ASCnet

Details

Date

2007-05-11

Time

Location

Agenda

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

Agenda:
1. Updates from the Chair
    CIC Course Share update (visit https://www-s.cic.uiuc.edu/programs/CICCourseShare/archive/ResourceList/courseShareWebTool/mainPage.asp for lists of courses)
2. Approval of Meeting Minutes
3. Approval of CCI report to the Senate (will be emailed before meeting)
4. Update on AP Credit discussions - Jay Hobgood
5. Historical Study Proposal
6. Insight Areas Discussion

Notes

Present: Shanda, Krissek, Hobgood, Mumy, Lowry, Berman, Harvey, Mockabee, Adeslson, Mercerhill, Korl, Dutta, Trudeau, Smith, Harder, Yerkes, Collier, Wanzer, Vasey, Florman, Francis, Schoen

 

1. Updates from the Chair
1. University Senate approved the resolution sent forward from CAA – reduction in hours to degree with no more than 5 hours may be removed from GEC – Board of Trustees votes on June 1. 
2. In addition, CAA passed four resolutions internal to CAA that relate to these changes:

                                                               i.      1^st resolution: monitor ways to maintain breadth in the GEC

                                                             ii.      2^nd resolution: CCI should encourage faculty to develop upper-level GECs

                                                            iii.      3^rd resolution: create a new way to display the GEC information to make it easier for students and faculty to understand

                                                           iv.      4^th resolution: Professional Colleges will have to submit proposals to CAA regarding an expected five credit reduction in their major in advance of the five credit GEC reductions going into effect

3. Randy Smith thanks the CCI for all of the work done to make the changes that have been achieved
4. Discussion of University-Level Advisory Committee on the GEC – Alexis Collier and Randy Smith will be asked to discuss this with CCI
5. CIC Course Share

                                                               i.      There is a coordinator located at the CIC headquarters

                                                             ii.       Ed Adelson is the coordinator on our campus

                                                            iii.      When students take a course via course share, they are registered in a course at their home institution

                                                           iv.      The Advanced Political Methodologies course has been in existence for 10 years and has 4 institutions involved – they rotate coordination

                                                             v.      Current trend is lower-level lesser taught languages which provide their own challenges with needs for tutors, etc

                                                           vi.      Costs are still being figured out – plan was that funding would even out because the thought was that it would even out when each institution offers courses

                                                          vii.      Calendars can be a challenge – students have to take courses as scheduled at the institution offering the course

                                                        viii.      Humanities is working to establish some guidelines for their use in order to help with enrollment and financial concerns

2. Approval of meeting minutes – motion Shanda, 2^nd Vasey

Vote: 11 yes, 0 no, 0 abstention

3. Approval of CCI report to the Senate
1. Add “Proposed” to the 1^st heading (Revisions)

            Motion: Harder, 2^nd Hobgood

            Vote: 11 yes, 0 no, 0 abstention

4. Update on AP Credit proposal—Jay Hobgood
1. Requests for information on what students are doing with their AP credit – information gathering will happen over the summer and brought to CCI next year
5. Historical Study Revision of Guidelines
1. Sub B revised their proposed guidelines based on CCI feedback from April 27 meeting
2. Goal/Rationale for category remains the same as the one approved in 2005
3. Objectives were changed to include assessable language in alignment with the other category goals/objectives
4. Information regarding a successful assessment plan included in guidelines
5. Proposed changes were made in collaboration with History
6. Other departments in addition to History were not asked for their feedback on these guidelines, suggested that it might have been nice
7. Request to change the language in guidelines to be clearer that seats must be available to non-majors
8. Recommended that the assessment plan guidelines be re-evaluated because the language seems to be causing confusion – Sub E should revisit this
9. Recommended that the Historical Study guidelines link to the assessment guidelines on the web
10. Question of why departments could not propose a course included in the A. section of the proposal?

                                                               i.      Suggested that we revisit this after implementation has been started and we have assessment data of the current structure

                                                             ii.      Question of what courses in this section have in common - noted that departments could still propose courses for Section A – they’d have to follow the current guidelines of the section

11. Concurrence from History will be requested for new or revised courses to this category, because of the nature of the content of historical study courses – recommended that it is not normal procedure or necessary to specify this in the guidelines

Motion: Shanda – approve the following parts of the proposal:  page one, front and back (excluding the assessment guidelines that were included as a resource)       2^nd  Krissek

Vote: 11 yes, 0 no, 0 abstention

6. Insight Area Continuation of Discussion - Guests: Julia Watson, Claudia Buchmann, Don Hubin
1. Model Curriculum developed in 1988 identifying 3 diversity categories
2. 1996 Committee revisited requirements and moved the international diversity requirements from Arts and Humanities and Social Sciences to a Diversity Category and allowed courses to meet this requirement from across various categories
3. Task Force on Insight Areas convened in summer of 2006, charged Panels to investigate different areas, including Diversity, Moral Reasoning, Technological Literacy, and Visual Literacy
4. ASC Senate approved Visual Literacy as a part of the “Insight Areas” in the spring of 2006, and instructed the CCI to implement this new requirement
5. Diversity—Claudia Buchmann

                                                               i.      Rationale for keeping the Diversity requirement: long history of offering diversity at OSU, panel felt that it should not be put on the same footing as the rest of the insight areas

                                                             ii.      Recommended that intellectual differences should be added to the list of differences listed in objective one – panel was trying to reflect current language and did not wish to propose anything new

                                                            iii.      Committee would like to see the original language for social and international

                                                           iv.      Noted that panel did not distinguish between western and non-western – if they serve different purposes, it would be good to identify these

                                                             v.      Recommended that Claudia come back after the committee has more time to think about these guidelines

6. Moral Reasoning—Don Hubin

                                                               i.      Panel has been meeting and working on new proposal and is struggling with an implementation issue

                                                             ii.      Panel has worked with the proposal put forward to offer moral reasoning as an option with Visual and Technological literacy using a flag that shows on student transcripts and believes it can be implemented using the McHale learning objectives

                                                            iii.      Panel believes that moral reasoning is important to partner with diversity so that students can think critically about moral and normative issues that divide cultures

                                                           iv.      Literature shows that moral reasoning is deeply imbedded with diversity issues; research shows that the best way to teach moral reasoning is to use specific case studies and examples in an intentional course; felt that departments across the university would be capable of teaching such courses

7. Visual Literacy—Val Mockabee

                                                               i.      Senate voted to include this in the GEC, it must be implemented in some way

                                                             ii.      Noted that CCI has to vote on technological literacy and moral reasoning and that the committee has to think about these areas as whole

8. information was shared with the CCI that compare the current requirements in these areas
9. Request to ask CIC institutions if they offer courses in our subcategories in diversity
10. Concern expressed that a rationale is needed for reducing the diversity courses
11. Suggested that some of the insight areas be piloted in the clusters
12. Question is not that we want to remove diversity, it is that we have to determine what we want to include
13. Noted that we have been working to help simplify the GEC and by creating more 0 credit courses we are adding to the complexity, not simplifying
14. Chair asked that the A-Deans report on discussions within the college curriculum committees on the “Insight Area” requirements

                                                               i.      Humanities generally opposes reducing the diversity requirement; Philosophy has not taken any stand on diversity

                                                             ii.      SBS feels that 2 courses in diversity would be ok, not convinced that it has to be 3; supports inclusion of the other 3 areas as long as diversity is decreased by 1

                                                            iii.      Arts was in favor of the all inclusive option – felt that any student going through our GEC would touch on these areas and therefore it would simply be beneficial to flag these on transcripts

15. Noted that part of the justification for the 4^th language course as discussed by some Humanities faculty included its necessary place as an international culture course—question of how this interfaces with the requirement for courses in the International Diversity Category
16. Discussion will continue at next meeting