Arts & Sciences Curriculum Committee

Minutes – Tuesday, December 5, 2006

Attending: Peter Bayers, Ron Davidson, Johanna Garvey, Olivia Harriott, Ray Poincelot, Vin Rosivach (Chair), Ron Salafia, Joan Weiss, Maggie Wills

Meeting called to order at 3:32.

Vin Rosivach welcomed Robbin Crabtree, Director of Service Learning, to talk and answer questions that had arisen at the last A&SCC meeting (specifically concerning the course LACS 295—Service Experience in Latin American and the Caribbean).

The committee had wondered how courses were being evaluated for service learning components, by whom, and how such courses or components figure into faculty teaching loads.

Crabtree explained that so far they work basically as an Independent Study, with specific reference to LACS 295.

Davidson further clarified the questions about disparities between in-field and at-home requirements and activities.

Crabtree said that this question is more about syllabus design than about Service Learning, a term that people have used without knowing what it means. She stressed that we need mutually advisory roles.

Crabtree then began her presentation, passing out a packet of information that paralleled the power point presentation for the committee. That set of materials is attached to these minutes.

After the presentation, discussion ensued: Davidson asked about student investment—how many hours per week for SL? Crabtree said that the proportion depends, but there should be more than one encounter, with a major assignment, infusion, and the option of a project. SL should include reflection throughout. The total would be twenty hours per semester. She offered the example of the J-Fem (Jesuit and Feminist Education) Conference on campus in October: a professor from Loyola of Chicago takes students to a soup kitchen and they develop a new awareness of poverty. The idea is to make meaningful connections for students in terms of course goals, and also for the agency involved.

The committee returned to Olivia Harriott's questions re LACS 295: the objectives seemed all right but the measures were not specific. She questioned the two-week winter program, too.

Crabtree said that the LACS course is an independent study. There must be a connection to a major and related areas, using a non-profit internship model, not necessarily involving SL, but more a practicum. The Director of the course should make the links specific for students.

Peter Bayers asked about the guide to reflection mentioned in the course proposal but not included in that proposal. Crabtree said that the student was drawing on coursework in LACS. She gave an example from Communication internships: students keep logs; write reflective essays using sources to analyze their workplace experiences/observations; keep a portfolio—"what did I learn, and how does it relate to the organizations communication strategies?" She emphasized that it is the professor's job to assess how well the student did the internship.

Harriott asked for more detail, saying that this seems very broad. Crabtree replied that very few students do it. The idea is to create opportunities for students to earn credit for an immersion experience—less structured than Study Abroad. The questions should be, "is it a rigorously designed course?" (not "is it service learning?").

Maggie Wills asked about the missing guide; Crabtree replied that this particular course is more independent, that the tricky part is being sure about the contact on the other side (abroad).

Davidson asked about the grading portion on that other end; Crabtree replied that it is like the internship model. That it is not inappropriate (and we do all right in Italy, e.g.). Davidson asked about service learning being graded in-field; Crabtree said yes, if the site signs off on attendance and performance, but only a portion of the course grade is thus determined, and the student's performance is also evaluated by the professor at Fairfield University. They might create a form to give to the on-site supervisor.

Wills said that such a form was also not part of the proposal that came to the committee. Crabtree replied that the form was intended more for internships but could be used in Service Learning. With so many required hours (120 per the proposal), yes, the on-site supervisor should have input.

Rosivach raised the issue of Best Practices for Institutionalizing and asked Crabtree to comment more. She said that there is a need for more pedagogical instruction and academic rigor. The Office of Service Learning (OSL) offers support and guidance for faculty with new pedagogies. Jackie Kremer has bought materials for the library; scholarly articles and syllabi for each major should be on file. Crabtree emphasized that faculty collaborate with the OSL: working on transportation, liability issues, background checks, logistical support and safety. They will organize a community summit each year, themed, and be able to orchestrate projects and better meet the needs.

Crabtree concluded with a reminder that on December 14^th there will be an FDEC/OSL event, with Jeffrey Howard.

Rosivach asked if there is anything that A&SCC can do; Crabtree replied that 1) on the new course proposal form, if there is no mention of SL but it appears in the syllabus, to connect the faculty member to the OSL; 2) the designation should be in the course booklet—how to implement? Rosivach suggested that we reflect on this topic—it goes beyond the committee's questions re the LACS course—and return to SL at the committee's next meeting. The committee thanked Professor Crabtree for her presentation.

Announcements:

1) Including a statement on academic honesty on new course proposals (syllabi) was voted down at the last CAS meeting.

2) Should courses that are massively changed go through the committee? (example of SP 359—answer to that one was "no.")

Minutes of November 14, 2006: move to approve (Davidson); second (Weiss). Unanimously approved.

New Courses Proposed:

PS 65—Introduction to Computational Methods in Physics and the Sciences. Motion to approve--Wills, second—Bayers.

Weiss said the course looks great. Wills noted that the rationale for two credits makes sense, well-justified. Salafia questioned that; Bayers noted that it was in the minutes. General discussion ensued, focused on the course being for majors, not core; PS has many requirements already; Rosivach noted that the course has so far been an independent study and this step would make it more part of the curriculum. Poincelot clarified that Engineering students take the course; discussion of the interface between Engineering and Physics ensued. Weiss commented that some topics seem advanced for the first year but that numerically it is a nice course. The vote was unanimous in favor of approving.

SA 138—From Design to Painting.

Move to approve, Weiss; second Davidson. The committee voted unanimously to approve this course.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:45 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Johanna X. K. Garvey