GEGB Meeting Feb 23, 2016

Meeting Details

• Date:  2/23/2016
• Time:  1:10 to 2:00 pm
• Place:  01-301
• Attendance:  Brenda Helmbrecht, Gary Laver, Josh Machamer, Claire O'Brien, Thomas Samuel, Denise Isom (Guest), Neal MacDougall, Clare Battista, Mary Pedersen, Bruno Giberti

Interim GEGB Chair for Spring 2016

• Brenda Helmbrecht will be out during spring quarter 2016.  
• The GEGB voted to recommend Josh Machamer as Interim Chair for spring 2016. The recommendation will move forward to the Academic Senate Executive Committe and to the Provost. 

Update on D5 Pre-Reqs

• After the Feb 16 GEGB meeting, details from the 2010 pre-req project were located.  The project clearly showed that D5 pre-reqs had been changed to one lower-division Area D class.  Given this new information, memos were sent to all department chairs that had D5 classes, giving them the option to reduce pre-reqs if they chose to do so.  In the memos, chairs were given specific instructions on how to make these edits through the Curriculum Management System - as a course modification by March 1, 2016.  Brenda asked the committee to allow her to approve these course modifications as they came in. The GEGB had consensus to allow her approval.

Discussion of Executive Order 1100 Compliance

•  According to Executive Order 1100, "a grade of C or better is required of each CSU or transfer student completing courses in written communication in the English language, oral communication in the English language, critical thinking and mathematics or quantitative reasoning."  This will be implemented in fall 2016.
• Helen Bailey is working on this compliance issue and has made a data request for grades for in classes A1, A2, A3, and B1.  

Other Discussion Relative to GE Course Grade Standards

• There was concern with the standard of a "C" at a community college, being that there is no C- or C+

• Should C be the minimum for passing all GE classes? 
• How many students pass through GE with D?
• Should we pursue an additional data request on grades for all GE courses?  Helen will send the AD HOC data request to Katie Tool and Brenda Helmbrecht for review.

ENGL 134 Requisite Issue

Brenda wanted to review courses that specify ENGL 134 as a pre-req (as opposed to completion of something more general, like completion of Area A).  Courses that specify ENGL 134 as a pre-req could actually discourage multi-lingual students from completing ENGL 133, which also meets the GE A1 requirement.  She thought that they we may need to add ENGL 133 to these courses to better advise ESL students. 

According to Pam Bleish, Office of the Registrar,  only 3 courses specify ENGL 134 in their requisite statements:

• ARCH 445. Prerequisite: ENGL 134. 
• CRP 402. Prerequisite: one of the following: ENGL 134, CRP 203, or graduate standing.
• MU 320. Prerequisite: MU 105 and ENGL 134 or permission of instructor.
• For transparency and to better advise students, the departments should edit the prerequisites for these courses to say: "Prerequisite: Completion of GE Area A1," rather than "ENGL 134."
   
  Behind the scenes, ENGL 133 has been meeting prerequisite for these three courses. The enrollment system has been coded so that any GE A1 meets prerequisite. 
   
  Pam asked if it would it be better for the English Curriculum Chair to contact ARCH, CRP, and MU to request an update in prerequisite? Or would this be better coming from the Office of the Registrar? 
• Brenda agreed with Pam, that specifying Area A makes the most sense, especially since these courses are upper-level classes.  She asked that the Office of the Registrar follow up with ARCH, CRP, and MU departments.

• Students don't always follow flow charts, but use them as a guide. 
• For ENGR, ARCH and other professional disciplines, it is especially important for students to see course sequences so they can stay on track.  For instance, Aerospace Engineering students would need to take MATH 141 (fall), MATH 142 (winter) and , MATH 143 (spring) of freshmen year.  Or Aero 121 in Fall of freshmen year, etc. 
• ENGR students have a hard time fitting GE in their curriculum.  Can we look at planning practical times for GE?  Where could we put the schedules so they can take the GE and still get their major courses?
• Is it possible for us to influence the departments to put GE areas into the flow chart?
• For example:  The B.S. in Wine and Viticulture flow chart (specialization in Viticulture) shows no GE courses taken in the junior year.  How can GE work with the departments to improve GE integration?
• Is it possible to have input on a flow chart for a department?  Helen said that it would be best to work with the Office of the Registrar on this, and they can then reach out to advisors for 17-19 catalog.
• Helen Bailey verified that the Office of the Registrar approves flow charts for the catalog.  When the draft templates were being developed, they were sent to advisors for consultation.  It was recommended that a very specific GE course was not put on the flow chart (for example D2 in freshmen year).
• What if curriculum sheets were taken out of the equation, and we used only flow charts? 
• Students and advisors do use curriculum sheets as a guide/tool for making general recommendations to students.  They specify major, support, and GE. 
• Is it possible to create thematic possibilities in the flow chart?
• What to do with GE support areas?  How can we integrate into the flow chart? 
• Can we go back to the GE PLOs when we talk about flow charts and GE integration?
• How can we relate this to GE meaning making?
• Can we possibly address in this in our action plan, the notion that a program should look at program learning outcomes and GE learning outcomes. No one has done that yet. No one has integrated that.