Tuesday, November 18, 2003

Senate Members Present:

Aaron, Eunice

Gemello, John

Meredith, David

Alvarez, Alvin

Gerson, Deborah

Morishita, Leroy

Avila, Guadalupe

Gonzales, Dan

Nichols, Amy

Bartscher, Patricia

Gregory, Jan

Palmer, Pete

Bernstein, Marian

Guerrero, Jaimes

Pong, Wenshen

Bohannon, Tara

Heiman, Bruce

Scoble, Don

Carrington, Christopher

Hom, Marlon

Smith, Brett

Chelberg, Gene

Houlberg, Rick

Smith, Miriam

Chen, Yu Charn

Irvine, Patricia

Stowers, Genie

Colvin, Caran

Jerris, Scott

Suzuki, Dean

Contreras, A. Reynaldo

Johnson-Brennan, Karen

Terrell, Dawn

Daniels, Robert

Kassiola, Joel

Ulasewicz, Connie

Edwards, James

Klironomos, Martha

Van Dam, Mary Ann

Fielden, Ned

Liou, Shy-Shenq

Williams, Robert

Fung, Robert

Mak, Brenda

Yang, Nini

Garcia, Oswaldo

McKeon, Midori

Senate

Members Absent:

Batista, Natalie, Cherny, Robert (excused), Corrigan, Robert (excused),

Otero, Aina J. (excused), Rocchio, Jean (excused), Shrivastava, Vinay, Steier,

Saul (excused), Vaughn, Pamela (excused)

Visitors: David Apelt, Kati Bell,

Suzanne Dmytrenko, Maria Garrido, Richard Giardina, Ann Hallum, David Hellman,

LaVonne Jacobsen, Deborah Masters, Brian Murphy, Sondra Perl, Charles Schuster,

Mitch Turitz, John Van Savage, Marilyn Verhey, Edward White, Gail Whitaker,

Georgianna Wong, Yenbo Wu, Jennifer Yeh

ANNOUNCEMENTS

Chair Edwards announced

a “wine and nuts” reception in honor of the Senate’s hard work this semester

immediately following the assembly on the 5th floor of the Administration

building. Senators and their guests are welcome. December 2nd will

be the last meeting of the semester, barring an emergency, in which case December

16th is set aside. The last half hour of the December 2nd

meeting will consist of a reception in the Seven Hills lobby honoring President

Corrigan’s 15 years of service to the University, and will continue

until 5:00 pm.

Chair Edwards indicated

that the Senate is still seeking names for the workload task force.

AGENDA ITEM #1 - APPROVAL OF

THE AGENDA FOR NOVEMBER

18th, 2003

Chair Edwards noted that

a correction is needed for agenda items 7 and 8, whose numerical values are

reversed on the printed agenda.

m/s/p

Palmer, Meredith. Agenda is approved as amended.

AGENDA ITEM #2 - APPROVAL OF

MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 4th, 2003

m/s/p Meredith,

Palmer

Senator

Chelberg

noted that in the section of the minutes on “changes in agenda” there is an

extra “the.” Agenda item 4 should list his title as Director, Disability

Programs

& Resource

Center.

Minutes approved as amended.

AGENDA ITEM #3 -REPORT—SUZANNE

DMYTRENKO, SFSU REGISTRAR: STUDENT PRIVACY REGULATIONS

Suzanne Dmytrenko indicated

that Senators have been provided handouts, including SFSU policy on student

privacy, a web tutorial on student privacy as an informative mechanism, and

a postcard listing basic information regarding what kinds of student information

may and may not be distributed or made public.

Senator Meredith asked

whether only the Registrar’s office could distribute this kind of student

information or whether anyone was able to do so.

Dmytrenko responded that as long as a

student’s record is not deemed confidential, and that confidential status

is up to individual students, this is public information. These are guidelines

for faculty as to what can and what cannot be released.

Senator Williams asked

about student names: whether class lists could not be circulated in class,

whether grades could be posted, etc.

Dmytrenko indicated that student names

are directory information, and can be circulate.

However, documents containing social security numbers, or even partial social

security numbers linked to student names, and grade sheets with grades listed

are items that should not be disseminated.

Senator Ulasewicz asked

about partial social security numbers.

Dmytrenko answered that this was not acceptable,

and that the University was moving toward a system by which social security

numbers are no longer being used for identification, but rather an unrelated

University number.

Senator Hom asked about

one item on the information card which suggested that no discussion of a student’s

academic performance may take place between faculty. He noted that such discussions

are often necessary, and asked if faculty should disregard the so-called “progress

requests” between faculty.

Dmytrenko responded that for educational

purposes, such discussions regarding students’ academic standing should naturally

occur, even with the inclusion of private information. The postcard is a general

guide, and not comprehensive. That is why the Student Privacy Web Tutorial

is so important; which all faculty should become familiar..

Senator Carrington noted

that since the University was dispensing with social security numbers, whether

an alternative number would appear on class lists.

Dmytrenko noted that only printed class

rosters would be missing social security numbers, and that the web class lists,

available to faculty, would include the social security numbers.

Morishita requested that Dmytrenko

explain the UIN to the senators.

Dmytrenko noted that last year’s senate

had resolved to change the system of social security numbers, and that faculty,

staff, and students would now be given a nine digit number. Number assignments

should begin for faculty and staff in July 2004, with students later in the

fall. This UIN will replace the social security number for privacy purposes.

Williams asked about the practice of

leaving folders containing student papers for pickup, and if student papers

were placed in a separate envelope was that an acceptable practice. He also

expressed some anxiety about the consequences of unintended non-adherence

to policy.

Dmytrenko said that some small penalties

were possible and fines for non-adherence. For grade sheets, envelopes are

appropriate, even grades written on an inside sheet of a paper would be acceptable.

The caution is that students should not be able to comb through a bin for

this private information. She indicated that having a staff person to monitor

student access would be the best manner in which to handle the distribution

of student papers.

AGENDA ITEM #4 - REPORT—DEBORAH

MASTERS, UNIVERSITY LIBRARIAN, & LAVONNE JACOBSEN, HEAD, COLLECTION ACCESS

& MANAGEMENT SERVICES: REVIEW SERIALS OFFERINGS

Debbie Masters noted that

after consultation with the Academic Senate Library Advisory Committee, an

email regarding serial offerings had been distributed to the faculty.

Masters stated she wished to present an outline of the project to the

senate, which is a result of presentations provided for college Deans and

the Executive Committee.

Masters noted that there were two handouts

provided to the Senators. The first handout outlined trends in scholarly

publishing in higher education, and the second was a printout of the presentation

slides.

Masters noted that SFSU library’s collection

is curricular driven, and is not that of a large research library. While this

does not mean that research materials are not chosen, the curricular stance

remains a basic principle. She urged faculty to take advantage of services

like Document Delivery, which enabled access to many esoteric, and sometimes

costly, journals beyond our own collection.

Masters stopped to provide a basic working

definition of “serials.” A serial is anything that is issued in parts, intended

to be continued indefinitely, and is commonly referred to as “magazines, journals

or periodicals” - anything for which we have a continuing obligation to acquire,

is considered a serial. Masters stressed that we need to periodically

review our materials to insure that they meet curricular needs. The

goal of the project is to make sure that the library is providing the SFSU

community with materials that meet these curricular needs.

Masters noted a slide that outlined

the pattern of the library budget over the last ten years, with drastic cutbacks

in the early 1990s, but with support from administration much of the purchasing

power was restored in the late 1990s. Unfortunately, the cost of living augmentation

which had been a factor until recently, has no longer been an option for the

past couple years. This has created a large gap in the maintenance of the

collection.

The rise of journal subscription

prices has thus eaten more and more into the library’s budget, creating an

erosion of purchasing power, a situation that is not a sustainable model.

The current project is an attempt to address this erosion and by cutting $500,000

from the current $2,600,000 budget devoted to serials, in an attempt to come

back to a more balanced level of expenditure.

Librarian selectors and liaisons

will be contacting departments, helping to address these journal issues. Departments

may want to rank their most important journals, or look at canceling journals

with the highest inflation rates. Also, departments should consider

that sometimes electronic, instead of print formats, can be more cost effective.

Every department is expected to have to cancel some serials subscriptions.

The project has a final deadline

of April 2004, which will give the library enough time to process the changes.

In conversations with the Library

Advisory Committee, the Deans and the Senate Executive Committee, a number

of questions were on the order of “What are you going to do about this?”

Masters noted that already the CSU system

is able to take advantage of consortia buying to acquire databases and other

resources at deeply discounted prices. There are CSU core collections for

the whole system.

Masters indicated that faculty might

be in the “driver’s seat” for initiating change. Various initiatives, among

them SPARC, have launched in the University world about influencing scholarly

publishing.

Some things that are being done

are:

·

Rethinking RTP criteria to encourage

quality vs. quantity.

·

Valuing electronic publication

as well as print, in order to retain rights of the work to use in teaching.

·

Universities can choose journals

with open access to materials at no or low cost.

·

When serving on journal editorial

boards, chose only honorable journals.

·

Collaborate on new ventures to

provide alternatives to high cost journals.

·

Faculty can collectively influence

accreditation criteria, which traditionally create rigid and inflexible lists

of mandatory journals. Perhaps the argument that access rather than ownership

is sufficient.

Masters stated that working together

over time, it is possible to transform scholarly communication. This year

the library requires your help on the serials project.

Senator Daniels wanted

to know the names of the worst of the journal publishers.

Masters responded that Elseiver was

the worst, and had created, partially through acquisition, a large and aggressive

empire. UC, among others, was in the process of pushing back.

Senator Williams asked

for clarification about accreditation issues. His department had fairly specific

guidelines for journals.

Masters commented that increasingly

there were criteria for learning outcomes, student information literacy and

student lifelong learning. While not saying that there aren't critical journals,

there may be improved ways to consider accreditation criteria.

Senator Chelberg wanted

the other senators to be aware of AB-422 which calls for all publishers who

sell educational materials to public education institutions to provide electronic

formats for maximum accessibility for student use. He also proposed criteria

that favored publishers who honor those ideas and use our leverage.

Masters agreed

that market power was a valuable tool.

Senator Heiman asked if

the library had any connection to the public library of science initiatives

and what role we might play there. Referring to the point of article length

and quality, he found that in his discipline, there was a real move towards

shorter articles, which is beyond his control.

Masters was not familiar with this movement

but thought that alternative publishing models might perhaps be useful, especially

if peer review can be preserved. For the first part of the question, she knew

that UC had spoken to the issue and that CSU library directors had been discussing

it as well.

AGENDA ITEM #7—RECOMMENDATION

FROM THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE - a consent item - APPROVAL of the RESOLUTION

ON WAYS TO ADDRESS REDUCTION IN WORK AVAILABLE FOR TEMPORARY FACLTY

State Senator Gregory

noted that in response to questions and comments made by senators Vaughn

and McKeon changes for clarity were made to the bullet points of the

resolution, but a “whereas clause” amendment never reached her electronically.

Senator McKeon had a question

for the Chair, as to whether it is appropriate to have procedures mentioned

in resolutions. Traditionally resolutions do not usually contain information

regarding procedures, and she asked if the kinds of procedures outlined in

the resolution are appropriate.

Chair Edwards ruled that

this is appropriate, noting that the constitution explicitly addresses this.

Senator Chelberg noted

that in the fourth paragraph, a spelling error required correction.

McKeon had questions regarding some

potential difficulties with compliance and timing for the first and second

bulleted items. Departments usually begin early in a semester to coordinate

course schedules for the following semester, however the first bullet states

that lecturers should submit work lists and an Application for Subsequent

Temporary Faculty Appointment no later than one month prior to the end of

classes each semester. The second bullet recommends that distribution

of the form should occur during the time of class scheduling, which is at

the very beginning of the preceding semester. She requested some clarification

on this area.

Gregory adopted a suggestion in amending

this section so that scheduling would not take place before the forms were

submitted. She would accept this as a friendly amendment, perhaps striking

everything after the comma on line three of the first bullet point but adding

the words “until budget crisis ends” to bullet point two.

Senator Bernstein thought

the rationale for the resolution was very clear, which is that schedules are

made up quite early, and to have lecturers make declarations about courses

in effect “after the fact” seems unhelpful. In fact moving it earlier

would help lecturers make their case with better timing.

Senator Meredith observed

that his department used electronic communication almost exclusively, and

wondered if this was appropriate. He also noted that he had never seen

the form mentioned in the resolution.

Gregory supported the use of electronic

communication, but noted the understanding that both Faculty Affairs and Academic

Affairs have this form, or at least a reminder that the form goes to department

chairs every semester or every year, depending on lecturers’ contracts.

She wondered how it was possible that Senator Meredith had never become

acquainted with the form in question, and sought the insight of the Dean of

Faculty Affairs, who was present.

Senator Williams reminded

senators of the spirit of the resolution, which is for the institution to

encourage lecturers to make sure they maintain the attention and awareness

of their chairs and departments.

Senator Heiman made a

suggestion for the third bullet, perhaps adding a phrase to the end of the

bullet point “and as necessary.” He commented that in his days as a

lecturer at several institutions, a chair or dean had never called him during

a semester break with a request to teach almost immediately. Much more

common was hearing from them at the beginning or the first third of the semester,

and at that stage, it makes more sense to make sure that lecturer information

is available.

Chair

Edwards

suggested

this as a friendly amendment, and acknowledged that the time certain had arrived

for agenda item 5, and the Senate would take up this item again when time

permitted.

AGENDA ITEM #5 - REPORT—MIRIAM

SMITH, CHAIR, ALL-UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE on INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS: INTRODUCTION

OF GLOBAL STARS, the database for faculty international expertise & THE

COMMITTEE’S PROCESS IN COMPILING COLLEGE INVENTORIES OF INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES

Chair

Edwards

indicated that besides Miriam Smith,

Kati Bell,

Advisor, Study Abroad Programs, and Yenbo Wu,

Director of the Office of International Programs were also present to answer

any questions.

Miriam Smith noted that

the AUCIP has a broad charge to supervise all international programs on campus,

and two of the projects the committee has undertaken have been to identify

faculty and staff who have experience or expertise in international issues,

and to identify all the international activities that take place on campus.

Kati Bell outlined some

of the history of the Global Stars database. She also noted that Global

Stars is a web-based database, accessible to anyone on campus, supported by

CET, and she demonstrated some of the features of the database, for example,

how to search and sort by country or language. Over a hundred faculty and

staff are listed so far, and they represent a wide cross-section across campus.

The database would allow campus members to locate others with similar or desired

experience and knowledge. She encouraged campus members to join and create

records of their own to expand the database to increase its utility.

Smith outlined another project of

the committee, an inventory of international activity business, noting that

two members of the committee were present at the meeting today, visitor John

Van Savage from Business and Senator Oswaldo Garcia from the

college of Science. Individuals can inform the

committee about any internationally focused program or activity, and it will

be collected in one place for the benefit of the campus community.

RETURN TO: AGENDA ITEM #7—RECOMMENDATION

FROM THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE - a consent item - APPROVAL of the RESOLUTION

ON WAYS TO ADDRESS REDUCTION IN WORK AVAILABLE FOR TEMPORARY FACLTY

With no speakers on the speakers

list, the resolution was put to vote.

The resolution was unanimously

approved.

AGENDA ITEM #6—RECOMMENDATION

FROM THE STUDENT AFFAIRS COMMITTEE - APPROVAL of the RESOLUTION ON INTERNATIONAL

EDUCATION WEEK 2003

Senator Gerson, chair

of the Student Affairs Committee commented that this resolution is similar

to previous resolutions, that International Week has already begun, and she

urged adoption of the resolution.

m/s/p

Gerson, McKeon

McKeon spoke to the spirit of the resolution,

and how it was in accord with this campus’ philosophical stance, and urged

approval.

Yenbo Wu announced that

there are over 80 events scheduled this week and expressed pleasure that greater

numbers of faculty, including lecturers, had become involved and put much

energy into the week’s activities.

McKeon asked for additional phrases

to be added to the final “resolved” section: after the list of people and

offices who have contributed, adding “various department programs, and faculty

members across the campus.”

Chair Edwards moved the

resolution to second reading.

The resolution was unanimously

approved as amended.

AGENDA ITEM #8- REPORT—BRIAN MURPHY, DIRECTOR, SAN FRANCISCO URBAN INSTITUTE: MAKING SENSE

OUT OF THE CURRENT POLITICAL TURN OF EVENTS

Murphy indicated he would attempt to

provide some sense of the lay of land in Sacramento. The new Governor’s inaugural

address was remarkably positive, and he took a stance that cast his immigrant

status as a plus for the state. One example of the potential value of his

experiences is that he is the first Governor in recent memory who actually

attended community college. Currently many progressive forces in Sacramento rather than simply despairing

the electoral outcome, are building a public awareness campaign on the consequences

of the proposed executive actions. The Governor’s international celebrity

creates new and unusual status for the Governor in a political sense, since

he is not someone who needs more fame for external recognition. He has taken

a populist stance and may well not want to be known for a legacy of savaging

progressive political programs like education. He may not be as beholden to

the right wing as is often the case with Republican executives. But the general

movement seems to be that he will be proposing ways to borrow the state’s

way out of the fiscal mess.

There is currently a $12.5 billion

debt, which is, essentially floated. Ten billion is from a year and a half

ago, which the previous Governor had hoped to reduce with a half cent sales

tax, but the debt has not decreased. Estimates for the current year’s debt

are for about $8 billion now but another $4 billion will be added due to the

auto tax rollback. This adds up to a $24.5 billon debt.

The governor is likely to offer

what is called a “burrito bond” with all the pieces wrapped up in one bond

initiative. This will be a very expensive proposition for the state

as it will require the state to pay a large amount of interest over an extended

period of time.

If the “geo bond” goes through,

it may make it very hard to pass the education bond in March and may even

make it impossible for the state to carry debt at all. A geo bond means

that it is paid for out of general revenues, and the bad news is that this

would terminate all other options, if the Governor honors his pledges of no

new taxes and rolls back the auto taxes.

Even in the hunt to find $4 billion,

we still remain in danger, because we are in the “discretionary” part of the

budget. It is possible that the system may double fees. There are very few

other areas from which to make cuts.

All kinds of programs cannot

receive cuts without endangering federally matched dollars. A long term debt

plan, coupled with a spending ceiling, is a recipe for disaster. The plans

would not address such variables as population changes, demographics, and

other costs, items that cannot be ignored and the result will be a very big

problem. This probably would not explode in the next few years, but would

emerge later. Senator Burton will very likely not jeopardize any social

services and will let the CSU and UC systems take the first hits. Some political

action is potentially useful.

Murphy commented on the celebrated

“audit.” It looked very much not like an audit at all, but a preliminary look

at budget numbers, and it seemed likely that the proposal would involve a

rollback to pervious budget levels.

Finally, Murphy observed

that no one has a very good idea about the Governor’s agenda beyond the next

few days. The Governor is just as worrisome to Republicans as to Democrats,

and represents a potentially very independent stance. Sacramento is doing their usual taking

a mixed view, trying to figure out what the new angles are, where the leverage

is, etc.

State Senator Aaron gave

thanks for the insights and wondered what was likely to happen now as far

as the counties in California are concerned. She asked how

they will be affected.

Murphy commented

that there are three complicated dynamics. The signature yesterday had

a large impact on local funding, but it will not be felt immediately. It will

affect poor people first, but at a local level, with no visible stateside

effects. Secondly, even Republican districts are just as affected, and will

have an effect on fire and police services among others, resulting in a lot

of aggravated legislators. A third possibility is to make the state pay back

the money, which makes for a hole, and then possibly the state would

give property tax funds back to the counties. The state, however, would still

have to equalize the effects of this.

Senator Jerris had two

questions. He observed that one cannot just issue bonds, but that someone

has to buy them, and who would do that? Secondly, he wanted to know if there

was any sense of what Washington might do.

Murphy responded that perhaps indeed

no one would buy the bonds, but they might be sold in exchange for fiscal

guarantees.

Murphy further felt that he did not

see how any more than $2 billon could come from federal sources.

AGENDA ITEM #9—DISCUSSION ITEM:

WRITING PROGRAM EXTERNAL REVIEW—GUESTS, EXTERNAL REVIEW TEAM: DRS. SONDRA

PERL, Professor of English, Lehman College, CUNY, CHARLES SCHUSTER,

Associate Dean, Humanities and Communication, and Professor of English, University

of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, & EDWARD WHITE, Adjunct Professor of English,

University of Arizona, and Professor Emeritus of English, CSU San Bernardino

Charles Schuster from

Wisconsin offered from the review committee

an appreciation at being able to meet with so many administrators and faculty

on their visit to campus. He expressed recognition of the high commitment

to teaching, learning, and writing evident in conversations across campus.

Schuster indicated that the review committee

would be roughing out a report, and sought to present a number of preview

points.

Edward White commented

that he found a heartening aspect of the campus culture in the relative lack

of blame about the issues involved in teaching writing. He thought the campus

was definitely attempting to do the best it could with a difficult situation,

and that faculty were taking responsibility. He noted that the situation is

a permanent one: students always should be writing better.

Senator Heiman drew the

committee’s attention to latest draft of strategic planning, which explicitly

recognizes the need to better address student writing needs.

Sondra Perl stated that

the committee was aware of the strategic planning and its movement, and that

the committee felt that the focus is to identify where the best place on campus

to put energy is, and where the resources can be put to best use.

Edward White noted that

the committee had managed to encounter a veritable mountain of documents for

the campus, including a long history of writing on campus. He noted, for example,

that our own JEPET test has become a model among CSU campuses.

Senator Bernstein asked

what the committee’s thoughts were regarding GE Segment III, and what recommendations

they might have about GE and Segment III in particular, and how to "catch

everyone."

Perl found

it admirable that students were writing in upper level GE courses, but questioned

the efficacy of the current “ten page” requirement. She questioned the writing

component in large enrollment courses, and suggested employing capstone courses

or writing intensive courses within disciplines. She observed two distinctions

for writing - learning to write for the discipline and learning to write in

general.

Senator Williams expressed

hope that the review committee would address the extreme disparities of student

background, culture, class etc.

Schuster acknowledged the dedication

to writing across disciplines. He expressed that we all want to do the best

we can with what we have and, find ways to celebrate writing, making the need

to write with high expectation and low risk a positive approach. We have to

acknowledge diversity and realize there is no magic solution - nothing quick,

nothing linear - and that students get better, then regress, but need to be

given many opportunities.

White noted that he had F.E.R.P’d

in the CSU and the University of Arizona, and had taught at both at the

same time. He found himself looking forward to CSU campuses and their extraordinary

variety and excitement on CSU campuses, all of which feeds into writing.

Schuster commented that they have not

seen enough student writing, and that our campus

might well have “more surface error” in student writing, but likely a richer

context for writing. He defined “surface air” as basic mechanics --

punctuation, split infinitives etc., but beneath the writing is often a richer

background.

Senator Gregory asked

if the committee could address the issue of increasing emphasis on writing

without increasing faculty workload.

Perl offered some suggestions. It

might make sense to make distinctions between high stakes and low stakes writing.

Many students don’t write well because they don't read well. One approach

is to use writing to help reading, and to make writing more a practical tool

for learning. It is helpful to give ownership to students for their education.

Content journals and other mechanisms can further learning, along with improved

ways to frame questions to make for more exciting answers to questions. If

higher stakes writing is required, faculty should make sure there is time

for revision. Other structures can also be helpful, and other students can

help edit and proofread each others’ work. She felt that less is often more,

and that it often was useful to look for patterns of errors and not try to

do it all.

Schuster that he often asked students

to reflect, in writing, on their own writing, whether it worked will, whether

they thought they addressed their topics and audience appropriately.

Having this feedback often can be very helpful for instructors in developing

strategies to improve writing skills.

Senator Mak asked about

the effect that the internet had on writing, and how it can be used for creative

writing.

White responded that at least one

issue with the internet is as a research source, which is not a new problem.

Now it is very easy to include

other sources and students are not always aware of proper source citation.

We need to educate, stress authority, and take more responsibility to teach

properly.

Ulasewicz commented on a recent workshop

on rubrics for assessment, and if the committee was suggesting this route.

Also, were there suggestions for freshman and sophomores, not just upper division

students?

White suggested not using rubrics

so much as scoring guides, but to make criteria visible. Skilled writers do

not consider first drafts to be finished items. Skilled writers revise consistently.

Unskilled writers write the night before, hand it in and pray. They are not

able to evaluate their own work, and need to learn how to revise. Rubrics

help students devise internal criteria, which is very crucial to the process.

Perl wanted to address what faculty

can do to improve student writing. She suggested asking what

are the most important ideas you want students to learn in the course,

and then to have writing in the syllabus which support these areas. Secondly,

faculty might begin to think of their courses as narratives, and ask what

kind of story they are trying to tell, what is the climax, what kind

of pace the course has, and then try to focus writing to match course trajectory.

Senator Terrell found

these to be good suggestions, but remarked that critical issues involved the

notion of professional development and how we will be able to become more

skilled teachers of writing.

Perl had two received contradictory

comments about workshops from the campus. Some questions remain as to what

the value system of the campus is, and how training will proceed. All these

are issues that will return to the campus, faculty and senate.

Schuster noted that much success in this

area is ultimately due to faculty development.

AGENDA ITEM #10—ADJOURNMENT 4:00 pm.