Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee
Minutes from March 22, 2006
Present:
June Deery
Jeff Durgee
David Hess
Amir Hirsa, chair
Sharon Kunkel
Wally Morris
Lee Odell
Christoph Steinbruchel, guest
John Schroeder
Dave Spooner
Sam Wait
Michael Wozny
1) The minutes from the March 8, 2006 meeting were approved unanimously with one abstention
with the following revised statement on pg 3 item 6 “the faculty may not be aware and
supportive of the new policy.”
2) School of Humanities and Social Science – Lee Odell distributed a packet with several course
changes.
New course:
COMM 2620 Color Theory- This course has been offered before as a topics course.
Students taking the course will probably be sophomores or juniors. The Committee
recommended checking the spelling of Joseph Albers or Josef Albers who is referenced in the
description. The course was approved unanimously.
Course Changes:
 COMM 4400 Publication Practicum-title change to: Cross Cultural Design Research
and description change
 COMM 4570 Typography- description change. The grading information needs to be
clarified.
 COMM 4650 Intermediate Visual Communication-title change to: Marketing
Communication Design and description change
 COMM 4660 Visual Literacy- description change
 COMM 4670 Advanced Typography- credit hour change and term change
 COMM 4780 Hypermedia Art and Fiction- title change to: Interactive Narrative and
description change. Lee will check with instructor on the grading criteria
 COMM 6400 Publication Practicum- title change to: Cross Cultural Design Research
and description change
 COMM 6570 Typography- description change
 COMM 6660 Visual Literacy- description change
 COMM 6780 Hypermedia Art and Fiction- title change to: Interactive Narrative and
description change. Lee will check with instructor on the grading criteria.
These course changes reflect the needs of the students who are technically very proficient but don’t
understand narrative or know how to tell a good story.
3) David Hess presented as information, a template for a dual major with Design, Innovation &
Society and Communication. D. Hess indicated that the program will continue to be called
Product Design and Innovation (PDI). Dick Smith asked about expanding the program. D. Hess
said that is not possible with the dual majors in Mechanical engineering but he believes there
Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee
Minutes from March 22, 2006
will be opportunities for growth with the Management majors. Committee members offered
several minor corrections to the handout.
4) Core Outcomes Discussion- Christoph Steinbruchel joined the Committee to provide some
background information on the development of the Core Outcomes document. The Faculty
Senate had a similar discussion. Christoph indicated that he believes there is a need for this
document. He’s not sure if this document should include details on how to implement the
outcomes or if the implementation should be part of a follow-up process. A lengthy discussion
included the following points:
 M.Wozny said there were concerns about hidden agendas, intended or not.
 The outcomes provide sufficient latitude for the individual programs.
 Dick Smith noted that we need to be able to measure outcomes. ABET requires direct
performance measurements.
 A. Hirsa asked why we need to do this. The document is contextual and will be interpreted
differently by each department. It can easily mean different things depending on the
program.
 Performance measures must be developed by the individual departments for their programs.
 D. Hess expressed concern that an external body (Middle States) is dictating how and what
we do. The FSCC can say no. He suggested a distributional approach rather than an
outcomes approach.
 J. Durgee voiced support for the breadth in the outcomes. He sees a 3 credit hour course
system as important.
 W. Morris suggested using the term “goals” instead of outcomes.
 S. Wait recommended moving slowly until we hear back from the Middle States evaluation
team.
 The charge to the FSCC from the Faculty Senate is to present them with a revised document
to bring to the faculty for a vote. The Committee generally agreed that the document is not
ready for a faculty vote.
 J. Deery pointed out that we have required courses but lack the rationale behind the
requirements.
 L.Odell sees a number of things that make sense in the document. It’s going to be
important to allay the concerns of the faculty.
 Rensselaer is going to have to demonstrate that our students have a unique expertise that
gives them a competitive advantage.
 Christoph doesn’t see this as a way for administration to “take over” the curriculum.
The discussion will continue at a future meeting.
-2-