October 27th, 2016
Final LAGER Committee Minutes 10/20/16
Present: Lavon, Melanie, Damon, Kyle(chair), Caleb, Drew(rec.)
- Minutes from 10/6/16 were approved and posted to the MoonRoom site
- New info from the writing director
- Cohort of students that place directly into HP is larger than initially thought
- 60-70 students
- New curriculum currently requires ENG 102 of all incoming students
- Discussion of possible Options
- Catalog language updated to reflect all requirements – pre-req’s or otherwise
- Approved by committee
- Does not change the number of credits
- May cause a perception that model has grown
- Important to point this out moving forward
- Discussion of Draft Catalog Language 2
- Made adjustment to Breadth Humanity requirement language
- Double counting issue
- Discussion of positives and negatives of double counting CiP requirements – continuation of discussion that began during Wednesday forum
- Will need to be an ongoing discussion
- One possible way of moving forward – remove any mention of double counting in catalog language – use current language of discrete credit hours – ensures the integrity of the community
- Process for handling double counting will be addressed in the implementation guide and chartering process for CiP’s – in Curriculum Committee approval process
- Brief discussion of Arts and Sciences feedback
- Naming changes
- Curriculum –> Guilford Experience
- Community – some discussion of this naming is needed going forward
October 20th, 2016
Final LAGER Committee Minutes 10/6/16
Present: Kyle (chair), Darla, Caleb, Melanie, Lavon, Damon, Drew (rec.)
- Minutes from 9/29/16 were approved
- Questions moving forward
- How many majors/programs already require a specific QL?
- Which documents should be edited moving forward, which are locked?
- Shared docs from 9/29 faculty meeting should be locked – no longer edit
- Questions/conversation from 10/5/16 forum
- Concern that CiP’s could become major lite with rigid requirements
- Current design has a minimum requirement for CiP’s, but no maximum? Should it be a set number, or should there be a range, a maximum?
- Concern again about making breadth requirements within a CiP too prescriptive, not allowing for a range of experiences.
- How many students double major? Somewhere around one third of students who graduated last year were double majors.
- Concern that larger CiP’s would not work for large major or double major students. Or that large major/double major students would only fit in a few smaller communities.
- Need to better communicate that faculty will be designing CiP’s not having them assigned
- Need to better communicate that CiP’s will be working with large ideas, not just one area, or one location
- Concern about two credit seminars and credit load, could result in dropped courses – students being under 12 credits, etc
- Concern about visibility of QL, writing sequence, in the new design, etc – different from the current discrete course requirements
- To Do Lists – Possible Next Steps
- Workshop idea
- For designing CiP’s
- Weekly drop in meetings with a LAGER rep
- Meeting with Curriculum and Assessment committees
- Nov 2nd Faculty meeting
September 29th, 2016
Final LAGER Committee Minutes 9/22/16
Present: Kyle (chair), Caleb, Suzanne, Melanie, Stephanie, Lavon, Drew (recording)
- Minutes from 9/15/16 were approved
- New Business
- Chair had meetings with Stephanie Chang, Steve Mencarini
- Good productive meetings
- Support from both for what LAGER is developing
- We have a new rep from CCE, Darla Lee
- Final draft of catalog language document
- Statement about testing out of ENG 102 was removed. No test out for 102 in current curriculum
- FAQ document – Edited and discussed as a committee
- The following FAQ’s were approved
- Why a General Education Curriculum Revision
- What is the Process of that Revision
- Why a Gateway Communication Requirement
- Why a Gateway Intercultural Requirement
- What is a Community in Practice
- Are we redoing our GELO’s
- Why no longer require a minor
- Have you thought about….
- The following FAQ’s were put on hold – To be released simultaneously.
- What is the Gateway Seminar – on hold
- What is placed-based learning – on hold
- How is the proposed curriculum and improvement over our old curriculum – on hold
- Where is ________? – on hold
- All Where Is questions are on hold.
- Discussion on how to best share the final FAQ’s
- Committees at Guilford
September 23rd, 2016
LAGER Committee Minutes 9/15/16
Present: Kyle (chair), Caleb, Lavon, Melanie, Stephanie, Barb (FYS), Drew (recording), Damon
- Minutes from 9/8/16 were approved
- Old business
- Feedback from Dept. Chairs meeting
- Meeting did not happen
- Barb Boyette
- Chair posed question as to what aspects are important to a first year experience?
- Do not eliminate some sort first year experience program
- Currently FYS/FYE
- Common content course a positive
- Common intellectual experience
- High impact practice
- Easier for registration purposes
- Some aspects of current courses – in terms of content – need to continue
- Content vs. developmental aspects of course
- Emphasis on advising
- Training for FYS profs prior to teaching
- Connections to resources on campus
- Specific elements that aren’t dealt with elsewhere
- Time management
- Sexual assault awareness
- Chair posed question as to whether a year long experience was a positive in terms of best practice. What would be some things that could be covered over a full year?
- Think beyond registering for Spring. Develop a four year plan with advisees. Takes time and work.
- New thing in FYE – everyone creates a resume
- In terms of common course
- Build in use of library
- How to research
- Possibly send them away/abroad
- Include a community service aspect
- This suggestion is in line with previous discussions of the committee in terms of what might occur within the Gateway experience
- Question posed about the role of interdisciplinarity in the current FYS? Does this matter as much when students first arrive? Do they know what discipline means yet?
- Concern with that – students do not understand what a discipline is when they enter college.
- Positive aspect of interdisciplinarity
- Students not stuck doing just one thing
- Again – issues with registration – students choosing courses and not really knowing
- Eckerd Human Experience – two course sequence that all students take first year https://www.eckerd.edu/academics/human-experience/
- Concern about a fully common course
- Common course
- Would need common assignments, etc.
- Issues now with equity between FYS courses in terms of difficulty, workload, etc.
- Is there a middle ground
- A course with common outcomes, assignments, etc
- Taught by faculty across disciplines
- Current footprint reflects including FYE concepts into the Gateway experience
- Question about the possibility of Gateway faculty working in teams of 3 or 4
- Each responsible for their own cohort of maybe 20 students
- But also able to bring their discipline to bear for the entire cohort
- In terms of incorporating FYE instructors
- Compensation and their time – currently only teaching one credit
- Those staff are currently engaged and enjoy working with their students
- If we want to do something phenomenal
- We need more than one year to put together a really great common course
- Specifics of Design of Gateway can be addressed in detail following approval of overall design
- Barb has left the meeting
- Rationale document (“mapping narrative”)
- Could this be multiple documents?
- Separate by each section
- Core Values document
- Best practices
- Hot button issues
- Have each document hyperlink off of catalog language page, landing page, hot button page
- Suggestion to add frequently asked questions at bottom of landing page
- Links within the current catalog language
- FAQ webpage
- Separate narrative rationale
- What are the next step(s)
- Possible Questions
- Why a GenEd revision?
- What is the process of that revision?
- Why a Gateway Experience?
- Why common to all students?
- Why two semesters?
- Where is ________ in the new curriculum?
- Many aspects of old curriculum were standalone courses/requirements
- Now integrated throughout.
- Examples – HP, QL,
- Structure has changed, not the outcomes – based on GELO’s
- Committee spent time editing/discussing Catalog Language document
- Discussion arose about research and the catalog language
- Not mentioned by name
- Implicit in terms of outcomes
- Needs to be explicit in the description of Gateway Seminar, etc.
- Research should be integral to our thinking
- Draft Catalog language document approved
- Implementation Guide is approved as a Draft – language will continue to be edited
- For next week
- Thursday meeting held for work on the FAQ document
- Implementation Guide revisit
- Ideas for faculty meeting
- Group sessions
- Each member of LAGER meets with a small group recording questions on google doc on laptop
- One member projecting questions, organizing, triaging
- Scheduled meeting for Sept 27, 10:15am, for faculty meeting prep
- Meeting ended 12:09pm
September 23rd, 2016
Final LAGER Committee Minutes 9/8/16
Present: Kyle(chair), Damon, Melanie, Stephanie, Lavon, Drew (recording)
- Minutes from 9/1/16 approved with minor edits
- Kyle will reach out to both student governments about student representation on the committee
- Dave Dobson – faculty meeting joined the meeting
- Clerk’s committee planning on LAGER speaking at Sept. 28 faculty meeting
- 30 minutes of time possibly
- Plan is to share the catalog language – or full package – one week prior
- Concern that many details of the curriculum haven’t been shared – resistance may be high to details, new concepts within
- Discussion of why the committee began with catalog language
- Discussion of why some aspects not yet detailed
- Decisions to be made later – more discussion needed
- Or by other constituencies
- Questions that will arise
- Does this have what I want?
- How does fit what I teach?
- How does this fit with my dept./major?
- Forum time
- Oct. 5 forum held for LAGER
- LAGER – needs as much forum time as we can have this semester
- November forum – may be given after Sept. 28 and Oct. 5 are complete
- Suggestion that support funds will be needed during implementation phase
- Suggestion that the Art and Science Report may provide some influence or create friction for new curriculum
- The Clerk has left the meeting
- Steps moving forward
- Chairs meeting next week (2:30pm Wednesday)
- How much to disseminate next week
- Catalog language document
- Opportunity to create buy-in – positive energy
- Suggestion to provide more details at this point
- Damon will give presentation – Kyle and Lavon will be present as chairs
- Drew will review Rationale document in entirety over the weekend
- Discussion of Rationale document
- Structure designed in an intentional way to create mastery over time
- Much more robust way to assess GELO’s
- Learning Outcomes
- Will eventually need to be added to catalog language
- Example – writing sequence outcomes – already exist – can be added to reflect the current writing learning outcomes
- Term Foundations – now incorporated in the GELO’s
- Discussion of GenEd requirements vs. Graduation requirements
- Issue of QL, English 101.
- Meeting closed at 11:25am
September 23rd, 2016
Final LAGER Minutes 9/1/16
Present: Kyle(chair), Suzanne, Melanie, Stephanie, Damon, Lavon, Damon, Drew (recording)
- Minutes from 8-25-16 were approved with minor edits
- Clerk of faculty will join LAGER at 9:45pm on 9-8-16
- Meeting will begin at 9:30am
- Debrief from 8-31-16 community meetings
- Committee needs a unified description of the curriculum
- Consider further developing our definition of Gateway, more clarity
- Suggestion to always begin a discussion of the curriculum with an overview
- Suggestion to update visuals including majors/minors so all parts of the curriculum are visually represented
- Reminder to include real connections to assessment
- Issues that needs framed for future community discussions
- What happens in the writing sequence?
- Sequence is important
- Sequence could take place in a variety of different places
- What happens to HP?
- Question about the balance of experiential vs. writing
- Visually writing sequence not as explicitly clear
- Suggestion for a final writing course as a stand alone
- Perhaps two credit swap b/t writing/experiential
- Suggestion to view current curriculum in in terms of outcomes – then map those outcomes on new curriculum
- Aid in visualization of new curriculum as new, and not just a rearranging of the old
- Stephanie, Suzanne, and Lavon will discuss assessment and the CiP charter and catalog documents
- Suggestion to include Gateway Seminar Details into the implementation plan
- Stephanie, Suzanne, and Lavon will meet to discuss how to map the old foundations on the new curriculum – linkages between Gateway and CiP’s
- GELO’s – now the only assessable outcomes – already agreed upon by faculty
- Not currently assessing old Foundations
- ACRL framework
- Competencies vs. GELO’s
- Foundation competencies from the old catalog have been integrated into the GELO’s
- Transfer students and students with AP credit
- Transfer students with associate’s degree exempted from GenEd
- AP credit – example language – would be exempt, would not encounter intercultural piece
- Possible to create other mechanisms to incorporate those competencies in other parts of the curriculum
- Or, students cannot test out
- Discussion of the mapping narrative document
- Suggestion to create one page documents with links on
- Writing/writing sequence
- Place-based learning
- Community engagement
- Four year GenEd rationale
- Communities in Practice
- Specifically about thematic organization of GenEd programs
- Reference specific examples
- Practical, interdisciplinary (presentism, place, etc)
- Meeting closed at 11:30am
September 23rd, 2016
Final LAGER Committee Minutes 8-25-16
Present: Kyle (chair), Suzanne, Melanie, Drew (recording), Damon, Lavon
Meeting opened at 10:10am with a moment of silence
- Discussion of feedback from opening community meeting
- Feedback was minimal
- New points of discussion
- Quantitative Literacy
- Not a part of the current catalog language
- How to visualize integrated QL across curriculum
- Discussion of need to be able to describe how current curriculum elements live on in the new curriculum, or if they do not, what is the rationale for the change
- Question of student choice of Gateway course, or not
- FYS informs that students become frustrated when they do not get the FYS of their choice
- Having a more uniform course with many common elements – a set of places to choose from to cover in the course, to create choice but some common experiences, would eliminate this frustration among students
- Discussion of Mapping document
- Include the charge from the curriculum review committee that was approved by faculty
- Link statistics related to dissatisfaction with current curriculum to design elements of the new curriculum
- Consider what we need to write, what is persuasive, that moved the committee towards the design we have created
- What resources would suggest to the faculty that diversity, for example, can be integral part of the design
- Targeted conversations can occur later in the process – how to define diversity, how to include intentional discussions, etc.
- Discussion of Draft Proposed Implementation Guide
- Mentions user design – do we need to define? Should this be included in another place – more descriptive
- Section on allocation of faculty positions – this is based on existing catalog language – should there be a rethink of academic organization/structure – this would fall to the Academic Dean’s office
- Suggestion to include hyperlinks or embedded image links of referenced sections of the catalog or handbook
- Discussion to invite the Clerk of faculty to our meeting, to discuss how to best schedule the move of proposal through to Clerk’s and ultimately the general faculty
- Meeting closed at 11:20am
June 16th, 2016
LAGER Committee Summer Update
On Saturday, June 4th, seven members of the LAGER Committee and Academic Dean Beth Rushing traveled to Boston University to attend the American Association of Colleges and Universities Institute on General Education and Assessment. During the five days of the institute, the team attended workshops with experts in the many areas of General Education and Assessment, participated in group cluster sessions in which we received feedback from Institute faculty as well as other participating institutions, presented our Guilford College poster, developed an action plan for the work ahead, and continued to develop the working details of the Guilford Curriculum draft proposal. The committee members returned to Greensboro on Wednesday, June 8th, and will be meeting throughout the summer to continue the development of the draft proposal. We will continue to keep you updated on our work throughout the summer. Please feel free to contact us with questions and suggestions at email@example.com, or contact any of the members of the committee directly.
May 3rd, 2016
Final LAGER Committee Minutes 4/26/16
Present: Melanie, Jennie, Lavon, Damon (recording), Drew, Kyle (chair)
Regrets: Dale, Caleb, Stephanie, Suzanne,
- Minutes for 19 April 2016 approved.
- To Do List created
- Discussion of QEP and its relationship to GE.
- ACTION ITEM: Kyle will reach out to Steve to begin a conversation
- Discussion of faculty meeting 27 April 2016
- We appreciate the feedback we have received and hope to get more. We continue to engage in small group conversations. The survey is available. The link is on the Moon Room. The first draft of the proposal over the summer, to be shared ASAP. Excited and interested about connections with other initiatives on campus (Strategic priorities, J-term, QEP, etc).
- ACTION ITEM: Damon will share this language (IV. A) with Stephanie; Drew will share the anonymous survey link on the Moon Room site.
- Discussion of Gateway meeting on 19 April
- Discussion of Foundation meeting on 19 April.
April 26th, 2016
The LAGER committee realizes that not everyone in our community feels comfortable publicly expressing their feelings about the proposed revision to our general education curriculum. In order to address this, we have created an anonymous survey to gather feedback. Please use the link below to access this survey. We appreciate your feedback!