* Please bring the documents and worksheet handed out at the 3/17 meeting
* Minutes reorganized around categories for ease of processing McHale recommendations.
Present: Adelson, Vassey, Mockabee, Krissek,
a. ASC Faculty senate cancelling April 5 meeting so that CCI can continue to develop recommendations.
i. Question of how we interpret “body of knowledge”
1. discussion focus should instead be on coherence, flexibility, transparency
2. Committee was reminded that Babcock charge was a body of knowledge based on Liberal Arts – current focus not as centered around the Liberal Arts
ii. Exposure to broad areas of study vs. mastery/proficiency – sometimes it is better to ensure exposure instead of focusing on mastery in GEC
i. 4 major goals should be seen as suggestions but not to the exclusion of other goals
ii. Primary goal should be transparency
iii. Coherence
1. available if students are provided the right assistance (professional advising, faculty advising, etc), although listed as first goal, perhaps coherence should not be
2. Interdisciplinary minors provide opportunity to make experience more coherent
3. One avenue for encouraging coherence is to establish 3 courses that are scheduled at the same time across quarters (i.e. 9:30 Au, Wi & Sp) to allow for easier scheduling
4. If current courses were organized in an advising exercise in ways that encourage coherence (i.e. menus), that might help students understand goals of GEC; noted there is also a chance that students might see these as prescriptive, not choices.
5. Educate students on how to chose courses that will make links within GEC through advising
iv. Flexibility
1. Some sentiment that current GEC is already too flexible
2. Substitutions for GEC requirements carry risk of narrowing experience too much
3. McHale suggestions for flexibility can lead to choosing between breadth & becoming too focused
4. Clusters could help students see linkages between GEC categories, providing a kind of “coherent flexibility”
v. Transparency
1. Transparency is meant to provide a rationale to help students understand more why they are taking courses and decrease resistance to GEC
2. Need to simplify GEC so that we can create transparency & flexibility
vi. Considerable discussion about ways to encourage faculty to think about goals of GEC:
1. Workshops for faculty teaching GECs to help remind them of goals
2. Capstone instructors in general are not currently talking to each other to know what is happening across courses
3. Current oversight does not provide resources/training to help faculty talk to each other and understand GEC, possibly do more to offer these experiences.
vii. No matter what recommendations are implemented the key piece is advising
viii. Questioned if more non-ASC members should be folded into CCI instead of creating new oversight committee
1. possibly refocus CCI from ASC to University
2. question of what would happen to approval process of ASC majors & minors if no longer ASC focus – including individual course requests vetted that are not GEC related
3. Mumy & Andereck will convene a group with key professional college representatives to discuss possible oversight committee format
i. Total hours to degree has nothing to do with central charge of committee & the 4 major goals of GEC reform
ii. There was no evidence provided to demonstrate that there are short comings to current GEC
iii. General feeling that focus of McHale committee was time to degree, not hours
i. BRICKS – Basic Requirements in Competency Knowledge and Skills
ii.
iii. GEM – General Education Model
i. 5 fewer Natural Science credits – no for B.A., possibly for B.S., pending discussion and study of the mission and goals of the B.S. degree in the Arts and Sciences at
ii. 5 fewer Social Science credits – no support
iii. Senior Capstone can overlap in major
1. No enthusiasm for B.A. degree, possibility for B.S. degrees, again pending larger discussion of B.S.
2. Resistance to adding more requirements for those who do not have capstones currently
3. Agreed that capstones in majors are not a GEC experience
iv. 5 fewer hours in exemption from one course
1. Committee did not feel it had enough information to make a decision at this point; more examples are needed of how this would benefit students beyond Analysis of Text and English example
2. more focus on advising would be needed to help students chose a course that would be beneficial if this exemption was made an option
v. Willing to entertain changes in categories
vi. Would like to research differences between B.A. and B.S. requirements across GEC
i. Honors proposal – demonstrates concept of building clusters around pedagogy, not creating a one-size-fits-all version
ii. First process of cluster is simple advising to select courses for coherence
iii. Provide time for a committee to receive proposals and see what faculty create before determining pilot versions
1. Proposed clusters must cross at least 2 GEC categories
2. Limit proposals to existing approved course for pilot, or they must follow guidelines of categories for new courses
3. Any proposal from a professional college must come through CCI for approval just as courses are now vetted, and must be open to all students
4. Proposers must designate how credits count toward GEC categories, all designations must be 5 credit increments
iv. Suggested that if writing is a focus of clusters, priority scheduling for Eng 110 might be provided
v. Question of what happens if a cluster has GEC status but a student drops the 2nd course was raised
i. Committee rejected recommendation, seminars should be kept as currently offered to maintain their desirability to both faculty and students
i. of upper level course – preference is to keep petition process
ii. internships and research experience – no, committee believes they belong in majors and do not have the same goals as GEC
i. No enthusiasm for substitution because minors have different goals than GEC
ii. Interdisciplinary minors may be a possible route – they provide breadth