Core Curriculum Assessment Committee
November 30, 2012
1. Dr Pratt reminded the committee that at the final meeting a motion was taken
off the table to separate assessment material from core course application
form.
2. As a recap; the proposal was to remove request for assessment materials from
the application form that departments would use for a course to be in the core,
specifically to remove item 14 and appendix 3. Also change the wording in
the statement above department chair signature, to:
“Acceptance by the Core Curriculum Advisory Committee does not
guarantee acceptance by the Core Curriculum Assessment
Committee. Approval by both committees is required for a course to be
included in the core.”
Motion on changing statement was made by Dr. Bayless, seconded by Dr.
Stovall and the committee was in favor, all but one. Motion passed.
3. The committee felt this statement made it clear that assessment had to be
completed.
4. Dr Brunson stated that the assessment committee have already made their
views very clear that it should not be separate and it should be made clear that
without assessment they will not be part of the core.
5. There was concern raised by Dr Steward as to how the documents would go
“back and forth” between committees, who will oversee bringing them back
together again?
6. Dr King stated that separating these applications will NOT give extended time
to complete assessment part.
7. The committee felt we would have to push back date for application and
assessment.
8. The question was asked, why should the assessment committee look at courses
that may not be approved. Why not wait and see what is approved first. Dr
King said this must happen simultaneously to meet THECB deadlines.
9. Dr King stressed that postponing assessment will not get an assessment
process that is outside the realm of what is normal.
10. Dr Szafran felt that by keeping the two items together, we are slowing down
the whole process.
11. Time is a big issue; if we could start looking at applications on February15th it
would be useful.
12. After discussion it was agreed the course syllabus should not be generic, and
must incorporate core objectives or they will be turned down.
13. Some committee members had concerns about our leniency toward faculty.
14. It was made very clear that unless a course is mandated by THECB, they will
NOT be approved for the core without all the necessary documentation.
15. Dr Pratt suggested deadline to Provost be October 1, therefore final deadline
September 1.
16. Dr La Graff was concerned we are “muddying the line” between the two
committees.
17. It was agreed right now we only need a date for submitting course application.
18. Dr Stovall made a motion to keep the due date as February 15, 2013, it was
seconded by Tina Oswald and the committee were in favour. Motion passed
19. A motion to have two separate forms was made by Dr Szafran, seconded by
Dr Stovall, committee vote 8 for and 4 against. Motion passed
20. A motion to change reading on syllabus from generic to THE syllabus and add
a link to the course syllabus guidelines on the Provost website., which has
been effect since March 1, 2009. Dr Szafran made a motion, Dr Stovall
seconded, all were in approval. Motion passed
21. Two proposals were submitted from Dr Brunson and Dr Szafran for the
allocation of the six hour component areas. Dawn Ella Rust had also sent in a
suggestion of putting exercise into the component area.
22. Dr La Graff reported that he had just left a meeting with music faculty and
they discussed the open forum and the option keep extra six credit hours for
the core for Science and Language and the extra credit absorbed into degree
plan. Music faculty have a problem with that, as they already have to "ghost"
courses because of the reduction for the 120 hour degree. He felt that if 65%
of universities can already teach science in a three hour course, why can’t
SFA.
23. Dr Pratt had a list of junior colleges from most of our transfers; all offer four
credit hour science courses only. If we go to three we would be going to a
lower standard than junior college.
24. Dr Pratt said students are weakest in math, if we keep that fourth hour we
could increase results in math. Dr King stated this could be required in the
major.
25. Dr Szafran did not agree that it was this committee's charge to go beyond 42
hours. Dr King believes the Provost would disagree. Dr Pratt would welcome
confirmation from the Provost.
26. Dr King stated that SACS clearly determines that we assess our graduates.
27. Dr Pratt and Dr Williams felt that math needed to be in the core and that we
could thread communication skills throughout curriculum.
28. Dr Bayless asked if some other degrees are providing more math, what
happens if we add more to core?
29. Suggestion to imbed more math in that fourth hour of science, not add another
three hour math course.
30. Suggestion for allocation of extra science credits outside core.
31. Dr King asked if it was possible to go from four to three hour courses in
science. Dr Pratt said it could be done, but feels that math will be sacrificed
and we will not be able to increase the amount of math in core.
32. Dr Szafran suggested that if courses exceed three semester credit hours, they
will be credited outside core within their degree plan.
33. There was concern that the committee were discussing outside the core and
messing around in peoples majors.
34. Members of the committee felt that if students are going to teach in Texas,
another language is important.
35. There was concern on the impact it would have on Modern Language
department if modern language is removed from the core.
36. Dr King stressed this HAS to be a different core.
37. Dr Pratt said core objectives are different but core is very similar to what we
have.
38. There was a disagreement about what we are willing to look at, only 42 or
whole degree?
39. Dr La Graff and Dr Pratt said they would like to keep core courses as similar
as possible, as far as allotment of hours, would like to see stay close as
currently is.
40. Tina Oswald suggested working on math across curriculum if this is what
students need, can we not figure out a way to make it work.
41. A suggestion was submitted by Dawn Ella Rust to put two hours science into
component option, and put language course, that is communication.
42. Dr King did not think one course in language would satisfy the
communication component area description.
43. Three possibilities were offered for the 4 hour option:
a) only offer 3 hours - science would not offer 4 credit courses as part of
course
b) let 4th hour science be part of core area option
c) if any courses exceed 3 credit hours, additional hour would come from
outside of the core but from their major
Dr King made a motion to adopt option c) Dr Szafran seconded the motion, all
were in agreement with two exceptions. Motion passed.
44. It was agreed the committee would encourage science, math and foreign
languages to find creative ways to offer three hour courses in the core.
45. It was felt that three hour science classes would be very popular if made
available. Dr Steward stated that we must think outside the box to represent
our colleges and departments.
46. The main hold up on application was to give clear indication what six hours
component option would be used for.
Dr Szafran made a motion and was seconded to use six hours component areas
option for communication, all but three were in agreement. Motion passed
47. Dr Brunson stated that anyone who thinks they meet communication area, can
apply for component area or main area.
48. Dr Brunson felt that modern language should be a degree requirement and not
in the core, Dr King was in agreement.
49. Dr La Graff felt the result would be catastrophic to foreign language
department. Dr Szafran felt we should not require that. Dr Stovall felt she
did not want to vote on this without giving it more thought.
50. Dr La Graff said the chair of modern language feels if it is not in the core it
will disappear.
51. Tina Oswald stated this committee is not involved in assessment that is not our
charge, we are deciding what goes in core then sending forward and
assessment committee will decide if they fit.
52. Dr Brunson made a motion that modern language be a degree requirement and
not part of the core, Dr King seconded the motion, the rest of committee
disapproved. Motion was not passed.
Attendees:
Hans Williams
(on behalf of Erin Brown)
Bob Szafran
Scott La Graff
Larry King
Marsha Bayless
Tina Oswald
Sarah Stovall
Robbie Steward
Linda Levitt
Mary Nelle Brunson
Lynda Langham