Core Curriculum Assessment Committee
April 24, 2013

  • The committee discussed how we should handle absentee voting. It was agreed this could be done by email or proxy. Tina Oswald was not at today’s meeting but had submitted her comments and voting to Dr. Pratt.
  • Dr. Pratt asked the committee how shall we apply the concepts of “narrow” and “broad”within the context of the SACS rule:
    SACS 2.7.3
    In each undergraduate degree program, the institution requires the successful completion of a general education component at the collegiate level that (1) is a substantial component of each undergraduate degree, (2) ensures breadth of knowledge, and (3) is based on a coherent rationale. For degree completion in associate programs, the component constitutes a minimum of 15 semester hours or the equivalent; for baccalaureate programs, a minimum of 30 semester hours or the equivalent. These credit hours are to be drawn from and include at least one course from each of the following areas; humanities/fine arts, social/behavioral sciences, and natural science/mathematics. The courses do not narrowly focus on those skills, techniques and procedures specific to a particular occupation or profession. If an institution uses a unit other than semester credit hours, it provides an explanation for the equivalency. The institution also provides a justification if it allows for fewer than the require number of semester credit hours or is equivalent unit of general education courses. (General Education).
    Dr. Pratt asked the committee to consider:
    a) Does the rule apply to
    i. Diversity of students taki9ng a given course
    ii. Content of the course
    iii. Both
    b) How do we apply the rule in cases such as Music and Physics which offers a range of similar courses differing in terms of student background.
  • With regards to point a) it was stated that the content of the course will dictate who takes it. If it is too narrow it will exclude people. Item a. i. can be applied to those courses currently in the core, when we know it.
  • The committee agreed that it should applyto iii. BOTH, voted on this,
    Approved: 9
    Opposed: 2
  • With regards to b) it was decided this was no relevant and did not require further discussion.
  • With regards to whether courses are relevant to be in the core, Dr. King said we need to gather as much information as we can using existing data and look at enrollment.
  • The question was asked, can we have consistent rationale?
  • New course we don’t have historical data when they don’t have track record, what is the appeal?
  • If any courses given no, can they revise and submit.
  • There was some discussion as to what was previously agreed regarding revision.
  • Dr. King stated that he has received feedback from people that have heard their course is on the “short list”, he does not believe this information should have been circulated.
  • Dr. King said rather than say “appeal” we should suggest revisions and then return for further consideration.
  • It was agreed that we should be careful when looking at the popularity of a course by students only, because students take courses for many different reasons.
  • A motion was made by Dr. Rust, seconded by Dr. Szafran:
    All courses receive the opportunity to provide to this body either justification or suitable revision as the case merits, one time only.
    Approved: 8
    Opposed: 2
    Abstain: 1
  • It was agreed they would be allowed to make a one-page justification and then resubmit to the full committee for final approval.
  • The following courses were flagged for further discussion:

HRT 222HMS 239
MHL 245PHY 118
LAT 131PHY 241
LAT 132PHY 242
AGR 233MTH 233
ENG 233HAEC 200
AGN 110FOR 251
BIO 225HMS 203
ANS 131 EPS 250
RHB 222

  • The committee looked at HRT 222. Dr. LaGraff had concerns about offering this course.
  • Concern that it includes a lab.
  • Dr. Pratt asked the committee if the lab component were mostly removed, would this satisfy the committee?
  • Dr. Pratt asked is this course more narrowly focused thanothers?
  • Dr. Brown reported that this course is offered in the core at other universities.
  • If this HAS to have a lab then they could not revise but it would be their choice.
  • It was agreed the committee would suggest the lab be removed from this course in order to be part of the core.
    Approved: 9
    Opposed: 1
    Abstain: 1
  • Is this too narrow compared to other appreciation classes? Need to direct them to description in foundational component area.
  • Vote to dis-approve HRT 222 for the core, based on reasons discussed:
    For: 10 (email vote from Tina Oswald included)
    Against: 1
    Abstain: 1
  • Date of next meeting, Friday April 26th.
  • 11 voting members in attendance at today’s meeting.