Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee
Minutes from the December 8, 2004 Meeting
Present:
June Deery
Jeff Durgee
Mike Goldenberg
Amir Hirsa
Ted Krueger
Sharon Kunkel
Lee Odell
Dave Spooner
Christoph Steinbruchel, chair
Dick Smith
Sam Wait
Chris McDermott
1) The minutes from the meeting of November 24, 2004 were approved
unanimously with one correction noted: On page 1, item 4, correct thesis to theses.
2) Orientation of Faculty Senate (FS) activities- C. Steinbruchel affirmed the FSCC actions
regarding the Biology course requirements at the last meeting. The FS has decided to do
just the opposite. It will bring a motion to the entire faculty asking them to approve a
requirement for a depth requirement in the Science Core. Committee members had many
questions. D. Smith asked for clarification on the motion and how it will be worded. C.
Steinbruchel asked the FS to make sure the wording of the motion is sent out early enough
for the faculty to have time to consider it. The catalog deadlines are an issue. The FS wants
to formalize the depth requirement in science in time to include it in the catalog. T. Krueger
asked if the outcome was less important than establishing the procedure and process. C.
Steinbruchel believes the vote will remove the ambiguity.
C. Steinbruchel informed the Committee that he did send the Provost the criteria for a good
Academic Integrity (AI) statement. However, the Provost did not want to list the various
infractions. As a result, the Provost will not include this information in his semester memo.
Chair Steinbruchel asked us to move on to other business.
3) School of Science- S. Wait presented a new course, BIOL 4XXX- Environmental Biology.
The course was approved with one abstention.
4) School of Humanities and Social Science- Lee Odell presented information on the
Communication Intensive proposal. He indicated that it’s clear to H&SS that they need a
director of the Writing Center. The Committee’s discussion included the following:






The technology needs noted in the 11/24/04 proposal are ongoing.
In the Communicative Competencies memo, the Committee suggested including format and
understanding to item 3 in the reference to visual information.
Lee clarified that in item 4 oral communication is implied.
C. McDermott suggested building the argument for a webmaster and a web page to make
it stronger.
The webmaster and the director are 2 different positions.
Lee indicated that the School wants to provide targeted guidelines for the individual schools
to develop courses within the majors.
Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee










Minutes from December 8, 2004
A. Hirsa suggested that too detailed procedures for revisions and individual courses won’t
work for every class.
The Committee discussed the importance of feedback in the writing process.
Any language addressing ESL needs? This is important especially for graduate students.
Resources to help special populations may need to be added as well as courses for doctoral
students ( i.e. how to write a thesis).
L. Odell emphasized the Writing center cannot provide an editing service. It can provide
specific help and tailor it to courses. The goal is to have the Writing Center become a
Communication Center.
The process must include an ongoing review of communication intensive courses.
It’s important to include a communication intensive course early in the student’s program
and emphasize the importance in a Rensselaer education and their career. Perhaps a
provision should be added so the student must take a course in the first 2 years. Advisers
will need to stress the importance at SO and this information should be included in the
messages from admissions and their recruiting activities.
The Committee suggested revised item C of the Recommendation from the Task Force on
Communication to read (These courses will emphasize written, oral and/or visual
communication). Also item D, add “Opportunities to provide feedback on substantive
work”.
Assessment of resources, this memo does not include a recommendation for a Writing
Director but it probably should be included here as well.
What’s next? The Committee suggested forwarding the recommendations and
competencies to the FS. L. Odell will provide the revised recommendations write a brief
introductory paragraph with revisions and send it on to C. Steinbruchel to be forwarded to
the FS. A motion to forward to the FS subject to the changes we recommended
was approved unanimously. Lee thanked the FSCC for their help and support.
It’s important for John Harrington to include the proposal and resource assessment in his
Performance Plan. C. Steinbruchel would like to have a presentation ready for the first
Senate meeting in the spring 2005.
2