ASCnet

Details

Date

2007-09-28

Time

Location

Agenda

Location 200 Bricker Hall
Time 9:00-11:00 a.m.
(given the short agenda, this mtg. will probably adjourn after about an hour)
AGENDA
1. Recap of Retreat / Priorities for 07-08 (Ed)
2. Revision of GEC Guidelines and Checksheets (Ed & Alexis) [pls bring 07-08 Curriculum Ops. Manual]
3. Video Arts Minor proposal (Invitees: Amy Youngs) See Proposal below. If you would like to see syllabi and/or supporting documents, please go to: http://artsandsciences.osu.edu/currofc/tracking.cfm?TrackingID=771

4. Encouragement of Upper Division GECs

Notes

Committee on Curriculum and Instruction

Approved Meeting Minutes – Sept 28, 2007

 

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

                                                               i.      Mabel Freeman suggests university-wide discussion last spring.

                                                             ii.      Meeting with Professional colleges’ to introduce proposal (and OAA):  professional colleges will not adopt this

                                                            iii.      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:

                                                               i.      make assessment easier for faculty to integrate into course development

                                                             ii.      Make transparent the course review and approval process

                                                            iii.      Make clear the expectations to help colleagues who are developing curriculum

4. Process for undertaking a revision:

                                                               i.      suggestion to have Sub E work available to SUB B+C and have

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

                                                             ii.      suggestion to have subcommittee chairs plus volunteers work   through revision process then vet to full CCI (pursuing this path)

5. Summary of assessment efforts

                                                               i.      Assessment has been intentionally embedded into the curricular process 

                                                             ii.      CCI has oversight of these initiatives

                                                            iii.      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)

                                                           iv.      Materials to be developed: expectations for assessment plan and course review process- How should guidelines be updated? What info is needed?

1.      sheets vary widely depending on category. Application process and review need to be consistent but also incorporate categorical nuances as appropriate

2.      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)

3.      Proposed the use of faculty focus group and workshops to ask questions.

4.      Use website as central communication point.

5.      Have an assessment expert in each department to disseminate info to faculty (suggested: undergraduate curriculum chair)

6.      Make it time-friendly to faculty.

7.      Streamline the process.

8.      Have successful people share experience and informally mentor colleagues.

                                                             v.      Improving teaching is the main point of assessment.

                                                           vi.      Use resources such as FTAD for improvement after finding out problems from assessment results.

                                                          vii.      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?

                                                               i.      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