Present: Michael Christoffers, Robert Harrold, Ranelle Ingalls, Marina Ioudina, Char Myhre, Larry Peterson, Doug Rymph, Orven Swenson, Cindy Urness, Robyne Williams

The meeting was called to order at 8:33 a.m. by Peterson. Christoffers served as recorder. Doug Rymph will serve as recorder for the next meeting.

Harrold/Swenson moved to approve the minutes of the October 14 meeting. Motion passed.

Swenson/Harrold moved to approve the Outcome 1 rubric. Motion passed.

Discussion regarding proposed vertical writing requirements continued from previous meetings. Peterson indicated that the General Education Committee does not need to take further action at this time, having presented its recommendation to the University Senate. Concerns forwarded to General Education Committee members regarding implementation of the vertical writing requirements were noted. These concerns included the availability and willingness of faculty to teach additional upper-level English courses and the possible de-emphasis of English 110. Recommendations for implementation dates will need to be made by the General Education Committee in the near future. Williams noted the importance of knowing how many majors currently require upper-level writing courses.

There were no student petitions to consider.

The Humanities, Fine Arts, and Communication subcommittee report was presented by Peterson. Swenson/Urness moved to approve the Outcome 6 rubric. Myhre offered an amendment to include "or issue" after instances of "a question." Motion passed as amended.

The Science and Technology subcommittee report was presented by Harrold. The subcommittee met to discuss formative assessment and concluded that the assessment should be given between the 12th and 15th week of each semester. The assessment should be summative for students, but formative for faculty and may include instructor responses to the students' assessment. Peterson suggested that the assessment questions should be based on exact language of the outcome rubrics. Swenson suggested that the assessment may differ from course to course with instructors choosing questions that are appropriate, including possible "other" questions. The advantages and disadvantages of pre-programmed vs. instructor-modified assessment questions were discussed, and it was suggested that feedback from faculty would be useful and Larry agreed to draft a small survey.

There were no other subcommittee reports.

The General Education Application Guidelines for New Courses revised by Peterson and Harrold were handed out. Swenson suggested an addition to indicate that instructors should do the planned formative assessment. Harrold will revise the forms for 5-year review.

The process for reviewing Integrated General Education and Capstone Reviews was discussed. Examples of department reports, tables to facilitate reviews, and a list of reports currently received had previously been provided. Assignment of reports to respective subcommittees will probably not divide the reports equally. Williams suggested that our review process should take into account expectations of the accreditation team. The possibility of obtaining assistance to summarize information in the reports was discussed. The role of the General Education Committee in reviewing vs. recommending changes to how departments integrate General Education and Capstone courses was discussed.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:57 am.

Respectfully submitted by Mike Christoffers.