Strategic Planning Committee Minutes, November 7, 2002

Strategic Planning Committee Minutes
November 7, 2002

Memebers Present: Morton, Stephens, Centa, Groseth, Sheehan, Noll.

Members Absent: Johnson, Brown, Wraith, Chafey, ASMSU rep.

Others Present: Sharp, Attebury, Guests Cherry, Monahan, Holznagel, Walker.

The purpose of the meeting is to hear an overview of the core curriculum reform initiative, its current status, and what's proposed for the future. Members of the core reform committee present for discussion: Sue Monahan, David Cherry, Russ Walker, and Valerie Holznagel.

In 1986 the present core curriculum, which now encompasses over 200 courses, was adopted. Since the mid-90s, there has been concern that the current core does not meet its intended goals. Students tend to see the core as a particular requirement to be met and don't view the courses as providing a common core experience.

The "Reinventing the Core" initiative was spearheaded by Adele Pittendrigh. An initial Hewlett Foundation grant for $150,000 was used to fund the first two years of the pilot, and the grant was renewed for an additional two years at $150,000. This funding ended in June, 2002.

Two guiding principles of the initiative are that there is not much new money to spend on it, and a new core cannot be much larger or smaller than the current core (32 credits) because of requirements within majors and accreditation requirements. There has been significant discussion about the current proposal (distributed to those present). Assessment is an important consideration of any program adopted. The model for the new core has been the Montana Learning Community (MLC), which included about 200 students. After assessment of the MLC, it was determined revisions should be made to improve the proposed core for students and to make it easier to implement. The result is the proposed Core 2.0. The goal of Core 2.0 is to improve students' experience with the core curriculum and to replace the existing core curriculum with Core 2.0.

The courses and learning outcomes were then outlined, using the distributed material. Two parts of the existing core curriculum, the college writing and math (qualitative reasoning) requirements, were left unchanged.

Different elements of Core 2.0 include:

• Providing a first-year seminar course for all students (Bus 101, GenStud 101, or CLS 101). The courses would have a small number of students, and as a result, this would probably be the most expensive part of the proposal.
  
• Using one course to address diversity issues rather than requiring the current six credits of multicultural perspective and global issues. The one course would be devoted to diversity, rather than having it as an "add on" to a course, as is now the case.
  
• Creating a new course, contemporary issues in science, which could replace one natural science course. It would be specifically for non-science majors and would discuss scientific method, how science works, and the implications of science in daily life.
  
• Requiring one arts course and one humanities course to be inquiry or research-based.
  
• Requiring at least one approved research and creative experience course. It could be within or outside the four specified core areas of Arts, Humanities, Natural Science and Social Sciences.

Citing the cost of implementing a new core at other institutions, what will be the cost of implementing a new core at MSU? It is anticipated that the cost of implementing freshman seminars for all students would probably be about $200,000, and the cost for converting large core courses to smaller classes and other aspects of the new core would cost another $200,000. In order to provide classroom space for freshman seminars and additional smaller classes, non-traditional class times would probably need to be considered. About 800 freshmen are currently enrolled in freshman seminars. Most of the additional students would probably enroll in CLS 101.

It is anticipated the freshman seminars (and new core as a whole) would increase retention, but the conclusion has not been tested with data. There is no control group to study, because access to the Montana Learning Community was not denied to any students, and these students may be self-selecting. In addition, it is difficult to test that students have become "better thinkers", a goal of the proposal. It can be asked if, from the student's viewpoint, the student's critical thinking skills have been improved, but there appears to be no substantive way to measure this.

There is no relationship between the University Honors Program and the new core.

A goal is to propose the new core to UPBAC Spring Semester. If this model for a new core for all students is approved, the goal would then be to adopt it for next Fall Semester. Ultimately, the goal would be to integrate critical thinking skills into all classes. In a new core, no course would gain a permanent core designation, as is now the case with core courses.

During discussion, members of SPC suggested that this timeline is likely too optimistic for full implementation of a new core. It was suggested the committee look at the freshman year in disciplines that don't currently participate in the freshman seminars to make sure the curriculum is able to accommodate another course.

Concern for the practicality of implementing a new core and the source of money needed to do so was expressed by SPC members. Although the goals are worthy, does the campus community support this grass-roots effort more than other initiatives? Is a seminar necessary for every student? Is support of the faculty as a whole and Faculty Council specifically demonstrated, not only from a pedagogical viewpoint but also from the viewpoint of cost and potential increased workload? A seminar experience for incoming students is a national trend, but support for this and other elements of the proposal need to be clear.

Faculty, staff and students are invited to a forum Thursday, November 14, at 4:00 PM in SUB Ballroom B. The title of it is "The Future of First-year Seminars at MSU". The discussion will focus on issues raised through today's discussion, as well as on other issues.