Ramapo College of New Jersey
General Education Curriculum Committee (GECCo)
Meeting Minutes of Wednesday, September 15, 2010
1:30 A.M. – 2:30 P.M.
Venue: ASB-230
Members present: Meredith Davis (CA), Monika Giacoppe (AIS), Clyde Johnson (TAS), Christina Connor (Library), Donovan McFeron (TAS), Rob Mentore (TAS), Emma Rainforth (TAS, Ex-Officio), Nick Salter (SSHS), Beba Shamash (CA), Gladys Torres-Baumgarten (ASB), Ashwani Vasishth (SSHS), Jim Woodley (ASB, Ex-Officio), Don Fucci (AIS), Rick Nunez (ASB), Eric Daffron (Provost’s Office)
Absent: Sam Mustafa (AIS)
1. Announcements:
CWAC Report
· Rob Mentore gave a brief report on the first meeting of the College Wide Assessment Committee (CWAC) that was held last week.
· Eric Daffron noted that he had put a FAQ section on the assessment website.
History and Resources Available to GECCo
· A brief discussion ensued concerning particular curriculum assessment efforts that predated the formation of GECCo.
· Emma Rainforth noted that our syllabi should refer to “Course Enrichment” rather than “Experiential Learning”, as the former is more accurate than the latter, and in-line with the original intent of the five-hour outside-of-class activity.
· Rob Mentore noted that the college has institutional outcomes (Mission Pillars), while we also have general education outcomes. He noted that the 2006 curriculum didn’t contain a complete set of Student Learning Objectives (SLOs). As part of this discussion, Rob suggested that the PDF document entitled Outcomes Mapping Fall09 (available on the GECCo Google docs site) may provide a useful starting point for our work. This document was developed last fall as part of an exercise that sought to map the college’s Mission Pillars to general education courses and categories.
· A suggestion was made to survey the faculty (after updating the document) on the mapping of pillars to courses/categories. Another committee member noted the urgency of looming deadlines, and the need to make progress. Members agreed that the mapping document remains a useful resource.
2. Discussion items:
Writing Assessment – Final Decision on Samples to be Assessed
· After another round of discussions, in addition to the previous weeks’ numerous email exchanges, the committee decided that we will ask for writing samples that fit the following criteria:
o Length: between 750 – 1,600 words (approximately 3 – 8 pages).
o Last graded assignment of the semester (first draft, if drafts are allowed).
o Paper may contain outside sources.
The committee noted that not all professors may require outside sources (particularly in assignments for first-year students), which would result in collecting papers that do not contain citations. Such papers may skew results negatively as writing assessment readers would be using a rubric that calls for citations. To account for these types of papers, we will adjust the writing rubric to include “N/A” (not applicable).
Writing Assessment – Detailed Procedure for Collecting, Storing, and Assessing Writing Samples
· Clyde Johnson noted the importance of using proper sampling techniques when collecting papers. He also noted that he’d prefer to see a “3-D map” (as opposed to the 2-D map generated in the fall) that would show mappings at a more granular level, but would show the relationships between the SLOs and courses and the assessment tools.
· Eric Daffron noted that we should consider requesting samples from more sections than previously proposed (e.g. 5 versus 2), and discussed the benefits of doing so.
· Rob Mentore proposed a method by which a large number of writing samples could be collected and stored on an online “web-store” by class-level (“first-year”, “sophomore”, etc.), and offered the benefits of organizing the data in this way. The group discussed the challenges of enacting such a plan, including the size of the data collection effort, and the time required for analysis.
· The group agreed to discuss the procedures for collecting data in more detail during our next meeting.
Next Assessment
· Rob Mentore proposed that mathematical reasoning be considered next for assessment. He noted that mathematical reasoning is a category in the general education curriculum and it is also a distinct learning outcome. Additionally, courses in the mathematical reasoning category were essentially left out of the writing assessment effort because these courses do not incorporate substantial writing assignments. The group discussed the benefits of adopting this as the next assessment category.
Minutes submitted by Rick Nunez, 09.16.10