Core Curriculum Advisory Committee
December 5, 2012

  1. Dr Pratt asked if the committee was ready to vote on the release of the form.
  2. There were a couple of questions first on the appendices that were clarified.
  3. Dr Szafran made a motion to release the form, this was seconded by Tina Oswald, but it was then decided to table the item until DrBrunson discussed her proposal.
  4. Dr Brunson stated the committee did discuss a couple of elements of her proposal at the last meeting but she wanted to bring it back to look at in full.
  5. Dr Brunson’s proposal surrounded our weakness in communication, both written and oral when students arrive and leave here.
  6. The proposal specifies 3 hours fromEnglish writing courses and 3 hours from Communication or Modern Language (now that committee voted to keep in core) , and then 6 hours of English writing for component area option.
  7. Dr Pratt summarized 6 hours of writing and 6 hours of English, or Communication or modernlanguage.
  8. Legislature requirement if we count modern language in core we have to offer sign language.
  9. Dr Pratt asked if we have enough communication faculty to cover these classes, Dr Brunson stated it was not for this committee to decide. Our focus needs to be what is best institutionally for students at SFA and staffing will be taken care of.
  10. Clarification of languages:
    Modern language does not include Latin
    Foreign language includes Latin & Greek
  11. Dr Brunson believes allowing modern language in communication is doing disservice to students because they cannot communicate in English. Dr Stovall felt uncomfortable turning away modern language without seeing their proposal.
  12. Argument is that you cannot communicate orally in language after taking 100 level courses, they cannot communicate persuasively.
  13. Dr Brunson reminded the committee they were an "advisory" committee. Our current core is not meeting the needs as far as communication according to data and reports from THECB.
  14. Dr Szafran felt we are excluding people without giving them a chance to apply.
  15. Dr Brunson said students need to be able to communicate in English. If we have a weakness and the State is telling us we have to address it, then we need to.
  16. We have an opportunity to address weaknesses of our students when they arrive and then they leave, so we should address that.
  17. Dr Pratt said he wants to meet all objectives for the requirements.
  18. Question came to Dr Pratt of practicality, if we were to require oral component from every student there would not be time? How do you do it?
  19. Dr Brunson said there needs to be an opportunity to offer in every core course to cover written, oral, etc.
  20. Dr King stated all objectives have to be present in all core courses. Some courses may have larger emphasis than others in certain areas, but each course MUST be shown in all core courses. Every element of every objective must be covered in core. If not it will not be allowed in core.
  21. Dr Pratt felt there is a way to map out so that certain classes cover certain areas, he felt that faculty would feel better about being told to cover certain areas in certain courses.
  22. Dr King said this will get very complex very quickly. You have to guarantee that every student will be covering every element.
  23. Suggestion was made from Dr La Graff distribute objectives throughout the core. Dr King feels this will cause a problem with assessment committee.
  24. There is a perception now of not everyone doing the same things, some getting away with less. Dr Brunson stated that if everyone does all elements it will help and improve classes.
  25. Every course in core would be assessed for each element.
  26. After discussion Dr Brunson agreed to remove the requirement of two writing courses in the major from her proposal.
  27. Dr. Pratt agreed to ask the Provost to attend a future meeting of the committee and discuss if the committee has authority to make recommendations beyond the 42 hours of the core.
  28. Dr. Brunson moved to accept the first point in her proposal concerning the allocation of hours in the Component Area Option. Dr. Bayless seconded. There was discussion of the motion. The motion was passed with a vote of 8 yes 5 no.
  29. Dr. Berry joined the meeting and Dr. Pratt asked him if the committee could make recommendations beyond the 42 hours contained in the core. Dr. Pratt provided the example of Dr. Brunson’s proposal to require two writing intensive courses in the major. Dr. Berry said that recommendations could be made beyond the 42 hours if those recommendations were intended to enhance our students’ ability to reach the core goals.
  30. Dr. Brunson moved to accept the second point in her proposal. Dr. Bayless seconded. There was discussion of the motion. The motion failed with a vote of 5 yes 8 no.
  31. Dr. Bayless moved that the committee release the form on the web. Dr. Stovall seconded the motion. There was discussion. It was noted that the form will need to be revised before it is posted to reflect the item approved from Dr. Brunson's proposal concerning the allocation of hours for the Component Area Option. Dr. Bayless agreed to revise her motion to say that the form will be released after it has been revised. Dr. Stovall agreed to the amendment. The motion passed unanimously.
  32. There was discussion of the question about mapping the elements of the objectives to the core.
  33. A motion was made to include the statement in the application form on item 13, "Strong applications will clearly address the definitions of the core objectives as stated in Appendix 2." Moved by Dr. King. Seconded by Dr. Steward. The motion passed 8 yes 2 no.
  34. There was discussion of meeting dates for Spring. Dr. Pratt agreed to send a Doodle meeting request to members of the committee.
  35. The meeting was adjourned.

Attendees:
Hans Williams Larry KingRobbie Steward
(on behalf of Erin Brown) Marsha Bayless Linda Levitt
Bob SzafranTina OswaldMary Nelle Brunson

Scott La GraffSarah StovallLynda Langham

Dawn Ella RustRic Berry (part)