Minutes

FRIDAY, October 28, 2005 NSF 3137 11:00 AM - 1:00 PM

Present: Mike Burgmeier, Sheila Burns, Chet Defonso, Brent Graves, Leslie Putman, Dave Rayome, Laura Reissner, Mike Rudisill, Michael Davis. Guests: Jim Schiffer, Mark Smith, Heidi Stevenson from Department of English

1. Public Comment

2. Secretary of the Day was Sheila Burns

3. Approval of/alterations to the agenda:

To accommodate guests from English, Leslie moved to begin with the first item of new business (elimination of writing proficiency exam), and then to move onto old business.

4. Approval of Minutes: Minutes of October 7, 2005 and October 18, 2005. The minutes from October 7 and October 18 were approved with the addition of the management course number to Minutes of October 18. 5. Report of the Chair Putman shared the announcement for a Food, Culture, and Society certificate that was posted without going through CUP for approval. The offering has had the “certificate” taken off the posting. Leslie will meet with Cindy Prosen and Fred Joyal to discuss how the certificate offerings should be put into the system. Putman received feedback from Tim Compton about the proposal for required 0-credit ITP courses. Discussion concerned whether it is “against the rules” and whether credit should be given to non-academic, 0-credit courses.

6. New Business a. Dept. of English: Eliminate the Writing Proficiency Exam (WPE). September 28, 2005. Jim Schiffer argued that changing the requirement to a C in both EN111 and EN211 for composition credit and eliminating the writing exam will increase the level of student writing. The higher grade requirement will be more productive than the writing exam.

One of the problems with the writing exam is that students waiting to take it until they are ready to graduate.

It was also argued that it is better pedagogy to assess a semester’s worth of work, rather than a single day’s two hour essay.

The purpose of the change was to better serve the University.

Mark Smith addressed some of the logistics. Heidi Stevensen felt the higher standard for the composition courses was a more effective way to get students through. Schools are moving away from WPEs because they are not good way to assess. Writing teachers now focus on writing as a process and not on just one sample, first draft. The English Department works to keep grading standards high and comparable across composition sections.

Question was raised whether having a higher standard for “passing” the composition requirement meant that there would be a need for more composition sections for students who did not earn a C the first time around. It was felt that some of the low grade problem would be averted by the increased motivation to pass with the necessary C.

------Committee discussion: Is WPE good instrument? People agree writing is important. Question is does WPE do what it’s suppose to? Why is it only English which has proficiency exam?

Graves: we all agree that writing is important & most of us agree there are better systems to get good writing. Is requiring a C a better system?

Need to consider money for added sections, number of students in classes. How to set system so students really learn?

Graves: send two recommendations to Senate: 1) Consider this proposal and 2)Initiate University-wide discussion how to improve writing and communication

Graves motion: recommend that the Academic Senate consider the proposal from Department of English and send recommendation to Department of English that they initiate University-wide discussion on how to improve writing and communication across the curriculum. Mike seconded.

The motion passed .

Meeting was adjourned.

Submitted by Sheila Burns

2