General Education Committee
8 Apr. 2014
In attendance: Richard Squire, Susan Larsen, Melanie Jenkins, Adam Larsen, Joseph
                  
Papenfuss, Lafaun Barnhurst, Gregory Wright
I. Approval of Minutes (4-18-14): Joseph motioned for approval; Adam
seconded the motion. Unanimous vote.
Syllabi approval process: We looked at the flow charts we updated last semester and
                  talked about ways to inform faculty about the new requirements and process. We agreed
                  that the chair will send out an email that covers the following issues: old versus
                  new GE outcome numbers; the inclusion of outcomes 1, 2, and 6 in all GE syllabi; content
                  and assessment linkage for both general education and content; feedback opportunities
                  for student; directions to access the flow chart and the GE page; knowledge area criteria
                  that were provided by divisions; SLOS need to connect to both the GE and knowledge
                  area descriptors; catalog descriptors and SLOs must reflect knowledge area outcomes
                  and GE outcomes; KPIs that illustrate outcomes are achieved. Most importantly, clarify
                  that the core of a course being considered for general education credit must fulfill
                  SLOs. Melanie will draft this email and we will revise it in our next meeting.
Adam reported that he has seen several “pots of interest” in the interdisciplinary
                  model, and he suggested that interest will die out if we don’t move in the direction
                  soon. We discussed the need to provide opportunities to discuss options and the necessity
                  of incentives (time, money, workload) to make it happen. It was suggested that we
                  call a meeting before the end of semester to find out who is willing to participate
                  in an integrative model to help out the group going to the AAC&U general education
                  institute.
We discussed options for the back to school workshop. Our recommendation is that we
                  focus on assessment. We should provide training examples (in the form of experts,
                  value rubrics and artifacts, or examples from departments currently excelling at assessment),
                  provide opportunities to discuss and plan assessment for the upcoming year, and then
                  follow up with an assessment day in May (as a contract day). The group going to Vermont
                  should also report on their work.