1st EPPC November Minutes

            There were no announcements.

4.         General Education Redesign – Introduction Item.

           The sole discussion item was consideration of the proposed General Education EM.   A wide array of concerns and suggestions were offered in an informal process where members of the GE Design Team were encouraged to directly respond/participate.  Primary points for potential clarification of the EM (offered as suggestions or potential amendments) included the following:

• Limitation of the number of courses (suggested 3) that a student may take from any one department.

• Suggestion to include representation from the library in the administrative structure of GE.

• Clarification that those who implement the Degree Progress Reports had been consulted.  Can this system work with our existing technology, particularly with the substitutions and the 9 units of GE that may be counted from the major?  Members of the GE Design team responded in the affirmative.
• Suggestions to clarify the sections of the EM pertaining to substitutions/waivers.

• Extensive discussion of the Capstone in the major substitution and how it would be implemented.

• Discussion of writing intensive courses with limited enrollment.  How many sections will be required to deliver those courses and how will that impact resources?
• Concern that bottlenecks will be created in the upper division component of GE because of the limitation of two courses per pathway in each discipline area, especially since many of the courses were writing intensive courses with limited enrollment.  Suggestion to increase that number to 3 or 4 courses.
• Suggestions to look at data relative to current number of students pursuing themes in order to project the number of sections required.

• Concern regarding the approval process for the pathways.  In the proposed EM, the suggestion is to follow the minor approval process. However, that would create a “first come, first served” approach which may not result in the breadth and quality of pathways the University desires.
• Numerous questions regarding implementation and a suggestion that the Provost be requested to address the Senate prior to final Senate deliberations.

• Question regarding the naming of the administrative structure (CAB, COB) and whether GE or some other name may be more appropriate.

• Concern regarding distribution of students across pathways.  What if they all chose one pathway?
• Several committee members suggested grandfathering existing GE courses into the new program, considering the current workload, budgetary concerns and the challenge of implementation.

• Questions/concerns over the formation of pathways and how pathways will be selected.  It was suggested that we survey or do focus groups of students.

Chairperson Crotts outlined the options of the committee:

• Postpone definitely

• Refer to committee

• Pass as an introduction item, with the potential that a substitute document may be offered at the next meeting which incorporates suggestions from the two EPPC sessions.

The General Education Redesign proposal passed unanimously as an introduction item.

7.         Other.

           There were no others.

8.         Adjourn.

           The meeting adjourned at 4:35 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

 Dave Daley