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 11/21/02 (amended)

Present:

E. Emenyonu, C. Wieder, S. DiFrancesco, R. Glinka, J. Fopiano, J. Tait, C. Coron, J. Mills, B. Achhpal, N. Marano, N. Henderson, N. Wilder, D. Soneson, C. Lukinbeal, T. Paddock, M. Thompson, W. Shyam, J. Fields, R. Mugno, R. Page, S. Lueder, T. Gemme, S. Bochain, R. Volkman, K. Buterbaugh, C. Durwin, S. Selenskas, V. Breslin, J. Bloch, W. Elwood, A. Kumar, C. Ogbaa, C. Barrett, R. Cretella, J. DeMarco, M. Heidmann

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

II. Announcements

Jim Tait - The next UCF meeting, scheduled for 12/12/02, will be our last meeting of the semester. There will be no subcommittee meetings held the week of Thanksgiving.

Michele Thompson - The Asian Society will hold its annual "Taste of Asia" on Monday, November 25, 2002 from 12:30 to 2:00 in the Multicultural Center. Tickets are $4.00. All are encouraged to attend.

III. Approval of Meeting Minutes

Jon Bloch suggested that the word "discussion" replace the word "development" under item IV: Standing Committee Reports, NMC. The UCF meeting minutes of 11/7/02 were approved pending the above revision.

IV. Standing Committee Reports

Steering Committee

  1. The Steering Committee discussed creating a form for minors to track the number of students pursuing minors.
  2. The Steering Committee also discussed the Flow of Proposals document. This document was taken off of the Web site and will be begin to be updated at the next Steering Committee meeting. Ideas from the new constitution will be incorporated into the new Flow of Proposals document.
  3. Jim Tait met with the Senate recently to discuss the constitution. The Senate had some suggestions for revising the preamble, etc. Jim will be meeting with the Senate again in the near future to get a better idea of what their specific recommendations are for revision.
  4. The Steering Committee discussed the issue of Special Topics shell course proposals. In an effort to streamline the process of documenting a Special Topics shell course for departments, it was agreed that the chair of UCF can sign off on the proposals without the approval of any UCF subcommittees.
  5. The Chairs of the School of Arts and Sciences held a meeting last Monday and had some concerns about the proposed Writing Across the Curriculum Program. These concerns were expressed as a written motion, which Dan Soneson kindly photocopied for immediate distribution. The Arts and Sciences Chairs requested to be involved in making decisions concerning the new WACC, for these reasons:
  • Concerns about the impact of credit hour rewards for teaching L courses
  • Favor limited enrollment incentives
  • Concerns about certification and approval processes of L or W courses
  • Concerns about approving instructors rather than courses
  • Want L or W courses to be an interim, not permanent measure

A brief discussion followed.

  • C. Weider raised the question of whether or not any of the Arts and Sciences Chairs have ever taught L courses. UCF members confirmed that they have.
  • C. Coron informed the body that the L course requirement was originally intended to be a temporary program.
  • A member of the body expressed concern about rewards for teaching L courses, adding that she felt more was being added to the faculty load without incentive. She expressed her hope for an open mind to the idea of incentives.
  • D. Soneson asked when the L designation started. UCF members answered 1981-1982.
  • W. Elwood indicated that, at Chair meetings, the concept of the "reward" was of foremost concern.
  • M. Thompson said that faculty members are asked to do extra work above and beyond their normal load. She does not think that it is inappropriate to give faculty incentive for teaching L courses.
  • R. Volkman said that we must specify the incentives, and that this is a strategic issue.

Notifications Management (NMC) minutes were accepted.

NMC unanimously approved seven course proposals. Assessment models and UCF proceedings were also discussed.

New Programs and Innovations (NPIC) did not meet.

Program Review and Assessment (PRAC) minutes were accepted.

On November 7, 2002, PRAC met with Vice President Phil Smith to continue to the dialogue regarding assessment at Southern. In their regular subcommittee meeting on November 14, 2002, PRAC members divided a list of Web resources to explore for assessment ideas.

University-wide Innovations (UWIC) minutes were accepted.

Discussion occurred concerning a proposed revision for ENG 217 Themes in Literature.

V. Discussion of the WACC Proposal

The discussion focused on obtaining a sense of the body concerning the Arts and Sciences Chairs' Motion so that Jim Tait may convey the concerns of UCF members to the Arts and Sciences Chairs at their next meeting. The issues of rewards and recertification were discussed.

Rewards Options

A. Offer no rewards.

Pros: All instructors should be expected to teach writing without incentives.

Cons: Writing courses are more time intensive than normal courses, and will be therefore avoided.

B. Offer additional credit hours for students & faculty.

Pros: Writing courses are more time intensive than normal courses, so the additional credit hours will reflect additional work. For example, instructors get 4 ½ course load credits for teaching a studio art course because of the increased student contact hours involved, as well as enrollment caps. This position is popular with students.

Cons: Other courses involve writing, and will be avoided because they are not designated writing-intensive courses.

C. Give faculty reassigned time for teaching a certain number of courses.

Pros: Writing courses are more time intensive than normal courses, so the reassigned time is an appropriate incentive.

Cons: Rewards/incentives given to those teaching L courses and not to those teaching 4-credit courses and lab courses may cause arguments, tension and office politics within the departments themselves.

D. Give writing intensive courses enrollment caps of 20 students or less.

Pros: By limiting numbers of students, the faculty workload becomes manageable. This incentive is already approved and functioning well.

Cons: Availability of writing intensive courses is already a problem, and caps will make the matter worse due to limited adjunct hiring and increasing enrollments.

  • Discussion of the appropriate terminology offered substitutes for the concept of faculty rewards, such as "incentives," "instructional requirements," "writing pedagogy," or "support for faculty". Terminology should focus the reader's attention on how these proposals will meet the instructional needs of students, instead of the compensation desires of faculty. This frames the argument on a level of analysis less subject to attack.
  • A member pointed out that resources for rewards do not come from the UCF budget. Another indicated that, from a Dean's perspective, the costs of the different incentives should be considered. Which offers the best value?

Sense of the body:

Faculty incentives / support for students for L or W courses:

  • 27 members approved
  • 3 members opposed

Reassigned time / additional credit hours as the preferred incentive / support:

  • 8 members approved
  • 15 members opposed
  • 6 members abstained

Enrollment Caps as the preferred incentive / support:

  • 28 members approved
  • 1 member opposed
  • 2 members abstained

Recertification

Discussion focused on the steps required to recertify an L course. Some members felt that the process should be streamlined by eliminating the bureaucratic process of filling out forms, and that the only requirement should be a cover letter and an annotated syllabus.

A member expressed his opinion that the time requirement for recertification should be later, rather than sooner (the current language in the proposal is that recertification must occur before teaching an L course for a fifth time or before the third year, whichever is sooner).

Sense of the Body:

The majority of the body supported the idea that a good way to grandfather writing-intensive courses is to eliminate forms and cover sheets and, instead, require only a cover letter and annotated syllabus, which includes the same information.

Jim Tait will discuss recertification further with the Arts and Sciences Chairs and will share their feedback at the next meeting.

VI. Adjournment

1. A motion to adjourn the meeting was made, seconded, and passed unanimously.

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

Items for Further Discussion

What is the role of PRAC? Should they be a formal part of the evaluation / assessment process, or as a resource for faculty independent of the process?

Assessment revisited - what is required, wanted, and for what purpose?

Should there be uniform standards for writing-intensive courses?

If so, by when?

Should a writing-intensive course proposal go directly to WACC?

Should the UCF insist on a monitoring and evaluation function to assess writing course effectiveness?

Should W designation be limited to certain instructors, as well as certain courses?

What is the process for submitting ongoing feedback about the writing program?

Should such information go directly to the WACC, or be discussed by the UCF as a general body first?

 

Minutes recorded by:

Christine M. Stanton & Rob Page

University Assistant for UCF / UCF Secretary