University of Minnesota, Morris
Morris, Minnesota

October 1, 1996; 3:00 p.m.; Behmler Conference Room

Present: Ballou, Barbour, Ellis, Farrell, Frenier, Korth, J. Lee, M. Lee, Schuman, Whelan, Vickstrom

Absent: Bass, Davis, Imholte, Kissock, Thielke

Guest(s): None

Mooney distributed copies of a handout with a motion for blanket approval of minutes, the routing order for approval of curricular documents, and the fall 1996 deadlines for each Division for curriculum change proposals.

Blanket Approval of Minutes
Schuman opened the meeting by asking members to introduce themselves. He then explained that the Curriculum Committee (CC) has a tradition of approving a motion for blanket approval of minutes in order to save committee time. The usual motion was listed on the handout.

MOTION (J. Lee, Ballou): To give blanket approval of minutes as mailed unless corrections are made before or during the meeting following distribution.

VOTE: Unanimous in favor (8-0-0).

Meeting Time
Even though there is no time when all members are free for a meeting, committee members agreed to have the regular meeting time of the CC be Tuesdays at 3:00 p.m. The tentative schedule for CC meetings for fall 1996 is as follows:

  Day        Date        Time          Place
------- ---------- -------- ------------------
Tuesday October 1 3:00 p.m. Behmler Conf. Room
Tuesday October 8 3:00 p.m. Behmler Conf. Room
Tuesday October 15 3:00 p.m. Behmler Conf. Room
Tuesday October 22 3:00 p.m. Behmler Conf. Room
Tuesday October 29 3:00 p.m. Behmler Conf. Room
Tuesday November 5 3:00 p.m. Behmler Conf. Room
Tuesday November 12 3:00 p.m. Education 211
Tuesday November 19 3:00 p.m. Behmler Conf. Room
Tuesday November 26 3:00 p.m. Behmler Conf. Room
Tuesday December 3 3:00 p.m. Behmler Conf. Room
Tuesday December 10 3:00 p.m. Behmler Conf. Room

Schuman said he and the Division Chairs have talked about a timetable for divisions and disciplines to submit course and major proposals under the semester system. So far, the timetable is as follows:

Activity                 Deadline         Submit to: 
---------------- ----------- -------------

First draft of end of FQ96 do not submit
semester course/
major proposals Final semester Feb. 15, 1997 Division Office
course/major proposals Final semester end of WQ97 Curriculum Com.
course/major proposals (also to Gen. Ed. Com.
and/or Honors Com.,
if appropriate)

Schuman indicated that the CC would be dealing with approvals of the semester curricular proposals during spring quarter 1997.

Whelan wondered if the final drafts should have been approved by the Division before they are submitted to the Division Chair on February 15. Korth said no, the Division Chairs would be taking the proposals to Division meetings.

J. Lee commented that the General Education Committee (GEC) is supposed to come up with a proposal for semester general education requirements by the end of fall quarter. If that is not possible, or if Campus Assembly does not approve the GEC proposal, then the Curriculum Committee deadlines will not be met either. Schuman noted that every group wants the "other" parts of the semester plan to be in place before making decisions about their piece of it. If everyone goes ahead and makes their portion of the decisions, we can see what needs doing at that point. Farrell said he would assume that there will be a common experience and also that the general education requirements would not change much. Schuman thought those were the right assumptions to make.

Schuman said he had never been through even a normal "bulletin year" at UMM and this will be the "mother of all bulletin years." He does not think that the CC will have time to look over every curricular change. The Committee cannot debate each course proposal. We may need subcommittees. A lot depends on having trust in our colleagues. We will need to consider the process carefully. At the same time that we are working on the new semester bulletin, we will be preparing the last quarter bulletin.

J. Lee suggested that CC members look over semester proposals and flag any concerns. Ballou agreed. Members should look through the proposals quickly and spot any glaring discrepancies. Schuman wondered if all members should look over all proposals or only part of them. Farrell noted that the Divisions will be going over the proposals very carefully. He thought all CC members should have an opportunity to see all of the proposals.

Schuman said that Mooney had drafted some semester proposal forms to be used by disciplines and individuals for courses and majors.

Form A-S
Mooney said the new forms are based on the curriculum change forms that the CC has used under the quarter system. On Form A, the statistical summary has been changed to include a comparison of the number of courses and credits under the quarter system to the number under the semester system. The first column asks for the number under quarters, the second column for the number under quarters times 2/3, the third column asks for the number under semesters, and the fourth column asks for the difference between the numbers for semesters and 2/3 quarters. Schuman thinks that the T.C. will be looking to see if Morris ends up with 2/3 the number of courses that we had under quarters, overall.

Whelan had a concern. After reviewing the draft semester proposal for the geology discipline, the Dean sent back a note asking "Where did all of these courses come from?" The answer was that some of the courses were offered in alternate years. He would not want to have to defend those numbers to others beyond the Dean and his Division Chair. What is going to be done with the numbers in the statistical summaries? Schuman thought that the disciplines must be prepared to defend those numbers to the Curriculum Committee. Whelan said the T.C. may be particularly interested in reducing the number of courses by 1/3, but faculty here are not concerned about that. Korth thought the 1/3 reduction was an artificial goal; the way faculty approach it, by looking at their teaching load and figuring out how many courses can be offered, will end up with the same result. Schuman said that faculty cannot assume that they will be able to keep all of the courses that they now teach. If that happens, we will end up with more alternate-year offerings than we should have and/or a need for more staff. The former is undesirable and the latter is not feasible.

Korth wondered how the bottom of Form A would be completed. Mooney said that is to be a summary listing of all of the Form C's which are attached. She noted that there may need to be an additional form which asks for a mapping of each and every quarter course to its equivalent in semesters. Some courses will be dropped altogether; in some cases three quarter courses will map to two semester courses, etc. Schuman drew a sample mapping on the blackboard:

Quarters                Semesters 
-------- ---------
Engl 1000 Engl 1001
Engl 1000 [map to] Engl 1002
Engl 1001

Farrell said that every discipline should have a plan for the transition of students who begin in the quarter system and finish in the semester system, but they may have different ways of handling it. Schuman did not think that students should have to figure out who to contact to find out how to finish up their major and general education requirements. Whelan thought the mapping would be a useful bookkeeping process for every discipline.

Whelan wondered why there is a section for "Rationale for change" on Form C. All of the answers will be the same. Schuman said the question is intended to find out if there are any changes in the philosophical direction of the program. He suggested that CC members suggest improved wordings for that question.

Schuman suggested that CC members come to the next meeting with substantive changes to suggest in the draft semester proposal forms. He noted that a couple of assessment questions have been added to Form C for the NCA evaluation process.

Schuman indicated that, in addition to working on the first semester bulletin this year, we also need to do our last quarter bulletin. On one hand, it is everybody's hope that there will not be a lot of changes to go over. Most of our energy should go into the semester programs. On the other hand, we want to get this last quarter bulletin absolutely right because those matriculating under it will have to use it carefully during the transition. We have dates for submission of curricular changes for each Division for the quarter bulletin (see the handout). We hope that all of the quarter proposals will be processed by the end of fall quarter.

Ballou said that the Elementary Education discipline needs to communicate to students that they will have to take the math education course in the junior year rather than the senior year. That information should probably be in the bulletin as well. Schuman did not think Elementary Education would be unique with that kind of transition announcement. He thought a separate document may be needed to present the transition information.

Farrell said that the Art History and French disciplines have new faculty. The question is whether to add a few courses to the last quarter bulletin or just put those courses in as topics for now. Schuman did not know which would be better. It is easier to add the topics but harder to track them.

Schuman noted that the T.C. bulletin editors would be visiting UMM on Friday, October 11. CC members are invited to a meeting from 1-3 p.m. in the Alumni Room.

Schuman said he saw three options in the approach to the last quarter bulletin. On one extreme, the last quarter bulletin would have no changes. On the other extreme, it could be used as an introduction to the semester system. He opts for the middle road.

The next meeting of the Curriculum Committee will be on Tuesday, October 8, at 3:00 p.m. in Behmler Conference Room.

Meeting adjourned 4:00 p.m.
Submitted by Nancy Mooney

Send comments to Nancy Mooney
Send comments to the Curriculum Committee