2. Updates from GECC Co-Chairs and the Transfer Coordinators Committee
a. Heidi Leuszler – GECC Physical & Life Sciences Panel
i. Panel didn’t receive courses for review in numbers expected
ii. Table for labs worked well – got information needed, but many courses returned – panel drew a hard line.
iii. Discussing creating a new course descriptor
iv. Looking for new members
v. Fall meeting October 28, Spring meeting March 30
vi. Working on on-line position statement
vii. Trying to focus on quality of class =- not delivery of material
viii. On-line classes tabled. Partial on-line, partial classroom courses went through the system.
b. Julie Weishar & Lamata Mitchell – GECC Communication
i. Only returned 2 courses
ii. Web review was great.
iii. Suggested later meeting date than usual for panel to have time to review all courses
iv. Discussion RE on-line course. Took debate to Central State organization. Other states are doing speech on-line. John Miller – Western – created an on-line course. Result – more favorable. Not ideal, but suitable. Met in April, panel thought perhaps moving toward on-line speech with these requirements:
1. Must be on ground courses as well as on-line
2. Student must speak to live audience (minimum number), who are also visible
3. One take – no edits
v. Will go to panel in fall for decision – on-line speech courses
vi. Note from Bob – a couple of institutions are receiving only. Their courses are totally on-line. They are claiming discrimination, so we need to be cognizant of that
c. Ann Birberick & Sean Doyle – GECC Humanities & Fine Arts
i. Panel used AnyMeetings online, phone conference and in-person for their meeting. This worked well.
ii. Panel reviewed 20 courses, resulting in a longer meeting than when reviewing 60 courses.
iii. Panel only approved 5 courses. 14 were returned, 1 needs more information.
iv. 4th semester Foreign Language courses always give panel fits.
v. 5 year Review beginning in Fall
d. Mary Wright – GECC Mathematics
i. Panel sent some courses back – more information needed
ii. One issue for the panel is pre-requisites. If language left in course description, panel returned the course.
iii. Web review worked reasonably well.
e. Lily Siu – GECC Social & Behavioral Sciences
i. Panel received 13 new and 20 5 yr. Review courses
ii. Panel accepted 2/3rds of courses, sent back 1/3
iii. Not enough Panel members were available for a face-to-face meeting. They had a phone conference of 5.
iv. Panel is proceeding with 5 yr. reviews of panel expertises of Sociology, History, and Psychology.
v. Panel will meet in Fall, then plan the rest from there
f. Thedford Jackson, Kris Harding & Lois Bishop – Transfer Coordinators
i. What works well?
1. GECC Course Codes, Descriptions, Approval Process
2. U-Select, iTransfer Website
3. When 4 yrs come to 2 yrs and have on-site meetings, active participation by people on campuses
ii. What doesn’t work so well?
1. Dual credit, dual enrollment, specialized degrees
2. IAI Major recommendations – need more communication – get the information out.
3. ICCB, IBHE, and IAI/iTransfer Updates
a. IBHE – Dr. Bob Blankenberger
i. IAI Clarification
1. Historically, the mode of delivery of course material has been ignored. There have been significant changes since courses were approved. Each panel will struggle with this. We must therefore communicate as much as possible.
2. Courses are Returned not Rejected. Perception is not that we need more information if labeled Rejected.
ii. Major Directive
1. First round is finished. Very successful.
2. There was a bit of disagreement RE English – 3 institutions couldn’t accept
3. Most questions are regarding how material is being presented
4. Tier 2 is next – Agriculture, Engineering, Criminal Justice Sciences, Computer Sciences, Physics
a. Ag – have 4 receiving institutions. Still missing a couple.
b. Engineering – mostly yesses
c. Physics – 914 should be 3 hrs not 2
iii. Legislation – SB 00059
1. Updated today – 2 floor amendments.
2. Last version has a few changes:
a. Impetus for 2 yr to be accepted with Jr. status guarantee
b. No re-taking of courses
c. No Freshman, Sophomore classes to be required
3. This will not occur until Fall 2013
4. Encourages (only) the use of IAI
5. ICCB and IBHE are the responsible parties
6. Bill may need further changes.
7. Bill may also mean more work for panels
8. With passage, if a student is not accepted into major, the university “hands” are clean.
9. Private institutions are not mentioned in the bill, but IAI does distinguish them
10. State Universities may not require classes “similar” to those taken at 2 yr
11. Unintended consequence – Institutions will hamstring themselves – they have to accept courses from 2 yr. This will become the only framework for students to succeed.
12. Will severely curtail those who wish to broaden their horizons
13. At the June Board meeting ICCB will take a position – waiting for Tier 2 results
14. There have been hundreds of Higher Ed bills this session. A very active session. This often happens when there is no money to spend – legislators need action to get re-elected.
15. There is a belief that colleges and universities have failed at solving their own problems, so someone needs to step in and fix
iv. Brief update on other legislation
1. SB 1773
3. SB 1779 – Teacher Certification will be single certification with multiple endorsements
v. Dual Credit Quality Act
1. First year Private – collection of data – a few glitches
2. Next Phase – education on what is required for dual credit
3. Biggest issue – lack of awareness of what should be required
vi. Want to move Adult Credential Holders from 40% to 60%. Sponsors prove this is political. All these legislation affects.
vii. Common Core (2 states have rejected)
1. Want to make sure our (IAI) transitions are appropriate, and we’re doing our part providing appropriate feedback
2. Our entry level courses (11th and 12th grade), particularly Math and English) need to properly align with college courses
3. In GAP analysis, if you believe some standards must be met for success, we need to know. E.g. Oral Communication Skill sets are required, but instructors may not be qualified to teach them.
b. ICCB – Malinda Aiello
i. Offered 8 regional workshops. Very successful – shared understanding.
ii. New standards, groups to come up with plan on how to do this at local level.
iii. More workshops late July – early August in the city of Chicago
iv. June 24 hosting summit in Springfield on how to read data, etc. High School Feedback Report
v. Panel Meetings
1. 4 of Malinda’s majors have yet to meet.
2. Ag is using iManage for voting, also for 5 yr Review courses.
3. In the past, voting was always done informally in sub-panel meetings.
4. Business is working on course descriptions and outcomes
c. IAI/iTransfer – Krista Jackson
i. All of Krista’s panels both GECC and majors have met. Course decisions have been posted. Thanks to the new iManage system, all approved courses have been added to the databases. A few programming oddities have occurred that Abhilasha is investigating regarding course posting in the database.
ii. 5 yr. Review courses for the Fall will be requested by the end of May – preferably sooner rather than later. Reminders will be sent regarding those courses not submitted but requested in Spring in the next 2 weeks with Janice’s help. We did get a decent response despite the short notice in making the requests, about 50% give or take.
iii. Kudos and thanks to Abhilasha in creating a system so versatile and useable.
iv. The iManage systems is fully deployed. We continue to tweak it to add functionality and “remove the hamsters” that mess up some of our programming. Feedback from panel members voting in the system was very positive. Some suggestions were made to improve functionality and the experience by the fall round of voting submissions.
v. The major panels were excited by the responses to the Major Directive and were happy to see it continue to move forward.
vi. Website re-design is being worked on and will be deployed in Fall to late Fall. This is a facelift. The last re-design was 5 yrs ago give or take a bit.
4. Indiana’s Core Transfer Library Program (team visit)
a. Started 5 or 6 years ago – legislative mandate
b. Consists of 1 Committee a bit smaller than this group
c. There is no GECC in Indiana, no common course code like IAI has.
d. Met mandate for 89 general courses. Some 200, 300, 400 level courses.
e. Some Institutions have intro courses at 300 level due to the number available.
f. Have had a couple of phone conference calls. Had a form, submitted to campus. Institution would say this course is equal to this course at that institution.
g. We have learned that when faculty interact, perceived barriers disappear.
h. 5 yr currency is interesting – we will try to use that.
i. Very interested in website, very interested in flow – start to finish.
j. Dept. of Ed. in Indiana has mandated dual credit, so we have it at every high school in Ind.
k. Would like to have 6 or so panels.
l. Questions from Indiana:
i. What is the distinction between Reject and Return? We understand that Return goes back to the Institution? -- Malinda Aiello responded
ii. Are Privates receiving only? -- Dr. Bob Blankenberger responded
iii. Are Transfer Coordinators Administrative-type people?
iv. Are Panel meetings held on same or different days?
v. Is there a library or suppository of Syllabi, etc.? -- Malinda Aiello responded (yes)
vi. Is there a template to briefly describe learning outcomes, etc.? -- Julie Weishar responded
vii. Do you have to deal with conditions for Elective courses when you deal with transferring them? – Marilyn Murphy Marshall responded – not in IAI – that would be an institution issue
viii. Would a hybrid course ever be in IAI? -- Julie Weishar responded – nothing on a student transcript says whether or not a course is on-line
ix. Does voting take place before the panel meeting?
x. Is there a dialogue with voting? – Malinda Aiello responded – yes, the comment section
5. New Business
a. Email attached to Agenda: Malinda & Bob
b. Request to Reconvene the Art Panel
i. Malinda did a cross-check with universities to prove courses an Art Major would pursue
ii. Looked at 6 core courses, which are still valid.
iii. Has gone through and re-written portfolio requirement package
iv. Malinda, representing them, formally requests reconvening the Panel.
v. Unanimous vote in favor of, with 1 abstaining vote. Approved
c. 5 Yr. Review
i. Minor programming issues – Abhilasha fixes them as they come up
ii. Integrity issue – eg. Checking boxes that syllabus is submitted. Clearly, it isn’t all always there.
d. Voting Guidelines
i. Malinda Aiello - We’re okay saying the panel can set their guidelines, but panels want direction
ii. Julie Weishar – “according to Roberts’ Rules….”
iii. Marilyn Murphy Marshall – we, as an institution, don’t know when our faculty aren’t participating
iv. John Bennett – should this be part of Policy and Procedures?
e. Election of new Steering Panel co-chair (2 yr cc)
i. John Bennett is retiring. We need a 2 yr co-chair
ii. The floor was opened up for nominations:
1. Sean Doyle
iii. Vote was unanimous in favor of Sean filling the position
f. Request to add “cc at large” representative
i. John Bennett is happy to give Malinda Aiello carte blanche to figure this one out
6. Old Business
a. Scheduling of ad hoc Policy & Procedures Manual review meeting
i. A handful volunteered, some were appointed.
ii. Need to discuss over summer, come to Fall Meeting with recommendations.
iii. If you think you were part of the committee, please email Malinda Aiello.
iv. TJ Jackson volunteers to be a member
b. Discussion regarding prerequisites, online and other delivery modes
i. No GECC is supposed to have pre-requisites. Do we turn a blind eye?
ii. Need panel input
iii. Motion to accept made by Polly Hoover, seconded by Sean Doyle.
1. Unanimous Aye Vote
7. Scheduling of Next Meetings:
a. Fall 2011 -- Friday, November 11
b. Spring 2012 -- Friday, May 4
** Note: Minutes may not be complete and may be revised at any time.