UCA Core Council / General Education Council Minutes – October 1, 2013
Members Present:
Jim Deitrick (CAR – Phil & Rel)
Kim Eskola (CAR – KPED)
Susan Gatto (Coll of HBS)
Katelyn Knox (Coll of Lib Arts)
Joe McGarrity (Coll of Bus)
Carl Olds (CAR – Film)
Patty Phelps (Coll of Ed)
Cindy Shelton (CAR – Health Sciences)
Carey Smitherman (Coll of FAC)
Mary Beth Sullivan (CAR – Poli Sci)
Charles Watson (Coll of NSM)
Dave Welky (CAR – History)
Kurt Bonecki (Ex-officio, Provost’s Office)
Joanna Castner-Post (Ex-officio, GEC Chair)
Renee LeBeau-Ford (Ex-officio, Library)
Members Absent:
(SGA) representatives
Wendy Castro (Ex-officio, Dir of Assessment)
AGENDA for Oct. 1 Meeting:
1. Approval of minutes from Sept 19 meeting
2. Core Curriculum Review procedures
3. Parliamentarian
4. Working definitions of the four Core competencies
5. FYS Committee Report to Share Pilot Assessment Rubric (see FYS Committee Charge below)
6. Report from Special Committee for the Development of an Assessment Report Template (see
charge below)
1. Approval of minutes from Sept 19 meeting
approved by Council unanimously
2. Core Curriculum Review Procedures
GEC is already hitting the ground running
the biggest challenge will be the upper division proposals
procedure:
 look at the choices in the proposal
 criteria are on the form
 look at the assignment – does it meet the spirit of the rubric?
 fewer variables to take into mind
ON PREVIOUS VOTE FOR SUBCOMMITTEES – (SEE APPENDIX A)
keep committee structure as proposed by GEC chair – we represent all rubrics
also, having 6 points of contact for each proposal and chair will be impractical
largest chunks will come first – less needed later
HOW TO READ TEMPLATE FORM FROM JONATHAN GLENN:
 box on pg 1 – insert current bulletin language and revised bulletin language
 vertical list of courses that it fulfills
 look for clarity of expression from a student understanding perspective
first proposals will be sent out this afternoon
How are we going to get all these courses done? We will look at department choices as a group
SEE APPENDIX B for GOALS AND MORE INFORMATION
Deadline for January 2014 bulletin – early January
Departments must get proposals to us NOW
Fall 2015 is our hard date for implementation
3. Parliamentarian
chair will appointment one—Jim Deitrick will serve
4. Working definitions of the four Core competencies
being developed because of questions from disciplines—for instance, questions about types of writing used, the
definition of “culture”
need a working definition for each learning outcome
chair of subcommittee will work up working definitions to guide departments
5. FYS Committee Report to Share Pilot Assessment Rubric
FYS Committee Charge: Review the suggestions (to be supplied by jcp) from FYS instructors about the
shape and content of an assessment rubric for teaching students about general education and the UCA
Core, and create a draft of an assessment rubric to pilot this semester. Work with the three volunteer FYS
instructors: Benjamin Rider (philosophy), Joe Horton (EFIRM), Horst Lange (World Languages). FYS
Committee Members: Cindy Shelton, Carl Olds, Kim Eskola. Due date for pilot rubric: October 1. We’ll
review the pilot at the UCA Core Council meeting Oct. 1.
FYS subcommittee met and is developing a pilot rubric
FYS faculty met at beginning of semester and were taught about gen ed and UCA Core implementation
common curriculum was suggested, developed, and rejected by faculty
FYS seminar faculty met and discussed over 7 meetings
GEC created a subcommittee to create a rubric that will be refined and revised
good discussion ensued
GEC Chair distributed draft rubric from FYS subcommittee
discussion: does this assess FYS course or understanding of UCA Core?
MOTION to approve rubric as FYS pilot rubric (Smitherman) with SECOND (Eskola)
discussion – only for FYS, which are already being assessed for Critical Inquiry, Communication, and Teamwork
Is it about the benefits of general education or about learning about the UCA Core alone?
discussion about a friendly amendment to the rubric – lively discussion about wording, etc…..
MOTION to table (Watson) with SECOND (Olds) – unanimously passed, MOTION TO APPROVE RUBRIC TABLED
6. Report from Special Committee for the Development of an Assessment
Report Template
Special Committee for the Development of an Assessment Report Template: Create a report template
for professors reporting data from the assessment of their Core courses. The template should call for the
information the UCA Core Council will want to review. Committee members: Patty Phelps, Susan Gatto,
Katelyn Knox. Due date: October 1. We’ll review the template at the UCA Core Council meeting Oct. 1.
document added to Excel spreadsheet data
assessment report for all UCA Core courses will be easier to gather
MOTION to approve template (Gatto) with SECOND (McGarrity)
friendly amendment – FYS would need to be added
could labels be added as well?
MOTION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED
Appendix A: Rationale for Keeping Curriculum Review
Committee Structure as Outlined in Appendix A
Upon review of the logistics of implementing a specialized Curriculum Review Committee
structure wherein each committee reads for only one of the Core designations, it is the judgment
of the UCA Core Director that the Core Council will work more efficiently with the previously
outlined set-up. Problems with a specialized structure are as follows:
 Core Council members must understand all of the Core competencies and rubrics to
represent their constituencies as effectively as possible. Departments across the
disciplines will teach all four of the Core competencies.
 Specializing will result in multiple (up to 6) presenters for each proposal. We will have to
meet more often to get through the upper-division Core proposals as a result.
 Specializing will result in multiple (up to 6) points of contact with each department chair,
which would be inefficient and frustrating for everyone involved.
Appendix B: Curriculum Review Committees
One of the main goals of the UCA Core Council this year will be to review the expedited proposals for
programmatic Core designations for upper-division and capstone courses. Become reacquainted with this
process by going to the UCA Core Council web site (www.uca.edu/gened) and scrolling down on the
homepage to see the UCA Core structure graphic—it looks like a Grecian temple. Last year the General
Education Council worked with programs to put the lower-division Core in place—that is the 38 hour
foundation you see at the bottom of the Grecian temple.
This year, we will be working with programs to implement the upper-division and capstone component of
the UCA Core. Students must take 3 hours in each Core competency at the upper-level (critical inquiry,
diversity, effective communication, and responsible living). Then they must take a capstone course (from
1-6 hours) that will be assessed for effective communication and critical inquiry. Each upper-division
course can be designated with up to two Core competencies. Programs will likely want to designate
courses in the Core to help their majors graduate within the state-mandated 120 hour time frame.
However, some programs will not be able to design courses with particular designations due to their
disciplinary focus. In that case, students will take those hours from another program, likely in the course
of completing their minor.
As a result, the UCA Core Council will be reviewing a great deal of curriculum this year. Please review
the expedited form for upper-division and capstone courses for more details (click on Forms from the
UCA Core web site). We are working with a tight time line. Those programs that are not creating new
curriculum will be able to use the expedited process outlined on the form described above. These areas
are encouraged to fill out the forms for their entire program and submit in one packet, so the Council can
review the programmatic designations as a whole. The ideal time line for submitting this paperwork to the
UCA Core Council would be early October, so there might be a chance that the Council could work
through the many proposals in time for them to be implemented in the Spring of 2014. Changes to the
Undergraduate Bulletin are due in early January, and curriculum would have to be ready to post then to be
implemented this spring. Those programs creating new courses will not likely be able to meet this
deadline because they will have to go through the entire curriculum review process, but they should plan
to have their new curriculum through their college by the end of this semester to meet the hard deadline of
curriculum implementation: Fall 2015.
In an effort to facilitate our workload, we will follow the curriculum review process instituted by
Undergraduate Council. The UCA Core Director will gather programmatic proposals and assign them to
one of the Curriculum Committees at least seven business days before each Council meeting. Due to the
workload and tight time line, the UCA Core Director will send proposals as she receives them, so be
prepared to receive proposals before and up to the deadline. She will make an effort not to overload
the committees. The designated Chair of the committee will lead committee discussion via email or faceto-face about whether or not the elements of the proposal are correct and fitting for the definitions of each
Core competency. If there are questions only the Chair of the proposing department can answer, the Chair
of the Curriculum Committee will solicit the appropriate information and convey it to the committee. The
goal will be to solve problems with the proposals before they reach a vote in the larger Council.
Please be prepared to work with department chairs to make proposals ready for the vote. Once all
information has been gathered, and the Curriculum Committee has discussed the issues related to a
proposal, the Chair of the Curriculum Committee should take a vote of the Committee members. This can
take place via email.
Chairs of Curriculum Committees should then be prepared to make a short presentation to the rest of the
Council to explain the designations and issues discussed amongst the Curriculum Committee members as
well as the result of the Committee’s vote. Please be as detailed as possible, so the entire Council can
understand the issues clearly. The Chair of the Curriculum Committee will explain whether or not
his/her committee recommends approval. Ideally, department chairs will also be present at the meeting to
answer other questions that may arise from Council members on other committees.
Curriculum Review Committee I: Jim Deitrick (Chair), Mary Beth Sullivan, and Carl Olds.
Curriculum Review Committee II: David Welky (Chair), Kim Eskola, and Cindy Shelton.
Curriculum Review Committee III: Joe McGarrity (Chair), Katelyn Knox, and Susan Gatto.
Curriculum Review Committee IV: Carey Smitherman (Chair), Charles Watson, and Patty Phelps.