General Education Committee Minutes 10/24/05

Members Present: J. Eglin, S. Gaskill, K. Hill, M. McClintock, T. Manuel, K. Shanley G. Smith, R.Welsh, C. Winkler

Members Excused/ Absent: S. Kalm, D. Pletscher

Ex-Officio Present:  L. Carlyon, A. Walker-Andrews

Chair Winkler called the meeting to order at 1:10 PM.

Communication:

Chair Winkler clarified the email suggesting the committee adopt a parliamentary practice used in Sweden. The practice allows proposals to go forward with ‘reservations’ appended by dissenting members. These reservations could be considered proposed amendments according to Roberts Rules and would be within the scope of action of the body (Faculty Senate). It was commented that listing advantages and disadvantages would be just as effective.

Professor Eglin asked the committee whether ASCRC should be considering courses for general education designation or should a moratorium be placed on new general education course until a decision is made on the future direction of the program. There was consensus that enacting a moratorium in the middle of a semester would be problematic. Until a new system is in place the current system will continue.

Associate Provost Walker Andrews indicated that the Committee on Assessment is also waiting on the recommendations of the General Education Committee to determine how to proceed with assessment of general education. There needs to be an organizational framework as a starting point.

Professor Hill and Gaskill refined the flow chart representing the bigger picture of general education. Departments should be informed to assure the themes are carried throughout the curriculum. The difficulty is in defining and implementing the components.

Core courses should be developed intentionally for general education not given a perspective after the thought. The unfortunate reality is that departments add general education designations to boost enrollment on courses the faculty want to teach.

The structure should be user friendly and allow for departmental tailoring. Many departments are currently trying to measure students’ development in terms of objectives. Departments need to take ownership for their students’ complete education which includes general education goals. Departments could be involved in shaping the program for their students and thus both faculty and students would get the message of its importance.

It wasn’t clear whether in addition to the second composition course an additional writing course was required in the ‘four perspective model’. Perhaps writing could be added to the criteria for all general education courses to assure students were practicing writing. This would be difficult in large lecture courses and would require a shift in teaching methods.

There is currently no award structure for encouraging faculty to teach general education courses. It will be difficult to develop innovative interdisciplinary courses similar to those in Portland States General Studies program without an infusion of funds.

There is still uncertainty regarding what the ‘Indian Education for All’ requirement will look like, whether the requirement is a 3 credit course or something else. There are eight understandings posted on the Office of Public Instruction’s web site. Some existing courses would fulfill the requirement, but there will have to be a mechanism for review put in place.

Next week the committee will firm up the “tweak model” and start to discuss the information that should be sent on to ASCRC for consideration.

The meeting was adjourned.