General Education Assessment Committee
November 3, 2014
Student Union Building, Room 322
Present: Krista Prock (at-large non-teaching faculty), Varsha Pandya (CLAS), Mary Eicholtz (at-large
teaching faculty), George Sirrakos (COE), William Donner (Rep from SPRC), William Dempsey
(Academic Dean), Valerie Trollinger (VPA), Kim Shively (at-large teaching faculty), Janice Gasker (atlarge teaching faculty), Gil Clary (Office of Assessment).
Absent: Brent Penny (Admin. & Finance), Vacant (Gen Ed Committee), Stephen Hensler (COB), Danielle
Hendricks (Student Representative).
Prock called the meeting to order at 2:00 pm, and took a moment to acknowledge Randy Schaeffer’s
absence. He represented the General Education Committee.
Minutes: Motion was made to approve the October 20, 2014 Minutes by Eicholtz, seconded by Shively.
Minutes were approved.
Year 3 report: Prock and Clary met with James Mackin and Carole Wells and during the meeting
presented the 2013-2014 report. They spoke about different aspects in the report. It was noted that
although 18 reports from “volunteers” were requested, only 12 reports were received. The curriculum
map was discussed and it was undecided if we will be able to hire a student. It is possible that we can
get by one more year with a volunteer student, but in the future it is felt that we will need to hire a
student because of the depth of the work that will be required. Clary will follow up with Greg Schaper
(Computer Science department) and James Mackin.
Chairnet: Prock was not able to talk about the curriculum map and its revision at the November
meeting because of their crowded meeting agenda. She will try to get on their agenda for the next
meeting.
GEAC/GEC: A joint meeting was recently held with Patti Derr representing the GEC in attendance. It is
noted the one thing we have in common is the general education goals. To develop that, we are
planning a meeting for Friday, November 21, 2014 at 3 o’clock in SUB 312. Derr and Prock will meet
in advance to flesh out goals to meet for both committees. This is the first time the two committees will
meet together. Discussion followed. Closing the loop needs to include many things, such as the
processes, general education as a whole and the expectations of student skills among other things.
Compilation 3-Year report (2011-2014): In the report, some of the items to address may include –
thematic courses, benchmark process, more training in the absolute approach. We can also talk about
the evolution of the assessment process at Kutztown University. It was suggested that in the next cycle,
we should be “goal” focused, and not just “process” focused. If we include benchmarks, define
benchmarks and where they should be even after a single three-credit science course, as an example.
Benchmarks will also allow us to answer the question of what our students can do upon graduation.
Discussion followed. The themes seem to focus on goals 1 and 3, but not goal 2. It is possible for a
student to take a course that meets a requirement on their check sheet but is not identified on the
curriculum map as meeting a goal.
Prock shared a chart from another institution defining how many courses are needed to meet a goal. It
was asked if GEAC is willing to go this far in defining the goals. Discussion followed. The structure of
the general education goals needs to be reviewed with a focus on assessment, and we have to make it
work within our system. It was suggested that we reach out to Terry Rhodes of AAC&U to ask how we
define the goals and domains.
Meeting adjourned at 2:55 pm.
/km
11/12/2014