Saint Mary's College General Education

Present: Chris Cobb; Chris Dunlap, Patricia Fleming (part of morning and part of afternoon), Janet Fore, Kitty Green, Laura Haigwood, Joe Incandela, Phyllis Kaminski, Jayne Kendle, Fran Kominkiewicz, Nancy Nekvasil, Daniel Party, Charlie Peltier, Patti Sayre, Joanne Snow, Bill Svelmoe, Nancy Turner

Excused: Becky Stoddart, Julie Tourtillotte


Guest: Robert Adams (morning)


Administrative Assistant: Celia Fallon

---

The retreat opened with a prayer from Bill Svelmoe at 8:30 a.m. (Breakfast began at 8:00 a.m.) Dean Patricia Fleming spoke to the committee, thanking them for their hard work. She also expressed her continued support of the committee.

Joanne Snow made the announcements and gave the charge for the day to the committee. Joanne related that the committee needs to produce a working model of a general education curriculum that we can present at the Faculty Development Day. Joanne reiterated that this design would be a working document. She asked that the committee not place emphasis on wordsmithing the plan during the retreat and providing every detail of the plan but rather on the design of a model that the faculty as a whole can consider.

Joe Incandela discussed the vision of the general education program in relation to the comments expressed by Phyllis Kaminski at the previous meeting. Phyllis stressed the importance of keeping the tradition and strengths of the College in mind throughout the planning process. The committee gave conditional approval to incorporate the ideas Phyllis voiced into the vision statement, and a draft including this will be presented at a future meeting.

Joanne then asked for questions and discussion related to Design Team 1, including (1) any items that needed clarification before the committee commenced with the design plan and (2) whether or not the committee desired to discuss structures or reigning metaphors before we proceeded to formulating the design. We briefly reviewed the purposes of the suboutcomes in our design process. Discussion did ensue on the topics of metaphors and structure, and it was decided by the committee that these would emerge throughout the day.


Small groups were formed to discuss a broad design of the LO1 curriculum, that is, determining the curricular elements to meet the learning outcomes. After their work, presentations from the small groups (lasting about ten minutes each) provided an initial structure for the LO1 curriculum. A discussion of common and/or innovative elements followed.

Discussion was held regarding courses that were important to the tradition of the College, including Religious Studies and Philosophy. Two Religious Studies courses and one Philosophy class will be included in the design. It was suggested that the Religious Studies Department (two courses required) was discussed as offering a course in multiple perspectives and a course in Catholic Christian culture to reflect Catholic Identity. It was asked if a student would be required to complete PHIL 110, or if another philosophy course may be substituted. It was discussed that this may be acceptable to the philosophy department.

It was discussed that students seem to want to compartmentalize their courses. Interconnections are needed and should be demanded of the students when they arrive on campus. Junior year is too late to begin these connections. To get the students to understand the interconnectivity of all the courses and need to learn discrimination and application, we must start this process early in the student’s career. One member related that students need to make connections and we are to highlight that fact and help them to make those decisions. Pedagogy and faculty development are needed to assess integration.

Teaching students to think and to prioritize is another committee member’s goal, and that here less is more. A member asked to identify the Saint Mary’s College difference, and once it is identified, that we do not lose this difference. Other ideas that were discussed include requiring five courses each for the first five LO 1’s; two-semester First-Year Seminar meeting two defined A through E outcomes; and an upper-division tandem (possibly defined by majors) or three to five course “packages” defined by the student in order to fulfill last five distribution requirements culminating in a linking paper or project. Making specifics a structure where students would do a paper that is linked to a difference course is an option. If the faculty member wishes for his/her course to “count”, they will need to show how that course will be meeting a specific requirement/learning outcome. Students need to know the goals of the Gen Ed course and objectives/learning outcomes listed in the syllabus. These courses will thus be inclusive and be able to assess outcomes.

After a lunch break, the group reconvened and came to some consensus. We used the “clicker method” to arrive at the conclusions recorded in Appendices I and II.

Two large groups were formed in the afternoon. Their goal was to complete the design. A suggestion for how to proceed was offered: Take LO1 and one other outcome. Design a curriculum that incorporates the work of the corresponding previous design team. Then look at LO1 and the remaining learning outcome and repeat the above process OR move directly to incorporating all previous design teams’ work to produce a design. While respecting the work of the previous design teams, be open to innovation. The results of these sessions are described.

One large afternoon group proposed the following model:

The other group agreed on the inclusion of a math course. This group discussed many of the technicalities of the general education program.

Discussion was held regarding LO 3, and the question was asked if it should be the theme for the First Year Seminar. It was also discussed that it will take a special faculty member to teach that course. It was discussed that all FYSs should address two of the three learning outcomes, and if LO 3 will be covered in the FYS. The LO 3 committee felt strongly that Saint Mary’s College’s strength is our focus on intercultural/global competence, social justice and social responsibility. The issue of a capstone course needs to be addressed. The committee also discussed if the FYS is an “experience” and if it is to be considered a college skills course. It was also discussed if the committee wants Gen Ed to be completed by the end of the sophomore year instead of distributed over four years.

Discussion turned to the issue that Gen Ed is supposed to include all disciplines, including the professional programs. It was discussed that they are all but excluded in the present Gen Ed curriculum, with the exception of SW 235.

The retreat ended at 4:00 p.m.

Appendices