GEGB Meeting March 7, 2017

Meeting Details

• Date:  Tuesday, March 7, 2017
• Time:  10:00 am to 11:00 am
• Place:  01-301
• Attendance:  Brenda Helmbrecht, Josh Machamer, Aaron Keen, Neal MacDougall, Matt Klepper, Emily Fogle, Cem Sunata, Helen Bailey, Mary Pedersen, John Jasbinsek,Kaila Bussert

Announcements

Update on GE AAC&U Conference

• Attended by Brenda Helmbrecht, Mary Pedersen, Bruno Giberti, Jack Phelan, Andrew Morris, and Gregg Fiegel
• The group met after the conference to debrief.  Brenda will provide the GEGB with a written summary of key take aways from the conference.
• Brenda Helmbrecht comments: There were several presentations on course renewal that she attended and will share in the write up.  Other sessions and information was on GE design and how some campuses came up with different models and had faculty vote on them.  There was consensus at the conference that we want to make GE meaningful through clear approaches, and focus on a mission-driven approach.
• Mary Pedersen's comments:  Starting with the end in mind, what do we want students to complete?  How do we integrate models with the major?  What are some different names for GE branding?  How do we engage students in the process?  Students will learn if we engage them (learn by doing), and mission driven.
  She attended assessment sessions, some where students were engaged in the artifact review.  This is valuable for students, increasing their learning and being reflective in the process.  She also saw different models of GE, high impact practices, getting campus input on different models and engaging the campus community. The most challenging aspect is how do we prepare students for the future? (10 to 20 years down the road).

Update on GE Task Force

Brenda:  There have been two meetings to date, which have been primarily getting the know the committee members and sharing what is meaningful to each of them. In last week's meeting, each of the committee members shared what their dreams were for General Education.  

The GE task force has not read the GE Program Review report yet, but all materials have been stored in a PolyLearn site for the group.  Brenda will continue to update the GEGB with the GE Task Force meetings.

Discussion on Draft Resolution in General Education Transfer Substitutions (PDF)

Brenda: Gary Laver drafted the GE transfer resolution, and wanted feedback from the GEGB. The Academic Senate Curriculum Committee reviewed this, but wanted additional information regarding data but wanted it to move forward. (How many students have been affected etc.)  

Helen Bailey provided information on transfer credit to Brenda, as she is in charge of this area at the Office of the Registrar.

• She explained that students can get credit at community colleges according to CSU guidelines, not Cal Poly's GE Program.  She referenced GE information in CSU Executive Order 1100. She also referenced Cal Poly's reference guide to using ASSIST (PDF)
• She explained that students can fulfill lower-division Area C (Arts and Humanities) at a California community colleges by taking a combination of three courses in CSU Area C1 (Arts) and CSU C2 (Humanities).  Students must take at least one course in C1 ARTS (Arts, Cinema, Dance, Music, Theatre) and one course in C2 Humanities (Literature, Philosophy, Languages other than English). Their 3rd course could be from either C1 or C2.
• What this means for Cal Poly student is that they could potentially not follow our GE pattern in Area C, which requires one course in Literature, one course in Philosophy and one course in Fine and Performing Arts.  

Comments:

Whereas 7:  This should be expanded to explain the CSU established protocol of accepting CSU patterns in transfer courses

Whereas 10:  This example is confusing, providing one example of a course in Area C and D and how it could articulate, and does not explain the available options that students can take in the CSU guidelines in Area C and D.

From a students's point of view, if Cal Poly students are only able to take C1: Literature, and C2: Philosophy, it is important that they have enough access to these classes.  Many students take California community college classes in the summer to forward progress to degree and stay on track.  Are student taking courses off campus in summer because of the tuition increases?

What is the damage that is happening now? What are the numbers of students that are taking these classes?  Is it affecting enrollment in C1: Literature and C2: Philosophy at Cal Poly?

Since students look to ASSIST.org to take courses off campus in the summer, how can we ensure that Cal Poly students will not be confused when they look at this resource?  What happens if they take a course based on ASSIST information?  Will they still receive Cal Poly credit? How can we be sure that this new information is communicated to students?

The timing on this resolution may not be appropriate, as Cal Poly is looking to renew their GE Program, and the Chancellor's Office is reviewing Executive Order 1100. The articulation issue could require quite a bit of work, and this resolution could create a hurdle for students.  How can we give some students credit for courses taken at community colleges and some students do not get credit?

The resolution does not have enough information. What are the numbers?  Is the percentage of students taking classes off campus increasing?  We need to see more of the problem before we try to solve it.

Brenda summarized that the committee was in support of incongruent GE credit but that the GEGB wanted more data, clearer language and student fairness. The timing issue is also a potential concern.  Brenda will review with Gary Laver and report back to the GEGB.