аЯрЁБс>ўџ 24ўџџџ1џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџьЅС#` №ПУbjbj\.\. .$>D>DУџџџџџџЄЄЄЄЄЄЄЄИМ М М М Ш $ИсЖј ј ј ј ј ј ј ј `bbbbbb$—hџ †Єlј ј ll†ЄЄј ј ›ДДДl.Єј Єј `Дl`ДД:Ј,ЄЄ0ј ь PћЪQXЩМ š:д `Б0соRŸджŸ0ŸЄ00ј ’ŠhДђTF&ј ј ј ††Њ ј ј ј сllllИИИ М ИИИМ ИИИЄЄЄЄЄЄџџџџ General Education Committee Minutes of February 9, 2006 Present: Richard, Cindy, Gil, Scott, Nancy and Ken Approval of Minutes of Dec.8 Meeting Minutes were approved with one minor change: Change “Honors Committee” to “Honors Program”. Approval of Agenda Agenda was approved with one minor change: Add discussion of prerequisites and requests for research to be done by the Office of Institutional Research GE Course Outlines Music 10LS somehow got into the Spring 06 schedule as a fully online course without approval of the Curriculum Committee or the GE committee. The GE committee will recommend to the Curriculum Committee that the course be allowed to continue as a fully online course in Fall 06, but on the condition that a new COOR with the online supplemental form be submitted to Curriculum Committee by April 10. Report on Honors Program and Assessment Cindy reported that a subgroup of the Honors Program Advisory Committee – Jennifer, Scott, Cindy and Curtis – met during flex to write goals and student learning outcomes for the Honors Program. She handed out a first draft of these goals and SLOs. They will continue to work on these, and on the next step – defining what it is that makes an honors course honorable – in other words, what distinguishes it from non-honors courses. SLOs, Assessment and Planning Committee Cindy reviewed her report to the Academic Senate on what the Planning Committee was considering in terms of new program review format. It was her perception that Senators were more interested in continuing to ask questions about the COOR. She answered these questions as best she could, not being a member of Curriculum Committee. She also reported that the Senate would like more frequent reports from the TLP. Nancy noted that there had been a full report in Fall 05, and an update in Spring 06 – did they want updates more than once each semester? TLP Nancy explained that the upcoming TLP meeting on Feb.21 would be a brainstorming session on next steps, considering that we are about to begin our self-study for accreditation in Fall 06. If the college community reviews the work done in our “pilot” stage, and decides to maintain the current structure for assessment efforts, Myra and Nancy have a “vision” to propose, first to TLP, then to the wider campus community. This proposal would include having a more “empowered” GE committee with wider representation and a broader charge, including planning, implementing, and evaluating assessment and professional development efforts in addition to reviewing curriculum. In preparation for that meeting, we then proceeded to outline what that might look like: Who would be on the GE committee? 1 representative from each of the 6 GE “boxes” : Creative Arts, Humanities, Social Science, Behavioral Science, Communications/Critical Thinking, Biological and Physical Sciences Senior Dean of Instruction Dean of Liberal Arts and Sciences Curriculum Committee Chair Representative of Distance Learning Committee Charge: Assessment of GE Program Level SLOs Direct measures Indirect measures Qualitative measures Curriculum Support for developing curriculum, including on-line Balancing curricular offerings Professional Development Response to Assessment Results Orientation to teaching GE courses Discussion of Prerequisites and Requests for Research to be done by Office of Institutional Research Nancy reported that 3LS faculty were wondering why the prerequisite approved for 2LS did not apply to the 3LS courses. They would like a similar prerequisite. Some faculty teaching ethnic studies courses had raised the issue of prerequisites as a response to the assessment we doing in that area. Where should this be discussed? In general, what is the process for requesting institutional research be done to support a prerequisite? There was general consensus that the prerequisite for 2LS ought to apply to 3LS. We did not reach closure on the other questions. Out of time. Meeting adjourned at 3:00 pm. 8v”Тс# J K йрєУїѓяѓяѓыѓычычуh…g<h`}ghЊKEhqРhrNўhqРhrNў5 89:nop•–ђѓє    Ё Ђ Е Ж E F G H p q ! " їїїїђђђъђђђђъђђђђъђђђђђъђђђ & FgdrNўgdrNў$a$gdrNўУў" # K L tuv{|st–—JKfg‰ŠЅІденоњђщффщђпппппппппппппппппппgdЊKEgdqР„h^„hgdЊKE & FgdЊKEgdrNўо$9Dy˜™Вбєѕі[\ќ§ЇЈ•–—їяяяїяяъїяяххнххххххххххх & Fgd…g<gd…g<gd`}g & Fgd`}g & Fgd`}g—ТУњњgd…g<,1hАа/ Ар=!А"А# $ %ААаАа а†œ@@ёџ@ NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH DAђџЁD Default Paragraph FontRiѓџГR  Table Normalі4ж l4жaі (kєџС(No ListУ$џџџџ89:nop•–ђѓє ЁЂЕЖEFGHpq!"#KLtuv{|  s t – — J K f g ‰ Š Ѕ І д е н о   $ 9 D y ˜ ™ В б є ѕ і [ \ ќ § ЇЈ•–—ТХ˜0€€h˜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€€€˜ 0о €€˜ 0о €€˜ 0о €€˜ 0€€€˜ 09 €€˜ 09 €€˜0€€€˜ 0€€€˜ 0™ €€˜ 0™ €€˜0€€€˜0€€€˜ 0€€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€У " о—У Уџџ ИП^ьђiЙП^|ЛhКП^dЃhЛП^LтhМП^ДZiНП^DїhОП^МћhПП^\iРП^TOСП^ЄШhшш||УЬЬ\ \ ЙХ ээЧббa a РХ 8 *€urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags€City€8*€urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags€time€9 *€urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags€place€   џ€0€15€Hour€Minute dh#'§  Х!Ф Ч ˜—ЃХ3333p‡”–рсєЂЕ#Kv{K f Š Ѕ І д е н  D y ˜ ™ ѓ г ћ ‡Їd•ХХ~[ІОь!џџџџџџџџџKШ&pіHНџџџџџџџџџ„а„˜ўЦа^„а`„˜ўo(. „ „˜ўЦ ^„ `„˜ў‡hˆH.‚ „p„LџЦp^„p`„Lџ‡hˆH.€ „@ „˜ўЦ@ ^„@ `„˜ў‡hˆH.€ „„˜ўЦ^„`„˜ў‡hˆH.‚ „р„LџЦр^„р`„Lџ‡hˆH.€ „А„˜ўЦА^„А`„˜ў‡hˆH.€ „€„˜ўЦ€^„€`„˜ў‡hˆH.‚ „P„LџЦP^„P`„Lџ‡hˆH.„а„˜ўЦа^„а`„˜ўo(.€ „ „˜ўЦ ^„ `„˜ў‡hˆH.‚ „p„LџЦp^„p`„Lџ‡hˆH.€ „@ „˜ўЦ@ ^„@ `„˜ў‡hˆH.€ „„˜ўЦ^„`„˜ў‡hˆH.‚ „р„LџЦр^„р`„Lџ‡hˆH.€ „А„˜ўЦА^„А`„˜ў‡hˆH.€ „€„˜ўЦ€^„€`„˜ў‡hˆH.‚ „P„LџЦP^„P`„Lџ‡hˆH.KШ&~[џџџџџџџџџџџџ                  х…g<ЊKE`}g‰ЅqРrNўџ@€nЛУ`@џџUnknownџџџџџџџџџџџџG‡z €џTimes New Roman5€Symbol3& ‡z €џArial"qˆ№аhЏЫЩ†ЏЫЩ†Zi Zi $№ ДД24ЛЛ2ƒQ№HP)№џ?фџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџrNў2џџGeneral Education Committee Joe YbarraInformation Technology  ўџр…ŸђљOhЋ‘+'Гй0”˜МШмшє $0 P \ ht|„ŒфGeneral Education Committee Joe YbarraNormalInformation Technology2Microsoft Office Word@@""=XЩ@""=XЩZi ўџеЭеœ.“—+,љЎ0 hp|„Œ” œЄЌД М ффЛЋ General Education Committee Title ўџџџ ўџџџ"#$%&'(ўџџџ*+,-./0ўџџџ§џџџ3ўџџџўџџџўџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџRoot Entryџџџџџџџџ РF@ЖЯQXЩ5€1TableџџџџџџџџГWordDocumentџџџџџџџџ.$SummaryInformation(џџџџ!DocumentSummaryInformation8џџџџџџџџџџџџ)CompObjџџџџџџџџџџџџqџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџўџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџўџ џџџџ РFMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.8є9Вq