FS GENERAL EDUCATION COMMITTEE
AUGUST 17, 2006
The meeting was called to order by Dr. Dan Schierenbeck, Chair, with the following members present: Dr. Nicholas Baeth, Ms. Rochelle Barabas, Dr. Kelly Boyd, Dr. Karen Bradley, Ms. Kelly Edmondson, Dr. Victoria Jackson, Dr. Qingxiong Ma, Ms. Joanne Reinke, Dr. Peter Viscusi, and Dr. Mike Grelle and Ms. Amy Chester, Secretary.
Approval of Minutes
Dr. Schierenbeck asked the committee if there were any questions or comments on the June 14, 2006 minutes. Ms. Edmondson made a motion to approve the minutes. Ms. Reinke seconded the motion, and since there were no further corrections or comments, the minutes were approved by acclamation.
Dr. Grelle started out the new business by telling the FS General Education Committee about the current policy for the College Base test and problems that are being encountered. The policy currently states that a student must earn a score of 235 on all four sections of the C-Base test OR earn a score of 235 on three of the four sections and earn a grade of “C” or better in all courses that are in the section of the C-Base test for which the student did not receive a score of 235. Dr. Grelle continued by giving examples of problems that are being faced with the current policy in Testing and Assessment and exceptions to the policy that are being made because of the problems. The committee asked a variety of questions to clarify the policy and decided that whatever the policy reads, it should be very clear to the students, fair and reasonable, and have fewer exceptions.
Ms. Edmondson noticed that in the catalog the wording on the policy and explanation of the C-BASE test was a little confusing. Dr. Viscusi said that he would take a look at it and make any necessary changes if possible or bring it to the attention of the Academic Standards Committee for when they review the catalog next.
After further discussion the committee decided to hold a joint meeting with the FS University Assessment Committee, by request of Dr. Grelle, to discuss the different options that are available for instituting a new policy. Then a formal recommendation can be taken to the Faculty Senate.
Dr. Viscusi then gave the committee a description of how Central Missouri State University’s General Education Program was originally formulated and evolved through the years. He then attempted to clarify the differences that are supposed to be apparent between ICAP and IGEN courses.
Ms. Reinke stated that the course is a good capstone course for the program, but since it does not mention how it integrated General Education with the major material she did not feel like it was a good General Education capstone course. Ms. Bradley noted that they claimed that all persons are trained, but there was no clarification on who these persons are and how they are being trained. Dr. Schierenbeck also noticed that the syllabus and evaluation claimed to have different competencies. Some of the other concerns with the course’s paper work included the reference matrix, attachments, and the grading scale. Dr. Schierenbeck recommended asking the department if they would like to make the necessary changes to keep the course an ICAP or if they would like to let the course stand as is and give it their own prefix.
The first concern with this course is the ability to decline a student’s excuse for absence. After reading the policy on page 17 of the catalog it was decided that is was okay, but could probably be re-worded. It was also discussed that the 27 primary competencies listed were far too many. The committee decided that it too should be returned for more clarification, especially on how the course integrates General Education and how they would assess their 27 primary competencies.
A workshop was discussed that would help the departments that are getting ready to submit their courses to the committee for review. Departments could get more information on how to fill out the paperwork correctly. This will help reduce the number of courses that have to be sent back for revision. The workshop could be held in September and then the due dates could be pushed back a little later in the year.
The committee also thought that they should look at the questions that are sent out to the departments and consider re-wording them for clarification purposes.
Since meeting times this semester are being held to an hour and fifteen minutes, Dr. Schierenbeck proposed the idea of the committee meeting more frequently. The committee could meet every other week, depending on the number of reviews submitted.
The next scheduled meeting will be on Thursday, September 7, 2006 from 8:00 am to 9:15 pm. The room location will be sent out later via email.
The meeting was adjourned.
Amy Chester, Secretary