General Education Review Committee

August 31, 2006

3:30 p.m.

Cardinal-Oak Room, University Union

Present:

Dale Adkins, Lori Baker-Sperry, Martha Barclay, Steve Bennett, Margo Byerly, Amy Carr, Jongnam Choi, Judi Dallinger, Annette Glotfelty, Paige Goodwin, David Lane, Martin Maskarinec, Candace McLaughlin, Susan Meiers, John Miller, Kathleen O’Donnell-Brown, Polly Radosh, Phyllis Rippey, Alice Robertson, James Schmidt, Aimee Shouse, Margaret Sinex, William Thompson, Dean Zoerink

Members not Present:

Tessa Pfafman, Buzz Hoon

Chair Aimee Shouse convened meeting: 3:30 p.m.

Steve Rock addressed GERC- welcome back and answered questions. Steve was asked to comment on faculty Senate’s expectation concerning the timeline of review—how long? Steve responded that as much time as needed, although, at the same time, the university is anxiously awaiting outcome.

Minutes approved from last meeting, spring 2006.

Introductions around the table.

Memo from Kreider requesting fine arts requirement. He is scheduled to address GERC at our next meeting.

Judi introduced the HLC Academy that WIU has been accepted to. HLC Academy focuses on the assessment of student learning – Gen ed is one of the issues that we plan to address in this workshop. Help to get Gen ed assessment up and running. Dates of the workshop – February cohort of 3-5. Four year process, that will start this year. Expectation is that Ged Ed assessment would be a reflexive process between GERC and those members of the larger Academy team.

Aimee reminded us that we are gearing up for a campus wide discussion/meeting in terms of the survey results. Survey results are not posted to the site—numbers could be posted. Phyllis Rippey indicated that those who have been surveyed should be made aware of the results. Aimee suggested that in one month we may be able to provide some substantive information that the wider campus could respond to. Do we want to draw up recommendations? Bill Thompson: Do not want a perception that we are hardening around recommendations…not to respond in a reactionary way. Jim Schmidt: we should look at the individual questions that we asked, do not want to post anything that is identifying. For the qualitative, the following issues were addressed:

Regroup: Where are we in terms of the charges? Survey indicated that there were not many problems with the categories. As for number of hours in each category, we have a relatively small number. W Requirement, we could make a relatively timely decision on what to do there. Assessment. Bill suggested that we make recommendations in serial fashion… Report out on the W requirement quickly. Gives opportunity for feedback.

Discussion of the end-of-year report: Jim S. suggested that we might have themed university meetings if we follow this path. Jim S. pointed out that there is reference to the Provost suggesting that 60 hours is closer to what most gen eds are, but we are really more in line with others. Create expectations for learning, universal standing, WIU signature. But, don’t start from scratch or have large restructuring.

Is there consensus form the committee? Where, if not what do we need to do? Establish three subcommittees:

Category structure

Amy Carr suggested we have two or more groups who consider the issue… not to discuss as a large group. What do we think WIU’s gen ed should be? Lori B.S. suggested that we might do some preparatory work first. Aimee suggested that she was nuts and that was not necessary. Dale Adkins raises the question: would it be perceived that we are not listening to the voice of the survey? How do we educate the public about the process? We were thinking thematically about the structure the survey said that they liked the structure, but survey indicated that we are not doing a good job of the goals. Candace indicated that campus community might not be aware of alternatives. Aimee agreed that we could argue that changes might bring us closer to being able to meet those goals.

Are people generally satisfied with category structure If we change the existing structure then how?

Subcommittee(s) to consider category structure and goals:

Steve

Amy

Lori

Bill

Margaret

Marty

David

Jong Nam

Candace suggested that we request a secretary… we are really dealing with a lot.

W requirement

Jim

Candy

Paige

Susan

Alice

Annette, student member

Assessment- take task force recommendation

Aimee

Lori

Bill T: We do not really have a reading requirement.

Jim S: One area is interdisciplinary—we have no place for really good courses that would fit squarely in gen ed but are interdisciplinary- excluded from gen ed. We get many courses that are these types that do not articulate clearly. Adding Interdisciplinary as a category. Lori B.S. suggested that we also consider creating a category which is cross-cultural (or something like that…). It is this council’s prerogative to make a recommendation—as to a category. Aimee: What are the goals of general education? Changing the category structure means changing the goals. We may have more freedom… one might include cultural issues. Phyllis: confusion in discussion of categories exists. We could have categories and then determine which categories the courses fit into… we do not need a category unless we believe that it is a value of gen ed. What courses will students take within the categories? If we do not keep that straight, we will end up with a gen ed that loses its significance.

These issues give the subcommittees something to work on (something! I will be 120 years old!).

Are we satisfied with 43 hours? John Miller: That might be an issue that we bring up to Senate. Polly Radosh: Didn’t they refer that to us? From minutes? John: not to his knowledge. Aimee is inclined to hold off. If we have more concrete sense that we would really add…

Marty previously suggested that we ask faculty to include on their syllabus the ways that the course meets gen educ goals.

Signature courses: require writing? Subcommittee to consider. Require practical skills?

Who should have primary responsibility for assessment? Should there be a primary way to handle assessment or should it be managed in individual departments?

Do the subcommittees work on goals? Aimee said, yes, these subs would consider the goals. At the least, address the ones that the committee has indicated is important. Candace- Past comment Bruce Leland: some things could technically be moved to a graduation requirement- IAI – transfer students may not be matching… This addresses the fact that some students transfer in without doing the work that we might want them to have completed.

Subcommittees meet independently as quickly as possible. When they come up with a recommend, then we will discuss.

Spring semester dates now posted.

Meeting adjourned 4:40 p.m.