Search
Southern Home PageAbout Southern Connecticut State UniversityAcademicsAdmissionsStudent LifeResearchAthleticsHuman Resources at Southern
Southern Connecticut State University LibraryMySCSUSouthern DirectoryCalendar of EventsTechnologyContact Us
Department Banner

Undergraduate Curriculum Forum (UCF)

Minutes 4/3/03

Present:

J. Feng, J. Pang, G. DeJarnette, S. DiFrancesco, H. Podnar, J. Tait, C. Coron, A. Abugri, J. Halstead, B. Achhpal, N. Marano, D. Soneson, C. Lukinbeal, T. Paddock, M. Thompson, W. Shyam, J. Fields, R. Mugno, K. Burke, W. O'Brien, T. Gemme, S. Bochain, K. Gatzke, K. Buterbaugh, C. Durwin, C. Novosad, V. Breslin, J. Bloch, W. Elwood, C. Ogbaa, L. Cruz, K. Mauro

I. Call to Order

Jim Tait called the meeting to order at 9:40 a.m.

II. Announcements

Jim Tait noted that the resolution previously discussed by UCF concerning layoffs has not yet been sent out, however it will be sent right away.

Troy Paddock provided information about two guest speakers that will be appearing on campus within the next few weeks.

III. Approval of Meeting Minutes

The UCF minutes from 3/13/03 were approved, as amended. W. Shyam will be added to the list of those present. Also, the word "proscribed" will be changed to "prescribed" in Standing Committee Reports / Program Review and Assessment / paragraph three.

IV. Standing Committee Reports

Steering Committee met with Phil Smith to discuss the Writing Program and to exchange ideas about Writing Board membership. A list of members will be presented to UCF soon.

Notifications Management Committee (NMC) minutes of 3/20/03 were accepted. The following proposals were approved by the committee:

  • B.S. Communication, specialization in Creative Message Construction - program revision
  • B.S. Communication, specialization in Video Production - program revision

New Programs and Innovations Committee (NPIC) did not submit minutes.

Program Review and Assessment Committee (PRAC) minutes of 3/20/03 were accepted. Cynthia Coron informed the group that Dr. O'Sullivan is planning on retiring. Cynthia suggested that the UCF takes this change as an opportunity to take an active role in restructuring assessment. By giving our input at the beginning and having something in place, we may avoid having an undesirable form of assessment mandated by the state. One member suggested that assessment is a fad that might go away in a few years. There was also discussion as to whether or not it would be a waste of time to set up a system of assessment if the state might want us to change it in the future. It was agreed that the group should come up with a system of assessment that we can live with, and that the topic will be put on the agenda for a future UCF meeting.

University Wide Impact Committee (UWIC) did not submit minutes.

V. Writing Across the Curriculum Proposal

Jim Tait pointed out that there are only four more UCF meetings this semester, and that we have several issues that need to be resolved during the time that we have left. Sense-of-the-body polls were used to informally determine the members' thoughts on the following issues. Formal voting will occur at the next meeting.

1) Do we certify courses or instructors?

Those in favor of certifying both the course and the instructor made the point that certifying just the course might result in a lack of interest, commitment, and understanding on behalf of the instructor assigned to teach a writing-intensive course. Certifying both the instructor and the course ensures the commitment of the instructor to teaching a writing-intensive course.

Those in favor of certifying just the course made the point that any syllabus could follow the approved departmental writing-intensive template.

It was mentioned that, when advising students, finding enough available L courses for students to take to meet the current requirement is delaying graduation for some students. It was also mentioned that there is no way to really assess whether the current writing program is having any positive effect on student writing. Questions were raised: Do L courses benefit the student? Do faculty want to teach them?

It was clarified that the certification of a writing-intensive course as a W course is not based on course content, but on the critical nature of the writing, the amount of writing, and the emphasis on revision.

Sense of the body: the majority of members preferred certification of just the course, rather than the course and the instructor.

2) What should a re-certification process involve?

It was pointed out that the re-certification process was an idea carried over from a previous committee, and that the Writing Across the Curriculum Committee was neutral on this issue.

Those in favor of re-certification emphasized that the goal is to have writing across the curriculum. If we eliminate reporting, we are not communicating with each other and we cannot learn from each other.

Those considering re-certification felt that there must be some imperative language involved to indicate that the update process is required. Rather than using the term "expectation", a suggestion was to use the term "must submit".

A member suggested that, if re-certification does pass, the time requirement should be changed, as the current time requirement is too short.

Those opposed to re-certification made the point that any other course does not need to be re-certified. The question was raised as to who would track the re-certification process, as some felt we are already understaffed. Some felt that this process was just excess paperwork with little purpose, and that it was prescriptive and pointless. Another question was raised: Could a course be de-certified?

Sense of the body: the majority of members opposed re-certification.

3) Should the UCF insist on a monitoring and evaluation function to assess writing program effectiveness?

The discussion focused on keeping the type of evaluation student-centered. Some members pointed out the difficulty we might have with evaluating whether or not the program is working, and whether or not the students are writing better as a result of the program. One suggestion was to ask the students at the end of the semester whether or not their writing has improved by taking a writing-intensive course.

Sense of the body: the majority of members felt that there should be some form of assessment.

What should be done about pre-existing L courses? Should they be resubmitted to bring them into alignment with current W courses?

A short discussion occurred during which members mentioned their desire that, if resubmission is required, the process should be made as simple as possible. Academic freedom issues were mentioned, with the suggestion that if the idea of resubmission passes, it should be a request, but not mandatory. It was mentioned that some professors and departments are strongly opposed to the idea of re-certification of pre-existing L courses.

Sense of the body: the majority of members opposed re-certification of pre-existing L courses.

VI. Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 a.m.