The College of New Jersey Logo

Apply     Visit     Give     |     Alumni     Parents     Offices     TCNJ Today     Three Bar Menu

Spring 2002

Liberal Learning Advisory Council Minutes Spring 2002

Minutes Arranged by Date


May 8, 2002

Present: D. Kobrynowicz (Chair), R. Anderson (Secretary), W. Ball, R. Fangboner, D. Knox, L. McCauley, S. Mitchell, A. Pfenninger, D. Vandegrift, Y, Watson

  1. Minutes (and non-minutes) for December 12, 2001,  January 30, 2002, February 13, February 27, March 27 (non-minutes), April 10, and April 24, were approved as amended.
  2. ANTH 205, Human Evolution was approved for social science content.  The vote was 9 to 0 with no abstentions.
  3. POLS 270, Western Political Philosophy was approved for philosophy or religion and Western diversity distribution.  The vote was 9 to 0 with no abstentions.
  4. HIST 337, Women in Eastern Europe, 1848 to the Present was approved for history and Western and gender studies diversity distribution. The vote was 9 to 0 with no abstentions.
  5. IDSC 398, Interdisciplinary Independent Study was approved by a vote of 8 to 0 with no abstentions.
  6. WGST 338, Topics in Social Justice: Gender and Democracy was approved for social science content and Western and gender diversity distribution by email subsequent to the meeting.
  7. WGST 371, Studies in Social Justice: Gendered Sociology of Post-Socialist Society was approved for social science content and Western and gender diversity distribution by email subsequent to the meeting.
  8. HONR 355, Biomedical Ethics was approved for philosophy or religion and Western diversity distribution by email subsequent to the meeting.
  9. ECON 229, American Economic History was approved for social science process and Western distribution by email subsequent to the meeting.
  10. Adjournment was at 2:00 sharp.  No further meetings were scheduled for the Spring term.

Courses Approved

  • ANTH 205 – Human Evolution (social science content, Western)
  • POLS 270 – Western Political Philosophy (social science content)
  • HIST 337 – Women in Eastern Europe (history, Western, gender)
  • WGST 338 – Interdisciplinary Independent Study (history, Western, gender)
  • WGST 338 – Topics in Social Justice: Gender and Democracy (social science content, Western, gender)
  • WGST 371 – Studies in Social Justice: Gendered Sociology of Post-Socialist Society (social science content, Western, gender)
  • HONR 355 – Biomedical Ethics (philosophy or religion, Western)
  • ECON 229 – American Economic History (social science process, Western)

April 24, 2002

Members Present: D. Kobrynowicz (Chair), R. Anderson (Secretary), W. Behre, R. Fangboner, K. Finkral, D. Knox, A. Pfenninger, D. Vandegrift, Y. Watson, S. Pasch (Guest)

  1. Diane Kobrynowicz commented on one of the draft appendices having been distributed to the Faculty Senate as part of a report on general education.  She pointed out that the work had been hers alone, was in draft form, and had not been approved by the committee.  Don Vandegrift offered an apology, however he maintained that it was not a breach of  confidence.
  2. Diane Kobrynowicz distributed a revised Draft Report with three appendices.  Extended discussion resulted in a decision to have Diane, with the assistence of Suzanne Pasch and Bob Anderson, modify the draft and send it to members via email for final approval.  Members agreed to respond within a 24 hour period.
  3. Adjournment was at 5:00.  The next meeting was set for May 8th, 12:30 to 1:50.

April 10, 2002

Members Present: D. Kobrynowicz (Chair), R. Anderson (Secretary), W. Ball, W. Behre, R. Fangboner, K. Finkral, D. Knox, L. McCauley, D. Vandegrift, S. Pasch (Guest)

The meeting was given over to free form discussion of three possible models for presentation to the Steering Committee, the Provost, CAP, and the college community.  Four elements of any model were laid out: Distinctive Qualities (diversity, community, leadership), Core Academic Element (First Year Seminar), Skills Areas (writing, math, language proficiency), and Distribution or Courses Outside the Major.  Diane Kobrynowicz agreed to write up a summary of the discussion and distribute via the GEAC Listserv.

Adjournment was at 2:00.  The next meeting was set for April 24th.


March 27, 2002

No minutes were taken.  Representatives of the School of Business submitted a report on general education.  Members discussed it and began considering possible models.


February 27, 2002

Members Present: R. Anderson (Acting Chair, Secretary), W. Behre, M. Comstock, A. Dillon, R. Fangboner, K. Finkral, S. Mitchell, A. Pfenninger, D. Vandegrift, Y. Watson; Guests Present: A. Czeto, G. Fakas, D. Sheesley, T. Pavlovski

The entire meeting was given over to presentations from the School of Engineering and the Library.  No other business was conducted; no resolutions approved or rejected.

School of Engineering

John Karsnitz, Chair of the Department of Technological Studies, presented an 11-course model with one rhetoric course and an additional discipline based advanced writing course, one course in statistics or calculus, one interdisciplinary course on designed or engineered systems (SET model), two topic based, integrated natural science courses, and a four-course distribution in social analysis, art, humanities, and modern language constructed so that students chose a course from three of the areas with an additional advanced course from one of those selected.  An additional “elective” course completes the requirements.  Dr. Karsnitz argued strongly for the continuation of a technology requirement within the general education curriculum.  He distributed a five-page handout more closely detailing his views.

Alex Czeto, Chair of the Department of Engineering, also presented an 11-course model calling for five courses from arts, social sciences, humanities, and modern language so distributed as to represent three areas, one of which must be social science, and to include one two-course sequence in one department.  He also calls for one rhetoric course focusing on technical writing, a four-course math-science requirement of Calculus I and II and Physics I and II, and a course in computer science.

The Library

Taras Pavlovsky, Dean of the Library, stressed the need to incorporate information literacy into the general education program.  Deborah Sheesley distributed a three-page handout detailing a proposal for including an information literacy component in the general education curriculum based on guidelines of the Association of College and Research Libraries.  She stressed the need to keep a two-course Rhetoric sequence, with the 2nd course being discipline specific.  She also suggested that non-course requirements could be built into an information literacy program.  It could be web-based and include self-taught modules and tutorials.

Adjournment was at 5:00.  The next meeting was set for March 27th.  Bob Anderson indicated that he would not be present, but no temporary secretary was selected.


February 13, 2002

Members Present: D. Kobrynowicz (Chair), R. Anderson (Secretary), W. Behre, M. Comstock, R. Fangboner, K. Finkral, D. Knox, L. McCauley, S. Mitchell, A. Pfenninger, D. Vandegrift, Y, Watson; Guests: J. Bricker, L. Marcus, S. Sherman, G. Simmons

The entire meeting was given over to presentations from the School of Science and the School of Education.  No other business was conducted; no resolutions approved or rejected.

School of Science: Dean Gail Simmons and Prof. James Bricker presented a draft proposal for general education for science majors.  Since all students in the school would take sufficient mathematics and science courses as part of their majors, no requirements in those areas were advanced.  General education, then, would consist of the following eight-courses:

  1. One rhetoric course
  2. Seven courses from the Schools of Culture and Society and Art, Media, and Music distributed as follows:
    • At least 2 from each school
    • At least 3 from different departments (between both schools)
    • At least 4 at the 200 level or above, e.g., as would be taken by majors

    They reported no consensus on foreign language, that there is opposition to a core course, and that they want distribution courses to be at levels higher than introductory.  They also made the following recommendations for mathematics and science requirements for non-science majors:

    1. Two semesters of Mathematics or Statistics, or one semester of Mathematics or Statistics and one semester of computer science
    2. Two semesters of science with the following options:
      • A two course sequence in a laboratory science at the “general” level (the more difficult level; they recommend eliminating the “principles” courses), or
      • Two topics-based science courses developed by particular faculty members according to their interests or areas of expertise

School of Education

Dean Larry Marcus and Prof. Sharon Sherman represented the school, with Sharon Sherman doing the major presentation.  Predicated on a restructuring of academic majors for elementary and early childhood education, and reducing the number to four, Dr. Sherman presented an 11 to 12 course general education plan keyed to each of the four proposed majors: Math/Science/Technology, Humanities, Social Sciences, or World Languages.  General Education categories would be:

  1. First Year Experience core course or seminar-1 course
  2. Math-2 course sequence in Math 105/106 (except in M/S/T major where it is part of major requirements)
  3. Natural Sciences-2 courses divided into a 4 half-course sequence of biology integrating chemistry, chemistry integrating biology, physics integrating earth/space science, and earth/space science integrating physics (except in M/S/T major where it is part of major requirements)
  4. Rhetoric-1 course
  5. Art/Creative Design-1 course (except in Humanities major where it is part of major requirements)
  6. Philosophy or Religion-1 course
  7. Literature-1 course in children’s literature (in Humanities major an additional literature course is also part of the major requirements)
  8. Learning and Development-1 course called general education but supporting each major
  9. History-1 course (except in Humanities and World Language majors where it is part of major requirements)
  10. Language Development-1 course in socio-linguistics (except in World Language major where it is part of major requirements)
  11. Social Science-2 courses in social science with one designated in political science (except in the Social Sciences major where it is part of major requirements, and in World Languages major where only the political science course is required because the other one is part of major requirements)

Adjournment was at 1:55; the next meeting was set for February 27th at 3:30.  The room location was not determined


January 30, 2002

Present: D. Kobrynowicz (Chair), R. Anderson (Secretary), W. Ball, W. Behre, S. Briggs (Guest), M. Comstock, A. Dillon, R. Fangboner, K. Finkral, D. Knox, L. McCauley, S. Mitchell, S. Pasch (Guest), A. Pfenninger, D. Vandegrift, Y, Watson

  1. Provost Stephen Briggs met with members of the council and spoke about the following matters:
    • The budget shortfall, requiring a $2.7 cut in FY 2002, and additional cuts in FY 2003 will not affect plans to implement new, transformed curriculum for Fall 2003 entering class.  He indicated that we can do it with current resources.
    • He expects GEAC to send a proposal through the governance process this spring, and that we should be concerned with implementation details.
    • GEAC’s role as advisory to CAP should be to develop several models, likely three, by mid-semester, and to have a final proposal completed by the end of the semester.  He stressed the importance of having students and faculty “believe” in what is created.
    • He put forth such ideas as having skills acquisition spread through the majors, creating linked or clustered courses in learning communities, and of looking for a middle ground between a “thematic, integrated” program and a simple check-list.
    • He expressed a preference for a program with some common elements experienced by all students, across all schools and majors.  He indicated a preference for foreign language proficiency to be among those.
    • He expressed a fear that we might too easily gravitate to a “minimalist” approach, and, even more so that we will design a program according to how students might be distributed among various departments.
    • In response to a concern expressed by Don Vandegrift, he indicated that the college would give support as needed to any new program developed.
  2. Vice Provost Suzanne Pasch added the following observations:
    • We should present a model for the governance system, and it should be a model into which the deans have had input.
    • She observed that there was consensus that the new program should be simpler than our present one, but she cautioned about making it too simple.
    • She commented that an important detail revolves around service learning concerns; when should it occur?  To what should it be attached.
    • She confirmed that no accreditation would be in jeopardy, that we would do nothing institutionally to threaten accreditation of existing programs.
    • She stressed the need to focus on common experiences and to distinguish among proficiencies, courses, and requirements.
    • In addition to service learning, diversity experiences and out of classroom experiences and/or requirements remain as important issues.
  3. Adjournment was at 1:50.  The next meeting was set for February 13th where two schools would be invited to respond to issues 2, 3, and 4 on Bob Anderson’s December 5th statement, and to present any ideas or questions concerning general education they might want to discuss.
Please note: The Liberal Learning Program has been renamed The College Core, and some of its components have also been renamed. Learn More
+