Board of General Studies
MINUTES – 1400-1600, 22 March 2012, CL 412
Present: Stephen Branz, Dennis Jaehne, Matt Masucci (CASA), Simon Rodan (COB), Jean Novak
(Educ), Tri Caohuu (Engr), Andrew Fleck (H&A), Julie Sliva Spitzer (COS), Kathleen
McConnell (COSS)
Absent: Nanditha Gandi (AS)
Guests: Bill Reckmeyer, Provost Ellen Junn; and Associate Deans Elaine Collins (COS), Elna Green
(CHA), and Alice Hines (CASA)
1.0
Approval of Minutes (Mar 1): 6-0-0
2.0
Information Items:
3.0
Global Challenges course(s) for ALL incoming frosh Fall 2012 (Bill Reckmeyer) – seeking 2
year approval as experimental course(s) UNVS 96GB, UNVS 96GC, UNVS 96GD, and UNVS
96GE – see http://www.aascu.org/GlobalChallenges – discussion ranged far & wide, covering
issues from curriculum and pedagogy to logistics to state of CA budgetary impacts on the CSU
system. The time was really too short to do justice to any of these issues and no conclusions
were reached, nor votes taken. In fact, many left the room with misconceptions or
misperceptions about what was being proposed and why. Rather than trying to summarize the
often disconnected discussion threads, it will serve the purposes of these minutes far better to
include a follow up memo sent by Dennis Jaehne (3/29/12) and email from Steve Branz (also
3/29/12) summarizing key points for further discussion/consideration at the next meeting
(4/5/12).
March 29, 2012
TO: Board of General Studies
FROM: Dennis Jaehne, AVP Undergraduate Studies
RE: Proposed Lower Division “Global Challenges” Course
Colleagues:
I understand from the feedback from numerous sources that the presentation at the last
BOGS meeting was underdeveloped and rushed. I agree and I apologize that it came out
this way. I’m happy to make time to speak with the group or any member of the group.
We know that we (CSU, the campuses) have been told to expect and plan for the $200
million cut to CSU funding next year, based on the “trigger” built into the budget and the
current projections that state revenues will not rise to the level required to avoid the trigger.
I do know that all divisions have been asked to re-examine with great care what they might
do to improve their efficiencies as a way to mitigate any budget cut to the campus. The
Provost is strongly urging Deans, AVPs and faculty to rethink new, out-of-the box possible
solutions that might creatively maximize student learning, provide greater accessibility of
GE course options and deepen student engagement with key GE learning strands, while
staying cognizant of cost constraints.
I believe we can make strong and principled arguments about the importance of global
themes to our mission and that they link to our strategic plans. I believe that this proposed
Global Challenges course is a high-quality curriculum, developed by faculty and respected
policy groups, and tested in colleges and universities across the country (including another
CSU at Fresno State) that students find very engaging and thought-provoking. Furthermore,
Dr. Bill Reckmeyer has taught this course on our own campus, and the American
Association of State Colleges and Universities has recently named him an AASCU Global
Scholar for this work. Finally, implementing the proposed Global Challenges course for all
incoming frosh will give us an excellent opportunity to assess learning outcomes in a
meaningful way.
This proposal is also compelling because this highly regarded, proven curriculum can be
combined with innovative delivery models to result in potentially enormous budgetary
savings. The simple calculation behind this proposal is that if we implement this model (or
some variation) and require that every incoming first-year student take the class, we stand
to save about $500,000/semester for the incoming frosh class. [Note: Although an upper
division GE course option was discussed at your meeting, the Provost is not requesting
consideration of implementation of the upper division GE course for the coming year, so
we will focus for now (and for Fall 2012) only on potentially implementing the lower
division GE “Global Challenges” course that Dr. Reckmeyer previewed.]
The actual savings calculations are based on the anticipated 3,123 incoming frosh that,
assuming a rough calculation of 30 students per section, would enroll in 104 sections of
lower division GE in Fall. If we put them all into “one course” (even if we treat the four GE
areas – B, C, D, and E – as separate courses) we stand to save the funding that we would
have spent on about 100 individual sections. Using the average temp faculty salary per
section (times 100), the savings net over $500,000. There would be additional costs to
provide for the faculty team releases, a team of readers, some web development, etc. These
budget details have not been finalized, but the net savings remain.
This model only works if every student has to take the course. First, we need that size of
population to create the savings; second, any exceptions for this or that group means that
we will collectively suffer a lot of back end individual processing as we try to rectify many
individual major forms when students file for graduation. If we put students into a “free
elective” GE course (i.e., one that is not specifically required in a major), we minimize or
avoid any conflict with major program requirements and we minimize the cost of
“exceptional” processing downstream.
It’s important to make this economic context clear because, in my view, the major reasons
to put this option forward at this time – and on such short notice -- are 1) these immediate
savings are important for AY 2012-13; and 2) this approach will “do no harm” to students –
either in terms of their learning, or their progress to degree; and it will not jeopardize our
commitment to a high quality General Education program
But, while important, these are not the reasons I have worked to put this option forward at
this time, on short notice. Over time we can develop our own curriculum in this model; or
consider curricula developed on other themes. We can try it for two years and decide never
to do this again. My only motive in hurrying up for Fall 2012 implementation is, as above:
significant savings in a challenging budget context; and “doing no harm” to students
helping move more students through to graduation more quickly, thus mitigating the
impaction pains we are currently experiencing. In seeking BOGS approval for a fall 2012
pilot, I ask that these factors be of primary concern.
Thank you.
Cc: Ellen Junn, Provost
Associate Deans
Maureen Scharberg, AVP of Student Academic Success Service
Cindy Kato, Director of Academic Advising and Retention Services
William Reckmeyer, Professor of Leadership & System in Dept. of Anthropology
From: Stephen Branz stephen.branz@sjsu.edu
Date: Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 10:02 PM
Subject: Fwd: Memo from AVP Jaehne: Proposed Lower Division “Global Challenges”
Course
The proposed course(s) in Dennis' memo will not add units to any student's degree
program. Assuming that this proposal is approved and implemented (in order to avoid
all the awkward grammatical constructions associated with the reality that the course(s) are
not yet approved):
There will be four flavors of the Global Challenges course
UNVS 96GB (credit granted for either Area B1 or Area B2 -- tentatively
determined by student choice or student need)
UNVS 96GC (credit granted for either Area C1 or Area C2 -- tentatively
determined by student choice or student need)
UNVS 96GD (credit granted for Area D1)
UNVS 96GE (credit granted for Area E)
Each student will sign up for only one of these courses in accordance with the
advising matrix used to direct frosh enrollment at each Frosh Orientation. (This is
conceptually similar to the way in which students were directed to a MUSE course in
a GE area that was consistent with the major)
Cindy and staff will work with the colleges to modify the advising matrices ASAP.
Bill Reckmeyer will be the coordinator-in-chief for all four courses and be directly in
charge of the content common to all four courses. He will be assisted in the
development and implementation of the four separate courses by experienced GE
faculty from each of the colleges primarily associated with Areas B (Science), C
(Humanities & Arts), D (Social Sciences), and E (CASA). These GE Category
Coordinators will be responsible for content addressing the SLOs of Areas B, C, D,
and E respectively. This "not-necessarily-in-common" content may draw on or
expand on content from the common core, or be completely new content added to
supplement the common content where gaps are apparent. At this point we envision
that the common content (and assignments/assessments) will comprise 60-70% of the
courses and the GE Category specific content will comprise 30-40% of the courses.
Online delivery will be the primary mode of instruction, probably including lecture
capture and some means of approximating Q&A and office hours (chat rooms or other
means?).
BOGS -- I want to express my strong support for Dennis' memo and the rationales for
proposing this change with such a short timeline. Desperate times call for desperate
measures. Had we more leisure time, this would most likely have been developed and
proposed for Fall 2013 instead of Fall 2012. I will note that despite the short timeline,
these courses do not require any modification to the GE Guidelines. Indeed, we are trying
our best to address SLOs for the GE Areas while gaining the "value added" of an
integrative approach to the GE PROGRAM. Many times we have discussed our
unhappiness with the "checkbox mentality" associated with the choice of GE courses. Here
is a chance to help students see underlying commonalities in content from quite different
academic disciplines and perspectives. -- As Dennis noted, if this model is successful, the
door will be open for proposals for other integrative courses in CORE or UD GE,
something that we have been promoting (or seeking to promote) for several years now.
ADs -- We appreciate your support in working with Cindy in modifying the Frosh advising
matrices for the departments in your respective colleges.
Thanks for your consideration and help,
Steve
4.0
XYZ Course(s) for ALL incoming transfers Fall 2012 (Ellen Junn) – seeking 2 year approval as
experimental course(s) UNVS 196GR, UNVS 196GS, UNVS 196GV
4.1
Necessary to waive 100W prerequisite
4.2
Waive for COMM 168 students or those (rare) students who arrive with CSU credit for
UD GE at another CSU
4.3
This set of courses received almost no attention or discussion. Following the
meeting, Provost Junn decided (in consultation with UGS) to withdraw this
proposal for the Fall 2012 semester and see if something more complete might be
proposed for Fall 2013 (or later). For the present, attention should focus on the
four UNVS 96G courses.
5.0
New Course Proposals –
4.1
HIST 170S (F1 & S) – not yet re-submitted
6.0
Program Planning: GE Component – For a listing of programs that are schedule for review,
please visit our program planning calendar: http://www.sjsu.edu/ugs/links/PPtrackingcalendar
5.1
ANTH – continuing discussion
7.0
Annual GE Assessment Reports – Content Review – Kim has posted the PDF Portfolios on the
UGS website – aim to complete this review by the end of the Fall semester – (record your
comments at GoogleDocs – GE Annual Reports Review Comments v.1.2):
Reminder about Assignments:
Area A – Tri -- DONE
Area B – Simon -- DONE
Area C – Jean -- DONE
Area D – Matt -- DONE
Area E – Tri -- DONE
Area F – Matt (ON HOLD; no SLOs)
Area R – Julie -- DONE
Area S – Kathleen -- DONE
Area V – Andy -- ???
Area Z – Steve & WRC – PART DONE
8.0
Revisions to the GE Policy – preliminary discussion for what is likely to be a multiyear project
9.0
Meeting Schedule for Fall 2011:
Sep 8, 22, Oct 6, 20 (cancelled), Nov 3 (no quorum), 17, Dec 1, 8 (due to need for 7th mtg)
10.0
Meeting Schedule for Spring 2012:
Feb 9, Mar 1, 8, 22, Apr 5, 19, May 3 (and hold May 10 if an 8th meeting is needed)
Program Review: GE Component
A department’s GE courses will be reviewed during the normal program planning cycle. There will be a
new section in a department’s self-study that addresses GE.
Part I: The department summarizes its involvement in GE over the past program planning cycle and any
plans for the next program planning cycle. It also reflects on how well its courses contribute to their GE
Area Goals and to the larger General Education Program Objectives. (This summary and reflection shall
be no more than two pages.) The department must also include an assessment schedule for all GE
courses for the next program planning cycle.
Part II: Continuing Certification and Assessment. For each GE course, the department submits the
following:
(1) One sample greensheet reflecting how the course is currently taught, with up to, two pages of
commentary explaining how the course accomplishes its GE SLOs.
(2) An assessment report (two page maximum) for each course that includes the following:,
a. A comprehensive evaluation of the course that may include a focus on the GE Goals for its area
or other course goals.
b. Changes that the department has made to try to improve student success with respect to the GE
SLOs,
c. Future plans for course modifications, if applicable.
(3) An appendix consisting of the annual course assessment forms.
BOGS then receives the GE section of the department’s program planning self-study and reviews the
materials on individual courses:
(1) Is the course consistent with the GE Guidelines?
(2) Is assessment allowing or supporting improvements to instruction?
(3) Are there lessons from the course for GE at SJSU?
BOGS can either (1) continue to certify the course through the next program planning cycle or (2) seek
clarifications or discuss its concerns with the department. When those concerns are resolved, then the
course’s G. E. certification is to be continued through the next program planning cycle. If its concerns
cannot be resolved, then BOGS can recommend to the Committee on Curriculum and Research (C & R)
that the course be decertified. C & R makes the final decision, and the department has the right to appear
before the Committee. If a member of BOGS has voted on the matter when it was before BOGS, then he
or she shall not vote on it again when it comes before C&R.