General Education Review Committee
Meeting, 29 November 2000
KH 113, 4:45-5:45


Minutes

Present: Faculty-Bruce, Dohse, Friedenberg, Hardy, Konz, Krumpe, Lee, McKnight, Moseley, Nelms, Pons, Ruiz, Sabo, White-Carter, Katz; Students--Clere, Spenser, Wilde-Ramsing; Alumni--Lingerfelt-Tait, Proctor

1. GERC and the Faculty Senate--We will be forward a document to the Senate requesting authorization for our group to conduct a review and revision of general education at UNCA. The document will require the Chair of GERC to report on the committee's progress to Senate at the beginning of every semester. Senate authorization will reinforce the faculty-driven nature of the revision process.

2. Agenda for Spring 2001--We discussed the work the committee will do in Spring 2001 as charged by the SACS enhancement process and as spelled out in the GERC timetable. Specifically, we are charged to study and discuss the report of the Diversity Taskforce for its impact on future general education revision. Also, we will begin reviewing APC reports of completed reviews of general education programs as the relate to current criteria. Finally, we will begin drafting recommendations for general education reform and for necessary institutional change and/or resource allocations, to be incorporated into the final draft of our report for SACS Self Study. 

Dr. Friedenberg asked whether our work on revising the general education curriculum according to the timetable might in any way conflict with the arrival of the SACS visiting team: Dr. Friedenberg wondered particularly about potential problems arising out of visitors who might expect to examine the general education curriculum as it is spelled out in the SACS Self Study, but who might then encounter a different program when they arrived. Dr. Katz said that he would check with the Executive Committee for the Enhancement portion of the Self Study. [In subsequently checking with Dr. Gale on this matter, Katz was informed that the work of GERC is not in conflict with the purpose or expectations of the SACS visiting team.]

3. Discussion of Goals--We discussed the statement of goals for general education, paying special attention to the issues of information/computer literacy and the values goal of "Respect for one's own culture and the diverse cultures of others." 

We discussed whether information/computer literacy was a skill, a knowledge domain, or both. We discussed whether, as a skill, it would best be considered a concern of general education or of the majors. It was observed that technology is changing so rapidly that it will be a challenge to decide on what skills are necessary to teach. We discussed whether we should be teaching technology and its implications for contemporary life as a knowledge domain. [This is already one of the topics in Humanities 414.] 

Drs. Friedenberg and Lee, both members of IEC, noted that information/computer literacy as a skill might be incorporated into the new set of SACS "must statements," in which case we will have to incorporate this into our goals statements. Dr. Katz said he would look into this. [Katz has since looked into this and found that SACS stipulates that UNCA must demonstrate that graduates are proficient in "the basic use of computers." There is no statement about what constitutes such proficiency.]

In our discussion of the goal relating to culture and diversity, views were split over whether it was a value or a knowledge domain. Several committee members observed that as a knowledge domain, it really had to do with the subject are of "the social world." Dr. Lee said that he thought it was best to describe this goal as a value, rather than as a knowledge domain, because the latter was so broad as to be vague, while the former was really what we mean. There was discussion on what we mean by the word "respect" and whether or not we should use "understanding" or "appreciation," so as not to suggest that we are somehow enforcing a particular set of views about culture. 

It was decided that the Mission Statement is, properly speaking, a statement of values. Dr. Sabo suggested that we simply make sure that the Mission Statement strongly states the goals currently placed under the "Values" rubric and eliminate this section from the goals statement.

It was decided that, under Knowledge Domains, we would revise "Aesthetics" to read "The arts."

Dr. Katz will revise the Mission Statement and Goals Statement to reflect the changes we discussed. We will visit these documents one more time at the first meeting in Spring 2001, before putting them up on the website for faculty and student feedback.

4. The meeting on 12/6 is cancelled.

5. GERC meetings in Spring 2001: Remember that our meetings for the Spring 2001 will be Wednesdays, every other week, 4:30-5:30 (note the earlier time). A schedule of specific dates and locations will be forthcoming.