UMM CURRICULUM COMMITTEE
2010-11 MEETING #17 Minutes
April 13, 2011, 8:00 a.m., 113 Imholte
Present: Cheryl Contant (chair), Molly Donovan, Janet Ericksen, Sara Haugen, Michael Korth, Pareena Lawrence, Ian Patterson, Gwen Rudney, Jeri Squier, Elizabeth Thoma, Tisha Turk
Absent: Clare Dingley, Mark Fohl, Tara Greiman, Leslie Meek, David Roberts
Visiting: Nancy Helsper
In these minutes: Honors Course Approvals; Gen Ed Designator for Directed Study Update; EDP Subcommittee Report
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 30, 2011
MOTION (Thoma/Patterson) to approve the March 30, 2011 minutes. Motion passed by unanimous voice vote.
2. HONORS COURSE APPROVALS
MOTION (Thoma/Patterson) to approve the proposed Honors courses.
IS 3211H – Honors: Republic or Empire? The American 1890s (Hist; 2 cr)
IS 3215H – Honors: Sagas before the Fall: Culture, Climate, and Collapse in Medieval
Iceland (Envt; 2 cr)
IS 3236H – Honors: Representations of Writers and Artists (Hum; 2 cr)
IS 3237H – Honors: The Power of Place: An Interdisciplinary Approach to
Where We Live (Envt; 2 cr)
VOTE: Motion passed (8-0-0)
3. GEN ED DESIGNATOR FOR DIRECTED STUDY – Updated Rationale Provided
MOTION (Thoma/Patterson) to approve the proposed Gen Ed Designator for the Directed Study.
Discussion: Contant reminded the committee that the original proposal was submitted earlier in the semester for a General Education designator of Science without a lab. The committee had asked for additional information about the course content and has received it from the faculty member. Ericksen stated that this is exactly what she had expected to see the first time. A student requesting a Gen Ed designator for a directed study should always take the copy out of the catalog and use points to state how the directed study meets the criteria. Perhaps the form could be revised to make that requirement clear. Korth added that it should be submitted before the directed study is done. Ericksen asked if it is an adviser issue as to why a student would bring a proposal forward so late. Korth answered that there is always a faculty member involved in a directed study. He also reiterated his lack of happiness with the rationale of “I didn’t want to satisfy the GER through a regular course.” That is not a good rationale. Others agreed.
VOTE: Motion passed (6-1-1)
4. EDP SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
MOTION (Thoma/Patterson) to approve the proposed 2011 EDP Grant recommendations.
Discussion: Lawrence stated that there were eleven proposals. There were enough funds available to have granted all of them at the full requested amount, but the subcommittee chose not to do so. One faculty member had submitted two proposals at the $2,000 level for each, and the subcommittee chose to fund both at $1,000. All proposals were quite well written. Contant asked if there were proposals that fit the new priority areas. Lawrence answered only two courses were not in one of the priority categories. Lawrence stated the requests came in for four-credit courses funded at $2,000 and two-credit courses at $1,000. It would be helpful to have that specified in the guidelines. Turk recused herself from the vote since she had submitted a proposal.
VOTE: Motion passed (7-0-0)
Adjourned 8:29 a.m.
Submitted by Darla Peterson