Eastern Mennonite University
Undergraduate Council
December 10, 2007
CC301/302
#6

Present: Kim Brenneman, Vi Dutcher, Cathy Smeltzer Erb, Joan Griffing, Cyndi Gusler, Doug Graber Neufeld, Nancy Heisey, Elroy Miller, Patrick Reynolds, Gloria Rhodes, Deirdre Smeltzer, Mary Sprunger, Arlene Wiens
Absent: Spencer Cowles, Marie Morris, Sara Roth, Lindsey Grosh
Guests: B J Miller, Charles Cooley, Roger Mast for Lester Zook, David Detrow

1. For an opening reflection members were invited to share what they are thankful for.

2. AIER Process Review
B J Miller and Charles Cooley attended the meeting seeking feedback on the AIER process, highlighting pros and cons. The following was discussed:

• For small departments like Bible & Religion, there were questions as to why we use national level surveys for comparison at the departmental level.
• There currently are not many opportunities to learn how to make the results meaningful.
• The reports are easier than before, due to simply adding/updating information to existing reports.
• May is not a good time to write the reports; perhaps make reports available in January to begin the process, even though all information will not be available until February.
• Please list those departments that may be exempt from completing parts of the report at the beginning of the document.
• How valid is the information received for small departments?
• How is the information for double majors collected? And, who includes them in their reports? There currently isn’t a mechanism for reporting double majors.
• JPCS doesn’t fall into any of the categories on the National Survey of Student Engagement.
• Department chairs are thankful the financial piece is no longer their responsibility.
• B J remarked that other surveys are available for those who are interested.
• Report writers need to have good communication with the departments before and after the writing for a most effective report.
• Would like more available in regards to program goals (e.g. advising), in addition to student outcomes.

3. Global Village Curriculum c/o Beth Aracena
Beth proposed the idea of faculty coming together on the morning of Jan. 4 to continue to work out details for the revision. This idea was quickly rejected, due to conferences some faculty will be attending, faculty out of town for the holidays, etc.; instead the meeting will take place the morning of Jan. 7. Typically this time is set aside for registration of new students. David Detrow, university registrar, commented that they anticipate that the total number of students registering will be about 25. It was decided that each department would prearrange for someone to advise new students when David makes the announcements of which departments have students to register around 9:30 that morning.
Beth distributed two documents; responses from faculty assembly concerning the revision proposed by GVC committee, and a Cost Analysis Methodology and Data. She began by explaining how the committee gathered the information in the Cost Analysis. The following department chairs were contacted for information on what courses might be appropriate for general education: Natural Sciences (biology, chemistry), Social/Behavioral Sciences (psychology, sociology and social work, JPCS, business & economics), Arts (music, art, theater, VaCA, and Language &Literature). This information helped clarify how course limits are set, and how courses are designed based on who takes them; that is, majors vs non-majors. It also brought to light that EMU has very few 100-level courses across the various departments, and some course numberings might benefit from re-examination to correspond better with expectation levels.
Data in the Cost Analysis show how many seats are needed for general education courses. This was based on the assumption that each student class (e.g. first year, sophomore, etc) size will number 200 students per year. Alternating year courses were accounted for but create variables. Once enrollment figures for identified courses were collected, limits were set calculated (e.g. majors enrolled, etc). Percentages were provided of majors requiring coursework in the three divisions (Natural Sciences, Social/Behavioral Sciences, and Arts). Given those percentages and a class size of 200 per year, it is estimated the following seats will be needed for general education courses including non-majors:

• Natural Sciences 112 56% of 200
• Social/Behavioral Sciences 72
• Arts 178
• Literature 188

These numbers show that a separate literature and art requirement cannot be supported without adding a significant number of courses. If Arts and Literature are combined, seats needed equals 166 (83% of 200).
It was difficult to determine if students take certain courses to meet a requirement or as an elective, as some majors include courses that cross over into other disciplines. Double majors and minors were not included in the numbers. The numbers are reflected under the heading of “Enrolled for Major.” The formula used to calculate seat available for general education is:

• Limit – Enrolled for Major = Gen Ed seats available
• Hours from colloquia were reserved to reallocate to GVC.

The following conclusions were made:

• While enough seats are currently available in Natural Sciences, it would be beneficial to include math and computer sciences in the course selection to ease enrollments.
• Courses may need to be added to the Social/Behavioral Science offerings, as there are very few empty seats available; and these departments serve the broader community because most students already take one of these courses.
• If an Arts and Literature requirement is implemented, most students would need to enroll in music and literature courses, as they could absorb more students. VaCA courses would probably need to be added as these are already filled.

How changes to Senior Seminar will affect dept. has not been fully considered yet. After Beth presented the information, the following were discussion points:

• Dept. still need to review their courses and may have to add more classes to make GVC complete
• Introduction to Creative Writing will likely be developed
• Students taking a course because it fits their schedule is not advisable, more choices should be available.
• Can limits to courses be adjusted?
• Can this be done by next year?
• Are large gen ed courses the right path to take?
• Should we try co-hort learning for first year students?
• Math and computer science wants to be a part of GVC.
• Do the distributive model and Micah 6:8 clash?

Recorder,
Cheryl Doss