Core Curriculum Advisory Committee

Core Curriculum Advisory Committee

January 18, 2013

·  Dr. Pratt brings spring calendar to attention to decide different meeting times.

·  Make a motion to meet 3:00 p.m. - 5:00 p.m. on Wednesdays. Seconded. Everyone voted to move the meeting time to Wednesdays. MOTION CARRIED.

·  Dr. Pratt thanks Dr. Brunson and Dr. Szafran for hard work on application. Also thanks to Jason Johnston for work on form as well.

·  Larry King said others requested an example application for further help.

·  Dr. Pratt has selected four applications to determine if form is what they are looking for and meeting needs.

·  Have forms for ENG 131, ENG 133, CHE 111, CHE 134 to review.

·  One member doesn't think that syllabus sent in is a general syllabus because it is an individual teacher syllabi. Larry King suggests this requires clarification.

·  Reference university general syllabus to see more idea of what committee is wanting. Course requirements are too general.

·  Methodically moving through each form to decide pros and cons of each.

·  Start off with ENG 131. Dr. Pratt says most is self-explanatory up until number 12. Everyone agrees it is a little overkill and wordy. Dr. Pratt asks if it fits the question. Committee notices persuasion is not included and discusses.

·  Larry Kings asks how oral and/or visual skills will be met. Are they bringing that to attention or ignoring it? Will other people reading syllabi be looking for key words while reading?

·  Have to take description of component area and make it as descriptive as possible so there aren't questions.

·  Larry King said people have asked if a rubric will be used to evaluate applications and if that rubric could be available for those submitting application.

·  Dr. Pratt thinks a rubric will help more quickly evaluate and provide better feedback, and lets them know specifically what is right or wrong.

·  Move forward to make rubric. Make sure justification meets THCB Description of Foundational Component Area including key words and ideas.

·  Larry Kings thinks there should be a strong, clear explanation to where people in your discipline would be able to understand as well. Have to justify how that course fits the description.

·  Justification should make clear to readers outside the discipline how the proposed course fits the component area.

·  Committee discusses what type of rubric to have on a grading basis.

·  ENG 131 #12 is missing key words and details, but mentioned later on in # 13. Decided it is not clear enough.

·  Moving on to #13, Critical thinking. Dr. Pratt thinks this needs to be more concrete. The word "may" throws up a red flag.

·  There needs to be set expectations that need to be accomplished before other things added to a class.

·  Agrees the problem is the descriptions are vague and need to figure out how the course will address these objectives using student work.

·  Syllabus needs to list in detail exactly what activities will be taking place during the course.

·  Committee looks at Core Curriculum Application from Texas Tech. It is pointed out there are clear explanations of what is going to be done in Tech application. Agree the Tech application would be a good example to give out as a reference for what the committee is looking for.

·  Moving to ENG 133. Same as 131 and same changes will apply. 133 may require more being an honors class.

·  Committee looks at Chemistry.

·  Turns attention to number 12 first. Does it fit requirements? It has key ideas and phrases present. #9 raises red flag - prerequisites of MTH classes. It should be ok as long as prerequisite is in the core.

·  #13 talks about lab but it is not part of the 3 hour course they are supposed to be describing. Dr. Brunson points out it doesn't matter what hour each element is taught in.

·  Critical thinking - doesn't describe assignment in way the reason for each skill is known.

·  Refer to Texas Tech form again to see how they incorporate specifics into their description.

·  Dr. Szafran points out you have to remember this is supposed to be describing how the student will be learning and not how and what they are supposed to be doing.

·  Many problems with the language issue. Focus on what student is doing and learning and how that will be provided. Makes it more concrete.

·  Dr. Pratt and Sarah Stovall will evaluate rubrics to come up with one for this committee to use and will present for next Wednesday meeting.