Bryon Clark (Chair), Betty Clay, Jim Cunningham, Jane Elder, Steven Emge, Kenneth Chinn (proxy for Richard Hackett), Gene Hetzel, Linda Kallam, Brad Ludrick, Steve McKim, John Mischo, Sharon Morrison, Patty Pool, John Topuz, Cherry Wilmoth.
Gleny Beach, Shannon McCraw, Charles Price, Chip Weiner (ex-officio).
The meeting was called to order at 3:30 p.m. by the Chair. Jim Cunningham moved to accept the minutes of the previous meeting as written. Brad Ludrick seconded. The council voted unanimously to approve.
The Council considered submissions from several departments regarding their contributions to the general education outcomes and assessment plan. First up was Psychology. There was concern about the fact that no measurement instrument was designated in the plan. Linda Kallam also raised the issue of the use of only one means of assessment. Brad Ludrick moved to accept the assessment plan for Psychology. Linda Kallam seconded. The Council instructed the Chair to ask Jon Reid of the Psychology Dept. for clarification of the phrase “specific objective questions.” Do the questions have to be the same on all tests across all sections of the course? Also, what parameters will be used to define “mastery”? Dr. Reid will also be asked to recommend an additional form of assessment, although some Council members thought that perhaps grades could be considered a second form of assessment. The motion to accept Psychology’s submission was passed with the above clarifications.
Next considered was material from the Math Department. Patty Pool moved to accept and Cherry Wilmoth seconded. The following amendments were made to benchmarks: change “between 2.00 and 3.00” to “2.00 or better” and change “between 50% and 75%” to “at least 50%”. Consideration was also given to the changes in the goals and learner outcomes from Mathematics. Gene Hetzel felt that the changes moved Mathematics away from an applied approach and toward a more theoretical approach. Linda Kallam countered that applied mathematics cannot be successfully implemented in an introductory course. The Council unanimously approved the Math Department submission.
The Council moved on to the Sociology submission. Gene Hetzel moved to accept and Linda Kallam seconded. The same concerns expressed regarding Psychology also applied to Sociology. The Chair will request the same information from Ken Elder of the Sociology Department as from Jon Reid. The Council voted to approve.
Finally the Council studied material from the Biology Department. Linda Kallam moved to accept and Jane Elder seconded. Some clarification and modification in the benchmarks and in-course assessment procedures were suggested. The Council voted to approve.
The Chair also distributed for the Council’s consideration copies of an English Composition Survey developed and utilized by the Aviation Department. It is a self-assessment survey used to determine how students evaluate their own abilities. From the Council’s perspective, the survey may represent a starting point in determining what general education can do for specific disciplines to enhance a particular program.
The Council will next convene on Tuesday, April 5, in UC 215 at 3:30 p.m.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:55 p.m.