General Education Committee
July 8 th
, 2009 Howell Hall 107 2:00 PM
Approved Minutes
Members present:
John Hodgson- English
Abdulhamid Sukar- Business
Mohammad Tabatabai - Mathematical Sciences
Jason Smith - Library
Greg Treadwell - Business (Chair) Kirsten Underwood - Music
John McArthur, Benson Warren, and Sylvia Burgess were also in attendance.
Agenda Items/Discussions
1.
The meeting was called to order at 2:01 PM.
2.
Tabatabai moved to approve the June 12 minutes. Sukar seconded. The motion carried.
3.
First item on the agenda was team member updates. Underwood stated that the Music Department had questions about objective 2B and submitted correspondence from Dr. Labe that illustrated an example of differences between teaching on-line and in the classroom. Warren also stated that the Art Department would provide summer class results. Tabatabai asked the Agricultural Department to submit information. Hodgson said he has not received a response from the Biological Sciences Department.
4.
Next item on the agenda involved a discussion over common syllabus requirements. McArthur spoke of HB
1704, a state law which mandates common textbooks for multiple sections/ semesters. Both the State Regents for Higher Education and the OU Board of Regents mandate that courses with the same course number have identical learning outcomes and objectives; however, they are not required to have identical syllabi or assignments. A discussion concluded that it is irrelevant as to whether or not a class is on-line or in the classroom. It was suggested that if a course has a lot of different instructors, more specifically adjunct instructors, there needs to be a uniform syllabus in order to maintain some type of consistency. McArthur said there needs to be accountability factors for evaluation purposes.
5.
Treadwell Plan: Two different methods: Top-down start with the objectives list; bottom-up starts with the syllabus. The committee preferred the top-down method, and stated that individual department’s are supposed to decide which courses match which objectives. Treadwell then said that he would like ask each department heads some questions, similar to an audit. Tabatabai said that each department needs to specify how they are reporting their assessments. He also suggested that the General Education Committee ask specific questions with a stated time period, under threat of course removal if non-compliant. The committee concluded the audit wasn’t necessary at this time.
6.
Sukar suggested that each department write down steps, such as mapping their objectives and methods of assessment. Warren reiterated that there needs to be some kind of commonality across each course and department and when accessing the information given by departments, see if there are any common links. In addition, try to have some fundamental understandings of the objectives. Treadwell suggested that perhaps each department could self-access their objectives. Warren said that a chart developed by the Institutional
Assessment Committee could be used and filled out by each department.
7.
Underwood stated that the biggest goal of the General Education Committee is to have a plan by fall and to obtain data by the end of fall. The Fall 2009 PQIR will assess objectives 1D, 2D, and 2E. Hodgson suggested that

data is needed by October 1 st,
, 2009. Next week, McArthur is going to meet with all of the Deans and Chairs on campus and suggested handing out a memo from the General Education Committee with objectives. McArthur said he would ask the departments about any plans, measures, and data and to have those submitted by
October 1 st
, 2009. He also suggested that the results will fall into different ranges.
8.
The next meeting will be scheduled sometime in early September. No definitive date was scheduled.
9.
Meeting adjourned at 3:13 PM.