аЯрЁБс>ўџ ACўџџџ@џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџьЅС#` №ПД<bjbj\.\. .@>D>DЦ#џџџџџџЄbbbbbbbvzzzz †$v[xЖЖЖЖЖЖЖЖz||||||$гh;Д ub9ЖЖ99 bbЖЖЃЃЃ9bЖbЖzЃ9zЃЃbbFЖЊ АјНф[Щz9j6f+0[>яЃяFяbF ЖHўъЃшМЄ•ЖЖЖ  ЃЖЖЖ[9999vvv zvvvzvvvbbbbbbџџџџ General Education Minutes Sept. 13, 2007 in L-105 Members present: Ken Alexander, Scott Cabral, Christina Goff, Cindy McGrath, Richard Livingston, Pam Perfumo, Shiela Rodolfo, Gil Rodriguez, Alex Sterling, Nancy Ybarra, Dave Zimny Guests: Karen Nakaji 1. Introduction of new members: We welcomed several new members to our committee this year: Christina Goff, Library; Alex Sterling, English; Pam Perfumo, Child Development; and Shiela Rodolfo, Speech. 2. Agenda approved with minor revisions: We deleted consideration of the Music 10 course outline listed under agenda item 4 as it had not yet been forwarded to the Office of Instruction. We also added item 4a: Discussion of meeting dates and times. 3. Minutes of May 10 meeting approved with minor revision: We added names of those members present: Ken Alexander, Cindy McGrath, Richard Livingston, Gil Rodriguez and Nancy Ybarra. 4. GE Course Outlines and Addendum: ENGL 205: California Literature: Online form was approved unanimously and forwarded to Curriculum Committee for its review. Course author Karen Nakaji provided an updated copy of the course outline and online form. She addressed questions pertinent to how the course would meet the Reading, Writing and Speaking GE criteria in an online mode of delivery. She explained the differences among webquests, webcasts and podcasts. Richard said he liked the integrity of the course as it relates to the speaking component — presentations to 4th grade classes and use of authorized proctors, for example. A question surfaced about the digital divide in Pittsburg, and Richard addressed the issue citing statistics from the агАЩДЋУН Research Office that 80 to 90 percent of students in the feeder area have access to computer technology. He also added his own perception that the digital divide is more generational than geographic or economic. Karen noted that the GE online form helped her think critically about how she would teach to SLOs in an online environment. She said she is a fan of the form and would be happy to go on the road for us to sell others on its effectiveness ( 4a. Meeting dates and times: Shalini Lugani is interested in joining the group and requested that the GE Committee consider moving its meeting schedule to a MWF format in Spring or Fall 2008. Committee members indicated a willingness to be flexible, but decided to keep a Thursday meeting schedule for the year. We will revisit the meeting day issue in January when departments and individuals are making decisions about the Fall 2008 schedule. 5. Professional development: n№ Fall flex: Richard, Ken and Cindy reported that the GE Workshop during flex went well and was well attended. A number of members of the GE Committee attended the workshop, and Alex shared with the group that it helped give him a basic understanding of GE at LMC. n№ Spring flex: Gil did his spring homework and reported that Linda Elder of the Critical Thinking Foundation is available for a one- or two-day workshop Jan. 9 and 10 during optional flex. As we are in the final phase of assessing the Critical Thinking GE criteria, we are simultaneously moving on to professional development around the Reading, Writing and Speaking Criteria. Elder would offer an in-depth workshop on reading and writing using a critical thinking approach. Pam requested that at least a portion of the program be geared toward those who teach Occupational Education. The will of the group is that the workshop take a broad, integrated across-the-curriculum approach and be open to all faculty, both GE and not, as was the Gerald Nosich event last January that was well attended and received. The committee voted unanimously to endorse a two-day workshop on reading and writing, and asked Nancy and Cindy to request funding for the Elder workshop from the TLP, which also funded the Nosich workshop. Gil, Nancy, Ken, Cindy and Alex will work as a sub-group to plan the Elder workshop in January. Nancy announced that, in a related effort by the Reading and Writing Center, a repeat performance of an August flex session on Reading will be held Oct. 2. Watch your e-mail and snail mail boxes for details. n№ 11-year GE SLO Professional Development Plan: Cindy presented to the committee the revised plan brainstormed last week with Ken and Nancy. The committee members endorsed it unanimously. Cindy will present the plan to the TLP next week, to the Senate, and with Nancy to the community at a College Assembly. Cindy noted that the words “professional development” replace “assessment” in the title of the proposed plan to underscore that assessment at агАЩДЋУН is based largely in professional development. The plan is the logical extension of Nancy and Myra’s Teaching Community model used for several years as our first stab at assessing General Education at агАЩДЋУН. The plan makes mandatory what has thus far been voluntary participation in GE assessment. If the plan goes forward, all full-time GE faculty would be required to attend three professional development/assessment meetings per semester focusing on one of the five GE criteria until all have been addressed: n№ Critical and Creative Thinking n№ Reading, Writing and Speaking n№ Global Perspective n№ Ethics n№ Interdisciplinary While participation for all full-time faculty who teach GE courses is mandatory, we will encourage participation by all adjunct faculty who teach GE courses through stipends or pay at the non-instructional hourly rate. Richard made it clear that administration does not want to exploit part-timers. Nancy asked Cindy to clarify for the committee the process identified in the schematic of the plan she handed out: Cindy explained that faculty would participate in GE assessment in broad groups of disciplines based on the GE requirement box into which the courses they teach fall. If instructors teach courses that fall into more than one requirement box, they will decide individually which assessment group they join. Year 1: The General Education Committee will coordinate professional development efforts focused around the framework of a specific GE student learning outcome. Year 2: In the fall, GE instructors will attend three two-hour assessment meetings organized by requirement box. Each group will select a facilitator, who will be paid a $200 stipend. Meeting 1 will focus on sharing assessment assignments. Meeting 2 will focus on evaluating results of the assessments. Meeting 3 will focus on developing learning improvement plans, and writing a report of assessment results to the GE Committee. In the spring, individual instructors create and implement learning improvement plans. At the same time, the GE Committee analyzes and responds to reports from each of the GE assessment groups. Year 3: In the fall, the GE Committee will coordinate professional development tailored to the needs identified in the committee reports. In the spring, the individual groups will repeat the Year 2 assessment plan to re-assess the specific GE SLO to measure the effectiveness of the improvement plans, and will report back to the GE Committee. In response to the proposal, Richard said he thinks the choice is between making a college-wide concerted effort like this to reinvigorate агАЩДЋУН’s GE plan, or maintaining the status quo in which GE has languished. He favors the plan. David noted that requirement boxes may not have equal numbers of faculty in them, and asked whether separate box groups could be combined — for example, social and behavioral sciences. The thinking is yes. Pam said she thinks it might be an approach for the Occupational Education Committee to consider for its own SLOs and suggested Cindy present it at an upcoming meeting. There were numerous requests for clarification about points of the plan, but in general, committee members liked its direction — even though it will take 11 years to complete. Cindy pointed out that while it sounds like a long time, w4Dъё  Ы є Х ў | Ÿ И К 457Tѕј$&(*@:<>V–˜šі  B D „ † Ў А Р Т H$O$ъ$ё$['b',8Џ9А9Д<ќїќїќїќїќїќїќђќыќїќїтќиќтќиќїќиќїќиќиќиќиќиќїќїќїќжќЮќhnBOJQJUhnBCJOJQJhnB5OJQJ jJ№hnB hnBH* hnB5hnB6234щъџ  Ъ Ы Ф Х { |   і ї EF67єѕ$&§ћіієєєєєєєєєєєєєєєєєєєєєєє$a$Д<ў&8:јљHIyz”–€рсB „ Ў Р ш ъ  "Ё"љѓљѓљѓљљљљљѓљѓљѓљѓѓљљљљљљё„а`„а„а^„аЁ"##G$H$щ$ъ$Z'['Г(Д(œ))k*l*++Ї8Ј8+9,9‚9ƒ9Џ9А9Б9:ѕѓэѓэѓэѓэээээээээээээээфѓѓ 1$4$7$8$H$„а^„а „а„^„а`„e are “starting” in Year 3 given all the experimental assessment work in critical thinking done over the past few years so there are really only eight years to go ;-) Nancy added that it usually takes colleges 15-20 years to create a full-fledged assessment effort. We are ahead of the game, then. Ken said he liked the graphic representation of the material in the plan’s schematic. The vote was unanimous to endorse the plan. We ran out of time, so the remaining agenda items, 6-9, were tabled until the October meeting: 6. GE and Distance Ed 7. Information Literacy update 8. GE Philosophy: How do we begin updating the language that defines our program? 9. Beyond integrated criteria: How will GE outcomes not included in the Big Five be assessed? For example, content-based outcomes like Quantitative Literacy and the Health requirement Cindy handed out the 1981 Policy Paper that contained the original philosophy of агАЩДЋУН’s GE program in anticipation of tackling agenda item 8 in October. A little bedtime reading. Meeting adjourned late — sorry — at 5:10 p.m. There will be more candy next month to make up for it. Mark the date on your calendars: Thursday, Oct. 11, same time, same place. ::':F:˜:P;Q;<<Д<§їїёфлллл 1$4$7$8$H$ „а1$4$7$8$H$^„а„а^„а„а`„а ,1hАа/ Ар=!А"А# $ %ААаАа а†œD@ёџD NormalCJ^J_HaJmH sH tH DAђџЁD Default Paragraph FontVi@ѓџГV  Table Normal :V і4ж4ж laі (k@єџС(No List 6>@ђ6 Title$a$ 5:CJ$6J@6 Subtitle$a$6DC@D Body Text Indent „а`„аЦ#@џџџџ234щъџЪЫФХ{|іїEF67є ѕ     ј љ HIyzJK€рс3Tir†‡ВГ&'YZћќlmХЦЎЏ}~'(ЙК= > ” • С Т У "!#!9!X!Њ!b"c"##Ш#hŽ0€hŽ0€hŽ0€hŽ0€hŽ0€hŽ0€hŽ0€hŽ0€hŽ0€hŽ0€hŽ0€hŽ0€hŽ0€hŽ0€hŽ0€hŽ0€hŽ0€hŽ0€hŽ0€hŽ0€hŽ0€hŽ0€hŽ0€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€Д<&Ё":Д<Д<џџЎР^”ХzЏР^\eАР^фVfБР^НaВР^ЬЌiГР^œliДР^МП{ЕР^4X ЖР^ЌljЗР^Ф"eИР^Ќ$UЙР^ќР^КР^Tз`ЛР^dўTМР^ЬеaНР^м#_ОР^DфaПР^дЭHРР^ keСР^\bТР^Lїо[Щ@>їо[ЩVpўџеЭеœ.“—+,љЎ0 hpŒ”œЄ ЌДМФ Ь ђфагАЩДЋУН@Д#Ћ General Education Minutes Title  ўџџџ"#$%&'()*+,-./ўџџџ1234567ўџџџ9:;<=>?ўџџџ§џџџBўџџџўџџџўџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџRoot Entryџџџџџџџџ РF ГТф[ЩD€1Tableџџџџџџџџ!џWordDocumentџџџџџџџџ.@SummaryInformation(џџџџ0DocumentSummaryInformation8џџџџџџџџџџџџ8CompObjџџџџџџџџџџџџqџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџўџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџўџ џџџџ РFMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.8є9Вq