University
of
MINUTES 2004-2005 CURRICULUM COMMITTEE MEETING
# 8
Present: John Schwaller, Mike Korth, Judy Kuechle, Jooinn Lee, Jenny
Nellis,
Mary
Elizabeth Bezanson, Harold Hinds, Carol Marxen, Dave Roberts, Sarah Black,
Joe
Basel, Blair Jasper, Jeri Mullin, Ruth Thielke, Nancy Helsper, Tom McRoberts.
Absent: Sara
Haugen and Lee Thao.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION:
(Bezanson, Korth) To approve minutes from Meeting #6, October 21 and
#7,
VOTE:
Motion passed (8-0-0)
IS CATALOG CHANGES
Schwaller presented a revisions for IS 4994H. This was a
change that came to him and he felt it was more than an editorial change and
should be approved by CC. A member questioned what the @
sign meant in prereq. Helsper explained that it is “college consent” but will
be taken out because the prereq of an approved form will satisfy that
requirement. A member stated he is not opposing the approval of this course but
questioned having a standard credit option for all final project courses since
they are different across the disciplines. Discussion continued about the
credit limit.
MOTION: (Hinds, Lee) To approve IS 4994H
VOTE:
Motion passed (8-0-1)
A faculty member asked about UMM’s
candidacy with Phi Beta Kappa and it was discussed briefly.
REVIEW OF FORMS A AND B
Form A:
Schwaller asked for the committee to review the Forms A and
B that are used during a catalog year and asked if there were any suggested
changes. Korth handed out a revised draft of Form A which somewhat changed the
course counting information. He indicated these were just ideas and he would be
open to changes. The total courses and credits in the major and minor sections would
stay the same. The count of GER courses would be eliminated and counts in the
entire discipline for the different levels of courses would be counted in two
categories: those in the catalog and those taught. The number of courses taught
in the previous year could be pulled from the Data Book. The information
requested at the bottom of the form was worded differently to encourage description
by asking for a summary of the intent of the proposed changes and what
financial and staffing implications result from the proposed changes. It was suggested to add to the last question
what the implications would be in the discipline and other disciplines, since
many changes impact other disciplines. There was concern about pulling
information from the Data Book as it may not be as current as desired. It was
noted that the effective date of the changes was left off; this was not
intentional and should continue to be listed. Helsper noted that the wording
from the Data Book would be classes not courses and that information would not
include lessons, directed studies and one credit courses. A member stated that
the question is what information is useful and what information would the
committee would like to see. A member stated that it may be possible to pull
the number of active courses from each discipline from ECAS. If so, directed
studies and one credit courses would be counted. Another member suggested using
the class schedule for this information. A member stated that the class
schedule might not be the best place to get the information because of all the
changes. A member stated that the instructions do say “taught” as opposed to
“potentially taught”. A member noted that the class schedule also does not take
into account the variety of ways courses are taught,
two courses with different numbers are actually the same course. A member
stated that he found only the bottom information useful, not the top. Others
felt the top information is useful in showing compliance with the max credit
limit for majors and minors.
Schwaller proposed that the committee review this
information some more. It will continue to be discussed at a later meeting
after members have time to discuss this with their colleagues.
FORM B:
Helsper noted that a section on cluster headings should be
added. Another member asked if it would be helpful to indicate that only
changes need to be noted? Schwaller agreed and indicated that would be added to
the form. A member asked if it should be more clear what assessment information
is needed, i.e. assessment of the major? After some discussion on the
assessment information Schwaller read the current instructions. A member stated
that this information should be deleted from the form as it is not the
appropriate place to ask for it as it does not go in the catalog. Schwaller
stated that this information has traditionally not been in the catalog but has
been on file. Helsper stated that this information is on the assessment web
page. Schwaller noted that if a discipline learns from assessment that their
model is flawed then they can go back and make changes. He noted that this
section should not be deleted even though it does not go into the catalog; it
is still information that is necessary. The member stated that this is not the
place to request it and the assessment committee should be asking for this
information not CC. Schwaller stated this is a central place to do it and the
Assessment Committee is subcommittee of CC. A member noted that the question
and where it is located is confusing for Division Chairs and Faculty. Schwaller
offered to have some training for faculty about the assessment information. The
member stated that it is confusing because it is asked for on this form and
that what CC wants is different from what faculty interpret
that to be. Schwaller proposed that this issue be tabled for more discussion. A
member stated that having assessment used on the CC forms in two different ways
causes confusion and asked if it would be possible to change the wording of “Goals
and Assessment” in ECAS to something else to alleviate the confusion. Schwaller
agreed that a wording change could be made in the ECAS system but would not
want the word “assessment” changed on this form. A member suggested changing
“assessment” to “evaluate” in the course information. Another member suggested
saying on this form “Assessment and Goals of the Major”
A member again stated that he disagreed with the discussion
because he did not feel that the assessment information should be on a CC form;
it should be handled by the Assessment Committee. A member stated that the
Assessment Committee asked CC to collect the information and it is on this form
because when working on curricular changes it is also a good time to be
thinking about assessment. Helsper noted
that the assessment asked for on the ECAS course form is different than what CC
thought; the assessment refers to assessment of student learning. A member
stated it was puzzling why assessment was listed ahead of goals. CC agreed to
continue this discussion at a later time and move on to review of the
instructions.
CC FORMS INSTRUCTIONS
A member asked if the provisional approval statement could
be re-worded to explain where the course information would be found. Currently
it only states that the course information will not be listed in the catalog.
This will be changed to include where the course will be listed.
There is confusion about the effective term. It was
explained that the effective date corresponds with the first day of the term,
i.e. Fall 2004,
There will also be clarifications regarding the grading
basis, delivery mode and examples will be shown in the instructions.
Discussion among the members regarding the issue of years
most frequently offered and Schwaller stated that an absolutely descriptive
definition should be developed to alleviate confusion about even and odd years.
A member asked if the assessment and goals sections could be
separated out into two sections instead of the combined one section. It was
also noted that the auto enroll does apply to Morris and a definition will be
given with examples. Another area needing clarification is the course
equivalency which will be changed to include the wording “same as.” An addition
to the enforced prerequisite section will include a statement that “transfer
work will not be recognized for an enforced prereq.”
COURSES WITH A-F ONLY OR S/N ONLY GRADING
Schwaller noted there is a bit of disconnect in practice in selecting grading
options for a course. If the course is A-F only it should be listed so in the
catalog. The Dean’s Office was told that Spanish and Speech discipline courses
that are A-F only would not have that specification listed in the
parenthetical. On page 36 of the current catalog it states that courses may be
taken A-F or S/N unless otherwise noted. Therefore A-F only grading should be
noted. Helsper explained that if no variation is noted it is assumed that
Student Option is available. A member asked what the CC would like to see
happen and it was stated that if a course is A-F only it will need to be noted
in the course information in the catalog. A member from one of the disciplines
in question agreed that it should be noted in the course information and asked
that it be changed to reflect that information. A member noted that there is
also a concern with the number of A-F only courses. Some discussion among the
members regarding this issue noted that this was done to address the issue of
students taking a course S/N and later wanting it changed to A-F because they
wanted to major in that discipline. A member stated that he did not think that
this is the way UMM wants to go by foreclosing students trying out an area that
may become their life’s passion. A member also noted that communication between
disciplines that share courses with other majors is not happening. It was noted
that there is communication, however issues arise when
a change is made in one discipline that affects others. A member also noted
that this issue also creates a huge resource problem and is an issue with which
CC needs to be more sensitive. A member from one of the disciplines with A-F
only courses will talk to the discipline coordinator about their A-F only
courses. It was also noted that the statement “required courses may not be
taken S/N unless offered S/N only” have disappeared from the catalog. The other
discipline will be contacted about their A-F only courses.
CC will continue to discuss Forms A and B at future
meetings.
Meeting
adjourned.
Submitted by Karen Van Horn