Meeting Notes

Meeting: 21 June 2006

Composition of the committee was approved by 13 affirmative votes. (1 denial, 1 abstention). Gromala (chair), Bizzocchi, Bowes (ex officio), Budd, Calvert, Hatala, Jamieson (staff), Rajah, Shaw, Wakkary, Woodbury

---

Committee responsibilities as outlined by the Chair were discussed (see below).

Bowes discussed each item, the status of TechOne, and emphasized taking progressive measures to be ready for the university's anticipated reorganization. This included cross-listing courses, developing and/or teaching (popular/high enrollment classes) on the mountain or harbor centre, and forging closer relationships to other university entities such as Communications.

Jim Budd outlined the process for garnering approval (and avoiding potential obstacles) at various levels at SFU in some detail. Thanks JIm! Hatala and Gromala will present the revisions throughout the SFU process. Woodbury offered to lend his experience with these committees and offered to participate in them.

---

Terms of engagement: We will need to meet every two weeks, with the understanding that there will be some absences because of summer vacations and conferences. Nonetheless, we will need to meet this frequently in order to make our October 1 deadline. This will be a work-heavy committee for this and other reasons. Because we need to present a united front for passage of our refined curriculum, and because we need to build on the collegiality we already have in this difficult process, I also ask that members articulate their concerns as they arise, and not wait until the last minute.

---

Constraints & Opportunities: Bowes noted our roughly 40% dip in enrollment, the result of the "perfect storm."

In addition, these were discussed:

• articulation (students from 2 year community colleges) esp. Kwantlen, Capilano, Douglas

• cross-listing courses

• increasing our visibility and presence on campus

• building opportunities with other units at SFU

Meeting: June 2 9

TAD/UCRACK June 29

Meeting : July 5

Meeting notes from June 21st were approved.

Gromala brought a calendar *proposal* which outlined what needs to be achieved by which date. (see calendar on this wiki)

Gromala will meet with Budd and Hatala to clarify what documents need to be forwarded to SFU for approval, and will discuss the SFU process.

Reviewed requirements, opportunities and constraints.

Gromala briefly reviewed requirements, opportunities and constraints.

Requirements: Revise existing undergraduate curriculum to reduce teaching load (we cannot currently cover all classes), and better enable faculty to do research and participate in the graduate program. Course count needs to be between 32-36.

Embeddedness: What are the classes that are "bridges" to other streams? What are potentially large enrollment courses that would be esp. attractive to others at SFU? Which units at SFU would we like to play well with?

Efficiencies: Which classes overlap? Which can be taught with or by other streams? What are constituents/components that can be and should be reinforced among classes?

Visibility: What are ideas for attractive, high enrollment classes at SFU?

Articulation: How can we enable articulation?

Permeability: Which courses are attractive to whom within and outside of SIAT? How do we enable others to take these?

Stream definitions

Stream representatives: Gromala for Kozel (PMA), Wakkary (ID), Shaw (TAD), Gromala (NME) offered initial definitions of each stream.

It is crucial that we understand what each other does so we may find areas of shared interest.

It is also very important that we are able to articulate what we do so that others -- from administrators to students and parents -- know what we do in common language. Thisi s in order to ensure our permenent place at SFU, regardless of reorganizations.

"The Machine" Woodbury created and discussed a working version of the design machine he proposed in the retreat. This provided us with an opportunity to see how changing parameters affect the overall curriculum plan. For example, it enabled us to see where we had to do if we had 2, 3, or 4 streams. Note that this is a way to generate ideas and alternatives, and to see the relationships among courses and proposed changes in a holistic way. It is NOT set in stone.

Next meeting:

The number of streams and their interrelationships will be discussed.

Move forward with version Plan 2.0

• revised machine configuration

• core = 2nd year core (rough descriptions, paragraph form) classes &

• first approximation for individual concentrations at upper division, (bulleted list)

• consider which classes are bridges or opportunities for stream convergence or efficiencies

• a list of classes critically necessary for the stream: (5-6), annotated with what needs to be covered

Courses which are best suited for collaboration outside of SIAT should be noted.

How can we address the material of those classes which were "refined out"? example: photography, viewed as a critical component, can and should be part of classes specified in NME, ID, and TAD

Break down classes into components where possible (max programming, conceptualizing, prototyping)

BRIEFLY revisit "the vision for the future"

Please use jargon-free language.

Meeting 7 July 2006

Attached is an annotated copy of the curriculum meta-model.

This model spreadsheet was emailed out 19 July 2006 12:54PM by Diane Gromala

Meeting 19 July 2006

Year One

Year Two

Year Three

Year Four

Meeting 26 July 2006

Auxiliary UCRACK: Visually-oriented classes

Meeting 2 August 2006

Meeting 2 August 2006

Meeting 16 August 2006

Meeting 16 August 2006

Meeting 30 August 2006

Meeting 16 August 2006

Meeting 13 September 2006

Meeting 13 September 2006

Meeting 25 September 2006

Meeting 25 September 2006