Minutes of the Competency-Based General Education Task Force
June 23, 2000
Members Present: Lucy Arendt (co-chair), Illene Noppe (co-chair), Brian Sutton, Dave Galaty, Teri Berggren, Debra Pearson, Tim Trace
Start Time and Location: The meeting convened at 10:55 am in ES 301
1) The minutes of June 19, 2000 were corrected.
2) Members decided that a list of recommended implementation ideas should be included at the beginning of the report.
3) Lucy passed out a list of questions for the committee to address before the finalization of the report. The rest of the meeting was spent discussing and answering the questions on the list. The questions and answers decided upon by the committee are listed below.
1st A) Only competencies required? B) Some combination of competencies required.
Answer – B
Discussion Points:
· In most GE courses, clusters of competencies are addressed. There is no course designed to fit one competency completely.
· Courses to be designed to match competencies, not the other way around.
· Departments may not want to redesign courses.
· Competencies should be worded broadly enough with either/or statements so a number of courses could fit each competency. There will be room for faculty to make their courses fit in without extravagant changes.
· Competencies should include A) courses, B) learning outcomes, and C) experiences
2nd A) Four-point performance rating scales used to assess competency? B) Three-point scales? C) Binary scales?
Answer – A
Discussion Points:
· Students would be interested in a binary system, while faculty would want a finer scale.
· Students may actually prefer a scale that provides more explanation about their strengths and weaknesses. The 4 point may work well for them.
· Why not just use A,B,C,D, etc. What’s the difference.
· Grades have a number of complex meanings attached to them (e.g., attendance, class participation). Performance rating scales deal specifically with outcomes and are necessarily different from grades.
· The problem with 3 point scales is that the majority of people end up in category 2, while only a small fraction would end up in the 1st or 3rd categories.
· A 4 point scale will work best for our purposes.
3rd YES or NO. To graduate, students must have a score for every competency.
Answer - YES
4th YES or NO. To graduate, students must achieve a pre-determined score for every competency.
Answer – NO
Discussion points.
· Yes. If these competencies are to have meaning, they should be used for something.
· A few years ago, U.W. Milwaukee increased writing performance requirements for graduation. International students and ethnic minorities fell short of the mark more than other students. For that reason, U.W. Milwaukee changed its requirements to be more inclusive.
· These should be used primarily for faculty to improve curriculum. Students shouldn’t be penalized when it could be the course format to blame in some instances.
· Maybe we could say YES for certain competencies.
· Maybe the certain percentage format would work better.
· Perhaps we could try a phase in policy, where scores would not initially preclude students from graduating. Over time, as courses are perfected, we could implement graduation requirements.
5th YES or NO. To graduate, students must achieve a pre-determined score on a pre-determined percentage of competencies.
Answer - YES
6th YES or NO. "Foundational" or "indispensable" competencies that all students must achieve at a particular level within a certain amount of time (or credits)?
Answer - YES
· If YES, which competencies?
- 1st 8
· At what level?
- 3 or 4 level
7th YES or NO. Regarding the foreign language competency: Should students have to demonstrate level 4 proficiency by either (1) placement exam results, or (2) successful completion of fourth college-level course?
Answer - YES (1)
8th YES or NO. For any given competency, there must be at least two different courses that offer students the opportunity to learn and demonstrate the competency. [Note: This should not be construed to mean that students must take at least two courses to learn and demonstrate any given competency.]
Answer - NO
9th YES or NO. Require transfers to complete questionaires addressing the learning associated with courses they want to transfer, like the Other Culture questionnaire? [Note: Unless we want to start a war, we will have to accept course credits as negotiated by UW System and others. At the same time, these agreements do not require that we automatically award credit for "competencies."]
Answer: NO
10th YES or NO. Competency scores recorded on transcripts?
Answer: YES
11st A) Competency scores = course grades, or B) Competency scores supplement course grades?
Answer: B
12nd Faculty who want to teach (or who will be expected to teach) in General Education should be appointed to a "General Education Faculty."
Answer - YES
13rd YES or NO. Should the General Education Council [or 'Organizational Body[(]' ] designate a Special Committee to develop criteria, standards, "model" performance rating scales, and "benchmark" examples of "key assignments" for each competency? [Note: The Special Committee would be expected to recruit appropriate faculty members to assist with completing its charge.]
Answer - YES. However, the Faculty Senate should designate the Organizational Body.
14th YES or NO. Should the [Organizational Body] solicit from the entire faculty its commentary on the proposed criteria, standards, and "model" performance rating scales for each competency statement?
Answer - NO
15th YES or NO. Should the [Organizational Body] assume responsibility for approving the proposed criteria, standards, and performance rating scales as presented or modified?
Answer - YES
16th YES or NO. Courses identified as offering students the opportunity to learn and demonstrate any given competency should be reviewed and approved by the [Organizational Body].
Answer - YES
17th YES or NO. Faculty members teaching courses that are identified as offering students the opportunity to learn and demonstrate any given competency should submit to the [Organizational Body] 1) a copy of the assignment(s) used to demonstrate comptency, 2) a copy of the performances rating scale(s) used to assess students' performance, and 3) a description of how the assignment(s) and performance rating scales fit the criteria and standards established for the given competency. The [Organizational Body] is responsible for communicating suggested modifications (as appropriate) and approval or disapproval.
Answer - YES.
· If YES, how often (e.g. annually)?
- Whenever there is a new addition or a major change.
18th YES or NO. May faculty "model" performance rating scales to align with the assignemnt(s) they use to assess competency?
Answer - YES
19th YES or NO. The [Organizational Body] should be responsible for ensuring consistent levels of rigor across competencies and performance rating scales.
Answer – YES
- This may be tricky to ensure.
20th YES or NO. Assignments and performance rating scales should be electronically archived so that anyone (e.g., faculty members, students, alumni) can retreive copies?
Answer - YES
21st YES or NO. The [Organizational Body] should decide the alternative means that may be used to demonstrate any given competency, in consultation with the appropriate faculty members. Examples: AP, CLEP, IB, Regents College exams, College BASE, WMPT, WFLT, WEPT, Military and Corporate Training and Education evaluated by ACE, Credit for Prior Learning, independent study, senior honors or distinction project.
Answer - YES
22nd YES or NO. The [Organizational Body] should decide the appropriate assessment for alternative means of demonsrating any given competency, in consultation with the appropriate faculty members. For example, the OB (in consultation…) will have to decide what cuts scores on the various CLEP exams will equate to the various levels of proficiency.
Answer - YES
4) Members decided that the next page of questions would be answered at the next meeting?
5) Meeting dates, times, and locations for the rest of the month:
1st Monday, June 26, 2000 10:45A.M.-12:45P.M. E.S. 301 Conference Room
2nd Friday, June 30, 2000 10:45A.M.-???????. E.S. 301 Conference Room
- Members will get lunch after meeting in E.S. 301.
The committee adjourned until its next meeting, scheduled for June 26, 2000.
Respectfully submitted,
Teri Berggren
Page 4 of 4
06/29/00 5:53 PM
[(]f The term 'General Education Council' is replaced by the more ambiguous term, 'Organizational Body', in the rest of the minutes.