Saturday, February 06, 2010
February 5, 2010, Ad Hoc Committee Meeting
Present: Chris Cobb, Janet Fore, Kitty Green, Joe Incandela, Michael Kramer, Don Paetkau, Laurel Thomas
Guests: Patricia Fleming, Jessica Ickes
Minutes of the January 29, 2010, meeting were approved.
I. Joe Incandela announced that the ad hoc committee would meet in Madeleva 212 on February 12, 19, and 26; March 19; and April 23, instead of the President’s Conference Room.
II. The committee divided up the responsibilities for presentation to the Education Committee of the Board of Trustees as follows:
III. The committee discussed two items of business brought to the committee by Dean Patricia Fleming.
Guests: Patricia Fleming, Jessica Ickes
Minutes of the January 29, 2010, meeting were approved.
I. Joe Incandela announced that the ad hoc committee would meet in Madeleva 212 on February 12, 19, and 26; March 19; and April 23, instead of the President’s Conference Room.
II. The committee divided up the responsibilities for presentation to the Education Committee of the Board of Trustees as follows:
- Patricia Fleming – Introduction & Approach to Curricular Reform, including “Learning Outcomes vs. Current Program” and “What’s New in the Proposed New Program”
- Joe Incandela – The GenEd Diagram and Learning Outcome I: Knowledge Acquisition
- Janet Fore – Learning Outcome 1: Integration of Learning
- Michael Kramer – Learning Outcome 2: Cognitive and Communicative Skills and The Critical Thinking Seminar
- A Member of the Women’s Voices Ad Hoc Committee – Women’s Voices
- Chris Cobb – Learning Outcome 3: Intercultural Competence & Social Responsibility, including Experiential Learning and the “Rules of 2” grid
III. The committee discussed two items of business brought to the committee by Dean Patricia Fleming.
- The committee considered whether the language describing the Natural Science requirements could be adjusted so as to be less prescriptive about the role of lab work in that requirement. The committee agreed that the descriptive tags in the GenEd diagram and some associated language could be changed.
- The committee considered whether the relationship of the outcomes described in the General Education Governance Manual draft as “lower level outcomes” to the general education program could be elucidated more clearly in order to clarify the relationship of those outcomes to the major programs, which is that the major programs ought to consider how they could address at least some of those outcomes appropriately through the major. After much discussion and consideration of Venn diagrams, the committee decided upon three changes:
- To replace the phrase “Higher Level Outcomes” with “Liberal Learning Outcomes” throughout the document, while replacing the phrase “Lower Level Outcomes” with “Sub-Outcomes.” This change should correct the mistaken impression that “lower level outcomes” would have to be met in lower division courses.
- To avoid using the phrase “general education outcomes” as a synonym for “lower level outcomes” throughout the document.
- To add the following statement to the initial description of the sub-outcomes and their relationship to the general education program: “These sub-outcomes define the scope of the general education program. Their relevance for a Saint Mary's education extends beyond the general education curriculum and should be addressed by major and minor programs in a variety of ways. In some cases the general education program makes this relevance explicit by requiring majors to address certain outcomes, but this in no way exhausts the opportunities for major and minor programs to engage with these outcomes.”
- To replace the phrase “Higher Level Outcomes” with “Liberal Learning Outcomes” throughout the document, while replacing the phrase “Lower Level Outcomes” with “Sub-Outcomes.” This change should correct the mistaken impression that “lower level outcomes” would have to be met in lower division courses.
# posted by Joe Incandela @ 3:57 PM 
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]