Approximately 20 individuals, participated in a conversation on “Re-Envisioning General
Education at
on August 30, 2005. This is a summary of points raised at that meeting.
•We need learning outcomes before considering structure. How should we proceed with this task?
• Do learning outcomes need to come first or could they be developed in combination with talking about structure?
• If we develop university learning outcomes, what are all of the ways in which those outcomes can be addressed by Gen Ed and other areas of the university
• The structure that we adopt and the expectations should be clear to students
• Learning outcomes should be reflective of the university mission statement and what we say we are about- outcomes flow from the mission
• Need to tie general education outcomes to the broader picture and the university mission- move from the general university mission to specific courses
• Need to clarify for faculty the terms (mission, goal, learning objective, outcomes, assessment)
• Utilize the expertise regarding instructional design that we have on campus for writing the goals and outcomes
• Some faculty know a lot about learning outcomes, a lot of faculty do not know about learning outcomes- we need to educate faculty
• Make outcomes focused on student learning- also look at student psychological and cultural development
• Think about what kind of individual we would like to see in 40 years—(What are we preparing our students for? What is our mission? Why are we here?)
• General Education is the foundation of the university experience
• Challenge the idea that all general education courses should be taken in the first two years
• What are the boxes that We begin with and how do we think outside of them (For example, how does MnSCU dictate the structures that confine us, and how do get outside of that to develop our own?)
• Be careful not to completely set aside disciplinarity (we can not be inter-disciplinary if we are not disciplinary)
•What should be our expectations for content and pedagogy in general education?
• Content is determined by what we are trying to achieve and by the expertise
• Pedagogy is a question of technique and shouldn’t be dictated
• We teach students through the pedagogy (for example, if we only utilize multiple choice tests we teach students that answers to questions are always structured in that way)
• The ideal would be for students to have a variety of pedagogical experiences- we should be careful not to look for the “holy grail” of pedagogy
• Pedagogy and its relation to class size- be fair to the experience of students and the experience of faculty- it is unfair to have a large difference in the size of classes

• Different methods have different results and students should have a variety of experiences
• Focus on the shared coherent principles not on the sameness of experience
•How might we use learning communities in general education?
•
What does it mean? Is it just a buzzword? How does it look different today than it did 40 years ago or will look in 40 years?
• Is it already happening yet we call it something different?
• Different types of learning communities and different ways to do them
• General education is not the same as learning communities- they don’t always have to happen together
•What else should we keep in mind as we re-envision general education at SCSU?
What other questions should we be asking?
• Break the stranglehold of FTEs
• The survival of a department or program should not be related to cranking up FTEs