College of Arts and Sciences
Council of Chairs
October 17, 2007
2:30 p.m., AS 122
Meeting Minutes
Present: J. Carson, J. Collins, K. Doolen, R. Dressler, P. Ferlo, S. Fessler (for DeBlasi), E. Gaffney, S.
Galime, K. Gersowitz (recorder), G. Griffith, R. Hamm, T. Harrison, D. Hernandez, M. Hill, V. Idone, S.
Isser, J. Kimball, J. Mandle, A. Millis, J. Monfasani, G. Moore, J. Mower, C. Olsen, M. Sattinger, L.
Schell, G. Stevens, M. Sutherland, P. Toscano (for Welch), E. Turner, K. Williams, M. Winn, E. Wulfert,
A. Zak. Guest: S. North
Introductory Remarks: Dean Wulfert called the meeting to order at 2:30 p.m.
Minutes of the meeting of 9/26/07: A motion to approve the minutes was moved by K. Doolen,
seconded by E Turner. The meeting minutes for the September 26, 007 Council of Chairs were
unanimously approved.
Announcements:
COEUS – L. Schell noted that chairs should encourage all faculty to sign-up for COEUS training.
Information can be found on the Sponsored Funds website.
Summer Sessions - G. Stevens distributed information to Chairs about summer sessions and is available
to meet with anyone who is unfamiliar with this process. He reported that M. Lasak has funding to
training faculty who are interested in mounting on-line courses this summer.
Committee on Academic Standing – Please contact R. Dressler with recommendations of faculty
members to serve on this committee.
Deadlines – To ensure the smooth operation of both the Departments and the College, Chairs were
encouraged to increase their efforts to meet deadlines.
Old Business: none
Business arising: Discussion of the Findings of the Undergraduate Writing Task Force.
S. North, Distinguished Teaching Professor and member of the Undergraduate Writing Task Force
provided an overview of the findings.
Current Program:
UAlbany writing instruction does not compare favorably with peer institutions:
Lacks required writing course
Lacks basic writing support
Inconsistent with current research on writing instruction
Students receive too little instruction, sustained practice, support
Too much variability and lack of oversight
Proposed Program:
The goal of the proposed changes to the undergraduate writing program is to enhance undergraduate
writing instruction.
Three course sequence would be implemented
 First year University Writing Seminar (UWS). 80-100 sections would be taught by a cadre of 15
full-time lecturers
 Lower division WI course to be taken prior to junior year
 Upper division WI course to be taken in the major
Professional development and support would be provided to all teaching these courses
University Writing Program Director position would be established who reports to Vice Provost for
Undergraduate Education.
Faculty discussion followed:
Dean Wulfert noted that CAS input is important given that we bear the burden of mounting writing
intensive classes. The Chairs posed many questions which S. North addressed and will bring back to the
Task Force.
Resources Needed:
The question of resources needed to develop and sustain this proposed program was addressed.
Has there been a solid commitment from the administration to support this proposal? S. North reported
that Bob Yagelski, as chair of the Task Force, had met with both OiC S. Herbst and OiC designate G.
Philip, and that both had indicated their support.
Among the concerns were the cost of the lecturers hired to teach the Undergraduate Writing Seminar and
resources needed by departments if they now had to mount more courses within their discipline because
they could not longer offer split courses.
Finding the classroom space to accommodate these new sections could also prove problematic.
It was also noted that there will be some students who do not successfully complete these new courses the
first time and they should be factored into any projections.
Split courses:
Some chairs noted that they felt this system worked well, and they did not agree that the sessions were not
integrated into the larger course. As previously mentioned, new courses would have to be mounted and
resources secured if split courses were no longer allowed.
Cadre of Lecturers:
In addition to the question of funding the new lecturers, another issue that was raised was how to insure
the quality of these instructors. It was noted that more stability was provided by appointing these
individuals as lecturers versus adjuncts. S. North noted that this was a successful model in other schools
(e.g., University of Denver, Boulder, Harvard).
It was also noted that the money spent on these positions would mean less money to fund new, tenure
track assistant professors, who had the potential of bringing research dollars to the University.
Specifically, the amount requested is roughly the equivalent of 8-10 assistant professor hires.
Another issue raised was how “invested” this contingent of lecturers would be relative to that typical of a
tenure-track faculty member. Instructional motivation needs to be high to accomplish the stated goal of
this proposal, with inherent and deep commitment. Will such lecturers have that level of commitment?
Exemptions:
It was noted that students in the Honors College and Project Renaissance would be exempt from these
new requirements. Would there be mechanisms to exempt other students if appropriate (e.g.,
demonstrated competence)?
S. North noted that the new first year course would create a UAlbany culture and expectation for writing
and is not designed to determine competence.
It was suggested that Project Renaissance and Honors College faculty receive the same training as other
faculty who will be teaching these courses.
Student Motivation:
A discussion occurred about what motivates students to improve their writing. It was suggested that the
new courses relate to other forms of student writing, such as newspapers and journals.
Double Majors and Transfer Students
How will these students be accommodated? Transfer students may come from institutions that offer a
similar course and these probably should be counted towards the new requirements.
Oversight and Evaluation:
Oversight will be very important to the success of the new program and it was noted that this component
was lacking in the last program.
How will this new program be evaluated? It was felt that objective evaluation should be an integral part
of the proposal. If large amounts of resources are invested, objective standards are required to assess
whether students’ performance improves in relevant ways. It was noted that the SOE might contribute to
developing an evaluation plan. Other evaluation options also exist.
Who oversees curriculum development and how is uniformity guaranteed?
The professional development component would be an important piece of this as well.
Current System:
Some chairs noted that possibly the current system could be “tweaked” to achieve goals. Leave alone
what is working well.
It was noted that potentially many existing English classes could serve the purpose of the Writing
Seminar. This suggestion was countered by stating that English classes, although very often writing
intensive, are not composition classes. Nonetheless, some Chairs felt that the existing slate of English
department courses could better accommodate a sizable fraction of the expressed need with optimal
economic efficiency.
Gen Ed Requirements:
It was suggested that rather than adding yet another requirement, existing Gen Ed requirements could be
pared down.
Current Status of the Proposal:
The committee is looking for faculty feedback, and in addition to the Council of Chairs this proposal is
also being reviewed by the CAS Faculty Council. There are plans to submit it to the UAC within a
month.
Adjourned: The meeting was adjourned at 4:00.
Handouts:
Agenda
Minutes of 9/26/07 Council of Chairs meeting