Assessment Impact
North Carolina State University
GER - General Education Requirements_Program
Outcome: Collaboration - Evidence of collaboration, across campus entities, in general education assessment planning and support of assessment efforts will be demonstrated. [Show Outcome Detail]
Observations / Interpretation of Data
Observation / Interpretation of Data Decision(s) Made Follow-Up Resolved
08/14/2003 -- IGL and GER assessment book
DESCRIPTION: Collaboration between faculty and administistrators on a book by Virginia Lee on Inquiry Guided Learning at NC State, specifically, a chapter on IGL across the curiculum including GER.
TYPE: Distinction / Strength
08/14/2003 -- To continue working with FCTL on GER assessment, in particular to FCTL offering course-based assessment training.  
Yes
10/18/2002 -- CUPR and CUE collaboration on assessment
DESCRIPTION: CUPR reviewed CUE's adopted assessment plan in the month of September 2002. CUPR returned feedback regarding CUE?s Assessment Proposal on 10/18/02. CUPR's comment was that, although the implementation piece will detail that faculty responsible for GER courses should address assessment methods used in determining course alignment with GER objectives, it might also be advisable to at least mention it in the philosophy piece as well.
TYPE: Distinction / Strength
10/18/2002 -- A motion was unanimously approved to revise the document per CUPR's suggestion and Mike Carter drafted this to bring back to the committee for review.  
Yes
09/21/2001 -- CUPR and CUE defining their relationship
DESCRIPTION: Our relationship to CUPR is that CUE will be involved with the aspects of program review associated with GER.
TYPE: Distinction / Strength
01/18/2002 -- Discussing the link between CUE and CUPR, the chair suggested the formation of a sub-committee to recommend a process for looking at any GER-related pieces that may come from CUPR.  
 
08/14/2003 -- CUE members were encouraged to attend the upcoming program review workshops. Although the workshops will be focused on program objectives and outcomes, it will be a good chance for CUE members to become familiar with the program review model as it is the same model CUE will be using to evaluate outcomes for general education.  
Yes

 

Outcome: Depth and Pervasiveness - There will be evidence of the depth and pervasiveness of the culture of continuous improvement transformation in General Education Assessment. [Show Outcome Detail]
Observations / Interpretation of Data
Observation / Interpretation of Data Decision(s) Made Follow-Up Resolved
11/07/2003 -- Results of meeting with College Curriculum Commitees
DESCRIPTION: Meetings with the college curriculum committees are continuing and CUE is continuing to get comments of concern over the investment of time required for GER assessment. The first pilot group, which included at least one course from each GER category, will be revising their courses with new outcomes. We should be seeing those course action forms next semester. The second pilot group, consisting of PAMS courses, is underway. The chair requested a report on the results and recommendations emanating from the first pilot be presented for review by CUE.

Jim Knopp brought forward a statement drafted by the CALS curriculum committee and directed to CUE that the GER assessment process needs to be streamlined and is too time consuming. They fear that faculty may withdraw courses rather than go through the assessment process.
TYPE: Problem / Limitation
NOTES: CALS has not yet been trained o how to do GER assessment.
11/07/2003 -- An iterim pilot report has been drafted and can be found at http://www.ncsu.edu/undergrad_affairs/assessment/files/ger/assess_plan.htm.  
No
09/08/2003 -- Meeting with Academic Associate Deans
DESCRIPTION: A meeting was held on September 8th with the Academic Associate Deans and representatives from the colleges to announce the revised GER assessment procedures and to invited their feedback on these procedures.
TYPE: Distinction / Strength
09/08/2003 -- It was recommended from the academic associate deans that we visit the college curriculum commitees with this information.  
Yes
08/14/2003 -- Faculty Participation in Workshops and Training
DESCRIPTION: Fifteen faculty attended two workshops in the Spring of 2003 on writing student learning outcomes and identifying means of evaluating student learning.
TYPE: Distinction / Strength
08/14/2003 -- An additional workshop is being offered in the Fall of 2003 for those faculty who attended the Spring 2003 workshops on reporting assessment results. In addition, the workshops offered in Spring 2003 are being made available to faculty in the Fall of 2003.  
Yes
08/14/2003 -- Faclty training other Faculty on GER Assessment
DESCRIPTION: Faculty who attended GER Assessment workshops in the Spring of 2003 were taught by another faculty member who has been key in developing the revised assessment process.
TYPE: Distinction / Strength
08/14/2003 -- Conintue to provide support to faculty members who are teaching/training other faculty members in the revised GER assessment process.  
Yes
03/07/2003 -- SACS Document Discussion
DESCRIPTION: The committee was requested to provide feedback on representation of CUE's work in SACS report on GER that had been distributed before the meeting. Discussion included comments that the entire report could be more succinct. Michael Carter stated that this documents is serving as an explanatory piece for many undergraduate efforts and as the university is not sure who the audience within the SACS process will be, or exactly what type of information they will need, this document has purposely been constructed to be very inclusive. Without eliminating any actual content, the committee still felt that the report may be too wordy and recommended an executive summary at the beginning of the report with a bullet listing of major points to serve as an index to the lengthier document.
TYPE: Distinction / Strength
03/07/2003 -- CUE unanimously approved endorsement of the document adding that the recommendations mentioned above are non-conditional to the endorsement but merely friendly suggestions to the author.  
Yes

 

Outcome: Education and Support - The University will demonstrate support for general education assessment by providing appropriate resources for faculty and administrators to engage in general education assessment including opportunities for education [Show Outcome Detail]
Observations / Interpretation of Data
Observation / Interpretation of Data Decision(s) Made Follow-Up Resolved
03/23/2004 -- Phase II Works - Workshop I Participation
DESCRIPTION: Phase II, Workshop one was made available to twelve participants on two different dates. We had faculty represented from nine departments within three colleges.


TYPE: Distinction / Strength
   Yes
03/23/2004 -- Faculty Evaluations of Workshop I For Phase II
DESCRIPTION: Comments in general were positive; however, concerns were expressed on understanding the processing of the CAFs between UCCC and CUE.
TYPE: Distinction / Strength

Related Data:
   View File - Workshop Evaluations
03/23/2004 -- Phase II participants concerns about understanding the mechanics of the process will be addressed in Workshop II.  
No
02/24/2004 -- Workshop 1 for Phase 2
DESCRIPTION: 7 faculty attended the first workshop in the phase 2 series.
TYPE: Problem / Limitation
02/24/2004 -- Efforts are underway to identify more faculty to participate in the phase 2 GER assessment process. This is being accomplished by second workshop being offered and recruitment via telephone and e-mail.  
No
01/07/2004 -- *1 - GER Pilot Assessment Plans
DESCRIPTION: The GER pilot assessment plasn are in and are being review by CUE using the CUE approved Rubric
TYPE: Distinction / Strength

Related Data:
   View URL - Pilot Assessment Plans
   View URL - Rubric to Evluate CAFs
   No
01/07/2004 -- *2 Pilot Assessment Reports
DESCRIPTION: The assesment reports for the pilot group are coming in and will be evaluted by CUE using the new report rubric
TYPE: Distinction / Strength

Related Data:
   View URL - Pilot Assessment Reports
   View File - Rubric for Evaluating the Assessment Reports
   View File - ANS 301 Assessment Report
   View File - MUS 180 Assessment Report
   View File - PS 201 Assessment Report
   View File - HI 216 Assessment Report
   View File - HON 201 Assessment Report
   View File - SOC 204 Assessment Report
   View File - ENG 101 Assessment Report
   No
01/07/2004 -- *3 Assessment Plans for Phase I are in
DESCRIPTION: Assessment plans (CAFs) for Phase I are in and will be reviewed by CUE
TYPE: Distinction / Strength

Related Data:
   View File - Assessment Plans For Phase I
   View File - MA103 documentation
   View File - MA103 syllabus
   View File - MA114 documentation
   View File - MA114 syllabus
   View File - SOC204 documentation & syllabus
   View File - ST101 documentation
   View File - ST101 syllabus
   View File - ST501 documentation
   View File - ST501 syllabus
   No
11/21/2003 -- CUE FInishes training on the Rubric to evaluate Course Action Form
DESCRIPTION: Mike Carter finsihed the rubric training for evaluating course action forms by having faculty break into groups and review the pilot course actions forms.
TYPE: Distinction / Strength
11/21/2003 -- Several recommendations were made to change the rubric. Please see the changes at http://www.ncsu.edu/undergrad_affairs/assessment/files/ger/caf_criteria.pdf  
Yes
11/19/2003 -- Workshop 3 for the pilot
DESCRIPTION: Nine pilot faculty attended the third workshop in the training series on how to use their assessment data and make meaningful decisions from it. Overall the pilot faculty are reporting the assessment process is going well. See observation -pilot faculty testimonials for more details and results.
TYPE: Distinction / Strength
11/20/2003 -- We changed the name to the reports to the guided reflections in an attempt to make the documentation proces more meaningful for faculty. This may have lead to some confusion. As a result we are still deciding on whether to call the reports a report or guided reflections.  
Yes
11/07/2003 -- CUE Training on Rubric to evaluate CAF
DESCRIPTION: Mike Carter presented an overview of the rubric. This resulted in some suggestions for editorial revision to the departmental section. Carter then went over the Visual & Performing Arts objective sheet that models the linkage between GER objective, course outcomes for GER, and the methods of evaluation.
TYPE: Distinction / Strength
11/07/2003 -- After review of this sheet it was suggested that submission for course action forms be amended to show the linkage in terms of which evaluation method is being planned for which course outcome that matches which GER outcome instead of having them presented in sets where CUE has to interpret the mapping.  
 
11/07/2003 -- Plans for next meeting is to split into groups to practice applying the rubric to the sample course action forms distributed.  
No
10/01/2003 -- Phase I GER Workshops
DESCRIPTION: The Phase I implementation of assessment has begun this fall. Workshops 1 and 2 have been held. Ten faculty from the college of PAMS are participating. Undergraduate affairs is providing stipends to these faculty for their participation in this Phase I implentation stage.
TYPE: Distinction / Strength
10/01/2003 -- From these workshops, confusion was evident about the differences between program assessment versus course based assessment and how course based assessment can be used for program assessment. As a result, materials are currently being developed to address this confusion to use for future training materials and to post on the Assessment website.  
Yes
09/19/2003 -- Courese Embedded Training
DESCRIPTION: Different units are coming together across campus to provide faculty and staff with training and resources on course emedded assessment.
TYPE: Distinction / Strength

Related Data:
   View File - Course Embedded assessment resources
   View File - course emedded assessment resources 2
09/19/2003 -- The first decision made was to schedule a meeting to discuss resources with various units and programs. See attached documentation.  
 
12/17/2003 -- WIth the loss of funding to CWSP, not being able ot replace the FCTL Assst. Dir. and losing another FCTL Ass. Dir. as well as the Ass. Dir. and Research Associate for UGA assesssment, course beased assessment training is limited.  
Yes
08/14/2003 -- Training materials for CUE
DESCRIPTION: Training materilas on the new criterion rubric for the GER assessment process are being developed for CUE.
TYPE: Distinction / Strength
08/14/2003 -- Conintue developing training materials for CUE on the new criterion rubric.  
 
12/17/2003 -- The rubric is undergoing changes as it is being used.  
No
07/01/2003 -- GER Assessment Website reviewed
DESCRIPTION: Faculty member and administrators reviewed the GER assessment website to ensure that it was inclusive of resources and materials needed for the different audiences (faculty, administration, and the general public).
TYPE: Distinction / Strength
08/14/2003 -- Several changes to the Asssessing General Education website were made and will be continued to be monitored and updated.  
Yes

 

Outcome: Leadership Commitment - Faculty and administrators will demonstrate evidence of their leadership in the assessment of student learning and development by articulating expectations for assessment and consequences of not participating in assessment, as well as providing support and recognition of the assessment process. [Show Outcome Detail]
Observations / Interpretation of Data
Observation / Interpretation of Data Decision(s) Made Follow-Up Resolved
04/02/2004 -- Vice Provost commending CUE On assessment work and reminder that the expectations for assessment are on-going
DESCRIPTION: John Ambrose announced that the SACS review had been favorable as to assessment issues and the committee should be commended on their efforts related to GER assessment procedures. He also emphasized the need to continue these efforts as the expectations for assessment are expected to be ongoing.
TYPE: Distinction / Strength
   Yes
03/19/2004 -- CUE requires rubric to be used at the college and the department level
DESCRIPTION: the department and college to complete and attach the evaluation rubric to submitted course action forms, a motion to require the rubric on all actions leaving the department May 15, 2004 or later was unanimously approved.
TYPE: Distinction / Strength
   Yes
01/13/2004 -- CUE approval of timetable and rubric
DESCRIPTION: CUE approved the timetable and rubric for GER assessment
TYPE: Distinction / Strength

Related Data:
   View URL - December 19 CUE Minutes
   Yes
10/17/2003 -- Academic Associate Deans Letter
DESCRIPTION: John Tector, on behalf of the academic associate deans, read a statement that was drafted to James Oblinger, Katie Perry, Thomas Conway, James Anderson and Bob Sowell from associate deans Zuckerman, Bristol, Cohen, Esbenshade, Keltie, Kirkman, O'Brien, Oxenham, and Tector. The statement expressed concern regarding the effects of simultaneous implementation of several assessment initiatives and requested the university put a hold on these efforts to create an opportunity to evaluate the best strategy to pursue. See attached letter.
TYPE: Problem / Limitation

Related Data:
   View File - Academic Associate Deans Letter
10/17/2003 -- The UGA Assessment Office as a result of this letter and several other concerns expressed by faculty drafted the phased implementation timeline which can be found at http://www.ncsu.edu/undergrad_affairs/assessment/files/ger/assess_plan.htm  
 
10/17/2003 -- In response to this letter, the Provost has formed a committee to investigate their concerns.  
 
11/18/2003 -- The Provost met with teh Academic Associate Deans to verify with them that assessment is required, that it must be done, and that they must figure out how to do it.  
No
10/14/2003 -- Provost approves syllabus change for GER
DESCRIPTION: THe Provost signed the proposal for syllabus guidelines to include the GER objectives and learning outcomes on the course syllabus.
See
http://www.ncsu.edu/policies/academic_affairs/courses_undergrad/REG02.20.7.php
for more details.


TYPE: Distinction / Strength
   Yes

 

Outcome: Rewards - Faculty and administrators will articulate that they feel appropriately rewarded for their participation in general education assessment. [Show Outcome Detail]
Observations / Interpretation of Data
Observation / Interpretation of Data Decision(s) Made Follow-Up Resolved
08/14/2003 -- Publication
DESCRIPTION: Information on the GER assessment process has been published in two different publications by two faculty members.
TYPE: Distinction / Strength
08/14/2003 -- To keep providing support to faculty for publications on GER assessment.  
No
08/14/2003 -- Presentation
DESCRIPTION: A CUE faculty member presented the GER assessment process at national conference.
TYPE: Distinction / Strength
08/14/2003 -- To provide support for faculty to continue making presentations on GER assessment.  
No
06/21/2003 -- 06/21/2003- Research Associate and CUE chair sent to national conference.
DESCRIPTION: The Research Associate for Assessment and Chair of CUE were sent to the AAHE assessment conference to gather information on how other universities are assessing their general education programs.
TYPE: Distinction / Strength
   Yes
04/18/2003 -- 04/18/2003- UGA assessment symposium
DESCRIPTION: Information on how NCSU is assessing their general education program was presented at the UGA assessment symposium.
TYPE: Distinction / Strength
   Yes

 

Outcome: Rituals, Practices, and Symbols - The general education assessment process will make itself evident in the culture of the University through the establishment and maintenance of quality systematic rituals, practices, and symbols [Show Outcome Detail]
Observations / Interpretation of Data
Observation / Interpretation of Data Decision(s) Made Follow-Up Resolved
10/17/2003 -- Timtable for review of existing courses GER Courses presented to CUE
DESCRIPTION: A timetable to review existing courses was distributed to the committee for comments. It provides for a seven-year schedule for existing GER courses to come before CUE for review in accordance with the new GER model. It also calls for each group of courses coming forward for review in any year to submit as assessment report the following year to see if their evaluation yields evidence that they are meeting their GER outcomes. CUE will randomly select 25-50 assessment reports each year to review and provide feedback. A motion was made that CUE endorse the timetable. Discussion included:

A general concern regarding CUE being able to effectively review over a hundred courses each year plus the 25-50 assessment reports from the prior year coming in on top of them. The only alternative to lessening the load would be extending the already long seven-year schedule.
Questions about the random selection of assessment reports that CUE would review. Should the selection be based on the most enrolled courses so that we are reviewing the courses that have the most impact? It was pointed out that if the selection were not random, those not selected would be less likely to take the work seriously. A concern was also noted that if not all assessment reports received feedback from CUE, those not receiving feedback might be less interested in earnestly continuing the work?i.e. if a report is submitted and nothing is done with it, it may be perceived as meaningless busywork. If CUE is to consider reviewing all rather than selected assessment reports, one suggestion was to break into review teams to take on the volume of work similar to how CUPR reviews reports that they receive. A suggestion was also made for CUE to eventually develop a performance matrix for each category that instructors could use to calibrate their results in a uniform manner.
TYPE: Distinction / Strength
10/17/2003 -- Members expressed a desire to take more time to review and discuss the timetable with their disciplines before voting. A motion to table was approved in a vote of 12 in favor, 1 opposed and 5 abstaining.  
 
11/07/2003 --

In light of the memo from the associate deans that was presented at last meeting, a motion to table discussion of the GER implementation timetable was unanimously approved.		  
 
12/19/2003 -- A revised version of the timetable was reviewed and endorsed in a vote of 11 in favor and 1 opposed, with no abstentions. The timetable goes to 2008 and all involved until that year will be considered pilot cases that will inform a more formal implementation plan after 2008. The committee requested that faculty involved in the pilot groups thus far be invited to come to CUE and discuss their experiences in order to inform CUE of the areas of success and any obstacles to success that can be addressed. There was also a suggestion to conduct a survey on time spent assessing GER courses so that a future cost/benefit analysis might inform the promotion and tenure process as to the value of engaging in assessment efforts.  
No
09/19/2003 -- Use of evaluation rubric (orginal criteria only) to review courses
DESCRIPTION: on 9/19/03 - The new evaluation rubric was presented again. For the courses evaluated on 9/19/03 as well as those that we will see dated October 15th, 2003 or earlier, we can used items 6-8 (orginal criteria)on the rubric which apply to our prior criteria. The full rubric can be used for those course proposals that we see dated later than October 15th, 2003.
TYPE: Distinction / Strength

Related Data:
   View File - GER Assessment Rubric
12/19/2003 -- CUE unanimously accepted the rubric as the committee?s tool for course evaluation.  
Yes
09/05/2003 -- Rubric for Course Action form documentation was presented to CUE.
DESCRIPTION: On 09/05/08 - Mike Carter presented a slide show to recap where CUE and the campus are in regards to the new procedures for assessment of the General Education Requirements. New GER objective sets, corresponding instructions for GER course proposals, and corresponding amendments to the syllabus regulation have been approved and are ready to post and announce to the campus by the end of the month; this announcement will contain an October 15 cutoff date for proposals using existing procedures. Pilots are underway this semester to test the new procedures in at least one course in every GER category. A phased timetable for the review of all existing GER courses has been created and training will be available to help faculty adjust their GER courses to the new procedures.


TYPE: Distinction / Strength

Related Data:
   View File - GER Assessment Rubric
   No
08/14/2003 -- Adoption of Criterion Rubric
DESCRIPTION: The adoption of the criterion rubic to be used by the college curriculum committees, departemental currciulum committees, and the CUE has changed the process of GER proposals and GER assessment.
TYPE: Distinction / Strength
08/14/2003 -- A meeting with the Academic Associate Deans and College Curriculum Committee Chairs was held to inform them of this new process and rubric as well as to invite their feedback on this revised process.  
Yes
08/14/2003 -- Adoption of changes in CAF Documentation and Syllabus
DESCRIPTION: Changes in the Course Action Form, the Course Action Form documentation and syllabus requirements that reflect and support the revised GER assessment procedure was adopted by the University Academic Operations Council.
TYPE: Distinction / Strength
08/14/2003 -- A meeting was held with the College Curriculum Committee Chairs and Academic Associate Deans to inform them of the new changes and to invite their feedback on the revised process.  
Yes

 

Outcome: Shared Purpose - Those who engage in continuous systematic assessment of general education will be able to articulate a shared purpose of GER assessment. [Show Outcome Detail]
Observations / Interpretation of Data
Observation / Interpretation of Data Decision(s) Made Follow-Up Resolved
03/05/2004 -- SACS Off Review Comments
DESCRIPTION: Karen Helm presented to CUE the off-site reviewer comments from SACS. The team has recommended to the on-site team to review two standards related to General Education Requirement. The specific comments can be found in related data
TYPE: Problem / Limitation

Related Data:
   View URL - Off-Site Review Team Comments On GER
03/05/2004 -- CUE members are reviewing the off-site team review's comments  
No
01/13/2004 -- Communication to Faculty
DESCRIPTION: A memo went out to all faculty leadership updateing them on where we are inthe GER assessment process and encouraging them to ask for heklp should they need it.
TYPE: Distinction / Strength

Related Data:
   View File - Letter to Faculty
   Yes
08/14/2003 -- Common Outcomes
DESCRIPTION: Through qualitative analyses of assessment plans submitted to CUPR from academic programs, common learning outcomes were identified. These outcomes are also shared by the General Eductation Program. See attached report.
TYPE: Distinction / Strength
08/14/2003 -- The CUE will be reviewing this report and discussing share undergraduate learning values in 2004-2005.  
 
08/14/2003 -- It is also recommended that this study be conducted again when the next round of assessment plans have been gathered from academic programs.  
Yes

 

Outcome: Sustainability - The general education assessment process will become embedded into the culture and day-to-day practice of the university. [Show Outcome Detail]
Observations / Interpretation of Data
Observation / Interpretation of Data Decision(s) Made Follow-Up Resolved
11/24/2003 -- Pilot Faculty Testimonials
DESCRIPTION: Pilot faculty Testimonials:
Note: These comments were gathered informally during the 3rd assessment workshops that took place on November 19th and 20th, 2003 for the pilot faculty on how to make use of your assessment data.

· "Engaging in this process is being very helpful to my grading and teaching."
· "My students are liking the activities and assignments."
· "When lecturing, I am trying to be more socially scientific to meet the objectives and outcomes such as to think more analytically."
· "I learned that one outcome was not realistic."
· "I learned that I have criteria that I didn?t know I had so I have made that criteria clearer."
· "It is resulting in a better clearer understanding of concepts. My subjective feedback from students has been good."
· "This process has helped me this semester. I am doing a better job of bringing the important concepts to the top because I have written down what this course should be accomplishing. It helps me help them."
· "As a result of putting the outcomes on the syllabus, when it came time to their final paper, I was able to send students to those outcomes. They helped clarify the purpose of the paper."
· "I have found that sharing with students why we are doing this and where it fits into their general education program, is helping them understand the importance of the course."
· "This process appeals to me because it helps me maintain the quality of my course."
· "It helped in supervising the TAs who are teaching the sections such as having them document changes that need to be made to the course each day they teach."
TYPE: Distinction / Strength
11/24/2003 -- It was decided to share these testimonials with the CUE at the next CUE meeting and to place them on the web.  
 
12/07/2003 -- These were shared with CUE and the CUE would like to see more feedback gathered on how well this is working.  
No
09/17/2003 -- Involvement of College Currciluum Committees
DESCRIPTION: CUPR aksed the Associate Deans and College Curriculum Committees to take a bigger part in training their faculty about assessment.

A group of us met with each College Curriculum Committee or Task force to help train them and to bring the training into the departments.
TYPE: Distinction / Strength

Related Data:
   View File - Memo to College Associate Deans
12/31/2003 -- The concern expressd bye ach CCC has been carried back to infrom the phased implementation timetable. See http://www.ncsu.edu/undergrad_affairs/assessment/files/ger/phased_implement_proposal.pdf  
No

 

Outcome: Those assessing the GER courses will articulate outcomes. - Each academic program responsible for its own GER offerings will articulate outcomes for those courses and assess them, using the CUE defined GER objectives. [Show Outcome Detail]
Observations / Interpretation of Data
Observation / Interpretation of Data Decision(s) Made Follow-Up Resolved
03/05/2004 -- Pilot Faculty Briefing
DESCRIPTION: Pilot faculty briefing:
Sarah Ash of Animal Science and Steve Greene of Political Science, both involved in the first pilot group, were present today to answer questions from the members as to their experience with remodeling their courses for GER assessment. The task of the first pilot group was to revise course outcomes to align with GER objectives, revise course action forms accordingly, and apply their assessment data for course improvement. As to questions about time commitment, both Ash and Greene reported that it was not as much of a time drain as anticipated. When asked to quantify the time commitment, Greene guessed that he spent about 10 hours, most of which was in attending the workshops themselves. Ash commented that a significant effort was spent devising a meaningful assignment that could be administered across semesters and to different types of offerings of the course in order to collect meaningful assessment data that could be applied over time. Steve Greene similarly commented that he did not need to change much in terms of the actual material taught in the course but the made changes in assignments in order to adequately assess the outcomes. CUE member Rich Slatta, another a member of the first pilot group, reported that the exercise yielded more clarity, direction and structure to the course that was readily grasped by students. Ash also stated that, coming from a discipline not involved in outside accreditation, she found the exercise very powerful in terms of crystallizing the truly important aspects of the course. CUE member David Greene, also a member of the first pilot group, reported that having the outcomes clearly stated on the syllabus gave his students more accurate expectations of the course and allowed them to better focus their study habit for tests, etc. When asked where the participants thought leadership should originate to make the process more accepted by faculty, Steve Greene responded that he felt it would be better embraced if department heads included it as a topic for departmental meetings.

TYPE: Distinction / Strength
   Yes
02/24/2004 -- Decision not to conduct survey in Spring of 2004.
DESCRIPTION: Bresciani also stated that she met recently with a SACS representative who emphasized the importance that NC State as an institution is satisfied that our GER assessment is rigorous, systematic and ongoing. Bresciani feels that the answer lies with the faculty now assessing GER courses and queried the committee as to whether the faculty should be surveyed with this question so that the responses can inform our SACS review.
TYPE: Distinction / Strength
02/24/2004 -- Being that only the pilot group has actually engaged in the model we are reporting on and most faculty queried would respond on the basis of prior assessment methods (university senior survey), CUE would likely end up collecting responses on an assessment model we are moving away from and therefore did not feel that this would be a fruitful survey at this point in time.  
Yes
01/30/2004 -- Successful Completion of Pilot Group
DESCRIPTION: The pilot group was completed very successfully. Several changes were made to imporve training. Details can be found in related data.
TYPE: Distinction / Strength

Related Data:
   View URL - detailed reports and data on the pilot group can be found at this website
   View File - Pilot Study survey results
01/30/2004 -- See realted data for decisions made on this observation.  
Yes
01/16/2004 -- CUE used new criteria and rubric in evaluating a new course
DESCRIPTION: Review of course for GER listing using newly-revised rubric:
CS 210 Lawns & Recreational Turfgrass was unanimously approved for the Natural Sciences Other List.
TYPE: Distinction / Strength
   Yes
12/15/2003 -- 12/15/2003- Phase I participants submitted their CAF and documentation.
DESCRIPTION: The participants of Phase I submitted their CAF documenation on 12/15/2003. This included their learning outcomes, means of evaluating those outcomes, and syllabi.
TYPE: Distinction / Strength

Related Data:
   View URL - Data is at this website
12/31/2003 -- The Director of Assessment and a CUE faculty member will be reveiwing tehse documents and will be providing feedback to the faculty in early January 2004.  
 
12/31/2003 -- The third assessment workshop for the Phase I faculty has been scheduled for the spring 2004.  
No
12/15/2003 -- 12/15/2003- Phase 2 participants in process of being identified.
DESCRIPTION: Efforts are underway to identify the phase 2 participants from the CHASS history department. Specificallya CUE member and a faculty member from the pilot group are devoting effort to this endeavor.
TYPE: Distinction / Strength

Related Data:
   View URL - Data for the this is on this site
12/31/2003 -- Workshops 1 and 2 have been scheduled for the Phase 2 faculty and will be conducted by 2 faculty members.  
No
09/19/2003 -- Pilot Course Action forms, documetnation and syllabus
DESCRIPTION: A review of the pilot materials using the drafted rubric of criteria for the documentaiton revealed that the pilot material met all the criteria stated in the rubric.
TYPE: Distinction / Strength

Related Data:
   View File - ANS 301 Documentation
   View File - ANS 301 CAF
   View File - COM 110 Documentation
   View File - COM 110 CAF
   View File - ENG 101 Documentation
   View File - ENG 101 CAF
   View File - HI 216 Documentation
   View File - HI 215 CAF
   View File - Hon 201 Documentation
   View File - Hon 201 CAF
   View File - MUS 180 Documentation
   View File - MUS 180 CAF
   View File - PE 256 Documentation
   View File - PE 256 CAF
   View File - PS 201 Documentation
   View File - PS 201 CAF
   View File - ZO 150 Documentation
   View File - ZO 150 CAF
   View File - ENT 203 Documentation - Syllabus
   View File - ENT 203 CAF
   View File - ENT 203 Documentation
   View File - Blank CAF
09/19/2003 -- It was decided to put forth the draft form of the rubric to the CUE for approval and to distribute the rubric to the campus through meeting with Academic Associate Deans and College Curriculum Committees.  
Yes
09/17/2003 -- Campus Roll out of NEW GER Procedures
DESCRIPTION: The official memo announcing the new GER assessment procedures was sent to all department heads and academic associate deans.
TYPE: Distinction / Strength

Related Data:
   View File - Official memo announcing new procedures
09/19/2003 -- Discussion has taken place among administrators as to what other avenues must be explored to communicate the new procedures to the appropriate people. One possiblity is scheduling ameeting with all of the undergraduate coordinators and the individual departments in the colleges.  
Yes
08/14/2003 -- Discussion of the Assessment Implementation Plan
DESCRIPTION: How will the new procedures be announced to the campus community?
What will CUE do with the assessment reports that are submitted? What type of feedback, if any, is anticipated?
Would it be advisable to hold implementation until after the pilot project had been completed and the reported submitted to CUE?
How will existing courses on the GER be treated?
What will be the ramifications on faculty teaching or proposing courses for GER? Would assessment procedures discourage faculty from participating in GER offerings?
TYPE: Distinction / Strength
05/02/2003 -- A global campus announcement will be made from the Provost's office. Accompanying the announcement will be the web posting of the new objective sets and procedures for course activities. Links will be made at appropriate places on web for instructions, examples and resources for help and information.  
 
05/02/2003 -- A timetable has not been determined for this yet, but will have to be carefully crafted so as not to disrupt the existing course lists too drastically at any one time.  
 
05/02/2003 -- Further discussion of these questions will take place in the Fall of 2003.  
No
08/14/2003 -- Visitiation to the College Curriculum Committees
DESCRIPTION: Faculty member and Administrator has presented and will continue to the College Curriculum committees the revised GER assessment process and plan and invited their feedback.
TYPE: Distinction / Strength
08/14/2003 -- Continue to visit the college curriculum committees on an on-going basis.  
 
10/01/2003 -- A recommendation was made to the visitation committee from the CHASS CCC to offer to the department heads in CHASS this same presentation. A memo was sent to the department heads on 9/28/03 describing this opportunity.  
No
08/14/2003 -- Pilot Training materials changes
DESCRIPTION: A review of the submitted Pilot materials, led to the observations that directions were not clear on how to complete the Course Action Form and what was needed in the Course Action Form documentation.
TYPE: Problem / Limitation
08/14/2003 -- Make direcections more explicit and clear for facuty as well as provide examples on the website. These actions have been completed as of 8/12/03.  
Yes
08/14/2003 -- Senior Surveys and Baccalauerate Alumni Survey
DESCRIPTION: In 07/03 analyses of the 2001 and 2002 Graduating Senior survey and 2003 Baccalauerate ALumni Survey findings in relation to Genearl Education questions were conducted. The results were not found to be meaningful in terms of decision making for improvement of indivdiual GER assessment courses.
TYPE: Problem / Limitation
08/14/2003 -- Do not solely use the Senior Survey or Baccalaureate survey as an assessment method for GER assessment as it has limits on knowing exactly what to improve in the GER courses..  
Yes
05/02/2003 -- Pilot Assessment Implementation Update
DESCRIPTION: Fifteen instructors teaching GER courses this coming fall had agreed to participate in a pilot to test the new GER assessment model. Courses representing all GER categories have been selected, as well as courses representing variables such as differing class size and courses that must address course objectives for the major as well as objectives for GER. Two workshops have been conducted to train the instructors in the use of new GER assessment model, including topics as the working with the new course action form, revised syllabi and identifying means for course assessment. A third will be offered during the Fall semester while the pilot is in progress to determine how the course if going and whether or not faculty are able to apply the outcomes and assessment instruments in their classes. A pilot report will be completed at conclusion of the semester to inform UCE about continuing process.

TYPE: Distinction / Strength
05/02/2003 -- Plans were made to review the pilot materials submitted and provide feedback to pilot participants.

08/14/2003 -- Several faculty have received feedback as of 07/31/03. In process of providing feedback to remaining faculty participants.

 
08/14/2003 -- On-line tutorials were developed from these two workshops offered to assist faculty when revised process is officially rolled out.

08/14/2003 -- On-line tutorials have been developed and posted as of 08/06/03.

 
08/14/2003 -- Discussion on the identification of the faculty to participation in the Phase I implementation of the assessment plan began. The Academic Associate Dean of PAMS expressed her interest in having her college faculty participate.

08/14/2003 -- A letter was drafted and sent to PAMS department heads soliciting their help in identifying faculty to participate in Phase I of the implenentation plan as of 08/01/03.

 Yes
04/04/2003 -- Members of the NC State Sustainability Coalition
DESCRIPTION: Members of the NC State Sustainability Coalition Task Force on Education/Academic Affairs (NCSSC) presented a recommendation that CUE consider a curricular response to NC State's 1999 Commitment to Environmental Sustainability" by requiring students to select an environmentally focused course as part of their GER. They had also developed an objective statement that could be potentially used to qualify courses for GER inclusion in the area.
TYPE: Distinction / Strength
04/04/2003 -- CUE requested that the list be re-drawn based on those courses that would actually fit the objective. If such a course list were eventually to be considered for use in the GER, CUE would need to examine the courses for considerations such as course level, pre-requisites and restrictions. CUE also would like to see a breakdown of the courses taken by the 65% of students quoted to determine if the course was required in the major and what percentage of the courses represented were at upper levels. Chair Luginbuhl requested that the task force bring back the additional information by semester end so that CUE can begin deliberations next term. Anderson also requested that in any future consideration of an environmentally focused requirement, CUE carefully consider the May 1999 Board of Trustees document on Commitment to Environmental Sustainability and the April 2000 Recommendations of the North Carolina State University Environmental Sustainability Task Force.  
Yes
04/04/2003 -- A GER objectives draft for the Science, Technology
DESCRIPTION: A GER objectives draft for the Science, Technology and Society was distributed.
TYPE: Distinction / Strength
04/04/2003 -- Comments included the fact that the list of objectives may be too lengthy if CUE is going to maintain that each course on the list adhere to all objective statements. Suggestions included: 1) a possible overlap in objective 1 and 3 that could be combined and 2) consideration of treating this category differently than the others by allowing courses to adhere to some rather than all of the objective statements. The committee would like to see a re-draft of the objectives before consideration of treating this category differently by allowing courses to adhere to only some of the objectives.  
 
05/02/2003 -- The draft of objectives were approved.  
Yes
03/21/2003 -- Changes were proposed for Natural Sciences
DESCRIPTION: Changes were proposed for Natural Sciences endorsed by CUE 4/5/02.
TYPE: Distinction / Strength
04/05/2002 -- The committee voted to eliminate number 3 (recognize the role of science in the interactions of science, technology and society). After discussion a motion was entertained to make a change in #2 to read: articulate, make inferences from, and apply to problem solving, scientific concepts, principles, laws, and theories. It was voted on and all agreed.  
Yes
03/07/2003 -- The committee was requested to provide feedback on
DESCRIPTION: The committee was requested to provide feedback on representation of CUE's work in SACS report on GER that had been distributed before the meeting.
TYPE: Distinction / Strength
03/07/2003 -- On 3/7/03, the committee recommended an executive summary at the beginning of the report with a bullet listing of major points to serve as an index to the lengthier document. CUE unanimously approved endorsement of the document adding that the recommendations mentioned above are non-conditional to the endorsement but merely friendly suggestions to the author.  
Yes
02/07/2003 -- A draft was distributed of the change CUE
DESCRIPTION: A draft was distributed of the change CUE will propose to the course action form to include a specific check offs for GER objectives, course outcomes related to the objectives and assessment of the course.
TYPE: Distinction / Strength
02/07/2003 -- Cue voted unanimously to endorse the changes to the course action form and instructions and to the syllabus regulation so that they can be forwarded to the appropriate parties for approval.  
Yes
02/07/2003 -- Since timely arrangements need to be made with
DESCRIPTION: An GER assessment implementation proposal was presented to CUE.

A question arose as to what CUE will do with the assessment information that comes forward on course proposals. Will CUE critique assessment activities and provide feedback?


Since timely arrangements need to be made with instructors for the pilots, CUE voted unanimously to endorse the concept of launching the pilot project with the idea that CUE will have an later opportunities to provide feedback to the pilot process (as several members had to leave by this time and the full committee has not yet had a chance to review the information).
TYPE: Distinction / Strength
02/07/2003 -- The pilot project was launched.  
 
02/07/2003 -- CUE will have to decide this issue eventually, but initial ideas seem to favor not responding as to how programs will assess their course but to having the measure in place to provide evidence that they are engaged in assessing their courses.  
 
05/02/2003 -- The phased Implementation plan was endorsed by CUE.  
Yes
01/17/2003 -- The subcommitte looking into creating objectives
DESCRIPTION: The subcommitte looking into creating objectives for the Physical Education category presented a draft.
TYPE: Distinction / Strength
01/17/2003 -- On 1/17/03, The committee unanimously approved the draft.  
Yes
12/20/2002 -- CUE/UCCC/CUPR met in a special workshop
DESCRIPTION: CUE/UCCC/CUPR met in a special workshop to learn more about course based assessment and how it ties into program review. They further discussed GER assessment strategies and challenges.
TYPE: Distinction / Strength

Related Data:
   View File - Notes from the workshop
08/13/2003 -- 08/13/02 - Several suggestions to the GER assessment process came out of this meeting. A detailed summary of these suggestions can be found at K/Assessment/General Education Retreat notes  
Yes
12/06/2002 -- CUE discussed the Proposal to Remove Physical Education
DESCRIPTION: CUE discussed the Proposal to Remove Physical Education from the NC State General Education Requirements.
TYPE: Distinction / Strength

Related Data:
   View URL - CUE Minutes
12/06/2002 -- On 12/6/02, a recommendation was made to form a subcommittee to consider the comments presented today and make a recommendation which may include a draft of proposed objective statements for the PE category.  
 
01/17/2003 -- On 1/17/03, the committee moved continuation of the current Physical Education requirement of two credit hours. The motion was approved in a 12-2 vote. CUE also request a direct response from the Provost's Office as to the acceptance of the recommendation stated in the motion above since the proposal originally came to CUE from the Provost's Office.  
Yes
11/02/2002 -- Social Sciences
DESCRIPTION: Social Sciences
Discussion continued on the draft presented October 4, 2002, when the committee postponed endorsing the objectives to address the issue of including a diversity requirement in the GER. Since CUE would have the time-consuming task of defining the requirement and its logistical placement in the GER, a motion was forwarded to accept the current draft of objectives with the addition of the word "and" between objectives.
TYPE: Distinction / Strength

Related Data:
   View URL - http://www.ncsu.edu/provost/governance/standing_committees/CUEd/minutes/110102mi.html
11/02/2002 -- The committee voted unanimous approval of the motion on 11/02/02.

11/02/2002 -- The understanding that the important issue of including diversity in the GER be discussed at a later date (when CUE will also be discussing other potential overarching requirements such as critical thinking).

 Yes
11/02/2002 -- Writing and Speaking
DESCRIPTION: A draft of the objectives was presented.
TYPE: Distinction / Strength
11/02/2002 -- The objectives were unanimously approved with the insertion of "and" between objective statements.  
Yes
11/01/2002 -- Writing and Speaking presented
DESCRIPTION: Writing and Speaking presented a draft of objectives.
TYPE: Distinction / Strength
11/02/2002 -- On 11/02/02 - CUE unanimously approved the draft of objectives.  
Yes
11/01/2002 -- Visual and Performing Arts
DESCRIPTION: Visual and Performing Arts distributed draft objectives for this category. An initial discussion centered around the possible need to change the name of the Humanities and Social Sciences category to Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences to more accurately reflect the requirement components therein.
TYPE: Distinction / Strength
11/01/2002 -- on 11/01/02, a motion to accept this name change was approved with a vote of 11 in favor and 1 abstention. Due to the time of adjournment, the discussion of the draft objective statements will take place next time.

On 11/15/02, Since attempting to define fine art could prove to be an inexhaustible exercise, one suggestion was to look back at the drafted objectives and try to get some type of committee consensus as to if they are reasonable and if not, determining why not may be more enlightening in terms of suggesting revisions.		  
 
11/15/2002 -- 11-15-02 -Visual and Performing Arts distributed some notes on use of the terminology works of art and design to help the committee frame its discussion. Among other things, the notes spoke of the distinction that works of art usually have the intent of expressiveness as opposed to works that are primarily created to be functional but bear incidental aesthetic properties. Lengthy discussion again centered around definitions of fine and applied arts and how CUE should characterize aesthetic appreciation to determine if it is being imparted in the course proposals that would come before the committee.  
 
05/02/2003 -- The draft of objectives were approved.  
No
10/18/2002 -- The subcomittee on Communication and Information Technology
DESCRIPTION: The subcomittee on Communication and Information Technology moved that the Library/Information Literacy component of the category be removed and placed in the Writing and Speaking category as an integral curriculum requirement (no course list) and that the category cover the Computer Literacy aspect only.
TYPE: Distinction / Strength
12/06/2002 -- On 12/06/02, CUE voted and approved their objectives.

on 10/18/02 CUE voted unanimously on this motion.

The subcommittee would like to defer discussion of a revision in title (to reflect something closer to technology literacy) and drafting of objectives until they have had the benefit of consulting with the Learning in a Technology Rich Environment group on campus as this group may help inform any further definition of this category.

 No
10/04/2002 -- Humanities and Social Sciences
DESCRIPTION: Humanities and Social Sciences distributed a handout of draft objectives. The draft included also a sample of how a course (SOC 202) could present the course outcomes and assessment evidence that would map to this set of GER objectives. In future requests for GER inclusion, this could be a model to demonstrate a course'''s alignment to a GER category.

The objectives consisted of three statements. Carter mentioned that a fourth statement regarding understanding and appreciating diversity had been omitted by the subcommittee after determining that it would be difficult to measure. Conversation ensued regarding the importance of including the concept of diversity into the GER even if it were not measurable. Other comments included:

A suggestion that diversity be incorporated more broadly rather than being anchored to a particular discipline area (Social Sciences in this case)
Perhaps diversity should be an objective included in all categories to allow various disciplines to grapple with diversity in their particular course offerings.
Perhaps diversity should be incorporated into the GER missions statement to signal its importance, then have it delivered programmatically in the same manner as Writing & Speaking or Communication and Information Technology.
TYPE: Problem / Limitation

Related Data:
   View URL - http://www.ncsu.edu/provost/governance/standing_committees/CUEd/minutes/110102mi.html
10/04/2002 -- It was ultimately decided that a working definition of diversity is needed before we can decide if and how it may become part of the GER structure.
Diversity is an overarching goal the CUE values.

Vice Provost Anderson''s ad hoc diversity climate committee may help inform us in this effort. It was suggested a subcommittee to be developed to explore this.

 
11/01/2002 -- On 11/01/02, a motion was accepted to accept the General, History, Literature, Philosophy and Religion objective sets with "and" inserted between objective statements and the correction from "religious course" to "religion course".  
No
09/20/2002 -- CUE discussed the document, "A Proposal for Assesssment"
DESCRIPTION: CUE discussed the document, "A Proposal for Assessing General Education at NC State," which was drafted by a CUE subcommittee that met over the summer.

Overview of the proposal:
Five criteria for effective assessment governed the resulting proposal. They are an effective plan for assessing a program in general education must: 1. be meaningful, 2. be located in the institutional unit(s) providing the most effective and appropriate administration of assessment, 3. be based on student outcomes, 4. unify both the individual GER categories and the full general education program, and 5. provide a sound foundation for determining which courses belong in a particular category of the GERs and which do not.

In general, the proposal recommends that the CUE adopt a plan that implements assessment of general education on two levels: (1) the university level: the CUE would generate objectives and apply those objectives as criteria to courses seeking to be included in particular categories of the GERs; and (2) the academic program level: each program with courses in the GERs would assess those courses according to whether or not students were attaining learning outcomes that meet the objectives. This approach to assessment will provide a viable means by which the CUE can lead NC State in the process of continually improving its students general education.

Important practical consideration were noted:

1. The proposal builds a bridge between CUE as the stewards of the GER the faculty as the deliverers of the GER.

2. The proposal mirrors other ongoing assessment activities on campus in that it is outcomes based.

3. CUE must take extreme care in implementation to be considerate of the ramifications to courses and units offering them while still remaining true to the GER objectives defined.
TYPE: Distinction / Strength

Related Data:
   View URL - http://www.ncsu.edu/provost/governance/standing_committees/CUEd/fyi/GERAssmtproposal092002.htm
   View URL - http://www.ncsu.edu/provost/governance/standing_committees/CUEd/minutes/092002mi.html
On 9/20/03, the committee voted unanimously to endorse the philosophy of the proposal as stated in pages 1-5 and will consider the implementation scenarios found on pages 6-11 at a future meeting.  
No
09/06/2002 -- Humanities and Social Sciences
DESCRIPTION: Humanities and Social Sciences reported that the subcommittee had drafted a set of objectives and disseminated it to faculty in the related disciplines for feedback.
TYPE: Problem / Limitation

Related Data:
   View URL - http://www.ncsu.edu/provost/governance/standing_committees/CUEd/minutes/110102mi.html
08/13/2003 -- On 11/01/02, a motion was made to accept the General, History, Literature, Philosophy and Religion objective sets with "and" inserted between objective statements and the correction from "religious course" to "religion course".

08/13/2003 -- Passed

 Yes
09/06/2002 -- Communication and Information Technology
DESCRIPTION: Communication and Information Technology subcomitee reported they had discussed problems with the category concept and name perhaps stemming from the fact that the category is somewhat dated. Communication is probably not appropriate as part of the title in any event. The existing aged rationale divides it''s emphasis into two components: computer literacy and information literacy. In the current climate, students come to us fairly proficient in the use of a computer but the skills that still need to be developed relate more to the information literacy aspect, the ability to find, evaluate and use information.

Conversation turned to the aspect that if this is a valid category, then we should be able to develop objectives for it. If we can define some specific skills relative to the category then objectives could be formulated and programs can look to identify where these skills are being delivered in their curriculum. Another argument ran that perhaps the knowledge dealt with in this category is too global and programmatically integral that assessing the delivery of these skills could be close to impossible.
TYPE: Problem / Limitation

Related Data:
   View URL - http://www.ncsu.edu/provost/governance/standing_committees/CUEd/minutes/090602mi.html
09/06/2002 -- A motion to remove the Communication and Information Technology category from the GER was seconded for discussion, but the final vote deferred until the subcommittee could evaluate and report back on the possible ramifications of this action.

08/13/2003 -- For more information on the decisions made for this observation please refer to observation made on 10/18/02.

 
10/18/2002 -- On 10/18/02, the subcommittee recapped the status of the discussion of 9/6/02 that culminated in a motion to remove the category from the GER altogether. At that time, the vote on the motion was deferred so that the subcommittee could evaluate and report back on the possible ramifications of this motion. The subcommittee wishes to resume the conversation and if the motion does not carry, present a proposal for the category. The motion of 9/6/02 to eliminate the category was withdrawn.  
No
09/06/2002 -- Another subcommittee was developed to begin
DESCRIPTION: Another subcommittee was developed to begin a process of rethinking the university's approach to assessing general education.
TYPE: Distinction / Strength

Related Data:
   View URL - http://www.ncsu.edu/provost/governance/standing_committees/CUEd/minutes/092002mi.html
08/13/2003 -- See follow-up notes.

08/13/2003 -- As of 12/20/02, this commitee has not met.

08/13/2003 -- As of 6/03, this committee has not met.

 No
08/23/2002 -- CUE revisted their assessment proposal
DESCRIPTION: CUE revisted their assessment proposal that was drafted last year. Document consists of two parts: the proposal itself and implementation scenarios. Initial discussion was on the proposal itself. Questions were raised about the aspect of courses having to meet all objectives to qualify for a list. Discussion last year had culminated in the opinion that objectives should be concise and not numerous, but that courses should meet all of them in order to provide the intended experience to the student. If an objective could be partially meet, it probably wasn'''t strong enough to be an objective.
TYPE: Problem / Limitation
On 9/20/02, the committee voted unanimously to endorse the philosophy of the proposal as stated in pages 1-5 and will consider the implementation scenarios found on pages 6-11 at a future meeting.

Further discussion was postponed.

 No
05/10/2002 -- CUE discussed the Proposal for Re-Ordering the GER
DESCRIPTION: CUE discussed the Proposal for Re-Ordering the GER in the Humanities.
Discussion included:

· Why is creative writing included as a discipline that would satisfy the new Literature requirement? The answer provided was that reading and interpretation of literary texts is an integral component to the teaching of creative writing courses on this campus.

· Why does history appear as an option in two different parts of the requirement? The answer provided was that this will still allow students to count two history courses as part of their GER fulfillment as in the past. This will also lessen the impact of the new requirement on programs that currently require two history courses.
TYPE: Distinction / Strength
02/07/2002 -- On 2/7/02, a revised draft of "Proposal for Re-ordering the GER in the Humanities" was presented. CUE voted unanimously to accept the revision removing the Creative Writing list and adding the omitted point #5. Also, a subsequent motion was seconded to merge point #2 and #3 into a single requirement of 6 hours of History, Philosophy, Religion, or Visual or Performing Arts. The motion was tabled pending discussion with CHASS.  
 
05/10/2002 -- CUE endorsed the "Proposal for Re-Ordering the GER in the Humanities" on 05/10/02.  
 
02/21/2003 --
On 2/21/03, A vote was then taken on the motion still on the floor to merge point #2 and #3 into a single requirement of six hours in History, Philosophy, Religion, or Visual or Performing Arts and the motion was defeated with 11 opposing, 3 in favor and 3 abstaining. The Humanities and Social Sciences requirement will remain as it was proposed in May but with the deletion of the Creative Writing list as decided on 2/7/03. Thus, the new requirement would read:

1. 3 hours in Literature (English or Foreign Languages)

2. 3 hours in History, Philoophy, or Religion

3. 3 hours in the Visual and Performing Arts or History

4. 6 hours in Social Science

5. 6 hours in any of the humanities and/or social sciences		  
Yes
04/19/2002 -- CUE reviewed the proposal for the Writing and Speaking
DESCRIPTION: CUE reviewed the proposal for the Writing and Speaking Requirement which re-distributes the 9-hour W&S requirement more evenly across the college years.

Discussion included:

Concerns over the logistics of having students automatically placed into ENG 101 in either the fall or spring semester and resulting impact on course re-ordering in tight curricula. How will bottlenecks affect progress toward degree?
Concerns over the resource impact of releasing the two hours into other courses. Even if they are generally converted to free electives, who is this most likely to impact?
Concerns over transfer students and articulation agreements.
Concerns over the target implementation of Fall 03 with the resulting work that will have to be done to re-align curricula. Many programs are still unaware of the proposed change and it hasnt been presented to the Faculty Senate.
TYPE: Distinction / Strength
NOTES: The implementation of this proposal is contingent upon the approval of ENG 101 by the UCCC and the Provost.
Related Data:
   View URL - http://www.ncsu.edu/provost/governance/standing_committees/2001_2002/CUEd/minutes/041902mi.html
10/18/2002 -- On 10/18/02 CUE endorsed the Proposal to Restructure NCSUs General Education Requirements in Writing and Speaking.  
Yes
04/05/2002 -- CUE reviewed a draft of the mathematics objectives
DESCRIPTION: CUE reviewed a draft of the mathematics objectives and proposed recommendations as stated in the referenced document.
TYPE: Distinction / Strength
10/04/2002 -- Recommendations were incorporated and a draft was resubmitted for discussion on 10/04/02.  
 
10/18/2002 -- On 10/18/02 the committee voted unanimously to endorse this version of the draft objectives that were submitted on 10/04/02.  
 
03/21/2003 -- On 3/21/03, the committee voted to eliminate number 3 (recognize the role of science in the interactions of science, technology and society). After discussion a motion was entertained to make a change in #2 to read: articulate, make inferences from, and apply to problem solving, scientific concepts, principles, laws, and theories. It was voted on and all agreed.  
Yes
12/07/2001 -- A draft of a suggested re-write of the GER mission
DESCRIPTION: A draft of a suggested re-write of the GER mission statement was distributed for discussion. A suggestion was made to rephrase the mission statement in assessment language (individual objective statements) so that they could eventually be measured. An objection was voiced that the assessment language might seem more imposing and less inviting than current language.
TYPE: Distinction / Strength

Related Data:
   View URL - http://www.ncsu.edu/undergrad_affairs/assessment/files/ger/ger_objective_update.pdf
   View URL - http://www.ncsu.edu/provost/governance/standing_committees/2001_2002/CUEd/minutes/011802mi.html
12/07/2001 -- As a result, a motion was passed to re-write the mission statement as an introductory paragraph and follow it with corresponding objective statements. A subcommittee was formed to do this.  
 
01/18/2002 -- On 1/18/02, CUE accepted the revised mission statement. CUE will now examine the National Science category in relation to the new mission statement.  
Yes
11/16/2001 -- The subcommittee examining the Natural Sciences
DESCRIPTION: The subcommittee examining the Natural Sciences rationale reported that they had come to a general consensus that the rationale statement looked sufficient per se, but what was really necessary to evaluate it correctly was to know how it matched up with the objective of the general GER statement.

The subcommittee distributed documents they had developed during their discussion which included:

A description of objectives and outcomes excerpted from CUPR''s common language document.
An illustration of the various levels in which objectives and outcomes can be considered and linked: GER mission, GER areas, college, department, program and course.
A draft of possible objective and outcome statements that could be derived from the GER mission statement.
Scenarios to assess General Education: seven different scenarios for which levels would articulate GER outcomes and which level would assess them.
TYPE: Distinction / Strength
11/16/2001 -- A decision was made to rewrite and discuss the GER mission statement.

12/19/2002 -- See following observations.

 Yes
10/19/2001 -- CUE began examining the rationale for the Natural Sciences
DESCRIPTION: CUE began examining the rationale for the Natural Sciences category. There was much discussion about whether defining outcomes for the category might prove too restrictive; while we could adequately match intended outcomes of a course to the objective statement of a category, would setting forth outcomes for the category exclude courses whose outcomes meet the category's objective, but just didn't happen to match one of the specific outcomes stated by CUE? How could outcome statements be all-inclusive?
TYPE: Distinction / Strength
NOTES: A subcommitte was formed to begin looking at the rationale statement.
Related Data:
   View URL - http://www.ncsu.edu/provost/governance/standing_committees/2001_2002/CUEd/minutes/040502mi.html
10/19/2001 -- CUE decided that they should first go back to the rationale statement itself and work on it before making that decision.

04/05/2002 -- On 04/05/02 CUE voted to accept the revised National Science rational and category statements.

 Yes
10/19/2001 -- Discussion of assessing rationale statements
DESCRIPTION: 10/19/01- Just as program review will be assessment based, so should GER. There is a real need for CUE to restate its rationale statements in measurable, thus assessable terms?so that Cue will be able to determine if the outcomes of particular courses on the GER match the outcomes set forth for the rationale. Knopp suggested that CUE proceed examining the rationale statements one by one and not in subcommittees. We need the input of the entire group for each outcome statement.
TYPE: Distinction / Strength
10/19/2001 -- The commitee concurred that they start reviewing the rationale statements starting first with Mathematics and Natural Sciences.  
 
10/19/2001 -- It was also decieded that CUE should invite guests form the dicsipline being examined if CUE did not have sufficient representation on the committee in that area.  
Yes
02/01/2001 -- In February 2001, procedures were created for removing courses
DESCRIPTION: In February 2001, procedures were created for removing GER courses from the GER list.
TYPE: Distinction / Strength
NOTES: Revisions to this document were made in April 2002.
04/20/2001 -- CUE will follow those procedures. CUE voted to accepted these procedures on 04/20/01.  
Yes
02/01/2001 -- In February 2001, procedures were written for adding courses
DESCRIPTION: In February 2001, procedures were written for adding GER courses to the GER list
TYPE: Distinction / Strength
NOTES: Revisions to this document were made in April 2001.
CUE will ask these questions when reviewing each area rationale. CUE voted to do this as of 04/20/01.  
Yes
02/01/2001 -- In February 2001, CUE developed questions for reviewing rationales
DESCRIPTION: In February 2001, CUE developed questions for reviewing GER Area Rationales. Sub-committees, when reviewing each area rationale, used the attached questions. The purpose of this list of questions is to serve as a process "check-off list" for the committee. It exists to stimulate discussion and recommendations. If the yes or no answer is different from what the committee expected it to be, then the committee can decide whether or not to ask CUE to pursue the reasons and/or concerns behind the yes or no. The sub-committee may offer recommendations for further discussion and/or research. This discussion informs the creation of the objectives for each area.
TYPE: Distinction / Strength
NOTES: Completed, however this may need to be revised if the GER course assessment plan is adopted by CUE.
Related Data:
   View File - Developing Questions for Reviewing GER Area Rationales
   View URL - http://www.ncsu.edu/provost/governance/standing_committees/2000_2001/CUEd/minutes/042001mi.html
04/20/2001 -- CUE will ask these questions when reviewing each area rationale. CUE voted to accept these procedures on 04/20/01.  
Yes
02/01/2001 -- The Science, Technology, and Society sub-committee
DESCRIPTION: The Science, Technology, and Society sub-committee reviewed the STS rationale and proposed the recommendations as stated in the referenced document.
TYPE: Distinction / Strength
02/02/2001 -- CUE has used this rationale when making decisions about course that belong in this heading.
CUE voted to accept the report and agreed to pursue STS having only one list. It is important to note that this review was done when there was no process developed for the review.		  
Yes