Core Minutes 02.05.13 (pdf) - Salem State University

huskyshiveringInternet και Εφαρμογές Web

11 Δεκ 2013 (πριν από 3 χρόνια και 10 μήνες)

122 εμφανίσεις

President’s Advisory Committee on the Core Curriculum Agenda

Meeting Minutes

February 5, 2012


SB 310

Present: Mark Aldrich, Celena April, Tad Baker (Co
-
Chairperson), Elizabeth Blood, Chris
Boucher, Annette Chapman
-
Adisho, Elizabeth Coughlan, William
Cunningham
,
Neal DeChillo,
Steve Dion, Liz Duclos
-
Orsello (Co
-
Chairperson),Mary
-
Jo Grenfell, Ben Gross, Jim Gubbins,
Kathleen Hess, Kristen Kuehnle, Miranda Lam ,Jan Lindholm, Raminder K Luther
,
Steve
Matchak, Chris Mauriello, Megan Miller, Zach Newell, Ju
de Nixon, Peter W
.

Oehlkers
,
Harry
Pariser, Alexandria Peary, Michelle Pierce
,
Tanya Rodrique, Kani Sathasivam, Chris Schoen,
Nancy Schultz, Gregg Whyte.

1.

Approval of minutes of the last meeting

-

suspend the approval of the minutes
due to
a
computer
malfunction

for January 29, 2013
.


2.

Report of the co
-
chairs



Nothing to report


3.

Vote on agreeing to identify 1
-
3 LEAP outcomes to align with each core category.
Rationale: To demonstrate that our criteria and our new core is a liberal arts core.


There was

a lot of conversation and discussion on LEAP outcomes and the precise number of
LEAP outcomes for each category. It was suggested that the committee continue to think about
LEAP outcomes when developing courses, however it should not drive the category a
nd course.
It was stated that the president address at Salem State University stated that we have signed on as
a LEAP school.

The conversation continued on individual course assessment and that each core course should
own outcomes, LEAP will not drive the

course assessment. Therefore, there should not be a
unified outcome for every class.

It was suggested to vote on

keep
ing

the final column to assess specific outcomes

and that 1
-
3
LEAP outcomes decided in the subcommittees.

It was suggested that creating

LEAP outcomes for a category could make it difficult for
Interdisciplinary courses that may not have a landing spot in the core. It was suggested that this
topic be addressed at a later time.

Motion was moved to accept LEAP outcomes to guide category des
criptions.

Megan Miller made a motion to resolve this issue my suggesting a move to accept LEAP
outcomes informing our core. Jude Nixon second
ed

this.

Conversation still continued on how specific we want the outcomes to be for a category and
course
. The
n the conversation went from LEAP outcomes into assessment. Discussion
surrounding measurable outcomes by allowing LEAP to guide assessment.

The committee was reminded that we are voting on LEAP essential learning outcomes, not
assessment.

Megan Miller ma
de an amended motion to provide 1
-
3 outcomes as informing the development
of each core category.

Friendly amendment was accepted.

Megan Miller motioned to provide 1
-
3 outcomes as informing the development of each core
category.
A vote was taken to keep

t
his category in the model.

Yes: 27



Opposed: 1




Abstained: 5


4.

Consideration of Core Categories. Proposed votes for acceptance or rejection in
model 4. These should be final votes, where the PACCC approves wording for
category title, description, LEAP

outcomes and course criteria.

a.

Written Communication


TABLED



Neal DeChillo voted to take this off the table. Steve Match
a
k
second
ed

this

motion
.

A vote

was
taken.

Yes: U
nanimous

Conversation and discussion surrounding the way the document on written
communication was

worded may

have
too much detail for a category, more specific to a course itself. There was
talk about making an exception due to the category. The committee

was reminded that we are
not
designing a course
, but a set of criteria that all departments could design a course around to
meet the requirements of this category.

They addressed the issue of transfer students when
looking at designing a category or course around the foundation of a vertical model of

writing in
which specific goals are defined.

Someone made a suggestion that this course should have its
own prefix (code), and not housed in any one department.

Megan Miller motioned that the committee approve the creation of a course that will satisfy

this
category and it will have its own subject code. Neal DeChillo seconded this motion.

However, others on the committee suggested that the reality is that English is the expert in this
vertical model of written communication with specific principles an
d goals and that for the
foundations course in written communication it should be ENL and housed in the English
department. Other members suggested that this would provide the foundation for W2 and W3
classes, which could be taught across all disciplines.


It was stated that the point of the model is to create categories that will not be owned by
departments, but opened to all departments. Courses would be developed based on criteria across
all disciplines, allowing departments that want to teach courses
in written communication would
have the option.


The entire committee also brought up the discussion of faculty development and training to
implement courses that fit in the categories of the core. It was stated that at this is not the place
or time to d
iscuss the financial aspect of implementing the core.

A Vote was taken to call the question on creating a new course with a unique 3
-
letter prefix.

Yes: 28




Opposed: 3




Abstain: 1

A motion was made to approve the creation of a course that will satisf
y written communication
that w
ill have a unique 3
-
letter prefi
x and a vote was taken.


Yes: 8




Opposed: 22




Abstain: 2

The meeting ended at 4:32 pm.