GEGB Meeting April 12, 2016

GEGB Meeting Details

• Date:  4/12/16
• Time:  1:10 to 2:00 pm
• Place:  01-301
• Attendance:  Josh Machamer, Katherine O’Clair, Bruno Giberti, Gary Laver, Sam, Tal Scriven, Elena Keeling, Helen Bailey, Clare Battista, Neal MacDougall,

Business

1. GEGB Program Review document feedback was sent to Lina Heaster Ekholm on Friday, April 8.  Katie Tool will forward to all GEGB members.

NOTE:  CSU Memo ASA-2016-08 will override the discussion items below:
The consequence is that the literal intention of section 2.2.2 of Executive Order 1100 cannot be evenly enforced.

2. GEGB discussion on new requirement in Section 2.2.2 of EO 1100, which was planned to go into effect in Fall 2016.

• Section 2.2.2  - EO 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.”
• All courses in A1, A2, A3 and B1 will be processed through the curriculum management system to comply with EO 1100.  The language will eliminate C- or consent of instructor on all these courses.
• Impacts on Students:  Students will not get GE credit unless they have a C, and it will also affect pre-requisites.  Students would receive credit for courses, but not GE credit.  Students can repeat a course with a C-.  Grade forgiveness applies to 16 units.
• Secondary Issue that will be discussed at Cal Poly Academic Senate today April 12.Credit/No credit policy currently allows C-, Executive Committee raised the bar so that all credit courses will need a C.  This will be discussed at the Academic Senate meeting today.  First reading and possible second reading today.(due to fall registration)
   

3. Provost Visit

Kathleen discussed her previous meeting with Mary Pedersen and Gary Laver.

• She explained that a University-wide task force would be formed
• She wanted to know what the GEGB priorities are and recommended identifying key issues to the task force, and how can the GEGB strategize to make progress.  She explained that there would be representation from GEGB and from around campus, people outside GE and inside GE. 
• She wanted the GEGB to decide the charge for the committee. The task force needs language, never fast and easy.  The report should be helpful in framing issues
• She wanted input from the GEGB, what the expectations would be, where we are now and what we want to do next.  She wanted for the GEGB to think about things that could be implemented quickly and the things that would take time.  What are the implications and costs?
• For example:  We could do lists of courses around different subject such as diversity, digital media, water, sorting courses according to parameters.  She was not talking about pathways; just identifying courses right now.  Pathways would be a more complex undertaking.
• Kathleen – likes examples in the report but which are we going to do? Pathways would create a long-term project. This decision would have to be made as a campus. What are the quick things?  Are there bigger things? What fits our campus?  This could take two years or longer to implement. Which hard work do we want to take on?  If we create pathways, does every student have to take them?
• Another task force she would like to form next year is one that would develop interdisciplinary courses.  How can we encourage that in GE?  What are the operational barriers to offering interdisciplinary courses?  Who gets the credit?  How do we assign space? What are the curricular/programmatic level considerations?
• GEGB members have a certain charge.  She doesn’t want to add to the charge.  She doesn’t want the GEGB to have to do the job of the task force.
• Helen commented on low hanging fruit.  How can we work with Advising? What should the GE message be?  Could this be a short term project?
• Kathleen: This could be a PR issue. What is the messaging around General Education?  We would want to identify a group to start a PR campaign.  (similar to 25-35) How do we talk about GE? How do we promote to faculty and students?
• Kathleen – Our students should learn the value of GE.  Is First Year Experience a possible place to infuse the information? Is Student Success Council a possible place to discuss?
• The Task Force would make the recommendations and next would come implementation. GEGB needs to decide the highest priorities.
• Kathleen commented on the Area F issue. Are students still gaining with an Area F course?  Is it time to retire it?

  ---

Other Discussion on Kathleen’s Comments

• Josh Machamer wanted to clarify what Kathleen was looking for from the GEGB.  He stated that we were responsible for helping to identify charges for the committee and to put forward in terms of a list of top priorities and recommendations. The GEGB would also put together a charge for the committee.
• Bruno – He mentioned that the GEGB sub-committee developed PLOs.  We never had a change to implement the PLOs.  We haven’t figured out how to market to students and faculty.  How do we do that?  When teaching classes, we don’t explain why we are doing it.  We need to explain to students.  This could be a priority.
• Tal - We need representation on the task force to be representative of GE.  We should identify the make up of the committee/task force. 
• Katie – We should make sure that the task force reads both the self-study and the GE Program review report to make sure they understand the issues.
• Next meeting on April 19 to continue discussion.