Curtis has consulted with Jim Byer about formation of a working group to consider the freshman composition issue. Brian Railsback will chair the group, and Dana Edge and John Habel will participate. Dr. Byer has asked Elizabeth Addison, Marcia Holmes, Mary Adams and Karl Nicholas to join the working group.

Nory Prochaska reported a bit more detail of the meeting she and Bruce Henderson had with Leroy Kauffman's class. Bruce asked students to write down what they liked and disliked about the present general education program, and what they would change. After organizing their thoughts in writing, the group discussed their ideas. These business students suggested having general education courses that were more closely aligned with their major, for example a business history course. Students feel frustration that general education stands between them and getting started in their major. General education is helpful if students don't know what their want to major in. The students suggested that each college have a general education program geared toward their majors. They felt it should be possible to waive general education requirements by taking higher level courses. The CS 101 course was not popular. The content is out of date and students did not appreciate learning on Macintosh machines and then finding they used only PCs in business courses. Students felt they needed more work in basic grammar, research, constructing bibliographies, and types of documents in composition courses. They did not see the importance of journal writing or informal writing. Some general education instructors do not provide enough feedback on mechanics and structure of written work. One student who had taken English 101 and 102 at a cooperating high school felt the high school did a better job with grammar instruction than the composition courses their friends took at WCU. The oral communication course is very useful and needed. Some students who had taken old TRE courses during the transition period were disappointed that they did no public speaking exercises in these classes. These students felt that the material in Math 130 (required for business majors) was a repeat of high school material. They felt that PE activity courses were a nice change of pace, but should not be required as part of general education. PE courses are offered at inconvenient times in the morning because many instructors have coaching responsibilities in the afternoons. The present health course is a repeat of high school material, but would be useful if more sophisticated topics were covered in more depth. A student who transferred in had difficulty with the science course lab requirement; she had taken two science courses but none with a lab and had to take a third course here as a result. In Fine & Performing Arts, the Theater class required too many hours of shop/costume work outside of class. Reactions were mixed about all students needing a history course; this group would have been happier with a business history option.

Students would have liked a course to tie the whole program together. An upper level class that would unify the general education experience after students had developed perspective would be desireable. Students would have appreciated a recommendation from their major about what general education courses to take. Workload varies considerably from instructor to instructor. Some required large amounts of reading. One student in an Honors section of History 105 felt there was too much work required. Students often feel that faculty do not want to teach general education courses and that faculty feel it is "below them" to teach these courses. Professors are either way above students' heads, or uninterested in general education teaching; is there no middle ground? Many instructors in general education courses are visiting instructors of some form, and these courses are merely a stopping point in their careers, but not a commitment. Students would like to see more hands-on experiences in courses, and see new ways of teaching being used. These students found themselves taking an elective at the upper level, so the addition of upper level general education did not seem new to them. There was some interest in a three-hour course that provided opportunities for experimentation or exploration of major options.

Clearly, discussions with students can provide useful insight. The committee should try to construct more such opportunities. Daryl Hale wil be gone on Friday and has a 10 am class that would offer a suitable audience. Elizabeth Addison offered an upper level class of hers on Thursday (April 2?). If anyone else needs a class covered and can offer a suitable audience for this type of discussion, please let the committee know.

Curtis reminded the committee that there are two open hearings this week, on Tuesday from 3:30-5 pm in Coulter 205, and Thursday from 12:30-1:45 pm in Belk 323. Turnout of committee members at last Friday's hearing was effective (9 were present). For the open hearing at the University Center, we would like to have students in attendance, but we need to make this happen by making specific invitations. We should contact student government, honors students (Brian), the teaching fellows (John), the Dean's student advisory group (J.C.), intra-fraternity council (Bill Haggard). Classes could be involved, and our own students should be invited to attend.

How did we feel about the procedure and format of the first open hearing? There were some very helpful suggestions made by individuals. We seemed weak in answering questions about the Wellness component. Debbie Singleton (fitness program) seemed to have many good ideas that could connect wellness to sense of place by including regionally relevant activities such as mountain biking and hiking. Perhaps we need a work group to develop this. Chris Tuten will be asked to chair this group, and Curtis will ask David Claxton to suggest other members from his department. Carla Cosio, Debbie Singleton, and individual(s) from the Nutrition program are others to ask for suggested members.

The initial format of the open hearing was a question/answer situation with Curtis doing all of the answering. The committee suggested he deflect questions to other committee members, or to actively ask questions of the participants with the idea that we are seeking their input. Curtis will introduce the other committee members so that participants know who else to direct questions to. Questions can also be deflected back to the participants as a way of eliciting their input. Other issues discussed included learning communities, forming LCs with small groups of students from within larger classes, and using introduction-to-major courses. The discussion of science courses was useful. The options of two lecture hour/two lab hour format or introduction to major courses, credit hours in science, counting courses vs. counting credit hours, and waiving using higher credit hour, upper level courses were all topics touched on.

John Habel mentioned that Marilyn Feldman has expressed concern that our program must meet NCATE standards, including a literature requirement and a philosophy requirement. Our program must also have multicultural and global perspectives to meet NCATE standards, though these are characteristics of our program. Allowing majors to specify general education requirements might be needed in this case. This raised the issue of presence/absence of literature; what is Humanities if it does not include literature? Our program does not so much exclude literature as it does not have literature yet specified in it. There are many places that literature could fit. Our Perspectives areas seem to raise many concerns, even though they are the same categories as in the present program. This needs to be examined again in the whole committee. We have an abundance of "distribution" models to compare to; if we look at the programs of most NC institutions, we can see some helpful suggestions and many examples of what to avoid. Programs are aimed at providing what students should know, but are heavily qualified by what is available on the individual campus; a matching of goals with resources.

Discussion turned to the Administration and Assessment proposal. Gary provided a revised copy of his group's handout. The question was immediately raised of whether or not suggesting a new Associate VCAA position is a good strategy. What is more realistic is to envision one of the Associate VCAA positions renamed "Associate VCAA for General Education" with general education responsibilities being a primary component of this position. This is essentially the situation now with Fred Hinson being an Associate VCAA, except for the title. The title is important as a symbol of the significant position of general education in the academic hierarchy.

It was suggested that we let Ed Penson see our model for an oversight committee, as this is his area of specialization. Dana Edge suggested that the oversight committee should include a library representative. The oversight committee should be chaired by the Associate VCAA for General Education. The exact composition of the committee and number of members (which should not be too large or it will become ineffective) need to be defined.

Example tasks of the administrative structure includes assessment and teaching evaluation. How will teaching evaluation be used? Will it really be valued? It will be necessary to evolve attitudes and mechanisms for evaluation; it must be removed from departmental cultures which are too closed and discipline-specific for effective evaluation of general education's purposes and goals. Departments must be part of the evaluation process, but should not "own" it when it is done for general education evaluation. Is this kind of invasive evaluation compatible with trusting the faculty? It is inherent in giving freedom to the faculty that they will be accountable for their freedom. Who will they be accountable to? Only their department, or must it be some broader authority to have a perspective of all of general education? Faculty need to be made to feel safe as a member of a community and support system larger than their department. Unfortunately, the only model for evaluation outside of the department is the tenure system, which is only judgmental with no feedback. Assessment of the general education program will have to evolve, but we will need to define the context for the evolution and define where the responsibility will be.

Under the incentive and reward section, item #7 suggests adjusting teaching loads by awarding higher FTE credit for general education course teaching and for learning community participation. Unfortunately, such an idea is in conflict with state mandated funding formulas based on real FTE credit hours. Reduction of teaching load as a reward for general education participation would force trade-offs of fewer major courses being offered by departments who teach in general education. This may result in restructuring of major programs. Currently, major course demands produce a dependence on part time instruction in general education; this would have to change in a program that values general education participation. It may produce a need for different tiers of instruction, both for tenure/tenure track people and transitional people, and result in changes in hiring practices. Gary Pool mentioned the example that many chemistry departments employ faculty whose major responsibility is to teach freshman chemistry courses. These individuals are treated equally to research and graduate faculty in terms of status and salary (but often are not eligible for promotion to full professor). If we were to consider such a model, we would want departments to hire people to teach in general education without those individuals being second-class citizens in the University community. We would like to see hiring practices that emphasize quality instruction in general education, where general education is a priority. There might be a general education committee member on all faculty search committees. Some departments would react favorably to this, others would not.

Naming an Associate VCAA position for general education reflects a high level of commitment to general education, and the larger campus culture would have to mirror this level of commitment. The adminstrative proposal is brave and inventive. If we are going to endorse a significant and highly visible general education program, it must be backed by support at all levels and we must advocate for this support. We need change on this significant level if we are going to really change general education; we connot just pay lip service and not back up our ideas. If only the "shallow" parts of a dramatically different proposal are accepted, the program will not have the status we are suggesting it should have, and we will not have been successful in fostering real change.

We need to plan our University Forum to follow the open hearings. The week after Easter break gives time after the hearings to publicize the summary and think about what we learn. We will tentatively plan the forum for Wednesday, April 15 in the late afternoon.

The committee will not meet again this week as there are two open hearings demanding our attention. 

Respectfully submitted,

Nory Prochaska, recording secretary