University of Minnesota, Morris
Morris, Minnesota

MINUTES-1998-99 CURRICULUM COMMITTEE MEETING #07
January 20, 1999; 8:00 a.m.; Behmler Conference Room

Present: Busch, Cerar, Farrell, Frenier, Kissock, Korth, Leroux, McIntosh, Neuharth, Taylor, Thielke, Woll
Absent: Haugen, Lee, Utoft
Guests: Mooney, Mullin

[In these minutes: WSS revision Form B and WSS 2112, Exercise Physiology Form C; status report from EDP and General Education Assessment subcommittees; Music 3101 Form C; provisional approval process for new courses in day school; assigning of GenEd designations for variable topics courses by Division Chairs.]


MISCELLANEOUS: Veenendaal distributed copies of Form C for Music 3101.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Korth asked if there were any additions or corrections to the previous minutes. Woll amended her statement on page two of the 01/06/99 minutes to "three two of whom are registered as Honors students." Korth noted that this was not a correction to the minutes, simply an update. Veenendaal pointed out for Lee that his statement as recorded on page 3 of the 01/06/99 minutes should read "Lee said he felt that summer sessions intersessions were intended for intense, unique, not regularly scheduled courses...."

MOTION: (Understood) To approve amended minutes from the 01/06/99 Curriculum Committee meeting.

VOTE: Unanimous in favor (9-0-0)

WSS REVISION AND NEW COURSE: Korth asked for clarification of what was revised on Form B. Kissock stated that "athletic training responsibilities" and "as part of their liberal arts studies" were additions to the original goals and objectives statement. Kissock added that this is a collection of courses that prepare the students for an athletic training certificate. They are not additional courses, but a clarification that taking these courses will prepare a student for the National Athletic Trainers Association Board of Certification examination. This addition to the statement formalizes what has been taught for years.

[Frenier arrived at this point.]

Neuharth added that Form B statements I and II are basically the same with a modification in II, but statements III and VII are new statements. Statement VII will be an additional paragraph in the catalog.

Korth then introduced Form C, which is a proposal for a new semester course in the WSS discipline. Neuharth explained that under the quarter system, physiology and anatomy were combined into one course. Under semesters they will be taught as separate courses and the exercise physiology component was originally dropped. Human physiology will continue to be taught under the biology discipline, but there is a great deal of interest in exercise physiology. Neuharth is certain there will be no problem in filling an exercise physiology class.

Farrell wondered if this was a new course. Neuharth said it was an added course, covering material that was lost in the transition to semesters. Farrell wondered if WSS had the staff to teach the course or was there an intention to seek additional staff. Neuharth said WSS had the staff to teach the course and that there was no plan to seek additional staff.

MOTION: (Understood) To approve Form B, WSS discipline objectives and requirements and
Form C, WSS 2112, Exercise Physiology.

VOTE: Unanimous in favor (10-0-0)

MUSIC 3101 FORM C: Korth introduced the handout from the Humanities Division that was an addition to the agenda. Farrell stated that the proposal would change the GER category for Music 3101, Medieval, Renaissance, and Baroque Music, from "Fine Arts" to "Historical Perspectives."

MOTION: (Understood) To approve Form C for Music 3101, Medieval, Renaissance, and
Baroque Music.

VOTE: Unanimous in favor (10-0-0)

STATUS REPORT FROM SUBCOMMITTEES: Korth commented that he did not expect a report from the EDP subcommittee at this time, but included the item on the agenda as a reminder that the report will be needed by the end of the quarter. Farrell stated that the subcommittee would need to report before the end of the quarter since many faculty will have plans well set for summer by then. Farrell hopes to meet and make a recommendation soon.

[Busch arrived at this point.]

Korth mentioned that the Curriculum Committee appointed a General Education Assessment subcommittee last year. He asked what had taken place in that time. Leroux stated that they had met repeatedly with other committee members and worked hard to draft evaluations of abstract systems and writing competency instruction. Taylor mentioned that this evaluation was used in the senior survey. Mooney added that the survey results are on the Assessment Committee Web page.

Farrell commented that it appears the committee work is well under way and stated that generally a subcommittee reports back before they begin their action. Taylor pointed out that this was a joint subcommittee with the Assessment Committee. Leroux commented that the subcommittee had not understood they were to report back to the Curriculum Committee. He did not feel prepared to give a full report at this time. Mooney mentioned that this has now been incorporated into the General Education Assessment survey given to seniors.

Thielke suggested that the Curriculum Committee could request a report from Engin Sungur or Bert Ahern. Korth felt the Curriculum Committee should hear a report. Farrell agreed that it is important for CC members to know the results of the subcommittee's work. Korth offered to talk with Engin Sungur to see if he feels a need to report to the CC. Kissock added that Sungur could possibly report on the entire assessment process. He stated that Sungur may already be reporting to the Campus Assembly, but it should be comprehensive.

Korth asked CC members if there were any other subcommittees formed. McIntosh commented that CC had discussed a review of ITV and GenEd Web guidelines. McIntosh did not believe the CC had appointed a committee, however. Korth agreed and stated that the CC will need to return to this issue.

QUICK BUT TEMPORARY APPROVAL MECHANISM FOR CURRICULAR CHANGES: Korth stated there was a need for a method to make changes in the curriculum and to put those changes into effect while the longer approval process is functioning. He stated it is not helpful for an instructor to encourage a student to sign up for a course if the instructor is not confident the course will be approved. He gave the example of History 3159 which was in session for winter quarter 1999 before the approval was given.

Farrell understood there was such a mechanism already in place; approval by the division chairs and the dean. Mooney stated that was only for University College courses, not day school. Farrell wondered about the Russian language courses offered in the Humanities Division. The Russian course will not be offered in the 1999-2000 academic year but will be offered again in 2000-2001. His assumption was that he could make the decision to offer this course every other year without CC approval. Korth commented that this was simply a scheduling change. Farrell pointed out that Russian as a language fulfilled a GER requirement, so there was an impact on the GER. Korth agreed with this point and stated that offering Russian every other year should be approved by the CC.

Mooney wondered what would happen if the provisional approval was later overturned by the CC. Korth felt the division chair approval mechanism should mean approval for one year and lack of approval by CC would mean it would not be offered again.

Kissock understood the abbreviated approval process from the division chair and the dean were for one-time course offerings such as the Ford Grant course to be offered spring quarter. He feels that day school should have the same ability as University College for temporary approval, but CC should stay with the "offered one time" limitation, rather than approval for one year. If the discipline would like to continue the course beyond the one offering, it would need to be brought before the CC for approval.

MOTION: (Kissock, Understood) To create a provisional approval process for new courses in the day school that
follows the University College process already in place. This approval would be for a one-time course
offering only and would need to be brought before the Curriculum Committee for approval of further
offerings.

Korth wondered if Kissock had a form in mind. Kissock said rather than an additional form, he would envision the current form covering day school and University College for one-time offerings and for subsequent semesters the course would be brought to the CC for approval.

Farrell wondered about a course such as Beginning French which is a three-quarter course. He stated that French I could not be offered by itself. This proposal would require three separate decisions in this instance. Farrell felt it did not make sense to approve a course for one quarter. He felt it should be approved for an entire year. Kissock said the CC would need to make the decision at the time someone proposed a sequence of courses.

VOTE: Approved (10-0-0)

Thielke pointed out the additional need for a simple approval process for GenEd categories. She stated this is an on-going process in which faculty develop courses that are offered under a topics rubric but there is no GenEd designator attached to the course. Since there is no GenEd Committee she would like the CC to approve a simplified process for approval. Mullin commented that this precedes faculty hiring, which leaves many courses listed as "staff." She counted 22 course listings that state "see specific topic for GenEd category." She added that if an umbrella course doesn't carry a GER designator, there is no way to get one quickly attached. She also stated there are some topics courses with no GenEd category attached that obviously should have one. In these instances the courses have been approved but they need the division chairs to identify the GER categories without CC approval.

MOTION: (Kissock, Understood) Division chairs will be empowered to assign GenEd designations for topics
courses as appropriate.

Mullin suggested that if faculty have questions about the designations they should bring them to the CC. Farrell commented that, if it would be helpful to the Registrar's office, the CC should move ahead with this simplified approval process but the issue would still be under discussion. Korth stated that the catalog was not going out until spring quarter. Thielke reminded him that UMM was on a collision course with semesters. She hoped CC would say go ahead and then get the formal approval. Mooney stated she expects many changes in the catalog which will need approval by someone. Kissock recommended voting for this new process now. He stated it was in line with the semester conversion initiative; that the process help the students, not hinder them.

Mullin suggested changing the motion to read "variable topics."

REVISED MOTION: (Kissock, Understood) Division Chairs will be empowered to assign, as appropriate,
GenEd designations for specific, variable topics offered under "umbrella" topics courses.

VOTE: In Favor 9
Opposed 1
Abstentions 0

Korth stated that agenda item 5, Policy on Students Grading Students, will be on the next agenda.

Meeting adjourned 8:50 a.m.
Submitted by Melody Veenendaal