GEGB Meeting 12-06-16

Meeting Details

Date: December 6, 2016
Time: 10:10 to 11:00 am
Place: 01-301
Attendance: Brenda Helmbrecht, Chair, Josh Machamer (CLA), Emily Fogle (CSM), John Jasbinsek (CSM), Neal MacDougall (CAFES), Aaron Keene (CENG), Helen Bailey, Pam Bleish (Office of Registrar), Bruno Giberti (APP), Mary Pedersen (APP), Kaila Bussert (Kennedy Library), Matt Klepper (ASI)

Notes taken by Katie Tool/Academic Programs and Planning

Background

The last GE revision took place in 2001. It will probably take 20 years before Cal Poly implements any type of new GE revision. This task force will be working on the project for 2-3 years. The goal is to make GE valuable and meaningful. Possible implementation in 2020.
Andrew Morris and Gregg Fiegel will co-chair the GE task force.
The CSU is also looking at GE across the CSU. We will want to keep in the loop with the CSU so that Cal Poly aligns its goals with those of the system. There is a CSU GE task force being formed. Brenda Helmbrecht has applied to be on the CSU committee.
There is currently a CSU GE survey taking place to ensure that GE patterns are clear for students, and there are no road blocks. Brenda, Katie and Helen will complete the second survey this week.

Comments on Structure of GE Task Force

In the recommendations put forth by the GEGB last spring, there was a proposal for 24 members. This was scaled down to about 18 members. There will be involvement from the Office of the Registrar, Advising, OUDI, GEGB (one or two), one faculty member per college, and three students. There will also be some staff appointments.
The task force will be a steering committee, and will plan to have campus-wide conversations about GE and to engage the entire campus in a new vision for GE.
ASI/Student Involvement - There will be three students on the task force. A call will go out this week to Associate Deans and to ASI. The goal is to engage students from each college.
Will the current GE Chair be on the task force?
Could the GEGB Chair be nomimated by the committee?
There is unease that the Senate charge for GEGB is to build GE, but now some of that work may be done by the task force.
Mary reiterated that any of the task force's proposed changes to the GE program will go before the GEGB (as an Academic Senate Committee) as well as the Academic Senate.
Mary will voice these concerns to the Provost. There will be strong communication between the task force and the GEGB. There will be campus-wide conversations in a collaborative process.
There will a reminder call to faculty this week to apply. Applications are due Friday, December 10, but if the pool is not large enough, it may be extended.

Course proposers have had great feedback regarding communication/feedback from the GEGB. The system is working.
Brenda will meet with Gregg Fiegel this week on Honors courses.

New Course Proposal Form - Possible Recommendations

Concerns with the way the ULOs are presented on form. It might make more sense to align with mapping (Is the ULO introduced, developed, or mastered?)
Does every course need to show how they address the ULOs?
There are no GE outcomes on the form.
The need for the GE course may need some modification of language. Why is there a need for this course as GE?
Is there too much information required on the form?
Is there too much emphasis on assessment?
The emphasis of the course proposal should be on "design," not an outline for an audit. What is the course looking to achieve? Is there confusion between course level and program level assessment?
There should be a balance between assessment and course learning objectives.
It is important to look at the Diversity Learning Objectives and the Sustainability Learning Objectives when reviewing the course.

1. Quarter Plus

2. Work on Course Renewal Process

3. USCP Proposal Discussion

4. Pop-up Course Concept Discussion