General Education 3/12/2018
Attendees: Kathy Delker, Chair (KD), Shirlene Small (SS), Becky Nordyke (BN), Shelby Rowell, Student Representative (SR), Gina Crabtree, Registrar’s Office (GC), Chris Broberg (CB), Sally Fiscus, Registrar’s Office (SF), Rick Muma, Interim Provost (RM), Steve Oare (SO), Amy Drassen Ham (ADH), Kamran Rokhsaz (KR), Kim Sandlin, guest from Office of Student Success (KS)
I. Approval of the Minutes for 2/16/2018
a. Minutes unanimously approved
II. Discussion/Review of Curriculum Change forms
a. CJ 315
i. Because the proposal mentions the Board of Regents edict that bachelor degrees
take only 120 hours to earn, KD expresses concern that the CJ Dept may have forgotten
the Gen Ed Program rule that Gen Ed courses cannot be in the major.
ii. Amy states that the CJ Dept. needs to be advised that their general education learning objects must be clearly stated in the syllabus
iii. RM states learning objectives need to be measurable
iv. Motion to send the CJ 315 curriculum change form back to the department for review and corrections passes unanimously
1. Clarify what the 120 hour requirement has to do with making this course a Gen Ed
2. Answer question #18 on CCF
3. Write catalog description in #21 on CCF
4. Mark FS on first line of Gen Ed Course Proposal Form
5. Describe how Gen Ed goals are met in third box from the bottom on the Gen Ed Course Proposal Form
b. ID 300
i. KD presents the form for ID 300, a new course.
1. It is listed as an I&P course on one form and as an FS course on the other; the
course can be in only one of the two categories.
ii. KD expresses concern that there is not much substantive for the writing skills portion of the general education outcomes.
1. ADH and SO recommend that we relay concern about the writing objectives, and ask that they be more specific in their exam descriptions, and clearly lay out how the writing assignments will be used to assess the general education outcome.
iii. Motion to send the ID 300 curriculum change form back to the department for review and corrections passes unanimously
c. PHIL 365
i. KD states that this course wants to become a Gen Ed as a Further Studies course
ii. KD asks if class discussion is enough to meet the Gen Ed. outcome on spoken communication.
iii. KD asks if it is appropriate to recommend that the Prof make the class presentation currently listed as an extra credit opportunity a requirement?
iv. ADM suggests that we recommend the Prof document how participation in class discussions will be assessed.
v. ADM states that the way the learning outcomes are presented currently is not student-centric. Philosophy Dept. needs to be advised to change formatting to make learning outcomes clearer to students.
vi. Motion to send the PHIL 365 curriculum change form back to the department for review and corrections passes unanimously.
d. WSUA 102: Fundamentals of Diversity
i. KD presents course and reviews the interdisciplinary nature of the course.
ii. KD points out that the description of how the Gen Ed goals will be met is missing in the proposal; specific descriptions for all 4 of the goals are needed
iii. KD expresses concern with the language within the description of the course; SO concurs.
iv. Motion to send the WSUA 102 back to the department for review and corrections passes unanimously.
e. SOC 538
i. SOC 538 is currently listed as a General Education course.
ii. KD expresses concern about lack of written and spoken communication as a general education requirement.
iii. RM states that since it has already be approved as a Gen Ed course and since the CCF is being used only to document a change in prerequisites, our committee does not need to review or act on it.
f. SOC 540
i. Course is not currently Gen Ed even though SOC evidently thinks it is. They will
need to re-do the request to propose that it be to made a Gen. Ed. course.
ii. ADM expresses confusion with the graduate learning objectives, SO points out they are in a different place than the learning objectives for undergraduates.
iii. KD wants more specific information on the measurable outcomes for assessing improvement in written and spoken communication.
iv. Motion to send the SOC 540 curriculum change form back to the department for review and corrections passes unanimously.
III. Discussion on making FYS courses required
a. KD recaps our past discussion on making the FYS courses required
b. KR does not see a problem requiring FYS to be required so long as it is included in the 42-hour General Education Program and thus does not increase the number of hours required for graduation
c. SO asks if student input has been considered?
i. KD says the F16 and F17 surveys were distributed for review.
ii. SO read some of the survey responses, F17 survey is not very positive
iii. RM states that the F16 survey is much more positive
iv. SR states that surveys may not accurately portray the success of program when surveys are taken directly after the course is taken.
v. KD states she keeps remembering what RM previously pointed out: that this program is the only one where the university includes things that help students become better students.
d. KD passes around the Fall 2015 FYS proposal that lists the 6 learning objectives of the FYS courses
i. CB began discussion of the fact that these 6 learning outcomes are required and the 3 student success outcomes are “strongly recommended” – that is, they were not in the proposal that the Faculty Senate approved in Dec. 2015.
e. KD reads Aaron and George’s absentee statements to the General Education Committee.
i. BN shares that within her department, there are many Profs interested in teaching
these courses, and that RM may have a better handle on the population of Profs who
would teach these courses.
ii. CB states that while he is sympathetic to the concern that there are not enough professors in some departments to teach FYS courses, he does not think this will be a huge problem, as departments are not required to teach an FYS class; some departments will teach more and cover the demand for the courses.
iii. KD brings up the question about adjunct instructors teaching FYS courses. RM states that adjuncts are instructors and that instructors are on the list of faculty eligible to teach FYS courses according the proposal Faculty Senate approved in Dec. 2015
f. CB asks who would manage FYS, would there be oversight?
i. KS gives clarification that Student Success oversees this program
ii. Instructors must go through training
iii. Students give feedback through their success coaches, and the success coaches themselves give feedback
iv. RM states that a survey will be given at the end of each semester that will evaluate some of these questions, data will also be taken and shared.
v. KD inquires about asking questions like those on the IDEA and STPE faculty evaluations
1. RM thinks it becomes problematic recreating a teaching evaluation.
g. RM states that FYS courses have been much more heavily vetted as being beneficial than almost any other class on campus.
h. Motion to recommend to the Faculty Senate Executive Committee that the FYS courses be required for incoming freshman starting F19 with the proposed modifications to the FYS Program
i. Motion to make the program required for incoming freshman starting F19 (8 yays
(with one absentee vote) and 2 nays (with one absentee vote).
ii. Next meeting, we will discuss what modifications to the FYS program we want to include in our recommendation to the Faculty Senate Executive Committee
IV. KS reviews FYS Instructor Feedback.
a. Improvements usually come from instructors
i. Adjust expectations of their course and student outcomes
ii. Making sure enrollment criteria is clear
iii. KR states it is natural for these kinds of courses to be evolutionary.
iv. KR asks what happens if the freshman do not take this before the 30-hour deadline?
1. GC states that the Registrar’s Office cannot block students from taking more course even though they have not taken the FYS course
v. SR asks what happens to transfer students if they come in with less than 30 hours? Will they have to take this course?
1. GB asks if students transfer having already have taken a FYS course, would they have to take it again?
V. KD changes order of discussion points about modifications to FYS program for the next meeting’s agenda:
a. discussion point #1 will be on the components/expectations of the course content
that are required versus “strongly recommended”
b. discussion point #2 will be on boundaries (limitations) on faculty members’ privilege to change the content of a course without having to go through the Gen Ed Cmte
c. discussion point #3 will be on adding a spot on the first line of the General Education Form for professors to indicate which Tier 2 Gen Ed category the proposed FYS course is to be put in
Meeting is adjourned at 1:53pm