University of Minnesota, Morris
Morris, MN



April 2, 2001 3:30 p.m. Behmler Conference Room

Present:           Korth, Thielke, Nellis, Neuharth, Mooney, Urness, Evans, Chabel, Carlson, Gooch, De Jager and Finzel.
Absent:            Lee, Kissock, Behrens, and Ostrowski 

APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Korth asked for a motion to approve the minutes from March 19, 2001

            MOTION:      To approve minutes from March 19, 2001
            VOTE:           Unanimous in favor (8-0-0)


CSci 1001 H and IS 1091H are both proposals for honors versions of an existing course.

A member questioned the rationale in #6 on the form noting that no difference between the regular course and the honors course is clearly explained. A member noted that the course description for the regular course CSci 1001 does not list experiments and presentations. Several CC members agreed that this course fit the honors criteria based on the rationale. However, some members of CC felt the form should explain the difference between the regular course and the honor course more clearly. A member stated that the rationale was not well articulated by just saying more.

A member stated he thought there were two related issues 1) what makes a course an honors course and 2) how that information should be on the form. Both these issues should probably be discussed at a later time, as it would be unfair to hold up these courses for this reason. The members that were not comfortable with the honors designation stated the wording in VI is not enough and it should be reworded to fit the guidelines. A member reminded CC that not all honors courses also have a regular course being taught. Some honors courses stand alone, therefore they do not all need an explanation of difference. A member noted that the burden of proof is on the faculty to prove it is an honors course and the rationale for this course doesn't convince him it is honors other than the professor saying it is. A member stated that it appears from the rationale that the instructor wants students enrolled in the honors course responsible in learning and self-directed.

            MOTION:      (Carlson, Nellis) Approve proposal of honors course CSci 1001H

Discussion: A member not in agreement about the honors criteria being met for this course stated that if the instructor would explain it to her then it would probably be okay. Without having anything to compare, the rationale was still in question. Another member suggested that this type of explanation would most likely happen at the discipline level before it comes to CC. There is no need to micromanage and short of asking for syllabi she doesn't see a problem.

A member suggested that as CC we could require more stringent criteria for honors courses than is currently required. Some courses may slip through as the courses currently being taught, but going forward honors courses would meet stiffer criteria. A member questioned if we are trying to encourage faculty to teach more honors courses or discourage them. A member stated she was not comfortable approving this course just to add another honors course. Several members questioned if other members were requesting syllabi to verify the difference? A member noted that if some members want to make changes the criteria for honors courses then all honors courses should be looked at, one course shouldn't be singled out to meet new criteria. Another member in support of these honors courses stated that honors courses serve as a pilot and are then incorporated into the next version taught. The work is done by the honor students and encourages pedagogy and is therefore very worthy of honors classification. Korth noted that the discussion was not progressing and called for a vote.

            VOTE:           (6-3-0) Approved

The next course up for approval then is IS 1091H. This is a similar situation and would more than likely follow the previous discussion. A member stated concern that these are two different courses with the exact same rationale and the courses are even more suspect now than on their own. A member stated that, as with any course, we accept that the faculty will teach the course as stated. A member stated that this concern might be questioning whether the faculty are qualified to teach and we need to go on face value of what they are saying. A member stated that even going on face value he was not sure what they were saying in the rationale. At this time a motion was made:

MOTION:      (Carlson, Nellis) Approve proposal of honors course IS 1091H
VOTE:           (7-2-0) Approved

Topics Course approval Bio 1001 and Phys 3001:

MOTION:      (Neuharth, Carlson) Approve Topics Courses Biol 100x and Phys 3001
VOTE:           (7-2-0) Approved

Math Major Requirement and Licensure requirements changed to add Calculus III to both requirements and take out CSci 1211 from teacher prep. requirements. A member questioned the rationale for the change. A member responded that the Math faculty are uncomfortable with a program that does not include Calculus III, it was added to the licensure requirements to remain consistent by keeping licensure requirements the same as the math major.

MOTION:      (Chabel, Evans) Approve the change proposed in Math Major and Licensure Requirements.
VOTE:           (9-0-0) Approved


PROPOSAL OF MAJORS IN STATISTICS AND ANTHROPOLOGY: Korth stated there was some preliminary discussion in the fall of 2000 regarding the proposed majors in Statistics and Anthropology. CC has received feedback from CRPC, which has endorsed both major proposals. Whether the anthropology major was resource neutral was discussed briefly.

MOTION:      (Understood) To approve proposed Majors in Anthropology and Statistics
VOTE:           (9-0-0) Approved

UNDISCLOSED ATTENDANCE REQUIREMENTS: A member of the subgroup looking into this matter distributed a summary of responses they have received. To date they have received 9 responses from faculty however in talking to students there are additional courses that also have undisclosed attendance requirements. The subgroup member stated some activities can not be foreseen however, discussion groups, game attendance, etc are activities students should be made aware of. Out of class requirements could be too much for a student. The subgroup would like to have out of class time requirements listed, possibly in the course description. A member suggested having this information in the class schedule as well. A member of the subgroup suggested that something as simple as "out of class commitment required" just so students are aware of what they are getting into. A member stated that some flexibility is necessary for unexpected activities. A member of the subgroup explained that they wouldn't require professors to put exact dates and times just general information such as discussion group, etc. .A question arose about the time when class schedule information is needed. Since it is needed months in advance a member suggested updating the web site to include this information as the web site is continually updated. A member of the subgroup will draft a resolution to be discussed at the next meeting.

Meeting adjourned 4:35 p.m.
Submitted by Karen Van Horn

Send comments to Karen Van Horn: 
Send comments to Curriculum Committee: