I'm sorry, the system is not accepting new proposals at this time.
Chrissy McAllister (chrissy.mcallister) ( Thank you for the opportunity to provide some comments and perspective on the proposal for POLS 215 to carry a GEM code. In order to evaluate the proposal, I requested feedback from the Math Department faculty on how they assess GEM learning outcomes in their courses that carry the code. I felt that this feedback was critical, given that I have no experience using the GEM code or assessing how students might meet the learning outcomes of a GEM code. At this point, I don’t feel that I can support the proposal, primarily for lack of information. I have two main concerns that I want to convey to the CCC: 1. Lack of information regarding GEM learning outcome rubric assessment. It came to my attention early last week that the Poly Sci department had not seen a copy of the assessment rubric used by the Math Department to evaluate the learning outcomes associated with a GEM code. This puts the Poly Sci department at a disadvantage; they were not able to provide the depth of detail necessary for us to make a determination as to whether they were meeting the LADR outcomes in the proposed course or not. The Math Department faculty offered to provide a copy of the rubric to the instructor of the Poly Sci course and ask him to address how the POLS 215 course would meet the listed outcomes. I also asked them to provide an electronic copy of the rubric to me and to Helen Wills in the Registrar’s Office. Unfortunately, neither of these things was accomplished in time to meet the CCC deadline of 5pm today (Monday, 2/13/17). I was unaware of this hard deadline until last Friday afternoon. The Math Department provided a paper copy of the rubric to me early this morning, but this does not allow sufficient time for the Poly Sci department to work with the document in order to describe how their course meets the GEM outcomes. I did note that this proposal has been in the CIM system since late last year; however, I was only made aware of the desire for MNS Unit review approximately two weeks ago. 2. Concerns about one department having “veto” power over a LADR code. I understand that there has been some discussion about the fact that the Math Department is the only department that currently utilizes the GEM code, therefore, the Math Department might be viewed as maintaining “control” over that LADR code. I understand how this might be viewed as a concern. However, I don’t see how an evaluation of a proposal like the POLS 215 proposal can be effective without direct input from the faculty members who a) wrote the LADR assessment language and b) daily utilize the LADR assessment language. The analogy that came to mind this morning was that if I decided to start incorporating French language and vocabulary into one of my biology courses, and I wanted to apply for a GE2L code for my course, I don’t expect that Chris Young (current Unit Head for Humanities) would be able to fully evaluate whether I was truly meeting the desired outcomes of a GE2L course. It would need to be reviewed by the French Department faculty. Perhaps GEM and GE2L codes are the only two LADR codes for which this situation applies, but it does make sense to me in those instances to drill down to the department level for some of these proposals and ask for feedback at the appropriate level. Finally, for what it is worth, the Math Department has offered a GEM code to a non-Math course in the past. The code was verbally offered to BNR 215 (Biometry) last year after a series of meetings between the Math Department faculty and the instructor of the BNR course (Greg Bruland), during which the BNR instructor was able to demonstrate the mathematical approaches he was taking in that course. The BNR department never followed up on the paperwork to pursue the GEM code for that course because it wasn’t necessary for our majors (who are required to take additional courses in math to fulfill the BNR degree programs). I share this simply to illustrate that the Math Department has expressed willingness to grant the code to other departments in the past; I have not encountered an “obstructionist” attitude from the Math Department faculty. In the case of the Poly Sci course proposal that’s on the table, we simply have not had the time to have those sorts of conversations or a chance to evaluate the rubric carefully enough at this point. ):
Helen Wills (helen.wills) ( Vote was split 3 for and 2 against. This proposal is approved with the stipulation that the student must choose one LADR to be achieved. Students may NOT earn more than one code for taking one course. ):
Joe Ritter (joe.ritter) ( Let's keep track implementation of this decision to see the impacts (including unintentional impacts) that occur. ):