Present: Faculty—Bruce, Dohse, Friedenberg, Hardy, Konz, Krumpe, McKnight, Moseley, Nelms, Rizzo, Ruiz, White-Carter, Katz; Student—Spencer; Alumni—Perry

1. VCAA Search update—Dr. Linda Nelms reported that the VCAA search is moving ahead and out of nearly 200 applicants, the committee has identified the semifinalists and is working on the final pool for on-site interviews. The dates and schedules for those interviews have not been crystallized yet. The candidates, she noted, have been commenting on the GERTF effort and on the website materials. They are impressed with the thoroughness and the depth GERTF is bringing to this project. Some candidates have described UNCA’s General Education program as "cutting edge"; others have thought it a bit "old fashioned." Dr. Nelms is encouraged that these VCAA candidates are impressed by the thought we are putting into the review and revision of the General Education curriculum; she is also encouraged that they all value General Education and are interested in its role within the University as a whole.

2. Discussion of APC Report on Humanities requirement (with original report submitted to APC)—Drs. Lisa Friedenberg, Marcia Ghidina, Bruce Larson, and Mark West were present to help GERTF members with questions about the Social Science requirement and to comment on curricular directions the program might be interested in pursuing. The discussion began with the APC observation that Senate Document 3684 provides little guidance to the Social Sciences as to what their courses are to contribute to our students’ General Education; nor does the SD 3684 offer much guidance to course design. Drs. West and Friedenberg noted that the document allowed disciplinary and interdisciplinary approaches to the General Education courses in the Social Sciences, but that it did not clearly state what might be meant by "interdisciplinarity" for the purpose of this requirement. Because the objectives for General Education courses and those for introductions to the disciplines correspond with each other, it has seemed effective to follow a disciplinary approach to designing these courses. Dr. Larson noted that he thought that faculty would like to see points of contact between faculty in different departments, and this does happen in the Humanities Program, in which faculty from all divisions participate. It also happens in the Arts and Ideas Program.

Dr Katz asked what sorts of clarifications or changes to the charge for Social Science courses in the General Education curriculum the chairs in this division would like to see. What sorts of revisions might encourage innovation or facilitate faculty interest. Dr West noted that revisions would be difficult to offer on the spot, but that with some time, he thought that the Social Sciences would be able to suggest some revisions that might clarify the charge. Dr Friedenberg thought that these discussions might be profitably pursued in the context of a larger set of issues. Perhaps there should be 3 Humanities courses (124, 214, 324) and then 414 could become a capstone course on social issues and problems, thus serving partly as a requirement in the Social Sciences. It was also suggested that we might explore ways of encouraging General Education course development that brought together the Social Sciences, the Natural Sciences, and the Arts, thus creating opportunities for cross-disciplinary contact. Creating an interdisciplinary course like this might require a large institutional structure like that of the Humanities Program, it was noted. A possibility might be to create clusters of topics around which General Education courses might be developed by smaller teams of interested faculty from those divisions.

It was then asked how a General Education course should differ from other courses in the curriculum. Are introductions to the major suitable for the General Education requirement? Dr Friedenberg replied that these courses were really introductions to the disciplines, not merely to the major; and as such, they are truly suited to what the General Education tries to offer, i.e., an introduction to the paradigms and methodologies of the Social Sciences. General Education should offer students a chance to explore. Dr Larson observed that the Economics Department has tried in the past a variety of approaches to satisfying the Social Science requirement: a course designed for non-majors, a 200-level Economic History course, a number of other options at a range of levels, and a 100-level introduction to the discipline. The 100-level courses, he noted, were by far the most popular, which indicates student satisfaction. The other approaches proved unsatisfactory or ineffective for faculty to teach. The introduction to the discipline is just such a way to explore the Social Sciences. Further, Social Sciences are likely to be the area in which students have the least experience. These introductions to the disciplines are thus often perceived by students to be very enriching.

Dr. Friedenberg observed that much in the way of present and future curricular development is tied to both the charge, which is unclear and perhaps out-of-date, and to resources, which are very limited. Any future revision of the General Education curriculum will have to engage these issues, and will have to do so within the context of the other program elements. This will be challenging.

The next issue we discussed was Diversity. It was observed that the Senate Document offers exceedingly little guidance on this issue and that diversity itself can be very broadly construed. Often it is difficult to identify what the term should mean in the context of General Education. Drs Ghidina and Friedenberg both noted that the Social Sciences generally address diversity in numerous ways in virtually all of their courses. Dr Friedenberg noted that diversity is in many ways at the center of the very mission of the Social Sciences. She noted that the APC report may not have taken into account the syllabi and supporting materials presented with the Social Science report, which would have indicated that course topics, reading materials, assignments, etc., would have reflected a great deal of engagement with diversity content. Dr Katz noted that it might be that our curricular documents—the course catalogue, course descriptions, etc.—need to present diversity more consciously, so as to reflect more accurately what we actually do in our classes. Sometimes, he noted, when we don’t concretely point to what we do, others don’t perceive that we are doing it.

We discussed learning communities as a possibility for General Education course development. It was noted that this sort of practice is invigorating for faculty and for students. Dr Moseley, who had participated in a Learning Community effort for three years, agreed that there was much that was attractive in the learning community experiment; however, the effort finally lost steam for lack of solid fiscal and administrative support.

Our discussion of the Social Sciences requirement took up the entire hour and so we tabled discussions of student forums and the next phase of the revision process for a future meeting.

3. Our next meetings will be 27 February and 6 March at 4:30 pm, in the Red Oak Room. Also, remember to keep the Wednesday, 4:30-5:30 timeslot clear throughout this semester and next year.

The 20 February meeting will be devoted to the Natural Sciences, with a focus on Atmospheric Sciences, Environmental Studies, and Physics; on 6 March we will discuss Biology and Chemistry.