Saint Mary's College General Education

Present: Chris Cobb, Christopher Dunlap, Kitty Green, Joe Incandela, Fran Kominkiewicz, Daniel Party, Patti Sayre, Joanne Snow, Becky Stoddart, Bill Svelmoe


Excused:Janet Fore, Laura Haigwood, Phyllis Kaminski, Nancy Nekvasil, Charlie Peltier, Julie Tourtillotte, Nancy Turner

---

The meeting began at 4:07 p.m. Fran Kominkiewicz offered a prayer followed by announcements presented by Joanne Snow. The minutes were approved with one correction regarding the spelling of Joe Incandela’s name.

Discussed was the importance of keeping the Sisters of the Holy Cross in mind, particularly as related to LO 3, as we plan the LO 1 design and incorporate LO 2 and LO 3. Discussion then moved to the number of courses proposed for the general education program in the context of the “smaller footprint” that we desire for the final plan, i.e., a specific number of courses from LO 2 and LO 3 have already been suggested. In incorporating LO 1 into the plan, we would consider how large these lists of courses are, determine where there is overlap, and in what areas two learning outcomes can be addressed simultaneously. Taking key ideas from LO 3 and modifying, for example, by placing them “with something else”, could help lead to the design. We need to ask what does every student have to take, although there has to be some “give” somewhere and that possibly “more than one thing will have to go” from our first draft. This “core”, then, would make it easier to accomplish the design by possibly addressing such areas as “critical thinking” and “social responsibility” simultaneously. Each course would then not have to be counted separately, but could be a course that addresses an outcome from LO 2 and LO 3. For example, W courses could fulfill both. Every course in General Education should at least address two aspects of the learning outcomes, but we need to determine how this will work and how it will not be overly constrained. Discussed also was the idea that any content from LO 1 could be overlaid with critical thinking, and that all three learning outcomes could be addressed simultaneously.

Major goals of the General Education Program were discussed in the context of the learning outcomes for General Education. General Education was seen as laying the foundation for student learning, and we are now trying to get students set-up for all of these learning outcomes. General Education lays the beginning groundwork to prepare students to achieve the learning outcomes. The learning outcomes of the General Education Program “fleshed-out” the learning needs and were also seen as worthy of the majors. A student’s education plan will not be bifurcated so that students “just get this done, and get these courses out of the way”, but rather should have a legitimate goal. The learning outcomes are to provide a template for students.
Outcomes of the First Year Seminar (FYS) were discussed in view of the two proposals from LO 2 and LO 3. Offering the FYS as a two-semester plan was discussed, with one proposal specifying that one semester could include the W requirement while the second semester would address critical thinking. One credit would also be allocated for a social responsibility component. A tandem could do all this in one semester. For the current students needing ENLT 103-104, it would be necessary to design a special two-semester program to extend writing across the year.

One faculty member related that many faculty feel uncomfortable teaching a writing course and that perhaps they may be more comfortable with the skill of critical thinking. Another faculty member expressed that writing is very important at Saint Mary’s College and that the W course is very important here. The critical thinking seminar idea is a way of explicitly saying that this is what we value at the College. In the second semester, a focus on critical thinking could begin in the realm of writing if all courses need to do a W (writing requirement), although some faculty may not want to engage in this process. A critical thinking semester could be focused on another outcome such as the oral presentation skill. A critical thinking course could be designated to be very different from a W course. One proposal suggested taking the section of LO 1 that addresses the second aspect of LO 2 (communication skills), and placing that learning aspect in one semester, while having a two-semester writing/critical thinking focus. The faculty member who proposed this viewed this design as new and inviting to all, and that in each semester you can accomplish two of the learning outcomes.

Much discussion followed regarding the lack of focus on social responsibility in these FYS proposals. Faculty members related that these proposals do not accomplish all of what should be accomplished in the FYS, and that there was agreement from LO 3 members that the first year of the curriculum, most specifically the FYS, helps to establish those important skills that serve as the foundation for later courses. Faculty related that writing and critical thinking are fundamental skills that can also be included in the FYS, but added that social responsibility and intercultural competence require that students develop the fundamental “reflective and interpersonal skills” to dialogue with diverse individuals. This process (of developing social responsibility) was seen as a “learning journey”, as one faculty member related, that, if it is to be successful, should begin in the first year (preferably in the FYS) and continue throughout the students’ experiences at Saint Mary’s. Another faculty member added that it would be easy to use critical thinking in every course and that we need to look at many factors, including what occurs after the completion of the W in student learning. Given the demographics of our students, it is important to continue the social responsibility piece. One faculty member also related that various departments were already including aspects of social responsibility and intercultural competence in their courses and that others can be mentored to do so as well. If the departments and/or faculty felt uncomfortable regarding teaching the social responsibility piece, other departments could assist in student learning. Discussion then focused on the fact that LO 2 was advised by DT 1 that LO 3 would not need the entire FYS for the social responsibility, but only a few weeks. Discussion then followed regarding the integration of social responsibility but also the growth process over a period of time inherent in this learning outcome.

The logistics of offering a FYS seminar were discussed. One faculty related that we will need 26 faculty to teach the FYS. We also discussed the need to include learning suboutcomes related to the Sisters of the Holy Cross and the service aspect of the Sisters. A year-long FYS was then discussed which was seen as something special that we are not yet offering students at the College. The vision of the FYS is that it will involve many faculty and that it is in the best interest of student learning. One faculty member explained how all learning outcomes will not be accomplished, and do not need to be accomplished, in the first year. The more participation of faculty over time, the more enmeshed the learning outcomes will be across the curriculum and the Saint Mary’s community over time. Questions were posed regarding the idea of placing the same 18-20 students together in the second semester. For example, from the main learning outcomes, we may take four major learning outcome goals. Each semester, two of these major goals are built into the semester. We could, therefore, address two major learning goals in the FYS in the first semester, and two in the second semester. One faculty member introduced the St. John’s model as an example of a successful and exciting FYS design. The FYS could be a two-semester FYS in which critical thinking should be central and other learning outcomes are addressed, such as social responsibility and intercultural competence. The W is also seen as an important process in the design.

Faculty discussed that there are a variety of FYS designs, including faculty being involved in the FYS over the course of the year, and that faculty can take a specific group of students throughout the academic year. However, this design may not be appropriate for everyone, although the integration connection was seen as important to the FYS two-semester design. With the two-semester design, the integration of learning can be accomplished. What we are currently missing on campus is a college-wide experience. Discussed were the pragmatics on the student side as well as the faculty side, including if all students would be asked to follow the same two-semester design; if this is legitimately possible; if we can find faculty to teach the FYSs; and if the same theme can be addressed in various FYSs that are taught by various disciplines. The issue of whether the two-semester FYS design would work with the Nursing curriculum was also discussed, as were the various curriculum needs of the BS and BFA. The discussion regarding the FYS ended with one faculty expressing the fact that the idea of a two-semester FYS is “new, exciting, touches on all subjects, and builds a sense of community.”

The next meeting, scheduled on June 18, 2008, at 1:00 p.m. in Madeleva 115, will include:

• the need to further define LO 3
  
• continued discussion of the FYS design
  
• our vision
  
• possible practical plans
  
• issues to be resolved

The meeting ended at 5:40 p.m.