аЯрЁБс>ўџ ;=ўџџџ:џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџьЅС#` №ПЦ7bjbj\.\. .:>D>D„ џџџџџџЄрррррррєX X X X d є]Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ Œ |~~~~~~$ehЭДЂuрƒŒ Œ ƒƒЂррŒ Œ ЅЅЅƒрŒ рŒ |Ѕƒ|ЅЅ ррHŒ € F§[ЩX ƒ"8h-0]@ЅHрH Œ цr ЄЅ„šщŒ Œ Œ ЂЂЅŒ Œ Œ ]ƒƒƒƒєєєdX єєєX єєєррррррџџџџ General Education Minutes Oct. 11, 2007 in L-105 Members present: Ken Alexander, Scott Cabral, Christina Goff, Cindy McGrath, Richard Livingston, Shiela Rodolfo, Gil Rodriguez, Alex Sterling, Nancy Ybarra, Dave Zimny Guests: Mark Lewis, Mitch Schweickert 1. Agenda approved 2. Minutes of Sept. 13 meeting approved 3. GE Course Outlines and Addendum n№ MUSIC 10: Music Literature: Cindy reported that Kyle circulated an updated version still in progress as a result of committee feedback last year. Nancy reported that she sent him additional feedback on the GE SLOs as well as reminded him that he would need to submit a form for online GE courses in addition to the updated course outline. She said Kyle was going to try to make changes and complete the form in time for the November meeting. n№ ENV SCI 10, 15 and 20. Mitch Schweickert, representing course author Chris Campbell, thanked the committee for taking a look at the courses on one day’s notice. He also provided context about the development of the courses and the need to make them a part of the general education program to attract enrollment. Cindy distributed the updated GE course evaluation forms and queried committee members about how they would like to proceed evaluating the courses: simultaneously in small sub-groups or one at a time as a committee of the whole. The group decided to look through one course — ENV SCI 10: Introduction to the Environmental Sciences — in depth as a committee of the whole, then make a decision about how to approach the other two. Clarification was made about the difference between PSLOs and CSLOs to underscore that the job of the GE Committee is to evaluate the CSLO, content and assessment portion of course outlines to ensure they integrate the five GE ISLOs effectively. Richard noted that ENV SCI 10 seemed weak around the speaking portion of the Reading, Writing and Speaking SLO. Mitch explained where the speaking portion would be addressed in the course — for example the EIS statement assignment — but agreed that such instances needed to be written more explicitly. Shiela, who teaches speech, offered examples of ways that speaking could be introduced effectively into classes. Richard noted that the outline could use more GE PSLO buzzwords to make it clearer what CSLO was linked to the GE outcomes. Cindy noted the use of parenthetical references to specific SLOs, rather than buzzwords throughout the outline, and worried that we may be sending a mixed message to course authors, or at least be giving them a tough assignment: teach the courses in a way that GE outcomes are infused seamlessly into the content and pedagogy, but write the course outline copy in a way that highlights its GE-ness so the committee can more easily spot the infusion. Christina questioned some of the specifics in the Assessment Criteria chart, and Gil noted that the chart actually described assessments rather the criteria used to assess. Richard noted that the course content is nicely keyed and filled with material that would make it easy for an instructor to meet the GE outcomes. Mitch said Chris would be happy to revise the course outlines but asked for specific direction from the committee on what revision is needed. Nancy, who works as a course outline coach through the TLP, said she would be happy to offer Chris suggestions on revision. The consensus of the committee was that the ENV SCI 10 outline needs to more effectively address speaking. It also needs clarification around the CSLOs, since the PSLOs seem more connected to GE than do the CSLOs. Finally, the committee suggested that the course author take Nancy up on the offer for course outline coaching to smooth out the wrinkles in this course — as well as any that may exist in ENV SCI 15 and 20, which were postponed for review until a future meeting. Cindy noted that the process of evaluation of the new course outline has a few wrinkles of its own that need attention; the revised form, which was originally designed to evaluate GE courses written in another format, may need more revision. That may be the subject of a future agenda item. 4. 11-year GE SLO Professional Development Plan n№ Strengthening Student Success II Conference: Nancy and Cindy did a joint presentation last week on the GE assessment model. They reported that while they got smiles and laughs at the “11 years” just as they have here at агАЩДЋУН, there was interest in the concept of laying out for all to see what is on the horizon long-term. Nancy and Cindy each briefly mentioned some of the other models of GE assessment, explaining they ranged from broad to narrow, and included a host of assessment tools that are direct and indirect, quantitative and qualitative. Cindy noted that one of the keynote speeches was on the move from a teacher-oriented approach to a student-centered approach in instruction. Nancy noted that the entire conference was videotaped, and Cindy will find out when and at what address online videocasts of the conference presentations may be viewed. n№ College assembly presentation discussion and next steps: Cindy outlined the goal of this agenda item is to re-examine the 11-year plan after hearing the College Assembly discussion about it Sept. 24, and receiving a request from Mark Lewis on the need for forums about GE in general and GE assessment in particular. Richard started off with a brief description of the post-assembly discussion that about a dozen or so people engaged in until nearly 6 p.m. There were numerous questions and a lot of energy around GE assessment. Nancy suggested it might allay people’s concerns if GE instructors had more specific information about how the proposed mandatory GE assessment seminars might work. Cindy distributed a related handout and Nancy summarized the draft. Mark noted his support of the professional development aspect of the 11-year plan, and explained his concern about the assessment portion: he thinks it is more important to find out why students learn or don’t learn, rather than what they learn or don’t learn. He also suggested that it is time, institutionally, for агАЩДЋУН instructors to revisit the GE program, decide whether the five SLOs (formerly criteria) are still relevant and see if they can come to some common understandings. So he would like to see a faculty forum. Ken said he did not want to go back to square one in the development of an assessment plan around GE SLOs. Mark explained he did not want that either, but rather a fuller faculty discussion around GE. Christina suggested that an online discussion “forum” might be a way to get more people involved in the discussion — including part-timers who may not have the time to devote to a face-to-face meeting. Mitch said that the GE assessment seminars looked to him a great deal like the early work done by агАЩДЋУН founders around the development of the GE program, and suggested we might do GE professional development it in two years rather than 11. There was some discussion about short-term vs. long-term work on GE, and Nancy clarified that the point of the 11-year plan was to infuse ongoing assessment and professional development into the GE program. Cindy said that time was running short, and that she would like to see closure before the meeting is adjourned so planning can be done for the spring semester. By c3Cму ? A d  z | ’єіј  В$Е$с$х$*4ж4§4Ц7ќїќїќїќїќэќэќїќэќэќшќшќцќїќU hd56hd5CJOJQJ hd55hd5123лм     @ A d e x z їјЅІœz{()§ћіієєєєєєєєєєєюююююююююююю„а^„а$a$Ц7ў)ЛМЃЄŽ’єіXYћ#ќ#œ''[)\)е4ж4з46666N6O6–6љљљљљїїїїљљљэљэљэљїїїїїїїїљ „а„а^„а`„а„а^„аonsensus, the committee reaffirmed its commitment to the 11-year plan and mandatory GE assessment beginning in spring. But it also supported Mark’s request to hold a GE forum this fall face-to-face and/or online. 5. Reading, Writing and Speaking SLO: As we had already run overtime, Gil very quickly announced that Linda Elder is confirmed for a two-day presentation Jan. 9 and 10 during spring flex. He will call a meeting ASAP of the sub-committee formed at the September meeting to plan her flex presentation. The remaining agenda items, 6-9, were tabled until the October meeting: 5. Reading, Writing and Speaking SLO (the portion related to speaking) 6. Information Literacy 7. GE and Distance Ed 8. GE Philosophy: How do we begin updating the language that defines our program? The meeting adjourned late — again — at 5:20 p.m. [So sorry, but thanks for your loyal interest in GE. We meet again on Thursday, Nov. 8, same time, same place, more candy.] –6Ў6Х677Ц7љљььу 1$4$7$8$H$ „а1$4$7$8$H$^„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DCD Body Text Indent „а`„аB'Ђ!B Comment ReferenceCJaJ828  Comment TextCJ„ :џџџџ123лм@Ade!"\]  п р  Ž !  ,-._`НОЙКZ[“”•СТУФ  Tlƒеж† 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€€Ц7)–6Ц7Ц7џџсР^ДNfтР^їо[Щ@>їо[ЩкЊўџеЭеœ.“—+,љЎ0 hpŒ”œЄ ЌДМФ Ь ђфагАЩДЋУН;t Ћ General Education Minutes Title ўџџџ !"#$%&'()ўџџџ+,-./01ўџџџ3456789ўџџџ§џџџ<ўџџџўџџџўџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџRoot Entryџџџџџџџџ РF№‘§[Щ>€1Tableџџџџџџџџ‘WordDocumentџџџџџџџџ.:SummaryInformation(џџџџ*DocumentSummaryInformation8џџџџџџџџџџџџ2CompObjџџџџџџџџџџџџqџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџўџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџўџ џџџџ РFMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.8є9Вq