GEGB Meeting May 17, 2016

DMeeting Details 

• Date:  5/17/16
• Time:  1:10 to 2:00 pm
• Place:  01-301
• Attendance:  Josh Machamer, Katherine O’Clair, Helen Bailey, Tal Scriven, Sam Canino, Neal MacDougall, Clare Battista, Mary Pedersen, Bruno Giberti, Elena Keeling

Announcements

• Academic Senate Curriculum Committee will discuss Quarter Plus on Thursday, May 19.  GEGB members are welcome to attend.  
  Meeting in 33-285 from 3 to 5.
• Doug Epperson, Dean/CLA has offered a stipend for CLA faculty to develop on-line GE courses.

Action Items

• Josh Machamer will revise priority list after hearing comments by GEGB.
• Katie Tool will email GEGB the draft of course renewal process.

Business

• Review priorities for GEGB Task Force
• Review Task Force structure recommendations
• Review Summary of recommendations of GE Program Review (PDF)
• Review Request for GE credit for Cal Poly Global Programs (PDF)

Discussion/Comments

• Reference Draft of GE Course Renewal Process submitted in GE Self Study (PDF)
• Can we consider new language from "Development" to "Investigation" of a GE course renewal process?  There could be 15-20 versions of the course.  
• The current situation is that once a GE course is approved, there is no timeline for any type of renewal.  
• How long should a course be on the books?  We want the curriculum to be current.  There needs to some process of review.
• Do we want faculty to renew all GE classes?  
• Do we want department chairs to review GE classes?  Program review is really about reviewing the degree programs, not GE courses.  How can we address this gap?
• Reviewing GE courses could be about how many times the course is offered, how many sections are provided.  
• We do need to connect GEGB with more GE/University Assessment so we can close the loop and see how the learning objectives are being met in GE courses.
• It is the responsibility of the GEGB to ensure whether the course is still meeting the requirements.  
• What are we reviewing?  What is the goal of the renewal process?  Are the students learning?  Can we frame it around quality?
• When a course is taught by many faculty, it veers from the original intent.  Do faculty look at the objectives and criteria in the original course proposal?
• In the priority list, can we move 1) course renewal process into an overarching idea of strengthening the curriculum? How could these two areas be brought together?
• Meaning Making - How do we develop intentionality in the major?  Can we have diversity/inclusivity minors?  Can we incorporate technology into the Program Learning Outcomes?  Can we utilize interdisciplinary options in GE/team teaching of courses?
•  We should separate 2) To education and strengthen the role of advising
  and the managing of the GE message to campus.
• The GE message to campus should be about the value of GE and why it is important.
• The "branding" of GE can tie in with pathways/patterns.  If there are pathways, students will have more motivation to take something that is meaningful to them.
• Is there any way to simplify GE?  Can we use the same area designations as the CSU?  This will help make things clearer for students taking community college courses to fulfill GE and using ASSIST.  Right now, there are petitions that result out of student confusion on translating GE designations from community colleges to Cal Poly.