General Education Advisory Committee

Minutes

September 19, 2007

Attending: Jim Cremer, Helena Dettmer (Chair), Pat Folsom, David Gier, Thomas Gioielli, Kathryn Hall (staff), Lisa Heineman, Peter Hlebowitsh, Beth Ingram, Brooks Landon, Alec Scranton, Walter Seaman, Caroline Tolbert

Excused Absence: Dennis Moore

1. Members of the committee introduced themselves and Helen Dettmer summarized the history and purpose of the committee that grew out of the CAE subcommittee. She clarified in response to a member’s question that the College does not want to take away resources or enrollments from departments when revitalizing the General Education Program.  The intent rather is to reorganized, rename the categories, and rethink the message of the Program without disturbing departments’ traditional roles within the GE Program.
2. Senior Associate Provost for Undergraduate Education Thomas Rocklin and Interim Provost Lola Lopes will be invited to attend an Advisory Committee meeting to make suggestions about the future of the GE Program and to answer questions. Suggestions for other visitors may be emailed to Kathryn Hall.
3. Members discussed other background questions relating to the committee’s work. One of the weaknesses in the current program is simply that the style used to discuss the program is seems lacking in a voice/tone, and it is hard to find information about the GEP. Once the program is reformulated, special care needs to be given to informing and educating students, faculty, orientation, admissions, advising, and the entire campus community about the program. If the message about the program is clear and consistent, it will be easier to encourage faculty to discuss its goals in syllabi and in classes. Faculty need to educate students on the importance of the GE Program and how their particular course helps to fulfill the GE Program’s outcomes. Faculty teaching “downstream courses” can also work to reinforce the message. It is hard to convey such a message if the outcomes of the GE Program are unclear, and it can be difficult to understand its complexities, just as it is with any academic program that has a history, a mythology, and a day-to day reality.  
4. One member suggested that the committee might want to find one center of gravity or a theme to structure the program. Communication skills were rated by students in the survey as still needing work, and faculty agreed. Students often do not perceive what they are learning, especially if the knowledge or skills fall outside of a traditional, associative field, and it is hard to separate perception from “reality.” It can also be difficult to teach communication skills to large courses. The General Education Curriculum Committee reviews GE courses, especially looking for evidence of the program’s comprehensive criteria of critical thinking, and communication skills. A syllabus, however, does not reveal if students are learning what teachers are teaching.
5. For accreditation purposes some programs regularly undergo assessment. How can the GE Program be assessed? An electronic portfolio where students collect work from each GE course would be interesting and informative—although perhaps impossible for 4,000 students. It is important to think creatively and out of the box to overcome such obstacles.