MeetingNotes
UniversityStudiesAdvisoryCommittee
December4,2015
Participants
 PaulTownend
 SueCombs
 BradWalker
 StevenEmslie
 AnitaMcDaniel
 MahnazMoallem
 CaraCilano
 VonYeager
 JenniferHoran
 ThomasCoombs
Notetaker:LeaBullard
o Meetingfocusedonreviewingideas,comments,etc.toproposefor
eachUScategory.Allofthefollowingispartofthatdiscussion:
 Clusters
 Suggestedthatlanguagebedraftedtosendwith
departmentalreviewrequeststhatUSACis
contemplatingsomechangetoTTCsbutisactively
seekinginputaboutwhatthatchangeshouldbe.
 WritingIntensive
 Facultyhasindicatedthatmorelower‐andmiddle‐level
WIcoursesareneeded,sothatstudentsgetmore
practiceacrosstheirexperience.
 Assessmentindicatesthatstudentsinmid‐andupper‐
levelcoursesstrugglewithsomeWItasks.
 Possiblerecommendations:
o Askdepartmentstoidentifysomelower‐and
mid‐levelcoursesthatcouldbeWI
o CreatesuggestedUSpathwaysguidesandmake
availabletostudents,withCompositionrequired
inthefirstsemester.
o PerhapshavedifferentWISLOsforprogression
throughthecurriculum
o HaveWItaughtincourseswithTAs.Comment:
TeachingwritingrequirestrainingandTAsmay
notbethemostsuccessfulatitwithoutthat
training.
o PerhapshavestudentstakeaWIEnglishcourse
tofulfillanAILPrequirement


o HoldaSummerInstitute
o PerhapsdropeithertheWIinthemajor
requirementorthe300‐400levelWI
requirement.
o UNIcouldbemanipulatedtohaveacommon
curriculumthatincludesmoreexperiencein
bothWIandIL.
o ThereshouldbeaWIrequirementateverylevel.
o Comment:couldindicatetofacultythatthe
writingpiecesdonothavetobelengthy—lower‐
levelcoursescouldfocusonthewritingprocess
withshorterpieces.
 Subcommitteetodeveloppossibleguidelinesfor
submissionstoaddresstheiterativewritingprocess
andtodevelopsomepossiblerevisionstoSLOsto
underscoretheiterativepartofthewritingprocess.
 Departmentscouldbeaskedtothinkabouthowtoadd
additionalWIpractice.
InformationLiteracy
 SimilarissuesasWI.
 MissingILatupperlevels,notallCCsarenecessarilyIL
courses,perhapsbecauseoffacultyperceptionofwhat
ILis.
 Comment:needtohaveaninformation‐literacy‐as‐
processpiecetoIL.ThisisnotcurrentlyintheILSLOs.
 PerhapsteaseouttheILSLOsapplicabletoupper‐level
courses,designateSLOsatthecourse/gradelevel.
 Recommendtodepartments:
o Astrongercollaborationbetweenlibrariesand
departmentsonIL.
o ILneedstobeaddressedincontent‐specific
courses.
o PerhapsachangetotheSLOlanguage:insteadof
“variety”,maybechangeto“discipline‐specific”
or“disciplinarily‐appropriate”sources.
o Askdepartmentsforinput.
QuantitativeandLogicalReasoning
 Commentsweremadetostrikethiscomponentfrom
thecurriculumentirely:
o Onereasonisthat,insteadofhavingstudentsgo
outsidetheirmajortofulfillthisrequirement,
departmentsaresubmittingcoursestomeetthis
requirement,makingthiscategorylessabout
GeneralEdandmoreaboutmethodsinthe
major.
o Allmajorslikelyhaveonesuchcoursethatcould
besubmittedassuch.
o Apossiblechangetoaddresstheremovalofthis
componentwouldbetofortifytheCCSLOswith
someCriticalThinkingSLOsandsomeofthe
logicSLOsfromQLR.
 Anothersuggestion:insteadofremovingthewhole
component,strikingthe“L”andretainingthe“Q”inthis
category
 Suggestion:revisitpages5‐7here:2009 Senate‐
approved US report and think about what the curriculum was trying to achieve with the QLR component.
 LDN and LGS
 Proposed: eliminate double counting, pre reqs., which would lead to an increased requirement of 3 hours
 There was no real resolution on this discussion
o GeneralnotetoUSACmembers:perhapsanothermeetingtobe
scheduledfor12/14.