Genereal Education Council - Minutes of February 3, 2006

Present: Robert Potter (Chair), Scott Campbell, Ilene Frank, David Frankel, Sharon Geiger, Ram Pendyala, Suzanne Perry-Casler, Nancy White, Terry Sincich, William Murray, Drew Smith.

Absent: John Hodgson (for Sue Bartlett), Trevor Purcell, Ron Dulaney, Sue Bartlett, Gladis Kersaint, Carla Nye, Sandra Verbosky Cadena, William Hayden, Gregory Paveza.

Ex Officio and Guests: Theresa Flateby, Janet Moore, Diane Williams, Deanna Bullard, Shauna Schullo.

Minutes taken by Deanna Bullard.

The meeting was called to order at 9:00 am.

1. Diane Williams gave a written summary of the faculty information session and list of questions from faculty. Janet Moore said she has been getting significant inquiry regarding number 5 - What help will be available for designing large general education classes (especially for critical thinking and inquiry)? Williams said workshops will be held and David Frankel suggested they be made available via podcast or some other more widely accessible format.

2. Nancy White shared that the Department of Anthropology has formed a committee to focus on the new General Education requirements, which raised a number of issues.

   1. Does one class being taught in varied formats (ex. online versus in class) necessitate more than one application or syllabus? Moore mentioned to Tallahassee it is just one course. Frankel added that regardless of delivery format, sections of one class should have the same learning outcomes. It was agreed that faculty then would just have to explain the varied ways each achieves those outcomes.

   2. The website needs examples of what is acceptable in terms of wording, student learning outcomes, components of critical thinking, inquiry based learning, and any other educational jargon that some faculty might not know. In operationalizing the application, should there be a word minimum? It would be difficult to determine until the review process is underway. Bottom line: If an application is inadequate, it gets kicked back for a second chance or if many applications are over adequate, the GEC creates some limits/guidelines.

   3. The 250 word minimum for course description is actually a 250 character minimum, which should be corrected.

3. Regarding the Summary of Unresolved Issues and Concerns from the January 20th Information Session:

   1. College level approval (how will this work)? All existing general education courses will not have to be be recertified at the college level and can go directly to the GEC. However, new courses will still have to pass college councils at which point they get a prefix and number before being heard by the GEC.

   2. Will it be necessary to request approval from another college to offer a general education course related to their area? Yes, but it is more of a courtesy than it is approval. A better way of saying it might be "communicate with" or "consult with." This generates possibilities for collaboration or cross-listing courses and is called concurrence.

   3. How will lab courses and lecture courses that are related be handled? (Can Dimensions be spread across two courses.) Generally no however each may emphasize more of one dimension than the other since activities in class differ from those in the lab.

   4. The matrix says there should be a minimum of five dimensions, but the web site has a limit of five. It was agreed that guidelines should suggest what 5 dimensions a course is expected to cover, be held accountable for, or evaluated on even though it may, in reality cover more. Theresa Flateby noted the course learning outcomes need to be connected to the chosen dimensions. William Murray added that those connections need to be made explicit to students.
      • Note: Advisors will be working with cores, not dimensions.

   5. What help will be available for designing large general education classes? Workshops.

   6. Will there be enough seats to serve the growing number of USF students? Impossible to tell at this point, but we shall see.

4. Regarding the survey results from 21 Faculty Members:

   • Robert Potter said the GEC needs a group of volunteers to put together a draft of the council's criteria for evaluation. Potter, Frankel, and Flateby volunteered and said they would use the application as a template. White pointed out the final criteria must then be made available to faculty.

5. Other business

   • GEC meetings are scheduled for every other Friday and a fall schedule should be determined soon. Next meeting is scheduled for February 17, 2006 during which Gordon Rule will be discussed - Moore will send out information regarding this discussion item.

6. Resource allocation for a faculty line in history

   • Murray reported on his analysis, which concluded an eventual deficit in history instruction and the need for additional lines. Potter supports his efforts and the GEC endorsing this particular line for this case. Although other departments could very well make the same case, history has shown a need for some time now. Generally speaking the council would prefer to use resources to support graduate assistants and especially undergraduate (peer assistant) since the impact can be high if they are well trained and the cost lower in both cases compared to new faculty lines.

   • Murray moved that the GEC request the Dean of Arts and Sciences endorse a faculty line for history out of the GEC funds to support the general education program Drew Smith seconded the motions and all present voted in favor of this motion with no dissenting votes.

7. Spring Agenda
   • Resource allocation draft (see handout)
   • Development of workshops
   • Set evaluation criteria
   • Begin marketing to faculty

Please send any suggestions or comments to:
Margaret Martinroe - webcat@ugs.usf.edu