1. General Education Tactical Team Campus Open Forums March 25, 2011 April 1, 2011

2.  Review of context and process  Review of initial model  Summary of feedback and decisions  Revised model  Overview of next steps  Questions, comments, and suggestions

3.  Janet Moore Lindman, History, co-chair  James Newell, Associate Provost, co-chair  Bryan Appleby-Wineberg, Music  Jay Chaskes, Sociology, Exploratory Studies  Roberta Harvey, Writing Arts, Provost Fellow  David Klassen, Physics/Astronomy  Mira Lalovic-Hand, Associate Provost Institutional Effectiveness  Rory McElwee, Psychology, Rowan Seminar  Cindy Vitto, Associate Dean, CLAS  Rihab Ezzat Saadeddine, graduate student  Joseph Perella, undergraduate student

4.  Middle States recommendation to develop coherent assessment of general education and consider overhaul of curriculum  Inadequacies of current model based on inputs (checklist of courses taken) rather than outcomes (evidence of student learning)  National trend to revitalize general education

5.  Transparency & communication: Meetings with each College and with other constituencies (Deans, Senate, Advisors, Chairs, Students) Information and updates on the Faculty Center website (click on Campus Initiatives) Open forums for the University community Email updates Targeted engagement  Stages of the reform process: Conceptual phase Implementation phase

6.  Core Literacies Characterize every Rowan graduate and form the general education program  Transdisciplinary Competencies Developed throughout the general education and major curriculum; individual programs define and assess each according to its own values  Discipline-Specific Knowledge, Dispositions, and Skills Defined and assessed by individual programs

8.  General affirmation of framework in first round of forums  Continuity with historic gen ed curriculum at Rowan  Accommodation of desired characteristics: Flexibility for programs Feasibility of assessment Compatibility with Lampitt Law  Potential for innovation  Alignment with national trends

9.  Addition of sixth core literacy, tentatively called “Human Context Literacy”  Renaming of transdisciplinary as discipline- embedded*  Addition of non-program learning*  Addition of co-curricular learning* *These aspects of the curriculum are not the explicit focus of this initiative; however, we feel it is important to situate the core literacies within the context of a comprehensive gen ed program.

11.  Revise and/or refine one-sentence goals for the six core literacies  Draft outcome statements to further define the kinds of learning that each literacy embodies  Note: implementation questions will be considered later.

12.  Questions and comments on proposed model  Suggestions regarding process for carrying out next steps