April 21
March 17
March 3
February 25
February 18
February 11
February 4
January 28
January 14
December 10
November 19
October 22
October 15
October 1
September 24
September 17
September 10
September 3
To: General Education Subcommittee
From: Jeanette Clausen
Re: Minutes of April 21, 2000 meeting
Present: Anne Argast, Jeanette Clausen, Carol Lawton, Sue Skekloff, Wayne Unsell, Linda Wright-Bower
1. Wayne announced that Peter had resigned from the committee.
2. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the issue of computer literacy in the General Education Program, as per discussion in the Senate on April 17. Jeanette distributed a resolution drafted by Jim Silver concerning the addition of a computer literacy requirement to the GenEd program, in Area I. Wayne distributed a draft that he had prepared, also proposing that a computer literacy requirement be added to Area I, but that it be defined and approved at the school level (rather than by the GES); his resolution also addressed the GenEd requirement for associate degrees. After discussion, committee members concluded that the best approach might be for Wayne to talk with Jim Silver to see if they could reach a consensus on:
4. The meeting adjourned at about 9:05 a.m.
To: General Education Subcommittee
From: Jeanette Clausen
Re: Minutes of March 17, 2000 meeting
Present: Anne Argast, Jeanette Clausen, Carol Lawton, Mark Masters, Sue Skekloff, Wayne Unsell, Linda Wright-Bower
1. The minutes of the previous meeting were approved.
2. Linda proposed that we shuck it down to the cob.
3. The discussion of double-counting was reopened. Arguments in favor of allowing a GenEd-approved course in the major discipline to count both toward the major and toward the general education requirement were reviewed. Jeanette reminded those present of the problem with a few departments where courses that were approved for general education credit are not really open to students outside the major (general students are discouraged from taking them). Mark pinpointed the problem: what we need to avoid are Aartificial GenEd courses.@ After further discussion, there was a motion to retain the following provision in the current program:
4. Referring to the summary comparing the current GenEd program with our proposal, we approved unanimously the statement that Area I will be defined as the Foundation Skills Core.
5. The proposal to require 12 credits of General Education for Associate Degrees passed unanimously.
6. A motion to forward the document to EPC passed unanimously.
7. An okay time was had by all.
8. The meeting adjourned.
To: General Education Subcommittee
From: Jeanette Clausen
Re: Minutes of March 3, 2000 meeting
Present: Anne Argast, Jeanette Clausen, Peter Iadicola, Carol Lawton, Mark Masters, Sue Skekloff, Linda Wright-Bower
1. The minutes of the previous meeting were approved.
2. We agreed to recommend that our proposal, when ready, would be forwarded to EPC with the recommendation that it be implemented (after approval by the Senate) in fall 2001. Since the basic categories are not that different from the current program, implementation should not present a problem.
3. Area VI. After some discussion, there was a motion to rename Area VI AInquiry and Analysis.@ The new name was approved by a vote of 6 in favor and one abstention.
4. Draft of our recommendations. We started discussing the draft Jeanette had prepared by pulling the various pieces together and inserting some language from current documents. We agreed on several changes to clarify wording. The issue of whether a course in the student=s major could count toward fulfillment of the GenEd requirement was discussed again. It appeared that a majority of those present supported the earlier decision, i.e., that no course in the major discipline could count toward fulfillment of Areas II-VI. However, no vote was taken.
5. Several committee members had to leave for classes before all details could be decided. Therefore, we will miss the agenda deadline for the April Senate meeting. When our document is ready, it should be emailed to deans, chairs, and faculty, as well as posted on electronic bulletin boards and distributed in paper copy, so that there can be an informed debate when it does reach the Senate.
6. The meeting adjourned.
To: General Education Subcommittee
From: Jeanette Clausen
Re: Minutes of February 25, 2000 meeting
Present: Anne Argast, Jeanette Clausen, Carol Lawton, Mark Masters, Sue Skekloff, Wayne Unsell, Linda Wright-Bower
1. The minutes of the February 18 meeting were approved as distributed.
2. PSY 240 was approved for GenEd area III by a vote of 6 yes, 1 no. The majority opinion was that, given the information received from the course instructor concerning the article discussion and analysis requirement, there was no need to recommend any change.
3. Area VI. The requirement as proposed would be a three-credit course that provides an opportunity for the student to delve more in depth into an area outside their major. There was discussion of whether programs that require their students to complete a capstone course or sequence would be exempt from Area VI, since the capstone courses fulfill the criteria for this area, except for being in the major. It was also noted that the requirement as currently written is not really advanced (however, no better label was proposed). Ultimately, the description was approved unanimously with wording changes as proposed by Anne (Amajor discipline@ instead of Amajor,@ and Arequirement@ instead of Aprerequisite@).
4. It was agreed that Jeanette would prepare a composite of what we have agreed on so far, so that we can hopefully meet the agenda deadline for EPC. Linda will write the Awhereases.@
5. The meeting adjourned at a time unrecorded by the scribe.
From: Jeanette Clausen
Re: Minutes of February 18, 2000 meeting
Present: Anne Argast, Jeanette Clausen, Peter Iadicola, Mark Masters, Sue Skekloff, Wayne Unsell
1. The minutes of the February 11 meeting were approved as distributed.
2. Four course proposals had been received. After discussion, the following actions were taken:
Area VI Area III
SOC S314 approve PSY 350 approve
SOC S360 approve
PSY 240 defer; request additional information
on the article discussion and analysis requirement
3. Discussion of Area V description, as revised on February 11, 2000:
4. Discussion of Area IV description, as revised on January 28, 2000:
5. Discussion of Area VI draft description as revised on February 9, 2000: discussion focused on whether it is a meaningful requirement, with some members leaning towards allowing capstone courses in the major to substitute for the Area VI requirement, and others arguing in favor of a project-oriented requirement outside the major. Several members expressed a need to gather more information and opinion before voting. Jeanette will distribute the results of last semester=s survey of faculty teaching Area VI courses.
6. AOpting out@ of part of the GenEd requirement. There was no consensus on this issue either, although there is some agreement that students in programs requiring rigorous science courses outside the major should not be required to take GenEd science. Jeanette offered to draft a statement on this issue, for discussion at the next meeting.
7. Jeanette distributed enrollment information for fall 1999 and spring 2000.
8. The meeting adjourned at about 9:55am.
From: Wayne Unsell
Re: Minutes of February 11, 2000 meeting
Present: Peter Iadicola, Carol Lawton, Mark Masters, Sue Skekloff, Wayne Unsell, Linda Wright-Bower
From: Jeanette Clausen
Re: Minutes of February 4, 2000 meeting
Present: Anne Argast, Jeanette Clausen, Peter Iadicola, Carol Lawton, Mark Masters, Wayne Unsell, Linda Wright-Bower.
1. The minutes of the January 28 meeting were approved as distributed.
2. There was a brief discussion of whether our revised descriptions would replace the original GenEd definitions (SD 93-14), or the criteria document (SD 94-4), or both. Jeanette offered to draw up a list of all the steps that need to be completed before we can forward a set of recommendations to EPC.
3. Area V. Linda distributed a draft description that she had developed in consultation with several faculty of the school of VPA. Discussion focused on whether to expand Area V to include sports as well as the arts. There was some agreement that this area should encompass Acelebrated forms of human expression.@ Suggestions for expanding the area were to change the name from AArtistic Expression@ to ACreative Expression@ or, possibly, ACreative and Artistic Expression.@ No consensus was reached, and the motion to change to the latter title was withdrawn.
4. The meeting adjourned at about 9:55am.
To: General Education Subcommittee
From: Jeanette Clausen
Re: Minutes of January 28, 2000 meeting
Present: Anne Argast, Jeanette Clausen, Peter Iadicola, Carol Lawton, Mark Masters, Sue Skekloff, Linda Wright-Bower.
1. The minutes of the January 14 meeting were approved.
2. Area III. After some discussion of whether Area III was too Aelastic,@ those present agreed that the name AThe Individual, Culture, and Society@ should be retained. After substituting Aprocesses@ for Asystems@ in bullet 2, this description was judged to be satisfactory.
3. Area IV. It was agreed that the first bulleted item in the draft description should be struck, and the second restated as a learning outcome for students. We also agreed to return to this definition after having resolved Area V.
4. Area V. There was discussion of whether sports (the example cited was gymnastics) would fit the definition of artistic expression, and if not, why not. This issue was not resolved at the end of the meeting. Linda agreed to bring a draft for discussion of this area to the next meeting.
5. Area VI. The time ran out before we could discuss Jeanette=s draft of Area VI. She asked that committee members send her their comments on email before the next meeting.
6. The meeting adjourned at about 9:55am.
To: General Education Subcommittee
From: Jeanette Clausen
Re: Minutes of January 14, 2000 meeting
Present: Anne Argast, Jeanette Clausen, Peter Iadicola, Carol Lawton, Mark Masters, Sue Skekloff, Wayne Unsell.
1. The minutes of the December 10 meeting were approved.
2. Jeanette distributed syllabi for several gened science courses, as promised at the previous meeting. After a brief discussion of some of the issues raised by interdisciplinary or Amixed@ courses, it was agreed that we should move on to discuss area definitions.
3. Discussion of area definitions. Some wording changes were agreed upon for the revised Area II definition: delete the words Aof physical and natural phenomena and systems@ from the first bulleted item, and delete the question marks.
There was a lengthy discussion of whether to include the word Adiversity@ in the first statement of the revised Area III definition, whether to replace it with another word, or whether to move it to a different section of the definition. Eventually a motion to leave the word where it is was voted on. The vote was 3 in favor of leaving it as is, and 4 abstentions. Thus, no change was made.
There was also discussion of how to state the recommendations concerning the incorporation of foundation skills into courses in Areas II, III, and IV. No changes were made as a result of those discussions.
4. Wayne announced that we would not meet on January 21, since several members of the committee will be at the chair/dean workshop that day. In preparation for our next meeting, Carol will update the definitions for Areas II, III, and IV as per our discussion; Linda Wright-Bower will draft a definition for Area V that is somewhat parallel (to the extent possible) to the others, and Jeanette will do the same for Area VI.
5. The meeting adjourned at about 9:55am.
From: Jeanette Clausen
Re: Minutes of December 10, 1999 meeting
Present: Anne Argast, Jeanette Clausen, Peter Iadicola, Carol Lawton, Mark Masters, Wayne Unsell, Linda Wright-Bower.
1. We determined that our only possible meeting time for spring semester is 9:00 - 9:55am on Fridays.
2. The minutes of the previous meeting were approved.
3. Discussion focused on the description and criteria for Area II, especially on how (or whether) to require students to use quantitative reasoning skills in Area II courses, and whether our description was somehow privileging methods rather than content.
Ultimately, we decided we needed to look at the goals and learning objectives of certain Area II courses that serve only GenEd students, not science majors. Jeanette promised to bring copies of the following syllabi to the next meeting:
ANTH B200 Bioanthropology
BIOL 250 Women and Biology
PHYS 105 Sound and Music
PHYS 120 Physics of Sports
From: Jeanette Clausen
Re: Minutes of November 19, 1999 meeting
Present: Scott Argast, Jeanette Clausen, Carol Lawton, Mark Masters, Wayne Unsell.
1. There was a brief discussion of the Area II student assessment surveys, which had been distributed to all Area II classes earlier in the week.
2. The minutes of the November 12 meeting were approved as distributed.
3. Jeanette distributed information (previously promised) from Julie Nothnagel (Testing Coordinator in ACCS) about the numbers of students placing into remedial classes during the past three years.
4. Committee members began to discuss the Area definitions. There was disagreement as to whether to use the definitions (proposed the preceding week) based in the traditional Arts and Sciences (Physical and Natural Sciences; Social and Behavioral Sciences; Humanities). Scott spoke in favor of using simple language that is readily understood. Jeanette objected on the basis that the use of these terms would seem to exclude courses from outside the traditional Arts and Sciences from GenEd areas II-IV. She proposed narrowing the definition of Area III by naming it AThe Individual and Society@ (omitting ACulture@). There was discussion of the pros and cons of taking research methodology into account in determining area definitions. There was also discussion of when the appropriate time would be to involve participating departments in a discussion of how to define the areas. No consensus was reached. Jeanette suggested that the committee return to the current definitions in order to focus our discussion.
5. The meeting adjourned at about 9:55a.m.
To: General Education Subcommittee
From: Jeanette Clausen
Re: Minutes of October 22, 1999 meeting
Present: Scott Argast, Jeanette Clausen, Peter Iadicloa, Mark Masters, Wayne Unsell, Linda Wright-Bower.
1. Wayne reported that Rich Manalis has resigned from the committee. Those present agreed upon a procedure for finding a replacement.
2. Minutes of the October 15 meeting were approved with one change.
3. There was discussion of the draft EPC minutes, which contain comments on our interim report. Those present agreed that it is useful to provide some background when responding to faculty objections to aspects of the General Education program. It was suggested that, after our proposal to the Senate is ready, we organize a panel to present our rationale for each recommendation.
4. Review of course proposals.
Area III INTL I200 Introduction to International Studies -- passed unanimously
OLS 268 Elements of Law--passed unanimously
SPEA J101 American Criminal Justice System--passed unanimously
Area VI THTR 470 Theatre and Society I -- passed unanimously
THTR 471 Theatre and Society II -- passed unanimously
PSY 371 Death and Dying -- passed unanimously
NUR 455 Alternative and Complementary Therapies -- failed by unanimous vote
5. It was agreed that the committee would not meet on October 29, to give us some time to find a replacement member and work on the assessment report.
6. There was further discussion of Area V. A consensus emerged concerning the value of a GenEd component requiring students to create or perform something. It was also agreed that the requirement to create something should be understood broadly, to include, for example, constructing a building or other structure. The following motion passed unanimously:
Move to retain 3 credits of Artistic Expression as a performance-oriented requirement.
The meeting adjourned at about 11:00am.
From: Jeanette Clausen
Re: Minutes of October 15, 1999 meeting
Present: Scott Argast, Jeanette Clausen, Mark Masters, Wayne Unsell, Linda Wright-Bower.
1. Minutes of the October 1 meeting were approved with one change (Ain limbo@ was changed to Aunresolved@).
2. The draft report to be turned in to EPC on October 18 was revised and corrected. A list of tasks to be completed before the committee can report its recommendations to the Senate was added:
2. Prepare assessment report.
3. Complete discussions of Areas I and V.
4. Review the number of credit hours required in each area.
5. Revise area definitions.
6. Revise selection criteria.
7. Review mechanism for approval of GenEd courses
To: General Education Subcommittee
From: Jeanette Clausen
Re: Minutes of October 1, 1999 meeting
Present: Scott Argast, Jeanette Clausen, Peter Iadicola, Rich Manalis, Mark Masters, Wayne Unsell, Linda Wright-Bower.
1. Minutes of the September 24 meeting were approved (six yes, one abstention).
2. There was a brief discussion of the pros and cons of detailed meeting minutes versus action minutes.
3. After some discussion, a vote was taken on the following motion, put forth by Scott:
General Education should be a subset of the IPFW curriculum selected on the basis of pedagogical and other criteria as may be proposed by the committee.
The motion passed unanimously.
(Minutes to this point by jc, who left before further votes were taken; subsequently by Wayne)
4. Motion (Mark; seconded by Rich): That we keep the current concept of an area approach to satisfy GenEd II-V requirements.
The motion passed by a vote of four yes, two no.
5. Motion (Linda, seconded by Scott): That the GES (a) clarify and/or revise current area II-V definitions and as a part of these definitions (b) list the appropriate A&S departments and non-A&S departments and disciplines in that area.
The motion passed unanimously.
6. Motion (Scott, seconded by Linda): That Area I requirements remain the same as currently defined in the GenEd program.
A tie vote (three yes, three no) left this issue unresolved.
7. Discussion of Area I and Area VI (Advanced Study) will continue at the next meeting.
From: Jeanette Clausen
Re: Minutes of September 24, 1999 meeting
Present: Scott Argast, Jeanette Clausen, Peter Iadicola, Rich Manalis, Mark Masters, Wayne Unsell, Linda Wright-Bower.
1. Minutes of the September 17 meeting were approved.
2. Developmental courses: Jeanette had not yet received precise figures on the number of students who place into developmental courses (ENG W130, MA 109 & 113, ENG R150), but it is probably close to 50%. With respect to GenEd, the concern is that students are taking other college-level courses before they are even eligible to take foundation skills courses--which are supposed to be reinforced in the other areas.
2. PSY 120: Jeanette handed out a revised syllabus for PSY 120, but had unfortunately not been able to locate the old syllabus, so we couldn=t tell exactly how the course has changed as a result of the GenEd program.
3. Academic freedom. Challenged on her statement last week that the current GenEd program allows maximum academic freedom, Linda said a more accurate formulation would be Amaximum flexibility to propose courses.@ Peter reiterated his position that the current GenEd diminishes academic freedom, because the expectation that foundation skills will be reinforced in other GenEd in effect Adictates@ to faculty how to teach the course. Other committee members reiterated their position that the expectation is reasonable: it is stated in general terms, leaving every faculty member or department free to decide how to include foundation skills in courses proposed for GenEd, or whether to propose the course for GenEd at all; any program has the right to impose certain expectations on faculty.
4. Disciplines vs. Interdisciplinary. There was quite an extensive discussion of basing a GenEd program in traditional disciplines versus broad interdisciplinary categories similar to those we have now. Here are some of the points that were raised:
5. Reporting to the Senate. We agreed that the November deadline was unrealistic and decided to issue an interim report and ask for an extension. The meeting adjourned.
To: General Education Subcommittee
From: Jeanette Clausen
Re: Minutes of September 17, 1999 meeting
Present: Scott Argast, Jeanette Clausen, Peter Iadicola, Rich Manalis, Mark Masters, Wayne Unsell, Linda Wright-Bower.
1. Minutes of the September 10 meeting were approved.
2. Jeanette handed out a chart comparing enrollments in GenEd courses this fall with last fall. As always, there is an adequate number of courses in most areas, but Area V is very tight.
3. Wayne asked for semifinal comments on Area I (assuming that consensus on Area I will not be reached until discussion of the other areas is finished). Here are some arguments that were made concerning the PI suggestion of adding another 3-credit requirement (not yet specified) to Area I:
4. Discussion of Areas II-IV. Some highlights (or lowlights, depending on your perspective; again, a consensus did not emerge):
Scott asked if we could find out whether or not there is consensus on:
5. We agreed that at the next meeting we would:
From: Jeanette Clausen
Re: Minutes of September 10, 1999 meeting
Present: Scott Argast, Jeanette Clausen, Peter Iadicola, Rich Manalis, Mark Masters, Wayne Unsell, Linda Wright-Bower.
1. Minutes of the September 3 meeting were approved.
2. Wayne distributed a chart comparing the various GenEd proposals that were discussed last spring: Haw, Iadicola, JC1 and JC2. JC summarized her reasons for preparing the two proposals, all of which had to do with attempting to respond to complaints received about the current program. Peter explained the rationale for his proposal, which would expand Area I, replace the broad topic areas by discipline-based categories, and eliminate advanced study.
There was a rather lengthy discussion of the pros and cons of expanding Area I (Foundation Skills) to include another skill--various committee members expressed preferences for a requirement in scientific reasoning, logic, critical thinking, computer literacy, etc. No consensus was reached. Asked by the scribe for some kind of summary statement, members suggested AWe aired/erred the proposals.@
3. The meeting adjourned when the room was needed for the next meeting.
From: Jeanette Clausen
Re: Minutes of September 3, 1999 meeting
Present: Scott Argast, Jeanette Clausen, Peter Iadicola, Rich Manalis, Wayne Unsell, Linda Wright-Bower. Arrived near end of meeting: Mark Masters.
1. Wayne was elected chair. Jeanette will take minutes.
2. Discussion of the committee=s charge, per last spring=s Senate meeting: to review the Haw proposal (SD 98-26) and report through EPC to the Senate by its November meeting, and to provide evidence of the effectiveness of the current program.
3. Discussion of how to document effectiveness of the current program led to agreement on the following three measures:
5. The subcommittee will meet weekly, 9:00-11:00am on Fridays, with the goal of concluding discussion of the charge and forwarding a report to EPC by the end of September. Wayne will let the committee know the room.
6. The meeting adjourned at a time not noted by the scribe.