-
Kinneavy, James. “Writing Across the Curriculum.” ADE Bulletin 76 (1983): 14-21.
Kinneavy parses the meanings of the term “Writing across the Curriculum” and the available manners of implementing WAC programs. He describes the new writing program at UT as an exemplary model.
-
-
At this meeting, the Fowler report was discussed, and the matter was referred to the Educational Policy Committee to develop specific recommendations for implementation of the report's suggestions.
-
At this meeting, the Students’ Association request for changes to the Substantial Writing Class requirement was discussed. The Students’ Association suggested either modifying the standard requirements for SWC courses or providing enough seats in these classes for all the students in all the majors.
-
William Sutherland poses a question to President Cunningham about the number of SWC courses offered by departments other than English.
-
At this meeting, the preliminary report of the Ad-hoc Committee to Review the Basic Education Requirements was discussed. The Senate focused particularly on problems implementing the Substantial Writing Course mandate handed down in the Vick Report.
-
At the ninth regular meeting of the University Council for the academic year 1986-7, Frank Bash (Accounting) reported that the Educational Policy Committee would not take action on the Students’ Association request for changes to the SWC requirement.
-
The University Educational Policy Committee elects to take no action on the student request for changes to the SWC requirement because the Ad Hoc Committee to review the basic education requirements will soon report its recommendations.
-
At the end of this meeting, James Vick (Mathematics) expressed concerns about the English writing requirement, which would be very weak after the cancellation of E 346K, and Kurt Heinzelman (English) asked what would become of E 306, who would teach the course, and how many sections would be offered.
-
This reply to Kinneavy's Request for Faculty Action Concerning the English Composition Program argues that Kinneavy wanted to make the English composition program permanently dependent upon lecturers, that Kinneavy dismissed the judgment of his department, and that he should not be allowed to appeal to the University Council after he lost at the departmental level. Attached is a copy of the E 346K Committee Report (6 March 1986)
-
At this meeting, Kinneavy's Request for Faculty Action Concerning the English Composition Program was discussed. A motion was entertained to refer the matter to the University Council's Educational Policy Committee, but this motion was tabled in favor of letting individual departments settle curricular matters. Kinneavy, Ruszkiewicz, and Hairston spoke against the E 346K Evaluation Committee plan, while Sutherland, Kruppa, and Rebhorn spoke in favor of it.
-
This agenda for the 17 March 1986 meeting of the University Council lists Kinneavy's Request for Faculty Action Concerning the English Composition Program.
-
This proposal was submitted to the University Council by James Kinneavy to criticize the English Department's plan to revamp the composition program and to propose that the writing program be separated from the English Department. The proposal was classified as minor legislation to be considered at the 17 March 1986 University Council meeting.
-
At this meeting, the Faculty Senate report on E 346K was discussed, and so was the Faculty Senate Report on the Status of the Lecturer.
-
Sledd documents the importance of the English Composition requirements (particularly E 106 and E 206), alleging that the decision to waive the E 346K requirement is part of a broader attack on the English composition program. FEPC (10 February 1984 and 27 April 1984). Faculty Senate record of material submitted by Sledd.
-
This report discusses the process leading to the decision to delay E 346K, raising concerns about the absence of faculty consultation and asking that the English Department find a solution to the problems caused by the E 346K waiver before September 1985.
-
An one-page agenda listing proposed revisions of the Vick Report for discussion at the October 5, 1981 meeting of the Faculty Senate. Many of the attached documents raise concerns or propose alternatives to the Vick Report's recommendations for a 12-hour university-wide writing requirement.
Attached are:
Report Concerning Recommendations of the University Council Committee on Basic Education Requirements by James Vick
An Alternative Proposal on Basic Education Requirements by Terence Grieder
Response to the “Report Concerning Recommendations of the University Council Comittee on Basic Education Requirements” by the College of Fine Arts
Comments from the Committee on Basic Education requirements in Response to the Issues Raised by the College of Fine Arts Committee on Educational Policy and Curriculum
Another Proposal Concerning Basic Education Requirements by Neill Megaw
Proposal to Amend the Recommendation Regarding Mathematics in the Report of the University Council Committee on Basic Education Requirements by John Durbin
Memorandum Concerning the Proposed General Education Requirements by James Daniel
Proposal to Amend the Recommendation Regarding Natural Science Requirements in the Report of the University Council Committee on Basic Education Requirements by Mary Ann Rankin
College of Engineering Response to Proposed General Education Requirements by Earnest Gloyna
Dean Werbow’s HANDOUT at the March 23, 1981 Council Meeting
Attachment to the Minutes of the University Council Meeting of March 23, 1981. Report from the School of Nursing
Procedural Motion (Handout at February 16 Meeting)
-
Attached is an earlier version of the Proposal by the College of Liberal Arts for an Undergraduate University Requirement in English.
At this meeting, the COLA proposal for an undergraduate requirement in English is discussed.
-
At this meeting, James Sledd's questions about the status of E 106K, E 206L, E 316, and E 346K are answered by upper administration. The general faculty also discuss the proper procedure for waiving and canceling courses and the proper division of authority between upper administration and the colleges.
-
Documents and Proceedings of the University Council 9914-9915, Documents and Minutes of the General Faculty 15823-15824
James Sledd submits questions to the president for discussion at the next Faculty Senate meeting. What is the status of E 106K/206L? Does E 316K have a substantial writing component? Will will the E 346K requirement be reinstated? How and by whom were the decisions to drastically alter the writing program made?
-
During the questions to the president, the size of substantial writing component classes and the fate of E 106/206 are discussed.
-
At this meeting, Vice President Livingston and President Flawn allow William Sutherland (Chair of English) to answer Sledd's questions to the president. Livingston assures that E 346K is on track though there have been some unexpected administrative troubles. Livingston says the development of courses is a departmental matter.
-
On 17 December 1983, James Sledd submitted a question for President Flawn to answer at the 23 January 1984 meeting of the Faculty Senate. Sledd asks about difficulties implementing the new English requirement courses, particularly E 346K , E 106, and E 206.
-
At this meeting, the Sledd proposal to allow E 307 to substitute for E 346K is debated and defeated. The proposed changes to the College of Liberal Arts degree plan (including E 346K requirement) are introduced and discussed but not voted on.
-
James Sledd says that his previous question (posed at the 24 January 1983 meeting) was not sufficiently answered by Mr. Fonken or Mr. Kinneavy. He resubmits the question to President Flawn for discussion at the 21 February 1983 meeting of the Faculty Senate.