ASCnet

Details

Date

2007-11-09

Time

Location

Agenda

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

AGENDA
1. Approval of 10-19-07 minutes

2.  Updates from Chair including a revision to the verbiage for the Historical Study GEC category 

3.  Transfer Modules project (Kate)

4. ASC 720 – Graduate Seminar in Scientific Literacy (Beth Hume)

5.  Interdisciplinary Evolutionary Studies Minor (Jeff McKee.95 and Bill Ausich.1 to present) please see proposal below

6. Survey Research Minor (Gerald Kosicki.1 & Herb Weisberg.1 to present) please see proposal below; Comm 449 will be sent in separate e-mail link.

 7. Electronic Course Submission Process & concurrences

Notes

Committee on Curriculum and Instruction

Meeting Minutes – November 9, 2007

 APPROVED

 

Present: Adelson, Trudeau, Hume, Harder, Hobgood, Mumy, Berman, Highley, Andereck, Mockabee, Ward, Dutta, Collier, Jenkins

Guests: Jeff McKee, William Ausich, Herb Weisberg, Jerry Kosicki

 

1. Approval of minutes: Motion Trudeau, 2^nd Hobgood, unanimously approved

 

2. Updates from Chair

 

A. Discussion: Can students who come back after 4 year hiatus return under GEC-R? (Adelson, M.E. Jenkins)  Q: How many students does this cover?  Not many, but no exact data at meeting.  Clarification: 4 years = 16 consecutive qtrs.  4 years is not a university rule.  University rule is 5 years but ASC is 4 years.  Why are we 4 and not 5?  Most colleges are.  Committee agrees that is ok.

 

B. Announcement of new name for revised GEC:  “GEC-R” (where “R” = “Revised”) to note in DARS and other new systems.

 

C. Discussion: Revision to verbiage for the Historical Study GEC Category (handout)

i. History Department wanted the A & B category divisions to discourage students from taking 500-level courses before lower level courses

ii. New wording proposed by Rich Ugland after departmental vote:  "Students will choose two courses.  The first course can be any History course at the 100- or 300-level (with the exception of History 398) or a course from the approved list.  The second course can be any History course at the 100-, 300-, or 500-level (with the exceptions of History 398 and 598) or a course from the approved list."

iii. Will there be just one list of approved courses?  Because right now it gives visual precedence to listed courses from other departments.  Subcommittee’s understanding was that sequenced courses would go into category A, thus highlighting the non-history courses.

iv. Suggested verbiage: “Choose any course from the approved list, one at the 100-300 level and one at the 500 level”; “Students must choose 2 courses from approved list. If both are history then the first cannot be 500-level.”

            v. What are 389/598? Research courses

            vi. Suggestion: have 2 lists listing all courses

            vii. Change from “must” to “can” is significant.

            vii. Language reflects History department’s ideas clearly

            viii. Suggestion: have History institute pre-reqs for their 500-level courses.

            ix. Motion to approve : Berman, 2^nd Highley

 

Further discussion: Could be simpler: 2 courses from approved list, blanket change for any 500-level course to add 5 credit hours in history as a pre-req authorized by Randy Smith.  But History might not want that for non-GEC students.  Point: When 15 CCI members take 19.5 minutes to discuss 3 sentences, it’s still unclear and needs further vetting by CAA.

 

Vote: In favor:   6  Opposed: 2 

 

3. Interdisciplinary Evolutionary Studies Minor: Guests Jeff McKee and Bill Ausich

Unanimously Approved

 

A. Context: Evolution is an overarching idea that cuts across disciplines but undergrads typically get a much narrower focus based on curricular silos.  This minor would afford students a broader perspective.  Educational value: help applications to graduate school based on broad research and student research opportunities, will also speak well for Ohio State nationally.

B. Based on advising, this minor could become quite popular, especially among Anthropology, EEOB, Biology, Science Ed, Science Journalism, Game Theory, Economics

C. EEOB perspective: Some concerns as to number of courses, prep for these courses is generally introductory Biology: How far away from science would students be coming, i.e. students without a biological background.  Is this more science, or evolution for the masses, conceptually, in terms of pre-reqs and biology preparation required of students who are interested in this minor? A: Most students have enough biology background, and the foundation (315) courses require one biology, anthropology, or one earth sciences course.

D. Larry Krissek’s concerns in concurrence packet: addressed by Linda Schoen – some feel adequately, some aren’t sure.  Largely advising issues.

E. Geological Perspectives: would this already large list expand?  No, these are core courses in a relatively small part of the School of Earth Sci.  This is entry point for them.  This list is as inclusive as possible. Current list is based on university wide committee vetting.

F. P. 7 typo first paragraph – “core” not “course”; NCR on p. 20 “understandING” not “understand”

G. Q: Are there mechanisms for science students to look at evolution from a cultural or other perspective?  Yes – core choices include all 4 categories, science and non-science. 

H. Q: Who will be advising BIO majors to ensure consistency?  A: An oversight committee of 3 faculty plus an advisor and the advisor would educate relevant advisors.

           

Motion to Approve: Highley  2^nd: Hobgood

 

4. ASC 720

A. Beth Hume representing for Susan Fisher and Sub A: Response to CAA concerns: This is a GIS course as an elective; should have an ASC designation because it didn’t seem appropriate to house in any one dept. due to its interdisciplinarity; it is a foundational course due to seminal nature of content and metascience issues that are not directly addressed in regular science courses.

B. Who teaches it if not Susan Fisher?  This is housed in Interdisciplinary Programs and could be taught by ASC faculty and Sub-A monitors staffing and progress of course.

C. What is incentive for departments to staff this course if funding goes to ASC?  Case by case basis, normally going back to instructor and his/her unit.  There are a few existing 700-level ASC courses that serve as precedent. 

D. How many students might take this course?  Sounds more like a GEC course.  Students outside of ASC, Science Education students.  Est 10-15 students.  Literacy Studies committee that is cross-disciplinary was rigorously vetted. 

E. Syllabus: % grading breakdown not clear or consistent.  Extrapolate and put into a table.

Motion to Approve: Ward, 2^nd Berman

Vote: 1 abstention all others in favor with contingency (E.)

 

5. Survey Research Minor (Guests Herb Weisberg and Gerald Kosicki)

Unanimously Approved.

 

A. Context (Kosicki)  AU 2000 Graduate specialization in survey research has been reasonably successful, meeting important need for grad students who need these skills and creates a valuable credential on job market; open to all grad students.  Idea for this proposal comes from the graduate program. 

B. Rationale: students would benefit from extra credential.  Survey Research industry needs people from all fields not just statistics who can communicate well.  Interdisciplinary framework makes it appealing to all students, few entry requirements, only one foundational course 449 (a broad intro to field of survey research based on  Weisberg’s cutting edge research which includes all possible sources of errors and costs, and serves as an elegant theoretical framework for study of survey research.  Subsequent courses carefully chosen.)

B. (Weisberg) Gratitude to Linda Schoen for her arbitration.  449 is an open number for all departments and thus can be open to new iterations from other departments

C. Q: IRB implications, considerations for student training?  Yes, provided in course content.

D. 449 syllabus: Request for clarification on final project mentioned at end but not in assignment lists: A: Students would use a survey program on internet for basis of final assignment, wrapped up in homework assignments. 

E.  no grading schema; refer to “OSU Standard Scale” from Carmen

            F. P.2 editorial comments

            G. Need follow up meeting to think about advising and internship

H. What is Multi vs. Interdisciplinary? Interdisciplinary : people from different disc working on a common theme/goal ; Multi = people from diff. disc not necessarily working on a common goal.  Comm 672 (copy Avor comments): At Ohio State there are people from many areas with expertise in S.R. this is an attempt to pull all these people together.  Change Multi- to Inter in line 4.

I. Concern that making Comm 672 a required core course might take out enrollments.  Good idea, however, to have it as a choice.  There are significant strains of qualitative research methods so if a student had an interest in that, they could take basic courses to provide a framework and pursue qualitative thereafter, although there is a quantitative underlying assumption to the minor.  They would be open to having more qualitative elements.

 

Move to vote Berman; 2^nd Hobgood

 

5. Transfer Module Discussion

A. Summary of TM update project to date (collection of syllabi, advising decisions, learning objective language, number of courses on the list)  Question of  who decides what is on list. 

B.  Discussion to be continued pending further information from Randy Smith at 11-30 meeting

 

6. ECS Concurrence Discussion

A. At which point does the course proposal get sent to university?  Pre-college curriculum committees or post?  Currently pre. 

i. SBS not in favor because CCCs will make first level of cuts and alterations, which could make it objectionable if it was not so before

                        ii. tech can make put in a patch to eliminate the pre-college sending

iii. Most professional colleges are in favor of the post college sending as well.

                        iv. A-Deans had this objection in spring

v. MAPS had initial objections as well, pending Joe Rutter and Lorraine Cathala’s visit to MAPS CCC meeting

            B. Concurrence vs. Comment issue

i. SBS against making change –they want the “No” box, not against making language less hostile.  Makes for clearer choiced:  If “no” box is checked, then it is paramount to present substantive argument.  Change labels from concurrence/non-concurrence to “favor/do not favor”  Box as flag function but not veto and rationale based on pedagogical reasons.

ii. Conc. Issue is budget based, not academic integrity.  Academic integrity is issue for CCI while former is an administrative issue.  Changing language opens atmosphere for more interdisciplinary discussion of academic integrity.

iii. If it is a “no” we don’t send it to next committee until negotiations are had.  Proposal is stalled.

                        iv. Self-censorship can impede proposals

v. What is point of concurrence?  Quality control?  Duplication?  Enrollments?  Yes

vi. Problem is how disputes are resolved, not the language.  Before new budget system there were plenty of non-concurrences and it is not clear that such instances have gone up because of budget

vii. Suggestion: an official conflict resolution mechanism.  We have one now: ASC, but this does not always work.  How much authority does/should CCI have?

viii. Issue to be discussed further pending departmental feedback

                       

Meeting adjourned 11:30 a.m.