MARIETTA COLLEGE FACULTY MEETING

1. Curriculum Committee: 21^st Century Curriculum

Dr. Hogan moved the following motion, identified as Motion II, in the documentation distributed with the notice of the September 30 meeting, and reflecting changes sent with the notice of the October 28 meeting:

Whereas, we believe that general education is important to all members of the Marietta College community;

Whereas, we believe that the strength of Marietta College lies in its ability to work together across disciplinary boundaries;

Whereas, we believe that the specific criteria designed by panels of experts and the curriculum committee can be used successfully to determine which courses count in which cognate area;

Whereas, we hope to inspire the creation of new courses and revitalization of existing courses to serve a new generation of college students;

Resolved: That courses will be approved to count in the various cognate areas using the following procedure:

1. Individual faculty members will be responsible for turning in proposals to the Curriculum Committee for approval. These proposals must demonstrate how the proposed course meets the specific criteria outlined for any given cognate area. Proposal forms will be located in the Faculty Manual and on the Curriculum Committee website.

2. Proposals for courses with multiple sections taught by multiple faculty members must have the signatures of all faculty involved, signifying that each faculty member agrees to teach the course in the manner described in the proposal.

3. Curriculum Committee will designate a shepherd from the members of the committee for each proposal who will be responsible for investigating the merits of the proposal. This member will investigate the merits of the proposal by consulting, when appropriate, with the proposer and with faculty members who have expertise in the cognate area. This member will report and make a recommendation to the Curriculum Committee within two weeks of receiving the proposal. The Committee as a whole will vote on the approval of the proposal.

4. If the proposal is accepted the faculty proposer and the Records Office will be notified as to the status of the course.

5. If the proposal is not accepted the faculty proposer will have two weeks to appeal the decision to the Provost. (The Provost will act as a mediator between the proposer and the curriculum committee. The decision will rest in the hands of the committee).

6. The Records Office will be responsible for making the status change public for purposes of advising.

The motion was seconded and the rationale from Curriculum Committee outlined by Dr. Sibicky. Discussion initially focused on transfer students and transfer credits. The specific case of Wash-ington State Community College was raised where students already in the college’s Transfer Program could be placed at a disadvantage because of the significant changes in the General Education requirements. The Registrar said that the articulate-ion agreement with Washington State Community College was currently being revised and he argued against the need for any special provision for transfer students since a mechanism, namely the Academic Standards Committee, already existed for handling such problems.

Professor Osborne proposed an amendment to the motion,

That an item 7, be added,

“Transfer students who matriculate at Marietta College before the fall semester of 2004 with 15 credit hours or more may choose graduation requirements from the 2002-2003 catalog or any subsequent catalog.”

Rationale: Students from Washington State Community College are already taking courses that will transfer in accordance with our current articulation agreement. Many of these students are in WSCC’s formal Transfer Program. Under this provision, these students will be allowed to use our current catalog. In substance, this provision will treat transfer students in the same way as our own students.

The motion was seconded and discussion ensued. Among the points raised: the amendment addressed a transition period, would apply to all transfer students, was it sensible to adopt an amendment which anticipated a problem which could be addressed when it actually arose?, transfer students have not yet made any commitment to Marietta College and so why should the College accommodate them in this way?

On being put to a vote, the motion passed by large majority by a show of hands, with three votes against the amendment.

The question was raised concerning the mechanism for the approval of transfer credits. Dr. Sibicky replied that this was the responsibility of the Registrar’s Office. A member of faculty opined that based on his experience with the current curriculum this would mean academic advisors would need to be more proactive as advocates for transfer students in the approval of transfer courses as general education courses, especially those that had no obvious departmental “home” such as Global Issues and Diversity.

In response to a question concerning the “all faculty” language in part 2 of the motion, Dr. Sibicky indicated that when considering a proposal the committee would require that all faculty, full-time and adjunct, teaching a course would have to sign off on the proposal indicating they would all abide by the claims made in the proposal. It was up to the department to maintain adherence to the criteria when there were changes in personnel. The committee had agreed explicitly that there could not be approved sections of a course and non-approved sections. In the hypothetical case of a course currently taught by four instructors only three of whom were willing to sign the proposal, then only those three would thenceforth be permitted to teach the approved course. A member of the faculty argued that all members of a department should be required at least to put their initials on a proposal to indicate “knowledge of” if not necessarily “support for” the proposal The member referred to instances in the past of a faculty member submitting a proposal without the knowledge of the rest of the department. Dr. Sibicky confirmed that the same requirement of all faculty signing a proposal would apply to Writing Intensive courses.

In response to a question concerning the interpretation of the phrase in part 3. of the motion, “consulting, when appropriate, …. with faculty members who have expertise in the cognate area” Dr. Hogan said one situation could be where a discipline was not represented on the Curriculum Committee. Dr. Sibicky added that consultation would be appropriate where the committee either didn’t understand the rationale for a course or the answers they had received from the proposer in response to questions.

On being put to a vote, the amended motion passed unanimously by a show of hands.

Dr. Hogan moved the following motion, identified in the documentation as Motion III,

Whereas, Marietta College affirms the importance of the core value of in-depth programs of study and preparing students for both challenging careers and admission to well-respected graduate and professional schools;

Whereas, We believe that majors have the expertise to know how students can best be prepared for careers and/or graduate and professional schools;

Whereas, Departmental Reviews provide a means of oversight for departmental curricular responsibilities;

Resolved, That faculty of each major will define and require a capstone experience to be taken in the junior or senior year. The capstone experience will appear on the audit sheet for each major. This requirement replaces section 5. on page 118 in the 2002-2003 Marietta College catalogue.

The motion was seconded and discussion ensued. Among the issues raised: Would a student pursuing double majors be required to take two capstone courses? (Yes), What was the status and process for departmental reviews? (Contained in Strategic Plan – DeWine.) A friendly amendment was accepted to change the language in the second section of the rationale, namely replace “majors” with “faculty in the major.”

On being put to a vote, the motion passed by a show of hands with one vote against.

Dr. DeLaat thanked the Curriculum Committees of the past four years for their work in bringing to the faculty a curriculum which enjoyed wide-spread support.

2. Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 5:55 p.m.

Fraser G. MacHaffie

Secretary of the Faculty