March 3, 1994
To:
The Kansas State University Community
From:
The General Education Project Team
Re:
The Intentions of the University General Education Proposal
We
were asked to draft a workable design for the faculty to use
in building general education as a common university experience
for undergraduates. Our work has been informed by the thinking
of former University committees, by the national discussion
on calling for a reform of undergraduate education, and by
a series of on-campus conversations with College curriculum
committees, administrative groups, and student organizations.
We believe our proposal offers a framework which will work
and will not impose undue stress on current undergraduate
programs.
This
proposal, like most proposals, depends upon the acceptance
of certain assumptions, and we want to share our assumptions
with you. First, we made some assumptions regarding the faculty
and their disposition toward undergraduate teaching and lea
learning. We think ample evidence exists to argue that a sizable
cadre of faculty members pays genuine attention to the quality
of undergraduate teaching and learning. Further, we believe
that a substantial number of faculty members currently practice
the teaching habits we recommend in our proposal and that
many other faculty members would like to cultivate those habits.
Finally, we assume that many of our faculty would be interested
in developing general education courses/experiences, if governance
and administrative arrangements provide the necessary academic
safeguards and career rewards.
We
made a second set of assumptions concerning course content
and the governance of course content. We assume that faculty
members wish to maintain the prerogative to select course
and program content and our proposal reflects that assumption.
Our conventional model for curriculum construction aims at
the education of majors and consists of courses designed for
the specialist as a prerequisite to specialized disciplinary
study, as blocks in a defined structure of knowledge, as integral
pieces of a n intellectual canon, or as requisite elements
for professional competence. We assume that the faculty will
agree with our position that general education should not
be the immersion of non-specialist students into a watered-down
version of a curriculum constructed for majors. We assume
that general education begins with the premise that learners
want to increase their capacity to help with the improvement
of life and to enjoy living more fully beyond the dimensions
of their special careers. That assumption requires
a different, but not less rigorous, design for general education
courses/ experiences. Finally, we assume that a University
plan which requires a common set of criteria will allow our
students to explore the diversity of expertise at Kansas as
State University with the guidance of their major faculty
members and to share a similar, but not necessarily the same,
general education experience.
THE
PURPOSE OF GENERAL EDUCATION
The
project team believes that general education at Kansas State
University should expand the experiences and vision our undergraduates
carry forward in the conduct of their lives and should help
students develop the interest and capacity for improving
and enriching life. This purpose of general education can
be addressed by targeting learning outcomes that characterize
a preferred state of mind and habits of mind for Kansas State
graduates. We envision graduates disposed to appreciate differing
viewpoints, to consider openly new and divergent thinking,
to weigh ideas with careful skepticism, to challenge conventional
wisdom, and to explore for more accurate and more useful knowledge.
We would expect K-State graduates to exercise educated habits,
which include, at least, critical and analytical thinking,
careful and thoughtful reading, writing and speech, an inclination
to wonder, a penchant for questioning, and a desire to solve
puzzles and problems. When that occurs, an undergraduate degree
signals more than specialized competence for a career.
A
SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSAL
In
the Spring of 1991 Provost Coffman initiated a general education
project to design a workable undergraduate general education
plan for Kansas State University. The Deans' Council and the
Academic Affairs Committee of the Faculty Senate encourage
d this initiative.
The
project team believes that the design mission has been completed.
We present in this document a unique concept of general education
crafted specifically for KSU and a tracked process for adopting
the idea as a part of the undergraduate curriculum. This summary
provides a list of our proposed recommendations and a suggested
calendar of activities for implementation. We encourage the
faculty of KSU to consider and to adopt this idea as an enhancement
for our students and we encourage University administrators
to invest the support necessary for success.
We
propose a framework for building university-wide undergraduate
general education at Kansas State University. Our proposal
does not prescribe a uniform set of courses/experiences from
particular disciplines or fields of study. Our proposal would
not require the addition of any new credit hours to existing
undergraduate graduation requirements for any established
degree program on campus. We estimate that the University-wide
general education plan we propose would require a central
University budget allocation of $250,000. Most of this money
would be used to assist and support faculty members in the
development of general education courses/experiences and a
modest amount would be used to manage and coordinate program
development campus wide.
Given
these points, we make the following recommendations. A complete
explanation of the recommendations is presented in the full
proposal.
A.
We recommend that every College on campus contribute to University
General Education by modifying existing courses/ experiences
or creating new ones to fit the specifications of our proposed
framework and that College administrators encourage and support
this development.
B.
We recommend a set of design criteria to be used in approving
courses/experiences as acceptable for University General Education
credit. Approval would require evidence which shows that the
course/experience is designed with the general education of
non-major students in mind and that instruction and learning
and testing activities incorporate the ideas of active learning,
experiential context, and making connections.
C.
We recommend the requirement of upper (300 and above) and
lower (100-299) division courses/experiences to encourage
general education study across undergraduate careers.
D.
We recommend that present University requirements for six
credits of expository writing, two credits of public speaking,
one credit of physical education, and a nearly universal requirement
of three credits of mathematics be designated as basic skills
courses and not University General Education. (This recommendation
is consistent with institutional reporting procedures of the
Kansas Board of Regents in place since 1988.)
E.
We recommend that each faculty body responsible for governing
a specific undergraduate curriculum select at least 18 credits
from a roster of approved University General Education courses/experiences
and use them in place of an equal number of exist existing
general studies requirements for their majors. (Presently
on campus all undergraduate curricula require students to
complete a certain number of credits in general studies for
graduation. The number of credits required ranges from 18
to 50.)
F.
We recommend that each faculty body responsible for governing
a specific undergraduate curriculum present, for approval,
a case statement which explains how the general education
requirements they set provide for breadth of study.
G.
We recommend a flexible formula to accommodate the advising
of transfer students and students who shift majors inside
KSU regarding general education requirements.
H.
We recommend that a faculty implementing group be charged
to oversee the development and approval of courses/experiences
and to approve the curricula for the University-wide plan.
We suggest that this group remain in place for at least five
years and that they develop a proposal for governance once
the plan is in place.
I.
We recommend administrative attitudes and actions which will
give general education work the necessary status and legitimacy
to attract the interest and commitment of the faculty.
J.
We recommend that the provost arrange for administrative leadership
and management of University General Education using resources
and personnel currently assigned to the provost's office.
K.
We recommend that the provost, deans, and department heads
communicate clear statements of specific commitments to rewards
and procedures which would be necessary for the faculty to
make genuine investments in University General Education.
(This recommendation is found in the supplementary section
"University General Education: A Shared Vision.")
GENERAL EDUCATION AT KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY A PROPOSAL
Our
proposal for a University-wide plan for general education
is that:
1)
courses and experiences offered in all Colleges which meet
the criteria for the general education courses and experiences
be designated as University General Education, and
2) the individual Colleges establish programs of general education
study for their majors which use at least 18 credits from
the designated courses and experiences and which meet certain
conditions for the approval of general education programs.
We
propose that this plan be implemented into the undergraduate
curriculum in a "tracked" process (see the chart
on page iv). The first track emphasizes the modification and
development of courses/experiences for general education and
would begin as soon as the plan is approved by Faculty Senate.
The second track emphasizes finalization of general education
programs and would begin following a review projected to begin
in March of 1995. That review would determine whether there
are enough courses and experiences that have been approved
for general education credit or are in the process of being
developed and submitted for approval.
Track
One: Courses and Experiences
The
responsibility of conducting University General Education
planning would rest with the faculty (a General Education
Implementation Task Force), the Colleges (an Inter-College
Coordination Panel), and the University (the provost's office).
This work would begin immediately following approval of the
plan by Faculty Senate. A more thorough explanation of responsibilities
can be found on pages 12-14, Proposed Governance for University
General Education.
To
begin the first track, the provost would establish a budget,
charge the deans of undergraduate Colleges, and delegate central
administration responsibilities. Each dean then would charge
departments, allocate funds within the College, and appoint
an associate dean to an Inter-College Coordination Panel.
The Academic Affairs Committee of Faculty Senate would oversee
the selection of faculty members for a General Education Implementation
Task Force.
The
most important work to be accomplished in Track One is to
develop and maintain a pool of courses and experiences approved
for University General Education. The expectations for those
courses and experiences are discussed on pages 3-8 of this
document. Interested faculty members who modify existing courses/experiences
and those who develop new courses/experiences would submit
them through customary channels for approval. During the initial
implementation stages, at least, courses/experiences submitted
for approval would be reviewed prior to submission to Academic
Affairs by the General Education Implementation Task Force,
an ad hoc faculty task force established by Academic Affairs.
Early
in Track One, Colleges or Departments would inform the General
Education Implementation Task Force of their "wish lists"
of courses and experiences to include in the programs of general
education they want to propose for their majors. Faculty members
who would like to submit courses/experiences for general education
credit could also make their plans known. The General Education
Implementation Task Force would circulate these lists for
the entire University. This exchange of information should
continue in the future as well.
Track
Two: Programs
The
work to be accomplished in Track Two is to establish programs
of general education in the undergraduate Colleges. When establishing
these programs, three conditions must be met for approval:
1) an assurance that the general education programs provide
breadth, 2) a selection of at least eighteen credits from
the pool of approved general education courses/experiences,
and 3) a distribution of at least one-third of those credits
at the upper division level (300 and above).
In
March of 1995, the Academic Affairs Committee of Faculty Senate
would begin to review the existing pool of courses/experiences
that either have been approved for general education credit
or are in the process of being developed and submitted for
approval. On the basis of the review, Academic Affairs would
forward a recommendation to Faculty Senate for action. If
the numbers are sufficient to support the development of general
education programs, then Track Two would officially begin.
Clearly, faculty would have begun to consider their general
education programs in order to forward "wish lists"
for general education courses and experiences.
University
General Education
Recommendations
from the project team for a plan for University General Education
are discussed in the following four sections:
I.
Expectations for Courses and Experiences Approved for General
Education Credit,
II. Expectations for General Education Programs,
III. Proposed Governance for University General Education,
IV. Projections for Implementation.
I.
Expectations for Courses & Experiences Approved for General
Education Credit
In
the project team's Statement of Direction at the beginning
of this document, we noted that certain learning outcomes
would be targeted for undergraduate programs of general education.
To repeat, we envision graduates disposed to appreciate differing
viewpoints, to consider openly new and divergent thinking,
to weigh ideas with careful skepticism, to challenge conventional
wisdom, and to explore for more accurate and more useful knowledge.
We would expect K-State graduates to exercise educated habits,
which include, at least, critical and analytical thinking,
careful and thoughtful reading, writing and speech, an inclination
to wonder, a penchant for questioning, and a desire to solve
puzzles and problems.
Two
points need to be clear. First, we believe that some of what
we want for undergraduates occurs as they study in the major.
What general education can contribute is expansion and application
beyond the narrowness of specialization. Second, to r emain
consistent with reporting procedures of the Kansas Board of
Regents that have been in place since 1988, our proposal presumes
that the present University requirements for six credits of
expository writing, two credits of public speaking, one credit
of physical education, and a nearly universal requirement
of three credits of mathematics would be designated as basic
skills courses and not as University General Education.
When
faculty members design courses/experiences for University
General Education, they would describe content as well as
learning processes and outcomes. Clear statements of the performance
expected of students and the means of evaluating student learning
or performance would also be indicated.
Criteria
First,
general education courses and experiences would be designed
with the general education of non-major students in mind.
Second,
all general education courses and experiences would incorporate:
1)an
active learning environment,
2)an experiential context for the matter to be studied, and
3)an opportunity for the student to connect ideas.
An
Active Learning Environment
When
designing an active learning environment for students, it
is important to keep the focus on ACTIVE LEARNING, not on
"activity." It is possible for students to be active
learners while sitting quietly in a lecture hall seat. It
is also possible for students to be very involved in some
sort of classroom activity without being active learners.
Active
learners are engaged in doing things and thinking about what
they are doing. Some general characteristics are often associated
with instruction that promotes active learning:
*
Students are involved in higher-level thinking: critical thinking;
creative thinking; problem-solving; analysis, synthesis, evaluation.
*
Students are involved in more than listening. They talk about
what they are learning; they write about what they are learning;
they relate what they are learning to past experiences; they
apply what they are learning to their daily lives.
*
More emphasis is placed on developing students' skills than
on transmitting information.
*
Greater emphasis is placed on students' exploration of their
own motivations, attitudes, and values.
In
university courses higher level cognitive learning (application,
analysis, synthesis, evaluation) or affective learning (interests,
attitudes, values) is often the goal. For those goals research
shows that teaching methods which encourage student activity
and involvement, especially student-to-student interaction,
are likely to be more effective than methods where students
are more intellectually passive (such as in a lecture intended
primarily to transmit information). Teaching methods that
promote such activity and involvement include: provocative
lectures, question-answer exchanges, challenging discussions,
improvisation, guided design, team projects, peer critiques,
simulations, role-playing, laboratories, field trips, internships,
volunteer activities, research projects, independent study
opportunities, etc. Resourceful teachers would add to the
list.
Thomas
Angelo (director of the Academic Development Center at Boston
College) characterizes four dimensions of learning:
Declarative
Learning (Learning What) -- knowledge; learning the facts
and principles of a discipline; we usually ask students to
declare in speech or writing what they know. Evaluation: Tell
me what you know.
Procedural
Learning (Learning How) -- learning how to do things, the
processes and procedures involved; mix of general and specific
skills~skills that all students are expected to master (thinking,
speaking, writing) and skills that majors in a discipline
are expected to master (sight-singing, calculating stresses
and loads, presenting information in graphic form). Evaluation:
Show me how you do that.
Conditional
Learning (Learning When and Where) -- applying knowledge and
skills mastered; learning good judgment in a particular field;
knowing when and where to use what you know to greatest advantage.
Evaluation: Here's the situation. What are you going to do?
Reflective
Learning (Learning Why) -- learning to be self-reflective
(to understand why they believe, think, and act as they do)
and to value self-reflection; learning ways to reflect on
interests, motivations, attitudes, and values; developing
the habits of mind and heart required for the full exercise
of citizenship and the responsible pursuit of individual happiness.
Evaluation: What do you think? Why?
All
four dimensions are essential to an effective undergraduate
education, but studies show that the emphasis for undergraduates
nationally is on declarative and procedural learning. There
is evidence of conditional learning and reflective learning
in our undergraduate programs; nevertheless, our students
do not spend nearly enough time and effort at these levels.
The proposed general education courses and experiences should
improve that, in part by getting students to participate more
actively in learning ~ in ways similar to the active learning
that is more evident in study in the majors. Active learning
is an important principle for all undergraduate education,
whether in a major curriculum or in a curriculum for general
education.
Experiential
Context for the Matter to be Studied
Life,
not the discipline, sets the agenda for learning in this proposed
plan of general education. There is evidence that students
are more likely to be active learners when courses and experiences
capitalize on students' interests -- as do courses and experiences
in the major fields of study. The potential for increased
learning and rigor should increase, not decrease, with this
approach.
What
is taught in general education should begin with students'
own experiences though not be limited to a primary focus on
the self. The idea of experiential context would be to base
the content on experiences that students have already had
or on direct experiences induced in the course and then move
beyond that level to exploring and perceiving general frameworks
of understanding.
While
the issues being considered could be contemporary in the sense
that they affect people in today's world, some of the instructional
materials used to study the issues could very well be "classics."
After all, many issues important in our contemporary lives
have been pondered by the world's peoples for centuries.
Opportunity
to Connect Ideas
General
education courses and experiences would emphasize a "whole"
(rather than a "part") in order to challenge students
to seek the connections across knowledge, to focus on the
relationships among ideas.
It
is vital that students experience the sense of complexity
and interconnectedness that characterizes all knowledge and
learning. Students need the opportunity to broaden their perspectives
and gain a more coherent view. That sense of connectedne ss
is vital in all of our lives. For example: an attorney serving
as a city commissioner will not face the need for a new municipal
sewer system one discipline at a time; a parent- school committee
organized to develop effective drug prevention programs for
children and youth must work together to employ knowledge
about human development, program development and social systems;
citizens voting on a community issue should consider the full
context of the issue and its impact on everyone's lives.
Focus
and Format
Though
not considered to be criteria for approval, the two elements
of focus and format also help to describe courses and experiences
that would be designed for general education at K- State.
Focus
As
the project team discussed what faculty members might design
for general education courses and experiences, we realized
that at least two focuses would be possible. Some faculty
members might somehow combine the two focuses.
Focus
A addresses a current issue or controversy about which people
today feel deeply. A few examples might include: a seminar
to debate the health crisis in the United States, a course
that examines opposing viewpoints on current political/economic
changes in the former Soviet Union, a multi-disciplinary course
that focuses on global resources, a collaborative study to
explore the problematic issue of America's homeless, a community
service experience that focuses on environmental issues in
rural Kansas, an upper division discussion course focussed
on contemporary urban life.
Focus
B is more rooted in conventional disciplines with the intent
of helping the nonspecialist apply knowledge as a tool in
understanding and explaining the world. A few examples might
include: a descriptive overview of the fundamental concepts
of classical and modern physics with a focus on the role these
principles play in everyday phenomena; using applications
of mathematical structures to exemplify the linguistic use
of mathematics and its impact on society; a course that examines
the interaction of culture and language; an introduction to
aspects of human behavior which influence the process of environmental
design, including ways in which people perceive, think about,
respond to and interact in physical settings; a study of social,
economic and environmental problems as a function of technology.
Format
A
variety of formats would undoubtedly be used by faculty members
who design general education courses and experiences. More
typical formats would include lectures, recitations, seminars,
laboratories, and studios. Other possible formats would include
internships, study abroad, and community service projects.
Faculty members would be encouraged to be innovative in the
design of formats that would promote the goals of general
education.
The
number of credits allocated to a general education offering
would be flexible. Three credit hours might continue as the
most typical instance, but faculty members could develop courses
and experiences with other credit allocations. For example
, an internship or community service project might be assigned
four credits, or a faculty team might plan a series of one-credit
experiences to be taught sequentially during a semester.
Lower
Division and Upper Division General Education
All
courses and experiences approved for general education credit,
upper and lower division, would have to meet the three criteria
described earlier -- an active learning environment, experiential
context for the matter to be studied, and opportunities to
connect ideas.
Lower
division general education courses (level 100-299) would be
planned for freshmen and sophomores and some might be designed
to accommodate large enrollments. In most instances prerequisites
would not be established for these courses but, in th e event
that prerequisites are deemed necessary, we would encourage
course developers to think of prerequisites as they relate
to the general education student.
Final
determination of the approval specifications for upper division
(300 and above) general education regarding pre-enrollment
student requirements and advanced learning outcomes would
be one of the first responsibilities of the General Education
Implementation Task Force. The project team considered this
topic at some length and we believe that the expectations
for student study time and performance in these courses should
parallel the elevated expectations traditionally associated
with upper division undergraduate work. In that spirit, we
present three statements below as a beginning point for consideration
by the task force:
(1)
conditions for student enrollment -- e.g., completion of basic
skill courses (expository writing, speech, physical education,
mathematics), junior standing, completion of at least 6 credit
hours of lower division general education;
(2)
performance expectations which challenge students to higher
learning achievements -- e.g., to exercise skills of communication
and critical thinking in the class setting, to collaborate
in the development of effective, creative ways to solve problems,
to actively seek connections among various disciplines.
(3)
instructional activities such as small group discussions,
writing-intensive assignments, using skills and knowledge
gained in earlier courses and experiences, independent work,
collaborative work.
II.
Expectations for General Education Programs
When
establishing programs of general education, the Colleges or
Departments must meet three conditions for approval:
1)
an assurance that general education programs provide breadth,
2) a selection of at least eighteen credits from a pool of
approved general education courses/experiences, and
3) a distribution of at least one-third of those credits at
the upper division level.
Provision
for Breadth
The
project team conceives of general education as an ally to
specialized study. In that alliance general education complements
study in depth by contributing a provision for breadth in
the curriculum. The project team sees breadth as a mechanism
to help students explore new and different explanations about
the complexity, connectedness, and beauty of their world.
General education, in our conception, helps balance the curriculum
and widen the perspective of students. The provision for breadth
would introduce students to the excitement of learning for
intrinsic, aesthetic, political, social, practical, or personal
reasons not necessarily connected to competence in a field
of study or to success in a career. The responsibility for
addressing the provision for breadth would rest with Colleges
or Departments.
We
encourage the University community to think of general education
as a set of experiences designed to help students study and
consider topics and issues beyond the limits of their chosen
fields of specialization. The limited plan that we propose
would not produce a cadre of expertly informed generalists,
but we hope it would inspire graduates to experience life
beyond their careers in a generally informed and questioning
way.
How
might faculty members respond to meeting the condition of
breadth expressed above as they propose a set of experiences
to meet the University General Education requirement for their
curriculum? The following examples serve to illustrate how
our idea of breadth might be applied as such plans are made.
The point here is not to nominate the topics of any of these
program examples. We only wish to illustrate possible applications
of our idea of breadth.
Example
A: College A offers undergraduate specializations that
demand significant amounts of technical and quantitative competence
and focuses study to develop the specialized competence for
beginning a career. To broaden their students' programs of
study, the College faculty requires that students select approved
general education experiences that explore at least four of
six areas: history and appreciation of the fine arts, United
States or international commerce, diversity in American society,
understanding human behavior, the life sciences, and the literary
or rhetorical arts.
Example
B: Program B prepares students for professional careers
and the faculty have decided that all students must complete
twenty-four credits in a subset of specific general education
experiences: (1) one of three designated courses related to
science and technology, and (2) a four-credit community service
experience in either an urban or rural environment, whichever
is the least familiar to the student. Beyond these requirements,
advisors should help students pursue breadth according to
the students' interests, backgrounds.
Example
C: Department C has many students who choose to complement
their area of specialization by enrolling in a secondary major,
which includes a four-course interdisciplinary sequence taught
in the Colleges of Agriculture, Human Ecology, Business ,
and Arts and Sciences. All four courses are approved as general
education experiences. With the approval of its College, Department
C allows students to apply up to nine hours from the interdisciplinary
sequence toward a general education program. The remainder
of the general education program is to be planned by the student
and faculty advisor to help broaden the student's perspectives.
Example
D: College D requires that students plan their own programs
of general education together with their faculty advisors.
One example within this College is a student who would like
to focus on environmental issues as a central theme for a
gene ral education program. The student and advisor select
experiences that include: environmental sociology, study of
waste management, study of public policy and political power,
and a community service experience in rural Costa Rica. For
the remaining cr edits, the student selects a course for non-majors
being offered in mathematics (the advisor agrees that would
broaden the student's academic experience) and a topics course
on the history of the American popular song (the student thinks
it would be fun).
Credit
Requirements
Our
proposal is to place a University-wide requirement of at least
eighteen credits, one third at the upper division level, on
each undergraduate degree curriculum. Colleges, Departments,
and individual students may choose to extend general education
studies beyond the University minimum requirement.
Credit
Distribution
The
proposed general education plan would extend across most,
if not all, of the undergraduate years. At least one-third
of students' general education programs would be upper division
(300 and above) general education courses and experiences.
Transfers
and Changes of Major
Policies
and procedures vary among the Colleges as they process curricular
matters, and we do not wish to abridge the practices of individual
Colleges or Departments to develop their own general education
programs. We do believe that it would be advantageous to create
guidelines that are sensitive to students that change majors
and to students that transfer from other institutions, as
well as to the advisement of those students. In this regard
the Inter-College Coordination Panel could initiate and facilitate
communication about how courses/experiences from one program
would be accepted by another. We support the principle that
students should meet the requirements of the program they
enter, but we encourage some latitude in reaching decisions
about accepting general education courses/experiences already
taken.
III.
Proposed Governance for University General Education
We
believe that the proposed general education plan will be successful
if the Kansas State faculty has a strong sense of ownership
in it and if there is a high level of commitment to the administrative
responsibilities for overseeing the ongoing operation of the
plan. The project team considered several ways to structure
the governance of University-wide general education. Based
on our discussions during the past year with College curriculum
committees, the Deans' Council, and students, we recommend
that the implementation and planning for University General
Education be jointly conducted by three entities:
1.
The Faculty--a General Education Implementation Task Force.
2. The Colleges--an Inter-College Coordination Panel.
3. The University--the Provost's Office.
The
Faculty: The General Education Implementation Task Force
We
propose that the Academic Affairs Committee of Faculty Senate
charge a General Education Implementation Task Force, which
would function at least during the first few years of implementing
the University-wide plan of general education. Members of
the task force would be faculty members. Each undergraduate
college would be represented. During the review in the year
2000, a decision would be made by Academic Affairs about whether
this task force should continue.
The
General Education Implementation Task Force would have the
following responsibilities: work with the Inter-College Coordination
Panel and the provost's office to formulate policy related
to general education and to monitor the quality of the University-wide
plan, review and recommend courses/experiences for general
education credit and all general education programs before
they are sent to the Academic Affairs Committee of Faculty
Senate.
The
Colleges: The Inter-College Coordination Panel
We
propose that a panel of associate deans be responsible for
inter-college communication concerning the following general
education matters: course/experience development and assessment,
program development and assessment, resource allocation, an
d course scheduling. Panel membership would be composed of
those associate deans whose normal responsibilities include
assisting the dean with the administration of the undergraduate
programs of the College. This Inter-College Coordination Panel
would be convened by a non- voting delegate of the provost.
While
the approval of general education programs and courses/experiences
would remain within established faculty channels, the Inter-College
Coordination Panel would work with the General Education Implementation
Task Force and the provost's office during the start-up phase.
Thereafter, the Inter-College Coordination Panel would continue
as the network for inter-college communication about University
General Education.
The
University: The Provost's Office
We
recommend that the provost delegate central administration
leadership and advocacy for the general education plan within
his current staff. Accepting this responsibility is one way
that central administration can show its support for the general
education plan. The provost's designee would coordinate activities
with the General Education Implementation Task Force and the
Inter- College Coordination Panel. The Office of Educational
Advancement would continue to conduct the program assessment
of general education that has been mandated by the Kansas
Board of Regents.
Approval of Courses and Experiences for General Education Credit
General
education courses/experiences would be submitted by faculty
through customary channels for approval by the General Education
Implementation Task Force, the Academic Affairs Committee,
and the Faculty Senate before they could be offered to students
for general education credit. The details of this process
are to be developed by the Academic Affairs Committee.
General
education courses/experiences would be housed in academic
departments or, in the case of an interdisciplinary program
or secondary major, in a College. We assume that faculty members
who share the goals of this plan would submit proposals. The
proposals would include a description of the course/experience,
a statement of how the proposed course/experience would meet
the criteria for general education courses/experiences, and
statements by each of the faculty members who would teach
the cour se/experience outlining their interest and commitment
to the general education plan.
Faculty
members who wish to be added to the list of those teaching
an approved general education course/ experience would submit
a statement of interest in and commitment to general education
through the approval process established by the Academic Affairs
Committee.
Approval of General Education Programs
To
allow for maximum flexibility within the broad guidelines
of the proposed general education plan, we propose that the
individual undergraduate Colleges establish programs of general
education. These programs would be submitted through customary
approval channels with the addition of being submitted to
the General Education Implementation Task Force for review
before being sent to the Academic Affairs Committee and the
Faculty Senate for approval. It would be the responsibility
of each undergraduate College to show how its program or programs
meet the criteria for general education outlined on pages
9-11 in this document.
Review of Courses/Experiences and Programs
We
propose a four-year term of approval for all general education
programs established by the Colleges and for all general education
courses/experiences. Just before the end of the approval period,
a brief but important review would be conducted for all programs
and for those courses/experiences that faculty members submit
for reapproval. Evidence that the goals of the general education
plan have been met should be provided. Establishing the specifics
of this review process would be the responsib ility of the
Academic Affairs Committee.
IV. Projections for Implementation
Complete
implementation of the proposed plan for general education
is projected for freshmen enrolling in the Fall semester of
1996 (see the chart on page iv). This projection takes into
account what must be accomplished between now and then.
It
would be very helpful to students and faculty advisors to
have general education programs and courses/experiences approved
for general education credit described in the General University
Catalog. To produce catalog copy, general education courses/experiences
and general education curricula must have been submitted through
the approval process that is to be established by the Academic
Affairs Committee. Experience shows that such approval processes
can take several months.
To
have all general education programs and a substantial number
of general education courses/experiences approved by January
1996, the approximate time of the final call for copy for
the 1996-98 catalog, work needs to be completed and in the
approval process by early fall of 1995. This is less than
two years away.
Work
during that "less than two years" includes: discussion
and approval of this proposal, organization of the governance
for the University-wide general education plan, revision or
development of general education courses/experiences, and
revision or development of general education programs.
The
projected timeline sets expectations for the implementation
of the University-wide general education plan. Clearly, some
courses/experiences can and would be submitted almost immediately
for approval for general education credit, either because
they already meet the approval criteria or because only minor
modification must be done to meet the criteria. It is also
possible that some general education programs could be approved
and in place earlier than the fall of 1996.
The
College of Veterinary Medicine would not be expected to submit
a general education program because it does not offer a baccalaureate
degree. However, faculty members would be encouraged to develop
general education courses/experiences for students in the
University's undergraduate programs.
The
College of Technology in Salina would eventually participate
in University General Education. However, their calendar for
implementation is yet to be determined.
Transition to the University General Education Plan
We
expect that general education programs would be proposed for
approval after a substantial pool of general education courses/experiences
have been approved. We envision communication among Colleges
and Departments as faculty indicate what they want for their
students' general education programs (their "wish lists")
and also indicate what courses and experiences they would
be interested in offering for general education credit.
Eventually,
a data base of general education courses/experiences and general
education program descriptions should be developed. This data
base would allow members of the University community (faculty
members, advisors, and students) access to up-to-date information
on the College and Department requirements and the courses/experiences
available to meet those requirements. We imagine this "electronic
catalog" containing course proposals and descriptions
of courses/experiences already approved for general education
credit.
In
our project team discussions, the notion of a general education
academy similar to the graduate faculty was raised several
times. While we find this notion interesting, we are concerned
that initially it might pose a barrier to participation in
t he general education plan. Once the program has been in
existence for a few years, the University may want to consider
creating an academy of general education faculty who have
taught successfully in the program.
PROPOSED FORMAT FOR GENERAL EDUCATION COURSE/EXPERIENCE PROPOSALS
A
note about the course/experience proposal template on the
following page:
KSU
already offers many courses and experiences which students
use to satisfy distributional requirements and we expect that
many of these would be part of the general education plan
that we envision. These courses/experiences are usually offered
" from a department" and, for University General
Education, present the potential dangers of a narrow focus
on topics of interest primarily to majors, failure to connect
the subject matter to other areas of knowledge, and failure
to make clear the connection of the subject to the students'
experience. We think that many faculty members try hard to
avoid these dangers, that they try to focus such courses/experiences
not on narrowly disciplinary aims but on those aspects of
life and experience that are illum inated by the subject matter.
In addition, the active learning and experiential context
that are discussed more fully in the body of our proposal
are part of the good teaching that they aim to do.
The
proposed plan for general education seeks to institutionalize
these efforts by asking each of us who would like to teach
a course/experience for general education credit to regularly
rethink our aims for the course/experience, its focus, and
the teaching methods we use. The suggested template on the
next page is one mechanism for encouraging this rethinking.
The
proposed plan for general education at KSU recommends a relatively
large pool of courses and experiences that have been approved
for general education credit. Many courses and experiences
currently offered on our campus would be candidates for this
plan and newly developed courses/experiences would also be
proposed. The great variety of possible types of courses and
experiences precludes a tightly prescriptive format for course/experience
proposals but this suggested template is designed to gi ve
some guidance to people who want to prepare such proposals,
or who think they might be interested.
A
sample course proposal is included after the suggested template.
This sample was prepared by Larry Weaver, a member of the
project team. It is written as if the proposed University-wide
general education plan was being implemented at KSU. During
the fall of 1992, Larry taught the course, The Physical World
I, using the concepts proposed for the general education plan.
We do not intend to imply that all proposals would or should
look like this one sample. However, all other members of the
project team believe it provides an excellent example of the
thought and planning that should be represented in courses
and experiences approved for the proposed general education
plan.
Suggested Template for
University General Education Course/Experience Proposals
1.
Some general introduction would be helpful. This introduction
is the place to put your basic reason for suggesting the course/experience
for general education, for your first response to "Why
is this a general education course?" It is here that
th e teacher(s) should make clear that the course is designed
with the general education of non-major students in mind.
2.
The three major criteria for approval for general education
credit should be discussed.
a)
How will this course promote active learning?
b)
What is the experiential context of the course? Do the instructional
activities start in areas with which students are already
interested and involved? If not, how is such involvement initiated?
How do the activities enlarge the students' experience?
c)
What connections to other areas of thought and experience
are made? How are students asked to draw these connections?
3.
A paragraph on what the teacher expects of the students would
be useful. Will they write papers? Solve problems? Write essays
on tests? What level of content mastery is expected? What
level of analytical skill and connection-making is expected?
How will students display this? The University-wide general
education plan contains both lower division and upper division
courses/experiences. This section is the place to note your
expectations given the level proposed for the course/experience.
4.
A paragraph or so on the focus of the course would be important.
How does the content of the course fit a class of non- major
students and the general education plan? The content may also
be of interest to majors in a discipline but that is not th
e point here. Questions to be answered here are "Is the
content of intrinsic interest to a general audience? Is it
interesting for its utility to such an audience? Is it interesting
for the connections it makes with other disciplines or experience?"
Ex amples are VERY HELPFUL.
5.
What would be the format of the course? How will you use lectures,
demonstrations, laboratories, discussion sections, readings,
films, etc.? What class size do you expect?
6.
Please supply a syllabus, together with a more detailed sample
of your course outline that illustrates more specifically
how you plan to fulfill the aims you mentioned in response
to items 2, 3, and 4 above.
Sample Proposal "The Physical World I" for General Education
at KSU
Introduction
The
Physical World I has been part of the Physics Department's
commitment to general education for over forty years. We have
offered it because it is human nature to be curious and science
is an important way we satisfy that curiosity; we have offered
it because scientific literacy is socially useful. The course
is aimed at students without technical background who have
no professional need for a quantitative introduction to physics.
It provides a descriptive overview of the fundamental concepts
of classical and modern physics whose focus is the role these
principles play in everyday phenomena. Because the audience
is not presumed to have much background in science we have
always developed concepts starting from situations already
familiar to most students. Many physical ideas are abstract
so it is especially critical that concrete demonstrations
and examples be used to help students see the utility of the
concepts. These aims are part of the newly codified program
of general education at Kansas S tate so we would like The
Physical World I to be included in this program.
Course
Aspects
A.
Active Learning
The
class size will be around 150-180/section. This makes it difficult
to engage students as active learners unless they already
want to be. We would appreciate any help the General Education
Faculty can offer toward making the class a more active learning
environment. Here are some of our own plans.
1)
Lectures will be supplemented with demonstrations chosen for
their easy visibility and intrinsic interest (that is, they
are big, loud and appear to be dangerous to the professor),
as well as their pertinence to the topic.
2)
Students will frequently be asked to figure out immediately
what is going to happen in a demo, or to solve in class a
problem suggested by the lecture or demo, and to discuss their
ideas with other students seated nearby.
3)
Students are often asked to participate in the demonstrations.
We might ask a volunteer to throw eggs into a sheet to illustrate
the role "stopping time" plays in determining the
force required to stop a moving object. Or simply ask a student
to operate a Geiger counter when studying ionizing radiation.
4)
The exams are also chances for active learning because they
involve figuring things out using course material. The questions
always require the use of one or more concepts discussed,
never simply their definitions, and often require some arithmetic.
Answers may be given in several formats, from multiple-choice,
to short-answers created by the student, to brief essays which
are graded for clarity as well as correctness.
B.
Experiential Context
Physics
is built on our experience; our very lives are embodiments
of physical principles. It is not typical to notice this,
though, so The Physical World I has to pay as much attention
to a "why should I be interested in this?" attitude
as does any non-professional course. Here is how we handle
this.
1)
Start "where students are"
Our
attitude is well-illustrated by this comment from the text
"...we
assume that many of the students' prior experiences can help
them learn physics. So we employ an inductive approach, and
try to start each major section with some common experiences
and move to generalizations ..."
We
typically carry this farther and introduce each new concept
starting from a situation already familiar to most students.
To distinguish velocity from acceleration, for example, we
might recall that one easily drinks coffee in a car that is
at rest or moving down the highway at constant velocity but
NOT in a car that is accelerating, whether the acceleration
occurs leaving a stop sign or screeching to a halt or bouncing
over a bump or rounding a curve. All these situations in which
it is easy to spill the drink involve acceleration.
2)
Use concrete experiences to illustrate abstract ideas
Many
physical ideas are abstract so it is especially critical that
concrete demonstrations and examples be used. To explain the
idea of "work" and the roles force and distance
play in it we often use a large tripod with a pulley attached.
An obviously strong student (or a younger professor) lifts
a heavy weight directly and then uses the pulley, noting that
although less force is needed the rope must be pulled farther.
3)
Enlarge students' fund of experience
The
demonstrations are also used to provide students with experiences
that they might not otherwise have. This is especially true
when we study electricity and magnetism. A simple electric
motor provides a very vivid example of the force exerted b
y a magnet on a current but many students have never made
one, so we use one in class; we play with iron filings and
magnets, using an overhead projector so that all students
can "see" the magnetic fields.
C.
Connections Across Knowledge
Atoms
and energy are ideas that pervade all our knowledge of the
world so in one sense it is trivial to make connections between
physics and other sciences. The "ability to do work"
we call "energy" when dealing with a pulley is the
same "ability to do work" a molecule uses when it
drags electrons into a new position Physics/chemistry/ biology
are, in some sense, all one discipline. Of course, they are
also very different and once some of the commonalities are
understood one has a good chance to men tion some of the differences.
Engineering broadly construed is another discipline to which
physics has obvious connections, and the demonstrations we
use are often applications of principles with technical or
commercial ramifications.
The
kind of thinking used in constructing our picture of the physical
world also underlies a lot of other thinking, too. We do not
try to deal with philosophical questions about "how we
know" in any depth but the material we cover offers some
usefu l examples of such ideas. For example, the text uses
the ambiguity in physical models of light and the ambiguity
in optical illusions to illustrate the point that "Perceptions
arise from the way we think about what we see as well as from
what we actually see." Again, we certainly don't treat
economics or political philosophy but it is easy to see echoes
of Newtonian physics in the notion that "an invisible
hand" governs markets in goods just as gravity governs
the motions of planets, or that there are e vident social
truths from which weighty political consequences can be derived
just as physical laws suffice to derive the elastic behavior
of solids. Perhaps by seeing these relations students will
be able to better imagine different paradigms for economi
c or political behavior, or at least to spot the weaknesses
that are so common when reasoning by analogy.
Expectations
of Students
We
hope that students who complete this course will be able to
use physics in some situations in their daily life; to figure
out, for example, that using the mixer and the toaster and
the space heater AND the hair dryer on one circuit would require
more amps than the fuse/circuit breaker will allow, and to
know why such a limit is imposed. We hope that students will
be more likely to see physical law in action in the world,
to recognize a mirage on a hot highway and contact lenses
as examples of th e same physical principles, for example.
We hope that when these students read in a newspaper that
rocks from the moon or an asteroid or Canada have been estimated
to be 4.1 billion years old they will know why this might
be a reasonable claim; or why an ad for heat pumps might honestly
claim 150% efficiency but the same claim for a motor signals
a scam.
These
illustrate our hopes. To achieve them we expect our students
to solve simple problems that involve Watts, Amps, Volts and
Ohms and understand the simplest aspects of AC electricity,
but we do not expect them to work out complex circuit proble
ms nor to handle details of AC circuits. We expect them to
figure out how a rock can be "dated" using radioactivity
but not to be able to apply all the corrections needed for
quantitatively accurate estimates. We expect them to work
through what goes on when white light strikes an oil film
on water and to know why the thickness and angle of sight
affect the colors we see but not to figure out exactly which
thickness produces which color.
Focus
The
Physical World I is designed for students who have little
or no background in science and math and who are not majoring
in a technical field. The aim is to help students develop
enough understanding of basic physics that they will be able
to see in the phenomena of daily life the working out of basic
physical principles. There are several motives for offering
this course as part of a general education program. Some of
the ways we try to achieve these aims in The Physical World
I are illustrated below in the paragraph "Sample of Detailed
Course Outline."
1)
Such understanding enriches one's life.
One
can see, for example, in the sparkle of a dew drop on a blade
of grass the differing paths of different colors of light
from the sun, and infer from the drop's mere presence the
rapid radiative cooling of the grass the previous night. There
is more pleasure to be had because one understands more.
2)
Such understanding is useful in our technologically complex
society.
One
can see that neither light switch nor VCR is magic but rather
as much an instance of human design and an illustration of
natural law as is a brick wall. One is also equipped to deal
intelligently with social concerns that have technical components,
from exponential growth of land fills and energy consumption
to changes in the ozone layer to storage of radioactive waste.
3)
Such understanding can illuminate the connections between
many areas of science and other kinds of knowledge as well.
The
marvelous dance of molecules in metabolism shows connections
between biology and physics; the need, nevertheless, for biologists
as well as physicists involves the philosophical puzzle of
reductionism; the limitations of scientific answers to questions
about nuclear power show the roles of political and ethical
values in problems that may appear to be purely technical.
Format
The
class will contain around 150-180 students/section and will
be taught using lectures and demonstrations. There will be
a standard text, The Fascination of Physics by Spears and
Zollman, from which readings and problems will be assigned.
Some of this material will appear on tests, even if it has
not been covered explicitly in lecture.
Personnel
As
noted in the Prologue above this is a course that we consider
part of our commitment to general education. It is part of
our job as a Physics faculty. Thus we expect many, perhaps
most, of our faculty to teach this course. The following faculty
members have expressed interest in teaching physics to this
audience with this focus and in this style.
Professor
X has taught this course using substantially similar techniques
twice in the past four years.
Professor
Y has taught courses to a similar audience (Descriptive Astronomy)
and thus understands the needs of these students.
Professor
Z has not taught similar courses but has spent several hours
in discussion with Professor X, who is willing to "mentor"
him.
Text/Syllabus
Each
section of the course will use the same text. Different instructors
will, however, emphasize different parts of the text and proceed
at different rates (and, indeed, in different directions!).
Nevertheless we are applying for inclusion in the program
of general education as one course.
The
Text.
A.
Space and Time
1.
Position and change
2. Describing motion
3. Relative motion at low speeds
4. Special theory of relativity
B.
Interactions and Forces
5.
Interaction and momentum
6. Interaction and force
7. Newton's three laws
8. The fundamental interactions
C.
Energy
9.
Energy
10. Thermal energy in matter
11. How thermal energy is transferred
12. Thermodynamics
13. Atoms, molecules, and thermal energy
D.
Waves and Particles
14.
Making waves
15. Waves: sound and electromagnetic
16. Interference and diffraction
17. Wave-particle duality
18. Light, quanta and atoms
E.
From Electricity to the Nucleus
19.
Turning on the lights
20. Electromagnetism
21. Radioactivity
22. Nuclear energy
Sample of Detailed Course Outline
This
is an outline of about 2-3 lectures covering Chapter 9 above.
Energy
1.
Energy is the ability to do work. Clear evidence that physical
thinking grows out of real life. Unabashedly anthropomorphic/economic
flavor. Energy is still part of physics because it has turned
out to be an extremely useful idea. So start with ide a of
"work."
2.
Examples to illustrate roles of force and distance. Grocery
clerk: work done in lifting light weight vs. heavy one? Mowing
lawns: work done in pushing mower short distance vs. long
distance? Work done is proportional to force used and to distance
moved. General definition and various units used. Class does
sample problems, checks answers with neighbors.
3.
Puzzling cases: why get tired when holding a baby? "Physics
work" seems to be zero. Look more closely and learn about
biology: work is done by muscles which ARE contracting and
relaxing. "Physics work" is also "biology work"
is also "real work." Physics vs. math: real world
vs. game with rules.
4.
Typical situations in which something CAN do work: pile driver
and nail demonstration.
a)Pile
driver when raised can do work on nail so it has energy, and
the higher it is the more energy it has because the more work
it can do. "Potential energy." How does it get this
energy? Student or prof does work pulling it up. So energy
can be transferred from person to thing. Drop pile driver
from several heights, check nail depth. "Weight x height"
equals gravitational potential energy.
b)Just
before the weight hits the nail its height is about zero,
so it has zero potential energy, yet it can clearly do work
on the nail. It has energy because it is moving so fast: energy
of motion or "kinetic energy." Potential energy
has become kinetic energy. Can we find a quantitative expression
for this? Yes, from Chapter 2: the height fallen = speed2/2g,
so the weight x height = weight x speed2/2g. Recall from Chapter
7 that near the earth the weight divided by g is the mass.
Thus the formula for kinetic energy is often written (1/2)mass
x speed2. In this form it is true everywhere, even far out
in space where "weight" is ne arly zero: a moving
object can do lots of work even then. Do several examples,
on board and have them do in seats, calling special attention
to the proportionality to speed squared: double speed means
four times the energy, triple speed means nine times the energy.
c)
Call attention to all the transformations: do work to lift
the weight; now it has potential energy; let it fall and watch
PE turn into KE; finally it does work on the nail.
5.
Other examples: water behind Tuttle Creek Dam; water pouring
out of the tubes; work done in braking a car: stopping distances
and speed.
6.
Conservation of energy more generally. Mention other forms
of energy: energy stored in coal and oil; energy stored in
uranium; energy in a wave on water; energy in the wind; try
to extract which is kinetic, which potential.
7.
Difficult cases: friction and thermal energy. Lead in for
Chapter 10.
Comments:
Hidden in this outline are some "general education"
goals that are fairly specific to this sort of course but
should be mentioned, although maybe they won't be in a typical
proposal.
1)
In point 2 above the "units" of work and energy
are mentioned. There are very many such units: pound-feet,
Joules, Newton-meters, kilogram-meters squared per square
second. And for thermal energy there are many more: kilojoules,
Calories, calories , BTUs, bbls of oil, quads, ... . Learning
all these is hardly "physics", but being comfortable
in switching back and forth between different units might
very well strike some instructors as an appropriate "general
education" goal, and to that end some s ections might
spend a day or more changing "teaspoons" to "grams"
and "cups" and "liters", etc; "feet"
to "miles" to "km" to "light years";
"pounds" to "newtons" to "tons"
to "ounces"; "kWhrs" to "BTU"
to "bbls oil" to "quads" and so on. It
would be hard to justify this as "physics" but it
is entirely reasonable as "general education." And
it would sure make some later material easier to discuss because
the "natural units" could be used without losing
students.
2)
The examples and demonstrations use ordinary numbers, not
those chosen especially to make arithmetic simple. One "general
education" goal could be to give students experience
in doing approximate arithmetic, so that rough answers can
be had without calculators, or even pencil and paper. A related
point is the use of big or small numbers. This is certainly
handy in a physics course, but hardly essential "physics."
If one's goal is to teach physics then one might be reluctant
to actually spend tim e having students practice doing rough
arithmetic with big or small numbers, but if part of one's
goal is more general (preparation for reading the economic
news, say) then this section provides a very good excuse to
develop a widely useful skill.
GENERAL EDUCATION AND THE REST OF THE CURRICULUM
The
categories of class offerings (listed below) currently used
at Kansas State will help to better understand the types of
courses and experiences that would be appropriately considered
for inclusion in general education programs. It is important
to remember the recommendation that the general education
courses and experiences be designed with the general education
of non-major students in mind. When considering the categories
listed below, it is clear that offerings in directed electives
and fre e electives could be selected for general education
programs according to the proposed plan. It is conceivable
that some support courses might qualify as part of a general
education program when required specifically to expand the
breadth of the students in a curriculum.
Currently,
curricula for a major will normally include several or all
of the following:
Basic
skill courses: The present University requirements for six
credits of expository writing, two credits of public speaking,
one credit of physical education, and a nearly universal requirement
of three credits of mathematics are reported to the Kansas
Board of Regents as basic skill courses.
Core,
general or common professional courses/experiences: These
are beginning level professional courses required by a College
of all students in two or more major fields of study within
the College.
Professional
prerequisites: These are taught outside the major or major
field of study but must be taken as a prerequisite to a course
or courses within the major. Others may be required as prerequisite
for graduation rather than for subsequent co ursework.
Major
field of study courses/experiences: These are required of
all students seeking a degree in a specified major or major
field of study, including options, specialization, emphasis,
interdisciplinary majors, dual degrees or other variations.
Th ey normally carry the designator of the academic unit offering
the degree, but may also include offerings from a closely
related discipline.
Support
courses/experiences: These are required offerings outside
the major which are considered a component of the major's
body of knowledge.
Directed
electives: These are taken to meet required credit hours that
must be completed within one or more specifically defined
subject areas. Usually, students may choose from several offerings
within the specified area.
Free
electives: These are taken to meet required credit hours without
restriction. Students are free to select any offering available
to non-majors on the campus.
The
project team believes that the courses/experiences described
below could provide opportunities for general education study.
These must be approved as part of a general education program
and would require a faculty sponsor and statement of approval
from the academic department. Also, the activity must have
a product of some kind. This could be a written report, a
video or portfolio, an oral presentation or other communication
that chronicles the breadth and learning acquired. University
credit must be awarded and the amount of credit to apply to
general education must be clear. For example, a foreign study
experience required for the major field would not qualify
for general education credit; however, arrangements could
be made for general education study during the experience
and subsequent general education credit with an appropriate
academic unit. Credit for these offerings would not exceed
a single or collective total of more than six hours for general
education.
Internships
and co-op programs. Many major fields of study require, or
allow as an option, a semester or summer-long work experience
for credit. When this experience is specifically designed
to expose students to experiences that provide breadth, as
well as discipline depth, then there may be opportunity for
general education study. For example, the Community Service
Internship Program, which has been specifically designed to
expose students from a variety of major fields of study to
interdisciplinary and collaborative problem solving, might
be a chance for general education study.
Foreign
studies. Many unique opportunities are available for K-State
students to study abroad, often for credit in a major field
of study. Students might expand the intention of this experience
to include general education study.
Life
experiences. Opportunities for sound general education might
also be planned for students during such experiences as Peace
Corps or Vista service, extended foreign travel, community
or public service.
It
seems reasonable to the project team that courses/experiences
that are included in a secondary major or a minor might also
be included in a general education program. Decisions about
how to deal with the general education programs for double
majors and dual degrees would be the responsibility of the
appropriate faculty.
UNIVERSITY
GENERAL EDUCATION: A SHARED VISION
A
vision of university-wide general education needs to be shared
by the whole academic community and the administration in
particular must champion undergraduate learning and general
education. Efforts in general education must be recognized
explic itly as valuable activities worthy of merit ~ by the
administration of the University, the Colleges, and the Departments;
by the faculty; and by the students in all curricula.
In
the project team's conversations with the College curriculum
committees during the past months, faculty members showed
genuine interest in our work and offered critically helpful
comments on our proposal and the future of general education.
The most profound and uniform concerns expressed by the faculty
addressed the need for administrative and resource support
of the general education plan.
Clearly,
the faculty will look to the central administration, deans,
and department heads for signs of commitment. Specific examples
of such commitment might include:
*
the University administration's explicit statement of the
resource support necessary to implement the program
*
clear departmental and College reward systems that support
faculty involvement in general education
*
recognition and rewards for a scholarship of teaching that
focuses on integrating ideas, stimulating critical and creative
thinking, and mentoring students for lifelong learning
*
faculty development programs in such areas as innovative classroom
techniques that support the criteria established for general
education
*
opportunities and encouragement for the faculty to engage
in professional teaching development that expands their understanding
of connections across areas of knowledge; for example, providing
financial support to attend a conference outside the faculty
member's area of specialization
*
procedures established within the University so that faculty
members can obtain needed resources (time, money, etc.~lots
of etc.) to develop general education courses and experiences.
IMPACT ON UNIVERSITY RESOURCES
In
the broadest sense, the human and financial impacts of this
proposal appear to be modest. Approximately 10% of the courses/experiences
offered each semester would need to be approved for University
General Education. Many of these would likely be current offerings
that would need only some modification. The dollars to support
the general education initiative (beyond redirection of faculty
time) would be about $250,000 ~ less than two tenths of one
percent of the University's total Educational and General
Budget. Monies to support and administer the initiative would
come from sources currently under the purview of central administration.
Some administrative positions reporting to the provost would
be redefined. The remainder of the $250,000 is proposed to
come from "enrollment adjustment funds" which at
this time have not been permanently allocated to any University
unit.
While
all uses for the allocation to support general education have
not been identified, most would be used (1) to provide support
for faculty members to develop and modify courses/experiences,
(2) to support initiatives, workshops and seminars directed
to improve the teaching-learning process, and (3) to provide
incentives to encourage faculty members and departments to
offer general education courses/experiences.
The
project team recognizes that there may be other additional
resources designated to the general education effort due to
redirection of faculty effort at the departmental level. Given
the many possible approaches that might be used to meet course
demands, no attempt was made to identify those resource expenditures.
One
advantage of the proposed general education plan is that the
responsibilities for general education would be spread across
a larger pool of resources. All departments would be invited
and encouraged to develop courses/ experiences that satisfy
general education expectations.
To
accomplish the learning objectives of this general education
initiative, the project team believes that an average section
size of 70 for lower division general education and of 25
for upper division general education would be highly desirable.
First, it is important to note that we speak of average section
sizes; some sections would be larger and some smaller. Second,
we think that most people agree that reducing lower division
section size across the board would be desirable, but the
viability of our proposal does not rest upon such action .
. . so we did not include this recommendation in the proposal
itself. The project team considers it to be a worthwhile goal
that can be attained in the future.
This
matter of average section size is clearly open to further
discussion; the project team used the numbers of 70 and 25
only to prepare estimates of the total number of sections
of general education courses/experiences needed when all K-State
students would be under the new requirements.
If
the average section sizes of 70 and 25 were achieved, it is
estimated that in Fall 1996 (the first year that freshmen
would enroll under the new plan) approximately 65 general
education class sections per semester would have to be offered.
The number of sections required for University General Education
would increase to approximately 120 in Fall 1997 and approximately
175 in Fall 1998. By Fall 1999, the first year nearly all
students would enroll under the new plan, 225 general education
class sections (110 lower division and 115 upper division)
would be required each fall and spring semester to adequately
meet student demand. These projections were based on Fall
1992 enrollment figures.
During
the Fall 1992 semester, 57 courses (124 class sections) at
the 100-200 level were identified as "service courses"
used to meet existing College and Department general education
requirements; at least 2/3 of the students enrolled in these
classes did not appear to be using the course to satisfy the
requirements of their majors.
These
124 class sections were, for the most part, very large lecture
courses. Fifty-five percent (55%) of the sections had enrollments
of more than 100 and one-fourth had enrollments of more than
200. The average section size was 129.
From
the teaching-learning perspective, a more important statistic
is that 82% of all student enrollments in Fall 1992 lower
division service courses was in class sections of 100 or more
and 47% was in sections with more than 200 students. English
and Philosophy were the only departments with small section
sizes in the identified lower division service courses.
Based
on these data, service courses intended to serve current "general
education" requirements have section sizes that are much
larger, in general, than those intended to serve for a major
or as the basic skills courses reported to the Kansas Board
of Regents (the six credits of expository writing, two credits
of public speaking, one credit of physical education, and
a nearly universal requirement of three credits of mathematics).
The expected learning outcomes for the proposed University
General Education are no better suited to very large class
environments than are any others. It would be desirable to
have general education section sizes be more consistent with
other undergraduate course offerings at K-State. Advancements
in technology and other developments in the teaching-learning
arena may, at some time, allow for achievement of general
education goals in very large classes. However, at this time,
one of the best ways to help ensure the achievement of general
education goals would be to work toward the average section
sizes of 70 for lower division and 25 for upper division.
If
the targeted average section size for lower division general
education were to be 70 and the average section size for existing
service courses is now 129, then additional course sections
would be required for University General Education. While
upper division service courses are more difficult to identify,
a review of some upper division service course enrollments
yields a similar conclusion. However, since current service
courses at the upper division level are used to satisfy other
requiremen ts and are not singular in purpose, a good estimate
of the number of additional sections required is difficult
to obtain.
Class
sections developed to meet general education guidelines are
projected to come from a number of sources: 1) modification
of existing general education service courses in the College
of Arts and Sciences, 2) in all Colleges, courses/experiences
currently intended for the major could be modified to serve
general education purposes and 3) the creation of new "general
education" courses/ experiences in all Colleges.
It
should also be noted that the demand for additional sections
each semester could be reduced substantially if some 100-200
level modern language courses and studio/lab/lesson courses
in art, dance, and music, were modified to meet the proposed
gen eral education plan. Current offerings in those areas
have small section sizes and serve large numbers of "non-majors."
In the Fall of 1992, approximately 1900 students enrolled
in 100-200 level modern language courses with fewer than 5%
being modern language majors. Fewer than 20% of the 466 students
enrolled in Art 100 and 190 were art majors and a substantial
minority of students taking 100-200 level music lessons were
not music majors. And, only a small number of students enrolled
in dance courses were theater majors.
Finally,
another resource consideration is classroom space. Space for
classes of the size desired for general education courses/experiences
is already scarce. Rooms are currently utilized to near 100%
capacity between 8:30 A.M. and 2:30 P.M. Adding sections each
semester would mean offering more classes at 7:30 in the morning
and after 2:30 in the afternoon. One positive outcome of adding
sections during earlier and later hours is that students would
be allowed greater flexibility in course scheduling.
BACKGROUND
University
General Education at KSU
When
the North Central Association accreditation team visited Kansas
State University in 1992, their final report acknowledged
the many strengths of our institution, including "faculty
and staff who are dedicated to Kansas State University and
to th e learning of its students" and "a collegial
approach to decision-making." They also listed seven
areas of concerns for Kansas State. Only one of the listed
items is within the University's direct control: "Insufficient
progress in both formulating and implementing a strengthened
general education program." One goal of this general
education proposal is to correct that deficiency.
Kansas
State University has a long history of commitment to undergraduate
education. The following two statements from the University's
Mission Statement reflect our understanding of that responsibility:
"Through
quality teaching, the University is committed to provide all
students with opportunities to develop the knowledge, understanding,
and skills characteristic of an educated person."
"Kansas
State University prepares its students to be informed, productive,
and responsible citizens who participate actively in advancing
cultural, educational, economic, scientific, and socio-political
undertakings.
In
the Role and Aspirations Report of 1993, the University reaffirmed
its commitment to the comprehensive education of undergraduates
for the future:
"The
University is committed to providing all undergraduate students
an excellent foundation in the arts, humanities, and sciences.
In a world where effective career skills must include critical
thinking, adaptability, tolerance, aesthetic judgment, and
a capacity for lifelong learning, all colleges provide educational
experiences that prepare students for an enriched life and
professional competency."
That
same report noted that one of the major institutional aspirations
of our University is to
"Enhance
the undergraduate educational experience at Kansas State University.
An emphasis on undergraduate teaching must be developed, with
appropriate recognition given to those efforts and to the
development of innovative and cooperative instruct ional approaches.
The development of a general education curriculum should continue,
and special attention should be directed to efforts that result
in first year students being exposed to a mixture of large
and small classes."
and
that a particular administrative aspiration at Kansas State
is to
"Provide
a focus for undergraduate teaching, learning, and advising."
In
the transmittal letter that accompanied The Role and Aspirations
Report, Provost Coffman stated:
"First,
undergraduate education and excellence in teaching is prestigious
and must be recognized more clearly as such. Further, impending
curricular innovations must be supported and aimed to coincide
with assessment, mediated instruction applications and scholarly
involvement of faculty. Increased quality and cost- effectiveness
of undergraduate teaching must be the specific objective of
focused, continuous effort."
As
early as the 1987-88 academic year, Provost Coffman officially
placed the topic of general education on Kansas State's agenda.
He requested that the Faculty Senate study the topic of general
education at Kansas State and recommend a course of action.
In this request, the provost wrote:
"Much
can be gained through this process which addresses the very
nature of a university ..........greater focus should be brought
to the matter of definition; we will then be in an improved
position to consider general education in relation to what
we are doing, what we believe we should do, and whether we
have the collective determination to proceed to a high quality
conclusion."
Three
ad hoc committees of the Academic Affairs Committee of Faculty
Senate (1988--Ottenheimer, chair; 1989--Sullivan, chair; 1990--Frieman,
chair) studied the topic of common university degree requirements
and offered proposals for consideration. The 1988 report suggested
that we adopt the thinking of Ernest Boyer regarding the teaching
of undergraduates and recommended pedagogical reform rather
than curricular change. The 1989 report exclusively focused
on learning outcomes for undergraduates an d did not explicitly
address curriculum. The first two reports did not inspire
widespread campus discussion. The 1990 report proposed a uniform
core of approximately forty credits of study for all undergraduates
and reaffirmed the support for pedagogica l improvements along
the lines suggested by Ernest Boyer. The Academic Affairs
Committee circulated the 1990 proposal across the campus and
requested the return of evaluative responses. A review of
the responses concluded that the faculty extended "over
whelming" support for improved general education but
were unwilling to accept the specifics of the proposal.
The General Education Project
In
1991, with the urging of the Deans' Council and the support
of the Academic Affairs Committee of Faculty Senate, the provost
initiated a general education project to design a workable
general education plan. The proposal for the project noted
several reasons for Kansas State to continue pursuing a University-wide
general education plan:
1.
The University's faculty encourage the development of a general
education program as a curricular ally for already solid programs
for specialized study in a major.
2.
One of Kansas State's five driving themes for strategic planning
is to "ensure that all undergraduate curricula rest upon
a common intellectual foundation."
3.
Kansas State does not meet the criteria established by the
North Central Association for general education and this threatens
our continued accreditation.
4.
The Kansas Board of Regents required each institution to submit
annual assessments of undergraduate performance in general
education. We requested a reprieve from this requirement until
our "new general education program" is in place.
Our request was granted, but the regents expect programmatic
action.
5.
Nationally and in Kansas, public concern regarding undergraduate
education, particularly undergraduate general education, was
voiced throughout the 1980's. Kansas State needs to articulate
an institutional response that fits the nature of our University.
Beyond
these reasons, the 1989 and 1991 surveys of Kansas State graduates
offer further evidence of the desirability of improving general
education. Respondents to both surveys identified increased
attention to communication skills, problem solving, and knowledge
applications to life as priorities for action at Kansas State.
The
General Education Project was conceived in three sequenced
stages occurring across a five-year calendar, beginning in
FY92 and finishing in FY96:
Stage
I: initial conceptual and process development and testing
Stage II: structural, operational, and procedural design
Stage III: implementation strategy and action
Careful
examination of the work completed in each stage was to be
conducted by appropriate University bodies: e.g., College
curriculum committees, the Deans' Council, the Academic Affairs
Committee of Faculty Senate. Throughout the development and
design process the project team formally and informally asked
for input from other faculty members and academic groups or
committees, in particular the Academic Affairs Committee of
Faculty Senate and the College curriculum committees.
The
charge to the project team insisted that the design for general
education ensure that:
a)curricular emphasis on the major is not violated,
b)students have flexibility in general education choices,
c)the possibility to complete a degree in four years continues,
d)national and professional accreditation of programs will
not be damaged, and
e)the faculty enjoy some latitude in meeting common curriculum
requirements.
|
