Skip Navigation
Search
Office of the Provost
Home PdfReports Committee Reports2023-2024 General Education Advisory Committee Report

2023-24 General Education Advisory Committee Report

Delivered July 18, 2024

Prepared by Hanna Nekvasil, committee chair
Reviewed by Braden Hosch, deputy chair

Background

In October of the Fall 2022 semester, Provost Lejuez proposed that a joint committee of faculty and administrators be assembled that would provide ongoing advice about implementation, evaluation, and assessment of Stony Brook University’s general education curriculum (the SBC). This committee would further examine the extent to which the general education curriculum achieves its stated purpose for students, including outcomes for student learning, degree progress, and post-graduation outcomes, as well as impact on department, school and university operations.

A preliminary structure of the committee was discussed at a meeting of Provost Lejuez, Richard Larson (University Senate President), Hanna Nekvasil (Chair of the Undergraduate Council of the University Senate), Braden Hosch (Vice President for Educational and Institutional Effectiveness), Catherine Scott (Director of Educational Effectiveness), Kara Desanna (Assistant Provost for Academic Program and Curriculum Management), as well as several deans and representatives of other administrative units. The finalized structure of the committee was formulated and charged on October 4, 2022 by Provost Lejuez.

GEAC Charge

The General Education Advisory Committee is jointly constituted by the Undergraduate Council of the University Senate and the Office of the Provost to provide ongoing advice about implementation, evaluation, and assessment of Stony Brook University’s general education curriculum (the SBC).

The Committee examines the extent to which the general education curriculum achieves its stated purpose for students, including outcomes for student learning, degree progress, and post- graduation outcomes, as well as impact on department, school and university operations.

Committee Membership 2023-24 Academic Year

Chair

Hanna Hekvasil, Department of Geosciences

Deputy Chair

Bradehn Hosch, vice president for educational and institutional effectiveness

Undergraduate Council Representatives

Hanna Hekvasil

College of Arts and Sciences faculty representatives:

  • Madeline Turan, arts and humanities
  • John Peter Gergen, natural and physical sciences
  • Alexis Anagnostopoulos, social and behavioral sciences

Faculty representatives from other Colleges/Schools that award undergraduate degrees:

  • Christine Pitocco, business
  • Brenda Hoffman, communication and journalism
  • Kevin McDonnell, engineering and applied sciences
  • Deborah Zelizer, health professions
  • Katherine Aubrecht, chemistry/marine and atmospheric sciences
  • Janet Galiczewski, nursing
  • Suzanne Velazquez, social welfare

Administrators:

  • Braden Hosch, vice president for educational and institutional effectiveness
  • Kara DeSanna, assistant provost for academic program and curriculum management
  • Catherine Scott, director of educational effectiveness
  • Rose Tirotta-Esposito, CELT director

Undergraduate representative:

  • Linda Shi

Assisted by:

  • Kimberly Hachmann, accreditation and educational effectiveness coordinator
  • Krista Emma, educational effectiveness specialist

Summary

During the academic year 2023-24, the GEAC focused on three primary tasks:

  1. Finalize re-alignment of SUNYs new Gen Ed guidelines with the SBC, specifically involving the SUNY-required two core competencies, Critical Thinking and Reasoning (CTR) and Information Literacy (IL).
  2. Review the General Education Assessment Report regarding assessment of SBC courses in preparation for the MSCHE visit.
  3. Consider how well the SBC TECH courses meet the MSCHE technological competency requirements, particularly with an eye towards the training needs of the next generation educated workforce.

Results:

  1. The SUNY Gen Ed core competency requirements do not require specific courses to prove competency. The GEAC developed guidelines for meeting these competencies through existing U1 and U2 courses through the lens of imposing as little extra burden for students, faculty, and assessment team as possible, while ensuring that these competencies were met.
    1. The consensus from both the GEAC and UGC was to map SUNY’s core competency requirement of Information Literacy to SBC’s Evaluate and Synthesize Researched Information (ESI) requirement.
    2. Consensus from GEAC, UGC, and Dr. Peter Khost, Director, Program in Writing and Rhetoric was to map SUNY’s core competency requirement Critical Thinking and Reasoning to WRT102.
  2. The GEAC reviewed the SBU General Education Assessment Report and provided input into the document. The consensus was that the document showed marked improvement in assessment vehicles, participation in assessment, and data compiled when compared with previous assessment of the SBC. Furthermore, the GEAC agreed that assessment of this nature must remain a continued priority and expanded in scope.
  3. The MSCHE guidelines  provide room for university-based decisions on meeting the technological competence requirement. This allows the GEAC and UGC to explore how to make the SBC TECH (Understanding Technology) requirement relevant to the needs of an educated workforce within the bounds of a single course requirement. In consultation with student members of the GEAC and UGC who emphasized the need for understanding and using AI and coding tools, the GEAC consensus was to retain the current diversity of courses offered for the moment but encourage/solicit new course submissions in these topics. It was agreed, however, that the GEAC would consider retooling the TECH requirement to emphasize technological competence. This effort is supported by PROJECT EDGE (Empowering Development in General Education,) in which course development in TECH is being solicited.

Goals for the 2024-25 Academic Year

It is anticipated that the GEAC will focus on the following during the 2024-25 academic year:

  1. The meaning of technological competence, its definition by peer institutions, and assessment of how the SBC TECH requirement can be redefined to meet the MSCHE requirements.
  2. Linking to the Arts and Sciences Curriculum Committee (ASCC) to provide up-to-date information on SBC changes to advise them regarding new SBC course proposals.
  3. Assessing the pedagogical relevance of the EXPLORE INTERCONNECTEDNESS (STAS), PURSUE DEEPER UNDERSTANDING (EXP+, HFA+, SBS+, STEM+) course requirements.
  4. Evaluating whether the SBC CER requirement is needed to meet the MSCHE requirements for “the study of values, ethics.”