UMM CURRICULUM COMMITTEE

2008-09 MEETING #16 Minutes

February 25, 2009, 8:00 a.m., Behmler 130

 

Present: Cheryl Contant (chair), Mark Collier, Janet Ericksen, Van Gooch, Donovan Hanson, Sara Haugen, Michael Korth, Judy Kuechle, Pareena Lawrence, Axl McChesney, Gwen Rudney, Dennis Stewart, Clare Strand, Nancy Helsper, Jeri Squier

Absent: Brenda Boever, Mike McBride, Alex Murphy

Visiting: Jayne Blodgett

 

In these minutes: EDP Subcommittee and Discussion of Program Reviews

 

Contant announced that official word has been received from the Minnesota Board of Teaching that our educational programs have been continued until 2016 in terms of licensure.  It is a significant accomplishment.  NCATE results are expected in April.

 

1.  APPROVAL OF MINUTES

 

MOTION (Ericksen/Hanson) to approve the February 4, 2009 minutes.

Discussion:  One minor correction was noted.

Motion passed by unanimous voice vote.

 

MOTION (Ericksen/Hanson) to approve the February 11, 2009 minutes.

Discussion:  One minor correction was noted.

Motion passed by unanimous voice vote.

 

2.  EDP SUBCOMMITTEE

 

Contant stated that one of the responsibilities of the Curriculum Committee is to review and suggest recipients of the Education Development Program (EDP).  The review process occurs in early April, with awards announced in mid-April.  She asked for three volunteers to serve on the review committee.  The traditional make-up of the subcommittee has been one division chair, one faculty member, and one student member.  Gooch, Kuechle, and Hanson volunteered, with Gooch as chair.

 

3.  DISCUSSION OF PROGRAM REVIEWS

 

Contant handed out some materials that described the criteria, timeframe, and process that was in place for program reviews in 1994.  The purpose of this discussion will be to throw out thoughts on 1) the purpose of program reviews, and 2) suggested criteria for reviews.  She described the materials as voluminous and encyclopedic. 

 

Following are the ideas that came from that discussion:

 

         Purposes of program review

 

      Improvement of program

      Articulate to external audiences the purpose of the program

      Aligns with mission

      Where best to apply resources

      Prioritization of programs

      Identifying strengths and weaknesses of the program

      Compliance with university policy

      Respond to student need or interest

      Coherence of programs within and across programs

      Because it was the right thing to do

 

The committee members were asked to list two purposes they considered of most importance.  The first four listed above were given top priority.

 

         Criteria

 

      Have program goals been identified and updated (if needed)?

      Student success or outcomes

      Number of varieties of Gen Ed categories offered by a single discipline

      Fit to Liberal Arts Mission

      Student demand

o   Enrollment numbers

o   Student credit hours

o   Majors

o   Graduates

o   Minors

o   Prospective student inquiries

o   Class sizes

      Upper and lower distribution of courses

o   Fair distribution

o   Useful distribution

      Service to other disciplines/majors

      Alignment of program course work to national standards or expectations

      Alignment of goals to national standards or expectations

      Student faculty ratios

      Resources required

o   Studio space

o   Lab space

o   Lab equipment

o   Facilities

o   Materials

o   Support staff

o   Faculty, by type, expense, and availability

o   Money (budgets)

      Funding to support student activities

o   Participation in conferences

o   Performance travel

      Quality of program

      Marketability of program to attract students and jobs/careers

      Faculty research/creative output

o   Quantity

o   Distinction

      Faculty teaching

o   Quantity

o   Distinction

      Faculty service

o   Committees

o   Service to profession

o   Community engagement

o   University-wide

      Outside classroom instruction

o   Study Abroad

o   Internships

o   Service-learning

o   Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program (UROP)

o   Morris Academic Partners (MAP)

      Academic Advising

o   Quantity

o   Extent

o   Career

o   Intellectual advising

      Diversity

o   Student

o   Faculty

o   Curricular

      Internationalism

o   Student

o   Faculty

o   Curricular

      Retention and graduation rates (4, 5, and 6 year)

      Innovation

o   Curricular

o   Student-faculty research/creative work approach

      Instructional approach/method

o   Lab

o   Lecture

o   Discussion

o   On-line

      Faculty qualifications

o   Terminal degrees

o   Institutional diversity

      Faculty retention

      Grants

o    Received

o   Applied for

o   Pedagogical

o   Research/creative work

o   Internal

o   External

      Contribution to general education

      Is curriculum robust or stagnant

 

Helsper stated that another word for the two top-voted purposes for a program review is assessment.  Contant added that when she thinks of assessment most of what we do is curricular.  So in some ways, curricular assessment ends up being a part of the bigger process of program review.  If we get to the day where every year programs are assessing their curriculum, after 5 years of general assessments there should be some things changed and updated to accomplish goals based on assessments.

 

 

Adjourned 9:05 a.m.

Submitted by Darla Peterson