аЯрЁБс>ўџ ,.ўџџџ+џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџьЅСa №Пкjbjbdd $eeкџџџџџџˆ„„„„„„„д дс ., , , , , , , , X Z Z Z Z Z Z , Ra b† „, , , , , † X „„, , › X X X , „, „, X X ˜$М„„„„, X X X „„X 1dЂС 6 "X X Б 0с X У X У X X „дфИdфдИCEPP Minutes December 6, 2006 In attendance: Deb Hall (scribe), Beau Breslin (chair), Muriel Poston, Pat Oles, Matt Hockenos, Pat Hilleren, Kyle Nichols, Dan Nathan, Jon Brestoff. Susan Kress and STINT Scholar Ulla Manns attended as invited guests. This meeting was dedicated to discussing the Writing Proposal and Information Literacy. Cepp continued last week’s debate and discussion on the many pedagogical, resource-based, cultural and structural aspects of the Writing Proposal. Discussion started with the requirements that the proposal might put forth. Most were agreed that the second requirement would be centered in the discipline and crafted individually by each department or major. Each plan may be different. Examples of different models could be provided in a footnote within the Writing Proposal. They may include: • one-credit add-on components to existing courses • advanced writing courses in the discipline • a series of writing enhanced courses • other experiences such as portfolios or capstones With smaller class sizes at the 300-level many departments may be better positioned to offer a WE course senior or junior year. Enrollment pressures would restrict the possibility of offering WE courses at the foundation or 200-level in many departments. Do we need to further define a WE or WI course? The FYE model works well. Discussion about using the capstone experience as part of the writing requirement ensued. Is it too late in the student’s experience? Some felt the capstone might not prove to be the best model. It was further suggested that the second writing requirement be met by the end of junior year. Many objected to the stringency of that requirement on departments with limited resources. What is the administrative structure for vetting the requirement? The CC would need guidelines to approve the requirements. What might those guidelines look like? What about academic freedom? Provision for inter-departmental and double majors should also be considered, noting that there will always be special circumstances. Would the WD, CC and CEPP convene to discuss the specifics or should they be outlined ahead of time? Opting to discuss the broader issues, there was not sufficient time to discuss many of the fine points of implementation and process. The importance of transparency and intent was underscored. CEPP should state right up front that resources are at stake. New structures are not needed, but a culture change, a change in emphasis and enhanced quality are needed. How can the document balance the idea of supporting culture change and the setting of requirements? It was noted that culture change and fine print might not share the same goals. Discussion turned to the Writing Director. What are the parameters of the position? What about resources? (It was noted that several course releases are already dedicated to writing) Should the WD be an administrator with a three-course release, or a faculty member with administrative responsibilities? The position should be clarified within the proposal. Will the search be internal or external? Does the position have to be filled by a candidate from the English department? There was some agreement that the position should be non-tenure track with a renewable contract with provisions to teach two (possibly EN105 or WE) courses. The individual should be able to focus on the Writing Program. The job description should outline whom the WD reports to. Will it be an academic appointment answering to the DOF? Discussion returned to the organization of the document, perhaps moving the third bullet point to the “Department” section. Should we reference an “updated” Skidmore Writing Guide? Can we remove some of the bullet points or will this dilute that part of the document that addresses the idea of culture change? Members of CEPP expressed gratitude for Matt’s efforts on the proposal. Departments should meet to discuss the proposal and the importance of writing in their discipline. Muriel suggested that an amended proposal be presented at the Department Chairs retreat in order to receive feedback from the departments. The following emendations were suggested: 1) footnotes outlining a variety of models and examples 2) enhancement of the Writing Director’s role 3) a heading on the Assessment section 4) the pedagogical aspect of writing in the discipline There was not enough time remaining to discuss Information Literacy. Susan distributed some information and was invited to return to the next meeting. К Ъ   ˜™кќєќэќэќ hNшhNшhNшhNш6hNш  §ўщъF { Њ г г д  ЁЂівг  STlАњњѕѕѓѓѓѓѓѓѓѓѓѓѓѓѓѓѓѓѓѓѓѓѓѓѓѓ$a$gdNшкўАп?@зиꧧ§§§§§Аа/ Ар=!А"А# $ %АЅD`ёџD NшNormalCJOJPJQJmH sH tH DA@ђџЁD Default Paragraph FontZi@ѓџГZ  Table Normal :V і4ж l4жaі _H(k@єџС(No List D™@ђD Nш Balloon TextCJOJQJaJк$џџџџ џџ z™ џџ z™Ђ кT  §ўмš@0€€Ъš@0€€Ъš@0€€Ъš@0€€Ъš@0€€Ъ€š@0€€Ъ 0РЂ№  §ўщъF{Њг  гд  Ё Ђ і в г  STlАп?@зим˜0€€Ъ€˜0€€Ъ€˜0€€Ъ€˜0€€Ъ€˜0€€Ъ€˜0€€Ъ€˜0€€Ъ€˜0€€Ъ€˜0€€Ъ˜0€€Ъ€˜0€€Ъ€˜0€€Ъ€˜0€€Ъ€˜0€€Ъ€˜0€€Ъ€˜0€€Ъ€˜0€€иаЛ€˜0€€Ъ€˜0€€Ъ€˜0€€Ъ€˜0€€иаЛ€˜0€€Ъ€˜0€€Ъ€˜0€€Ъ€˜0€€Ъ€˜0€€Ъ€˜0€€Ъ€˜0€€иаЛ€˜0€€иаЛ€˜0€€иаЛ€˜0€€иаЛ€˜0€€Ъ€˜0€€Ъ€˜0€€Ъ€˜0€€Ъ€  §ўъг  гд  Амš@0€€ирЭ€š@0€€ирЭ€˜@0€€ирЭ˜@0€€ирЭš@0€€ирЭ€˜@0€€ирЭ€џП€С0сўџПвџПpС0ъџПвџПpС0ъџП€§ПpС0ъџП€џП€С0сўџП€§П€С0сўџП€ 0 № 0 № 0 №кАккмзмЁ Ђ м:џ@€Ё Ё №FчЁ Ё 8њЮџ?џcк0 @џџUnknownџџџџџџџџџџџџGTimes New Roman5€Symbol3 Arial3TimesC Lucida Grande Сˆ№аh9SЌUЌŸSЌi}/A№ЅРДД€24dkU`№`џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџNшџџ CEPP MinutesDeb HallDeb Hallўџ р…ŸђљOhЋ‘+'Гй0x˜АМамь   ( 4 @ LX`hp'CEPP Minutes Deb HallNormal Deb Hall5Microsoft Word 11.3@ЖЋ@ВвИ‘Ч@ў—„Ч@ФœPУЧ}/ўџ еЭеœ.“—+,љЎ0 hpŒ”œЄ ЌДМФ Ь х'ХЗУРадАЎk  CEPP Minutes Title ўџџџўџџџ !"ўџџџ$%&'()*ўџџџ§џџџ-ўџџџўџџџўџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџRoot Entryџџџџџџџџ РF€$m™Ч/€1TableџџџџџџџџWordDocumentџџџџџџџџ$SummaryInformation(џџџџDocumentSummaryInformation8џџџџџџџџџџџџ#CompObjџџџџџџџџџџџџXџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџўџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџўџџџџџ РFMicrosoft Word DocumentўџџџNB6WWord.Document.8