MARIETTA COLLEGE FACULTY MEETING
October 22, 2001
MINUTES (approved 12/03/01)

A special meeting of the Marietta College faculty convened at 5:00 p.m., October 22, 2001, in the Selby Science Center, room 101. Dr. Sidney Potash, Chair of the Faculty, presided.

• First Year Task Force

  Professor Jeanne Arbuckle, Chair of the First Year Task Force, led the continued discussion on the memorandum distributed at the October 15 meeting and attached as Exhibit A to the minutes of that meeting. A second memorandum had been distributed by campus mail prior to the meeting and is attached as Exhibit A (blue) to these minutes.

  A "straw vote" form was distributed and a copy is attached as Exhibit B (yellow).

  Under the heading "General Characteristics," issues raised included: if faculty select the subject matter is the advantage of a common reading lost?; what does "broad liberal arts" mean -- at least two divisions?; the literature on assessment shows that common subject matter courses tend to give better outcomes; department-specific seminars limit the opportunities for common experiences.

  Under "Student Outcomes," issues raised included: need for faculty development; what was the difference in the outcomes between the proposed models and the existing seminar?; need for tie-in among seminar, Engl 101, and Comm 101; what outcomes are distinctive to the freshman seminar?; need for more careful articulation of the desired outcomes for the seminar; will the course be part of the teaching load of most faculty?

  Time constraints precluded any discussion "Pragmatic Issues," "Advising," and "Assessment."




• "Freshman Seminar Models: Special Topics"

  Dr. Suzanne Walker outlined the committee's thoughts on the "Special Topics" model. Dr. Michael Seale, a graduate of Wabash College whose course was similar to the model under discussion spoke positively of his experience. Dean Schwartz reported on a conversation with Wabash's Provost who commented that the course was an excellent way of delivering advising, that faculty were keen to teach the course, and that students responded well to the course because they had selected the topic. In response to a comment concerning the need for careful oversight in order to maintain standards, Professor Arbuckle indicated the committee was assuming that such oversight would be in place. A question was raised about the willingness of departments to allow non-specialists teach a topic which rightfully belonged in the department, e.g. could an economist teach a "Special Topics" which had an emphasis on an avocation such as astronomy?




• "Freshman Seminar Models : Mini-course Model"

  Dr. Steven Spilatro outlined the committee's thought on the "Mini-course model." He was teaching such a model during the current semester with Drs. Itzkowitz and DeWine. Issues raised in the discussion included: is it realistic to expect seven groups of three faculty to be able to develop a common theme?; who decides which courses are worth doing?; does the mini-course look at transitions -- the "Special Topics" model does not; it was important for a student to get an advisor in his/her area of interest; the "Mini-course Model" could be attractive to "undecided" students; faculty sometimes have a four-week concept but not a fourteen-week concept and the "Mini-course Model" accommodated this; it could be difficult for students to make connections among the segments; better to have the faculty teaching in a fixed sequence -- an instructor would do three first-four-week segments.

  Ed. Lewis, President of the Student Senate, reported that both models had support from the Student Senate.

Fraser G. MacHaffie
Secretary of the Faculty

Exhibit A (blue): "Freshman Seminar"
Exhibit B (yellow): "Freshman Seminar -- Straw Vote Form"

cc. Dr. Jean Scott
Dr. Sue DeWine (2)
Dr. Sidney Potash
Reserve Collection, Dawes Library