Saint Mary's College General Education

Present: Chris Cobb, Patricia Fleming, Kitty Green, Laura Haigwood, Joe Incandela, Phyllis Kaminski, Fran Kominkiewicz, Daniel Party, Patti Sayre, Joanne Snow, Becky Stoddart, Bill Svelmoe

Excused: Chris Dunlap, Janet Fore, Jayne Kendle, Nancy Nekvasil, Charlie Peltier, Julie Tourtillotte, Nancy Turner

Guest: Celia Fallon

---

The meeting opened with a prayer presented by Fran Kominkiewicz and inspired by Archbishop Romero. Joanne Snow presented the announcements regarding the format and the time frame for the meeting. The minutes from the July 30th meeting were deferred to a later date. Three documents were distributed to members: (1) the agenda; (2) proposed revision of LO2 sub-outcomes; and (3) the proposed matrix, including the textile metaphor. These documents are included in the appendix.

Discussion was held regarding how to approach the important issue of gender in the general education curriculum. To specifically require a Women’s Studies course was seen as problematic by one member. One reason given for this was the fact that WOST courses now address both men’s and women’s issues. Women’s Studies as a discipline is developing and can evolve into a fuller discipline, including male studies. One member related that students who are required to take a Women’s Studies course may not bring the open attitude that is necessary to make the course meaningful and life-changing. The question was asked if any data existed regarding how many students have enrolled in a WOST course. Moreover, it was questioned if students would enroll in a gender course that was not a WOST course. Another member asked if requiring a WOST course in the general education curriculum of a women’s college would make a significant difference to the curriculum, as most faculty probably address women’s issues in some of their classes. Another member related that two courses that address “identity” should be required so that students can use this to also further address women’s issues. Idealistically, addressing women’s issues would be a “faculty responsibility” and not a “required” course. It was recommended that the issue of gender and women’s issues be addressed throughout the curriculum in both general education and non-general education courses. The “clicker” vote, with eleven voting, arrived at this result:

Should we have a specific requirement of a course whose focus is related to Saint Mary's College as a women’s college?
Yes 18%
Uncertain 9%
No 73%
Questions related to the First Year Seminar (FYS) were then voted upon by the eleven members in attendance with discussion following the votes:

Should the FYS and W be related thematically?
Yes 64%
Uncertain 0%
No 36%

Should the FYS and W share the same cohort of students?
Yes 83%
Uncertain 0%
No 18%

Should LO3 be a component of either the FYS or W?
Yes 36%
Uncertain 9%
No 55%

Should the FYS include a lecture series?
Yes 82%
Uncertain 9%
No 9%

Should the lecture series introduce the Holy Cross tradition?
Yes 64%
Uncertain 18%
No 18%

The committee was reminded of the staffing challenges the FYS would present, including the number of sections this would require and the number of faculty to teach those sections. Another member related that the FYS would address two learning aspects, like a W class (?), and that possibly we should count number of courses and not the number of credits. Credit hours will be both a staffing issue for the College as well as an issue for student course load. A member related that we need to understand what a FYS class looks like and what it means to have a FYS to the College, faculty, and students. Another member asked why we did not refer to all the first year classes as FYS. One member offered this explanation: a FYS has three features: (1) a thematic link, (2) discussion/oral communication, and (3) critical thinking. This member added that with the thematic link, the integrative aspect of the outcomes might be fulfilled by the FYS and W, and that it is more feasible to schedule required linked courses early in the curriculum. We should use the value already in the established W course according to this member. Another member pointed out that a first year student could therefore, hypothetically, leave Saint Mary’s College without having learned/addressed any sub-outcomes of LO3. This member saw this as not respecting the arduous work of DT1. DT1 strongly recommended in their written report to DT3 that LO3 also be addressed in the FYS. A member interjected that the FYS that was under discussion was “heavy on pedagogy”, and that it possibly may be misnamed. “Learning Communities” with themes based on critical thinking may be more appropriate. To accomplish this, this member emphasized that we need creative faculty and a promotion of library research. Another member related that a course emphasizing study skills will not be embraced by faculty. A critical thinking seminar/ or FYS in Critical Thinking was proposed by a faculty member. This was in keeping with the Svelmoe-Party-Cobb proposal that LO3 not be addressed in the FYS. Another member related that 8:00 and 9:00 a.m. classes are needed, and that this slot may hold the space for the first year learning community.

One member related that implicit in the Svelmoe-Party-Cobb proposal to eliminate LO3 from the first year experience was “a beefed-up capstone course. It was proposed that a lecture series can “cover” LO3. The Office of Multicultural Affairs already has a lecture series planned covering LO3. Students need narratives, research, and then a capstone, in that order according to one member.

Discussion was held regarding the Philosophy requirement. According to one member, the learning outcomes of required courses are narrower and more focused. There exists a “value statement” / claim with a list of courses, including skills, backgrounds and content. Another member related that there is a “controversy with English and History being dropped”. A member pointed out that there are many areas in the proposed general education curriculum for these two disciplines. This member added that all courses should be learning outcome based, including the required courses of Philosophy and Religious Studies. Therefore, this member related that a course focusing on the history of religions, for example, could suffice as one of the two Religious Studies requirements. This was seen as very problematic by one member who discussed the use of a master syllabus in the required courses at another college/university. This member related that the other member’s suggestion will not go and would need to be approved by the Board of Trustees. Another member related that we are a Catholic higher education institution and as such, it is natural to require three courses, two Religious Studies and one Philosophy. This member continued by relating that the long, intellectual tradition of Catholic higher education is a basic tenet of our College and should be reflected in our curriculum.

A member asked if the faculty ranked the disciplines being offered. A member related that there are value judgments with disciplines regarding which disciplines are included or not included in the required courses, and that some disciplines that are valued highly may still be valued differently in this configuration. Another member related that sub-outcomes may not have been articulated enough to state where they are met by certain disciplines. The “Identities and Cultures” courses, for example, may cover many disciplines. A member added that we do need to look at the “ignored classes”, and that outcomes need to be refined. A member related that revising outcomes is too time- consuming at this time. One member at that point asked that we only have Religious Studies and Philosophy as two departments “with slots”. Another member related that Science, Finance, Math are necessary for women. One member added that there are practicalities in asking that specific courses be taught, including where the faculty are that will be teaching these courses. Are we going to primarily need to use the same departments that are presently teaching general education courses, or can we change this configuration? We may end up creating “rules”, for example, that our students must take certain math courses. One member related that there are specifics regarding how students are changed through completing Math courses, and that these may just need to be articulated. Another member asked where is the placement of the Social Sciences, and if the learning outcomes could be met through the Social Sciences, including courses offered in the “Natural World” category. The importance of professional programs in general education was also discussed.

A member then proposed that we retain the list of courses and strike the footnotes on the matrix, therefore terminating the required list of courses. Another member related that this would affect the College’s ability to attract students as well as affect the Capital Campaign, and that we should talk with President Carol Mooney about any type of “loosening up the requirements” or cross-listing courses from other departments to fulfill the required courses of Religious Studies and Philosophy. A member related that we should remove the departmental requirements from the matrix. In this way, departments would address inclusion in categories.

One member asked if all of this has to be prepared for Faculty Development Day and if we needed to be ready to present this by then. Another member added that we did not, but due to the lack of other opportunities to gather the faculty together, we have a responsibility to give some set of non-binding recommendations to the Faculty. One member related that we may want to use Survey Monkey after the faculty has had additional time to speak with their departments before using the “clicker” votes on FDD. One member suggested that we separate into our design teams on FDD and utilize the clickers in posing specific questions, such as “Do we need a specific mandated course in this learning outcome or category?”

The next meeting will be held on August 13, 2008, at 1 p.m. in the Mother Pauline Room.