General Education ’96-’97 Summary
May 16, 1997
Rodney J. Sobieski, Director General Education

The Council’s efforts over the past year were targeted on several diverse elements of General Education. In the following highlights, those items, which are summarized, are those that the Council expresses intent and/or resolution about.

• Critical Thinking: Critical thinking was the topic of a subcommittee of the council that utilized the student archives in the Division of Social Sciences. The division has accruing examples of student writing, examinations and reports for the last several years. The Portfolio committee is working with the director of Assessment using a hybrid approach to develop a method to evaluate critical thinking (CT). In addition to scoring samples of student writing and comparing the ACT test scores the 16 students in the sample were asked to take the Watson Glaser test. Even though the students represent a division within the institution, the initial role of General Education courses in formulating the student’s skills is assumed. This is a pilot experiment, which depending on the future. This trail would then be the model to implement and to evaluate CT skills in students whose materials are solely General Education in content.

The Council supported, with the cooperation of the Office of Assessment and Educational Measurements, a PBS videoconference for the campus community on November 7, 1996.

• Competency Exams: The Council passes the Competency Examination Alternatives to the Competency Examination Requirement which as of this date have not been acted on by the Vice President’s office. Essentially the Alternatives provide several mechanisms for students to meet the University’s requirement through writing intensive courses or grades of “A” in resident, on-campus selections of EN 108 and MA 110. It also includes an option for international students to use the TOEFL as an alternative to the reading and writing exams.

• Faculty Senate: More significant to the Competency Alternatives issue above was having final action taken after almost three semesters of discussion by the Faculty Senate through Bill 960004 (attached). This formalized the council as the body responsible for advising the Administration concerning policy and procedures affecting the university-wide competency exam requirements. It also gave direction to the Council to direct the Assessment and Education Measures office to evaluate the reliability and validity of the test (s). The Council was given the authority to designate minimum performance levels, and to establish course performance levels as equivalence. Further the Council can now recommend to the Senate the expansion, modification or termination of the program.

• Computer Literacy: The Council’s survey of entering freshman during last summer’s New Student Program was shared with various offices across campus. The Council revised the survey for 1997 to reflect questions that include gender, resident status, and adaptive and/or assisted technology. Additionally several new software competency questions were added. The survey needs to be ongoing for the next several years due to the observation that student skills are continually increasing, and the realization that the Regents Precollege Curriculum Standards have computer technology as a requirement. Assessment of student’s skills, though the survey will provide the Council with background on a new requirement (attached) that was passed late in the Spring semester and awaits approval by the Vice President. The new Computer Competency requirement, which is a new Graduation Requirement and not a new General Education requirement, has several means for students to satisfy the proposed computer proposal. Students meet the new regulations by either having a computer component to their degree requirements (all education students, Business students, and some in L.A.&S.) or by taking two sections of computer intensive General Education courses, or by taking a computer course found on the approved list. The list and the options will be added to the recently revised General Education “check off” that appears in the schedule of classes. The Council recognizes that in the coming year (assuming approval at all levels), the campus academic community will need to be informed about the new requirements, and that faculty in General Education sections be encouraged to qualify their courses as “CI”, Computer Intensive to give students that option of fulfilling the requirement. Likewise this new requirement may stimulate divisions to consider formalizing a computer experience in their curricula.

• Student Focus Groups: Lunch focus groups (n=5) were continued between students (n=43) and Council members. Last year the students were invited from a list that Chairs provided which represented those who the divisions raked as outstanding. This year on two occasions the Council invited students in a random fashion from those walking through the Memorial Union. This, in my opinion, did not alter what we heard from students concerning the General Education program. A summary of what we discovered would be almost identical to last year’s summary, and includes generalizations such as course rigor ranges from “Mickey Mouse” to those that are too demanding. A course such as FA220, should not be required of majors in the Arts. One new idea was that Freshman Seminar should be in Gen Ed requirement with a standardized syllabus. We heard that the availability of computer labs across campus was a hassle for some students and they suggested sign up sheets. Several times during the luncheons students commented on the easiness of General Education courses taught by graduate assistants. The Council did agree that a major goal for next year’s agenda should be to better inform students of the importance of these requirements. A discussion focused on better integration of the Gen Ed philosophy into the Freshman Seminar course, plus holding a faculty forum in Gen Ed which shares some of the student perceptions and misconception about the program. These issues will be considered at the first Council meeting to develop a strategy to meet these goals.

• Multicultural Intensive Requirement: The Council requested an analysis of this one-year-old requirement for next year. Currently, a committee headed by the Director of Ethnic and Gender Studies has such a group organized. They have developed preliminary evaluation guidelines which would start with those courses ending in May ’97, and continue through next years MCI offerings. Essentially a variety of assessments will be introduced to the various instructors to attempt to acquire “portfolio” type documentation on the program, which would then be transmitted to the Council.

Last Updated April 17, 2007