Saint Mary's College General Education

Present: Chris Cobb, Janet Fore, Kitty Green, Joe Incandela, Nancy Nekvasil, Charlie Peltier, Patti Sayre

---

Next meeting of committee:

Friday, July 6 at 1 pm (President’s Conference Room)


Kitty gave a brief report on the Assessment Academy she attended with other members of the Assessment Committee. Two points were significant for our work:
The project to be undertaken by the team will not directly affect our work this summer.

By the time General Education is to be assessed, it must be clear how the requirements and activities flow from our goals and from outcomes (for students ) derived from these goals.

We decided it is not critical for us to meet in July with the Assessment Committee – we have more design work to do before discussing assessment of a program and they will be focused more toward the project from the Academy. It seems likely we will not wish to meet formally with them this summer. It is more pressing for us to discuss the results of the survey in greater depth. Leslie Wong has agreed to help us with this task and will be invited to attend an Ad Hoc Committee meeting later this summer.

We have now formally and unanimously agreed to drop Model A and continue our discussions in terms of Models B and C (possibly relabeled?). Based on the results of the Survey, we see that A does not carry the support given to B and to C, so we have judged it best to proceed with B and C, incorporating the most valuable aspects of A.

Discussion turned to finding the best way to proceed for the summer and prepare for the Faculty Development Day in August and the 2007-2008 academic year.

Our tentative plan is to frame the discussion of the two models, (both our own discussion and the ongoing whole – College discussion) in five parts, corresponding to areas of focus common to the models:
1. Purposes/ Goals
2. Exploration/Investigation
3. Expression/Communication skills
4. Integration
5. Outcomes/assessment

In the continuing discussion, there was some sentiment that “outcomes” need to frame the discussion of parts 2 – 4 to link the overview of “goals” to the practicality of a program. There is general agreement that discussion of the assessment of whatever program develops must wait until we reach level of specific activities (courses, areas, etc.)

There was discussion of the purpose of the Faculty Development Day, and of the appropriate means of consulting the faculty as a whole.

Some points raised:

• We need to work toward improvement and refinement of the models, and to make sure the faculty are familiar with the models and involved in the refinement and improvement.
  
  
• It is likely that we will be working with the 5-part breakdown given above, with the two models presented in parallel for discussion under this structure.
  
  
• We are committed to continuing the conversation with parts of the College community to involve them in the process of refinement.
  

For the next meeting:

We should be prepared to discuss Parts 1-3 in the outline above, for both models, to see how each addresses these emerging “central ideas”, and begin making explicit comparisons (as well as considering what Model A might add to either) and suggestions for further improvements.

We need to develop statements of the outcomes intended for both models – both similarities and differences.

We need to think of a way to address the implications for implementation.