2nd EPPC October Minutes

Morlock – no questions approved with one abstention

5.         General Education Redesign – Introduction Item

Chair handed over to Crotts as Way part of GE team.

Trechter introduced 2008 revised EO on GE, added LEAF learning outcomes. Major issues presented: 4 essential learning outcomes. Consider how to develop own campus requirements. EO10-33 meeting requirements still met.

1.     Compatible with CSU

2.     Portable

3.     Accessible

4.     Affordable

5.     Coherent

AAC&U grant funding awarded. Our campus’s strategic plan. Mission/strategy/values. SLOs based on the values we seek to foster, and CSU mandate.

Owens took over introduction. Major issues presented: Clarified some of the handouts and what the committee is considering, which is the EM only. Owens explained the table in relation to our current Areas of GE, i.e. Foundation section then pathways. These provide coherence. Choose one course from each row. Each pathway fits together around a unifying theme and if a student follows this they will receive an interdisciplinary minor (for 18 units plus 9 theme units). Inflexible still must take in one area.

Writing intensive courses – 4 for the GE units, freshmen Comp and capstone counts. Capstone requirement. Major can petition for their capstone to fulfill this.

Majors can request up to 3 courses that count for GE requirements.

Flexibility built into program with few waivers granted/needed

Administration – governing body that replaces GEAC, Curriculum Advisory Board, with pathway coordinators and other members.

General discussion of committee members included the following themes/issues:

1.     Double counting – explained by Loker

2.     Values – technological literacy not listed, referred to EO-33, information literacy listed in EO, could this be added to the values? Response by Loker that technological literacy is included through labs

3.     60 units needing academic approval

4.     Requiring request GE each semester – get commitment from departments to commit to offering GE courses

5.     Does GE class have to be part of a pathway? Answer from Design Team was yes.

6.     All classes have to reapply for GE status

7.     Bottlenecks and have too many sections, more workable with 3 than 2 in box

8.     Is there a 20 -40% cut in GE courses?

9.     Can we leave GE courses currently in place as applying into a pathway?

10.  Response from GE team member importance of wiping the slate clean so that the course will fit into the new pathway.

11.  Questions raised about the requirements of all courses having to apply for GE status

12.  Student response - flexibility positive and will increase focus

13.  Possible to combine current GE courses into pathway areas as transitional period until pathways are developed

14.  Flexibilities of pathways value added, not a forced choice.

15.  New values added so need the new process

16.  Owens move away from course level assessment to program assessment as important component of this proposal

17.  Coherence, creating relationships/collaborations with faculty that would benefit students

18.  Questions about how many foundation courses can be applied to the pathway, apply to the EM on the pathway as in the foundation

19.  P.4 EM ‘department’ a problem? exchange with program?

20.  3 courses in foundation better than 2 because too generous

21.  P.4 diversity graduation requirement – addressed in UD part of the pathway as a problem

22.  Pathways that don’t follow this will be discouraged; will make it difficult for pathways to get up

23.  Questions about diversity requirements and transfer students, having 2 classes instead of  3 is limiting

24.  Suggestion of 3-5 courses in rows of UD themes to accommodate diversity courses

25.  P.7 para 2 sentence 2, rephrase in different way

26.  Look at assessment in capstone courses vs GE capstone vs major capstone course

27.  P. 5 bottom paragraph writing requirements  - fairness between native vs transfer students – Loker response that the transfer students do 2 writing intensive courses in community college

28.  P6 advanced core substitutions – consulted by advising faculty etc. ambiguous , needs to be clearer

29.  Curriculum oversight board, why not from each college – answered by Loker more formal role of responsibility for ensuring that adequate resources are allocated to GE

30.  Merging of C2 and C3 in the program –

31.  See handout – responses by Loker for justification of decisions made

32.  Concern regarding GE structure for survey courses – suspect survey courses will be in pathways

33.  P. 4 EM languages where do they fit? Clarify in EM

Motion the floor (Way/Fox) to postpone definitely on Nov 5 passed

6.     Discussion Item – Super Seniors – discussion already around this and it was at Senate with clarification.

7.     Policy issues that need to be addressed. Policy super senior, define, consultation with major advisor, appeal process and holds under administration, students who are planning on entering the credential program (exceptions), earlier intervention, how we consider double majors, certificate programs. Included will be what advising will have already identified plus this. Email Way if more issues. Mandatory advising at major level? Over 150 units pay out of state tuition, consistency everyone treated the same procedurally. Draft as an EM. Sub committee established to look at the issue of super seniors. At the meeting, Bill Loker, Lorainne Smith, Rick Fox, and Jennifer Lillibridge volunteered to serve on the committee.

7.         Other.  none

8.         Adjourn 4:40 Edelman/Crotts