Notes from Gen Ed Feedback Lunch with Faculty
April 20, 2011
Faculty present: Sherri Hannigan, Karen Sookram, Peggy Hart, Linda Kalbach, Denise Ellis,
Kay Hegler, Phil Weitl, Diana McCown , Kim Jarvis, John Burney, Chris Wentworth, Tessa
Durham Brooks, Mark Plano-Clark, Brad Elder, Jim Johnson, Barb Clement, Ramesh Laungani,
Liam Purdon, Kate Marley, Brian Pauwels, Jeff Stander, Kathy Ohlman, Peter Reinkordt, Alec
Engebretson
Questions and Comments:
Chris Wentworth: We should add a 4th learning outcome, like develop understanding of certain
critical areas of knowledge. Need to have that and need to tell our students what knowledge
they need to know in order to function as citizens of the world.
Knowledge set beyond major? YES. Chris suggests understanding of ethical theories, modern
scientific thinking as two examples. Link to mission though not specifying specific courses that
need to me listed, but can find other effective ways to make sure they get those
experiences/exposure to specific STATED content areas.
Peggy Hart: Do models get rid of content specifically or do they just no longer list it? Basically
do we need to list content areas in outcomes statement or are we intentional about that
elsewhere. Need to appease the faculty who need to know exactly what is
covered/represented. This is the sticky piece – need to address.
Chris Wentworth: Not saying students must take one science course, but rather that students
need a specific type of exposure to scientific thinking – and we need to list that deliberately.
Denise Ellis: Concerned about transfer of courses from elsewhere and also how computer will
understand model. Also, if too wild, would not work for GI and Lincoln, maybe even transfer out
problems.
Liam Purdon: Direct attention to Gen Ed Statement document, specifically the synthesis part.
This document talks about how the transformation of our students is what we are after. How do
we effectuate this transformation?
Peggy Hart: In order to see the mathematics as art or art as mathematics you have to have
some math and some art – so must have exposure to the basic knowledge areas, basic content,
comment generally in support of vertical model where still having those integrative experiences
even as building content.
Brian Pauwels: Pushing off synthesis experiences until later makes much more sense since
they can have content first, then synthesize, so Jr and/or Sr experiences appealing
Karen Sookrum: Vertical model offers synthesis all the way through, design has potential for
creative learning experiences. If having vertical DP experiences, is there any concern about
how that blends with major?
Brian Pauwels: There are skill sets unique to disciplines, so is Jr/Sr integration or assumption
that all students will emerge with same set of skills false? May not be able to fit collective
outcomes equally well onto all disciplines.
Tessa Durham Brooks: Fun part is to see someone who is out of discipline, and discovers some
connection (heroine), neat if we can facilitate students making connections that are meaningful
to them, concern is that not all students will get there unless we are deliberate. Can’t just jump
from prescribing courses to prescribing connections – students have to make their own
connections.
Barb Clement: Students need practice at synthesis, even as Fr and Soph so get little glimmers,
but need practice
Ramesh Laungani: Took a team taught class with 2 biology faculty and 1 economist – ecology
with an economic view point – where does team teaching fit into models?
Peggy Hart: Synthesis could be happening in the major?
Mark Plano Clark: Aren’t we already doing this? It is the students who actually doing this, not
faculty. Are we not doing this now? If we are not doing this now, where did we go wrong?
Brian Pauwels: Likes co-teaching idea especially at upper level where faculty can really bring
intense connections
Brad Elder: Challenging to have team teaching at upper level because still need specific content
delivered in those classes.
John Burney: What about students teaching each other? Especially at upper level where say,
senior math majors take a course with senior art students and identify problem, then solve.
Peter Reinkordt: We are all experts at our own discipline – maybe we should be looking top
down. You design your major and then at the top of that look at how the majors can connect or
the major can connect to the Doane Plan .
Alec Engebretson: We should be modeling this interdisciplinary thinking to our students, so if
team teaching need to integrate and tackle each other’s areas of expertise, if we expect our
students to achieve these outcomes, we should also do these things.
Mark Plano Clark: Years ago Doane had weekly speakers for whole college, common
experience, we could not control necessarily the discussions that followed out – great shared
experiences.
Phil Weitl: But we don’t have space for those organic experiences and connections because no
one has time, students do not tackle the reading we assign because they are too busy, never
stop to reflect and connect.
Denise Ellis: Could those extras become part of the process/outcome? Become intentional
development experiences?
John Burney: Some institutions use portfolios to bring whole together – courses, study abroad,
co-curricular, major, but if you don’t create a space for synthesis, synthesis won’t happen.
Mark Plano Clark: No holy space in our schedules, even Th 11am time slot encroached on.
Alec Engebretson: Can we slow up our campus time to create a lot more space, slow the pace?
Phil Weitl: We are a mile wide and an inch deep, how do we reverse that?