These minutes reflect discussion and debate at a meeting of a committee of the University of Minnesota Senate; none of the comments, conclusions, or actions reported in these minutes represents the views of, nor are they binding on, the Senate, the Administration, or the Board of Regents.

Minutes

Senate Committee on Educational Policy

Wednesday, January 18, 2006

1 – 3 pm

238A Morrill Hall

Present:

Richard McCormick (chair), William Bart, Vernon Cardwell, Maureen Cisneros, Shawn Curley, LeAnn Dean, Josh Feneis, George Green, Eric Ling, Mary Ellen Shaw, Donna Spannaus-Martin, Craig Swan, Joel Weinsheimer

Absent:

James Leger, Claudia Neuhauser, Paul Siliciano, Doug Wangensteen

Guests:

Don Ross, Laura Gurak, Connie Tzenis

Other:

[In these minutes: (1) Discussion of Task Force Reports; (2) Evaluation of Instruction]

Professor McCormick convened the meeting at 1:20 pm. 
 
1. Discussion of Task Force Reports
 
 Professor McCormick welcomed Don Ross and Laura Gurak from the Writing Task Force as the committee began a discussion about the task force reports. Professor Ross solicited questions and comments from the committee their report. Professor Gurak said that two future meetings were scheduled to give the task force time to garner more feedback, and she stressed the usefulness of comments. Professor McCormick noted that it has been said that, of all the task force reports, it was the best written. Professor Gurak said that the task force had tried to tell a story, and while they were working without data, the task force tried to illustrate where they could be, how to achieve that, and what kind of leadership is required. Mr. Ling asked for an overview of the report. Professor Ross summarized the four main points: combine three units that offer freshman writing and a second course with writing instruction that would complement freshman composition; a vice provost for writing who would be responsible for starting the initiative; establishment of a research and teaching unit called writing studies; and coordinating outside learning, i.e., tutoring and individual assistance to students. Professor Gurak emphasized that faculty would look at writing as a whole to see how it is integrated into the bigger plan. She pointed out that writing proficiency varies from unit to unit and major to major, and emphasized the need for an outcomes-based curriculum. Professor Gurak acknowledged that there was difficulty in how it should be delivered. 
 
 Professor McCormick reported the concern he had heard raised that there would be resistance from students to adding another requirement to freshman year. He added that some units have curricula that allow very little flexibility, which will make this requirement hard to complete. Professor Ross pointed out that many students already take writing intensive freshman courses. From a faculty point of view, the idea of introducing students to writing is an important part of freshman year. Professor Gurak added that the baccalaureate should be considered major by major with a plan to phase in the requirement. Professor Green asked about freshmen who might have previously had composition, such as transfer students, and asked if that requirement would count. Professor Gurak replied that those students may have to complete an additional writing course. For example, even now a previous course at a community college is often not sufficient.
 
 Professor Green said that the proposal assumes that students know their majors upon entering the university and asked how to track people who change majors or don’t declare until later. Professor McCormick clarified that what was being proposed was a freshman writing experience, and then beyond that it would be by major. Professor Green asked what happens when a student changes majors and Professor Ross replied that the major determines the requirements and ideally, departments would have the requirements in sync with the major. Professor Swan asked how the departments would provide requirements, for instance, what if every department says a student must take a writing class but from another department. Professor Ross said in the lower division there are a lot of writing intensive courses available to students. Professor Swan pointed out that it is ambiguous where the weight of the recommendations lies, and Professor Gurak said that their proposal ventures into ideas and suggestions to implement these strategies. In doing so, they were trying to create a timeline and strategic plan, and had asked a lot of these same questions in doing so. Professor Gurak felt there needed to be an advisory group and Professor Ross noted the ambiguity in the delivery of the initiative to the lower division. Professor Green said that the freshman piece must be portable because the freshman experience is fluid and that there is enormous flux in the freshman year. He pointed out that the University negotiated transfer agreements with MNSCU and if the transfer agreements change students will be upset. Professor McCormick added that transfer requirements are always negotiable and that it is not unreasonable to assume that the Strategic Positioning Initiative may necessitate the renegotiation of transfer requirements. Ms. Shaw asked about the transfer requirements being a part of writing studies, and asked Ross and Gurak whether writing studies would be a department or cross-collegiate. Professor Ross acknowledged that that had not yet been solved, and Professor Gurak added that that was why leadership was needed from the provost’s office. Professor McCormick pointed out that it has been proposed that an intercollegiate department might be the solution. Professor Gurak said that there could be ways to strategically align it and added that research is an important side to this. There is much national research which should be a part of this institution. Professor Weinsheimer indicated his agreement and said that a problem that must be solved is that as a research institution, it needs a research component to its writing initiative. Accordingly, it would be thought through carefully, taking the best of what the University already has and building on that. Professor Ross acknowledged that that was the goal of the task force. Professor McCormick thanked Professors Gurak and Ross for joining the committee for its discussion, and for their ambitious report about the importance of writing, which is a common good that is essential to a research university. 
 
2.  Evaluation of Instruction
 
 Professor McCormick welcomed Dr. Tzenis from the Center of Teaching and Learning Services. Dr. Tzenis told the committee about Dr. Raoul Arreola’s upcoming visit to the University to facilitate a conference on teaching evaluation.  Dr. Tzenis said she felt it was a priority for Dr. Arreola to work with the committee and asked members to establish priorities for his visit.  Professor McCormick reminded the committee that the teaching evaluation revisions had been approved, and that the senate debate about the issue concluded that individual units would decide who gets to see the written comments on teaching evaluations. Up until recently no one has suggested rethinking the four mandated questions on the evaluations because of the interest in continuing to use the data accumulated over the years using those same questions. At the last senate meeting, however, there had been a demand that those questions be reconsidered. SCEP’s position now is to continue toward senate approval of the revisions SCEP and SCFA approved last year but also to commit to rethinking the main questions. Professor McCormick suggested that some committee members could possibly meet with Dr. Arreola. Dr. Tzenis passed out questionnaires and said that as she developed the itinerary for his visit, she requested that the committee consider how best to use his time with them. From the committee’s discussion, she would develop a list of topics that would be assigned times, and she would accordingly target groups to attend his workshop. The committee discussed ideas and presented them to Dr. Tzenis. Professor McCormick thanked her for meeting with the committee, and went on to say that voting regarding this issue would occur at the Senate meeting in March after Dr. Arreola's visit. He proposed that the committee should recommend approval of the policy to the senate but also recommend that a subcommittee be appointed to look at the mandated evaluation questions taking the latest research on evaluations into account. Professor Weinsheimer felt it was most efficient to have SCEP and SCFA meet jointly to discuss this issue and Professor Green suggested getting the senate vote before the joint meeting.
 
 The discussion continued regarding the various task force reports before the committee. Professor McCormick distributed his report on the honors task force report which he had presented to FCC. The task force had recommended consolidation of all honors programs on campus into a central structure that would also include a new program called the “Regents Scholars Option.” The committee reviewed Professor McCormick’s handout. Professor Weinsheimer said he had previously asked about the purpose of an honors program, and Professor McCormick reiterated that it was in large part a recruitment tool. He added that it was also a large motivation for the investment that the task force wanted: their report made recommendations meant to attract students who might not be considering the University and to give honors at Minnesota “brand-name” recognition. Mr. Feneis offered that the honors program had been a draw for him and asked what kind of courses would be offered. The recommendation was that there would be more of what was already offered, including honors freshman seminars offered University-wide that would have smaller enrollment caps.
 
 Ms. Shaw asked how the Regents Scholarship option would co-exist with the current honors programs. Professor McCormick said that the proposal was that it would be another option within the University Honors Program just as the current honors programs would be. Students in the RSO would be admitted both to the RSO and to a particular college. Some smaller colleges had asked that there be representation of all colleges in the RSO. Professor Green asked if the RSO would be open to students entering any of the colleges at the university, and McCormick responded that that was the intent, but that the details would be worked out in the implementation. The report proposes that associate deans, honors directors, and some task force members would comprise a group under the vice provost to implement it. Professor McCormick said he felt that the new honors program should reside in a central structure if it is to serve students across all the colleges. He said that the name given to the new campus-wide honors entity should make what currently exists more visible.  Professor McCormick suggested that if the RSO in particular is too restrictive it might not attract as many students as is desired. Mr. Ling emphasized that flexibility was the key to attracting a wide variety of students. Professor Green said that adding too many requirements may result in fewer applicants to the RSO from IT. Professor McCormick said that he felt that the RSO would compete more with Honors-CLA but stressed that it was intended also to attract students interested in the sciences for whom IT Honors is not the right fit; IT Honors will nonetheless continue to attract far more applicants than can be admitted.
 
 Professor Bart complimented Professor McCormick on Honors-CLA (for which Professor Bart had taught a seminar), and, referring to Professor Weinsheimer previous query about the purpose of an honors program, said he was of the opinion that many students wanted to explore things in-depth and the program offered that.  It offered creativity and innovation, and offers students the opportunity for interconnection among disciplines. Professor McCormick said that the goal of honors is to provide a qualitative enhancement of education, not quantitative.
 
 In discussing the Student Support task force recommendations, the feeling of the committee was that it was more modest in scope than the other task force initiatives, at least in terms of asking for new administrative positions; the task force did however make a recommendation for central investment in student support as a common good, which Professor McCormick supported, saying that advising for students deserved such an investment across the university. 
 
 Professor McCormick concluded the meeting at 3 pm.
 

--Mary Jo Pehl

University of Minnesota