Core Curriculum Review Committee Minutes
Wednesday, September 10, 2014
Raynor, Room 301
Attendance. Wadsworth, Sanders, Ball, Babikov, Barrington, LaBelle, Wreen, PenningtonCross, Feldner, Olsen, Paxton, Belknap, McAvoy, Krajewski, Su, Jones.
The meeting came to order at 3:30pm.
Reflection provided by Sarah Wadsworth.
Old Business.



The assessment of the 2013-1204 Integrated Core Learning Outcomes through senior
experiences and capstone courses is complete. This is the end of the pilot program.
The assessment reports for the 2013-2014 knowledge areas Science and Nature, Individual
and Social Behavior, and Theology, are complete. They will be discussed at a future CCRC
meeting.
The assessment of the knowledge areas Literature and Performing Arts, Diverse Cultures,
and Histories of Cultures and Societies is set for 2014-2015 academic year.
New Business.




This is the last year Su will serve as the Director of the University Core of Common
Studies. During the Spring semester, he will assist in the transition to the new director.
Su described the process for the Program Review for the Core of Common Studies set for
Fall 2014.
During the October 8, 2014, CCRC meeting, the CCRC members will have the opportunity
to talk with the outside reviews of the Program Review.
Su provided the committee with the 2014 Self-study for the Program Review. The
committee broke up into small groups to discuss the Self-study. Several suggestions were
made for the document. Su will make changes, and send the revised document to the
committee later in the evening.

For the next CCRC meeting, Su asked the committee members to think about potential
questions/comments they might have for the outside reviews at the October 8, 2014,
meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:00pm.
Respectively submitted, Rebecca Sanders.
Core Curriculum Review Committee Minutes
Wednesday, September 24, 2014
Raynor, Room 301
Attendance: McAvoy, Belknap, Wadsworth, Babikov, Jones, Mattox, Sanders, Olsen, Wreen, La
Belle, Barrington, Krajewski, Su, Ball, Pennington-Cross, Feldner.
The meeting came to order at 3:30pm.
Reflection was offered by A. Ball.
Welcome to Mickey Maddox.
Minutes for Sept. 10 were approved without changes.
Reminder about the external review on campus.
Ongoing Business
John Su proposed to come out with a list of bullets to help the reviewers in writing their review.
Something we want them to reflect on. Key points about our report, placed in perspective. Four
groups were formed for discussions. The following suggestions were offered:


What is their opinion on integration? Is it feasible for a core that we have? How it should
be done?
The writing qualities of students (in the capstone courses) is not up the desired level. Should
this experience come from the core? How this is related to our finding that only 5% of
rhetoric courses are taught by regular tenured faculty?







What is the meaning of disconnect between the committee, where the desire to make
substantial changes to our core is significant, and the statistics data, which indicate that
75% of respondents were satisfied by the core?
Our alums at the Board of Trustees emphasized the importance of leadership development.
Should this be in our core? It is there to a significant extend, but not explicitly.
Integration between curricular and co-curricular activities. May be leadership development
can happen during the co-curricular activities on the campus. Are there such activities?
The question of teaching by part-timers was raised again. It is different in different units.
Some colleges benefit from this, and do a good job of bringing outside teachers and their
expertise to campus. Is there a financial component of the problem? Should we require that
the core is taught by regular faculty, while the adjuncts teach the upper division courses?
Integration again, vertical vs horizontal. Our core is multidisciplinary. Should we require
that all core courses overlap (horizontally) to some extend?
Complexity. Our core is complex, because it is used by so many different colleges.
Should we analyze the learning outcomes, assess the core, and start thinking about
adjusting or redoing it? Or making more substantial changes?
John Su will prepare a list of these bullets and sent to everyone.
Updates
We are still looking for new director of the core committee. Everyone is encouraged to
propose suitable candidates.
New Business
From last year we have three assessment reports and have to form sub-committees to work on
them. The use of Google Docs is proposed. Committee chairs proposed and agreed:
 Theology -- Mickey Maddox;
 Science and Nature – Dmitri Babikov;
 Individual and Social Behavior – Lowell Barrington.
On these reports, we will be voting to accept what was done, not to approve.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:50pm.
Respectively submitted, Dmitri Babikov.
Core Curriculum Review Committee
Wednesday, 10/22/14
3:30-5:00 PM
Raynor 301
Minutes
Minutes: McAvoy
Attendance: LaBelle, Wadsworth, Sanders, Babikov, Ball, Barrington, Belknap, Feldner, Jones
Krajewski, McAvoy, Paxton, Pennington-Cross, Su, Wreen
No minutes to approve.
Updates:
1. Follow up to external reviewer visit: The external reviewers thought we were forthcoming
and helpful. The meeting to review the report with the University Program Review
Committee is the second week of Nov.
Discussion: Once again several committee members wondered if we could table the approval
of new courses for the Core until the recommendations and direction for the CCRC is
completed. Dr. Su reiterated that Dr. Meyer felt that tabling the process would create the
impression that we were prejudging the outcome of the review.
Ongoing business:
1. Assigning subcommittees to examine knowledge area assessment summaries:
o individual and social behavior (attachment 3): Barrington, Ball, Pennington-Cross
o science and nature (attachment 4): Babikov, Olson, Paxton
o theology (attachments 5 and 6): La Belle, Mattox, Reim
The reviewers are expected to review material and vote only to accept report materials
undertaken in good faith to determine if the degree of learning was nothing, moderate, or
something.
New business:
Discussion of assessment plans for academic years 2015-16 and 2016-17: Dr. Su suggests that
we take data from 3-4 more highly populated core courses and examine whether the course is
informing the knowledge area. Then pick one knowledge area and have the faculty from that
department do the assessment and ask that they design an activity whose measurement has an
actionable result. If we agree then Dr. Su will write a formal proposal and consult with Dr.
Meyer & Dr. Ronco. Members queried as to what would happen when there is new leadership
to the action plan for 2015-16 and 2016-17 and Dr. Su thought it would remain in place.
Suggestions by committee members:
A committee member suggested we examine whether full-time faculty or adjuncts are achieving
the learning outcomes. Another member suggested we follow one of the external reviewers
suggestion that she and SF faculty are doing and that is to go back and investigate if courses that
have been approved for the Core are indeed meeyting the leatrning outcomes. Another
suggestion was to focus on the major weaknesses identified in the survey: writing, research,
citing appropriately.
Several committee members suggested we examine integration since the committee thinks that is
a strong weakness of the current Core. One suggestion was to bring together faculty from the
knowledge areas within their own departments to discuss if they feel the Learning Outcomes are
meaningful and measurable assessment, which was done at the inception of the Core. Their
members suggested that such discussions could open up communication between faculty across
departments, too.
1. Assigning subcommittees to examine course proposals for inclusion into the UCCS:
Belknap, Jones, McAvoy
2.
o HEAL 1400—Veteran Health and Culture (attachment 7)
o ITAL 3210—The Southern Question and the Italian Experience of Emigration to
America (attachments 8 and 9)
The next meeting will be Wednesday, 11/5, 3:30-5:00 PM in Raynor 301
Core Curriculum Review Committee
Wednesday, 11/05/14
3:30-5:00 PM
Raynor 301
Minutes
Minutes: LaBelle
Reflection: Feldner
Attendance: Babikov, Ball, Barrington, Feldner, Jones, Krajewski, LaBelle, Mattox, McAvoy,
Olson, Paxton, Pennington-Cross, Su, Wadsworth, Wreen
Minutes approved with following corrections: Olson and Mattox absent. Remove attributional
names from text of minutes.
Updates:
2. Program Review Council meeting (F 11/7, 9-10 a.m., Zilber 470) cancelled, new date
pending.
3. Search process for Director of University Core of Common Studies deadline is November
10th. Search committee has met.
New Business
1. Discussion of transfer policy (attachment sent 11-4-14) based on the CTS system at the
university level. Concerns expressed in regard to suitability of content of transferred
courses to meet core learning outcomes and whether such courses are equivalent to
CCRC-approved courses for the nine knowledge areas. The question was raised whether
this policy would be acceptable to the committee including allowing the UCCS director
to evaluate transfer courses as requested. Due to time constraints, it may be impractical
for the CCRC to evaluate such courses. Another consideration is the central purpose of
the CCRC to review courses proposed for approval in the core and not review of course
transfer for individual students. In an event, the UCCS director should consult with the
appropriate faculty members for input regarding the suitability of the transfer course to
meet core learning outcomes. Another issue raised was maintaining the integrity of the
core.
2. A motion was made to inform the Provost that the CCRC supports the proposed policy in
concept although the committee has concerns about some points of procedural clarity that
need to be addressed.
Ongoing business:
1. Discussion of knowledge area assessment summaries
a. CCRC voted unanymously to ACCEPT summary on individual and social
behavior (attachment 3) Some concerns for transference of grades as indicators of
assessment instead of a rubrical measurement. Need for course-based assessments
by outside scorers. If we continue to use course-based assessment instead of
learning outcome or knowledge area basis, internal scoring is problematic.
b. Vote to ACCEPT summary on science and nature (TABLED until next meeting at
request of subcommittee)
c. CCRC voted unanymously to ACCEPT summary and report on theology
2. Discussion of the following course proposals for inclusion into the UCCS were TABLED
until next meeting:
a. for the diverse cultures knowledge area, HEAL 1400—Veteran Health and
Culture
b. for the diverse cultures knowledge area, ITAL 3210—The Southern Question and
the Italian Experience of Emigration to America
3. Ideas for assessment plans for academic years 2015-16 and 2016-17 will need to be
discussed at a future meeting. Vice Provost would be willing to review a proposal
especially since HLC will be revisiting. Some discussion began about the importance of
continuing assessment data collection while developing an action plan to implement
changes suggested in reports from previous assessment. Director asked members to begin
considering how this migh be developed more at next meeting.
4. Discussion of ICLO senior experience/capstone pilot study assessment (TABLED until
next meeting due to time constraints)
The next meeting will be Wednesday, 11/19, 3:30-5:00 PM in Raynor 301
Core Curriculum Review Committee
Wednesday, 11/09/14
3:30-5:00 PM
Raynor 301
Minutes
Minutes: Paxton
Reflection: Olson
Attendance: Babikov, Ball, Jones, Krajewski, LaBelle, Mattox, McAvoy, Olson, Paxton,
Pennington-Cross, Su, Wadsworth, Wreen, Sanders, Balkamp
Prior meeting minutes approved
Updates:
4. Program Review Council meeting rescheduled for 12/3/14, 9-10 a.m., Zilber 470.
Follow-up meeting with provost scheduled for 12/9/14.
5. Search process for Director of University Core of Common Studies underway.
6. McAvoy is co-leading a Ignatian Pedagogy course; described as a blended course (5
online classes plus a 2 day retreat at the end).
7. Plan for subsequent CCRC meetings
o Ongoing assessment: plan TBD; if we use a different approach CCRC needs a
plan by January 2015 (this will be the primary task of the next 1-3 meetings)
 To help with this, CCRC is going to invite representatives from the
various knowledge areas to connect with us (starting with rhetoric, then
mathmatical reasoning; will obtain various syllabi from faculty teaching
the various courses
o Dr. Sharon Ronco will be invited to the next meeting to discuss our plan moving
forward regarding assessment and core revision
 CCRC will also incorporate input fom the Program Review Council as
well as the Interim Provost & President
Ongoing business:
5. Discussion of knowledge area assessment summaries
a. CCRC discussion regarding assessment summary for Science & Nature
i. Assessment was done by Biology, Chemistry, & Physics
ii. Voting options were discussed and clarified
iii. Discussion on how to get a better assessment process & follow-through
ensued (not all measures were well-designed or executed)
iv. Voted unanimously to ACCEPT summary on Science & Nature with
Serious Recommendations for improvement; specific recommendations
were provided by Science & nature subcommittee leader
6. Discussion of the following course proposals for inclusion into the UCCS:
a. For diverse cultures knowledge area, HEAL 1400—Veteran Health and Culture
i. CCRC sub-group lead discussion; they didn’t feel the course as articulated
met all 3 learning outcomes (all 3 sub-group members voted not to accept
as currently stated)
1. Discussion on not meeting learning outcomes was broadly
discussed
2. CCRC vote: unanimously nay (1 nay vote by proxy)
b. For diverse cultures knowledge area, ITAL 3210—The Southern Question and the
Italian Experience of Emigration to America
i. CCRC sub-group lead discussion; sub-group supports inclusion
1. CCRC vote: 10 yea, 1 nay (by proxy vote), 2 abstensions
7. Discussion for assessment plans for academic years 2015-16 and 2016-17 ensued
a. Options include:
i. Start 4-year cycle over again (start with math/rhetoric) – current process
ii. CCRC Director vetted this process through Dr. Meyer & Ronco; focus
assessment around 1 knowledge area with actionable results (measure ½ to
1 learning outcome); the idea is that we would assess on a smaller scale
but have a more meaningful process
iii. Have conversation about learning outcome development; get stakeholders
that are teaching the classes to discuss developing meaningful learning
outcomes and thus more meaningful assessment; hopefully this would also
increase integration across the core (as articulated by various CCRC
members)
Note: Is there a possible hybrid process between #2 & 3 (as above)?
b. Strengths & Limitations to the 4-year cycle? Is there viability for continuing the
current process?
i. Strenghts
1. Efficiency
2. Experience with process for both the CCRC & within departments
(maybe less departmental resistance to process)
3. If there were assessment concerns by CCRC/Assessment Director,
it’s possible that the department had insight on correcting the issue
4. Better validity with results as we have additional data
ii. Limitations
1. The workload for the UCCS chair / departmental chairs is
considerable  we need to make the process more
functional/sustainable
c. Concluding Thoughts
i. If we can’t redo the Core, how do we better integrate the Core across
various courses?
ii. How do we articulate what a knowledge area means within a department
and across departments?
8. Discussion of ICLO senior experience/capstone pilot study assessment (TABLED until
next meeting due to time constraints)
The next meeting will be Wednesday, 12/3, 3:30-5:00 PM in Raynor 301
Core Curriculum Review Committee
Wednesday, 12/03/14
3:30-5:00 PM
Raynor 301
Minutes
In Attendance: Wadsworth, Sarah; Sanders, Rebecca; Ball, Alan; Babikov, Dmitri; Barrington,
Lowell; Pennington-Cross, Anthony; Feldner, Sarah Bonewits; Paxton, Robert; Belknap, Ruth;
McAvoy, Maureen; Olson, Lars; Wreen, Michael; Krajewski, Richard; LaBelle, Jeffrey; Mattox,
Mickey; Su, John; Sturgal, Tracey; Sorby, Angela; Ronco, Sharron
Meeting called to order at 3:30 PM by John Su.
Reflection by Ruth Belknap.
Tracey Sturgal (Communication) and Angela Sorby (First Year English) talked about the courses
approved for the rhetoric knowledge area. They focused on the course assignments. There was a
broad based discussion about how science writing could be incorporated into the writing
assignments. Attention was paid to lab reports, for example. The importance of echoing the
language used in the courses was stressed. There was also a discussion of the need for more fulltime instructors instead of part-time adjuncts.
John Su then moved the agenda to focus the committee’s time on options for assessment. Three
options were discussed in the prior meeting (see prior minutes). Sharron Ronco indicated that the
committee should focus on a research question about the core and needs to use course based
evidence or artifacts from the students to answer the question. There ensued a very long
discussion on a wide variety of approaches and what the research question could be. No
conclusion was reached. A group of 3 volunteered to address the topic and narrow down the
research topic.
The meeting adjourned at 5PM
Minutes submitted by Anthony Pennington-Cross
Core Curriculum Review Committee
Wednesday, 1/14/15
3:30-5:00 PM
Raynor 301
MINUTES
In Attendance: Babikov, Dmitri; Ball, Alan; Barrington, Lowell; Belknap, Ruth Ann; Jones,
Richard; Krajewski, Richard; LaBelle, Jeffrey; Mattox, Mickey; McAvoy, Maureen; Olson,
Lars; Paxton, Robert; Pennington-Cross, Anthony; Sanders, Rebecca; Su, John (partial);
Wadsworth, Sarah.
Meeting called to order at 3:30 PM by Lars Olson.
Reflection by Richard Jones.
Approval of minutes:
1. Minutes approved unanimously.
Updates:
1. Core Director search: interviews will occur during the final week of January, with the
goal of naming the next Core director in March. John Su informed the committee by
email that he is being considered for a second term as Core Director.
2. Draft report from Program Review Committee has been circulated to CCRC committee
members by email. This draft is not to be circulated outside the CCRC.
Ongoing business:
1. [none]
New business:
1. Discussion of proposed assessment plans for AY 2015-16 and 2016-17.
o Break-out groups discussed pros and cons of two proposals: one submitted by
Belknap, McAvoy, and Wadsworth (BMW plan) and one submitted by Feldner
and Barrington (FB plan). Several voiced view that the FB plan is more ambitious
and addresses a crucial problem (integration) but that implementation would be
more difficult. The reiterative process of the BMW plan was generally seen as an
advantage.
o General discussion of the two proposals followed. After brief consideration of the
possibility of implementing both plans, the BMW plan emerged as the apparent
preference.
o Barrington moved that the CCRC implement the BMW plan with the revision that
it would start with a pilot study in Fall 2015. Motion seconded by PenningtonCross.
o After brief discussion of the proposed emendation, Committee members voted
unanimously in favor of the Belknap, McAvoy, Wadsworth proposal.
2. Brief discussion of Arts & Sciences College Curriculum and the practice of implementing
college-wide lists of Core requirements.
The meeting adjourned at 4:47 PM.
Minutes submitted by Sarah Wadsworth.
Core Curriculum Review Committee
Wednesday, 1/28/15
3:30-5:00 PM
Raynor 301
MINUTES
In Attendance: Babikov, Dmitri; Barrington, Lowell; Belknap, Ruth Ann; Jones, Richard;
Krajewski, Richard; Mattox, Mickey; McAvoy, Maureen; Olson, Lars; Paxton, Robert;
Sanders, Rebecca; Su, John; Wadsworth, Sarah; Feldner, Sarah
Meeting called to order at 3:30 PM by John Su.
Reflection by Rebecca Sanders.
Approval of minutes:
2. Minutes from 1/14/15 were not voted on.
Updates:
3. Core Director search: interviews will occur during the final week of January, with the
goal of naming the next Core director in March. John Su informed the committee that he
is being considered for a second term as Core Director.
Ongoing business:
2. Assessment of learning outcomes during AY 2015-16
o Gary Meyer’s comments regarding assessment were delivered by the CCRC chair
(open to various ideas but what is done needs to be able to answer HLC; some
component of assessment of various Core learning outcomes should take place)
o Sharon Ronco joined the meeting and gave her impression of the draft proposal
previously submitted; discussion and clarification ensued; there were concerns
that there was not enough concrete plans in the draft proposal
o Long discussion of the current assessment process ensued
o Sharon Ronco suggested to pursue John Su’s original assessment plan (assess a
small number of frequently taken classes and focus on the knowledge areas, not
ILCOs); we could also continue to implement the current draft proposal put forth
by CCRC to focus on faculty focus groups in order to get information that may
shape the Core revision)
o John Su will met with Gary Meyer & Sharon Ronco to get better clarity on what
is expected for HLC; will focus on rhetoric/math and John Su will start initial
discussions with faculty who teach Core classes (i.e. what’s unique about your
class given that it’s in the Core)
New business:
3. Changes to Theology curricula
o Revision to THEO 1001 to include variable subtitle
 Proposed plan was submitted by THEO and distributed to CCRC members
prior to meeting; John Su reiterated the main points of the plan –
discussion then ensued and was then approved unanimously
o Renumbering of selected 2000 level courses to 3000 level
 Proposed plan was submitted by THEO and distributed to CCRC members
prior to meeting; John Su reiterated the main points of the plan –
discussion then ensued and was then approved unanimously
o THEO 2210 name change
 Proposed plan was submitted by THEO and distributed to CCRC members
prior to meeting; John Su reiterated the main points of the plan –
discussion then ensued and was then approved unanimously
The meeting adjourned at 4:55 PM.
Minutes respectfully submitted Robert Paxton.
Core Curriculum Review Committee
Wednesday, 2/11/15
3:30-5:00 PM
Raynor 301
MINUTES
In Attendance: Babikov, Dmitri; Ball, Alan; Barrington, Lowell; Belknap, Ruth Ann; Feldner,
Sarah; Jones, Richard; Krajewski, Richard; LaBelle, Jeff; Mattox, Mickey; McAvoy, Maureen;
Olson, Lars; Paxton, Robert; Pennington-Cross, Anthony; Sanders, Rebecca; Su, John;
Wadsworth, Sarah
Meeting called to order at 3:30 PM by John Su.
Reflection by John Su.
Approval of minutes:
3. Minutes from 1/28/15 were approved.
Updates:
4. John Su congratulated committee members Ruth Ann Belknap and Mickey Mattox on
promotion to full professor.
5. Core Director search: John Su informed the committee that he has been asked to serve a
second term as Core Director and has accepted.
Ongoing business:
3. Assessment of learning outcomes during AY 2015-16.
o John Su announced that the CCRC’s proposed assessment plan can be done as a
supplement to another round of assessment of student learning using the existing
learning outcomes. Discussion followed.
o Motion to put ICLOs #1, 3, and 4 in abeyance for the purposes of assessment,
focusing the assessment of the ICLO #2. Passed unanimously.
o Additional discussion on knowledge area learning outcomes followed.
o Motion to engage in a more targeted assessment of knowledge area learning
outcomes for Mathematical Reasoning and Rhetoric for 2015-16 and make the
more targeted option available to Diverse Cultures and Literature/Performing Arts
for 2014-15. Passed unanimously.
4. Discussion of Core review process.
o John Su provided an overview of the next steps in the process of Core Curriculum
review.
o Tentative plan is for three options (proposed designs for the Core) to be
developed by the end of 2015-16. Academic Senate would recommend one of
these plans, and then the more specific details will be finalized. The final form of
any revisions to the Core would be determined by fall 2016 in order for the
revised Core to be in place for the 2017-18 academic year.
New business:
4. Identification of sites for ICLO assessment for Spring 2015 semester.
o Focus would be on ICLO#2.
o Need at least one course from each College. Each participating instructor will take
one writing assignment, scan it, and send it to John Su.
o Discussion followed on possible courses.
5. Transfer course policy.
o John Su initiated a discussion on giving the UCCS Director the authority to assign
knowledge area credit for transfer/study abroad courses.
o Limited to courses that do not already match an existing MU course.
The meeting adjourned at 4:53 PM.
Minutes respectfully submitted by Lowell Barrington.
Core Curriculum Review Committee
Wednesday, 2/25/15
3:30-5:00 PM
Raynor 301
MINUTES
In Attendance: Babikov, Dmitri; Ball, Alan; Barrington, Lowell; Belknap, Ruth Ann; Feldner,
Sarah; Jones, Richard; LaBelle, Jeff; Mattox, Mickey; Olson, Lars; Paxton, Robert; Sanders,
Rebecca; Su, John; Wadsworth, Sarah.
Meeting called to order at 3:30 PM by John Su.
Reflection by Mickey Mattox.
Updates:
Su reported on a meeting with Gary Myer in which he approved our plan for assessing ICLO 2 in
this year’s assessment. ICLOs 1, 3, and 4 will be placed in abeyance.
Su reviewed the plan to assess ICLO 2 by collecting artifacts (papers) from courses across the
colleges. CCRC members are taking the lead in assuring that sufficient artifacts are collected to
reach the statistically significant threshold of more than 10%.
Approval of minutes:
4. Minutes from 1/28/15 were approved.
Ongoing business:
1. Identification of sites for ICLO assessment for spring 2015 semester (attachment 3)
o senior experience/capstone courses: instructor to volunteer to create a PDF of an
assignment to be submitted
o goal: at least one course per college; 10% of graduating class
2. Discussion of policy for UCCS Director to assign knowledge area credit to transfer/study
abroad courses (attachment 4)
o implementation: summer 2015
New business:
1. [none]
The next meeting will be Wednesday, 3/25, 3:30-5:00 PM in Raynor 301
The meeting adjourned at 4:53 PM.
Minutes respectfully submitted by Mickey Mattox.
Core Curriculum Review Committee
Wednesday, 4/8/15
3:30-5:00 PM
Raynor 301
MINUTES
In Attendance: Adams, Noel; Babikov, Dmitri; Ball, Alan; Barrington, Lowell; Belknap, Ruth
Ann; Jones, Richard; McAvoy, Maureen; Olson, Lars; Paxton, Robert; Pennington-Cross,
Anthony; Sanders, Rebecca; Su, John; Wadsworth, Sarah
Meeting called to order at 3:30 PM by John Su.
Reflection by Robert Paxton.
Approval of minutes:
5. Minutes from 2/15/15 were unanimously approved (LB motion, RP second).
Updates:
6. The revision process for the UCCS is moving forward. University leadership is working
on a charge for stakeholders, which is expected soon. One goal of the revision process is
make it inclusive where all stakeholders have a voice.
7. The Office of the Provost has requested a review of the policy for approving study abroad
courses that are not equivalent to a current core course approved by the CCRC. The
request was to make it more like the review process of courses for transfer students.
Ongoing business:
5. Collection of senior writing samples for assessment of ICLO #2.
CCRC members updated the committee on how writing samples were to be collected this
spring. Papers will be graded and encoded in the fall and the rhetoric units will be
included in the evaluation of the writing samples.
New business:
6. Two courses were brought before the CCRC for approval into the Core.
o ENGL 1301, Honors English 1, was proposed to satisfy a rhetoric requirement.
The subcommittee recommended that the course be approved. There was
discussion about how the situation is currently handled and implications for the
future. Content of the course was also discussed. John Su called the question and
asked for a hand vote. The proposal was unanimously approved.
o THEO 3100, A Faith Worth Dying For: Martyrs, Saints and Theology, was
proposed to satisfy a theology requirement. The subcommittee recommended that
the course be approved. After discussion, John Su called the question. The vote
was 9 for, 2 opposed, 2 abstentions. The proposal was approved.
7. Discussion of the role of the CCRC in the UCCS revision process.
o One discussion point centered on making sure all units within the university were
properly represented. Also, the committee discussed whether the current
membership could find a forum in the fall to reach out to each unit. It appears that
every unit can be quickly engaged through existing membership.
o There was discussion among committee members about how the CCRC can fill a
role in the UCCS revision process, given their expertise and representation among
the units.
8. Policy for approval of study abroad courses that do not overlap with existing courses.
o The CCRC considered the request by the Office of the Provost to simplify the
review process. The preference is that the policy be reconciled to be closer to the
policy for courses approved for transfer students.
o One issue is that requirements for UCCS courses are much more stringent than a
regular course, because the learning outcomes and other aspects of the course
need to be explicit. The CCRC considered whether a syllabus would work to
provide enough information.
The meeting adjourned at 4:58 PM.
Minutes respectfully submitted by Lars Olson.