The members of the General Education Task Force have developed a series of Faculty Listening Session topics; descriptions of the topics are included below. Half of the Listening Sessions will take place during November/December 2018, with the second half scheduled for January/February 2019.
We have designed the Listening Sessions using a framework entitled Liberating Structures. Our goal is to engage as many faculty as possible in generating ideas for our path forward, as we revise the Cornerstone Program of General Education.
Locations for the Spring 2019 listening sessions are currently being confirmed, and those who register will receive a confirmation email with room locations once they have been finalized.
Faculty who are unable to attend a listening session, or who would prefer to meet with a member of the General Education Task Force one-on-one, are encouraged to contact Liz Chase, email@example.com, 508-565-1450.
During January-February 2019, the Task Force invites faculty to participate in the second half of our Listening Sessions, organized around the following topics (listed in alphabetical order; for dates and times please see the sign-up form to the right):
Approaching Diversity & Inclusion
The AAC&U argues that general education “is the foundation for equity in preparing current and future civically engaged graduates.” Yet many institutions simply add diversity or global competency as a distribution requirement; this approach encourages students to view diversity and inclusivity as a topic that can be easily contained to one class. As we begin to reimagine what the Cornerstone Program at Stonehill could be, how can we ensure that equity is central to our program as a whole?
High Impact Practices
The AAC&U outlines 11 High Impact Practices (HIP); currently, Stonehill employs 5 of the 11 in its Cornerstone Program. This session will focus on a high-level discussion of the HIPs we’ve implemented, which we believe have the biggest impact on student learning, and which we’d like to see as a focus of our program moving forward.
How is this outcome reflected in the current Cornerstone Program? Does the outcome accurately capture an essential aspect of Stonehill’s program? How might we consider rephrasing this outcome to reflect students’ active engagement in their own learning?