ASCnet

Details

Date

2007-10-19

Time

Location

Agenda

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

AGENDA

1. Updates from Chair (Ed Adelson)

2. Approval of Minutes from 9/28/07

3. Criminology Major Revision (Craig Jenkins [invitee] & Paul Bellair)  PLEASE NOTE: Only pgs. 1-10 of proposal are required reading.

 4.. Sociology Major Revision (Craig Jenkins & Paul Bellair)  PLEASE NOTE: Only pgs. 1-9 of proposal are required reading.

5. Biology Major Revisions (Caroline Breitenberger)

6. ASC 720 (all concurrences received)

7. Concurrence Expectations (Ed Adelson)

8. Transfer Modules project (Kate Hallihan)

Notes

Committee on Curriculum and Instruction

Meeting Minutes – Oct 19, 2007

APPROVED

 

Present: Avorgbedor, Highley, Ward, Adelson, Shanda, Berman, Hobgood, Harder, Mumy, Vasey, Andereck, Mockabee, Dutta, Bentley, Wanzer, Collier, Bellair, M.E. Jenkins, Breitenberger, Trudeau Guests: Craig Jenkins, Paul Bellair

 

1.  Updates from Chair

            A. Report from Senate

B. Reminder to fill out x94 Scheduling info on p.2 of Group Studies Request forms in order to ensure expediency of requests

           

2.  Approval of 9-28-07 minutes

Motion to approve: Hobgood,  2^nd Harder

 

unanimously approved with no changes

 

3. Soc/Crim Proposals to revise majors (2 proposals, but only the titles differ; all changes are the same and were dealt with as a packet  APPROVED unanimously

A. Summary by Jay Hobgood on behalf of Subcommittee C: Addition of Soc 463 and addition of 5 hours for an integrated elective (satisfied by internship 489, or two indep research courses)

B. Principal focus of Sub C discussion were regarding Soc 463.  All questions were resolved satisfactorily.

C. 589.01: Sub C felt title looked appropriate but syllabus too vocational. As result, 589 was removed from proposal

D. Discussion of 10 credit increase: Good rationale for increase and Sub C was satisfied with reasons

E. Question of overlap of credit hours on Item 5 on Sociology proposal

i.         John Wanzer response:  Students do indeed need to have 35 unique hours on each major, but after that requirement is satisfied, there is no ceiling on overlap. If both majors need to be 45 hours (which is the case with the current majors in Sociology and Criminology), the maximum effective overlap would be ten hours (added to each parcel of 35 unique hours, that common ten hours would take each major to 45 hours). If both majors need to be 55 hours (which is the case with the proposed new majors in Sociology and Criminology), students could effectively overlap 20 hours (added to each parcel of 35 unique hours, that common twenty hours would take each major to 55). The requirement for a minimum of 35 unique hours on each major remains constant, while the number of overlapping hours (potentially, anyway) increases as the size of the major increases. It doesn't always work out that way, because the possibility of overlapping courses doesn't always exist to that extent on the two majors the student has selected (and some departments restrict the number of hours outside the department that can counted on the major), but it nearly always happens in Soc and Crim, because all of the courses are from the same department.

 

The calculation on the cover memoranda that the subcommittee submitted (item #5, on both second pages) was slightly off:  35 (unique) + 35 (unique) + 10 (common) = 80 total (not 70), for the current majors; 35 (unique) + 35 (unique) + 20 (common) = 90 total, under the proposed new majors.

 

In fact, there has been a 10-hour overlap all along, under the current majors, and if both majors go up to 55 credits, overlapping 20 is exactly what we'd be allowed to do under the current rules for overlap (which will remain constant).

 

F. Contextual background / rationale for Sociology major revision proposal (Bellair)

i. bottleneck issues due to junior standing of most students upon declaration of major

ii.desire to make program more rigorous by integrating undergrad research into program

iii. by making research part of requirement for major, this ensures research opportunities for undergrads

iv. most students do not go to grad school and these changes reflect desire to provide students with job related experience (Sociology 410)

v. the desire to provide all students core training within discipline was the result of assessment efforts which aim to ensure that students are achieving departmental learning objectives: requiring 410 is a responsibility of the department in this effort

iv. higher ranked non-big 10 benchmark universities are doing better and Soc is trying to bring itself more into alignment with these programs and surpass them in quality.  Three of these institutions require more than what they are proposing and include internship aspects.

v. All changes are in line with ASA report recommendations on the undergraduate major in the discipline.

G. Title change of “Criminal Justice Studies” reflects feeling among faculty that several courses address criminal justice topics. 

i. There were discussions about returning to original title, but after looking around Ohio, the Criminology program here does not include intelligence aspects of CJ programs throughout. 

ii.“CJ Studies” implies core courses but does not imply broader and applied topics such as security, criminalistics, ballistics, and intelligence.

H: Question: What are logistics of managing changes, especially internship aspects of Soc 489? 

i. Internships are distributed over 114 sites for 166 students.

ii. Jonathan Bentley manages internship program, which is structured through meetings and evaluations with students and internship instructor including beginning, mid-term, and follow-up.  600+ Crim, 300+ Soc majors (total about 950 students)

I. Q: Why is there a bottleneck later in students’ careers?  Why not get them involved earlier?  What is being done to encourage earlier involvement at a more competitive level? 

i. Students may be taking courses earlier, but just do not declare the major until later. 

ii. New major is an attempt to encourage students to take methods classes (101, 410, 463) earlier. 

iii. Even if the department were to legislate it this way, the requirement sometimes gets waived so as not to hold up graduation. 

iv. Students are advised to take these courses early, but they still do not.

            J. Q: How many of 900+ majors double major in Soc & Crim?  Roughly 60%

K. Q: How do double majors deal with internship requirement of new proposal?

i. Not yet fully considered by proposers

ii. not unreasonable to ask students to do 2 internships, one for each

iii. or that could be part of overlap; would not want to discourage students from doing a second, different, internship, and would in fact encourage a sociological internship in addition to the crim. internship.

iv. Most students have a good idea of the type of internship/focus area they are interested in as a career field

L. Q: If 463/410 are now “hypothetically” gateway courses – how will it affect pedagogy or subsequent offerings – i.e. will it be assumed that students have had these courses in later courses? 

i. A few of the classes have standardized syllabi and texts (to a certain extent) in order to achieve agreed upon learning objectives. 

ii. Grad students do have common training and receive common packet of historical syllabi on which to base their course so as to be more integrated within curriculum and the content of these courses will be monitored for consistency.

M. Q: Will both faculty and grad students teach 410 and 463? A: Yes, because more sections will be offered.

N. Q: Roughly how many hours in major do students currently graduate with?  Is adding extra 10 hours for double majors going to delay graduation? (I,e, 35 unique hours on each major, plus 10 hours in common = 80, now 20 can be common, so it would be 90.  80 to 90 credit hour increase.

i. Typically, 45, attained in Spring quarter of graduation. 

ii. Comment as to several areas of increase to major requirements in several SBS programs.  How often do we want to facilitate double majors and /or extra minors by default?  SBS has plenty of free hours.

                        ii. Integrity and quality of major is most important factor in decision.

iii. These extra hours are behind SBS B.S. and expanding rigor of SBS majors can be a desirable

           

Motion to Vote: Ward ;  Shanda 2^nd

Further issues/questions:

           

O. No grading scales on 488 & 549

P. What about qualitative methods? Seems to be a movement away from this.

i. Several new faculty are specialists in this area and it is seen as a departmental strength and while it is not featured part of program dept is thinking about adding a minor or classes in sociological methods which would include qualitative methods.

           

Vote: unanimously approved

 

 

5. Biology Major Revision (guest Caroline Breitenberger) Unanimously Approved with Contingencies

 

A. Comments from Sub C chair (May 07): Rationale is to present a more unified structure of biology program to students at the beginning of their work in the major.  Program proposal reflects effort to replace current electives structure with a specialization area to increase continuity for students. 

B. The proposed changes do not change the number of credit hours required to complete major. 

C. All questions asked by Sub C (see p 2 of Sub C chair’s letter) were addressed very satisfactorily and Sub C committee was particularly impressed with assessment program for major

            D. (Breitenberger) Contextual History & Description of Proposal:

i. Rationale: Elective vs. Specialization: As part of assessment efforts over past 4 years, the department audited student selections within major.  Fairly significant # of students were choosing courses as electives on basis of expediency rather than coherent areas of knowledge. This proposal seeks to further structure and transparent set patterns and address this issue by giving defined titles for specialization areas. 

ii. Core Requirements: Based on student surveys, focus groups and other feedback, there was a great deal of repetition of basic models/knowledge among instructors who could not assume prior knowledge, up to 4-5 times in the beginning weeks of courses.  Also, faculty feedback indicated that students did not see coherence among courses in the major, across divisions in core areas.

            E. Pre-reqs have not changed for biology majors (see p 13 of proposal) and with          exception of one course, are also the pre-reqs for the MCAT (pre med)

            F. BioSci 320 intradepartmental offering is relevant to each specialization

G. BioSci 401/402 Provide basic overall survey courses for biologists required for all majors.  Wanted to integrate specific topics across both courses, not compartmentalized but rather offer knowledge via case studies that represents real-life integration of many aspects of what biological study entails.

i. Syllabi are provided in proposal, which are characterized by student-directed learning which is designed to take place in extensive recitation sections, some directly linked to lecture, some not as obviously and it is students’ job to make those connections.

H. Specialization Areas: Given 401/402, discussion is beginning within programs to revamp upper division courses in response, increasing rigor accordingly.

I. Concern expressed that while EEOB approves of revisions and is excited about opportunity to           increase rigor of courses, there are 6 departments within college that will contribute to this effort and would be potential areas of specialization (i.e. Could students choose a Biology plus specialization that would inhibit them from declaring major in one of these six EEOB areas?)

i. This concern was taken into consideration and no specializations are intended to overlap or trump departmental majors, specializations constitute “leftovers” 

                        i. Process of approving specializations: advisors are discussing how to do                                   this for students who express specific interests, especially the interest of                                     expediency to graduate

ii. Comment: A few years ago, Physics proposed specializations of same sort due to similar feedback for students who were not going to grad school with much success.

            J. College of Biological Sciences is rather unique to Ohio State and thus warrants                       this specialization structure. 

K. Q: How does this impact Honors Biology Major?  A: Shouldn’t have much, if any, impact: they are taking higher level courses currently anyway and they expect this to continue.  No plans at present to offer 401H or 402H.  Still plenty of options for honors embedded and/or higher level courses.

L. 401/402 4 or 5 credit hours?  BIO needs to go back through and decide. 

i.major proposal needs to be revised to reflect new totals (12, not 10 in Part B).

ii. Suggestion to modify to 5/5/2 from 4/4/2 (Breitenberger) Ok with current Sub B chair

iii. Breitenberger will revise p. 13 & 42 of proposal 10-12 hours and mentions of Bio 401/402 from 4-5 in proposal documentation

iv. Page 3 bottom (delete “not”)

M. Chem 251-2 are on their way to being 5 credit courses to reflect their current rigor and time commitment.  This will affect this major, but not this proposal.

 

Motion to approve with contingencies (See L above): Hobgood,  2^nd Harder

 

Resend to committee in revised form

Unanimously Approved with Contingencies

 

6. ASC 720  Neither chair of Sub A nor Susan Fischer could attend

            A. Table pending attendance

            B. Recommendations for syllabus:

i. Include grading scale

ii. include academic misconduct statement         

iii. include disability statement 

C. Committee requests answers to the following questions, preferably in a cover letter:

i. Who is target audience? 

ii. Is it a GIS course, why/why not?      

iii. Why is it proposed to be an ASC course (and not Entomology)? 

iv. How is it a   foundational course and for what?

D. Curriculum and Assessment office will contact Sub A chair and proposer with questions and re-invite to next CCI meeting.

 

7. Concurrence Process

A. Mention of Electronic Course Approval System (ECS) and implications for concurrence timing (request to put issue on next CCI agenda - Mumy)

B. Concern: curricular committees should have op to synthesize comments from concurrences

i. Turf based vs. Content based (intellectual objections to rigor, etc.) What should curricular review bodies actually be thinking about when faced with such objections?  Need to settle concurrence issues within ASC and not send problem up to OAA.  Is it fair to delay or stop a course a course based on the latter sort of complaint?

ii. Suggestion to excise from part B of Concurrence form, “including a statement of support of non-support,”

iii. If someone objects, they will say NO regardless of statement

iv. Leaving out those words creates a different set of expectations, which would empower committees to consider such statements with more leeway to make decisions

v. Form is called a “concurrence form” don’t concur? Don’t submit?  This is confusing – perhaps a need to change the name of the form?

vi. “Comment” form?  “Course Proposal Comment Form”? 

vii. If you take concurrence off, what if you don’t have any comments? What is impetus to reply at all? 

viii. A-Deans should be copied on all concurrence invitations/ notifications

ix. Other institutions send out across university whenever things are initiated – increases bureaucracy but also neutralizes process and opens it up to everyone and creates an atmosphere more conducive to interdisciplinarity.

x. CCI members will take these back to departmental curriculum committees and CCI will revisit this issue on 11/9.

 

Adjourn 11:00 am

 

 

Committee on Curriculum and Instruction

 

 

Meeting Minutes – Sept 28, 2007

 

 

UNAPPROVED

 

 

 

 

 

Present: Adelson, Shanda, Trudeau, Berman, Lowry, Florman, Hobgood, Harder, Mumy, Vasey, Lemberger, Baker, Oltmann, Andereck, Mockabee, Dutta, Collier, Corel

 

 

 

1. Recap of Retreat/ Priorities for 07-08- Ed Adelson
   1. Review of AP credit proposal issue

<!--[if !supportLists]-->                                                               i.      <!--[endif]-->Mabel Freeman suggests university-wide discussion last spring.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->                                                             ii.      <!--[endif]-->Meeting with Professional colleges’ to introduce proposal (and OAA):  professional colleges will not adopt this

<!--[if !supportLists]-->                                                            iii.      <!--[endif]-->CCI priority this year is to move discussion forward, especially AP courses in the Breadth Area Insight areas- need to continue to monitor student AP use.

2. Insight areas discussion – ongoing about how to incorporate these initiatives long term. Handout from Jackie Royster.
3. Thanks for a successful CCI retreat on 09/14
4. Suggestion of acronym glossary for new members to be added to 2008-09 Operation Manual.This is now under development.
1. Revision of GEC Guidelines and Checksheets - #1 CCI Priority (Ed Adelson, Alexis Collier)
   1. Currently located in Operation Manual beginning on p.15 and p.66
   2. Brief history of check sheets: developed by faculty and have undergone several revisions of and additions to various parts.
   3. Challenge: faculty revision which brings learning objectives and assessment plans in line with area guidelines and sub-guidelines, forming a consistent, clear synthesis in order to ensure curriculum has standards for consistency and effectiveness which will:

<!--[if !supportLists]-->                                                               i.      <!--[endif]-->make assessment easier for faculty to integrate into course development

<!--[if !supportLists]-->                                                             ii.      <!--[endif]-->Make transparent the course review and approval process

<!--[if !supportLists]-->                                                            iii.      <!--[endif]-->Make clear the expectations to help colleagues who are developing curriculum

4. Process for undertaking a revision:

<!--[if !supportLists]-->                                                               i.      <!--[endif]-->suggestion to have Sub E work available to SUB B+C and have

            SUB B+C revise check sheets, then vet back to E

<!--[if !supportLists]-->                                                             ii.      <!--[endif]-->suggestion to have subcommittee chairs plus volunteers work   through revision process then vet to full CCI (pursuing this path)

5. Summary of assessment efforts

<!--[if !supportLists]-->                                                               i.      <!--[endif]-->Assessment has been intentionally embedded into the curricular process 

<!--[if !supportLists]-->                                                             ii.      <!--[endif]-->CCI has oversight of these initiatives

<!--[if !supportLists]-->                                                            iii.      <!--[endif]-->Assessment plan for general education was given to Sub B and C to articulate goals and objectives for students through the model curriculum in order to create check sheets with straight-forward consistent language (p 66-68 of ASC Curricular Operations Manual)

<!--[if !supportLists]-->                                                           iv.      <!--[endif]-->Materials to be developed: expectations for assessment plan and course review process- How should guidelines be updated? What info is needed?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->1.      <!--[endif]-->sheets vary widely depending on category. Application process and review need to be consistent but also incorporate categorical nuances as appropriate

<!--[if !supportLists]-->2.      <!--[endif]-->Provide examplar syllabi and assessment plans for courses, majors, minors to address confusion and show how it is different from grading (i.e. student assessment)

<!--[if !supportLists]-->3.      <!--[endif]-->Proposed the use of faculty focus group and workshops to ask questions.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->4.      <!--[endif]-->Use website as central communication point.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->5.      <!--[endif]-->Have an assessment expert in each department to disseminate info to faculty (suggested: undergraduate curriculum chair)

<!--[if !supportLists]-->6.      <!--[endif]-->Make it time-friendly to faculty.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->7.      <!--[endif]-->Streamline the process.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->8.      <!--[endif]-->Have successful people share experience and informally mentor colleagues.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->                                                             v.      <!--[endif]-->Improving teaching is the main point of assessment.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->                                                           vi.      <!--[endif]-->Use resources such as FTAD for improvement after finding out problems from assessment results.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->                                                          vii.      <!--[endif]-->Communication is key: CCCs need to know which courses are being assessed.

3. Video Arts Minor proposal (Amy Youngs, Valerie Mockabee) - Approved
   1. Sub B approved
   2. Summary presented - a 25-credit minor
   3. Rationale: good way for video faculty across departments to understand what other colleagues are teaching, understand what is available, and therefore better advise students. 
   4. Noted: an increasing student desire to focus on video.
   5. Noted: interdisciplinary nature of the minor will help with student distribution among departments and broaden student perspective.
   6. Question: What are the pre-reqs for minor (for students outside of COTA) especially for higher- level courses-  How would students get into this?

<!--[if !supportLists]-->                                                               i.      <!--[endif]-->Many foundation courses are GECs which function as pre-reqs for later ones. It is more resource-based and outside students would be a welcome priority over COTA students

7. Request for sample walk-through the minor that would be illustrative for non-COTA student. Suggested development of targeted minor sheets.
8. Absence of courses on ethics of video media- answer: These elements are purposefully embedded in all courses

 

 

 

Unanimous approval

4. Encouragement of Upper Division GECs
   1. Concern was raised that GEC courses are mostly 100 and 200-level courses and might limit student choices, especially advanced and honors students.
   2. All departments and deans are being encouraged to participate in promoting GEC courses above 500-level to accommodate advanced students who want more relevant and challenging hours.
   3. Caution expressed not to extend GEC to specialized courses and 100-200 level legitimate for GEC—
   4. Noted: there is a need to rethink GEC as introductory courses or rather parallel courses that are coherent with majors
   5. Noted: such changes might affect students with many AP credit hours.
   6. Noted: Students tend to choose easy (lower level) GEC course
   7. Noted: Introductory level GECs might be challenges to students from other fields
   8. Demographic data of GEC students: data on student enrollment/choice patterns needed for further discussion (HUM has college data on this)
   9. Concerns: how to maintain rigor of GECs and freedom of student choice
   10. Need for budget modeling of possibilities
   11. Room for course redesign to increase challenge to students
   12. Curriculum Office will get more data for further discussion
   13. Possibility of only main categories for GEC courses and allow more student choices.
   14. Need to revisit based on data from “h” above

 

 

 

Meeting Adjourned 10:45am