Minutes of the Competency-Based General Education Committee ( June 12, 2000 )
( Approved )
Members Present: Lucy Arendt (co-chair), Illene Noppe (co-chair), Sherri Urcavitch,
Brian Sutton, Richard Logan, Greg Davis, Dave Galaty, Tim Trace, Teri Berggren, Debra
Pearson
The meeting convened at 10:55 am in ES 301
1) The minutes of June 5, 2000 were approved.
2) Due to computer error, some members of the committee didn’t receive copies of the rough draft of parts I and II prepared by Lucy Arendt. Members decided to read the document before next week’s meeting and at that time discuss its contents.
3) The committee decided to discuss the competencies. The following points and recommendations were made and questions raised:
4) Members discussed whether or not the competencies should be more specific or global in nature.
-
It was suggested that faculty within individual departments further define specifics relating to their appropriate competencies.
-
It was stressed that although many of the competencies are more global, this Task
Force needs to give enough detail to clearly give direction and set the stage for implementation.
-
In the final report, one competency can be fully developed, with specifics and strategies for student demonstration and faculty assessment, thus serving as a model.
5) It was suggested that in discussing the competencies, we should compare them to the
91-92 task force list.
6) The committee recognizes the tension between competencies and courses and the need for these two to converge for the success of this project.
It would be theoretically possible for students to flunk a course and yet pass a competency, and for a student to not take any GE courses, but complete all challenge exams for competencies.
-
Concern was voiced over the need for clarification of when a challenge exam is for a competency or a course.
7) Students, especially freshman students, must be able to clearly understand the expectations of demonstrating the competencies and through which courses they can demonstrate this.
8) The advising system, and all faculty must have extensive support, and initial and ongoing training to fully understand/embrace competency-based GE (CBGE), to be able

to communicate the nature of CBGE to students, particularly freshman students, and effectively assist students in planning a curriculum that allows that student to satisfy the competencies. The committee sees faculty training in CBGE as essential to the success of this undertaking. The formation of an official GE faculty unit (non-budgetary) should greatly facilitate a cohesive and successful CBGE program.
9) Competencies must be used as a basis for GE course design.
-
A suggestion was made to scrap all existing GE courses and then have the GE faculty design new GE courses clearly based upon the competencies. While
“scrapping” existing courses may seem extreme, the committee agreed that some course modifications and additions/deletions will likely be necessary.
10) All faculty shouldn’t have to use the exact same criteria for assessing a student’s demonstration of a competency, thus giving each faculty member a degree of control over projects and assessment methods. Yet there should be some predetermined consensus that the criteria a professor uses does indeed adequately assess and is directly related to a competency (i.e., If a course covers competency #1 and #14, then the instructor assesses some student project(s) based on criteria directly related to the competency. The student is given that project and the assessment for their portfolio etc.).
11) For competencies 1-8, performance-rating scales can be developed that are descriptive of what a student did and didn’t do on a demonstration project. A student is then able to see what a 4 (or whatever the rating scale is) is and looks like and how his/her project failed to (or did) meet the criteria.
12) Several members commented that competencies 9 through 18 are more content oriented and specific to certain domains, whereas 1 through 8 are process outcomes, modes of learning and demonstrating what you know, which cut across all domains. The demonstration of any of the competencies #1-8 should involve more than one course for a student.
13) We must differentiate a teacher’s responsibility to assign and evaluate versus teach a competency within a course. (I.e., What should be done with the following scenario; a student in a class did an essay and teacher says didn’t fulfill competency #5 (write effectively), student says well why didn’t you teach me writing skills and teacher says that is not done in my class, it is covered in a writing class.)
14) Each competency was discussed individually (as listed in the GE learning outcomes survey) to determine if it should be retained unaltered, modified, and to determine if it can be assessed adequately.
-
Competency #1: (… interdiscplinary perspective). This has always been central to the
UWGB mission and yet has never been critically assessed. Some ideas emerged as to how to incorporate and assess this competency.
-
A senior seminar (because many students take GE courses through their senior year) might be ideal for assessing this competency.

-
A group of GE faculty could choose a theme (i.e.: freedom) or a case study and then address this theme from the perspective of each domain (natural sciences, humanistic sciences, social sciences) allowing students to experience how a NS,
HS and SS scientist thinks and approaches an issue.
-
Although no specific recommendation emerged about this competency, it was certainly agreed that this competency is an important one, and in the interest of time the committee moved onto the next competency.
Competency #2, (…listen effectively):
-
Some members wondered if this could be assessed.
-
Others suggested that if a student demonstrates any of a number of other competencies that would imply that the student could listen effectively.
-
It was suggested that this competency should address a student’s ability to manage conflict, work with other students without dominating the situation etc.
-
The committee finally recommended removing this competency.
-
Competency #3, (…speak effectively):
-
Should this competency assess the ability to organize thoughts and deliver ideas in a cohesive manner or assess the command of language? This arose out of concern for a student for whom English is not their primary language.
-
The committee recognized that for writing skills we already have courses that specifically address improving a student’s ability to write. But we do not want to necessarily do the same for speaking skills. Thus, perhaps “speaking effectively” should not be a competency, but rather an expected experience.
The committee recommended changing the wording of this competency to something on the order of “orally present ideas effectively”.
Competency #4 (…read effectively):
-
This can be assessed through reading comprehension tests
-
There are institutional implications for this competency, if competencies are not remedial in nature. Students are currently admitted who aren’t at a high enough reading level, do we need to provide labs, courses to bring them up to a minimal level of reading comprehension?
-
There is “blame” on both sides of the aisle (students and teachers) for the slackening of reading abilities/requirements. Some students don’t do the reading assignments. Some teachers don’t require reading assignments and test only from lecture material. Some teachers haven’t read the text themselves and don’t know what is in the text.
-
Competency #5 (…write effectively):
Keep this competency. We can assess it.
-
Competency #6 (…computer proficiency):
Modify to focus on information literacy, perhaps. Probably no need to assess basic computer proficiency, given the increasing use of computers in K-12.

- Competencies #7 and #8 (critical thinking, problem solving)
- The group discussed how the two competencies differ, and their relationship to competency #1 (multidisciplinary thinking). No final decision resulted from the conversation.
The group agreed that the final set of competencies recommended should align with existing university documents, such as the Guiding Principles, Green Bay Idea, and mission.
The committee adjourned until its next meeting, scheduled for June 19, 2000. Committee members agreed to review the partial draft written by Lucy, and to come to the next meeting prepared to finish the discussion of competencies.
Respectfully submitted (and hopefully accurately),
Debra Pearson PhD