Curriculum Committee
Committee Minutes
24th meeting, May 12, 2005 –
approved September 9, 2005
Present: J. Lochhead (chair), D. K.
Gillespie (secretary), D. Prowse, T. Weinacht, A. Feldman, C. Marrone, L.
Volpe, R. Cerrato, N. Tomes, E. Lindquist, Absent: C. Green-Forde, V. Dumont,
A. Phillips,
I. Committee Business
1. Review of the minutes from May 4,
2005 – approved
II., IV. Routine Administrative
Matters, New
Business
None
III. Old Business
Winter Session
Memo from Associate Provost, Joseph
Auner (submitted April 27, 2005)
The Committee agrees that the
creation of a Winter Session at Stony Brook is a great opportunity to offer a
unique, pedagogically sound program to compete with other campuses. The
Committee also agrees that departments should, by some method, propose Winter
offerings, and that the Committee should review course proposals to determine
their appropriateness for a 3-week format. In particular, the Committee agrees
with point IV.2 on the April 27 memo, that “existing courses be approved for
the Winter Session format by the appropriate on-campus Curriculum Committee.”
Discussion about the Winter Session
was far-ranging and resulted in the following suggestions:
(a) The time line for courses to be
approved before they are scheduled is problematic. The Committee does not meet
again until September, 2005, and the current plan indicates that Winter courses
will be scheduled in June/July 2005. The earliest the Committee could review
courses would be September, which leaves only a small window of time to
advertise the courses to students before mid-November enrollment. There may not
be enough time for Departments to discuss which kind of courses in their
curriculum will best take advantage of the Winter Session format and for
departments to go through the proposal/ review/ approval/ scheduling/ marketing
process before students enroll.
(b) The Provost’s office has been
careful to coordinate research to confirm that the Winter Session is
economically desirable and technically viable at Stony Brook. However, before
implementation, the Committee recommends that broad discussion is necessary by
the faculty – in departments and in faculty committees, councils and governing
bodies – to discuss the academic goals of implementing a Winter Session. Such
items are outside the purview of the Committee, but include possible
discussions regarding
--“Winter Session teaching will
count as extra service and will not count toward regular teaching load.” If
faculty are inclined to use the intersession weeks for research, it may lead to
a large proportion of courses taught by adjuncts. Department chairs may wish to
limit faculty from teaching in the Winter in order to concentrate on research
and/ or tenure/promotion files.
--quality control for adjuncts who
teach in Winter (and Summer) and comparisons of Winter (and Summer) offerings
to Fall and Spring offerings
(c) Curriculum: Guidelines should be
established as to what types of courses would be best suited for Winter
Session. Although comparisons have been drawn to the Summer, the three-week
session seems to require course topics amenable to compression. Immersion,
study abroad and interdisciplinary seminars could be ideal for a three-week
session. Skills courses or classes with demanding reading or writing
assignments may not be appropriate. Also in addition to offering high-demand
introductory courses, it may be good to encourage offerings of upper division
courses, as students near graduation may wish to satisfy last-minute
requirements.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Arts and Sciences Senate
Undergraduate Curriculum Committee
Academic Year 2004-2005
Committee Minutes
23rd meeting, May 4, 2005 – Approved
May 12, 2005
Present: J. Lochhead (chair), D. K.
Gillespie (secretary), D. Prowse, T. Weinacht, A. Feldman, A. Phillips, C.
Marrone, L. Volpe, R. Cerrato, N. Tomes, E. Lindquist,
Guests: Kenneth Lindblom, Susan
Scheckel, Lawrence Frohman, Sarah Jourdain, Kathleen Vernon
Absent: C. Green-Forde, V. Dumont
I. Committee Business
1. Review of the minutes from April
20, 2005 – approved
2. Review of the minutes from April
27, 2005 – approved
3. General Education
Gillespie will continue work on
General Education this summer
Still to clarify: status of Skill 4
4. Meeting for May 12, 2005 – final
meeting for AY 2004-05 will be Thursday, May 12 at 12:00
II. Routine Administrative Matters
1. Undergraduate Biology
BIO 358 – response from Gillespie to
Joanne Souza, 04/25/2005 03:19 PM
“The committee will agree for you to
take the enrollment to 75-100 if direct monitoring of the recitations is
maintained. For now, I will schedule the course with 40, and Paula di Pasquale
can increase as necessary. I am sure students will be very interested in this
course.
The class note will indicate the
digital aspect of the course. The meeting time will be "HTBA".
Class note:
"DIGITAL lectures viewed
privately w/PC-compatible computer. Attendance REQUIRED on 8/30 & at 3
Exams (9/27 & 11/8, 6:50-8:10PM) & final (12/22, 8-10:30pm). Follows
Fall Acad Calendar. Internet conn. required. http://www.ic.sunysb.edu/Class/bio358"
2. Marine Sciences
Request to lower the credits and
change the course description for MAR 303 for Fall 2005.
Rationale: this course has not been
offered for several years, and the offering in the Fall 2005 will not have Saturday
field trips. Therefore, the contact hours will be fewer and therefore fewer
credits will be satisfied.
Approved, but with specific
limitations and effective terms:
Since students are already enrolled
for the Fall 2005 semester, credits cannot be altered. Normally, neither can
the course description, however, the course description indicates inaccurate
information for the Fall 2005. Since the credits cannot be lowered for Fall 2005, the
class meetings that used to occur on
Saturdays will now occur on Tuesdays. Therefore, the credit change (from 4 to 3
credits) was approved effective Spring 2006 and the
course description will be changed for Fall 2005, removing the indication for
Saturday meetings.
III. Old Business
1. Five Year combined degree programs with
teacher certification– comparison charts
French BA/MAT Curriculum approved
5/4/2005
Spanish BA/MAT Curriculum approved
5/4/2005
History BA/MAT Curriculum approved
5/4/2005
English BA/MA Curriculum approved
5/4/2005
History BA/MA Curriculum approved
5/4/2005
Italian BA/MAT Curriculum approved
5/4/2005
Chemistry BS/MAT Curriculum approved
4/27/2005
Earth Science BA/MAT Curriculum
approved 4/27/2005
Linguistics BA/MA Curriculum
approved 4/27/2005
Physics BS/MAT Curriculum approved
4/27/2005
In addition, the admissions
requirements were approved for all proposed programs, with some modifications.
The minimum g.p.a. for admission should be at least
the same as that of the MA or MAT. The proposals for Chemistry, Earth Science
and Physics indicate the opposite, and a revision will be requested.
The Committee also expresses concern
that Departments should provide appropriate advising and supervision of
students, including those who exhibit difficulty in the program. If students
are asked to leave the program based on unsatisfactory progress, the Committee
recommends that a communication is issued to the student in time for the
student to complete the undergraduate requirements with a maximum of six (6)
graduate credits. Although up to fifteen (15) graduate credits may count toward
the undergraduate degree in combined degree programs, if a student withdraws
from the combined program, only six (6) graduate credits may be used. As such,
students should be advised in a timely
manner so that they may complete, if necessary, the regular undergraduate
degree without having to take additional undergraduate courses.
IV. New Business
1. Undergraduate Biology (Cerrato - see 4/27 packet)
Course proposal: BIO 367 – Molecular
Diversity Laboratory. Approved as experimental for Spring
2004
Approved with a few requests and
comments:
- crosslisting with an MSRC course should be confirmed
with the MSRC for the future
- an
updated syllabus is requested
- clarification
of prerequisites: (BIO 201 and BIO 202); and (BIO 354 or BIO 320 or BIO 351)
2. Winter Session
Memo from Associate Provost, Joseph Auner
Time did not permit a full
discussion of the memo. Discussion will continue at the next
meeting.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Undergraduate Curriculum Committee
Academic Year 2004-2005
Committee Minutes
22nd meeting, April 27, 2005 –
Approved May, 4, 2005
Present: J. Lochhead
(chair), D. K. Gillespie (secretary), D. Prowse, T. Weinacht, A. Feldman, A. Phillips, C. Marrone,
L. Volpe, R. Cerrato, N. Tomes, Guests: Robert
McCarthy, Robert Kerber, Margo Dellicarpini,
Linda Padwa
Absent: E. Lindquist, C. Green-Forde, V. Dumont
I, II, IV. Committee Business, Routine
Administration and New Business
1. None. All committee business,
routine administrative matters and new business were delayed until the next
meeting
III. Old Business
1. Five Year combined degree programs with
teacher certification– comparison charts
Linguistics BA/MA Curriculum
approved. See below
Chemistry BS/MAT Curriculum
approved. See below
Earth Science BA/MAT Curriculum
approved. See below
Physics BS/MAT Curriculum approved.
See below
French BA/MAT Discussion scheduled
for next meeting
Spanish BA/MAT Discussion scheduled
for next meeting
History BA/MAT Discussion scheduled
for next meeting
History BA/MA Discussion scheduled
for next meeting
English BA/MA Discussion scheduled
for next meeting
Note: On 26 April 2005, The
Undergraduate Council approved an exception to the policy that limits the use
of graduate credits towards undergraduate degrees
-- for
combined degree programs only, up to 15 graduate credits may count toward the
undergraduate portion of the degree
-- a minimum
of 138 credits must be completed to earn combined bachelors/masters degrees
-- if a
student elects to withdraw from the five year program, the existing policy
applies: a maximum of 6 graduate credits may count toward the undergraduate
degree.
Authoring Faculty members attended
by invitation to discuss each proposal.
The Committee welcomed guest faculty
to discuss their proposals to combine existing bachelors and masters programs
into time-shortened combined degree programs.
The curriculum for
four proposals were approved, and a few questions were posed or concerns
stated:
(a) the
curriculum of each program appears very stringent. Some revisions were
requested to balance the credit load for each semester
(b) Will graduate courses be diluted
by undergraduate enrollment? Consensus was ‘no’ since most of the courses in
question are already co-scheduled.
(c) Are the programs too intense?
The Committee agrees that the programs are designed for very well-prepared
students
(d) what
are the admission standards for the programs? Are the admissions standards the
same for all proposed programs? Gillespie will research.
(e) Advising: due to the intensity
of the programs, advising of students will be an important component for
keeping students on track.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Undergraduate Curriculum
Committee
Academic Year 2004-2005
Committee Minutes
21st meeting, April 20,
2005 – Approved May 4, 2005
Present: J. Lochhead (chair), D. K. Gillespie (secretary), D. Prowse, T. Weinacht, A. Feldman,
A. Phillips, C. Marrone, L. Volpe, C. Green-Forde, V.
Absent:
I. Committee Business
1. Review of the minutes
from April 6, 2005 – approved
2. General Education
Report of meeting with
Deputy Provost, Cerrato and Gillespie
Many courses submitted
in since Feb 2003 have been approved, however, several
are still pending or have been rejected. Gillespie will work to amend or revise
proposals for pending or rejected applications.
Phillips reported that
the A/S senate rescinded their vote to support S/U grading for the 102
seminars, and ABC/U grading is now supported by that group.
II. Routine
Administrative Matters
1. Undergraduate
Biology
BIO 311 – remove 3 hrs
of lab (1 contact hr) and add one hour of recitation (1 contact hr)
Approved
2. European
Languages, Literatures and Cultures
Modify ITL 436 (3
credits)
original proposal: 3 hrs lecture
+ 3 hrs film showing revised: 2 hrs lecture + 2 hrs film showing, plus extra
readings each week for “significant outside preparation for film”
Approved
3. Undergraduate
Biology
BIO 367
This course was approved
for Spring 2004 as an experimental. Can we run it
again without a formal proposal?
Department needs to
submit a regular course proposal form CAS
III. Old Business
1. Marine Science
Highschool credit for MAR courses
– Smithtown HS
Memo from Mary Scranton
After some research and
correspondence with Robert Kerber and Norman Goodman,
the Committee agrees that this topic is outside the purview of the Committee.
Instead, it should be passed to undergrad council. Lochhead
and Gillespie will draft a memo to send to the
undergrad council that will include
the memos from Goodman and Kerber. The Committee
recommends that a program such the proposed is not ideal to run it through
young scholars since that program is designed for students who come to SBU
campus for courses rather than for remote courses. Geology does use Young
Scholars, but the program goals are perhaps slightly different. The courses for
the proposed courses already exist, but the issue to be passed to the
Undergraduate Council is whether to allow remote offerings of undergraduate
courses for University credit to High School students using High School faculty
(presumably hired as SBU adjuncts).
2. Undergraduate
Biology
Experimental Course
proposal for BIO 358 – Biology and Human Social Sexual Behavior
Approved, pending two
questions:
(a) The enrollment cap
on the proposal is listed at "40" on the application. Is this
accurate?
(b) Clarification is
needed as to who will be leading the recitations.
The approval of this
experimental course also raises questions on policy that require decisions outside
the purview of the Committee. The Committee will pass these issues to the
Undergraduate Council
(a) What constitutes a
lecture? Does the lecturer need to be present? Is interaction required?
(b) What constitutes a
“digital” lecture? Does this imply multi-media or an interactive forum?
(c) Producing video
recorded lectures is similar to authoring an “electronic” textbook. Is this
different than producing audio recordings of a lecture? Can either of these substitute for the conventional “live” lecture?
IV. New Business
1. Five
Year combined degree programs with teacher certification– comparison
charts
Linguistics BA/MA (A. Feldman)
Social Studies BA/MA (N. Tomes)
Social Studies BA/MAT (D. Prowse)
Foreign Language BA/MAT (C. Marrone)
Chemistry BA/MAT (A. Phillips)
Physics BA/MAT (T. Weinacht)
Earth Science BA/MAT (J. Lochhead)
Discussion was tabled on
these items. The Committee wishes to invite each faculty member who authored
these proposals to attend a Committee meeting to briefly discuss each proposal.
Also pending are
proposals for English BA/MA and Spanish BA/MAT, each with teacher
certification.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
CAS Curriculum Committee
Minutes
April 13, 2005
20th meeting, April 13,
2005 – Approved April 20, 2005
Present: R. Cerrato, (acting chair), D. K. Gillespie (secretary), D. Prowse, T. Weinacht, A. Feldman,
A. Phillips, N. Tomes, C. Marrone,
Absent: L. Volpe, C.
Green-Forde, V. Dumont, E. Lindquist, J. Lochhead
I. Committee Business
1. Review of the minutes
from April 6, 2005 - approved
II. Routine
Administrative Matters
1. Psychology
Revision to the
pre-requisite for SSE 327
FROM
Advisory Prerequisites
for: U3 or U4 standing; enrollment in a teacher preparation program
TO:
Advisory (Prerequisites for: U3 or
U4 standing); and (enrollment in a teacher
preparation program OR enrollment in the Psychology major.)
Rationale: Department of
Psych is now responsible for SSE 327 and must therefore fund the course. To
maximize resources, they want PSY majors to be able to use this course as part
of their majors.
Approved, with the
condition that Psychology reserve an appropriate number of seats for students
pursuing teacher certification programs
2. Marine Sciences
Due to change of plans
since the approval of these courses, the department wishes to schedule them
earlier than originally proposed. The effective active date has been revised as
follows.
MAR 370 Marine Mammals,
effective Spring 2006 Fall 2005
MAR 371 The Biology and Conservation of Marine Birds and Sea
Turtles, eff Spr 2006 Fall
2005
Approved
III. Old Business
1. Art (see 4/6 and 2/2
packets, plus 2/9 minutes) (Tomes)
New Course proposal: ARS
205 Foundations: Idea and Form revised syllabus from the Department of Art (For
Fall 2005)
Approved, effective Fall 2005
2. European Languages
Literatures and Cultures (see 2/23 packet and minutes) (Tomes)
New Course Proposal: GER
313 German Vocabulary in Conceptual Groups (For Spring
2006)
Correspondence from
Robert Bloomer
Approved effective Spring 2006. In addition to the Department European
Languages, the Department of Linguistics may find this course interesting for
their majors.
3. Marine Sciences
High school credit for
MAR courses – Smithtown HS
Correspondence from
Robert Kerber and Norman Goodman
The Committee requests a
memo from
preventing ventures such as the
proposed one with Smithtown HS. Kerber opposed the initiation of such programs in general,
but would endorse this particular venture with Smithtown HS under a grandfather
clause as long as it cannot be used as a precedent for creating others.
IV. New Business
1. European Languages
(Tomes)
(see 3/2/05 packet)
New Course Proposal: ITL
436 – Special Topics in Italian Cinema
Approved, effective Fall 2005
2. Biomedical
Engineering (Cerrato) (see 3/2/05 packet)
BME 304 Genetic
Engineering: Proposal to designate this course as DEC H
Approved, Fall 2005. DEC H is not associated with SUNY Gen Ed, so a
proposal to the state is not required
3. Psychology (Tomes)
Administrative
Acquisition of SSE 327 Human Growth and Development in the Educational Context
Proposal to change SSE 327 to PSY 327- proposal arrived 3/17/05
Approved, effective Fall 2005. Course will be scheduled for the first time in Spring 2006
4. Asian and Asian
American Studies (Prowse)
New Course proposal: AAS
/ POL 35x-J –
Approved, Fall 2005. The Department plans to schedule the course for
the first time in Fall 2006, but it will be available
for Spring 2006 if needed.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
CAS Curriculum Committee
Minutes April 6, 2005
19th meeting, April 6,
2005 – Approved April 13, 2005
Present: J. Lochhead (chair), D. K. Gillespie (secretary), D. Prowse, T. Weinacht, A. Feldman,
A. Phillips, R. Cerrato, N. Tomes,
Absent: L. Volpe, C.
Green-Forde, V. Dumont, C. Marrone,
E. Lindquist
I. Committee Business
1. Review of the minutes
from March 16, 2005 – approved
2 Review of the minutes
from March 30, 2005 – approved
3. Proposal of several
combined degree programs
Gillespie reported that
he will be presenting several combined degree programs to the Committee in the
next few weeks. The Committee’s main concern is whether changes will occur to
existing undergraduate majors.
II. Routine
Administrative Matters
None
III. Old Business
1. Undergraduate
Colleges
Correspondence from the
College Directors and Deputy Provost
On the basis of the
request and justification from the College Directors, the Committee voted to
approve "ABC/U" grading within the context of the
"Guidelines" in the form that was suggested on 30 March. The
suggested revisions to the Guidelines are attached to these minutes with
changes in colored italics. The revised parts are in red. If the College Directors are not in agreement with these amended
Guidelines, the Committee requests to be informed as soon as possible. While the CAS Curriculum Committee approved
the grading basis, members are aware that this contradicts the resolution of
the CAS Senate. The Committee believes that that resolution
arises from a lack of stated
clarity about the overall goals and conception of the seminars. It seems
that the members of the Senate were assuming a freer format that would best be
graded by "S/U". The justifications of the "ABC/U" grading
basis by the College Directors and the "Seminar Guidelines" suggest a
more "academically rigorous" conception for which the
"ABC/U" grading is appropriate.
Given the two concepts for the courses that seem to be circulating on
campus, the Curriculum Committee strongly suggests that the College Directors,
working with the Undergraduate Council, prepare a more fully articulated
statement on the academic goals and outcomes for the courses. Given that there
is considerable attention in academia at present on assessment and outcomes, it
would be useful to have a statement on the academic goals of the seminars that
addressed those issues with greater clarity. Given the broad range of topics in
the seminars,
these academic goals and
outcomes will need to be quite general, but the process of deciding what the
goals and outcomes are could lead to greater clarity across campus about what
academic needs the seminars serve. The
Curriculum Committee defers the discussion about seminar goals and outcomes to
the Undergraduate Council since the seminars cross colleges in the University.
The attached
Guidelines include
changes in colored italics and include an additional header on
"Goals and Outcomes." The “Goals” section (in blue) is the part that
the Committee suggests further clarification. In particular, the statement in
item 3-- that students will "engage an academic
topic"--could be more
specific about how and to what end. Further, since a goal of "curriculum
experimentation" is not exclusive to the seminars, the Committee wonders
why it is included here.
Given that the UG
College 102 Seminars are based on the Guidelines discussed and approved
conditionally above, the Committee also approves the five Undergraduate College
102 Seminars that are within CAS: ACH 102, GLS 102, HDV 102, LDS 102, and SSO
102. [ITS
102 was
approved by the CEAS CTPC, but should ideally adhere to the same Guidelines.]
2. General Education
Gillespie and Feldman
will draft a memo to outline the urgency of information from SUNY
Administration regarding Skill 4, DEC K and pending course proposals for
General Education requirements.
3. Winter Session
A very brief discussion
revealed that more information is needed before further discussion will be
useful. Gillespie will be in touch with Joseph Auner
for more details. Due to the length of the proposed winter session, it may be
appropriate to limit the type and/or credit load for courses in the winter.
Some courses, like those that require heavy reading or courses with laboratory
components may not be appropriate for the winter. However, courses on tropical
islands would be acceptable, especially if the secretary of the Curriculum
Committee is required to ensure proper delivery of the curriculum by inspection
of the teaching facilities.
IV. New Business
1. Marine Science
High school credit for
MAR courses – Smithtown HS
Gillespie and Feldman
corresponded recently with Judith Burke-Berhannan, Director
of Admissions. JBB is willing to administer admission/registration through the
Young Scholars program if the course(s) are approved to be offered at
(a) A high school
coordinator would need to be designated. This person would be responsible for
collecting all applications with the $100 payment and health form for each
student participating. Forms would need to be submitted to Lyle Wind by
deadlines established for
each semester. All applications
for the fall should be submitted by June 30th.
(b) The Office of
Admissions would be responsible for putting students on line and registering
them into the course and section. Only one section should be designated for
each semester that the course is offered.
The Committee also discussed that there might be a University Senate
policy on permitting or preventing undergraduate courses to be taught off
campus and in High School settings.
Lochhead will write to the
appropriate person(s).
102
REVISION OF THE CAS
Curriculum Committee
6 April 2005
Course Goals and Outcomes
The second-semester
freshman seminars are one-credit enrichment courses. The primary goals of these
courses are:
1. To impart a strong
sense of academic community
2. To acquaint first-year
students with a full-time tenure-track and tenured faculty members
3. To provide students
with an opportunity to engage directly with an academic topic in a small
setting
4. To allow for
experimentation in curriculum design
Students will be
evaluated on the basis of exams, short written assignments, journals,
presentations, participation in discussion of lecture
materials, and interaction with faculty and other students. Because of the
variety of offerings, it is impossible to specify precise breakdowns of the
value of each type for all sections.
Oversight
The council of College
Faculty Directors is responsible for the oversight of the 102 courses. All
seminar proposals must be approved by the entire council. Formal evaluation of
instruction and the seminars will be done at the end of each spring semester.
General guidelines
Grading: All 102 seminars are
graded on an A – C/U basis.
Syllabus: Instructors should hand
out a syllabus at the beginning of the first class meeting with guidelines and
expectations, and a rough timetable. Instructors should make sure to email a
copy of their syllabus to the Faculty Director of their College.
Attendance: Instructors should take
attendance and set a goal that relates attendance to a grade. A threshold for passing
should be limited to a maximum of two unexcused absences for a weekly meeting
pattern and one unexcused absence for a biweekly meeting pattern.
Course Projects: It is strongly recommended
that each student write one or two short papers (3-5 pages) or complete a
substantive academic project (eg., sculpture, oral presentation, portfolio, musical
performance or piece, etc.)
Contact hours: The course should meet for
a total of fourteen class hours. Instructors who choose to meet less frequently
than weekly must inform students at the beginning of the semester. Three hours
of film/music/lab generally equals one regular class hour. If significant
outside preparation is required, two contact hours for film or music or lab
equals one regular class hour. This is similar for field trips to museums or
other sites. Travel time should not be counted. University policy dictates that
students should spend three hours per week preparing/reading for every credit
of course work.
Class Participation: Class participation
should be graded and may count for up to 25% of the final grade.
Advising: Instructors are
encouraged to set aside time for informal advising and discussion of academic
progress. Students should be encouraged to attend faculty office hours.
Students seeking formal curricular advising should be referred to their college
advisor.
Events: An instructor may
require that students attend one or more field trip or university lecture (from
an approved list). Limited funds for field trips will be made available each
semester.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Arts and Sciences Senate
Undergraduate Curriculum Committee
Committee Minutes
18th meeting, March 30, 2005 –
approved April 6, 2005
Present: J. Lochhead
(chair), D. K. Gillespie (secretary), D. Prowse, T. Weinacht, C. Marrone, A. Feldman,
A. Phillips, E. Lindquist,
Absent: L. Volpe, N. Tomes, C.
Green-Forde, V. Dumont, R. Cerrato
I. Committee Business
1. none
II. Routine Administrative Matters
1. Chemistry
CHE 327 – amend prerequisite to
include CHE 133 or CHE 143
Revised Prerequisite reads:
Prerequisite: CHE 134 or 144 and CHE
133 or 143
Pre- or Corequisite:
CHE 321 (or the former CHE 331)
approved
2. Geosciences
Co-schedule of GEO 302 with GEO 502
(new course proposed to the
Since GEO 302 has been approved to
meet with GEO 305 for the first five weeks, it seems appropriate that the
Co-schedule of GEO 302 with GEO 502 would be routine.
approved
Update title of PHY/AST 277
from: Computing for Physics and
Astronomy Majors
to: Computation for Physics and Astronomy
approved
Hum 220 – Change component from
Lecture only to Lecture plus Lab for Film. 3-credit course now requires 2
lecture contact hours and 2 lab contact hours.
Approved – the Committee recommends
relaying film viewing policy to the Department
III. Old Business
Undergraduate Colleges
revised Guidelines received 25 March 2005
The Committee is still uncertain
about the appropriate grading basis. The Arts and Sciendes
Senate passed a resolution endorsing the idea of S/U grading. The Curriculum
Committee discussed the matter on March 30 but was unable to reach a decision
because two crucial members of the Committee were absent.
Aside from the issue of the grading
basis, the Committee is willing to approve the guidelines with the proposed
changes. Approval of the guidelines will constitute approval of the individual
course proposals, with appropriate revisions to conform to the guidelines.
Editorial revisions of the course descriptions will also likely follow.
The Committee had the following
specific suggestions for further revision of the Guidelines that were submitted
on 25 March.
Grading:
The Arts
and Sciences Senate recommends S/U grading for the College 102 seminars. The
Arts and Sciences Curriculum Committee discussed the matter at its meeting of 30
March but did not reach a decision since two crucial members of the Committee
were absent. There are two positions at present:
1) A
grading basis of ABC/U seems antithetical to the four stated goals of the
seminars. If the courses are meant to be intellectually exploratory, then ABC/U
grading basis could be understood to undercut that goal. And, if the seminars
are to be mandatory, then an ABC/U grading basis should not be necessary to
encourage students’ serious engagement with course content.
2) An ABC/U
grading basis will encourage a significant intellectual component within the
seminar guidelines and assure the long-term viability of the College Seminars.
The
Curriculum committee will take up this issue again at its meeting of 6 April.
In the meantime, we would appreciate a statement from the College Faculty
Directors that states the rationale for one or the other grading basis.
Attendance:
If the
seminars are to be ABC/U graded, the Committee recommends that the threshold
for passing should be limited to a maximum two unexcused absences for a weekly
meeting pattern and one unexcused absence for a biweekly meeting pattern. A
threshold of four unexcused absences would constitute passing the course by
attending only 10 of 14 meetings, or 71% of class. If the seminars are to be
S/U graded, the proposed attendance regulation is appropriate (a maximum
four unexcused absences for a weekly meeting pattern and two unexcused absences
for a biweekly meeting pattern).
Writing:
The
Committee recommends a revision using the language as follows:
It is
strongly recommended that each student write one or two short papers (3-5
pages) or complete a substantive academic project (eg.,
sculpture, oral presentation, portfolio, musical performance or piece, etc.)
Contact hours:
The
Committee recommends a revision using the language as follows:
The
course should meet for a total of fourteen class hours. Instructors who choose
to meet less frequently than weekly must inform students at the beginning of
the semester. Three hours of film/music/lab generally equals one regular class
hour. If significant outside preparation is required, two contact hours for
film or music or lab equals one regular class hour. This is similar for field
trips to museums or other sites. Travel time should not be counted.
University
policy dictates that students should spend three hours per week
preparing/reading for every credit of course work.
IV. New Business
1. none
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Undergraduate Curriculum Committee
Committee Minutes
17th Meeting, March 16, 2005 –
Approved April 6, 2005
Present: J. Lochhead
(chair), D. K. Gillespie (secretary), D. Prowse, T. Weinacht, R. Cerrato, C. Marrone, A. Feldman, C. Green-Forde
V. Dumont, A. Phillips, N. Tomes, L. Volpe, E. Lindquist
Guests: Provost Robert McGrath,
Deputy Provost Mark Aronoff, CAS Dean James Staros, and Arts and Sciences Senate President Fred Walter
I. Committee Business
1. Review of the minutes from March
9, 2005 – the minutes were approved
2. Introductions:
Lochhead welcomed our guests, Provost Robert
McGrath, Deputy Provost Mark Aronoff, and CAS Dean
James Staros, Arts and Sciences Senate President Fred
Walter, who have been invited to discuss Committee Business.
2. General Education
Stony Brook has been waiting for
over a year (One request in November 2003, and another subsequent request Feb
13, 2004) for a response regarding proposals to designate several SBU courses
as qualifying for the SUNY-GER. Also, Stony Brook has yet to have a response
regarding Skill 4 “American History.”
McGrath offered an update to the
status of the proposals: approximately 30 courses are held up for various
unknown reasons.
Lochhead indicated that SUNY
Administration’s delay has negative implications on Stony Brook’s offering of
courses with DEC.
McGrath will inquire further about
the outstanding SUNY-GER proposals as well as the status of Skill 4.
3. Undergraduate Colleges 102
Seminars
Lochhead introduced the discussion,
indicating the main concerns of the Committee. She emphasized the Committee’s
goal to encourage implementation of a strong program that will benefit
students, faculty, staff and Stony Brook as a whole. The A/S Curriculum
Committee [CC] supports the Colleges. Although the CC has discussed several
aspects regarding the Undergraduate Colleges [UG Colleges] for several meetings
– as indicated by the compilation of minutes distributed at the meeting – the
discussion has become more focused in the past few months.
The Undergraduate Council [UG
Council] has requested the CC’s review of the curricular aspects of UG College
102 Seminars, specifically ACH 102, SSO 102, LDS 102, HDV 102 and GLS 102.
[CEAS CTPC has approved ITS 102]. The Committee’s main concerns are as follows.
(a) Guidelines: The Guidelines
submitted on March 8 are almost appropriate; however, some revision is needed
and should include more specificity, as is evident from the inconsistency
between the course syllabi submitted on March 8. For
example, the proportion of participation that is calculated into the final
grade varies widely from seminar to seminar. Consistency is needed among the
courses to reduce inequity from course to course with respect to the student.
(b) Oversight: an oversight
committee needed, as would exist in a Department. The oversight committee will
hopefully be composed of faculty who will review syllabi each term before
offerings are publicized. Such a committee might include a representative from
outside the UG College structure.
(c) Grading basis: there is support
for both S/U grading and ABC/U grading. ABC/U grading was approved
experimentally for Spring 2005 only, and this needs to
be resolved before the courses are permanently approved.
(c) Cross-college approval: The CC
has a slightly different structure and is using slightly different criteria
than the CEAS CTPC, however, the charge given to the
CC by the UG Council does not include that concern. It should be noted that the
guidelines that frame ACH 102, SSO 102, LDS 102, HDV 102 and GLS 102 should
also frame the course content of ITS 102 for sake of consistency.
(d) Enrollment restrictions: At
least one case has surfaced of an undergraduate senior who is enrolled in four
UG College Seminars in an attempt to top-off the 120 credit minimum credit
requirement for graduation. Should enrollment restrictions be enforced for the
Seminars?
Oversight:
(a) The group agreed that the
Undergraduate Colleges should function similar to an academic department, and
the Undergraduate College Council [UGCC] should function similar to a
departmental committee. McGrath therefore proposed that the six Directors
working together could constitute a “departmental” structure, and would review
topics, syllabi, etc.
(b) Lochhead
presented the conflict of interest created when a Director is recruiting
faculty to teach the Seminars while also requiring them to abide by certain
guidelines.
(c) Cerrato
expressed concern that the renewable three-year tenures of all six Directors
would end simultaneously, however, Aronoff indicated
that each of the six charter Directors’ tenures will overlap naturally due to
different professional schedules.
Assessment:
The group agreed that assessment
would be conducted similar to a departmental review. An initial assessment was
suggested at the end of the Spring 2005 term, and a
full assessment should be scheduled every two or three years. Tomes indicated
the need for assessment much like Departments are assessed. For that reason,
structure at the point of implementation is very important. Even though the
concept of the UG Colleges is fresh in our minds now, if structure is not
defined early, the UG Colleges have the potential to disintegrate in five or
ten years.
McGrath proposed that the Directors
supply the CC with clear guidelines, indicate a clear structure, purpose and
role(s) for the oversight committee, define a plan for an external review. McGrath also indicated a need to define how
often and when course syllabi would be reviewed. Staros
supported McGrath on these points, indicating that course syllabi and course
descriptions should be available on-line before students begin to enroll.
Grading:
(a) the
discussion turned to the issue of the grading bases for the courses. The A/S Senate
supports S/U grading. Walter expressed the concern that an ABC/U grade would
discourage students’ interest in things they wouldn’t be interested in
otherwise. Aronoff was concerned that S/U grading
discourages participation and creates too broad of a work load for students and
faculty.
(b) Lochhead
proposed that the Directors draft a statement supporting a particular grading
basis. Phillips emphasized that if the courses are to be graded, the guidelines
should be more specific. Cerrato observed that if the
courses are S/U, they will evolve to be less and less academic, students and
faculty will become disinterested, and assigned grades will be less and less
fair.
Enrollment restrictions: The group
agreed that
(a) students
should be restricted to taking an Undergraduate College 102 Seminar course only
once due to a limited number of seats.
(b) only
First year (U1) students should be allowed to enroll, exclusive of Transfer
students. This topic should be discussed
by the Undergraduate Council, although the Committee makes this recommendation
(c) mandatory
but not required: [Lochhead pointed out that this is
not within the purview of the A/S Curriculum Committee]. The courses should be
mandatory for all freshmen, but not required for graduation. If a student
receives a grade of U, the student will not need to repeat the course.
Following the Guests’ departure, the
Committee meeting continued. The Committee offers the following recommendations
regarding the Guidelines and Course proposals:
a) An oversight committee should be
specifically defined. We recommend that the College oversight committee include
the six directors and that it function in ways analogous to a department.
Further, one of the six directors might be chosen to communicate with the
curriculum committee.
b) Syllabi should be reviewed for
adherence to the approved guidelines before the courses are made publicly
available. One option might be to create a syllabus proposal template with
“built-in guidelines.” This could be helpful both for recruited faculty and for
the College oversight committee.
c) There should be a review of the
courses at the end of the spring term.
d) Attendance: there is no
University attendance policy, so the language in the guidelines should be
structured with that in mind. There should be some language about how
attendance is linked to passing the course, with some sense of a “threshold”.
e) Graded participation: some range
should be specified regarding how much participation can count toward the final
grade. We recommend a range of 10-25%, but the final decision is up to the
directors.
f) An indication of graded work and
the parameters for “grading percentages” suggested. In other words, on what
kinds of projects will students be graded? These should be suggested by the guidelines
(e.g., papers, specifying a length, or other projects as appropriate to the
focus of the class).
g) It would be useful to specify how
much outside work is required. For instance, how much outside reading is appropriate. The guidelines should probably indicate the
University policy that students should spend 3 hours preparing/reading for
every credit of course work.
h) Advising should not qualify as
substitution for any of the 14 contact hours of required class meeting time.
However, students should be encouraged to attend faculty office hours and other
opportunities for feedback throughout the course.
i) Gillespie notes that question 14
in all the course proposals indicates “Students will be evaluated via exam,
short written assignments, journals, and presentations, participation of
lecture materials and interaction with faculty and other students.” This
language should be duplicated on the guidelines and adhered to when formulating
the final grading breakdown.
With respect to particular college
proposals the Committee noted:
a) the ACH
102 course proposal indicates film use, but does not give specifics as required
in the proposal. Other courses do not indicate that film will be used. Also,
“computer use” is not indicated in ACH 102, but is indicated in other course
proposals.
b) SSO 102 indicates that the course
will satisfy Gen Ed Requirements. This is an error and should be corrected by
the CC Secretary.
c) HDV 102 indicates that Film will
not be used, but the syllabus indicates the opposite. And, one syllabus for
this course indicates that 75% of the final grade is based on participation.
II., III., IV. Routine Administrative
Matters, Old Business, New Business
1 None discussed
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Undergraduate Curriculum
Committee
Committee Minutes
16th Meeting, March 9,
2005 – Approved March 16, 2005
Present: J. Lochhead (chair), D. K. Gillespie (secretary), D. Prowse, T. Weinacht, R. Cerrato, C. Marrone, A. Feldman, C.
Green-Forde V. Dumont, A. Phillips, N. Tomes
Absent: L. Volpe, E.
Lindquist
I. Committee Business
1. Review of the minutes
from March 2, 2005 – approved
II. Routine
Administrative Matters
1.
Although the College of
Business (COB) has not officially approached the A/S Curriculum Committee for
consideration and/or recommendations on the revised Business major, the
Committee agrees that the changes could have negative indirect impact on the
2. Undergraduate Council
The A/S Curriculum
Committee has no official representation on the Undergraduate Council.
Lochhead and others are
attending to this issue. Gillespie will speak with Brent Lindquist.
III. Old Business
1. Mathematics (Weinacht)
(see 3/2/05 packet)
Appeal to decision of
Dec 1, 2004 regarding MAT 475grading basis. New Correspondence from Scott
Sutherland
Result from March 9,
2005: Not approved.
(a) the
course would need more content in the form of readings, exams, etc to warrant
letter grading
(b) consistency
of grading bases among the other CAS Teaching Practica
(i.e., xxx 475) must be maintained. All other CAS practica are S/U graded
The Committee had one
recommendations and one observation:
(c) that
the Mathematics department submit a proposal for a new course that would have
appropriate application for students in the Secondary Teacher Education
program. If such a course were to have sufficient academic content, it could be
letter graded.
(d) The Committee notes
the inconsistency in the grading bases between CAS Teaching Practica
and CEAS Teaching Practica. All CEAS practica are letter graded. Is this an issue for the
Undergraduate Council?
2. Undergraduate
Biology
BIO 358 – Digital class
(new delivery method for existing course)
Correspondence from Paul
Bingham
Gillespie and Phillips
relayed impressions from their meeting with Paul Bingham on March 4, 2005. The
Committee agrees with Bingham that BIO 358 should be proposed as an
“Experimental Course.” Technically, however, instead of being proposed as a
“new”
experimental course, the proposal
would be for an experimental delivery of an existing course. This would allow for the DEC H designation to
remain for the experimental delivery.
Gillespie and Phillips
reported that Bingham agreed to address the issues previously requested by the
Committee. The Committee agrees that some of the issues raised by Bingham’s
proposal (see minutes of Feb 2 and Feb 9) for a digital offering of an existing
course require discussion in other governmental bodies on campus.
3. Ecology and
Evolution (Lochhead) (from 2/2 packet)
New course proposal: BIO
104 “How Science Works”
The Department responded
to the earlier request of the Committee, and BIO 104 was approved with the
requested revisions for Fall 2005. However, the
Committee had a few follow-up recommendations:
(a) we
should work on an agreeable version of the Course description that is a little
shorter.
This is also important
for item (c) below.
(b) The course would be
more attractive to the target students if the course were classified as a DEC
E. However, for a course to be classified as such, it must be approved for
General Education Requirements by SUNY Administration in
(c) The course
description will need to be revised.
(d) Per request of the
Department, the
4 Geosciences (Weinacht)
(from 2/2 packet)
New Course proposal: GEO
302 “GIS For Geologists” to be co-scheduled with a
proposed GEO 502
The committee approved
the course.
After correspondence with
the Department, the Committee approved the course with the title “GIS for
Geologists.” The Department indicated the desire to retain the title as
originally proposed. However, per the Committee’s request, the course
description was modified as follows: A
practical introduction to geographic information system GIS software.
Participants learn to use direct measurement and mathematical techniques to
compute the location of features and gain practical experience in rendering
imagery and tabular geographic data as layers on maps. The course consists of two three-hour
sessions per week for first five weeks of semester, which include fieldwork,
lectures, demonstrations and software-based analysis of data. This course meets
with GEO 305 Field Geology for the first five weeks of the term Students cannot
take both GEO 302 and GEO 305 for credit.
Prerequisites: GEO 102,
112 or 122; GEO 103 and 113 or 101 and 111
1 credit
6 Undergraduate
Colleges
Additional materials
submitted on 8 March 2005
(a) Guidelines for Undergraduate
Colleges
(b) course
proposals for ACH 102 and SSO 102
(c) example
syllabi for LDS 102 and GLS 102
The Committee wishes to
clarify that it supports the overall goal of the Undergraduate College
Seminars. Given the unique nature of the courses with respect to University
structure, it has taken some time to sort out all the issues. The Committee
review of recently submitted materials is still provisional but focused on the
following issues:
(a) The
"Guidelines" are good at defining course expectations but could be
more specific in certain areas, especially in the areas of grading percentages
and lengths of papers.
(b) Oversight: more
detail is needed to describe the structure in which courses will be supervised,
including information about the make-up of an oversight committee.
(c) The proposals should
clarify who will be allowed to enroll in the courses. During the current term,
the courses are populated by a wide-range of students needing a 1-credit class.
Will registration be
restricted?
IV. New Business
1. None discussed.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Undergraduate Curriculum
Committee
Committee Minutes
15th Meeting, March 2,
2005 – Approved March 9, 2005
Present: J. Lochhead (chair), D. K. Gillespie (secretary), D. Prowse, T. Weinacht, R. Cerrato, C. Marrone, A. Feldman,
C. Green-Forde V. Dumont. Absent: A. Phillips, L. Volpe, N. Tomes, E.
Lindquist
Guest: Randy Thomas,
co-chair of the Undergraduate Council
I. Committee Business
1. Review of the minutes
from Feb 23, 2005 – approved
II. Routine
Administrative Matters
1. Double majoring in
the new MSRC majors
Gillespie, Feldman and Mary Scranton agree that students
should not have the option of double majoring in MAR and MVB.
III. Old Business
1. Undergrad Colleges
(Lochhead)
Per minutes of Nov 17
and Dec 1, 2004 [Records show that this topic has been discussed previously.
Please refer to the Committee meeting minutes of the following dates:
16 October 2003
20 October 2004
3 November 2004
10 November 2004
17 November 2004
1 December 2004
23 February 2004]
New Course proposals:
HDV 102, LDS 102, and GLS 102
Due to various
restrictions, the Committee was unable to fully review the three proposals that
were received on Feb 24, 2005, which was requested by Feb 15, 2005 (per minutes
of November 17, 2004). Discussion will continue, and the Committee would like
to invite the Provost and other members of his office to attend a meeting.
Initial reactions are:
(a) The Committee is still concerned that there is not in
place some sort of structure to assure
oversight
of the courses. In the typical situation, courses are proposed and overseen
within departments
and it is the job of the faculty
to oversee the content of those courses. There appears to be no such
faculty group in place to
oversee the course content of the various sections
within each college seminar.
We have some ideas on what such a structure might look
like, but the larger question is who will be
responsible for assuring that
instructors adhere to the general guidelines for seminars. It also seems that
such a "who" ought to
be more than one person.
(b) The guidelines for college seminars provided on Feb
24 are only for one College. It seems like
it would be best to have one for
all of the colleges in order to assure consistency across the colleges.
The Committee recommends
that this be drafted by the College Directors.
(c) The Committee is also expecting course proposals for
ACH and SSO 102 since these were only
provisionally approved. (Per minutes of October 16, 2003)
(d) The Committee is also awaiting course evaluations and
other items regarding assessment from
Spring 04. (Per minutes of November 3, 2004) The Committee hopes that
students filled out opscan forms.
2. Anthropology (from2.23 packet)
Renumber ANT 352,
Personality and Culture, to ANT 252 (see subsequent request re: ANT 370)
Correspondence from
Frederick Grine
The Committee agrees to
the changes as proposed.
ANT 352 à ANT 252 and ANT 370 à ANT 270
(a) renumbering will reduce the
number of Upper-division courses from eleven to ten, but there would
still be enough for students to
satisfy major requirements
(b) the writing requirement can
be satisfied by other Upper-division courses in Anthropology
(c) prerequisite will be revised
to allow sophomore enrollment
3. MSRC (Cerrato)
(from2.23 packet)
Change component of ATM
437 from Lab to Tutorial– correspondence from Brian Colle
Cerrato reported that Colle has retracted his request. ATM 437 will remain a Lab
4. Physics (Weinacht)
(from2.23 packet)
Course Revision, Major
Revision: AST 277/ PHY 277 (for Fall 2005)
Weinacht reported
(a) credit load of major is
going back to 67 credits. It had been 67 credits in the past and had
dropped to 64. The 67 credit
requirement is not unprecedented.
(b) Mendez surveyed Physics majors around the nation, and
a course such as AST/PHY 277 is
a common requirement at other
schools.
(c) an additional 3 credits added
to the major is not unreasonable since the PHY major students
are already taking the course
and doing the work.
(d) the syllabus will be
modified slightly to include specific texts for reading assignments
The Committee approved:
(a) expansion of the course from
1 to 3 credits
(b) mandatory status of AST/ PHY
277 for PHY and AST majors
(c) renaming of the course Computing
for Physics and Astronomy
IV. New Business
1. Asian and Asian
American Studies (Prowse)
New Course Proposal: AAS
350
The Committee tabled the
proposal pending further information.
(a) a separate proposal is
required to add DEC J to a course
(b) the course proposal lacks a
syllabus
(c) the current prerequisite is
not appropriate (Latin American course for an India Study)
Due to the nature of the
course, which is needed for Fall 2005, the Committee
recommends that the course be either:
(a) offered as a topics course
to an existing course
(b) proposed as an
“experimental” course. NB: DEC is not available on experimental courses.
Respectfully submitted, Kane Gillespie
Arts and Sciences Senate
Undergraduate Curriculum
Committee
Committee Minutes
14th Meeting, February
23, 2005 – Approved March 2, 2005
Present: J. Lochhead (chair), D. K. Gillespie (secretary), D. Prowse, T. Weinacht, N. Tomes, R.
Cerrato, E. Lindquist (observer), C. Marrone, A. Feldman, L. Volpe Absent: C. Green-Forde,
V. Dumont, A. Phillips
I. Committee Business
1. Review of the minutes
from Feb 2, 2005 - approved
2. Review of the minutes
from Feb 9, 2005 - approved
3. Departure of Annie
Green as graduate Student Representative.
Gillespie nominated
Ellen Lindquist to serve as the Graduate representative, and Ellen agreed. The
Committee welcomes
Ellen.
4. Gen-Ed
Status is unknown
regarding the outstanding Gen-ed proposals, including the status of Skill 4
5. Undergraduate
Colleges
(a) Lochhead corresponded with Aronoff regarding the outstanding course proposals
(b) See below in Old Business regarding mandatory status
of the Undergraduate College Seminars
II. Routine
Administrative Matters
1. European Languages:
RUS 491, RUS 492 –
Remove DEC G
These courses were not
on the approved State list of Gen-Ed courses, so Gillespie removed the
designation of DEC G, effective
immediately.
The Committee approves
this change.
2. English
For Fall
2005 only, change EGL 218 from lecture to lecture + recitation. (3 credits). Total contact hours remain the same.
The Committee approves
this change.
3. Psychology
PSY 346.01 for Fall 2005 changed from Lecture (non-enroll), Recitation
(enroll) to Lecture (enroll) only. Contact hours and credits will remain the
same.
The Committee approves
this change.
4. Freshman Learning
Communities
LRN 104, 105, 131, 132: change
each from 4 hr seminar to 3 hr lecture + 1 hr recitation. Contact CAS
Curriculum Committee Minutes Feb 23, 2004, p 2
Hours remain a total of
four hours for each course.
The Committee approves
this change.
III. Old Business
1. Undergraduate Colleges
Proposal
to make College 102 mandatory. Correspondence from Mark Aronoff
In the Committee’s
opinion, it is reasonable that the
2. Undergraduate
Biology
BIO 358 – Digital class
(new delivery method for existing course)
Correspondence from Paul
Bingham
Discussion continued
briefly. Due to the many different or new elements of the proposed delivery,
with respect to the standard practice at SBU, Tomes suggested that the
Committee members should divide up research of the outstanding issues.
Discussion will continue at the next meeting.
Of particular concern are:
(a) Instruction responsibilities of instructors who may
eventually teach these types of courses.
How will this type of course fit in with the University’s
workload policy? With UUP? With
state policy?
(b) The role of TA’s in the classroom. TA’s, especially
undergraduate TA’s, should not be the primary contact for other students
(c) The definition of film and video: since this course
in some sense is being offered as a video, how does it fit in with the policy on video? The video IS the
course in some respect.
IV. New Business
1. Ecology and
Evolution (Lochhead) (from 2/2 packet)
New course proposal: Bxx 1xx “How Science Works”
The course was not
approved as currently proposed
(a) DEC H is traditionally reserved for upper-division
classes. For students to profit from the content of a DEC H course, they generally require basic knowledge in
a specific science as a prerequisite to DEC H. If this course is to satisfy DEC
H, the course proposal will
need to be modified to reflect an
upper-division course. As such, the content of the course should be of a more specific nature rather
than a general one and should show the interaction between this specific
science subject and society
rather than several subjects within a term.
(b) This course is perhaps more appropriate for DEC E;
however, this designation will require a potentially lengthy application process to SUNY
Administration in
(c) The need to offer this course in
(d) The Committee assumes that this course would not
serve as a major requirement for any major.
(e) The proposal needs more specific indication of
-- exams: how many and of what
nature?
-- writing requirements (upper division writing
requirement if DEC H)
(f) The committee noticed a discrepancy between the indication
that computers would not be used in the course and the indication that students would need on-line access CAS
Curriculum Committee Minutes Feb 23, 2004, p 3
2. Geosciences (Weinacht)
(from 2/2 packet)
New Course proposal: GEO
302 “GIS For Geologists” to be co-scheduled with a
proposed GEO 502
The committee did not
finish discussion, however, it has a few
recommendations
(a) The course would be more appropriately entitled “GIS
Mapping for Geologists”
(b) Clarification to students would be needed to describe
the enrollment relationship with GEO 305.
(c) Clarification would be needed that “GEO 302 is not
for credit in addition to GEO 305” and vice versa
Still to discuss: Co-scheduling with GEO 502
3. MSRC (Cerrato)
Change component of ATM
437 from Lab to Tutorial– correspondence from Brian Colle
Cerrato will discuss with the
instructor. Since the instructor meets with a small group of students at
irregular times, the instructor requests that the component be changed from
Laboratory to Tutorial. However, Gillespie pointed out that Tutorials do not
count as official faculty contact hours for teaching load.
4. Physics (Weinacht)
Course Revision, Major
Revision: AST 277/ PHY 277 (for Fall 2005)
Approval is pending, however, Weinacht will
contact Professor Mendez (Physics DUG) to
(a) Request a syllabus
(b) Discuss how the change to AST 277/PHY 277 will affect
the major(s). The Committee calculated that the change will add 3 credits to the major(s)
requirements, however, the Committee requests a memo from the Chair (or DUG)
outlining the change and its
effect on the major(s).
5. European Languages
(Tomes)
New Course Proposal: GER
313 German Vocabulary in Conceptual Groups (For Spring
2006)
The Committee agrees
that this course proposal is very interesting and approval is pending
resolution of a few items.
(a) Since the addition of GER 313 effectively changes the
major, the Committee requests a memo from the Chair or DUG of European Languages describing the change. As
noted in the course proposal, GER 313 would replace ECO 341 (DEC I) “European Economic Integration.”
The memo should reflect the support of the Economics
department.
(b) Is there any overlap in curriculum with the
Linguistics department?
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Arts and Sciences Senate
Undergraduate Curriculum
Committee
Academic Year 2004-2005
Committee Minutes
13th Meeting, February
9, 2005 – Approved February 23, 2005
Present: J. Lochhead (chair), D. K. Gillespie (secretary), D. Prowse, T. Weinacht, A. Phillips,
N.
Tomes, V. Dumont, R. Cerrato, E. Lindquist (observer), C. Marrone,
A. Feldman
Absent: C. Green-Forde, L. Volpe
I. Committee Business
1. Review of the minutes
from February 2 – Change recommended
2. CC Representation
from Humanities: Lochhead has tried several faculty
members with no results.
3. Departmental
Self-studies – a representative from the CC should participate in this process.
Lochhead will follow up.
4. Executive Committee
Meeting – a CC representative will be assigned by Lochhead
when appropriate
5. Winter Intersession:
Discussion is in
progress within the Provost’s Office, and the Committee has been charged with
designing a protocol for proposing courses.
The winter intersession will be four weeks between the end of the Fall and beginning of the Spring
Terms. The courses should be new courses, not
existing courses that are modified.
II. Routine
Administrative Matters:
1. European Languages:
RUS 491, RUS 492 – DEC G
Gillespie will research
the State website to confirm if these courses are registered as this Gen Ed
category
III. Old Business
1. None discussed
IV. New Business
1 Anthropology (Marrone)
(from 2/2 packet)
New course proposal: ANT
369 “Paleolithic Archaeology”
This course was
approved, however the Committee predicts that the enrollment could be much
higher for this course, and recommends that the department allow higher
enrollment.
2. English (Tomes) (from 2/2
packet)
EGL 204 – shortening of add/drop
period to one week
The Committee agrees
that this matter should be taken up by the Undergraduate Council, and is
concerned that this may set a bad precedent. The add/drop period is a
University Policy, and is not within the purview of the Committee to override
this policy. The discussion raised several issues:
(a) How would this
change affect students who would be barred from adding this class in week two?
(b) What other courses
and/ or departments allow such special circumstance, and how did they get
permission to do so (eg., WRT 101 and WRT 102 only allow adds during the first
week.)
(c) such
a change would effectively shorten the add/drop period for this course
3. Undergraduate
Biology (Cerrato)
BIO 358 – Digital class
(new delivery method for existing course)
The Committee continued
discussion from the previous week:
The Committee reviewed
several policies and the original course proposal (August 1997), and did not
approve the request to allow this course to be offered as an alternate delivery
method.
Several reasons were
cited:
(a) A large fraction of
the final grade (35%) is determined solely by participation. Such a high value
is not consistent with other courses. (20% for participation in online
discussion plus ¾ of 20% for the Quiz grade equals a total of 35%). (Per the
proposal, a student receives 3 out of 4 points for answering a quiz question,
plus an additional one point for a correct answer.)
(b)The use of TA’s to
monitor the online recitations constitutes peer education. The method described
for the proposed delivery method is not consistent with the guidelines
established in the Spring of 2000
(http://ws.cc.stonybrook.edu/senatecas/)
(c) The mix of video and
lecture may require an adjustment of contact hours, per policy specific to the use
of film and video. Please see http://ws.cc.stonybrook.edu/senatecas/
(d) Policy for online
instruction: The Committee agrees that groups of 50 are too large per this
policy. (http://ws.cc.stonybrook.edu/senatecas/)
(e) The Committee
believes that the number of proposed office hours is not sufficient to serve
enrollment of 500+ students.
The Committee also had
these questions:
(f) How will the
implementation of this course affect faculty load?
(g) Will the
Administration expect that virtual courses are an excuse not to provide proper
physical facilities for large lectures of this size?
(h) Is the proposed new
delivery method equitable to the existing lecture/recitation format currently
in use for other courses?
The Committee agrees
that BIO 358, although it retains the original course description, has changed
significantly since its inception. The original proposal …
(i)
states that computers, films, or video will not be
used regularly for instruction (item 10 on original proposal)
(j) states
student evaluation will be based on three exams, including final (item 12 on
the original)
(k) states
that undergraduate TA’s will not be used in the course (item 13 on original)
(l) differs
from the proposed alternate delivery regarding Upper Division credit (item 15b
on original)
After careful
consideration of the above concerns, the Committee concludes, through review of
the original course proposal, that the current course offered as BIO 358 has
evolved significantly enough to constitute a different course. The Committee
therefore requests, with support of the Department Chair and Director of
Undergraduate Biology:
(m) Submission of a new
course proposal form for BIO 358 as a live lecture (as delivered in Spring 2005), indicating and describing all modes of
delivery
(n) Submission of an
“experimental” course proposal for the altered delivery method for the online
course.
4. Art (Tomes) (from 2/2
packet)
New course proposal: ARS
205 “Foundations: Idea and Form”
New course proposal: ARS
305 “Advanced Foundations in the Visual Arts”
Although the Committee
agrees that the courses will be very interesting, more information is needed to
judge the level of the courses. The Committee requests additional material:
(a)
(b) Final projects
require additional description
(c) Workload: how will
the student workload be monitored?
(d) Description of
assignments (more so for ARS 305) and grading criteria are requested
(e) Final grade
percentage breakdown is requested.
(f) Clarification of
film and video usage. The Department should refer to
http://ws.cc.stonybrook.edu/senatecas/
(g) Will these changes
affect Major (and/or minor) requirements? If so, changes should be described
and justified in a separate memo from the Department chair. Since ARS 205 and
ARS 305 are replacing ARS 230 and ARS 330, respectively, then changes to degree
requirements are likely and must be proposed with approval from the Department
Chair.
(h) the
change also affects the courses for which these courses are prerequisites. The
Department is requested to research and include such changes in the relevant
proposals.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Arts and Sciences Senate
Undergraduate Curriculum
Committee
Academic Year 2004-2005
Committee Minutes
12th Meeting, February
2, 2005 – Approved Feb 23, 2005
Present: J. Lochhead (chair), D. K. Gillespie (secretary), D. Prowse, T. Weinacht, A. Phillips,
L. Volpe, N. Tomes, C. Green-Forde, V. Dumont, R. Cerrato, E. Lindquist (observer). Absent: A. Greene, C. Marrone,
A. Feldman
I. Committee Business
1. Review of the minutes
from December 1, 2004 – Approved
2. Review of the minutes
from December 8, 2004 – Approved
3. Confirmation of
meeting time for Spring 2005: Regular meetings will
occur on Wednesdays at 2:45 in the CAS Dean’s Office Conference room.
4. Departmental
Self-studies – a representative from the CC should participate in this
process. Lochhead
will follow up.
II. Routine
Administrative Matters:
1. None discussed
III. Old Business
1. Anthropology (Weinacht)
Renumber ANT 352,
Personality and Culture, to ANT 252 (see subsequent request re: ANT 370)
Need more info per discussion
on Nov 10, 2004. The CC requested clarification from the department, and Fred Grine (Chair) has submitted a letter (dated Dec 20, 2004)
requesting approval for one of the following:
(a) reconsider earlier
ruling with regard to ANT 352 and/or renumber ANT 370, Great Archaeological
Discoveries) to ANT 270 and
(b) maintain
the said courses as 300-level courses, but waive writing requirements
(c) provide
the Department of Anthropology with additional vouchers to attract
graders.
The requested changes
were not approved, however further discussion is recommended. Although the
Committee understands the situation, it thinks that a curricular change is not
an appropriate solution to the problem for the following reasons, and asks for
clarification from the Department on these issues.
(a) the
renumbering would reduce the number of courses ANT majors could use for upperdivision courses in Archaeology available to ANT
Majors
(b) the
Committee requests more information on maintaining the courses as 300 level but
waiving the writing requirement. Would this reduce the number of courses
available for that purpose?
(c) The Committee has no hand in the
allocation of vouchers, therefore it did not consider
this request. However, the Committee agrees that this would be the appropriate
solution to the situation, as it does not result in a curricular change.
IV. New Business
1. Undergraduate
Biology (Cerrato)
BIO 358 – Digital class
(new delivery method for existing course)
The Committee was unable
to complete their discussion due to time constraints,
however, it did establish some points that need further discussion:
(a) The Discussion
Groups depend heavily on peer education, and is monitored by TA’s. This may be
restricted by guidelines in place for on-line courses. Gillespie will research,
however the proposal indicates that 20% of grading is based on participation.
(b) Quizzes are graded
for participation: 3 points for any answer, plus an additional 1 point for a
correct answer. Effectively, 75% of the quiz grade is based on participation,
or 15% of the course grade. When this is added to the 20% grade, a student
receives 35% of his/her grade for participation alone. This concerns the
Committee and clarification is requested.
(c) The Committee believes
that the number of proposed office hours is not sufficient to serve enrollment
of 500+ students.
(d) The Committee
requests the original course proposal. Gillespie will research and supply
original course proposals for the next discussion.
(e) The Committee thinks
that on-line recitation/discussion sections of 50 students are too large.
Gillespie will research existing policies regarding on-line instruction
(f) How will the
implementation of this course affect faculty load?
(g) Will the
Administration expect that virtual courses are an excuse not to provide proper
physical facilities for large lectures of this size?
(h) Is the proposed new
delivery method equitable to the existing lecture/recitation format?
(i)
The Committee may consider approving this course as “experimental” and request
detailed analysis.
Discussion will continue
at the next meeting