Office of Academic Programs • 1000 East Victoria St. • Carson, CA 90747
General Education Committee
Monday, November 10, 2014
10:00am-12:00pm – Provost’s Conference Room
Minutes
Present: J. Dote-Kwan, K. Bragg, C. Turner, M. Chavez, L. Fitzsimmons, M. Suchenek, E.
Magruder, S. Valdez, P. Krochalk, G. Polk, E. Zoerner, D. Sherman
Absent: B. Riddick, I. Heinze-Balcazar, K. Ganezer
1. Call to Order: 10:08am
2. Approval of Agenda: M. Suchenek moved to approve. M. Chavez seconded. M/S/P
a. Approved
3. Approval of October 13, 2014 Minutes
a. E. Magruder: P. 6 MGT 200 Item 3.r. Clarify the statement to read
“Questioned if the case studies would meet the definition of “global”
being used for the proposed course.”
b. M. Suchenek will email M. Medina his revisions to the minutes.
c. M. Suchenek moved to approve the minutes with revisions by E.
Magruder and revisions he will send by email. D. Sherman seconded.
M/S/P
i. Revised minutes approved
New Business- Curriculum Proposals
ENG 108, ENG 109- Ed Zoerner
4. E. Zoerner gave a summary of the new course “stretch course” proposals for ENG
108 and ENG 109. The proposal in essence wants to take the higher of the
developmental English courses, ENG 099 Basic Writing Workshop and ENG 110
Composition 1 into a cohorted class. When students pass, they can continue on to
ENG 111. The material covered will not change hugely. Pedagogically it is more
sound.
a. The classes are cohorted across two semesters. They will have the same
students, same instructor and be taught at the same time. They would be
same instructor, days, and textbook. The cohorting allows instructors to
know their students better and address their individual needs.
b. There are several other universities successfully using English stretch
courses in the CSU including San Francisco State University.
a. There are several advantages to the stretch course system. It removes the
“remedial” label off of the students and letting them know that college
level work is expected them. Also, the units will count towards
graduation since they are 100 level courses. The ENG 108 will count
toward the 120 units to slightly expedite graduation time and slightly
reduce student expense.
5. E. Zoerner affirmed that the in-class same seat time does not change compared to
students taking ENG 99 and ENG 110. The difference with ENG 108 and ENG 109 is
students will have the same instructor and the same students, building a learning
community.
6. J. Dote-Kwan asked if students that complete ENG 099 always go right into ENG 110
the next semester or sit out do some sit out.
a. E. Zoerner stated he did not know for fact, but his guess is an
overwhelming majority of students go right into ENG 110 unless they
don’t register in time or the class is full.
7. J. Dote-Kwan asked if students go from ENG 110 immediately into ENG 111,
because having that progression of writing for three solid semesters is good rather
than students stopping, taking a semester off, and trying to start again especially
when it’s a formative skill that they’re still developing.
a. E. Zoerner stated he believes most student continue each semester and
agreed this would prevent some from taking a semester off after taking
ENG 099.
8. M. Suchenek asked what will happen to the ENG 099 course if the proposed courses
are approved.
c. E. Zoerner informed the committee that ENG 099 will remain an active
course. If a student does not pass ENG 108 in the fall, they will take ENG
099 in the spring to satisfy the Chancellor’s Office EO 665. The normal
expectation will be that students take ENG 108 in the fall and ENG 109 in
the spring. ENG 099 will be a last chance for students who do not pass
ENG 108.
a. He explained that student’s course placement depends on their English
placement test scores. Currently with the Early Start program at CSUDH,
students take ENG 088 in summer, ENG 099 in fall, ENG 110 in spring.
ENG 088 and ENG 099 will stay active courses to serve Chancellor’s Office
Executive Order 665. ENG 088 and ENG 099 will remain active courses
that fulfill Executive Order 665. This proposal serves an alternative way to
fulfill this requirement which the department thinks is more
pedagogically beneficial to the students.
9. M. Suchenek asked for clarification on the practice for students who do not pass
ENG 099.
a. E. Zoerner stated that with the proposal, students who do not pass ENG
099 in the summer will enroll in ENG 108 in the fall. Eligibility for ENG
108 is the same as eligibility for ENG 099.
10. M. Suchenek questioned if students being rewarded for not passing ENG 099 by
going into ENG 108.
a. L. Fitzsimmons suggested that the concern is there could be an
encouraging psychological boost to students to go from a fail of ENG 099
to ENG 108. It may be perceived as a benefit because it is a college-level
course which is contradictory. Even though it is not literally better, it may
be perceived as better.
11. M. Suchenek agreed.
12. E. Magruder acknowledged that the English department presented an excellent
course proposal that is well laid out and stated she appreciated the flowcharts that
outlined the explanation of the proposal. It seems absolutely soundly supported
through the research references that are given.
a. In reference to the word “failure” the proposal is about enabling students
to think that they belong. It seems in touch with the idea the difference
that a mindset makes that students believe if something can be learned,
they’re much more likely to learn it. If they believe that failure is a sign
that you lack an ability, you can predict they’re more likely to fail.
13. J. Dote-Kwan asked if students didn’t pass ENG 099, what the ability to pass it again
is. Taking the same course repeatedly doesn’t guarantee success. By offering the
ENG 108, the writing expectations are different and students are repeating the
content, but it is packaged in a way where it’s not the same as the original course.
She would think there would be more hopeful aspirations to succeed in passing the
course. It is a cohorted class with more essay writing and believes it’s a better
outcome for students if they have to repeat ENG 099.
14. M. Chavez seconded what J. Dote-Kwan and E. Magruder have said. If students do
not pass ENG 099, then students would benefit from the year-long sequence.
15. K. Bragg commented that the English department has been very thoughtful in
creating a sequence that address the process of writing that prepares these students
to move forward. That is why these courses are put together as this sequence.
16. J. Dote-Kwan suggested using “two-course sequence” instead of “two-term course”
which would be the proper terminology for what is being proposed.
ENG 150 proposal- Ed Zoerner
1. L. Fitzsimmons asked if E. Zoerner was prepared to present the ENG 150 course
proposal.
2. E. Zoerner informed the committee that the College or Arts and Humanities
curriculum committee approved the course ENG 150 Languages of the World
pending minor corrections to the proposal form for Area D2. They believe it’s a
suitable course for what it attempts to achieve. It’s a common course across the
CSU’s.
3. E. Zoerner stated he did not receive the comments of concern from Earth Science
and Geography. He sent emails to potentially affected departments including
Geography but did not receive a direct response.
4. L. Fitzsimmons will forward the comments from the Earth Science and Geography
department to E. Zoerner and bring ENG 150 proposal back to the GE committee for
review.
MGT 200 proposal- Gary Polk
1. G. Polk stated he believes they have complied with all of the changes requested by
the GE Committee. He reviewed the list of the GE Committee’s recommendations
and responded on how they had been addressed:
a. The GE Committee asked to him to clarify how Area D2 objective 7 will be
met. G. Polk referred to page 4 of the revised syllabus, case study # 2 and
case study #5, they are key U.S. Legislations.
b. To clarify the course description, he added the second sentence “The
course will focus on the interdependencies between people and their
organizations.”
c. The “SR” has been removed from the proposal form, item 5 abbreviated
title, as requested.
d. The capitalization inconsistencies in the chart were corrected.
i. L. Fitzsimmons commented that on page 4 there was still some
inconsistencies with capitalization in the learning outcomes chart,
in “LO 2.”
ii. G. Polk will make the correction.
e. G. Polk substituted Writing “Mechanics” for Writing “Competency” in the
Discussion Board Rubric as requested on page 11 of the syllabus.
i. G. Polk asked for clarification on the requested change and if
“competency” is not a phrased used any more in academics.
ii. L. Fitzsimmons informed him that there was concern that he was
implying “mechanics” constituted “competency.”
f. Page 3, under subheading, “A Global Perspective including East, West,
and Islamic” he included a statement that students will gain an
appreciation for the Islamic impact on global ethics and included Islamic
traditions of social thought on sound ethical values to be used in
management of the global economy.
g. A definition of “borderless world” is given on page 2, under “Course
Objectives” as requested. “A world where there is no isolationism.”
2. E. Magruder asked how the course come to be developed and if there are other
similar courses.
a. G. Polk- Dean (Joseph) Wen asked for new course offerings and he had
the idea to develop an ethical leadership course of which he had the
support of his department chair. There are no ethics courses offered on
campus.
3. L. Fitzsimmons referred to a statement on page 3, first section, second
paragraph,”…but no true global ethical standards… “. She suggested the intending
wording may have been “truly global.”
a. G. Polk agreed. This language should be corrected.
4. J. Dote-Kwan said she does not see where the Area D2 objective 7 is met in the
course.
5. K. Bragg commented that in terms of scientific inquiry and logical analysis, in the
case study assignments, students are learning how to take ethical ideas and go
through an inquiry driven by data and analysis which may help to meet the
scientific requirement.
6. E. Magruder suggested that G. Polk look at the existing courses that are in Area D2
and see how they meet that learning outcome.
7. L. Fitzsimmons thanked G. Polk for attending and for the changes he made.
ENG 108, ENG 109 proposals, continued.
1. M. Suchenek stated he sees the argument for the students but he has serious
problems with the philosophy of the proposal. Students that do not pass ENG 099
and pushing the up to ENG 108, it is setting them up for failure.
2. E. Magruder noted that the proposal includes references to evidence that this works.
It is used at other universities. This connects students to other students.
3. D. Sherman stated this is the best foot forward for the English department. The other
classes, this is ideally what they want everyone to do.
4. K. Bragg commented that this is a research-based proposal and revision in
curriculum. The English department has spent time gathering information, looking
at best practices and doing research to bring forth this proposal based on a common
goal to improve student writing. The GE Committee should recognize their
expertise.
5. S. Valdez informed the GE Committee that there is something similar in place, ENG
195 which take the place of ENG 099 and ENG 110 based on test scores. The success
rates for that course when it is taught has been very high. ENG 195 is a similar
concept.
6. E. Magruder moved to accept ENG 108 and ENG 109. D. Sherman seconded. 1
abstention M/S/P
a. Approved
MGT 200 Proposal, Continued
1. J. Dote-Kwan thinks G. Polk may have misunderstood what was requested
regarding Area D2 objective 7. He revised and clarified his learning outcome 7.
2. K. Bragg suggested the response from the GE Committee to G. Polk include
something encouraging, acknowledging his work and effort.
3. The Committee has the following recommendations for re-submission of MGT 200:
a. Clarify how Area D.2 objective 7 will be met by this course.
b. Remove grammatical errors.
GE Area Review Updated REC 100- online/proposal
1. L. Fitzsimmons and D. Sherman reviewed the resubmission of REC 100 for Area E
and gave a report on the updates to the GE committee.
2. The instructor did make the recommended revisions to enhance the academic
integrity statement on plagiarism, incorporate the disabled student service statement
and computer information literacy statement.
3. L. Fitzsimmons is making the recommendation to include that using someone else’s
ideas also constitutes plagiarism.
4. Recommendation to reconsider originality percentage on turnitin.com.
5. The three column chart was completed.
6. The health food store investigation assignment still explicitly states that students can
only visit a Whole Foods store. This was not modified as suggested by the GE
Committee. The instructor did include a letter of defense in her response for
rationale to the committee.
a. This may appear biased to some students. The store is a white
organization and there’s a political implication that should be considered.
It is an online course and students may not have access to the Whole
Foods store which may be an extra burden.
7. Interactive activities were recommended.
8. Online security of exams. The exisiting security measures are not sufficient.
9. D. Sherman moved to accept the report. J. Dote-Kwan seconded.
a. Report approved.
10. L. Fitzsimmons asked if the GE Committee agrees with the recommendations of the
subcommittee.
11. E. Magruder commented, regarding online exam security, it seems the instructor is
making use of what is available on Blackboard. There are other ways to ensure
security including online proctored exams. She would be hesitant to ask faculty to
use anything else beyond what is made available by the campus if there is an extra
cost. There are other ways of structuring exams to deter dishonesty.
12. E. Magruder asked if the GE Committee can have Chris Manriquez or someone else
from Information Technology come and speak to these issues of concern.
a. L. Fitzsimmons stated she thinks that Academic Senate needs to take up
this issue.
b. E. Magruder asked if L. Fitzsimmons will draft a statement on behalf of
the GE Committee and she will take it back to the Academic Senate.
13. M. Chavez stated it should be equitable for all courses and there should be a
university-wide policy for online courses and security.
14. K. Bragg commented that there are also hybrid courses, using the online component
for testing and quizzes using the same tools. We do need a conversation with IT and
something from Academic Senate.
a. E. Magruder noted that a face-to-face course can administer an online
exam through Blackboard. This is a topic that applies to all courses.
15. K. Bragg suggested wording, “the security measure that are discussed in this course
are representative of the tools and materials of campus wide-use for security by
other courses but we know note and we are concerned about the limitations of those
and we think that maybe a larger conversations needs to be at a university level.”
This suggests the instructor did what everyone is doing but they could do more.
a. L. Fitzsimmons agreed. She will pass that on.
16. J. Dote-Kwan agreed the assignment is exclusionary. It specifically states which
stores students cannot attend.
17. E. Magruder said she wants to know why Whole Foods has been selected for the
Health Food store assignment because it seems very well thought out. She would
like to know that the intended learning outcome is for attending this store only that
students may not receive somewhere else.
18. J. Dote-Kwan commented that the online and ground-based syllabus are very
similar. There is not much difference between them. There should be a distinction.
The discussion board is only worth 4% of the grade, 20 points in each course. There
is lack of building an online community.
a. L. Fitzsimmons referred to the memo sent out by C. Jacobs regarding
expected online hours which could be forwarded to the instructor.
b. J. Dote-Kwan recommended referencing the UCC memo and let them
know it is difficult to see the instructional time outside the video sessions.
Students should have 45 hours.
19. Recommendations for REC 100:
a. Reconsider the limitation of the Health Food Store Investigation to Whole
Foods only.
b. Clarify the hours spent in instructional activities for this course
(percentages for each activity). The course requires more interactive
activities. The value of the discussion board should be enhanced.
i. Call for a resubmission of the REC 100 online syllabus.
KIN 235 Course Review Report- M. Chavez and B. Ford
1. M. Chavez- It appears the course does satisfy the requirements for all Area E
learning outcomes and students are mastering the target objectives.
2. The syllabus for KIN 235 is out of compliance; the subcommittee has the following
recommendations:
a. On the syllabus, insert a three-column chart, linking GE objectives, course
objectives, and assignments [brief titles, from the schedule] that meet
those objectives.
b. Include the contact information for Disabled Student Services on the
syllabus (telephone number and email address).
c. Include a computer information literacy statement on the syllabus.
d. Include student centered and measurable outcomes on the standard and
instructor syllabi. The class syllabus did not clearly identify objectives for
students to meet. In some instances, objectives blended with student work
ethic expectations.
e. Include an expanded statement on plagiarism.
f. There was question about the grading scale. There are no points listed for
D grades. Points 328-315 are a C- grade, then show 270 F, fail. It was
recommended this be clarified.
3. Subcommittee’s recommendations: Submit a revised syllabus that meets the current
university requirements and submit student work, with a range of grades, for
semester being assessed.
a. GE subcommittee report accepted.
4. L. Fitzsimmons called for a resubmission of KIN 235 portfolio due September 15,
2015.
Open Forum
1. E. Magruder commented that the ENG 150 syllabus does address in a
narrative form how the course will address all of the GE Area D2 objectives.
She suggested the GE committee make the recommendation in advance to
revise the learning outcome format in the syllabus.
Adjourn: 12:06 p.m.