General Education Committee Meeting
Minutes
Monday, May 12, 2014
10:00am-12:00pm Provost’s Conference Room WH 442
Present: L. Fitzsimmons, S. Valdez, D. Sherman, L. Goldman, G. Polk, T. Philo, E. Magruder, P.
Kalayjian, M. Suchenek, J. Seguin, J. Badrtalei
Absent: P. Krochalk, K. Ganezer, I. Heinze-Balcazar, A. Pu, C. Turner, T. Philo, M. Maki, K.
Bragg
Call to Order: 10:08am
Approval of Agenda:
1. M. Suchenek moved to approve. J. Seguin seconded. M/S/P
a. Approved
Approval of April 14, 2014 Minutes
1. P. 2: Old Business: GE Area Review Update- PHI 120, Item 1 c. i., 2nd sentence:
Change wording to state, “There should be further discussion on the GE
Committee.”
2. p. 4: Old Business: GE Area Review Update- ANT 101, Item 2, a., 4th sentence:
“The syllabi are in compliance with the requirements at the time they were
submitted.”
3. L. Goldman moved to approve minutes as revised. Seconded. M/S/P
i. Approved as revised. 1 abstention.
1
Approval of April 28, 2014 Minutes
1. Minutes do not have the names of those absent at the meeting. These names will
be to be added to the minutes.
2. P. 3, item 3- change “pathways” to “paths”. P. Kalayjian will send M. Medina
revisions.
3. P. Kalayjian moved to approve with the revisions. J. Seguin seconded. M/S/P
a. Approved as revised.
Old Business
GE Area E Review Report- REC 100 (D. Sherman and J. Badrtalei)
1. D. Sherman reported to the GE Committee- Overall the subcommittee agreed the
portfolio does not need a lot of revision but they agreed it does need a resubmission
based on the standard expectations for syllabus requirements, e.g. DSS statement,
Academic Integrity and plagiarism statement, missing Computer Information Literacy
statement. They want to include the recommendation for a 3 column chart to link the GE
objective, course objectives and assignments.
2. They believe the REC 100 course activity is engaging and valuable.
a. The health food investigation assignment to go to a Whole Foods store raised
some issue and question of concern that it may be too specific if there is not a
Whole Foods or health foods store within neighborhood proximity. They believe
the course should offer alternatives to fulfill the assignment.
b. The assignment lends itself very well to a critical investigation of why there are
or are not opportunities for healthy food choices within certain geographic
locations. This is being used for research and can be used as an assignment for a
critical studies approach. There is no mention or requirement of this in the
syllabus and it seems this is an oversight and can be used in this way.
3. There is writing in the class. In the writing samples, instructor comments were at the
end mainly in response to style and grammar and little on substance or organization of
the essay. They recommend including marginal notes from the instructor and comment
on the content rather than grammar only.
2
a. Pertaining to all writing courses, based on research, it has been shown that
giving a paper back without the opportunity to rewrite is not pedagogically
useful. They suggest students be given the opportunity to use the comments
given by instructors to rewrite their papers.
4. 2 syllabi were submitted, one for face to face and for online and they are virtually the
same. Both modalities offer tests online. For online modality, it is not clear how
attendance is monitored.
a. They recommend the required use of a course discussion board to increase
participation and to monitor attendance.
b. There is no mention of security for online exam test taking and they recommend
this should be addressed in some way.
5. D. Sherman asked about the status of the online examination and security issue the GE
committee had been discussing.
6. L. Fitzsimmons- She raised that issue with the Academic Senate chair (J. Moore) and
asked for the document developed by the distance learning UCC subcommittee to be
reactivated, and to resume the discussion of the issue. The response was that there was
no time for the issue this semester and would be taken up next academic year.
a. M. Suchenek- It’s an ongoing process with a number of concerns regarding
online delivery. The document developed took over a semester of work
developed approximately 3 years ago and it has not gone anywhere. He was on
that subcommittee. He hopes the university eventually develops some standards
that will help us ensure the students get the grades they earn.
b. E. Magruder- She believes the Chancellor’s Office is going to provide assistance
with this. The Institute for Teaching and Learning at the Chancellor’s Office put
out a request for proposals for this. There is an initiative called, “Quality
Matters;” there is a grant to develop an online training academy to define what
quality online teaching is, including best practices for each campus. There are
other methods to use besides discussion boards. The first faculty will go through
the academy this summer and will ideally be piloting their own courses to be
peer reviewed for quality online instruction and will be developed for the
academy and be ready to invite other faculty to participate in the fall.
3
7. P. Kalayjian- Online attendance cannot be monitored, but online participation can be.
She suggested that the GE report use stronger language regarding student participation.
She recommend they change the wording to state they “urge student participation”
related to student attendance for the online offering of the course.
8. J. Badrtalei- Overall, the evaluation is that the online and face to face sections mirror
each other except the attendance issue. He thinks the course is well put together, and
meets the GE and course objectives overall. He wants to make some modifications to the
report to include that they recommend additional points should be given for
participation and that it be a requirement.
9. L. Fitzsimmons called for a motion to approve the report as submitted to the GE
committee and stated the committee can decide if they want make the amendments after
it had been accepted.
10. J. Seguin moved to approve the report as submitted to the committee. P. Kalayjian
seconded. M/S/P
a. Approved
11. L. Fitzsimmons listed the following recommendations for syllabi made by the
subcommittee:
a. Incorporate the University requirements for Disabled Student Services.
b. Incorporate the University requirements for Computer Literacy expectations
c. Include a full University statement on plagiarism
d. Include a three-column chart that links GE objective to Course objectives and
course assignments
e. Students be required to participate in discussion boards so that participation can be
monitored in online classes
f.
It is not clear how security is ensured on the online exams.
g. Urging that a discussion be required. L. Fitzsimmons will check the university
requirements and attach those as well.
12. M. Suchenek moved to approve revised recommendations. P. Kalayjian seconded.
M/S/P
a. Approved
13. L. Fitzsimmons will send the department a list of the recommendations for revisions.
4
14. Proposed Deadlines: REC 100 Portfolio to be resubmitted on February 10, 2015 with
marked up student samples with a reminder in the fall semester (October 2014).
a. This gives the department the fall semester to collect student samples and time to
assess them.
15. J. Seguin asked if that with this the deadline, that the new syllabus will not go into effect
until fall 2015.
a. L. Fitzsimmons- If the syllabi are out of compliance with university outcomes,
they can give the department the requirement to bring the syllabus into
compliance and resubmitted to the GE committee by October 10, 2014 and the
portfolio with the samples to be resubmitted in spring 2015 (February 10, 2015).
16. M. Suchenek moved to accept these deadlines. J. Seguin seconded. M/S/P
17. P. Kalayjian suggested that L. Fitzsimmons recommend the department have these
revisions made to their syllabus in place for fall delivery and submit no later than
October 10, 2014.
PHI 120 Critical Reasoning- Area Assessment Update
1. L. Fitzsimmons- Reported that the Philosophy department chair Dana Belu could not
attend the GE meeting due to a schedule conflict. At the last meeting, the GE committee
agreed to let the department chair bring the syllabus into compliance for redelivery in
the fall, however she did not agree; D. Belu agreed to attend the first GE meeting in the
fall.
2. Deadlines for submission of PHI 101, PHI 102, and the resubmission of PHI 120
portfolios need to be set up. She suggested the normal February deadline for PHI 101
and PHI 102 because samples need to be collected in the fall.
a. The PHI 120 resubmission deadline needs to be decided on. The GE Committee’s
position is that the current syllabus is out of compliance with the Chancellor’s
Office and she needs to bring it into compliance.
3. M. Suchenek stated that when the Philosophy department submitted this course for
online approval there were many deficiencies with the syllabus, not just being out of
compliance with the Chancellor’s Office. They need to look at this from the students’
perspective and the damage that is being done. The GE committee needs to do look at
5
this issue seriously and make the Philosophy department realize how important this
issue is to students.
4. L. Fitzsimmons reported the context of the situation being that there was a transition of
department chairs in spring 2013 and that the report information was not passed on to
the new chair which has contributed to the complications of the issue. As it stands, the
GE committee’s request to have the syllabus revised for the fall is not going to be met.
5. L. Fitzsimmons- If the PHI 120 syllabus is going to be revised, the department chair will
need to collect student samples for that syllabus in the spring semester. The committee
could ask for a revised syllabus for spring 2015 and a portfolio resubmission in fall 2015.
No action can be taken over the summer.
a. M. Suchenek- That would be the normal case, but he thinks this is more serious
case and they should take some type of action.
b. P. Kalayjian- Agreed with M. Suchenek. She does not think asking to add
material that the Chancellor’s Office requires by the fall 2014 semester is asking
too much of the department.
6. L. Fitzsimmons reported that the Philosophy department chair stated that she felt
“harassed by the GE committee.” That may imply the possibility of action.
7. J. Seguin stated she believes the GE Committee has been very passive over what has
been happening over the syllabus for the last 12 months since D. Belu has been chair.
They are reinforcing bad behavior.
8. M. Suchenek- If any action needs to be taken, it should be by the GE Committee.
9. L. Fitzsimmons- For the department chair to bring the course into compliance, the
instructor needs to change the course content which requires a course modification to go
through the entire curriculum process from the GE committee to UCC.
a. T. Haney revealed this information at the last GE meeting. The only way the
revised course could be offered in the fall is as a pilot while the paperwork is in
the process of curriculum review.
b. P. Kalayjian- Disagrees with Tracey’s recommendation; she does not think
Philosophy should have to modify the content of course through the curriculum
process. Their department changes their course content all the time and they do
not require it go through the curriculum process.
6
10. J. Seguin moved to table the topic of Philosophy until later in the meeting to talk about
new business MGT 200.
a. Approved
New Business Curriculum Proposal
MGT 200 Ethics and Social Responsibility in a Global World- Gary Polk and
Tom Norman
1. G. Polk- MGT 200 is a new course proposal that has been taught as a special topics course 3
times. The course meets Dean Joseph Wen’s College of Business and Public Policy’s strategic
plan. The objective is to give a better understanding of ethics and special responsibilities.
According to his research, this type of course is not offered university-wide at other
institutions. He has been working with Dean Wen for two years on developing this course;
there is focus on ethics from a global perspective in the idea that “the world is flat.” They
address the roles of leaders and followers, and introduce students to ethical decision
making, utilitarianism, moral rights, and the justice approach. The department is proposing
to offer the course as face to face, hybrid and online modalities.
2. Participation is based on in-class participation as well as weekly online discussion boards
for the face to face course sections. There are also small team project assignments.
3. L. Fitzsimmons stated the content appears Eurocentric and if the intent of the course is to be
global, then it should be more equitable and include more global content including Islamic
and African. Columbia, Malaysia, and Asia are included in some case studies. She reiterated
that Islam is missing from the case studies.
4. L. Goldman- On page 4 of the syllabus, under Participation, the first paragraph clearly states
what is expected for in-class participation and use of discussion boards. She had a question
regarding the 40-50% participation grade and was not clear if that percentage was different
for the face to face, hybrid and online modalities.
a. G. Polk- For the on ground, students are required the 3 hours of in class times and to
also participate in weekly discussion boards. Hybrid and online courses have more
focus on the discussion boards.
7
5. L. Fitzsimmons- Regarding test taking, the online syllabus states it is open book, but no
other resources allowed. She asked how he proposes to monitor or prevent this. The concept
of an online open book test is questionable.
6. E. Magruder- Referred to Jose Bowen author of “Teaching Naked” and how students today
will use digital tools so he strongly recommends constructing exams that are going to be
cheat-proof. He also states that closed-book exams do not prepare students for real life
experiences of not being able to use resources as research for work projects. He recommends
creating exams that are constructed with questions that encourage and allow students to
research online and have to draw their own conclusion from the material they find online.
She would encourage and support the use of open book exams this way.
7. E. Magruder- Academic Senate has passed a new resolution on syllabus content which
includes explicitly stating within the class schedule which meeting dates are in class and
which are online. Some of confusion could be resolved by indicating in each week which
class meetings are face to face or online to give the students complete clarity.
a. G. Polk- He does have this in his hybrid syllabus.
8. G. Polk – Regarding testing security, he has 8 questions for a 2 hour tests which averages
about 15 minutes per question. If students have not read the material, it is difficult to
complete without using electronic materials.
a. L. Fitzsimmons suggested he use turnitin.com for added security.
b. G. Polk- Agreed this is a good suggestion. He uses turnitin.com, but not for this type
of assignment.
9. L. Fitzsimmons- Recommended developing a rubric for the discussion board with
requirements of minimum length and quality substance so that it is standardized.
10. M. Suchenek- He would like to see this course as part of the GE program and suggested it
could be a part of Area A2, logic and critical thinking. He is not sure how far the department
is willing to go with the course.
11. T. Norman- As department chair, he will look at developing a diversity course to meet GE
Area A2 and take this back to the faculty.
12. L. Fitzsimmons- The GE committee has the following recommendations:
a. Insert a three-column chart indicating links between the GE objectives, the course
objectives, and the specific assignments of the course.
8
b. Expand or adjust assignments to achieve a more inclusive, “global” coverage of
pertinent materials, in particular from Islamic cultures and the global South.
c. Consider including a discussion board rubric, with required word length per
posting, and documentation standards for postings.
d. Consider requiring turnitin.com for examination submissions.
e. Expand the academic integrity statement.
13. L. Fitzsimmons will send him the recommendations and request for resubmission.
a. Returned
PHI 120- Continued
1. P. Kalayjian- Recommended the GE Committee send a letter to the Philosophy
department chair D. Belu, the associate dean (S. Pawar), and dean (M. Furusa) stating
they want PHI 120 in compliance with the GE area outcomes. The GE committee needs
to make a case to the people who have influence over the issue. There should also be a cc
to the Provost.
2. The wording should state that the GE Committee is concerned that the course is out of
compliance with Executive Order 1065 and that it should be resolved by the 2014-15
academic year.
a. J. Seguin- She is not sure if the GE committee has the authority to do so, but they
could recommend decertifying PHI 120 as a GE course for the 2015-2016
academic year if it is not resolved.
3. The recommended submission date for the PHI 101 and PHI 102 portfolios is February
15, 2015.
4. L. Fitzsimmons will draft a letter to department chair.
Open Forum
1. Sal Valdez asked for a copy of the Computer Science course proposals for the double
counting in the undergraduate programs. The University Advisement Center needs
clarification on if they are retroactive or fall 2013.
Adjourn: 12:02pm
9