COUNCIL ON GENERAL EDUCATION/GENERAL EDUCATION REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES – NOVEMBER 10, 2005

 

Attending:

Lori Baker-Sperry (presiding); Paige Goodwin; William Hoon; Aimee Shouse; Steve Bennett; Alice Robertson; Kathleen O’Donnell-Brown; Candace McLaughlin (ex-officio); Jim Schmidt (ex-officio); Amy Carr; Dave Lane; Dean Zoerink; Martin Maskarinec; John Miller; Dale Adkins; Susan Meiers; Judi Dallinger (ex-officio); Tessa Pfafman; Polly Radosh.

 

1) The meeting was called to order by Chair Baker-Sperry. The minutes of October 27th were approved.

 

2) Announcements:

--The Gen Ed editorial by student Erin McNamee was read and discussed. GERC may craft a response.

--A replacement is needed for Margo Byerly’s sabbatical on the FL/G Committee. No volunteer as yet.

--Questions for the Provost were discussed.

           

3) Old Business:

            a. Update on FL/GI Commitee – David Lane

                        He asked for feedback on the draft of goals and objectives.

            b. Reports from subcommittees:

                        i. Gen Ed Survey

                                    --Discussion was held about adding a gen ed goals question.

                                    -- Anyone thinking of a great questions about categorical vs.

                                    universal goals should circulate it via e-mail.

                                    --Review the survey again – it will be finalized at the next meeting.

                        ii. W requirement survey

                                    --New revision was distributed. Candace McLaughlin will get it to

                                    Tere North before the next meeting for logistical comments.

                                    --A question simply asking if the W requirement should be

                                    retained will be added.

                                    --Revision of questions 8 and 13 was discussed.

                                    --Surveys will be sent to Tere North to be online before semester’s

                                    end.

                        iii. Gen Ed Comparison

                                    --Amy Carr presented a handout on the Gen Ed Comparison

                                    Survey.

                                    --Each committee member has added their written comments.

                                    --Discussion will continue during the Dec. 1st meeting.

 

4) New Business:

            Provost’s Visit –

            Provost Rallo made three observations about Gen Ed –

            --create expectations for learning through general education.

            --create a University standard for gen ed (standards for each major are

 now variable).

--create a Western “signature” – distinguish our Gen ed program in some way.

 

            Many other ideas/aspects were discussed. Among them were –

            -- 17 credits are now “available” in many majors – should these be

“taken back” by general education?

            -- Think about common elements. Do we wish to have a topic each year?

            Something around which to incorporate our questions/goals?

            -- Gen ed teaches skills that anticipate future needs.

            -- GERC has the freedom to suggest a major overhaul. It needs to ask

            basic questions about the goals of gen ed and search for the answer to fulfill

            these goals.

            -- Should we examine content more closely? Should gen eds be a “stream” and

            not a choice from different, disconnected parts of the curriculum?

            --We should capitalize on our strengths, such as our genuine interest in

            teaching and student learning.

            --We should “create expectations for learning” – teach our students to value

            their gen ed courses.

            --As the University is moving toward a template for majors and minors, it would

            be a good time to incorporate general education changes.

            --The President and Provost both believe that general education is very valuable.

            --Requirements for the majors can be incorporated, not necessarily separated from

            the general education courses.

            -- The President and Provost would not necessarily scrap the whole general

            education program – retain what is valuable or working.

            --Both are not proponents of heavy assessment structures.

            --The University is willing to support financially and spiritually changes in

            gen ed if the changes are valuable for the students.

            --Assessment of gen ed should show how we are moving to accomplish the goals

            in our vision statement.

            --An important question is – how best can we transform/educate our students?

 

Motion for adjournment – Dave Lane. Seconded by Susan Meiers.

 

Next meeting is Dec. 1st at 3:30 in the NEW SALEM ROOM.