Student Representatives: Erin Bailey, Laura John

Absent: Mine Eder

Call to Order

1/ The meeting was called to order at 3:15 pm.

Approval of Three Summer Sessions 298 Courses

2/ Tom Schoeneman moved that the -98 series number be affixed for a second year to the following three courses being offered during Summer Session 1999: RUS 398.58 Contemporary Russian Society through Literature and Film; HIST 298.59 Rebellion & Renewal: Italian Renaissance; and IS 198.60 Studies in African Film. It was noted that if these three courses were offered again next summer, a permanent number would have to be assigned. The Curriculum Committee unanimously approved the use of the -98 series numbers for the above three courses for the Summer Session 1999.

General Education--Inventing America

3/ The draft report prepared by Jack Hart was introduced and discussion began with the Findings section. One member asked that there be an addition to show that another distinctive feature of Inventing America is its focus on America and that it is part of the package of international studies and America. It should be clear that it not be considered a part of a division or disciplinary distribution requirements. Another member questioned the phrase "course continuity." Basic Inquiry readings changed so dramatically that it was hard to see any continuity; in Inventing America there has been some continuity in course content.

A third member asked for clarification of the goals for the course in the light of recent decisions to do more with speaking and bibliographic instruction. It was noted that those two items have always been in the goals but only recently have been formally included in the course. It was suggested that the language in the draft report be changed to say "the most recent developments have included an attempt to realize more fully" and then to add "without sacrificing attention to writing and speaking". Perhaps any reference to the Writing Center should be left out.

Jean Ward, Director of Inventing America

4/ At the previous Curriculum Committee meetings it was suggested that Jean Ward be invited to come to today's Curriculum Committee meeting to answer questions about the course and to add any comments she might wish to make directly to the members. Jean began by sharing with the members of the committee a recent article in the Oregonian about the need some eastern colleges have felt to include speaking across the curriculum. She stated that she felt that Lewis & Clark is ahead of the game because the institution already sees both writing and speaking as important. She expressed concern, however that every expectation--speaking, writing, critical thinking, bibliographic instruction--seems to be falling on the shoulders of one course. These need to be a part of the whole curriculum and not just aligned with Inventing America. Some time ago all faculty dealt with these issues, but with the graying of the faculty and the arrival of many new faculty that focus has been lost.

In response to a questions from Klaus Engelhardt as to why writing across the curriculum had not been continued, another member of the committee noted that grants had ended. Jane Atkinson further explained that writing across the curriculum was a part of Faculty Development. When the BI sequence was implemented, writing was to be carried out vertically. Then in 1994 it was to be up to the divisions to carry out the writing component, but it has not happened in either the divisions or in all majors. Bill Randall asked if the faculty really had lost its focus on writing or if it was being done in classes. Jane Atkinson replied that 40% of the faculty have come to LC since 1989 and have not been through the workshops that had been offered in earlier year. Many are working with writing, but many junior faculty have not had the preparation the older faculty had.

Jean Ward went on to say that there never have been workshops on speaking. It is very difficult to add this training into the weekly workshops that the faculty teaching in Inventing America attend. A two-day workshop or a week-long workshop held when there are no competing demands would be helpful especially since the faculty teaching in Inventing America are not the same each fall and spring. Such training would give some of the newer faculty more confidence in participating in Inventing American and would give them some guidance in what is expected with writing and speaking goals.

Jean asked the committee to remember that Inventing America has developed over time. She has never seen a general course receive as much attention and evaluation as this one has. Both instructors and students evaluate the course each semester. These evaluations go to the Planning Committee which then responds to the evaluation. Furthermore, in the third year of the program Robert Steptoe of Yale provided an outside evaluation as well.

Jean stated that there is a need for certainty as to where the course is to head in the next five years. Uncertainty affects teachers and students whether it comes from RAs, upper-class students or faculty. There must be a commitment for a specific period of time before a major review is scheduled.

The course reflects the attention that students and teaching faculty report. This Spring, for example, there are several innovations--bibliographic instruction, a research paper, pilot community service project. This is a clear example of a course in process. There has been a definite call for fewer readings and more focus on those readings along with more direct dealing with writing, speaking and thinking to insure that the goals are being reached. There is even discussion about a new title for the course.

Jean also said that it needs to be clear in the section in the draft report on personnel and staffing that there is a need for more faculty. There are not enough tenured/tenure track faculty to fully staff the course. Our student/faculty ratio is not so great in comparison to other schools. Whatever is put in place will have the same ratio problems unless it is decided to go above the current 20-1 ratio. This is an issue that the Curriculum Committee, Academic Council and those working on the budget must consider.

But most important is that ALL faculty take ownership of whatever is in place. Negativeness to Inventing America has come through in advising which sets an unfortunate tone. The faculty must take responsibility and act professionally.

In response to a question from Evan Williams about the ad hoc proposal, Jean responded that the ad hoc proposal works fine with what is currently in place and might evolve in the future. How many faculty would come forward with specially designed courses is a question; three did so last year.

Curtis Johnson underscored the importance of the evolving nature of the current course in light of student and faculty evaluations. There is an issue about the title. There is always a majority on the student evaluations that says "yes" to a common, two syllabus course but many add "not as this one is structured" because the focus on America is not quite right or because they perceive it as AP American history all over again.

Jean asked if there was any way to recognize junior faculty for the amount of work they put in. Even a token stipend would say something. We should recognize how much is involved and there is institutional value in what they are doing. [Jean Ward left to attend another meeting.]

Continuing Discussion

5/ David Savage stated that the Curriculum Committee needs to review the goals of the course. One of the reasons the Planning Committee has had difficulty in getting the readings reduced to a manageable number and depth is the urge for coverage. What is the mandate that coverage is important? This syllabus of readings has to be representative of America.

Bill Randall said that it was important that the Findings spell out the philosophical basis for the first yearcourse.

Should the course be theme based or text based? Perhaps that is the question that must be answered before the matter of pace can be settled. Jane Atkinson pointed out that using "America" in the title causes the planners to get into questions of constituency coverage. Is America civics or politics?

Tom Schoeneman said teaching IA is teaching a course and a half. The staffing issue exacerbates the problems, and IA has become the scapegoat for departmental teaching problems. There is a need for some sort of replacement policy, especially for faculty teaching the first time or teaching repeatedly. Evan Williams suggested that a stipend might help. Jane Atkinson asked that a general recommendation along those lines should be included in the recommendation section.

Discussion concerning the title of the course continued. Evan Williams thought that a title generating controversy might be good. David Savage suggested that the Curriculum Committee concentrate on setting goals that narrow the focus --examine the goals, reaffirm or modify them, and recommend them. The title question should not be a part of the Findings but perhaps the introduction of a permanent General Education Committee should be included.

Tom Schoeneman cautioned the committee to be careful what it seeks. A Planning Committee is already in existence and certain issues such as the pace of the course should remain in its bailiwick. However, perhaps changing the title could be addressed by another committee with members both from Inventing America and observers--perhaps a take force with a limited time frame to implement larger issues. A General Education Review Committee should provide continuing review for all of general education, not just the first year course.

Bill Randall asked if Jean Ward's recommendation of a review every five years would work?

Jane Atkinson replied that putting General Education on the block every five years perpetuates the problem of general education at LC. We keep picking it up and picking at it which causes ownership problems. Perhaps we should say periodic review. Since we will be doing assessments anyway, the mechanism would be in place for review when needed. Bill Randall concurred with Jane's view that the recommendations should have no reference to a specific time period for review

Jane Atkinson reported that the members at a recent Faculty Council meeting were concerned that there was no statement explaining the relationship of Inventing America with international education. Jane went on to say that perhaps such a definition could lead to catalogue copy which could act as a foundation from which students could look outward. David reiterated that he and Jack Hart would work on the connection with the international component of general education.

There was a question of when the changes would take effect. Bill Randall pointed out that faculty approval won't come until April. David Savage said that the number of changes for the students isn't very great.

Laura John concurred that the change in title might do something for ownership. However, if the title changed, then students would want to see significant changes in the course. Linking Inventing America and the international component is a good idea

Erin Bailey agreed that a name change would be good.

Jane Atkinson asked if the committee wanted to raise unanswered questions especially concerning resources and if it would be helpful to have the Academic Council come to be Curriculum Committee and provide some answers.

Next Meetings

6/ Curriculum Committee meetings will be held Friday, February 19, Tuesday, February 23, Wednesday, February 24, and Friday, February 26.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 pm.