Marietta College Faculty Meeting

September 30, 2002

MINUTES (approved 10/14/02)

A special meeting of the Marietta College faculty convened at 5:00 p.m. September 30, 2002, in the Selby Science Center, room 101. Dr. Sidney Potash, Chair of the Faculty, presided.

1. Curriculum Committee: 21^st Century Curriculum

The following motion was proposed by Dr. Suzanne Walker and seconded.

Whereas, Marietta College reaffirms the core value of a Liberal arts foundation as essential preparation for any career;

Whereas, Marietta College affirms the importance of student learning in a breadth of general education courses in the major areas of knowledge;

Whereas, Marietta College affirms the importance of the development of critical thinking, problem solving, and effective communication skills;

Whereas, Marietta College affirms the core value of globalization and preparing students to thrive in a diverse, global society; and

Whereas, Marietta College affirms the core value of leadership and preparing students to be citizen-leaders;

Resolved, That the 21^st Century Curriculum proposed by the 2002 Curriculum Committee be implemented as Marietta College’s General Education Curriculum beginning with the Fall Semester 2003. The 21^st Century Curriculum is defined as all elements contained in the attached document titled “21^st Century Curriculum Proposal.” It replaces sections 2., 3., and 4. of the undergraduate degree requirements on pages 116-118 in the 2002-2003 Marietta College Catalogue.

Dr. Mark Sibicky, Chair of the Curriculum Committee outlined the changes that had been made to the proposal since the previous draft. Page 1, III, “Rules for Implementation” 2), was being interpreted as meaning that courses may be approved as qualifying for more than one cognate area but students must chose which area they wish the course to satisfy. Page 2, V, Writing Competency, Writing Intensive courses must be at the 200-400 level, and Specific criteria for Writing Intensive Courses, Engl 101 was now a prerequisite for all Writing Intensive Courses. Also, under Writing Intensive courses, the specific criteria language under 5) describing the basis of the grade had been re-written and the previous “requirement” under 7) was now an “expectation.” Dr. Sibicky indicated that the committee would be proposing an amendment to change the language under the Global and Diversity area.

The Chair announced that the motion would be considered “by paragraph.”

Dr. DeWine spoke briefly to the issue of the number of sections required for implementation. She reported that she had consulted the current course offerings under the current curriculum and was persuaded that no serious difficulty would arise in providing an adequate number of sections. Dr. DeWine added that she was assuming departments would be examining their offerings in light of the general education requirements of the new curriculum. She would be monitoring the situation and working with the Curriculum Committee as it reviewed the course proposals reaching it.

Discussion started with the document referred to in the motion, “21^st Century Curriculum Proposal,” a copy of which is attached as an exhibit (yellow).

Sections I, II and III were reviewed without comment.

Section IV, “Outline of Curriculum.” The following points were raised during the discussion. The humanities appeared to be losing out when one compares current hours required and the proposal. Leadership, hitherto described as a “value-added” part of the curriculum, is now a requirement. Instructors may attempt to teach in cognate areas for which they lack an adequate academic training. Since Writing Intensive courses may also be general education courses, has the general education requirement not been weakened since hours have been reduced from 52 to 48? Should faculty in a discipline not have some say in which courses are approved for their area? The various criteria have effectively excluded certain traditional academic disciplines, e.g. Philosophy. Does an increase in the hours required from 52 to 54 indicate that the curriculum is now emphasizing general education at the expense of majors? Current teaching loads make difficult the delivery of adequate courses meeting the criteria.

Section V, “Cognate area descriptions and Criteria,” Writing Competency. Several members spoke in support of English 101 as a prerequisite for Writing Intensive (WI) courses. Why were 100-level courses excluded from being WI courses. Could there be WI sections and non-WI sections of the same course. (No.) Could English 101 be made a fall requirement for all first year students not required to enroll in English 060.

Dr. Itkowitz proposed an amendment:

At least fifty percent of the grade for a Writing Intensive course be based on formal writing assignments

The motion failed for lack of a seconder.

Discussion continued on the WI requirement. The exclusion of 100-level courses from the WI requirement presented a disincentive for making writing a significant part of 100-level courses. In response to a question about placing a cap on enrollment in WI courses, Dr. Sibicky replied that this could be part of the proposal submitted to the Curriculum Committee. The Registrar indicated that his experience made him uncomfortable allowing faculty to set enrollment limits on courses. The speaker pointed out the experience with sequences where administrators had unilaterally increased enrollment without any consultation and this had reduced the effectiveness of the sequences. The speaker was encouraged to bring a motion. The Provost said that 22 seemed a reasonable capacity limited.

2. Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 6:02 p.m. and would reconvene at the previously-scheduled meeting on Monday October 14.

Fraser G. MacHaffie

Secretary of the Faculty

Exhibit: 21^st Century Curriculum Proposal

Distribution: Dr. Jean A. Scott

Dr. Sue DeWine (2)

Dr. Sidney Potash

Reserve section, Dawes Library