Saint Mary's College General Education

Present: Chris Cobb, Chris Dunlap, Patricia Fleming, Janet Fore, Laura Haigwood, Joe Incandela, Phyllis Kaminski, Jayne Kendle, Fran Kominkiewicz, Daniel Party, Patti Sayre, Joanne Snow, Bill Svelmoe, Julie Tourtillotte, Nancy Turner

Excused: Kitty Green, Nancy Nekvasil, Charlie Peltier, Becky Stoddart

---

The meeting opened with a prayer offered by Laura Haigwood at 1:03 p.m. Joanne Snow then welcomed our team members. Dean Patricia Fleming thanked the faculty for their work on Design Team 3 (DT 3). She then explained the “white paper” and distributed copies of this document to the committee members. Dean Fleming related that a four-year advising program could involve the FYS and faculty. She wanted to make us aware that we are not developing a parallel advising program. A group of faculty, staff, and administrators will be members of a committee yet to be created, and the Faculty Assembly will be asked to nominate faculty to serve on the committee. We can then look at a more integrated approach.

The minutes from the previous meeting were approved. Discussion was held regarding History not being included in the proposed required courses. One member asked for this clarification and rationale. Another member related that higher education and the humanities have been doing themselves a disservice these current days, and that the humanities seemed to be fixated on their own interests. A liberal education should be an experience to open these horizons. This member further discussed that the humanities have tried to put themselves in a position of “faux social sciences” and becoming “quasi social science”. The humanities have been taking on more of a social science turn according to this member. Literature was cited as a liberal arts example, which makes a broader, more historical view. Will intellectual life suffer from the lack of Humanities? Further discussion on the History/English inclusion will follow. A faculty member’s email regarding the place of History in the proposed general education model was read to the committee. Another member related that we can still have emerging trends and history. The construction of social science is rather new according to this member, and that English Literature and History are “still on the table”. There was also a call from a member not to be territorial. It was suggested by another member that there should be “conversations with each department after FDD”, and that we should meet with the department instead of the chair alone since the chair may have a different view. This would encourage clarification of the goals of the learning outcomes as well as the course offerings being met.

Discussion followed on the matrix distributed with the Preamble. One member related that the committee should stay with the Preamble and matrix, and that the remainder of the program will come. Another member related that the matrix is not a structure that can be grasped. The following areas were also included in the discussion:

• Clarification of the courses listed in the matrix was provided.
  
• Could a feature of the framework be a focal point?
  
• Can we link courses throughout the four years? Is that possible for science and nursing majors?
  
• Discussion was held regarding requiring two, or four, of the Foundation courses to be tandem courses.
  
• Exposing students to a new course allows them to grow intellectually.
  
• An attempt was made to organize the program with a blank matrix with the Learning Outcomes matched up with the Gen Ed courses.
  
• The General Education Learning Outcome #1 team has the ability to dictate change as long as the course requirements can be met by the Dean’s office.
  

The preamble was accepted by the committee as compelling and generated with care and great insight. The present tense was used with the future in mind (i.e., students need a chance to academically explore their faith).

RLST1 has been used as a model that offers variety and can be linked to other disciplines. English and History need a knowledge-base justification to be linked to the learning outcomes. Text analysis and historical analysis need to be defined blending with it the appropriate primary resources. It was suggested that the “Interpretation of Text” and/or “Historical Analysis” under “Knowledge and Skill Building” be met through the HUST or English departments while Analysis can be covered with History or HUST. In response to globalization, perhaps World History should be required allowing courses to develop from the first year forward. The interpretation of complex text and artifacts may address the need of historical analysis skills. One member added that of the four Identities and Cultures courses, one must be English and one much be History. Another member related that we should attempt a more inclusive way that is not so strict. In this way, students can obtain historical knowledge and it may not be through a World Civilization or another History course, but rather it may be a course addressing the ancient world and modernity. This member added that we can just imagine all the learning that can take place under these other courses, and that it does not have to be a History course or an English Literature course where this learning occurs. It needs to be “something that gives the student a sense of the present day and we get there.” On member related that we may need to revisit some of the learning outcomes.

Another member cautioned against “turf war” issues, and that the Natural Science category, for example, does not have to be taught by a Science faculty. If this general education program is to be alive, we need to have proof that a department is doing a good job. If the department is doing a good job, the student will go to that department to complete a course. Students will go to another department to take a different course in that learning outcome area if the course “is not being taught right”. If Nursing is able to bring a course to general education, than Biology and Chemistry will need to arrive at a way to of teaching the learning outcome material. This member added that some faculty would “welcome this as a positive challenge.” Another member added that students will come to a course to learn and not “to just use a checklist”. Students will determine if this course is also meeting learning needs. Another member related that be being required to take a course, students will still learn.

A discussion then ensued regarding what elements were distinctive about completing an English Literature course or a History course. Another member related that we need to have “some way to approach and arbitrate these issues.” One member explained that as one looks at the design, English and History are placed prominently in it. On skill outcomes, English and History would not be the only courses, but would “deal with the lion’s share of courses”. This is how this array of courses are linked. There is a particular knowledge gained. For example, the courses may not have “content in common, but they will have the common element of interpretation.” Another member related that one of the strengths of general education is the variety, and that in some departments “with heavy gen ed”, the instructor may have developed the course along his or her strengths. A member then related that “we are are going back to narrowing if we start to require certain things.”

It was suggested that some courses do not need to be taught by specific academic department faculty. If we are to develop a liberal arts curriculum, students can learn about a subject from a different department. Departments that are doing a great job will attract the students. We want a program where students can learn in any department. We need a program that can grow and courses that can adapt. Static courses will be eliminated while new courses are developed to meet students’ expectations and learning outcomes. There is a kind of engagement and aspects of learning outcomes that a specialist can shed on a subject. It takes a team to teach liberal arts. It was noted the quality of the teaching adds more to the course and specialists in departments offer acute attention for specific skills.

Moving on to the Foundations and Arches and Capstones, we cannot make decisions for other departments and what they must do. We need to invite their passion, not dictate, while keeping with principle that these curricular elements are building to the student’s major.

Nancy Nekvasil’s comment that the titles of the foundation courses should not be “discipline-based but should be outcome-based” was discussed by Joanne and the committee, and Joanne asked for feedback from the committee. Nancy’s comments were previously sent to the faculty members.

Religious Studies and Philosophy are grouped together and need a new title. Regarding the “Identities and Culture” courses, it was discussed whether these would include “historical” work for RLST and PHIL.

Various metaphors have been suggested and it was requested that “diversity in canvas” could be elaborated. Aspects of this metaphor include “to gather materials” and “to start weaving the materials”, as well as “interconnecting strands creates a cloth”. Students can “weave these materials” and “unravel the threads” as they choose, and leave the general education program with a different product, but it will have integrity and value of its own.

The capstone and linked courses were discussed next. We need to develop the explanation/rationales for these courses so that our colleagues can understand the general education proposal and make suggestions. Everything is “up for discussion”. The “Additional Linked course” was defined as an upper-level tandem that can be more open and allows students to choose, offering an opportunity of integration and allowing all faculty and departments to participate in the general education program. This curricular element would encourage faculty to collaborate with each other on integrating the general education even further across the curriculum, and would be helpful for those faculty who teach upper division courses and may not be able to enter into the present tandem courses.

Capstone/Social Responsibility and Intercultural Competence discussion followed. The LO3 committee processed how the four areas in LO3 will be met. Is “capstone” the correct title? Would “seminar” be more appropriate? DT1 agreed that it is a developmental process to achieve the social responsibility, intercultural competence, global awareness, and the experiential component, and that this is accomplished over the student’s educational years at Saint Mary’s College. It was discussed that students and faculty will be encouraged to view general education as woven over a period of time without an emphasis on completing the program in two years. A capstone or seminar brings the work of LO3 to fruition. Faculty support and willingness to teach a LO3 course addressing “Social Responsibility and/or Intercultural Competence” may be affected by the possibility that some faculty may not be comfortable teaching all of these aspects. One member discussed a course at a different college titled “Senior Perspective”, a title that did not specify an area. Pedagogy was involved as well and approval was needed. Capstone courses at this college were treated as Major Capstone courses. A required non-discipline specific was required for seniors at this college. It was noted that not all departments required a Senior Comprehensive. Members also discussed whether integration is the goal of the two courses.

One member asked if there were too many new aspects being launched and if too much was expected by requiring a capstone course. Discussed was whether an upper-level linked course does not or cannot draw students from a different major due to scheduling logistics and, practically, with schedules and demands, if this would be possible. It was confirmed that some Gen Ed courses have juniors and seniors enrolled, offering integration as a possibility.

It was suggested that all the courses of the new Gen Ed design need to be ready in the first year of the New Gen Ed program. What binds us to the students is the Gen Ed curriculum, not the major. There is potential and with the talent on our campus, a program can be developed.

Prior to this summer, there was discussion that all the requirements do not need to be course work. One member related that the general education program should broaden sights and offer interest in experiences not on campus (i.e., a May semester, a two week intensive). This relates to # 9, experiential learning, and that the general education program should keep this curricular element as wide open as possible. Social responsibility may be linked to an experience. This will entail that extra consideration and planning be used since, regarding giving academic credit, not every graduation requirement earns credit. If a student would articulate her experience with Social Responsibility during her junior year or senior year, this could be linked with an upper-level requirement.

Discussed was the number of departments that could incorporate Social Responsibility as part of the Advanced W (i.e., reflections on experiential learning). There are directors of the experiential learning programs that evaluate the outreach experience while some may not involve this component, but these areas can be addressed. One member asked if the final paper could be evaluated properly. Another asked about the Urban Plunge and whether this established program, as well as other programs, accomplish these goals.

There was discussion early on that a form of information technology communication be integrated with the Social Responsibility requirement. Blogs, Power Point, and graphics contribute much to the communication learning outcome. One member asked if we could develop another structure with the present time frame we have been given. Discussion was held regarding whether we should cease generating new ideas and keep putting pieces in this that are coherent. We need a concrete list of options to choose from that does not diminish creativity and honors the highlights and the strengths of the College.

It was reminded that women’s issues need to be addressed and we may need elements other than a course that would serve as a curricular element.
The meeting opened with a prayer offered by Laura Haigwood at 1:03 p.m. Joanne Snow then welcomed our team members. Dean Patricia Fleming thanked the faculty for their work on Design Team 3 (DT 3). She then explained the “white paper” on advising and distributed copies of this document to the committee members. Dean Fleming related that a four-year advising program could involve the FYS and faculty. She wanted to make us aware that we are not developing a parallel advising program. A group of faculty, staff, and administrators will be members of a committee yet to be created, and the Faculty Assembly will be asked to nominate faculty to serve on the committee. We can then look at a more integrated approach.

The minutes from the previous meeting were approved. In response to a query from a faculty member not on DT1, there was discussion regarding History not being included in the proposed required courses. One member asked for a rationale regarding this decision. Another member related that the humanities have been doing themselves a disservice these days, and that the humanities seemed to be fixated on their own interests. A liberal education should be an experience to open these horizons. This member added that the humanities have tried to put themselves in a position of trying to be “faux social sciences” and becoming “quasi social sciences”. It was suggested that there should be a middle ground between disciplines remaining fixed or becoming a social science. The member asked if intellectual life would suffer from the lack of humanities. Another member reminded us that English Literature and History are “still on the table”. There was also a call from a member not to be territorial. It was suggested by another member that there should be “conversations with each department after FDD”, and that we should meet with the department instead of the chair alone since the chair may have a different view. This would encourage clarification of the goals of the learning outcomes as well as the course offerings being met.

Discussion followed on the matrix distributed with the Preamble. The following areas were included in the discussion:

• Clarification of the courses listed in the matrix was provided.
  
• Could a feature of the framework be a focal point?
  
• Can we link courses throughout the four years? Is that possible for science and nursing majors?
  
• Discussion was held regarding requiring two, or four, of the Foundation courses to be tandem courses.
  
• Exposing students to a new course allows them to grow intellectually.
  
• An attempt was made to organize the program with a blank matrix with the Learning Outcomes matched up with the Gen Ed courses.
  
• The General Education Learning Outcome #1 team has the ability to dictate change as long as the course requirements can be met by the Dean’s office.

The preamble was accepted by the committee as a compelling document and generated with care and great insight. The present tense was used in the document with the future in mind (i.e., students need a chance to academically explore their faith).

RLST1 has been used as a model that offers variety and can be linked to other disciplines. English and History need a knowledge-base justification to be linked to the learning outcomes. Text analysis and historical analysis need to be defined blending with it the appropriate primary resources. It was suggested that the “Interpretation of Text” and/or “Historical Analysis” under “Knowledge and Skill Building” be met through the HUST or English departments while Analysis can be covered with History or HUST. In response to globalization, perhaps World History should be required allowing courses to develop from the first year forward. The interpretation of complex text and artifacts may address the need of historical analysis skills. One member added that of the four Identities and Cultures courses, one must be English and one must be History. Another member related that we should attempt a more inclusive way that is not so strict. In this way, students can obtain historical knowledge and it may not be through a World Civilization or another History course, but rather it may be a course addressing the ancient world and modernity. This member added that we can imagine all the learning that can take place under these other courses and that it does not have to be a History course or an English Literature course where this learning occurs. It needs to be “something that gives the student a sense of the present day and how we get there.” One member related that we might need to revisit some of the learning outcomes.

Another member cautioned against “turf war” issues, and that the Natural Science category, for example, does not have to be taught by a Science faculty. If this general education program is to be alive, we need to have proof that a department is doing a good job. If the department is doing a good job, the student will go to that department to complete a course requirement. Students will go to another department to take a different course in that learning outcome area if the course “is not being taught right”. For example, if Nursing is able to bring an excellent and exciting course to the general education requirement in Natural Sciences, then Biology and Chemistry will need to arrive at a way of teaching the learning outcome material. This member added that some faculty would “welcome this as a positive challenge.” Another member added that students will come to a course to learn and not “to just use a checklist”. Students will determine if this course is also meeting learning needs. Another member related that when students are required to take a course, students will still learn.

A discussion then ensued regarding what elements were distinctive about completing an English Literature course or a History course. Another member related that we need to have “some way to approach and arbitrate these issues.” One member explained that as one looks at the design, English and History are placed prominently in it. On skill outcomes, English and History would not be the only courses, but would “deal with the lion’s share of courses”. This is how this array of courses are linked. There is a particular knowledge gained. For example, the courses may not have “content in common, but they will have the common element of interpretation.” Another member related that one of the strengths of general education is the variety, and that in some departments “with heavy gen ed”, the instructor may have developed the course along his or her strengths. A member then related that “we are going back to narrowing if we start to require certain things.”

It was suggested that some courses do not need to be taught by specific academic department faculty. If we are to develop a liberal arts curriculum, students can learn about a subject from a different department. Departments that are doing a great job will attract the students. We want a program where students can learn in any department. We need a program that can grow and courses that can adapt. Static courses will be eliminated while new courses are developed to meet students’ expectations and learning outcomes. On the other hand, there is a kind of engagement that a specialist can shed on a subject. It takes a team to teach liberal arts. It was noted by one member that the quality of the teaching adds more to the course than having a specialist as an instructor.

Moving on to the Foundations and Arches and Capstones, we cannot make decisions for other departments and what they must do. We need to invite their passion, not dictate, while keeping with principle that these curricular elements are building to the student’s major.

Nancy Nekvasil’s comment that the titles of the foundation courses should be “discipline-based and outcome-based” was discussed by the committee, and Joanne asked for feedback from the committee. Nancy’s comments were previously sent to the faculty members.

Religious Studies and Philosophy are grouped together and need a new title. Regarding the “Identities and Culture” courses, it was discussed whether these would include “historical” work for Religious Studies and Philosophy.

Various metaphors have been suggested and it was requested that “diversity in canvas” could be elaborated. Aspects of this metaphor include “to gather materials” and “to start weaving the materials”, as well as “interconnecting strands create a cloth”. Students can “weave these materials” and “unravel the threads” as they choose, and leave the general education program with a different product, but it will have integrity and value of its own.

The capstone and linked courses were discussed next. We need to develop the explanation/rationales for these courses so that our colleagues can understand the general education proposal and make suggestions. Everything is “up for discussion”. The “Additional Linked course” was defined as an upper-level tandem that can be more open and allows students to choose, offering an opportunity of integration and allowing all faculty and departments to participate in the general education program. This curricular element would encourage faculty to collaborate with each other on integrating the general education even further across the curriculum, and would be helpful for those faculty who teach upper division courses and may not be able to enter into the present tandem courses.

Discussion of capstone/social responsibility and intercultural competence followed. The LO3 committee proposed how the four areas in LO3 will be met. Is “capstone” the correct title? Would “seminar” be more appropriate? DT1 agreed that it is a developmental process to achieve the social responsibility, intercultural competence, global awareness, and the experiential component, and that this is accomplished over the student’s educational years at Saint Mary’s College. It was discussed that students and faculty will be encouraged to view general education as woven over a period of time without an emphasis on completing the program in two years. A capstone or seminar brings the work of LO3 to fruition. Faculty support and willingness to teach a LO3 course addressing social responsibility and/or intercultural competence may be affected by the possibility that some faculty may not be comfortable teaching all of these aspects. One member discussed a course at a different college titled “Senior Perspective”, a title that did not specify an area. Pedagogy was involved as well and approval was needed. Capstone courses at this college were treated as Major Capstone courses. A required non-discipline specific was required for seniors at this college. It was noted that not all departments required a Senior Comprehensive. Members also discussed whether integration is the goal of the two courses.

One member asked if there were too many new aspects being launched and if too much was expected by requiring a capstone course. Discussed was held whether an upper-level linked course does not or cannot draw students from a different major due to scheduling logistics and, practically, with schedules and demands, if this would be possible. It was confirmed that some Gen Ed courses have juniors and seniors enrolled, offering integration as a possibility.

It was suggested that all the courses of the new Gen Ed design need to be ready in the first year of the New Gen Ed program. What binds us to the students is the Gen Ed curriculum, not the major. There is potential and with the talent on our campus, a program can be developed.

Prior to this summer, there was discussion that all the requirements do not need to be course work. One member related that the general education program should broaden the program’s sights and offer interest in experiences not on campus (i.e., a May semester, a two week intensive). This relates to experiential learning and the idea that the general education program should keep this curricular element as wide open as possible. Social responsibility may be linked to an experience. This will entail that extra consideration and planning be used since, regarding giving academic credit, not every graduation requirement earns credit. If a student would articulate her experience with social responsibility during her junior year or senior year, this could be linked with an upper-level requirement.

Discussed was the number of departments that could incorporate social responsibility as part of the Advanced W (i.e., reflections on experiential learning). There are directors of the experiential learning programs that evaluate the outreach experience while some may not involve this component, but these areas can be addressed. One member asked if the final paper could be evaluated properly. Another asked about the Urban Plunge and whether this established program, as well as other programs, accomplish these goals.

There was discussion early on that a form of information technology communication be integrated with the social responsibility requirement. Blogs, Power Point, and graphics contribute much to the communication learning outcome. One member asked if we could develop another structure with the present time frame we have been given. Discussion was held regarding whether we should cease generating new ideas and keep putting pieces in this that are coherent. We need a concrete list of options to choose from that does not diminish creativity and honors the highlights and the strengths of the College.

It was reminded that women’s issues need to be addressed and we may need elements other than a course that would serve as a curricular element. This will be further discussed at the next meeting on August 5, 2008.