Approved CCRC Minutes
Tuesday, November 4, 2003
Members Present: Fr. Laurance, SJ; Ms. Russell; Drs. Snow, Lueger,
Courtright, Maranto, Hathaway, Eckman, Laatsch, Machan, Byleen, Grahn,
Ropella, Vater.
Members Excused: Drs. Deahl, Lough, Quade; Mr. Lowrey.
Dr. Snow called the meeting to order at 8:05 AM. Fr. Laurance, SJ, read the
opening prayer.
Approval of the Minutes of 10.22.03: After some discussion of whether
comments in CCRC minutes should be anonymous or should be attributed to
identified members, it was decided that the latter is more transparent and open.
Consequently, approval of the minutes of 10.22.03 was postponed until the
meeting of 11.19.03, pending requested revisions.
Agenda Items
(A.) Report from Dr. Laatsch on behalf of Group III on ARSC 140. Dr. Laatsch
distributed a written report. On behalf of Group III, she made a friendly amendment
to the recommendation made on 9.24.03 to defer consideration of ARSC 140. The
friendly amendment is to qualify ARSC 140 for the Core with the following caveat:
Should the syllabus deviate significantly from the objectives of the ISB knowledge
area and/or a new instructor be assigned from a different department, the course will
be resubmitted to the CCRC for review.
Dr. Snow opened the floor for discussion.
Dr. Ksobiech pointed out that the usual CCRC practice is to qualify a course or
remand it. The CCRC generally does not qualify a course subject to caveats. The
concern identified by Group III is essentially an administrative issue. It is the
responsibility of those who administer the course to see to it that it is taught so that
the learning objectives of the ISB knowledge area are met.
Dr. Hathaway offered that this course has been in flux. Will it be taught this way
for a long time?
Dr. Laatsch replied that Dr. Janet Boles of the Political Science Department, who
submitted the course, indicated that she will be the sole instructor for several years.
Dr. Maranto indicated that this raises a broader issue. We’re qualifying a course
and a syllabus that are submitted to us. There is a general procedural issue here, of
how to monitor changes in approved Core courses.
1
Dr. Hathaway reminded the Committee that we had a similar discussion about
courses offered by the College of Professional Studies.
Dr. Snow interjected that this is essentially a question of who has administrative
oversight. Generally, the department chair has responsibility for ensuring that
approved courses are taught so that the learning objectives of the knowledge area
are addressed, for supervising the implementation of assessment of Core courses,
and for filing reports of assessment data. She opined that the Associate Dean of the
College of Arts and Sciences, who signed off on the submission, has administrative
oversight of ARSC 140.
Dr. Lueger, the Associate Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, quickly
corrected this mistake. The Director of the Women’s Studies Program, Dr. Diane
Hoeveler, has administrative oversight. However, Program Directors lack the clout
of department chairs.
Dr. Vater, who directs the Program of Urban and Environmental Studies, offered
that a Program Director’s oversight of courses is done in conjunction with that of
department chairs.
Dr. Snow indicated that CCRC review of an approved Core course is triggered by
changes in the Undergraduate Bulletin description. If ARSC 140 were to change so
that the ISB learning objectives were not addressed, this would be flagged by
changes to the Bulletin description.
Dr. Lueger pointed out that the Bulletin description of ARSC 140 is currently
interdisciplinary. Thus, changes in the syllabus would likely not trigger Bulletin
change and CCRC review.
Dr. Hathaway interjected that we could treat this course somewhat similarly to
ARSC 100, and advise that ARSC 140 be reserved for ISB versions of the course.
Other versions of the course should be given separate numbers.
Dr. Maranto asked whether we want assessment to do the job of winnowing out
courses that have changed since approval, or, do we want to place safeguards at the
front end of the process?
Dr. Grahn suggested a possible compromise solution: to amend the Bulletin
description of ARSC 140 to include the phrase, “within a social scientific context.”
This change would ensure that ARSC 140 would be taught so as to address the ISB
learning objectives. The change would have to go through the CDAC.
Dr. Lueger indicated that this was not an obstructionist issue. The conversations
between the CDAC and Dr. Boles were constructive, and had already resulted in a
Bulletin change, so that the course description includes the phrase, “from a
women’s studies perspective.” The short-term solution is to change the Bulletin
2
description. The long-solution is, perhaps, to introduce new numbers so that other
versions of ARSC 140 can be taught.
Dr. Maranto said that she likes the suggestion about different numbers.
Dr. Vater pointed out that the nature of ARSC courses is interdisciplinary and meant
to provide flexibility. Consequently, he’s not so sure he would like to see this
tightened up.
Dr. Courtright asked whether we need a motion and a second on ARSC 140.
Dr. Snow stated that we’re at the second meeting.
Fr. Laurance raised a question pertaining to items on the template. Are they just
reading books on feminism? Is there a critical perspective? Is there an interplay of
male and female perspectives?
Dr. Hathaway commented that Fr. Laurance is looking at this from an intellectual
perspective. The methodology is interdisciplinary. She herself has offered this
course from a literary perspective. Dr. Boles is giving it a social scientific
perspective.
Dr. Maranto added that a similar question had arisen about a CRLS course on
women’s issues. The content is a vehicle for addressing the ISB learning objectives.
Dr. Grahn stated that the course is offered primarily in the ISB area. It seems
dominated by sociology. This is a good interdisciplinary course with the
predominance of a social science perspective.
Dr. Lueger summarized by saying that we have two options. One is to require a
Bulletin change to add the phrase “within a social scienctific context.”
Alternatively, we could recommend a change in the numbering.
Dr. Hathaway expressed agreement with the first option. A phrase such as,
“Emphasizing the humanities, this course will use a social scientific perspective …”
would be appropriate.
Dr. Grahn added that the ISB knowledge area, like Diverse Cultures, is one of the
few that allow us to present interdisciplinary teaching.
Dr. Lueger asked if he could make a motion.
Dr. Snow replied that he could.
Dr. Lueger moved that we table the friendly amendment to consult with the
program director and instructor about the proposed Bulletin change.
3
Dr. Courtright cautioned that we would need a second for the motion, then would
have to observe the two-meeting rule.
Dr. Ksobiech suggested that Dr. Laatsch withdraw the friendly amendment
regarding ARSC 140. She did so. Dr. Lueger withdrew the motion to table the
discussion. Snow then postponed further discussion of ARSC to consult with the
relevant parties – Dr. Boles, the instructor, Dr. Hoeveler, the Program Director, and
Dr. Pustejovsky, Chair of the CDAC, to see whether approval of the Bulletin change
could be secured by the time of the next CCRC meeting.
Dr. Ksobiech suggested that Dr. Snow should communicate that we’re satisfied with
the course, but seek a resolution of an administrative issue. Dr. Snow agreed.
Dr. Snow then asked Dr. Laatsch to report on CRLS 198. Dr. Laatsch reported that
the course remains deferred. She has been advised that CRLS 198 will be assigned
a number, CRLS 161, and will be submitted to the CDAC for approval. The
department chairperson, Dr. Jim Holstein, has requested that this course be deferred
from CCRC consideration until it is approved by the CDAC and the Dean’s Office.
(B.) The next agenda item is the question of whether the CCRC should require that a
submission has been approved by the relevant College curriculum prior to being
considered for the Core. Dr. Snow reminded the Committee that this issue surfaced
last spring in response to a submission from the College of Communication that had
not been approved by the College curriculum committee. This situation was called
to Dr. Snow’s attention, and she forwarded the information to the CCRC. The
Committee decided to consider the submission, since it had the Chair’s signature, as
required by the template.
Dr. Snow suggested a couple of possible solutions. One is to follow a suggestion
made last spring by Fr. Rossi, and craft general language for inclusion on the
template, whereby a submitter certifies that the course has been approved by all
relevant College committees or personnel prior to CCRC submission. Another is
simply to require the signatures of the Chair and the Dean.
Dr. Hathaway claimed that chairs are not consistent in signing off on submissions.
Dr. Lueger remarked that there are two issues to tease out. In the College of Arts
and Sciences, the CDAC reviews new course proposals and modifications to
existing courses. Some courses aren’t offered for CDAC review, e.g., 198’s, which
are offered by agreement between an instructor and a department chair. Some of the
issues we’re seeing this semester were created by last spring’s course development
activity. The funding timelines caught people in a time crunch.
4
Dr. Snow admitted that some bugs have to be worked out in the funding process.
Dr. Maranto voiced support for Fr. Rossi’s suggestion.
Dr. Ropella expressed concern about the people who developed a course for
submission to the Core. There are a lot of committees to go through.
Dr. Hathaway contended that in funding the course, we assume that it goes
through all of the relevant committees.
Dr. Grahn remarked that new courses have got to go through departmental
procedures and College procedures. We are committed to bureaucratic structures.
Dr. Snow commented that there are too many structures – more than there used to
be.
Dr. Hathaway indicated that we should put a phrase in the funding application to
indicate that the course needs to be approved by departments and colleges.
Dr. Snow asked what kind of language could be crafted to apply to the diverse
practices of the Colleges?
Dr. Ksobiech indicated that a phrase could be added referring to college
designees.
Dr. Laatsch interjected that the timeframe for getting a course through a college
curriculum could be very different depending on what college a course goes
through.
Dr. Ksobiech replied that, in the context of the academic timeframe, the period is
probably around six months – not long, in academia.
Dr. Lueger cautioned that if we put pressure on the process, we risk becoming
agents of coercion or manipulation.
Ms. Russell pointed out that there’s a positive pressure, too, to expedite the
process.
Dr. Snow asked if it was the consensus of the Committee to put a line in the Core
fund announcement or application indicating that the course should be approved
by all relevant departmental and College committees before coming to the CCRC.
The Committee indicated consensus.
5
A second issue is including a line on the template where submitters can indicate
that the course has gone through appropriate College committees. This, Dr. Snow
indicated, would probably require a motion, a second, and a vote in accordance
with the two-meeting rule, because it is a template change.
Dr. Hathaway asked if we could get rid of the words, “September 14,” that appear
in the header of the templates. Dr. Snow indicated that we could.
Dr. Hathaway asked if she could raise an advising issue that had arisen. She
raised the issue of THEO 108, which had not been submitted to the Core. A
student had inquired why this course was not in the Core. Another student, who
was contemplating leaving the Honors Program, wondered if he could appeal the
requirement to take ENGL 002. To whom should he be sent?
Dr. Lueger suggested sending him to the Core Director. For the College
curriculum requirements, there is a waiver process. Perhaps one is needed for
Core requirements.
Dr. Snow recommended that, since he is in the College of Engineering, the
student should speak with Dr. Jeff Hock. Dr. Ropella agreed.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:50 AM.
6