|
Meeting Minutes
April 11,
2006
Sub
committee reports:
The Alumni
Employer group is analyzing the surveys; they may rerun the
data. Some did not do Gen Ed here. The first sample included
graduate students and transfers.
We have
departmental statements.
We are new
members of the AAC&U. The IEAP asked us to pick some gen ed
outcomes and how to assess them. We talked to Tina and we can
do that better in a couple years.
Academic
Affairs and Institutional Research: went to Cary and talked to
Randy Swing; this helped put us on the map for first year
experience. He said designators were the right thing to do.
We can say
that we have become visible: people know that Gen Ed is
changing.
SK: I’ll
email this version of Goals and Learning Outcomes to chairs and
past forum participants for comments and suggestions. I’ll also
send it to Dr. Schneider. We might designate one person to go
through and make the language of this statement hang together
better. Ray and I are giving input. All others are welcome,
until April 25th, the last meeting.
We’ll work
on refining this product over the next few weeks and then
present it to the council of chairs.
We might
ask the Appalachian to publish this. They could publish it in
the online edition, and we’ll put it on our website.
We are
still presenting a draft for feedback.
Continued
work on the Goals and Learning Outcomes statement:
Mission
Statement Group: Paul and Sammye
We need an
identity.
Is this
required of all students? Then say so.
We took
out the statement about region, because it’s a goal. The word
diverse: we meant inclusive, including types of knowledge. Does
it need to be more clear?
To try to
differentiate and explain here is going to take too much time.
“Intentional learners” means people who are conscious rather
than passive.
Core
Connections: I thought we were trying to hammer out the core.
How else to you encapsulate common experience?
“Attitudinal experiential” is more important to have there than
the first two.
It makes
it kind of disjointed to have outcomes and goals addressing
these things when it’s in the mission statement.
We should
more specifically address communication sharing.
What makes
it common? There are common expectations. That modifies
experience.
The
implication is that if you call it general education then they
will have a common experience.
If we say
that gen ed is a common experience, then we’re dedicating
ourselves to a particular model.
If this is
a vertical model, even transfers will have some of this
experience.
Community
colleges will have a fit when they see the first sentence.
A cute
name will trivialize what we’re doing.
Maybe we
should choose a name so someone else doesn’t.
Some
faculty members will not like the name “Connections” because
they will feel like we’re not doing deep things to integrate.
We
emulated and rearranged because we wanted to go from simpler to
more complex. Some of the language is needed to be more
inclusive.
Q: What’s
the difference between environmental and societal?
I don’t
see science in any of these goals.
“Utilizes
spatial perspectives” is not a good stand alone phrase.
Quantitative and spatial are both mathematical.
They
should be able to use quantitative processes in communication.
The ability to use a graph is important.
It seems
to shift into what you communicate, and that’s where language
could be more consistent.
Q: Could it simply be communicating effectively?
Do we want
to have an objective about how well we want them to do these
things?
We need to
spend our time here articulating the issues rather than
rewriting.
There are
differences between 1 & 2 and 3 & 4. In order to put in
outcomes in 3 & 4, we would wade into some discipline areas that
we didn’t in 1 & 2.
I think
there needs to be a consistency there. We’re moving away from
learning outcomes.
The
descriptions we’re talking about in 3 & 4, they’re not learning
outcomes.
If we put
“effectively” by each one, then it would look more like learning
outcomes.
You can
measure whether they do or don’t do this.
How do you
measure “respectfully”? Trying to take out things that you
can’t get at; getting the sense that we have to find a
justification for everything we’re doing. We don’t have to
justify it again in the sentences we’re putting together.
We can add
all the justification we want. We want to keep it short and
sweet, because we have to be able to assess.
One
sentence, that way the goal could just pull outcomes out
separately and that would make sense.
Interdisciplinary work is something they do here, this is a
learning outcome. There are skills involved in
interdisciplinary work: having familiarity with theories.
A kind of
work is not a learning outcome.
We’re not
just talking about interdisciplinary work concepts.
How do you
assess? You have to see the relationship of theories in
different disciplines.
Goals and
Outcomes cannot be confused.
We don’t
have an outcome having to do with aesthetics or visual arts.
Science
literacy is missing from the document. Scientific method needs
to be in there somewhere.
All of
these are supposed to be the bare bones.
The
scientific method is a learning outcome.
There are
other methods for knowing things that don’t involve the
scientific method.
Scientific
literacy: we have to have something that people will accept and
buy into.
There is a
whole series of literacies: If we do put in a statement about
scientific literacy, we maybe should put in other literacies.
Technological, mathematical, etc.
Goal 3:
We thought
we might want to have something that talked specifically about
the United States. How to make a connection clear is
important.
If we
foreground that diversity is important, we downplay that
sameness is important.
“Recognizes” is one step further than “appreciation”.
Goal 4:
We
tightened up the wording: We took out little words that give
the idea that we’re prescribing student behavior.
Not every
ethical issue is a dilemma.
We are
asking for all suggestions to streamline the document.
Meeting
adjourned.
|
