аЯрЁБс>ўџ 35ўџџџ2џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџьЅС#` №Пzbjbj\.\. .">D>DzџџџџџџЄ,,,,,,,@шшшш є@2„††††††$7hŸИЊ,{{{Њ,,ПССС{,,„С{„ССVј@,,P @4з\Щш{F8 pе0D WСWPW,P ЎЪ|СFdЊбЊЊС{{{{@@@„Ф $@@@Ф @@@,,,,,,џџџџ General Education Committee Minutes November 2, 2004 Present: Ken Alexander, Don Kaiper, Richard Livingston, Gil Rodriguez, Myra Snell and Nancy Ybarra Absent: Cindy McGrath Approve Agenda The agenda was approved with the following changes: Add a discussion of meeting dates for Spring 2005 Table discussion on the Diversity and Global Perspective criteria Approve Minutes of October 19, 2004 Beautiful, just beautiful. Approved heartily. Meeting Dates for Spring 2005 We agreed that since one of our major tasks, rewriting the GE criteria as program level student learning outcomes, will be more or less completed this semester, we should be able to do our work in one meeting a month next semester. The group agreed to the following meeting times: Tuesdays from 2:00 – 3:30 Feb.1 Mar.1 Apr.5 May 3 GE Course Outlines and Addendum There were no new course outlines to review. We consider our work on the speaking component of on-line general education courses to be complete. We reported to the Curriculum Committee on October 20 and communicated our conclusion that there should be no change of the requirement. A motion to approve our recommendations was approved unanimously. Faculty will need to demonstrate in their On-Line Supplement form how the speaking component is being met. For existing GE courses that initiate an on-line section, the on-line supplementary form will be reviewed by both the GE and on-line committees. (See Curriculum Committee minutes of October 20, 2004 for a complete summary.) Update on Critical Thinking Communities Nancy distributed draft minutes of the October 25 meeting of the Creative Arts/Humanities Teaching Community. We discussed how challenging it is to create and assess a template assignment that crosses several different courses. Ken thoughtfully captured much of what the faculty were saying in the teaching community about critical and creative thinking. He agreed to write down these words of wisdom for us for further reflection. In addition, Nancy requested that Ken help with the rubric we will eventually try to design for the holistic assessment. Don reported on the progress of the Social Science department as they keep rubbing those damp sticks together trying to ignite a spark. Nancy’s visit to the department on October 29 (either because of, or in spite of the bunny ears) was helpful in encouraging some department members to get involved. They are still trying to determine if they will attempt to use some kind of common curricular piece for the purposes of assessment, or if they will follow the model of the Creative Arts/ Humanities faculty. As Myra pointed out, this model provides for maximum freedom in terms of content, but is also more work in terms of constructing a viable assessment. Review drafts of assessment criteria for Program Level Student Learning Outcomes We reviewed a draft that Myra and Ken had written, attempting to articulate the program level student learning outcomes, assessment criteria, explanation and examples for the interdisciplinary criteria. We gave them the following feedback to guide their efforts in writing the next draft which we will review at our next meeting: Build on the third version of the PSLO, working in something about complexity and connections, for example, using problems as a way of analyzing the interdisciplinary perspectives. Punch up the verbs on the assessment criteria Include an example that is problem-oriented Review drafts of new language for Program Level Student Learning Outcomes Tabled until next meeting. Future agenda items Approval process: Next steps Discuss how GE outcomes not included in the Big Five will be assessed; for example, content-based outcomes, Quantitative Literacy. Discuss what happens when we are finished converting current five criteria to student learning outcomes with subordinate assessment criteria. Who approves these changes? Curriculum Committee? Academic Senate @šЂБСj  О н + L є м.‰д$zњіњіяіяіяіяіяіяіяіъі hЅEJ>* hЅEJ5>*hЅEJ hЅEJ5$567šАБРСѕ' i j Ž  Н О м н і ї    $ * + њњњњњјјјјјјѓѓјјјјјјјјјјјјјјј & F$a$zў+ K L y ѓ є GHлм-.xy.\ˆ‰гдя№ё$%§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§јјј§§§§§§і§є§ & F%Јxyzњњјј & F,1hАа/ Ар=!А"А# $ %ААаАа а†œD@ёџD NormalCJ^J_HaJmH sH tH @@@ Heading 1$@& >*^JaJ@@@ Heading 2$@& 5^JaJDAђџЁD Default Paragraph FontVi@ѓџГV  Table Normal :V і4ж4ж laі (k@єџС(No List z"џџџџ$567šАБРСѕ'ijŽНОмнії$*+KLyѓєGHл м - . x y . \ ˆ ‰ г д я № ё $%Јxy|˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€0€€˜0€€0€€˜0€€˜ 0€€˜ 0€€˜0€€˜0€€$567šАБРСѕ'ijŽНОмнії|hŽ0и€hŽ0€hŽ0€hŽ0€hŽ0€hŽ0€hŽ0€hŽ0€hŽ0€hŽ0€hŽ0€hŽ0€hŽ0€hŽ0€hŽ0€hŽ0€hŽ0€hŽ0€hŽ0€hŽ0€hŽ0€hŽ0€hŽ0€hŽ0€hŽ0шœz + %z zџџ :nЦ,#;nЦмvP nЦ„4P ?nЦ =P @nЦ