University
of
MINUTES 2004-2005 CURRICULUM COMMITTEE MEETING
# 10
Present: John Schwaller, Mike Korth, Judy Kuechle, Jooinn Lee, Jenny
Nellis,
Mary
Elizabeth Bezanson, Harold Hinds, Carol Marxen, Dave Roberts,
Sarah
Black, Blair Jasper, Jeri Mullin, Ruth Thielke, Dorothy DeJager,
and Nancy Helsper.
Absent: Joe
Basel, Lee Thao, and Sara Haugen.
Visiting: Janet
Ericksen, Paula O’Loughlin
ENGLISH
Ericksen
stated that Scholastic Committee had wanted the goals to match the course
description. Students often think they have already had a college writing
course when in fact they have not. The statement listed was written in response
to this concern. When the CC returned it to English for clarification, the
faculty members worked on rewriting the sentence in question. They diagramed
the sentence and felt that the current version was best. They spent too much
time trying to re-write the sentence and even asked for feedback from students
and faculty candidates that were here for interviews. Ericksen
asked the committee what concerns they had about the wording. A member stated
there was concern over the wording “reading closely” indicating that the public
might not know what that means. Ericksen explained
that it makes the point then that if a student did not know what “reading
closely” meant they would not have had that in a previous course and would not
have met the GER. Ericksen also noted that many
course descriptions have terms that not everyone will know. There was
discussion among the members and Ericksen regarding
specific wording. Ericksen explained that it is
detailed in order to be clearer. A member expressed concern and said it seems
backwards to re-write the GER description to fit what is currently practice.
This should have been brought up earlier. The GERs are campus-wide and do not
belong to one discipline. Ericksen stated that the
intent was to clarify the description making it more specific, not to change
the goals. There was more discussion about specific wording. Nellis explained
that she did not see a problem with this proposal earlier and consequently had
not taken the English discipline up on their request to attend the previous
meeting. A member stated that when it was first viewed it appeared there were
problems with parallelisms but that has now been clarified. Another member
agreed.
MOTION:
(Black, Jasper) To approve the English changes as
proposed.
DISCUSSION:
Ericksen
noted that they are bringing in a new writing faculty member. This specific
issue was discussed with each candidate. This issue has received an enormous
amount of time and will again come back for the next catalog. It can be looked
at again at that time. A member stated that it was her understanding that this
change will not be in the new catalog and Schwaller concurred. A member noted
that incoming faculty would have this updated version to work from for further changes.
Ericksen also noted that English has two full
detailed pages of goals.
CALL THE QUESTION: (Nellis, Black)
VOTE: Motion passed (
AREAS OF CONCENTRATION:
O’Loughlin explained that these items are being brought for
information and not for action. Over the last year and a half several faculty
members along with Ruth Thielke, Registrar, have worked to prepare templates or
prototypes for several different Areas of Concentration. This was a result of
retention studies to find out why students leave. It is a way to keep some of
those students and will also possibly be a new recruiting tool. These are not
intended to lead the way to new majors, they would continue to be Areas of
Concentration requiring the student to complete the rationale statement as to
why it should be considered an Area of Concentration and will also continue to
require the necessary approvals by faculty, Division Chairs, and the Dean.
Schwaller explained that the work that was done was not
arbitrary or a haphazard assemblage. The templates were put together as a good point
of departure for students. Thielke noted that one area that may cause a problem
is the Journalism Area of Concentration. Some newspapers and other employers
require a certified program. Some colleges removed their journalism programs
because of this requirement. It is an area that may need to be revised.
O’Loughlin agreed that there were significant concerns and that sharing that
information with the students is important but the Journalism title is needed
and she would stand by the decision for that specific title. A member suggested
that we indicate that our program is not certified somewhere on the document. It
was discussed that one additional year in a certified masters program would
take care of this requirement and a member suggested stating it that in a
positive way.
A member asked if more areas of concentration will be added
to this list. O’Loughlin explained that at this time there is no plan to add
more. A member noted that this is not a complete list of those available, as
students can design their own areas of concentration; there is no limit.
O’Loughlin did note that with the exception of Native American Studies, that
may be proposed as a major sometime in the future, there are no plans to
propose any of these prototypes as majors.
A member noted that Art Therapy has similar issues as
Journalism. Art Therapy contains a sentence that journalism could have as
well; “… is intended to prepare
students to pursue a Master’s degree in art therapy (recommended to obtain
board certification in this field).”
Other members agreed that this is a positive way to address the issue.
A member asked if Division Chairs will still be involved in
the approval process. Dean Schwaller indicated that they would continue to go
through the current process requiring faculty and division approval, review by
the Registrar and approval by the Dean. The member stated that by listing these
templates students may assume they are pre-approved. Dean Schwaller explained
that the prototypes do not deny approval by the faculty, Division Chair, and
Dean. O’Loughlin stated that the member was correct that this went directly to
the Dean however, it was discussed with the Division Chairs last year during a
meeting with the Dean, but the Division Chairs did not sign their approval.
O’Loughlin explained that the intent was not to undermine the authority of the
Division Chairs; she was following the instructions in the catalog that they go
to the Dean. The member questioned some of the prototypes in his area stating
that they suggest courses could be re-arranged to have 2 or more majors. Dean
Schwaller indicated that when others have come to him that way they have been
sent back to be changed, they would not be approved. A member stated that the
evolution of this is similar to LAAS where there was an incidental emphasis
created by courses taken for the major. O’Loughlin stated that she had discussed
this with the faculty in that area who had taken lead with the project. She
asked for suggested changes to alleviate the concern raised. The member stated
that he did not have problem with the minors or emphases created, his concern
was with two or more majors received for the price of one and stated that
option should not be suggested. O’Loughlin
asked if he would prefer those in question be withdrawn. The member stated they
should be re-written. O’Loughlin agreed and asked if the member would
communicate that to the faculty in his area. He stated he has been not involved
in the discussions and O’Loughlin responded that she would be happy to
communicate the concerns and suggestions with the faculty involved.
Meeting adjourned.
Submitted by Karen Van Horn