University of Minnesota, Morris
MINUTES--1996-97 CURRICULUM COMMITTEE MEETING #10
December 3, 1996; 3:00 p.m.; Behmler Conference Room
Present: Ballou, Davis, Ellis, Farrell, Frenier, Hansen, Imholte, Kissock, Korth, J. Lee, M. Lee, Schuman, Vickstrom, Whelan
Absent: Barbour, Thielke
Schuman thanked CC members for a "heroic" quarter on the Curriculum Committee. There were CC meetings nearly every week. Next quarter he would not expect to have weekly meetings; however, he did expect the content to be weighty. There should be reports from the Common Experience Task Force and the General Education Committee to review in order to get the proposals to Campus Assembly as quickly as possible. February 15 is the deadline for disciplines to get their final semester curriculum proposals to the Division Offices.
MOTION (Kissock, Korth): To approve the revised proposal for the new course, Fren 3610.
VOTE: Unanimous in favor (11-0-0)
Ballou said this is an important issue for deaf people. There has been a great deal of controversy among the deaf population about allowing children to be taught to speak, because that removes them from the culture of the deaf. There is a growing emphasis among the deaf to acknowledge their culture.
Farrell said there is a French course which carries E7 credit which is very similar to the sign language proposal. Students in the French course make a public presentation.
Hansen noted that the general education categories are being requested for both the beginning and the intermediate level classes. From the proposal, he thought only the intermediate students would be performing the play. Ellis pointed out that the course description says that all students would be involved in putting on the play.
Kissock commented that the General Education Committee (GEC) has studied the proposal and approved it unanimously. He assumes that the GEC did their homework on this proposal. Farrell said that the CC does not have to approve the proposal coming forward from the GEC. Ballou said she has no objection to the proposal, but would like to know more about the courses. Farrell commented that the definition of "culture" is an issue in the foreign languages. Farrell said the sign language course on the Twin Cities campus contains a culture component. Schuman said that what is meant by deaf culture has changed drastically in the last several years. Whelan said he would like to learn more. He wondered if students in the French class that Farrell referred to also put on a play to qualify for E7. Farrell said it was a public performance. Whelan suggested that it might be better to only give E7 to Ed 1042. How does it meet the foreign language requirement? Must students take an entire year of sign language to meet the foreign language requirement? J. Lee said there should be set standards for E7 courses. Does one play make it an E7 course? The criteria seem to be vague. Schuman wondered if the sign language students would concentrate at all on performance or if all they would be thinking only about the sign language.
Schuman said he would invite Tom McRoberts to a meeting of the CC early next quarter to answer questions about the sign language courses.
Whelan said the CC should accept the proposal to move the non-Western requirement. He thought students could "double-dip." Schuman said they can use a single course to apply to both an E category and Non-W, and they will continue to be able to do that. Whelan wondered how successful a Non-W course could be without an E category. Frenier said, "too successful."
Schuman clarified that moving the non-Western requirement paragraph does not mean that students will have to take a separate course to satisfy Non-W. It simply opens the door for courses to apply to Non-W which never have been eligible before.
Korth said he found the proposal objectionable. He felt the bulletin was written the original way because it was not supposed to be an additional course. Perhaps the requirement should be called E11. Ballou said she interpreted the proposal to mean that Non-W could be added to any course, not just E courses. Schuman said the historical issue is being questioned by Korth. He did not know how to resolve that. He did not see the proposal as a major issue. He believed that 999 out of 1000 students would probably still meet this requirement with an E course.
[Schuman left the meeting at this point and Korth took over as chair.]
Whelan wondered what an example would be of a Non-W course without an E category attached. Frenier said she has one she does not want to propose as E2 but which could be a Non-W course. Mooney thought the question had originally come up last year in the GEC when the ELTAP course, which did not have an E category, was thought to be a natural Non-W course.
Ballou wondered if the requirement is clear to students. Of the three students at the CC meeting, two thought all along that Non-W could apply to any course, while the other student thought it was obvious that Non-W should be attached to an E course. Vigorous discussion ensued about whether Non-W courses should be attached to E courses or open to all courses.
Kissock said he would vote for the change. It opens up possibilities. It moves the Non-W requirement to the front of the degree requirements instead of at the end. It is a benefit to students and not a hindrance. He called the question.
Farrell wondered why the Non-W requirement was being "picked on." Mooney believed that someone had wanted to propose a course for Non-W which did not have an E category and so the GEC began discussing the issue.
MOTION (Understood): To approve the proposal to move the non-Western requirement and remove the attachment to Expanding Perspectives courses.
VOTE: In favor--7; opposed--4; abstentions--0 (7-4-0).
Farrell had an editorial question about the general education requirements in the bulletin. Are we going to put out the bulletin listing the eliminated requirements? He thought that made a bad impression of the campus. Korth suggested that anyone with such concerns should communicate them directly to Dean Schuman, with a copy to Mooney.
MOTION (J. Lee, Kissock): To approve the proposal to extend the C2 exemption for transfer student to 1996-97.
Korth wondered why the campus would want to keep the C2 requirement if a continuing exemption is made for transfer students. Davis said she was a transfer student. Her knowledge of other colleges was that many have a requirement similar to C1, but none have a requirement like C2. It is very difficult for transfer student to take a C2 courses because they are all in the Science and Math Division or require prerequisites.
Whelan said he would probably vote for this proposal as a fairness issue. He would like to see the C2 requirement eliminated from the next bulletin. Mooney reminded the group that the CC had proposed the elimination of the C2 requirement two years ago and the Campus Assembly rejected that proposal.
VOTE: In favor-10; opposed-1; abstentions-0 (10-1-0).
Kissock wondered if the CC would be recommending that the GEC look at extending the exemption for two more years. Korth said that would need to be an another agenda.
Meeting adjourned 4:00 p.m.
Submitted by Nancy Mooney
Send comments to Nancy Mooney
Send comments to the Curriculum Committee