lJnap... OV~ MiJutes ot" <.ieneral Education Committee Meeting Sept 13, 2000
Subject: Unapproved Minutes of General Education Committee Meeting Sept. 13,2000
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 07:51:55 -0500
From: Vivian Thomlinson <viviant@cameron.edu>
Organization: Cameron University
To: victorias@Cameron.edu
Committee Members:
Following are the minutes from the Sept. 13, 2000, GenEd Committee
meeting. Please e-mail me any changes, corrections, etc. you note, and
I will include them in a new e-mail. We discussed a lot of complex
issues, and I want to make sure I get the minutes exactly right.
Thanks! !
Minutes from 13 Sept. 2000 meeting in SU 104:
The meeting was called to order at 3:45 p.m. by Chair Victoria Swinney.
Members present constituted an agreed-upon quorum. Present: Hagee,
Pazoureck, Snider, Harrison, Atwater, Swinney, and Thomlinson. .
The minutes of the previous meeting of 10 July 2000 were read; Atwater
moved for approval of minutes unamended: Pazoureck seconded.
Unanimously approved.
Swinney distributed an up-to-date (Sept. 13, 2000) printout of the Gen
Ed Matrix which this committee sent out to faculty this summer and then
followed up with additional mailings of the matrix to department chairs
later in the summer. The number of respondents t~ the matrix is
indicated under each criterion. Thomlinson asked Swinney if the number
of faculty responses was high. Swinney indicated that responses have
continued to come in since the matrix was first sent out, and the number
of faculty replying seems to be high.
Pazoureck noted one error on the
matrix, under CRM 36031 criterion 3 "interrelate concepts from diverse
fields
" response should indicate 50% agreement, NOT the stated
100%.
Swinney also distributed a separate sheet of faculty comments to the
matrix.
Representative comments from faculty were negative about the
matrix, its criteria, ·etc. Comments especially noted the ambiguity of
descriptors used in matrix.
Atwater queried if there were some way to weight the criteria to see if
a pattern of non-compliance with the criteria across the board could be
ascertained. Snider suggested that this committee instruct all
department chairs to convene their faculty and select four (4) of the
descriptors they report being in compliance with and then develop for
just those four descriptors the following assessment protocol: 1.. Tell
HOW you accomplish this descriptor in your course(s): 2. tell HOW you
TEST for compliance with these descriptors in your course(s); and 3.
tell HOW you plan to ASSESS this descriptor for NCA and continuing
assessment purposes.
Discussion ensued, with general consensus (but no
vote) indicating acceptance of Snider's suggestion as a way to proceed.
Harrison distributed copies of the Subcomittee on General Education
Report, dated July 25, 2000.
Subcommittee members: Ann Nalley, Wade
Harrison, and Becky Pazoureck. Atwater proposed multiple changes to the
document in order to include not only FUTURE general education courses
but to umbrella present general education courses as well. A revised
version of this document will be typed by this secretary and distributed
under separate cover to all members of the General Education Committee
in a timely manner. Note, please, that the changes deal with making the
of2
9/14/007:58 AM
d()Gtlnt.tm.t Gover All general eduGation GOUfse8; both proposed new ones and existing ones;
Atwater-supplied ttHhe-Committee-a--repmi t}ft-Iustittltitmal~t GOpied ftom the
University's 1998--99 report dealing with assessment practices already in pIaoo in these general
emaOOlt-W\llSeS;- inJlish G&mpQsirioo ~ ~-Alp1ml,- ami- funciamemaIs of Sp~h,
Atwater noted that Judy Neale in Edu4r8tion has said that the newly state-mandated general
edu.eatimttestrequiredof aD--eo1leBe gradWltes who-seeJt eet1ifiwtitm-as-~ub1iQ sc:hool teadlers in
Oklahoma has a GmlSiderable general-oouG8tion oomponent and might be useful as yet another
assessmeattool--tW~ to ~oosi4et;- TIle 4ata--is-a1Na4Y tber~ ~ture4, and the
d~ript()rs for the test GOu1cl be examined by this Committee to see to what, ifany, extent they
ant asetW-fMtHtypeefgemnl-~n
assessmem-we are-~ed with oonduoting, A
majority of those present agreed to prOOeed withSU1'\feying those desGriptors and oonsitkring
usiq-those--test-resu1ts aB-JQtential fim-fOf-tM-Jeft;eral edv.eatioo-assesspmlt program. Atwater
nQted the Committee's endorsement of pr~g with this plan for the reoorc1
The committee voted in person to accept the following amended guidelines
for the composition of the General Education Committee, as all members
had earlier voted upon in an e-mail from Victoria Swinney dated 30 .
August 2000:
2 members from each School, omitting Graduate School as a
separate entity; (its faculty members are part of one or the other of
the 4 Schools);
1 member from library;
d1' ' \
Chair and chair-elect of the Faculty CO~ill~~- 1~A~~)
Director of General Education I.J>-f. x{~J-',_A),)
3 student members
\
vfv
This proposition was unanimously accepted by voice vote.
Itt--kngthy and-imi'Dlved diswssiDJ4 tlm--€ommittee agreed - _ ~ its eharge to "Establish
and periodiGally review gaid~Jines for =rti:fying oourses to ~ um'a'al Edumttion Program
that- it-is imtJmta1It-tD-~JamY the stamliugDfwllent gemmI1 eQuation oourses in
light of these Qh;ar..ses and the guidelines we have developed to ~ them out Thu~ all GOUTSeS
eu.rrmtly inelutletl-in-the-GeneraI Edueatimt-Progam ~ but-~ be subjeGt to periodiG
review to msure that they . . . . . . . mGt the objootives ofthe Galeral EduGation Program
[thauksw-Cltair- Swilmey-for-wootiDgfor this paragraph!],
R~lIimmmtSj"
Chair Swinney noted that the Committee will meet again on OGtober 11; 2000,· Thomlinson
moved-for~; Snider- seeDlltkti The-meetiftg-waa adjourned at 4:50 p,tn