Vice Chancellor Genaro Padilla, Co-Chair
Dean Carolyn Porter, Co-Chair
Meeting Minutes
January 21, 2000
Members Present: Present: Co-Chair Padilla, Robert Brentano, Aisha Knowles, Catherine Koshland, Michael Mascuch, Christina Maslach, Ellen Meltzer, Kwong-Loi Shun, Mark Tanouye, Staff: Gail Kaufman, Cynthia Schrager, Alix Schwartz, Karen Warren.
Unable to Attend: Co-Chair Porter, Alice Agogino, Erin Bardin, Jen Chang, Barbara Davis, Sonja Redmond, Angy Stacy, Ling-Chi Wang.
Business Items:
Last meeting, CUE approved the Chancellor’s Distinguished Advisory Group and the Center for Teaching Learning and Technology and both proposals have gone forward to the Chancellor and Executive Vice Chancellor.
At the conclusion of our last meeting, we began to address those issues that we planned to work on this spring.
The Chancellor is very interested in strengthening our commitment to undergraduate education and may invite CUE to take leadership on this initiative. The Chancellor suggested that we put our two proposals (Center for Teaching, Learning and Technology and the Distinguished Faculty Advisor Program) into a framework. He asked that CUE write a brief summary report of CUE activities last semester as well as our plans for this semester.
CUE decided to look at the reports that have previously been generated and examine what recommendations have already been made. Co-Chair Padilla suggested that a small work group be convened of the Committee of the Whole whose charge it will be to look at the reports generated over the last ten years, and specifically treating undergraduate education at Berkeley. Karen Warren will organize this first meeting.
Cathy Koshland suggested that we provide some context for the recommendations that CUE has made given that the Chancellor will not have the context under which they came about.
This will be completed in a small work group with: Genaro Padilla, Cathy Koshland, Michael Mascuch, Christina Maslach. Staff: Karen Warren.
Phase One: Cornerstone
Student acquires functional knowledge in such areas as written and oral communication, quantitative and computer literacy, and courses fulfilling breadth requirements.
Phase Two
Students are launched into the study of a specific discipline and its methodology.
Phase Three: Capstone
This might take the form of a thesis, a research or design project, etc.
At the end of the current semester we will be producing a concept paper to provide an overall vision for undergraduate education and a framework for specific implementation plans. We also anticipate that this paper will be instrumental in our campus’ WASC self-review.
Co-Chair Padilla asked what the implications would be for us to require an institutional research component. Kwong Loi Shun stated that it would depend if it was college wide or departmental — and that faculty support would really be key. Alix Schwartz suggested that we would need to identify those courses that require research, and Christina Maslach mentioned the FY seminars.
Aisha Knowles suggested that requiring research in the FY seminar takes away an element of the FY seminar that is unique. Alix Schwartz suggested that it might not work in all seminars. The discussion turned to just how we can make the library an exciting place for students to want to spend their time. Cathy Koshland mentioned that if you develop a plan for undergraduate education and some kind of center, you may be able to incorporate Moffett/Free Speech Cafe.
We need more information on what our students take how many study abroad, etc.
Cathy Koshland suggested that we use focus groups to engage students and faculty in discussion regarding their current experience, recognizing that their experience is very different according to class year.
Student and faculty focus groups:
Ideally, we want to talk to students who fall into the following groupings:
Alix Schwartz suggested that we talk with Carolyn Porter to ensure that the Integrative Intellectual Experiences Sub-Committee can also submit questions to be posed tot he focus groups. Ellen Meltzer cautioned that we need to be very clear about how we will use the information we glean from the focus groups; the questions have to be designed with an eye to a useful end product. Gregg Thompson will be brought into the project of bringing together the groups and designing the questions.
Peter Hart: Well-known pollster who presented on perceptions of UCB (undergraduate education) by undergraduates. Perhaps he would meet and present his findings to this group?
Gregg Thomson: He has a lot of good information on exactly what we’re talking about. His presentation at the Berkeley Pledge roundtable was compelling and relevant.
Jerry Lowell: We would like to invite him. He is very interested in discussing Moffett a s a center for undergraduates, perhaps with some relation to Center for Teaching, Learning and Technology?
James Anderson: He is presenting the Keynote Address at the Advising Conference. Perhaps he can speak with CUE as well.
Dan Mote: University of Maryland/College Park — they offer cluster themes/interdisciplinary options.
Several suggestions were made as to programs at other universities that would merit our attention. Cathy Koshland suggested we look at Duke’s first year curriculum because they offer thematic course offerings. The University of Maryland of College Park, where ex-vice chancellor Mote now works offers cluster themes/interdisciplinary options. Co-Chair Padilla suggested that we gather some information on each of these programs.
Meeting was adjourned.
Minutes submitted by:
Karen L. Warren
Last updated on 3/13/00 by CS.