Frequently Asked Questions about The General Education Task Force Proposal: Making General Education Matter (April 2007)
• What's changed? How is the proposal different from the current requirement (GER)?
There are basically three kinds of changes: a) a more clear, plain statement of the philosophy of general education, b) a more focused and more assessable set of GE goals, and c) some modifications in the requirements, but without significantly increasing the total number of credits. But the bottom line is to try to make GE matter more at UND. Now, GE—in all aspects—doesn't matter enough. Students say “gen ed is something to get through and check off” (not an important and valuable part of what they learn at UND.) Many faculty, who teach GE courses are not sure how their courses should contribute to GE, and they are unsure about how to assess their students' learning as it relates to the GE goals. Faculty who don't teach GE courses don't know much about it and often feel that GE is “not their job,” even though most of them know that the liberal learning part of a university education can and should be very important. So the proposal's underlying intention is to raise the visibility of the purpose and value of GE and to enhance its value as an essential part of what students should learn in today's university.
• What ideas and suggestions did the TF consider in developing its recommendations?
Every suggestion, idea, concern, and problem voiced to the TF as well as within TF meetings and studies was considered. The TF members read widely on the subject of liberal learning, studied programs—both strong and weak—across North America, talked to people at other institutions as well as here at UND, examined the NDUS requirements for transfer of GE, and listened as carefully as they could to students, faculty, administrators, and staffers. In addition, when deciding what to include in the proposal and what to leave out, the TF adopted (and followed) a 2/3-approval process—every element of the proposed recommendations earned a minimum of 2/3 TF approval in order to be included in the final draft. Many very good ideas did not make it into the final proposal because they did not win 2/3 approval; some of the best ideas were brought up more than once just to be sure that they were not rejected on a “bad day” and had a full, complete hearing. (A few of these good ideas included: ethical reasoning and civic engagement as new goals and course requirements, a freshman seminar requirement that focused on a campus-wide “big question' theme, a GE requirement for fitness and wellness, and a number of suggestions to require a course in a wide variety of subjects or disciplines.) If you are interested in learning more about the TF's deliberations on any of these issues, we invite you to contact a TF member or check out the TF meeting minutes (see URL here).
• How does the proposal respond to the criticisms from the Higher Learning Commission (in their North Central Accreditation review)?
The HLC criticized us for not having an assessment system in place that would allow us to check and see if our students are learning what we say they are learning (direct assessment). Among other programs, they specifically levied this criticism toward our GE program: while we do a good job finding out what student think of our GE courses, we don't do a very good job at all finding out if students learn to actually do such things as communicate clearly, become familiar with cultures other than their own, learn how conclusions are made, and so on (a sampling of our current GE goals). To address their criticism, the proposed set of GE goals is more developed and explained in terms of possible assessment. Furthermore, the proposal supports other work already in progress: the GER Committee's work in tightening up assessment procedures during the revalidation process, and the Provost's Office work in developing an better assessment plan for GE as a program.
• What evidence do you have that indicates that the current program should be improved?
A great deal of evidence points that way. The General Education Longitudinal Study (our nationally recognized 5-year study of students' experience of GE here at UND) as well the as a recent GE transcript review (by the Provost's Office) both point to serious weaknesses with the current General Education program. These reports can be found under “General Education Assessment” at www.und.edu/dept/oid/getf.htm . In addition, the annual reports of the Senate's General Education Requirements Committee document various weaknesses with the program. When this work is combined with the Higher Learning Commission's critique in their report, we have ample evidence that “business as usual” in GE at UND is something we can and should do better.
• How will the proposed changes affect how courses are validated and revalidated (by the GER Committee)?
On one level, not much at all. The GERC's work in streamlining the GE validation/revalidation process, as well as in educating the campus about direct assessment of GE goals, will continue in pretty much the same manner as before. The revalidation procedures won't change much, if all. And the GERC will continue as the “go to” unit on campus that will call for and review GE courses.
On another level, if the proposal is approved and implemented, the new goals and course requirements will need to be assessed. That would be new. We have already started to develop outcomes assessment tools on some goals (e.g., writing, critical thinking, diversity), and that work will continue with faculty teams under leadership from the Provost's Office.
One other validation/revalidation change: the TF is recommending that GE courses aim for one single (primary) GE goal, and that they validate/revalidate for that goal. Now courses may aim for any number of the GE goals (one or all six). Changing to targeting just one goal is an effort to place more emphasis on both the teaching and assessment of the goal selected—it's an effort to make GE teaching more intentional. Designating a single goal for revalidation might well simplify the process, and it would sharpen the focus of our assessment work, allowing us to more easily see if our students' learning has been successful.
So, yes, the revalidation/validation of GE courses would change somewhat, but the basic procedures and timelines would remain pretty similar to what we have in place now.
• Our department just completed our revalidations, and we put a lot of work into it. Will we have to go through all that again if the program changes as proposed are adopted?
No. The cycle of revalidations will stay on the same schedule. The next time your courses come up for revalidation, you would be expected to have implemented the changes that affect your faculty and students, but you would have till the next cycle to do that. However, if faculty wanted to step up their validations/revalidations—perhaps for one of the new special emphasis requirements, where those requirements are a particularly good fit—they could certainly do that.
For the validation of new courses, that work could take place as soon as a department or faculty member was ready to propose them. (Note that new courses would need to undergo the university's regular curriculum approval process as well as GE validation—this is exactly the same way we do things now.) Current courses that do not now meet the GER (which have not been validated for GE), but which might be good additions to the proposed program, could apply for validation using the new goals and requirement.
• Why the new name: Essential Studies? What's wrong with “general education?”
Nothing is wrong with the term “general education,” but the TF believes that GE has become associated with the problems in the current program. Therefore, a name change might encourage adopting a fresh perspective and greater seriousness about GE. Since the key issues here at UND in GE are to raise its visibility and its value, the TF believes that signaling the “essentialness” of GE courses will help both students and faculty to take this part of their studies more seriously. “General” to many persons implies unfocused, less-than-deep learning. In addition, here, the term “general education” now comes with unfavorable connotations--courses to get through as quickly as possible, credits to check off and move on from to more valuable work. We think these unfavorable connotations need to change. To aid the campus in doing that, we are proposing a new name to draw attention to the notion that GE courses are an essential part of every undergraduate's university education and that, to learn well, serious study is expected and required. The TF does not want to imply that students' other work—in the major, in elective courses—is not essential. On the contrary, all are valuable. But the weak spot now in our offerings is in our general education courses. We need to tackle that issue head on—a name change is one part of the effort to strengthen and improve GE (or Essential Studies) here at UND.
• When would the changes take effect?
If the Senate approves the Task Force proposal, a transition team would be formed to start the implementation process. We see the transition work being done in the summer and fall of 2007, followed by the necessary curriculum development work. A transition plan for students—to help them decide old or new program requirements—would also need to be developed. Since GE is often “under the radar” for many students and faculty now, we also want to develop better ways to share information about the program and the courses (e.g., a more visible, easy-to-find web page dedicated to the Essential Studies program, goal-by-goal listings of ES courses; student advising tools and information, etc.)
We see that the transition and the implementation phases could be completed by May, 2008, with the new GER and new goals/philosophy all in place for Fall, 2008.
• Will it take another 15 or so years to make the next improvements? What is the mechanism for reviewing the program and making changes in a more timely fashion?
It is anticipated that a program review committee will be convened every three or four years to examine the status of the General Education program. This group, working together with the Senate General Education Requirements Committee and using assessment data compiled by the Assistant Provost, will conduct a program similar to ones we do now in our departments. The program review committee would invite input from faculty and students, examine student learning assessment data, and compare our program to emerging national trends best practices. For the long-term health of our GE program, we need to develop an institutional review process that is both timely and on going. (We don't have that now.)