Committee on Curriculum and Instruction
Approved Minutes
Friday, May 08, 2009						
9:00-11:00 AM
226 University Hall

ATTENDEES: Highley, Huffmann, Hubin, Shanda, Trudeay, Krissek, Bruce, Vaessin, Harder, Liddle, Williams, Collier, Andereck, Carey, Breitenberger, Mumy, Haddad, Fredal, Severtis, Hallihan

AGENDA:
1.	Approval of minutes from 4/10/09
Motion to approve Shanda, 2nd Huffman 8 yes, 1 abstention
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED

2.	Semesters update and discussion (Guest: R. Smith Smith)
a.	Process: 
•	University Faculty Senate and Board of Trustees approved move to semesters in April
•	Council on Enrollment and Student Progress (CESP) (Ann Smith.23) presented models to Senate yesterday has 3 models of  calendars on the web and is soliciting comments; will hold 3 open forums in May
•	Administration of process will shift to R. Smith’s office where R. Smith will be point person for Provost for next 3 years. R. Smith will appoint 2 senior faculty fellows to work in Provost’s office on conversion project for 3 year period, one of whom will co-chair a steering committee with R. Smith.
•	Jay Johnson, Program Manager with extensive BoR experience, has been hired and will keep project moving forward on a day to day basis. This activity will interact strongly with new dean for Undergrad Education, Dean of Graduate School, and other Vice Provosts 
b.	Steering committee: 
•	Other institutions have had similar administrative structure in place for conversion. 
•	Structure will have substantial faculty representation, many from university committees, and will include regional faculty and ATI Wooster. It will include senior staff from areas that will be impacted, as well as deans, and partners such as Columbus State. 
•	4 co-located technical colleges (located with regionals) will also be invited to participate if they wish.
c.	OAA support for steering committee
•	Small group of senior administrators will work to provide data to steering committee (Alexis Collier, Alan Kalish, Julie Carpenter Hubin and second faculty fellow)
•	Small set of subcommittees dealing with targeted topics (advising, IT, space, curriculum)
•	Continuous communication beginning end of this quarter, web site will be established, monthly newsletter, minimum quarterly updates to senate, deans, chairs, and trustees
•	Institutional partners at CIC institutions and Ohio Institutions on R. Smith’s level will work as a team as well including 4 Ohio institutions that are also converting
•	University Senate Leadership will lead the subcommittee structure (Chris Zacher, Tim Gerber, and Heather Allen)
d.	Curricular aspects
•	Provost remains highly supportive of funds for course redesign
•	Discussion of learning outcomes will help drive decisions
•	Largest departments (English, History, Math, Psychology, Ed T&L, Music, Mech Eng) will also be working closely on conversion
•	Each unit will appoint a point person for conversion to guide process
•	At OU web site, local point people are already appointed and are on web with contact info
•	Curricular Deans and administrative staff will also be interacting with committees on a continual basis
•	CAA will have a new chair from A&S, who will take over in summer and will decide on process. 
•	CAA will ask colleges to come forward in tiers, with 6 colleges starting earlier. Several colleges have already expressed interest in going first, including Engineering because they want to begin conversion process early.
•	Closest parallel of such a restructuring was the GEC batch conversion in ‘88-‘91
•	OAA office needs a process for course and major/minor approvals because there must be mechanisms for speedy yet rigorous vetting that can accommodate volume of change  
•	GEC: must go earlier due to interdependence with all other colleges
•	Q: Who is going to decide on the daily class schedule? CESP is discussing. Dan Mendelsohn, chair of CAA, wants CAA to determine what constitutes a credit hour and class time. Issues include class length, coursework, lab space. CAA has identified a subgroup to work with CESP to help with decision, which must come within next month.
•	Other 3 schools in Ohio are being consulted currently and have already fine tuned Gen Ed program
•	Q: Support for point people? Responsibility of colleges to compensate and R. Smith will find out how this compensation will be done. Can be done in a variety of ways. 
•	If any CCI members would like to be involved in more detail, please contact R. Smith. This is an OAA process but is being done with faculty governance.

3.	Updates from Chair (nominations for CCI Chair)
a.	Please contact Chris Highley directly with nominations or self nominations before next CCI meeting on 5/29
4.	Math Major Revision (Guest: Ron Solomon)
a.	Summary (Harder): (see cover letter) reviewed on 4/21 by Sciences subcommittee. Impressed with justification for major as stated in cover letter. Revision also formalizes ad-hoc changes occurring currently. Features 6 new degree tracks, the traditional track being almost identical to existing major. Applied track is different from current but is close in number of credits. 20-29 hours in foundational courses (calculus) with 37-47 hours of electives. No new courses with major but over past year, 3 new courses have been approved in anticipation of major revision (Intro to Bio Math, Intro to Financial Math, and Intro to Coding Theory and Design Theory related to Discrete track)
•	Tracks vary in number of hours required and courses associated with tracks
•	Bio Math and Applied tracks are directed toward closer links with the Biological and the Physical Sciences respectively
•	New Financial track will help develop career opportunities for students
•	Committee focused most of attention on assessment. In Math there are many sequential courses which lend themselves to assessment of student success, exit surveys, alumni surveys; Committee noted that embedded test questions are not currently used and recommends that each track have targeted assessment related to goals of tracks (see subcommittee cover letter)

b.	History/Rationale (Solomon): 
•	The mode of mathematics teaching developed after WWII via French Mathematicians and was very abstract in nature. Traditional track follows this and is good for training abstract mathematicians. 
•	Developments over last 50 years include Computer Science (with connections to Design and Graph theory), which permits investigations by mathematicians that were not possible in the past, such as weather forecasting and  applications of mathematics to biological processes. In view of these developments, it seemed appropriate to develop these new applied tracks. 
•	UCLA has developed a similar curricular structure which has been extremely successful. 
•	Applied track was begun a few decades ago, but it is now appropriate to further develop these tracks to provide more flexible and varied options for students. Many colleagues in Math department have worked very hard at developing these tracks through interaction with all relevant disciplines (Applied Discrete track involves Computer Science, Applied links Math to Physical Sciences and Engineering, Biomath driven by Math/Bio Institute, which also offers internship opportunities)

c.	Q: Bio/Math track p.15 requirement of Chem 121-123 and Bio 113-114 sequence and advanced Bio courses (401-402): Clarification of core versus pre-reqs: Core is Bio is 113-114 and 401-402. There is no change to proposal, 113-114 are still considered pre-reqs, 401-402 are part of core as is Math 350 and pure Math and Stats courses. Subsequent to that are elective choices (9 hours) in math, biological sciences or chemistry
d.	Comment: Great proposal. Q: There are a lack of electives in Earth Sciences within Bio/Math and Applied Math yet there are many courses in ES in paleontology and climate that could enhance major for students. Can these be included? Students may design program in consultation with advisor to include electives in appropriately approved areas, such as ES. It is intended as a highly-recommended set of electives. ES to consult with Math for possible inclusion of appropriate courses.
e.	Q: Can we include Atmospheric Sciences courses from Geography? How do we get courses in there that will have to be added to track and then go back through approval process? Or can elective for Applied remain a boutique for students to investigate? Proposer hopes for approval of proposal today as is, and revisions can be made later. Applied track already lists several possible options in this area.
f.	Resources – with so much change is there need for new faculty? There are only 3 new (previously approved) courses included in this proposal. The proposal is rather a new organization that allow students to supplement Math courses with courses from other departments. Dept has approval for new hires in Math Biology and dept is in process of hiring for next year. In financial math, there is a shortage of faculty resources and dept has a goal of hiring new people in this area. Actuarial Science major is very popular and growing and dept wishes to address understaffing issues in near future.
g.	CCI would like to approve proposal with understanding that Math will consult with other interested parties including ES and Geography as the program moves forward and will consider revisions to major track to include appropriate courses?
Motion to Approve Hubin, 2nd Trudeau

Unanimously Approved
 
5.	Discussion of GEC Expected Learning Outcomes (ELO) Cultures & Ideas, Philosophy letter

a.	Hubin Overview: An instructor was trying to incorporate current ELOs into syllabus for an existing course and had trouble with general A&H learning objectives. 3 bulleted objectives on p. 36, as opposed to the 8 listed in Model Curriculum (MC) shift emphasis dramatically from MC. Proposers are asked to frame courses with MC in mind but this is difficult because of the way the general A&H objectives are skewed toward visual and performing arts.
b.	Instructor was told by chair to focus on C&I sub-goals, but that is what prompted Philosophy letter
c.	Subcategory goals are not easy to find because they are included in Ops Manual but are not available in general publication
d.	Proposal to revise/correct oversight to include sub goals
e.	Combination of information – objectives and delivery were conflated historically. Historical Study, for example, had to be extracted from A&H goals after GEC revision. C&I also has a history of not fitting in and there were never separate learning objectives delineated
f.	Liddle, Williams, Shanda and Hubin to propose revision for presentation at next CCI meeting.

6.	Music, Media and Enterprise Minor (Guests: Marc Ainger, David Bruenger, Valarie Williams)
a.	Williams: Subcommittee found minor creative and innovative. Consists of 22 credits, 3 core classes, focus on 19th-20th century music industry and how media has changed industry moving into 21st century, as well as entrepreneurship involved in industry. 14 hours elective credits (2 specific courses for non-music majors) variety is recommended. David and Marc worked closely with Communications and revamped syllabi accordingly, with Michael Camp in FCOB, and with Don Tobin and Gary Jenkins in Law. While no undergrad courses in Law currently fit this, grad courses may be tailored to be included at a later date.
b.	TIE received by Provost’s Office funded hiring of Bruenger, and another faculty member and staff member will be hired. Only TIE outside STEM discipline to be funded
c.	Minor is different from BA, BM, BME in content because of focus on industry aspects as opposed to performance or licensure, and therefore COTA asks that Music majors be allowed to take this minor because it is very different from the current applied music major. Courses taken in Music for the minor will not be able to double count toward major and vice versa, per A&S guidelines.
d.	Romain scholarship fund has been established to develop further activities in minor as well as internships, which includes 10 alumni in New York City.
e.	(Bruenger) The creation of this minor represents the first tangible expression of a mission to build bridges both inside Music and to/from other disciplines such as Business, Social Science, Cultural Anthropology, and Psychology, with communication being most critical current element. Law element is also important and will be pursued.
f.	Several faculty can teach in this minor and students currently completing Personalized Study Programs in what they thought was music industry made need for this structured program evident. Includes critical courses to provide response to this issue and will be of great benefit to students for future success in career.
g.	Q: Is this an innovation? Will we become a national leader? Very impressive proposal. This is a new development. Only initiative similar is the Herb Albert Foundation grant to USC ours is farther along. This could eventually grow into a major and will serve as a model across the country. Such a growth would need to address student demand and more Economics courses. Minor will be monitored for enrollments, students will be consulted as to how a major should look and such data will drive further development.
h.	Q: Has Folklore Center been consulted? Might they have an interest and/or something to add?  Yes, they are interested and there is a potential for this but departmental interaction must be worked out first.
i.	Advising sheet: Need to note that non-music minors will have to take 2 electives and what those are.
j.	Typo in 3rd paragraph of advising sheet.

Motion to Approve: Shanda, 2nd Trudeau

Unanimously Approved

Additional Discussion:

GEC revision plan – Shanda
•	At ULAC-GEC last week discussion began about what GEC would look like under semesters. Much specific information will be needed before programs can begin. Concern that GEC will be awkward to try to easily transmute into a semester schedule, despite recent revision. 
•	Revision of GEC is a non-starter unless financial implications can be taken off table.
•	See Shanda e-mail: 
o	Ask financial implications/enrollments remain fixed for next 5-6 years Curricular leaders of GEC (CCI) should make this request
o	There are currently 11 different versions GEC across campus. Could there be a universal core GEC?
o	Idea: 4 bins (Expression, Analysis, Exploration, Application) 12 course core, any 3 courses from each category
•	Expression (Writing, Communication, A&H)
•	Analysis (Quantitative and Logical, Nat Sci, History)
•	Exploration (Languages, Social Sciences, Culture)
•	Application (any 3 courses from any of the above, must be 300-level or above, must include a 597 Capstone course for integrated knowledge)
o	Majors may require up to 6 specific courses to serve as foundational experiences for the major. The remaining 6 must be left entirely to student choice. No other subcategory requirements may be applied.
o	GEC discussion must be initiated and solved fast, probably by the end of fall. 2007 changes to current GEC, while minimal, took a very long time because of important financial considerations.
o	Now is best time to discuss protecting units’ budgets
o	Support for above plan as a discussion starter, for a uniform GEC, and for the idea of CCI making the first step.
o	Does this plan reflect current GECs at other institutions? Inspired by some as well as assessment work and program reviews that Shanda has been involved in.
o	Plan would be a reduction of number of courses
o	Support to see a GEC that a faculty member could understand. The current GEC is elaborate and this is a fine opportunity to try to reverse this in a fundamental way. Principles should be established that are not driven by finances. Simplification and transparency would much reduce advising challenges and these would be admirable goals. 
o	Fewer bins, broader categories would be one way to accomplish this.
o	Support for not letting budget system override what constitutes a general education and we must come to a consensus about what constitutes a liberal arts education. Proposed model approaches this.
o	Information on semester schools should be considered – ask Julie Carpenter Hubin’s office (General Ed in the 21st Century) send to CCI, try to find out when any models were last revised
o	Q: Is it the case that a lot of peer institutions do not specify course numbers but only departments? Yes, this would simplify GEC.
•	Response: department specification may make lucky charms worse if certain requirements are retained but learning goals are not met in a certain course. Advising would need to then know this for students. Idea of dept or college-level category fulfillment is good, however, and also changes assessment structures
•	Concern for applying assessment to individual courses but rather a holistic assessment of sample students, such as CLA, could be used.
o	Q: Capstone – What purpose should these serve? What should be their function? Take name, “Capstone,” off table and reconsider. In terms of assessment and comparative models of GEC, it is important to student learning to take course with students not in major sitting together, max 30 people, bringing different perspectives on a particular topic. This is different from a capstone within a major which brings together knowledge within major. Both are valuable. 
•	Engineering has capstone design courses while B.S. students have not had to do this.
•	Idea of a capstone-like experience can be defined differently, but that kind of experience is very important according to research for students to synthesize and integrate and these types of experiences are enriching for students. On the NSSE, this area is lacking for Ohio State in comparison to peers.
o	Could a student do all Analysis courses in History? Yes. Goes back to foundational principles. If we want to ensure that a certain set of based must be touched, the GEC must be more prescriptive. Current GEC is prescriptive. Insight areas were bogged down due to this trend toward being prescriptive.
•	One must establish a certain set of bases that reflect what a liberal arts education is, but also can also be based on what expectations are from industry, students, parents
o	What are we protecting? What are we trying to ensure? Dollars or educational experience?
o	Must be interdisciplinarity
o	Idea is similar to other universities (UC system) with minimal bullet points with lists of courses that ensure students are broadly hitting certain areas
o	One bin: Exposure – making sure students are exposed to certain things. How does one assess exposure? To see if a student took a course? Broad learning outcomes? If so, then what is the point of learning outcomes? 
•	At the end what should students experience? How would we assess that?
•	Dick Gunther wrote a piece on the liberal arts –Distribute to CCI
•	Model Curriculum also states principles
o	Support for simplification
o	How much will this all be driven by an externally imposed list of learning outcomes from accreditation bodies? There is an expectation that an institution has a program of general ed and the faculty of that institution determine what that is, what learning objectives are and how to assess it. That is how our current learning outcomes were determined. In the simple program proposed here, what assessment plan would satisfy accreditors? One must begin not with an assessment plan, but rather with learning outcomes – an expected set of goals that help students achieve institutional goals. This could be encapsulated in an assessment of a capstone-like course.
o	Must be articulated learning goals from every program that then make assessment possible. It starts with, “What are you trying to achieve?” not “Where are you going to get assessment?”
o	Could a student take a literature course from any department? 
o	A student could take ownership by having portfolios that document the achievement of the learning outcomes but faculty remain involved in then assessing the portfolios. Advisors could assess this too.
o	Some institutions have 6, or even 1 common course that every student must take and all across the campus people develop such courses depending on individual course content
o	Must focus on what you are trying to achieve, then implementation, then assess it.
o	The breadth and specificity of the above questions varies a great deal. It would help to have a procedure to determine which questions should be looked at when and by whom. CCI as a whole should start thinking about principles and basic criteria, based on models, articles mentioned, and peer as well as like-type institutions.
•	CCI should initiate this discussion and put together whatever type of GEC will be presented to senate. Subcommittees working over summer would be a procedurally sound way to prepare groundwork and framework for fall discussion.
•	Purpose of ULAC-GEC was to expand GEC conversation to whole university and while the CCI should be the source, any structure that may come out of such discussions should include ULAC-GEC
o	Any discussion must take into account financial impact. Involve Smith and faculty leadership (Dick Gunther and Tim Gerber) then request meeting with Provost Alutto and President Gee. Commitment/principle must come from them as well as incoming dean of Arts and Sciences to guarantee that units and colleges will be held harmless and be protected with historic allocations for at least 5 years (either until 2017 or overlapping 5 years around 2012). 
o	Urge for caution with fiscal decisions that do not accommodate increases in enrollments as well as decreases.
Meeting adjourned 11:01