Recommendations and Issues
“Engaging from the Start” Conference Working Sessions
February 13-14, 2012
Best practices
Pedagogy:
Student learning communities
Courses blending skills/content
Contextualized courses
Themed courses/themed GE tracks/possibility of minor
Link GE themes to a range of careers and majors
Blend critical thinking into other courses
Scaffold teaching skills like math, writing
Use cohorts – give registration priority, block scheduling
Expand use of technology – web-enhanced, hybrid, online
Reduce number of GE courses
Reinforce core skills (“Golden 4”) across multiple courses
Distribute a GE info sheet in all GE classes
Include strong GE in CTE (not too different from transfer)
Develop personal success courses (perhaps FYE)
Bring undergraduate research into GE
Assessment:
Integrate assessment across courses
Signature assignments (across classes in same GE area); common texts
Faculty learning communities (possibly charge them with generating ideas for campus change &
assessment)
Add assessment of reading, learning habits
Portfolios (e- or other), particularly for writing
Increase collection and use of data
Faculty:
Establish faculty learning communities (interdisciplinary)
Designate faculty leader for each LEAP theme (outcome?)
Value GE (culture change), including in RTP, awards; encourage senior faculty to teach
Provide stipends and/or release time
Improve communication – both faculty and administrative support
Student affairs/academic affairs connections:
Improve orientation
Bring student services into FY classes – tutors, financial aid, advisors/counselors
Strengthen advising, including intrusive advising
Best practices (continued)
Student involvement:
Use peer mentoring
Collaborate with students
Intersegmental collaboration:
Link pathways across CCC/CSU
Link faculty learning communities across CCC/CSU
Use similar assessment/assignments across CCC/CSU
Align learning outcomes across systems
Share service learning sites/programs/reflection activities, etc. across CCC/CSU
Action steps - local
Promote LEAP outcomes assessment
Promote faculty conversations about having academic reading, information literacy,
technological proficiency incorporated into lower division GE
Have campus conversations on innovative GE courses/pedagogies
Encourage increased use of technology in lower division GE with seed grants
Modular approach to passing statistics
Summer intensive remedial math as a high-impact practice
Use rubrics to measure outcomes
Encourage fusion of different disciplines in GE
Require all GE courses to demonstrate/assess at least one basic learning outcome
Expand faculty support for adopting high-impact practices
Action steps – system-level changes in policies/practices
Create GE program assessment; GEAC clarify guidelines for review of GE programs (like other
program reviews)
Frame GE as a coherent program; assess student performance across entire program
Work with high schools on “college success/GE” classes
Develop articulation agreements with high schools
Create an affinity group across segments (focus on transitions or assessment?)
Reduce number of required GE units (need data to support)
Have CCC automatically certify GE (part or all) when a student requests a transcript for CSU
CSU should also certify GE (part or all)
UC requires last CCC to certify IGETC; CSU should also do
Ensure articulation for creative GE approaches
Include American Institutions in GE Breadth
Develop/share a repository of innovative GE courses/pedagogies
Create a system where students can demonstrate proficiency in ways other than passing courses
(cost of assessment is a barrier - consider requiring student to cover cost of assessment,
maybe linked to potential of earning credit at a lower cost)
Action steps – system-level changes in policies/practices (continued)
Create a way to offer credit in multiple areas for HIPs – like demonstrating quantitative
reasoning in a science-related internship, complete a Sacramento internship for Area D (use
portfolio to demonstrate??)
Need to develop a systemic approach to requiring outcomes (like at CSUMB); CCCs need to
meet various outcomes/requirements in courses
Create effective communication between community colleges and CSUs. Include coordinators
and articulation officers as well as instructors.
Build in a “universal” electronic checklist for students to assess and monitor their own education
(like through CSU Mentor)
Convince CSU Trustees to examine content, not just structure, of degrees
Clarify what curriculum control should be local vs. statewide
Challenges
Related to pedagogy and supportive structures:
Scheduling learning communities
Learning communities must be faculty-led, have a dynamic leader
Learning communities may not be scalable
Some GE courses really only serve as intros to a major
SL challenges (time, logistics, fingerprinting) – need some assistance
Some CCC degrees require more than 60 units
Pressure to limit units make it more difficult to have a minor
Related to students:
Can’t require much at community colleges (hard to establish pre-requisites due to Title V open
access requirement)
CCC swirl – makes transition to CSU harder to organize
Part-time students
Related to faculty:
Academic freedom issues (?)
Alienated faculty
GE not counted in RTP
Culture of discipline control over course content (makes it hard to use rubrics, outcomes
assessment)
Related to budget, fiscal priorities
Budget issues – especially to support start-up work
Problems improving advisement/education plans with staff reductions, especially at CCCs
Increasing unmet demand for classes, limits on course availability complicate reform efforts
(and may drive students to private institutions)