Council on Undergraduate Education 2013-2014

AGENDA for October 18, 2013 MEETING 1:30-3:00 Quorum: 13

Location: DANIELS HALL Rm 341

1:00 p.m. -Buffet Lunch will be provided beginning at 1:00 p.m. and will continue through the meeting

1:30 p.m. - Meeting begins

Minutes Recorder: Gina Neugebauer

Call to Order

Guests: DASA Dean and Vice-Chancellor Mike Mullen; Dr. Larry Blanton, Director of the Honors Program;

Dr. Stephany Dunstan, Asst. Director, Office of Assessment; Dr. Debbie Acker, Asst Dir Shelton Ldrsp Ctr

Dr. Jennifer Capps, Entrepreneurship Program

Presentation:

Carrie Zelna and Stephany Dunstan General Education Competency Assessment- ETS Proficiency Profile Results

New Business

Notification of dropped courses

Presenter: GEP List Action: Title: Description:

Stoller VPA Drop HON 201: Inquiry, Discovery, and the Arts Dropped from catalog

Stoller HUM Drop HON 343: Philosophical Ethics Dropped from catalog

Stoller SS Drop HON 351: American Ideals in Global Perspective Dropped from catalog

Stoller IP DropHON 361: Eco-Realism: Human Nature, Politics, &

Ecological ConstraintsDropped from catalog

Stoller IP Drop HON 362: Info. Technology, Society, and Acad. Rsch Dropped from catalog

Stoller IP Drop HON 371: Environmental Science and Technology Dropped from catalog

Courses for GEP Category - Special Topic Shell Offerings

Presenter: GEP List Action: Title: Description

Stoller HUM, GK Fall 2013 HON 290-001: Social Movements in the Middle East First offering/Hist.

Stoller HUM, GK Fall 2013 HON 290-002: Alexander the Great Second offering/Hist.

Stoller IP, GK Fall 2013 HON 293-001: The Politics of Modern Travel Second offering

Stoller SS Fall 2013 HON 295-001: A History of Econ. & Financial Crises First offering/SS

Stoller SS Fall 2013 HON 295-002: Self, Schooling, & the Social Order First offering/SS

Stoller IP, HUM Fall 2013 HON 296-001: Freedom and the Self Second offering/Phil.

Burton IP Spring 2014 IPGE 295: Critical & Creative Decision Making Models First Offering

Courses for GEP Category - Review

Presenter: GEP List Action: Title: Pre-requisite(s)

Domingue HES Review HESD 274: Modern Dance I None

Domingue HES Review HESD 275: Modern Dance II None

Other Business

Discussion: Double-counting - USD/GK co-requisites

Approval of Minutes of the October 4, 2013 Meeting

Welcome and Introductions - Chair, Dr. James Knopp

Remarks from Dr. Barbara Kirby - Associate Vice Provost, Academic Programs and Services

Remarks from Dr. Mike Mullen-Vice Chancellor and Dean, DASA

DRAFT DRAFT

1

CUE Minutes-October 04, 2013

Park Shops 201, Quorum: 13

Call to Order: 1:33pm

Voting Members Present (Quorum present: 14)

Donna Burton, Peggy Domingue, Joshua Heitman, Cynthia Hemenway, James Knopp, Cynthia Levine, Herle McGowan, John

Morillo, Andy Nowel, David Parish, Adam Rogers, Candace Vick, Karen Young

Ex-Officio Non-Voting Members Present:

Stephany Dunstan, Catherine Freeman, Michelle Johnson, Barbara Kirby, Robert Warren

Members Absent:

Megan Albidrez (E), Timothy Buie (E), Helmut Hergeth(E), Jessica Jameson(E) , Jesse Jur, Karen Keene(E), Ingrid

Schmidt(E), Aaron Stoller(E), Carrie Zelna(E), Paul Williams, Melissa Williford(E)

Guests:

Megan Albidrez (proxy for Maria Crockett)

WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS

Welcome and Introductions:

Chair Knopp welcomed the committee, calling the meeting to order at 1:33 pm in Park Shops 201. He thanked Past Chair,

Jessica Jameson for serving as chair for the September 20, 2013 CUE meeting. Chair Knopp emphasized the importance of

attendance. He noted that if a member misses two meetings then a replacement can be requested. Members should plan to send

a proxy when possible so that all colleges are represented.

Remarks from Associate Vice Provost Academic Programs and Services, Barbara Kirby:

Dr. Kirby updated the Council on the subcommittees discussed in the September 20th

meeting. A subcommittee looking at the

GEP Rubric has been discussed with Dean Mullen. Dr. Kirby anticipates that a subcommittee should be getting a memo and

charge in the near future. This group will look at the context of what the criteria is used to evaluate General Education courses.

Additionally, they will evaluate the type of GEP Rubric and how it will impact student success. The number of courses on a

GEP list will need to be assessed to ensure that there are enough options for students. The number of how many lists a GEP

course can reside on will also be discussed. The issue of how many and if pre-requisites can be required for a student to take a

specific GEP course will also be reviewed. The subcommittee will also look at what point in their academic careers, students

are taking GEP courses. If the 8 Semester Displays show that students are expected to take these during their junior and senior

semesters, this needs to be factored into the discussion, especially for SACS purposes. SACS becomes concerned when

General Education courses are taken after the bulk of major-affiliated courses.

Following up on member attendance, one member asked if Department Head or Deans were notified when members habitually

miss meetings. For members that have time conflicts, substitutes for the member are found to participate for a semester.

However, the Council has members that are not attending regularly, which is a concern. When members miss a meeting, it

could affect quorum, which could put business off for an additional two weeks. Additionally, the Committee on Committees

has cut the number of voting members on CUE. At large positions were dropped, so the committee relies on the representatives

from the colleges. Dr. Kirby explained that the Associate Deans receive the minutes for each CUE meeting. As a last resort, Dr.

Kirby will call Associate Deans to remedy the attendance issue.

Lastly, Dr. Kirby reminded the Council that a catered lunch will be provided at the next meeting, October 18th

at 1pm in

Daniels 341. She also mentioned that Vice-Chancellor and Dean Mike Mullen would be in attendance, and that the committee

is welcome to ask him questions.

Old Business:

Approval of Minutes from the September 20, 2013 Meeting:

A motion was made to approve the minutes from the September 20, 2013 CUE meeting, and was seconded. With some

minor edits regarding attributing comments to specific members, the motion was APPROVED unanimously.

IPGE 295-Dam! The Role of Dams in Society-APPROVED unanimously.

Discussion: A motion was made and seconded to bring back from the table the course action to approve this 2nd

offering of

DRAFT DRAFT

2

a GEP special topic course for the IP list. The Committee tabled the action on 9.20.2013. With the clarifications in a

written statement from the instructor and the revised syllabus, the council finished reviewing the action. Without any

further discussion, the motion was APPROVED unanimously.

NEW BUSINESS

Courses for GEP Category-Review

PY 205-Physics for Engineers and Scientists I-GEP NS-APPROVED unanimously.

PY 208-Physics for Engineers and Scientists II-GEP NS-APPROVED unanimously.

Courses for GEP Category-New

BIO 165- Introduction to Environmental Research-New to IP-APPROVED unanimously.

One member noted that the signature page was missing from the packet. Additionally the course is only open to students

participating in the HHMI Rise Program. The committee asked for clarification on the HHMI Rise program. Dr. Kirby

explained that the program stems from a Howard Hughes program that was originally started twenty years ago from a

grant to NCSU. This is aimed at new students coming to NCSU, providing a research program in the summer before their

freshman year. BIO 165 would serve as an introductory course to the HHMI Rise Program, with students working with a

mentor to facilitate learning. It is targeted to be a part of the Summer Start Program. Students not in the HIMI program

still may be able to take the course, after receiving departmental approval.

One member asked if Chemistry served as a component of a discipline being brought in, or if it is already an attribute of

Environmental Science. Additionally, is Environmental Science considered a distinct discipline? Enviromental Science

possesses its own academic CIP code. Another member explained that while a student will learn Chemistry, they

implement it in a different fashion than a chemist would. While Environmental Science does have an academic journal in

publication, it would still need to be examined to ascertain if it is interdisciplinary in nature. Other examples of academic

journals were mentioned that publish, but that are pulled from various academic disciplines. Another member noted that

since there is research in Environmental Science, this could also help to establish Environmental Science as its own

distinct discipline. Another member explained that Environmental Science looks at different perspectives brought in from

several disciplines: Chemistry, Physics, Geology, and Biology. Dr. Kirby confirmed that the focus could be narrow or

broad in the discipline. She explained that it can encompass broad focuses such as natural resources, sustainability, and

environmental issues. Or it can be narrowly focused. While the environmental scientist may use chemistry, they do not

implement their skills like a chemist. She further noted that the committee does not ask a course to use all of the

disciplines that could apply. Outcomes and proposals get very complex when intertwining more than two disciplines. This

then creates ‘main disciplines’, ‘sub disciplines’, and ‘disciplines that include disciplines’. If the Council can make a case

for at least two perspectives, then the course should be on track for an IP categorization. One member noticed that while

Chemistry is a large component of Environmental Science, Environmental Science will still utilize overt social and

political dimensions more often than a Chemistry class might. This is where he sees a distinct difference in approach. With

no further discussion, the motion was APPROVED unanimously.

ENT 207-Insects and Human Disease-New to GK-APPROVED unanimously.

PY 206-Physics for Engineers and Scientists I Lab-New to NS-APPROVED unanimously.

PY 208-Physics for Engineers and Scientists II Lab-New to NS-APPROVED unanimously.

DISCUSSION GEP Co-Requisite Categories/Double Counting

Dr. Kirby explained that she was not able to speak to the Associate Deans at their last meeting about the USD and GK

population counting for both due to time constraints. She emphasized that this question should also be brought before the

Student Senate, Faculty Academic Policy Committee, and Associate Deans for their input. Originally, in the recommendation

from the task force when the co-requisites were created, there was some discussion about whether co-req course could double

count. The language had both double counting and appearing on multiple lists, which confuses the intent. As this was

implemented in 2008, courses have come before CUE in different formats, creating new questions. Questions that need to be

DRAFT DRAFT

3

addressed include: Should these lists be reassessed to ease the student’s success towards graduation? How does course

availability affect this issue? How many courses need to be scheduled or taken before a student graduates?

One member asked for a brief synopsis of the history behind the zero credit hour requirements for USD and GK. Dr. Kirby

explained that the tone of the drivers behind the zero credit was due to the number of hours the GEP needed to be reduced. It

went from fifty-five to thirty-nine hours. Additionally, there were different perspectives on the Task Force. Some felt that a

person cannot learn the objectives of USD and GK categories, but rather experience the objectives. A logistical issue is the

amount of courses offered in a category. For example, GK has 51 courses available on its list, compared to the hundreds on the

Humanities list. Dr. Kirby noted that the waivers that came across her desk were predominately for the USD category. If

students are waiting until their senior year to fulfill their GK or USD categories, there may not be seats available. APS will

work with Registration and Records to try to capture this data.

Additionally, one member asked if decisions at UNC-GA could affect the interpretation of double counting. Dr. Kirby

explained that the GK and USD categories are outside the thirty hour common core. In the preliminary drafts, universities are

still free to define their own GEP. The caveat to this is that if a community college or transfer student is accepted to NCSU

with their thirty hours, they may meet the USD and GK categories without ever taking one of the courses on these lists.

Because of the CAA, when students come into NCSU with an A.S. and A.A., they meet the General Education requirement for

the institution. The member then noted that perhaps there should be a dialogue with UNC-GA to see what their concerns might

be with the USD and GK categories.

One member noted that there was a clear and obvious reason the task force made specific recommendations about this, and it is

important not to lose sight of their vision. Another member felt that CUE may need to slightly rethink the original intent. The

task force chose GK and USD because they felt they were important to the General Education Program. However, times and

circumstances have changed. Perhaps the two categories should be combined. A different member felt that altering the stand on

double-counting will not create a ‘free-for-all’. Each of the groups on the GEP is valuable. However, when advising students,

this would provide more flexibility, and could minimize confusion.

Furthermore, one member felt that CUE has created its own ‘monster’ by passing courses that have multiple GEP categories

for one class. How much time should a course employ to be considered applicable to a GEP category especially when there are

not credit hour requirements? Some courses on the list are 1 credit and some are 3 credits. He believed that the committee

needs to consider what is fair to students, as they take the ‘path of least resistance’. Another member noted that her college

CCC felt that it was not appropriate for one course to populate multiple lists. They want as much exposure for their students as

possible. When students take multiple GEP courses, rather than one that counts for two lists, they gain more practice in the

issues of the various categories. Another member felt that course content must meet the course objective, which can vary in

time. She feels that students need to be engaged in the academic and intellectual activity to achieve the objective. A different

member echoed this sentiment, using a course in his department as an example. The course, M 100, was not set up with a time

component for the USD content. Rather it was set up with the tools of assessment to meet the objectives for the USD category.

To this member it is not about the percentage of time spent on the category, but rather if the category’s objectives have been

fulfilled.

Moreover, one member noted that the committee must be careful to not water down the standards. While the university should

not impede students’ progress towards graduation, they should also not make it easier for them to get through without

exploring the intellectual goals of the General Education Program. Another member supported this idea, noting that a Student

Senate Representative believes students need more of the USD and GK courses. The representative believes that this helps

students prepare for the global marketplace and helps them to contribute in their own communities. Another member noted that

it is difficult to quantify a course’s objectives. This is time consuming and the measurement will not provide an accurate

conclusion. She does not believe that students want to double count a course are lazy. Rather, they are trying to survive.

Students currently take at least 120 hours to graduate, and the USD and GK courses add to their load. Many students have to

work and pay for their education, creating a financial stress. Several colleagues in this member’s college believe that courses

should double count. However, she also knows of colleagues that defend the spirit of the GK and USD categories.

With no time remaining, the meeting adjourned at 2:59 pm.

Respectfully submitted by Gina Neugebauer

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

89

90

91

92

93

94

96

103

105

106

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

117

118

119