General Education Committee Minutes, 3/19/14
Members present: L. Calderon, S. Caro, M Cracolice, A. Dresselhaus, K. Huthaily, J. Randall, K.
Reiser, T. Shearer T. Squires, E. Uchimoto, N. White
Ex-officio Members present: B. Howard
Guest: S. Bradford, G. Weix
The minutes from 3/5/14 were approved.
Communication

Several of the forms for the rolling review were not filled out properly. Camie has requested
revised forms according to the spreadsheet for the Global and Indigenous Group. Some of
the justifications for inclusion of upper-division courses seem weak. Subcommittees will
request additional information and the Committee may need to discuss these as a whole.

The committee briefly considered the rationale for reviewing a late proposal for a one-timeoffering of LIT 291 The American Novel for Non-Majors and Pre-Majors course that would
fulfill both the Literary & Artistic and American and European designations. The
Committee was not convinced by the rationale. The form will be sent electronically for
members to review.
Business Items

Professor Bradford drafted the survey from the preamble. It evaluates perception /opinion
not the educational experience, but may fill in some of the gaps. A possibility would be to
ask the GLI students to complete the survey given they are randomly selected. However,
there are only 45 out of 200 remaining in the first cohort.
Although portfolio review is the gold standard for assessment, testing actual outcomes by
evaluating student work is complicated. Collecting student outputs from current general
education courses offered on Moodle could be an option, but would require extensive work
on a rubric and logistics. The Oregon Model involved individual professors’ using value
rubrics and holding discussions. It seemed very involved and time consuming. Another
suggestion was to collect student work from discipline capstone courses to see whether they
some of the learning outcomes implied in the preamble.
One thing the committee can do now is collect data on the current evaluation of the groups
in terms of how many forms were incomplete, required follow-up, were approved, or denied.

The Committee discussed various ideas for re-organizing or redefining the American and
European, Global and Indigenous, and Ethics components of the General Education
Framework.
o Eliminate both American & European and Indigenous and Global perspectives and
create a Diversity and Culture category with differentiated choices. This category
would always be double dipped with another group.
The Committee reviewed the draft definition as well as how the category is defined
in the MUS core. These definitions seem are lacking a contemporary component and
does not specifically address discrimination. Students need to be able to understand
and respect other perspectives / worlds that are unfamiliar and different from their
own. Medical schools require students to have some exposure to understanding the
importance of treat people different from you with respect and sensitivity. MSU
allows a second semester of language to fulfill the Diversity requirement. This may
help to alleviate some of the students’ unhappiness with the revised language
requirement. It would be controversial to eliminate the X and Y perspectives
without redefining the framework that shows the essence of the perspectives are still
captured in the requirements.
o The Ethics category is inherently American & European, but the criteria and learning
outcomes could be refined to allow for professional ethics.
Originally the American & European category was to expose students to the values
and structure of democracy. This was the old western requirement. The Ethics
category could also be redefined to include an aspect of respect for people different
than themselves.
o The History and Culture perspective could be narrowed by removing the culture
component.
o UM could adopt a MUS Core plus program.
o Technology / computer literacy is a proficiency component missing from the General
Education program.
Chair White noted that it may be easier to make a significant change that a lot of small
changes. She has reviewed the Faculty Senate minutes when the latest revision was
approved. The collective wisdom of the group will prevail as long as the argument is
practical and reasonable. The general education framework would be easier to manage with
fewer clearly stated categories. Any revision must consider the pragmatics of assessment.
The committee questioned whether there was an assessment mechanism / rubric set up for
the MUS Core. The model could spread the courses as equitable as possible, prevent
gaming as much as possible, preserve the liberal arts tradition, reflect UM’s idiosyncratic
history, and differentiates UM from other campuses by what makes it unique.
Director Howard volunteered to compare the learning goals for the MUS Core to UM’s
preamble to compare and contrast where there are matches or there are statements outside
the structure. Chair White will contact the Great Falls College to get a sense for how it
assesses general education. Its faulty engagement is strongly driven by accessibility.
Professor Randall will work on defining a Historical requirement without culture. The other
suggestions could be fleshed out in general terms. Committee members should think about
the draft survey and whether it would add value to assessing the effectiveness of the general
education program.

The assessment revisions to the general education review form were approved (appended
below). The curriculum review deadline memo will need to explicitly mention the revision
to the form and a sample will be needed for faculty to reference.

The Committee agreed to meet on April 9th to consider the rolling review consent agendas.
The meeting will only be for 1 hour since the committee will also meet on April 16th.
The meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m.
VI. Student Learning Goals: Briefly explain how this course will meet the applicable learning
goals. See: http://umt.edu/facultysenate/documents/forms/GE_Criteria5-1-08.aspx
1.
2.
3.
VII. Assessment: How are the learning goals above measured? Please list at least one
assignment, activity or test question for each goal.
1.
2.
3.