GEGB Meeting April 19, 2016

GEGB Meeting Details

  • Date:  4/19/16
  • Time:  1:10 to 2:00 pm
  • Place:  01-301
  • Attendance:  Josh Machamer, Katherine O’Clair, Bruno Giberti, Sam Canino, Tal Scriven, Elena Keeling, Clare Battista, Neal MacDougall, Mary Pedersen

Business

1. GE Program Review Report Discussion

Key Issues

  • What are the top priorities that we want to move forward?
  • What do we want to see in the charge for the upcoming GE task force?
  • What should the make up of the GE task force?
  • What are the general comments about the GE Program review report?

    Discussion/Comments

  • ​We need to focus on further development of the GE course renewal process.
  • Is there any kind of training for new advisors?  Do new advisors learn how to communicate about GE?  How do we manage the message that is given to students?  
  • Advisors are perceived by students as problem solvers.  How can we make their role more intentional about GE?
  • What are the myths about GE on campus?  How do we turn the myths into a positive message about GE?
  • How can we help and reach faculty?  How do we change the underlying message about GE?
  • In terms of communication with faculty, can we go to each department during a year to set joint goals with them?
  • If there was a concrete charge in GE, such as creating a theme, faculty might become more engaged in the process. 
  • How do we create value in GE?  How do we create "meaning making?"
  • Can we create meaning through themed patterns or minors? Student input - This would be the most valuable and make the most sense. 
  • Can we also look at creating interdisciplinary options in GE?
  • There are good examples of "meaning making" in the Sustain Program
  • Cal Poly relies heavily on adjunct instruction to staff GE courses, particularly at the lower level.  They should not be singled out because many of them have a very strong understanding and experience teaching GE.
  • How does GE integrate with the major?  Could this be part of program review?
  • How can we implement the GE learning outcomes?  How can they be assessed?
  • We should review or redefine Area F and the value of it within GE curriculum.
  • We should look at ways to simplify the GE course structure.  Cal Poly went beyond the CSU template in creating GE 2001.  Is this impeding student progress?
  • Current flow charts show GE at the bottom, which could send the message that GE is at the bottom.  How can programs revise their flow charts to direct students and strengthen their programs at the same time?
  • Can we utilize block scheduling as meaning making?
  • What is our intention and purpose in GE?  We need to start there to move forward.

More discussion on the conversation next week.

  •  

Related Content

<script type="text/javascript">
 
  var _gaq = _gaq || [];
  _gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-42881706-1']);
  _gaq.push(['_trackPageview']);
 
  (function() {
    var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true;
    ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js';
    var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s);
  })();
 
</script>