General Education Committee
                      Minutes of Wednesday, February 3, 1999

Members Present:   Gene Bartoo, Mike Biderman, Betsy Darken, Jim Hiestand,
Nick Honerkamp, Ken Smith, Felicia Sturzer, Roger Thompson, Bruce Wallace,
Barbara Walton

Visitors:  Tom Rybolt, Cliff Parten

The committee convened at 3:00 p.m.

A.  Proposals

1.      Chemistry 122/124:  Intro Chemistry II
The famous (or infamous) Guideline #5 received the usual attention:  in
addition to dilemmas created by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, are
there other questions and problems which cannot be answered by the
empirical approach?  Professor Rybolt expected that such questions existed.
Professor Darken pointed out that the point of this guideline, which
applies to most categories, is to counterbalance--if only slightly--the
tendency in our compartmentalized curriculum to ignore other ways of
understanding the universe.

The committee praised the quality of this proposal, as well as previous
Chemistry proposals.  We were particularly impressed by the
thought-provoking examples given to illustrate how the writing requirement
will be implemented.

The Committee also received an information item from the Chemistry
Department regarding the splitting of Chem 121 into lecture and lab courses
(Chem 121 & 123).

CHEM 122/124 CERTIFIED, 10-0-0

2.      Engineering 322:  Statistics
The Committee pointed out that it was not satisfactory merely to state that
a guideline would be met.  Instead the proposal needed to explain HOW the
guideline would be met.  This was a problem with the responses to
Guidelines #1 and #3.  In addition, the response to Guideline #5 was not
complete--it needs a discussion of the strengths and limitations of
statistics in addressing human problems.  Professor Parten of Engineering
provided the Committee with wide ranging and entertaining answers to our
queries, along with bibliographical references.  The use of technology
(Guideline #9) was also discussed.  Professor Parten said that the use of
statistical packages "would be nice" but that calculators are adequate.  In
Guideline #6, Professor Parten agreed to strike the phrase "If time
permits", thereby including a discussion of the historical development and
importance of statistics in this course.  A number of typos (Guideline 7,
11, rationale) should also be corrected.

ENGINEERING 322 RETURNED FOR REVISIONS, 10-0-0

3.      Hist/Clas 310:  Greco-Roman World
This proposal is still incomplete.  The procedures for submitting
proposals, along with guidelines for Category B, are to be sent to the
proposer.

HIST/CLAS 310  RETURNED FOR REVISIONS, 10-0-0

4.      Psychology 201:  Statistics in Psychology
The response to Guideline #5 is incomplete.  A number of typos need to be
fixed.  [Mike, you have my copy.  I may have missed some of the other
corrections which need to be made.]

PSYCHOLOGY 201  RETURNED FOR REVISIONS, 9-0-1

B.      Plans for Integrating Various Requirements

The Committee discussed what materials it would need from departments
planning to integrate oral communication, intensive writing, and/or
computer literacy requirements into their major curricula.  We concluded
that departments would have to demonstrate the following:

1.      The integration plan must demonstrate that the equivalent of a
3-hour course is being integrated into the curriculum.  (This implies that
the requirement would have to be included in at least two content courses.)


2.      It must include a description of HOW this plan fulfills all the
guidelines.  Each guideline is to be stated, followed by an explicit
description of how it is being met.  [Note:  the guidelines for computer
literacy and the other requirements are on the General Education web page.]


3.      Include the syllabi of courses into which the requirement is being
integrated.  These syllabi must contain explicit references to the
requirement and the manner in which the requirement's guidelines are being
fulfilled.  E.g. for intensive writing, students must be required to submit
a series of drafts, and for oral communication, there must be lecture time
devoted to effective methods for delivering oral presentations.  The
syllabi must also include a section on evaluation, and this section must
include the weight given to the integrated requirement.

4.      For oral communication, include the procedures to be used for
critiquing and grading oral presentations, as well as the qualifications of
the faculty teaching the courses.

Faculty Training for Oral Communication

The Committee discussed what would constitute adequate training for faculty
planning to teach courses integrating oral communication.  We agreed that
attendance at a workshop such as the one planned for Feb 19-20 or the
Instructional Excellence Retreat in May would be considered as minimally
adequate.  Of course, faculty who have taken a course in oral communication
would also be considered qualified.  However, the Committee dismissed as
inadequate the suggestion that faculty members who did not attend a
workshop could be trained by a colleague who had attended.

Review of Plans Already Submitted

The committee discussed information already received from departments.  An
inquiry from Professors Townsend and O'Dea regarding the possible use of
departmental honors projects to satisfy the Intensive Writing requirement
provoked considerable discussion.  Committee members who have served on
honors project committees commented that some projects were not subjected
to a series of drafts.  Instead they received the student's write-up of the
project at the last minute, with time for at most one revision after the
oral defense.  This problem would have to be cleared up before such
projects would meet the guidelines for intensive writing.  Several members
also warned about an unfortunate ramification:   if a project including the
integrated writing requirement were not approved, the student could not
graduate that semester!   A proposal to use departmental honors projects to
satisfy the intensive writing requirement will have to be submitted to the
committee, containing the items outlined above.

The Committee also considered material received from the Teacher
Preparation Academy pertaining to integrating oral communication and
intensive writing into the PDS I program.  The Committee found two
problems:  first, the packet seemed to include much irrelevant material,
making it hard to identify the pertinent material; and second, answers to
some of the four points outlined above did not seem to be included.  A new
proposal to use the PDS I program to satisfy the intensive writing and oral
communication requirements will have to be submitted to the committee,
containing the items outlined above.

The meeting adjourned at 4:45 p.m.

Quote of the Meeting Award to Nick Honerkamp:  "'I heard it on the
grapevine' doesn't count as satisfying the oral communication training
requirement."


P.S.  Every now and then, those of us who write minutes wonder if anyone
ever reads them.....

Mathematics Department, UT-Chattanooga
615 McCallie Ave, Chattanooga, TN  37403
phone:615-755-4580;fax: 615-755-4586; email: [log in to unmask]