Subcommittee on Core Curriculum Minutes 2013-09-11

Call to Order

The meeting was called to order by Amy Sumpter at 1:00 p.m. in Arts & Sciences Room 2-51.

Attendance

Voting Members Present: Scott Butler, Mary Magoulick, Cara Meade, Chavonda Mills, Amy Sumpter
Non-Voting Member Present: Kay Anderson
Guests: Roberta Gorham, Funke Fontenot, Yeprem Mehranian, Julia Metzker, Doug Oetter, Shaundra Walker
Regrets: John Swinton

Approval of Minutes

The minutes from the September 4th meeting were approved as submitted.

Action Items

GEOG 2100 Introduction to Geospatial Science as an Area D Course for Non-Science Majors
The committee approved the proposal with a vote of 4-0-0. Three guests in attendance, who are waiting final confirmation to SoCC by the University Senate, also endorsed this proposal. This course will be sent to CAPC and University Senate as an information item, and then the course will be sent to the Provost for approval. If approved, the course will be forwarded to the appropriate system disciplinary committee.

Proposed Change to SoCC Bylaws
Mary and Cara presented a draft of a prosed bylaw changes based on the discussion at last week’s meeting. The proposal:
• does not limit the total number of committee members.
• stipulates that each of six areas of the core (A1, A2, B, C, D, E) must be represented by faculty teaching in these areas.
• also stipulates that one member from each of the colleges be part of the committee.
• adds a member of the University Assessment Team as a non-voting member.
• removes the requirement that the chair must be an elected senator.
• adds a three-year limit to the terms of service for the chair, vice chair, and secretary.
If approved by SoCC, this proposal would go to CAPC for approval, and then must be submitted to Executive Committee of University Senate with the written endorsement of three University Senators. The proposal must be on the agenda of a University Senate meeting for at least two meetings before it may be presented for a vote. The proposal may also be submitted directly to ECUS by three University Senators.

Discussion on the proposed change included the following:
• The current membership of the committee has only three members from the College of Arts & Sciences, even though Arts & Sciences teaches the majority of core courses.
• This proposal includes representation from each area of the core. Julia Metzker noted that this was the intent of the original core revision committee.
• In discussion prior to the meeting, Craig Turner reported that the Senate generally interprets the phrase “in each academic unit” to include the library, so the library would have representation if this change were approved.
• Does Area C need to have two representatives, one from Literature or Philosophy and the other from Fine Arts?
• A question was raised as to whether the terms for the vice chair and the secretary need to be limited; a change was accepted to limit only the chair to three terms.
• Members expressed the need to have representatives from each college, especially as global overlays are being submitted from all areas of the university.
• Discussion also focused on the ways that the core affects all of the colleges, regardless of whether the faculty members from that college teach in the core.
• The core needs to be integrated in the curriculum and embrace multidisciplinary perspectives. Having representatives from each area could facilitate this.
• The proposal may be so restrictive that it will be difficult to find members.
• We could recommend the use of proportional representation like the University Senate uses.
• This proposal in its current form gives every academic unit a voice at the table.

After discussion, the committee chose to wait to vote on the proposal at its next meeting on September 18.

Discussion Items

GC2Y Submission Form. Mary distributed a new draft of the GC2Y submission form. The intent of this new form is to simplify the submission and review process for both faculty submitters and committee members. Discussion on the revised draft addressed whether or not a syllabus should be required, how to address the writing-intensive nature of the course (as an outcome or component), and the need to ask questions about the quantity and type of writing assignments. Mary will circulate a new draft to the committee.

Next Meeting

The committee’s next meeting will be Wednesday, September 18, at 1:00 p.m. in Arts & Sciences Room 2-51.

Adjournment

The committee adjourned at 2:25 p.m.