FA Home  >  UCAP  >  Information — 1/26/06

Undergraduate Curriculum and Policy
January 26, 2006
 INFORMATION
 NOT ENOUGH FOR A QUORUM


Present:  L. Baures, J. McKinzie, M. Pomije, R. Schirmer

Business:

UCAP met to discuss begin discussion of the recommendations from the Academic Excellence Task force.  The notes below summarize points of that discussion.  No official stance or recommendations were formalized.  UCAP will continue discussing this final report before drafting our response.  

Section 1:  Enhancing Curriculum
Recommendation 1: Increase the amount and quality of student writing in degree programs and in general education.  (page 2)  
Discussion included:  
•    consensus that writing quality must be increased,
•    need to expose student to all different types of discipline specific writing styles,
•    but to really refine the writing quality in their chosen field(s) of study,
•    concerns that capability of current upper level students are too low,
•    admission standards include better writing or some other type of assessment,
•    coordinate outreach to k-12,
•    can 128 be increased for some areas, or can 128 be designed more efficiently from ‘top to bottom’,
•    acknowledgement that some degree programs may need to look very objectively at what is called “gen ed” in that program (also linked to 7 & 8),
•    university wide writing center makes sense to take responsibility off instructor, can easily address general grammatical issues, but can writing center address discipline specific writing adequately, center must be staffed by qualified personnel from all sub-disciplines,
•    would it be more effective to teach one writing intensive course at the intro/general ed level and the other at a more advanced discipline specific level (see discussion for recommendation #2), advocate for more than creation, but have perhaps define mission be tailored to meet freshman and sophomore level general concerns while holding discipline specific concerns be held in departments of discipline,
•    need more opportunities for faculty to become comfortable and to acquire the necessary skills needed for grading writing intensive materials,
•    discussion of writing intensive throughout program and the associated level of work with that,
•    need to have students write consistently to build their skills and continue to refine them and some issues associated with that such as dictate too much for assessment within programs



Recommendation 2: Increase standards in degree programs (page 3)
Discussion included:  
•    could writing skills be included in degree program standards,
•    could there be a mechanism to recognize courses in programs that are writing intensive but not in general ed, there are several courses of this type and the ability to acknowledge them may also bring the recognition to those courses, courses of this type could also be possibly considered as a second writing intensive course, can be used to refine basic skills to discipline specific skills,
•    communication standards in all aspects including verbal (oral) and visual need to be noted or imbedded in program standards,
•    recognition in program standards of critical thinking standards,
•    support of the concept that encourages programs to increase GPA standards above 2.0 as noted in this recommendation.  

Recommendation 3: Accreditation and Program Review (page 3)  
Discussion included:  
•    recognition that some accreditation processes are prohibitively expensive,
•    recognition that resource allocation, funding and/or fund raising strategies may need to be adjusted or altered to meet department’s requests,
•    recognition that the greater whole of the college or university must also be recognized,
•    belief that accreditation of one program cannot result in the detriment of another program,

Recommendation 4: Clarify admission, retention and graduation standards within majors and enforce pre-requisites. (page 3)  
Discussion included:  
•    admission standards in writing abilities,
•    recognition that some programs/colleges would be more affected than others,

Recommendation 5: Capstone experiences and external connections. (page 4)  
Discussion included:  
•    recognition that curriculum would need to be “time appropriate”, that is, assessing discipline specific writing at this stage would not serve students as effectively as doing so earlier,

Recommendation 6: Adoption of +/- option to the grading system. (page 4)  
Discussion included:  
•    pros and cons (including perceived) of shaded grading,
•    student lobbying and the effect on both grading processes,
•    whether or not all professors would have to participate,
•    what would happen with team taught courses,
•    recognition that this is an issue that has strong opinions on both sides,



Recommendation 7: In addition to current First Year Experience seminars, develop and implement a “discipline based” first year seminar.  (page 4)  
Discussion included:  
•    could this be college based instead,
•    could this be used to see how “we” (the colleges) are similar and how we are different,
•    may be able to be structured to meet recommendation 8,
•    goals of both writing and verbal communication are worthy,
•    critical thinking seeds could be started early,
•    concern that keeping it within a college would not foster enough exposure to other fields and/or styles of communication,
•    acknowledgement that some degree programs may need to look very objectively at what is called “gen ed” in that program (also linked to 1 & 8),
•    128 credit cap issues

Recommendation 8: Develop and implement a common reader program as part of the first year experience courses (FYEX).  (page 5)  
•    Discussion included:  
•    could it be multidisciplinary,
•    too difficult to meet currently worded goals,
•    acknowledged value in the shared experience,
•    selection process of books,
•    development of general parameters for each outcome,
•    creation of a true freshman class,
•    128 credit cap issues,
•    acknowledgement that some degree programs may need to look very objectively at what is called “gen ed” in that program (also linked to 1 & 7),


Respectfully submitted:

Marie Pomije
UCAP Faculty chair 2005-06

Current AY05-06 Proposal Tracking Worksheet

Return to the beginning

FA Home  >  UCAP