LAGER Committee Minutes 9-15-16

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