Meeting Date: 
December 8, 2022
12/08/2022 1:00 pm to 2:00 pm
Zoom Meeting
  1. Discussion of General Education Policies
    • General Education training requirements
    • Course learning platform
    • Syllabus visibility

Voting members present: Aidas Banaitis, Geoffrey Barstow, Daniel Faltesek, Kelsey Emard, Colin Johnson, Matthew Kennedy, Michelle McAllaster, Lori McGraw, Rene Reitsma, Kari-Lyn Sakuma, Kaplan Yalcin
Voting members absent: Jack Istok, Randy Rosenberger, Justin St. Germain
Ex-officio members present: DPD – Nana Osei-Kofi; Ecampus – Karen Watte; WIC – Sarah Perrault
Guests: McKenzie Huber, Regan Gurung, Michael Jefferis, Caryn Stoess


Discussion of General Education Policies

  • Faculty Development requirements
    • Pros
      • General Education (GE) is a distinct curriculum, with distinct needs
      • Ensure awareness of GE, downstream enhancements in assessment and compliance
      • Teach graduate students how to teach – professional development
    • Cons
      • Bottle necks
    • We need a mechanism to enforce this through CLSS 
    • WIC development is required
      • How will this motion affect last minute hires?
      • Faculty development in WIC is a long-term process. It is not a single training process
      • A self-guided training or orientation could be part of the process.
        • Levels: self-guided, enhanced seminars, high intensity work
      • Are we making policies based on accurate assessments?
        • Is there strong evidence that faculty need to improve? Evidence is largely anecdotal
      • Problems with WIC are not problems that can be solved with policies. They are problems related to lack up support for units to follow existing policies.
      • Part of the budget promised by the Provost includes hiring to support for this kind of training effort.
  • Course learning platform
    • Pros
      • Standard accessibility 
      • Unify experiences 
      • Aligns with the new Course Specific Learning Outcomes (CSLO) policy
      • Avoids secondary purchases/ala carte LMS vendors
    • Cons
      • Learning curve for instructors
      • Current LMS is not most user friendly
  • Syllabus visibility
    • No university requirement to publish, some colleges have policies, seems to not be enforced, syllabi are locked in vaults on Mars – not easily accessible to students.  
    • Pros
      • Students need transparency and access to syllabi so they can make determinations in selecting courses  
      • Transfer student friendly policy 
    • Cons
      • If too accessible, third parties outside the university could see it as an opportunity to litigate, puts faculty at risk from threats