The Moon Room

A Community Forum on Guilford College Faculty Life

LAGER Committee Minutes 9-22-16

September 29th, 2016

Final LAGER Committee Minutes 9/22/16


Present: Kyle (chair), Caleb, Suzanne, Melanie, Stephanie, Lavon, Drew (recording)


  1. Minutes from 9/15/16 were approved
  2. New Business
    1. Chair had meetings with Stephanie Chang, Steve Mencarini
      1. Good productive meetings
      2. Support from both for what LAGER is developing
    2. We have a new rep from CCE, Darla Lee
  3. Final draft of catalog language document
    1. Statement about testing out of ENG 102 was removed. No test out for 102 in current curriculum
  4. FAQ document – Edited and discussed as a committee
    1. The following FAQ’s were approved
      1. Why a General Education Curriculum Revision
      2. What is the Process of that Revision
      3. Why a Gateway Communication Requirement
      4. Why a Gateway Intercultural Requirement
      5. What is a Community in Practice
      6. Are we redoing our GELO’s
      7. Why no longer require a minor
      8. Have you thought about….
    2. The following FAQ’s were put on hold – To be released simultaneously.
      1. What is the Gateway Seminar – on hold
      2. What is placed-based learning – on hold
      3. How is the proposed curriculum and improvement over our old curriculum – on hold
      4. Where is ________? – on hold
      5. All Where Is questions are on hold.
  5. Discussion on how to best share the final FAQ’s
    1. Committees at Guilford

Compensation Committee Updates

September 25th, 2016

Compensation Committee has asked me to share with the community the following items. These are located on the Committees@Guilford Google Drive folder in the Faculty Meetings section under the September 28 2016 Meeting.

The items are:

  • The Faculty Salary subcommittee’s report from last May 2016
  • The updated recommendations from the subcommittee from September 2016
  • A set of slides describing the recommendations and the thinking behind them which will be presented at the Faculty Meeting on September 28, 2016.

Note that with the slides, there are a set at the beginning that will be presented, and then another group at the end that provide further information and background.

I have also updated the Salary Calculator I programmed on the Moon Room last May to reflect the new proposal. Feel free to go there and see what your salary might be under the new proposal.

Early release of general education proposal documents by LAGER

September 23rd, 2016


The Liberal Arts General Education Revision (LAGER) Committee is honored to share our first full draft proposal for Guilford College’s next curriculum.

This curriculum will support thousands of future Guilfordians. As Jane has mentioned, Guilford is a “small college of excellence doing a few things splendidly.” We believe our next curriculum supports that vision of Guilford College and is a positive step forward for our community.

You can begin reviewing the proposal in two ways.

  • If you’d like a quick overview, we have created this one-page summary for those interested in a brief update since our last presentation.
  • If you’d like to access the full proposal, containing a copy of our new catalog language, implementation plan and frequently asked questions, you can access those through our introduction page here.

Of course, full access to our meeting minutes, public podcasts and other documents from previous faculty meetings is available through the site here.

By sharing these documents several days before our next faculty meeting, we hoped to give each of you sufficient time to review the proposal. At next week’s meeting, we will have about 20 minutes to break into small groups and solicit your questions and feedback about this new curriculum. This feedback will be helpful as we plan for a longer and sustained conversation at the faculty forum on general education the following week, on Wednesday, October 5.

We look forward to continuing our community conversation about general education. By sharing our proposal as a series of Google docs, we hope you will share any thoughts you have as comments within each document in addition to speaking directing with members of LAGER.

Thank you for your continued support as we take this next step together.

Kyle Dell, chair and Social Science Representative
Lavon Williams, Business and Policy Representative
Melanie Lee-Brown, Natural Science Representative
Damon Akins, Humanities Representative
Drew Hays, Arts Representative
Suzanne Bartels, Instructional Design Representative
Stephanie Hargrave, Director of Institutional Research & Effectiveness

LAGER Committee Minutes 9-15-16

September 23rd, 2016

LAGER Committee Minutes 9/15/16


Present: Kyle (chair), Caleb, Lavon, Melanie, Stephanie, Barb (FYS), Drew (recording), Damon


    1. Minutes from 9/8/16 were approved
    2. Old business
      1. Feedback from Dept. Chairs meeting
        1. Meeting did not happen
    3. Barb Boyette
      1. Chair posed question as to what aspects are important to a first year experience?
        1. Do not eliminate some sort first year experience program
          1. Currently FYS/FYE
        2. Common content course a positive
          1. Common intellectual experience
            1. High impact practice
          2. Easier for registration purposes
        3. Some aspects of current courses – in terms of content – need to continue
          1. Content vs. developmental aspects of course
          2. Emphasis on advising
          3. Training for FYS profs prior to teaching
          4. Connections to resources on campus
          5. FYE
            1. Specific elements that aren’t dealt with elsewhere
            2. Time management
            3. Sexual assault awareness
            4. Etc.
      2. 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?
        1. Think beyond registering for Spring. Develop a four year plan with advisees. Takes time and work.
        2. New thing in FYE – everyone creates a resume
        3. In terms of common course
          1. Build in use of library
          2. How to research
        4. Possibly send them away/abroad
        5. Include a community service aspect
          1. This suggestion is in line with previous discussions of the committee in terms of what might occur within the Gateway experience
      3. 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?
        1. Concern with that – students do not understand what a discipline is when they enter college.
        2. Positive aspect of interdisciplinarity
          1. Students not stuck doing just one thing
          2. Again – issues with registration – students choosing courses and not really knowing
        3. Eckerd Human Experience – two course sequence that all students take first year
      4. Concern about a fully common course
        1. Common course
          1. Would need common assignments, etc.
          2. Issues now with equity between FYS courses in terms of difficulty, workload, etc.
        2. Is there a middle ground
          1. A course with common outcomes, assignments, etc
          2. Taught by faculty across disciplines
      5. Current footprint reflects including FYE concepts into the Gateway experience
      6. Question about the possibility of Gateway faculty working in teams of 3 or 4
        1. Each responsible for their own cohort of maybe 20 students
        2. But also able to bring their discipline to bear for the entire cohort
      7. In terms of incorporating FYE instructors
        1. Compensation and their time – currently only teaching one credit
        2. Those staff are currently engaged and enjoy working with their students
      8. If we want to do something phenomenal
        1. We need more than one year to put together a really great common course
        2. Specifics of Design of Gateway can be addressed in detail following approval of overall design
      9. Barb has left the meeting
    4. Rationale document (“mapping narrative”)
      1. Could this be multiple documents?
        1. Separate by each section
          1. Core Values document
          2. Best practices
          3. Hot button issues
        2. Have each document hyperlink off of catalog language page, landing page, hot button page
        3. Suggestion to add frequently asked questions at bottom of landing page
        4. Links within the current catalog language
      2. FAQ webpage
      3. Separate narrative rationale
      4. What are the next step(s)
      5. Possible Questions
        1. Why a GenEd revision?
        2. What is the process of that revision?
        3. Why a Gateway Experience?
          1. Why common to all students?
          2. Why two semesters?
        4. Where is ________ in the new curriculum?
          1. Many aspects of old curriculum were standalone courses/requirements
          2. Now integrated throughout.
          3. Examples – HP, QL,
          4. Structure has changed, not the outcomes – based on GELO’s
    5. Committee spent time editing/discussing Catalog Language document
      1. Discussion arose about research and the catalog language
        1. Not mentioned by name
        2. Implicit in terms of outcomes
        3. Needs to be explicit in the description of Gateway Seminar, etc.
        4. 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


  1. For next week
    1. Thursday meeting held for work on the FAQ document
    2. Implementation Guide revisit
  2. Ideas for faculty meeting
    1. Group sessions
      1. Each member of LAGER meets with a small group recording questions on google doc on laptop
      2. One member projecting questions, organizing, triaging
  3. Scheduled meeting for Sept 27, 10:15am, for faculty meeting prep
  4. Meeting ended 12:09pm

LAGER Committee Minutes 9-8-16

September 23rd, 2016

Final LAGER Committee Minutes 9/8/16


Present: Kyle(chair), Damon, Melanie, Stephanie, Lavon, Drew (recording)


    1. Minutes from 9/1/16 approved with minor edits
    2. Kyle will reach out to both student governments about student representation on the committee
    3. Dave Dobson – faculty meeting joined the meeting
      1. Clerk’s committee planning on LAGER speaking at Sept. 28 faculty meeting
        1. 30 minutes of time possibly
        2. Plan is to share the catalog language – or full package – one week prior
        3. Concern that many details of the curriculum haven’t been shared – resistance may be high to details, new concepts within
        4. Discussion of why the committee began with catalog language
        5. Discussion of why some aspects not yet detailed
          1. Decisions to be made later – more discussion needed
          2. Or by other constituencies
      2. Questions that will arise
        1. Does this have what I want?
        2. How does fit what I teach?
        3. How does this fit with my dept./major?
      3. Forum time
        1. Oct. 5 forum held for LAGER
        2. LAGER – needs as much forum time as we can have this semester
        3. November forum – may be given after Sept. 28 and Oct. 5 are complete
      4. Suggestion that support funds will be needed during implementation phase
      5. Suggestion that the Art and Science Report may provide some influence or create friction for new curriculum
      6. The Clerk has left the meeting
    4. Steps moving forward
      1. Chairs meeting next week (2:30pm Wednesday)
        1. How much to disseminate next week
          1. Catalog language document
        2. Opportunity to create buy-in – positive energy
        3. 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


    1. Discussion of Rationale document
      1. Structure designed in an intentional way to create mastery over time
      2. Much more robust way to assess GELO’s
    2. Learning Outcomes
      1. Will eventually need to be added to catalog language
      2. Example – writing sequence outcomes – already exist – can be added to reflect the current writing learning outcomes
      3. Term Foundations – now incorporated in the GELO’s
    3. Discussion of GenEd requirements vs. Graduation requirements
      1. Issue of QL, English 101.
  1. Meeting closed at 11:25am

LAGER Committee Minutes 9-1-16

September 23rd, 2016

Final LAGER Minutes 9/1/16


Present: Kyle(chair), Suzanne, Melanie, Stephanie, Damon, Lavon, Damon, Drew (recording)


    1. Minutes from 8-25-16 were approved with minor edits
    2. Clerk of faculty will join LAGER at 9:45pm on 9-8-16
      1. Meeting will begin at 9:30am
    3. Debrief from 8-31-16 community meetings
      1. Committee needs a unified description of the curriculum
      2. Consider further developing our definition of Gateway, more clarity
      3. Suggestion to always begin a discussion of the curriculum with an overview
      4. Suggestion to update visuals including majors/minors so all parts of the curriculum are visually represented
      5. Reminder to include real connections to assessment
      6. Issues that needs framed for future community discussions
        1. What happens in the writing sequence?
          1. Sequence is important
          2. Sequence could take place in a variety of different places
        2. What happens to HP?
      7. Question about the balance of experiential vs. writing
        1. Visually writing sequence not as explicitly clear
        2. Suggestion for a final writing course as a stand alone
          1. Perhaps two credit swap b/t writing/experiential
      8. Suggestion to view current curriculum in in terms of outcomes – then map those outcomes on new curriculum
        1. Aid in visualization of new curriculum as new, and not just a rearranging of the old
    4. Stephanie, Suzanne, and Lavon will discuss assessment and the CiP charter and catalog documents
    5. Suggestion to include Gateway Seminar Details into the implementation plan


  • Damon will work on this


  1. Stephanie, Suzanne, and Lavon will meet to discuss how to map the old foundations on the new curriculum – linkages between Gateway and CiP’s
    1. GELO’s – now the only assessable outcomes – already agreed upon by faculty
    2. Not currently assessing old Foundations
    3. ACRL framework
  2. Competencies vs. GELO’s
    1. Foundation competencies from the old catalog have been integrated into the GELO’s
  3. Transfer students and students with AP credit
    1. Transfer students with associate’s degree exempted from GenEd
    2. AP credit – example language – would be exempt, would not encounter intercultural piece
    3. Possible to create other mechanisms to incorporate those competencies in other parts of the curriculum
    4. Or, students cannot test out
  4. Discussion of the mapping narrative document
    1. Organization
      1. Suggestion to create one page documents with links on
        1. Writing/writing sequence
        2. Gateway
        3. Place-based learning
        4. Community engagement
        5. Research
        6. Four year GenEd rationale
        7. Communities in Practice
          1. Specifically about thematic organization of GenEd programs
          2. Reference specific examples
        8. Practical, interdisciplinary (presentism, place, etc)
  5. Meeting closed at 11:30am


LAGER Committee Minutes 8-25-16

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


  1. Discussion of feedback from opening community meeting
    1. Feedback was minimal
  2. New points of discussion
    1. Quantitative Literacy
      1. Not a part of the current catalog language
      2. How to visualize integrated QL across curriculum
    2. 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
    3. Question of student choice of Gateway course, or not
      1. FYS informs that students become frustrated when they do not get the FYS of their choice
      2. 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
  3. Discussion of Mapping document
    1. Include the charge from the curriculum review committee that was approved by faculty
    2. Link statistics related to dissatisfaction with current curriculum to design elements of the new curriculum
    3. Consider what we need to write, what is persuasive, that moved the committee towards the design we have created
    4. What resources would suggest to the faculty that diversity, for example, can be integral part of the design
    5. Targeted conversations can occur later in the process – how to define diversity, how to include intentional discussions, etc.
  4. Discussion of Draft Proposed Implementation Guide
    1. Mentions user design – do we need to define? Should this be included in another place – more descriptive
    2. 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
    3. Suggestion to include hyperlinks or embedded image links of referenced sections of the catalog or handbook
  5. 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
  6. Meeting closed at 11:20am


When do we teach?

September 23rd, 2016

I did the following analysis while talking with Beth about our fall calendar, and I thought it might be interesting to share.

This is the number of courses by time slot for fall 2016:


Some notes:

  • All courses listed with times are counted regardless of credits. That means labs are included.
  • For courses that overlap multiple periods, they’re counted in both (or all three).
  • The four on Friday night are the THEA 190’s that are scheduled MTRF 6-11pm.

Here it is with total students in class rather than classes offered. Much the same picture, although the 8:30’s drop a little because they’re often smaller.


The Moon Room

A Community Forum on Guilford College Faculty Life