Saint Mary's College General Education

Present: Janet Fore, Kitty Green, Laura Haigwood, Joe Incandela, Jayne Kendle, Fran Kominkiewicz, Nancy Nekvasil (first part), Daniel Party, Charlie Peltier, Patti Sayre, Joanne Snow, Bill Svelmoe, Julie Tourtillotte, Nancy Turner

Excused: Chris Cobb; Christopher Dunlap, Phyllis Kaminski, Becky Stoddart

---

The meeting started at 1:04 p.m. with a prayer from Janet Fore. Joanne Snow welcomed the members of DT3. The minutes from the meeting on July 16, 2008, were accepted. Joanne Snow gave the announcements that included a summary of the progress made by DT3 and the focus of today’s meeting. Joanne also recognized the Litany of Loretto provided to us by Laura Haigwood regarding perspectives/connections and “learning outcomes” from the Catholic tradition:

Mother of good counsel
Mirror of justice
Seat of wisdom
Health of the sick
Comforter of the afflicted
Queen of Peace

A discussion of a draft of the General Education Program was held. DT3 was asked to consider the following questions: (1) Is this plan faithful to our work thus far and how do we evaluate it in terms of the learning outcomes?; (2) Is this plan a desirable plan and how should it be tweaked?; and (3) What are any areas or “hitches” that will need to be worked out? An initial matrix reflecting our discussions, the ideas from the work of DT1 and DT2, and incorporating additional ideas for a complete design provided a starting point for this discussion. The proposed general education design was emailed to the members prior to the meeting as a means to continue the discussion regarding the shape of the design. As Joanne explained, it is not a polished form that would be given to students.

A member reminded us that some programs (such as the BFA) may not be able to accommodate such a large general education program. Another asked if the proposed program encouraged tandems; committee members agreed that tandems would fit with the FYS/W structure. Discussion ensued regarding how the FYS or the “W” should include LO3.

Important also in our process is how the major meshes with the general education requirements and what learning outcomes are provided by the major. One member discussed the need for us to change the mindset of faculty and students regarding the general education approach, that is, that it is a process that will take four years to complete. Abroad programs will need to be discussed throughout this process, particularly regarding the sequencing of courses and how faculty and students perceive abroad programs.

Methods to ensure integration were discussed. It was proposed that, in her comp, a student include a reflection on what she has learned in the past four years and how this work impacted her choice of comp topic. Nursing students, however, would find it difficult to make these connections in their senior comprehensive because their comp is a test. Another member saw potential challenges in embedding the connections in the senior comprehensives, such as the need to have 100% “faculty buy-in” to this process in order for it to be successful and decisions that may need to be made regarding an appropriate page-length that is uniform enough that students will perceive the importance of this process in each discipline. Another possibility is for the student herself to propose a linkage possibly through a pair of courses. That is, the student or the faculty member could find the linkage. One member related that faculty should make the connection. Another member discussed the idea of an experiential course serving as a linked course. That students are constrained by their course schedules in scheduling linked courses was also discussed. One member withdrew the proposal of a reflection paper replacing the linked course. The idea of a team of professors working on the development of linked courses was discussed. One member explained a successful process used in their department that lists courses that are linked to the major, and a process for students to utilize in which they can recommend courses to use for this linkage. All faculty evaluate the courses beyond the approved list. This was viewed as a possible model for us to use regarding linked courses. The linked course could be personalized to make it successful.

The need for two “Identities” courses and two “Cultures” courses was discussed. With two “Identities” courses and two “Cultures” courses, students can make connections. Students need a place to articulate these connections, and possibly a reflection paper instead of the linked courses may be helpful. Another member related that with the linked courses, a student already has that connection. Discussion was held regarding the fact that the committee does not want to establish lists of courses. Since we may not be able to totally remove ourselves from establishing lists, we can build off of the lists in a creative way. We might be able to establish a common cohort of students in two classes. One member mentioned requiring an interdisciplinary course or an intercultural studies course, but another member related that we should place a “firewall against this design as a list-driven gen ed”, adding that connections in a student’s junior or senior year would allow her to “take off in different ways.” Another member discussed merging the linked course and the social responsibility course. It was also added that the seminar could have a project that can be experiential, and that this project could meet LO3 learning outcomes. Another member interjected that (1) courses with the same cohort could be linked, and (2) that a way needs to be written regarding that students would propose their own linkage allowing them increased flexibility.

The e-portfolio was discussed briefly, with one member stating that students may need to complete this in the junior year. The suggestion was given regarding granting students one –credit hour for completion of the e-portfolio. Another member related that we are “not ready to go with this” in the design.

Social responsibility was discussed as possibly being met in the student’s major. This opened the discussion regarding all the learning outcomes. Discussion continued regarding the importance of student learning in the major, in general education, and through another discipline. One member related that we must change how majors are completing their majors, and emphasize the importance of completing general education over the course of four years.

Discussed next produced the following options:

1. Remove the linked course.
   
2. Retain the linked course.
   
3. Combine the social responsibility senior capstone and linked course.
   
4. Implement a “menu” approach.
   
5. Implement a one-credit addition to a course, or two courses, so that one credit can be granted to a linkage component. This can then be added to the student’s credit hours. However, this would increase the total of the student’s credits hours as well as the faculty teaching load.

The importance of an active learning laboratory was also discussed. Joe Incandela summarized the progress of the committee by discussing all that was accomplished regarding exciting learning possibilities. Another member wanted the design to not focus on learning outcomes or lists, but felt that it is too late to redirect the process now since the focus for two years has been on learning outcomes. This member was invited to contribute her design ideas. Another member saw the member’s suggestions as not very far removed from the proposed design. Another member voiced that the design discussed by the team is seen as innovative.

The meeting was adjourned at 3:15 p.m.