Subcommittee on Core Curriuclum Minutes 2014-09-19

Call to Order
The meeting was called to order by Julia Metzker at 1:00 p.m. in Arts & Sciences 2-51.

Attendance
Voting Members Present: Roberta Gorham, Mary Magoulick, Cara Meade, Julia Metzker, Joe Mocnik, Brandon Samples, Patrick Simmons, Amy Sumpter, Sheryl Winn, Dana Wood
Regrets: Ruth Carter, Kay Anderson, Nancy Beasley

Agenda
The agenda was approved as presented.

Minutes
Minutes from 9/12 were not yet available. Committee will approve minutes from 9/12 and 9/19 at the 9/26 meeting.

Old Business
I) Global Overlay Proposal

Julia updated the committee regarding the global overlay proposal. Julia met with Steve Wills, chair of CAPC to discuss the proposal as it will be presented to the senate.

Point of clarification regarding SoCC making motions to the Senate: SoCC can propose its own motions to US. However, this one will be proposed by CAPC.

Julia asked the committee to help generate a list of courses that should carry Global Overlay. The provost will be asked to communicate with department chairs about this. Kay Anderson is helping to start a list and the committee will add to this.

This proposal should go to CAPC on 10/3. It will then go to senate. Julia asked committee members to please be at senate when this is proposed.

II) Rubrics for approving GC1Y and 2Y courses

Feedback from Amy: LBTC row, middle column. Change ‘frequent’ to ‘significant and well integrated’. Exceeds – integral vs. integrated? Is there much difference in this language? Discussion. Decision was to leave as is. Add ‘significant’ before opportunities (2nd sentence). Add ‘not integral’ in first box. (All these changes are for LBTC on both rubrics. Make same changes to both.)

Feedback from Mary: Regarding syllabus row, we need to change the proposal forms to reflect need to include course outcomes. Mary will change/update the form. Also, suggestion to add ‘analytical’ to the writing row was concurred. This change will be made to both rubrics.

Feedback from Julia: We need to emphasize that we need course outcomes. Also, we really need better definition for LBTC. This spurred a lengthy discussion. Should this committee work on defining LBTC this year? That is something that would help both the proposal and approval process. Additionally, Julia voiced concern that we need to be careful to pay attention to the distinctive/true to mission endeavors as brought to the committee by the provost. Committee discussed this. A suggestion to add something regarding this to the core proposal forms was accepted by the committee. Language and placement of this statement was discussed and determined.

New Business
I) Tourism and Rhetoric course proposal.
The group who reviewed shared their review of the course. They found it to meet all requirements and recommended it for approval. Committee had a short discussion regarding the LBTC component of the course. Committee members reviewed and heard additional details and determined it to be sufficient for an Area B course. Additional discussion regarded the professor’s credentials to teach this course. It was determined that the proposer is properly credentialed to teach this course. The course was approved unanimously.

Additional Discussion
After discussion, the committee decided to add additional information regarding contact hours for the 4th hour to the rubric for GC2Y. We will define a contact hour of scheduled activity.

There was a suggestion from a committee member that perhaps the additional SoCC signature sheet that the committee uses after approving a course may not be necessary or appropriate. After discussion, the committee agreed to discontinue use of this additional signature form previously used by the committee. The SoCC chair’s signature on the course routing signature sheet (“Recommendations”) will indicate and communicate the committee’s approval of the course. Also, information regarding the committee vote will be recorded in the minutes.

Cara discussed core assessment for the last few minutes of the meeting. We’ll be working next week to devise a plan for reviewing the core. One initial activity will be to send a survey out to everyone teaching in the core to garner some initial feedback and interest in participating in forums.