Saint Mary's College General Education

Present: Chris Cobb, Janet Fore, Kitty Green, Laura Haigwood, Joe Incandela, Phyllis Kaminski, Nancy Nekvasil, Charlie Peltier, Patti Sayre, Joanne Snow, Becky Stoddart, Bill Svelmoe, Julie Tourtillotte


Excused: Chris Dunlap, Jayne Kendle, Fran Kominkiewicz, Daniel Party, Nancy Turner

---

The proposed First Year Seminar (FYS) was the first topic of discussion. A member questioned the assumption that a FYS should be part of the General Education program, saying that we were proceeding from a conception of some thing as opposed to following the direction presented by the outcomes. Moreover, the vision that we had prepared for the FYS did not reflect the learning outcomes. To catch up to speed those who had missed the previous meeting, we recalled both the reason for beginning with the FYS (the previous two design teams had recommended one) as well as the rationale for a full-year seminar (that length of time is needed so that all learning outcomes, including integration of knowledge, critical thinking, and social responsibility, might be introduced). The seminar is being thought of as foundational—not accomplishing all the outcomes completely, but setting the stage for further development. At this point, we agreed that no decision had been made regarding the creation of a FYS.

One member was concerned about the relationship of the FYS to the W program, in particular, compromising the flexibility in scheduling W courses. Another person expressed the view that the FYS makes the entire General Education Program less flexible.

In response to a question about what makes the proposed FYS a common experience, members made the following points. The FYS will be a common experience because of

• the conscious effort to focus on critical thinking,
  
• the lecture series component,
  
• the same aspects of the learning outcomes would be addressed, namely, integration of knowledge, critical thinking, and social responsibility,
  
• the use of discussion as opposed to straight lecture.

A member reminded us that at the last meeting we agreed that social responsibility need not be the lone theme of one of the courses in the FYS.

To deal with the concern that a common group of students might not be able to meet both semesters, a member suggested that a certain hour of the day be designated as a FYS or upperclass course time.

At this point, committee members proposed various alternatives to the FYS design. One suggested that the FYS be a one semester course that would address the outcomes in some demonstrable way. In addition, it should be separate from the W program, as this would allow more faculty to participate. Faculty would simply need to think about how they might teach their “regular” classes in a different way. Instead of creating a new course for the FYS, one proposed making a current course into a FYS. The value here is that we have some great courses and casting these into the FYS design would be a way of “reforming” them. One person thought that this proposal is akin to the “revolution” in course design that occurred when the W program was introduced. What makes these revised “regular” courses different is the intentionality and emphasis on the skills.

In answer to the question of how a course meets the designation of FYS, one suggested that it would be up to the faculty to explicitly state how they would address the learning outcomes, such as social responsibility, critical thinking, etc., and that a committee would then make the decision.

One member asked if the teacher of the seminar would be the advisor of the students. One member thought it would be awkward to have the instructor in the dual roles of grader and adviser. For example, if a student had an issue with the instructor as grader, then the student would be in an uncomfortable situation. This member asked for clarification on the role of this adviser. Another wondered if this would be a duplication of advising that is already occurring in departments. A member volunteered that she had had experience as both instructor and advisor and found it to be a good experience. She added that the advising was not a “big deal” and if the student already had an advisor in the major then there was no need for further discussion. Given that the advising process is undergoing changes, it was suggested that we avoid the bifurcation of the experience for the student into the (evolving) FY advising experience and the FYS experience.

The question of when is the right time to achieve the outcomes was raised. Moreover, can integration happen in the first year? A few responded to these questions. There is no pretense that the all the outcomes are achieved in the first year; what is important is to begin there. Another suggested that we find out where a student is relative to the outcomes and then we help the student develop from that point. This brings us the issue of assessing and monitoring growth.

Some members raised practical concerns about the FYS such as dealing with the tight schedule of the nursing students and other majors, scheduling problems of those with double majors, and penalizing those who do not know their major as first years. One suggested that we do not need to create more communities on campus as there are already so many—residence halls, student associations, sports, faith, etc. Finally, one asked if we are eliminating choice from the General Education Program and what value does the FYS add to what we already do. A member responded that an advantage to the FYS is that it keeps students together for an integrative experience. Another suggested that students would be able to work on general education and their majors at the same time (depending on the topic of the FYS). A discussion about the loss of content as one highlights skills seemed to reach the conclusion that topics may go but content is enriched.

A member asked how students would come to understand the Holy Cross tradition if this is not a topic in the FYS. One responded that the Holy Cross experience is “caught as well as taught”. This topic could be folded into the lecture series. We can draw on the lectures already scheduled by the Division for Mission and, in particular, the Center for Spirituality. Another added that other groups and divisions in the college could incorporate their events into the lecture series. A member pointed out that the learning outcomes do not require us to teach the Holy Cross tradition but “a student will evaluate social conditions, . . .” “in keeping with the mission of the Sisters of the Holy Cross . . .”. This is a cognitive skill that can be taught. One suggested that FY Orientation should be framed in light of the general education goals. Orientation might include some history of the college and offer the opportunity for students to identify themselves with Saint Mary’s College. Adding to this point, a member expressed the desire to formally incorporate the Holy Cross tradition into a student’s experience rather than simply relying on the student absorbing it. Members suggested ways to do this: FY Orientation (which is currently undergoing revision), the summer orientation for students, a matriculation ceremony, the lecture series.

At this point, a member summarized the options for a FYS that were on the table:

• a year long FYS that might be taught by one or two faculty,
  
• a first year tandem,
  
• a one semester course that addresses all three learning outcomes in a demonstrable way and a separate W course (there would be no connection between the two courses), and
  
• two courses with the same group of students.
  

After discussion of the proposed homework assignment, it was determined that

1. committee members would examine the LO 2 document and make suggestions for revisions in the suboutcomes column to the co-chair before the next meeting and
   
2. committee members would try to fill in suboutcomes for the LO 1 document.

It was apparent that many on the committee are anxious to start designing a program to meet the outcomes of LO 1.