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 11/7/2002 (amended)

Present:

E. Emenyonu, J. Manzella, C. Wieder, G. DeJarnette, S. DiFrancesco, R. Glinka, H. Podnar, J. Tait, C. Coron, A. Abugri, B. Achhpal, M. Shea, N. Henderson, N. Wilder, D. Soneson, T. Paddock, M. Thompson, N. Disbrow, W. Shyam, J. Fields, R. Mugno, K. Burke, W. O'Brien, R. Page, S. Lueder, T. Gemme, R. Volkman, J. Dolan, K. Buterbaugh, C. Durwin, S. Selenskas, V. Breslin, J. Bloch, E. Johnston, W. Elwood, A. Kumar, C. Ogbaa, C. Barrett, R. Cretella, J. DeMarco, M. Heidmann, K. Mauro

I. Call to Order Jim Tait called the meeting to order at 9:45 a.m.

II. Announcements

Dan Soneson - Presentations on "Rethinking the Middle Ages" will be held in the new rotunda. Since the new rotunda does not appear to be complete, deconstructionists should feel at home there.

Mark Heidmann - January writing workshops will be available soon. The prize-winning L course papers from last years courses will be available soon. He has received notice of slippage in handling enrollment caps for L courses in spring semester. When L courses are cross-listed, the enrollment should be 20 or 23, but may be mis-entered. Make sure L course sections are properly capped.

Jim Tait - As promised to the Senate, he will post a copy of writing program proposal to the website. The posting is late due to serious server problems which caused unavoidable delays. When it is posted, any colleague interested in the details of the proposed WACC will be able to access them online.

III. Approval of Meeting Minutes

The Minutes of 10/24 were approved pending the following revisions:

A. Rob Page should take credit/blame for the content.

B. The UCF accepts subcommittee minutes, but does not approve them.

C. The UCF approves meeting minutes, but does not accept them.

IV. Standing Committee Reports

Notifications Management (NMC) minutes were accepted.

They reviewed 5 courses, and approved 4 of them. MDS 333 was returned to the department for further discussion.

Program Review and Assessment (PRAC) minutes were accepted.

Discussion focused on assessment given resource constraints. More data on assessment is needed, particularly from appropriate benchmark institutions.

University-wide Innovations (UWIC) minutes were accepted.

Discussion focused on proposed revisions to the writing program, and the potential impact of W courses

New Programs and Innovations (NPIC) did not meet, but submitted a proposal, which was approved with a revised title: "NPIC Proposal Regarding Area Studies Minors".

There are four Area Studies minors available, but no guidelines on what Areas Studies minors should look like. One major concern was that one can pursue the minor without the formal requirement of taking an upper level course. Also, to be interdisciplinary, the minor should require students to take courses in at least 3 disciplines.

Bill Elwood noted that Banner changes need to be made to support these minors, but are difficult to implement. Through a series of negotiations, an agreement was reached that Area Studies people should create their own form, which the registrar would use as a guideline for area minors.. No tracking is currently available on the number of students choosing Area Studies minors .

Lynn Kohrn is currently entering CPR information on Banner. Mark Heidmann noted this would provide close to an electronic equivalent of a CPR, with the added feature of an electronic capability to check student records. This new program will be piloted in the spring. Mark noted that a faculty paradigm needs shifting - we should worry less about updating CPR forms and worry more about the content of the catalogue, which is a legal document.

V. Discussion of the WACC Proposal

Mark Heidmann began the discussion by noting competing concerns. On the one hand, it is important to thoughtfully deliberate constitutional issues, and make sure proper procedure is followed. On the other hand, in terms of the larger picture, action needs to be taken to keep the writing program viable. There are over 15 major decisions which need to be made fairly soon, with no constitutionally approved body to make them. Some of these issues are related to procedure, others to policy, but all should be considered in a leisurely versus rushed manner, and separated from any personality issues which might open the decision to criticism.

Accordingly, Mark proposed to

a) Go ahead with selection of committee members on a provisional basis.

b) Identify the people to serve on the committee, and give them materials to bring them up to speed on these important decisions. This effort will be wasted only if the Senate rejects the WACC proposal, and opts to cancel the program. This is perceived as a small risk.

Mike Shea asked who will be doing the appointing. As agreed, joint appointments will be worked out between Academic Vice President Phil Smith and the UCF Steering Committee. Mike suggested greater UCF control and involvement.

There are four options to be considered:

A. The Vice President nominates candidates which are forwarded to the Steering Committee for discussion and eventual selection. Some UCF members feel this is, in fact, how the process has operated in the past, and object to it.

B. The Vice President and the Steering Committee both bring nominations for candidates, and decide on the appointments together. This is the current model the UCF accepted last fall, which some UCF members attack as too idealistic and naïve - they fear the Vice President will dominate the process, making option B token - a stealth option A.

C. The Steering Committee nominates the candidates to be forwarded to the Vice President for discussion and selection, where he has veto power over a candidate pool framed by the UCF. This option makes the nomination process an exclusive UCF faculty function.

D. The involvement of the Vice President should be eliminated entirely. While involvement of the Vice President could be justified if the Vice President controlled the funding of the program, this is not longer the case. Troy Paddock noted that the writing program is now funded entirely out of the Arts and Sciences budget.

Many UCF members called for further consideration of the appointment process, to address the following issues.

  • Joe Fields - Appointments to the WACC should target appropriate diversity among members.
  • Committee select candidates. Jim Tait offered to solicit such a list by email.
  • Cynthia Coron and Bill Elwood both noted that more feedback was needed from Arts and Sciences, where the program was piloted. A subcommittee of department chairs was preparing such feedback, which should be considered before making appointments.
  • Jon Bloch noted the WACC was still a work in progress, and not yet constitutionally approved. He felt it was imperative to continue to address this issue. While general language could be constitutionally approved, the details remained controversial, and should be left open for further discussion. For example, why restrict potential members to those with a preexisting knowledge of writing programs? Whose interests are being served by this arrangement?

At this point, Rob Page realized he was typing in the same words he had heard last fall, when the ad hoc proposal was discussed and approved, and noted the following:

A. These issues have been discussed at length in the past, and will continue to be discussed in the future. Underlying tensions are never resolved, only managed.

B. If the writing program receives no support before these issues are resolved, it is likely to become paralyzed, or simply collapse because of the delays.

C. The approval process for the WACC was voted on and approved last fall. Dan Soneson actually lost sleep over it, making sure it was viable. He did a good job.

D. The approved joint process has never been tried - the Vice President and the Steering Committee have never met together to appoint the WACC, and it should be given a chance.

E. Many of the fears being expressed are entirely hypothetical, and such speculations are borrowing trouble. The Steering Committee do not look like doormats to me.

F. The UCF should approve a provisional arrangement for the Steering Committee to give the process a go and report back on what happens for further UCF action.

Troy Paddock suggested that UCF reps should have a chance to go back to their departments for feedback, and discuss this topic at the start of the next meeting to avoid any impression of railroading. Jim Tait agreed to further discussion in the next meeting.

Betty Johnston asked for a sense of the body on whether to go forward and grant the Steering Committee powers to make joint provisional appointments despite the state of constitutional limbo. To make this more formal, Mike Shea made a motion to grant the Steering Committee authority to expeditiously assemble a list of volunteers and suggested members to discuss with Phil Smith, to form a provisional, temporary WACC. The motion was approved:

  • 15 in favor
  • 9 against
  • 6 abstentions

 

VI. 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?