Curriculum Committee Minutes
October 24, 2000
Present: Barry, Beck, Breitenbach, Clark, Kerrick, Kontogeorgopoulos, Lenderman, Livingston,
Neff-Lippman, Pasco-Pranger, Pinzino, Stevens, Tomhave, Warning (acting chair), Washburn
Visitor: Ricigliano
Warning called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. He announced that Neshyba had appointed him
acting chair for this meeting. The minutes for the meeting of October 17 were approved as
posted.
Announcement
Washburn announced that Politics and Government had submitted its curriculum-review package
and that subcommittee members would receive copies soon.
Continued discussion of rubrics for the proposed new Core
Kontogeorgopoulos reminded members that “rubrics” was the term they had agreed upon to refer
to the set of instructions containing “learning objectives” and “guidelines.”
Warning suggested that the Committee not examine the “ways of knowing” rubrics individually but
rather consider them as one unit. Pinzino and Neff-Lippman demurred, arguing that it would be
preferable to study each rubric separately, lest some problem slip through the cracks. Warning
mentioned Barry’s earlier idea that there be an introductory paragraph for the “ways of knowing”
rubrics. Barry agreed to draft such a paragraph, in which he would identify the key themes and
common features of this group of rubrics.
Pasco-Pranger distributed a revised version of the Creative and Scholarly Inquiry rubric. The
CSIS task force had accepted most of the suggestions made by the Committee. However, the
task force did wish to retain the final sentence of guideline III: “Pedagogical methods take
advantage of the opportunities provided by a seminar setting.” The task force did not believe this
sentence to be redundant because other references in the guidelines to “significant intellectual
exchange” between instructor and students did not necessarily refer to classroom format.
Warning noted that “freshman” is gendered language, and he asked whether “first-year” should
be substituted for it in the CSIS guidelines. Pasco-Pranger replied that using “first-year” would
result in confusion about whether CSIS is required for transfer students, who are in their first year
at the university, but who are not freshman. Neff-Lippman noted that the Bulletin continues to
use the word “freshman.” ACTION: Neff-Lippman M/S/P approval of the CSIS rubric as
revised by the task force.
Barry reported that the Writing and Rhetoric task force had decided to include the following
sentence as guideline III: “These seminars may be organized around topics, themes, or texts; in
each seminar the material must be appropriate and accessible for meaningful work by first-year
students.” Beck observed that the term “first-year” appears here whereas it was removed from
the CSIS guidelines. He asked if it was intended to require transfer students to take the WR
seminar at UPS. Tomhave asked if each rubric would individually address the issue of transfer
credit or if there would be a general statement somewhere. Barry agreed to distribute at the next
meeting a summary of what each task force had decided about transfer credits for its rubric.
Warning turned the discussion to the Mathematical Approaches rubric, which is the first of the
“ways of knowing.” He asked why guideline III said, “a course in Mathematical Approaches
should be completed in the student’s first year of study at the University.” Kerrick vigorously
defended this guideline, as did Stevens. Pasco-Pranger asked if the word “should” meant that
this guideline was a recommendation, not a requirement. Kerrick answered, yes. Washburn,
Pasco-Pranger, and Kontogeorgopoulos noted that the statement is really addressed to students
and advisors, not to proposers of MA courses. Commenting that students will not see these
guidelines, Barry suggested that it would be a good idea to pull all such statements about
sequencing out of the individual rubrics and place them in the Curriculum Statement. In response
to a question by Stevens, Barry stated that any statements about the sequencing of Core courses
would appear in the Bulletin, where students would be able to find them. Kerrick agreed to ask
the MA task force whether it wished to retain guideline III.
Neff-Lippman objected on stylistic grounds to the word “unambiguously,” which appears in the
learning objectives in the phrase “a way of understanding a problem unambiguously.” Kerrick
agreed to ask the MA task force whether it wished to retain the word or find a less clunky
substitute for it.
The Committee turned next to the Natural Scientific Approaches rubric. Kerrick praised the rubric
as clean and good. Barry noted that the main change from the current Natural World rubric is the
removal of language requiring the study of the social context of scientific knowledge. Clark asked
why Environmental Studies is not listed among the disciplines in guideline I. Barry replied that
interdisciplinary programs like it are implicit in the wording “one or more of the disciplines.” Clark
asked about sequencing, in particular whether students should be advised to take this rubric
during their first year. Stevens urged faculty to allow students to follow their own desires about
sequencing. Breitenbach noted that sequencing problems might disappear once Dean Finney’s
“gateway” system for registration goes into effect next year. Stevens asked about the “Note on
class size,” which says that “lecture sections should generally not be larger than the equivalent of
two or three laboratory sections.” Barry observed that the word “generally” allowed some wiggleroom and that we are currently very close to meeting this standard anyway.
Warning directed the Committee’s attention to the Social Scientific Approaches rubric. Warning
urged the removal of the word “will” from the last sentence of the learning objectives: “Students
will also develop an appreciation of the benefits and limits of social scientific approaches to
knowledge.” Barry noted that this rubric has a stronger theoretical element than does the current
Society rubric. Kontogeorgopoulos, who had chaired the SSA task force, pointed to language in
the learning objectives and guidelines that stressed the need to use empirical evidence to test
and apply social scientific theory. Pasco-Pranger remarked that all of the other rubrics have
methods language; she asked if guideline II was intended to provide this. Guideline II reads,
“Courses in Social Scientific Approaches require students to apply a social scientific theory as a
way of understanding individual or collective behavior.” Kontogeorgopoulos answered in the
affirmative, but noted that the task force decided not to list examples because of the wide
variation in disciplinary methods within the social sciences. Washburn asked about the last
sentence of the learning objectives: “Students will also develop an appreciation of the benefits
and limits of social scientific approaches to knowledge.” Kontogeorgopoulos replied that the task
force thought it important to have students recognize the limits on validity within social scientific
approaches. Barry stated that it would be desirable to make a more general statement
acknowledging limits in all the “ways of knowing.”
The Committee took up the Fine Arts Approaches rubric. Pinzino reported that the task force had
striven for minimalist guidelines. One of the issues it had debated was whether literary arts
should be included in this rubric. On a split decision, the task force had decided to include them.
Another issue had been whether to require that courses in this rubric be surveys. The majority of
the task force had decided not to impose such a restriction. Pasco-Pranger observed that even
narrowly focused courses would be required by the learning objectives and guidelines to situate
the specific topic in a broader context. Stevens spoke against including literary arts in this rubric.
Barry said that his concern was with the Curriculum Committee’s difficulty in enforcing the
guidelines when it has to decide whether a literature course is taking an aesthetic or a humanistic
approach to its topic. Warning urged the Committee to leave this substantive issue to the faculty
for its deliberation and decision. Stevens predicted that although the rubric permits studio art
courses, none would likely be proposed for inclusion.
Warning concluded the meeting by exhorting members to prepare for the next meeting by
studying the Humanistic Approaches rubric (and the e-mail exchange between Pasco-Pranger
and Barry) and the Connections rubric. He urged members to pose questions and raise concerns
by e-mail in advance of the meeting so that the meeting time could be efficiently used.
At 9:51 a.m., Stevens M/S/P to adjourn.
Respectfully submitted,
William Breitenbach
Secretary