CCRC AY 2013-14|1
Core Curriculum Review Committee
Wednesday, 9/11/13
3:30-5:00 PM
Raynor 301
Minutes
In Attendance: Ball, Babikov, Barrington, Belknap, Dabney, Feldner, Foster, McAvoy,
Olson, Sanders, Wadsworth, Wallace.
Meeting called to order at 3:30 PM by John Su. Reflection offered by John Su.
Minutes of 4/24/13 meeting approved.
Updates:
1. Program review to be revitalized, Spring 2015. Su has requested that the process
begin sooner.
2. Two knowledge areas to be assessed this academic year.
o Human Nature and Ethics (point person: Foster)
o Human Cultures and Societies (point person: Ball)
3. Higher Learning Commission (HLC) visit.
o Meeting with CCRC on Tues 10/1, 9-9:45 AM
4. American Association of Colleges and Universities (AACU) Summer Institute.
o CCRC members in attendance: Su, Feldner
New business:
1. Su briefed committee members on the University Core of Common of Studies
(UCCS) and Committee members discussed distinctiveness of Marquette’s Core.
Orientation to the Core included explanations of the following resources.
o UCCS website
o UCCS “talking points”
o Comparison of Core curricula
o Assessment plans
o 2013 CCRC report on models for increasing integration among courses
o AACU action plan
2. Su pointed committee members to CCRC Annual report 2012-13 with
hyperlinked Table of Contents for further information.
Upcoming meeting:
1. Committee members are to review Knowledge Area assessment plans before next
meeting.
2. Next meeting will feature presentation by Gary Meyer.
Meeting adjourned at 4:40 PM.
Minutes respectfully submitted by Sarah Wadsworth.
CCRC AY 2013-14|2
Next Meeting: 9/25/13 in Raynor 301.
CCRC AY 2013-14|3
Core Curriculum Review Committee
Wednesday, 9/25/13
3:30-5:00 PM
Raynor 301
Minutes
Minutes: McAvoy
Reflection: Sanders
Attendance: Ball, Barrington, Belknap, Dabney, Feldner, Foster, McAvoy, Olson, Sanders, Su,
Wadsworth, Wallace.
Meeting called to order at 3:30 PM by John Su. Reflection offered by Rebecca Dabney.
Minutes of 09/11/13 meeting approved.
New business:
1. Discussion on upcoming HLC reaccreditation visit
A. Vice Provost Gary Meyer and Senior Associate Vice President Toby Peters
Vice Provost Meyer stated that the CCRC committee has made more progress in a relatively
brief time period under the able leadership of John Su and the willingness of the committee to
assess the Core.
The two HLC representatives who will be meeting with us on Tuesday, Oct. 1, 2014 9-9:45 AM
in Raynor Beaumier suite B are Clare Etaugh from Bradley University and Carol-Ann Emmons
from Ilinois Institute of Technology.
Overarching messages: He advised that we should acknowledge Fr. Pilarz resignation and that
Fr. Wilde is interim and despite these changes the work goes on with very competent leadres
giuding us. Gary stated that when we meet to be honest about where we are at, we are glad they
are conferring with us, and we should feel free to ask them for assistance. Acknowledge that it is
CCRC AY 2013-14|4
not easy to assess ICLO’s and that a major part of the assessment process is learning what does
not work. Report that the University has made several attempts to assess the ICLO’s. He
suggested we be patient with ourselves as we did not start the assessment processs in earnest
until 2007. Most importantly, we are committeed to understanding what students are learning
and what it takes to produce a high quality education.
Probable Question:
Where are we at with the Core in that it is the basis for Jesuit education and assessing the Core
and how do we propose closing the loop?
Keep in mind:
History of HLC& CCRC:
2004: The first time the HLC reviewed the MU Core was in 2004 when assessment process was
course based. The HLC criticisized us for this saying you cannot assess a program by assessing
one course. therefore, they will want to know now, What do students learn from the Core and
how do we know they are learning?
2009: We made progress by defining the 9 knowledge areas.
While we believe the University has done an acceptable job defining the 9 knowledge areas, we
also acknowledge that the Core is not structured to be not taken in a progressive fashion and
students receive little guidance with that process. Likewise, the Core is not particularly
integrated either within or across knowledge areas. We admit that we do not know the effect or
outcomes on students from taking the Core.
2008-09: The Unviersity used “Who Counts Math Across the Curriculum for Global Learning”
funded by the FIPSE grant.
CCRC AY 2013-14|5
2008-2014: The Graduating senior survey provides indirect measures of student proficiency with
the ICLO’s.
2009-10: A multilple choice quiz was used on D2L but it was decided that this was not a valid
measure as there was no writing piece involved. All along the question was asked: How can we
do this better?
2012-13: Breakthroughs have occurred:
The University invests money in the assessment process i.e. hired a full-time assessment person,
graduate students to assist, designed technology to collect data, developed rubrics, and
standardized methodology.
As a result:





There are imbedded assignments in knowledge area courses intended to assist students to
achieve the ICLO’s.
There is a 4 year plan to assess the 9 Knowldege Areas and the cycle will be completed in
2014-15.
The CCRC reviews senior projects that are supposed to be meeting the ICLO’s and
identifies whether or not that appears to be happening.
The senior capstone assessment pilot was institued within programs to capture authentic
learning and measure the impact in which faculty from almost every unit have or will
participate and report out on the students’ achieving one or more of ICLO’s.
We have compared MU’s Core of Common Studies and ICLO’s with those from other
Jesuit and non-Jesuit Universities to determine the assessment processes they utilize and
how we might model our Core and ICLO processes after one of those.
BUT the question remains: How do we close the loop? How are we assessing what students
are are learning? If you don’t have a sound assessment process in place then what are you
going to do about it?
Answers: We can say we have a plan in place whereas before there has not been one in place.
We can articulate the findings from our work over the past two years, what changes have ensued,
and we are continually reviewing when & how to determine if these changes made a difference.
CCRC AY 2013-14|6
We should relate our work to the Program Reviews that have been expanded to include colleges
and non-academic units is scheduled to begin in spring 2014 and this is when the CCRC’s review
will be done. This process is much more strategic wherein 2-3 areas are examined within a
college or program in order to come away with useful, actionable, outcomes and includes a selfstudy where challenges are identified and how to addersss them.
Questions from CCRC members:
Lowell asked: Why do we call this a Core of Common Studies when all it appears to be is a
smaterring of 150 plus courses.
Lyle added: The 150 core courses are but a small percentage of the courses offered overall
through all of the undergraduate programs.
Gary answered: These courses are carefully reviewed by CCRC to determine if they meet the
ICLO’s or not. But we do not yet know if the knowledge areas are truly integrated in the core
courses because we haven’t found a reliable and vaild way to measure this yet.
Lowell asked: How is what we are doing different from the original course based assessment?
Gary answered: There are many courses across any one knowledge area with imbedded
assignments directly connected to ICLO’s along with rubrics. And now we can also rely on
capstone or senior projects to determine if the students are integrating knowledge and meeting
the ICLO’s.
Maureen asked: We investigated and identified models of Core of Commion Studies, ICLO’s
and assessment processes from other Universities (Jesuit & others) and passsed it on to you. We
were told the cost would be prohibitive and to wait. Are we at liberty to state this?
Gray answered:It would not be effective to adopt a new model until after we complete the
program reviews. And in reality we do need to do more and it is a budget issue i.e.
90 sections of capstone courses would cost 250K. The University would have to decide what
their priorities are so this effort could be funded.
CCRC AY 2013-14|7
The HLC discussion ended at 4:20 PM.
Ongoing business:
1. Su said we would discuss the Integrated Core Learning Outcome assessment update
(attachment 6) at our next meeting.
2. Su called our attention to UCCS timeline and self-study citations (attachment 3)
3. Discussion of knowledge area assessment report: Human Nature and Ethics (attachment
4) Foster (point person), Dabney, Belknap reported that theere was real progress with a
large sample of students, and only a minor question related to descriptors of below, at or
above mean rather than beow expected, expected, or above expected. The Committee
voted to ACCEPT knowledge area report
4. Discussion of knowledge area assessment report: Human Cultures and Societies. Mc
Avoy & Barrington reported that all three of us including Allan Ball concurred with
Sharon Ronco the University’s assessment director, who recommended that the report
should be sent back to Dan Miessner as she found the report is unacceptable on the
grounds that it did not provide the direct measures promised and the survey results did
not align with the knowledge area learning outcomes. The vote was tabled until our next
meeting as Allan Ball who chaired this group was not in attendance for the vote.
Meeting adjourned at 4:40 PM.
Minutes respectfully submitted byMaureen Mc Avoy.
The next meeting will be Wednesday, 10/9, 3:30-5:00 PM in Raynor 301
CCRC AY 2013-14|8
Core Curriculum Review Committee
Wednesday, 11/20/13
3:30-5:00 PM
Raynor 301
Minutes
In Attendance: Ball, Babikov, Barrington, Belknap, McAvoy, Olson, Paxton, Sanders,
Su, Wadsworth, Wallace.
Meeting called to order at 3:30 PM by John Su. Reflection offered by Belknap.
Minutes of 11/6/13 meeting to be approved by email.
Updates:
1. None.
Ongoing business:
1. Discussion of proposals for new UCCS courses:
o ENGL 2000 / 2010
 Su reported that in response to CCRC comments the English
Department has modified the proposal for ENGL 2000 to include a
second course, ENGL 2010. Offering two Core LPA courses at
2000 level will make course selection more transparent for Arts &
Sciences students, who are required to take a second LPA course.
Approval of the revision will be sought by vote at next (virtual)
meeting. Wadsworth (point person) elaborated on rationale for two
courses—ENGL 2000: Literature, History and Culture and ENGL
2010: Literature and Genre—which preserve the existing division
of 2000-level English courses into genre courses and historical
surveys while consolidating the existing array of ten discrete
courses.
o ENGL 4821
 Belknap (point person): subcommittee endorsed proposal. Review
and discussion. Proposal approved by vote.
o Hist 2001
 Ball (point person): explained rationale of replacing two honors
courses with one. Subcommittee recommended that proposal be
remanded to department for further elaboration and clarification of
how knowledge area learning outcomes will be addressed. CCRC
requests that course learning objectives be articulated in a
measurable fashion. Committee members voted for remand.
New business:
CCRC AY 2013-14|9
1. Pending program review, discussion of plans for collecting data next semester in
order to ensure that members are truly representatives of their units. Committee
members responded by turns to the following questions.
o How best to get input from colleges to CCRC members?
o How to improve lines of communication between CCRC representatives
and their respective units?
o Is there anyone else we need to include in data collection phase and how?
Channels of communication vary substantially by knowledge area and college,
depending on how many different departments contribute to a particular
knowledge area and whether the knowledge area has one or more departmental
“home.” Responses tended to focus on undergraduate curriculum committees
(Professional Studies, Nursing), assistant / associate deans from the colleges
(Nursing, Arts & Sciences, Health Sciences), program / department chairs (Health
Sciences, ISB, potentially Arts & Sciences), area meetings within the colleges
(potentially Arts & Sciences). Wallace reported that MUSG is divided into four
subcommittees, including an Academics subcommittee. Members considered the
possibility of having faculty and student meetings to discuss strengthsweaknesses-opportunities-threats as well as the value of reviewing core revisions
at peer institutions.
Particular challenges and concerns that surfaced during the discussion include the
following:
o Arts & Sciences represents 3 knowledge areas, with as many as 6 units
contributing to one knowledge area (LPA).
o Diverse Cultures includes an extensive array of courses scattered widely
across many departments in several colleges. There’s no “institutional
footprint,” i.e., no single department or college housing it.
 Should there be a separate committee with reps who meet with
instructors of DC courses?
 How to enable discussion of better ways to teach diversity? Would
it be possible, for example, to distribute learning outcomes across
the core?
o If channels of communication are organized along the lines of existing
knowledge areas, will that method of communication privilege the existing
structure to the extent that alternate models become difficult to envision /
implement?
o CCRC needs to think about how such conversations can be made
productive.
This discussion to be continued in future meetings.
Meeting adjourned at 4:38 PM.
Minutes respectfully submitted by Sarah Wadsworth.
Next Meeting: Wednesday, 12/4, to be conducted by email (ongoing business only).
C C R C A Y 2 0 1 3 - 1 4 | 10
C C R C A Y 2 0 1 3 - 1 4 | 11
Core Curriculum Review Committee
Wednesday, 10/04/2013
3:30-5:00 PM
Raynor 301
Minutes: Belknap
Attendance: Ball, Barrington, Belknap, Babikov, Dabney, Foster, Olson, Paxton, Sanders, Su
Meeting called to order at 3:30 PM by John Su
Minutes of 9/25/2013 approved by voice vote
Updates:
1. Dr. Linda Salchenberger Associate Provost for Panning and Budget will be at our next
meeting to discuss program review overview for next fall. Chair will send out SWOT
analysis before meeting to reflect on prior to discussion on program review.
2. Brief overview of HLC visit with CCRC, overall very positive and committee was
encouraged us to present our assessment method at an upcoming HLC conference.
Ongoing business:
5. Discussion of knowledge area assessment report: Human Cultures and Societies
A. subcommittee: Ball, Barrington, McAvoy
B. Ball – reporting for subcommittee, recommended remanding the assessment to the
dept for revision.
C. Committee voted to remand the assessment to the history department for revision.
Key items for revision include the need for a direct measure of student essays in
the review and the survey should align with the Knowledge Area Learning
outcomes. Su and assessment director to meet with history department for
consultation on changes needed on the assessment.
6. Discussion of Integrated Core Learning Outcome assessment update (attachment 4)
A. Small group discussions held to reflect on results of assessments done to date to
develop a preliminary decision as to whether or not we continue to use this
assessment method to measure student’s proficiency on Core Learning outcomes.
C C R C A Y 2 0 1 3 - 1 4 | 12
Key consideration - Certain outcomes had very small N’s, one measure
had n of 18.
B. Report of issues and questions identified in small grp discussions
i.
Ability to speak publicly and to write needs improvement
ii. Question: are we measuring endpoint proficiency or improvement while at
Marquette? Lars supports proficiency – assessment of improvement is
more difficult and by definition needs to have multiple data points in
students’ careers.
iii. CORE not clearly understood by students or faculty – suggest a more
intentional process in describing the CORE
iv.
ICLS #3 outcome measures difficult –
v.
Outcomes 3 and 4 had insufficient N for an adequate assessment
vi.
Outcomes 1 and 2 have very clear verbs that lead to measurement
vii.
Outcomes 3 and 4 verbs do not lend themselves to measurement
viii. Can we demonstrate knowledge transfer from one course to another? What
can we do to improve? How do we look at this?
ix. Are senior capstones really the best place to look when assessing Core
Curriculum outcomes?
x. Those teaching Core courses need to emphasize why the Core matters –
connecting content to the Core learning area.
i.
Discoveries from assessments to date:



We have discovered students are weak in oral communication and we
do not have a specific Core course that addresses this. Oral
communication is not captured in our outcome areas.
There is evidence in the assessemnt reports that students do not
understand the Core well
Reports also contain evidence that Core Outcomes 3 and 4 are
problematic and need to be reviewed/revised
Discussion: What can we do to improve ICLOs 3 and 4:





Look at verbs in stem of 3 and 4 – changing verbs might make assessment more precise
Word trancendent is problematic
Clarify how knowledge areas connect to specific parts of particular curriculum.
Constructing a logical argument was the lowest in Core math assessment last semester,
need to identify in which knowledge area this resides.
Barrington – perhaps what we need to not assess the knowledge area but to assess the
integration of learning
Discussion specific to ICLO #4 – How can we better assess #4?


Change verbs ie act as responsible…with respect…
Perhaps break it down into several levels
C C R C A Y 2 0 1 3 - 1 4 | 13

Where can we go to assess this? One possibility is Engineering capstone “Senior design”
which covers diversity, cultural understanding and similar concepts.
Question from Chair, There are two ways to addess the problem of how do we go forward to
continue the path of improving and measuring integration of CORE and major:


Decide we’ve done enough
Or, continue in same manner and assess more senior courses as we have done. In the past
this was voluntary and incentivised, which is costly. An alternative to incentive could be
a provost mandate that every college has to do this type of assessment. A different less
costly alternative could be a minimal honorarium for faculty who are involved which
would still need some political capital on provost part.
Held for further discussion:

Discuss how pre-test could be developed – maybe with pre-test could be essay written
after 1st year reading experience. Or pre and posttest with in department
Questions from today:
1. How important is longitudinal data to us endpoint or progress?
2. What possible ways are there to modify ICLO 3 and 4 to make them more measureable?
3. Are there connections of college or program specific measures with the core?
Adjourned 4:56
C C R C A Y 2 0 1 3 - 1 4 | 14
Core Curriculum Review Committee
Wednesday, 10/23/2013
3:30-5:00 PM
Raynor 301
Minutes: Olson
Attendance: Su, Babikov, Ball, Barrington, Belknap, Dabney, Feldner, McAvoy, Olson, Paxton,
Sanders, Wadsworth, Wallace, Guest: Linda Salchenberger
Meeting called to order at 3:31 PM by John Su.
John Su offered the reflection from an article in The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Ongoing business:
7. Dr. Linda Salchenberger, Associate Provost for Planning and Budget, presented an
overview of the program review process for the University. This was in the context the
committee's request of program review of the University Core of Common Studies
(UCCS).
A. The themes of data-driven, continuous improvement and how strategic planning
influences program review were discussed.
B. Dr. Salchenberger outlined the program review process for the committee:
i.
Provost summit with unit heads to identify the strategic focus of the
review. UCCS will have a summit in February 2014.
ii. Program self-study--the plan is to work over the Summer of 2014. Alex
Riley in OIRA can help collect data for these two steps.
iii. Internal and external review.
iv.
Action plan that will incorporate recommendations from reviewers if
strategic.
v.
Outcomes and follow-up.
vi.
A resources plan from the program review will be included in the Dean's
annual report.
8. Minutes of the meeting from 10/04/2013 were amended and approved by voice vote.
C C R C A Y 2 0 1 3 - 1 4 | 15
New business:
1. Dr. Su prepared a draft Strength-Weakness-Opportunity-Threat (SWOT) analysis
exercise for the committee. He made a SWOT table that was disseminated to the
committee. Committee members reviewed the table individually, then worked in small
groups to look for consensus opinions about the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and
threats in the UCCS in the context of its upcoming program review. The entire
committee then discussed the findings of the small groups. Dr. Su compiled the
reflections of the committee from this process.
2. New proposals for course listings in the UCCS were announced. Some committee
members asked whether new courses should be entertained in the year of program review
of the UCCS. Dr. Su agreed to speak with the Office of the Provost if the directive of the
committee should be altered and if new course approvals should be placed on hold for
this year.
Meeting was adjourned at 5:03pm.
Respectfully submitted,
LEO
C C R C A Y 2 0 1 3 - 1 4 | 16
Core Curriculum Review Committee
Wednesday, 11/06/2013
3:30-5:00 PM
Raynor 301
Minutes: Olson
Attendance: Su, Babikov, Ball, Barrington, Belknap, Dabney, Feldner, Olson, Sanders,
Wadsworth, Wallace, Wreen
Meeting called to order at 3:33 PM by John Su.
Announcements:
1. John Su spoke with the Gary Meyer, Vice Provost for Undergraduate Programs, about the
possibility of suspending approvals to the UCCS while we are going through program review.
Meyer said it was not appropriate at this time to put a moratorium on course approval. He
thought it may prejudge the outcome of the program review of UCCS.
2. John Su announced that there were 4 proposals for new courses not 6. The other two are
waiting until next semester.
Ongoing business:
1. The modification to English UCCS course work was discussed. This is to make only ENGL
2000 with many different sections in the core and remove other 2000-level English courses. The
2000 courses will all have a common format for literature foundations with many different
sections offering different types of literature. After discussion and questions, the motion to
approve was unanimously carried.
C C R C A Y 2 0 1 3 - 1 4 | 17
2. Psychology was proposing to remove PYSH courses 2101, 3101, 3120, 3201, 3210, 3220,
3401, 3501from the UCCS, because 1001 is already offered and a pre-requisite for 2101.
Nursing students will continue to take PSYC 1001 for their ISB requirement. Looking ahead, this
may be a problem in having students reduce choices in areas like diverse cultures that don't have
the same pre-requisite situation. After discussion the motion to approve was carried
unanimously.
3. Two other proposals for courses, ENGL 4281 and HIST 2001, were tabled, but subcommittees
gave updates.
4. CHEM 1080 was reviewed. The subcommittee endorsed it with minor revisions to the course
syllabus to reflect learning outcomes more explicitly. After discussion, the motion to approve
this new course for UCCS was unanimously approved.
.
New business.
Self-study needs to be written by Summer.
What kind of data do we need to do self-study?
Committee members address the issue of inviting external reviewers. Consensus was that having
reviewers from Jesuit backgrounds and national organizations of higher education would be
valuable. The suggestion was made to invite to external reviewers with core curriculum
experience: one from an AJCU institution and one from AACU.
New business:
C C R C A Y 2 0 1 3 - 1 4 | 18
3. Dr. Su announced that the UCCS program self-study will be written this summer. The
committee then discussed what kinds of information and data collection were needed for
this self-study. Ideas included information on course implementation, timing, frequency,
and longitudinal tracking. External review will be needed and the committee discussed
the qualities of an an external reviewer. Reviewers from AJCU and AACU peer
institutions were mentioned as was academic leaders who have been involved in core
development. The committee also pondered who from units around campus needed to be
engaged and how that could be implemented.
Meeting was adjourned at 5:03pm.
Respectfully submitted,
LEO
C C R C A Y 2 0 1 3 - 1 4 | 19
Core Curriculum Review Committee
Wednesday, 1/22/2014
3:30-5:00 PM
Raynor 301
Minutes: Babikov
Attendance:
Su, Babikov, Ball, Barrington, Belknap, Dabney, Feldner, McAvoy, Olson,
Pennington-Cross, Sanders, Wallace, Wreen
Meeting called to order at 3:30 PM by John Su.
Pennington-Cross offered the reflection from an article in The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Updates:
3. On status of ongoing assessment of knowledge areas. Three areas being assessed this
year: Theology, Science and Nature, and Individual and Social Behavior.
4. On status of ongoing ICLO pilot. The program includes 15 courses. This will be the final
year of the pilot study, because there are cheaper and more effective ways of assessing
student learning. There will be a new pilot project using graduate students to code student
artifacts later this semester.
5. On status of assessment of knowledge areas for academic year 2014-15.
Last two areas to assess: Literature & Performing Arts, and Diverse Cultures. According
to the policies we developed, Su will be contacting all department chairs and directors to
get assessment plans in place for the coming year.
6. On status of proposals for new UCCS courses. It was pointed out that the time to
add/remove courses is not good. Su promissed to convey these concerns to Vice Provost
Gary Meyer.
7. On meeting with chair of Program Review Committee (Salchenberger) and Vice Provost
for Undergraduate Programs and Teaching (Meyer). Plans are being drawn up for prereview data gathering this semester ahead of review this fall.
C C R C A Y 2 0 1 3 - 1 4 | 20
8. Announcement of pre-program review data collection to Deans Council and University
Academic Senate.
9. Excerpts from HLC 2013 site visit report were discussed. Sharron Ronco and Gary
Meyer have the entire report, if anyone is interested. We passed the review. Feldner
emphasized the role of Su, and Su thanked everyone for hard work.
New business:
1. Designing a plan for program review.
- Self-study to be written by June.
- Data collection should happen before our last meeting in May.
- Between now and April we should move fast.
Su went through the list of 10 items. Most of them have already been collected, but some
could be added to this list. Big question is what else needs to be on this plan? Three
groups of committee members discussed this, separately. It was proposed:
a) We need to see a distribution of students taking various courses in the core. There
may be a de facto core – the courses that majority of students take anyway.
b) More information on instructors, tenure track vs. visiting/adjunct/grad. students. How
well the instructors know what does it mean to teach a core course? Do they
emphasize the ICLOs? In syllabus and in lectures? This is a question of faculty
development.
c) How many credits are transferred to fulfill the core? How many students do this? Can
AP credits count for the core? How diluted has the core become due to these and
other possibilities?
Major question is do we really have a core, and do we want to have a real core?
Feldner – Is our core truly different from that of other institutions? In terms of
Philosophy and Theology - maybe yes. What about writing skills? Do we want to be just
like everyone else, or different (Ignatian, Jesuit?). We want to have a very distinct core!
One more data source – employee survey data from graduate schools, PhD programs.
2. Su asked everyone on this committee to participate in conversations with their unit
(colleges, departmens, schools) on issues about the core. Apr. 15 is deadline. Su also
asked everyone to mention if there are groups (other than those listed) to communicate
with.
C C R C A Y 2 0 1 3 - 1 4 | 21
Meeting was adjourned at 5:00 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Dmitri Babikov.
C C R C A Y 2 0 1 3 - 1 4 | 22
Core Curriculum Review Committee
Wednesday, 2/12/14
3:30-5:00
Raynor 301
Minutes: Wreen
The Meeting was called to order at 3:30 by Chair John Su.
In Attendance: Babikov, Barrington, Belknap, Dabney, Eckman, Feldner, McAvoy, Olson,
Paxton, Sanders, Su, Wadsworth, Wallace, and Wreen
Professor Ellen Eckman was introduced and welcomed to the Committee.
Professor Olson offered a reflection from Martin Luther King, Jr. in honor of the 105th
anniversary of the founding of the NAACP.
The minutes from the Committee meeting on January 22, 2014, were read and, with one small
addition, approved.
Updates
1. Ongoing Assessment. Status: The assessment of three knowledge areas--Theology,
Science and Nature, and Individual and Social Behavior---continues. The Committee
awaits some results.
2. ICLO Pilot. Status: The pilot study includes 15 courses. Four of the 15 results are in,
with more coming, including several from last year.
3. Assessment of Knowledge Areas during the 2014-2015 Academic Year. Status: Two
areas are to be assessed during the upcoming academic year, Literature & Performing
Arts and Diverse Cultures. The Chair of the Committee has contacted department chairs
and area representatives and briefed them about the upcoming assessment.
4. Proposals for New UCCS Courses. Status: The Chair conveyed to Vice Provost Gary
Meyer the Committee’s proposal that there be a moratorium on the approval of new
UCCS courses. The proposal was not approved by the Vice Provost.
C C R C A Y 2 0 1 3 - 1 4 | 23
Ongoing Business
1. Pre-Program Review Plan Overview for Spring 2014. Status: The Chair is in the
process of contacting colleges, groups, and organizations in an effort to gather data for
the self-assessment program review. The Chair has been, and will be, meeting with deans
and associate deans across the university, as well as with department chairs, unit
representatives, interested faculty, student organizations, and other groups.
New Business
1. Proposal. It was proposed that BISC 2015/2016, “Human Anatomy and Physiology for
the Health Sciences I/II,” be added to courses that fulfill the UCCS Science and Nature
knowledge area requirement. The course syllabus and proposal were discussed. By a vote
of 11 in favor, one opposed, and one abstention, the proposal passed.
2. Proposal. It was proposed that HIST 2001, “The World and the West,” be added to
courses that fulfill the UCCS History of Cultures and Societies knowledge area
requirement. The proposal and a revised statement of learning outcomes were discussed.
By a vote of 11 in favor and two abstentions, the proposal passed.
3. Internal Study: Questionnaire. Professor Barrington’s draft of a questionnaire
respecting the strengths and weaknesses of, as well as possible changes in, the University
Core of Common Studies was discussed. The survey is intended for students, faculty, and
staff. There were no objections from the Committee to conducting such a survey. The
wording of various questions and responses was discussed, as was the need for additional
questions---including whether the survey taker knew what the University Core of
Common Studies was. It was highly recommended that there be a place for comments on
the survey. It was also recommended that Focus Groups be formed after the survey is
conducted. It was proposed by Chair Su that a subcommittee of three Committee
members be formed to revise the questionnaire. If possible the revised document is to be
available at the next meeting of the Committee. The subcommittee is to consist of
Professor Barrington, Professor Feldner (who generously volunteered), and Professor ???.
4. Employment of Graduate Student Coders. The Committee approved the employment
of graduate student coders for assessing ICLOs. Such employment is to be regarded as a
pilot study. By unanimous vote, Chair Su was approved to screen and interview
applicants.
C C R C A Y 2 0 1 3 - 1 4 | 24
The meeting was adjourned at 5:00.
Respectfully submitted,
Michael Wreen
C C R C A Y 2 0 1 3 - 1 4 | 25
Core Curriculum Review Committee
Wednesday, 2/26/14
3:30-5:00 PM
Raynor 301
Minutes
Minutes: Alan Ball
Reflection: Robert Paxton
In Attendance: Sarah Wadsworth, Rebecca Sanders, Alan Ball, Dmitri Babikov, Lowell
Barrington, Anthony Pennington-Cross, Sarah Feldner, Robert Paxton, Ruth Belknap,
Maureen McAvoy, Lars Olson, Zachary Wallace, Michael Wreen, Ellen Eckman, John
Su.
Meeting called to order at 3:30 PM by John Su. Reflection offered by Robert Paxton.
Minutes of previous meeting approved unanimously.
Updates:

Approval has been granted to proceed with the hiring of graduate students to serve as
assessment coders.

Input sessions regarding the core have begun, and the committee will be
accumulating feedback. Several members of the committee furnished brief
descriptions of the comments made in the sessions that they attended. In the near
future, these members will write up the notes that they took and send them to John
Su, who will forward the information to the appropriate recipients.
C C R C A Y 2 0 1 3 - 1 4 | 26

The committee will soon receive another diverse-cultures proposal, this time from the
College of Business.
Ongoing business:
The committee discussed a draft of a faculty/student survey on attitudes toward the
UCCS. John Su reported on the contents of an email that he had received from Laura
McBride, who offered advice to the committee and outlined certain options available to
us.
In particular, regarding a survey of the faculty, the committee discussed the relative
merits of a survey that targeted a one-third sampling of the faculty as opposed to a survey
made available to the entire faculty population. Members clearly preferred a survey of
the entire faculty—though, if this proved impossible, the committee noted that the onethird option would be better than nothing.
As for a survey of the student body, the committee deemed it less vital to press for a
survey of all students as opposed to a one-third sample.
Led by Lowell Barrington, who is undertaking a revision of the draft survey, the
committee exchanged opinions on a number of structural matters pertaining to the survey.
For instance: How many response options should be offered for a question? Should
responses be differentiated by the college of the responder? Should student responses be
differentiated by the year of the student, or by how much of the core they have
completed? Lowell will consider these comments as he revises the draft.
The committee then turned its attention to individual questions in the survey and offered
numerous suggestions for wording changes and, in a few instances, the removal of
questions. Lowell will employ these comments to assist him in polishing the survey,
which is then to be emailed to committee members for their consideration. John Su
emphasized that this would need to be done quickly—by the end of the week.
New business:
C C R C A Y 2 0 1 3 - 1 4 | 27
Subcommittees were formed to consider proposals for two courses to be included in the
UCCS. Point person: Belknap; college representatives: Feldner and Pennington-Cross.
a. COMM 4500
b. COMM 4550
The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 PM.
Minutes respectfully submitted by Alan Ball.
Next meeting: Wednesday, 3/26, 3:30-5:00 PM in Raynor 301.
C C R C A Y 2 0 1 3 - 1 4 | 28
Core Curriculum Review Committee
Wednesday, 4/9/14
3:30-5:00 PM
Raynor 301
Minutes
In Attendance: Wadsworth, Sarah; Ball, Alan; Babikov, Dmitri; Barrington, Lowell; Dabney,
Lyle; Pennington-Cross, Anthony; Feldner, Sarah Bonewits; Paxton, Robert; Belknap, Ruth;
McAvoy, Maureen; Olson, Lars; Wallace, Michael Wreen, Zachary; Eckman, Ellen; Su, John
Meeting called to order at 3:30 PM by John Su.
Reflection by Maureen McAvoy.
COMM 4500 (attachments 4 and 5) was discussed as a potential course to add to the core. The
subcommittee indicated everything was OK and the syllabus matched well with the outcomes.
There was a discussion of the general nature of the diverse cultures and the number of courses
that are getting approved for the core.
John Su brought to vote approval of COMM 4500 in the core fulfilling the diverse cultures.
8 voted for, 0 against, and 6 abstain
COMM 4550 (attachments 6 and 7) was discussed as a potential course to add to the core. The
subcommittee indicated everything was OK and the syllabus matched well with the outcomes.
There was a discussion about the differences between COMM 4550.
John Su brought to vote approval of COMM 4550 in the core fulfilling the diverse cultures.
8 voted for, 0 against, and 6 abstain
INBU 4951 (attachments 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12) was discussed as a potential course to add to the
core. There was an extensive discussion about the challenges and drawbacks of including a
course that was not taught in the US. Concerns stated included -- the last 2 learning outcomes,
the western bias of the language in the syllabus, the lack of connection between what was stated
on the application form and what was included in the syllabus, business course don’t belong in
the core, large differences between the syllabus provided (are they two different courses really?),
the lack of detail in the materials used by the class (reading etc), lack of detail on the writing
assignments and examinations and how those relate to the outcomes, nothing is included about
structural inequality, and the lack of reflection.
John Su brought to vote approval of INBU 4951 in the core fulfilling the diverse cultures.
1 voted for, 11 against, and 2 abstain
Minutes from 2/26 (attachment 2) were approved by voice vote unanimously.
C C R C A Y 2 0 1 3 - 1 4 | 29
John Su provided updates on the assessment coders progress, the status of the focus groups, the
survey that was sent out to all faculty, ongoing data collection about what courses students are
taking, and the student survey. Breaking apart some of the sequenced requirements in the student
survey was well received.
The meeting was adjourned at 5PM, approximately.
Minutes submitted by Anthony Pennington-Cross
C C R C A Y 2 0 1 3 - 1 4 | 30
Core Curriculum Review Committee
Wednesday, 4/23/14
3:30-5:00 PM
Raynor 301
Minutes
In Attendance: Wadsworth, Sarah; Ball, Alan; Babikov, Dmitri; Barrington, Lowell; Feldner,
Sarah; Paxton, Robert; Belknap, Ruth; McAvoy, Maureen; Wallace, Zachary; Eckman, Ellen;
Su, John, Sanders, Rebecca, Wreen, Michael
Meeting called to order at 3:30 PM by John Su
Reflection by Sarah Wadsworth
Minutes approved with one abstention (Rebecca Sanders was absent)
Updates
-John Su asked the committee for possible STEM courses that a Capstone writing
assignment could be assessed by graduate coders; committee members will email with
suggestions
-Faculty perception surveyed is now closed; no data available yet
New Business
-Transfer Credit Policy Task Force
-John Su described the course transfer process & asked if the committee would
consider taking up the evaluation of generating a central form to be utilized
(Provost Office would like us to)
-Overall goal is to make Marquette more transfer “friendly”; Marquette is
currently developing transfer pamphlets
-Transfer guides need to be completed this summer – consideration of John Su
evaluating them for this summer & consideration of the CCRC performing this
long-term if a thoughtful plan could be developed
*The committee would endorse John Su to evaluate transfer guides
through the summer
-The committee had a long discussion regarding the concerns of this process (who
would these forms be sent to for core learning areas which are taught by different
departments, variance in how these courses may be accepted between different
colleges, workload, etc.)
C C R C A Y 2 0 1 3 - 1 4 | 31
-Discussion of whose term was complete ensued – Michael Wreen & Ellen Eckman are
possibly done (will check and get back to John Su)
-Next steps for preparation for academic program review
-CCRC will acquire all assessment reports by the end of May 2014 and the SelfStudy Report will be completed throughout June 2014; John Su will send draft to
members of the CCRC for review
-Review of UCCS Data for Academic Program Review 2014 (attachment 3)
Report #1 within Excel Spreadsheet:
-In reviewing the data it was discussed that dual counting of core classes
are an explicit curricular subsidy (i.e. most students take courses that
“double-dip”)
-3-5 courses capture most students for any given knowledge area for each
college
Report #2 within Excel Spreadsheet:
-<10% of students test out of various core knowledge areas (most students
take core classes at Marquette)
Report #5 within Excel Spreadsheet:
-The CCRC would like to evaluate who teaches various core classes (i.e.
are they TA’s, tenure track faculty, etc.); we don’t have aggregate
numbers of who teaches specific courses across the core
-Review of UCCS Data for Academic Review – Combinations of requirements
(attachment 4)
-This data would allow some opportunity to evaluate the coupling of some
courses to have more cohesion but how do we incentivize instructors to “work
together”
-CCRC would like to have college-specific numbers as well as data on any
specific courses sequences (ex. theology before philosophy, etc.)
-Focus Group Notes
-What are the five main themes? CCRC would like them subgrouped to evaluate
them further
The meeting was adjourned at 5PM.
Minutes respectfully submitted by Robert Paxton