ASCRC Minutes 3/6/07
Members Present: A. Szalda-Petree, B. Bach,
I. Crummy, L. Economides, L. Hamilton, V.
Hedquist, J. Luckowski, A. Tabibnejad, L. Tangedahl, H. Thompson, P. Silverman
Members Absent/Excused: J. Eglin, C. Henderson, M. Hoell J. Graham, K. Nalty, T. Ness
Ex-Officio Present: D. Micus, A. Walker-Andrews
Guest: Jim Gannon and
Chair Szalda-Petree called the meeting to order at 2:10 p.m.
The 2/20/07 minutes were approved as corrected.
Communication
Unfinished Business
General Education model discussion
·
Division of Biological Sciences (analysis
distributed via email after the meeting)
Guest: Professor Gannon and
Professor Gannon indicated that the department’s first concern is with the
required 5 credits in a foreign language. English is the accepted language for
the sciences. Scholars in
It will be difficult to develop a general education that fits all disciplines
given accreditation requirements and the 120 credit limit. Some institutions
have separate general education requirements for the sciences. Professor Gannon
does not understand the reasoning behind dropping symbolic systems in favor of
foreign language. Why couldn’t the
cultural diversity requirement meet the intent of the “global citizen” language
in the preamble? A 5 credit foreign language course will not make a student
competent in a language.
The second concern is the requirement that all general education courses be
lower division. Biology requires many
lower-division courses outside the major and this requirement leaves the
students with no electives. Many students currently choose upper-division
courses to meet general education and the 39 upper-division credit requirements.
The human biology option is at 121
credits with the proposed general education model and the microbiology option
is right at 120 credits.
It was argued that the goal of general education is to expose students to areas
outside of their major. Learning the language is essential to understanding
another culture. The competency term is
misleading because the goal is really awareness not competency.
The committee is still gathering input and will need to consider other
possibilities. Any revision could
require change within programs. Perhaps ASCRC should evaluate the preamble as a
construct and determine what some of the phrases really mean when applied to
general education.
Curriculum
Follow up:
·
Certificate in Multicultural Awareness
There are still numerous concerns with the proposal. Core courses are taught by adjunct
instructors, it is unclear why the proposal is not for a minor, foreign
language is not required, and it is unclear what the certificate would promise
students. Other certificates are
governed by an outside body and are skill based. It was suggested that the subcommittees get
together and make recommendations rather than postpone action until certificate
guidelines were in place. Associate Dean Tompkins will also clarify some
misinformation. The proposal is more about cross-cultural understanding or
etiquette and would be helpful for foreign students in business majors.
Originally the proposal was for a minor, but the former provost suggested a
certificate most likely because certificates under 30 credits do not have to be
approved by the Board of Regents.
Recommended Writing Course Guidelines (handout)
Guest: Kate Ryan, Director of
Composition and ex-officio member of the Writing Committee (Chair Hinman
regretfully could not make it)
Professor Ryan explained the Writing Committee’s process and intent with the
document. The committee realized the
need for revisions to writing course criteria after it completed its review of W-courses
last year. Members reviewed other
university’s writing programs and a subcommittee created the first draft. The committee had a 4 hour retreat before the
start of the semester and has been revising the draft for the past couple
months.
The audience for the document is faculty/departments. The document should serve as a comprehensive
guide for the progression of writing requirements. Learning to write is a
complex activity that happens unevenly over time and in different contexts.
There is a distinction between lower- and upper-division outcomes and
requirements. Lower- division course
focuses on writing-to-learn course concepts and represent that learning to
others and upper-division courses focus on the more sophisticated demands of
writing in a specific discipline. Both
informal and formal writing apply toward the percentage of writing required.
The document also recommends that appropriate support be provided to faculty
teaching writing courses.
ASCRC has several comments. It should be
clarified that the number of pages required for writing assessments is
accumulative. It was not comfortable
with the requirement of 75% of students’ effort involve writing because. This
would be difficult to measure and likely create anxiety for faculty teaching
writing courses. Members liked the
flexibility with the upper-division writing courses, but thought a minimum
percentage should be listed for review purposes. One member wondered whether departments would
be allowed to approve their own writing courses. There was also a question about spreading the
upper-division requirement across several courses and the tension between
writing and content. Departments will
need to determine which courses are best suited for writing courses. It was
recommended that the committee do some educating of faculty on what counts as
informal writing
New Business:
ASCRC would like to put the matter of establishing an
undergraduate preceptor/proctor policy on the back burner in order to make
progress on general education. Chair
Szalda-Petree will meet with ECOS next week to request a delay.
Late curriculum requests from Health and Human Performance. There is concern that the department missed
the deadline to request a fee from the Board of Regents and the Level II
request to change the Athletic Training option to a major can not go to the BOR
until May.
Committee Reports:
The Expressive Arts Subcommittee has been communicating via email. The chair hopes to have a report next week.
The Literary and Artistic Studies Subcommittee still needs
materials for liberal studies courses. It has also had difficulty with a member
not responding to requests. ASCRC
recommended that it complete the review with the three members that have been
responsive.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.