December 2008 Summary of Department Feedback
In September of 2008, the Liberal Education Task Force requested feedback from each depart on the UMD campus regarding the latest draft proposal for a General Education Program. The following is a summary of that feedback arranged by academic unit.
College of Liberal Arts
Department Response Summary
All eleven departments in the College of Liberal Arts submitted reports. Reactions varied widely and are difficult to present in a brief summary. While some expressed support for the proposal (“generally favorable�) and appreciation for the work the Task Force has done, most focused on problems they saw in the draft, as we expected them to do. What follows is a list of concerns raised repeatedly and/or strongly by CLA departments:
1. Offered every year
The criterion that all general education courses be offered at least once a year is impossible for some to departments to meet. (4 departments)
2. Where do our courses fit?
A number of departments expressed concern about where courses will fit in the new program. It was felt that the proposal was not sufficiently clear about this matter. Some examples--
a. Some departments felt that that the new knowledge domain categories do not fit what they do as well as the current categories. (at least 3 departments)
b. Questions were raised about whether a department could submit their courses for more than one category. (3 departments)
c. Some departments asked whether the same course could be approved for inclusion in more than one knowledge domain.
d. They also asked whether the same course be approved for inclusion in a knowledge domain and one of the key contemporary issues categories.
3. 4000-level
Several departments are skeptical of the proposal that general education courses be offered at the 4000 level, citing the difficulty of serving the needs of both majors and non-majors at that level and questioning how the need for prereqs in such courses will be handled (4 departments)
4. Writing requirement
Four departments were opposed to making a change to the current writing requirement, for a variety of reasons (4 departments)
5. Oral communication requirement
The feedback regarding the draft oral communication category tended to reflect one of two extremes: certain departments thought the proposal TOO PRESCRIPTIVE and others thought it NOT PRESCRIPTIVE ENOUGH.
One department was concerned that the draft criteria were so restrictive that only public speaking would likely qualify. Another department felt that their courses would fit in the proposed category, except that the criteria may be too prescriptive.
A third department felt that the draft criteria were so loose that they would result in very little enhancement of speaking skills. Yet another department that such courses ought to be taught by only communication faculty with expertise, and pointed out their own faculty lacked the expertise to teach oral communication.
6. Science with a lab
One department in CLA expressed concern about dropping the requirement for a science course with a lab, and one requested clarification about whether or not the proposal maintained that requirement.
7. The term “general education�
Three departments objected to the use of the term “general education� and expressed a preference for “liberal education.�
College of Education and Health and Human Service Professions
Department Response Summary
1. All of the reporting departments were supportive of more oral and written communication offerings in the proposed GE program.
2. Two of the departments were interested in how foreign languages would fit into the proposed GE program.
3. All of the reporting departments were concerned about verticality. Concerned were centered around how pre-requisites would be met, how to control enrollment, how to have the courses meet GE criteria and be made specific to the individual program needs.
4. Two of the departments were concerned about how the proposed GE program would align with accreditation needs.
5. One department felt that there was not enough math
6. Two programs were concerned that the current LE courses offered through the department would not meet the criteria set for the proposed GE program.
7. One department felt that the proposed GE program was “oriented� toward Science/Engineering and Fine Arts. They felt that Business and CEHSP was left out
8. One department felt that Health was not well represented in the proposed GE plan
9. Two departments were concerned about supporting the 2+2 structure and the Minnesota Transfer Curriculum with the proposed GE program
Labovitz School of Business and Economics
Department Response Summary
In general, all departments felt that the degree programs are sufficiently flexible that most of the proposed changes could be accommodated without much difficulty. Some department offerings might change slightly, but without any expected major shifts in resources, with the exception that if upper division courses needed to be offered for Category 3, additional resources would be needed.
Category 1: Oral and Written Communication skills:
There is general agreement that 2 writing courses from the writing department, and another upper division course from LSBE that has a writing focus is an improvement over the current requirements. There was support for offering remedial writing and then raising the expectations for WRIT1120 or somehow targeting instruction based on current skill level.
Category 2: Ways of Knowing
· Math and Science - Want to continue to require a specific math course
· General comments - How are the ‘ways of knowing’ woven into Category II? The answer is that each course would have some coverage of ways of knowing. This led to concerns that this would be very inefficient. Might it instead be possible to have a 1-credit course on methods / ways of knowing for each of the domains?
Category 3: Key Contemporary Issues
• Why was the natural environment issue included?
• If Category III is designed to be taken separate and apart form Categories I and II, we may be significantly increasing the size of the core, may also reduce possibility of getting a minor (requires many specific upper division courses) .
∀ We had an extended discussion of alternative models to cover the ‘issues’ courses. The first (the one in the proposal) is a ‘stand-alone course’ model. The second model is an ‘integrated’ model wherein the issue is incorporated into a variety of courses. We in LSBE struggle with this issue in a variety of contexts, including the coverage of ethics. The real problem is that if the material is in theory integrated, in practice it often means that no one covers it. Therefore, it was concluded that the integrated model was not viable on either a philosophical or practical basis.
∀ Where is the critical skills / thinking piece? It seems to have dropped out of the document, but is very important.
∀ What impact does Category III have on the 60-60 split between LD and UD? Will students still be required to have 60 credits in lower division courses?
General comments / concerns
∀ How different is this proposal than what we do now? Maybe by improving the standards, the current model is fine.
∀ There should be conversations centered around criteria for courses constituting LibEd and the way of teaching LibEd, rather than focusing on the model, as the current model can work
∀ Please be sure not to lose the logic and language of the document. It’s very helpful to explain our logic behind the LibEd program.
Swenson College of Science and Engineering
Department Response Summary
There is significant, widespread opinion that the math and science requirement as outlined in the September 2008 document should be strengthened—that is, that 2 courses in “The Natural Sciences and Math� is insufficient.
There is widespread, but not unanimous, opinion, that all students should take at least one lab science course.
There is widespread support for a requirement of a math or quantitative reasoning course; significant support for something “like the current category 2, math, logic, and critical thinking�.
There is some support for broadening the Fine Arts category to Creativity/Design, with the idea that engineering design courses would meet the criteria.
There is widespread (nearly every department) concern about an expansion in the number of courses a student must take (over the current situation) if double dipping is not allowed between Key Contemporary Issues courses and Ways of Knowing courses. Significant support for allowing the goals of the Key Contemporary Issues are to be accomplished as parts of several courses rather than in one course. Some support for requiring only 2 of the 3 Key Contemporary issues.
There is significant support for more flexibility in the Oral Communication requirement, including that the requirement be accomplished as parts of several courses.
School of Fine Arts
Department Response Summary
1. All three departments request that some courses be counted in more than one category. For Music and Art Education, this preference is driven by accreditation. Both programs suggest that there are specific courses that are required through Education and Social Work that meet requirements in the major AND in current General Education categories.
2. The SFA programs support offering general education courses of fewer than three credits. In the current program Music offers one credit music ensembles that can be repeated and Theatre offers two credit courses in dance technique.
3. Some faculty suggested that the criteria are too prescriptive and begin to infringe upon academic freedom.
4. The new General Education/Fine Arts requirement criteria make it more difficult for courses that focus entirely on artistic expression. Some faculty have expressed a willingness to integrate course work that includes a focus on the broad scope of the place of artistic expression in the world, but others feel that these courses necessarily need to be entirely the process of creating a performance/work of art.
5. Large lecture courses, with 200-300 students enrolled, would experience more difficulty integrating active learning strategies.
6. Currently SFA students are required, in addition to the General Education program, to complete one course in the two departments other than their own. This requirement has been under scrutiny by the faculty for some time, but remains limited to a few courses in each department. Currently, these courses are also satisfying categories 9 and 10. Some perceive the reduction of the general Education Fine Arts requirement to one course as adding an additional course requirement within SFA.
7. The departments agree that the total number of credits required must not grow beyond what is currently required.