Minutes of Educational Policies, Oct. 12, 2004

Members Present: martin Hansen, Tom Hill, Brenda Peters, Dave O’Connell, Bill McAleer, Ragene Gwin, Kim Bennett, Kari Rogers, Barb Wiese, Bill Hixon, Corinne Winter, Mara Adams, Jeremy burke

Guests: Maureen Baldwin, Ann Austin

I. Approval of Minutes from Oct. 5

Motion – Barb Wiese, Second – Ragene Gwin

Minutes approved

II. New Course Proposal: LS 204: Advanced College Reading: Standardized Test Preparation – 1 cr.

Motion to approve – Tom Hill Second – Dave O’Connell

Discussion

Who would take the course? The expected students would include those taking various tests for graduate school admission and those who need to take exams for professional certification. Would the course help students preparing for the C-base? That is unlikely as the C-base differs so significantly from other standardized tests.

Toward what would the credit for this course count? LS courses count as electives toward graduation. They are graded courses

Why 200 – level? Each 200-level LS course is a focused 5-wweek course dedicated to development of a particular study skill. These course are more intense than the 100-level LS courses. LS 201, 202, and 203 have been offered for over 10 years and student response has been very good. Even busy students attest that they have found the time worthwhile.

How will the course be assessed? Students will complete evaluations and the Student Success Center keeps annual records of course enrollment. Each student will set up a plan and will purchase the preparation book for the test the student needs to take. In a sense, success will be measured most effectively later when the student actually takes the standardized test.

Could there be a pre- and post test for each student that measured the student’s progress during the course? Test preparation booklets do include practice tests that could be used for such a purpose.

When will this course be taught for the first time and by whom? Ann Austin will offer it this Spring in place of LS 202. She will send out an a-mail announcement of the course encouraging student participation.

Course approved

III. On-going discussion of minors this discussion is a follow-up on proposals that were made at the last meeting regarding guidelines for minors that fall within one department (as distinct from inter-disciplinary minors).

The committee has received a chart prepared by Suzanne Wiese (Thank you, Suzanne!) showing the great diversity among minors that are housed within departments. Numbers of credits vary from 12 to 33. Requirements also vary with respect to flexibility for students and numbers of 300-level courses.

Should EPC set a minimum number of credits for a minor? (There is only one minor requiring fewer than 15 credits, so 15 looks like a plausible number). It was decided by the committee that a better starting place for discussion would be a proposed definition of the minor. Tom Hill proposed that a minor could be defined as “a minimum of 15 credits within a particular discipline or discipline. The validity of the minor’s content should be certified by the sponsoring department(s).” It was proposed that departmental autonomy ought to prevail unless a particular instance seemed to call for intervention.

The committee returned to the question of what student accomplish by taking a minor? From an admission perspective, minors seem to represent personal interest in most cases. Often a minor is the result of a student’s realization that he or she can have one by taking only one more course in an area.

Do some students think that they need a minor (it is not required for graduation)? The form for declaration of major includes space for minors. There could be some confusion, but it seems no significant.

What is wrong with the current system? Why change it? There are some professions where minors do matter and students can receive advising regarding those professions. Otherwise, why not let students “dabble” in an area of personal interest and allow departments to decide what makes a valid minor in their own field? Why add paperwork by establishing guidelines, outcomes that must be measured and reporting that must be added to departmental review?

Interdisciplinary minors do have to meet clear guidelines and must be both approved and reviewed by Ed. Policies. But those minors have a Gen Ed. Factor in that such a minor can be counted toward a student’s Gen Ed. Requirement.

Could Dept. Program Reviews include a brief narrative statement by the department about the value of its minor(s)? Could we ask for some rationale without adding a great deal to departmental paperwork?

In the past, no minor was brought to Ed. Policies. Minors were added to the catalogue by departments who communicated directly with the person who prepared same.

What would a department gain by tracking information on minors?

Motion by Dave O’Connell Second by Tom Hill as follows:

That development of minors within academic departments remain under the control of individual departments who will communicate as needed with the personnel responsible for the catalogue.

Passed with one opposing vote

We have no business before the committee and therefore no meeting on Oct. 19.

Motion to adjourn – Ragene Gwin, Second – Tom Hill

Adjourned 4:10 p.m.

Submitted by Corinne Winter