Office of Academic Programs • 1000 East Victoria St. • Carson, CA 90747
General Education Committee
Monday, December 8, 2014
10:00am-12:00pm – Provost’s Conference Room
Minutes- Revised
Present: L. Fitzsimmons, M. Suchenek, E. Magruder, S. Valdez, J. Dote-Kwan, K. Bragg, P.
Krochalk
Absent: I. Heinze-Balcazar (E. Magruder), D. Sherman, M. Chavez
1. Call to Order: 10:09 a.m.
2. Approval of Agenda: L. Fitzsimmons moved to add D. Belu’s response to PHI 120 after
MGT 200 as a discussion item. M. Suchenek seconded M/S/P
a. Approved as amended
3. Approval of Minutes November 10, 2014 minutes
a. M. Suchenek- P. 4., strike “M. Suchenek agreed.”
b. M. Suchenek moved to approve as revised. P. Krochalk seconded. M/S/P
i. Minutes approved as revised
Old Business
ENG 108 and ENG 109 “Stretch” Courses
1. K. Bragg reported on the question regarding remediation and the stretch courses and an
inquiry with the Chancellor’s Office. The response from the Chancellor’s Office was that
using stretch courses is a common approach for developmental English at other CSU
campuses. Therefore it is not in violation of the Chancellor’s Office.
2. M. Suchenek presented a flow chart (Attachment 1) he created of 4 scenarios for the stretch
courses including the option of students not passing ENG 099. He asked if the inquiry
included if students fail ENG 099.
3. M. Suchenek’s objection with the proposal is that if a student fails ENG 099, they will take
ENG 108, then ENG 109 and be rewarded six units of college credit, rather than repeat the
1
remedial course for non-credit. This is compared to students who may pass ENG 099 and go
into ENG 110 and get only three units towards college-credit.
a. K. Bragg- Referring the M. Suchenek’s chart, she believes the second model he is
referring to is a model the English department is working away from and
pushing toward the third model for the students where they pass ENG 088 and
go to ENG 108.
4. L. Fitzsimmons- E. Zoerner of English stated in his presentation of the proposals at the last
meeting that 5 to 6 students fall into that second model, but he did not say they were ending
it.
5. E. Magruder asked for a procedural question as the courses, ENG 108 and ENG 109 were
already approved by the GE Committee at the November 10, 2014 meeting.
6. K. Bragg stated there would need to be a vote to rescind the approval of the courses.
a. Discussion-Tabled
REC 100-Online
1. L. Fitzsimmons commented that the Whole Foods Market assignment remains on the
syllabus though the GE committee suggested the assignment not be limited exclusively to
that store.
2. The GE Committee asked for percentages for each instructional activity and more
interactive activities. The instructor attempted to do this but it is not accurate; it seems
distorted. For example, 30 minutes to read the syllabus.
a. E. Magruder commented that the syllabus is 25 pages long. She asked L.
Fitzsimmons if she referenced the grid sent out with the memo from the
University Curriculum Committee, stating that was the only guidance sent out to
faculty. She also noted that the instructor had spent 40 hours revising the
syllabus.
b. L. Fitzsimmons stated that 45 minutes for a student to post their name and
interests on Blackboard seems distorted.
i. E. Magruder noted that was not the complete assignment and that
students are also required to read and respond to 4 other postings.
3. P. Krochalk commented that the topic of discussion regarding time is not a realm the GE
Committee should be in.
2
4. K. Bragg stated the topic of instructional time is part of a larger conversation, not just among
the GE Committee, but also UCC. This is a growing concern. She suggested the scheduling
of a retreat to discuss the issue and develop a general guide or rubric to give the instructors.
5. J. Dote-Kwan- Regarding WASC, if she were to receive this syllabus, she would think this is
acceptable. The prior syllabus was not sufficient. As a WASC reviewer, she would not have
a problem saying the revised syllabus meets the requirement for instructional time.
6. E. Magruder stated she thinks this a thoughtful redesign of the course but the instructor was
concerned about getting approval of the course. She’s done what many instructors don’t,
and was very thoughtful. Online courses take a lot of time. She’s varied the course based on
the student response.
a. J. Dote-Kwan noted that the instructor has made recommendations for
alternative store locations based on student’s needs.
7. M. Suchenek thinks it would be rational for the GE Committee to send some concerns to the
instructor.
8. K. Bragg noted that the instructor responded to what the concerns of the GE Committee
were.
9. E. Magruder moved to approve and accept the resubmission of REC 100-online. P. Krochalk
seconded. M/S/P; 1 opposed.
MGT 200 proposal- G. Polk, Dean Joseph Wen
1. G. Polk- GE Area D2 learning outcome #7 will be met using Case Study on Whistleblowers.
2. Dean Joseph Wen thanked the GE Committee for helping to make MGT 200 a better course.
Social responsibility is a very important topic, and is important to any business. CSUDH is
one of the few universities that does not have a course with this topic. He stated that
students need to learn why ethics is an important topic. Dean Wen expressed his
appreciation of the GE Committee’s feedback.
3. M. Suchenek commented that ethical issues are important and that he’s appreciative of
proposals with this topic.
4. L. Fitzsimmons noted the ungrammatical language and punctuation on page 4 of the
syllabus. G. Polk should check the style and grammar in the syllabus again.
5. M. Suchenek moved to approve. E. Magruder seconded. M/S/P
3
a. Approved
PHI 120 Response Discussion Item email (added item)
1. L. Fitzsimmons- The Philosophy faculty met regarding the recommendations of the GE
committee and had a consensus. The chair Dr. D. Belu was unable to attend the meeting and
sent an email response which was read to the GE committee. (Attachment 2)
2. M. Suchenek stated the Philosophy faculty should provide the data regarding truth
functional tables. He would appreciate to see the data from other universities that their
departments do not include truth tables. It would change his mind if he sees the data for the
sake of argument. He stated that it is not a difficult topic and that the textbook already
includes the content.
3. K. Bragg suggested that in the reply to the chair, it state the GE Committee acknowledges
and appreciates their discussion of this course with the other instructors.
4. P. Krochalk stated she will take the department’s evidence and treat it as valid, and proceed
with the proposal.
5. E. Magruder questioned if the GE committee was being consistent across the review of all
courses. She asked if there was a rubric the committee could use for the review of courses.
a. L. Fitzsimmons stated there was a rubric. Earlier it was determined by the
committee that the course did not meet the language requirement. but it was
determined it did not meet the language requirements.
ENG 150 proposal- Preliminary review
1. L. Fitzsimmons expressed concern regarding the assignment of “exotic” languages stating
the concept is questionable.
2. J. Dote-Kwan commented that the textbook is 17 years old. The world has changed in that
time. Request for clarification on use of the text from the department.
3. There was a challenge from the Department of Earth Science and Geography. They had
some serious concerns that should be addressed by the English department.
4. Syllabus- Insert the 3 column chart in the aligning the student learning outcomes, GE
outcomes and course assignments.
5. State explicitly how the course will meet the GE Are D2 objectives.
4
ENG 108 and ENG 109 “Stretch” Courses, continued.
1. L. Fitzsimmons stated that the GE unit load seems to be increased. This may not be a
student concern.
2. M. Suchenek commented that the email response from the Chancellor’s Office did not
respond to the scenario regarding the scenario he has objections to.
3. J. Dote-Kwan stated that unless the GE Committee rescinds their previous motion, E.
Zoerner does not need to speak on the proposals.
4. J. Dote-Kwan called to question.
5. M. Suchenek moved to rescind the approval of ENG 108 and ENG 109. L. Fitzsimmons
seconded. M/S
a. 2 approved; 3 opposed; 2 abstain. Motion failed. The proposals will be forwarded
to UCC.
6. GE Area Review Update
a. Area D of Chicana/o Studies CHS 200 and CHS 212- E. Magruder and I. HeinzeBalcazar.
i. E. Magruder reviewed the Area C courses last year. It seems unclear if the
courses are in Area D1 or D2. They recommend Chicana/o Studies
include a grid to align the GE objectives, learning outcomes and course
assignments.
b. CHS 200- Area D2. The observation was made that there are no assignments due
before week 7. The Disabled Student Services statement contact information
needs to be updated. Work samples do have comments from the instructors.
Recommendation to include notation about reading assignments on the course
syllabus.
c. The subcommittee recommended a resubmission of the portfolios for CHS 200
and CHS 212.
i. J. Dote-Kwan moved to accept the report. P. Krochalk seconded. M/S/P
d. Resubmission date: October 26, 2015
New Business
WASC GE Rubric- J. Dote-Kwan
1. J. Dote-Kwan shared the current Rubric for Evaluating General Education Assessment
Process used by WASC.
5
2. Common elements among developed and highly developed outcomes on the rubric
included:
a. Campuses align GE objectives to meet the Institutional learning outcomes.
b. Curriculum maps and rubrics are consistently used.
c. Review is done by core competencies rather than by the courses alone.
d. Standard writing rubrics are used university-wide.
3. K. Bragg commented that this is a discussions to also have Program Review Panel and UCC
with Gitanjali Kaul. She suggested having a retreat with the GE committee, PRP and UCC to
talk about this in the spring. She thinks the Provost would be in favor.
4. Adjourn 12:13 p.m.
6
Attachment 1- M. Suchenek Stretch Course Flowchart
7
Attachment 2- Email from Dana Belu, chair of Philosophy Department to GE Committee
Response to 9/10 GE Rec. for PHIL 120
Dana Belu
Fri 12/5/2014 1:00 PM
Inbox
To:
Lorna Fitzsimmons;
Cc:
Maya B. Medina;
Sheela L. Pawar;
Dear Lorna Fitzsimmons,
I have discussed the GE recommendations with the philosophy faculty who teaches Philosophy
120:Critical Reasoning. The consensus is as follows:
1. Professors agreed to make it explicit (on all syllabi) that the conceptualization of this course focuses on
"academic contexts" as well as "non-academic contexts."
2. Professors agreed to raise the passing grade (credit or C) from 65% to 70%.
3. Professors did not agree to include truth functional logic as a requirement in this course. The reason is
the one that I gave during my visit to GEC on 9/10/2014; i.e., truth functional logic is not an integral part
of Critical Thinking. Moreover:
a.) Research of the content of Critical Thinking courses across all CSU campuses (that have
philosophy depts.) shows that the vast majority of philosophy departments DO NOT require the teaching
of truth functional logic in their Critical Thinking classes. This conclusion is underscored by recent emails
from many chairs. (I have specific data - available on request.) Some departments teach truth functional
logic in higher level logic courses.
b.) Faculty in our philosophy department concluded that the appropriate class for truth functional
logic is our "Philosophy 220: Modern Formal Logic." Here is the description of Phil. 220: "A continuation
of PHI 120 for students interested in further study of such logical concepts as Justification and Validity,
and introduces Truth-functional Operations and Elementary Quantification Theory."
c.) Upon reviewing a current CSUDH syllabus of "Psychology 110: Critical Thinking & Problem
Solving" I noticed that it does not feature any reference to truth functional logic.
Kindly share the philosophy department's response with the GEC at your
12/8 meeting. Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend this meeting. I could have attended on Dec. 15th
(below) but due to my office hours & finals duties I cannot make the rescheduled meeting on Dec. 8th.
If the GE committee wants to discuss these points further, I will be happy to meet in Fall 2015, upon my
return from sabbatical. During Spring 2015, please direct all GE communication to the phil. department's
interim chair, Dr. Sheela Pawar.
Best Regards,
Dana Belu
-Dana S. Belu, Ph.D.
8
Associate Professor (Chair)
Department of Philosophy
Women's Studies Advisory Board
Humanities Graduate Faculty
CSU-Dominguez Hills |LCH A-338|1000 E.Victoria Str.
Carson, Ca 90747 - USA| Ph: 310-243-3487
mark as unread
Lorna Fitzsimmons
Wed 9/10/2014 11:38 PM
Sent Items
Dear Dr. Belu:
On behalf of the General Education Committee I am writing to let you know the outcome of Monday's discussion
of your resubmitted syllabus for PHIL 120.
The committee thanks you for taking action to revise the syllabus and recognizes that it is considerably improved.
The committee has the following recommendations for further revision of the syllabus:
1. Bring the conceptualization of the course into alignment with the catalogue description, which includes
"academic contexts" as well as "non-academic." At present, the conceptualization of the course focuses on the
"everyday."
2. Reconsider the grading scale.
3. Reconsider adding the concept of truth tables, as described in parts of chapt. 9 of the textbook.
Please let me know if you have questions about these recommendations.
For your information, the GE Committee meetings for F 14 are as follows:
October 13, 2014
November 10, 2014
December 15, 2014
Best wishes,
L Fitzsimmons
GE Chair
9