Reports from the development groups:

 John Habel reported for the Freshman Seminar development group. They patterned their model strongly after the College of New Jersey. They have contacted faculty at the College of New Jersey and at other schools using freshman seminars for input about their experiences with freshman seminars. There are evident problems with faculty recruiting and retention that need to be considered, and most implementers recommend a smaller pilot program to get started, before trying a required seminar for all freshmen. While the introduction of an intellectually rigorous, three credit hour freshman seminar has been an idea embraced by the committee since the beginning of the General Education review, there has recently been some skepticism that such a course can be created and maintained over time. The experience of other institutions is that the energy and faculty commitment needed is difficult to keep for more than a few years, and without the faculty interest and commitment, these courses are not effective. The "Student Sense of Place" Fundamental Principle is difficult to implement without a freshman seminar for its introduction, so this recent change of perspective on freshman seminar courses is a serious concern for the committee. The General Education Faculty meeting is a wonderful opportunity to ask for input from the faculty on this important issue.

 A number of options to a full-scale freshman seminar course were discussed, including an enhanced version of the present USI 130 one hour course; a seminar experience, not necessarily in the first semester; an optional seminar course; a "virtual" component for some of the "survival skills"; incorporation of the "sense of place" into a perspectives course; incorporation of some of the freshman seminar experiences into learning communities. The opportunity for faculty to teach a course that has content, but can be flexible to accommodate their personal interests should be attractive. Brian Railsback is incorporating many ideas we have discussed for a freshman seminar into his Honors seminar this semester; he is pleased with the results, but the activities are resource-intensive. Doing a good job campus-wide with such a course will require commitment of faculty and resources; the institution must believe in the freshman seminar concept if it is to succeed.

The Core is fairly well accepted at this point, except for the questions surrounding the freshman seminar. It will include the (possible) freshman seminar, a writing course, a mathematics component, oral communication, and a wellness component. Issues to be finalized include the order of the courses (must writing be completed before oral communication?), the use of "clusters" or learning communities in the core; the composition of the mathematics course (probably leaning toward statistics/probability and away from a survey course, still can be satisfied by a higher level course). The wellness component is the place where there will be questions. The course would probably include the content of the present Health 120 course, plus some issues covered too briefly now, and a fitness and physical activity education component, but not necessarily an activity component. There could be sections of the course geared toward non-traditional students who have different health concerns than freshman aged students. The loss of the activity course component is a concern, though many students take activity courses as electives.

 With regard to Learning Communities, there are a number of implementation issues that faculty input would be helpful in resolving. Should participation in a learning community be a requirement in general education? How should courses be grouped for learning communities, and what is the expectation for faculty interaction? Learning communities should be helpful in helping students see the integration in their learning, which they indicate they want to see more of. Given the residential nature of WCU, learning communities are a natural development. Academic Affairs is pursuing this concept already for next fall, so it is logical to incorporate it into our program.

This meeting is the first time the committee has discussed the input from the Perspectives sub-group. The group provided a handout that lists goals, categories of courses, credit hour distribution, ideas about course content and areas of emphasis, administration, and the relationship to the perspectives areas of the current general education program. The labeling of perspectives groupings is more traditional than that of the present general education program. The group's wish was to inspire courses and content that students are interested in learning and faculty are interested in teaching. There was no effort to change present policies about courses not counting both for general education and for the major, or about substitution of higher level courses. Departments not presently represented in general education would be welcome to propose courses in appropriate categories in the new perspectives. Departments can have more than one course in a perspective area, and can consider alternate versions of single courses. Fostering integration of subjects will be difficult if there is no freshman seminar to lay the foundation for integration, but perhaps excitement about learning is a more realistic goal. Student input into assessment of this excitement might be a component of ongoing course approval. Courses would all address communication and information skills, and would be expected to include one or two of the other "areas of emphasis", but not necessarily all of these: (1) technology and quantification skills; (2) environment and sense of place; (3) cultural sensitivity; (4) moral reflection; (5) health; and (6) any other creative but defensible area of intellectual development that the discipline wanted to focus on. Upper level courses would be welcome and encouraged. Distribution of upper level hours and coverage of areas of emphasis would need to be examined as a more concrete perspectives program is developed.

The group examining Upper Level involvement encouraged changing the name of the program from General Education; they suggested liberal studies. Other suggestions include an upper level writing component to include courses in departments that are designated as writing-intensive, and are approved and coordinated by a Writing Across the Curriculum director. A companion Reading Across the Curriculum course would emphasize synthesis of text material and critical thinking (not basic reading skills). Considering texts from different disciplines would link disciplines without necessarily needing team teaching, though linking courses is also an effective strategy. This group also suggested adding an hour to Capstone experiences to include a required presentation, as well as some senior level assessment.

Each of the sub-groups will provide an edited version of their summaries to Curtis in time to duplicate these for distribution at the General Education Faculty meeting. Copies of the Fundamental Principles will be included. This information will be provided on the Web page as well.

There will be a meeting on Friday, January 30 at 8:00 am in Natural Science 327 (not ST 102!). We will continue the discussion with Fred Hinson.

 Respectfully submitted,

Nory Prochaska, recording secretary