Could you explain this part:
The committee was confused by C(3), regarding students who are forced to
change catalogs. Who are these students and what is going on here? Betsy
Darken said she believed it had something to do with state certification
for education majors, but she did not know the details.
**************************************************************************
DR. DEBORAH A. McALLISTER, Ed.D.
UC Foundation Associate Professor
Technology Coordinator, 21st Century Classroom
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE
AT CHATTANOOGA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
College of Education and Applied Professional Studies
School of Educational Leadership
Phone: (423) 755-5376 Teacher Preparation Academy
FAX: (423) 755-5380 314B Hunter Hall
Home: (423) 842-1607 615 McCallie Avenue
Email: [log in to unmask] Chattanooga, TN 37403
**************************************************************************
On Sun, 21 Feb 1999, Betsy Darken wrote:
> General Education Committee
> Minutes of Wednesday, February 17, 1999
>
> Members present: Gene Bartoo, Mike Biderman, Betsy Darken, Jim Hiestand,
> Nick Honerkamp, Felicia Sturzer, Roger Thompson, Bruce Wallace, Barbara
> Walton
>
> Visitors: Oralia Preble-Niemi, Ron Bohrer, Marvin Ernst, Leland Robinson,
> David Carrithers, David Brodsky, Lynn Ourth and other psychologists (sorry
> I missed your names), Kit Rushing, Elizabeth Gailey, Ed Rozema, Gene
> Schlereth
>
> The committee convened at 3:00 p.m.
> (These minutes are not chronological.)
>
> A. Revised Proposals
>
> 1. Communications 320
>
> The proposers were praised for the quality of this revision. It was noted
> that the Communications Dept will allow its majors to take this course for
> both major and general education credit.
>
> COMM 320 CERTIFIED, 9-0-0
>
> 2. Hist/Clas 310
> The revisions were acceptable. This course is being certified for B(2),
> Humanities and Fine Arts.
>
> Hist/Clas 310 CERTIFIED , 9-0-0
>
> 3. Psychology 241: Psychology OF Individual Differences
> The revisions were acceptable.
>
> PSYCHOLOGY 241 CERTIFIED, 9-0-0
>
> 4. Psych 101: Introduction to Psychology
> The revisions were acceptable.
>
> PSYCHOLOGY 101 CERTIFIED, 9-0-0
>
> 5. Political Science 103: Controversies in Public Policy
> The revisions were acceptable. There was a discussion about the use of
> technology and the problem of students taking this course before they had
> completed the computer literacy course. It was also pointed out that the
> Curriculum Committee may want a more detailed syllabus since this is a new
> course.
>
> POLITICAL SCIENCE 103 CERTIFIED, 9-0-0
>
>
> B. New Proposals
>
> 1. HSRV 101: Team Participation
> The committee had no questions. (!)
> HSRV 101 CERTIFIED, 8-0-1
>
> 2. Sociology 250: Social Statistics
> The committee had no questions.
> SOC 250 CERTIFIED, 8-0-0
>
> 3. Integration Plan: Integrating oral communication and intensive
> writing into the French and Spanish majors
> The plan was generally considered to be thorough. However, various members
> requested that in the future, separate plans be submitted for each major
> and each requirement. The committee was reassured that no native French or
> Spanish speakers would be meeting the general education requirements in
> these courses, and that the expectations regarding oral communication and
> intensive writing will not be lowered even though students will be using a
> second language.
>
> C. Exceptions and Clarifications
>
> The committee considered recommendations from the General Education
> Implementation Committees regarding a list of exceptions and clarifications
> regarding general education. In deference to our visitors from the
> Mathematics Dept, we first considered the recommendation that students who
> place at Math Level 40 are to be exempt from the general education
> mathematics (but not statistics) requirement. Ed Rozema and Gene Schlereth
> from the Mathematics Department made a number of points. First, the math
> placement tests are very low-level, arithmetic and algebra I to be precise,
> and oriented toward the testing of skills. Students who do well on these
> basic tests and report that they have had four years of college preparatory
> math are placed at level 40. Professors Rozema and Schlereth pointed out
> that placing at level 40 does not indicate that a student has taken a
> course which meets general education guidelines, especially with regard to
> the use of writing, the use of technology, and an appreciation for the
> value of proofs--unlike the situation with regard to placement into English
> 122 instead of English 121. The math placement level of 40 merely
> indicates that the student probably has enough algebraic skill and
> background to handle the first course in the main calculus sequence. A
> motion was made and seconded to require all students to satisfy the general
> education requirement in mathematics, regardless of placement level. The
> motion passed unanimously. [Your chair/secretary does not know what the
> exact vote was, although she is sure she wrote it down somewhere.]
>
> The committee considered other items on the list. It had no problem with
> A(1), where completion of English 122 w/o Engl 121 is to be considered
> acceptable for completion of the rhetoric and composition requirement. In
> regard to C(1), on the matter of encouraging 1999-2000 transfer students to
> adopt the 1998-1999 catalog, the committee wanted a lower bound on who gets
> classified as a transfer student, and suggested that students with less
> than 12 hours should be treated as new freshmen. The committee had
> differing opinions about C(2), with regard to the question of whether or
> not second degree seeking students should meet UTC general education
> requirements. The committee was confused by C(3), regarding students who
> are forced to change catalogs. Who are these students and what is going on
> here? Betsy Darken said she believed it had something to do with state
> certification for education majors, but she did not know the details. For
> D (1) and (2), regarding a limit on the number of hours students would have
> to complete English composition and math requirements, the committee was
> generally in favor of such limits, and discussed the possibility that the
> math limit should be 42 attempted hours, like the English limit. The
> committee was aware that questions have arisen about whether or not these
> limits can be enforced, but was inclined to make recommendation based on
> what was best for the students and the institution, regardless of technical
> problems. They also indicated a preference for putting a 30 hour limit on
> transfer students with regard to these requirements.
>
> Given the lateness of the hour, the committee chose to postpone
> consideration of the remaining recommendations and motion making until its
> next meeting. Betsy Darken agreed to invite Director of Records Brenda
> Davis to our next meeting on March 3.
>
> The meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m.
>
> Mathematics Department, UT-Chattanooga
> 615 McCallie Ave, Chattanooga, TN 37403
> phone:615-755-4580;fax: 615-755-4586; email: [log in to unmask]
>
|
