Council on General Education

Minutes

February 16, 2006

Present: Dave Lane, Alice Robertson, John Miller, Polly Radosh, Paige Goodwin, Margaret Sinex, Amy Carr, Lori Baker-Sperry, Jim Schmidt (ex-officio), Aimee Shouse, Judi Dallinger (ex-officio), Candace McLaughlin (ex-officio), Dean Zoerink

I. Meeting was called to order by Lori Baker-Sperry. Minutes from the 02/02/06 meeting were approved.

II. Old Business

a. Update on Foreign Languages/Global Issues subcommittee: Dave Lane reported the Foreign Languages subcommittee would be meeting during the coming week.

III. New Business

a. GERC Survey: Lori reported the last day for faculty to complete the GERC survey is February 17, 2006. According to Tere North, the response rate is approximately 40%.

A fairly lengthy discussion regarding preliminary data from the GERC survey followed. D. Lane suggested early data from the GERC survey indicates there is no strong sense of dissatisfaction with the goals/objectives of General Education, with the exception of the Human Well-Being and Multicultural categories. In relation to HWB (Human Well-Being), P. Radosh pointed out that only 25% of faculty felt there was a need for change (only 12% felt the category was unimportant). J. Schmidt perceives some inconsistency in the data. Specifically, while the overwhelming majority of faculty believe the current categories are important to the goals of Higher Education, smaller numbers of faculty believe Gen Ed courses are helping students to develop/acquire important skills (ex: critical thinking). In other words, faculty generally agree with the categories but aren’t convinced Gen Ed is achieving its goals. A. Carr agreed, suggesting the larger issue isn’t the categories or courses, but what specific learning activities are going on in the classroom and how learning is being assessed. D. Lane questioned whether “Intro to Discipline” courses, which make up a significant number of the Gen Ed curriculum, are appropriate vehicles for teaching the skills identified as important within general education. In other words, Intro courses serve dual purposes. J. Miller concurred, pointing out that while some Intro instructors do emphasize the Gen Ed component of their course, others view the course as a gateway to the major. Many felt this issue highlights the importance of providing faculty who teach Gen Ed courses with training opportunities (i.e., Gen Ed Workshops).

A. Carr believes preliminary survey data suggests there is some discontent or concern related to the “W” requirement. D. Lane pointed out there is a difference in the amount of writing between the non-“W” Gen Ed courses and the “W” Gen Ed courses.

A. Shouse and L. Baker-Sperry noted that some responses questioned the number of hours necessary to fulfill Gen Ed, as well as the number of courses identified as Gen Ed. At the same time, the majority of faculty (approximately 71%) felt the number of hours was sufficient.

Review of the GERC survey ended with a brief discussion regarding possible next steps in the process. Committee members were asked to identify more specific questions that can be examined when survey data is complete. A. Carr suggested it might be helpful to present the survey results in a public forum (for example, on the Web Page). L. Baker-Sperry asked the committee if the time was right to invite Dr. Goldfarb to share his views regarding General Education. C. McLaughlin questioned whether it would be beneficial to invite M. Krall (from Career Services) to a committee meeting in order to provide us insight related to employer perceptions of our students. Finally, J. Miller suggested examining data from alumni surveys (sent out by Institutional Research), specifically, graduates’ perceptions regarding what college-acquired skills have been important for them.

b. The “Generally Educated Student”: A brief discussion of the “Generally Educated Student” followed the review of GERC survey data. Particular attention was given to the suggestion of developing interdisciplinary groups. A. Carr stressed the importance of having a public dialogue regarding the value of General Education.

c. “Freezing” GERC: L. Baker-Sperry ended the meeting with a brief discussion of the need to request a “freeze” on committee membership. L. Baker-Sperry was encouraged to talk with the Senate about the difficulty of the current task, as well as the need to recognize what is a realistic timeline for completing the review (based on experiences at other Universities who have gone through this process).

Meeting adjourned at 4:53 PM.

Most respectfully submitted by

Paige Goodwin