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]
|
