Meeting Minutes 5/16/13

 

Date: May 16, 2013

Place: Building 01-301

Time: 3:10pm to 4:00 PM

Attendance: Josh Machamer, GE Chair, Helen Bailey (Office of the Registrar), Clare Battista (OCOB), Elena Keeling (CSM), Tal Scriven (CLA), Brenda Helmbrecht (CLA), Lisa Nicholson (CAFES), Clark Turner (CENG), Bruno Giberti (CAED), Rachel Kramer (ASI), Katie Tool (GE/Academic Programs and Planning), Mary Pedersen (Academic Programs and Planning)

Business

Continue discussion on the charge of the GE Governance Board : Memo from Jeffrrey D. Armstrong to Steve Rein, Chair, Academic Senate (PDF)

Discussion on what we value about the current GE program

• Exploration outside the major
• Exposure to diverse viewpoints, strengthens learning in the major
• Integration of knowledge
• Comparative rigor in a tight program
• Development of a well-rounded person, preparation of our graduates for citizenship
• Extending opportunities for a comprehensive polytechnic education

Discussion on the challenges of the current GE Program

• Too much major integration (support for GE courses)
• Not enough flexibility, too prescriptive, too rigid
• Not "learning outcome" focused
• No coherent course of study
• Writing-intensive component has fallen through the cracks, No administrative support for writing-intensive
• Non-appreciation of the GE program from faculty to student perceptions
• Lower-level courses taught more by part-time staff instead of tenure-track professors
• Students expectations that GE should be "easy."
• No tracks or pathways
• No team teaching
• Risk aversion, fear of changes

Other Comments and Discussion

• Concern with the timeframe on the charge (end of spring quarter for report/Senate resolution in fall) - We need more time to be thorough and thoughtful about the changes.
• We should wait until program review (starting fall 2013) to make any big changes.
• We should thoroughly review the data (ULO reports) about the assessment of GE before we make changes (following the assessment cycle).
• We should also look at the WASC reports and the survey data.
• What can we look at to make small changes now?
  Should we cut 4 units? Should we create a new interdisciplinary GE area? What are the possibilities for double counting in upper division? (C4, B6 for Engineers?)

Continue discussion at May 23 meeting