Minutes GES 2-12-2009
Thursday, February 12, 2009
10:30 AM
Attending: Brenda Lundy, Bill McKinney, Mark Masters, Duston
Moore, Carlos Pomalaza-Raez, Ali Rassuli,
Doug Townsend
Unable to attend: Melanie Bookout, Margit Codispoti
Talk about test of preliminary assessment rubric with the five
artifacts.
Made several modifications to the rubric. Now at
v2.
We discussed in detail the issue about whether it mattered how
much the project was worth (syllabus), how the instructors project directions
affect the student project.
We concluded that we only need to examine the artifacts to look at
the outcomes. If we are evaluating
courses, then the other information about the course becomes relevant. Since we are looking at programmatic aspects,
we are only concerned with what has been completed by the student.
We discussed what might be meant by quantitative reasoning.
There was very good consensus among the committee members for the
scoring. The discussions were valuable
because they often swayed scores one way or another. Still, there was consensus.
We agreed to review five more artifacts, sending our preliminary
scoring to Chris Tokpah for tabulating.
We will meet on March 5 in CM160.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GES
Thursday, January 22, 2009
10:30 AM
Attending: Melanie Bookout, Margit Codispoti, Brenda Lundy, Mark Masters, Duston
Moore, Carlos Pomalaza-Raez, Ali Rassuli,
Doug Townsend
Unable to attend: Bill
McKinney
Reviewed the commentary on proposals
Approved response letters to proposals
Discussed faculty comments on the proposed rubrics
Talked about the web page
FAQ (already in proposed template)
Sample successful proposal
Discussed the need to revise the course proposal form
Assessment
planning and discussions were left until next meeting.
GES 12-2-08
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
1:30 PM
Attending: Margit Codispoti, Brenda
Lundy, Mark Masters, Duston Moore, Jonathan Tankel,
Ali Rassuli, Doug Townsend
Unable to attend: Bill
McKinney, Carlos Pomalaza-Raez
Talk about Anne Argast's question on
multiple sections and multiple syllabi.
It was proposed that the department chair must agree that all courses
adhere to the philosophy of general education.
If chairs are unwilling, then the course can be removed from the general
education program. In particular, all
syllabi must contain the general education goals. Furthermore, the syllabus included in the
general education course proposal should be used as a model for the other
syllabi. Other syllabi should be derived
from the proposed one.
We may either email to chairs or just the chairs of big
departments with large general education offerings. .
We discussed that the general education Webpage should contain
approved course proposals. We envision
something like a series of links for each area, describing that area. Then from that link, a listing of all
approved courses in that area with a link to each course's proposal.
Considering two course proposals for Area I: NUR 337, BUS F260
NURS 337 : too high level course - since
it is a 300 level course, does not seem to be broadly enough based. It seems to be an "end-run" around
the general education program. This
course would most likely be taken only by nursing students. This is not in the spirit of general
education. Furthermore, it is unclear
how this course would help students other than nursing students in later
courses. Not approved.
BUS F260 : The course does not have
theoretical basis. It appears to be more
training rather than learning and understanding of the material. How would this course help students in terms
of life-long learning? How would it help
them in later courses that have the requirement of quantitative analysis? Not approved.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GES 11-25-08
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
1:30 PM
Attending: Margit Codispoti, Brenda
Lundy, Mark Masters, Duston Moore, Jonathan Tankel,
Ali Rassuli, Doug Townsend
Unable to attend: Bill
McKinney, Carlos Pomalaza-Raez
Discussed the course approval rubrics. One correction to all
Areas: "Provides adequate opportunity for developing lifelong learning
skills"
We considered the following courses: Bio 127, Rel
231, ILCS350, and ILCS 330.
Bio 127 was not approved as a general education Area II course. It will be returned with a copy of the
rubrics with the need for substantive changes to the proposal.
Specifically: there are assertions made in the proposal, but there
is no correlation in how these goals will be accomplished.
The proposal is not supported by course outline.
Scientific aspect of the course, a critical component of Area II
is weak compared to content of the course.
How would the authors measure outcomes they list?
No General education outcomes on syllabus.
Rel 231 was not approved as a
general education Area IV course. It
will be returned with a request for minor changes to the proposal.
The General Education goals need to be on the syllabi
Maybe expanding on some questions such as "How does Religion
impact my life?"
Explicit description of lifelong learning
ILCS350 was not approved as a general education Area VI
course. It will be returned with a
request for substantive changes. There
were significant problems with the proposal:
The final project does not provide a significant opportunity for
synthesis. It only requires the use of
one source (a class text) which does not help synthesize information from other
classes. There is no information about
emphasizing the background basic skills.
The proposal makes claims without having anything to back up these
claims.
There does not seem to be more than an examination of a series of
examples.
From the syllabus: "Allows students to think
critically"?
Given that this is a course on international communication, there
are no references to the literature about international communication
ILCS 330 was not approved as a general education Area VI
course. It will be returned with a
request for significant changes.
The syllabus must contain the general education learning outcomes
Lifelong learning skills must be addressed.
Appropriate for majors/non majors
Proposal and syllabus need to explicitly talk about outcomes
The proposal needs to articulate how the course will satisfy the
outcomes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GES 11-25-08
Attending: Margit Codispoti, Brenda
Lundy, Mark Masters, Duston Moore, Jonathan Tankel,
Ali Rassuli, Doug Townsend
Unable to attend: Bill
McKinney, Carlos Pomalaza-Raez
Discussed the course approval rubrics. One correction to all
Areas: "Provides adequate opportunity for developing life long learning
skills"
We considered the following courses: Bio 127, Rel
231, ILCS350, and ILCS 330.
Bio 127 was not approved as a general education Area II
course. It will be returned with a copy
of the rubrics with the need for substantive changes to the proposal.
Specifically: there are assertions made in the proposal, but there
is no correlation in how these goals will be accomplished.
The proposal is not supported by course outline.
Scientific aspect of the course, a critical component of Area II
is weak compared to content of the course.
How would the authors measure outcomes they list?
No General education outcomes on syllabus.
Rel 231 was not approved as a
general education Area IV course. It
will be returned with a request for minor changes to the proposal.
The General Education goals need to be on the syllabi22
Maybe expanding on some questions such as "How does Religion
impact my life?"
Explicit description of lifelong learning
ILCS350 was not approved as a general education Area VI
course. It will be returned with a
request for substantive changes. There
were significant problems with the proposal:
The final project does not provide a significant opportunity for
synthesis,. It
only requires the use of one source (a class text) which does not help
synthesize information from other classes.
There is no information about emphasizing the background basic skills.
The proposal makes claims without having anything to back up these
claims.
There does not seem to be more than an examination of a series of
examples.
From the syllabus: "Allows students to think
critically"?
Given that this is a course on international communication, there
are no references to the literature about international communication
ILCS 330 was not approved as a general education Are VI
course. It will be returned with a
request for significant changes.
The syllabus must contain the general education learning outcomes
Lifelong learning skills must be addressed.
Appropriate for majors/non majors
Proposal and syllabus need to explicitly talk about outcomes
The proposal needs to articulate how the course will satisfy the
outcomes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GES 11-11-08
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
1:30 PM
Attending: Margit Codispoti, Brenda
Lundy, Mark Masters, Duston Moore, Jonathan Tankel, Carlos Pomalaza-Raez,
Doug Townsend
Unable to attend: Ali Rassuli
The committee agreed that we need to have a “pause” in consideration
of proposals until Oct. 15 2009. This is
a one semester delay.
We will send out a memorandum describing the “pause” and the reasons
for it. It will include the rubric and
ask for public comment.
Discussed the need of a Web page dedicated to the general
education program. This page should
include the official list of courses: A subcommittee consisting of Jonathan Tankel & Doug Townsend will work on this (for the
remaining portion of this semester).
We discussed modifying the proposal form to include the rubric on
the proposal form similar to what is done for the Professional Development
Subcommittee. This will require a
separate proposal form for each area.
We discussed the rubric and made some modifications such as
changing “may” for writing to “should” writing in all Areas.
We discussed modifying the Senate document to require at least one
Laboratory experience.
Agenda:
Complete course proposal rubric
Review courses
Complete rubric for area VI assessment
Assess area VI
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GES 11-4-08
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
1:30 PM
Attending: Margit Codispoti, Doug
Townsend, Mark Masters, Duston Moore, Jonathan Tankel, Carlos Pomalaza-Raez, Ali
Rassuli
Unable to attend: Brenda
Lundy,
We discussed the GE proposal rubric.
We also discussed the question of a one semester moratorium on
course proposals
A possible statement to faculty would be: "There will be a delay
while we assess and have a more realistic course approval process to make
certain that accepted courses fit within the framework of the general education
program"
We further edited the proposal rubric. We did not make any course decisions.
Planning:
Complete course proposal rubric
Review courses
Complete rubric for area VI assessment
Assess area VI
Obviously, we
need to meet more frequently: Next meeting on Nov. 11 at 1:30PM
GES 10-21-08
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
1:30 PM
Attending: Margit Codispoti, Brenda
Lundy, Doug Townsend, Mark Masters, Duston Moore,
Jonathan Tankel, Ali Rassuli,
Unable to attend: Carlos Pomalaza-Raez
During this meeting we were testing our version 2 of the rubrics
for deciding on whether a course should be accepted into the general education
program. We used an area VI course
proposal that had been rejected last year.
We again rejected the proposal using the rubric, found some changes such
as adding synthesis to the area VI section.
We considered the ARET 123 proposal for Area V. This too was rejected based principally on
the lack of explicit critique of the artistic work and there is no clear orientation towards
developing an aesthetic or artistic expression.
The course seemed focused on learning to use the tool and not on the
creative process. The course proposal
seems to confuse competency of using a tool with competency in design. We will request that the course proposal be
revised and resubmitted.
We need to revise the proposal submission form to require that the
proposals be well written, thought through, and reflective. The present proposal form does not seem to
require that the proposer really think through what they are submitting.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GES 10-7-08
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
1:30 PM
Attending: Margit Codispoti, Brenda
Lundy, Bill McKinney, Mark Masters, Duston Moore,
Jonathan Tankel, Ali Rassuli
Unable to attend: Carlos Pomalaza-Raez
We discussed the course proposal rubrics and worked out a draft
rubric.
Other discussions: There was a suggestion that we should request
that the proposals indicate how the course going to be assessed.
Another suggestion: A signature line indicating agreement by the
department chair that through submission of the proposal you are agreeing to
participate in assessment of General education.
A third suggestion was to ask that the information on the proposal be included on the syllabus.
Meeting adjourned.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GES Minutes
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
1:30 PM
Attending: Bill McKinney, Mark Masters, Duston Moore, Carlos Pomalaza-Raez , Jonathan Tankel, Ali Rassuli
Unable to attend: Margit Codispoti, Brenda Lundy
The meeting discussion was initiated with the rubrics. Initially, there was a desire to make a quick rubric. This discussion quickly expanded into what makes a general education (GE) course different from any other course. One idea was that GE should just be subsumed by the Baccalaureate Framework. However further discussion brought up the idea that GE is one part within a framework umbrella (the Baccalaureate Framework). One of the lacks of general education is community. GE is not simply a course distribution.
We also discussed the history of GE assessment.
Our goal for next time is to develop the rubrics for choosing courses. While these might not serve the purpose of defining GE, they will be better than nothing and can be refined.
Next meeting Oct. 7, 2008 1:30PM
General Education Subcommittee 9-9-08
1:30PM
Attending: Margit Codispoti, Brenda Lundy, Bill McKinney, Mark Masters, Duston Moore, Jonathan Tankel, Ali Rassuli
Unable to attend: Carlos Pomalaza-Raez
Elected Mark Masters Chair of committee
Set review dates for General Education course proposals: October 15, February 15
Discussed possible rename of general education as liberal education
Discussed general education as a program and its need to have a program review
Discussed the past history of GES.
Assessment progress and the need to develop rubrics.
Need to develop rubrics to help evaluate course proposals.