Minutes of the General education Review Committee (GERC)

                3:30 p.m. Thursday, Nov. 30, 2006

                                    Morgan 423

 

 

PRESENT: Dale Adkins, Lori-Baker Sperry, Steve Bennett, Amy Carr, Jongnam Choi, Judi Dallinger, Paige Goodwin, Buzz Hoon, David Lane, Martin Maskarinec, Susan Meiers, John Miller, Kathleen O’Donnell-Brown, Polly Radosh, Alice Robertson, James Schmidt (ex-officio), Aimee Shouse, William Thompson, Dean Zoerink

 

ABSENT: Martha Barclay, Margo Byerly, Annette Glotfelty, Candace McLaughlin (ex-officio), Tessa Pfafman, Phyllis Rippey, Margaret Sinex,

 

GUESTS: None

 

  1. Approval of minutes for Nov. 9, 2006 meeting.

 

  1. Announcements:

 

    1. Amy Carr announced CGE will meet one week hence to discuss the transfer issue.
    2. Aimee Shouse distributed a sign-up sheet for members who would be willing to take minutes for our Spring 2007 meetings

 

  1. Discussion began concerning changes to the Philosophy and Goals of General Education.  Previously distributed were the existing document and a set of suggested changes developed by Aimee Shouse.  Discussion ensued concerning whether the goals should be “broad”, or “all-encompassing” or “universal”.  After some discussion, “broad” was agreed upon.  Several grammatical issues were also agreed upon, as was deleting the last sentence concerning “the more specific learning objectives grouped by category”.

    A motion to approve these changes was moved by Dean Zoerink and seconded by Susan Meiers.  The motion passed unanimously. 

  2. Aimee Shouse distributed Information on Class size (developed by Candace McLaughlin).  This was for information purposes, to be used in the later discussion  on writing in General Education.

  3. Discussion began concerning changes to the Guidelines and General Criteria for Inclusion in General Education.  Previously distributed were the current document and suggested changes proposed by Aimee Shouse.  From early discussions, the third suggestion, concerning the revision to section B.1,  was eliminated from consideration.  Discussion then focused on Section A.1 of the original document.  Some members were concerned if “by department” was the correct way to go.  It was agreed upon that this issue has major implications and would be left for discussion at another time.  Discussion then returned to the suggested revisions; suggestion 4.a was amended to “courses with an enrollment of 50 or fewer”, and section 4.b was amended to “course with an enrollment of over 50”.  Also, suggestion 4.a was amended to all the feedback from the instructor to be “written or oral”.  Further discussion cleaned up the language to make it clear that the requirement is that the students receive feedback (either written or oral) and have an opportunity for revision.   

    A motion to accept changes 1, 2, 4, and 5 was moved by Polly Radosh and seconded by Alice Robertson.  The motion passed with a vote of 13 in favor, one opposed. 

  4. Discussion began on Suggested Revisions to the Faculty Senate Bylaws, Article VI, Section 1.  These suggested revisions as well as the current Bylaws were previously distributed.  A grammatical change was made to 2.m to indicate that the writing requirement will be communicated “at the beginning of the academic year”.  The revision to 2.n passed without comment.  A third suggested revision was added: to omit 2.e, the provision concerning skills assessment.

    A motion to accept these revisions was made by Polly Radosh and seconded by David Lane.  The motion passed unanimously. 

 

           

The meeting was adjourned at 4:45 p.m.

 

Respectively submitted,

 

Martin Maskarinec