Cmte on Curriculum and Instruction (CCI)

Details

Date
2006-06-02
Time
Location
Agenda
9:00- 11:00 a.m 200 Bricker Hall
Notes

Present: Adelson, Smith, Vasey, Krissek, Hobgood, Mumy, Andereck, Lowry, Childs, Collier, Breitenberger, Lemberger, Shanda, Wanzer, Petry, Masters, Mockabee, Baker, Schwartz, Mercerhill, Moses, Seloni

 

  1. Updates from the Chair:
    1. Senate straw votes from May 31 meeting:

                                                               i.            Reduction in GEC – 1/3 yes, 1/3 no, 1/3 abstain

                                                             ii.            Reduction in hours to graduation – 2/3 remain, 1/6 opposed, 1/6 abstained

                                                            iii.            Drop a course (instead of add back) 16 – yes, 10 – no, 8 abstained

    1. Thank you to work group for recommendations provided for today’s discussion
    2. Thank you to Justin and Lisya for all of their work, and to CCI members for all of their work this year
    3. School of Earth Sciences has been approved and will now go to the Trustees
    4. Colleges of Education and Human Ecology merger approved by CAA

 

  1. Senior Survey
    1. Developed over the last year
    2. Sent to 2344 students with good response rate
    3. GEC goals, objectives and rationale statement new to syllabi, therefore students graduating this year are not as aware of them and survey responses are likely to reflect this

 

  1. Work Group’s resolution – “The Buckeye Plan for Scholarship”
    1. Context for the work group

                                                               i.            Examine the nature of GEC as a whole

                                                             ii.            Delivery of best gen. ed. model was highest concern for group

                                                            iii.            Process reflects the fact that the curriculum and faculty have changed over the years, as well as the students

                                                           iv.            Flexibility, transparency were focus – changed “additional courses” to student choice

                                                             v.            Putting onus on faculty to ensure topics are covered instead of students fulfilling stars, diamonds, etc.

                                                           vi.            Political realities of potential loss/gain for Colleges

                                                          vii.            Discussed at length option of minors and majors substitutions – concluded that it’s not a replacement for a GEC experience

    1. CCI member suggested changing name to “The Buckeye Plan for Lifelong Learning”
    2. Suggested that proposal include stipulation that any changes be based on budgetary insurance
    3. Embedding of “insight areas” will need to be approached cautiously
    4. Problem with adding back 2 to base of breadth area: Many Colleges have already said no to reducing GEC
    5. Work group felt any current categories could be defended by adding or subtracting a course
    6. Work group felt it would be a positive thing for students to chose a category that they are interested in – attempting to move away from current highly prescriptive mandates on students that get complicated in advising and implementation
    7. Noted that 2 student selected classes might put students very close to completing a minor
    8. Concern expressed that distribution proposal does not promote breadth
    9. Proposal allows much of the McHale flexibility by aiding students who want to double major
    10. Question of what is meant by lack of breadth – concern is that students might take more courses in major breadth area, and that Cultures & Ideas would disintegrate

                                                               i.            Work group thinks students will vote with feet;

                                                             ii.            Cultures & Ideas is not currently required, would remain as option under new plan

    1. Question of what work group’s rationale for dropping an Arts and Humanities course is

                                                               i.            Work group looked at Reagan & Babcott goals and changes made since then and tried to take a road that would encourage student flexibility

    1. Concern expressed that 2nd majors and minors were set aside despite perceived desire by other members on committee
    2. Insight Areas

                                                               i.            Question of whether “charms” (starts, diamonds, etc) will disappear completely?

                                                             ii.            Categories and guidelines will stay, GEC course requests will have to choose one Insight Area along with GEC category

                                                            iii.            Work group’s philosophy is that students will work through Insight Areas as they complete the curriculum

                                                           iv.            Work group was willing to consider that some courses will have to be exempted from Insight Areas

                                                             v.            Example of embedding of Insight Areas: 597 course list shows that many courses touch on moral reasoning already

                                                           vi.            Concern expressed that this will be another layer of bureaucracy

                                                          vii.            Suggested that something be added to proposal about option of GEC proposers to explain why they can not add an Insight Area (i.e. math)

    1. Question of if breadth is so important, why haven’t there been any proposals to expand it? Perception is that we just want to stay where we are with GEC and breadth becomes the argument
    2. Perception that this proposal does not sacrifice breadth the way Colleges initially were reacting to McHale
    3. Perception that people react to how they visualize things, and therefore react to erasure of “lucky charms” in GEC; felt that proposal gets at the heart of what needs to be done
    4. Noted that ideals of breadth category are found across the proposed Skills & Breadth categories
    5. Thank you to committee – there is merit to approach of proposal that will lead to smaller set of GEC courses with dedicated faculty
    6. Proposal to make student selected courses pass/non-pass to encourage students to go outside comfort zone
    7. A member noted that GEC reform proposal is a good thing for Humanities, but might be challenging for History; desire to not give in to vague threats; prefers add 3 over add 2; would like to hold off on voting for 2 student selected courses for now
    8. Work group felt those students predisposed to doing a minor would work with advisor to choose 2 selected courses based on how they would complete the minor
    9. Proposal to change the name of plan and add budgetary line
  1. Motion to approve plan put forth and seconded

a.       Further discussion:

 &nbs