To: Members of The Citadel Core Curriculum Oversight Committee
From: LTC Scott Lucas, English Dept.
RE: Minutes of 9/27/11 CCOC meeting.
Members Present: Lucas, Preston, Mabrouk, Silver, Chen.
The meeting began at about 1105 hours. LTC Scott Lucas, in his role as outgoing chair, welcomed COL Mei Chen to the Committee and explained some of its functions. LTC Lucas noted that in addition to the faculty appointees made by the Committee on Committees, the Core Curriculum Oversight Committee (CCOC) numbered among its members two non-voting participants: the chair of the Curriculum and Instruction Committee and an administrative liaison appointed by the Provost. The chair of the Curriculum and Instruction Committee has not yet been named, Lucas noted, but he/she will be invited to the next meeting of the CCOC, once a chair has been selected. The administrative liaison to the CCOC for AY 2011-2012 will be LTC Tara McNealy, Associate Provost for Planning, Assessment, and Evaluation. The Committee then voted to make Scott Lucas chair for the 2011-2012 academic year.
Lucas turned attention to old business by detailing the results of our deliberations on last year’s EUGS core-curriculum proposal and Academic Board’s final recommendation on the matter. This moved the committee into the first order of new business, determining the proper path of its recommendation and reports. Last year, on the advice of Faculty Council chair Peter Mailloux, the Committee sent its endorsement of the EUGS core-curriculum proposal to the Curriculum and Instruction Committee for its use in its own deliberations. It is not clear if our recommendation went beyond that group. The decision to send our endorsement of the EUGS proposal to the Curriculum and Instruction Committee was evidently made in error, since section III.2.C of the Committee charter clearly directs the Core Curriculum Oversight Committee to “make recommendations on any proposed changes to the core curriculum to the appropriate academic departments and/or the Academic Board/Provost.” Committee members agreed that the proper path for our recommendation on the EUGS proposal last year should have been directly to Academic Board, and that any future recommendation on changes to the core curriculum, except those expressly asked for by another Citadel faculty committee, should go to one or more of the specific bodies mentioned in III.2.C.
Committee members then turned their attention to a request from Associate Provost Tara McNealy. Provost McNealy asked the CCOC to make a recommendation concerning her proposal to determine just which “student learning domains” faculty members believe to be most important to incorporate into the core curriculum. After discussion, Committee members endorsed Provost McNealy’s view that a survey of the faculty to determine their learning-domain preferences was advisable. Nevertheless, members had reservations about elements of the “2011 General Education Skills Survey” that Provost McNealy proposed to send out to faculty members. Many observed that the unfamiliar terminology used in the survey was unclear to faculty members, and some proposed ways of assessing faculty preferences for learning domains other than the selection of 3-4 domain names from a list called for by the survey. Committee members therefore asked for LTC Lucas to compose a memo to LTC McNealy expressing the Committee’s questions and reservations, so that she might address them at a future meeting. LTC Lucas agreed to do so and to schedule another meeting in the next few weeks at a time that would fit Provost McNealy’s and Committee members’ schedules.
LTC Lucas also noted that Provost McNealy would in the future call upon the Committee to make recommendations about the best way to assess student learning outcomes in the core curriculum. This would occur after the Committee weighs in on which learning domains should be deemed most critical to the core curriculum.
The meeting adjourned about 1200 hours.