Index of Topics 10/23/2007

      Approved  11/6/07–to Faculty Senate 11/19/07

TCCC Roster approved

Explanation of Early Childhood endorsement


Writing Proficiency – Motion discussed


ACC Charge reviewed





Regular Meeting  --  October 23, 2007


Chair James Hearne called the meeting of the 2007-2008 Academic Coordinating Commission to order at 4:04 pm on October 9, 2007.  There were thirteen (13) members present and four (4) others for a total of seventeen.  Chair Hearne welcomed Senator Tracy Coskie, Elementary Education, and Eileen Hughes, Early Childhood Education.


Approval of ACC minutes

Chair Hearne reviewed items on the minutes for Commissioners.  Then Commissioners approved the minutes of October 9, 2007 with a slight amendment.   


Appointments and Elections

Commissioners voted to approve the membership roster of the Teachers Curricula and Certification Council.





MINUTES FOR October 23, 2007


Postponed from previous meeting


Huxley College CC


Postponed a second time.  New courses:  ESTU437N; revision – ESTU497R

MINUTES FOR October 23, 2007


Teacher Curricula and Cert Council


Approved with proviso (see note).  Early Childhood Ed – rubric ECE, Elementary Ed.  New courses and revisions.


Note:  Diana Wright moved to approve the TCCC minutes, seconded by Marie Eaton, with the proviso:

We still do not have the correct process in place yet, whereby the Curriculum Committee of the College (Woodring) forwards the course descriptions, with rationale, credits, prerequisites, etc.,  for approval to ACC, and TCCC simply sends its list of added endorsements.  This process was put in place at the end of last year, and is expected to avoid double approval by ACC and enable timely coordination of approvals.  Chair Jim Hearne will remind the curricular committees.







TCCC minutes of 6-5-07

Explanation of the TESOL Endorsement

Guest Professor Eileen Hughes explained to members that last year Woodring was asked to revise and create an Early Childhood major that provided licensing.  The curriculum had to be revised to meet National Association of Teacher Preparation for Early Childhood with its five standards. (The previous program did not have enough content to address child development, family or observation standards.  Early Childhood is now from birth to age 8, and previously it was K-3).  With Head Start programs, there is a certain percentage of teachers with B.A.’s in Child Care required in the Centers.  Teacher preparation programs have to meet that standard.  Woodring has received funding to create this program in Early Childhood education.


Commissioners questioned the focus on “meeting standards”, and asked “whose need are we meeting?”  Commissioners see the removal of art from the program as problematic, especially when decisions seem dependent on meeting requirements such as accreditation, and suggested competency requirements for early childhood education.


Hughes responded that in order for us to get accreditation we have to abide by these national standards.  On the state level, they are requiring competencies for early childhood educators.  Another commissioner pointed out that both the Arts and TESOL are getting cut; now the student has to carefully choose if he wants a course that addresses aesthetics.  Commissioners expressed distress about cutting arts programs.  Professor Hughes explained that the arts are an embedded approach in early childhood education, and the visual arts are reflected in all the courses that are taught.  She invited commissioners to speak with students about this.  Mark Kuntz commented that he is more engaged to hear that our early childhood faculty are excited by the visual arts part of the program, rather than hearing that we have to adhere to standards, and it would be useful to use the former approach to convince listeners. 


Hughes then explained the differences between the degree and the endorsement.  45 credits are required in the major (see page 10 of the catalog), and 75 is the total with the endorsement (see page 9).  Previously the program was tied to Elementary Education, which is K-8.  Now it is a B.A. in Early Childhood Education (from birth to age 8).  Commissioners also asked if Early Childhood consulted with Art and Music departments, but these departments are already involved in the Woodring programs.


Writing Proficiency (WP) Units  - Motion from the ACC Executive Committee

Chair Hearne introduced the topic which had been discussed and then tabled last spring.  Hearne brought the following motion:


“Proposed Motion

First, it is moved and seconded that ACC rescind its original moratorium against distributing writing proficiency points amongst several courses.   Henceforth, a course may satisfy , or 1 of the writing proficiency requirement (denoted WP1, WP, WP3, respectively, on classfinder).   


Second, such fractional writing proficiency status may be attached only to regularly offered courses—as opposed to individual sections or offerings—which apply to the major of the unit offering the course.


[Old Language:

All Western writing proficiency courses should follow these University-wide guidelines:

·                   students write multiple drafts

·                   instructors provide suggestions for revision of drafts, and

·                   instructors base 75-100 percent of the course grades on revised

                                versions of assigned writings]

New Language

All Western writing proficiency courses should follow these University-wide guidelines:

·                   students write multiple drafts

·                   instructors provide suggestions for revision of drafts, and

·                   instructors provide detailed critiques of written assignments

·                   instructors base 75-100 percent of the course grades on revised versions of assigned writings, and

·                   writing proficiency courses should be no fewer than 3 credits”



Hearne then distributed a second document, notes on the proposed motion, which provided a rationale.


Notes on the Proposal on the Writing Proficiency Requirement

Problem Statement

Hearne has identified four problems with the writing proficiency requirement:


“1.   The stipulation for the third component of the requirement, the upper division writing-proficiency course, stipulates that

a.          Students should write multiple drafts of assigned papers

b.          Instructors provide suggestions for the revision of drafts, and

c.          Instructors base 75-100 of the course grades on revised versions of assigned writings.


        It does not stipulate a minimum number of credits, so that a single-credit course might satisfy this requirement.   Chemistry indeed, has a one-credit writing proficiency course, and Physics has a variable credit research project course which qualifies as a writing proficiency course, with credits of 1 to 3.


2.     Because of the time necessary to provide helpful feedback, honest teaching of a Writing Intensive course is an enormous burden on the instructor.  This is exacerbated by the ACC policy of disallowing fractional writing units to be assigned to a course, passed some years ago by ACC and reconfirmed last year.

3.      Although the writing requirement is university-wide, decreed by ACC, the ACC has little visibility into what really goes on in writing-intensive courses, nor how effective it is.   A recent survey by CATLE will provide some insight in to current practice.

4.                            Finally, the institution of the writing intensive course underestimates the actual writing in the curriculum.   Many majors, such as English, History, East Asian Studies—just the list I am familiar with—include writing in most classes but they do not merit, according to current rules, writing intensive status.”


Commissioners commented as follows:

Ø Teaching a WP course in an honest way is a big burden on a teacher if the class is a reasonable size.  Seems like it is pedagogically more effective to distribute the writing between several classes, so teachers can provide feedback to their students.

Ø Some courses with a lot of writing such as History or Psychology don’t even count, because there is not enough rewriting.  So the question remains how important is rewriting as a stipulation for WP? 


Commissioners added the following comments about rewriting:

Ø It is not enough to just write, but the student must rewrite in terms of feedback.  At the same time there is a lot more WP going on in the curriculum than is actually reflected in the list of WP courses.

Ø Most importantly, you need feedback that you use the comments of the professor on your paper, not just ignore your notes and put them aside.  The comments on the first paper should be used in the second paper. 

Ø The student commissioner noted that volume writing is also helpful in learning to write well.

Ø Louis Truschel commented that in the History area, writing requires research ability, and the ability to expand and take notes from a bibliography. 

Ø Marie Eaton added that we do not want the first written product out of their heads, or the first thing they found in Google.  The disincentive to that ought to be reflected in the grade.  If you do something the night before you fail.  Revision means coming up with an outline, not just handing in the draft.  Becoming stylistically adept is a very long process.

Ø Learning to organize yourself mechanically is easier to instruct, but the goal is to think through a problem and find the sources that actually support your idea. 

Ø Roger Anderson noted that with draft revisions, one can imagine that we insist they rewrite some portions; in other cases they get only one shot, and are allowed the risk of a sloppy first draft.  And when they critique each others drafts, they can revise.  The revision frequently can reflect the amount of effort put into the first proposal.

Ø Roger added that with the need to identify what we mean by revision, we ought to give examples of what it is and what it is not; these suggestions should accompany the motion.  (perhaps a pamphlet?)


Additional questions that arose:

Ø Can you take any WP course, even those not in your own major?  Yes, this is the case, since some majors really do not offer much in the way of WP (such as math).

Ø Annie Jansen expressed concern about how the information on fractional writing would be disseminated to students.  Hearne replied that this is through advising when they get here, and advising provided by their departments.  It is also embedded in the degree planning link on Web4U.  Submitted courses would have to indicate whether they are going to be WP1, 2, or 3.

Ø Please note, this is entire conversation refers to Upper Division Writing, or Writing in the Majors.   A student could do WP1 at the 300 level, and perhaps a WP2 at the 400 level.  The departments can break that up.  With fractionalized writing, it might be easier to incorporate more core courses.  A student can take all of the WP credits outside the major in another upper division.



(Writing Proficiency – Fractionalized – remains under discussion.  No vote today.) 

Commissioners continued discussion of fractionalizing writing proficiency in the majors and (upper division courses), attached to regularly offered courses, of at least 3 credits, and to work out the fractions for 4 and 5 credit courses.  Courses can be identified as providing writing proficiency units if the grade is made up of the following percentages of writing, for example:  WP1 =  40%, WP2 =  60%, WP3 =  80%.  This would be for a regularly offered course, applying to 300 level or higher – one would have to do arithmetic for other numbers of credit courses.  Commissioners would like greater description of options connected with revising papers, such as insisting that students incorporate suggested improvements into their later papers.  The challenge is how we help students organize their thinking and turn it into writing that has meaning for their purpose. Final recommendations and stipulations are determined by the departments. 

The revised motion will be brought back by the Chair at a later meeting.



Some clarifications were made on the draft charge attached to the last ACC minutes.  The revisions will be incorporated and brought back to the next meeting.



Commissioners adjourned at 5:32 p.m.

Rose Marie Norton-Nader, Recorder, October 23, 2007




Membership (term ending 2009)



Chair – James Hearne 2007-2008



A -  James Hearne, Computer Science, Chair (4 yr)



Vice Chair – Roger Thompson



A -  Roger Anderson, Biology (SENATOR) rep to UPC






D – Mark Kuntz, Theater






E – Yvonne Durham, Economics, CBE



Dennis Murphy, Provost, nv



G – Robin Matthews, Huxley



Lisa Zuzarte (Catalog Coordinator) voting



H –Chris Ohana, for  M. Riddle-Buly,  Woodring, Fall Qtr






Membership (term ending 2008)



Registrar, Recorder, Guests



A –  Michael Meehan, Computer Science



Joe St. Hilaire, Registrar



B – Dan Boxberger, Anthro; rep to GER



Rose Marie Norton-Nader, Recorder



C -  Diana Wright, History, Fall Qtr for L. Helfgott






C -  Louis Truschel, History, (for R. Thompson)



Eileen Huges, Woodring, Early Childhd Educ



F -  Marie Eaton, Fairhaven



Tracy Coskie, Woodring, Elem Education



I –  Stefanie Buck, Library, rep to EESP






S -  Annie Jansen, ASVP-Academics, 2007-2008






S -  vacant, 2007-2008






S -  vacant, 2007-08



Members Present



S-   Vacant, 2007-08



Registrar, Recorder, Guests Present






TOTAL PRESENT  October 23, 2007









Members (18)






12 faculty (2yr terms) representing each area with 2 as Senators.  6 more members include:  Provost (nv), Catalog Coordinator (ex officio) and 4 students (1 ASVP).  ACC sends reps:  to UPC and to GER Cte.  Registrar & Recorder are permanent guests