MINUTES 2004-2005 CURRICULUM COMMITTEE MEETING # 8
Present: John Schwaller, Mike Korth, Judy Kuechle, Jooinn Lee, Jenny Nellis,
Mary Elizabeth Bezanson, Harold Hinds, Carol Marxen, Dave Roberts, Sarah Black,
Joe Basel, Blair Jasper, Jeri Mullin, Ruth Thielke, Nancy Helsper, Tom McRoberts.
Absent: Sara Haugen and Lee Thao.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
(Bezanson, Korth) To approve minutes from Meeting #6, October 21 and
VOTE: Motion passed (8-0-0)
IS CATALOG CHANGES
Schwaller presented a revisions for IS 4994H. This was a change that came to him and he felt it was more than an editorial change and should be approved by CC. A member questioned what the @ sign meant in prereq. Helsper explained that it is “college consent” but will be taken out because the prereq of an approved form will satisfy that requirement. A member stated he is not opposing the approval of this course but questioned having a standard credit option for all final project courses since they are different across the disciplines. Discussion continued about the credit limit.
MOTION: (Hinds, Lee) To approve IS 4994H
VOTE: Motion passed (8-0-1)
A faculty member asked about UMM’s candidacy with Phi Beta Kappa and it was discussed briefly.
REVIEW OF FORMS A AND B
Schwaller asked for the committee to review the Forms A and B that are used during a catalog year and asked if there were any suggested changes. Korth handed out a revised draft of Form A which somewhat changed the course counting information. He indicated these were just ideas and he would be open to changes. The total courses and credits in the major and minor sections would stay the same. The count of GER courses would be eliminated and counts in the entire discipline for the different levels of courses would be counted in two categories: those in the catalog and those taught. The number of courses taught in the previous year could be pulled from the Data Book. The information requested at the bottom of the form was worded differently to encourage description by asking for a summary of the intent of the proposed changes and what financial and staffing implications result from the proposed changes. It was suggested to add to the last question what the implications would be in the discipline and other disciplines, since many changes impact other disciplines. There was concern about pulling information from the Data Book as it may not be as current as desired. It was noted that the effective date of the changes was left off; this was not intentional and should continue to be listed. Helsper noted that the wording from the Data Book would be classes not courses and that information would not include lessons, directed studies and one credit courses. A member stated that the question is what information is useful and what information would the committee would like to see. A member stated that it may be possible to pull the number of active courses from each discipline from ECAS. If so, directed studies and one credit courses would be counted. Another member suggested using the class schedule for this information. A member stated that the class schedule might not be the best place to get the information because of all the changes. A member stated that the instructions do say “taught” as opposed to “potentially taught”. A member noted that the class schedule also does not take into account the variety of ways courses are taught, two courses with different numbers are actually the same course. A member stated that he found only the bottom information useful, not the top. Others felt the top information is useful in showing compliance with the max credit limit for majors and minors.
Schwaller proposed that the committee review this information some more. It will continue to be discussed at a later meeting after members have time to discuss this with their colleagues.
Helsper noted that a section on cluster headings should be added. Another member asked if it would be helpful to indicate that only changes need to be noted? Schwaller agreed and indicated that would be added to the form. A member asked if it should be more clear what assessment information is needed, i.e. assessment of the major? After some discussion on the assessment information Schwaller read the current instructions. A member stated that this information should be deleted from the form as it is not the appropriate place to ask for it as it does not go in the catalog. Schwaller stated that this information has traditionally not been in the catalog but has been on file. Helsper stated that this information is on the assessment web page. Schwaller noted that if a discipline learns from assessment that their model is flawed then they can go back and make changes. He noted that this section should not be deleted even though it does not go into the catalog; it is still information that is necessary. The member stated that this is not the place to request it and the assessment committee should be asking for this information not CC. Schwaller stated this is a central place to do it and the Assessment Committee is subcommittee of CC. A member noted that the question and where it is located is confusing for Division Chairs and Faculty. Schwaller offered to have some training for faculty about the assessment information. The member stated that it is confusing because it is asked for on this form and that what CC wants is different from what faculty interpret that to be. Schwaller proposed that this issue be tabled for more discussion. A member stated that having assessment used on the CC forms in two different ways causes confusion and asked if it would be possible to change the wording of “Goals and Assessment” in ECAS to something else to alleviate the confusion. Schwaller agreed that a wording change could be made in the ECAS system but would not want the word “assessment” changed on this form. A member suggested changing “assessment” to “evaluate” in the course information. Another member suggested saying on this form “Assessment and Goals of the Major”
A member again stated that he disagreed with the discussion because he did not feel that the assessment information should be on a CC form; it should be handled by the Assessment Committee. A member stated that the Assessment Committee asked CC to collect the information and it is on this form because when working on curricular changes it is also a good time to be thinking about assessment. Helsper noted that the assessment asked for on the ECAS course form is different than what CC thought; the assessment refers to assessment of student learning. A member stated it was puzzling why assessment was listed ahead of goals. CC agreed to continue this discussion at a later time and move on to review of the instructions.
CC FORMS INSTRUCTIONS
A member asked if the provisional approval statement could be re-worded to explain where the course information would be found. Currently it only states that the course information will not be listed in the catalog. This will be changed to include where the course will be listed.
There is confusion about the effective term. It was
explained that the effective date corresponds with the first day of the term,
i.e. Fall 2004,
There will also be clarifications regarding the grading basis, delivery mode and examples will be shown in the instructions.
Discussion among the members regarding the issue of years most frequently offered and Schwaller stated that an absolutely descriptive definition should be developed to alleviate confusion about even and odd years.
A member asked if the assessment and goals sections could be separated out into two sections instead of the combined one section. It was also noted that the auto enroll does apply to Morris and a definition will be given with examples. Another area needing clarification is the course equivalency which will be changed to include the wording “same as.” An addition to the enforced prerequisite section will include a statement that “transfer work will not be recognized for an enforced prereq.”
COURSES WITH A-F ONLY OR S/N ONLY GRADING
Schwaller noted there is a bit of disconnect in practice in selecting grading options for a course. If the course is A-F only it should be listed so in the catalog. The Dean’s Office was told that Spanish and Speech discipline courses that are A-F only would not have that specification listed in the parenthetical. On page 36 of the current catalog it states that courses may be taken A-F or S/N unless otherwise noted. Therefore A-F only grading should be noted. Helsper explained that if no variation is noted it is assumed that Student Option is available. A member asked what the CC would like to see happen and it was stated that if a course is A-F only it will need to be noted in the course information in the catalog. A member from one of the disciplines in question agreed that it should be noted in the course information and asked that it be changed to reflect that information. A member noted that there is also a concern with the number of A-F only courses. Some discussion among the members regarding this issue noted that this was done to address the issue of students taking a course S/N and later wanting it changed to A-F because they wanted to major in that discipline. A member stated that he did not think that this is the way UMM wants to go by foreclosing students trying out an area that may become their life’s passion. A member also noted that communication between disciplines that share courses with other majors is not happening. It was noted that there is communication, however issues arise when a change is made in one discipline that affects others. A member also noted that this issue also creates a huge resource problem and is an issue with which CC needs to be more sensitive. A member from one of the disciplines with A-F only courses will talk to the discipline coordinator about their A-F only courses. It was also noted that the statement “required courses may not be taken S/N unless offered S/N only” have disappeared from the catalog. The other discipline will be contacted about their A-F only courses.
CC will continue to discuss Forms A and B at future meetings.
Submitted by Karen Van Horn