Council on General Education

Minutes

3:30 p.m., April 6, 2006

 

Present: Amy Carr, Alice Robertson, Paige Goodwin, Polly Radsoh, William Hoon, Margo Byerly, Candace McLaughlin (ex-officio), Judi Dallinger (ex-officio), Marty Maskarinec, John Miller, Tessa Pfafman, Jongnam Choi, Karin Spader

 

I.                    Meeting was called to order by Amy Carr. Minutes from the 3/23/06 meeting were approved.

 

II.                 Announcements

a.       Update on Foreign Language/Global issues was given by John Miller. John reported the survey was done and analysis is underway.

1.      Results indicate:

·        There was overwhelming support for both foreign language requirement and global issues requirement.

·        Still exploring a one-year requirement versus a basic understanding requirement for foreign language.

·        Global issues are preferred as gen. ed requirement. John suggests Global issues fits into most department so should be dealt with by CGE but Foreign Language goes to Foreign language Council

·        Survey had about 40% response rate.

2.      Question: Jongnam asked how well the foreign language faculty were represented in the survey. John felt results were representative of department sizes for all departments.

 

b.      Update on election date set for April 20, 3:30 p.m. Anyone unable to attend but willing to serve should submit a nomination to L-Baker-Sperry@wiu.edu. We also clarified that there will be two separate votes held for GERC and CGE in an effort to distinguish them further as two entities.

 

c.       Distinguishing GERC and CGE: Jongnam asked about the final destination of GERC. Amy’s suggested GERC brings recommendations to faculty senate. We will not do implementation. Assessment will be part of the recommendation. So even if we don’t alter the structure of Gen Ed we will provide recommendations for assessment. May or may not actually provide assessment tool. Will talk more about assessment later. 

 

III.               Old Business

a.       Freeze and Extension was approved for and explained by Amy Carr. GERC membership has been frozen. CGE membership has not. Four members will come off CGE and new members will replace them. So newly appointed members should come to vote in the GERC elections April 20th. But because new members would not be involved in elections processes until their appointments begin in the Fall, the CGE elections may be postponed until May 4th meeting. Well decided to play this by ear.

 

b.      General Education Review of what’s been done and what is left to do. Amy suggested forming smaller groups of three to tackle work more effectively. Also need to get clear on tasks and it was suggested we spend 20 minutes of our meetings breaking into groups to facilitate the subcommittee work.

 

c.       Discussed what’s been accomplished towards the general education review thus far. Conclusion of this was unclear.

 

IV.              New Business

a.       W Requirement: John advised that the W requirement is becoming a big problem because students are consistently requesting waivers due to scheduling problems. This is particularly prevalent in Education. CAGAS does not approve the waivers but it suggests a problem. Alice questioned if it reflects too many major requirements pushing gen ed out? Consistency in offers might be a solution. Candace added this has been a long-term problem.

 

b.      Judy suggested Gen Ed needs a list of assessment goals. 28 is too many objectives. Thus Alice proposed a subcommittee to oversee W requirement. John felt we need to make changes in Gen Ed first then figure out assessment. In terms of dividing tasks, focus first on structure of Gen Ed then focus on assessment. Amy suggested they are not separate issues.

 

1.      We have not reviewed recommendations of assessment yet. There needs to be a summary of it. How well we are meeting goals is addressed in the assessment so we can address the goals when we review assessment. Amy Carr proposed we clarify those goals.

2.      Amy also suggested we put in writing a clear sense of direction that we’ve derived from our survey results, research including literature reviewed, and conversations.  This should invite specific points of discussion but is not a proposal. Amy questioned if the primary foundation for structuring gen ed should be based on literature or faculty surveys?

·        We decided to bracket the structural questions apart from assessment. Paige suggests a small group is formed to review and summarize the literature

·        John suggest April 20th meeting focus on elections, then individuals come back and focus on issues from literature to improve efficiency. To do this we need to divide the literature topically where each individual is responsible for some component such as alternative formats and number of required hours.

·        Marty suggested we base improvement and new issue decisions on the literature. Faculty perception of category approach is critical to resolving structural issues of gen. Ed but Amy suggested it should be considered a piece of the information.

·        It was proposed we figure out how to integrate foreign language and global issues. John felt these should be handled by separate committees.

 

c.       Candace suggested we create a web site for people to track the progress of GERC.

 

Motion to adjourn was made at 4:30.