Undergraduate Curriculum Forum (UCF)

Minutes May 1, 2003 (revised)

Present:

J. Manzella, C. Wieder, J. Feng, J. Pang, G. Kowalczyk, G. DeJarnette, S. DiFrancesco, R. Glinka, H. Podnar, M. Colleary, J. Tait, C. Coron, A. Abugri, J. Halstead, N. Marano, M. Shea, J. Yang, D. Soneson, C. Lukinbeal, T. Paddock, M. Thompson, W. Shyam, K. Swenson, R. Mugno, K. Burke, W. O'Brien, R. Page, S. Lueder, T. Gemme, S. Bochain, K. Gatzke, K. Buterbaugh, C. Durwin, C. Novosad, S. Selenskas, V. Breslin, J. Bloch, W. Elwood, C. Barrett, J. Mielczarski, L. Kohrn, K. Mauro, R. Riccardi, J. Fields

I. Call to Order

The meeting was called to order by Jim Tait at 9:40 a.m.

II. Announcements

UCF members are encouraged to attend the GenEd forum this Friday, in Engleman D125. This meeting is devoted to hearing faculty feedback on General Education goals.

The next meeting of the UCF will be in USC 206 at 8:30 a.m. on May 15, 2003.

A reminder: New elections for UCF representatives are needed before the next meeting, so any new representatives can attend.

The agenda for this meeting will be restructured. Discussion of the writing proposal comes first, followed by the meeting minutes, and ending with a presentation on how Banner will replace CPR forms.

III. Approval of Meeting Minutes

The UCF minutes of 4/17/03 were approved, with two additions. K. Gatzky and K. Swenson attended the meeting, and requested their names be added to the roll.

IV. Standing Committee Reports

Steering Committee

The Steering Committee discussed the Media Studies Bachelor of Arts proposal. As a program modification, it has to go to Hartford for external approval. In terms of the UCF, it was referred to NPIC.

Notifications Management (NMC) minutes of 4/24/03 were accepted.

New Programs and Innovations (NPIC) did not meet.

Program Review and Assessment (PRAC) minutes of 4/24/03 were accepted.

Chair Cynthia Coron encouraged UCF members to participate in the ongoing discussion of assessment models by reviewing suggested websites and then making suggestions to PRAC committee members.

University-Wide Impact (UWIC) minutes of 4/24/03 were accepted. The committee expressed a need to meet with the grad council to discuss dual listed courses.

V. Discussion

On the ad hoc subcommittee's WACC motion:

Rob Page asked that the UCF give the proposal a chance. This is a compromise, and no one is happy with a compromise, but it is better than other alternatives reviewed by the subcommittee. Writing intensive courses cannot be taken seriously if we have a program that is not uniformly administered and can be ignored at will.

Michelle Thompson made a friendly amendment to investigate effectiveness and operation of writing committee in three years. Jon Bloch seconded the motion.

Vince Breslin suggested the WACC should be improving the program as it goes along, instead of waiting for three years. Strong concerns should lead to modifications in real time.

Dan Soneson noted that the purpose of the sunset provision is to make sure people do not feel the proposal is written in stone, so that changes can be made.

Jon Bloch noted that the ad hoc committee has tried to meet concerns in the middle of opposing sides, and asserted that these issues have been and will be debated in the future. This provision makes sure that changes are eventually reviewed, to measure the success of the program. He noted the UCF has to reach closure on this motion today.

Chuck Wieder suggested the need for a mandate for the WACC to give biweekly reports to address difficulties and complaints as an alternative to the sunset provision.

Mike Shea focused on the need to assess whether the process works, not to set a date. He wanted the WACC to develop a methodology to gauge the success of the program.

A member noted that unless the sunset decision has teeth, and we voted on whether to continue the WACC, there is no guarantee any action will be taken on any assessment report.

Mike Shea proposed the amendment should be withdrawn until more general discussion has taken place. Michelle Thompson agreed, and withdrew her motion.

Kevin Buterbaugh argued that he culture of writing is not supported by an L course approach.

Jane Feng suggested that the application of writing to science courses needs to be addressed by scientists. Before students can write, they have to know how to read. In science courses, too much writing may undermine rigor.

Jim Tait reassured her that it is up to each department to decide whether L courses are appropriate or not (some departments do not offer L courses).

Sandy Lueder opposes the writing program because it is not her job to teach writing. She does not think she can do it -- it is a developed skill and even an art. The quality of the writing course experience depends on both quality of student and quality of faculty. A lot of faculty cannot write, and some are not qualified to teach writing. Further, the administration talks the talk but does not walk the walk. To do a good job in writing courses takes a lot of work, much more than a normal course, without compensation. This reminds her of the administration's call to do more assessment without support. Faculty are supposed to do this out of the goodness of their hearts.

Joseph Manzella noted that we either use the WACC or we have to go back to a system of remediation.

Troy Paddock challenged that opinion, noting that if this proposal is voted down, the old system continues. Perhaps it is better to start over trying to build writing across the curriculum.

Jiongdong Pang suggested that perhaps writing efforts should be discipline specific, and each department should develop its own writing class. Her department is developing a course on scientific technical writing.

Cynthia Coron noted that the chairs on the steering committee are concerned with three things. First, the original purpose of the writing board was as a pilot program, nothing more. Second, there are difficulties involved in restricting instructors to those formally certified. Third, there is a lack of a definitive program on recertifying courses. There are no provisions to force L courses into W courses.

Dan Soneson noted there are provisions. Only W courses count for fulfilling writing intensive requirements. L courses can continue, but do not have writing intensive status. The proposal was indefinite only in terms of the conversion timeline.

Joe Manzella called the question. Michelle Thompson seconded it.

The motion carried, with 17 votes to approve, 7 against, and 6 abstentions.

Lynn Kohrn and Rick Riccardi developed an online Curriculum Advising Program Planning program (CAPP). This combines CPR and audit capability. They distributed printouts on what the output would look like, and answered questions.

VI. Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 10:50 a.m.

Minutes recorded by:

Robert Page, UCF Secretary

Items for Further Discussion

Should the UCF adopt the NPIC resolution for tracking interdisciplinary minors: "Be it resolved that the administration mandates the Office of the Registrar to establish a procedure to identify, track and certify minors."

Should the use of Roberts' Rules of order in UCF proceedings be formally included in UCF bylaws?

When should courses receive different credit loads (for labs, writing intensiveness, etc.)?