EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY FACULTY SENATE
ACADEMIC, APPELLATE, AND SENATE COMMITTEE
2002-2003 Academic Year
COMMITTEE: University Curriculum
1. Membership (include ex-officio members).
Michael Bassman, David Batie, Paul Gares, Ron Graziani, Timothy Hudson, Linda Kean, Dale Knickerbocker, Ron Mitchelson, Rita Reaves, Thomas Skalko, Elizabeth Smith
2. Meeting Dates (include members present*).* and members who contributed to committee action, but were not at the meeting.
August 22, 2002; September 12, 2002; September 26, 2002; October 10, 2002; October 24, 2002; November 14, 2002; January 9, 2003; January 23, 2003; February 13, 2003; February 27, 2003; March 27, 2003; April 10, 2003
All members were present at all meetings except when attending to other professional obligations. Members were conscientious in sending to the chair their questions and concerns regarding proposals, to be brought up in absentia.
3. Subcommittees established during the year (include progress and/or completion of work). N.A.
4. Accomplishments during the year, especially as addressed through committee goals. Please include recommendations made to any University agency other than the Faculty Senate that will be noted under #5. Our goals
The Committee addressed goals #1, 2, and 4 from last year’s “Business Carried Over” (action taken in italics):
1. Work to strengthen the relationship between student and program assessment and curricular review; possibly in relation to informational workshops or change in instructions on website. Instructions on website clarified. New , clarified guidelines concerning all UCC policies and procedures presented to and approved by Senate. Ways were discussed to strengthen the relationship between student and program assessment and curricular review. It was decided that workshops were not advisable, and that the Chair would circulate an e-mail to unit heads and curriculum committee chairs, urging them to include results of outcome assessment as part of the justification for course proposals.This is a long-term, ongoing effort.
2. Investigate ways to ensure that units affected by course proposals are notified.
The committee discussed ways to ensure that units affected by proposals are notified. It was pointed out that such notification is first a responsibility of the unit proposing; second, of the UCC, and also of the unit heads and CC Chairs, who should check the UCC agenda posted on the web to ensure there is no overlap or conflict. It was decided that language to that effect would be included in the e-mail to be circulated by the Chair mentioned in goal#1.
4. Create orientation for new members. The UCC decided this was not necessary given its present membership.
5. Reports to the Faculty Senate (include dates and resolution numbers).
Date of Report to FS Business Presented FS Resolution #
September 3, 2002: minutes of 4-25-02 02-05
October 1, 2002: 9-12-02 02-28
November 5, 2002: 9-26-02, 10-10-02 02-35
December 3, 2002: 10-29-02 02-38
10-24-02, 11-14-02 02-39
January 28, 2003: 1-9-03 03-01
February 25, 2003: 2-13-03 03-07
Revision of forms 03-08
March 25, 2003: 2-27-03 Items 1-12 03-16
2-27-03 Revisions to BA in Math 03-17
Resolution of 2-27-03
The curriculum changes made by the Transition Committee (cross-listing 1067, 2282, 2775, 2935, 3166, 3239 courses) should be kept in effect for the fall 2003 and spring 2004 semesters; that the curriculum committees of Mathematics and Mathematics Education meet to work out revision of the six courses in dispute or write proposals for new courses to replace them in a way that would keep content courses in the Department of Mathematics; provide sufficient content courses and ensure the best professional training in pedagogy for Mathematics Education majors; and fulfill all SACS and NCATE accreditation and licensure requirements. Both units would be required to submit these proposals directly to the University Curriculum Committee by the end of Fall 2003. Failure to meet this deadline would result in the imposition of a solution by the University Curriculum Committee, Faculty Senate and Chancellor. 03-18
April 22: 3-27-03 03-25
4-10-03 03-26, 03-27
6. Business carried over to next year (list in priority order). None.
7. Evaluation of the committee (include anything that hindered or assisted the committee's work during the year).
A. Charge: adequate
B. Personnel: excellent, a hard-working, conscientious group. The committee could benefit from greater participation by student representatives.
C. Attendance: never a problem.
D. Responsibilities: adequate
E. Activities: normal
8. Suggestion(s) to the Chair of the Faculty and/or Faculty Senate for improving the effectiveness of the committee. None.
9. Does the Committee’s organizational meeting next year need to be earlier than the date set this year? No.