Received by the Graduate Council—December 3, 2007
GRADUATE COUNCIL CURRICULUM COMMITTEE (GCCC)
Third Meeting/2007-08 Academic Year
November 19, 2007
Approved
p. i of v
PRESENT:
A. Azad (EET/TECH), R. Bose (Graduate School), D. Changnon (LAS/GEOG), G.
Cosenza (VPA/MUSC), A. Rose (EDU/CAHE), C. Shaw (EDU/TLRN) (via speaker
phone)
NOT
REPRESENTED: C. Gowen (BUS/MGMT), B. Hoffman (LAS/HIST)
CONSULTANTS: D. Smith (Catalog Editor/Curriculum Coordinator)
GUESTS:
N. Karonis (LAS/CSCI), R. Rahn (EET/ISYE), M. Tahernezhadi (EET, Associate Dean)
CALL TO ORDER
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Cosenza made a motion, seconded by Rose, to APPROVE THE AGENDA. Motion passed
unanimously.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
1. Minutes from the November 12, 2007, meeting will be sent electronically for approval with the
minutes from this meeting.
2. Deletion of references to “T” courses, including the deletion of the “Ts” in any course number or
PRQ/CRQ.
CONSENT AGENDA
There were no curricular items on the consent agenda.
COLLEGE MINUTES FOR DISCUSSION
College of Liberal Arts and Sciences #7
Changnon noted that the graduate item in these minutes is the revision to the specialization in nanoscience
within the Ph.D. in Chemistry. Discussion followed to clarify the hours required. Azad made a motion,
seconded by Cosenza, to APPROVE THE GRADUATE CURRICULAR ITEMS IN COLLEGE OF
Received by the Graduate Council—December 3, 2007
GRADUATE COUNCIL CURRICULUM COMMITTEE (GCCC)
Third Meeting/2007-08 Academic Year
November 19, 2007
Approved
p. ii of v
LIBERAL ARTS AND SCIENCES #7 (11/14/07) PENDING APPROVAL BY THE BOARD OF
TRUSTEES. Motion passed unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS
Changnon introduced guests Mansour Tahernezhadi and Regina Rahn from the College of Engineering
and Engineering Technology and Nick Karonis from Computer Science.
1. The following new course proposals from CEET #2, #3, #4, and #5 were tabled: UEET 601, UEET
602, UEET 603, UEET 604, UEET 605, UEET 606, UEET 607, UEET 608, UEET 609, and UEET
610. The GCCC recommended that the following language be added to the end of the course
description: “Not available for credit in an M.S. program offered in the College of Engineering and
Engineering Technology.” Also, the GCCC asked for verification of nonduplication from the
Department of Educational Technology, Research and Assessment and Division of Statistics for UEET
606; and verification of nonduplication with UNIV 510 and Geography and a clearer focus on the
engineering content for teachers for UEET 608. Changnon iterated that there are three separate
concerns. The first is that some of the courses appear to have content that overlaps with other
departments on campus and that the Academic Policies and Procedure Manual (APPM) states that
departments and/or colleges offering new courses need to check for nonduplication from other
departments. Changnon specifically mentioned UEET 606 and UEET 608. The second concern is
that these courses only be available for teachers in the program and that a statement be included in the
description for all these courses to that affect. The third concern deals with the pedagogy and how that
is brought into these courses and the fact that the pedagogy is not well described in the course
descriptions. There was also a concern that the teachers enrolled in these courses may know more
about pedagogy than the faculty teaching them. Changnon then opened the floor for discussion.
Tahernezhadi provided background on the development of the program. In December, 2006, the
College of Engineering and Engineering Technology was invited by the provost’s office to attend a
meeting in Chicago hosted by the Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE). The purpose was to
discuss the best apparatus for universities to get involved in providing master’s programs for teacher
endorsements in the STEM fields, to give them the tools they need to get middle and high school
students more excited about engineering. Tahernezhadi stated that not since 1990 has the College of
Engineering and Engineering Technology been involved in teacher education, so he worked hard on
getting up to speed. In mid March, 2007, they received a request for a grant proposal with an April 30,
2007, deadline. The grant is from the U.S. Department of Education, under the No Child Left Behind
Act, administered by the ISBE. They held weekly meetings to discuss the best way to prepare the
grant proposal, initially partnering with the Department of Mathematic Sciences. The college next
received permission to proceed from the provost’s office; there was no duplication with other
departments. They brought in faculty from the Colleges of Liberal Arts and Sciences and Education
(Kathy Kitts, GEOL; Carla Shaw, TLRN; Cecil Smith, LEPF; and Alan Zollman, MATH) to help
develop the courses. The concept behind course development was to target them specifically to
teachers already certified in math and/or science. Through the courses, teachers are immersed in
engineering and science curriculum through action research and create meaningful projects for their
own classrooms. There will be internships at industrial sites. The model for course development was
Received by the Graduate Council—December 3, 2007
GRADUATE COUNCIL CURRICULUM COMMITTEE (GCCC)
Third Meeting/2007-08 Academic Year
November 19, 2007
Approved
p. iii of v
pedagogical content knowledge integration. What the degree will be is still under discussion with
Provost Alden. The college would like it to be an M.S. in Teaching, but it may end up being an M.A.
in Teaching.
Bose congratulated the College of Engineering and Engineering Technology for taking this initiative
and noted that there are a lot of good things happening with the development of this program.
However, he noted that the issues regarding the courses aren’t exclusive to the college and there is
encroachment on courses offered by other departments, specifically the Division of Statistics. Bose
then stated that the Graduate Council has the obligation to maintain the quality and standards of any
graduate program, whether or not a program has been developed through a commitment to external
funding. He explained that the GCCC is trying to maintain the standards of the university and high
quality programs, without encroaching on existing programs. He also noted that this new program will
need to go to the Board of Trustees for their approval. In the meantime, the College of Engineering
and Engineering Technology may introduce students to the program through special topics courses.
Bose reported that he reviewed a memo from Rama Lingham, Director of the Division of Statistics,
and feels that UEET 606 overlaps courses in Statistics, and he questioned why the College of
Engineering and Engineering Technology would create a new course. The teachers taking these
courses have a background in science and/or math and could easily take a course in the Division of
Statistics. The college should work with the division on this. Bose also recommended that the other
courses be circulated among the other science departments in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences
for their input. He added that this request could come from the provost’s office with a request that
these departments respond quickly.
Bose reiterated that review of new courses by the GCCC requires nonduplication issues be addressed
by the department prior to submission. Bose further noted that there are two issues. The first is that he
has a memo from the Division of Statistics regarding duplication and the second is regarding the
course in nanotechnology and that the faculty with expertise in this area in the departments of
chemistry and physics have yet to be consulted. He added that the purpose of the GCCC is to help
colleges make their programs the best they can be. Rose added that she also perceived that the issues
at hand deal only with the courses and nonduplication and the limitation of students who can take
them; the GCCC did not discuss anything else. Tahernezhadi responded that UEET 606 is built on an
existing statistics course in his college. He added that the textbook addresses the integrated
pedagogical knowledge of statistics for engineering students. He also acknowledged that they could
replace UEET 606 with a STAT course to keep the approval process moving forward. Shaw
suggested that the course description be revised to better reflect the engineering aspects of the course.
Bose agreed this was a good suggestion and it was the type of input the GCCC likes to hear. He added
that the College of Engineering and Engineering Technology items could move through smoothly if
they respond as requested.
Rahn reported on several components in the new course proposal, including the implementation of
applied engineering principles, the learning objectives, and the need to provide these students with a
common background for the other courses. Bose stated that this was the best argument for the course
Received by the Graduate Council—December 3, 2007
GRADUATE COUNCIL CURRICULUM COMMITTEE (GCCC)
Third Meeting/2007-08 Academic Year
November 19, 2007
Approved
p. iv of v
yet. He asked Rahn to provide him with the course rationale and outline and he would work with the
Division of Statistics to clear up the duplication issues. Changnon added that the entire course
proposal is something the GCCC should see when a new course is being debated.
Changnon then addressed duplication issues with UEET 608, Homeland Security, and that other
departments offer courses that are similar, including Geography, which has a course that deals with
environmental hazards. He added that he would rather the College of Engineering and Engineering
Technology take their time to revise the courses and present them again to the GCCC in Feburary. He
reminded everyone present that the college could still offer these courses in fall, 2008, if they were
approved by the GCCC and Graduate Council in the spring, 2008, semester. Bose asked if the GCCC
could meet in January if the college was prepared to present its responses to the issues. Committee
members agreed that would be acceptable. Bose asked when the proposal for the program would come
through and Tahernezhadi stated that they are waiting for a response from Alden.
The GCCC next addressed the other issue with these courses, allowing only teachers in the program to
enroll in them. It was noted that math and science teachers are a different population than engineers,
and they could potentially feel inadequate being in courses with students who are new engineering
graduates. Rahn argued that the teachers and engineers could learn from one another. Tahernezhadi
responded that these new courses will not be offered to engineering students for credit towards their
M.S. degrees, but the college would like them to be able to enroll in these courses as electives.
Cosenza thought this was a reasonable compromise and could provide an opportunity for engineering
students to learn about teacher education. Bose suggested that the college present a proposal for the
GCCC’s consideration with regards to what students may enroll in these courses. Rose expressed
concern that if engineering students are allowed to enroll in these courses to fulfill a need in their
program, for example nanotechnology, that eventually the course may lose its pedagogical content. In
response to a statement regarding individual college autonomy and authority, Bose shared with the
committee the philosophy of a president he worked with at a former institution, that the colleges all
work for the university and need to work together, and that it’s not efficient to offer the same course in
10 different places.
2. New course CSCI 596 from CLAS #6 was tabled. The GCCC had concerns that it duplicates CSCI
590 and that there’s the potential that students could end up with 12 hours in an internship. The
GCCC is also questioning the differentiation between a paid and unpaid internship. Changnon read an
e-mail from Liberal Arts and Sciences Associate Dean Bill Minor. The e-mail explains that new
course CSCI 596 and existing course CSCI 590 are very different internships. CSCI 590 is a one-time
summer internship, where CSCI 596 will be an internship offered during the fall and spring semesters
that students may repeat. Minor, in the e-mail, did acknowledge the concerns of the GCCC with
regards to the number of internship hours and agreed to an addition to the descriptions of both courses:
“No more than six semester hours in CSCI 590 and/or CSCI 596 may be included in the master’s
degree.” Shaw stated that she approved the new course with the restriction on the hours for both
courses. Rose said that she understood the distinction between the courses, but didn’t understand the
need for a new course because of that distinction. Karonis explained that CSCI 590 is offered during
Received by the Graduate Council—December 3, 2007
GRADUATE COUNCIL CURRICULUM COMMITTEE (GCCC)
Third Meeting/2007-08 Academic Year
November 19, 2007
Approved
p. v of v
the summer. There is a similar internship at the undergraduate level. He added that often companies
greatly appreciate the students working with them over the summer and request that they return the
following the summer. The problem is that over the school year, there is some loss of knowledge
gained during the first summer internship. CSCI 596 will allow these students to continue to work for
the same company, while also being able to stay on campus and continue their other course work.
Azad asked why they couldn’t have the same course for three semesters. It was clarified that CSCI
590 doesn’t state in the course description that it’s only offered in the summer. Karonis stated that
only the new course would be repeatable. He also reported that the department is working on
corporate partnerships, with Argonne Laboratories already on board, and other companies such as
Fermi Laboratories and IBM expressing interest. The corporate sponsorship could help CSCI 596
become a recruiting tool. Karonis added that nationwide enrollment in computer science programs is
down considerably. Rose asked if there was a way to explain in the course description that students
get paid for the internship, but stay on campus and work on projects. Changnon noted that this is
outlined in the rationale for CSCI 596. Discussion followed regarding changing the name of one of
the internship course to further distinguish between CSCI 590 and CSCI 596. Karonis was willing to
hear options, and while GCCC members made some suggestions, none of them seem to fit. Cosenza
made a motion, seconded by Rose, to APPROVE NEW COURSE CSCI 596. Motion passed
unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS
1. Revisions to the Interdisciplinary Certificate of Graduate Study in Homeland Security. Changnon
noted that they are replacing a special topics course with another course. Cosenza made a motion,
seconded by Shaw, to APPROVE THE REVISIONS TO THE CERTIFICATE OF GRADUATE
STUDY IN HOMELAND SECURITY. Motion passed unanimously.
2. Robotics and Manufacturing Study Abroad Program in China. Changnon explained that this proposal
was brought to the GCCC from the Standards Committee. The concern with this proposal is that it is
for six semester hours, but it is only a three-week program. Changnon noted that to earn six semester
hours, the rule is that the program needs to be four weeks long. It was noted that the proposal outlines
the two courses involved in detail and a calendar of the activities is also provided. A brief discussion
followed regarding some of the specific activities. Rose suggested that the instructor hold a debriefing
meeting two weeks after they return from China. This would also allow the students time for the
development of the proposed research. Shaw agreed that would be acceptable. Changnon will provide
Bose with the GCCC’s recommendation that the proposal is acceptable if the professor holds a
debriefing meeting after the students return.
The meeting adjourned at 12:00.
The next meeting of the Graduate Council Curriculum Committee is January 14, 2008, 10:00, Conference
Room 304, Lowden Hall.
Received by the Graduate Council—December 3, 2007
GRADUATE COUNCIL CURRICULUM COMMITTEE (GCCC)
Third Meeting/2007-08 Academic Year
November 19, 2007
Approved
p. vi of v
Respectfully submitted,
Donna M. Smith