Faculty Senate General Studies Committee
2009-2010
September 30, 2009 PL 360
MINUTES
Handouts: Agenda, General Studies Task Force notes from 9.17.09 meeting, copy of
Lunden’s presentation to Senate 9.23.09, AAC&U bibliography information: General
Education: A Self-Study Guide for Review and Assessment, AAC&U article: “Toward
Intentionality and Transparency: Analysis and Reflection on the Process of General
Education Reform,” Sheila Thompson’s “Articulating Student Learning Outcomes”
language grid.
Present: Mark Segall, Dorothy Snozek, Alex Padilla, Andy Muldoon, Lunden
MacDonald, Jeff London, Rudy García
Regrets: Doug Petcoff
I.
The meeting was called to order at 9.00 a.m. We were still reviewing
minutes so they were not accepted; plans to accept revisions or changes via email
were made.
II.
We welcomed our new member, Jeff London. Jeff is an elected member
representing SPS. As a group, we also discussed our committee’s recommendation
for the Senate Executive Committee nomination (a currently empty slot on our
committee). We had three initial expressions of interest, and two complete followups: Tom Davinroy and Chris Jennings. The committee was in agreement to further
the name of Chris Jennings as our recommendation to the Senate Executive
Committee. We will await the nomination at the EC meeting on 9.30 and make the
new candidate public at that point.
Lunden reported that the Senate Executive Committee will be discussing the
possibility of by-laws changes to alter the composition of standing committees. We
discussed the possibility of altering the composition of the General Studies
committee in order to include more people. This suggestion was made with an eye
on inclusivity and representation, as well as with the intent to shore up our forces
for the major task of course and curriculum review that will be awaiting the
committee in the upcoming academic year.
III.
A brief update on proceedings from the last meeting of the General Studies
Task Force (9.17.09) was made. Dean Joan Foster’s notes from that meeting were
distributed. Once again, the Task Force’s desire for clarity and transparency in
communication was stressed. Lunden MacDonald also reported that the Task Force
is in a reading or reviewing stage, going over the many notes and documents from
past work done at the college in the area of General Studies.
1
IV.
We briefly discussed the October Assessment Institute in Indianapolis. It was
decided that Lunden MacDonald will represent our committee at this meeting. Alex
Padilla expressed interest in representing the committee at the AAC&U meeting in
February; this will be discussed further in the future.
V.
Alex Padilla gave a quick presentation on his progress with regard to the
General Studies website. He reiterated that the website will showcase past
committee work, be a repository for new work done by the Task Force and the
current Faculty Senate General Studies Committee, and also serve as a medium for
communication among all stakeholders at Metro.
VI.
Please see the following section for notes regarding our calendar of
“available contact hours” with the FSGSC.
VII.
The discussion turned to the task of future program assessment. Dorothy
Snozek and Andy Muldoon inspired an in-depth conversation about the role of
technology in the future General Studies Program, and we all discussed the role of
assessment in the implementation of elements of technology in general studies
across the curriculum. Andy made the suggestion that any kind of technological
change must be based on solid communication that fosters systemic support of
educational goals. We discussed what the inclusion of technology as an assessable
learning outcome might look like, and we talked about inviting Ben Zastrocky of the
Educational Technology Center to come talk to us about this topic.
We then decided that we were getting a little ahead of ourselves. Jeff London
suggested that we adopt a “reductive” stance: that our solid goal should be to
comply with HLC “demands,” and that our focus should be on concrete steps that
can facilitate the completion of their request for an approved General Studies
Program by next April 2010. To this end, Jeff suggested that we, as a committee,
take a look at other HLC accredited programs that have been successful, in order to
ascertain which models may work for us here. Then, we determined that we will
need to work together with the Task Force to make this kind of programmatic
change successful at Metro.
We discussed the possibility of having Sheila Thompson come talk to our committee
about assessment, in order to see how we can be most efficient and have the most
impact. We would also like to get a list of pre-identified programs that Sheila thinks
are good and have effective means of program assessment. Finally, with Sheila’s
direction we would like to look at the development of a rubric that would reflect the
values we at Metro hold with regard to General Studies and show how the elements
of different programs match up.
NOTE: Lunden committed to following up with Sheila about visiting our committee
and talking about assessment. The AAC&U article distributed today gives a solid
review of the program at University of Nebraska at Lincoln and can be used as a
model for beginning this type of discussion.
2
A final topic of conversation during this period was brought up when Rudy García
emphasized that “availability” is not the same as “promotion.” In other words, we
on the FSGSC must not only be available to answer faculty and staff questions, but
we must also actively promote and advocate the new developments that occur in the
General Studies process. Rudy suggested that our committee have a presence at any
campus event where other programs or departments are represented. Dorothy
Snozek suggested that we work in concert with the Deans of our respective schools
and ask that attendance at these types of events with the intent of gaining
knowledge about General Studies at Metro be counted as a Service element in the
annual evaluation or dossier process. Dorothy also suggested that Lunden and Alex
send official “thank you” letters to each faculty or staff member that attends these
events, and that the Deans and Chairs be included in this process so that they are all
aware of efforts toward inclusivity and transparency.
Finally, Dorothy suggested that we all keep a log of our efforts, both in committee
and among the general campus population, demonstrating to the HLC or any other
assessing body that we have done extensive outreach.
NOTE: Rudy has agreed to follow up with this idea of “promotion” and report back
to the committee at our next meeting. Lunden has committed to following up with
the Deans and Chairs regarding the evaluation issue. Lunden and Alex committed
to sending the thank you’s and to keeping a log for the FSGSC.
VIII. Senate communication: Lunden asked if we would like to reiterate the
information that she gave orally at the last Faculty Senate meeting. The committee
agreed that it would be helpful for everyone to have this information. We discussed
the importance of distributing it via several mediums: distribution to Chairs, to
faculty members, posting on the General Studies website, etc. It was agreed that this
information needs to go out as soon as possible, and that to the extent possible we
should solicit the participation of faculty representatives like Chairs and Senators in
order to get the word out.
It was also agreed that we should ask to be invited to department meetings when
they occur in order to talk about the process. At such presentations, it was
suggested that we partner with a member of the Task Force in order to represent
both committees.
NOTE: Lunden will follow up with this idea by distributing the talk she gave at
Senate to all parties discussed above.
The meeting was adjourned and we set the next meeting time for Wednesday,
October 14, PL 360, 9.00-10.00 a.m.
3