February 20
From Curriculum Advisory Committee
These are notes made by GSLIS student Sarah Heartt on the first Faculty Curriculum Meeting held in 2008, which was also the first meeting chaired by Pat Oyler.
1. Allen was thanked and applauded for his good work as chair of the Curriculum Committee. Pat explained that Jen Doyle, who normally records minutes and handles follow-ups etc., was out with the flu.
2. Pat said that she planned work from Allen's outstanding to-do list, but that she encourages participants to bring new ideas and new needs to her attention.
3. Pat said that she hopes to create a comfortable setting for curriculum-related conversation. From two remarks by Pat during the meeting, it appears that some faculty have expressed concern that there was a lot of Curriculum-related consensus building/decision-making going on in the hallways last year (2007), and that if you didn't happen to be in the right hallway at the right time.... Pat wants to bring everyone to the table so no one feels left out.
4. Pat welcomed the CAC and said that she would keep this invention of Allen's going full-tilt.
5. The faculty discussed an administrative issue concerning the MLIP program. The underlying controversial issue is whether the program should set a precedent for 1.5 credit courses.
6. Pat said that she wanted to hear from faculty (or anyone) about continuing to offer summer school, but that she would defer discussion until the end of the meeting or for a future meeting. There is no threat on summer session 2008, and probably not even a threat on summer session 2009. This is a long-term issue having to do with the lack of teaching resources during the summer months.
7. Jeanneatte and Danny announced that they would not attempt to introduce the new Core Curriculum menu (which CAC worked on in 2007) until Spring Semester 2009. Problems with converting to a menu approach were discussed (e.g., the problem of having to build core content into not-formerly-considered-core courses).
8. There was a long discussion about the problem of consistency across various sections of core courses. The faculty seemed to be divided over whether each core course should have a leader responsible for continuity across sections or whether a more democratic approach (involving all faculty and adjuncts teaching a particular course) would be better.
Peter Hernon opined that we cannot really get at the issue of consistency without evaluating GSLIS learning outcomes. During this discussion, the fact that Simmons GSLIS will be going through an accreditation process in 2010 was raised and Robin Peach indicated that there was no effort underway to determine what the marketplace is looking for from GSLIS graduates. When called upon by Pat, I said that course consistency was an administrative or process issue to be resolved in whatever way makes sense, but that if GSLIS is two years away from accreditation review and is not doing marketplace research as a preface to evaluating and updating its student learning outcomes, THAT is a concern.
9. Jeannette and Terry presented a Memorandum of Understanding between UMass Amherst and Simmons GSLIS wherein students in GSLIS and students in UMass's public history program would be permitted to cross register. The faculty (particularly Mr. Hernon) requested a project plan so that the strategic implications of such an arrangement could be better understood.
10. Jeannette and Terry also reported on a grant to introduce "blended learning" courses into the GSLIS curriculum. I could not get a clear handle on what this was all about or why it was brought up at the meeting other than that it appears that the funding is in hand, or coming through, and that something now needs to be created.
11. Pat announced that she and Jen Doyle are trying to come up with a convenient method of providing weekly updates to the faculty on curriculum-related matters. Could be a voice mail, could be something else.
12. Pat announced that curriculum maps are now en route from Jen to faculty.
13. Pat announced that GSLIS is evaluating student services and invited discussion about how advising might be improved for greater utility and relevance to students. A long conversation ensued and one great idea came out for immediate implementation: let faculty know when a new, inbound student has been assigned to them. Provide name and contact information. Pat wants to hear more from faculty about advising-related ideas and concerns when she returns from Viet Nam.
14. The meeting ended at about 3:45 with no time to discuss the fate of summer school.
15. The next meeting will be held on March 26th (time and location TBD).
Respectfully Submitted, Sarah Heartt, CAC
I added some notes and questions about these minutes on the discussion tab. --Krier 07:48, 6 March 2008 (EST)
