Liberal Studies Committee Minutes
11/15/2016 1:02-2:35 p.m., SAS 434
Meeting called by:
Jason BeDuhn, Chair
Type of meeting:
Liberal Studies Committee
Facilitator:
Jason BeDuhn
Note taker/recorder:
Barbara Branton
Voting members:
Jason BeDuhn, Christopher Griffin, Susan Smiley, Kevin Aguas, Theresa Carlson, Dan Weidler, Louise Lockard, Dianne McDonnell, Dean Smith, Amy Hughes, Leah
Mundell
Non-Voting members:
Nancy Barron, Monica Bai, Melinda Treml, Jeff Berglund, Don Carter, Kim Hensley-Owens
On meet me meeting session voting/ex-officio members: Nicole Hampton, Ambur Lindstrom-Mette, Donna Simon
Excused: Amy Rushall, Sara Dowdle Simmons
Visitor:
Agenda and notes of discussion
Topic
Discussion
Call to Order
Welcome
Chair BeDuhn called the meeting to order. A quorum was present.
Approval of minutes
Meeting minutes of 11.1.16 were approved. Moved (D. Smith) seconded (D. Simon) passed unanimously
The following was presented for approval.
Consent Agenda
AHI
Capstone
ARH 252
Capstone
CU
Capstone
Jr.L. Writing SAS/Capston
SPW /
e
Capstone
CHM 425C;
CHM 426LC
CHM 442C;
CHM 442LC
CHM 450C;
CHM 450LC
CHM 460LC
CHM 498C
CHM 462C
Passed unanimously. The deadline for the Fall 17 catalog has now passed (but possible extension discussed
further below). A concern was expressed on the timing of receipt of the agenda materials. The by-laws
were referenced, which requires 24-hour advance distribution, but ideally the chair will try for distribution
the Thursday before a meeting.
Course Review
Update BUS Capstones
Update: BUS 449C/450C: Instructor and committee will take a pause on reworking these syllabi. The course
is approved for Fall, as is; this review was part of the refresh process.
Notification of Chairs/Assoc Deans of
review process
The chairs and associate deans have asked to be kept informed of the status of syllabi review as they
progress through the subcommittees. Therefore, when syllabi are returned to the submitter, or when they
are advanced to the LSC for approval, the department chair and associat dean will be notified. The intent is
the chair or associate dean will help get a timely response back to the subcommittee. Director Berglund will
assist with this. In hindsight, this probably should have been done from the beginning and now, should
improve communications with the departments.
The following courses were sent to the subcommittees for review:
New assignments/subcommittee
reports
AHI: MUP 480C, MUS 485C
CU: SPA 480C, PLD 490C
SAS: DH 412C, DH 474C
The AHI and CU courses were distributed just prior to the meeting; Amy has reviewed the SAS submissions
and the dental hygiene courses are their only outstanding assignments. Mechanical Engineering and
Statistics will come through in the next review cycle.
SPW – subcommittee is seeking minor revisions from the program for PR 471C; Director Berglund will follow
up with subcommittee chair to get this on the December 6 consent agenda.
S Smiley reported that JUS 310 was sent to a different subcommittee which better aligned with the course
content.
HRM 490C was distributed a week ago.
The deadline has passed, but it is possible to hold the college curriculum agenda(s) up a day to move any
approvals along from the January 10, 2017 meeting.
The Personalized Learning courses may be in the wrong distribution block as well.
Director Berglund asked committee members to be a resource within their home departments to assist
others with the Capstone refresh(es) since they understand how the committee thinks/is reviewing these
syllabi and possibly encourage them to drop an essential skill if there are multiple skills listed. D. Smith will
reach out to assist Franke College of Business. Chair BeDuhn indicated that when the process started about
80% of the syllabi were sent back at the initial prescreening level before they were sent on to the
subcommittees; that has shifted to about 50% so the understanding of what the refresh process is looking
for is improving. One of the recent SPA courses was held up as a very concise example to share with other
programs.
Old Business
Revision JLW review form/syllabus
guide
The Junior Level Writing review form was presented for final edits and approval. It was agreed that “needs
improvement” would be removed throughout on the check boxes; that an approval date would be added
but the reference to a specific Academic Year would be removed; and the committee word smithed sections
C3 and C4 relative to ‘opportunities’ for revision and what that might mean to the student. The committee
also discussed what might be the opportunity for revision should a paper come in perfect to begin with –
that opportunity might be to have the student tweak their intended audience. It was clarified the form
reflects current policy and will be changed when/if the JLW refresh begins. As a result of the edits to C3 and
C 4, additional language was changed it item “D” to address writing in relevant discipline or professional
field. The intent of the form it to determine whether assignments/assessments require students to
incorporate feedback through revision opportunities.
D. Smith moved, D. McDonnell seconded that the committee approved the draft review form with the
referenced edits incorporated into the final document. Motion passed unanimously.
The Syllabus Guide was reviewed and it was requested that a date be added to the footer to track most
current practices. Both forms will be posted to the website.
N. Barron led the discussion, focusing on what is possible at NAU and what can/might we do differently. The
committee heard about writing enriched curriculum (WEC) where writing is required in all courses and
writing across the curriculum (WAC) e.g., students will write in courses outside their major. This is an
opportunity to begin the conversation. The handout reflects a place to start and a vision of how it might be
put on the website with concise information in one or two short bullets and drop down menus for
additional information. It includes a proposed definition and the requirements e.g., the 20 pages of revised
writing or changing it to something else. Effective writing is currently defined for its technical aspects such
as grammar/ punctuation and a strong feeling of the need to correct this when reviewing papers. Effective
writing might be better described in a 3 prong approach: 1) self-reflective, not something you’d hand in; 2)
sharing, start to communicate about the idea, peer review; 3) presenting, an argument/topic. The third step
is what you end up submitting. If a student turned in step 1 is there a way to give feedback? Yes, a check,
check plus and check minus system would help them aim for their goal, especially if the student will build on
this material to complete their final paper.
JLW models
The discussion moved on to process writing, using examples with drop down menus, making assignments
circular where the writer comes back to them, have the student engaged in the review process, e.g., tell the
reviewer what to pay attention to i.e.,” I tend to have run on sentences.” The faculty member can adjust to
the student’s writing and is engaged from the beginning.
Next, the discussion moved on to total pages and citations. The number of pages varies across different
academic institutions and there does not appear to be any one total pages that is viewed as the perfect
answer. Also up for consideration is whether the changes to the JLW should include a required citation style
and/or a recognized discipline/professional style manual. Some comments on that included: Cline Library is
testing a subscription to the APA manual online; that students become so focused on the citation format
that the overall content of the materials is neglected; that citation formats may change if you are actually
publishing a paper but it is important to include some style manual as part of the writing curriculum as
many students in the day of social media are no longer good proof readers and do not pay attention to
consistencies throughout their writing.
N. Barron moved the conversation forward in the handout to models of writing enriched curriculum. They
included grading for writing in all classes; selecting 1+ course that are designated writing enriched and the
creation of a writing board.
It was clarified that if changes are proposed to the JLW requirement(s), they will be vetted through the
faculty senate for approval. The LS Committee can make suggestions but can’t require the changes and no
changes to the JLW will be proposed until the Capstone refresh is completed.
There is a consensus among committee members to proceed with a change to the JLW program but not a
sense yet of what model would work best. Some programs (EGR) are trying to put in more writing, using
TA/GA’s from student fee support to do more/better writing within the discipline. There is concern this may
not continue. There is a general concern about adequate resources to support more “W” class designations.
Is there a specific level of writing that is appropriate, e.g., more at 300 or more prep at the 200 level? Is the
committee focusing on writing at every level? M. Treml suggested that this could be worked through as part
of the academic program review process and could scaffold in this approach with a degree program focus.
At least this might be an opportunity to begin the conversation.
The concept of a writing board was better explained. It would be a group with more clout than a
subcommittee, specifically focusing on skill building; perhaps offering workshops through faculty
development and NAU is presently looking for a good sample course to work with.
The committee was reminded of the pilot project with the writing rubric for Critical Thinking and Effective
Writing that started in the fall. There will be results to look at and it may help form the direction the
committee moves for the JLW refresh. There is also an effective oral communication rubric that can be
finalized to use as a pilot in the spring.
During Spring 17, the committee will begin the process of reviewing the essential skill definitions, much like
it did for the distribution blocks in AY 15-16.
Announcements
The December 19 meeting is cancelled; the January 10 meeting will be held and a larger meet me meeting
line secured in case of bad weather. The January 10 meeting will also be used as the final opportunity for
any completed consent agenda items for the Fall 17 catalog.
Good of the Order
A brief discussion about the possible elimination of “common core” was held; Arizona opted out of this a
few years ago and now uses AZ readiness standards.
Adjourn
Meeting adjourned at 2:35 pm.