General Education Committee

Full Report to Faculty Senate  

April 2005

 

 

Introduction

The General Education program plays a central and critical role in meeting UW-L’s select mission which states that we “shall provide a broad base of liberal education as a foundation for the intellectual, cultural, and professional development of the students (UW-L Undergraduate Catalog, 2003).”  Furthermore, the academic vision found in the Strategic Plan (Strategic Plan, [1] 2003) indicates that UW-L

 

                “deliver [a] high-quality, well-rounded education in intellectually stimulating environments that foster and produce: critical thinkers, lifelong learners, skilled and collaborative practitioners, and global citizens who use knowledge and technology with wisdom and ethics. The academic programs are multidisciplinary, culturally relevant, and flexible in their design in order to be accessible and responsive to a diverse community of learners.”

 

Specific strategies related to General Education identified in the Strategic Plan include:

·         Deliver a broad-based, rigorous General Education program.

·         Promote general education as a four-year endeavor for all students.

·         Ensure quality teaching in all courses.

·         Ensure that all General Education courses provide significant, rigorous learning experiences for students.

·         Explore the development of a cross-disciplinary General Education capstone course.

·         Expand the First Year Experience.

 

According to Faculty Senate By-Laws the curriculum of General Education is designed to help students “understand themselves and the world in which they live by cultivating the knowledge, skills, and dispositions essential for independent learning and thinking which should characterize university graduates. … the program shall require all students to pursue a pattern of study which will minimize avoidance of any of the major areas of human experience.” The General Education Committee is charged with systematically reviewing the program, assessing student learning in the program, and recommending curricular or programmatic changes.

 

This report is being presented to Faculty Senate as required.  The report provides information about the results of the course reviews completed over this past year and a summary of findings from other assessment activities collected over the past 10 years.  The report concludes with a list of commitments related to program quality and improvement that were unanimously approved by the General Education Committee on Monday, April 4, 2005.    

 

Brief Background and Activities of the General Education Committee

After several years of deliberation, the current General Education Program was implemented Fall 1991, replacing the Basic Studies Program.  The Faculty Senate General Education Committee was formed and charged with oversight of the program, including, among other things, systematic program review, evaluation of new course proposals or course changes and other curricular changes, encouraging development of interdisciplinary coursework, and assessment of the program and of student learning in the program.  Each year a new chair was elected to oversee the work of the committee.

 

The 1996 NCA accreditation report suggested that someone should be in a leadership position for the General Education Program rather than relying on a constantly changing committee.  In 2000 GEC recommended to Faculty Senate that a Director position be created.  Faculty Senate approved the position in early Fall 2001.  Please see the brief overview of GEC activities 2001-2005, attached, for more information about GEC over the last few years.

 

The first charge to GEC after the naming of a Director was to review the program goals and assessment plan.  The review of goals led the Director to recommend the development of specific learning outcomes, a recommendation supported by “best practices (Gaff,1994)” and as found in accreditation criteria (Council for Higher Education Accreditation, 2003,   Higher Learning Commission, 2003). Specific learning outcomes can facilitate better teaching, learning, and assessment of learning. Development of learning outcomes occupied much of the committee’s time during 2002-2003.

 

Although Faculty Senate encouraged the committee to continue its work on the outcomes, they were reluctant to approve the outcomes or the proposal of an “outcome-based-program” until the implications for such a program were made apparent. GEC worked on several initiatives during the 2003-2004 academic year with the goal of submitting recommendations for revisions to the Faculty Senate by the end of Spring 2004 or early Fall 2004.  However, continued work on possible revisions were put on hold when Faculty Senate asked that GEC request that departments review all general education courses during Fall 2004 using the draft of learning outcomes.  The charge to GEC asked that the results of the course reviews be used to revise the outcomes as necessary, but that specific structural changes were not expected at this time.

 

GEC has received all but about a dozen reviews at this time.  Reminders have been sent to Department Chairs and Deans have been copied in on the request.   A preliminary report of the course reviews is attached and discussed below.  An ad hoc GEC committee is working to revise and simplify the outcomes.  GEC has also continued to assess student learning in several areas.  A new wave of assessment activities is occurring this spring semester and results will be analyzed during the summer, 2005.

 

The results from the course reviews along with information from various assessment activities over the past 10 years, discussed below, indicate the need for revisions in the program.  This discussion is followed by the list of GEC commitments to program quality and improvement.

 

Program Assessment and Other Information

Course Reviews (see attached spreadsheet and narrative).  In the current General Education structure, very little commonality of “highest priority” outcomes exists within categories. In other words, expectations for student learning vary with each course in a single category.  Since students tend to take only one or two courses per category, and, since in some categories, students can choose from up to 19 different courses, we should not be surprised that students cannot demonstrate some common learning outcomes across courses. Even within “like courses” such as literature, where students can choose from seven courses, there was little commonality of expectations. Within this category, only four outcomes were identified by at least three of the seven courses.

 

It is also important to note that, within the Math/Logical Systems category, the outcomes for the language courses did not coincide with the outcomes for any of the other courses in that area.  The math courses did not always coincide with the computer science courses or with philosophy, but there was more agreement among those disciplines than with the languages.  This seems to beg the question, “do the language courses belong with math, computer science, and logic?”

 

To some extent, the same lack of commonality can be said about learning across the program, although there were at least eight specific outcomes that were identified as highest priority by at least 20% of courses for which we had information.  As per the attached grid and cover sheet, these outcomes came from communication, critical thinking, content knowledge, and minority cultures/multiracial women studies.  In five of these eight “popular” outcomes, the outcome was identified by at least one course in almost every category.  For example, the outcome “Critically evaluate ideas from written and oral sources” under Communication was mentioned at least once across all categories except Math/Logical Systems.  While this is heartening, we must also remember that given the amount of choice currently available to students in the program, it is still possible that students will not have an opportunity to repeatedly encounter ideas or practice skills across their program of courses.  For students to develop deep understanding and the ability to apply knowledge and skills successfully in novel situations, they need repeated and ample opportunities to practice skills or grapple with issues or problems.  

 

One area of considerable concern was the relative lack of emphasis anywhere in the program on the development of knowledge and skills related to “Responsible Citizenship and Ethical Decision-Making.” On the one hand, this is understandable given that the current General Education Program does not focus on this outcome.  Yet, given the role of the university to serve the public good, and given the complex nature of the world community and the decisions facing students in both their personal and professional lives, it seems that this should be an area in which students have numerous learning opportunities. Student comments in the senior surveys (see below) also indicate the need for more opportunities to develop knowledge and skills in these areas.

 

The lack of commonality within categories and across the program may have occurred because of the lengthy list of outcomes from which instructors could select those of “highest priority.”  GEC requested that instructors select only 6-8 highest priority outcomes.  GEC recognized that overlap and redundancy in some outcomes existed, and this may have made it difficult for instructors to narrow in on only a few outcomes.  Outcomes that were not mentioned as highest priority may still be addressed in courses, but, for those instructors following the guidelines, they were not identified. This suggests that we have only a partial picture of “expected learning” in our current program.

 

However, the lack of agreement on common outcomes cannot be written off only as an artifact of the complexity of the outcomes. The discrepancies within categories and the hit and miss pattern of what seemed most important across the curriculum suggests that we do not have a clear sense of what students should be learning in the program.  If we don’t know what they should be learning or know in which courses this learning should be occurring, we cannot assume that students are achieving the goals of the program.   Furthermore, without a common sense of what we expect students to know and be able to do after completing the requirements of any one category, any assessment of student learning will be difficult to ascertain, and results will largely be invalid.  This is akin to using a standardized test that has little relationship to what was actually taught in the classroom.

 

As a result of course reviews and feedback from colleagues, an ad hoc GEC committee was formed to review the outcomes.  This group is currently in the processes of revising and simplifying the outcomes. It seems reasonable to expect that students will be better able to articulate the purpose of the program, and reflect upon their learning if instructors can clearly articulate to their students what these outcomes are and how a particular course addresses these outcomes through the various learning activities.  If the campus community can agree upon a common set of outcomes, and can identify where and how these outcomes are being addressed in the program, we can engage in more appropriate advising of our students, and be better equipped to assess what students have learned. A clear sense of what we expect students to learn can also enhance the quality of our own teaching. Furthermore, if we can infuse the learning outcomes across the curriculum, students will be more likely to achieve the outcomes.  The 1996 Senior Survey, discussed below, found evidence to support this. 

 

Students’ Perceptions of the General Education Program. Three indirect measures of students’ perceptions of the program have been completed in the last 10 years. These include student focus groups in 1996 (focus group, 1996), a senior survey in 1996, (1996 survey), and another senior survey completed in 2003-2004 (will be posted on Faculty Senate and General Education websites soon). In the 1996 senior survey a majority of students believed that the General Education Program contributed substantially to those skills that were embedded across the curriculum, such as oral and written communication and critical thinking.  On the other hand, only 34% and 37% of students believe that general education substantively contributed to their ability to use mathematics and library skills, respectively, perhaps because these outcomes are not integrated across the curriculum.  Only one mathematics course is required and no specific courses are designated specifically to teach library skills.  Integration of quantitative and information literacy across the curriculum has not been a goal of the program. Although it is possible that several courses may touch on these outcomes, without a clear sense that these are important outcomes, and deliberate efforts to focus on these skills across several courses, it is unlikely that students will sense their importance or feel that the program has helped them develop these skills.

 

Perusal of other findings in the 1996 and 2003-04 surveys suggest several other concerns (see specific reports for more detailed information).  The most popular response to the 1996 question about how much General Education contributed to students’ understanding in the liberal studies areas was “somewhat.” This suggests that the program helps them learn a little about a variety of subject areas, but rarely develop deep understanding. Although students tended to agree that general education was a valuable part of their education in 1996, the majority did not feel that the program prepared them to become life-long learners, did not help them understand complex “real life” problems and issues, or help them develop their ability to think critically.  Students’ responses in the 2003-04 survey also suggests that they were equivocal about whether the program helped them analyze contemporary complex issues, develop a global perspective, or provide a basis for ethical decision-making. Students did not think that the program substantively helped them understand scientific methods or applications, gain an appreciation for the arts, or engage in responsible citizenship.    

 

Across all three indirect assessment measures, students’ responses indicate that they perceive general education courses as something to “get out of the way” and as a “batch of unrelated courses.” In the 2003-04 survey in particular, and in contrast to the 1996 survey, the courses are not perceived as necessary or valued as an important component of students’ baccalaureate degree.  Students frequently referred to general education courses as “the stuff we should have done in high school.” Students focus on their major as a means to a “good job.”  At best, general education is seen as a means of finding the best major but not as part of the relevant educational experiences for that good job; at its worst, general education is a “waste of time and money” and gets in the way of taking courses leading to a good job.  Although students did identify several courses in the surveys that they felt made valuable contributions to their overall learning experience, most saw the general education courses as a disconnected checklist of requirements, disconnected from each other, their major, and future careers. 

 

Approximately 40% of the comments in the 2003-04 senior survey centered on the idea that general education courses should be more related to what students are interested in, and most of these comments suggested that courses should be more related to students’ majors or minors. This, again, indicates that students view their major and minor as the core of their education and do not see how general education contributes in any substantive, meaningful way to their degree.  Students clearly also wanted choice of courses in all categories and flexibility in how courses “count.” This latter idea was frequently expressed in terms of redundancy of requirements within the program and/or redundancy with requirements within a major. The theme of being connected to their major was also found in recommended improvements, such as connecting the writing or speaking courses to their field of interest, such as writing in science.  However, a number of students indicated that more courses should focus on global issues and diversity, as well as courses that would help them better understand their role as engaged citizens. 

 

Another important finding across these measures focuses on the quality of instruction. Students consistently identified the quality of instruction, enthusiasm on the part of the instructor, active learning (more than lecture and memorization), and demonstrating a sense of “caring about the student” as important components in making a course meaningful. These elements of the teaching-learning environment were often mentioned by students as making a course worthwhile and a good learning experience, or, in contrast, a “waste of time” or “repeat of high school.” Students generally felt that the quality of teaching in their general education courses was poorer than the teaching in their major courses.  In addition, students reported that advising about general education needed to be improved. Students frequently mentioned that advisors often didn’t provide accurate information, didn’t know about requirements, or didn’t’ help students make wise decisions about general education courses.

 

Taken together, these findings provide evidence that students do not understand the concept of a “liberal education” or believe that the General Education Program plays a critical role in their education, especially since they perceive their majors and minors as the primary aspect of their undergraduate degree. Students do not believe that the program helps them become life-long learners or that it adequately prepares them to become global citizens prepared to grapple with complex contemporary problems and issues.  Students also feel that they are not advised well regarding general education and that quality of instruction is inferior to that found in the major courses. This suggests that we need to attend to the mission of the institution and our vision of a quality education and deliberately and consistently articulate the goals and outcomes expected of students. Just as importantly, but perhaps even more of a challenge, we need to help them view their baccalaureate degree as more than preparation for a particular career.

 

Assessment of Student Learning. Direct assessment of student learning in three different content areas (science, social science, the arts) were completed in 1996 and 1997, and tend to support students perceptions as reported above.  Student responses in each of these areas were rated as largely underdeveloped, especially when applied to “real-life problem-solving” (see reports from 1997 and 1996, GE assessment).  In all three areas, students tended toward one-dimensional reasoning rather than employing multiple perspectives or exploring alternative explanations or solutions.  In a recent assessment on students’ “global perspective” (2004), students responses again tended to be underdeveloped.  Furthermore, results from the spring 2004 writing emphasis assessment suggest that the aspects of writing that demand more analysis or evidence of compelling logic are likely to be rated by instructors as less proficient and more marginal.

 

Direct assessment of student learning has been limited due in part to lack of consistency in the committee and unclear sense of what students should actually be learning in the program.  The objectives written for each category were established after the program was implemented and were often specific to individual courses, making assessment across a category difficult given the degree of choice students were given.  However, since developing the current draft of learning outcomes, several instruments are being used to assess these student learning outcomes.  Results of these assessment activities should be available in early fall.  

 

Faculty Perceptions .  UW-L continues to struggle with the role and purpose of General Education.  Students, faculty, and staff have difficulty articulating its purpose and whether or how it may be connected to a student’s area of specialization (the major).  As mentioned above, students see general education as disconnected from the major and disconnected from within. Faculty comments at the February 2005 Faculty Senate Forum also support the sense that we lack a clear vision of the role that general education plays in students’ undergraduate degree.  Faculty admit to telling students that they should “get their gen eds out of the way.”  Such comments devalue the program and don’t support the view that the courses in general education are both foundational for and integral to becoming well-educated. The idea that general education is separate from the major suggests that the knowledge and skills expected of students in the General Education Program are different from those in the student’s major. Yet, the academic vision in the strategic plan does not clearly separate general education from the major but argues for a well-rounded education that fosters life-long learning and critical thinking that can help our students become “skilled and collaborative practitioners, and global citizens who use knowledge and technology with wisdom and ethics.”  These are consistent with some of the learning outcomes found in the draft of General Education Learning Outcomes.

 

A new initiative, Liberal Education: America’s Promise, sponsored by the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U, 2005) supports our academic vision.  In promoting a quality liberal education for all students, the AAC&U’s initiative argues that general education programs alone cannot be responsible for achieving the goals of a liberal education.  Rather, all aspects of the undergraduate degree need to focus on preparing students for a “world of complexity, diversity, and change.”   Such preparation requires that students need to be equipped with knowledge of human culture and the natural world, essential intellectual and practical skills, a sense of individual and social responsibility, and the ability to integrate knowledge.  These outcomes are met by the collaborative efforts of general education and students specializations in majors and minors as well as opportunities for active, inquiry-based pedagogies and meaningful community involvement.  This view of the purpose of a college education is echoed in the American Democracy Project (ADP, 2003) of which we are a member, and in the Higher Learning Commission’s statement on General Education (HCL, 2003).

 

Faculty turnover & preparation:  One possible explanation as to why faculty and staff have difficulty articulating the purpose of general education is that in the last ten years more than 30% of those teaching general education courses are no longer at UWL.  This percentage is even higher given that almost 70% of ad hoc or instructional academic staff who taught general education have left UW-L. We have not had any consistent strategy for helping new faculty and staff understand the purpose of the program, the rationale for the current structure, nor the specific role of particular courses in the program.  Many now teaching general education courses inherited them with little opportunity for discussion with others teaching in the program or teaching courses in the same category.  Although UW-L now includes a brief overview of the purpose of General Education during the new faculty and staff orientation in the fall, this 30-45 minute session is an inadequate preparation for understanding the goals of the program or other expectations of the program such as its inquiry-based focus.

 

Employers and accreditation views. Today, most employer surveys indicate that they are looking for students with the knowledge and skills that come from a strong liberal education.  These include, among other things, problem-solving, communication, critical/creative thinking, leadership and team skills, a broad knowledge base, perspective-taking skills, and cultural competence (U.S. Department of Labor, 2000). While the General Education Program should help develop some of the knowledge and skills listed here, all aspects of the baccalaureate degree should foster the development of these skills and the ability to apply knowledge.

 

Accrediting agencies expect that each academic program, including general education, have clearly articulated learning outcomes and effective assessment of student learning.  The Higher Learning Commission (NCA) expects accredited institutions to provide learning environments that encourage “acquisition, discovery, and application of knowledge.” As part of this, NCA expects that the university assesses it’s curricula in terms of its usefulness in fostering in students the knowledge and skills necessary to work in a “global, diverse, and technological society” and that promote social responsibility (Higher Learning Commission, p. 3.1.5).

First Year Experience. Research suggests that students' first year experiences set the tone for, and engagement in, their academic careers ( Boyer,1987, Tinto,1985). Several factors have been identified that can lead to academic engagement and success or the opposite. Tinto (1985) indicates that to become successful, students need to build connections with and membership in both academic and social communities. If students fail to feel integrated with either of these communities, academic or social, withdrawal from college or disengagement from the learning process, including academic failure, can result.

According to the Policy Center on the First Year of College, “the first year is central to the achievement of an institution’s mission and lays the foundation on which undergraduate education is built ( Policy Center, 2004).” Student retention and engagement are more likely to happen when institutions approach the first year intentionally and with structures and policies in place that provide for a comprehensive, integrated and coordinated first year. In addition, student engagement and persistence are more likely to occur when students experience interaction with faculty in and out of the classroom, particularly out-of-classroom interactions related to intellectual matters (Pascarella & Terenzini ,1991), and when they are given opportunities to examine their motivations and goals related to higher education, including the value of general education.  

UW-L lacks an intentional, integrated and coordinated first year experience that includes both the academic and social dimensions (student affairs offers several intentional first year experiences, but there is little that deliberately integrates   academic aspects).  There are no established first year academic expectations, no common courses, no established mechanisms that insure students have the opportunities to examine and discuss their motivations and goals, or the value of general education.  Moreover, NSSE data collected over the last several years have consistently shown that UW-L freshmen-faculty interactions are significantly below the benchmark for other comparable institutions, including other UW System institutions. Although UW-L has a relatively good first to second year retention rate, there is much that we can do to improve retention between second and third year, and to provide consistent foundational experiences that lead to increased engagement and success for all students.

Conclusions

Taken together, the information provided here strongly suggests that revisions to the current program are needed to improve the quality of the program, and more importantly, the quality of student learning experiences in the program. A common vision along with clear learning outcomes can help establish a common sense of purpose and help guide pedagogical practices and assessment.  An understanding of general education’s role in the baccalaureate degree can also help us better articulate to students and other constituencies the value of a broad based liberal education and how the general education program and students’ majors and minors jointly contribute to a quality education. The General Education Committee is charge by Faculty Senate to evaluate the program, “taking into consideration the needs of students and of society, the mission of the University, the necessity for quality general education, and the goals of the program.”   The General Education Committee, therefore, makes the following commitments to insuring the quality of and appropriate improvements of the program.

  

General Education Committee’s Commitment to Program Quality And Improvement. 

We are committed to:

1.       Working cooperatively with Faculty Senate in the process of review and revision of General Education as per the Faculty Senate By-Laws. 

2.       Working cooperatively with Faculty Senate and the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee to create an understanding of the learning outcomes expected of UW-L graduates.  GEC welcomes a joint meeting of members of the three bodies to discuss UW-L’s vision for its graduates as found in the Strategic Plan, and the role that both the General Education Program and the student’s major and minor should play in achieving this vision.  

3.       An outcome-guided General Education Program that reflects a broad-based liberal education.

4.       Asking Faculty Senate to approve a revised set of learning outcomes as a living document that will be routinely evaluated and revised as needed, and used to guide assessment activities.

5.       Changing the name of the program from General Education to University Core Curriculum.

6.       Continued use of the “Human Rights” theme for at least another year as a means of helping students make connections across disciplines. The effectiveness of using this theme will be assessed.

7.       Development of an assessment plan that allows for ongoing and systematic assessment of all aspects of the General Education Program.

8.       Creating a diverse General Education design team that will work during the summer 2005 to identify effective strategies and areas for program improvement and have ready in early fall specific recommendations for program improvement.

9.       Exploring ways to make the program more flexible and connected, while maintaining assurance that learning outcomes will be met.

10.    Developing a manageable course review and revision process that includes timelines and processes for course recertification.

11.    Ongoing professional development for and among General Education faculty and staff.

12.    A General Education design that reflects these commitments

 

 

General Education Committee Members 2004-2005

 

Emily Johnson, Director and Chair

Sandy Grunwald, Chemistry

Jess Hollenback, History

Eric Kraemer, Philosophy

Mary Leonard, Theater

Cris Prucha, Library

Bruce Riley, Math

Brian Udermann, ESS

Mike Winfrey, Microbiology

 

Active Consultants

  Chris Bakkum, CLS

  Terry Beck, English – Writing Coordinator

  Keith Beyer, SAH

  Bruce May, CBA

  Diane Schumacher, Registrar

 

 

 

Attachments:

Attachment A:  Highlights of GEC activities 2001-2005

Attachment B:  Brief report on course reviews

 

REFERENCES

American Association of State Colleges and Universities (2003). American Democracy Project . Retrieved March 28, 2005 from http://www.aascu.org/programs/adp/default.htm .

 

American Association of Universities and Colleges, (2005). Liberal Education and America’s Promise:
Excellence for everyone as a nation goes to college.  Washington, D. C., retrieved April 11, 2005 from
http://www.aacu-edu.org/advocacy/index.cfm .

 

Boyer, E. L. (1987). College: the undergraduate experience in America. New York: Harper & Row.

 

Cerbin, W. (1996). Graduating senior survey of General Education.  Retrieved March 28, 2005 from http://www.uwlax.edu/provost/assessment/restore062103/A_GEsurvey.htm .

 

Cerbin, W., and Erickson, C. (1996).  Graduating seniors' views on General Education at UW-La Crosse: Report on a Series of Focus Groups. Retrieved March 28, 2005 from http://www.uwlax.edu/provost/assessment/restore062103/A_GEfocus.html

 

Council for Higher Education Accreditation (2004). Statement of mutual responsibilities for student learning outcomes:  Accreditation, institutions, and programs. Retrieved April 5, 2005 from http://www.chea.org/Research/index.asp#statements .

 

Gaff, J. (1994). Strong Foundations: Twelve Principles for Effective General Education Programs. Washington, D. C.: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

 

Higher Learning Commission: A Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools. (2003). Higher Learning Commission’s statement on General Education.  Retrieved March 28, 2005 from http://www.ncahigherlearningcommission.org/resources/positionstatements/gened/

 

Pascarella E., T. & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students: Findings and insights from twenty years of research.  San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.   

 

Policy Center on the First Year of College. (2004). Foundational dimensions for four year institutions. Retrieved April 5, 2005 from http://www.fyfoundations.org/doc.aspx?id=17 .

 

 Tinto, V. (1985). Dropping out and other forms of withdrawal from college.  In E. Noel, R. Levitz, D. Saluri & Associates (Eds). , Increasing Student Retention, (pp. 28-43).  San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

 

United States Department of Labor. (2000). What work requires of schools: A SCANS report for America. Washington, D. C: National Technical Information Service.

 

University of Wisconsin – La Crosse Faculty Senate By-Laws.  Retrieved March 28, 2005 from http://www.uwlax.edu/FacultySenate/bylaws.html#H.%20The%20General%20Education%20Committee).

 

University of Wisconsin – La Crosse General Education Committee (1996). [Direct] Assessment of Student learning in General Education. Retrieved April 5, 2005 from http://www.uwlax.edu/provost/assessment/restore062103/A_GenEd.htm.

 

University of Wisconsin Undergraduate Catalog 2003-2005: A complete campus resource. (2003). Available at  http://www.uwlax.edu/Records/03-05/UG-Cat/geninfo.html#_MISSION

 

University of Wisconsin – La Crosse Strategic Plan (2001)  Retrieved March 28, 2005 from http://www.uwlax.edu/StrategicPlanning/pdf/strategic-plan-final.pdf

 

 


 

Attachment A

 

Brief Highlights of GEC Activities: Spring 2001-Spring 2005

 

Spring 2001.

·         The first Director of GE is appointed in response to a GEC recommendation to the Faculty Senate (Spring 2000) and a NCA recommendation (1996 accreditation visit) to establish an ongoing leadership position for the program. 

·         Director attends first AAC&U General Education conference.

·         Director joins Council for Administration of General & Liberal Studies

·         Director works with committee chair to change By-Laws to extend member terms from 3 years to up to 5 years to provide for more continuity from year to year. Director will serve as chair and voting member.

·         Director reviews documents from previous years and becomes familiar with “best practices.”

 

2001-2002.

·         First full academic year with a Director of GE.

·         Year focuses on faculty development for committee members, as almost all the members were new. 

·         Director works on increasing communication with campus community via email.

·         GEC charged by Faculty Senate with a review of the goals and assessment plan. Review of the goals leads to recommendations to develop programmatic learning outcomes and to revise the assessment plan only after learning outcomes were in place.   

·         Draft of preliminary outcomes is written.

·         Committee agrees to a retreat prior to Fall semester, bringing in a consultant to provide guidance on writing learning outcomes.

·         Committee agrees to help sponsor Problem-Based and Case-Based training workshops summer 2002.

·         Director is asked to take over responsibilities for Freshmen Seminar, UWL 100.

 

2002-2003:

·         Year begins with a retreat for committee members led by a consultant from Alverno College.  Others are invited and participate.  Consultant helped participants better understand the what, why, and how of learning outcomes. 

·         The January Teaching and Learning conference focuses on General Education, including a return visit from the Alverno consultant to facilitate a discussion on learning outcomes and to work with the GEC on furthering their progress at writing and refining outcomes.

·         GEC places a moratorium on new courses for this academic year in order to concentrate on completing a draft of learning outcomes, as charged by Faculty Senate.

·         For the first time in its history, a team of five GEC members attends the AAC&U General Education & Assessment conference.

·         Subcommittees of GEC develop drafts of outcomes which are then reviewed and discussed by the full committee.  Drafts are shared with campus community periodically.  Feedback is used to revise outcomes.

·         At end of academic year, FS is asked to approve SLO as a working document.  FS defers decision until the impact on the program could be known (e.g., would there be structural changes? If so, what might these be? What impact might this have on SCH production within departments? Faculty positions?).

 

2003-2004.

·         GEC sets two major goals.  First GEC will ask FS to approve the SLO and, secondly, GEC will submit one or more models of possible program revisions to FS.

·          In attempts to meet this goal, three subcommittees work during the year:  

        The FYE subcommittee consists of GEC members, other faculty, and academic staff. 

·         The committee identified goals and outcomes for the FY

·         Departments were asked for ideas for “essential first year courses”

·         Committee worked with the Structure subcommittee to suggest “foundational” coursework, those that should be completed within the first 30-45 credits.

 

        The Structure Subcommittee consists of GEC members, GEC consultants, and other faculty.

·         Subcommittee developed a survey seeking student input on the current GEP and potential changes in the program. More than 400 seniors completed the survey during late fall 2003 and early spring 2004. 

·          Subcommittee also developed an alumni survey, with the plan to send it out electronically. Several roadblocks occurred such that this survey is still on hold. 

·         Subcommittee developed drafts of possible models for a revised GEP.   

·         Subcommittee proposed and GEC approved using a “Human Rights” theme for the 2004-2005 academic year.  GE instructors would be invited to incorporate this theme.  A few proposals were funded to support faculty who worked to make major modifications to their courses using this theme.

 

        Assessment Subcommittee consists of committee members and consultants.

·         The group identified one learning outcome area, global perspective, for assessment, and developed, piloted, and administered assessment instrument to approximately 60 students in spring 2004. 

·         The subcommittee also worked on and developed a survey for Writing Emphasis faculty of perceptions of students’ writing competencies.  This was an online survey sent out in late Spring 2004.  42% (26 out of 62 Writing Emphasis instructors) completed the survey.   

·         The subcommittee developed a preliminary draft of a revised assessment plan. 

 

Other Activities 2003-2004

·         Director is elected President of the Council for Administration of General and Liberal Studies.

·         GEC sets aside specific dates in each semester to review course proposals and Writing in the Major Proposals.

·         GEC agrees to spend some of its Fund money to create and support one or two assessment teams that would work during the summer to identify or create other assessment tools for assessing other learning outcomes. These teams were also supported by some additional dollars from the Provost’s Office. Two teams were created and each team developed at least one assessment instrument that could be piloted in the fall 2004, and administered in the spring 2005.

·         GEC sends a team of three to the AAC&U General Education and Assessment conference.

·         GEC holds a spring luncheon open to all faculty and staff on campus to inform constituents of the work of the GEC, engage in discussion about the proposed learning outcomes, discuss the use of the “human rights” theme in the next academic year, and to invite suggestions for program improvement.  About 50 people attend the luncheon.  

·         At years end GEC sets as a goal the provision of models of program revisions to FS early in the fall of 2004. 

·         GEC sets several other goals for 2004-2005 academic year (see 2004 Spring report and the follow-up Fall 2004 Report to FS)    

 

2004-2005

·         The original goal for the committee is to submit to FS early in the fall semester one or more models of a revised GEP. 

·         GEC establishes specific goals and timeline for the academic year.

·         As part of this, GEC wanted to reassure faculty that no faculty positions would be lost due to GE changes, although faculty may be asked to teach different courses.  A discussion on SCH production and its relation to GEP ended with no recommendations regarding protection of faculty, academic staff, or departmental SCH targets..

·         As part of a revised assessment plan, GEC asks FS to support a motion that would have established a procedure for better representation of students in General Education assessment activities. The motion to require departments to provide one freshmen class and one senior class for assessment activities on a 5-6 semester rotating basis is defeated by FS. 

·         GEC asks faculty to volunteer a class period for such activities.  Several volunteer at both the freshmen and senior level and this assessment is continuing through spring semester.  Assessment results will be analyzed during summer 2005.  The analysis will include a look at whether the students completing the assessment activities are representative of UW-L freshmen and seniors.

·         GEC hosts a mini-conference on Interdisciplinary Learning Communities with Dr. Ellen Goldey.  Subsequently, GEC member Mike Winfrey writes and is awarded a grant from  the AAC&U affiliated project group, Science Education for New Civic Engagements and Responsibilities (SENCER) grant .  UW-L and GEC will be sending an interdisciplinary team to San Jose, California in August 2005 to develop an interdisciplinary learning community.

2004-2005 Continued

·         GEC sends two people serving on the GEC Assessment subcommittee to the IUPUI assessment workshop.

·         The specific charge to GEC from Faculty Senate is to ask departments to review all of their GE courses using the SLO as written by GEC.  Plans to submit revisions to FS are put on hold pending course reviews.

·         The Director conducts 5 workshops on the course review process.  Course review materials are available both through the FS website and the newly created GE website. 

·          Various segments of the campus community and some members of FS appear to be concerned about the charge to GEC.  After several FS meetings, FS gives preliminary approval of the SLO for the purpose of supporting the course reviews. The deadline for submitting course reviews is moved to December 1, 2004 from the original November 15 date.

·         As of March 21, 2005, most course reviews are completed.  A preliminary report is included in the Spring 2005 report to Faculty Senate.

·         In January, as part of the annual Teaching and Learning Conference, GEC sponsors a “Conversation on General Education” focused largely on the course review process and the learning outcomes. The conversation is well attended and participants are actively engaged in discussing the GE program, learning outcomes, and the course review process. 

·         A GEC website is created in Fall 2004.  

·         GEC posts a survey on the website seeking campus input on possible changes to the program.  Director and other GEC members attend college chairs’ meetings to hear ideas and concerns about these proposed changes or other concerns about the program or course reviews.

·         During Fall 2004, GEC develops a draft mission statement for General Education.  FS felt that the proposed mission statement needed to be presented to and discussed by a larger portion of the campus. 

·         Given that several concerns about the work of GEC, including the concern over the mission statement, continue to be raised, GEC asked FS to host a FS Forum on General Education early in Spring 2005.  This forum takes place on Thursday, February 10 during what would have been a regularly schedule FS meeting. About 2/3 of FS members attend, most of GEC members, some administrators, and 5-6 other faculty and staff not part of the previously mentioned groups.   The attendance is disappointing, but the conversations are helpful. Upon conclusion of this forum, it seems clear that UW-L lacks a vision of the role GE should play in the Baccalaureate Degree. 

·         A follow-up “visioning” session is held on March 4. About 15 people attend, including a few members of FS, GEC members, the Provost, and a handful of others.  Again, the attendance is disappointing, but the conversation is helpful.  In many respects, the conversation supported the types of learning expectations as found in the GE student learning outcomes.  GEC has not attempted to revise the mission statement at this point.

·         GEC sends a team to the AAC&U General Education and Assessment conference.

·         Structure subcommittee is in the process of developing a long-range plan.

·         Structure subcommittee finalizes and sends a General Education survey to faculty and staff.


 

Attachment B

 

General Education Committee

Brief Narrative Report to Accompany Course Review Spreadsheet

April 2005

 

The spreadsheet showing the pattern of outcomes addressed in UW-L’s General Education Program is attached. This information is current as of April 4, 2005. The first column of the spreadsheet lists the outcomes and the second column indicates the total number of times an outcome was identified across all courses (column labeled “total hits”).  The remaining columns indicate how often each outcome was identified in each category of the General Education program.  Separate columns were made for each subcategory when appropriate. The top row of the spreadsheet identifies the General Education Category.  For example, in the International/ Multicultural category, HIS 101 &102 are listed in the first column and all of the others (15 courses) are in the second column.  The number of courses for each category or subcategory is found in the 3rd (and 4th) row. The 202 courses in the international/multicultural sub-category were only counted once, but there was not agreement about the most important outcomes among the six 202 courses.  No course reviews were sent for ECO and HIS 202 (neither course has been taught for some time), but these did not get counted as “missing reviews” (see below).  

 

As of April 4, 2005 100 of the course reviews had been received.  Twelve reviews have not been received. Of those missing, at least five are courses that have not been taught for some time and the faculty members or instructors who taught the courses are retired or for other reasons no longer at UW-L.  A few missing reviews were done incorrectly and will be resubmitted as soon as possible. Department Chairs and Deans have been notified of any missing course reviews.

 

For several courses, 15 or more “highest priority” outcomes were identified.  The committee asked for 6-8, thinking that a single 14-week course can only focus substantively on a few outcomes during a single semester.  In the attached spreadsheet, the shaded cells with italicized numbers indicate outcomes that were identified as one of 15 or more.  

 

The eight blue cells in the attached spreadsheet indicate outcomes that were identified by at least 20% of the courses.  The popular outcomes were found in Communication, Critical Thinking: Analysis and Problem Solving, Content Knowledge, and Understanding Diversity. Within categories with more than two courses, outcomes that were identified by at least half of the courses are shown by yellow cells.   The pink cells represent the most common outcome in a category in which no outcome was mentioned by more than half the courses. Thus the blue, yellow, and pink areas suggest outcomes that in one way or another were more frequently identified as very important.  

 

The Math/Logical Systems area was separated into each discipline represented in that category.  Math and Computer Science are listed in the first column.  In that column if a number is followed by an “M” the outcome was identified only by math courses.  Philosophy (101) and the languages (102-202) are in the second column in this broad category.  If the outcome was identified by only a language course, an “*” appears next to the number. If only a “1” is listed,  Philosophy alone identified that outcome.  This was done because several individuals have commented over the past few years that language should not be in the same category as math and computer science.  By separating each discipline within this category, a picture of “fit” can emerge. As can be seen, the language courses seem to have little in common with any of the other courses in this category.  Philosophy, on the other hand, has identified a common outcome with either Math or Computer Science at least 4 times.

 

A preliminary discussion of the findings from the course reviews can be found in the attached Spring 2005 GEC Report to Faculty Senate.

 

 

 


 

Course Review using General Education Student Learning Outcomes

General Education Category

 

Literacy

Math/Log Systms

Minority&

International

Science

Self & Soc

 

Humanities

Arts

Health

 

 

cst/eng-2

mth/c-s

phl/lang

 M-R W-S

His101/102

Other

 

 

Lit

other

 

 

Number of courses in category

 

Eng30X-7

8M  2C-S

1P &

3 Lg

19

2

15 2

16 3

14

7

7

7

2

 

total

hits

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LEARNING OUTCOMES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Communication

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Comprehend, summarize the purpose and primary train of thought

23

6

 

2

2

2

2

2

1

2

2

2

 

2. Interpret variety communication forms

13

2

 

 

1

 

3

 

3

1

 

3

 

3. Interpret info form of formulas, ...and draw inferences from them.

17

1

8-M

 

1

 

 

5

2

 

 

 

 

4.State idea/argument; develop in logical…

28

5

8-M

 

2

2

1

 

4

3

3

 

 

5.Adopt appropriate tone, voice, formality..

12

6

 

 

3

 

 

 

2

1

 

 

 

6. Develop ideas through reasoning…

12

5

 

 

2

 

 

 

1

 

1

1

2

7.Identify,evaluate quality & reliability of sources...reference...

8

4

 

 

1

 

1

 

1

 

 

1

 

8.Identify, use technological tools & resources appropriate…

5

2

 

 

2

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

9.Accurately represent information or data in tables, …

13

1

2-M

 

3

 

 

7

 

 

 

 

 

10.Critically evaluate ideas from written and oral sources

21

4

 

 

3

2

4

1

2

 

2

1

2

11. Get, use, and give feedback effectively

4

1

 

 

 

 

 

2

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Critical Thinking:  Analytic and Problem-Solving Skills

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.Determine which methods of inquiry are appropriate …

13

4

2-M

1

1

 

2

1

2

 

 

 

 

2.Explain how the content of  text is related to the context …

12

1

 

 

3

 

 

 

1

3

3

1

 

3. Evaluate the evidence, logic and/or arguments... 

21

3

 

1

5

 

2

4

2

1

3

 

 

4.Distinguish between facts and opinion, inferences and observations

21

5

 

1

6

 

3

 

5

 

1

 

 

5. Identify a problem, what is known about the problem, & resources…

14

1

6-M

 

1

 

 

1

2

 

1

 

2

6.Consider the context & multiple perspectives when exploring a problem…

28

3

 

 

6

 

7

2

4

2

1

1

2

7.Evaluate the credibility and relevance of information, and detect errors, biases, assumptions, omissions, and/or fallacies in information

14

4

 

 

4

 

 

2

3

 

1

 

 

8. Recognize the difference between primary & secondary information sources; know the value of each type

8

2

 

 

2

 

 

1

1

 

2

 

 

9. Synthesize information from divergent sources and viewpoints and draw reasonable inferences and/or conclusions

18

3

 

 

3

2

5

 

3

 

2

 

 

10. Organize information, ideas, data, and hypotheses

13

5

2-M

 

1

 

 

2

1

1

1

 

 

11. Suggest, evaluate, and implement problem-solving strategies …

10

1

7

1

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

12.Detect patterns or systems underlying phenomena, concepts, structures, and/or organizations

12

0

 

1

4

 

1

2

2

 

2

 

 

13. Predict outcomes from analysis of data/information

8

1

2-M

 

 

 

2

3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Critical Thinking:  Quantitative Reasoning

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Interpret information given in the form of formulas, graphs, tables….draw inferences & make predictions from them.

11

 

2-M

 

1

 

 

5

3

 

 

 

 

2.Represent math infosymbolically, visually, numerically, &verbally

9

 

7

1*

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

3. Use mathematical methods to solve problems

10

 

7

1

 

 

 

2

 

 

 

 

 

4.Estimate and check answers to mathematical problems …

0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Content Knowledge

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.  Identify fundamental/foundational principles, theories, concepts, and issues within the discipline

38

4

9

 

1

 

5

7

7

1

 

3

1

2. Identify and describe common methodologies and tools used in a discipline

20

4

9

 

 

 

 

1

4

 

1

1

 

3.Use the methodologies or tools to replicate or create new knowledge /artifacts

4

2

 

 

 

 

1

 

3

 

 

 

 

4.Identify ways that disciplines influence or rely upon one another in our natural, physical, and social world

3

 

 

 

 

 

 

2

1

 

 

 

 

5.Articulate limitations to knowledge in these disciplines (what is known, what is not known)

3

 

 

 

 

 

1

1

1

 

 

 

 

6. Identify possible strategies for increasing understanding in that discipline

1

 

 

1 *

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7 Identify and evaluate important bibliographic and electronic resources that pertain to this discipline

3

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

2

 

 

 

 

8. Evaluate information from a variety of sources that relate to/inform others about this field

2

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

9. Explain how this information is relevant to both our daily lives and our society

13

 

 

 

3

 

1

3

5

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Integration of Knowledge

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.Apply the skills and knowledge learned in one discipline to solving problems, gaining new experiences, ... in other disciplines

16

2

9

1

1

 

 

1

 

1

 

1

 

2.Articulate how the content or form of a text, theory, interpretation, ... is shaped by the contexts within which it was created

16

1

 

 

6

2

1

 

1

2

2

1

 

3.Explain why this contextual awareness is important

6

 

 

 

3

 

1

 

1

 

1

 

 

4.Identify the various interdependent components of both humanly created complex systems and complex systems in nature

6

 

 

 

2

 

 

2

1

1

 

 

 

5.Recognize how intricate components of a system form integrated whole

12

 

 

1 *

2

 

1

4

 

 

 

4

 

6. Explain how the various components of a complex system operate to influence its behavior, change it, or maintain it in a state of equilibrium

9

 

 

 

 

 

2

6

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aesthetic Perspective

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Identify major artistic traditions in multiple art forms across culture and over time.

14

 

 

 

6

 

1

 

 

3

 

4

 

2. Evaluate and discuss artistic presentations using the language and patterns of thought inherent in the particular art form.

15

 

 

 

1

 

2

 

1

3

2

6

 

3. Recognize and discuss human creativity and diverse forms of aesthetic expression in multiple disciplines.

11

1

 

 

 

 

2

 

 

2

2

4

 

4. Discern the impact and role of artistic and literary achievement in society and one’s personal life.

8

 

 

 

3

 

1

 

 

1

1

2

 

5. Recognize and discuss the role of the arts as critical commentaries on society and the human condition.

14

 

 

 

6

 

1

 

1

 

2

4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Global Perspective

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Explain how various factors   affect the well-being of peoples, cultures, societies, and diverse groups throughout the world

14

 

 

 

4

2

5

1

2

 

2

 

 

Explain how the term globalization is interpreted differently ...provide reasons for these multiple perspectives.

0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. Describe the evolution and impact of global institutions  that transcend national economic, political, social and cultural jurisdiction.

4

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

1

2

 

 

4.Describe how a person’s historical and cultural contexts influence perceptions of themselves and others

16

 

 

 

4

1

3

1

3

1

2

1

 

5. Identify the beliefs, biases, and/or political views that may be embedded within a document, artifact, or event(s)

12

 

 

 

4

2

2

 

1

1

2

 

 

6. Identify significant factors that have made the modern world what it is today.

6

 

 

 

1

 

2

 

1

2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Understanding Diversity

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.Identify contributions that diverse cultures, groups, and individuals have made to local, state, national, and global society

13

 

 

 

6

 

6

 

1

 

 

 

 

2. Describe how race, gender, sexual orientation, class, and religious affiliation have shaped people’s cultural outlooks as well as how they have been perceived by others

28

 

 

1*

10

2

4

1

5

1

3

1

 

3.Describe how privilege and oppression, race, gender, sexual orientation, class, age, ability, and religious affiliations have functioned in systems of economic, social, and political control

17

 

 

 

9

2

1

 

2

 

3

 

 

4. Recognize the needs of disadvantaged and marginalized groups and how they may be impacted by legislative and judicial decisions and global actions

8

 

 

 

7

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Responsible Citizenship and Ethical Decision Making

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Values

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Articulate their personal values and how these differ from the value of others.

4

1

 

 

2

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. Identify factors that help create and influence their own values and the values of a culture/society.

11

 

 

 

4

 

1

 

3

1

2

 

 

3. Describe the moral framework established by human rights issues, conventions and protocols and the commitment …

0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. Interact respectfully with others different from oneself 

8

1

 

 

5

 

1

 

1

 

 

 

 

5. Question their own assumptions& respectfully question the assumptions of others

9

 

 

 

2

 

3

 

1

 

3

 

 

6. Respond empathically toward the situation of others

2

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

7. Practice and uphold standards of academic integrity and intellectual honesty

4

2

 

 

 

 

 

 

2

 

 

 

 

8. Use information ethically and respect intellectual property rights

3

2

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

9. Articulate current ethical issues as they relate to scientific and technological development, and other areas …

4

 

 

 

1

 

 

2

1

 

 

 

 

10. Identify the assumptions and logic that result in moral judgments of people from other ethnic/cultural backgrounds 

3

 

 

 

2

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Civic Engagement

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.Assess and articulate their own knowledge about the world and identify strategies for developing awareness of others

4

 

 

 

1

 

2

 

 

 

 

1

 

2.Identify the elements and responsibilities of citizens in a democratic society

4

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

3

 

 

 

 

3.Explain the importance of participation in the democratic process

2

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

4.Identify their own strategies for involvement, leadership, and citizenship

2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2

 

 

 

 

5.Participate in campus and community events and in the democratic process

4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3

 

 

1

 

6.Suggest possible explanations for and solutions to social, political, or economic issues

2

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

7.Explain how individuals, communities and organizational (political, economic, social, educational, etc.) structures may contribute to the depletion or preservation of local, national, and global resources

1

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

8. Identify strategies to increase their awareness and knowledge of social justice and injustice

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ethical Decision Making

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.Articulate the process or strategies they use to make ethical decisions

0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.Compare and contrast the possible outcomes of situations based on different decisions

0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.Compare and contrast ethical principles and decision making from various perspectives

2

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

1

 

 

4.Apply their knowledge of ethics to practical situations in their own or other disciplines or human situations

1

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

5.Argue logically and persuasively why they believe that their particular decision was ethically sound

2

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

1

 

 

6.Make thoughtful choices in personal lifestyle and evaluate the consequences of those choices

3

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

1

 

 

 

1

7. Analyze the impact their decisions and choices have on others.

1

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

8.Respect diverse perspectives and approaches to ethical issues or problems

2

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CODE:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 ~111 Unique GE courses.  Of these 100 reported

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

M=Math 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P= PhL 101

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* = language class

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 = includes only one count for all of the 202 Contemporary Global issues. 

However, departments differed on the outcomes for this  course

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 = There are 13 lab science courses and 3 non-lab listed;

However CHM 100 and 103 are missing.  Of the 3 non-lab, only BIO/Psy 107 reported

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

outcome identified by more than 1/2 courses in category

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 outcome mentioned by courses where more than 15 highest priority outcomes were identified

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 highest level of agreement of outcomes in category, but identified by less than 1/2 of the courses.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 the most common outcomes across all categories, representing a minimum of 20% (20/100 completed reviews) of courses in GE.  Highest percentage was 38% (38/100)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                               

 


 

[1] NOTE: I refer to several support documents throughout this report.  For your convenience, I have provided Hyperlinks to these documents or web sites whenever possible.