ASCnet

Details

Date

2006-05-05

Time

Location

Agenda

9:00- 11:00 a.m 200 Bricker Hall

Agenda:
Updates from Chair
Continuation of voting on McHale recommendations

Notes

Present: Adelson, Smith, Vassey, Krissek, Hobgood, Yerkes, Mumy, Andereck, Lowry, Childs, Collier, Breitenberger, Lemberger, Baker, Schoen, Shanda, Schwartz, Wanzer, Petry, Mercerhill, Moses, Seloni

 

1. Updates from the Chair:
1. Resolutions sent to ASC Faculty Senate from CCI have been approved; resolutions distributed to CCI members for record
2. There are a number of proposals yet to be discussed at final CCI meetings of quarter
3. ASC Faculty Senate rule change proposal to create a faculty chair for CCI tabled until CAA discusses the proposal to provide compensation for faculty chairing major committees as well as what happens with GEC oversight committee discussions; proposal for ASC Honors to have a new faculty chair approved

 

2. Discussion of Moral Reasoning component
1. Guest Don Dell, Chair of Ethics Task Force in 2004 provided a synopsis of the Task Force findings: if departments/majors/colleges are interested in having students focus on ethics, there are probably already ample opportunities or it should be handled in the major

                                                               i.      Moral reasoning should be broadly covered in GEC, but is hard to imagine in one course

2. McHale proposes MR to be similar to Social Diversity – flagged courses
3. Currently, Data analysis allows for topic to be addressed through the completion of multiple courses instead of in just one course
4. “Overlap” course set up does not allow for detailed discussion of what is involved in the study of ethics
5. We need to consider the “audience”: undergraduates are dualistic thinkers – would making an MR requirement part of the 300 or 400 level help?
6. Outcome of MR requirement should be exposure and knowledge of categories of moral reasoning, not to make students moral or ethical
7. Question of how we would demonstrate/provide evidence that MR is being achieved
8. Suggested that pilot courses be created to meet Engineering’s needs for ethics component in GEC
9. Early discussions are being held regarding the creation of an interdisciplinary minor in ethics
10. Suggested that multiple paths would need to be used if we are to require an MR component

                                                               i.      Suggested that if we adopt the Andereck/Childs proposal (discussed next), maybe MR would be one of the “add back” categories

                                                             ii.      Freshman clusters might provide opportunities to address MR

                                                            iii.      Student Code of conduct – change from punitive to list of beliefs – question of places this might be taught; other institutions offer models

                                                           iv.      Suggested that if we better understand Engineering’s needs, we can better serve them

11. Question of where we do Critical Thinking: its embedded, we should be able to do the same with MR
12. We need a clearly defined learning outcome that can be assessed in order to implement an MR component
13. If we have to show that all students are getting MR, then it would be easier to have required courses either in GEC or major

 

3. Discussion of 180 hour graduation requirement
1. Proposal by Dave Andereck:

                                                               i.      Elephant in room is current budget model

                                                             ii.      “Drop a GEC” has a negative connotation although it has served a purpose

                                                            iii.      Proposal to create minimum set of requirements across the University in breadth areas:

1.       Category requirements:

a.       Social Science – 10 hours

b.       Arts and Humanities – 10 hours

c.       Natural Science – 15 hours

d.       ASC students must take additional 10 hours within these categories, chosen in conjunction with their advisor

e.       In lieu of 10 hours students take an ASC minor or double major

2.       Proposal decreases GEC by 5 hours, provides a bit more flexibility, establishes a baseline and builds rather than substitutes hours/options

2. Proposal by Bill Childs

                                                               i.      Proposal is similar to Dave’s above, however all 15 hours would be added back or students can take an ASC minor or double major

                                                             ii.      Cost of proposal: OSU GEC has higher Natural Science requirements than just about all other institutions, this would no longer be the case

                                                            iii.      Establishing this baseline would facilitate bringing Professional & ASC Colleges into alignment

                                                           iv.      Professional Colleges could then determine what gets added back in to their GEC

                                                             v.      Concern over breadth loss – if students elect minor or 2^nd major, this may happen for some students, but not all students

                                                           vi.      Advising perspective – Andereck/Childs proposals address the concern over students taking lower level course and gives focus to elective hours

                                                          vii.      Question of whether this will provide relief to problems with dual degree programs – Randy Smith has a committee looking at dual degrees across colleges

                                                        viii.      SBS curriculum committee concerned about trading breadth for flexibility

                                                           ix.      Question of whether we require any 2^nd major or minor to be in an unrelated area from student’s declared major – i.e. not allow Bio & Chem, but allow Bio & Spanish

1.      Prior to 1997 students couldn’t double count GEC in a major, now they can double count in a 2^nd major or minor

                                                             x.      Concern expressed that restricting minors to ASC minors limits Professional Schools

                                                           xi.      Budget rebasing may need to be part of any resolution put forward in order to open up choices to those beyond ASC

                                                          xii.      Addition of major/minor option will help balance advising needs

1.      suggestion to specify minors by student’s major

                                                        xiii.      Question of how to get to 180 overall hours – do we encourage reduction in electives?

                                                        xiv.      Proposal to make 4^th quarter of language and Historical Study part of hours students may select from in “add back in” proposal

1.      OSU is at low end of language contact hours nationally

2.      History will already be taking a cut because non-History department courses will now be accepted

                                                         xv.      Bio students would benefit from all 3 proposals (Andereck, Childs, and one listed in xiv above)

                                                        xvi.      Committee senses that it needs to be open to Professional College needs – flexibility in these proposals help this

                                                      xvii.      Stated that our GEC is not attractive to students – too many low level courses & status quo is no longer acceptable

1.      Question of what evidence is available to support this idea

2.      We know that students do not pick an institution based on GECs and we have a large number of Juniors and Seniors taking 100 level courses; encouraging departments to propose upper level courses would help with this

3.      Maybe we need to add something to GEC that stands out and makes OSU attractive to students

                                                     xviii.      Students are now graduating on time & even early which causes budget problems

                                                        xix.      Question of what the source of political pressure to reduce to 180 really is; we are in line with many other institutions’ requirements and students are graduating on time

                                                         xx.      Suggested that the Provost be invited to a discussion with CCI, meeting to be set for next week

                                                        xxi.      Summary thoughts:

1.      CCI reaffirmed belief in breadth categories

2.      Discussion needs to continue to be enlarged to political and student realities

3.      Restriction on minors to ASC is impediment to flexibility