General Education Committee Minutes
9/7/99 Minutes
Present: Gene Bartoo, Betsy Darken (chair and secretary), Nick Honerkamp,
Gail Meyer, Roger Thompson, Barbara Walton, Jane Harbaugh (ex officio)
Absent: Mike Biderman, Marea Rankin, Ken Smith, Vicki Smith, Bruce Wallace
Visitors: Helen Eigenberg and Randy Walker (HHS), Brenda Davis (Director
of Records and Registration)
The committee convened at 3 p.m.
A. Proposals
1. Introduction to Archaeology (Anth 211)
Professor Honerkamp was complimented on the thoroughness of his proposal.
However, he was asked to explain the reference to the "Donner Party
mortality profiles", and enlightened the committee about the sad fate of
single males in an isolated group of starving people. Professor Bartoo
raised the question of which category was most appropriate for this course,
the social sciences or the natural sciences. Professor Honerkamp
acknowledged that archaeology has a foot in each camp, but that this
particular course is definitely more oriented toward the social sciences.
Motion to approve (G. Bartoo, B. Walton): 5-0-0 (Professor Honerkamp
recused himself from the vote.)
[Secretary's note: since no one ever asked me to use "recuse" in a
sentence when I was in school, I am a little vague as to the appropriate
phrasing. In fact, I am also insecure about spelling, etc.--neither
Webster's Ninth Collegiate Dictionary nor my spellchecker believes in this
word....]
2. Statistics for the Health and Human Services (CHHS 101)
Professors Walker and Eigenberg were asked a number of questions about the
breadth and depth of this course. Professor Darken noted the absence of
the topic of variability from the syllabus and course objectives, but was
also concerned that the list of topics to be covered seemed to be overly
long for a three hour course. Several members of the committee asked that
the syllabus and the descriptions of how the course met general education
guidelines be expanded, so as to give a better indication of the scope of
the course. In particular, it would be useful if the proposal were to
contain course-specific examples illustrating how each guideline is to be
met. Examples regarding the use of writing in the course would also be
helpful. Professor Darken called particular attention to guideline #5,
which starts "Develop a sense of the nature of proof....", and suggested
that the presenters check other statistics proposals, including Math 210,
for suggestions on how to address this guideline. Professor Bartoo and
others commented on the use of the T. Kuhn's book, The Structure of
Scientific Revolutions. While they were favorably inclined toward the
book, they were unclear as to how it would be used in a statistics course.
Professor Meyer pointed out a discrepancy with regard to the percent of the
course grade based on writing. Professor Eigenberg expressed a willingness
to expand the proposal as suggested. Professor Darken supplied copies of
the Math 210 proposal to the presenters for reference.
Vis-a-vis statistics proposals in general, the chair distributed a report
from last year's Statistics Subcommittee. That subcommittee had been
queried as to the content of a general education statistics course which
would meet the overall goals of general education as well as specific
category guidelines. Its report, which was accepted with slight
modification by the General Education Committee, include the following
recommendations for general education statistics:
S1 Include some discussion of the need for statistics
and of the disciplines in which it is used.
S2. Present the basic distribution concepts of central tendency,
variability, and skewness.
S3. Present contemporary methods for describing data, including tabular,
graphical, and numeric summaries.
S4. Discuss the role of probability theory in inferential statistics.
S5. Present contemporary techniques of estimation of distribution parameters.
S6. Present contemporary techniques for testing hypotheses about
distribution parameters in situations appropriate for the discipline
S7. Present some discussion of the tradeoffs between the different
types of error rates in hypothesis testing.
The chair advised both the committee and the presenters that the above
recommendations are not set in stone, unlike the Green Book guidelines
passed by the full faculty. Rather, they serve as a reference for the
committee. If departments choose to omit one or more of the above topics,
they can do so as long as they can convince the committee of the wisdom of
their decisions.
B. Transfer Students and the New General Education Requirements
The committee, Dr. Jane Harbaugh, and the Director of Records and
Registration, Brenda Davis, discussed various issues connected to transfer
students and the new general education requirements. The following points
were made:
* It would be helpful to regional community colleges to receive
copies of approved course proposals as they re-examine their own curricula.
Dr. Harbaugh agreed to take care of this matter.
* In answer to questions raised at the last meeting, Brenda Davis
stated that transfer students are defined to be high school graduates who
started college at an institution other than UTC. She also stated that
policies (e.g. regarding transfer students and general education) should be
in place for entire academic years, not parts of years.
* Various departments at UTC are still in the process of adjusting
major requirements related to the new general education program. Some are
developing plans to integrate oral communication, intensive writing, or
computer literacy; others are making modifications due to the increased
number of hours in general education. This state of flux is causing
trouble with regard to advising potential transfer students.
* It will be useful for UTC departments to have conversations with
their community college counterparts regarding changes they have made
related to general education.
* It is important to stress that the evaluation of transcripts
vis-a-vis general education requirements is to be based ultimately on how
well courses seem to meet the guidelines, not on whether they are
equivalent to existing UTC general education courses.
* It is impractical to demand proof that a transfer course satisfy
each general education guideline. It would seem that the appropriate
Records Office personnel and UTC department heads are to use common sense
about assigning general education credit to transfer courses.
* There does not seem to be an exemption test available yet for
computer literacy. It was remarked that Computer Science is headless and
shorthanded these days. (We can only hope that they at least have all
their vital organs and a means of locomotion....) Dr. Harbaugh agreed to
look into the matter.
In an attempt to resolve some of the problems related to transfer students
and general education, The chair presented a draft of a policy to provide
some leeway for transfer students. The committee made numerous substantive
suggestions and massive editorial changes, and sent the chair off to come
up with something more intelligible and/or decorous. [Note: the chair has
become completely demoralized about her ability to phrase tricky points
diplomatically.] Nonetheless, the committee agreed to the main
recommendation, and passed the following motion, to be sent to Faculty
Council, by a vote of 6-0-0:
MOTION
Any high school graduate who starts college from Fall 1999 through Summer
2001 at an institution other than UTC will have the choice of adopting the
UTC 1998-1999 catalog. This option is in addition to the usual options of
adopting the UTC catalog in effect at the time of first entry into college
or the UTC catalog current at the time of entry into UTC.
This special provision is subject to the usual restriction that a catalog
is valid for a maximum of 10 years. That is, a student who wishes to use
the 1998-199 catalog must graduate before the Fall of 2008.
********
The chair and Dr. Harbaugh also informed the committee about goings-on at
higher levels with regard to transfer credit. In 1996 the Tennessee
legislature provided for the establishment of the Articulation Issues
Committees, which examined problems students experienced when transferring.
The Tennessee Higher Education Commission adopted the 21 recommendations
made by these committees, and all state institutions are expected to be
making progress on implementing them. Within the UT System, Bob Levy
(Senior Vice President) has communicated with all campuses that "I have
continued to tell THEC and others that [articulation and transfer] is
generally not a problem in Tennessee public universities. It remains,
however, an issue in state government circles. As you well know, it is
usually easier to fix problems than to resolve issues." Two
recommendations, #20 and #21, address the issue: "General education
requirements vary according to institutional mission and academic major and
degree programs." The recommendations are as follows:
"Recommendation #20: Differences in General Education programs should be
reviewed carefully by governing boards and campuses. Academic officers and
faculty should be aware of distinctions among programs that, while often
justified, could create problems for students who transfer."
"Recommendation #21: General Education requirements are a function of
institutional mission and are defined by the needs of each academic major
or degree program. However, governing boards and institutions should
strive to develop agreements which address the following components of
General Education:
1. variations in the total number of credit hours required by each
institution and by academic major/degree programs;
2. variations in content and hours required in distribution categories;
3. variations in the level (e.g. lower-divisions, upper-division) at
which General Education 'core' courses are offered; and
4. variations in approaches, instruments, and scoring regarding credit
for external assessments (e.g., AP, CLEP)."
Drs. Darken and Harbaugh said that it is not perfectly clear what is going
to be done about these recommendations. A high level meeting is being held
on September 15 to discuss some of these issues and our new general
education requirements with neighboring community colleges.
The final topic of discussion regarded the means by which integrated
requirements would be monitored, especially for transfer students. Various
committee members became alarmed at the possibility of unfortunate
scenarios and too much red tape. Brenda Davis and Betsy Darken launched
into a stream of consciousness discussion about several meetings from last
year on this problem, and eventually agreed to meet privately to
reconstruct previously proposed solutions. On that cheery note...
The committee voted on the proposals and adjourned at 5:00 p.m., NOT
setting a new record for speedy deliberations.
Mathematics Department, UT-Chattanooga
615 McCallie Ave, Chattanooga, TN 37403
phone:615-755-4580;fax: 615-755-4586; email: [log in to unmask]
|
