Date, Time and Location:

Monday, February 20, 2006, 11:30-1:00, UC-Forum B

---

Attendees:

Michel Boudrias, Kathy Bruzzese, Mary Jo Clark, Denise Dimon, Yvette Fontaine, Carl Jubran, Bert Lazerow, Chia-Yen Lin, John Loggins, Maria Malloy, Kira Mendez, David Shirk, David Smith, Shelley Smith, Peter Weldon, Larry Gardepie, Cel Johnson. Guest: Emily Mellott.

---

Agenda or Key Discussion Items:

1. Revise core values (subcommittee reports)
2. Present internationalization web site prototype (Cel, David)
3. Present prioritized brainstorming ideas (subcommittee reports)
4. Schedule next meeting

---

Action Items:

Announcements

• David Shirk: there will be a reception for International Studies Association on March 23 in San Diego. David would like to feature the campus, showcasing USD and its international efforts. David Smith suggested that Emily use the SOLES Report to identify USD’s international efforts. Action: send SOLES Report to David/Emily.
• David Smith (to address a question on how long the Global Group will continue to meet): David had an update meeting with Julie last week. The timeframe is dependent upon the substantial work that still needs to be accomplished by the subcommittees in March-April in order to provide recommendations to Julie by May-June. Depending on the committee’s progress by May, this committee’s work may be finished at that point or the committee may need to be extended to September-October. At either point, there may need to be a transition from the current committee configuration to an ongoing task force (6-7 people) that reports to the Provost’s office.

Agenda item #1 (revise core values/global competency definitions)

• Mission statement seems to be okay with everyone; no revisions were received.
• Student subcommittee: Michel reviewed the subcommittee’s revisions.
• Comments: connects with core values of revised core curriculum; remove “such”; “values” is used twice in second sentence.
• Faculty subcommittee: Carl noted that the subcommittee thought the faculty definition was fine as it stood; no revisions to present.
• Comments: faculty section is longer than the other two - may need to remove 1-2 sentences.
• Action: full committee should send suggestions to Carl; subcommittee will revise faculty definition; will be reviewed at next meeting.
• Institutional subcommittee: Denise and Cel presented revised statement.
• Comments: no revisions suggested
• Question for website: should the institutional definition come first as an umbrella to other two or the student definition? Thought that having institutional come first would look bureaucratic.

Agenda item #2 (web site)

• Comments:
• Add International Admissions link.
• Add Ahlers Center in programs section.
• Add “Faculty and Student Research.”
• Clarification: “Contact Information” – this page would be a summary of all contacts; other links would have contact information specific to those links.
• Some program links under International Study are dead. (Denise will review.)
• Send link to committee to review. (Cel or Larry will send.)
• May want to group programs by region.
• Need to cross-reference programs by area and discipline.
• Add service opportunities.
• Web page will be under Strategic Directions / Internationalization – listed as prototype website. Can be moved when USD home page is updated; Julie would like “International” to be part of the “Resources for” section on the home page.

Agenda #3 (brainstorming ideas)

• Action (for all subcommittees): after prioritizing the ideas, need to look at specifics, mechanics, how to make it happen, real numbers, and benchmark indicators to engage success.
• Action (for all subcommittees): continue to document all ideas (long list); then prioritize ideas. Top/priority ideas would be placed at the top of the list (considered your short list).
• Student subcommittee: Michel reviewed subcommittee’s handout. Comments:
• Important to work with Registrar on DARS and OSS implementation and how it impacts international programs. Suggestion to establish a task force to identify Registrar-related issues, and then go to Tom Herrinton and Sue Bugbee to review these issues.
• Suggestion to establish a faculty task force to identify a sub-series of existing courses that have an “international core”; would be identified as “international” on the transcript (“g” for “global”).
• May want to cluster offices together or create a central position
• Important to identify targets and vision (e.g., “in 3 years, would have x% of students who have had international experience”; goals may be to “increase” not necessarily that 100% of students have experience); important to define measurable goals.
• Need to define baseline experience.
• Important to be able to identify experiences by student (ID number).
• Goals for undergraduate and graduate students may be different; professional students may not have as much latitude to travel.
• Important to identify actual experience and understanding – not just focusing on numbers; need to include community service learning experiences.
• Important that we realize that we get to define the goals and outcomes.
• May want to give different “units” for different service or academic or study abroad experiences.
• May want to add a time factor to programs and experiences (i.e., year 1 has target; year 2…., etc.); create system that looks at incremental development.
• Important to identify scholarship opportunities.
• Important to identify experiences/outcomes for international students coming into USD as well as USD students studying abroad.
• Need to identify benchmarks prior to setting targets.
• Question: do we want all students to have “global exposure”, i.e., understanding global issues in each discipline? Each degree program could address general or discipline-specific global issues. Noted that the University of Minnesota implemented this concept: identified courses that focused on global understanding. Would need to go department to department. Example: there are nursing issues worldwide; could look at the effects of pushing formula on other nations rather than breastfeeding.
• Like idea of imbedding in curriculum; the point system mentioned earlier may be hard to administer.
• Suggestion to look at the mission of each school/college: is global competence part of mission?
• Action: e-mail additional ideas to Michel and Kathy (cc to David and Larry).
• Faculty subcommittee: Carl presented handout (prioritized list). Comments:
• Add an item to first section (I.1.d) - provide resources to shepherd faculty through process; need to include dollar amounts – what is needed to accomplish goal.
• Idea 3.1 could be an example of where to cut back and broaden a different aspect.
• Concern in wording: noted that international experience could also be in English-speaking country. Don’t want to diminish international work, research, or study because work is in an English-speaking country (e.g., South Africa); need to be careful of wording in (I.2.d)
• Action: e-mail additional ideas to Carl (cc to David, Kathy, and Larry).

• Action: review Strategic Directions website – January Workshop discussion group notes and personal action plans for additional ideas that could be incorporated into subcommittee discussions.

---

Next Meeting:

Monday, March 27, 11:30-1:00, UC-107
Draft agenda:

• Review: core values (faculty subcommittee revisions)
• Review: revised internationalization web site prototype (Cel, David)
• Continue: discuss prioritized brainstorming ideas (faculty, institutional)
• Schedule: next meeting

---