Office of Academic Programs • 1000 East Victoria St. • Carson, CA 90747
General Education Committee
Monday, March 10, 2014
10:00am-12:00pm – Provost’s Conference Room
Present: J. Badrtalei, E. Magruder, L. Fitzsimmons, L. Goldman, P, Kalayjian, P. Krochalk, D.
Sherman, A. Pu, J. Seguin, K. Bragg, S. Valdez (proxy for C. Tubbs), M. Maki, T. Philo
Absent: K. Ganezer, I. Heinze-Balcazar, M. Suchenek
Minutes
1. Call to Order: 10:07 a.m.
2. Approval of Agenda: J. Seguin moved to approve. L. Goldman seconded. M/S/P
a. Approved
3. Approval of Minutes
a. M. Suchenek’s revisions:
i. P. 2, item c.- M. Suchenek- Gave general background stating the that the
Committee was presented with a proposal came from a course that
proposed for a change to online modality. He had concerns regarding
standards for finals because there were no rules for enforcement of
identity. For online exam, it was left to student honesty.
ii. P. 3, item c.ii.- M. Suchenek proposed this resolution (attached)
iii. P.3, item f.i., 4-5 sentence- Some Students make serious attempts to cheat
during unsupervised finals. He does not believe they the faculty can
outsmart all cheaters at this time; wants to make an improvement and
decrease the rate of cheating.
iv. P. 4, h.i.- Regarding WASC rules, he believes that a it follows general 2000
year old legal doctrine that comes from Roman law clarifies their
significance.
b. L. Fitzsimmons- p. 6, item s. 2nd sentence- Reword sentence for clarity. “…but
return focus to the decision reached by the subcommittee in 2011…”
c. L. Fitzsimmons- p. 10, item f.i. Revise to state, “L. Fitzsimmons stated that such a
checklist does exist and that the departments receive the checklist…”
Old Business
1. GE Area Review Update
a. ANT 101 and REC 100- The subcommittees were not prepared to give a report at
the time. Committee members did not have the course portfolios for review. M.
Medina will provide subcommittee members with the course portfolio materials.
b. PHI 120- J. Seguin volunteered to be the second reviewer with L. Fitzsimmons as
the original member (D. Best) is no longer on the GE committee.
c. Chemistry- L. Goldman stated she is on the subcommittee with K. Ganezer to
review Chemistry 102. Minimal information, only syllabi and notes, were
submitted for the portfolio in October. No student materials were submitted.
They contacted department chair A. Pu but have not received any further
materials.
i. L. Fitzsimmons informed the committee that A. Pu took over developing
the portfolio for a colleague who was ill and there may be a possibility
she did not receive some materials that were collected by the original
person. She will contact A. Pu and follow up on the status of the course
materials.
d. P. Kalayjian and P. Krochalk requested to work with a hard copy of the ANT 101
course portfolio. M. Medina will provide them with the copy.
e. L. Fitzsimmons asked for a follow-up on the Chicana/o Studies assessment
report.
i. E. Magruder- The Chicana/o Studies assessment sites one course as a
model for GE offerings. Her suggestion in the report was that the
department support that statement with specifics and also state their plan
for other courses to follow their model course.
New Business
1. LBR 200- Preliminary Review
a. L. Fitzsimmons- Commented that the course description seems a bit vague and could be
made a bit more specific by explicitly stating the era such as “contemporary.” Also, the
course did not meet the recommendations for linking the course and GE learning
outcomes.
b. E. Magruder asked if the recommendation had been made for the department chair to
meet with Cathy Jacobs regarding learning outcomes. She suggested this be addressed
later, before they go to UCC. UCC adheres to the verbs of Bloom’s taxonomy.
i. L. Fitzsimmons- No, the recommendation to meet with C. Jacobs had not been
made yet. It was her understanding that Bloom’s taxonomy had been
marginalized.
ii. P. Kalayjian commented that Bloom’s taxonomy had been revised and updated.
iii. L. Fitzsimmons requested K. Bragg forward the revised Bloom’s taxonomy
documents/information to the committee so that it can be circulated since it is a
university-wide application.
c. P. Kalayjian- Commented that there is random formatting in the citations of the Required
Reading (bold, italics, quotation marks). She recommended the citations are corrected
and made consistent.
d. L. Fitzsimmons - Recommended item #7 of the Computer Information Literacy
Statement regarding plagiarism be revised. The statement should include a clarification
of “…quote in addition to paraphrasing without plagiarizing.” Proper documentation is
required for both.
e. Course Schedule- There should be consistency in the reading assignments. Some reading
assignments have page numbers and some do not. This may be confusing for students.
f.
E. Magruder- Asked for clarification, because it is not specified in the catalog if an Area
D2 course has to meet all 7 of the learning outcomes. In the catalog it states, Area C
Humanities courses must, “Meet one or more goals” and other Area statements do not
specify. She believes it would be helpful to reexamine the wording in the catalog for
clarity and consistency.
i. She commented that 7 learning outcomes is a lot for one course to satisfy. It
appears the course attempts to meet all of the outcomes, but some are more
applicable to others based on the subject matter.
ii. L. Fitzsimmons- Stated that there usually is some flexibility.
g. M. Maki- E. Magruder brings up a larger issue of assessing numerous outcomes which
has come up before. He agreed the issue of consistency needs to be addressed for all
areas.
2. LBR 200- Vivian Price
a. V. Price- The department is proposing LBR 200 Labor and the Environment as a lower
division GE course based on the recommendation of their program’s external reviewer.
The class was developed to do outreach to lower division students and also appeal to an
interest in the environment by addressing some of the Area D goals, as well as, introduce
students to the major.
i. She worked to fulfill the GE guidelines and requirements and tried to find a way
to develop the class around the GE goals.
b. V. Price gave an overview of the course student learning outcomes and how they are met.
i. #1- For “historical change in cultural processes” she adapted the idea of the
affects and issues of the relationship of labor and the environment and how work
and climate change affect society in the U.S. and internationally.
ii. #2- The course looks at the issue of how sciences deal with the human past and
how test hypotheses are formulated. Readings are included which address the
issue of the scientific method and of how work will evolve in the future.
Different readings address different parts of the world including U.S., Canada,
and China.
iii. International governments and worker’s organizations- The course reviews the
relationship of elected bodies, labor unions and workers centers and what they
are doing to respond to climate change.
iv. Global interdependence among people- The readings show that no country is
alone and how workers respond to the issue of global warming, creating rights
and policies for health and safety. The readings also show how work in other
countries affects the U.S. and how agriculture or other labor intensive industries
are affected.
v. She tried to include measurable goals and how to test the student learning
outcomes.
c. P. Krochalk- Commented that the statement by the program’s external reviewer
recommending this type of course to highlight the program is not necessary to approve
the GE course which is very strong on its own.
i. V. Price- Stated she has to acknowledge that the external review is what
compelled her to create the labor and environment class, not a labor class only.
d. J. Badrtalei- Questioned how the department will evaluate learning outcomes for
assessment. For example, #2.
i. P. Krochalk- Agreed that some of the learning outcomes may be difficult to
assess as currently stated.
e. L. Fitzsimmons- Recommended that the GE learning outcomes be added to the course
syllabus and be linked to the course learning outcomes to make them clearer for students
and for assessment.
i. E. Magruder- Commented that for course assessment, the current course
outcomes need to be translated into action. The course outcomes need to be more
specific and stated in measurable terms.
f.
K. Bragg- Recommended using a 3-column chart: 1- GE learning outcomes, 2- course
learning outcomes, and 3- course assignments that meet the outcomes. This will help link
the outcomes and streamline the course for assessment.
g. L. Fitzsimmons- Recommended the time frame be specified in the course description. For
example, “contemporary.”
h. There are several concerns of inconsistency with formatting (bold, italics) in the syllabus.
The committee recommended to make format consistent throughout the document. To
help with consistency, the committee recommended to list pages for each reading
assignments in course schedule.
i.
L. Fitzsimmons will send V. Price all of the committee’s recommendations for reference.
j.
L. Fitzsimmons- Informed the committee there are 3 options: accept the course as is; to
accept with contingency of recommendations; or to resubmit.
k. P. Kalayjian moved to accept LBR 200 conditionally for resubmission. P. Krochalk
second. M/S/P
i. Approved for resubmission
Open Forum
1. P. Krochalk- Asked if there is there a time frame for when the subcommittees are supposed to
respond to course proposals.
a. L. Fitzsimmons- her proposal was given a time frame which has been exceeded so she
will inquire with I. Heinze-Balcazar
Adjourn: 10:57am