Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content
Sign In

Skip Navigation LinksTeam Discussion : Please post your comments here
Use the Team Discussion list to hold newsgroup-style discussions on topics relevant to your team.

Threading
  
Edited: 9/30/2011 10:16 AM by
Picture Placeholder: Sage, James
  • Sage, James
  • UWSP Affiliate, Academic Affairs

Please post your general comments here


The Step 6 proposal and explanation can be retrieved above.
 
In this discussion space, please leave your general comments, questions, and suggestions.
 
You can read what others have written, and choose to "Reply".
 
Feedback can be provided according to each section.
 
We look forward to your input and appreciate your feedback.
 
Thank you!
Posted: 10/21/2011 9:41 AM by
Picture Placeholder: Olsen, Gary
  • Olsen, Gary
  • Professor, Theatre & Dance

John Houghton’s notes from October 19, 2012 Step 6 open forum
 
-Comment regarding Wellness and Comm requirements as not being “satisfied” in old GDR system when transferring with completed bachelor or approved associate – will now be.
 
-Anticipate a “Period” of “co-offering” GDR and GEP.  Intuition is that this will be a relatively long (4 – 5) period of years.
 
-In the process of assessment with Dept. or Univ. assessment requirements take “precedence”?  How will this impact individual faculty members?
 
-Could assessment result in a course being removed from Gen Ed category?
 
-What are the open record(s) implication(s) of the assessment process?
 
-Could Departments have individuals provide examples for their peers?  Get examples out there?
 
*-Make new GEP approvals available as soon as possible for planning purposes
 
-Four Year Plans, Advising, Enrollment

Posted: 10/23/2011 10:21 AM by
Picture Placeholder: Sage, James
  • Sage, James
  • UWSP Affiliate, Academic Affairs
Posted: 10/31/2011 2:24 PM by
Picture Placeholder: Olsen, Gary
  • Olsen, Gary
  • Professor, Theatre & Dance

Hello GERPCs,
 
I know the deadline for comments on Step 6 was last week, but I thought I’d share these just in case they’re still useful.
 
One follow-up to the forum:
I ended up less than clear on the role of the Assessment Coordinator.  I was under the impression (based on p. 43 and previous discussions elsewhere) that this person would have a particular expertise in assessment and could be a resource for the GEC and the Assessment Subcommittee.  At the forum it sounded more like this was just someone to do the heavy lifting for the GEC (recruiting and coordinating Assessment Teams, compiling data, etc.). If the latter is the case, then I would support having this person be an elected position, perhaps a GEC co-chair. In the former case, however, an administrative appointment makes more sense.  One way to make sure power stays in faculty hands would be to make the Assessment Teams formally constituted subcommittees of the GEC who must vote to approve the report that goes forward to the full GEC.
 
A one editorial suggestions:
In the Handbook proposal on p. 15, the sentences at the beginning of the first two paragraphs are nearly identical.  That seems repetitious unless there’s some meaningful distinction between “assessment” and “evaluation” that isn’t being made clear.  It would make sense to me to cut the one in the first paragraph.
(Also, the note numbers in the chart on p. 53 are messed up.)
 
Thanks!
 
 
 
Mary Bowman
English Dept.
x4338