"CONTENTdm"@en . "University Publications"@en . "2020-04-24"@en . "1993-09-15"@en . "https://open.library.ubc.ca/collections/senmin/items/1.0390055/source.json"@en . "application/pdf"@en . " THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA\nVancouver Senate Secretariat\nSenate and Curriculum Services\nEnrolment Services\n2016-1874 East Mall\nVancouver, BC V6T 1Z1\nwww.senate.ubc.ca\nVANCOUVER SENATE\nMINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 15, 1993\nAttendance\nPresent: President D. W. Strangway (Chair), Vice-President D. R. Birch, Mr. S. Alsgard, Dr. A. P.\nAutor, Dr. S. Avramidis, Mr. J. A. Banfield, Dr. J. Barman, Dr. J. D. Berger, Dr. A. E. Boardman,\nDean pro tern. M. A. Boyd, Mr. P. T. Brady, Dr. D. M. Brunette, Dr. D. G. A. Carter, Ms. L.\nChui, Dr. D. H. Cohen, Dr. T. S. Cook, Dr. M. G. R. Coope, Dr. G. W. Eaton, Dr. J. H. V.\nGilbert, Mr. E. B. Goehring, Dr. J. Gosline, Dean J. R. Grace, Dr. S. E. Grace, Ms. C. L.\nGreentree, Rev. J. Hanrahan, Mr. F. B. N. Horsburgh, Mr. A. Janmohamed, Dr. J. G. T. Kelsey,\nMr. G. Kettyle, Dr. S. B. Knight, Mr. H. Leung, Dr. S. C. Lindstrom, Mr. R. W. Lowe, Dr. D. J.\nMacDougall, Dr. M. MacEntee, Dr. R T. A. MacGillivray, Dean M. P. Marchak, Mr. P. R.\nMarsden, Dean B. C. McBride, Dr. H. McDonald, Mr. R S. McNeal, Dean J. H. McNeill, Mr.\nW. B. McNulty, Dean A. Meisen, Dr. R. J. Patrick, Rev. W. J. Phillips, Mrs. M. Price, Professor\nM. Quayle, Mr. A. A. Raghavji, Dr. D. J. Randall, Professor R. S. Reid, Professor J. A. Rice, Dean\nJ. F. Richards, Dr. H. B. Richer, Mr. M. G. Schaper, Dr. R. A. Shearer, Dean N. Sheehan, Dr. C.\nE. Slonecker, Dean C. L. Smith, Ms. S. J. Spence, Dr. R. C. Tees, Dr. S. Thorne, Dr. W. Uegama,\nDr. D. A. Wehrung, Dr. E. W. Whittaker, Dr. R. M. Will, Dr. D. Ll. Williams, Mr. E. C. H. Woo,\nMr. C. A. Woods, Dr. W. C. Wright, Jr.\nRegrets: Chancellor R. H. Lee, Mr. D. A. Anderson, Dean C. S. Binkley, Mr. W. F. Dick, Mr. M.\nA. Fuoss, Dean M. A. Goldberg, Dean M. J. Hollenberg, Dr. M. Isaacson, Dr. M. Levine, Dr. D.\nM. Lyster, Ms. C. A. Soong, Dr. L. J. Stan, Dr. J. Vanderstoep.\nSenate membership\nDECLARATION OF VACANCY (UNIVERSITYACT, SECTION 35 (6))\nMr. Tony Fogarassy - Convocation Senator\nINTRODUCTION OF SENATORS\nThe Chair welcomed the new members to Senate.\nMinutes of the previous meeting\nDr. Tees l That the minutes of the ninth regular meeting\nMr. Woo j of Senate for the Session 1992-1993, having\nbeen circulated, be taken as read and adopted.\n10633\n Vancouver Senate 10634\nMinutes of September 15,1993\nChair's remarks and related questions\nDr. Cook informed Senate that there had been an omission in the statement of policy\ncirculated to Senate in the year end report of the Committee on Student Awards.\nHowever, the omission was discovered before the minutes were printed and the policy\nstatement is therefore correctly stated in the minutes as circulated.\nThe motion was\nput and carried.\nChair's remarks and related questions\nPresident Strangway welcomed new and returning members of Senate and said that he\nlooked forward to an interesting year.\nRemarks by the Minister responsible for Universities\nPresident Strangway reported that the Minister was unable to attend the meeting.\nFrom the Board of Governors\nNotification of approval in principle of Senate recommendations - subject, where\napplicable, to the proviso that none of the programs be implemented without formal\nreference to the President; and that the Deans and Heads concerned with new\nprograms be asked to indicate the space requirements, if any, of such new programs.\ni. Enrolment quota of 180 students in the first year of the LL.B. program in the\nFaculty of Law (pp. 10555-7)\nii. Establishment of a Centre for Labour and Management Studies (pp.10561-4)\niii. Establishment of a Centre for Molecular Medicine and Therapeutics (pp. 10564-5)\niv. Proposals from the Faculty of Graduate Studies: separation of the M.P.E. program\ninto an M.P.E., and M.A. and an M.Sc, a Ph.D. program in Law, the conversion\nof the B.Arch. to a Master of Architecture (with the exception of ARCH 569), and\na Master of Arts in Vocational Rehabilitation Counselling, and curriculum\nproposals from the School of Human Kinetics, (pp.10557-8)\nv. Awards (pp.10621-2)\nvi. Establishment of Chairs in Chinese Research, Chairs in Japanese Research, Chairs\nin Korean Research, Chairs in South Asian Research, and Chairs in South East\nAsian Research, (p.10616)\n Vancouver Senate 10635\nMinutes of September 15,1993\nFinancial Statements\nvii. Establishment of the UBC/St. Paul's Hospital Foundation Chair in AIDS Research.\n(p.10617)\nviii. Curriculum proposals from the Faculties of Agricultural Sciences, Applied Science,\nArts, Education, Graduate Studies (with the exception of ELEC 576 which has\nbeen withdrawn), Medicine and Science, and new programs in: Canadian Studies,\nan M.Sc. program in Genetic Counselling and a B.Sc. program in Freshwater\nScience, (pp.10603-6 & pp.10623-32)\nFinancial Statements\nIn accordance with section 31(2) of the University Act, Financial Statements for the year\nended March 31, 1993, had been submitted to Senate for information. The report of the\nVice President Administration and Finance for 1992-93 was circulated at the meeting.\nMr. Gellatly spoke briefly to the report, highlighting various aspects of the financial\nstatements and some other sections of the report for the information of Senate.\nIn response to a query, Mr. Gellatly reported that approximately $2 million would be\nspent on the upgrading of classrooms in addition to funds for audiovisual equipment. He\nstated that committees are already working on the upgrading of classrooms and that a\npriority list has been developed. If this additional government funding for classroom\nmaintenance continues, it is intended that $2 million a year will be spent on classroom\nupgrading over the next few years.\nThe President responded to a query concerning matching funds from the government for\nthe World of Opportunity Campaign. He stated that a clear agreement had been reached\nwith respect to the amount and a cash flow model. The amount would be slightly less\nthan the original $86.4 million.\nThe Librarian referred to the 9% increase in the acquisitions budget and stated that this\nhad helped considerably in easing the effect of the 20% inflation increase experienced last\nyear. She noted, however, that some of the increase resulted from grants and trusts and\ncontracts for sponsored research.\n Vancouver Senate 10636\nMinutes of September 15,1993\nReports of Committees of Senate\nReports of Committees of Senate\nACADEMIC POLICY COMMITTEE\nDr. Tees presented the following report concerning the length of the fall term and the\nDecember and April examination periods.\nRecommendation 1\nThat the inequity in the length of the fall and spring terms be corrected. In order to\nadequately fulfil the necessary timetable of lectures and examinations, the fall term\nwould, on occasion, need to begin prior to Labour Day, though no earlier than\nSeptember 1st.\nRecommendation 2\nThat each examination period (April and December) be no more than thirteen\nweekdays in length, with the same number of examination periods per day.\nRecommendation 3\nThat the Registrar's Office conduct a feasibility study (in consultation with Faculties\nand Departments) on whether a reasonable examination timetable can be constructed\nfor publication prior to registration.\nRationale\nIn the past, UBC considered two term courses to be the norm, culminating in final\nexams held during the extended April examination period. Over the years, more and\nmore one term courses have been developed. In some programs, all courses beyond the\nfirst year are one term courses. Unfortunately, the two terms are not of equal length.\nThe first term is bounded by Labour day and Christmas day and Easter often occurs\nduring the April examination period. Since an attempt is made to keep the number of\nlecture weeks constant, the inequity is largely associated with differences in the\nrespective examination periods. In the 1992/93 Calendar, the December examination\nperiod extends from December 8 to December 22 (a total period of 15 days including\ntwo Sundays) whereas the April period extends from April 6 to April 30, a total of 25\ndays including 3 Sundays, Good Friday and Easter Monday. December examinations\nare scheduled in 4 time periods each day, whereas April examinations are scheduled in\nthree longer time periods.\nThe Academic Policy Committee circulated a memorandum on end-of-term\nexaminations to all Deans, Directors and Department Heads and received more than\n60 responses, many of them quite detailed and passionately argued. Respondents\nconsidered examinations essential. There was considerable dissatisfaction expressed\nwith the present examination schedules. One of the points made by many respondents\nwas that a comparably arranged examination schedule in two terms would be the\nmost desirable objective. Responses were also unanimous in arguing against any\nreduction in lecture weeks in the fall term. It was pointed out that our U.S.\ncounterparts offer more weeks of instruction. Strong support certainly\n Vancouver Senate 10637\nMinutes of September 15,1993\nReports of Committees of Senate\nexisted for a reduction in length of the April examination period with the suggestion\nthat a 13-day examination period would be appropriate for both terms. A significant\nnumber of respondents including students, favoured treating Labour day as a holiday\nand starting as close as practical on September 1st each year. This is certainly the\nsimplest way to allow 13 weeks of lectures and a reasonable examination schedule.\nThe increase in the fall term could be compensated by the decrease in length of the\nspring term which would occur as a direct consequence of the reduction in the spring\nexamination period to 13 days.\nIn the Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Registration Week adopted by Senate in\n1987 (Senate minutes p.9115) a minimum examination period of 13 weekdays for the\nfall term was recommended together with a minimum period of three days separating\nthe first examination from the last day of classes. In practice these three days have\nbeen Saturday, Sunday and Monday. A survey of the academic years for 1992-93 for a\nrepresentative set of Canadian Universities shows that most universities have 13 weeks\nof instruction per term. They also appear to be capable of scheduling their\nexaminations in a substantially shorter time period, particularly in the spring term.\nCertainly the adoption of a 13 weekday examination period for both terms would still\nplace UBC at the more generous end of the spectrum.\nThe length of the UBC examination period is undoubtedly related to the perceived\nneed to preserve all possible options. It seems likely that many programs, particularly\nin the senior years are so well defined that their examination schedules could be\noptimized without reference to outside courses. Faculty should take an interest in the\nexamination schedules for students in their programs, certainly no less than their\ntimetables for which departments presently retain some responsibility. It is potentially\npossible (and thus we are recommending a feasibility study) that an examination\nschedule could be produced which, once established, would not need to vary\ndramatically from year to year; it would simply rotate by two days per year so that no\ncourse should have a preferred time in the schedule. New courses would be fitted into\nthe timetable as they appeared. Such a schedule would not cater to all possible options\nbut rather would cater primarily to the vast majority of students. It would be essential\nif this were the case to publish the schedule ahead of registration to make clear the\noptions available to each program in a given year.\nDr. Tees l That recommendations 1, 2 and 3 be adopted.\nDr. Williams J\nCarried.\nNOMINATING COMMITTEE\nDr. Williams, Chair of the Committee, presented the Committee's recommendations for\nmembership on Senate committees for the three year term 1993-96.\n Vancouver Senate 10638\nMinutes of September 15,1993\nReports of Committees of Senate\nDr. Williams reminded Senate that recommendations for student membership on the\nvarious committees are made annually and that the current assignments were approved at\nthe April meeting, with the exception of the Ad Hoc Committee on University\nOrganization whose creation had been approved at the May meeting of Senate. Since it\nhad been suggested that the establishment of this committee was urgent, a joint meeting of\nthe newly elected Nominating Committee and the previous Nominating Committee was\ncalled to establish the membership of the Ad Hoc committee so that it could begin its\nwork with the minimum of delay.\nDr. Williams drew attention to the proposed membership of the Ad Hoc Committee on\nthe Environment for Teaching and stated that at the time the recommendations were\nmade the Nominating Committee was not aware that the Ad Hoc committee had\ncompleted its task and was recommending that it be discharged.\nReferring to the terms of reference of the Library Committee, Dr. Williams explained that\nclause (c) had previously read \"to make rules for the management and conduct of the\nLibrary\" which had been taken from section 36 (1) of the University Act. and added to the\nCommittee's terms of reference in May 1975 without the two-thirds majority vote\nrequired to delegate Senate's powers to a committee. The Nominating Committee\ntherefore recommended that clause (c) be amended to read \"to advise on the management\nand conduct of the Library.\"\nThe Nominating Committee noted that the Committee on Extracurricular Activities had\nnot met since November 1987 and therefore recommended that the committee be\ndischarged. Dr. Williams explained that the Ad Hoc Committee on University Residences\nhad almost completed its task and that the membership therefore remained unchanged.\nDr. Williams drew attention to the recommendation for Senate representation on St.\nMark's College Board and noted that this had been changed to Dr. R. J. Patrick.\nDr. Williams l That the recommendations of the Nominating\nDr. MacDougall i Committee be approved.\n Vancouver Senate\nMinutes of September 15,1993\n10639\nReports of Committees of Senate\nIn amendment:\nDr. Will\nDean Marchak\nThat the clause (c) of the terms of reference of\nthe Library committee be amended to read:\n\"To recommend to the Senate with respect to\nrules on the management and conduct of the\nLibrary.\"\nThe motion, as amended,\nwas put and carried.\nDr. Williams reminded Senate that section 36 (a) of the University Act states that Senate\nshall elect a Vice Chair at least annually, who shall chair meetings in the absence of the\nPresident; but in no case shall a Vice Chair serve more than two consecutive terms.\nDr. Williams\nDr. MacDougall\nThat Dr. Richard C. Tees serve as Vice Chair\nof Senate for the 1993-94 session.\nCarried.\nSTUDENT AWARDS\nNew awards (see Appendix A)\nIn presenting the report Dr. Cook drew Senate's attention to the bursaries endowed from\nthe estate of John Valentine Clyne, former Chancellor of UBC, and to the memorial\nfellowships endowed by the late Dean Emeritus Blythe Eagles and Violet E. Eagles to\nhonour Leonard S. Klinck who was President of UBC from 1919 to 1944.\n Vancouver Senate 10640\nMinutes of September 15,1993\nReports of Committees of Senate\nDr. Cook l That the awards (listed in Appendix A) be\nDean Richards i accepted and forwarded to the Board of\nGovernors for approval and that letters of\nthanks be sent to the donors.\nCarried.\nAD HOC COMMITTEE ON UNIVERSITY ORGANIZATION\nDr. Shearer, Chair of the Committee, reported that the Committee had met three times to\ndiscuss methods of approaching the difficult task of studying the organization of the\nacademic side of the University and making recommendations. Dr. Shearer informed\nSenate that the Committee would be contacting Deans and Department Heads for their\nadvice on some aspects of the Committee's work.\nAD HOC COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT FOR TEACHING (SEE APPENDIX B)\nDr. Kelsey presented the report in the absence of the Chair of the Committee. In\nintroducing the report, Dr. Kelsey emphasized the importance and urgency of the issues\nconcerning the provision, equipping, maintenance and administering of teaching space.\nDr. Kelsey gave a brief overview of the report explaining that the first section outlines the\nareas which fall within the broad phrase \"environment for teaching\" and deals with who\nteaches, how well they teach, how well they are prepared for in what they are teaching,\nwhere they teach, and for each of those areas of interest the committee decided to focus\non two questions: first, what are some of the important issues that are to be considered in\nthat area and, second, is somebody else dealing with them. The committee was able to list\nwhat it thought were important issues and resolved that for the first four areas discussed\nin the report somebody else was\n Vancouver Senate 10641\nMinutes of September 15,1993\nReports of Committees of Senate\nappropriately dealing with those issues. For instance, last year the Committee of Deans\nestablished a working group to deal with recruiting, rewards and incentives. On the\nevaluation of teaching Senate will, in the course of this Senate, be forming another ad hoc\ncommittee to re-focus there, and on the preparation for teaching the committee noted that\nthe Centre for Faculty Development and Instructional Services is already dealing with\nthese issues.\nOn curriculum issues, it was noted that the Senate Curriculum Committee, in conjunction\nwith departmental curriculum committees, already deals with most, if not all, of the\ndetailed curriculum matters. Dr. Kelsey reminded Senate of the report of the outgoing\ncommittee of the previous Senate which referred to the need perhaps for that committee\nto address some broader curriculum issues than it has done in the past.\nAs far as the physical environment is concerned, it was not immediately clear to the\ncommittee that anyone was dealing with the issues raised. The findings of the committee\nare summarized in section 3. of the report. The committee found that there is a sizeable\nproblem, and that Senate needs to be aware of it. The current state of teaching space at\nUBC reflects years of neglect. The committee found that there is a Master Plan for almost\nevery aspect of campus operation except teaching space. Pages 8 to 11 of the report give\nsome idea of the scale of the problems of upgrading, equipping and even scheduling which\ncurrently exists on campus and a sense of the astronomical cost of fixing those problems.\nHowever, the committee became aware of the establishment of an Advisory Committee\non Teaching Space, a sub-committee of the President's Advisory Committee on Space\nAllocation, and recommendation 2(a) therefore urges this advisory committee to move as\nquickly as possible on the issues which fall into its domain, and recommendation 2(b)\nrequests that Senate be among the recipients of its eventual report.\n Vancouver Senate 10642\nMinutes of September 15,1993\nReports of Committees of Senate\nIn conclusion, Dr. Kelsey stated that the committee asks that the report be forwarded to\nother relevant groups on campus who are presently addressing issues relating to the\nteaching environment, in particular to the Advisory Board of The Centre for Faculty\nDevelopment and Instructional Services.\nThe committee recommended acceptance of the report and the following\nrecommendations:\n1. Senate recognize the critical importance of the issues relating to the physical\nteaching environment at UBC and the urgent need for action relating to these issues.\nSpecifically,\na. the development, with input from the academic community, of a Master Plan\nfor teaching space at UBC,\nb. clarification of the policies on the management of classrooms (the issue of\ncentralized or decentralized responsibility),\nc. resolving the uneven, and sometimes inadequate, provision of basic teaching\nequipment by providing a minimum standard of equipment for all classrooms\nand labs,\nd. developing an ongoing budget for the maintenance and renewal of existing\nteaching space, and\ne. investigating the feasibility of developing some space for creative and\ninnovative teaching opportunities at UBC.\n2.a) Senate invite the Advisory Committee on Teaching Space to pursue the matters\nidentified above in such a way as to develop an immediate resolution.\n2.b) Senate forward a copy of our Report to the Advisory Committee on Teaching\nSpace and that they be invited to table a copy of their report with Senate.\n3. Senate forward the issues raised under item 2.1 (Recruiting, rewards and\nincentives) to the Working Group On Teaching and Learning, Committee of Deans, and\nthat the Vice-President, Academic be asked to provide Senate with a report from this\nWorking Group on or before September, 1994.\n4. Senate forward a copy of our Report to the other relevant Committees on campus\nwho are presently addressing issues relating to the teaching environment, in particular to\nthe Advisory Board of The Centre for Faculty Development and Instructional Services and\nto The Board of Governors.\n5. Senate discharge the Ad Hoc Committee on the Environment for Teaching.\nDr. Kelsey l That the report and the recommendations of\nMr. Banfield i ^e Ad Hoc Committee on the Environment\nfor Teaching be accepted.\n Vancouver Senate 10643\nMinutes of September 15,1993\nReports of Committees of Senate\nDr. Shearer drew attention to item 2.1 on page 2 of the report stating that he was\ndisturbed by the suggestion that the research bias is solely driven by market\nconsiderations and people trying to find jobs elsewhere which he did not think was an\naccurate interpretation.\nDr. Shearer also drew attention to the section of the report dealing with \"ownership\" of\nteaching space. He noted that although the report states that there is a need for\nreaffirmation of the UBC policy with respect to \"ownership\", a policy which in effect says\nthat no department owns anything, the committee had not included this in its\nrecommendations and he expressed concern over this omission.\nDr. Kelsey responded that the committee had seen it as part of the mandate of the\nPresident's Advisory Committee on Space Allocation to deal with the issue of\ncentralization versus decentralization. The Senate committee itself favoured a centralized\nmodel of allocation of classroom space.\nMr. Brady referred to section 2.2 of the report concerning teaching evaluation. He noted\nthat the 1991 Ad Hoc Committee on Teaching Evaluation had recommended the\nestablishment of a new ad hoc committee to review the progress made following the\nrecommendations of the 1991 committee and asked when the proposed committee would\nbe established.\nDr. Kelsey responded that the intent was to implement the remaining recommendations of\nthe 1991 committee prior to the establishment of the proposed committee.\nVice President Birch explained that most of the recommendations were directed to\nparticular groups or individuals for implementation and had been implemented to one\n Vancouver Senate 10644\nMinutes of September 15,1993\nReports of Committees of Senate\nextent or another. For example, in the case of a recommendation of the Ad Hoc\nCommittee on Teaching Evaluation concerning what action is taken in the event that a\ncourse and/or instructor are assessed as less than satisfactory, Dr. Birch stated that, as\nrequired, he had provided Senate with an oral report based on information supplied by\nthe Deans and that he would continue to report on this matter over the next two years.\nIn response to a query concerning questions 1. to 5. under section 2.3 Preparation for\nTeaching, Vice President Birch stated that, as he understood it, the primary concern of the\ncommittee was to ascertain whether or not there was a bodyon campus which was\naddressing those questions systematically. The committee ascertained that the Centre for\nFaculty Development and Instructional Services was the appropriate bodyto deal with the\nissues raised on an ongoing basis and therefore elected to concentrate on other matters\nwhich were not being addressed but which ought to be addressed by Senate.\nMr. Woo noted that the groups named in recommendations 2(b), and 3 were invited to\nreport to Senate and suggested that recommendation 4 be amended to invite the Advisory\nBoard of The Centre for Faculty Development and Instructional Services to provide\nSenate with a copy of its annual report. Dr. Kelsey accepted this suggestion as a friendly\namendment.\nFather Hanrahan referred to section 2.4 Curriculum and stated that he was disappointed\nthat the report did not include any provision for the Senate Curriculum Committee to not\nonly evaluate the curriculum in a more general fashion but to maintain an overview of the\nwhole movement and pattern of curriculum.\nAfter further discussion the motion, with\nthe amendment to recommendation 4, was\nput and carried.\n Vancouver Senate 10645\nMinutes of September 15,1993\nFaculty of Graduate Studies\nDr. Shearer l That Senate ask the President's Advisory\nDean Smith i Committee on Space Allocation to review\ncarefully the policy with respect to the\nownership of teaching space.\nCarried.\nFaculty of Graduate Studies\nGUIDELINES FOR THE DISTANCE DELIVERY OF GRADUATE PROGRAMS\nThe following guidelines for the distance delivery of graduate programs have been\ncirculated:\nAt their January 1993 meeting, the Western Canadian Deans of Graduate Studies recognized\nthe growing demand for distance delivery graduate programs offered in a combination of\nmodes, including on-site, on-campus and technologically mediated instruction. They offer\ntheir support for innovative programs that demonstrate high quality, provide students with\ngenuine professional development and lead to opportunities for further study.\nThe Deans caution, however, that unless such programs are properly organized and delivered,\nthey could seriously compromise the integrity and reputation enjoyed by existing on-campus\ngraduate degree programs in Western Canada. To minimize this risk, the Deans endorse the\ngeneral principle that distance graduate programs must meet the same standards of quality\nthat are expected of equivalent programs offered on campus.\nIn order to achieve this equivalency, the Deans endorse the following guidelines related to\nprogram, admission, instruction and supervision, and instructional resources:\nA. Program\n1. The university must take the same commitment to students regarding the\navailability and method of delivery of a complete program as it makes to students\nenrolled in on- campus programs.\n2. The program must include an on-campus component to be defined by the\nuniversity.\n3. Course content and contact hours must be equivalent to comparable courses\noffered on campus.\n4. Course must not be offered in so compacted a time frame as to preclude\nopportunities for independent study, reflection and investigation within each\ncourse.\n5. Wherever possible, the same choices of elective courses that are available in\nequivalent on-campus programs must be offered to students.\n Vancouver Senate 10646\nMinutes of September 15,1993\nFaculty of Science\n6. Time limits for program completion must be the same as the limits for equivalent\non-campus programs.\nB. Admission Requirements\n1. Admission criteria required of all candidates must be no less than those required\nfor equivalent on-campus programs.\n2. Unclassified or occasional students who are allowed to register in individual\ncourses of the program must meet the same registration criteria as required for\ncourses in equivalent on-campus programs.\nC. Instruction and Supervision\n1. There must be immediate, on-going interaction both between individual students\nand the instructor and among students in the delivery of each course.\n2. Each student must be assigned to a program supervisor/advisor who is a member\nof the academic staff of the university. The quality of supervision or advising must\nbe no less than that available to students in equivalent programs on campus.\n3. Qualifications and selection procedures for instructors and supervisors/advisors\nmust be no less stringent than those required for equivalent on-campus programs.\nD. Instructional Resources\n1. Instructional resources (for example, library, computer, media and laboratory\nresources) necessary for graduate- level study must be available to all students.\nDean Grace l That the Guidelines for the Distance Delivery\nMr. Goehring i \u00C2\u00B0f Graduate Programs be approved.\nCarried.\nFaculty of Science\nPROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH THE WEST-EAST CENTRE FOR MICROBIAL DIVERSITY\nThe following proposal to establish the West-East Centre for Microbial Diversity had\nbeen circulated:\nIt is recommended that The University of British Columbia establish a West-East\nCentre for Microbial Diversity. This centre will be a research institute, founded in\ncollaboration with the National University of Singapore.\n Vancouver Senate 10647\nMinutes of September 15,1993\nFaculty of Science\nThe proposal developed from discussions between the Head of Microbiology at UBC,\nDr. Julian Davies, and the Director of the Institute for Molecular and Cellular Biology\nof the National University of Singapore, Dr. Y. H. (Chris) Tan. The concept of a\ncentre was catalyzed by an offer from Dr. Tan of 3.5 million Singapore dollars (about\nCDN $2.8 m), to support research at UBC.\nThe centre will act as a strong stimulus to research into microbial diversity and\nenhance the graduate program and research activity of the Department of\nMicrobiology and Immunology, as well as related departments such as Zoology and\nBotany.\nThe University of British Columbia's Department of Microbiology and the National\nUniversity of Singapore's Institute for Molecular and Cellular Biology have entered\ninto a joint venture to pursue research in the area of microbial diversity.\nMicroorganisms play a critical role in the biology of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems\nand yet it is estimated that at present we can identify less than 5% of the total number\nof species. The work to be undertaken in the centre will focus on the identification of\nnew organisms and their unique metabolic and physiological characteristics. In\naddition, the organisms will be evaluated to determine if they have properties of\ninterest to the pharmaceutical and bioremediation industries.\nThe West-East Centre will bring together the IMCB's excellence in molecular biology\nwith UBC's outstanding groups in biotechnology and microbiology. Together they will\nwork on problems central to developing a better understanding of biodiversity. The\nresearch is timely, germane and has the potential to identify organisms which can be\nexploited by all sectors of the biotechnology industry.\nMission \u00E2\u0080\u0094 IMCB Singapore and UBC will collaborate to establish a first-class\ninternational research centre for studies of microbial diversity. In addition to research\nin the areas described below, WEC will provide training in the general area of\nmicrobial ecology and will establish collaborations with academic and industrial\nscience to seek productive applications of research at the centre.\nThe strategy of research at WEC will encompass the following specific goals:\n1. Develop and apply novel methodologies for the isolation, characterization and\nculturing of microbes from diverse environments - soil, lakes, rivers, sea, etc.\n2. Study the physiology and biochemistry of microbial cultures (with particular\nreference to newly identified strains). Characterization of new genotypic and\nphenotypic markers; identification of novel metabolites of primary and\nsecondary origin.\n3. Identification of new pathways for the degradation or modification of toxic\nchemicals and metals (bioremediation and bioconversion).\n Vancouver Senate 10648\nMinutes of September 15,1993\nChairs\n4. Studies of gene exchange and transfer in the environment: the role of plasmids,\nbacteriophages, transposons and other elements.\n5. Establish a collection of characterized microbial strains as a reference resource\nand for industrial applications.\n6. Analyses of evolutionary relationships between identified microbes (horizontal\nvs. vertical gene transfer, etc.)\n7. Developing new screening and monitoring systems for microbes and their\nmetabolic products. Using new biochemical approaches for the screening for\nbiological activities of secondary metabolic products. Development of rapid\nand automatic screening procedures for therapeutically-active metabolites.\nOrganization \u00E2\u0080\u0094 The Microbiology Department of UBC and IMCB will play key roles\nin project selection and guidance at WEC. Several UBC faculty members will be\ninvited to participate as associate members and will play direct roles in the research of\ndoctoral-level researchers at WEC. WEC will work closely with the proposed Centre\nfor Biodiversity (CB) at UBC.\nDean McBride l That the proposal to establish the West-East\nDean McNeill i Centre for Microbial Diversity be approved.\nCarried.\nChairs\nPROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH THE ASA JOHAL CHAIR IN PAEDIATRIC ONCOLOGY\nDr. Slonecker l That the proposal to establish the Asa Johal\nDr. MacGillivray i Chair in Paediatric Oncology be approved.\nIn response to a query concerning Library resources, Vice President Birch stated that the\ninterest from the funding would not cover the full cost of the chair let alone library\nresources. However, since this was not a new area of research he did not think that this\nwould be a problem.\nThe motion was put\nand carried.\n Vancouver Senate 10649\nMinutes of September 15,1993\nVreliminary Enrolment figures\nPROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH THE NORMAN KEEVIL CHAIR IN MINERAL EXPLORATION\nDean McBride l That the proposal to establish the Norman\nDr. Williams i Keevil Chair in Mineral Exploration be\napproved.\nCarried.\nPROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH THE MAN IN MOTION FOUNDATION CHAIR IN SPINAL\nCORD RESEARCH\nDean McBride l That the proposal to establish the Man in\nDr. Slonecker i Motion Foundation Chair in Spinal Cord\nResearch be approved.\nCarried.\nPROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH A CHAIR IN BIOMEDICAL ETHICS\nDean Grace l That the proposal to establish a Chair in\nDr. MacDougall i Biomedical Ethics be approved.\nDean Grace drew attention to the heading \"Funding\" in the material circulated, and\nstated that this should read: \"The Chair will be funded by donations from hospitals,\nprofessional organizations, private sources and matching grants from the Province of\nBritish Columbia.\"\nThe motion was put\nand carried.\nPreliminary Enrolment figures\nPreliminary enrolment figures for 1993-94 were circulated at the meeting. The Registrar\nexplained that the report contained information that had not been given in previous years\nin that it shows how many students are new to the university, how many have transferred\nfrom another program in the university, the total new to the program, and the total\nregistration.\n Vancouver Senate 10650\nMinutes of September 15,1993\nOther business\nOther business\nPROBABILITY AND STATISTICS COURSES\nDr. Will reminded Senate that several years ago an ad hoc committee was established to\nlook into the proliferation of probability and statistics courses throughout the university.\nOne product of the ad hoc committee was the establishment of a table which appears on\npage 283 of the current Calendar. Dr. Will stated that the table was out of date and many\nfaculty advisors are not implementing the Senate regulations concerning these courses. He\nsuggested that the Senate Curriculum Committee look into this matter.\nPARKING\nMr. Janmohamed, student senator, raised the issue of parking, and asked if spaces could\nbe registered for students who travel long distances as is already done for car poolers. Mr.\nJanmohamed also asked if B.C. Transit had been approached concerning the possibility of\nproviding university student bus passes and also a better express bus service.\nPresident Strangway responded that a van pooling arrangement was under way and also\nconfirmed that there had been extensive discussions with B.C. Transit on the issues raised.\nOn the question of university bus passes, President Strangway said that he would ask Vice\nPresident Gellatly to look into the matter.\nMs. Greentree stated that the lack of parking spaces often resulted in students missing\nclasses while they waited for parking spaces to be vacated, and asked if anything\ntemporary could be done to alleviate the problem.\nPresident Strangway responded that unfortunately until the new construction was\ncompleted there would be a lack of parking spaces on campus. He hoped that by next\nyear the addition of 985 spaces at the north end of campus would greatly improve the\nsituation.\n Vancouver Senate 10651\nMinutes of September 15,1993\t\nAdjournment\nAdjournment\nThe meeting adjourned at 9.30 p.m.\nNext meeting\nThe next regular meeting of Senate will be held on Wednesday, October 20, 1993.\n Vancouver Senate 10652\nMinutes of September 15,1993\nAppendix A\nAppendix A\nAWARDS RECOMMENDED TO SENATE\nHarold B. and Nellie BOYES Memorial Bursary-Bursaries totalling $10,000 have been\nendowed by Winnifred E. Boyes to honour her parents Harold B. and Nellie Boyes.\n(Available 1993/94 Winter Session.)\nGladys Estella LAIRD Research Fellowships-Fellowships of $6000 each have been\nendowed through a bequest from Gladys Estella Laird and are offered to students in\nChemistry who simultaneously hold an NSERC, a UGF or a Killam Scholarship.\n$2000 annually is provided to recipients during the second, third and fourth years of\ngraduate study. Receipt of the full value of these awards is contingent on maintenance\nof eligibility. The fellowships are made on the recommendation of the Department in\nconsultation with the Faculty of Graduate Studies. (Available 1993/94 Winter\nSession.)\nFred W. and Gladys E. LAIRD Scholarship-A $1,000 scholarship has been endowed\nfrom the estate of Gladys Estella Laird in memory of Fred W. Laird to a student who\nis a resident of Nanaimo, British Columbia. (Available 1993/94 Winter Session.)\nJohn Valentine CLYNE Bursary-Bursaries totalling $3,000 have been endowed from\nthe estate of John V. Clyne and are available to students in any year and Faculty.\n(Available 1993/94 Winter Session.)\nLeonard S. KLINCK Memorial Fellowship-Fellowships totalling $8,000 have been\nendowed by the late Dean Emeritus Blythe Eagles and Violet E. Eagles on the occasion\nof the 75th Anniversary of the University. The award is to honour Leonard S. Klinck,\nthe first Dean of the Faculty of Agricultural Sciences (1914-1919) and second\nPresident of the University (1919-1944). The award is offered to graduate students in\nAgricultural Sciences and is made on the recommendation of the Faculty in\nconsultation with the Faculty of Graduate Studies. (Available 1993/94 Winter\nSession.)\nROGERS Communications Inc., Scholarship-Scholarships totalling $2,100 have been\nendowed by Rogers Communication and the Province of British Columbia for\nstudents entering the Electrical Engineering program in the Faculty of Applied Science.\nThe awards are made on the recommendation of the Faculty. (Available 1993/94\nWinter Session.)\nEarle BIRNEY Scholarship in Creative Writing-A $2,000 scholarship has been\nendowed by friends, colleagues and the Province of British Columbia to honour Earle\nBirney and to recognize his contribution to Canadian Literature. The award is offered\nto a student in the Department of Creative Writing and is made on the\nrecommendation of the Department. In the case of graduate students, the award is\nmade in consultation with the Faculty of Graduate Studies. (Available 1993/94 Winter\nSession.)\nRIO Algom Scholarship-A scholarship of $2,400 has been endowed by Rio Algom\nExploration Inc. and the Province of British Columbia. The scholarship will alternate\n Vancouver Senate 10653\nMinutes of September 15,1993\nAppendix A\nbetween the Faculty of Applied Science and the Faculty of Science beginning in 199A-\n95 with the Faculty of Applied Science. The award is offered to a student in second\nyear with a program concentration in Mining and Mineral Process Engineering and\nalternately, to a second year student with a program concentration in Geological\nSciences. The award is made on the recommendation of the appropriate Faculty.\n(Available 1994/95 Winter Session.)\nLily SCHAJER Memorial Bursary-A $330 bursary, endowed in the memory of Lily\nSchajer, is offered to an undergraduate student in Mechanical Engineering. (Available\n1993/94 Winter Session.)\nWESTCOAST Energy Inc. - Jack Davis Scholarship in Energy Science-A $2,400\nscholarship has been endowed by Westcoast Energy Inc. in memory of the Honourable\nJack Davis. The award is available to graduate students in the area of energy sciences.\nThe award is made on the recommendation of the Faculty of Graduate Studies.\n(Available 1993/94 Winter Session.)\nThe following is an existing award for which changes were required at the request of\nthe donor and the Faculty.\nExisting Award #2868 ( Previously a scholarship) - STIKEMAN Elliott and Carswell\nPrize in Tax Law-A $1,000 prize is offered by Stikeman Elliott, a Canadian law firm,\nand Carswell, a Canadian publisher, as a part of their National Award Program. The\naward is made to an outstanding student in tax law on the recommendation of the\nFaculty of Law and if appropriate, may be shared by two students. (Available 1992/93\nWinter Session.)\n Vancouver Senate 10654\nMinutes of September 15,1993\nAppendix B\nAppendix B\nFINAL REPORT OF THE AD HOC COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT FOR TEACHING\n1. INTRODUCTION AND TERMS OF REFERENCE\nThe Ad Hoc Committee on The Environment for Teaching was established by a motion approved by\nSenate on October 21, 1992. The preamble, and terms of reference were as follows:\nWhereas The University of British Columbia is committed to ensuring high quality teaching,\nAnd whereas the University has recently taken important steps in the matter of the evaluation and\nimprovement of teaching, Be it resolved that the Senate establish an ad hoc committee to investigate the\nenvironment for teaching at this University.\nIn particular, the terms of reference of the committee shall be:\n1. To define the important elements in the environment for teaching (e.g., physical, financial,\ncontractual, etc.);\n2. To investigate the positive and negative effects which these elements have on both\nundergraduate and graduate teaching at the University, in consultation with the Vacuities, the\nfaculty Association, the Alumni Association, and the Alma Mater Society; and\n3. To report back to the Senate, making recommendations if necessary concerning the\nenvironment for teaching.\n2. A MENU OF ISSUES\nThe first thing that struck the Committee was the potentially vast scope for investigation. The\nCommittee sought to distinguish between the teaching environment, the learning (both for faculty and\nstudents) environment and the intellectual environment. Ultimately the Committee decided that these\ndistinctions were not useful, since teaching, learning and intellectual activity must all come together if\nstudents at UBC are to have the experiences promised by the University. The Committee preferred to\nmake distinctions between operationally distinct aspects of the environment in which all these activities\ntake place.\nIn their early meetings the Committee members focused their attention on attempting to identify a series\nof critical questions which they felt fell within a broad interpretation of their mandate and which\nappeared to command first attention. During the process these questions were gradually organized\nunder five broad themes which appeared to form the teaching environment. These five themes include:\n1. Recruiting, rewards and incentives\n2. Teaching assessment and evaluations\n3. Preparation for teaching\n4. Curriculum\n5. Physical environment\nThe following questions and issues were identified under each broad theme.\n2.1 Recruiting, Rewards and Incentives\nThe pursuit of excellence in teaching begins with recruiting either proven or potentially high quality\nteachers who are then given the incentives to strive for excellence and the know-how and the support to\nmake it possible. While it is not specifically stated, excellence in teaching and scholarly activity appear\nto\n Vancouver Senate 10655\nMinutes of September 15,1993\nAppendix B\nbe considered as equally desirable attributes of faculty members. On the other hand, the Committee\nbelieves that there is a market bias which provides greater mobility through excellence in scholarly\nactivity (research) than through excellence in teaching.\nThe Committee recognized that the reward and incentive structure for teaching and research was a\ndelicate matter generally addressed by the Board of Governors on behalf of the University and the\nFaculty Association in a bargaining framework. At the same time the Committee recognizes that UBC\nhas a declared mission of excellence in both teaching and scholarly activity and appears to have taken\nthe position that these are to be recognized as equal partners in the promotion/tenure process. In\nkeeping with this position of equality between scholarly activity and teaching, but mindful of the likely\nmarket bias in favor of research, the Committee identified four central questions as follows:\n1. Do current hiring, promotion and tenure practices provide effective (equal) incentives for high\nquality (excellent) teaching? If not, how might the practices be changed?\n2. Is the present system of rewards (merit, travel grants, scheduling of teaching assignments,\nsummer support, etc.) for faculty members consistent with our apparent goal of equal emphasis\nfor scholarly activity and teaching? If not, how might these be changed?\n3. Does the present system adequately encourage innovative teaching - at the Faculty or\nDepartment level? At the individual level? If not, what might be done to encourage more\ninnovation in teaching? (If an excellent researcher is given more time off from teaching or\nservice responsibilities to focus on scholarly activity, is the innovative teacher provided with\nsimilar opportunities?)\n4. What changes might be made administratively to improve further the commitment to excellence\nin teaching at UBC. e.g., incentives for superior teaching, opportunities and rewards for\ninnovative approaches to teaching, encouragement of attendance at Faculty Development\nProgram events.\nThe Committee of Deans have formed a working group on \"Teaching and Learning\" and part of their\nmandate is to create an environment where teaching is rewarded, especially creative and innovative\nteaching. This working group has yet to file a report. Our Committee concluded that the issues raised\nunder this theme should be forwarded to the Board and the working group.\nThe selection of teaching assistants (T.A.s) is a matter which requires some special attention. While\nfaculty, including instructors, are expected at least to show potential for teaching excellence, the criteria\nfor the selection of T.A.s is somewhat different. The role of T.A.s includes both a teaching activity and\na learning experience and in some cases the candidate does not clearly show promise of teaching ability.\nWhether or not the T.A.'s own learning is progressing satisfactorily is not a matter of concern for the\nstudents in his or her class. From the point of view of those students, the quality of teaching is the\nimportant issue. Two features of T.A.s make them unique as teachers: they are all graduate students,\nand they are the only teachers on campus represented by a union. It would seem sensible therefore to\nsuggest that both the Faculty of Graduate Studies and C.U.P.E. local 2278 be asked to have some input\nto the working group of the Committee of Deans.\n2.2 Teaching Evaluation\nThe proper selection of faculty and the correct reward structures are pre-requisites to excellence in\nteaching. The next step is to monitor and evaluate the teaching to ensure the desired standards are\nachieved.\n1. Are the processes for monitoring teaching (including T.A.s) adequate to detect problems and\nsuggest remedies in a timely way?\n2. If so, are these monitoring processes in fact being followed?\n Vancouver Senate 10656\nMinutes of September 15,1993\nAppendix B\nIn 1991, Senate received the final report from their Ad Hoc Committee on Teaching Evaluation (The\nEvaluation of Teaching at UBC in 1991). The Ad Hoc Committee on Teaching Evaluation identified a\nnumber of concerns and made some 14 recommendations. The Ad Hoc Committee concluded that \"It is\nnow clear, however that the root problem is not inadequate evaluation of teaching, but inadequate\naction on what the evaluations reveal.\" (page 12). The Committee recommended \"That all units give\nserious consideration to establishing committees whose function is to monitor the processes whereby\nteaching is evaluated and whose membership includes student representation.\" As a result a number of\nfaculties and departments have formed committees to deal with teaching evaluations. The Committee\nalso recommended that during the term of the Senate of 1993-96, there be established a new ad hoc\ncommittee to review the progress made following the recommendations of the Senate Ad Hoc\nCommittee on Teaching Evaluation (1990). Accordingly our Committee has concluded that teaching\nevaluation was receiving the attention it required.\n2.3 Preparation for Teaching\nAdequate monitoring and evaluations will only detect strengths and weaknesses. By themselves they will\nnot remedy any detected problems. In some cases the identification of teaching problems (publicity of\nbeing known as a weak or poor teacher) may prompt some faculty members to improve their teaching.\nHowever in many cases the faculty member already wants to be a better teacher but does not know\nhow to make the necessary improvements. Indeed the types of improvements necessary may not even be\nevident from the evaluations. What help does the university provide or could the university provide to\nimprove the quality of teaching, including that of T.A.s?\n1. Are there adequate resources to address teaching problems once they are detected?\n2. How can the University help alleviate the communications problem of teachers whose native\nlanguage is not English?\n3. What can be done to help improve the way teachers articulate their knowledge to students?\n4. Are there better programs and/or methods to train teachers (and if so, what are they)?\n5. Do teachers need to be better trained to use the facilities and resources they have at their\ndisposal?\nThe Faculty Council of the Faculty of Graduate Studies recently received a comprehensive report on\nissues of language proficiency and the ESL graduate student. The report included some important\nsuggestions for providing help in acquiring language competency and we expect these may be followed\nup, with benefit not only to ESL student learners, but also to some T.A.s.\nThe Committee noted that the Centre for Faculty Development and Instructional Services already deals\nwith, or is capable of dealing with, these sorts of issues. In fact there are a number of programs in place\nwhich deal with the issues raised. Accordingly the Committee elected not to pursue these issues but\nsuggests that Senate refer these questions to the Centre's Advisory Board.\n2.4 Curriculum\nExcellent teaching with inadequate program or course content will not achieve the goals of our\nuniversity. Therefore it is necessary to ensure the courses and programs are current and consistent with\nthe mission of the university.\n1. Are the current courses/programs consistent with the stated mission of UBC? If not, why? What\ncan be done?\n2. Are there systems in place at UBC to avoid (or minimize) unnecessary duplication of course\nofferings and promote joint ventures where they seem appropriate?\n3. Are there systems in place to ensure our programs and courses are consistent with our stated\nmission?\n Vancouver Senate 10657\nMinutes of September 15,1993\nAppendix B\nIn Second To None, the University's Strategic Plan document, one of the actions noted on page 12 is\nthat \"All academic units will review their substantive curriculum and mode of teaching to ensure that\nteaching objectives are being met\". Additionally the University provides that \"The regular process of\ndepartmental reviews each five years ensures that the commitment to excellence in teaching is\nmaintained and that course content reflects the current level of world knowledge.\" These reviews are\nundertaken by external reviewers and these reviews should provide the necessary evaluations of\nprograms. However these reviews are not always well publicized. Moreover the Senate Curriculum\nCommittee, in conjunction with departmental curriculum committees, already deals with most, if not\nall, of the detailed curriculum matters. Our Committee therefore concluded that curriculum matters are\nalready receiving the necessary attention.\n2.5 Physical Environment\nThe final broad theme relates to the physical environment: does UBC have the physical environment for\nteaching which is most likely to help facilitate the achievement of excellence in teaching? This broad\nquestion prompted the Committee to consider a number of specific issues.\n1. Are there some reasonably accepted criteria or benchmarks for classroom size and style\n(perhaps by year and type of program), and for lab space and equipment per student?\n2. What steps have been taken, or could be taken, to improve data on teaching space needs and\nutilization so that different accounts of teaching space use do not conflict?\n3. Is there presently a mismatch between our existing space and that which meets the \"acceptable\ncriteria\" to serve our present needs?\n4. Given current (and likely near term) financial conditions, what improvements can be made to\nimprove the physical teaching environment at UBC? e.g., more, better, different space for\nindividuals and groups on campus, better equipment, etc. Where can we get the \"biggest bang\"\nfor the limited dollar?\n5. Is the present system of allocating teaching space effective? If not, what can be done?\n6. Is our present maintenance program (cleanliness, soundness of furnishings, etc.) adequate? If\nnot, what can be done to improve it?\n7. Is our present classroom/lab/study space upgrade and renovation program adequate? If not,\nwhat can be done to improve it?\nUnlike the questions raised in the previous four areas, these questions did not appear to be ones which\nfell into the purview of established structures or committees on campus. Our Committee concluded we\ncould make the most useful contribution by focusing on these issues. To this end, we sought to identify\nwhat other work had been recently done at UBC in the area of the physical environment for teaching.\n3. THE PHYSICAL TEACHING ENVIRONMENT\nWe recognized that UBC had a strong commitment to teaching and scholarly activities and realized that\nmuch work had been done by other committees, albeit seemingly uncoordinated. The need to identify\nother committees on campus which were investigating, or had recently investigated, some aspects of\nteaching environment consumed much of our earlier time and efforts. It appears that UBC has a\nsignificant concern for the quality of teaching as we were able to identify two other committees which\nhad recently focused on particular aspects of the physical teaching environment. These included:\n1. The Classroom Committee (John Chase, Chair)\n2. The Space Utilization Committee (Richard Spencer, Chair)\n Vancouver Senate 10658\nMinutes of September 15,1993\nAppendix B\nIn addition our Committee became aware of several other committees recently formed or recommended\nto be established. However these other committees were not far enough into their work to provide any\nsignificant inputs.\nOur Committee reviewed the reports from the other two committees noted above. We invited\nrepresentatives from these two committees to meet with us to share their findings and conclusions. To\nthis end we met with three representatives:\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 John Chase (Director, Budget & Planning)\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Alvia Branch (Manager, Scheduling & Administration, Registrar's Office)\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 Kathleen Beaumont (Manager, Space Administration & Planning, Campus Planning &\nDevelopment)\nIn addition to concerns raised through their own committee work, the three representatives were invited\nto address the questions formulated by our committee and to discuss issues arising from those\nquestions. In the process of these discussions, several of our questions were refined and amended. The\nfollowing summarize these discussions but no attempt is made to attribute comments to particular\npeople.\n1. Are there some reasonably accepted criteria or benchmarks for classroom size and style\n(perhaps by year and type of program), and for lab space and equipment per student\"!\nIt was suggested that this broad question is best addressed as two separate questions which distinguish\nbetween \"design standards\" and \"utilization standards\". Question 1.1 deals with the former, while\nquestion 1.2 deals with the latter.\n1.1 Are you aware of any \"generally accepted\" standards of classroom and lab size or style\n(shape) ?\n1.2 Are you aware of any \"generally accepted\" standards indicating optimal proportions of\ntime for structured (e.g., lecture) and unstructured use of classroom and lab space?\nOn the first question we were advised that design standards do exist, but they are not \"generally\naccepted\" standards. Rather they are institution-specific standards. Some are better known than others-\ne.g., those from UCLA, MIT, Rensalaer Polytechnic have been written up in the literature. Apparently\nthere has not been a lot of discussion of such standards in Canada.\nOn the second question the answer is \"yes\", at least for structured teaching use. The typical norms are\n60% structured use for classrooms and 40% structured use for labs. These are the Council of Ontario\nUniversities (COU) standards.\n2. What steps have been taken, or could be taken, to improve data on teaching space needs\nand utilization so that different accounts of teaching space use do not conflict?\nIs there a recognized way in which institutions assemble and manage data about classroom space? The\nanswer is yes. The Campus Planning and Development unit at UBC now has a reasonably\ncomprehensive space inventory (data base) for the University.* It has been developed using the COU\nsystem of space classification and it is amenable to the use of a space standards formula which allows us\nto say whether we have \"enough space\". The formula uses a basic model for analyzing space which is\nvirtually the same throughout Canada and the U.S. and it is informally recognized by the B.C. Ministry\nof Advanced Education, Training and Technology, in assessing needs province-wide.\n3.1 Is there presently a mismatch between our existing space and that which meets the\n\"acceptable criteria\" to serve our present needs?\n* Instructional Space Utilization Report, Winter Session 1991/92, October 19, 1992, Campus Planning &\nDevelopment.\n Vancouver Senate 10659\nMinutes of September 15,1993\nAppendix B\nAccording to the utilization formula, the universities in B.C. collectively do not have enough space, but\nthe shortfall is worse at the University of Victoria and SFU than at UBC. In fact, if UBC builds\neverything it wants to build over the period 1991-96, UBC will have a 4% excess according to the\nformula. (Apparently it is for this reason that the Ministry has not been receptive to requests from UBC\nfor more space). However according to our internal analysis, UBC does have a deficiency-a deficiency in\nthe quality of space, rather than its quantity. If, in addition to planned new building, UBC was also able\nto demolish currently identifiably sub-standard space, UBC would, in fact, have a shortfall of structured\nteaching space of 16% in twenty years. Consequently, the case which UBC needs to make is the case for\nspace renewal. UBC has made some progress in the past two years in providing data to justify requests\nfor renewal and the Ministry has begun to listen. As a consequence, there may be some possibility of\ngetting new capital funding in this vital area.\n3.2 To what extent do you see a mismatch at UBC between an \"optimal\" configuration of\nteaching space and our current space configuration?\nWhether UBC has or has not a shortfall in the quantity of space is separate from the matter of space\nconfiguration. There is no unsatisfied demand for structured teaching space (i.e., no instructor has ever\nbeen unable to have classroom space somewhere on campus at some reasonable time). However there is\na potential for conditioning in that departments and faculties which know certain sizes (or types) of\nclassrooms are in short supply will plan for different section sizes to optimize classroom availability.\nThis raises a concern that physical space limitations, rather than pedagogical considerations, may drive\nthe class size. The current budget restrictions may also affect the matching of desired classrooms with\navailable space. For example, will multi-sectioned courses have fewer (and therefore larger) sections in\nresponse to budget cutbacks?\nWhile there may not be an overall unsatisfied demand for space, there is frequently a mismatch between\nroom capacity and the sizes of classes (we often find smallish classes in rooms bigger than they need),\nbetween the desired and the available times, between the desired and available configurations (e.g.,\nseminar, lecture, caserooms, etc.), and between the desired and available locations. And sometimes it is\nnot easy to find rooms for the particularly big classes, certainly not at preferred times.\nFor some purposes it is also useful to distinguish between a \"global\" view of configuration and a\n\"local\" one. Globally (i.e., looking at the entire campus) UBC is facing a problem because the campus\nplan now extends as far as Thunderbird Drive and that means we could potentially exceed the\nmaximum standard (ten-minute) walking time between classes. It is clear that UBC needs a better\ngeographic distribution of classrooms across campus. UBC also needs a better distribution of class and\nroom sizes across campus. Locally (i.e., considering the configuration of individual rooms), one finds\nthat people request specific rooms (because of the configuration, the equipment they contain or the\ncondition of the room). This can create allocation problems, but the situation could, in many cases, be\nimproved by making low cost local modifications (e.g., by adding equipment) to existing classrooms.\nWhat is ultimately used as an optimal configuration for UBC has to take account of the great variety of\nneeds across the diverse campus and that will raise a lot of other issues. For example, space is\nparticularly tight at certain times (both certain days and certain hours). One solution might be to extend\nthe hours at which classes are scheduled-there is a Deans' committee currently considering this matter.\nWhile extending hours for classroom use may initially appear to be an obvious and simple solution,\nsuch extension may well prompt extensions in office hours for support staff, more open hours for\nfacilities such as the cafeterias and increased security costs. There is also consideration of whether UBC\nmight move to a trimester system, thereby extending the time frame for using classrooms. This would\nclearly have a major impact on all parts of our academic life, including both teaching and the pursuit of\nscholarly activities.\nDuring our investigations, we became aware of the priorities for booking teaching space. It is obvious\nthat the structured degree teaching requirements receive first priority. This frequently creates difficulties\nfor the unstructured learning space requirements and for the structured non-credit teaching\nrequirements. If UBC is to make a major commitment to non-credit activities, a greater priority must be\ngiven to their (frequently \"off-schedule\") space requirements.\n Vancouver Senate 10660\nMinutes of September 15,1993\nAppendix B\nIt also appears to be the case that our present classroom configurations do not have a lot of flexibility.\nWe need to recognize that what we build now is going to be in use for at least fifty years and we need to\nmaximize flexibility.\n4.1 Given current financial conditions, what physical improvements can be made to improve\nthe physical teaching environment at UBC? e.g., more, better, different space for\nindividuals and groups on campus, better equipment, etc. Where can we get the \" biggest\nbang\" for the limited dollar?\nIt appears that we need to do a lot of everything. If UBC had unlimited resources, for example, it should\n(according to the experts) tear down the existing classroom space in the Buchanan Building and rebuild\nit.\nUpgrading is very important. And it's important to recognize that the Ministry appears to prefer to fund\nclassroom space rather than research space. Upgrading classroom expenditure is classed as part of the\nMinor Capital budget and we were advised that $750,000 has been set aside from the budget for 1993-\n94 for some upgrading.\nEquipment costs are included in the Academic Equipment budget and $250,000 has been set aside for\n1993-94 for academic equipment for classrooms. That is not a lot of money when seen in the larger\ncontext.\nWe believe that a minimum equipment requirement should be an overhead projector in every classroom\nand we don't even have that everywhere. Equipment to allow us to make use of new technologies can\nbe very expensive. We also need to think about such equipment in new classroom space. UCLA sees this\nas a million-dollar-a-year problem for ten years and has undertaken a major needs survey to find out\nhow much high tech equipment is needed and where. At Windsor, which has only a hundred\nclassrooms, six have been targeted for high tech equipment. There are a number of issues to be\nconsidered here-for instance, what's the impact of the high tech classroom? Does it give better results?\nDoes it raise expectations in such a way that people spurn traditional low tech approaches, even though\nthey may still be effective? What are the estimated costs of a reasonable and consistent upgrading\nprogram?\n4.2 Is there an area in the whole complex of issues collectively labeled \"teaching space issues\"\nwhere you think big gains can be made for small outlay (of either dollars or human\nenergy) ?\nOne simple suggestion was to ensure that basic equipment, such as an overhead projector, is available\n(and in good operating condition) in every room.\nSimilarly fixing broken furniture would appear to have a high payback for a limited expenditure.\n(When the Registrar's office staff learns of broken furniture they advise Plant Operations and decrease\nthe size capacity of the room to reflect the lost furniture. Repairs are not quickly done and people then\nmove other furniture in, thereby changing the capacity of some other room and compounding the\nproblem.)\nIt was also suggested that handicapped access urgently needs improving in some buildings, but we have\nno cost estimates for this upgrading.\n5. Is the present system of allocating teaching space effective? If not, what can be done?\nThe answer is no. The respective merits of distributed (or decentralized) and centralized classroom space\nplanning and control have be discussed but no decision has been made. One possibility would be to\nhave separate buildings that house classrooms and nothing else. The other view-the decentralized\napproach-is what we have always done at UBC. This decentralized approach is characterized by the\nexistence of too many design committees, with little or no centralized planning. As a consequence, we\nhave conflicts. Their seriousness varies depending on the participants and on what the dispute is about.\n Vancouver Senate 10661\nMinutes of September 15,1993\nAppendix B\nThe SIS system is the tool whereby classroom allocation is managed at UBC. If space is listed on that\nsystem, then the Registrar's office gives first choice of space to the Department or Faculty in which the\nspace is located and subsequently makes it available campus-wide. It is possible to restrict the use of a\nparticular space to a given Department. But if space is not put on the Registrar's system, it is lost to\ngeneral campus use. Such loss has a significance which goes beyond that of providing access to teaching\nspace: it means that the Space Planning and Administration people have no data about such space and\ntherefore are impeded in demonstrating needs for space to the Ministry-which funds classroom\nacquisition for degree courses (although not for non-credit offerings).\nSometimes the claim of ownership is not based on territory so much as on the fact that a particular time\ntable may be used. Programs in the Faculty of Commerce and Business Administration, for example, do\nnot use the standard time tables, so it is very difficult to schedule courses in Angus from other faculties\nwhich fit in with the Commerce classes.\nNew space planning brings its own unique difficulties. Sometimes new space is considered by the people\nin whose building it is located as their own space (in some cases this has even extended to the notion of\ncharging rent for the space). From an overall system perspective, there is often difficulty in getting\nteaching space in new buildings on to the Registrar's system, because people argue that it should be\nunder the control of the department which \"owns\" the new building.\nIn addition to the new space planning and space allocation issues, there are disparities in the provision\nof services which exacerbate disputes over classroom \"ownership\". Some Faculties have classrooms\nwhich are very well serviced (IRC, Education and Commerce all have their own A-V staff), and others\nare not. Psychology, for example, has no classrooms and if psychology instructors teach classes in a\nbuilding which is not properly serviced for A-V, the department may have to purchase service from\nUniversity Media Services. At the same time, individual departments or faculties which have funded\nsuperior equipment are reluctant to make it available to other units on campus since there is no simple\nmeans to share costs.\nThere is a need for a reaffirmation of the UBC policy with respect to the ownership of teaching space\nand the equipment included.\n6. Is our present maintenance program (cleanliness, soundness of furnishings, etc.) adequate?\nIf not, what can be done to improve it?\n7. Is our present classroom/lab/study space upgrade and renovation program adequate? If\nnot, what can be done to improve it?\nThe short answer to both questions is no! The single most important problem facing UBC is the fact\nthat we have allowed the stock of existing classrooms, study space and labs to deteriorate very badly\nand we are faced with having to fix them at a time of very tight resources. As an example, the cost of\nupgrading just one lecture theatre in the Biology building has been estimated at $500,000. Moreover,\nthe consideration of whether to upgrade a room involves a large number of related considerations-is the\nroom in a building which still has a reasonable life expectancy? If so, what else does the building need\nfor the restoration of the classroom to be properly useful? Does the equipment proposed for the\nrenovated room complement or needlessly duplicate equipment elsewhere in the building? What does it\nimply for upgrading elsewhere? Clearly, in this context, the $750,000 allocated for 1993-94 is\nobviously insignificant. In fact the amount requested for Minor Capital Budget was $84 million and\nonly $15 million was received. Obviously the total bill for needed classroom upgrading and\nmaintenance is astronomical. Therefore the establishing of priorities for classroom space renewal and\nmaintenance is very important.\nWe have a Master Plan for almost every aspect of campus operation except teaching space. (And,\nindeed, the very rationality of the overall Campus Plan has, in ignoring classroom needs, created a\nsituation of not infrequent crisis management for units like Housing and Conferences.)\n Vancouver Senate 10662\nMinutes of September 15,1993\nAppendix B\n4. SOME CONCLUSIONS\nOne of the visitors said, \"We have now explored these issues long enough. We need to address them.\nThe Ad Hoc Committee can help in this (a) by providing for Senate (and the academic community) a\nfuller picture than they appear presently to have of the complexity and urgency of the issues involved,\nand (b) perhaps helping in the provision of the kind of data needed by planners regarding pedagogy and\nspace usage\". Our Committee tends to agree with these observations. We are convinced by the evidence\nsupplied that the current state of teaching space at UBC reflects many years of neglect and the overall\ncost to bring our physical teaching space up to a level consistent with excellent teaching is staggering.\nWhether the percentage of current teaching space which is substandard is 10% or 20% is not the\nimportant issue: even 10% represents a staggering capital cost. The specialist committees already\nexisting are well equipped to handle questions focusing on the physical aspects of classrooms\nconstruction standards, acoustics, location, utilization, etc. and now need the support of the academic\nunits to develop planning processes and set priorities.\nOur Committee has no illusions about our current financial capacity. Perhaps because of this shortage\nof funds we see a critical need to examine the processes followed for new space development, space\nrenewal and the addition of equipment to existing space. It is essential we receive the greatest potential\nbenefit from the scarce dollar and that the academic community have a strong voice in how these funds\nare invested. We believe that faculty members can make significant contributions to the decisions that\nmust be made concerning our teaching space and need a process to ensure this happens.\nWe became aware, late in our deliberations, of the establishment of an Advisory Committee on\nTeaching Space, a sub-committee of the President's Advisory Committee on Space Allocation. This\nAdvisory Committee has representation from the academic community, both faculty and student\nrepresentation. The terms of reference for this Advisory Committee (attached as Appendix) appear to\ncover virtually all of the points raised under section 2.5 (The Physical Environment). While this\nAdvisory Committee has only recently started their work, we are advised that they plan move quickly to\naddress the issues. It is obvious that there would be considerable (and unnecessary) duplication of\nefforts with our Ad Hoc Committee. Therefore we are recommending that the issues raised in our\nreport be forwarded to this new Advisory Committee on Teaching Space.\n5. RECOMMENDATIONS\nOur Committee recommends that:\n1. Senate recognize the critical importance of the issues relating to the physical teaching\nenvironment at UBC and the urgent need for action relating to these issues. Specifically,\na. the development, with input from the academic community, of a Master Plan for\nteaching space at UBC,\nb. clarification of the policies on the management of classrooms (the issue of centralized\nor decentralized responsibility),\nc. resolving the uneven, and sometimes inadequate, provision of basic teaching equipment\nby providing a minimum standard of equipment for all classrooms and labs,\nd. developing an ongoing budget for the maintenance and renewal of existing teaching\nspace, and\ne. investigating the feasibility of developing some space for creative and innovative\nteaching opportunities at UBC.\n2. a. Senate invite the Advisory Committee on Teaching Space to pursue the matters identified\nabove in such a way as to develop an immediate resolution.\n Vancouver Senate 10663\nMinutes of September 15,1993\nAppendix B\n2. b. Senate forward a copy of our Report to the Advisory Committee on Teaching Space and\nthat they be invited to table a copy of their report with Senate.\n3. Senate forward the issues raised under item 2.1 (Recruiting, rewards and incentives) to the\nWorking Group On Teaching and Learning, Committee of Deans, and that the Vice-President,\nAcademic be asked to provide Senate with a report from this Working Group on or before\nSeptember, 1994.\n4. Senate forward a copy of our Report to the other relevant Committees on campus who are\npresently addressing issues relating to the teaching environment, in particular to the Advisory\nBoard of The Centre for Faculty Development and Instructional Services and to The Board of\nGovernors, and that the Advisory Board of The Centre for Faculty Development and\nInstructional Services be invited to provide Senate with a copy of its annual report.\n5. Senate discharge the Ad Hoc Committee on the Environment for Teaching.\nReport Appendix: President's Advisory Committee on Teaching Space\nMarch 23, 1993\nTerms of Reference:\nAs a sub-committee of the President's Advisory Committee on Space Allocation:\n1. To examine the need for teaching space* and recommend in general terms the number, size,\ntype and location of the space required.\n2. To examine and recommend on the disposition of existing teaching space and the provision of\nnew teaching space.\n3. To advise on the allocation, management and use of teaching space.\n4. To develop and recommend standards for classrooms and seminar rooms.\n5. To advise on appropriation priorities for upgrading of existing classroom and seminar room\nspace.\nRecommendations will be forwarded to the President via the Chairman, President's Advisory\nCommittee on Space Allocation.\nCommittee Membership:\nDirector, Office of Budget and Planning, Chair\nRegistrar\nAssociate Vice President, Information and Computer Systems\nCampus Planning and Development (1)\nPlant Operations (1)\nRepresentation (1) from each of\no Humanities\no Health Sciences\no Physical Sciences\no Social Sciences\nStudent (1)\n* Includes all types of instructional space, including among others lecture rooms, seminar rooms,\nlaboratories, and studios.\n Vancouver Senate 10664\nMinutes of September 15,1993\nAppendix B\nBackground:\nThat UBC's classrooms and seminar rooms are in a deplorable state is widely acknowledged.\nAddressing that situation led, two years ago, to the establishment of two committees. The first was\ncharged with addressing issues relating to the utilization of instructional space. The second to address\nthe need for appropriate furnishings, furniture and media equipment in each classroom. Both\ncommittees were initially hampered by the absence of an information base adequate to assess current\nconditions, develop future plans and assign priorities. In particular, the following is required:\n1. Classroom standards. These should both define the expectations common to all classrooms and\nseminar rooms (including expectations regarding hearing and physical disability access) and\nestablish a hierarchy of classroom standards differentiated on the basis of the information\ntechnology to be provided within them.\n2. Classroom master plan. An identification of the number, size, location and information\ntechnology level of classrooms needed throughout the campus.\n3. Classroom Audit. An assessment of each existing classroom including:\n\u00E2\u0080\u00A2 architectural features i.e. physical characteristics of the classroom which affect its\nassignment or use\nelectrical/mechanical systems\nair quality\nacoustics\nmedia equipment\naccess for the physically impaired\nfurniture\nfurnishings\n4. Building Audits. To provide assessments of the individual components and overall quality of\nthose existing facilities which accommodate classrooms. The building audit will help identify\nwhether investments in the building including its classrooms is justified and over what period.\n5. Instructional Space Utilization Surveys. To determine usage of existing instructional space and,\ntherefore, serve to highlight pressure points which need to be addressed in future capital and\nrenovation plans.\nItems 1 and 2 have not been considered. A modified version of item 3 has been undertaken; however,\nelectrical/mechanical systems, air quality and acoustics were not assessed at all while only a limited\nnumber of factors affecting the physically impaired were explored. Building audits have been and will\ncontinue to be undertaken. Instructional space utilization surveys are being undertaken with results\nreviewed on an annual basis.\nTo address these and other relevant concerns, two committees were established. The first, chaired by\nDr. Richard Spencer, Registrar, has been examining the utilization of all instructional space. Their\nreview has provided an assessment of current utilization patterns, a basis for considering time tabling\nchanges which would improve utilization, and a limited assessment of the extent to which current\nclassroom sizes and locations are inhibiting the use of alternative section sizes and methods of\ninstruction.\nThe second committee chaired by Dr. John Chase, Director, Office of Budget and Planning, has\nundertaken an assessment of the physical state of each of the University's classrooms, including\nfurnishings, furniture, media equipment, etc.\n Vancouver Senate 10665\nMinutes of September 15,1993\nAppendix B\nIn both cases, activity to date has been primarily operational. The need now is to take the information\ndeveloped and apply it to the formulation of standards, plans and priorities in the future. Terms of\nreference for a new committee are set forth in the introduction. With their acceptance and\ndetermination of the composition of the committee, the two existing committees will be disbanded.\n"@en . "Periodicals"@en . "Vancouver (B.C.)"@en . "UBC_Senate_Minutes_1993_09_15"@en . "10.14288/1.0390055"@en . "English"@en . "Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library"@en . "[Vancouver : University of British Columbia Senate]"@en . "Images provided for research and reference use only. Permission to publish, copy, or otherwise use these images must be obtained from the University of British Columbia Senate: http://senate.ubc.ca/"@en . "Original Format: University of British Columbia. Archives"@en . "University of British Columbia"@en . "[Meeting minutes of the Senate of The University of British Columbia]"@en . "Text"@en . ""@en .