Present: Co-Chair Porter, Alice Agogino, Robert Brentano, Jen Chang, Barbara Davis, Catherine Koshland, Michael Mascuch, Christina Maslach, Ellen Meltzer, Sonjia Redmond, Kwong-Loi Shun, Mark Tanouye, Ling-Chi Wang. Staff: Gail Kaufman, Cynthia Schrager, Alix Schwartz, Karen Warren

Unable to Attend: Co-Chair Padilla, Erin Bardin, Aisha Knowles, Angy Stacy

Dean Porter provided the committee with the following hand-out:

• Chancellor’s Distinguished Faculty Advisor proposal

Business items:

• Prepare a list of action items in the form of recommendations for the Chancellor.
• Request for schedules for Spring Semester went out.
• Next meeting: November 30, 3-4 p.m.

The Commission discussed its plan to make recommendations as they come to the table, rather than waiting until the end of the semester to write a lengthy report. At the end of the semester, however, we will submit a complete report on action items and recommendations.

Committee Updates:

Academic Enrichment subcommittee:

Chair Cathy Koshland reported that, before proposing specific action items, the sub-committee is surveying a range of opportunities that enrich the curriculum in selected major departments campus wide; these include service-learning courses, undergraduate research, field or study abroad experiences, small seminars and capstone courses. The committee is considering a recommendation that each Berkeley student have at least two or three academic experiences other than large lecture classes during their undergraduate careers and is also considering the implications of such a consideration, particularly with regard to faculty time.

The sub-committee is also looking at Service Learning because of the Governor’s proposal to make community service a requirement for graduation. The sub-committee has reviewed information provided by Andy Furco, Director of the Service Learning Research & Development Center. Koshland noted that Berkeley has by far the most offerings in terms of formal service learning opportunities for academic credit of all the campuses system-wide. Furco also provided the Faculty Policy Committee on Service-Learning’s response to the Governor’s mandate; although the committee was not enthusiastic about the mandate, it felt it was important to be creative in implementing such a mandate should it go forward. Alice mentioned that the Service Learning Center did not receive funding for this year. Given the timeliness of this issue, Carolyn Porter recommended that the committee put Service-Learning on its agenda for early in the Spring semester and the commission members concurred.

Advising subcommittee:

Gail Kaufman invited feedback on the faculty proposal due by 11/30 at which time the committee will formally approve the document. The technology subcommittee meeting will take place later today.

Integrative Intellectual Experiences subcommittee:

This subcommittee would like to study the long-term effects of the reading and composition sequence. This issue was raised due to the quality of student writing at the upper division level; following the first year, there appears to be relatively little writing required of students. The committee would like to investigate the issue of communication as a whole, including both oral and written communication and the use of new technologies.

Specific Discussion Items

• Writing is a form of thinking.
• Do student really know how to construct arguments? If so, how well?
• How often are students challenged to utilize their writing skills?
• We see a variety of writing competencies among students.
• What role do "other technologies" play?
• Are students’ writing skills on the decline because of shifts in student demographics?
• We are not giving enough attention to the use of multi-media technology in education.
• Communication does not need to be limited to writing.

Study Components

• We need to determine students’ ability to construct arguments.
• What opportunities do students in upper division classes have to utilize their writing skills?
• What core competencies should Cal graduates have?

The members also discussed the issue of gateway courses, which we also need to research further. Some questions for further study include the following:

• How are gateway courses functioning? Who is the target audience, and is this audience being served?
• Is there an unusually high attrition rate in these courses? If so, why?
• Do these classes discourage students, and thereby preclude students from a variety of upper division classes that require them as prerequisites?

Agenda items for next meeting:

• Action items from subcommittees
• Review Chancellor’s Distinguished Faculty Advisor draft for approval
• Review Center for Teaching, Learning, and Technology proposal for approval

Meeting was adjourned.

Minutes submitted by:
Karen Warren