MINUTES
CAS CURRICULUM COMMITTEE
Wed., Jan. 14, 1998, Pamplin Room, Watzek, 3:15-5:00
Present: Jane Atkinson, Mine Eder, Jack Hart, Curtis Johnson, Curt Keedy, John Krussel, Roger Paget, Anne Price, Bill Randall, David Savage, Tom Schoeneman, Phyllis Yes. Student Representatives: Eric Johnson, Elizabeth Thiel. Recorder: Eleanor Leonard.
Call to Order
1/ The meeting was called to order at 3:20 pm.
Approval of Minutes
2/ Roger Paget moved to accept the Dec. 10, 1997, minutes. Tom Schoeneman seconded. Vote to accept unanimous.
3/ Eric Johnson moved to accept the Dec. 17, 1997, minutes. Tom Schoeneman seconded. Vote to accept unanimous.
Course Proposal Subcommittee
Chemistry:
4/ The following chemistry courses were dealt with as a package:
5/ 97.77 +GE Sp98 Chem 120 General Chemistry II (Balko, Keedy, Randall, Williams). Add new course. Gen. Ed.: replaces Chem 130, satisfies Math & Nat Sciences requirements: category A or B, or Quantitative Reasoning requirement. Taught annually.
6/ 97.78 F98 Chem 110 General Chemistry I (Balko, Keedy, Randall, Williams). Course is being altered: updated content description needed for consistency with new course proposed for second semester (Chem 120). Taught annually.
7/ 97.79 F98 Chem 130 Equilibrium and Analysis (Keedy, Randall). Drop course.
8/ Tom Schoeneman explained that the chemistry department wished to drop Chem 130 and shift some of the contents to Chem 110 & 120. The laboratory part of 130 will be used in 120.
9/ Bill Randall explained that adding Chem 120 to the curriculum would extend General Chemistry from a short survey to a full year course. This will not have an adverse affect on other departments' majors, minors, or programs. By dropping 130 from the curriculum, we will lose the introduction to analytical chemistry in our program.
10/ Tom Schoeneman recommended approval of this chemistry package. Roger Paget moved approval. Eric Johnson seconded. Vote to approve unanimous.
Other Course Proposals:
11/ 97.80 Sp98 Envs 200 Intro. to Environmental Studies (Williams). Course alteration. To be taught annually.
12/ Tom Schoeneman described at length the major problem the subcommittee found with this course. The Environmental Studies department would like to limit the course to freshmen and sophomore students. An additional problem has to do with the order of the registration process: freshmen register first, then seniors, juniors, and last, sophomores. Currently, no sophomores are registered for this class because it filled before they had a chance to register. For this reason the Environmental Studies Department would like to limit the registration to freshmen and sophomores only. Juniors and seniors could registrar with approval of the instructor.
13/ A lengthy discussion followed. Bill Randall asked if this was a case where the course might need to be offered for a couple of years to see what happens. Tom Schoeneman thought the course would look very interesting to students who were not going to be Environmental Studies majors. Eric Johnson asked if the result of the enrollment figures might be because it is a new course and that before now seniors could not enroll in the course. It was also mentioned that if a student was going to be an environmental studies major they would need to have that course by the time they were a sophomore. Bill Randall asked if the enrollment could be raised to let more students in and Eric Johnson mentioned that two sections could be offered. Curt Keedy replied that the course needed to be small because of the one-on-one contact/discussion the students would have with the many outside speakers who will be involved in the course. Anne Price informed the committee that the registrar could set limits that would allow only freshmen and sophomores to registrar for the class. John Krussel wondered what type of precedent this would take if only certain class members were allowed to enroll for specific classes. What would prevent other departments from coming up with similar requests. David Savage suggested possible language for the catalog: Juniors and seniors are not admitted at initial registration. Juniors and seniors wishing to take this course must seek permission from the instructor.
14/ The general feeling of the CC was to wait for the course to be taught a couple more times before making a decision. Tom Schoeneman moved approval of the course. Jack Hart seconded. Vote to approve unanimously denied.
15/ 97.83 Sp98 Phys 380 Topics in Physics (Staff). New course to be taught alternate years. Drop: Phys 360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367.
16/ Curt Keedy explained that the physics department wanted to drop a whole division of upper level courses that have not been taught and add a topics course instead. The idea is to clean up the catalog and remove a lot of courses that have never been taught. Tom Schoeneman added that consolidation under a topics course was a good idea.
17/ Tom Schoeneman recommended approval. Phyllis Yes seconded. Vote to approve unanimous.
18/ 97.81 F98 Span 112 Accelerated Beginning Spanish (Staff). To be taught annually.
19/ David Savage gave a run down of what the CC discussed at the 12/10/97 meeting. He said that the discussion was favorable to teach Spanish 101 & 102 as an accelerated course, but there was some controversy over the proposed 6 credits. Jack Hart had made a proposal to approve the course with 4 credits. The Foreign Language department has agreed with this 4 credit proposal and would like to try it. It is to some degree an experimental course because the department is not sure how attractive this course would be to students.
20/ Curt Keedy mentioned that this would be an excellent course for students who have taken Spanish in high school but can only place in Span 101.
21/ Tom Schoeneman moved to approve the course with the proviso that it be a 4 credit course. Jack Hart seconded.
22/ A discussion followed. Jane Atkinson asked if the CC was satisfied with the way the catalog copy is presented. She said that students should be advised that this course is taught on an accelerated pace. Eric Johnson mentioned that the catalog copy should be written carefully. This is definitely not a course for everyone. Curtis Johnson wondered about the success of an accelerated course when the students are expected to take other courses as well. David Savage said that it should be remembered that this is an accelerated course and not an immersion course. Bill Randall wondered if the course might better if it were taught for the 2nd & 3rd semesters and offered to students who had done really well in the first semester. David Savage mentioned that there should be some language in the catalog that explains what options are available to students who are taking foreign languages. He will draft a sentence or two for the catalog and present it at the next CC meeting.
23/ Vote to approve unanimous.
General Education Review
Discussion of letters received from the Arts & Humanities Division and Bill Rottschaefer
24/ David Savage's memo from the Arts & Humanities Division was an aim to help formulate questions for the gen. ed. review. This memo does not advocate any decision. The CC should use these suggestions as they seem useful.
25/ Jane Atkinson pointed out # 5, 6, & 7 on Bill Rottschaefer's letter (dated 12/4/97) and mentioned that it is healthy for faculty to have this discussion periodically in order to remind ourselves about our goals.
26/ Points 5, 6, & 7 follow:
"5. We need, I think, hard thinking about the nature of a Liberal Arts Education and the nature of a General Education Program within a Liberal Arts Education.
6. We need to ask faculty what they think a General Education program ought to look like, not just how [it] would modify IA or some other component of the current program.
7. People should be reminded or informed about past General Education programs at LC and their good and bad points."
27/ David Savage suggested drafting a couple of pages of history regarding what gen. ed. has been, what changes have been made, and stating that this review suggests the opportunity to review basic issues and questions as a big picture rather than the little things. Faculty need to be engaged into discussion regarding some of the basic issues: proportion of gen. ed. to majors, 1/3-1/3-1/3 formula, one year freshman experience, etc.
28/ Jane Atkinson mentioned that the CC could look for continuities in the gen. ed. program. What have been characteristics of gen. ed. since it started? Inform the faculty about these long standing characteristics.
29/ Roger Paget mentioned that there were a substantial number of junior faculty teaching in Inventing America. It is very important to get that part of the faculty involved. He thinks that these faculty would argue favorably for keeping Inventing America--it's come a long way from where it was 3 years ago.
30/ Jane Atkinson would be interested in hearing from the art division about what's working/not working in their division along with ideas about what can be done to make it better.
31/ Bill Randall pointed out that the natural sciences & social sciences divisions have not turned in any comments regarding the Gen Ed. Review. Curt Keedy & Curtis Johnson said they would try to have some comments available in the next couple of weeks.
32/ Bill Randall suggested inviting all faculty members to the Jan. 28 CC meeting for an open discussion. Jane Atkinson will see about reserving Council Chambers.
33/ David Savage will draft an historical letter regarding gen. ed. and bring it to the next CC meeting. This should enable the committee to focus on the grand questions it wants to present to the faculty.
34/ Meeting adjourned at 5:05 pm.
Approved 1/21/98