Received by Undergraduate Coordinating Council—May 6, 2010
COMMITTEE ON THE UNDERGRADUATE CURRICULUM (CUC)
Seventh Meeting/2009-10 Academic Year
April 8, 2010
Approved
i of iv
PRESENT:
G. Aase (BUS/OMIS), K. Millis (LAS/PSYC, chair), G. Schlabach (EDU/KNPE), E. Seaver
(Vice Provost, ex officio), R. Schneider (VPA/THEA), R. Tatara (EET/TECH),
ABSENT:
M. Lenczewski (LAS/GEOL), F. Solares-Larrave (LAS/FL--), M. Valle (HHS/NHS)
CONSULTANTS: D. Smith (Catalog Editor/Curriculum Coordinator)
GUESTS:
D. Rode (Orientation & First Year Experience), J. Spears (Office of the Provost)
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The agenda was approved by acclamation. Note: There was no quorum for taking care of business, so
motions were made at the meeting, and then votes were taken electronically.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
1. Approval of minutes from the March 18, 2010 meeting.
2. Items previously in Section B, now reported for inclusion in the 2011-12 catalog.
3. UCC Meeting Schedule, 2010-11.
CONSENT AGENDA
Aase made a motion, seconded by Schlabach, to RECEIVE THE COLLEGE MINUTES WITH NO
UNDERGRADUATE CURRICULAR ITEMS. The motion passed with a majority vote
electronically. The following college minutes with no undergraduate-level curricular items were so
received.
College of Business #14
College of Education #8
College of Engineering and Engineering Technology #9
College of Liberal Arts and Sciences #9
College of Liberal Arts and Sciences #11
There were no college minutes with undergraduate-level curricular items on the consent agenda.
COLLEGE MINUTES AND OTHER CURRICULAR ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
College of Business
#13
There are two new course proposals from Accountancy and it was noted that the
department did address nonduplication. Millis asked about the change in hours from
4 to 3 for ACCY 331. Aase responded that the department is realigning content over
existing courses and offering a new elective addressing this topic area. Aase made a
Received by Undergraduate Coordinating Council—May 6, 2010
COMMITTEE ON THE UNDERGRADUATE CURRICULUM (CUC)
Seventh Meeting/2009-10 Academic Year
April 8, 2010
Approved
ii of iv
motion, seconded by Schlabach, to RECEIVE THE UNDERGRADUATE
CURRICULAR ITEMS IN BUSINESS #13 (3/2/10). The motion passed with a
majority vote electronically.
OLD BUSINESS
1. EET #16
New courses IEET 491 and IEET 492 were tabled in September pending clarification of whether
or not undergraduate students will be able to enroll in the 500-level versions of the courses at a
later point in time. At the October CUC meeting, committee members were provided with the
response from the college, which they felt wasn’t satisfactory. At this meeting, the committee
members accepted the college’s recent response. Aase made a motion, seconded by Caughron,
to RECEIVE THE NEW COURSES IEET 491 AND IEET 492 AS AMENDED. This item
remains tabled for additional feedback and clarification from the college.
2. Minimum credit hours for minors and second majors. Remains tabled.
3. Process for checking with other departments regarding impact of course selection if out of
college. This item will remain on the agenda pending discussion with the curricular deans.
4. Template for certificates of undergraduate study. This item will remain on the agenda pending
discussion with the curricular deans.
5. Contract majors and KNPE 101 letter-suffixed courses (forthcoming in April). This was
informational for the CUC.
NEW BUSINESS
1. Foundations of Excellence—D. Rode and E. Seaver.
Rode provided the background on the process. The Foundations of Excellence® developed out of
the strategic plan and is a comprehensive look at the first-year experience. In the fall of 2008, they
began a two-year process, looking at the first-year experience for freshmen only at this time. Rode
noted that this has involved over 100 faculty, staff, and students. A PowerPoint presentation
illustrated the process and finding to date and CUC members were provide with copies of the
presentation (see Appendix A). Rode explained that the Foundations of Excellence® is a national
initiative and collaborative venture, headed by John Gardner, who is the top name in the field of the
first-year experience. The process looks at nine foundational dimensions: philosophy, organization,
learning, faculty, transition, all students, diversity, roles and purposes, and improvement. The
process also involved data collection and evaluation of results. Results and recommendations
involve six themes: oversight and coordination, communication, programming, environment,
academic advising, and reward and regard. Seaver outlined the next steps then he and Rode asked
the CUC for comments and questions. Schlabach suggested that this group develop a set of core
values for the university, something that the entire university community can embrace. She also
noted that in her program they bring back successful alumni to positively speak to undergraduates
Received by Undergraduate Coordinating Council—May 6, 2010
COMMITTEE ON THE UNDERGRADUATE CURRICULUM (CUC)
Seventh Meeting/2009-10 Academic Year
April 8, 2010
Approved
iii of iv
about the program and to make connections with them. There was discussion regarding
implementing a mentor program for first-year students with upperclassmen and also providing
opportunities for first-year students to get a feel for their major course work early in their college
careers. Schneider asked if the studies show that some students should not be in college. Seaver
responded that they have looked at that data. In addition, some students are being identified as
having indicators that they may struggle, for example, poor performance on the ACT, lower class
rank, etc. This information is then provided to advisors who then should guide these students away
from more challenging courses during their first years. There was discussion on how to sum up the
first-year experience for students and suggestions ranged from a thorough advising session to a
capstone experience. Rode noted that one of the areas of improvement is to do a better job of
communicating expectations to incoming students.
2. Service Learning Activities—J. Spears.
Spears began by stating that the work she is doing fits in well with both the Foundations of
Excellence work and the Baccalaureate Review process. She reported that the university applied to
be listed as a community engaged institution with the Carnegie Foundation and received the outreach
and partnership designation, but needs to reapply for the curricular engaged designation. The main
area that was identified as being weak is service learning course work. Spears read the definition of
Curricular Engagement used by the Carnegie Foundation: “Curricular Engagement describes the
teaching, learning and scholarship that engages faculty, students, and community in mutually
beneficial and respectful collaboration. Their interactions address community identified needs,
deepen students’ civic and academic learning, enhance community well-being, and enrich the
scholarship of the institution.” She stated that the reason for her visit to the CUC is to see how
committee members felt about designating appropriate courses as having a service learning
component, similar to what is done with honors courses. She added that to start the process,
however, a common definition needs to be established. Then when service learning and high
engagement opportunities are identified, they can be added to a database that is being developed.
Seaver asked what the CUC thought if every program had at least one service learning course.
Committee members noted that many of their programs have these courses, they just don’t use the
term “service learning.” Spears listed the key elements a course would need to be listed as service
learning: a reflection component; a tie to the academic experience; and a mutual, reciprocal relation
with the real-world entity. Discussion followed regarding what would be the benefits to faculty to
identify service learning courses and it was noted that that identifying service learning course would
ultimately be beneficial to students and NIU could be marketed as a highly engaged institution. The
CUC agreed that going through the curricular deans then the CUC would be the right process for
identifying service learning courses.
3. Accommodations for Students with Disabilities. Seaver explained that the new language is up-todate with the Americans with Disabilities Act. He added that a student has the right to request
accommodations at any time during the term. Aase made a motion, seconded by Tatara, to
APPROVE THE NEW LANGUAGE FOR ACCOMMODATIONS FOR STUDENTS WITH
DISABILITIES. The motion passed with a majority vote electronically.
4. Election of Chair. Millis reported that Lenczewski is willing to serve as the CUC chair for academic
year 2010-11. Schlabach made a motion, seconded by Tatara, to APPROVE THE NOMINATION
Received by Undergraduate Coordinating Council—May 6, 2010
COMMITTEE ON THE UNDERGRADUATE CURRICULUM (CUC)
Seventh Meeting/2009-10 Academic Year
April 8, 2010
Approved
iv of iv
OF MELISSA LENCZEWSKI FOR CUC CHAIR FOR 2010-11. The motion passed with a
majority vote electronically.
The meeting was adjourned at 2:05 p.m.
The next meeting will be September 16, 2010, 12:30, Altgeld 225.
Respectfully submitted,
Donna M. Smith