1

MEMORANDUM TO: Undergraduate Curriculum Committee

FROM: Debbie Tahmassebi, Associate Dean

DATE: September 23, 2014

RE: Materials for Curriculum Committee Meeting 9/30/14

Agenda

1) Approval of Minutes from May 13, 2014 (pages 2-3) 2) College of Arts and Sciences Announcements

a. Noelle Norton b. Debbie Tahmassebi (pages 4-7)

3) Old Business a. Social Innovations Minor Proposal – removed from consideration

4) New Business a. Expedited Actions

i. Music 499 Proposal – unit change (pages 8-10) b. Non-Expedited Actions

i. Revised Core Proposal – Spring 2014 (pages 11-30) ii. Core Governance Table (pages 31-35)

5) Adjournment

2

MINUTES OF THE UNDERGRADUATE CURRICULUM COMMITTEE MEETING

May 13, 2014

Members Present: C. Adler, J. Bowman, C. Dominguez, V. Fu, N. Goldschmeid, R. Gonzalez, J. Gorsky, M. Jacob, R. Kaufmann, N. Norton, L. Nunn, C. Oberle, A. Orona, J. Provost, E. Reimer-Barry, D. Sheehan, S. Tammelleo, I. Williams, L. Williamson. Guests: C. Getz, C. Huston, P. Marquez, K. Moran, D. Tahmassebi,

J. Bowman brought the meeting to order at 12:19

The minutes from March 18, 2014 were amended and modified electronically. As amended, the minutes were approved by electronic ballot on April 13. No Undergraduate Curriculum Committee Meeting (UCC) was held in April.

Announcements:

Carole Huston: After discussion with the department chairs, Carole Huston (the WASC Academic Liaison Officer) informed the UCC that through voluntary faculty participation, we will proceed next year with assessment of writing at lower and upper division levels. Noelle Norton: In order to ensure that Associate Deans’ duties are clustered according to function and purpose, Noelle Norton (the Dean of the College) informed the UCC that Debbie Tahmassebi will be in charge of curriculum matters (UCC & CCC) and - as such - will become the convener of the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee beginning July 1, 2014.

New Business

a) Christopher Adler submitted a memorandum regarding the clarification and structure of committee procedures. (See attached.) Motion to accept the memorandum: E. Reimer-Barry / V. Fu (motion passed 17/0/2)

b) Course Proposal for Honors: a. HNRS Team-Taught: Disparities in Health Care

Motion to approve: L. Williamson / D. Sheehan 18/0/0

c) Program Proposal: Biomedical Ethics Minor

Motion to approve: D. Sheehan / L. Williamson 18/0/0

d) Program Proposal: Social Innovation Minor

3

Discussion centered around whether the proposal should be housed within the College of Arts & Sciences. Arguments for and against the location within the College were discussed. Committee members expressed a desire for greater specificity of learning outcomes, academic rigor, interdisciplinarity, and other key elements of the proposal before making a final decision.

Motion to postpone: D. Sheehan / A. Orona 15/1/2

e) Discussion of Core Curriculum Proposal

Because of time, the Core Curriculum Proposal was tabled until September 2014.

Cc: Dr. Allen, Dr. Herrinton, Department Chairs, Dr. Pace, Dr. Etheridge, Ms. Powell, Dr. Din, Ms. Bugbee, Ms. O’Brien, Ms. Kuelbs

4

Undergraduate Curriculum Committee (UCC) Procedures 2014-2015

*All materials should be submitted to Debbie Tahmassebi (debbiet@sandiego.edu). Department Chairs should submit Course Proposal Action Sheets and accompanying Department Reports

(for non-expedited actions – see below) electronically as a single .pdf. Submission of Action Sheets and Department Reports imply that the materials have already received Department level approval. Prior to submission, Department Reports and Action Sheets will be posted to the UCC website (requires USD faculty login). Agendas and meeting materials for upcoming UCC meetings will be posted on the website at least 5 days prior to each meeting. No printed copies of any materials will be provided. Expedited Actions (see below) received will be placed as the first item(s) on the UCC agenda and

automatically approved by the Committee in the absence of objections. Expedited Action items must be submitted at least 1 week prior to an upcoming UCC meeting in order to be included on the agenda for that meeting. Non-Expedited Actions submitted must include a Course Proposal Action Sheet and Department Report.

Non-expedited actions potentially impact other programs and/or departments. They will be provided 2 weeks to review the submitted materials and provide comments prior to UCC consideration. All submitted comments will be compiled and made available to the submitting department for their response. After the response is received, materials will be made available for UCC Committee members and the item will be listed on a UCC agenda. A short period of time for brief comments and questions, along with an opportunity to object will be given for each agenda item. New academic programs including new majors or degrees must go through the Academic Program Review

Process (http://www.sandiego.edu/provost/docs-forms/academic-initiatives-procedures.php). Expedited Actions (only require submitted department review)

Change in course # that will not affect other majors/minors in any College/School Change in course title (editorial only) Change in course pre-requisite(s) that will not affect other majors/minors in any College/School Bulletin description change (editorial only) Deletion of course(s) that will not affect other majors/minors in any College/School

For Expedited Actions, complete the Course Proposal Action Sheet as noted below:

I. Action for Course: Today’s date (check appropriate box for action) II. Basic Information: (complete relevant sections)

III. In most cases, this does not need to be completed IV. No need to complete V. Complete as relevant

Non-Expedited Curricular Changes (listed below) require a Department Report Form.

Change in course pre-requisite(s) that will affect other majors/minors in any College/School Deletion of course(s) that will affect other majors/minors in any College/School Addition of new course Revision of existing course Revision of existing major/minor/concentration

5

Course Proposal (new or changes) Action Sheet 1. Today’s Date ___________________________________ 2. Course Action Will the proposed action affect other majors/minors in any College/School?

Yes No

What type of curricular Action is being requested?

Bulletin description change (editorial only) Change in course # Change in course title (editorial only) Change in course pre-requisite(s) Deletion of course(s) Addition of new course Revision of existing course Revision of existing major/minor/concentration

Effective Term: (list preferred semester/year) ______________ 3. Basic Information a. Title of Course (30 characters maximum; appears on transcripts and schedules) b. Bulletin Title (60 characters maximum; appears only in Bulletin) c. New Course Information

Department Code _____ Credit Hours _____ Course Number _____

Lecture Contact Hours _____ Lab Contact Hours _____ Other Contact Hours _____

d. Bulletin Course Description (if new or changed) e. Grading Mode(s) (check all that apply)

Standard P/F Audit

6

4. Course Format: method of delivery (check all that apply) Lecture Lab Lecture/Lab Seminar Recitation Internship

Independent Study Performance Field Experience Practicum Research/Thesis/Dissertation Community Service Learning

5. Course Designation (check all that apply) Core (include Core proposal form) Honors

Writing (include W course proposal form)

Diversity (include D course proposal form)

Other ____________

6. Faculty Course Workload

Same as course credit Same as weekly contact hours Percent of weekly contact hours (specify): ______ Based on enrollment (specify): _____________________________ Team taught, full load No load Other: (specify) _____________________________

7. Course Details (circle Y/N) Will this course be course cross-listed (Y/N); If Y, with what course? ___________________ Prerequisites? (Y/N) if Y, list prerequisite courses ___________________________________ Is this course linked with another course (e.g., lecture and lab)? (Y/N) If Y, with what course? ______________________; Will the linked course be deleted? Y/N Core curriculum requirement met, if any (D, W): _________; Has this course been approved as a D or W course already? (Y/N) Is this course a topics or repeatable course for credit? (Y/N) 8. Department vote (# Yes, # No, #

Abstentions) ______________

Approvals (Curriculum Committee Use Only)

Department Vote; Date ____________ Department Chair; Date ____________ Core Curriculum Committee; Core Designation _______Date ____________ (if needed) Other Curriculum Committee; Name _______________Date ____________ Other Curriculum Committee; Name _______________Date ____________ (if needed) Other Curriculum Committee; Name _______________Date ____________ (if needed) Dean; Date ____________

7

Department Report Form

*adjust the space needed for each section on this word document as necessary

1. Rationale Provide a brief rationale for the change/deletion/addition/revision of this course

2. Impact a. Discuss the likely effects on both department curriculum and curricula of other

departments. b. Will this change impact the requirements for a major or minor? If Y provide a

summary of the changes. c. Will this change have any staffing/budgetary impact? If yes, provide a brief

explanation (include commentary on personnel, facilities, library holdings and academic computing)

d. Might this change have an impact on any other departments? If Y, what majors and/or minors might be affected by this change?

e. Will this change impact student enrollment numbers? If Y, in what courses and in what ways?

3. Syllabus - Attach a sample syllabus, which specifies learning objectives, possible

assignments, evaluation and supplemental readings.

8

Course Proposal (new or changes) Action Sheet

1. Today’s Date _____18 September 2014______________________________ 2. Course Action Will the proposed action affect other majors/minors in any College/School?

Yes No

What type of curricular Action is being requested?

Bulletin description change (editorial only) Change in course # Change in course title (editorial only); CHANGE IN UNIT STRUCTURE FOR

INDEPENDENT STUDY Change in course pre-requisite(s) Deletion of course(s) Addition of new course Revision of existing course (change from 1 unit to variable 1-3 units) Revision of existing major/minor/concentration

Effective Term: (list preferred semester/year) _Spring 2015_____________ 3. Basic Information a. Title of Course (30 characters maximum; appears on transcripts and schedules) MUSC 499 Independent Study (1) b. Bulletin Title (60 characters maximum; appears only in Bulletin) MUSC499 INDEPENDENTSTUDY(1)Individualworkintheory,composition,musicology,orliturgicalmusicwiththeapprovalofthemusicfaculty.ForMusicmajorsonly.Prerequisite:Approvalofmusicdepartmentdirectorrequired.

c. New Course Information

Department Code _____ Credit Hours __1-3___ Course Number _____ Lecture Contact Hours _____ Lab Contact Hours _____ Other Contact Hours _____

9

d. Bulletin Course Description (if new or changed) MUSC499 INDEPENDENTSTUDY(1‐3)Individualworkintheory,composition,musicology,orliturgicalmusicwiththeapprovalofthemusicfaculty.ForMusicmajorsonly.Prerequisite:Approvalofmusicdepartmentdirectorrequired.

e. Grading Mode(s) (check all that apply)

Standard P/F Audit

4. Course Format: method of delivery (check all that apply)

Lecture Lab Lecture/Lab Seminar Recitation Internship

Independent Study Performance Field Experience Practicum Research/Thesis/Dissertation Community Service Learning

5. Course Designation (check all that apply)

Core (include Core proposal form) Honors Writing (include W course proposal form) Diversity (include D course proposal form) Other __________

6. Faculty Course Workload

Same as course credit Same as weekly contact hours Percent of weekly contact hours (specify): ______ Based on enrollment (specify): _____________________________ Team taught, full load No load Other: (specify) __1-3 units___________________________

7. Course Details (circle Y/N) Will this course be course cross-listed (N); If Y, with what course? ___________________ Prerequisites? (N) if Y, list prerequisite courses ___________________________________

10

Is this course linked with another course (e.g., lecture and lab)? (N) If Y, with what course? ______________________; Will the linked course be deleted? N Core curriculum requirement met, if any (D, W): NA_________; Has this course been approved as a D or W course already? (N) Is this course a topics or repeatable course for credit? (Y) 9. Department vote (# Yes, # No, # Abstentions) 4 yes, 1 abstain

Approvals (Curriculum Committee Use Only)

Department Vote; Date __9/13/14__________ Department Chair; Date _9/11/14___________ Core Curriculum Committee; Core Designation _______Date ____________ (if needed) Other Curriculum Committee; Name _______________Date ____________ Other Curriculum Committee; Name _______________Date ____________ (if needed) Other Curriculum Committee; Name _______________Date ____________ (if needed) Dean; Date ____________

Proposal for the Core Curriculum University of San Diego

Revised Spring 2014 Summary Report Submitted for Faculty Review

by

Core Planning Committee April 2014

  2  

The Core Planning Committee distributed a proposal for a new core curriculum to faculty in December 2013 for review. Its foundation stems from previous key core documents: the Core Action Plan, 2011, the first Core Proposal draft--Spring 2012, and the Report of the Task Force on the Catholic Intellectual Tradition in the Core Curriculum. Members of the committee collected feedback from numerous faculty groups, individual faculty, and students about the elements in the proposed core. Each subcommittee considered various recommendations and feedback related to their area. After weighing various options, the CPC is submitting this revised core curriculum proposal for consideration. The CPC envisions a core curriculum that prepares students to be ethical and thoughtful citizens of the world. The distinctive idea of a Catholic university puts particular emphasis on academic excellence in the liberal arts, on critical reflection as a key ingredient in our spiritual welfare, and in our calling to uphold the dignity and aspirations of all people. The Core is a manifestation of the commitment made to faith and reason, inviting students to search for, to understand, and to integrate “the true and the good for both the development of moral agency and to perceive the infusion of the divine in reality and knowledge” (CITCC Task Force Report, p. 4). USD’s Catholic identity is expressed by the infusion of the Catholic intellectual tradition throughout the core curriculum, but is specifically articulated in our valued traditions through inquiry into theological and religious studies, ethical theory, philosophy, and the diversity of human experience. The USD core will comprise a dynamic set of courses and experiences that are the heart of every student’s education, guaranteeing an integration of knowledge that will complement any field of study and will prepare students to be ethical and effective leaders. Why Core Revision? The Core Curriculum is the expression of the two great traditions that animate the University of San Diego: liberal arts education and Catholic higher education. The Core Curriculum expresses the ethos of our university, and it is a principle part of what makes USD an extraordinary learning environment. It is the primary mechanism for uniting faculty from different disciplines in the common pursuit of knowledge and understanding. And while the Core is a bastion of intellectual traditions and values, it is also a moving reflection of the changing world. There are inner rings reaching back to the trivium and the quadrivium, and others that later emerged out of the general education reform movements of the last two centuries, but the tree continues to grow and branch into the complex realities of the present. So, it is our responsibility as faculty, periodically, to revisit and rethink the Core. The Core Curriculum is at the center of USD’s liberal arts, Catholic education. Ideally, it is through the Core that students are given a broad range of ideas to consider with opportunities to synthesize these from many perspectives and practices of inquiry. In the Core, students are encouraged to compare disparate intellectual approaches, and practice the ability to think critically and creatively, enabling them to wrestle with the complexities of the issues and controversies discussed within specific disciplines that challenge our world today. A liberal arts education provides breadth of learning, as students are encouraged to take courses that they might not choose on their own. This is the strength of our current Core Curriculum, which distributes the course requirements over a wide range of disciplines and areas. The current core curriculum, however, lacks specific and intentional opportunities for students to integrate knowledge. Furthermore, the current core requirements make it difficult for many students to explore elective courses, complete a minor, or for some even to graduate in four years. The goal of the core revision process is to create a curriculum in which students can explore various ideas,

  3  

grapple with complex questions, learn how concepts relate across disciplines, and apply their knowledge to issues beyond the classroom. As the embodiment of our identity as a university, it is critical that the Core represent our collective goals and aspirations. In the current proposal, faculty have outlined the pedagogical vision for a new core curriculum that is grounded in the liberal arts and takes into account the Catholic character of the University. This proposal is based on faculty feedback, methodical research, personal experience, and the culture of USD. Summary of key changes from original proposal:

• Integration: Remove “integration seminar.” Add 1 unit to the preceptorial and Spring companion course for integration learning outcomes. Students do a final year project demonstrating integrative learning. Students are in thematic courses for the first year.

• Foundation: Expand the definition of Diversity, Inclusion, and Social Justice (DISJ). Distinguish DISJ as a foundational component of Foundations, but separated from the Catholic intellectual tradition.

• Exploration: Separate Historical and Literary Inquiry into two distinct groups. Remove the Engineering, Computer Science, and technology component from Scientific Inquiry and add a Technological Inquiry group.

• Competencies: Removed intermediate flagging structure. Move to a book-end approach

assessing student achievement at the first and final year.

• Core Oversight: Recommendations for a governance structure that includes the creation of a Senate Core Curriculum Committee and six core area committees.

  4  

Through the core, we expect that students at USD will:

• Integrate knowledge, insights, and skills gained through scholarly inquiry and strong community into the quest for truth as a continuous process of making connections (integrated learning);

• Become individuals who aspire to uphold the dignity and aspirations of all people in the search for truth and for the good (foundations);

• Critically and creatively explore the “big questions” about God, personal and social identity, and the world through varied modes of inquiry (foundations & explorations);

• Learn essential skills of critical thinking and information literacy, communication, mathematical reasoning and problem-solving, and quantitative reasoning (core competencies).

Core Curriculum Proposed Model* Integrative Learning Preceptorial & Spring Companion Course Thematic Living Learning Communities First Year Integration 1 unit added to each course in LLC theme Advanced Integration 1 flagged UD course Foundation Catholic Intellectual Tradition Theological and Religious Inquiry 2 (6 units) Philosophy 1 (3 units) Ethics 1 (3 units) Diversity, Inclusion, and Social Justice 2 flagged courses

Exploration Take 1 course in each area: Artistic Inquiry 1 (3 units) Scientific Inquiry 1 (4 units) including lab Social and Behavioral Inquiry 1 (3 units) Take 2 more courses, chosen from 2 of the

following 3 areas: Historical Inquiry 1 (3 units) Literary Inquiry 1 (3 units) Technological Inquiry 1 (3 units)

Core Competencies Writing 1 (3 units) Mathematical Reasoning & Problem Solving 1 (3 units) Quantitative Reasoning Pass competency exam or QR flagged course Second Language 1-3 (3-9 units) Final Year Experience Embedded competencies: Oral & Written

Communication, Critical Thinking/Information Literacy TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS 39 - 45 units *The proposed core is modeled for students entering USD as first year students in the Fall semester. As we proceed, faculty will need to identify how to accommodate transfer students.  

  5  

First Core Curriculum Proposed Model Integrative Learning First Year Integration Seminar 2 (2 units) 1 unit each semester Advanced Integration Project 1 (1 unit) component of core or major capstone Foundation: Catholic Intellectual Tradition

Theological and Religious Inquiry 2 (6 units) Philosophy 1 (3 units) Ethics 1 (3 units) Inclusion and Social Justice 2 Flagged developmental courses Exploration 5 courses total (16 units distributed below) Artistic Inquiry 1 (3 units) Historical and Literary Inquiry 1 (3 units) Social and Behavioral Inquiry 1 (3 units) Scientific Inquiry 1 (4 units) including lab Indispensable Competencies With Developmental Sequences In: Writing 1 (3 units) in the first year, 1 flagged course above

100 level, embedded in capstone project Oral Communication Embedded in First Year Seminar, 1 flagged course

above 100 level, embedded in capstone project Critical Thinking and Information Literacy Embedded in First Year Seminar, embedded in

breadth courses, embedded in capstone project Second Language 1-3 (3-9 units) Mathematical Reasoning/Problem Solving 1 (3 units) Quantitative Reasoning 1 flagged course above 100 level TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS 40 - 46 units Current Core Curriculum

INDISPENSABLE COMPETENCIES Written Literacy (Composition and Literature, upper division “W”) 2 courses (6 units) Mathematical Competency 1 course (3 units) Logic (taught by Philosophy or Mathematics) 1 course (3units) Second Language Competency 1-3 courses (3-9

units) TRADITIONS Theology and Religious Studies 3 courses (9 units) Philosophy (excluding logic, one upper division ethics) 2 courses (6 units) HORIZONS Humanities and Fine Arts (one history, one literature, one fine arts) 3 courses (9 units) Natural Sciences (one physical, one life, one lab) 2 courses (7 units) Social Sciences 2 courses (6 units) Diversity of Human Experience, “D” 1 course (3 units) TOTAL NUMBER OF COURSES/UNITS 16-18 courses

(48 - 54 units)

  6  

Core Curriculum at USD The Catholic intellectual tradition centers on the belief that serious sustained intellectual reflection is essential to our lives. In higher education, the Catholic intellectual tradition embodies and embraces the work of those who seek to push forward the boundaries of knowledge. First and foremost, the faculty must be committed to the rigorous pursuit of excellence in teaching, learning, and research. Accomplishing intellectual rigor in a liberal arts curriculum includes, but is not limited to, exposing students to rich bodies of literature, relevant coursework and engaging discussions to stimulate intellectual inquiry. Faculty must impose high academic standards that sharpen critical thinking and analytical reasoning, and increase advanced competency skills in writing, oral communication, cognitive reasoning and technological literacy. Students so educated must be well equipped to creatively envision, articulate and apply new solutions to the problems of today. A rigorous and purposeful curriculum aims to challenge students to evaluate their existing assumptions by exposing them to new ideas. Courses necessarily must be intense and demanding, both in breadth and depth of coverage of topics. A rigorous curriculum awakens and stimulates in the student a desire to explore, to experiment, to reason, and to transform not only themselves but also the world around them as they discern their own place in it. Recommendations for Core Oversight Core revision is a prime instance of faculty governance, and from its inception this process has been faculty led. Equally important, core revision is a rare opportunity to explore creative ways to enhance student learning as a whole, to collaborate with colleagues from different disciplines, to reflect on the roles of liberal arts and Catholic higher education in today’s society, and, ultimately, to strengthen the existing intellectual climate on campus. Because of the inextricably intertwining of Catholic higher education and the liberal arts, the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences has the responsibility to oversee the core curriculum  (CAS Dean’s position description from the Board of Trustees, 1991; Insight Document, 1999;). Given that the Core Curriculum concerns three degree granting undergraduate units, it is recommended that the College Dean work with members of the Senate to establish a Senate Core Curriculum as outlined by the Senate constitution and by-laws.

ARTICLE III: JURISDICTION 1. The Senate shall have jurisdiction to accomplish its purposes, provided that matters at issue be of University-wide interest or concern and not essentially intra- school, whether by tradition or agreement. 2. Matters of University-wide interest or concern, unless excepted by tradition or agreement, include (a nonexclusive listing):

a. The undergraduate general education program.

  7  

Senate BY-LAWS

ARTICLE I: JURISDICTION

Section A: General Education

The Senate has jurisdiction over general policy guidelines concerning the general education program as it applies to undergraduate students in the Schools and Colleges granting baccalaureate degrees. The Senate shall ensure that general education reflects distribution in the fundamental areas of knowledge indispensable in an undergraduate education in the Judeo-Christian tradition. However, for a matter pertinent to general education to be within the Senate’s jurisdiction, that matter must directly affect the undergraduate students when at least two Schools/Colleges have not reached agreement regarding the matter. For the purposes of this section, Diversified Liberal Arts students shall be considered students of both the College of Arts and Sciences and the School of Education.

The committee shall be comprised of representative proportionality that is calculated based on the representation on the Senate, but include only representatives from units with undergraduate programs. The Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences will serve as chair.

The charge of the SCCC will be to review an annual report from each area committee that identifies new courses approved for the core curriculum. The committee will review appeals when a course is not approved by a standing core area faculty committee. It is responsible for meeting Academic Program Review (APR) guidelines for the core curriculum and reviewing assessment reports. Core Area Faculty Committees The CPC recommends the creation of six committees that include representatives from area experts from College of Arts and Sciences (CAS), School of Business Administration (SBA), and Shiley-Marcos School of Engineering (SMSE). The number of members will vary depending on the scope of the committee. These committees will approve courses to meet the requirements of the core learning outcomes in each area. A new course must first be approved by the appropriate unit’s curriculum committee before being submitted for inclusion in the Core. All Core Area Committees would report to each unit’s curriculum committee after each meeting where action occurred. A yearly report will be submitted to the Senate Core Curriculum Committee listing the courses approved and include a summary of assessment activities for the area. Departments may appeal review decisions by Area Committees through the Senate Core Curriculum Committee. The Senate Core Curriculum Committee would investigate the decision process and make recommendations for resolution (e.g., support of the original decision or by convening an ad hoc committee of faculty experts in the identified core area). Committee representation will be selected from faculty who demonstrate area expertise. Expertise is determined by a successful record of teaching undergraduate courses in the area represented by the committee and evidence of scholarship within the area. The first committees formed will be responsible for creating the specific learning outcomes in the area using the guidelines proposed in the core reports. Reviewing student achievement of learning outcomes and amendments to learning outcomes will happen as determined by assessment review.

  8  

An open call will be forwarded to faculty soliciting participation on core area committees. Of the interested and qualified faculty, selections will be made through a faculty election process. Committee membership should rotate every two years. Each committee will include representation from each of the undergraduate units underscoring an inclusive approach to core governance. The first set of committee representatives will be selected through the Senate Core Committee. After initial committees are formed, outgoing members would be responsible for determining expertise of faculty who are interested in serving on a committee. Transitioning to the new core curriculum will be a labor-intensive process, as all courses for inclusion in the new core will need review. Faculty will need to determine whether after the initial course review process, some committees should be combined with other committees to streamline the process. Foundation Catholic Intellectual Tradition One of the principal ways USD expresses its Catholic character is by incorporating the Catholic intellectual tradition into the core curriculum. This tradition includes the study of theology, religious studies, philosophy, and ethics. Social justice is an integral part of the Catholic intellectual tradition and central to Catholic social thought. Within this tradition social justice includes, but is not limited to, issues surrounding poverty, dignity of the human person, dignity of work, solidarity and the common good, and care for God’s creation. In addition, through its core curriculum, the university fosters community, integration of knowledge and intellectual rigor. The mission of USD is enacted in the core curriculum through pedagogical innovation. The Catholic intellectual tradition at USD promotes catholicity on many levels. The University is made up of countless components; we seek to build from this diversity a single, cohesive community of scholars. To that end, the core curriculum should encourage close professional relationships among students and faculty, and encourage communication and cooperation across traditional academic lines. It should work to connect students and faculty across disciplines, among different departments, and between the college and the schools, to reinforce the understanding that the university’s many parts are interconnected components of a common enterprise. The core curriculum should also encourage students and faculty of different faiths, backgrounds, cultures, and experiences to join together as an inclusive and welcoming scholarly community.

Theological Inquiry and Religious Studies The study of theology and religion is a distinguishing characteristic of a Catholic university because these courses offer the opportunity for a disciplined and systematic exploration of life’s meaning and the integration of faith and reason. The pursuit of theology and religion invites discernment of significant truths about reality, faith and human existence. The academic study of religion (theology and religious studies) is uniquely suited to explore religious meaning, to help students probe religion as a constitutive element of human experience and values, and to help them acquire skills for engaging diverse dimensions of religion with openness and respect. Below are example Learning Outcomes of the area. Individual course outcomes do not have to meet all three outcomes, but over the two courses, students should be able to meet the following outcomes.

  9  

Students will be able to:

1. Articulate how religion is a constitutive element of human experience and values. 2. Demonstrate an understanding of the diversity of religious traditions with particular

attention to Catholic theology and tradition. 3. Demonstrate knowledge of at least one religious tradition in depth.

Theology and Religious Inquiry Faculty Committee The charge of this committee is to approve courses that meet learning outcomes for the theological and religious inquiry. THRS faculty will constitute the majority of members. It is expected that courses in THRS would make up the majority of course offerings, but the contribution by any other unit or department is possible if established learning outcomes are met by the course. The committee would review assessment reports that analyze student achievement of learning outcomes for this area.

Philosophy The academic study of philosophy is a distinguishing characteristic of a Catholic university and a liberal arts education. It uniquely allows students to understand and articulate comprehensive and fundamental questions about human existence and experience, about themselves and the world. One course is required.

Ethics The study of ethics emphasizes the development of ethical reflection, judgment, moral responsibility, and action. Of traditional and particular significance in the intellectual and personal development of students studying at a university grounded in the Catholic intellectual tradition, it evokes broad inquiry regarding the foundations of morality, ethical principles, and the application of these principles through reasoned reflection and critical engagement with real human and social concerns and problems. One course is required. It is expected that courses in Philosophy would make up the majority of course offerings, but the contribution by any other unit is possible if the course meets the area’s learning outcomes. Example Learning Outcomes of courses in Ethics: Students should be able to:

1. Understand the fundamental principles of ethical judgment and behavior and be able to describe the major historical and contemporary ethical theories, including their rational justifications and limitations.

2. Reflectively analyze particular ethical problems, describe their ethical components and aspects in their social and practical context, and critically engage with significant ethical principles and theories.

  10  

Ethics and Philosophical Inquiry Faculty Committee The charge of this committee is to approve courses that meet learning outcomes for ethics in the core. It is expected that courses in Philosophy would make up the majority of course offerings, but the contribution by any other unit or department is possible if established learning outcomes are met by the course. The committee will also approve courses for the philosophy requirement. The committee would review assessment reports that analyze student achievement of learning outcomes for these areas. Please refer to the www.sandiego.edu/core website to access reports associated with the development of the CIT area.

Diversity, Inclusion and Social Justice The study and experience of inclusion and social justice fosters an informed appreciation of different experiences and perspectives as well as a range of intellectual and cultural traditions. This includes opportunities to explore more than one¹s own limited experience and to engage others within and outside the community always recognizing that the inherent dignity of each person is an integral part of the Catholic intellectual tradition. It requires direct engagement with inclusion and difference with an eye toward fostering and embracing social justice. Diversity in the curriculum enhances critical thinking by raising new issues and perspectives, by broadening the variety of experiences shared, by confronting stereotypes on social, religious, economic, and political issues, on issues of gender, sexual orientation, and race/ethnicity, on substantive issues, on personal experiences. It engages and challenges students to tackle different perspectives, by allowing a broader variety of experiences to share, and by raising new issues and perspectives specific to an array of courses. Examples of course content include: investigating diversity through the lenses of power and privilege, examining diversity within local and global contexts, and emphasizing the intersectionality of race/ethnicity, nationality, class, gender, sexual orientation, religion, and ability. DISJ outcomes (in brief): Knowledge Outcomes 1. Become self-aware 2. Recognize and respect difference Skill Outcome 3. Conceptualize and articulate the complexities of difference. Students will select two courses. One course must focus on diversity within a U.S. context while the second course may focus on diversity within a U.S. context or on diversity within transnational and/or international contexts. Diversity, Inclusion and Social Justice Faculty Committee The charge of this committee is to identify courses that would carry the DISJ designation. Courses would first be reviewed by the appropriate area committee or be a course for a major and then be reviewed for the DISJ flag. The committee would review assessment reports that analyze student achievement of learning outcomes for DISJ. Please refer to the www.sandiego.edu/core website to access reports associated with the development of the DISJ area.

  11  

Integrative Learning The Catholic intellectual tradition holds that striving towards truth and understanding must be informed by a variety of different disciplines, experiences, and approaches and that learning is especially meaningful when comprehensive questions are posed and addressed from a variety of approaches. It holds that skills, insights, and knowledge gained in one area of life or scholarly inquiry can fruitfully inform quests for answers in another and that learning and the search for truth, therefore, is a continuous process of making connections. The Catholic intellectual tradition thus supports an integrative curriculum that asks students and faculty to connect across disciplines, to synthesize disparate areas of knowledge, and to pose the "big questions." It thus also supports core curricula whose components connect and build on one another, in which latest advances in research are integrated into the quest for understanding, and in which a continuous engagement with the complex problems of our world inform the questions we ask and the answers we seek. Integrative learning is an approach that creates an opportunity for students to make connections among ideas and experiences to synthesize knowledge. The definition of integration is multifaceted and includes courses and experiences that provide students with opportunities to make connections between disciplines, apply knowledge in a variety of contexts, make connections between curricular and co-curricular activities, and to synthesize Core competencies.

First Year Living Learning Communities

Each student will participate in a first year experience that will offer opportunities for making connections across disciplinary boundaries within a specific theme. The preceptorial and Spring companion course will now carry a 4-unit load to expand the opportunities for integrative learning. Faculty directors and LLC faculty will determine how to meet the learning outcomes associated with integration throughout that year experience. At the end of the first year, there would be a final project to demonstrate how students integrate knowledge from their LLC themed experience. Below are example Learning Outcomes for the First Year Living Learning Communities integration component. Students will be able to:

1. Recognize differences in theories and perspectives between academic disciplines related to LLC theme (Fall/Spring Semester).

2. Identify connections between academic and co-curricular experiences in the context of the LLC theme (Fall/Spring Semester).

3. Synthesize and apply knowledge from theories and perspectives between academic disciplines related to LLC theme (Spring Semester).

Advanced Integration

During the final year, each student will complete an advanced integration component in a flagged course. This requirement can be satisfied within the major or outside the major. Students will have multiple options to satisfy this component, which include, but are not limited to capstone courses, research seminars, community service projects and internships. The courses that meet the

  12  

advanced integration learning outcomes will be flagged. The goals of the advanced integration project are for students to demonstrate how interdisciplinary components inform their specific field of study (synthesis of knowledge) and to demonstrate evidence of critical thinking, information literacy, skillful writing, and oral presentation (competencies). Below are example Learning Outcomes for the Advanced Integration experience. Students will be able to:

1. Analyze a complex issue in a way that incorporates examples, facts or theories from more than one field of study or perspective.

2. Synthesize connections among experiences outside of the formal classroom (including, but not limited to, community service learning, internships, study abroad, research) to deepen understanding of field of study and to broaden own points of view.

Integration Faculty Committee The charge of the committee is to work with LLC directors to support integrative learning practices and offer oversight for the learning outcomes associated with the first year integration seminar and other high impact practices. The committee will approve courses for the advanced integration experiences. The committee will review integrative learning assessment reports. Please refer to the www.sandiego.edu/core website to access reports associated with the development of the Integration area.

Exploration Through Breadth In the new core curriculum, the breadth component is articulated as a “Modes of Inquiry” structure. This structure recognizes the commonalities among diverse disciplines in the ways information is generated, perceived, and analyzed. We wish to shift the spotlight away from the content of a discipline to the practice of its scholars. Thus, we propose to group courses not by discipline, but by the kind of inquiry and perspective they employ, A simple way to make our groups more inclusive and inquiry-based is through the name: by changing nouns to adjectives--for example, Art to Artistic Inquiry--we unlock the gates between traditional categories and allow for the possibility of courses that integrate diverse content but use similar modes of inquiry. Moreover, we expect that more inclusive, integrative definitions of the course groupings will inspire new courses that will exemplify these connections, and existing courses will be inspired to broaden their perspective. Faculty will have the opportunity to submit courses in various inquiry areas that may be outside their specific area in the current core. As the academy moves to a more interdisciplinary approach in multiple areas, new faculty come to USD with modes of inquiry that challenge traditional categorization. We propose an Exploration (breadth) requirement of five courses, with three courses chosen so that at least one course is taken from each of the following three groups: Artistic Inquiry, Scientific Inquiry, and Social and Behavioral Inquiry. The two remaining courses will be taken from two of the following three groups: Historical Inquiry, Literary Inquiry, and Technological Inquiry. Additionally, the five Exploration courses must be taken from five different academic departments. It is expected that all courses in the Exploration area would embed critical thinking and information literacy.

  13  

Artistic Inquiry

Artistic inquiry reveals the ways that artistic practices at once reflect and shape the society in which they are produced. Through the study of the history, theory and/or practice of one or more of the arts, students come to understand the distinct vocabularies of form and structure that produce meaning. Students deploy critical skills to delve into works of art, architecture, music, and/or theatre within their historical contexts and experiential dimensions, questioning received knowledge and presuppositions. This domain of study elucidates the ways in which the arts operate as modes of reflection and of action—alert to the past while re-envisioning the future—from the local to the global. We expect courses from the arts will make up the majority of the offerings, but the contribution by any other unit is possible.

Historical Inquiry Classes in Historical Inquiry enhance our understanding of the present through rigorous exploration of the complicated forces shaping human history. Students learn that Historical Inquiry requires that they not simply develop a knowledge of what happened but also make a sustained effort to enter into historical worlds and engage with perspectives quite different from their own. They must formulate and investigate significant historical questions, weigh competing scholarly interpretations, analyze a range of primary sources, and effectively communicate their findings. We expect courses from the humanities and especially History will make up the majority of offerings, but classes from any other unit are possible.

Literary Inquiry

Literary inquiry seeks to understand both the past and present by revealing the ways in which texts render the infinite facets of human experience across historical periods, geographical boundaries, and diverse political and social contexts. Students learn to critically analyze or create poetry, prose fiction, creative nonfiction, drama and other cultural products, grounding their study in literary theory and cultural contexts. They come to understand the formal features of a text, deploy techniques in close reading, and interpret primary and secondary sources. We expect courses from the humanities will make up the majority of offerings, but classes from any other unit are possible.

Social and Behavioral Inquiry

Social and behavioral inquiry examines how and why individuals and societies develop, evolve, and function. This inquiry probes the mechanisms and dynamic processes that shape who we are and what we can become. Students think systematically about humans, societies, organizations and their interactions. Within the framework of theoretical and methodological perspectives, students evaluate evidence and apply this understanding to contemporary issues. We expect courses from the social sciences will make up the majority of the offerings, but the contribution by any other unit is possible.

  14  

Scientific Inquiry

Scientific inquiry employs the scientific method to generate new knowledge about the world. The impact of science on our daily lives is enormous and ever growing, necessitating an informed citizenry. Students will gain scientific literacy using guided inquiry to study and pose questions about natural phenomena. Explanations for these phenomena are generated through hands-on opportunities to formulate hypotheses, conduct experiments, analyze data, and interpret results. These activities will enable students to critically evaluate information about the world and distinguish science from nonscience. The Scientific Inquiry course must include a lab. We expect courses from the natural sciences will make up the majority of the offerings, but the contribution by any other unit is possible.

Technological Inquiry

Engineering, computer science and other technology-based areas apply math, science, and other fields of knowledge to design, develop, and create devices and systems that solve problems encountered by society. These solutions are developed applying a formal process of generating and evaluating alternative designs, and by iteratively testing and refining them to satisfy explicit objectives. This technical literacy is acquired through hands-on, design-oriented experiences where students create algorithms, or engineer solutions to problems. These activities will allow students to understand better how technology and engineering are used to identify and solve complex problems that face society in the 21st century. We expect courses from SMSE and Computer Science will make up the majority of the offerings, but the contribution by any other unit is possible. Breadth Faculty Committee The charge of this committee will be to review courses for inclusion in the breadth areas of inquiry. The committee membership would include representatives who teach in each of the Inquiry groups and would ensure communication between areas so an overview of breadth course offerings can be identified. The committee will review assessment reports that analyze student achievement of learning outcomes in the breadth area. Please refer to the www.sandiego.edu/core website to access reports associated with the development of the Exploration area.

Core Competencies  The core curriculum offers students opportunities to develop key areas of learning identified as necessary components of any core curriculum. At USD, the core curriculum addresses the following competencies: written communication, oral communication, second language, critical thinking, information literacy, mathematical reasoning and problem solving, and quantitative reasoning.

• All competencies will be embedded in courses and evaluated during the first year. Written communication (WC) is embedded in the first-year writing course and the mathematical reasoning and problem-solving (MRPS) would be embedded in a first-year mathematics course.

  15  

• Three competencies for critical thinking (CT), information literacy (IL), and oral communication (OC) would be embedded in the first-year LLC sequence.

• Quantitative reasoning (QR) would be evaluated during the first year. Students not passing the evaluation would take one course with QR sometime in the four-year sequence.

• We would also evaluate CT, IL, WC, and OC in a capstone project (in or out of major). The competencies at this level would often reflect disciplinary expectations for each of these competencies.

o We need to enrich our ideas of capstones: Instead of a 1-unit project, we could build flexibility into the capstone by offering 1-3 units: up to 3 units for departments that wish to add a whole class; 1-unit adds for existing capstone courses if needed, or a third option of requiring a capstone project independent of coursework. Projects could be interdisciplinary (more or less broadly defined), could represent integrating theories and methods into a community-based project, could be an exciting research opportunity, could be in staging a performance or in engaging in public debate. There are many models about what these could look like currently at work in a variety of institutions.

o What happens to W courses? Many departments have currently identified their capstones as W courses to better capture the more intense learning experiences of capstone projects. We believe that a natural evolution has already transpired in this regard.

• Regarding the Communication competencies, it is recommended that we develop a student center designed to help students develop the appropriate skills and gain competence at foundational and capstone levels in both writing and oral presentation. We also recommend a full-time faculty director position be created for this center.

Even though most of the research on learning within each competency area points to the need for practice throughout the entire undergraduate curriculum, this model would provide us a with a way to evaluate what our students know at a foundational level and again before they leave USD.

Written Communication

The writing process must be fully embedded within multiple contexts with different purposes and audiences, appropriately address widely varying content, and be fully sensitive to the conventions of different disciplines and genres. It is a process that requires reflective iteration throughout our students’ education, beginning in the first year and culminating in a senior-level capstone project. Foundational first-year course: A writing course must be completed during the first year. Initially, the First-year Writing Course may focus on literature in English or could be expanded to include other genres and disciplines across other academic divisions and units. We recommend that it be given a course designation such as WRIT (writing) or FYW (first-year writing) to distinguish it as a core course. Capstone experience: The process of writing should culminate in the capstone project, whether this project is embedded in a course for the major or the core or is accomplished independently through community service or other co-curricular context.

Oral Communication

The core curriculum will provide opportunities for students to enhance oral presentation skills including a requirement for an oral communication component throughout the core. The definition of oral communication is from the AAC&U Value Rubric for Oral Communication: “Oral

  16  

communication is a prepared, purposeful presentation designed to increase knowledge, to foster understanding, or to promote change in the listeners' attitudes, values, beliefs, or behaviors.” Faculty should be able to evaluate individual speakers, including participants who are presenting in panels or groups. Additionally, the presentations should be of sufficient length so that the outcomes can be achieved. Foundational First-Year Curriculum: the outcomes for oral communication are embedded within the first-year one-unit requirements for integration and would require a student presentation in the Spring semester. Capstone experience: The oral communication competency should culminate in the presentation of a capstone project, whether this project is embedded in a course for the major or the core or is accomplished independently through community service or other co-curricular context.

Second Language

Second Language proficiency refers to the ability of students to achieve basic proficiency in a second language in speaking, listening, writing, and reading. It is recommended that cultural competency is a component of language courses. It is recommended that the language requirement is completed in consecutive semesters if students must take more than one course. Students must pass the third semester of their chosen language.

Critical Thinking and Information Literacy

The core curriculum will intentionally embed elements of critical thinking and information literacy in various areas. Critical thinking is defined as the students’ ability to explain an issue/problem, gather support for a claim, consider assumptions, construct a thesis, and reach conclusions. In order to achieve these goals, a student must be able to collect reliable and relevant information. Information literacy provides students with the necessary skills to gather and analyze various sources of information. Specifically, students will be able to determine the extent of information needed, access the needed information through well-designed search strategies, evaluate the credibility of the information, use the information to accomplish a specific purpose, and uses information ethically and legally. It is evident that critical thinking and information literacy outcomes are naturally accomplished in many courses. The current proposal is not intended to have faculty reinvent how they teach discipline specific critical analysis. It is to identify where students are learning and applying these skills by including the CTIL designation. CTIL goals will be embedded in core courses, major courses, or electives at foundational and capstone levels.

Mathematical Reasoning and Problem Solving

Mathematical reasoning is defined as creating, following, and assessing chains of mathematical arguments; explaining, interpreting, and correctly applying definitions, theorems, and results; having familiarity with the idea of mathematical proof, including the ability to understand and explain simple proofs, to understand and derive mathematical formulas, and to recognize the difference between proofs and informal arguments. The language of mathematics is used to model real-world processes. Mathematical models enable us to describe and study the behavior of these processes, which can allow us to discover and describe phenomena and properties of these processes that were not easily noticeable without the use of the model. The language of

  17  

mathematics is independent of any field and it is often the bridge that allows experts in different fields to communicate and work together and expand our current body of knowledge. Mathematics offers an indispensable foundation and the CPC recommends that the MRPS course be taken in the first two years. All students will be assessed by either successfully passing a mathematical competency exam or by completion of a MRPS core mathematics course. Students may take an additional math course, which could also satisfy the quantitative reasoning (QR) requirement.

Quantitative Reasoning as Inquiry and Competency (Literacy) Quantitative reasoning refers to the ability to convert relevant information into mathematical forms (e.g. equations, graphs, diagrams) and to derive meaning from data presented graphically or in tabular form. Furthermore, students need to evaluate the validity or quality of data and express quantitative evidence in support of an argument, while recognizing the assumptions and limitations of the information. For example, students need to have the skills to understand data tables and other information presented in the popular press. Students would be evaluated for QR during their first year at USD. Those who fall below the baseline would be required to take one QR “flagged” course beyond the MRPS requirement. Courses flagged as QR courses will help students explain mathematical information, make judgments and draw appropriate conclusions based on the quantitative analysis of data, while recognizing the limits of this analysis and make and evaluate assumptions in modeling, estimation, and statistical tests and be able to communicate information to others. The QR-flagged courses may be in the core, electives, or in majors. Not all students would be required to take a QR course. Please refer to the www.sandiego.edu/core website to access reports associated with the development of the Competency area.

Assessment of Core Curriculum Every program at USD is part of the Academic Program Review (APR) cycle. It is the recommendation of the CPC to include the Core Curriculum as a program that would follow the guidelines outlined by the Academic Review Committee (ARC). To be consistent with the timeline of other USD programs, the Core shall be reviewed every six years. The Senate Core Curriculum Committee would be responsible for meeting the Academic Program Review guidelines. Student achievement of core learning outcomes and competencies would be evaluated by implementation of the core’s assessment plan. It is the recommendation of the steering committee that a mid-cycle review of the new core occurs in the third year after implementation. If faculty determine that the new core is structurally, pedagogically, or in other ways problematic, it is recommend that immediate action take place to evaluate remedies. Next Steps The CPC is asking undergraduate faculty to review the proposal. This revised proposal is submitted to the undergraduate curriculum committees in SBA, SMSE, and the College.

  18  

In mid-May, the UCC in the College of Arts & Sciences will consider action on the proposal. At the first opportunity in the Fall, the Academic Assembly will meet to take action on the proposal after a decision has been made by the UCC. A similar process will occur in the Schools. Faculty bodies in each unit will be asked to “agree to move forward to test the core proposal’s implementation.” After the report has been accepted by each undergraduate unit, the proposal will be submitted to the Faculty Senate for review. Upon acceptance from the Senate, it will be submitted to the President and the Board of Trustees. After testing the governance structure of the model by implementing pilots, faculty will vote to approve core revision or vote to further test new governance structures. Final Thoughts Detailed reports, notes from CPC meetings, and updates related to each core model component can be found at www.sandiego.edu/core. The revised recommendations are based on feedback and consensus building among different faculty groups. Core curriculum revision is an on-going process. The recommendations of the Core Planning Committee are not static and as faculty begin the implementation process, the CPC expects that some revisions may be needed and will be made. We believe that the core curriculum is the cornerstone of a USD education and that these changes will improve the education of USD students.

  19  

The Core Planning Process Timeline Group Members Document Summer, 2011 AAC&U GE Institute Team: Andy Allen,

Carole Huston, Sue Lowery, Alberto Pulido, Abe Stoll

Action Plan

Fall 2011/Spring 2012 Core Planning Committee Core Proposal (April 2012) Mary Boyd, Alberto Pulido, Abe Stoll, Carole

Huston, Sue Lowery, Andy Allen, Maria Pascuzzi, Kevin Guerrieri, Mike Williams, Diane Hoffoss, Can Bilsel, James Gump, Noelle Norton, Roger Pace, Tom Dalton, Virginia Rodee, Kathleen Kramer, Margaret Leary, Chris Nayve, Paul Davis (alumni), Jeremy Whelan (student)

Activities included open forums to discuss different kinds of models and their key features.

Fall 2012/Spring 2013 Core Planning Committee Reports from each subcommittee. Andrew Allen, Rae Anderson,

Thomas Barton, James Bolender, Michel Boudrias, Mary Boyd, Lisa Burgert, Tom Dalton, Jane Friedman, John Glick, Michelle Grier, Jim Gump, David Harnish, Carole Huston, Ron Kaufmann, Particia Kowalski, Margaret Leary, Judy Liu, Susan Lord, Alyson Ma, Mike Mayer, Kristin Moran, Yasamin Mahallaty (‘13), Lance Nelson, Noelle Norton, Rick Olson, Roger Pace, Alberto Pulido , Sandra Sgoutas-Emch, Abraham Stoll, Richard Stroik,Sr. Virgina Rodee, Allison Wiese, Mike Williams

Subcommittees: Breadth Smaller Core Diversity Enhanced Components Multidisciplinary Clusters Writing

Fall 2012 CITCC Task Force

Catholic Intellectual Tradition Report

Mary Hotz, Tammy Dwyer, Tom Barton, Tom Dalton, Del Dickson, Florence Gilman, Susan Lord, Kristin Moran, Clara Oberle, Lori Watson

Fall 2013/Spring 2014 Core Planning Committee Core Proposal Sally Yard, Mike Mayer, Jim Bolender, Kristin

Moran, Eric Jiang, Stefan Vander Elst, Alberto Pulido, Yi Sun, Kevin Guerrieri, Kay Etheridge, Ron Kaufmann, Jane Friedman, David Harnish, Michael Wagner, Rae Anderson, Mike Williams, Annette Taylor, Judy Liu, Aaron Gross, Tom Dalton, Dirk Yandell, Susan Lord, Rick Olson, Lisa Burgert, Andrew Allen, Jim Gump, Margaret Leary, Noelle Norton, Carole Huston, Roger Pace, Sr. Gina Rodee, Esteban del Río, Sandra Sgoutas-Emch, Perla Myers, Coral Anderson (’14), Justine Marzoni (’10)

Documents from each group are circulated for review. Integration Breadth Catholic Intellectual Tradition Competencies

• Communication • Critical

Thinking/Information Literacy

• Math/Quantitative Literacy

The documents were incorporated into the Core Proposal

Fall 2013 Committee Participants, non-CPC members

Amanda Petersen, Deborah Sundmacher, Irene Williams, Larry Williamson, Harriet Baber, Michelle Gilmore-Grier, Nathalie Reyns, Michel Boudrias, Jennifer Gorsky, Diane Hoffoss, Anne Koenig, Sue Lowery

Participated in discussions and help write documents from each group that were submitted to CPC for review.

  20  

References AAC&U Critical Thinking and Information Literacy Value Rubrics: Retrieved at:

http://www.aacu.org/value/rubrics AAC&U National Leadership Council (2007). College learning for the new global century. Washington DC: AAC&U. AAC&U Oral Communication Value Rubric (2010). Retrieved from:

http://www.aacu.org/value/rubrics/OralCommunication.cfm American Council on Teaching of Foreign Languages. Retrieved at: http://www.actfl.org Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) Written Communication Value

Rubric. (2010) Retrieved from http://www.aacu.org/value/rubrics/WrittenCommunication.cfm Bok, D. (2013). Higher education in America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Brookfield, S. (2012). Teaching for critical thinking. Chapter 6 [Reading and writing critically].

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Conference on College Composition and Communication's Writing Assessment: A Position

Statement (2008). Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/cccc/resources/positions/123784.htm Costa, A. (2003). Communities for developing minds. In D. Fasko, Jr. (Ed.) Critical Thinking and

Reasoning, New York: Hampton Press. Eisenberg,M.B., Lowe, C.A., Spitzer, K.L. (2004). Information literacy: Essential skills for the

information age. 2nd edition. Santa Barbara: Libraries Unlimited. Facione, P. (1990). The American Philosophical Association Delphi Report. Millbrae, CA:

California Academic Press. Haswell, R.H., (2008). Teaching of writing in higher education. In Bazerman, C., Ed. Handbook of

research on writing. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum. Laird, T.F.N., A.S. Niskode-Dossett & G.D. Kuh. (2009). What general education courses

contribute to essential learning outcomes. The Journal of General Education 58:65-84. Lee, V.S. (2011). The power of inquiry as a way of learning. Innovative Higher Education 36:149-

160. Luckey, Jr., G.M. (2003). Critical thinking in colleges and universities: A model. In D. Fasko, Jr.

(Ed.) Critical Thinking and Reasoning, New York: Hampton Press. Marra, R.M. & B. Palmer. (2008). Epistemologies of the sciences, humanities, and social sciences:

liberal arts students’ perceptions. The Journal of General Education 57:100-118. Morreale, S., Rubin, R.B., & Jones, E. (1998). Speaking and listening competencies for college.

Washington DC: National Communication Association. National Council of Teachers of English/Council of Writing Program Administrators' White Paper

on Writing Assessment (2008) Retrieved from http://www.wpacouncil.org/whitepaper ) Nuhfer, E. (2013). A metadisciplinary approach to a curriculum for higher reasoning: Educating in

fractal patterns. The National Teaching & Learning Forum, 22 (5), 1-5. Office of the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education (2012). The Study of Undergraduate

Education at Stanford University. The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University.

Project on General Education & Mission. (2009). A United Endeavor: Promising Practices in General Education at Catholic Colleges and Universities. Retrieved from www.accunet.org.

Simonds, C.J., Buckrop, J., Redmond, M., & Quianthy, D.H. (2012). Revised resolution on the role of communication. Report to NCA Legislative Assembly. Washington DC: National Communication Association.

Core Governance Examples

Oversight Committee

Faculty Review Committees

Representatives (Membership)

Appeal Process

Current USD Core 16 – 20 required courses including 2 “flags” – D & W

Core Curriculum Committee Committee reports to College Curriculum Committee

11 faculty 10 distributed from each division in A&S, 1 Education Rep, 1 SBA (but not listed on website)

Course can be revised and resubmitted. Approve course & instructor

Santa Clara 15 required courses + 5 flags

Core Curriculum Committee (Senate level committee) 5 members: Associate Provost for Undergraduate Studies; Director of the Core Curriculum; Associate Vice Provost for Undergraduate Studies; Director of Assessment; Senior Assistant Dean for the College of Arts & Sciences

15 subcommittees Faculty are from area expertise. First committees were appointed, then elections. 1. Writing (responsible for Critical Thinking & Writing 1 and 2 and Advanced Writing) 2. Cultures & Ideas 1 and 2 3.Second Language 4. Mathematics 5. Religion, Theology & Culture (responsible for Religion, Theology & Culture 1, 2, and 3) 6. Ethics 7. Civic Engagement 8. Diversity 9. Arts 10. Natural Sciences 11. Social Sciences 12. Cultures & Ideas 3 13. Science 14. Technology & Society 15. Experiential Learning for Social Justice Pathways Approved/deny courses. Review assessment documents of area.

Faculty are elected for a 3-year staggered terms. Faculty from areas where courses are taught are represented, and include members from various schools (i.e. Management faculty for ethics, social justice)

If rejected by FCC can be appealed to Core Curriculum committee. If rejected can appeal to Senate Academic Affairs Committee

St. Mary’s 13 required courses + 4 flags (plus language that can be satisfied in various ways)

Core Curriculum Committee. (Senate level committee) Senate appoints chair plus 6 faculty members elected from each School: 2 Liberal Arts, 2 Science, 1 Business, 1 at large member. Other members include VPs of Academics, Student Life, the Registrar, and undergrad rep.

7 working groups with a mix of disciplinary experts and non-experts. 1. Group HM (Habits of Mind) 2. Group MS (Math and Science) 3. Group AU (Artistic Understanding) 4. Group TU (Theological Understanding) 5. Group HC (Historical, Social, and Cultural Understanding) 6. Group CG/CE (Common Good/Community Engagement) 7. Group AD/GP (American Diversity/Global Perspectives.). Faculty groups approve/deny courses for inclusion in core.

Each WG chair is a member of the (Senate level) Core Curriculum Committee. Faculty members are appointed by relevant deans/chairs and can self-nominate. Membership is confirmed by Senate. Three year, staggered, terms.

Revise & resubmit to subcommittee when rejected by committee.

LMU 13 required courses + 6 flags

Undergraduate Core Curriculum Committee. (Senate level Committee) Final approval of courses.

11 faculty working groups that use learning outcomes to approve courses. 1. First Year Experience 2. Theological Inquiry 3. Philosophical Inquiry 4. American Diversity 5. Quantitative Reasoning 6. Creative Experience 7. Historical Analysis and Perspective 8. Understanding Human Behavior 9. Nature of Science, Technology and Mathematics 10. Integrations 11. Flags

Members of working groups are selected through chairs/deans in consultation with Senate Executive Committee. Majority of faculty with expertise – chaired by a member of the UCCC. At large members from outside expertise. Working groups approve/deny courses.

Revise & resubmit to subcommittee when rejected by committee. Course approval (not instructor) If approved, department must regularly offer course.

USF 11 required courses + 2 flags

Core Advisory Committee (Chairs of the 6 subcommittees) Can make recommendations for revision to core to Provost. Establish transparent evaluation criteria for course approval.

6 subcommittees that represent areas of the Core. 1. Area A: Foundations of Communication 2. Area B: Math and Science 3. Area C: Humanities 4. Area D: Philosophy and Theology 5. Area E: Social Sciences 6. Area F: Visual and Performing Arts Subcommittees approve/deny courses for inclusion. Flag designation is approved by College Curriculum Committee. If core and flagged – it goes to both the area committee and CCC.

Each committee has faculty experts plus reps from Management and Nursing Members are appointed.

Revise & resubmit to subcommittee when rejected by committee.

Norte Dame 13 required courses

Dean of “First Year Students” Academic Council Committee. Chaired by Provost and 5 tenured faculty & 1 undergrad. Provost may appoint 2 more faculty for balance –> advises the Dean of FYS

Committee on FYS: Chaired by Dean of FYS and primarily associate deans and faculty appointed by deans of each school. One student from each school. Plus 9 Subcommittees: 1. Writing and Rhetoric 2. Fine Arts 3. History 4. Mathematics 5. Philosophy 6. Theology 7. Literature 8. Science 9. Social Science

Have majority from department area experts (3), Provost appoints 2 additional faculty Core Curriculum Committee consists of an Associate Provost (chair) the dean of FYS, academic VP of student government, the chairs of the 9 core subcommittees up to 5 faculty appointed by provost. Annual report of its activities to Provost

Revisions until meets requirements Subcommittees have judicial role of approving or denying approval.

Boston College 14 courses + 1 diversity flag

Director of Core Curriculum (faculty from A& S) Appointed by Dean of Arts & Sciences Dean submits annual report to Registrar

University Core Development Committee

Review and evaluate all Core programs and courses, along with the syllabi of all instructors

9 elected faculty 5 from A&S, 1 education, 1 nursing, 1 management, & Director of Core, UCDC chaired by Dean of A&S Staggered 3 year terms

Revisions and resubmit to committee

Marquette University 12 courses (1 possible “dual application” course – a course that satisfies 2 areas of core)

Director of University Core of Common Studies Senate Committee: University Board of Undergraduate Studies

Core Curriculum Review Committee

16 “selected” faculty appointed by Provost. Chaired by Director of Core. 7 from A&S, then 1 from each School + undergrad student

USD proposal 11 – 13 required courses (language dependent) + 3 or 4 flags (QR dependent)

Senate oversight committee. Members confirmed by Senate. Review annual reports and assessment data related to core courses.

6 faculty committees made up of a majority of experts and representatives from SBA and SMSE. 1. Ethics and Philosophical Inquiry 2. Integration 3. Breadth 4. Diversity, Inclusion and Social Justice 5.Theology and Religious Inquiry 6. Competencies Subcommittees approve/deny courses for inclusion in core. Committees send reports to UCCs and SCCC.

Faculty who demonstrate expertise in specific area of core are appointed to faculty committees. Faculty serve 3 year staggered terms.

If course approval is denied and revisions are not satisfactory course approval can be appealed to Senate oversight committee.

A learning outcome based model determines that various department courses can meet learning outcomes for the core curriculum. None of the above schools use department affiliation as the only determining factor for inclusion in the core. The Core Planning Committee recommends a core governance structure that will maximize faculty oversight of learning outcomes in core areas and ensure a diverse set of faculty experts who will vet courses for inclusion in the core. The structure that is proposed is consistent with core governance models at peer institutions, but conscientious of the institutional traditions of USD. In summary, the proposed governance structure for USD includes establishing a Senate level Core Curriculum Committee (SCCC). The committee shall be comprised of representative proportionality that is calculated based on the representation on the Senate, but include only representatives from units with undergraduate programs. The Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences will serve as chair. The charge of the SCCC will be to review an annual report from each area committee that identifies new courses approved for the core curriculum. The committee will review appeals. It is responsible for meeting Academic Program Review (APR) guidelines for the core curriculum and reviewing assessment reports. The CPC recommends the creation of six committees that include representatives from area experts from College of Arts and Sciences (CAS), School of Business Administration (SBA), and Shiley-Marcos School of Engineering (SMSE). The number of members will vary depending on the scope of the committee. These committees will approve courses to meet the requirements of the core learning outcomes in each area. A new course must first be approved by the appropriate units’ curriculum committee before being submitted for inclusion in the Core. All Core Area Committees would report to each unit’s curriculum committee after each meeting where action occurred. A yearly report will be submitted to the Senate Core Curriculum Committee listing the courses approved and include a summary of assessment activities for the area.