Faculty meeting Minutes
November 20, 2000
President Pierce called the meeting to order at 4:04 p.m. in McIntyre 103. Seventy-five voting
members of the faculty were present.
Minutes of the October 25 faculty meeting were approved as distributed.
There were no announcements or reports.
We turned to the first agenda item, discussion of the core curriculum. Senate Chair Haltom
M/S/P “to approve the following procedure for faculty consideration of general education
2000-2001:
1. The collected output of the task forces and Curriculum Committee will be moved
as a whole in a single motion at the faculty meeting 11/20/00.
2. The faculty will proceed through that single motion rubric by rubric, with
amendments of rubrics in order as they arise.
3. Deliberations about how changes might be implemented will be in order as they
arose but must be conducted before any vote on the motion as a whole will be in
order.
4. The motion as a whole would be subject to a vote only
a. after the motion, as amended in faculty meeting(s), has been circulated to all
faculty, and
b. the faculty have been given at least one week's warning that new requirements
might be voted on at the next meeting.”
The motion passed on a voice vote with no discussion.
Senate Chair Haltom then M/S/vote to be taken at a subsequent faculty meeting “to
approve the core rubrics—including the paragraph ‘Core Curriculum: Rubrics and
Guidelines’-- for the proposed core curriculum, as follows:
Core Curriculum: Rubrics and Guidelines
Each core rubric consists of two sections, "Guidelines" and “Learning Objectives.”
Faculty have developed the Guidelines section to achieve the particular Learning
Objectives of the core rubric and, more broadly, the educational goals of the University.
The Guidelines are intended to be used by faculty to develop core courses and by the
Curriculum Committee to review core courses. The Learning Objectives are intended to
provide a clear statement to students of what they can expect to learn from any given core
area. Although the Learning Objectives will assist the faculty in developing Core courses
and in meeting the spirit of the Core area, the Curriculum Committee will evaluate and
approve Core courses based on their adherence to the Guidelines, not the Learning
Objectives.
SEMINAR IN WRITING AND RHETORIC RUBRIC
University of Puget Sound Faculty Meeting Minutes
November 20, 2000, Page 2
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
In each Seminar in Writing and Rhetoric, students encounter the two central aspects of the
humanistic tradition of rhetorical education: argumentation and effective oral and written
expression. Students in these seminars develop the intellectual habits and language
capabilities to construct persuasive arguments and to write and speak effectively for
academic and civic purposes.
GUIDELINES
I.
Through their introduction to argumentation, these seminars address:
A. the value of pro/con reasoning and the need to approach a controversy
from multiple perspectives;
B. the stock issues and questions that organize a particular controversy;
C. standard argument forms and other persuasive strategies (for example,
traditional and contemporary models of reasoning, narrative); and
D. methods of evaluating arguments (including evidence evaluation and
identification of logical fallacies).
II.
Through their introduction to effective expression, these seminars address:
A. important elements and conventions of standard written English;
B. the range of lexical and stylistic resources available to speakers and
writers (for example, appropriateness, audience, tone, voice, and
other aspects of a message’s verbal texture); and
C. various oral and written composition strategies, including approaching
composition as a process (including purposeful drafting, revising,
and editing).
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.
SCHOLARLY AND CREATIVE INQUIRY RUBRIC
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
The purpose of this core area is to introduce students to the processes of scholarly and
creative inquiry through direct participation in that inquiry. Students in a Scholarly and
Creative Inquiry Seminar gain a degree of mastery that comes with deep exposure to a
focused seminar topic. They increase their ability to frame and explore questions, to
support claims, and to respond to others’ questions and differing opinions. Finally,
students develop and demonstrate their intellectual independence by engaging in
substantive work on the topic in papers or projects.
GUIDELINES
I.
Scholarly and Creative Inquiry seminars examine a focused scholarly topic, set
of questions, or theme.
II.
Since seminars in this category are taken in the student’s freshman year, they
are designed to be accessible and appropriate for the accomplishment of
meaningful work by students without previous preparation in the course’s field.
This requirement informs the choice of topic or theme of the course, the choice
University of Puget Sound Faculty Meeting Minutes
November 20, 2000, Page 3
of texts or materials to be treated in the course, and the design of assignments
for the course.
III.
Seminars in Scholarly and Creative Inquiry must include significant intellectual
exchange both between the instructor and the students and among the
students. Careful, sustained, and recurrent examination of ideas and sources
(broadly defined to include data, texts, media, and/or other visual, aural, or
graphic material) play a central role in the course. Pedagogical methods take
advantage of the opportunities provided by a seminar setting.
FINE ARTS APPROACHES RUBRIC
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
Students in Fine Arts Approaches courses acquire an understanding and appreciation of
an artistic tradition and develop their skills in the critical analysis of art.
GUIDELINES
I.
The Fine Arts include the visual, performing, and literary arts. Courses in Fine
Arts Approaches may either be in the history of art or in artistic creation.
II.
Courses in Fine Arts Approaches examine significant developments and
representative works of an artistic tradition.
III.
These courses introduce students to methods of aesthetic and formal analysis
and require students to reflect critically, both orally and in writing, about art
and the creative process.
HUMANISTIC APPROACHES RUBRIC
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
Students in courses in Humanistic Approaches acquire an understanding of how humans
have addressed fundamental questions of existence, identity, and values and develop an
appreciation of these issues as constants of intellectual and cultural experience. Students
also learn to explicate and to evaluate critically products of human reflection and
creativity.
GUIDELINES
I.
Humanistic Approaches courses examine products of individual or collective
human reflection and creativity. Accordingly, the “texts” of the course may
include literary or artistic works or the collective evidence of the beliefs,
customs, and institutions of a culture or cultures.
II.
Courses in Humanistic Approaches introduce students to methodologies
appropriate to the exploration of beliefs about human existence, identity, and
values.
III.
Humanistic Approaches courses explore these issues over time or across
cultures.
University of Puget Sound Faculty Meeting Minutes
November 20, 2000, Page 4
MATHEMATICAL APPROACHES RUBRIC
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
Students in Mathematical Approaches courses develop an appreciation of the power of
Mathematics and formal methods to provide a way of understanding a problem
unambiguously, describing its relation to other problems, and specifying clearly an
approach to its solution. Students in Mathematical Approaches courses develop a variety
of mathematical skills, an understanding of formal reasoning, and a facility with
applications.
GUIDELINES
I.
These goals are met by courses that treat formal reasoning in one of the
following areas.
A. Quantitative reasoning: The ability to work with numeric data, to reason
from that data, and to understand what can and can not be inferred
from that data;
B. Logical reasoning: The study of formal logic, at least to the extent that
is required to understand mathematical proof.
C. The algorithmic method: The ability to analyze a problem, to design a
systematic way of addressing that problem (an algorithm), and to
implement that algorithm in a computer programming language.
II.
Where these skills or methods are taught within the context of a discipline
other than mathematics or computer science, they must receive greater
attention than the disciplinary material.
NATURAL SCIENTIFIC APPROACHES RUBRIC
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
Students in Natural Scientific Approaches courses develop an understanding of scientific
methods. They also acquire knowledge of the fundamental elements of one or more
natural sciences.
GUIDELINES
I.
Courses in Natural Scientific Approaches are founded in and explore the
fundamental elements of one or more of the disciplines of astronomy,
biology, chemistry, geology and physics.
II.
Courses in Natural Scientific Approaches emphasize scientific methods in
problem solving. They develop the student's analytical abilities and,
whenever possible, incorporate quantitative methods.
III.
Courses in Natural Scientific Approaches have regularly scheduled
laboratory or field experiences involving data collection and analysis.
SOCIAL SCIENTIFIC APPROACHES RUBRIC
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
University of Puget Sound Faculty Meeting Minutes
November 20, 2000, Page 5
The social sciences provide systematic approaches to understanding relationships that
arise among individuals, organizations, or institutions. Students in a course in the Social
Scientific Approach to Knowing acquire an understanding of theories about individual or
collective behavior within a social environment and of how empirical evidence is used to
develop and test those theories.
GUIDELINES
I.
Courses in Social Scientific Approaches
A. explore assumptions embedded in social scientific theories and
B. examine the need to simplify or describe the observed world in order to
construct a model of individual or collective behavior.
II.
Courses in Social Scientific Approaches require students to apply a social
scientific theory as a way of understanding individual or collective behavior.
CONNECTIONS RUBRIC
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
Students in Connections courses develop their understanding of the interrelationship of
fields of knowledge by exploring connections and contrasts between various disciplines
with respect to disciplinary methodology and subject matter. Students also develop an
appreciation of the benefits and limits of interdisciplinary approaches to knowledge.
GUIDELINES
I.
Connections courses draw upon the curricula of either established disciplines
or the University's interdisciplinary programs. These courses may involve the
collaboration of faculty from more than one department or the efforts of
individual faculty with interdisciplinary expertise and interests.
II.
In the Connections course, students engage the interdisciplinary process by
A. identifying multiple disciplinary approaches to a subject;
B. analyzing the subject from multiple perspectives;
C. participating in cross-disciplinary dialogue; and
D. exploring the integration or synthesis of multiple approaches to foster
understanding of the subject.
III.
Connections courses explore interdisciplinary issues at a level of
sophistication expected of an upper division course. These courses may have
appropriate prerequisites. “
Copies of the motion were distributed to faculty by Associate Dean Bill Barry November 15, 2000
and were also available at today’s meeting.
Barry recited a brief history of the core revision process that began five years ago and that led to
the formation earlier this calendar year of eight task forces that developed the draft rubrics that
were then reviewed by the Curriculum Committee and the Faculty Senate. Barry said that an
accompanying Curriculum Statement is being developed and will most likely be brought to the full
faculty at the beginning of spring semester. He said this Curriculum Statement will contain the
foreign language graduation requirement as well as other requirements associated with the new
core curriculum. Barry explained the structure of the proposal for each rubric, consisting of
University of Puget Sound Faculty Meeting Minutes
November 20, 2000, Page 6
learning objectives and guidelines. He said the test for any proposed core course coming before
the Curriculum Committee will be the guidelines themselves, not the learning objectives. Barry
said that the proposed core contains coherence by virtue of its attempt to answer the question
“how have human beings approached the problem of understanding and explaining the world
around them?” He noted that the curriculum statement would contain a statement of rationale for
the Core. He finished by assuring us that task force conveners are “nice people” and that we
should not pick on them during the debates to come.
David Droge asked when the new rubrics would be implemented if the faculty approves them.
Barry said implementation would take place fall, 2002. Suzanne Barnett asked whether the
Curriculum Statement being developed would contain recommended changes to the current
educational goals of the institution. Barry responded that it would not; that existing educational
goals are not being reviewed. President Pierce asked if the Curriculum Committee’s rationale for
the proposed core will be available for consideration along with the current motion, and Barry said
that he hoped that the Curriculum Committee would be able to prepare this part of the curriculum
statement so that it could be considered as part of the Core package.
Julie Neff-Lippman, convener of the Task Force that developed the rubric for the Seminar in
Writing and Rhetoric, then introduced that rubric by reading the learning objectives and the
guidelines aloud (see motion above).
Ted Taranovski asked whether the guidelines were ordered in priority of importance or were all
equally important. He said he meant his question to apply to all the rubrics, not just the writing
and rhetoric seminar rubric. Curriculum Committee Chair Steven Neshyba responded that
everything in the guidelines is equally important.
Then began an extended discussion of the feasibility of combining both writing and rhetoric,
especially for both academic and civic purposes, in a single course. Denise Despres led this off
by arguing that the rubric “is wonderfully aspiring but I can’t see it all happening in one semester.”
Neff-Lippman responded that it is indeed ambitious, but that there are already in existence syllabi
demonstrating how the major components of the course fit together. Florence Sandler said she
conceives of this as a new way of teaching writing that will require much discussion across
disciplines. She said she is concerned, with Despres, about “the submerging of analytical writing
for pro/con discourse.” Barry responded that the guidelines allow an instructor to address issues
of “audience” as a means of meeting the “civic” purpose of the course, and Ray Preiss argued
that rhetorical theory provides opportunities for achieving course goals, rather than acting as a
barrier.
Despres reiterated that while she agrees it is important to learn both civic and academic writing,
she doesn’t think it can be done in one semester. Michel Rocchi argued that “writing vs.
speaking” is at least as broad as “civic vs. academic.” Bill Breitenbach said he thought “civic” as it
was being used in the rubric was really “academic,” and that perhaps we could get rid of “civic.”
Paul Loeb asked whether faculty preparing to teach this course could receive course development
funding to allow discussion of issues across disciplines. Dean Cooney said yes, that in fact
course development funding is most appropriate in situations where groups of faculty are working
to develop materials that transcend disciplinary boundaries.
Droge argued that we should retain “civic” in the rubric as a classical component of liberal
education and because we are preparing students for participation in a broader society. He said
we should meet the challenge that the course presents. Taranovski said he thought we should
allow some courses to be slanted toward rhetoric and others toward writing because otherwise the
rubric is too ambitious and in fact impossible. Dean Bartanen responded that the rubric
University of Puget Sound Faculty Meeting Minutes
November 20, 2000, Page 7
addresses a course structure that was passed by the faculty some time ago. She argued that we
should want students to express their voices in both written and spoken forms so that they can
learn to communicate more effectively.
Carolyn Weisz suggested that perhaps these seminars could meet four days per week with one
day being a lab setting for oral presentations. Barnett responded that the rubric does not
specifically call for speeches, and that she would not favor four meetings per week.
John Rindo asked whether our procedure is to make a motion for each rubric. President Pierce
said that the rubrics were moved for approval in the main motion and that the procedure approved
earlier in the meeting calls for amendments as appropriate as each rubric is discussed. Rindo
asked how we move from rubric to rubric and President Pierce responded that when we are
finished discussing and, if we choose, amending one rubric we move to the next.
Judith Kay then began what became an extended discussion of the second main theme to
emerge concerning the Seminar in Writing and Rhetoric rubric. This had to do with the word
“stock” in section I.B of the proposed rubric. Kay’s argument was that the power dynamics
surrounding who defines what a “stock issue” is can lead to the subjugation of minority voices.
Jim Jasinski responded that “stock issues” is a common term in his discipline for “the policy
controversies” surrounding an issue. President Pierce asked Jasinski, who is currently teaching a
course that might ultimately qualify for the new core under the rubric being discussed, whether in
his view all four components (A through D) in section I. need to be present for proper coverage of
argumentation. Jasinski responded that in his view they do all need to be present for proper
coverage in a course, although in any particular assignment not all four need be present.
Loeb asked if we could remove the word “stock” from the rubric. Jasinski responded that the
word has meaning for him but that he would not “drag his feet” on this. Loeb asked if there must
be oral performance in class. Jasinski responded that that’s the way he’s doing it, but that it’s
probably not the only way to do it. Loeb concluded that the proposed rubric may be more flexible
than Despres assumed, and Despres agreed that she now realized this. Barry emphasized that
speeches are not mandated by the guidelines.
Rocchi asked Jasinski to clarify the importance in the rubric of “civic” writing and argumentation.
Jasinski responded that “civic” is valuable for disciplinary and historical purposes, and that it
addresses the university goal to prepare students for citizenship that is not addressed elsewhere
in the curriculum. Martin Jackson asked if a course instructor could ignore “civic” issues if he or
she wanted to. Barry responded that the guidelines were developed to meet the objectives; that if
the guidelines were met, the “civic” objective would be also.
Barry Goldstein expressed concern that the Curriculum Committee would use the learning
objectives and the guidelines as a check-off list in considering candidate courses. Jane Marie
Pinzino referred to the statement in the motion that says that the Curriculum Committee will look
at guidelines only. Goldstein responded that using the guidelines as a series of check-offs is bad
enough. Neshyba responded that all items in the guidelines have to be there; that none are
optional. He added with regard to the “civic” issue that he envisions an “invisible hand” at work,
such that if the guidelines are met, then the learning objectives, including the “civic” purpose, will
be met also “automatically.”
Jim Evans M/S/vote reported later “to excise ‘and civic’ from the learning objectives.”
Dean Cooney opposed the motion, saying he believed that whenever faculty worked with students
on the analysis of arguments and their relation to evidence in a liberal arts context, they were
contributing to a civic purpose. He also reinforced the importance of Jasinski’s point about the
link between the proposed rubric and the University’s goal within the mission statement
University of Puget Sound Faculty Meeting Minutes
November 20, 2000, Page 8
concerning citizenship. Dean Cooney also argued that he would not want the rhetoric side of the
rubric to be weakened, because the original course structure approved by the faculty suggests
that we should maintain a balance between writing and rhetoric in the rubric. Juli McGruder said
that she agreed with Dean Cooney’s reasoning and that she opposed the Evans motion.
Karin Sable asked whether as a friendly amendment the motion could instead “replace ‘and’ with
‘or.’” Evans declined to accept this as a friendly amendment. Loeb thought about moving a
substitute motion to end the learning objectives section with the word “effectively,” but decided not
to.
Droge argued that the proposed rubric has gone through a serious review already and that we
should consider carefully the wisdom of amending it on the floor in a faculty meeting. Breitenbach
responded that the floor of the faculty is precisely where it was intended by the task force and
Curriculum Committee that issues like this should be resolved.
Somebody M/S/F to end debate. The motion to end debate failed on a hand vote.
Taranovski M/S/vote reported later to substitute for the Evans motion “to put a period after
‘effectively’ in the learning objectives section.” Neff-Lippman opposed the motion because
she said it robbed the seminar of its proper balance, and Rocchi agreed. Despres said she
agreed with the points made by Dean Cooney, but that “we need to be realistic.” She said it will
likely be a long process to bring faculty up to speed on rhetoric, which she said is a special field.
Taranovski explained that he made the motion in part out of a concern that proposed courses
might be disadvantaged if they fail to contain an element of current civics in them. Haltom
reminded us that courses are to be evaluated based on their adherence to the guidelines, not the
learning objectives. Jasinski said that “civic” does not imply contemporary issues, contrary to
what Taranovski argued was the basis for his motion.
Taranovski then attempted to withdraw his motion, but the motion’s seconder, Neshyba,
refused to agree. Taranovski’s substitute motion then failed on a voice vote.
The Evans motion then failed on a voice vote.
Sable M/S/vote reported later “to strike ‘stock’ from I.B.” She accepted as a friendly
amendment Doug Cannon’s suggestion to add the word “the.” The motion became “to
strike ‘the stock’ from I.B.”
Haltom opposed the motion because, he said, the presence of the word “stock” does not direct
the nature of the course one way or the other. Suzanne Holland, agreeing with points made
earlier by Judith Kay, supported the motion. Haltom responded that one cannot avoid identifying
the “stock issues;” that it must be done whether the word is in the rubric or not. Kay responded,
“not necessarily.” Bartanen argued that “stock issues” refer to the forms in which arguments
occur, not their content.
Loeb suggested replacing “stock” with “relevant” or “kind of.” Evans asked if the task force could
take this one line back and “fix it.” Barry summed up his true feelings about the controversy by
admitting “I really just don’t care,” but added that he supported the amendment because he felt
“stock” was probably unnecessary and redundant.
The Sable motion then passed on a voice vote. The Seminar in Writing and Rhetoric
Rubric then became:
University of Puget Sound Faculty Meeting Minutes
November 20, 2000, Page 9
SEMINAR IN WRITING AND RHETORIC RUBRIC
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
In each Seminar in Writing and Rhetoric, students encounter the two central aspects of the
humanistic tradition of rhetorical education: argumentation and effective oral and written
expression. Students in these seminars develop the intellectual habits and language
capabilities to construct persuasive arguments and to write and speak effectively for
academic and civic purposes.
GUIDELINES
I.
Through their introduction to argumentation, these seminars address:
A. the value of pro/con reasoning and the need to approach a controversy
from multiple perspectives;
B. issues and questions that organize a particular controversy;
C. standard argument forms and other persuasive strategies (for example,
traditional and contemporary models of reasoning, narrative); and
D. methods of evaluating arguments (Including evidence evaluation and
identification of logical fallacies).
II.
Through their introduction to effective expression, these seminars address:
A. important elements and conventions of standard written English;
B. the range of lexical and stylistic resources available to speakers and
writers (for example, appropriateness, audience, tone, voice, and
other aspects of a message’s verbal texture); and
C. various oral and written composition strategies, including approaching
composition as a process (including purposeful drafting, revising,
and editing).
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.
We adjourned at 5:29 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
John M. Finney
Secretary of the Faculty