GEGB Meeting June 8, 2017

Meeting Details

• Date:  Thursday, June 8, 2017
• Time:  11:10 to 12:00 noon
• Place:  01-301
• Attendance:  Brenda Helmbrecht, John Jasbinsek, Rachel Fernflores, Emily Fogel, Aaron Keen, Bruno Giberti, Neal MacDougal, Kaila Bussert
  Guests: GE Task Force Co-Chairs Andrew Morris, Gregg Fiegel,

Announcements

• Review fall schedules for GEGB meeting

Update on Academic Senate Resolutions for May 30 and June 6, 2017

• Passed -Resolution on proposing new courses or other changes to curricula
• Passed -Resolution on Review of Courses with Compressed Time Schedules
  Quarter Plus has changed time frame from 3 to 4 weeks, 9 to 8 units
• Passed - Further review in fall
  Resolution on Alternative Approaches to the Graduation Writing Requirement
• Passed -Resolution on Aligning USCP Criteria to Diversity Learning Objectives with Oversight by GE Governance Board

Other Updates

• The Academic Senate Retreat will be devoted to GE and working with the GE Task Force. They will also review Executive Order 1100. 
• GE Course Renewal is still in process; Brenda is working with the Academic Senate to align the process for regular course renewal.
• Fall 2017 - Brenda would like to revisit the GE Objectives and Criteria with the GEGB.
• EO 1100 Survey - Two additional meetings were held this week, one with Brenda Helmbrecht, Gary Laver, Andrew Morris, Gregg Fiegel, Helen Bailey and Bruno Giberti.  Bruno presented edits from Academic Programs and Planning.  The follow up meeting with Brenda, Helen, and Andrew was to review the edits and get the document ready for the Executive Committee for their next meeting, June 13, 2017

Business

GE Task Force Updates/Discussion/Questions
Co-Chairs Andrew Morris and Gregg Fiegel gave updates on progress to date.

• There have been nine task force meetings and one retreat, as well as outreach to  campus  constituents.  Gregg will give PolyLearn access to GEGB members, so they can review the progress and documents.
• Andrew gave an overview of the outreach meetings,where he asked campus constituents what they would like to see for GE. What is important to keep for GE?  What do you fear if this process gets going?
• The main documents used for the Task Force and for outreach are:
   
• GE Internal Self Study 2015-16 (PDF)
• GE Internal Self Study Appendices 2015-16 (PDF)
• GE External Program Review Report 2106 (PDF)
• Greg explained that summer, there will be GE reading circles that GEGB members may attend if they like.  
• The next year and a half will be devoted to research, additional outreach listening to stakeholders, and a report written by the end of academic year 2018.
• Any changes and recommendations will be reviewed by the GEGB and the Academic Senate.

Questions/Answers/Discussion

• What GE programs will the GE Task Force be looking at?
  CSU, UC, Polytechnic and other peer institutions.
• What are our peer institutions?
  NSSE just came out with a set of criteria.  
  We should look at different GE models and at peer institutions that could be models for Cal Poly.
• How are peers defined?  Where would students go if they did not go to Cal Poly?
• Peer institutions are sometimes considered by looking at Return on Investment (ROI).  Many factors are considered in this view including salary upon graduation, satisfaction etc.  (Suggestion to contact Ann Calhoun) We should reach out to alumni to find out more information.  There are five other institutions that satisfy the Carnegie criteria. Suggestion to look at Quadalupe in Canada
• Should we look outside the box?  Are there non-peer institutions where we could tap into innovative ideas?
• First, the GE Task Force looked at institutions that were mentioned in the GE reviewers report.  (CSU Chico, CSU Bakersfield, CSU Northridge, CSU San Jose, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, University of Wisconsin, Oshkosh)
• In campus meetings, faculty from other institutions mentioned other GE Programs like Oregon State University
• Are there any patterns that the GE Task Force is seeing in terms of outreach and GE Task Force meetings?
• Andrew - We are keeping notes from each meeting and trying to determine the areas that are communicated.  We are trying to tie these into areas of discovery.  One theme that is repeated is the unique Cal Poly Learn by Doing branding that should be part of the GE program.  There is frustration that the message on the value of GE is negative.  Students desire a message for relevance and connections
• Andrew - The other term that keeps coming up is "flexibility".  What does flexibility actually mean?  Another term that comes up frequently is "choice". What does this mean?  Students don't feel they are missing out when they take online courses at a community college.  There are also factors of progress to degree during the summer, and costs.
• Brenda - Reference to upcoming resolution on incongruous credit - that should be coming up in the Senate in the fall.
• Flow charts within the major:  GE appears at the bottom, and at times, students are instructed to take their GE at the end.  
• Concern with student input - Curriculum should be faculty-driven.  How can we honor student opinions, but still keep this in mind?
• There is a perception that when student demand is not met in GE classes, it is the fault of the program when in reality there are only so many classrooms available and faculty to teach this classes.  There is a concern with the 5,000 freshmen entering in the fall where demand will not be met. 
• What can we do about the problem in "creeping" numbers in terms of average class size in GE classes?  How can we control this?
• It is important to hear from faculty outside of GE and the Academic Senate Curriculum Committee to get diverse opinions. 
• Course Refresh:  It is important to focus on the learning objectives of each of the GE classes to get perspective.  We need collaboration from faculty in this process.  Can we de-certify GE classes if they do not meet the objectives?  Or, should we try to work with GE faculty to improve their pedagogy?  Can we collect syllabi?  This was done in 2005 with USCP courses and was not received in a positive way from faculty.  How can we improve this process.  
• Has the GE Task Force looked at the structure of the program?
  No, not yet.  The focus has been on brainstorming and outreach.
• How can we help the GE Task Force move forward?
  Andrew - We will continue to collaborate and communicate.  We will keep the GEGB advised of any recommendations.  There will be no surprises.