Minutes College of Arts and Sciences Faculty Senate Meeting November 8, 2017

Present: (including guests) Armstrong, Aski, Beauchaine, Blau, Brakke, Clopper, Crocetta, Dalbey, Daniels, Eliot, Fink, Fletcher, Genova, Gerlach, Goldberg-Miller, Guatelli-Steinberg, Haitz, Hawkins, Heller, Holt, Holub, Humanic, Isurin, Jenkins, H. Jorati, J. Jorati, Kaminski, Kennedy, King, Kline, Krissek, Levin, Ludsin, Martin, Montalto, O’Sullivan, Rudoff, Schlueter, Shen, Sieber, Sinnott, R. Smith, S. Smith, Stenzel, Thiam, Torrance, Turner, Woodworth, J. Wu, Wulsin

Call to order/Welcome/Announcements Acting chair Tom Hawkins (subbing for Jim Sanders, who is out on medical leave for the remainder of this term) called the meeting to order at 3:32 pm. Tom thanked everyone for their attention to the e- vote request (for approval of minutes and acceptance of ASCC annual report) and reminded anyone who hasn’t voted yet to please do so. As requested by a few representatives in their e-votes, someone from ASCC will attend the November 29 meeting to answer questions about the report. Tom also reminded everyone that we still need a vice-chair for this year, who will then take over as chair next year.

Listening Session with members of the GE Review Coordinating Committee Vice Provost Randy Smith made some preliminary remarks regarding the GE review, noting the following:

The rationale for the GE review at this time (see power point slide #1).  An overview of the review process (see 2nd slide).  The fact that our student body (including approximately 7100 new first-year students each year) includes students do not all possess the same characteristics as the students admitted to the Columbus campus, as we have 1300 campus changers and 2700 transfer students each year.  About 36% of the undergraduate students are in Arts and Sciences.  The expectation for degree programs is that they consist of (1) major, plus (2) GE, plus (3) electives. The committee has been especially sensitive to the fact that the electives portion is currently very small, or even non-existent in some programs; we would like to change this.

Randy then introduced the committee members present and turned to Larry Krissek, committee co- chair, to proceed with an overview of the proposed template. With the help of the power point presentation (attached), Larry walked through the proposal (also attached) and highlighted the following points:

 Guiding principles.  Goals and ELO’s for the GE program (as opposed to goals and ELO’s for each individual GE category, which is what we have now).

1  The proposed structure (foundations; themes; bookends).  The desire to include requirements for data analysis, additional writing, and diversity requirements within the themes.  The idea that the first bookend course might be connected to the survey course taught to all new students by their academic advisors, and the fact that some have already suggested that this course be 3 credits rather than 2.  The fact that the delivery of the Capstone bookend might become easier due to the new deal with Apple that will eventually give iPads to all students.

Randy noted that three subcommittee worked on these three areas (foundations, themes, and bookends) and sought input from many units across campus, including the departments of English and Mathematics. He and Larry then opened the floor to questions. The questions and comments that followed are noted below, with committee responses in parentheses and italics).

Where is foreign language? (Several options have been identified for its inclusion – in the citizenship theme, and/or via an additional requirement, possibly as outlined in a proposal drafted by some language faculty and presented by Professor Janice Aski – see attached.)

Why is foreign language not considered a foundation requirement? (The OTM has to be considered and included in whatever we decide on, and the proposed foundations encompass the current OTM. Foreign language is not part of the OTM. But language courses can fit in any area in which they meet the ELO’s, which are currently being developed.)

It is hard to imagine that a part of being a “global citizen” does not encompass foreign language. This proposal looks very much like what exists at SUNY-Buffalo, and it’s not clear that Buffalo is an institution we should emulate. Even so, do we know whether/how well this model is working at Buffalo? In addition, adopting the template will mean a lot of work on the part of our faculty to create new courses, especially the new first-year seminars. Is this a fair burden to place on our over-worked and underpaid faculty – especially when it means diverting them from their research and scholarship, and especially with the current budget constraints in our college. (There is no doubt that there are implementation, resource, and funding issues that would need to be addressed. We don’t necessarily have to create a huge number of new courses, as there could be multiple sections of various classes, and it is assumed that some existing courses could be adapted/transformed to meet the ELO’s in any of the areas. Instructional support would certainly need to be provided.)

Of course this can be done. The real question is regarding the wisdom of doing it. Diverting time from research and scholarship to create these new courses will take us in a direction that doesn’t seem to fit with what OSU should be, or with what its faculty should be doing.

Would course releases be possible, so as not to interfere with time that should in fact we spent on research and scholarship? (Again, this is an implementation issue that will need to be addressed. Randy reminded everyone that the Provost had been very clear that he wanted the committee to propose the best GE model for our students and then present OAA with the resource needs to implement it.)

Is there any concern about the possibility of this model allowing too much flexibility for students, and thereby allowing them to avoid any breadth in their programs? (Yes, the committee has thought a great deal about this. The choices/options within the themes can be set up in such a way as to require breadth.)

The foundations are equated with “preparation” and the themes with “practice.” Does this characterization really best serve our students? For example, where does ART fit into this? It doesn’t seem like this model will work for the arts. (Susan Hadley, chair of the Dance department, is on the committee, and she has indicated that she could see Dance fitting in well in the themes. Others on the committee felt strongly that arts and humanities will have a place in all the themes. One of the goals is for all students, regardless of major, to have an “OSU GE experience.”)

Foreign language really ought to fall under foundations. We should not let the need to take care of transfer students via the OTM overshadow the importance of foreign language. (Steve Fink, ASC Associate Executive Dean, noted that under the current GE, foreign language is NOT a requirement for all students across the university. In fact, only four units—ASC , the Glenn College, the College of Public Health, and the Fisher College of Business for its international business majors—require foreign language in their GE. All of us can still add foreign language for our own students, even if it is not considered a part of the GE. There is a desire to have a core GE across the university, rather than multiple versions of the GE. Randy Smith noted that some of the other colleges have been talking with our language departments and the CLLC regarding delivery of courses for their students.)

The fact the data analysis is not included in the Foundations could make it very difficult for students to complete some theme courses that might rely on skills/abilities developed in entry-level stats classes.

Is there a requirement for a practical (i.e., lab course in the sciences? (The science faculty members on the committee have stressed the importance of this.)

Can the ELO’s (which are quite good) really be achieved?

Are faculty permitted to provide individual follow-up/feedback to the committee, in person? (Certainly. Feel free to contact the chairs to request a meeting.)

The citizenship theme seems to be the only one that obviously hits the learning outcomes.

Why is the citizenship theme divided into local, state, national, international? That doesn’t seem to be the way people normally think about citizenship. (The committee definitely is looking for additional perspectives on this, so please provide feedback. Just fyi, the folks on the regional campus have a different view of these subthemes under citizenship.)

3 Why is there only one writing requirement, when clearly most of our students don’t write very well to begin with? (The committee believes additional writing is critical, but they’re still working on the best way to make that happen. They have talked with the English department about it as well. Under the current GE, we seem to have lost control of the second writing category, which is unfortunate and must be addressed. We definitely need to include at least one additional writing requirement, probably in the themes.)

Regardless of the Provost’s directive, we really cannot just discount the budget model as we consider this. Some departments rely on GE courses in order to survive. Will this now become a “free market” or “open warfare” regarding the teaching of GE courses? There is a lot of resentment and anxiety about this. (Randy noted that more than 80% of the current GE courses are taught by ASC. Other colleges do not really want to take over the GE. Each “box” in the template diagram will have an oversight committee, and most of the folks on each committee would be from ASC, since ASC teaches-and presumably will continue to teach—most of the courses. We need to think about how we can be more collaborative.)

Would it be possible to tie the faculty hiring initiative to the GE implementation? (Randy indicated that we definitely can consider this as we move forward.)

How does interdisciplinarity play into this? (The intention is that interdisciplinarity will be a part of both bookends for sure. It is expected that the seminars will address topics from different perspectives, and the Capstone is designed for students to think about and integrate their entire GE experiences up to that point. It is hoped that in designing these courses, faculty will work together to share best practices. Faculty ownership of these courses will be critical.)

Is there a “fall back” plan that is simpler than this, in case it becomes clear that the budget simply will not allow us to do this? (No.)

Most students clearly do not understand the value of the GE, especially because it is not emphasized across the board in any systematic way. (The goal was to create a program that really does mean something—as opposed to just checking off boxes on a bingo sheet—so that the value is built into it and students will understand from the beginning the reasons they’re taking the classes they’re taking. The committee looked at some possibly simpler design approaches, but none of them really met the ELO’s that were established the way this proposed template does.)

Many of our concerns are connected to implementation. Do we just approve this proposed model and then HOPE that all the implementation problems can be solved? (Randy noted that we will have to have answers to some of the implementation questions before we can make a final decision and begin moving forward. The committee’s final report will contain multiple pieces, one of which will include implementation issues. Another is the need to elevate the importance of the GE across the university, for students and faculty.) We cannot forget the process required for something like this. ASC has jurisdiction over ASC’s curriculum. Our curriculum committee, or an ad hoc committee established for the purpose or reviewing this proposal, should decide whether ASC should adopt this, or tweak it, or reject it, etc. (Randy noted that this vetting and approval process is no different from what has happened with past revisions of the curriculum.)

Meeting adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m., noting that conversation will continue on this topic at the next meeting (November 29, same time and location).

Respectfully submitted,

Mary Ellen Jenkins Assistant Executive Dean College of Arts and Sciences

5