General Education Committee
October 2, 2009 Howell Hall 107 10:00 AM
Approved Minutes
Members present:
Abdulhamid Sukar – Business
Christopher Keller - Communication
John Geiger- Psychology
Mohammad Tabatabai – Mathematical Sciences
John Hodgson - English
Jason Smith – Library
(Chair) Kirsten Underwood – Music
John McArthur was also in attendance.
Department Chairs and representative faculty were also present:
Mary Penick – Computing and Technology, Karla Oty – Mathematical Sciences, Scott Richard Klein –
Theatre Arts, Tony Allison – Communication, Margery Kingsley – Enlgish, Douglas Catterall- History,
and Jonathan Odo – Criminal Justice and Sociology.
Agenda Items/Discussions
1. The meeting was called to order at 10:03 AM.
2. Hodgson made a motion to approve the September 18 minutes. Keller seconded.
3. Old business: Underwood said she hasn’t received feedback for the templates and recommended
to approve the templates. Tabatabai approved motion. Hodgson seconded.
4. Underwood gave an update on departmental plans. Foreign Languages has a plan to use final
exams at this time. Health and Physical Education is bringing in a consultant to help with their
assessment. Sociology, Criminal Justice, History and Government, and Physical Sciences have
no plans at this time.
5. Underwood passed out handouts, including Pilot Sub-Committee for General Education
Objective 2.d meeting minutes, General Education Requirements, General Education Objectives
for Cameron University, and General Education Objectives Assessment for Introductory
Sociology (SOCI 1113).
6. Next was the Pilot Sub-Committee for General Education Objective 2.d meeting summary.
Underwood said that during the meeting they discovered that many of the professors present were
using similar writing assignments and that maybe these writing assignments could be
collaboratively developed to yield a common writing assessment. This was also included in the
handout of the minutes of that meeting.
7. Next item for discussion consisted of the templates for comparing the General Education PQIR.
Underwood said that the idea is to balance out between the department’s that have data and those
that are at the beginning stages of their assessment. Part 1 is devoted to design, and Underwood
said that not every department can fill out all of the pages either currently or even by the end of
the semester. However, this is the goal that will hopefully be reached. Part II consists of data and
analysis for the three objectives 1.d, 2.d, and 2.e. However, the General Education Committee
wants every department to collect data for all of the objectives that they list. Part III consists of a
shared responsibility matrix. Underwood said she would like to do a qualitative analysis of
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
faculty participation to see strengths and weaknesses between departments. Underwood stated
that the faculty has a wide range of feelings and ideas about assessment that the General
Education Committee needs to address.
Karla Oty, chair of the Mathematical Sciences department said she had a problem with data and
analysis. She said that in her department they use imbedded test questions and the professor only
cares about what number of students got the question correct. She said that the data and analysis
forms are asking the total number of students who get each general education question correct.
She said that they do not know what students are answering what questions correctly and that it
would be difficult to attain that information given the large number of students taking courses
with general education proponents in math.
Tom Sutherlin said that the whole premise of general education is to show that Cameron is
teaching what it says that it is teaching. He also went on to say that it does not matter which
methodology is used, just so that it shows the information that the General Education Committee
needs.
Underwood proposed re-phrasing items listed under Part II: Data and Analysis from “number and
percentage meeting or failing to meet benchmark” to phrases such as “above or below
benchmark”. Douglas Catterall suggested putting a footnote on the form explaining what the
question does and does not hold one to.
A question was asked about who defines the benchmark. Underwood responded that each
department does, and that the General Education Committee wanted to help facilitate
conversations between departments to ensure that they have the same benchmarks for comparison
between each dept.
Underwood said that the weakness of the chart is that it does not include all of the different ways
that each department assesses information. She said that at this time it is important to get
information from each department about how they assess data. Sutherlin said that it is ok for each
department to have different assessment methods, as long as they reflect on what the department
is trying to accomplish.
A question was asked whether the committee had a definition of validity and reliability.
Underwood said it is done at the departmental level. Sutherlin said workshops will be provided
to discuss such items. He also said that each department reviews their process and questions to
determine face validity. This should happen as a group, with everyone in agreement.
Oty asked the difference between 1.d and 2.e. Catterall suggested that 1.d implies inductive
reasoning, while 2.e implies deductive reasoning.
Next item discussed was scheduling. Sutherlin said a workgroup will be created for departments
to store documents, so that committees can retrieve documents without having to go through the
Institutional Assessment Committee. He also said that the General Education documentation will
be on the server by Jan. 15th, 2010. On Feb. 1st, presentations will start for the General Education
PQIR’s.
Questions were asked about the presentations. Underwood said that the General Education
Committee will receive each department’s assessment information and put together a report.
Then the committee will present this report to the Institutional Assessment Committee along with
the faculty who teaches those courses in attendance to answer questions. The General Education
Committee will give the presentation in consultation with each department. The Institutional
Assessment Committee will be the audience, and there will probably be multiple sessions for
each objective.
There were concerns over the number of faculty attending the presentations. McArthur said all
faculty members, including adjuncts, can be invited to participate.
Tony Allison had concerns over picking which objectives for which courses and the minimum
number of objectives per course. Margery Kingsley said it is better to align specific courses with
specific objectives, but that every course does not have to meet every objective.
19. Next meeting is scheduled for October 30th at 3:00 PM in Howell Hall 107. Chairs and those
professors present were invited to this next meeting.
20. Meeting adjourned at 10:55 AM.