Accountability

CLA Document

Rather than an approval process for each type of course, this proposal rests on the faculty's willingness to work toward the goals as they are explained herein and as they evolve (e.g., for disciplinary breadth courses, through divisional discussions and Curriculum Committee consideration of the outcomes of those discussions). The Coordinator, Curriculum Committee, and the Dean of Arts and Sciences will, of course, be attending to the number and types of course offered for the requirements. The Coordinator will compile course descriptions and syllabi for courses meeting Common Learning Agenda requirement and will be available to advise faculty on course design. The Coordinator will have a role in shaping the program as he/she recruits courses and plans faculty development. Besides receiving reports from the Coordinator, the Dean's office and Curriculum Committee normally are aware of new courses and changes in majors and minors. The Curriculum Committee will be overseeing divisional discussions and receiving recommendations from divisions, as described previously. The Coordinator and Dean will have contact with other committees and with University offices responsible for curricular and pedagogical development. Thus, the Coordinator, Curriculum Committee, and Dean will have ample opportunity to observe evidence of the state of the program's development.

The Curriculum Committee will have three types of responsibilities: 1) overseeing the divisional conversations and considering their recommendations about the Disciplinary Breadth requirement, revising the Distribution Guidelines, and facilitating departments' and programs' discussions of Disciplinary Depth; 2) reviewing annually the Coordinator's plans for development of the Common Learning Agenda; 3) evaluating the Foundation Seminars, the Disciplinary Breadth requirement, and Broadened Perspectives in Spring 1996 and the Capstone Experience two years after full implementation (1998 at the earliest).8

The Curriculum Committee's review of the program should address, at least the following questions:

  1. Are there sufficient courses for each component?

  2. Are particular departments having difficulty contributing to the program?

  3. What positive and negative effects on departments' and programs' majors have resulted?

  4. Are students in particular majors having difficulty meeting the requirements?

  5. Are the courses listed for each component being addressed to the goals stated for those components?

  6. Do student perceptions and other outcomes indicate that the components of the program are accomplishing their goals?

  7. Is the administration of the program effective?

  8. Are faculty development funds and opportunities sufficient?

  9. What financial costs (beyond faculty development and the 25 new positions) has the program entailed?

  10. Has the program had a positive or negative effect on admissions?

  11. Have the needs of Bucknell students changed significantly in ways that suggest changes in the design of the program?

  12. Have redundancies or gaps in the curriculum developed that suggest additions or deletions of requirements?


Submitted to the Curriculum Committee of the College of Arts and Sciences in February 1992 by the General Education Council. Members: T. Amott, C. Blair, E. Garrett (Chair), E. Gerdes, J. Heath, J. Kendrick, C. Kochel, J. Walker ('92). Also attending: J. Hill.

Revised and recommended to the Faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences in April 1992 by the Curriculum Committee. Members: J. Allen, T. Amott, M. Ligare, E. Gerdes, G. Grant, R. Henry, R. Richards, J. Rickard, S. Stamos (Chair), N. Weida, F. Wilson, N. Cobban ('95), D. Fass ('93), R. Hochman ('92), C. Smith ('94). Also attending: J. Pyper, D. Thompson, L. Youtz.

Modified by the Faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences on December 10, 1996, and February 18, 1997, upon recommendation of the Curriculum Committee members: D. Abowitz, D. Adams, J. Allen (Chair), M. Archambault, J. Blake, K. Daubman, E. Gerdes, W. Kenny, S. Nyquist, A. Poust, D. Schoepf, H. Schweizer, P. Susman, C. Arsenault ('98), M. Bauer ('99), K. Dougherty ('97), H. Paisley ('00). Also attending: J. Pyper, C. Zappe, T. Fulton, B. Scholten. Modifications to the original document are noted here as footnotes.

Modified by the Faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences on April 19, 1999 upon recommendation of the Curriculum Committee members: D. Schoepf (Chair), C. Boyatzis, M. Delgado, E. Gerdes, G. Griffith, C. Kirby, J. Kirkland, T. Strein, E. Williams, C. Zappe, D. Leo ('01), M. Lewis ('02), W. Sanders ('00), J. Adickes ('02). Also attending: Robert Midkiff, M. Kastner, T. Fulton, D. Hopple. Modifications to the revised document are noted here as footnotes.



____________________________________
8. On February 18, 1997, the Arts and Sciences faculty voted to recommend that all components of the Common Learning Agenda be reviewed again by the Curriculum Committee no later than 2000.