COSS CURRICULUM COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 9, 2009
12:00-12:50
Attending:
Glade (HIST), Hampton (ECON), Greaves (POL), Wall (GEOG), Rigopolou-Melcher (CMTY), Melcher (PSY), GILBERTSON (CJST), Dziengel (Social Work), Lehman (ETHS).
Motion to Approve Agenda (Gilbertson)
Motion seconded (Wall)
Motion passed unanimously
Motion to Approve Minutes of 8/26/09 with suggested amendments (Rigopolou-Melcher)
Motion seconded (Hampton)
Motion passed unanimously
Motion to removed General Education policies from tabling (Hampton)
Motion Seconded (Wall)
Motion passed unanimously
A Discussion on new General Education Policies followed.
· Several committee members expressed concerns about the procedures for changing the General Education requirements.
· What are the procedures for making changes to the General Education curriculum policies? What mechanisms are available for changing the General Education requirements.
· Aspa Rigopolou pointed out that the General Education policies are a “done deal” and there is not much room for changes.
· Betsy Glade expressed concerns about process and about issues relating to faculty control over the curriculum.
E-mail correspondence from faculty members in the Ethnic Studies department who also expressed concerns was read.
Motion to add e-mails to comments was introduced (Glade)
Motion was seconded
Motion passed unanimously
Motion to strike the last half of the sentence from Goal Area 1 was introduced (Hampton)
Motion was seconded (Wall)
· Discussion on the motion: the goal is too prescriptive. It tells a faculty member what he/she should be teaching.
The motion passed with one abstention (Dziengel)
Motion to consider replacing “and” with “or” (Hampton)
Motion seconded (Wall)
Motion passed unanimously
Motion to approve the General Education curriculum with amendments and comments (Glade)
Motion was seconded
Motion did not pass (2 in favor, 7 against)
Motion to adjourn (Gilbertson)
Motion seconded (Rigopolou)
Motion passed unanimously
Meeting adjourned at 1:00.
COSS Curriculum Committee
Comments on SC General Education
September 9, 2009
Comments:
1. We would like the third column of each Goal Area to be based on a simple majority, rather than the current 6-8 (Goal Area 1), 5-6 (Goal Area 2), and 4-4 (Goal Area 4) currently in the proposal.
Our Amendment is as follows:
“In the area of objectives, a course should meet at minimum a simple majority of Student Learning Outcomes.”
2. Faculty questions brought to the COSS Curriculum Committee warrant attention:
a. This is specifically in regards to Goal Area 7: Racial & Ethnic Diversity in the U.S. We would like clarification on the “1 approved course or experience [in column 2].” What counts as experience?
b. In the past, it was possible to take three Racial Issues and use all three of them to satisfy Diversity (MGM) courses. However, the new proposal stipulates that for Goal Area 7 (Racial & Ethnic Diversity), Goal Area 8 (Global perspectives), and Diversity, only one course can be from Goal Area 7. This concerns us because this discourages students to take more than one Racial Issues Course.
c. We are concerned with the Diversity flagged courses (previously MGM) that are included in the Gen Ed proposal (#7 in the proposal). The faculty member has taught both Racial Issues and Diversity courses on this campus. Her concern is with the way “diversity content is included and integrated into these courses. There seems to be tremendous variation regarding the depth and complexity of this content in Diversity courses. Are there specific criteria used to evaluate what classes receive the Diversity flag? In order to be categorized as a Racial Issues course, there are several specific criteria that must be included in the course (see the Racial Issues website for more info on the criteria). As we look more closely at the Gen Ed curriculum, we recommend that we look more closely at the courses with the Diversity Flag.
3. We recommend that in Goal Area 1, Student Learning Outcome #7, the phrase after the word “discourse” should be stricken from the proposal. Thus the Student Learning outcome would read: “Describe, summarize, and analyze written and spoken discourse.” To include the phrase “noting how language affects and reflects our perception of human values, cultural perspectives, and gender identities” goes beyond the scope of the Goal Area.
4.
We recommend that: the use of “and”, “or” and “and/or” in SLO’s be
revisited and/or reevaluated to assure that the phrasing clearly represent the
committee intent. This could also potentially reduce the potential for a ‘pile
on’ effect such that a course is required to meet multiple expectations.
Likewise, by the use of the word OR, does the gen ed committee
sometimes expect that a course need only meet one area of outcome criteria,
which may be not fully explore multiple potential topics.
For example—Goal Area 9: SLO 3:
“Describe how interpretations of ethics or citizenship may vary by nationality,
ethnicity, race, color, religion, gender, ability and disability OR sexual
orientation?”
Is the expectation that the instructor articulate how the content will meet only one of those categories? When the word “and” is used, is the expectation that the instructor articulate how the content will meet all those categories?
For example—Goal:
a. Area 6, Student Outcome 2: “Describe and appreciate works in the arts and humanities as expressions of individual and collective values within an intellectual, cultural, historical, and social context;”
b. Area 7, Student Learning Outcome 3: “Analyze current events and conditions at the local, statewide, and national levels using course theories and concepts.”