Cmte on Curriculum and Instruction (CCI)

Details

Date
2006-03-03
Time
Location
Agenda
Friday, 9-11am, 200 Bricker Hall
Agenda


Approval of Meeting Minutes
Remarks from the Chair
Summary of Arts and Sciences Forum of February 23 on the
     McHale Report  - Larry Krissek and Mike Vassey
Preliminary College reports regarding the McHale Report
     Dave Andereck, Caroline Breitenberger, Debra Lowry,
     Gene Mumy, Susan Petry
Discussion of CCI response to McHale Report
Continued discussion of curricular oversight and assessment
      Alexis Collier, Arts and Sciences Assessment Coordinator
Notes

Present: Adelson, Mercerhill, Lowry, Vassey, Mockabee, Krissek, Shelton, Hobgood, Yerkes, Shanda, Wanzer, Schwartz, Davidson, Mumy, Andereck, Collier, Petry, Breitenberger, Lenberger

 

1. Chair:

a. Draft of ASC Senate meeting minutes will be distributed when approved by ASC Senate; list of reps from professional colleges attending next senate meeting shared with Committee

- Professional Reps were given 4 questions to come prepared to answer

- Meeting will be taped

b. A work group convened by Ed will consider draft reports on McHale from the colleges and other offices, and create a list of possible recommendation for consideration by the  CCI

c. Meetings next quarter set (listed on agenda) are scheduled in opposite weeks to senate

d. PPM/Glenn merger approved by CAA will go to University Senate

2. ASC Forum on 2/23 Summary: Vasey, Krissek, and Lowry

            About 30-40 attendees

            Directed discussion toward items 2, 3, 4 & 6 on survey

- Concern of lack of coherent justification for the reduction in credit hours

- GEC needs a vision statement for Gen Ed curriculum so that students, parents, & faculty can see

- A number of the recommendations, especially related to downsizing the GEC, send wrong message given national & state focus on math, science, and language.

- Advising demands will be problematic given the proposal’s complexity

- Oversight committee: fairly widespread “no” sentiment for new level of oversight

- Budget implications were articulated as a major concern

3. Approval of meeting minutes unanimous

4. Advisor report on McHale – Wanzer

- met with 5 clusters to get responses & reactions; overall positive reaction to suggestions but concern over implementation

- Reasonable flexibility needed for students who enter a major late or transfer with many credits

5. Sub. D report – Lowry

            - Freshman Seminars should remain as is

- UCLA didn’t incorporate seminars into clusters until 4 years into clusters, but this does indicate possibility

6. Humanities – Lowry

            - decreasing credit hour requirements will not necessarily    
            mean more timely graduation

- Renaming & regrouping GECs would be helpful in explaining requirements

- Capstone recommendation undercuts point of Gen Ed

- Internships not an acceptable substution for Gen Ed requirements

- too many substitutions/exemptions cause more confusion in GEC

- Moral reasoning recommendation: Philosophy concerned about burden of implementing

- Historical study proposal– History supports with some concern that the implementation should follow regular GEC curricular processes; Dept of History wants to define goals & objectives

- support for Clusters but not folding in of English 110

7. MAPS – Andereck

            - Budget model works against reform & implementation

            - Report affirms basic principles of current GEC

            - advising requirements large

            - would like to look at distinguishing between BA & BS requirements

            - limit number of type of substitutions to preserve breadth

            - proposes that clusters be piloted in Honors without counting for Eng 110

8. SBS - Mumy

            - NMR – GEC cuts are disproportionate to decrease in hours committed to breadth

            - Against substitutions

            - Minor in language cannot substitute for Social Science or History

            - Clusters – like the idea but needs to be imagined more broadly

            - implementation would be difficult for advising

9. Bio Sci – Breitenberger

            - Decrease in hours – no strong opinion except would cut free electives

            - NMR changes sound good but how implemented? Demonstrated Competency

                        Breadth – hard to justify cut

                        Concern that Technology recommendation is not suggested for biological                                               sciences

                        Concern that Capstone recommendation would increase overall requirements

WOVE – 3rd writing requirement is a  concern to faculty but thoughts about research papers and presentations that may fulfill requirement

- Cluster – Freshman & Senior year most difficult time for Bio Students to find time for this type of work; recommend Soph/Junior Cluster or summer intensive

- Flexibility/Substitutions would get rid of breadth

10. Arts – Petry (quick version)

            - Oversight & philosophical arguments leave concern over breadth

            - supports CCI’s process of oversight

- decrease in overall hours a problem for the Arts- already have 113-115 hours required  in majors so decrease would decrease breadth, which is a concern; students have no free electives currently

- focused on WOVE (arts faculty and others invested develop guidelines); Historical Study (support idea); Clusters (great idea about question practicality)