Undergraduate Education, Council on - Minutes - 2007-2008
Council on Undergraduate Education (CUE)
Minutes for 1-18-08. Meeting opened at 1:35 p.m.
Members Present:
J. Rust, Chair, B. Kirby, I. Schmidt, D. Barlage, H. Devine, G. Weinberg, J. Wheatley, C. Levine, C. McLean, A. Nowel, T. Morant, R. Foy, C. Jordan, D. Auerbach, M. Atkinson, J. Spurlin, D. Howard, L. Williams, H. Kellner, M. Shearer, M. Johnson, J. Ambrose, C. Freeman, C. Ashwell
Guests: Mike Carter, Chris Anson, Jose Picart
Comments from the Chair: Chair Rust called the meeting to order and welcomed committee members.
Comments from the Associate Dean for UAP: Thanked the committee for continued efforts as we move forward with the GEP.
CUE Minutes from 12-4-2007 were approved unanimously.
Review of Rationale and Objectives for Advanced Communication and ENG 101:
Chris Anson introduced the draft of the rationale and objectives prepared in collaboration with Allen Dupont and Mike Carter. Chris Anson provided background to the committee regarding communication and the campus writing/speaking program. Eng 111/112 requirement went to a one 4-credit hour course and the 2 extra credits went back into the programs to enhance communication. Some colleges did enhance communication in their curriculum and some did not. There was a reduction of centralized requirements so the department could take the role within the curriculum. There is concern that if the provision in the GEP has no teeth, it may not be complied with. Anson suggested even stronger language be proposed for the requirement. He expressed that employers want to hire those with strong writing/speaking skills. The proposal indicates that the Associate Deans are responsible for ensuring compliance.
Discussion:
Is there any information on the numbers of majors in compliance? Is this handled through assessment? There was concern that the Associate Dean’s are responsible for compliance. Having objectives will elicit assessment in order to be in compliance. The departments need to demonstrate that they are adhering to objectives. Ambrose advised that Associate Deans are currently responsible for assessment in the college as university policy.
Questions were raised as to how often assessment should be done and the following:
- who will ensure that there are "writing and speaking activities" within each major that addresses the objectives of this requirements? (e.g. implementation of this requirement)
- who will ensure that students met the objectives within each major? (e.g. assessment of this requirement)
Suggestions for revising the language in the Rationale regarding Associate Deans include:
Associate deans are responsible for “ensuring” compliance…
Associate deans are responsible for “reporting” compliance…
Associate deans are responsible for “providing evidence for” compliance…
Additional revisions were suggested to the Rationale and are included at the end of the minutes.
Outcomes are not necessarily being looked at by departments. Can’t end with outcomes - need to have language about implementation as well. For GEP categories, CUE decides if a course meets requirement but with advanced communication, CUE does not review.
We don’t have a list of courses for this category. It is better not to have a list of courses to fulfill the requirements since writing/speaking is not something that can be taught in a 50 minute class, so it is best not to assign credits to this category. Since this requirement is to be coordinated at the program level dealing with different cultures and experiences, we don’t want to tell the depts/programs how they should incorporate writing/speaking.
The process of assessment is different from who is accountable for making sure compliance. How is compliance monitored?
ADV COM DISCUSSION STOPPED DUE TO TIME ISSUES
U.S. Diversity Co-requisite in GEP
Chair Rust welcomed Dr. Jose Picart and thanked him for his patience through the committee’s discussion. Dr. Picart announced that he is working with a subcommittee to assist in the development and review of courses that would meet the rationale and objectives for the U.S. Diversity co-requisite. Upon CUE’s approval of the co-requisite rationale and objectives, the subcommittee will work to develop a list of courses that will be presented to CUE for approval for this category.
The committee began review of the rationale and objectives for U.S. Diversity as presented by David Auerbach.
A motion was made to approve the rationale as presented and motion passed unanimously.
The committee discussed the language of the objectives and made revisions to the objectives presented.
A motion was made to approve the objectives as amended and motion passed unanimously.
The Chair asked for volunteers from CUE to serve as part of the U.S. Diversity subcommittee. Linda Williams and Gary Weinberg volunteered.
The Chair thanked Dr. Picart for his attendance and a motion was made to extend the meeting for 10 minutes which was approved unanimously.
Chair Rust provided an update regarding the IP symposium. We are currently waiting on a response from the keynote speaker. Once a date is confirmed, a meeting will be called to continue with the planning of the symposium. A memo was sent asking for names of on-campus faculty with ID experience and we have received some responses.
For the next meeting, we will return to discuss the Adv Com rationale and objectives and the Global Knowledge co-requisite rationale and objectives.
CUE approved version for GEP 1-18-08
U. S. Diversity co-requisite (1 course, 0 additional credit hours)
Rationale:
The study of diversity in the United States provides students the opportunity to consider questions of difference and culture, identity and community, privilege and oppression, and power and responsibility in our nation, and to gain an understanding of how these issues affect both individuals and communities.
Objectives:
Each course in U.S. Diversity will provide instruction and guidance that help students to achieve 2 or more of the following:
- Analyze how religious, gender, ethnic, racial, class, sexual orientation, disability, and/or age identities are shaped by cultural and societal influences;
- Categorize and compare historical, social, political, and/or economic processes producing diversity, equality, and structured inequalities in the U.S.;
- Interpret and evaluate social actions by religious, gender, ethnic, racial, class, sexual orientation, disability, and/or age groups affecting equality and social justice in the U.S.;
- Examine interactions between people from different religious, gender, ethnic, racial, class, sexual orientation, disability, and/or age groups in the U.S.
SUGGESTED REVISIONS:
Communication in the Major
Rationale:
Approved by GEP Task Force: Because writing and speaking are powerful ways of both learning and evaluating learning in the disciplines, each undergraduate curriculum must be designed so that courses in the major help students communicate competently for academic and professional contexts. And because effective communication in these contexts often demands proficiency in the use of information technologies and resources, students must have a basic understanding of how information is identified, structured, organized, and accessed, in both the print and digital environments.
Proposed alternative (new material in bold): Writing and speaking are fundamental tostand at the core of virtually all disciplinary and scholarly work, also serving as powerful ways of learning and evaluating learning in the disciplines. As a result, Eeach undergraduate curriculum must be designed and taught so that the Major courses in the major enhances students' learning through writing and speaking activities and help them to communicate competently for academic and professional contexts. Because effective communication in these contexts often demands proficiency in the use of information technologies and resources, students must gain a basic understanding of how information is identified, organized, and accessed, in both the print and digital environments. Associate deans are responsible for providing evidence of ensuring compliance with this requirement across their college's curriculum, using appropriate assessment methods and available campus resources.
Objectives:
Each undergraduate curriculum must be designed to provide instruction and ample opportunities for guided practice that enable students to:
1. Learn more deeply and effectively through the use of writing and speaking activities.
2. Master the kinds of writing and speaking that are appropriate to their academic or professional majors.
3. Use information technologies appropriate to their academic or professional majors to identify and access information and then to evaluate, synthesize, and incorporate that information effectively in their writing and speaking.
Introduction to Writing
Rationale:
Writing is a powerful way of understanding ourselves and the world in which we live. It is through writing that the various disciplines and professions define the knowledge and methodologies that characterize them. Mastery of writing and information skills is central to engaging in the productive life of academic and professional communities.
Objectives:
The required course in this category will provide instruction and guidance that help students to:
1. Write effectively in specific situations, which may include various academic, professional, or civic situations.
2. Understand and respond appropriately to the critical elements that shape written communication situations, such as audience, purpose, and genre.
3. Demonstrate critical and evaluative thinking skills in locating, analyzing, synthesizing, and using information in written communication.