestasatFaris. Inthefirstsection ofmystudy, I’dlikctousea

numba are to five, fivc being the high level of effort dealing with the amamt of influence and
the amount of involvement with the convasion process by various participants. These questions
are focused on the actual conversion process and procedures of changing to the new calardar
famat of sanestas. The questions are broken into two paiods such as when the idea a
discussion of changing was being considaed and later during the actual conversion process. To
the best of your recollection, as an executive level administrata at the paiod being studied, can
yarsuggestsanenumbasfathechartonmyquestionnaire? With 1 beinglowandS ahigh
level? The administration categay is divided by vice presidents and otha administratas such as
progam directas, deans and departmart heads.

211

APPENDIX J

DURING
INITIALLY CONVERSION PROCESS

 

Influence Involvemart Influarce Involvanart

 

Board of Control

0

 

President

 

ProvostWP

 

 

Faculty

 

5

5

5
Administratas 1
1

Students 2
0

 

 

Canmmity

 

 

 

 

 

O—‘NWMMM
O—UsUsUtN
OHMANhO

 

DJ)
E)

DJ)

E)

DJ)

E)

DJ)

E)

DJ)

E)

How did you pasonally influarce the convasion process? (question #2)
Really, only initially in assisting the VICE PRESIDENT of Acadanic Afl‘airs, Gary Nash, in
selecting the chairpeople and advisa in the process to assist the committees.

Phase (he had to do with the preparation to consida a change. What factas during 1989
influarced the decision to consida changing the calendar? (question #3)

The big facta was that Michigan State Univasity was going to semestas, and we did not want to
bethclastschool inMichigantogotosanestas. Thesaratedebatedthiaandevayfaarlty
goup we looked at was divided 50-50. We wae concaned about timing and transfers.

In your opinion, who was involved, and what roles did they play in the decision to change?
(question #4)

Garymadethedccision. Heaskedmefaadvicesevaaltimesaboutit. Iwasinfavaofkeeping
the quarter systan, regardless of what Michigan State did. As martioned, the faculty was
divided evenly a very close, and really an administrative decision was needed to go ahead.

WhatdoyourecallweretheprimarygoalsandaobjectivesfaFSUtochangetosemestas?
(question #5)

Asmentionedbefac, theprospectofbeingonthe samecalardarastherestofthcstate
institutiars. Thac wac otha objectives mentioned in sane of the studies plus we were
implanenting a new computa systan and the Nath Central Accreditation Team would be
pleased with change to semestas. They had a planned visit abait 1993. The Feasibility Task
Face did a good job of doing the study and meeting the objectives.

From yarr paspective as an administrata, how was the charge to the Sanester Feasibility Task
Face canmittee detamined and commrmicated? (question #7 & 19) Was it any difl‘aent fa the
Semester Transition Team?

IthinkitwashandledbytheAcadanicSaratebutwasdirectedbyGaryNashastowhatwasto
bestudied. Thepresidartwasinvolvedtosomcdegee,butGarywasthepowabehindachange.
A study that evayonc could embrace needed to be done as thae were many crities, myself
included. The Transition Team was famed to completely run with this project with released
timeandabudgettomeettheirneeds. ThaewasnotmuchdetaiLonlythcdcadlineandwhat
wastobeaccomplished. Jim isadetaiLanalyticalpasonand handled the logistiesva'ynicely,
aslknewhewould.

DJ)

E)

DJ)
E)

DJ)
E)

DJ)

E)

DJ)
153)

DJ)

E)

DJ)

D1)

212

APPENDIX J

How was the makeup ofthe steaing canmittees and ofsub-committees detamined fa the
Feasibility Task Face and the Sanester Transition Team? Wae you involved in this? (question
#8,9,20 & 21)

No. Otha than chairpasons, as I recall an extensive search and evaluation of the potaitial
chairpeople that could be used fa this vay impatant assignmart. Pasonalities and leadaship
style was critical and significant in the final outcanc which was considaed very successful. The
makeup of the committee was handled by the chairpasons. Only the chairs of the steaing
canmittees wac appointed by administration.

In the famatiar of eitha of the canmittees was thae a famula fa how people were chosen?
No idea.
Only the selection of the chairpason?

Jimwakedfamcbefae. Weslraredanoficebefaeandlkncwhisstrargths. Hccouldbe
trusted, and he had the backgamd to make it happen. He had ties to Michigan State which had
justdonethecarvasion. Theywereagoodmodelfaus. Hespartalotoftimethae.

Inreu‘ospect,fi‘anyourpointofviewasanateartiveleveladminisuata, whatwouldyouhave
liked to have done difl’aently in the convasion process and why?

Ithinktheconvasionprocesswentprettywell. Inotsm-eiflwouldhavedoneanything
difl‘aently. WhenlpickedJimtodoitandconvincedhimtodoit. Thatwasnoeasytask. He

had the pafect Mckgamd, prefect pasonality. I don’t think I would drange anything except
maybe a little mac suppat. And a bigga budget.

In file process, were minds changed?

Idon’tthinkso.Thcpeoplethatwacopposedarestillopposed. Iamstillopposed. OnceGary
made the decision to go ahead ova my objections,Isuppa-tedit thebestlcould. Asdid othas!

One last question (#28), what methods were placed in the convasion process to evaluate the
results of the calardar famat change with refaarce to the stated goals and objectives?

Naiethatlrecallasitwasalldoneandnoturningback. Problanswereresolvedasthey
surfaced.Ourpeopledidasmoothjobcomparedtosomeofthedisastasweheardabartfi'an
othainstitutions.

Thanks again fa taking time fi'an yatr busy schedule to share insights into the cmvasion
process.

INTERVIEW?

Thanks fa taking time to answer sane questions fa this project to study the convasion process
of calendar famat change. To the best of your recollectiar, as an administrata and faarlty at the
paiodbcingstudied,canyousuggestsomenumbasfathechartonmyquestionnaire? With 1
being low and 5 a high level? The administration categay is divided by vice presidarts and

213

”m1: J

otha administratassuch asprogam directaadeansanddepartmentheads. T‘wotimcpaiods
are considaed: the 1989 time flame and lata during the convasion process.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DURING
INITIALLY CONVERSION PROCESS
Influarce Involvemart Influence Involvanent
Board of Control 1 l l 1
President 2 l 1 1
Provost\V.P. 5 5 5 3
Administrators 3 3 5 3
Faculty 1 2 2 5
Students 0 O l 2
Community 0 0 l 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

D1)

D1)

DJ)

DJ)

D1)

D1)

How did you pasonally influence the convasion process? (question #2)

As a manba of the Academic Senate, I was involved with discussion of the issues and was
appointed chairpason of the Semesta Transition Team. As a committee, we planned the
implanentation process and directly influenced the meeting of deadlines and tasks.

Phase One of the entire convasion began with the initial decision to consida a change. What
factas during this 1989 paiod influenced this interest?

I don’t rananba. Alter the project was canpleted, I kind of purged my mind of the details and
moved on to otha interests. It was I’m sure, partially, due to most of the otha institutions were
on semesters a planning to.

Were thae any goals a objectives that were not widely known a published?
I am not aware of any.

In your opinion, who do you believe was involved, and what roles did they play in the decision to
change?

I think it was the president and vice president. acadanic affairs, Gary Nash. Probably the Board
had sane influence, but I’m not sure.

In Phase Two of the process, which involved evaluating and making a recanmardation to
change a not, the Sanesta Feasibility Task Face was famed. Were you involved with their
activities?

No. Onlyasamanba oftheSenatethatgotthe canmitteetogethaandlatadisarssedtheir
recommardation. I was not involved.

Let me skip to Phases 3, 4 and 5 that dealt with the planning, aganizing, and implanentation
processasthiswashandledbythe STTfianDec 1990to 1993 when sanestasstarted. Inyour
roleaschairpason ofthis committee, whatdoyourecallweretheprimarygoals and/a objectives
fa FSU to change to semesters? (question #16)

Well, as I recall, thae was the need to be compatible with otha institutions’ calardars;
reevaluate the cariculum, courses, and progams; revise the gaiaal education requiranents; do

DJ)

DJ)

DJ)

D1)

D1)
F)

DJ)

DJ)

214

APPENDIX J

away with the Christmas break that broke up the quarta, that was a hardship fa many faculty
and students.

How closely do you believe the canmittee acted in being consistait with the stated goals and
objectives?

Vay closely. I think evayonc was happy the way the process turned out, but still some still
would liketobeon quartas. Wcmet theobjectives givaltous. Thaewaccompromisesbut
still within the goals set out.

What role a functions did the STT pafam that influarced the implanartation process?
(questiai #18)

Everything we did influenced the process. I can’t think of anything that anybody did outside of
thecanmittees. Wedidwhatwethoughtwasright. Evaythingwedid,wedidasateam. Itwas
not just me. We all shared all ideas as a team. I would say a leadaship role in that we contacted
otha schools and asked than about their expaiarces, gathaed inputs flan many people, and
laidoutwhathadtobedoneandthetimeline. Ittookalotofwak,butthegeatpeoplewehad
catame had a significant influence on making sure sanestas wae ready and the studarts ready
when the time arrived.

How was the charge to the STT detamined and canmmicated? (question #19)

The Vice Presidart, Gary Nash, he was me man involved . He was vay suppative ofthe move
tosanestas. Heapproachedmcandothastochairthecanmittee. Thechargewasmadeclear
priatomcacceptingthechair. Theyhaditlaidout. Wharwestarted,weknewwhathadtobe
done.

Question 20, the make-up of the steaing canmittee and sub-committees, how was that decided?

The steaing committee, that is the STT, was put togetha by Gary Nash. He told me who the
manbasweregoingtobe. Hetriedtogetabroadcross section ofpeopleflan thccampus.
Evay college had a representative. I don’t know how the students were picked. I think he asked
theASGfatwostudentswhowouldbcwillingtosave.

Howwaethechairpasonsselectedforyarrsubcommittees?

We had people of difl‘aait backgamds and expaiarce.
Youlookedfapeopletochairbasedonthciracpatiscaexpaience?

Yes,ldid. Garaallywhatwedidwassetupthctaskoftheweek,ifyarwill. Wewoulddiscuss
thattaskinfullcommittee. Thai,inthefiillcommittee,lwouldflytogctaflavaofwhat
peoplethoughtabartthetask. ThenIwouldperhapssecaneedtohavcasubcommitteeofabart
3 people. Itried to pick people flan what I viewed as the extrane view points of the issue.
Eitha side of the issue. When the subcommittee would cane to an ageement, then I felt we had
something to bring to full committee.

Question 22, what methodologies were used by your committee in making decisions?

D1)

D1)
F)

D1)

D1)

D1)

D1)

D1)

215

arr-In J

It was basically after the subcanmittee repated. We would have fiill committee decision,
garaally cane to carsarsus if we carld befae voting. If we were not at caisarsus, we
sometimes asked the subcommittee to reconsida some of the issues. Then we would bring it
backupatthcnextmeeting.. Evartuallywevotedon it. Priatoavotewetriedtocaneto
something that evayonc could live with.

In your opinion, explain which methodologies were most effective.

Gating somewhat of an ageanart befacactuallydeciding which direction we must go.
Consarsuswasvayhnpatantandcfl‘ecfiveasweneededsuppatmgathmgsdme. Gettingall
theissuesdiscusseduntileveryonehadtheirsayawewartartandcamebackwithmaedata.

In your opiniar, explain which methodologies wae least efl‘ective?

Idon’trananbaarceptitwasdifiarlttogetconsarsusallthetimeaatleastfirllcoopaation.
Wehadgoodteammanbasinthattheycanmunicated,atleastthemaincaeofthecommittee.

Please describe the most controversial issue arcamtaed and how it was resolved? (question #25)
It isfunnybecameyoudon’tknowwhat toexpectanyway.
What was the most controvasial decision your committee dealt with and how it was resolved?

At first glance it seemed controvasial and than turned out to be nothing at all. Evaything we
dealtwith flraewascontroversy. Whatwasthemost controvasial? I am notsure. Littlethings
at the beginning, like the calaidar. Should Easter break be scheduled with the winta sanesta
break a with the local public school systans’. Evaything was dealt with in the committess. It
asnevatakenoutofthccommittees. Weresolvedall issuesintanally. Wegotinputflomotha
sourcesandbrought ittocanmittee,evarhadoparhearingstoairthe issues.

Warld you desaibe the constraints on the canmittee that influenced committee action positively
a negatively. Such as time, finances, a suppat.

Wehadtocome alive Septanba, ‘93. Thetime flameflomstarttoSeptanba, ‘93 wasplaced
onthan. lhadasaiesofthingsthathadtobedaieandanadafathantobcdarein. Igot
agreemait flom the committee at the time lines and tried to hold the tmivasity to than.
Negativelythatputalotofpressm'eonalotofpeopletogettheirwakdone,suchastraining
and cm'riarlmn changes. In a positive way, the time schedule gave us directiar and a slams.

Finneialconstraintsasuppatstafl’?

Well my suppat stafl‘ was my secretary. We could always use mac help. Finance, we ran it bare
bones. I was not given any financial calstraints. I was told ifI had any financial constraints to
talk to the vice presidart. I neva did. The fimding was just my salary on released time and the

pasonreplacingmeintheclassroanandaparttimeseaetary.

In retrospect, as chair and manba ofthe Sanesta Transition Team, what waild you have done
difl’aent in the conversion process and why?

DJ)

DJ)

F)

D1)

D1)

216

neuron: J

I thought it waked well. Ifanotha univasitywould do it, I would recommard befae they get
startedtheysharldbringinapaneloffarrafivepeoplewhohavechairedothacanmittees. To
show pluses and minuses.

Ya: mean, steaing canmittee chairpeople such as yourself who have bear thrargh the artire
process?

Yes. Thatwouldbeagoodsourceofexpaience.

What methods wae placed in the convasion process to evaluate the results of the calardar
famatchangewith refaencestothestatedgoals?

Nonethatlrananba. Ourteamrecommarded,asfarastheactualcala1dargoes,thatthe
annmacalardarsharldbereviewedaflaafewyearsinplace. Thefirst summawouldnotbea
good indicata because somany students in transition wereclose to gaduation. A lot of cause

agrcanarts wae being made. We thought, “Let’s give it achancefaafewyears.” The
recanmendationswaevabal. Icannot recall writing them down. We recanmendedtothe vice
president torevicwinafewyears. Weasthe canmittecwacnot 100% sure aboutthat smnma
schedule. We felt, flom all the otha schools we talked to, the split surnma wasthe wayto go.
Maybethesaratcwilldecidetoreviewthesummaiswe. Therestoftheprocessthaewercno
famalrecanmendationsbecausewewaegoingtosanestasfasae. Asfaraslknow,ithas
notbearrcviewedyet.

Thanksvaymuch fatakingthetimetosharewith meyourrecollections ofthe convasion
process. Asymmentioned,thacisnotmuchwrittaradoannartedabarttheactual
procedures, and this prwents quite a challarge. Yar have catainly made a significant
conflibutiontoFSUwithsuchasuccessfirlflansition.

MG

Thankyoufayarrwillingresstoanswaasaiesofquestionsdealingwiththe s‘ester
conversiar process at FSU. In the first part, I would like to ask yan- recollection ofthe level of
influence and involvanart of the goups that dealt with the convasion of the calendar famat.
Twotimeperiodsareofintaest, the initial paiod ofl989to 1990 and duringtheactual
convasiat process.

Let’s use a numba with 1 being low and 5 a high level. The administration categay is divided
by vice presidarts and otha level ofadministratas such as progam directas, deans, and
department Heads.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DURING
INITIALLY CONVERSION PROCESS
Influence Involvanent Influence Involvanent
Board of Control 1 1 1 1
President 1 l 1 l
Provost/VP.s 5 5 2 2
Administratas S 2 5 2
Faculty 1 l 4 4
Studarts l l l l
Canmrmity l l 1 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

DJ)
G)

DJ)

0)

DJ)
G)

DJ)

G)

DJ)

G)

DJ)
G)

DJ)

G)

217

APPENDIX J

How did you pasonally influarce the convasion process?

As an administrata, I saved as a manba of the Sanesta Feasibility Task Face and was
workingonthestudyofsanestasvs. quartas. Asan activcmanbaofthecommitteeand oneof
the sub-committees, it was quite an interesting cxpaiarce. We have a ratha unique progam in
myaeasoitwasimpamntthatlwasabletobearcpresartative.

The first Phase had to do with the preparing to carsida a change. What factas during the 1989
paiod influarced the decision to consida a change of the calardar?

First, weneededtoconfammaetoofliainstitutionsinthestate. Thatwasthemostovariding
facta. Also, thae was a definition of the role General Education was to play at the college—-
was bcing considaed at the time. So, consequently, modifying the Gcnaal Education
requiranartswasmade easiabythe factthatwehadtogotosanestachange.

In your opiniar, who was involved, and what roles did they play in the decision? (question #4)
I don’trecallwhatwasgoingonatthattime. Thepresidartdecidedastudywasneeded.

In the next phase of the process, the Feasibility Task Face was famed by the Acadanic Senate.
Iwarldliketoaskyarabartsomeofyan'arpaiarcesonthiscommittee.
Whatdoywrecanwaetheprimaygmlsmd/aobjecfivesfaFSUmchmgemsaneaas?

Seethaewaeanumba ofpeopleflrattalkedabartthechancetoimprovean-riarlmn, andwe
hadtostartatgamdzaoanddcvelopcansesallovaagain.Thiswasgeatoppatunitytodo
thisbccausewehavea lot ofnew firculty. Sowewereabletoredefinenot onlyarrgaraal
courses but at that point create a revise majas and minas. I believe the senate didn’t approve
it; it was a close vote, I believe. I don’t know to what degee Faris was participating on the vice
presidential level with otha institutions in the state to bring about this change. I know our vice
president considaed the change in additiar to the president at that time. We would ofiartimes
discuss these matters. I know the department heads among the senate considaed this a topic at
arr agenda. Michigan Tech was also going faward. They tried to consider the change at LSD.
Consequently, thae was need fa mac infamation. It did help us try to coadinate our efl'ats
somewhat mac to look at curriculum as well.

Itwasprimarilybecauseotha institutionswereon,achangingto, sanestasandtolookat
curriculmn. Was thae anything else? Pahaps that was not stated?

NothingIamawareof. That’sabartitfathemostpart.
How closelydoyarbelievcthecanmitteeactedinregardtothestatedgoalsandobjectives?
Vaywell,inmyestimation. Mostevayonedidwhatwasneededfatheirprogamaarea.

How was the charge to the Sanesta Feasibility Task Face committee determined and
communicated?

The sarate famed the instructions and set up the committee. The charge, I don’t rananba
exaalywhatitcontained,b\uwastoevaluateflieareasafl‘eaedbyconvasion andmakea

DJ)

G)

DJ)

G)

DJ)

G)

DJ)
G)

DJ)
G)

D1)

218

APPENDIX J

recanmardation. The president, I believe, wanted this done. The charge was discussed at one of
the beginning meetings, I believe I know at times we broke up into sub-goups. I really cannot
recall how the canmittee functioned. Scans like the maja amount of the wak was being done
by the departmatts at the school levels at the time.

Fa question #8, how was the make- up of the steaing canmittee and of the sub-committees
detamined?

Iamaflaidldon’trecall. Seemslikeitwaspeopleflomeacharea.

Do you recall how the chairpasons was selected fa the steaing committee and each sub-
committee?

Idon’tknowhowthesechairswacchosen. AlanPochiwasappointed,and,lthink,inmysub-
committeethechairhadasflongfeelingabartthesubjectareaandjustputhisaragytowak
and we split up the things needed to be done. Iwas not heavily involved.

Do you recall what methodologies were used by your canmittee in making decisions? (questiai
#10)

Just gathaed infamation flan otha institutions and discussion tmtil we felt we had enough. Not
so much like voting. We had mac political problans that we had to deal with. It dealt with the
relatiarship between progams in the department of Arts and Sciaice and the ovaall Garaal
Educatiar courses. What realities do we have to face and all of this had to be approved by sarate
bodies. I know we would have liked to have seen a difl’aent configuration for the writing
progam evartually. We had to compromise in ada to satisfy the rest of the campus. The
process was less budgetary and mac a political problem. The weighing of Genaal Education
courses ratha than career progams a1 campus. The Colleges of Business and Technology were
artraged because they felt that we did not have the curriculum that was needed fa the change.
We all realized that we are involved in a compromise, and somehow we managed to always
followthrough. Itwasbettaafiaweresolvedevaything. All studentson campuswacnotfa
it. Someasarearltofthesanestaconvasion,thatwaar’tfaitlatafamditwasagoodidea.

In your opinion, explain which methodologies wae most efl’ective.
Just discussing the options and making canpranise fa the good of the entire campus. We took a

vote,Ibelieve,awasthattheSarate? Idon'trananbaatceptfaheateddisarsdar,butwe
ardedupinageanartaasettlanartatleast.

In your opinion, explain which methods were least eflective.

When sane people becamcoutragedatchanging the GenaalEducationrequiranentsasit would
saiarslyafl’ecttheirprogams. Itwasdifiarlttoreachageanartmndavotewastakanl
believc,butamnottotallysm‘e; itwasalongtimeago.

Waild you describe the most controvasial issue arcamtaed and how it was resolved. (Question
#13)

G)

DJ)
G)

DJ)

G)

DJ)
G)

DJ)

G)

DJ)
G)

219

APPINDIX J

The most controvasial decision in arr area was the laddaing ofrequiranmts. We used to have
anarrayofcoursesonthefleshmm level. Asaresultofthis,wehadtoputinathreelevcl
convasion process fa fleshmen, sophomaes, and jtmias. That was the most cartrovasial issue
fa the whole campus. It was accepted well, not that it came out well. The unexpected was
always thae. We had situations that we had to give students college education credit fa a minus
ofoneatwocredits whm they transfared in hae. Sothaewasa flexibilitybuilt in that nottoo
many studmts suflered because of the change. That was whae most of the unexpected problans
accrued.

How was that carflict resolved?

Ibclieveitwasatthesmatelevel. Thesmatehadtoapprovethesechanges.SoIthinkbygiving
upsomethingandcompranisingsomewhaeelsewewaeabletogetthatflrrargh.

Describe constraints on the committee that influenced committee action, positively a negatively.
Such as time, financial suppat, a secretarial suppat.

Itwasadifimhtasktogathecommiueesandflrafltytocomeupwithproposalsinatimely
fashion. Thmtosubmitthanthrarghthedepartmmttogetapproval. Wediditthrough
Languages and Literature. We were on time fa all of it. It was catainly a famidablc task. The
time deadlines caused problans fa many departmmts, but without than it warld not have bem
done. Asfaras funds go, wewercabletosuppatsome ofthat activityout ofour existingbudget.
We wae able to put faculty on otha campuses fa study purposes ofthe change, to get an idea of
and use the existing netwak of professional relationships. It was not a undue budgetary expense,
but it was an expense for the departrnmt. We had a lot ofcopying and duplication. I rananba
the vice president’s ofice helping us out with budget relief because we had to smd out so much

papawaktothefaculty.
Didthatinflumcetheprocess?

Onlythatittooktimeandefl‘attomakespecial arranganmtsfasomearetodoitbecausewe
didnothavetheartrastafl‘abudget. Itwakedoutsatisfactaily.

In retrospect, as a manba of the Sanesta Feasibility Task Face canmittee, what would you
sem done difl'aently in the convasiai process and why’?

Ithink,considaingthedifliculties, itwentmuchbettathanlhaddreameditwarld. Iwould
not want to change it differently. In some respect I hoped the vice presidmt’s ofice would have
givm a bit mac direction at the time. Established a unifam standards across the whole
campus. Fa the role of Arts and Scimces versus the rest of the school. They didn’t do that, and,
consequently, the process warld have hem a lot mac helpfirl and acceptable to most people that
hadgonethroughthegassrootsofit. Itwasagassrootsefl‘a't. Itwasacompromisethatweall
carld live with. This has hem one of the most successful and most dificult projects—this of
carvasion hac at Faris, of the last decade.

Is thae one facta that led to the success to the implementation?

Yes, thae was a conflict. We couldn’t have gotten mac direction flom the vice presidmt’s
olfice; it might not have gone as well. So, I think the stars wae nmning it—-Allan Pochi, Jim

DJ)

0)

DJ)

D1)

220

”m1! J

Maas, and othas wae vay diplomatic, well thought of, and kept the local dissension down to a
minimum.

ThelastquestionIwouldliketoaskiswhatmethodswereplacedintheconvasionprocessto
evaluate the results ofthe calmderfamatchange with refamce to thestatedgoals and
objectives?

Nonethatlrananba specifically. Ireallydon’t know ofany. lguessit wentverywell.
Yarrcoopaationandtimespmtanswaingmyquestionsissincacly appreciatedThanksagain.
m B

Yarrparticipationinthisstudyontheconvasionprocessisappreciated. First ofalLlwould
like to ask your recollection of the level of influence and involvemmt of the various garps that
dealt with the conversial to sanestas. Two time paiods are of intaest, during the initial paiod
of renewed interest, 1989 to 1990, and during the convasion proesss.
Consida the numba 1 being low and 5 a high level? The administration categay is divided by
vicepresidmtsmdothalevelofadmhisflatasardrasprogamdfleaaadmnsmd
department heads.
DURING
INITIALLY CONVERSION PROCESS

 

Influence Involvemmt Influence Involvanmt

 

Board of Control

 

President

 

Provost/W’s

 

Administratas

 

Faculty

 

Students

 

 

Community

 

 

 

 

 

Ot-‘D-‘t-‘uth
o—su—I—WNb
OHM-b58319
ONMWU)N#

 

DJ)
H)

D1)

D1)

How did you pasonally influmcc the convasion process?

Iwasrepresmting faculty,aactuallyasanadministrataatthattime, andwakedonthe
Sanesta Feasibility Task Face to study whetha we should change. I wasn’t that influmtial
otha than helping in discussions and gathaing infamation at otha institutions.

Phase One had to do with preparing to consida a change. What factas in 1989 influmced the
decision to consida changing the calendar?

I thougit one of the primary factas at the time was that Michigan State was planning on going
to a sanestas calendar. We wae aware of that fact. Somehow we identified ourselves mac
closely with Michigan State. In terms of the competition fa studmts thing. Also, maybe
transferring studmts that didn’t like Michigan State because it was too big. That they wanted to
go to anotha institution, so they wanted to transfa credits hac. We caught up with the trmd,
tryingtoequatesanestaswith quartas. Thatwasthedrivingfacetomeaslrecall.

In your opinion, who were involved, and what roles did they play in the decision?

D1)

D1)

D1)

DJ)

221

APPENDIX J

IthinkitwasmostlyZandBonyanrlist,thepresidmt,vicepresidantfaacadanicafl‘airs,and
pahapstheDeans’Camcil.

ThesaiesofquestionsIwanttoaskyounowdealswiththecommitteeactivities. Whatdoyou
recall wactheprimary goals and objectives ofFSUtochangetosanestas?

I think one thing that an canmittee thought ofand figured vay impatant was the longa the
timespan forstudantsthat gavethern agreataexposurerathathan thetanweeks, thatmany
thoughtwason thebriefside. Thacwereagoodmanyclassesthatwaenotgoingtmweeksbut
nine weeks. Faculty examined that last week when we did not have an exam period. We were
andirngupwith anineweekquarta andan exam week. Irananbaalot ofdiscussion onthe
canmittee that thought that was too brief an exposure. That if they gave a studernt a longa
paiod of time plus the fact the studmt was having a problan with the connrse, the nine week
course did not give them a chance to recova. If we gave than anotha chance fa a test because
you could give three ova sixteen weeks, maybe they could rescue thanselves. At the end ofa
nineatmweekquarta,thedropperiodcamesosoonthatsancstudantshadnotevenhadan
exam. The semester would extend the period of time to see how they are doing and decide
whetlna to withdraw and not get pmalized. Those wae the positives. Well, also, thae were
some who said, mostly in the Technology Departnnent, people speaking to the fact in some cases
thattheydid not needtanweekstoteach aclass. Iftheyhadasanesta, theywantedtobe
allowedtobreaka sanesta down intotwo eightweeksof7 andahalfweeks. Becausetheyhad
blocks on the mataials. Like automotive might have canponmts that they can use a smalla
piece. It would actually give than four assignments. I dan’t know if they eva did that. I don’t
evm know if they ofl’er that. I do know that excited some people, to think they could have fanr
assignmmts and half semester ofl‘aings. Where they did not feel like a five week, whae they
canldn’t dothat unda the old ofl‘aing. The fivejust didn’t make smse, but the eight did. That
neva has bean a stated goal, and it neva had much advatising.

Howcloselydoyoubclievcthccommitteeactedinrcgardtothestatedgoalsandobjeaives?

Itwasvaycloselyfocused,andwedidjmtwhatwasneeded. Theissuewastoconsidawhetha
weshouldbethe sameasotha schools, and that’swhatwasevaluated, amongothathings.

Howwasthe chargctothe Sanesta Feasibility Task Face canmittee detamined and
communicated?

Idon’trananbahavinganinitialmeeting. Ithinkthecommitteewasvaywellattmdedanda
lotofinnaplay. Idon’trananbawhoitwas,butitwassaneonewhogavethestnMnre. The
goalIrananbabeingstatedwas,“youarcnotnmdaanypressmetocometoanyconclusion.
Weare not tryingtotcll you we should go to sanestas. We are not tellingyouto stay with
quartasTheyhothhaveadvantagesanddisadvantages. Wejustwantyoutolookatevcry
possible thing you can think of and consider it, and make a recanmendatian.” At fine and our
recommmdationwasnotnmanimouabutldan’trecallforsure.Ifamdthatwcwaenoturnda
thcgnmfaanyanetosaywchaveanvestedintaestinthisandMichiganStatedoingthiaso,
thaefaeyanshaddhavethisancaneJdm’trecaflanyongoingvisitsbysmia
adminisflatastoseehowwearedoingandtoinfluanceus.

How was the make nrp of the steaing committee and of the sub-committees detamined?

DJ)

DJ)

DJ)

D1)

D1)

D3)

DJ)

222

APPENDIX J

I dan’t have a clue howl got an that steaing committee, and I don’t know how othas were
chosen. I think the fanr sub-committees wae volnmteer. You volnmtea in the area ofyanr
intaest and expatise.

Howwasthechairpason sclectedfathesteaingcanmitteeandfaeachsubcanmittee?

Ithink I walked in theroan andwastold this wasthe chairpason. Not knowing howthe
individual was chosen. Knowing that it was not a democratic process fa the chair. The
subcommitteeswerenot appointed, but, aslrananha, itdepmdedanwhohadthemost intaest
a sane expaiance and led the discussion and than handled the follow-up. Seaned mac like a
leada ratha than a famal process.

What methodologies were need by your canmittee in making decisions?
Lotsofdisanssions.Lotsofinputflanevayaspectofthecampus. Seeingthingsflanotha
people’spaspectiveswasalargepartofit. Evaybodysatofhadthcirownagmdaand
passion. Itwasmostlywakedantvabally. Thcdiseussion wantonnmtilavotcaconsensus
cameabout. Usuallywejustkindofageedawaewillingtoagee.

What methodologies wae the most efl‘ective?

Ithinkjustallowingpeopletotalkthranghwakedthebest. Ithinkmaedecisionswaemade

byconsmsusthanbyvote. Evaybodyhadthcoppanmitytospeaklsensedthatevaybody
seanedtogowiththehettcrgoodfathemost. Iguessthatwouldcaneantinavotc,butit

wasn’tnecessarytodothat. Thaewaealsofewarguing fa whateva; than theywould cometo
a consmsus, evan if they didn’t like it.

What methodologies was the least efl'ective?

Idon’trecall anyproblanswith deciding on issuesaaprocessofdeciding. Iguess, whm
peoplewaenothappywithan issue, ifyoutriedtofaceavote, itwanldnothappm-«Iguesswe
just kept on the dialog.

Please describe the most controvasial issue encamtaed and how it was resolved?

I rananba one of the big controvasial issues was that the quartas systems gave. We talked
abouthowthesanestasystansgavcmactimefathemtolearnthemataial. Butyonnreduced
thenumha ofchoicesaycarlcouldmake. Inswadofthreeflne studmtsarclimitedtotwo.
These wae valid points. And these argurnmts wmt on fa a while.

How was that resolved?

I don’t think, to be honest, that it was eva resolved.

Was the final recommendation a vote, gmaal ageanmt, a bureaucratic decisian?

It was a famal vote that was takm. It was reasonably close. It was resolved by a vote.

DJ)

DJ)

DJ)

DJ)

DJ)

D1)

223

APPENDIX J

Describe constraints an the canmittee that influanced action, positively a negatively. Such as
time, finances, a suppat stafl‘.

H) Idothinkthatthccommittecwasnmdathegnmfatimctocomcupwithanswa. Idid
not, on the otha hand, feel that impeded the canmittee’s action. I think it made the committee
cficiant, knowing that they had an end point. The time was a reasonable langth. I don’t think
thae wae any financial carstraints. The chair a sub-committees, I dan’t think, had any
problans getting suppat a to find ant what otha schools are doing and how they survived
transitions. We all used our own department secretarial stafl' and got along all right.

In retrospect as a manba ofthe Sanesta Feasibility Task Face, what would you like to have
done difl‘aantly in the convasion process and why?

My recollection is that we did not have a strong chair, and I think we could have bmefited flom a
strongchair. Iguesslam oncofthosewho likes strongchairs,tokeepthingssmooth and
moving along quickly.

My last question pertains to what methods wae placed in the convasion process to evaluate the
results of the calendar famat change with refaance to the stated goals and objectives.

Idon’ttlninkthacwasany. Ithinkwewaeasmsuredthat saneoneelsewasgoingtoevaluate
this; itwouldnotheours. Onnswassimplytosayifthiswasafeasiblethingtodo. Doesthe
change make sanse? But you will not be involved afia the implanmtation a evaluation. That it
will not be a canponent of this charge.

That is a good point because the feasibility task face had the charge to make a recanmmdation.
Than the sanesta transition team took it flom thae.

Idon’tthinkweeva,inanrdisanssionaevaassmnedwcwaegoingtobeaskedtobeinvolved
with the assesmant. Thae was nothing concreteon how theywae goingto do it.

Ireallydoappreciateyou sharingyourthanghtson thecanvasion processandhowtheprocess
was handled. Thanks again.

MINI

Thanks sincaely fa your help by sharing your expaimces ofthe change process at Paris whm
movingflomquartastosanestas. Inthefirstsection,lwouldlikean ideaofyouropinionby
using a numba, one to five. Five being the highest level of cfl‘a't dealing with the amonmt of
influence and the amonmt of involvement with the convasion process. These questions deal with
the actual carvasion process of changing to the new calmdar famat. The questions are brokm
into two areas such as whm the idea a discussian of changing was being cansidered and at a
lata time during the actual convasion process. The administrata categay is divided by vice
presidantsandothaadminisflatassudnasprogam directas,deansanddepartmmtheads.

224

112me J

DURING
INITIALLY CONVERSION PROCESS
Influence Involvemmt Influmce

Board of Control
President
Provost/VP’s
Administratas

Students

DJ)

I)

DJ)

DJ)

D1)

D1)

D1)

 

Fa question #2 , how did you pasonally influence the convasion process?

As an FFA representative, I think I had sane input whm discussions cmtaed aramd smnma
pay and contract issues. I was involved with the implemmtation on the Sanesta Transition
Team and Jim Maas.

Phase One of the process had to do with the initial decision to consida a change. What factas
do you recall (1989) that influernced the decision to consida changing the calmdar?

I don’t rananba really. We, the univasity, considaed it in earlia years, and that it was ready
to go ahead aramd the time flame you mmtioned.

In your opinion, who were involved, and what roles did they play in the decision to change?
(question #4)

I don’t rananba, but I think the administration was pushing it—the board and presidmt and the
vice president., Gary Nash.

In that your involvement was with the Sanesta Transition Team, I will skip to questions
heginnirng with #16 that cova the planning, aganizing, and implanmtation process. What do
you recall were the primary goals and objectives fa FSU to change to sanestas?

Thae was a lot of discussion. We had the senate thae. It was mixed. Business and Technology
waeveryconcernedahouttheir areas. Theywaeagainst it. Artsand Scimceswasfait. The
vote was vay close. Gary Nash said it was good to go. The main issue was canpatibility with
otlna schools.

How closely do you believe the committee (STT) acted in being consistant with the stated goals
and objectives?

Wehaddiscussionsonjustahantevayissue. Whilenotevayonewashappy,wegotsuppatand
met the implanerntation deadlines.

What role a fimctions did the Sanesta Transition Team perfam that influmced the
implemmtation process? (question #18)

Canpletely. The team coadinated evay step of the convasion process and got the job finished.
Theteamhadalotofdiscussions andhearingswith variousganpstogeteachareatogetthe
curriculum changes done and in.

DJ)
I)

DJ)

1)

DJ)
1)

DJ)
I)

DJ)
I)
DJ)
1)

DJ)
I)

DJ)

I)
DJ)

225

APPENDIX J

Fa question # 19, how was the charge to the committee (STT) detamined and canmnmicated?

I don’t recall. Thae might have hem a time line fa things. Thae was no specific clnarge given
that I rananba.

How was the makeup ofthe steaing canmittee and the sub-committees detamined and
commnmicated?

I can’t recall that. I might have hem the FFA represmtative. I don’t recall the selection of the
otha manbas eitha.

How was the chairpason selected fa the steaing committee and eacln of the sub-committees?

Jim Maas was appointed chair, at least that is my recollection. We would have a canmittee
disarssian about a problan. People spoke fa the problem then famed their own canmittee and
subcommittee. They all had a consensus at the big (steaing) committee level. They solved the
problem and brought it back. Thae would he anotha problan and anotha subcanmittee. I
don’trananbachairpasonsreallyfathcsub—committees; wejustsatofallrepatedatthe
main meeting.

Question #22, what methodology was used by your canmittee in making decisions?

Ithinkwewantwithnearconsmsus. Idon’trecall havingavote. Jim wouldleadthe
discussion, and we would disanss the issue at hand.

In yanr opinion, explain whicln methodologies were most efl‘ective.
I guess just the discussian of all the sides befae going ahead as a consmsus.
In your opinion, explain which methodologies which were the least effective?

Nonethatlrananba. Ifapasontriedtopushtheirissue,wewouldtableit,andthc
subcanmittee would cane back with mac information.

What was the most controvasial discussion, and how was it resolved?

The biggest problan that I can think of was Monday-Wednesday-Friday and Tuesday-Thursday
scheduling. Sane people thought no Friday classes would he betta. Again maybe in a minaity,
butin awholeitwasnot good fathemost. Inretrospect,lthink, becausewehadalmown time-
line to stay an, that we were not going to change our minds. We was going to sanestas.
Maybebecausewewaeundaatime-linetogetthisdone. Wehadacanputachangeovafor
the sanesta scheduling. The time pressure helped move things along.

Describe the constraints on the committee that influmced committee action, positively a
negatively. Sucln as time constraint, finances a suppat stafl'?

Thetimelinewasapositive. Weknewwhathadtobedoneandwhmithadtobedonc.

Financial constraints and suppat stafl’?

1)

DJ)

I)

DJ)

I)

DJ)
I)

DJ)

D1)

226

APPENDIX J

Financialsuppat wasnotaconstraint. Thefaanltysummapaywasanmianissue,lartthatwas
notacanmittee canstraintbut one of the thingswedealtwith in the irnplanmtation process. We
didn’t payfaanythingasacommittee manba. Thaewasreallyno problan with suppat stafl‘.

Jim Maastookcare ofmost ofit.

Question #27, in retrospect, as a manba of the STT, what would you like to have done
difl’aently in the convasion process and why?

Itwasthebestcanmitteclhaveevasavedan. lhaveservedonmany. Probablycouldn’tdo
muchhettaaswewaejustgoingthranghtheprocessasneeded. JimMaasaganizedtheissues
intheprocess.

Lastquafimwhmmahodswaeplacedmthecmvasimprocmsmevahnatemereadtsofthe
calmdardnangefamatwithrefamcetothestatedgoalsandobjectives?

Idon’trecall. Itlninkithadtowakinthefallandthatwasit. Ifthaewaeproblanawewac
readyfathan. Om'johwastogetitinplaceandnottomeetagain.

Do you expect any follow-up studies will be made?

Neldanbtithemnnscwehavemadethecanmitmmtand, ifthacareproblans,wewilldeal
withthern.

Letmesayonceagain;thanksfayoaassistance.

MJ

Thmksfatakingfimcflomyanhnsyschednflemmswasomcquesfimsfathisprojeato
study the convasion process ofthe calmdar format. To the best ofyour recollectian, as an
executive level administrata during the paiod being studied, may I ask you to suggest some
numbas fa the chart on my questionnaire? With 1 being low and 5 a high level? The
administration categay is divided by vice presidmts and otha administratas sucln as progam
directas, deans, and departmmt heads. Two time paiods are considaed: the 1989 time flame
and lata during the canvasion process.

DURING
INITIALLY CONVERSION PROCESS

 

Influmce Involvemmt Influmce Involvanmt

 

Board of Control

 

President

 

Provost/VP’s

 

Administratas

 

Faculty

 

Studmts

 

 

cum—mun
OO—«b—HO
...awututso
u—rhUnUrvb—O

 

 

 

 

 

Canmunig

 

DJ)

How did you pasonally influmce the convasion process?

DJ)

D1)

D1)

DJ)

DJ)

D1)

227

APPENDIX J

Well, in an advisayroleasanadminisflatalwasdirectlyinvolvedflomthestartand
maintained contact thrarghout the process. I think it was extranely successful. We had sane
wondaful people waking on the project, and it was right fa the institution.

What factors during 1989 influcrnced the decisian to consider changing the calendar?

J) WehadtwoedumtasmtheboardatthatfimaArchieBaileyandPatShat. They
wae aware that all otha univasities had converted to sanestas a wae committed except
Michigan State. I think all but two of the commnmity colleges. Whm I first talked to the board
about it, they all became aware of it and intaested. They were nnrging that we look at it; they
were not requiring it. But look at it very saiously. It could be an advantage to a studmts
transfaring in and art of the university. Thae was not a time flame established except caning
up was the conversion of the studmt infamation systans. I thought, if we wac going to do it,
thatwasthetimewhm the SISwasswitchingova, sowecouldgothroughtwomaja
convasionsattlne sametimeandtheexpmsestlnatareassociatedwith it.

In yanr opinian, who were involved, and what roles did they play in tlne decision to change?
(question #4)

Iputthecanmitteebacktowakonevaluatingthescrnestacalmdar. Thecanmitteehadnot
metfaawhile. Ithadbemdiscussed. Ithinkitcameclose. Itwasbackandfath,andlsaid,
“Wehavetoget this settled.” Itwasane ofthoseissuesthatwasoutthaewhmlcametoFaris
in 1989. Solandthevicepresidmtofacadanicafl‘airsreallywantedtoseeitdone. Isaid,“Lets
getacommittecanddecideonewayaanodna,andthmwecithadoitanot.”

Inoticedintheboardminutesthatin 1972 itwasconsidaed,thmdropped. Thmagain in 1989
whm youwac involved.

WelLinthemd,thesmatepasseditbyonevote,Ithink. Itwasoneofthose51to49votes.

In tams of tlne initial decision to consida the study, who besides yanrself was influmtial in
pranoting a study?

Thevicepresidmtdefinitelywantedtodoit. Theothaadminisflataswaeinvolvedbutwae
not all in ageanent. At that point in time, we did not have a Vice Presidmt of Stnndmt Afl‘airs.
Thatcamelata. Thevicepresidmtwasfait,andlfeltitimpatanttosuppatmystafl‘.

WhatdoyanremflwaethcprhnaygoalsandohjecflvesfaFSUtochmgemsanestas?

The fact that most nmivasities and canmnmity colleges had gone to sanestas. The acadanic
vicepresidmtwasavaystrongadvocateofit. Ijustfinishedupmyfirstyear,and,tohavean
Acadanic Vice Presidmt to want something; you cannot say no without looking at this.

The smate repat of the recommmdation to convat indicated that they considaed the timing
was right. The accreditation was to cane abant in 1993, and the SIS in 1993.

Althanghtheacaeditationdoesnotmattaifitwasasanestaaquarta. Thatwascomingup.
WedidhavetodosanethingwitthaalEducation,faacaeditation. Sowewaelookingat
Genaal Education and sanesta transition and clnange in the ovaall studmt record systan (SIS).

DJ)

DJ)

DJ)

DJ)

D1)

D1)

D1)

DJ)

228

”m1! J

That was a combination that needed to he in place by the time of the Nath Cmtral visit, maybe
that is why we wae looking at that so saiously.

In tams of the people that were involved with the convasation process, were thae any factors
that wae not widely stated that influmced the decision?

No.

How closely do you believe the Sanesta Feasibility Task Face and the Sanesta Transition
Team committees acted in regard to the stated goals and objectives?

Vay successful. They did a wonderful job.
How was the charge to the committees detamined and commnmicated?

TheVPofAcadanicAfl‘airsreallytookcarcofthedetailsin settingupthecommitteestructnn'e
and time lines.

In the selection ofthe chairpeopleon thetwocanmittees, doyourecall howthosc positionswac
detamined?

No, I don’t recall. I might have appointed than.

In retrospect, as an executive level administrata, what would you like to have done difl‘ermtly in
the convasion process and why?

It wmt very well. I don’t think I would change anything. We wac vay fatnmate that Michigan
Statchadjnnstgonethangh theprocessandwewacabletostayintanch withthan. Theficulty
committees that looked at it did a supab job. It wmt through the process. Thae were plmty of
public hearings. It was intaesting, I think, the way people switched as we want through the

process. Ithinktheprocesswasgood.

Mylastquestiondealswithwhethamethodswacplacedintheconvasionprocesstoevaluate
the results ofthe calmdar famat changewithrefamcetotlnestatedgoalsand objectives?

Idon’t think so. No. Aswewmtthroughtheprocess,wcbecame mac involved,asanmivasity,
in evaluating and assessrnmt ofthe process. We were happytlne way tlnis was going.
Sometimes,dnn'ingthecanseofit,wedecidedtolookatit. Let’sseewhatwehavedoneright,
sowecandoitagain.

Wasthaeafamalintanttodoafollownnpstudy?

No. We wae vay pleased with the outcome of the canvasion process.

Maylthankyouagainforyom'kindassistanccinanswaingthequestions?

229

APPENDIX J

WINK

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DJ) Yanr assistance is appreciated by sharing yanr expaimces of the change activities flan quartas
to ”esters by Ferris. In the first section, I would like recad yanr opinion by using a numba
one to five. Five being the highest level of efl‘at dealing with the amount of influmce and the
amamt of involvemmt with the canversion process. These questions deal with the actual
conversian process of changing to the new calmdar famat. The questions are broken into two
phases such as when the idea a discussion of changing was being considaed and at a lata time
dnnring the actual convasion process. The administration categay is divided by vice presidents
and otha administratas such as progam directas, deans, and department heads.

DURING
INITIALLY CONVERSION PROCESS
Influence Involvemmt Influmce Involvanmt
Board of Control 3 l l l
Presidmt 5 5 3 l
Provost/VP’s 3 5 3 3
Administratas 3 3 3 3
Faculty 1 1 5 5
Students 0 0 0 3
Community 0 0 0 0

DJ) How did yan pasanally influmce the convasion process?

K) Iwasinvolvedageatdeal. Asafaanltymanberandalsoinvolvedtosomedegreewith
administration, it was intaesting to be part of the Sanesta Feasibility Task Face and the
Sanesta Transition Team. It was vay intmsive ova quite a long paiod, and my wak carried
ova to the innplanmtation team. The STT.

DJ) Theinitialphasewastoconsidadoingastudyofthevalueofmakingachange. Whatfactas
during 1989 influmced the decision to consida clnanging the calmdar? (question #3)

K) Otha sdnools wae basically sanesta schools.

DJ) It was a matta of canpatibility with the otha schools?

K) Yes,thatwasthemajafacta,andthacwasalotofconcanaboutthewaywcbrokeat
Thanksgivingfatambreak. Webrokefatwoweeksthm camchackandbrokeagain fa
Christmas. Wewantedtobringthe calmdarin alignmmtwithotha institutions.

DJ) In yan opinion, who wae involved, and what roles did they play in the decision to change?
(question #4)

K) Iamtryingtothinkmhowtheycameabant. ObviarslythepresidmtatflreflmewhowasDr.
Popovich. She has cane flom sanesta schools, and I think she kind of implied that was a betta
wayofdoingit. Shcprobablygaveusthepush. Iknowinpharmacywelikcdtheideaof
sanestas. Partianlarlyasitpatainstothisprocess, theadmissionsprocess.

DJ) In Phase two, during 1990, the Sanesta Feasibility Task Face was famed of which you were a

manba. WhatdoyourecallwactheprimarygoalsandaobjectivesfaFSUtochangeto
sanestas? (question #5)

K)

DJ)

K)

DJ)
K)

DJ)

K)

DJ)
I‘1)

DJ)
K)

230

APPENDIX J

Compatibilitywithothainstifintionaaslrecall. Thaewasothaconcanabutthatwasthe
primaryonc. Thaewasasnnrveyofthefaculty,anditproduccdamixedresultofitansflan
Gmaal Education requiranmts to Thanksgiving break and Christmas break problans.

Howcloselydoyoubelievcthecommitteeactedinregardtothestatedgoalsandobjectives?
(question#6)

Wedidthehestwecouldasitwasavaycontrovasialissuetostudyandmakea
recommmdation. WelookedatwhatwashappmingatFSUandfeltthatsanestaswaethebest
faFSU,andthecanmitteediditsjob.

How was the charge to the committee detamined and communication?

Well, that came down flom the presidmt. It was commnmicated flom ha ofice. At one of the

meetingswewae givm the charge. Idon’t rananba, specifically. Atthe beginningwewae

givenanidmofwhattodabnaldon’trananhaanythingwrittmdown. Itwasrathaobvious,
atleasttomethatwewaejustdoingastudyandnopressmewasmbnflpresauemlookingat
theissues.

How was the makennp of the steering canmittee and of each sub-canmittee detamined? (question
#7)

Theywaebasicallyall facultyaagoodnumha. Even thcacadanicafl‘airsrepresmtativewasa
finanlty manba. Let me break the administratas down into categaies such as executive level,
like the vice presidmt. None of these people are here anymae. Scans just like everybody is
gone. The first goup, the Sanesta Feasibility Task Face, was involved with looking at a
change—we looked at it like it was a “hoe ha whim.” They was not sure if they wanted to do it
a not. And then the decision was made to go ahead afla the Feasibility Task Face made the
recanmmdatian. Than we want ahead and put the Sanesta Transitian Team togetha. Than
we started to iderntify these problans that we thought we would have to deal with. We actually
used infamation flom Michigan State University, because they had gone ahead of us. Jim
actually want down to Michigan State Univasity and talked to people down thae. Jim brought
back examples of litaature that ene from MSU. Lake Superia State was also in the process,
Nath Westan Canmunity College as well. Michigan Tech was looking at it. They have not
gone yet. We surveyed tlne Michigan area to get whateva extra piece we canld. Who has gone
befae, andwhatproblemshavetheymcountaed. Wctriedtowork flomthaebackwards.
Thae were no guidelines fa the process; we put it togetha as we wmt along.

Was the manbas appointed a vohmteas? How did you arrive on the canmittee?

IfIrananba,Iwasaskedtosavebecauseofmywakoncnnrianlnnn. Eachpasonhadsanc
specialintaestaexperimce. Iguessthecollegeswaeaskedtosupplyrepresantatives.

Howwasflnechaflpasmseleaedfamesteaingcommitteemdfamchanh-commiuee?

Theyweredesignatedbytheadministration. Ithinkthevicepresidmt,hutl’mnotsm-e. The
mb-committeeswerebyareaofexpaimcealmowledgeaintaest. Iwasachairofasuh-
committeebutdon’trecallhowlwasspecificallyappointed. Thmwebrokeupintosuh-
committees to look at the specific angles. Iwas involved with arrriculum levels.

DJ)
K)
DJ)
K)

DJ)
K)

DJ)

K)

DJ)
K)

DJ)
K)

DJ)

K)

231

APPENDIX J

What methodologies were used by your canmittee in making decisions?
Mostly cansmsus. We just talked about something until sanething came out of it.
Wasthatthe sameonhoth committees? Thesteaingcommitteeandthcsuh-canmittec?

Yes. We kind of just talked it ova. These wae some of the most truthful and conscimtious
committeeslhaveevabem an. Noonehadasecretagmda. Wewaeall inadifl'amtarma.
We just looked at all difl‘erent avmues, and we all came flom difl‘aent directions. We all had
difl‘aent ideas, and we able to put things togetha. No egos got in the way. Not evayonc ageed
but did scan willing to go along fa the good ofthe studmts.

In yanr opinion, which methodologies were most effective?

As I mmtioned, the talking it ova to hear each pason’s paspective view and than see what is
best in the long nm.

In yanr opinion, which methodologies wae least efl‘ective? (question #12)

Notsure. Ithadtowork; wedidnothaveanythatfailed. Whmpeopledidnotagee,itwas
dificult to reach conclusion, so wetalked about it. Obviansly, sane things we kind of voted, a
atleastbyexpressinganviewwevoted,andthechaircanldseewhichdirectionwewaeheaded
butdidnottellanyonewhatwasgoingtohappmafaceadecisionifitdidnotseanrightfa
tlnegoup.

Please describe the most controvasial issue mcamtaed and how it was resolved? (question #13)

Thaewaesaneproblans. Theurnionwasthemaja one. Itwasresolvedbysevaal
administrators sitting down with the union and talking it out. Developing some altanatives to
tlne contracts. It shifted the calmdar and moved the vacation time. It had a lot of secondary
impacts we did not necessarily faesec when we dealt with it in an academic way. In an
academic way it impacted the wak situation. The wak situation was defined by contracts. We
left ourselves ant ofthat. We made the recommmdation and left the administrators and union to
wak the impact on the contract.

Didyoutakeavote?
Itwasalwaysaclosevote. Itwasnotamandatctodoit. Gotoscmesters.

SotheFeasibilityTaskI-‘orce, theaiginalcommitteewasnottotallyageedafiayandidflne
study, but the vote was close?

Yes. It was always close. One of the guiding forces was President Popovich. She thanght it was
going to be cheapa. It would cut the registration supplies in half. It was thought that a quarta
systan was fine fa the Technology Deparunent just the way we had it. When we did the
feasibility study, one of the observations was the conclusion that we didn’t need as many mtree
points cnnrrmtly as we needed in the past. A lot of the progams indicated they enta a new class
evaythreemonths. Thatwasamajaissuefaawhile. Thmwerealizedthatmostprogams
werenot doirngtlnat arnymae. They didnot havefanr classes in progress, mayhetwo.

DJ)

K)

DJ)

K)

DJ)

K)

DJ)

K)

DJ)
K)

DJ)
K)

DJ)

K)

232

APPENDIX J

What influmced this vay close vote with the task face? Any artside influmce?

Thevoteofthefacultywasagainstitatfirst. Thecommitteekeptpushingfait,withthe
administratian belnind it. It got pushed thrangh. Itwasuphill. The committee feltitwastlne
rightthingtodoevmthanghthefaarltywaeagainstit. Notmuch,justmoughtomakeitan
awkwardsituation.

Describe constraints on the canmittee that influmced committee action, positively a negatively.
Suchastimc, finances,asuppatstafl‘. (question #14)

Wewaegivmadeadlinetomaketherecommmdation. Thiswasgoodasitwasatargetand
provided mergy. The costs of travel and visits to otha institutions were handled all right,l
think. Noaoummdwenuedauownseamarialsmfl‘mdtheamdanicsmatesnmpatifh
was needed. There were no negative situations that I’m aware of.

Inretrospect,asamanhaoftheFmsibflityTaskFacecanmitteewhatwanldyouliketohave
donedifl‘amtlyintheconvasionprocessandwhy?

Can’tthinkofathingasthepeoplewewakedwithwaevayprofessional and,inspiteofthe
diffamces,seantobeefl‘ective. Probablywishedthaewaslessdissmsionaconcanflaneach
sideoftheissuctochange. Notmanypeoplechangedtheirmindabantchangingtoaaneaas.

InflnenadpmtofthecmvasimprocesatheSaneaaTransitian Team (ST'I')wasfamedto
follow-up the recommmdation of the Feasibility Task Face. You saved on this committee also,
and l wanld like to ask similar questians of you as to how this committee participated in the
process. First ofall,wetalked abantthegoalsandaobjectivethatFSUhadingoingto
sanestas. How closely do you think the STT canmittee acted in being consistmt with the stated

goals and objectives? (question #17)

Canpletely in-line flan my point of view. Jim Mass was an excellmt chairpason, and we met
the deadlines and objectives.

What role or fnmctions did tlne STT pafam tlnat influmced the implanmtation process?

Well,wehadtodotheaganizingtofigureoutthetasks,planwhatneededtobedoneandwhm.
Thae was no roadmap—this was done as needed a as problans surfaced. We got infamation
flanothasonn'cesandtriedtousethatwhichfit. TthT‘Ttookrespansibility fathecomplete

implanmtation procedures.
How was the charge to the STT canmittee detamined and canmunicated? (questian #19)

FranJimMuathediaflpasmwhowasmregulacmtaawiflnnmpaadmmisflafimflne
presidmt, and the vice presidmt..l think.

How was the makanp ofthe steaing canmittee and ofthe sub-canmittee detamined? (question
#20)

They had represmtatives fa each of the schools. I don’t think they had anything to do with the
numba ofpeoplewhowae involved flan each school. Theydid bring in the smate, FFA as
thae was cancan about laba contracts. How would changes resulting flom conversion be dealt

DJ)
K)

DJ)
K)

DJ)

K)

DJ)

K)

DJ)
K)

DJ)

K)

D1)

233

APPENDIX J

with at the contract level. We were in the middle of a contract revision. Thae were going to be
sane changes in the statanmt of the wakload. Sane of these people that were an the canmittee
were basically part-timas. John Alexanda was a department head. Thae was a couple of
students that had trouble making the meetings. Mr. Tom Colladay was in Optometry bnnt was
also an administrata. I was just a faculty manba curriculum coadinata. Paul was an
administrata, the registrar. The systan of selection was about hitting all the various colleges to
get sane represmtative, and thae were the otha levels, who volnmteaed.

How was the chairpason selected fa the steaing canmittee and fa each sub-canmittee?
Wedidthatourselves, asaganp. Theywaeall pickedbyus.
Both the steaing canmittee and the sub-canmittees?

No , Jim was appointed to that, the Saneaa Transition Team. The chair fa the Sanesta
FeasibilityTaskFace andtlne ST‘Twaeappointedandwaegivan atimetodoit. Togetthe
assignment done. The sub-committees were picked by us a at least volunteaed.

What methodologies were used by your committee in making decisions?

Muchthe sameasthe Feasibility Task Face. We talked mostthingsthrough nmtil thaewas
ageemant. Weusedevayonewecouldasaresonn'cetogetthefactsandevaluateeachsidenmtil
itwasclearwhichwouldbcbestfathestudmtsandFSU.

In yanr opinion, which methodologies wae most efl'ective?

I think we liked ageanmt. Votes, particularly whm they wae close. In sub-canmittees it was
mostly consmsus. Ultimately we had some votes. Same as the Feasibility Task Face canmittee.

How about methodologies that wae least effective? (question #24)

Nonethatlseantoranemba. JimMaaswassuchawellaganizedpason; he keptusfocused
on the task at hand. Whm we had problans, be tabled the issue, and we researched it some mac
and camebacktothe steaing committee.

Please describe the most controvasial issue mconmtered and how it was resolved?

Only the situation I described earlia plus pahaps the polarization feeling people had. I don’t
think itwastotallypolarized. Pahaps itwasafearofthcunknown, rathathan peoplespeaking
flom positians of knowledge. Thae was a comfat level, and people were used to quartas.
People wae lookirng at this as a leaving of quarters ratha than a movuent to semesters. That’s
what the problan was. We put an exam period back in. That was another problan. The
acadanic schools were fa that. That changed the calmdar to an extra week. That’s about the
most controvasial. We just researched the altanatives and got mough infamation to get
ageanmt on the best way.

Would you desaihc the constraints in the committee that influenced canmittee action, positively
a negatively? Sucln as time constraints, finances, a suppat?

K)

DJ)
K)

DJ)
K)

DJ)

K)

DJ)

K)

DJ)
K)

D1)

234

APPENDIX J

Wehadtime linesthatwaeestablished. Wehadideaswaewewantedtobeatcataintimes.
Wejustmovedtomeetthosedates. Thosetimeconstraintsthatwaeimposedhadan impacton
how many people participated. I wanld say the deadlines were positive most of the time.
Financial constraints?

Ididnothaveany. Pharmacyis difl‘amtbecauscwehave somcresourcesthatwecan use
outside of the university. Jim had a budget fa the committee, and we had no dificulties that I’m
awareofatleastthatwerenegativeontheprocess.

Howahoutthesuppatstafl’?
Haeagainthatwasnotaprohlan.

In retrospect, as a manba of the Sanesta Transition Team, what wanld you like to have dare
difl‘amtly in the convasion process and why?

I cannot think of anything. Canmittees was a little big. That is it.

Fa the last question, #28, what methods wae placed in the convasion process to evaluate the
results of the calmdar famat change with refamce to the stated goals?

We continued to meet after the implemmtation. Jim Maas still had sane released time fa
implanantation follow-up. We kind of became secondary. He was manitaing the difliculties,
and we wanld address any dimculties. Then we would meet paiodically—and then he would
bring anyopaatianstoour attmtion. Aftatheactual classeswereheing ofl‘aed duringthe
sanesta, it became “who’s going to show.”

Has thae hem a follow nnp study?

No. I think people are aflaid to ask. The studmts who expaimced quartas are gone. Fa one
thing, we got the transition in place, and now it was no longa a transition. So now pretty much
all studmts cane flan sanestas into a sanesta school, and they do not notice.

Thanks vay much fa yanr assistance in answaing the questions abart the convasion process.

APPENDIX K

235

APPENDIX E

REM. CONVERSION PROCESS (W31: .1: 31., 1977)

PHASE 1 DECISION TO CONSIDER CHANGING CALENDAR FORMAT
PHASE 2 (4 MO)

ESTABLISH A COMMITTEE (ADMINISTRATION/FACULTY/STUDENTS)
ESTABLISH A FACT -FINDING PROJECT

CONCURRENCE OF TOP ADMINISTRATORS

OBTAIN STUDENT INPUT

SECURE FACULTY SUPPORT

DEVELOP POSITION PAPER

CONDUCT OPEN DISCUSSION SESSIONS

PUBLICIZE MAJOR ISSUES

CARRYOUT A FACULTY VOTE (COUNCIL/SENATE)

PHASE 3 (4 MO)

ORGANIZE IMPLEMENTATION TEAM
IDENTIFY TASKS

DEVELOP POLICIES & GUIDELINES
ESTABLISH A TIME TABLE FOR PROCEDURES
COLOR-CODE FORMS & DOCUMENTS

PHASE 4 (12 MO)

REVIEW GENERAL EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS
DEVELOP PROGRAM DEFINITIONS

SUBMIT NEW ACADEMIC COURSES

CODIFY THE COURSE NUMBERING SYSTEM
ESTABLISH GRADUATION REQUIREMENTS
APPROVE THE CALENDAR FORMAT

APPROVE THE SUMMER SESSIONS

APPROVE THE NEW ACADEMIC STANDARDS
APPROVE THE TRANSITION COURSES

DEVELOP THE COMPUTER SYSTEM PROCEDURES
ESTABLISH NEW TEACHING PROGRAMS
APPROVE THE ARTICULATION AGREEMENTS

PHASE 5 (4 MO)

PUBLICIZE INFORMATION ABOUT THE NEW CALENDAR

ESTABLISH WORKSHOPS FOR STUDENTS, FACULTY-ADVISORS AND
ADMINISTRATORS

DEVELOP MINI-CATALOG

ESTABLISH A PREVENTA'ITVE ADVISING PROGRAM

ESTABLISH AN ACADEMIC APPEALS COMMITTEE

PHASE 6 IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION

APPENDIX L

236

APPENDIX 1.

ORGANIZATIONAL CHARTS

Acadanic Affairs Division and Office of Acadanic Affairs

1991 to 1994

 

 

 

 

Tsar: fir _
_th£%h§ __ fins Zinger : gJ _ .isrfiroim 5%.“?
F _ _ _ a L

 

 

 

main: Rama—<2 ...O wOEuO
PPECWZZ: ”his mEmmu—

 

_. .134
_

:rau?:l.....r1.:ll|_nsr..e

m. ”MPH“ I'll-fl

 

_ llTlafl... l_ _..I|.ai .I. :_ _HHH§H-||4|_ .38.» is]... lea...
5.2....» heart 3.3 _ 44...... _ _ Iris J _ £828!

 

 

 

 

29min units. 9593
gag—z: WEB macaw“.

_

237

APPENDIX 1.

 

 

 

 

amamt 9§(0< “.0 mug—“=0
£5,522: Wag—h a.m.-um“.

 

 

 

 

«Mafia 14an mfiflfl

 

 

 

many-measures»:

g a will? @1144 Wine? Armanijfllrjtlr.

 

Eli-80.. .6
£53! idiisgea

F a

 

 

Eon.-
enema-18.836.)

.2359...
355.0 @5532 0.3wo<0<
>h.m¢w>.z: mh<bm mam—mn—

 

 

238

APPENDIX 1.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mm:
aim-ea
_‘ Limits... 2.2.0 3.5.0.0
Sella-e... Sails!!! Jog
r

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

._.
a.> .
.82 H d
21.2 8.1.8.. .a.>

wan-(mu? 0590< m0 NOR—“.0
EmmmZz: m5; magma

_ in... _ _ It. ”wheel; 5:33"ng _ _ gas

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

fl]. _

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lfeea Amalia z
3.8 SH 812 ail-4.931....
ass-.8 _ ~§820 ...
a! .8: .u.=e<.a.> 8.2
r _

 

 

 

 

 

 

33( H

 

i( i d.)

 

  

 

zo_m.>.o maze“: 0.592 .
>._._mam>_z: whfipm gamma

Fem’s smo um Fact Book 1993-s4

APPENDIX M

239

APPENDIX It

FAST’ 93
FERRIS APPROACHING SEMESTER TRANSITION -1993

Semester Transition Office - 204D IRC - Ferris State University

WHAT YOU SHOULD DO?

 

Read the pages that follow. The changes brought on by the conversion to semesters will be
explained. You will be provided with advice for the 1992/93 academic year so you can be
better prepared for semesters in Fall 1993.

This insert was prepared by the Semester Transition Team, chaired by Dr. James Maas. This
19 member committee of faculty and students is implementing FSU's conversion to the
semester system.

What will happen when Ferris State University switches from the quarter system to the se-
mester system in Fall 1993?

A whole lot will change!
Credits will change, General Education will change, Degree requirements will change,
Courses will change, The academic calendar will change.

What Is the difference between the quarter system and the semester system?

Currently. there are 10 instructional weeks each quarter. This means that during the Fall,
Winter and Spring quarters, there are 30 instructional weeks. With the semester system,
the same 30 instructional weeks are split between two semesters, with 15 instructional
weeks in each semester.

W111 tuition be higher under the semester system?

Although you can expect tuition to increase each year that you attend FSU, you will not
find the yearly charges under the semester to be greater than what you would have paid
under the quarter system.

What type of calendar do the other State Colleges and universities use?

Almost all other Colleges and Universities are already using the semester system. When
Ferris State University converts to the semester system in 1993, the only Michigan State
Schools that will remain on the quarter system will be Michigan Tech and Northwestern
Michigan College.

How will the change to semesters affect my academic career?

If you do your part. you should find the transition to semesters to be a smooth process.
In the future, you will be given further instructions indicating what you should be doing
to ensure that you do graduate on

time. It is the intent of the Semester Transition Team to make this process as pleasant as
possible for you.

Will all the courses I take In the quarter system count toward my degree in semesters?

Yes! Every quarter course that would have counted toward your degree in quarters will also
count toward your degree in semesters.

WHAT YOU CAN READ

While the university is doing everything it can to make sure that you are not
disadvantaged by the transition to semesters, you have several important responsibilities
as well:

Read The Semester Corner featured in The Torch.

Read semester articles in The Torch and other publications.

Read the Student Guide due out Spring 1992.

See your academic advisor in Spring 1992 to assist in schedule planning.

Read Ferris State's Transition Blue Book due out Fall 1992.

Read your department's Academic Program Completion brochure due out Fall 1992.

240

APPINDIX ll

Follow the enrollment advice provided by your advisor and read the above publications.
The more you understand about the Semester Transition, the less anxiety you will feel
about it and the fewer problems you will encounter.

WHAT YOU CAN DO
What's the relationship between a semester course and a quarter course?

During the 1992/1993 academic year, the university recommends that you:

Try to finish required course sequences. The reason is quite

simple: You may have problems picking up in a semester course where you left off in a
quarter sequence. This may make it necessary for you to take additional semester hours to
complete a course sequence started on the quarter system term.

Try to complete any General Education categories possible:
English (9 hours)
Humanities (12 hours)
Behavioral Science (12 hours)
Natural Sciences (12 hours)

Delay taking elective courses if they interfere with completing course sequences.

If necessary, use the 1993 Summer Quarter to finish course sequences
and General Education category requirements.

If you choose to repeat a course, do so while on quarters.
Begin to work out a plan, with the guidance of your academic advisor to complete your
course requirements.

All quarter system courses will be dropped after Summer 1993. They will be replaced with
new semester courses Fall 1993. This does not mean that the content of these courses will
be dropped. For the most part, the content will be continued in new semester courses.
Here are some possible relationships between quarter courses and their replacement
semester courses:

The content of a quarter course may be nearly identical to its semester replacement, under
the same or a different course number. -A sequence of three quarter courses may become a
sequence of two semester courses.

A group of quarter courses may be replaced by a smaller group of semester courses. - The
content of a quarter course may be dispersed into several semester courses.

The content of a quarter course may be dropped completely.

The content of a semester course may be entirely new.

CREDIT CONVERSION AND DEGREE REQUIREMENTS
How will credits be different on semesters?

When FSU converts to semesters, your quarter credits will be reduced by one-third. Your
hard earned 115 quarter credits will become 77 credits on the semester system. But wait.
Before you despair, remember that the total number of credits needed to graduate on
semesters will also be reduced by one-third. If your program requires completion of a
minimum of 192 quarter credits to earn a baccalaureate degree, then, the semester
requirement becomes a minimum of 128 semester credits.

The quarter credits you have earned for your degree will be multiplied by two-thirds to
convert them to semester credits.

The formula is: number of quarter credits x 2/3 - number of semester credits. For example,
180 quarter credits x 2/3 - 120 semester credits. Multiplying quarter credits by two
thirds does not always result in a whole number. In converting quarter credits, the
semester credits are rounded up to the nearest whole number to benefit you.

For example: 110 quarter credits x 2/3 - 73.33 semester credits. 73.33 is rounded up to 74
credits.

The university will automatically convert your quarter credits to semester credits as of
Fall 1993. Similarly, the university will automatically calculate your official grade
point average (GPA). Your grade point average will not change because of the conversion to
semesters! Your honor points, credits earned, and credits carried will all be multiplied
by 2/3. If you have a 3.4 GPA at the end of your last term on quarters, then you will
have a 3.4 when you begin semesters in Fall

241

APPENDIX I!

Will my degree requirements be different on the semester system?

It depends on where you are in your program. You will be able to complete your major in
two different ways after the transition to semesters.

gption Q: This option is appropriate for students who are close to finishing the course
work in their major. Students using this option are simply completing the course work on
their quarter check sheet using semester courses

gption S: This option is appropriate for students who are in the earlier stages of their
curriculum, and have taken few courses in their major. With this option, students are
placed on a "new" semester program check sheet. The previous quarter courses they took are
evaluated in light of the "new" program. This option should cause fewer problems for a
student who still has most of the major courses to complete, since in many programs, the
major courses in Option Q no longer exist and the new courses will not be equivalent to
the old ones.

Each Program will develop an Option Q and an Option S for its majors. These options will
be part of the Academic Program Completion Brochures due out Fall 1992.

Academic Program Completion Brochure are a department's guidelines for how students in
it's majors will complete degree requirements.

To earn a degree, you have to take a certain number of General Education courses, major
courses, courses in other categories, and electives. The Academic Program Completion
Brochures will tell you what combination of quarter and semester courses/credits will
fulfill these requirements. These brochures will be available Fall 1992.

THE ACADEMIC CALENDAR:
What will the academic calendar be like for 1992\93 and 1993/94?

The 1992/93 academic year will be the last year that FSU will be on the quarter system. In
the 1993/94 academic year, we will be converted to the semester system. The calendars for
these two years are listed below.

Note that when we move to semesters, there will no longer be "full" summer sessions.
Students may attend one or both of the six week summer sessions. This will permit students
to complete courses in an accelerated format. A typical student load would be two classes
during one of the summer sessions.

Also note that there will be a Final Exam week during the Fall and Winter semester. Under
the quarter system, there are many four credit classes, and the typical student load is
four classes. With the semester system, we will have a large number of three credit
classes, and the typical student load will be five classes. It would be unfair to a
student to have all five exams in a one or two day period. Under semesters, you will never
have to take more than two exams on a single day. So, when we go to the semester system,
Ferris will spread final exams throughout an exam week, like the other Michigan
universities do.

A Final Word

This supplement to the spring schedule does not have all the answers to the questions you
might have about semesters. The university strongly urges you to read all materials and
attend any student meetings about the semester transition during the forthcoming year.

If you have any questions about the semester transition, ask your advisor, a professor, or
an administrator. If they can't help you, call the Semester Transition Office at 592-3567.

1992\93 SCHEDULE

Fall quarter 1992

Sep. 10-11
Sep. 14
Nov. 20

Winter Quarter
Nov. 30

Dec. 1

Dec. 20-Jan 3
Feb. 23

Spring Quarter
March 8

March 9

May 18

Summer Quarter
June 7
June 8
Aug. 17

Registration
Classes begin
Classes end

1992-93
Registration
Classes begin
Winter Recess
Classes end

1993
Registration
Classes begin
Classes end

1993
Registration
Classes begin
Classes end

242

APPENDIX M

1993/94 SCHEDULE

Fall Semester 1993

Aug. 26-27 Registration
Aug. 30 Classes begin
Dec. 13-17 Final Exams
Winter Semester 1994

Jan. 6-7 Registration
Jan. 10 Classes begin
Mar. 5-13 Spring Recess
May 2-6 Final Exams

First Summer Session 1994

May 16 Registration
May 17 Classes begin
June 2-6 Classes end

Second Summer Session 1994

June 28 Registration
June 29 Classes begin
Aug 10 Classes end

APPENDIX N

243

APPENDIX N

COURSE MAPPING FORM

College of Business -_ Baccalaureate Programs
Directions for Using Quarter to Semester Com'sc Mapping Form

Each student in the College of Business will be forming a Course Completion Agreement with a
program advisor. For each program. advising hints spedilc to that program are placed on the program's
Course Mapping Form. which also serves as the Course Completion Agreement. The following
procedures will be used to determine which courses a student will need to take to gaduate with a
baccalaureate degree from the College of Business.

The Dean's Office of the College of Business will provide a mapping form to the program advisor which
will include the following:

A. For each course taken at FSU that applies board the degree. the grade for the course and the
quarter credits for the course will be placed in the QC earned column.

B. For each course transferred to FSU from another college that applies toward the degree. TR will
be written in the QC Earned column along with the quarter credits for the course.

C. For each course the student is currently enrolled in that applies toward the degree. a checlunark
will be placed in the QC Earned column along with the quarter credits for the course. ‘

The program advisor will complete the following steps in arriving at a Course Completion Agreement.

1. Project which other quarter courses the student will take prior to Fall 1993 that will apply toward the
degree. and place a check mark and the quarter credits for the course in the QC earned column.

2. Sum the quarter credits that have been placed in the QC earned column and place the result at the
bottom of the column. This total represents the total number of quarter credits that will have been

eamedtowardthedegreepflortoFafl1993.QCearned- .

3. Calculate the number of semester credits that the student will need to complete in order to graduate.
To do this subtract the result of step 2 from the quarter credit degee requirement. Multiply this result
by 2/3. and drop any fractional credits.

QC required- QCearned - QCremainingx2/3- SCrernaining.

4. To obtain a baccalaureate degree. the student is required by the University to complete 54 quarter
credits of General Education courses offered by the College of Arts and Science. Included in the 54 QC.
must be a minimum of 9 QC of English. 12 QC of Humanities. l2 QC of Behavioral Sciences and 12 QC
of Natural Science/ Mathematics. including one Laboratory Science Course. in order to calculate how
many semester credits must be earned to complete a General Education category requirement. subtract
the number of General Education QC earned in that category before Fall 1993 from the category QC
requirement. Multiply the result by 2/3 and round down if the result includes a fraction. The rounded
total is the number of additional semester credits to be completed in that category. If the student is
within one semester credit hour of completing a category. the category requirement may be
considered fulfilled.

a. English (99C): EachstudentintheColiegeofBusinesaisrequired tocompleteENG 11]. ENG
112 and ENG llS. Strongly urge each student to complete this sequence prior to Fall1993. lfihey
have not completed the sequence. there will be an opportunity to take a special sequence completion
course that will be offered during Fall semester 1993. However. it is advantageous to complete the
sequence beforehand.

9 QC - QC earned - QC remaining 1: 2/3 - SC remaining. Mlntrnum: SC.

h. Humanities (l2 QC): Each student in the College of Business is required to complete 12 QC of
Humanities. The courses may be selected from ART. DRM. ENG 322. FRE. GER. HST. HUM. UT.

MUS. SPA. or SPC 23]. Activities classes do not apply to this requirement.
120C -_QCeamed - QCremaintngx2/3-_SCremaining. Minimum: SC.

 

 

 

 

244

nemrx N

c. Behavioral Science (12 QC): Each student in the College of Business is required to complete 12
QC of Behavioral Science. These courses must include ECN 221. ECN 222. and PSY 221. The other
course may be selected from ANT. ECN. GEG (except ill). P-S. PSY. SSC. or SOC.

12 QC - QCearned - QCremainingx2/3- SCrernaining. Minimum: _SC. _

d. Natural Sciences and Mathematics ( 12 QC): Each student in the College of Business is required
to complete 12 QC of Natural Sciences and Mathematics. including at least one laboratory science

course.
12 QC - QC learned - QC remainingx 2/3 - SC remaining. Minimum: SC.

e. Other Requirements (4 QC): Each student in the College of Business is required to complete a
speech communications class.

4 QC - QC earned - QC remaining 1: 2/3 - SC remaining. Minimum: _SC.

f. General Education Credit Requirement (5490): Each student must complete a minimum of 54
QC from College of Arts and Science courses. From the mapping form. total all QC earned in 100
level or above courses taken from the College of Arts and Science. Total - _QC earned.

5. Complete the following calculations to determine how many additional semester credits must be
earned from courses offered by the College of Arts and Science after Fall 1993.

540C - QCeamed- QCremainingx2/3- A/SSCremaining.

6. Select the remaining semester courses in your program from the College of Arts and Sciences that
the student must take to satisfy University category requirements and write "R“ and the semester
credits for each course in the SC needed column. Sum the SC for the ”R“ courses. ”R’sum - _SC.

 

 

 

 

 

7. Subtract the result of step 6 from the result of step 5.
A/S SC remaining - ”R'sum . A/S SC electives.

8. Using your best judgment. select the remaining elective A/S semester courses the student must take
to fulfill the 54 SC University requirement and write "R" and the semester credits for the course in the
SC needed column. This completes the University General Education requirements.

9. Selecttheremainingcoursesthestudentmusttakeintheprogramandwrite'R'and thesemester
credits for the course in the SC Needed column. Sum the semester credits for all “R” courses "R" total

 

 

 

- SC.
10. Subtract the result of step 9 from the result of step 3.
SC remaining - "R” total - SC electives.

11. The step 10 computation indicates the remaining number of SC the student must complete. Using
your best judgment. select the most appropriate semester courses from the Semester Equivalent
Column to fulfill this requirement. in the SC Needed column. place an ”R” for those courses to be
required and an "S" for suggested courses that may be taken to fulfill the total credit requirement. along
with the semester credits. When necessary. place any clarifying remarks in the section entitled Notes
by Adviser.

12. Sign the form. have the student sign the form. and make two copies of the form. Send the original
to the Dean's Office in the College of Business. Give one copy to the student and keep one copy for your

records.

13. if the student wishes. help place the remaining quarter courses and semester courses on a
Tentative Course Sequence Form. This will serve as the student's checksheet.

 

Student Student Number: Date

APPENDIX 0

245

APPENDIX 0

COURSE COMPLETION AGREEMENT (CCA)

 

Professional Golf Management (Baccalaureate)
QUARTER 1o SmerEn counss MAPPING m... mursscomnou AGREEMENT
(m by maul l'GM m was)

       

 

 

9 ENGlil.ll2.ll3 6 ENGLl50.leor250

Bil .. . “2 fl

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 HumanitiesEl. 3 QihEnrJi
3 Humanities El. 3 Cult Eur. El.—
3 Humanities El.__ 3 Gilt Enha—
3 Humanities EL— 3 Gilt Farr. B.—
C BI . IS . . {13 I. 1
4 ECN22i 3 ECONZZI
4 ECN222 3 ECON222
3 mm 3 PSYCISO
3 PSY3IO 3 PSYC3IO
4 (SOCZZI) 3 (SOCYlZl)
D N IS. I” I t' . “1 I.)
5 BIO 105 4 3101.109
4 OHTl32 3 BlOLllS
4 OllTl33 3 HORTI33
4 MTH 121 3 MATH 115
E CI 5 IEI . B . [I I. J
4 SPC lOSorSPC lZl 3 COMM lOSwCOMMIZl

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4 ADV 222 3 onozzz
4 ADV 333 3 ono 333
4 MKT229 3 W229
4 MKT231 3 MKTG 731
4 MKT322 3 MKTG322
4 MKT337 3 RETG$37
4 MKT 339 3 km 339
4 (MKT34I) 3 (MKTG 341)
4 MKT423 3 MKTG425
4 MKT4380rMKTG 33s 3 RETG438
4 MKT473 3 Micro 473
4 (P-R 340) 3 (RSI-340)

246

APPENDIX 0

.......

mucovnsrsusmmw

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I POM 101 I POMO I01
I6 POM I70. I70. 270. 270. 370. 370. 470. 470 10 POMO I92. 292. 3%. 492. 493
2 POM I72 I POMO l72
2 POM 272 I POMO 272
2 POM 372 I POMO 372
2 POM 472 I POMO 472
mm come we mu) ...... .. . .4
8 ACT 20I. 202 6 ACCT 201 202
4 I}? 202 3 ISYS 202
4 FIN 322 3 FINC 322
4 LAW 32! 3 BLAW 32I
3 MOT 261 3 MGMT 30!
3 (MOT 262) 3 (MOMT 302)
4 MKT 321 3 MKTO 321
4 MKT 491 3 MKTO 499
4 GA 2 I0 3 OSYS 300
4 Q-M 321 3 STQM 32I

 

2 II-El23 2 HLTHlZS
3 P-E 338 3 PIIED 338

 

 

 

 

QC Total: __ SC Total:

 

 

l. CanpleietireCNGlll ll2. ll3sequencepnortoI-‘all 1993 ifpossirle.
2. DonaenrollinAC‘l'ZOImlessyouaresfletocanpleieACl‘ZOZpricrtoFalllm.
3. AflBusmeuComcoummuubecomplded.widitiepossi>leexceptionofMGT262
4. AllMajcr courses mustbecanpleted.withthepossibleexceptiondNfl(T34l mdP-R 340.
5. lfyoumustrepeataquanerccursedosowhileonlheqmnersystem.
s Ea: mm flexibility with the Iimnanities rerpirernent. it is best totake 3. Ger 12 me credits oeranauities courses.
7. Takerequiredcoursesnotinparentheses. Donotenrollinelcdivecoursesmlessadvisedtodoso.
1° “Piers." sen—OGPAMIMWCWM'” Gm" “I'M"

    

Student Program Advisor

 

APPENDIX P

247

.AEEEDNDIXII?

IDUELAEUUIIIHI CH? Tiaras

TRANSITION STUDENTS: Transition students are (1) continuing students
fall, 1993, (2) readmitted students (1993/94 or 1994/95) who have earned
39 or more quarter credits, or (3) transfer students (1993/94 or
1994/95) who have earned 26 or more semester credits. They will complete
their coursework using either Option Q or Option S, both of which are
found in the student's Academic Program Completion Brochure.

NON-TRANSITION STUDENTS: Non-transition students are (1) freshmen
beginning their coursework Fall 1993, (2) readmitted students (1993/94
or 1994/95) who have earned fewer than 39 quarter credits, or (3)
transfer students (1993/94 or 1994/95) who have earned less than 26
semester credits. They will complete their coursework using a semester
checksheet.

PROGRAM EXPERT - Each program.has one person designated as a program
expert. This person is responsible for (1) developing the Academic
Program Completion Brochure, (2) instructing program advisors so that
they will understand the university-wide principles that will be used in
making decisions regarding course completion agreements, and (3)
educating academic advisors, so that students will receive proper
guidance prior to forming a course completion agreement with their
program advisor.

PROGRAM ADVISOR — A program.advisor is one given the authority to form
course completion agreements with the students in that program. Students
will not meet with program advisors to form course completion agreements
until winter or spring quarter of the 1992-93 academic year.

ACADEMIC ADVISOR - Each student has been assigned an academic advisor.
The academdc advisor will guide the student until the student meets with
a program advisor to form a course completion agreement. In some cases,
a student's academic advisor may be the student's program advisor.

COURSE COMPLETION AGREEMENT - Each student will meet with a program
advisor to form a course completion agreement. The Academic Program
Completion Brochure, available fall, 1992, will serve as a guide in
forming this agreement. Essentially, the course completion agreement
will indicate to the student what remaining quarter and semester courses
the student needs to take to graduate. One copy of the agreement will be
kept by the student while other copies will be sent to the student's
academic advisor and to the student's dean's office.

ACADEMIC PROGRAM COMPLETION BROCHURE - For each program at FSU, a
brochure is prepared by a program expert to guide the students in the
program through the remainder of their coursework. The brochure will
also serve as a guide in forming the course completion agreement. These
brochures, available fall, 1992, are used by the students and their
academic advisors.

248

1UPPIBUDIZII?

OPTION Q - A course completion plan for transition students who are
close to finishing the coursework in their major. Students using this
option are simply completing the coursework on their quarter checksheet
using semester courses.

OPTION S -A course completion plan for transition students who are in
the earlier stages of their curriculum and have taken few courses in

their major. Students using this option will have the quarter courses
they took evaluated in light of the 'new' program, which will contain
the "old" General Education requirements.

CLASS STANDING:

When Ferris State University converts to the semester system, the
following standards will be used to detemmine class standings. These
will put FSU in line with other Michigan universities and will meet the
requirements needed for state reporting.

 

Class Credit Hours Earned
Freshman O sc. to under 26 sc.
Sophomore 26 sc. to under 56 sc.
Junior 56 sc. to under 86 sc.
Senior 86 sc. or more

GRADUATION REQUIREMENTS

(1) TRANSITION VS. NON-TRANSITION STUDENTS

Transition students are (l) continuing students fall, 1993, (2)
readmitted students (1993/94 or 1994/95) who have earned 39 or more
quarter credits, or (3) transfer students (1993/94 or 1994/95) who have
earned 26 or more semester credits.

Transition students will complete their coursework using either Option Q
or Option 5, both of which are found in the student's Academic Program
Completion Brochure.

Non-transition students are (1) freshmen beginning their coursework
fall, 1993, (2) readmitted students (1993/94 or 1994/95) who have earned
fewer than 39 quarter credits, or (3) transfer students (1993/94 or
1994/95) who have earned fewer than 26 semester credits. Non-transition
students will complete their coursework using a semester checksheet.

(2) CONTINUING STUDENTS

General Education Requirements - Continuing students will be considered
transition students and may complete the General Education requirements
that were appropriate under the quarter system.

Major Requirements - Continuing students at Ferris State University
during fall, 1993 will consult with a program advisor to determine if
they will continue their program using the quarter system major
requirements (Option Q or the new semester system.major requirements
(Option 3). This decision will be influenced by how many courses they
still have to complete In their major.

249

.AEEEBMDIZII?

(3) READMITTED STUDENTS

General Education Requirements - During the 1993/94 and 1994/95 academic
years, readmitted students who started their programs on the quarter
system and who have earned 39 or more quarter credits will be considered
transition students and may complete the General Education requirements
that were appropriate under the quarter system, Readmitted students who
have earned fewer than 39 quarter credits will not be treated as
transition students. These students will be placed on a semester program
checksheet and will complete the General Education requirements that are
appropriate under the semester system.

Major Requirements - During the 1993/94 and 1994/95 academic years,
readmitted students who started their programs on the quarter system and
who have earned 39 or more quarter credits must consult with their
program advisor to determine whether they will be placed on Option Q or
Option S. Readmitted students who have earned fewer than 39 quarter
credits must complete semester program major requirements.

(4) TRANSFER STUDENTS

General Education Requirements - Students transferring to Ferris State
University during the 1993/94 and 1994/95 academic years who have earned
26 or more semester credits will be considered transition students and
may complete the General Education requirements that were appropriate
under the quarter system. Students transferring to FSU during the
1993/94 and 1994/95 academic years who have earned fewer than 26
semester credits will not be considered transition students. These
students will be placed on a semester program checksheet and will
complete the General Education requirements that are appropriate under
the semester system.

MAJOR Requirements - All transfer students entering fall, 1993, and
thereafter will complete the semester system requirements for their
major, unless otherwise approved by their program advisors. This means
that transfer students who have earned 26 or more semester credits will
be placed on transition Option 8. Those who have earned fewer than 26
semester credits will be placed on a semester program checksheet.

COMPLETION OF VARIOUS REQUIREMENTS

Transition students must complete university requirements, college
requirements, and the requirements for their academic programs (majors).
Requirements not completed by fall, 1993, will be completed with
semester courses.

All transition students will use the following guidelines for completing
(1) credit requirements, (2) General Education requirements, and (3)
program requirements, regardless of whether they are placed on Option Q
or Option 8.

(l) COMPLETION OF CREDIT REQUIREMENTS FOR GRADUATION

Each program.has a published quarter credit graduation requirement. In
order to calculate how many semester credits must be earned to complete
this requirement, subtract the number of quarter credits earned (that

250

.AEIHHNDIXII?

apply to the quarter system degree) before fall, 1993, from the number

of quarter credits required for graduation in that program. Multiply

the result by 2/3 and round down if the result includes a fraction. The
rounded total is the number of additional semester credits which must be
completed.

For example, suppose that a student ls required to complete 192 quarter

credit hours in his program. Suppose that this student has already

earned 142 quarter credits. Of these 142 quarter credits, only 136

quarter credits would have applied to the quarter system.degree.

a) 192 qc -136 go - 56 qc.

b) 56 qc x 2/3 - 37.33 sc, rounded down to 37 sc.

c) The student must complete a minimum.of 37 additional semester
credits.

(2) COMPLETION OF GENERAL EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS

The minimum General Education requirements for graduation for a

transition student are as follows:

1. For a baccalaureate degree, a student must complete a minimum of 54
quarter credits total in the four General Education categories. For
an associate degree, a student must complete a minimum.of 23 quarter
credits total in the four General Education categories.

2. For a Baccalaureate degree, an Associate of Arts/Science, or an
Associate ’8 Applied Arts degree, the student must complete the
following minimum General Education category quarter credit
requirements. Within each General Education category, a program may
designate specific course(s) that the student must take.

Categories Qtr. Cr.
English 9 qc.
Humanities 12 qc.
Behavioral Science 12 qc.
Natural Science 12 qc.

3. For an Associate in Applied Science degree, the student must complete
the following minimum.Genera1 Education category quarter credit
requirements. Within each General Education category, a program may
designate specific course(s) that the student must take.

Category Qtr. Cr.
English 9 qc.
Humanities 3 qc.
Behavioral Science 3 qc.
Natural Science 4 qc.

All transition students who have not completed the above University
General Education requirements prior to fall, 1993, must complete them
with semester courses so that (l) the total credit requirement and (2)
all General Education category requirements are fulfilled. In the
following paragraphs, the procedure is explained.

Calculate how many additional semester credits the student must take in
General Education. In order to calculate how many semester credits must
be earned to complete the General Education requirement, subtract the
number of General Education quarter credits earned

251

JUEPIIEIEK 1’

1. before fall, 1993, from the number of General Education quarter
credits required for that type of degree. Multiply the result by
2/3, and round down if the result Includes a fraction. The rounded
total is the number of additional semester credits which must be
completed.

2. Calculate how many additional semester credit the students must take
in each General Education category. In order to calculate how many
semester credits must be earned to complete a General Education
category requirement, subtract the number of General Education
quarter credits earned in that category before fall, 1993, from the
category quarter credit hour requirement. Multiply the result by 2/3,
and round down if the result includes a fraction. The rounded total
is the number of additional semester credits to be completed in that
category. If a student is within one semester credit hour of
completing a category, the category requirement may be considered
fulfilled.

3. Using these results, form a General Education Advising Plan for the

student.
AN EXAMPLE

Suppose that a student who is earning a baccalaureate degree has

completed the following General Education credits under the quarter

system prior to fall, 1993. English (9 qc), Humanities (6 qc),

Behavioral Science (9 qc), Natural Science (4 qc), for a total of 28 qc.

1. Calculate how many additional semester credits the student must take
in General Education.

9 54 qc - 28 qc = 26 qc.

0 26 qc x 2/3 - 17.33 sc, rounded dawn to 17 sc.

9 The student must complete a minimum of 17 additional semester
credits in General Education.

2. Calculate how many additional semester credits the student must take
in each General Education category.

9 English: The student Is required to complete 9 qc. He has
completed 9 qc. The requirement Is fulfilled.

o Humanities: The student Is required to complete 12 qc. He has
completed 6 qc. 12 qc - 6 qc - 6 qc x 2/3 = 4 sc. The student
may take a 3 semester credit hour humanities course, and the
other credit may be waived.

0 Behavioral Science: The student is required to complete 12 qc.
He has completed 9 qc. 12 qc - 9 qc - 3 qc x 2/3 a 2 sc. The
student may take a 2 sc or a 3 sc Behavioral Science course.

9 Natural Science: The student is required to complete 12 qc. He
has completed 4 qc. 12 go - 4 qc - 8 qc x 2/3 = 5.33 sc, which
may be rounded down to 5 sc. The student may take a 5 sc
Natural Science course, or the student may take a 4 so Natural
Science course and the other credit may be waived.

3. Using these results, form a General Education Advising Plan for the
student.

The student must complete a total of 17 additional semester credits in

General Education. Of these, 3 must be in Humanities, 2 must be in

Behavioral Sciences, and 4 must be in the Natural Sciences. The

252

.APWIHMDIIII?

remaining 8 semester credits may be selected from any of the four
General Education categories.

COMPLETION OF PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS

Each department will adopt a plan for advising transition students who
have declared a major in one of its programs. This plan will be detailed
in an Academic Program Completion Brochure. As a part of the plan, each
program will provide two options, Option Q and Option S. The program
will determine the criteria that will be used to place a student into
the appropriate option and will place the criteria in the brochure.
Early in the process, the student should meet with his or her academic
advisor to determine which option the student will probably be placed
in. Later, when the student meets with the program advisor to form a
course completion agreement, the student will be formally placed in the
option that is be more appropriate. The brochure will help to identify
the quarter and semester courses and credits which the student needs to
complete to fulfill program requirements.

Option Q - This option is appropriate for transition students who are
close to finishing the coursework in their major. Students using this
option are simply completing the coursework on their quarter checksheet
using semester courses. This option shows a student how many semester
credits and which semester courses are necessary to fulfill the quarter
system requirements that will not be completed prior to fall, 1993. The
General Education requirements for Option Q are the same as those for
Option S.

Option S - This option is appropriate for transition students who are in
the earlier stages of their curriculum.and have taken few courses in
their major. With this option, students are placed on a "new” semester
program checksheet. The previous quarter courses they took are evaluated
in light of the "new" program. This option should cause fewer problems
for a student who still has most of the major courses to complete since,
in many programs, the major courses in Option Q no longer exist and the
new courses will not be equivalent to the old ones. The General
Education requirements for Option S are the same as those for Option Q.
During fall, 1992, students should pick up their Academic Program
Completion Brochure. They should use the brochure as a guide, with the
help of their regular academic advisor, in selecting remaining quarter
courses until they meet with their program advisor. During the winter
and the spring quarters of the 1992/1993 academic year, transition
students will meet with a program.advisor and form a course completion
agreement based on college and departmental guidelines found in their
academic program completion brochure. A copy of the course completion
agreement will be sent to the student's academic advisor. It will
provide guidance when selecting future courses. Students will not be
permitted to register for semester courses until they have formed a
course completion agreement.

APPENDIX Q

253

.mnoooua
:xnmenocons
cues ucoumflmcou
n amtum

.mmmooua
ssxumgocmnra
cues acoumfimcoo
N Madam

.mmmooua
\sxumgnocmnvv
sue: ucmumflmcoo
H andan

QZOHMDHUZOU

.mEuou mooonuoHoo “canon

asap nmwancumo “mocflamofism
ocm nofloflaom QoHc>oo «mxmmu
xwwucoofi «Esau cofiumucmEmHQEH
.08 we m madam

.ouo> xuasomm m usoxuumu

.mcsmmfi acnmE mNflowansm

.mcoflmmon scammsonfio ammo posocoo
.ummma cofiuflmom moam>oo

.uuoaasn >uasomm museum

.usmcfl accosum Camuno
.muoumuumflcfleom

Qou mo coccuusocoo samuno
.uomfloua meancauiuomu m emaenmumm
.mucoosum\>uasomm\coflumuumflcfieoc
mo mouuflesoo m cmeQmumm

Be 3 u was

.umEuow umocmamo mafimcmco
woowmcoo ou cofimflomo H andan

mmuUQMQ ZOHQMH>ZOU GHOZMZZOUHM

.canmu uses can

mean» ocflmfiucoofl 4Emma coHufimcmue
umummEmm cosmaanmumm ommfi .omo
masccmam n umeum

 

.oEHu

menu um coflmuc>coo umocono wow
accuses ooHMHucooH "coHumoccEEooou
umoccamo mo aumEEum o>fiusooxm moamwo
muamuae chamnmoa 9mm omma.ma amm
.>uflcsEEoo ocm

maoumuuchHEEM .mucopsum .xuasomm
Mom mmcfiumoe ammo ommH .vH r m mm:
.Ecumxm HmummEom ou uno>coo

ou couch xmme Muflaflnfimmmm ucumoEcm
me» Go coaumncmeeoomm omma .GH use

 

 

 

.couom xmme muHHHnHmmom umumoficm ecu
nuance museum chamemum .ommH.NH can
. mGOwumUCCEEOOOm

new consmsam>m « Enema

.uuommsm muasomm mo >c>usm

.omEuom

mmuuflEEoo hufiawnflnmmm .mocmno
umoflmcoo ou coanflooo r mmma H flutum

 

HBHQKM>HZD HH‘Hm mHMMflh

MMHUQMN :MflflIUOZHfl: HEB HHHI.DMh ho ZOmHmdfilbo

o masseuse

254

.EOHumsam>c

mo coaumooxm
cue: accumflmcoo
w andan

.mmoooum
.xumEnocon:
cue: unmanamcoo
m Haida

.mmoooum
.xumanocobz
EDA: accumamcoo
v undum

.c0flucsam>o
ocm cofiumuaoEmHQEH o andan

.oouuflEEoo mamcmam owEoomom
.Emuooua ocfimfl>em

c>wumucc>oum m Endanmumm
.oonumorHcaE Qon>oo
.nuoumuumflcweom

can muomfl>UMI>uHsomu .muccosum
How mQOmeuoz emflabmumm
.Hcocoamo soc on» cNHOAHQEm
A05 we m Human

.mucmEmcuom :oflumasufluwm m>oummd
.mEmumouQ acacomcu 3c: :mflanmumm
.mmusnmooum

Eoun>m wousmEoo doam>mo

.mmmusoo cofluflmcmuu .moumocmum
oflEmUmom .nCOHmmom uoEEsm
.umEuom umocoaco on» o>onaa¢
.nucmsouflsvmu coaumsomuo
smflancumm .Emumxm mEHHoDEsc
onusoo xuflooo .mmmusoo owEoomom
soc .EEOHuflcflmoo EmmoOEQ doam>mo
.nucoEouHsvou

cowumosom Hmumcco 3mfl>mm

A08 may v Hmflum

a awesome:

.umEuom

Hmocmamo umunmEom 0p coflmucbcoo
omumuoauoocH mama tom mum

m andan

 

.mucoEmoumm

coaucHQEoo cmasoo i ocflmfl>o<
.Aamscme_ucmosumv Hmscmz
cofluflmcmua umummsom mama .Qcm
.Emmh cofluflmcmue woumoEwm
nmoooua coaumuaoanmEH m andan

 

 

.Hmscme mousocoowm EdasOHuuso
cowufimcmuu HmumoEmm any om>ouamm
mumcmm unemnmoe Hams .m amm

.Bam >n popcoEEoocu

umocoamo oesoomom Hmmfi .MH >mz
.cmuufiEEoo Esasofiuusu >ufimwc>flco
on mammoaoum Emumoum ocm namnoaoum
onusoo usom use» i cco Home

.mmmH .e Hague on Hams

.mm mm: Emma coauflmcmus umpmcfimm
ocauacmouo c enema

255

LIST OF REFIRIN‘BS

Albrecht, Karl, (1978), Successful Management By Objectives,
Prentice-Hall, Inc., N.J.

Ary, 0., Jacobs, L. Razavieh, (1972), Introduction to
Research In Education, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New
York, Appendix, Table A.3.

 

Anderson, Nels, (1923), The Hobo: The Sociology of the
Homeless Man, University of Chicago Press, Chicago,
Illinois.

 

Becker, Howard S., Blanch Geer, Everett C. Hughes, and
Anselm Strauss, (1961), Boys in White: Student Culture
in Medical School, University of Chicago Press,
Chicago, Illinois, Chapter 4.

 

Cahow, Clark R., James A. Johnson, C. Louis Rasor, Ruth R.
Trigg, Jeanette D. Brooks, (1973), Evaluation of Some
Current Academic Calendars, College and University,
Summer.

Campbell, Angus, (1960), The American Voter, John Wiley and
Sons, New York.

 

Clark, Carol E., (1986), “Comparison of the student credit
hours generated, average course loads, grades earned
and withdrawals from courses accompanying change from
the term to the semester academic calendar at Central
Missouri State University,” Paper presented at the
MIDAIR conference, Kansas City, MO, October 9-11, ERIC
ED 276 354.

 

Coleman, D.R., J.R. Bolte, F. Franklin, (1984), Academic
Calendar Impact on Enrollment Patterns and
Instructional Outcomes, Research in Higher Education,
20(2), pp. 155-156.

College of the Redwoods, (1976), California Study Committee
Final Report, Eureka, California.

 

 

256

CRUE, 1989, Michigan State University, Council to Review
Undergraduate Education, Opportunities for Renewal,
Report of the Semester Study Group, Michigan State
University, East Lansing, MI, p. 15.

 

Davis, J.R., (1972), Changing College Calendars, Journal of
Higher Education, 47, pp. 143-149.

 

 

Dedmon, Donald, (1986), Quarter to Semesters, Association of
Governing Boards of Universities, Vol 28, No 3, May-
June, pp. 32-5.

 

Denzin, Norman K., (1989), The Research Act, 3rd ed.,
Prentice-Hall, N.J.

 

Ferris State University, (1986), Peer Institution StudyL
September 10, 1986, Office of Planning and Development,
Ferris State University, Big Rapids, Michigan.

 

 

Ferris State University, (1990), Academic Calendar
Recommendations, September 18, 1990, Academic Affairs
Office, Ferris State University, Big Rapids, Michigan.

 

Ferris State University, (1990), Charge to the Chair of the
Semester Transition Team and the Semester Transition
Team, December 4, 1990, Academic Affairs Office, Ferris
State University, Big Rapids, Michigan.

 

Ferris State University, (1990), Final Recommendations of
the Semester Feasibility Task Force, April 16, 1990L
Academic Senate, Ferris State University, Big Rapids,
Michigan.

 

Ferris State University, (1991), Semester Transition
Curricular Procedures Manual, Academic Senate, February
11, 1991, Ferris State University, Big Rapids,
Michigan.

 

 

Ferris State University, (1992), Semester Transition Manual,
Spring 1992, Semester Transition Office, Ferris State
University, Big Rapids, Michigan.

 

 

257

Ferris State University, (1994), Self-Study Report submitted
to the North Central Associatiop, NCA Self-Study
Steering Committee, Ferris State University, Big
Rapids, Michigan.

 

Ferris State University, (1996), Quick Facts 1996,
Admissions Office, Ferris State University, Big Rapids,
Michigan.

 

Galtung, Johan, (1967), Theory and Methods of Social
Research, Columbia University Press, New York, N.Y.

 

 

Hand, Carol A. (1983), Academic Calendar Systems: a cross—
institutional analysis, Report No. 83-21, Atlanta
Office of Institutional Planning, Georgia State
University, Atlanta, GA.

 

Hossler, Don, John P. Bean, (1990), The Strategic Management
of College Enrollments, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco,
California.

 

Judd, Charles M., Eliot R. Smith, Louise H. Kidder, (1991),
Research Methods in Social Relations, Holt, Rinehart
and Winston, Fort Worth, Texas.

 

Keating, Joseph P., (1988), Models for Campus Master
Planning and Facility Development: A Comparative Case
Study Analysis of Four Private Research Universities,
PH.D. diss., Michigan State University, East Lansing,
Michigan.

Kidder, Louise H., (1981), Selltiz, Wrightsman & Cook's
Research Methods in Social Relations, Holt, Rinehart
and Winston, N.Y., p.84.

 

Kitchens, Michelle Hughes (Ed.), (1995), 1994-95 Accredited
Institutions of Postsecondary Education, American
Council on Education, Washington, DC.

 

Land, George, Beth Jarman, (1992), Breakpoint and Beyond,
Mastering the Future--Today, Harper Business.

 

 

Levine, Arthur, (1989), Shaping higher education's future,
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA., p.14.

258

Lipset, Seymour Martin, Martin Trow, and James 8. Coleman,
(1956), Union Democracy: The Internal Politics of the
International Typographical Union, Free Press, Glencoe,
Illinois.

 

 

Lynd, Robert S., and Hel Merrell Lynd, (1929), Middletown: A
Study in American Culture, Harcourt, Brace, New York.

 

 

Nachmias, David, Chava Nachmias, (1976), Research Methods in
the Social Sciences, St. Martin's Press, New York.

 

 

Oleson, Loyd C., (1971), A Report on Academic Calendars, The
American Association of Collegiate Registrars and
Admissions Officers.

 

Orum, Anthony M., Joe R. Reagin, Gideon Sjoberg, (1991), The
Nature of the Case Study, A Case for the Case Study,
The University of North Carolina Press.

 

Munson, Glenn W., (1990), Variations On a Theme: The
Semester Calendar, College University, Spring, 65:
pp.177-202.

 

Pennington, Darren C., Zvonkovic M. Anisa, and Sandra L.
Wilson, (1989), Changes In College Satisfaction Across
an Academic Term, Journal of College Student
Development, Nov. 30, pp.528-35.

 

 

Peterson, Iver, (1972), Flunking is Harder as College Grades
Rise Rapidly, New York Times, March 13.

 

Platt, Jennifer, (1992), Case Study in American
Methodological Thought, Current Sociology, Spring,
p.17.

 

Puyear, Don, (1989), Semesters, Enrollment, and Retention:
The Effect of Converting From Quarters To Semesters on
Enrollment and Retention in the Virginia Community
College System, Richmond: Virginia State Department of
Community Colleges.

 

 

Reeb, Richard H., (1980), Of Calendars and Education,
Office of Instructional Services, Barstow College,
California.

 

259

Rollins, Judith, (1985), Between Women, Philadelphia: Temple
University Press.

 

Rosselot, Max B., (1971), Academic Calendars: Revolution
and a Revelation, AACRAO Newsletter, XIV, pp.22-23.

 

 

Schramm, W., (1971, December), Notes on Case Studies of
Instructional Media Projects, Working Paper, Academy
for Educational Development, Washington, D.C., p.41.

 

 

Semester Feasibility Study Committee, (1984), Report to the
Chancellor Submitted by University of Tennessee,
Knoxville, Semester Feasibility Study Committee,
Tennessee University, Knoxville, Tennessee.

 

 

Singleton, Royce, Jr., Bruce C. Straits, Margaret M.
Straits, Ronald J. McAllister, (1988), Approaches to
Social Research, Oxford University Press. New York.

 

 

Sjoberg, Gideon, Norma Williams, Ted R. Vaughan, Andree F.
Sjoberg, (1991), The Case Study Approach in Social
Research: Basic Methodological Issues, University of
North Carolina Press.

 

 

Smith, F.A., (1975), A Study of Possible Calendar Variations
For the San Diego Community College District, San Diego
Community College District, San Diego, CA.

 

 

Stack, Carol 8., (1974), All Our Kin: Strategies for
Survival in a Black Community, Harper and Row, New
York.

 

 

Walz, O.C., (1973), Why Have So Many Academic Calendars Been
Changed?, The Journal of the Association of Collegiate
Registrars and Admissions Officers, 48(4), pp.331-42.

 

Walz, O.C., Leonard L Overturf, J.E. Frazier, R.D. Baker,
L.J. Copple, (1977), The process of calendar
conversion, The Journal of the Association of
Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, 52,
pp.724-34.

 

 

Wells, Warren D., (1961), The University Calendar,
Washington, D.C.: Committee on the University Calendar
of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars
and Admissions Officers, p.5.

 

260

REFERENCES

Whyte, William Foote, (1943), Street Corner Society: The

Yin,

Yin,

Yin,

 

Social Structure of an Italian Slum, University of

 

Chicago Press, Chicago.

Robert K., (1992), Case Study Method as a Tool for
Doing,Evaluation, Current Sociology, Spring, p.119.

 

 

Robert K., (1994), Case Study Research: Design and

 

Methods, Second Edition, Sage Publications, Thousand

Oaks, California.

Robert K., P.G. Bateman, G.B. Moore, (1983), Case
Studies and Organizational Innovation: Strengthening

 

the Connection, COSMOS Corporation, Washington DC,

 

September.