Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee
September 29, 2004
Present:
Jeff Durgee
Mike Goldenberg
Chris McDermott
Lee Odell
Sharon Kunkel
June Deery
Guests:
Jim Zappen
Bob Messler
Christoph Steinbruchel, chair
Sam Wait
Ted Kreuger
Dick Smith
1) The minutes from the 9/15/04 meeting were approved unanimously.
2) Lee Odell presented the recommendations from the Task Force on Communication. L. Odell
organized this Task Force to include representation from each school. L. Odell provided some
background on the work of the Task Force including a survey sent to Rensselaer graduates.
The survey included questions about the technical knowledge from courses, ability to analyze
and solve problems; ability to lead (i.e. make decisions and motivate others and ability to
communicate orally and in writing, % of time spent in writing hard-copy or on-line documents
and how many oral presentations. The results of the survey underscore the importance of
communication for our graduates.
The Task Force identified 4 competencies in communication for all Rensselaer graduates.
Communicative Competencies
1. Understand the context in which they are communicating
2. Organize their work
3. Develop content appropriately
4. Edit their written work carefully
The Task Force developed the following recommendations:
Recommendations
1. Eliminate the current writing requirement
2. Replace the designation “writing intensive” with the term “communication intensive”
3. Require all undergraduates to take at least two communication intensive courses, at least
one of which will be in their major
4. Establish criteria for designating a course “communication intensive”
a. 3 graded assignments requiring formal presentations in written, oral and/or visual
media
b. substantial portion of the course based on the extent to which presentations
display communicative competencies
c. Formative feedback from instructor
5. Regularly review syllabi and grading policies of all communication intensive courses
6. Support the writing center so that it can develop:
a. Web-based modules
b. Materials to support the work of faculty teaching communication intensive courses
c. Instructional resources to help students with oral and visual communication as well
as with writing
Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee











Minutes from 9/29/04
A lengthy discussion followed L. Odell’s presentation. There was widespread support and
endorsement of the recommendations however several issues were discussed including the
following:
How do we incorporate the courses in the curriculum?
It will come down as a matter of resources so this needs to be a major campus-wide
initiative?
Yes it’s important, how will the instructor of a course for majors be able to incorporate
this into one of their courses?
Move forward, can’t pass on to the writing center?
Can we provide a template to instructors so they begin using the right language,
emphasizing the same concerns?
It’s important to act on this?
How will we handle transfer students and IB and/or AP credit?
Faculty need to learn it as well, in the long run it will make their job easier?
Issue of the level- first year? or Senior year? The senior capstone is not the place, it’s
too late. The capstone should not be the one that satisfies the requirement?
Believes it has to happen quickly in a student’s college career ?
Can this be implemented in the H&SS courses in the first year? Things slip over the
years due to lack of resources?
C. Steinbruchel urged the Committee to move as expediously as possible to approve the
recommendations as presented. The Committee discussed options to move the proposal forward.
Of utmost concern is the resource implications that the proposal has, not just on H&SS but on all
the departments. T. Apple suggested sending the proposal to the Planning and Resource
Committee for their review. He asked if they would infringe on the academic freedom of the
faculty.
C. Steinbruchel doesn’t believe that the recommendations will infringe on academic freedom. The
departments will need to decide how the communication intensive components get incorporated
into the courses in the major.
The Committee generally agreed that it will take a united campus effort to get the resources
needed. L. Odell emphasized that it’s not just an H&SS resource issue. Implementation of the
recommendations will require resources for all departments.
J. Deery recommended that the FSCC endorse the communicative competencies. This
motion was approved unanimously.
The next motion to recommend the implementation of the first five recommendations
(see numbered list above) was also approved unanimously.
After some discussion on how to move this forward, the FSCC unanimously approved a
motion to:
a) Endorse recommendation # 6
b) Ask L. Odell’s task force to flesh out the details of recommendation # 6
c) Ask the task force to address the resource implications of all 6 recommendations
(L. Odell will change the name of the Writing center to the Communication Center)
2
Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee
Minutes from 9/29/04
The Committee stressed the importance of having the resource implications addressed at the
beginning of the process. All agreed that it was important to involve the Student Senate in the
discussion. C. Steinbruchel suggested bringing recommendations to the Faculty Senate and
Student Senate at the same time.
3) School of Science- S. Wait presented the course deletion for CHEM 2270 Intro to Organic
Chemistry. He checked with the department and reported the deletion will have no impact on
the Chemical or Environmental engineers. Also presented for information were course changes
for:
CHEM 2230 Organic Chemistry Lab I
description change
CHEM 2240 Organic Chemistry Lab II
description change
4) Update from the Faculty Senate (FS) on the Core Outcomes- C. Steinbruchel reminded the
Committee that last Spring, the FSCC presented the FS with some alternatives on how to
approach moving forward with the Core Outcomes.
The FS has responded and in turn has asked the FSCC to consolidate the 22 bullets to 7 or 8
items and resubmit them. C. Steinbruchel distributed a handout with his first attempt at
consolidating the original 22 bullets. This request sparked a lively discussion. The Committee
generally agreed that we need to address this issue forcefully. It’s important not to lose the
specificity of the outcomes by consolidating them. We don’t want the outcomes watered down
in a consolidation process. C. Steinbruchel noted that the departments will have flexibility in
how the they are incorporated into the requirements for their majors. He’ll forward the
communication he’s received from the FS, will ask them to finalize his appointment as chair of
the FSCC and he’ll send out the original 22 outcomes as they appeared on the ballot. The
Committee briefly discussed other strategies on how to get the process moving. More to
come on this issue at a future meeting.
3