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 10/24/02 (amended)

Present: E. Emenyonu, C. Wieder, G. DeJarnette, S. DiFrancesco, R. Glinka, H. Podnar, J. Fopiano, J. Tait, J. Mills, B. Achhpal, N. Marano, M. Shea, 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, E. Elwood, C. Ogbaa, C. Barrett, J. DeMarco, M. Heidmann, K. Mauro

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

II. Announcements

UCF members are encouraged to attend the Interdisciplinary Forum on Teaching and Learning through General Education, held October 25, to explore faculty views on GenEd, since the UCF will be reviewing general education requirements.

The UCF GenEd task force has started to meet and review literature on general education programs. The committee membership may be adjusted, given a disproportionate representation of white male members. The situation is being reviewed.

III. Approval of Meeting Minutes

UCF Minutes of 9/26/02 accepted, with one revision -- a hyphen between "writing" and "intensive" under VIII.

UCF Minutes of 10/10/02 accepted, with one revision - the phrase "work together with" should replace "with" to describe the relationship between departments and the writing committee in developing a template.

IV. Standing Committee Reports

Notifications Management Committee (NMC) minutes were accepted, with the understanding that outcomes-based learning objectives will be discussed at a later UCF meeting.

New Programs and Innovations (NPIC) minutes were approved

  • Area studies program revisions discussed, standards would apply for new minors in the program. Challenge of tracking minors discussed, with little hope of improvement.

Program Review and Assessment (PRAC) minutes were accepted, pending feedback from VP Phil Smith.

  • PRAC explored their role in the new assessment process with Phil. PRAC may serve a screening function. Dr. Smith's comments seemed to move PRAC away from a resource for advisement towards becoming a formal part of the process. UCF has traditionally rejected the transfer of administrative responsibilities to PRAC, and insisted they remain a resource for advisement. Dr. Smith has not yet reviewed the minutes of his discussion with the committee, and may clarify these issues.

Steering Committee minutes dealt with the meeting with Dr. Smith, as described above. Jim Tait and Troy Paddock suggest that it is time for UCF to revisit assessment in terms of what we are required to do, what we want to do, and what purpose it should serve.

University-wide Innovations (UWIC) did not meet.

V. Writing Across the Curriculum Committee Provisions

Conversation continues on the proposal for the WACC. The discussion focused on the question, "Should L courses become W courses?"

Discussion Summary:

Currently there are 4 kinds of courses with a writing-intensive designation:

  • New writing course proposals submitted to and approved by the current Writing Board
  • New writing course proposals (non Arts and Sciences) submitted to and approved by UWIC, without review by the current Writing Board
  • Existing courses which have been reviewed and approved by the current Writing Board as meeting writing-intensive standards
  • Existing courses which have been grandfathered in as writing intensive courses without review or approval by the Writing Board

Pros: Due to problems with a nontraditional nomenclature and the need for standard requirements, all courses should meet "W" course guidelines set by the WACC within a set (yet-to-be-determined) timeframe.

Cons: Given the difficulties some departments have experienced with the current L course review and approval process, eliminating the grandfathering option is acceptable only if the process is modified.

Discussion:

Dan Soneson- the proposal currently uses references to both W and L courses, pending clarification on where the UCF wants to go with this issue. Terminology may change from L to W, if the W suggestion is adopted.

Some members asked the "why bother" question. While "L" stands for literacy, Southern is apparently the only university in the country using this nomenclature. "W" for writing is far more common. This causes confusion on transcripts, when students take them elsewhere for review. While Banner currently designates writing-intensive courses with an asterisk, a W tag is feasible.

Mark Heidmann noted that, when originally developed 5 years ago, the UCF intended to eventually have all writing courses approved under new, uniform guidelines. Troy Paddock noted that because some programs have experienced problems with the approval process, re-certification of existing L courses is quite controversial.

Dan Soneson noted that the new WACC can modify the approval process and requirements. Suggestions have been made by the ad hoc committee for consideration by the new WACC. Mark Heidmann agreed, suggesting that while major policy has to be made by UCF, details can be referred back to the committee for further development, and then presented to the general body for discussion and ultimate approval.

There is considerable confusion about the approval process of a new W course. The current flowchart of a new W course begins when the course proposal is approved by the school curriculum committee, who forwards it on to the UCF, who directs it to notifications management for approval as a course, and then to WACC for approval as a W course, then both reports are returned to the UCF for final action. Jim Tait argued this flowchart was too bureaucratic, and offered this alternative: the proposal, once it reaches the UCF, should go directly to the WACC. The WACC should have the authority to approve it on two levels: (a) as a course and/or (b) as a writing-intensive course. Notifications Management would not need to be involved.

The discussion explored the problematic assumption that professors in charge of writing know how to write. Glenda DeJarnette stressed the importance of some kind of ongoing monitoring and evaluation to ensure that writing-intensive classes are being effectively delivered. Currently there is no monitoring or evaluation function, due to issues around academic freedom and role conflicts between counseling, support, and policing for the WACC.

VI. Items for Further Discussion

What is the role of PRAC? Should they be a formal part of the evaluation / assessment process, or 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 bypass NMC and go directly to WACC?

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

Recorded By: Robert Page