CURRICULUM COMMITTEE
Salem State University
MINUTES
Meeting: 13/14:07
Date: 23 October 2013
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Sami Ansari; Elizabeth Blood; Elizabeth Coughlan; Elizabeth Duclos-Orsello; Kathleen Hess;
Joseph Kasprzyk; Stephen Matchak; Christopher Mauriello; Rory McFadden; Megan Miller;
Zachary Newell; Anne Noonan; Amy Sprenkle; Jeffrey Theis
GUESTS: Vickie Ross, Theresa DeFrancis (ENL)
I.
Chair’s Report
Jeffrey Theis announced that a quorum had been reached and called the meeting to order
at 3:06 PM
A. Meeting Schedule for Fall 2013:
October 30, 2013
November 6, 2013
November 13, 2013
November 20, 2013
December 4, 2013
December 11, 2013
December 18, 2013
Jeffrey announced minutes have been approved electronically
Elizabeth Coughlan requested that we amend the agenda and move proposal 14:110 back
to new business; it is not ready to be discussed by the entire committee yet. It will be
moved back to new business.
II.
Subcommittee Reports
There were no reports of the subcommittees
III.
Special Business
A. Revised Transition Model
14:148
The provost has approved the extension of the transition model. The CC members discussed the
extension. There was concern regarding the wording for the Level 1 Written Communication. The
discussion covered two major concerns: 1) there was concern that the new placement exam
determining whether students are ready to take the W1 course – which is now ENL102, not
ENL101 – would require a more difficult writing placement standard and more students will have
to take an equivalent to ENL101 before they can take the W1 course. This will, in effect, increase
the core by 3 credits.
There was discussion about whether or not the writing standard was going to become
more difficult, and it was communicated that the composition committee of the English
department was currently working on developing those standards in response to the new
vertical model. There was further discussion about the fact that the W1 courses will be a
combination of 101 and 102 such that the placement standard that now puts students into
101 will now place the students into the new W1 course.
2) The second concern stemmed from the first. Committee members did not understand
why current students cannot use the W1 course, once approved, to fulfill the W1 category
instead of ENL 101 and 102 – especially if the placement standards are not changing
substantively.
A concern was expressed about amending what had already been approved for current
students in the existing transition model in the middle of the advising period in which
faculty are currently educating students about the existing transition model, but committee
members felt that this change would not have a great impact on the advising process for
current students.
After much discussion, the following amendment to the transition model was proposed:
MOTION: Elizabeth Blood made a motion to amend the Written Communication Level 1
category to allow current and transfer students to take an approved W1 course instead of
requiring that they have to take ENL 101 and ENL 102. Elizabeth Coughlan seconded.
VOTE: After more discussion, the vote to approve the transition as amended was unanimous.
Stephen Matchak requested the floor to make the following motion:
MOTION: The Curriculum Committee will facilitate and empower the chair to re-order the
agenda as needed for the committee to efficiently and effectively handle proposals and other
CC business at his discretion. Megan Miller seconded.
VOTE: After a brief discussion, the motion Passed unanimously
B. Written Communication Category
The question was raised as to whether we need a formal policy stating that W1 must be taken
before W2 and W3 because it is a spiral scaffolded sequence. The intent of the model was that it
be vertical, but there is no language that identifies that W1 must be a prerequisite for W2, and W2
must be a prerequisite for W3. This has created confusion. After some discussion Elizabeth
Coughlan made the following motion.
MOTION: students must take the writing courses in order W1, then W2, then W3 in the
new model when it comes into effect. Kathleen Hess Seconded.
There was much discussion about this proposal. The argument against was concerned that students
may want to take other department's W3 course to fulfill their W2 requirement. There was also
concern that any prerequisites would hinder student's flexibility.
Arguments for the motion stated that any student bypassing W1 to take W2 will be in over their
heads. W1 must be a prerequisite for W2 and W3. The possibility of a student taking W2 outside
of their discipline at the same time as taking W3 within discipline was discussed at length.
After much discussion, Elizabeth Coughlan accepted a friendly amendment to her motion that
resulted in the following revised motion:
REVISED MOTION: W1 is a prerequisite for both W2 and W3; further, W2 is
recommended to be taken before W3 but this is not required.
VOTE: 8 approved; 3 opposed; 2 abstentions. The motion passes
IV.
Old Business
A. ENGLISH DEPARTMENT (4/22/13) (E. Coughlan, Group D)
ENL318-Food Writing-New Course
14:001
Elizabeth Coughlan made a motion to approve the English Department proposal 14:001;
Elizabeth Duclos-Orsello seconded.
It was noted that this proposal was submitted in the Spring, so it is OK that the old form was
used.
With a few changes (e.g., changing the number to ENL 318 and changing the effective date
to Fall 2014 ), the vote to approve the English Department proposal was unanimous.
B. POLITICAL SCIENCE DEPARTMENT (9/20/13) (R. McFadden, Group B, 9/26)
BA-Political Science-Change in Flowsheet
14:018
BS-Political Science-Change in Flowsheet
14:019
BS-Political Science-American Politics Concentration-Change in Flowsheet 14:020
BS-Political Science-International Relations Concentration-Change in Flowsheet
14:021
BS-Political Science-Comparative Politics Concentration-Deletion of Flowsheet
14:022
International Relations Minor-Change in Minor
14:023
POL291-Introduction to Political Science Research Methods-Change in Course14:024
POL500-Directed Study in Political Science-Change in Course
14:025
Rory McFadden made a motion to approve the Political Science packet 14:018 - 14:025;
Elizabeth Blood Blood seconded.
There was discussion regarding changing the number for stat course from a 200-level course to
a 300-level course; doing so resulted in a change of the course cap from 30 to 20, which is
much more appropriate for a Statistics course.
There was general discussion regarding the email from the chair of the Philosophy Department
regarding the deletion of a Philosophy course from a flowsheet. The chair of the Philosophy
department obviously had reservations about the course deletion; the CC members questioned
whether we should too. The spokesperson from the Political Science department explained that
the reservations were taken to heart, but that the department believes that the new core provides
students with the critical thinking practice they need – a separate course is no longer needed.
There was also concern that moving from 36 to 45 credits in the major seemed excessive. The
department spokesperson explained that the increase in numbers was not simply the result of
moving support courses from the "left side" of the flowsheet to the "right side" because of the
new core; they are adding two upper level political science courses to the flowsheet so that their
students can get more depth of experience and be more conversant in some of the areas of
Political Science that they have not been exposed to before. The changes allow them to offer a
broad range of courses to the students. There is a list of the advanced courses of which students
are to take 4. Degree tracker also keeps track of what students take to fulfill that requirement.
There was further discussion about how many concentrations around campus are in the process
of moving support courses that were on the left side over to the right hand side and thus
increasing their major requirements. It was agreed that departments will need to be able to
explain why such increases are necessary. It is not enough to say that they need to move the
courses over to clear out the left side; they need to think hard about rationale. There should be a
reason for additions to the right side.
There was a question about the Political Science capstone. Why are two capstone experiences
required? The spokesperson explained that this is common practice in Political Science
departments. One capstone is a research paper; for the other – students can choose either an
internship or directed study if going on to graduate school.
With no changes, the vote to approve the Political Science packet was unanimous
There being no other business, Megan Miller moved to adjourn the meeting; Elizabeth Blood.
seconded. The vote to adjourn was unanimous, and the committee adjourned at 4:30 PM.
Submitted by __________________________________
Kathleen Hess (recorder)