General Education & CORE4 Alignment
Performance Goal Team
October 9, 2015
(X) Attendees
X
X
X
Joey Anderson
Debbie Lord
Dena Shonts
X
X
X
Erin Payton
Gareth Burns
Jennifer Gibson
Jeri Guido
Kathy Watkins
Krys Swartz
Lisa Godwin
X
Nicholas Riggins
X
X
X
Guests:
Theresa Russo
Shantell Strickland-Davis
Deninne Pritchett
Mary-Margaret Kantor
Michael Ripoll
The goal of this first meeting of the performance standards team was:
Identify and recommend research backed teaching and learning strategies that help students attain
competencies/traits.
The meeting format was an open floor discussion. Committee member discussion revolved around the
following themes:
Teaching Strategies







Faculty/Administrators think that they are the authority on effective teaching. We do not give students
enough credit but they know if they are getting a good or bad product.
Learning is different than it used to be. Data can be found quickly and easily on the internet. Students
don’t need faculty to have all of the information. Faculty’s role in 21st century education is more about
making the knowledge meaningful to the students and teaching them how to apply the knowledge.
We are a change oriented college but still a fair amount of faculty and administrators are resistant to
change. Faculty still tend to teach how they were taught although most know that this is not the most
effective way.
There is a sense that we have lowered the bar to meet student needs and this causes faculty to fall back
into the standing teaching cycle. Trying to hold up the bar and use innovative teaching strategies is
exhausting. The education system as a whole has lowered the bar.
We need to move the needle but we can’t expect big adjustments right away. Need to take small steps
to make changes. For example, give faculty a list of five effective teaching strategies and ask them to try
at least one in their classroom.
Faculty leaders/Administrators have to lead by example. If faculty do not see that these changes are
valued by their leaders they will not make any changes. We will see changes due to the amount of
turnover in the new few years. Also, new faculty will be easier to train to the new way. This is partially
by virtue of the way that they were taught.
Faculty aren’t necessarily apathetic, they are busy with workloads and committee memberships. We
reward committee membership as opposed to teaching.






We rely on those that give 100% but there is no concern or consequence for those that do not. We
keep knowledge to ourselves out of fear when we really should be sharing and playing to each other’s
strengths.
New faculty training is overwhelming. Don’t feel that new faculty know and understand the goals of
Gen Ed and Core4.
One approach for improving teaching strategies is greater recognition for faculty who are using effective
strategies in the classroom and for supervisors who are valuing these classroom strategies.
A second approach is a common way to assess mastery of the goals that is broad enough to use across
the board using a standardized scoring rubric.
Another approach could be a capstone presentation/interview. Some examples were provided of how
this is done well at some schools while at others it just seems to be a lip service. Currently, we do not
hold any individual students accountable for these goals. Having each program design an end of the
program assignment may be too far of a leap at this time. If we took this approach we should start with
the programs (AAS) first and then it could be applied to the transfer degrees. Cross functional faculty
should be include in evaluation where it makes since (for example, science faculty should be involved
with health science programs). Liberal arts faculty should review the AA and AS degree students.
The idea that anyone can be fully proficient at a skill when graduating is inaccurate. We continue to
build on skills throughout life.
Gen Ed and Core4 Goals









Why can’t we just combine Gen Ed and Core4? If faculty leaders are confused about the existence of
the two separate sets of goals how can we expect new faculty and students to understand? The goals
seem like paths that should intersect and become one as opposed to being parallel.
We must teach the value of the goals to faculty. Once they see that it has a positive impact on students
the value will increase.
Liberal arts faculty understood the previous Gen Ed assessment process because they had to participate.
Core4 has no accountability and no consistency which is why there is so much confusion surrounding
Core4. There is a feeling that the Core4 goals were randomly assigned to program level courses.
Gen Ed sounds like it only applies to liberal arts areas but the goals also apply in program areas. Core4 is
a term that sparks too much emotion (both negative and positive) throughout the college. The goals
should be combined and renamed something like Completion Goals or Graduation Goals.
Historically, the Gen Ed process has been named such for SACS (although it does not necessarily have to
be called Gen Ed to meet the standards). Core4 was introduced about 12 years ago at the beginning of
the transition to competency based education.
Administration describes the difference as Gen Ed assesses at the program level while Core4 assesses
individual students.
Talking about teaching strategies and assessment just seems like a distraction from the real issue of the
goals. We have asked to combine the two sets of goals over and over and are repeated told no. Maybe
we are asking the question the wrong way. We have to respect our parameters or we are just spinning
our wheels.
If we can’t change the two sets of goals then how do we add value and sell them to faculty and students.
How do we get past the being “bogged” down by the names?