GEC Minutes

Monday, April 2, 2007


325 Graff Main Hall


Members Present:  Fields, Johnson, Kraemer, McDougal, Miller, Prucha, Ragan, Riley, Ritterling, Udermann, Bakke


Consultants Present:  Dittman, Morgan, Burkhardt, Richter


Guests Present:  D. Sullivan, C. Lee, R. Knox, J. Hollenbeck


I.                    M/S/P to approve the minutes of March 19, 2007, with corrections.


II.                 Reports:

A.     Director

1.      The current Gen Ed proposal is at the same place as it was last spring minus a few things. Need to be aware of where the committee is heading and how to get there. Concern about perceptions of the committee in that we are essentially in the same place as last year.

2.      The committee needs to provide Faculty Senate with recommendations with a rationale included in the report. However, time is upon us with only a few more weeks left this semester. Can we accomplish this?

B.     Chair

1.      Had conversations with members of the Gen Ed committee about the letter sent to department chairs in regard to Tier II. Feedback from the department  chairs has been in favor of moving forward with Tier II.

2.      Met with assessment committee


C.     Student – No report


III.               Assessment Update and Discussion:

A.     Report from GEC Subcommittee on Assessment

1.      Members of the subcommittee: Udermann, Miller, Fields, Kraemer, Johnson, C. Wilson and B. Cerbin

2.      Shared a draft of the assessment worksheet

3.      Needs further refinement

4.      Three levels of assessment highlighted:

a.       Programmatic

b.      Course embedded assessment

c.       Course review

d.      Indirect (perceptions of the program)

5.      Work on the assessment piece this summer/fall and the progress report for the Board of Regents.

6.      Budget is a concern, funds from the Gen Ed Innovations fund would be used for jump-starting assessment.


B.     Determining an Assessment Topic

1.      It is recommended that a tool that is already in existence be used.

2.      Purchase the tool in the summer and begin using it in the fall.

3.      The academic departments will be providing embedded assessment to GEC next spring/summer.

4.      Topics used in the past have been a critical thinking instrument

5.      NCA report must include a progress report on assessment and that includes Gen Ed assessment.  In addition, NCA requires a progress report on program revisions.

6.      Concerns:

a.       What is available? Could use PRAXIS test.

b.      What is the cost?

c.       CLA is costly.

d.      Student participation

7.      The Subcommittee will decide upon an assessment topic and present it at the next GEC meeting. They will ask C. Wilson and B. Cerbin for a list of current standardized tools that could be used.


IV.              Freshman Year Experience Development

A.     Reports from FYE subcommittee         

1.      C. Prucha shared a report that not all sub-subcommittee members agreed upon

2.      Members of the sub-subcommittee are: S. McDougal, D. Riley, E. Johnson, C. Dziekan, T. Bean-Thompson, and C. Prucha.

3.      Several members attended the OPID conference

4.      CST 110 and HPR 105:

a.       A suggestion was made that the UWL 100 content be split.

b.      Students would be required to take both courses in the first 30 credit hours therefore 9 credit hours with ENG 110. Director reported that SAH 105 will also be willing to be an FYE course.

5.      UW-L 100: Have a section for students who are undeclared.

6.      FYE could be a coordinated experience including orientation, programs and courses.

7.      Concern about flexibility and transfer students. A suggestion was made not to establish a credit requirement to this.

8.      Concern about health professions students

9.      Concern that an email was sent to all department chairs addressing one course instead of the two the sub-subcommittee presented.

10.  Sub-subcommittee was encouraged to meet this week and give an updated report to the GEC at the next meeting.



V.                 Summer Funding

A.     Director’s report          

1.      $30,000 is budgeted each academic year for the Innovation fund.

2.      This can be used to support conference attendance, assessment teams and new course initiatives. Stipends have been given for group and team collaboration.

3.      Approximately $25,000 left

4.      Needs to be used for assessment

5.      What would the committee support giving funding for?

6.      E. Johnson will provide a budget at the next meeting


VI.              Implementation of Tier I

A. Information Request for Chairs and Program Directors

1.      E. Kraemer shared the communication to chairs and program directors

2.      This plan is almost identical to the plan last spring.

3.      Does the GEC still favor this plan? YES – Unanimously!


VII.            Further Action

A. Omnibus Motion

1.      Put forward Tier I, II and III which will allow for flexibility at a later date.

2.      This will be discussed further at the next meeting


VIII.         M/S/P to adjourn the meeting at 5:25 p.m. The next meeting will be held on April 9, 1007 at 3:30 p.m.



Respectfully submitted,

Lauren Cikara