GE Meeting Notes October 18, 2013

• Date:  Friday, October 18, 2013
• Place: 10-241
• Time: 9:10 am to 10:30 am
• Attendance
  Josh Machamer, GE Chair, Helen Bailey (Office of the Registrar), Brenda Helmbrecht (CLA), Tal Scriven (CLA), Bruno Giberti (CAED), Emily Fogle (CSM), Camille O-Bryant (CSM), Rachel Kramer (ASI), Katie Tool (GE/Academic Programs and Planning)

---

Business

Initial review of proposal from Architectural Engineering 

• They would like to eliminate GE Area C4 ( 4 units of upper-division Arts and Humanities) from their major.  They want to maintain delivery of their program and do not want to cut major units. 
  
  Background and Discussion

• Currently, the ARCE students take only one upper-division 4 unit GE course.  They are exempt from upper-division GE Area D5 (Social Sciences) and upper-division GE Area F. (Technology).
• ARCE students are required to take  three  4-unit lower-division Arts and Humanities. They take 1 course in Literature, 1 course in Philosophy and 1 course in GE/Support  which is  History of World Architecture:  Choice of  ARCH 217, 218 or 219.
• The Board did not want to allow ARCE students to be exempt from  C4. 
• The Board did have consensus to allow ARCE to request an "exemption to the 180 unit" initiative, which requires President's approval.
• The Board is still open to options for looking at ARCE course proposals for D2 and D4, which would allow double-counting and help to reduce units.

GE Self Study - Overview of Issues

• GE is beginning its self-study process which will require input from all GE Governance Board members.  Sub-committees and key individuals will be utilized in the division of work.
• Potential themes that will be developed in the  in self study include:

1. Development of Student Survey
   Utilize existing questions/data available from  WASC self study.  Other questions will be developed to investigate the student experience in GE (How do students value GE?   How do Study Abroad courses affect GE experience?
2. Review of GE Writing-Intensive/Upper Division
   Are students integrating their experiences? 
   Experimental Writing Questions (from the Writing Practices Consortium) will be provided by Brenda Helmbrecht/Director of Writing Program
   What does it mean for a course to be "Writing Intensive"?
3. GE and Advising
   When do students take their last upper-division course in GE? 
   How much GE have students taken outside of Cal Poly?
   Where are students getting their GE information?
   What is the message about GE? 
   How can we brand GE and improve student perceptions?
   Can we work with Poly Reps, Mustang Success Center and the Career Center to improve the message?
   GE is currently a separate category on the Curricular Flow Chart - How can we package GE and the Major?
4. Quality Assurance
   What is the responsibility for GE criteria in terms of course criteria?  Is there another level of responsibility?
   Will the committee review course criteria?  GE currently has over 350 course proposals on file.  Possible discussions on how GE area or sections could be rotated for syllabi review.
5. GE Program Learning Outcomes
   In the 2006 GE Program Review, reviewers recommended the following:
   
   "Cal Poly does not have explicit learning outcomes for the GE Program......We suggest that faculty consider develop a short set of program-wide outcomes...."

References: 

• GE Program Program Review, Assessment and Action Planning  (all documents)
• 2012 - GE Assessment Planning - Mapping of WASC outcomes, GE Focused Learning Outcomes and ULOs (PDF)
• 2012 - Excerpt on GE ULO Assessment Project - WASC EER report (PDF)
• 2011 - EO 1065 - CSU document governing GE curriculum (PDF)
• 2008 - GE Mapping - University Learning Objectives (PDF)
• 2006 - GE Program Review  (PDF)
• 2001 - GE Objectives and Criteria Document - includes mission statement and planning

• The committee discussion referenced GE program's development in terms of GE area course learning outcomes and criteria, GE mission statement and goals, the mapping of the ULOs to the GE curriculum, and the University and GE assessment plan/mapping. 
• The Governance Board wants to utilize all of the criteria and outcomes that have been developed and ensure that they are aligned, are measurable and are designed with clarity.
• The Program Learning Outcome discussion will continue with the leadership of Josh Machamer.