Monday, November 20, 2006
Attendance: Orin Chein, Gretchen Condran, Bruce Conrad, Chris Dennis, Rob Drennan, Jane Evans, Phil Harris, Bernie Newman, Jackie Resavage, Keya Sadeghipour , Catherine Schifter, Concetta Stewart, Karen Turner; one other person’s name is illegible to me.
Meeting was facilitated by Karen given the necessary absence of Mary Anne Gaffney.
Newman moved to approve minutes, Harris seconded. Minutes approved unanimously.
Old Business:
Free electives
This was a continued discussion from November 6, 2006 meeting in which a motion to make any course not specifically named by the College or major as a requirement for graduation be required as a free elective.
The following points were mentioned:
1. Conchetta Stewart pointed out that the most open interpretation of free electives might prohibit schools from making any restrictions on courses that their students take outside of the 60 credits for the major. Concerns were expressed that that would exclude additional courses required by accrediting bodies.
2. Orin Chein suggested that students could be required to take a minimum number of courses outside the department.
3. Jackie Resavage suggested that we start with a funnel concept and that courses are general education, major courses, courses that are required for the major and then free electives.
4. Members of the transfer committee identified their work on efforts to deal with this and many other issues in regard to transfer courses.
5. Conchetta Stewart suggested that we allow all schools to engage in “best practices” in terms of the requirements for the major rather than require the same number or a minimum number of electives for each school.
6. Chris Dennis suggested that this could be analogous to selective majors, where each school applies for a different standard of entry; here schools can apply for the ability to require more than the minimum number of credits.
7. Karen Turner made a call for simplicity, given that all the information would be on-line and must be interpreted.
8. Discussion took place about those schools that are already going to have to reduce their credits since they have required more than 124 in past.
9. Phil Harris pointed out that the tension is between “best practices” and free electives.
Jane moved that all programs should be allowed to establish requirements according to national or state benchmarks by accreditation bodies or other nationally or state ranked programs in terms of requirements for the major with no minimum number of free electives. Catherine Schifter seconded the motion. Gretchen Condran moved to amend the motion to state only no minimum number of free electives. Chein seconded it.
10. Gretchen Condran expressed concern that students are restricted in their liberal arts education by the number of courses that they can take.
11. Jane Evans stated that we offer a university not a liberal arts college degree and students have many choices of programs.
12. Gretchen Condran argued for more oversight. Concern was expressed about the rigor of general education.
The motion to amend was voted on. Two in favor, seven opposed, no abstentions. The original motion that all programs should be allowed to establish requirements according to national or state benchmarks by accreditation bodies or other nationally or state ranked programs in terms of requirements for the major with no minimum number of free electives was voted on. Seven in favor, two opposed, no abstentions.
The motion carries. The motion is referred to GEEC since the issue of free electives is in the documents. Conchetta Stewart stated for the record that the number of free electives and the number of credits to graduate should not be part of the General Education deliberations.
Writing intensive course program report
Lori Salem presented the new guidelines for the two writing intensive requirements under GenEd. She pointed out that GenEd requirements have now placed two writing intensive courses in the major. These upper level writing intensive courses are clearly discipline specific. Revision is something emphasized both in first year writing and should be emphasized in discipline specific writing intensive courses. Lori Salem submitted and asked for a vote to accept the new major specific, W-course program as presented in her handout. Concerns about the 1:20 ratios were discussed at length.
Lori Salem pointed out that every major must designate its two WI courses by end of September 2007 so that they can begin to teach them in fall, 2008. Some disciplines, such as Math, have different learning requirements for writing and thinking that they can’t or shouldn’t get from outside sources (such as information literacy) so that using external sources is not necessarily a desired outcome for math majors. Lori Salem talked about how difficult it is to create universal criteria. Concern about a lack of departmental control over teaching assistants and faculty was expressed. New GenEd has one four credit analytical reading and writing (oldComp50 with a strong informational literacy component and beefed up emphasis on the need for revision) Required writing intensive courses in new GenEd include one analytical reading course, two IH courses (3 GenEd) and two associated with the major. Chris Dennis points out that there will be more oversight on writing intensive courses under GenEd than in the past. Concern was expressed about the 20:1 ratio for some departments given the present status of resources. Concern about our ability to offer enough sections so that students can graduate in four years was expressed. Newman moved, Catherine Schifter seconded 7 in favor, 0 opposed, 1 abstention. Motion carried.
Motion on repeating courses
The following motion was submitted:
Part One: A department may adopt a protocol that requires students who have failed a particular course to repeat a specified prerequisite course or courses before repeating the course itself. If a student has previous credit for the prerequisite, either as a transfer or otherwise, no additional graduation credit shall accrue as a result of repeating the course.
Part Two: With the exception of courses that are designated to be repeatable for credit, no student may enroll in the same course more than 3 times.
Concern was expressed with the present policy which allows students to take the same courses over and over again without passing, keeping them from making further progress or passing.
Chris Dennis pointed out that the position of the vice provost of undergraduate studies (after consideration) is to oppose the motion even though they are in favor of high standards in the school. He suggested that there are structural problems reflected in the motion. Possible problems are grade inflation for prerequisites, students not being prepared in the prerequisites or the work to align the transfer articulation courses with transfer institutions so that it is working.
Jackie Resavage suggested an exit exam be given to pass the class, and that that exam be given to transfer courses. Jacqueline Resavage stated that she would be willing to look at the courses that tend to be retaken and bring to our next meeting. For courses when there is no placement test, the testing solution is not a good one.
Chris pointed out that at some point this becomes an advisory issue. Sometimes students are stuck with repeats because that is the only way they can get their GPA up.
This issue will be taken up at next EPPC meeting.
Proposed Change to limit on transfer credits for students matriculating at Temple:
Proposed change: Delete matriculation year as a limitation on the number of credits that can be transferred. Now the policy would read:
“The number of credits that students can transfer from another institution (two or four year) depends on their declared Temple major” eliminating the words “Students matriculating at Temple in fall 1998 and after”.
Six in favor; 0 opposed, 1 abstention. Motion carries.
Meeting adjourned.
Minutes submitted by Bernie S. Newman
