Draft Report

 

 

A Proposal for General Education at the College of Charleston

 

 

 

 

 

Submitted for Faculty Review at the 1998 General Education Retreat

Sand Dunes Club, Sullivan’s Island

August 18-19

 

 

by the

 

Ad Hoc Committee to Review the Current State of General Education

August 10, 1998

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Executive Summary

 

This review of General Education did not arise from an internal crisis, nor was it externally mandated. While the administration has supported the review both in spirit and with dollars, this process was initiated by faculty and has been sustained due to faculty interest and campus-wide participation. This proposal represents the first step in choosing how we will define and actualize our commitment to general education in the liberal arts and sciences from this point forward. From the first informal discussions and throughout the more formal review process, there has never been a sense that our current curriculum is fatally flawed. So why change?

 

Taken as a whole, general education at the College of Charleston has suffered from benign neglect. While our literature and public voice says that general education is central to our mission as a liberal arts and sciences institution, the reality expressed through our practice says otherwise. Many of our general education courses are taught by adjunct faculty who, through circumstances largely beyond their control, are not well integrated into the campus culture. Our undergraduate catalog is full of courses designed to serve the major, yet these same courses satisfy general education distribution requirements. Opportunities for integrated learning are limited by our desire to accommodate student choice and convenience. In short, there is little in the general education program to distinguish the College of Charleston from any number of other moderate-sized, public institutions.

 

When the Senate created the Ad Hoc Committee to Review General Education in 1996, it had been over twenty-five years since the curriculum was subject to a comprehensive review. Our current curriculum does not look substantially different from the general education program of 1970, and yet our students and the challenges they will face are quite different. Change in general education has been through the addition and subtraction of individual courses and is usually initiated and carried out by a single department. In 1986, the Board of Trustees approved a new set of institutional goals, but few faculty or students can articulate the instructional goals or explain how they shape our curriculum choices. During the period of tremendous growth in faculty and enrollments, little attention has been paid to creating a shared sense of "why we are here" beyond a genuine and deeply felt commitment to students, teaching and scholarship. But what does it mean to be part of a liberal arts and sciences institution as we near the start of the twenty-first century? What will be required of us in educating students for the rigors of personal, economic, and civic life in a rapidly expanding, technology-based, global community?

 

Overview of the Proposal

 

This proposal and report represent the product not only of this summer’s work by the Ad Hoc Committee, but more than two years of campus-wide examination, discussion and collaborative labor. We have tried to be true to the process adopted from the start; one designed to be inclusive, open to any interested member of the campus community regardless of discipline, title, or tenure. We believe that general education is central to our mission as a liberal arts and sciences institution and offer this proposal as a first step in aligning our practices with our principles.

 

The conceptual framework and curriculum requirements in this proposal are designed to increase the coherence and overall quality in general education. First, we have addressed a desire to increase the seriousness of academic purpose with a new required course, Introduction to the Liberal Arts, designed for all entering freshmen and transfer students with 30 hours or fewer (see page 16 and Appendix B). A temporal dimension has been added so that students begin with Foundation courses emphasizing skill development and demonstrated competency in written communication, quantitative and statistical literacy, and a basal knowledge and skill in a foreign language sufficient to build proficiency (see pages 17-18). Work in the major will extend this emphasis on skills by providing opportunities for students to progressively develop and demonstrate skills in writing, oral communication, research, and critical thinking. The middle of the curriculum is dedicated to the Intellectual Traditions in the Liberal Arts and Sciences, retaining the disciplinary strength of the distributive core (pages 18-19). To increase the curricular coherence in a student’s program and to extend general education beyond the first two years of introductory level study, students will complete a nine-hour Interdisciplinary Thematic Sequence during their junior and senior years (see page 20 and Appendix C). We have added two "across-the-curriculum" requirements; one writing-intensive course at or above the 300-level and two courses with global perspectives (see page 20). To ensure that courses serve general education, learning objectives have been developed for each area (pages 21-29). And finally, the coherence found in a shared responsibility for general education is supported by the creation of a Committee on General Education and the position of Director of General Education. Real change will not be accomplished solely through curricular modifications. Issues of advising, support for faculty contributions to general education, and assessment are addressed in the proposal as well.

 

A Comparison of the Current program with the Proposed program

 

For most students, the proposal will mean increasing the required hours in general education from the current 56 to 60. We have added four (4) hours to the requirements that have not been offset by reductions in other areas. One credit was added with the "Introduction to the Liberal Arts" course and three additional credit hours are added by the interdisciplinary thematic sequence requirement. The Interdisciplinary Thematic Sequence is a nine-hour requirement, but the other six hours have been offset by reducing the Humanities requirement from 12 to 9 hours, and by allowing one course to double-count in another area of general education. (See Comparison Table)

 

We saw no reason to recommend increasing the total number of hours required for graduation (currently 122). General education will constitute roughly half of the total credits required for graduation and will be more fully integrated with study in the major creating one seamless educational experience for students. We believe that the flexibility inherent in this proposal gives students ample room to exercise choice in their course selection. Even students in highly structured majors and programs requiring as many as 51 hours for completion of the major (e.g. Accounting and Business Administration) retain elective hours in this curriculum. We have been conscious of the constraints imposed by external accreditation processes and believe that the flexibility retained in the proposal will accommodate students in these programs. The coherence and attention to skill development will no doubt be viewed positively in any subsequent accreditation reviews as well as by other external constituencies.

 

Conclusion

 

We believe the curriculum and recommendations offered in this report build on our strengths and specifically address our weaknesses. Furthermore, through shared stewardship of general education, we reaffirm the primacy of general education in the liberal arts and sciences and rededicate ourselves to the institutional mission. We have based this proposal on a set of goals for general education, the results of research, the experiences of other institutions; and most importantly, many hours of campus-wide, collegial discussion and creative collaboration which resulted in five proposals last year. It was, therefore, a complicated process of distillation that has produced "the whole." We have tried to keep student learning at the forefront of our efforts. We have tried to honor the traditions of the College of Charleston while simultaneously moving the campus and curriculum forward in order to prepare students to meet the needs of a rapidly changing global society. The faculty and administration have participated in this process as partners, both seeking institutional excellence. Excellence in education cannot be achieved without the commitment of significant institutional resources. If the administration commits to supporting the costs of the proposal and the faculty commits to broad participation in general education, we believe that the culture of the campus community will be transformed into that of an academically strong, supportive, and intellectually challenging place to work and study.

 

We urge the faculty to carefully consider the proposal presented here. We have chosen to produce a comprehensive document so that everyone, regardless of their level of participation to date, can more fully understand the process that led to this proposal and the rationale for the path we recommend. This does not represent an end to our work, but we believe it represents a major step forward. We welcome your observations, constructive criticism, and suggestions for improvement at the General Education Retreat, August 18-19, 1998.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table of Contents

 

 

  1. Introduction and Background.................................................................................. 1

 

II. The Role of the Liberal Arts and Sciences Institution in Developing

the Liberally Educated Person................................................................................ 3

 

III. Goals for General Education.................................................................................. 5

 

IV. Strengths and Weaknesses in the Current Program................................................ 7

 

V. The Five Framework Proposals and Research on General Education:

Six Guiding Principles for Change........................................................................ 10

 

VI. The Conceptual Framework and Course Requirements.......................................... 15

Introduction to the Liberal Arts.................................................................. 16

Foundations................................................................................................. 17

Intellectual Traditions in the Liberal Arts and Sciences............................. 18

Integrated Liberal Learning........................................................................ 20

 

VII. Learning Objectives and Course Criteria for the New Framework........................ 21

Skills Progressively Developed Through Work in the Major.................... 26

Writing Intensive Course Objectives............................................. 27

Oral Communication Objectives.................................................... 28

Critical Thinking Objectives.......................................................... 29

 

VIII. Support for Faculty Contributions to General Education........................................ 29

 

IX. Sustaining the Vitality of General Education......................................................... 30

Committee on General Education.............................................................. 32

Process for Reviewing and Approving General Education Courses.......... 32

Director of General Education................................................................... 34

Advising..................................................................................................... 34

 

X. Assessment............................................................................................................. 34

 

XI. A View from the Administration on Supporting the Costs of the Proposal........... 35

(forthcoming following the August retreat)

 

XII. Active Planning and Implementation Recommendations....................................... 35

(forthcoming following the August retreat)

 

XIII. Conclusions............................................................................................................ 36

 

Sources............................................................................................................................... 38

Endnotes............................................................................................................................. 39

 

Appendices:

 

Appendix A: Ad Hoc Committee’s Creation and Charge

 

Appendix B: Proposal for a New Course: Introduction to the Liberal Arts

 

Appendix C: Proposal for Interdisciplinary Thematic Sequences

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I. Introduction and Background

 

In so many ways, the College of Charleston is fortunate. The review of General Education did not arise from an internal crisis, nor was it externally mandated. While the administration has supported the review both in spirit and with dollars, this process was initiated by faculty and has been sustained due to faculty interest and campus-wide participation by faculty, staff and students. This report and proposal represents the first step in considering the path we will choose in enhancing and sustaining the tradition of a high quality general education experience for students at the College of Charleston. From the first informal discussion and throughout the more formalized review process, there has never been a sense that the curriculum we offer now is fatally flawed. Rather, taken as a whole, general education has suffered from inattention. When the Senate constituted the Ad Hoc Committee to Review General Education in 1996, it had been over twenty-five years since the curriculum had been subject to a comprehensive review. Change in the curriculum through the late 1960s and beyond occurred by addition and subtraction. Institutional goals were approved by the Board of Trustees in March, 1986, but few faculty or students could articulate the instructional goals nor could many of us offer a rationale for why certain courses were required over others. While enjoying a period of tremendous growth in both faculty and students, little attention has been paid to creating a shared sense of "why we are here" beyond an honest and deeply felt commitment to students, teaching and scholarship. But what does it mean to be part of a liberal arts and sciences institution near the start of the twenty-first century? What will be required of us in educating students for the rigors of personal, economic, and civic life in an expanding technology-based, global community?

 

In August of 1995, the college community convened in the first of several campus retreats to begin the conversation about general education. This retreat was designed to gauge the level of interest in and need for a more comprehensive review. Using the "Twelve Principles for Effective General Education Programs" from Strong Foundations (AACU, 1994), groups of faculty, staff and students evaluated the current program experience. The retreat produced a series of short and long-term action steps related to strengthening our current program (found in section IV of this report). More importantly though, attendance by over 120 people indicated an interest in continuing the dialogue. In March of 1996, the Senate created the Ad Hoc Committee to Review General Education and issued the following charge: "convene and facilitate a three-year campus-wide discussion on General Education to be completed by August of 1999; make a report annually to the Faculty Senate and a full report to the Faculty Senate and full faculty by the end of three years (1999) at which time the faculty will be asked to affirm or modify the General Education curriculum; at the end of three years, make a recommendation to the Faculty Senate as to the need for a standing General Education Committee" (see full document in Appendix A). The College was also engaged in a self-study in 1996 dedicated to "internationalizing" the campus. The Curricular Initiatives section of the original report, the consultant’s report, and the institutional response speak to the need for systematic review of the curriculum related to "global awareness, knowledge of cultures and languages, appreciation of ethnic diversity and understanding of the interdependence of the world" (Goal IV: Curricular Initiatives, Summary Statement, Consultants Report, 1996). Several of the self-study recommendations have been adopted in this proposal.

 

In the first year of the formal review (1996-97), using a combination of large campus-wide forums and smaller discussion/work groups (called Inquiry Groups), the process produced a new set of goals for General Education generated from a lengthy discussion of what it means to be a liberally educated person. A GenEd listserve was initiated to allow for an ongoing dialogue and a webpage was created to archive documents and provide links to resources and information on initiatives at other colleges and universities. In the spring semester, faculty used these new goals to evaluate our current program, identifying strengths and weaknesses. The Faculty Senate endorsed in principle the Goals for General Education. Year two (1997-1998) started with a forum to educate the campus on trends in liberal education and alternative ways of organizing a General Education experience. Dr. Carol Schneider, now President of the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U), delivered the keynote address and was followed by faculty presentations from Portland State University, Miami of Ohio, and James Madison University describing their curriculum and liberal arts experience. Throughout year two, five groups of faculty, staff and students worked to develop organizational frameworks designed to realize the Goals for General Education and address some of the weaknesses in the current program identified in the first year. The proposals were presented in writing and by poster exhibition to the campus in March, 1998, and several open forums were held to gather comments and feedback. Students, through the Student Government Association, sponsored their own forum and submitted comments to the Committee. The Ad Hoc Committee has worked throughout the summer to combine the strongest elements of each proposal, investigate additional issues raised during the spring forums and comment sessions, and develop one comprehensive proposal for General Education.

 

This proposal and report represents the product not only of this summer’s work by the Ad Hoc Committee, but more than two years of campus-wide examination, discussion and labor. We have tried to be true to the process adopted from the start; one designed to be inclusive, open to any interested member of the campus community regardless of discipline, title, or tenure. At some point over the summer, however, we realized that decisions had to be made in order to move the process forward. The proposal is then, in many ways, a product of pragmatic compromises and a recognition that a more radical restructuring of the curriculum and delivery structure is not supported by the majority of faculty on campus. All five proposals developed last year, for example, maintain the distribution architecture and so it is retained in this proposal as well although modified to reduce the total number of courses approved for general education credit. This decision, like all of the decisions, has implications that extend throughout the general education program. A distributive framework relies on departments to mount, staff and teach courses not for their majors, but for the larger student body and general education. Without a mechanism for ongoing review, we run the risk that courses will erode over time into introductions to the discipline or the major rather than principally serve the goals of general education. To avoid that eventuality, this proposal recommends several additional actions: careful attention to developing goals and criteria for accepting courses for general education credit; the establishment of a faculty committee charged with course review according to established criteria and with assessment of course outcomes in this regard; departmental support and willingness to revisit, and in some cases revise or create, courses to serve the general education program; the appointment of a faculty director to work directly with department chairs, deans, and faculty in coordinating contributions on multiple fronts; and adding new curriculum requirements that will provide the integration and interdisciplinarity traditionally lacking in a distributive curriculum.

 

At the center of any change should be a focus on student learning. We have tried to keep that in mind as we worked, but we also realized that it is very easy to lose sight of that primary focus when workload issues and resource limitations naturally and legitimately arise. We welcome your evaluation of our efforts, your observations on the relative strengths and drawbacks of this approach, and your suggestions for modifications to strengthen this proposal. In doing so, be mindful of what we on the committee learned during many hours of summer deliberations, what may seem like a minor modification usually presents many and varied complications for the rest of the plan. The remainder of the report provides documentation and the developmental history of the proposal, the conceptual framework and requirements, and a recommendation on faculty development needs, resource requirements, and administrative support structures. Specific Ad Hoc Committee recommendations are italicized.

 

 

II. The Role of the Liberal Arts and Sciences Institution in Developing the

Liberally Educated Person

 

Although the mission of the institution now encompasses more than undergraduate education in the liberal arts and sciences, it remains central to both our tradition and our future. What is less clear is what a "liberal arts and sciences education" means both within and outside of the academy. Higher education is increasingly subject to criticism stemming in part from our inability to convey, and the public’s inability to understand, the values and practices that make our endeavor unique. Similarly, the criticism may rightly stem from our own unwillingness to recognize that the world outside the institution’s gate has changed in fundamental ways from the time when we ourselves were undergraduates. In order to maintain the quality of learning on campus, we must be willing to examine and in many cases alter our assumptions about what today’s student will need to succeed, the curriculum required to meet those needs, and our own ways of teaching and learning. To that end, in 1995, what was then known as the General Education Discussion Group, wrote a statement defining "Liberal Arts and Sciences at the College of Charleston." This was presented to faculty at the first General Education Retreat in 1995 and amended in February of 1996 as a result of that input. As a document, it does not carry the imprimatur of the faculty through endorsement by the Faculty Senate or the institution via approval by the Board of Trustees. However, it does provide a way of linking what we intend to do as an institution with our discussion of what it means to be a liberally educated person. Goals for General Education (see section III of this document) were generated directly from these two conversations.

 

A. Liberal Arts and Sciences at the College of Charleston

 

The College of Charleston is committed to providing its undergraduate students with an education grounded in the liberal arts and sciences. The curriculum taken by undergraduates consists of three components: general education, the major, and elective courses. Together these curricular components are intended to challenge the student through a diverse, broad exposure to a wide range of disciplinary knowledge. In the process, the student will be challenged to think logically and critically about social, cultural, and ethical issues. The student will have the opportunity not only to learn the substantive knowledge that various disciplines provide, but also to gain an understanding of, and ability to apply, the distinctive theories and methodologies of at least one discipline that is studied in depth-the major. The general education course requirements are designed to ground the student in basic knowledge and skills including an appreciation of the arts and the humanities; communication skills, quantitative reasoning skills; and the methods associated with the natural and social sciences.

 

Both within the curriculum and through the students' experience outside the classroom, the students will learn how to function as part of a community and will be challenged to gain those personal skills necessary to be a responsible, contributing member of the campus community, and upon graduation, the larger community in which they live and work. A liberal arts and sciences education is intended to be "liberating" in as much as it affords the student the opportunity to grow both intellectually and personally. Through the programs and experiences open to students outside the classroom, the College of Charleston strives to create a learning community that supports the liberal arts and sciences. Residence life programs, student affairs activities, cultural and social events, athletic and campus recreation programs, internships, and community outreach programs are designed to enhance and support the education experience.

 

The liberal arts and sciences curriculum and experiences outside the classroom:

 

 

B. What will it mean to be a "liberally educated person" in the twenty-first century?

 

As the Committee prepared to formalize a draft statement of Goals for General Education, we realized that there were common themes among the various responses from Inquiry Groups to the question of what are the characteristics of a liberally educated person in the 21st century. Most, if not all of the groups, identified similar skills, values, knowledge, and attitudes which they felt were essential. We synthesized those common themes into a description of the liberally education person in the 21st century and used that synthesis along with the goals in our work and in the work of the five groups that subsequently created frameworks for general education.

 

The Liberally Educated Person in the 21st Century

 

The liberally educated person is open-minded, tolerant, intellectually curious, courageous, self-actualizing (with the capacity for attaining personal growth and physical and mental health and spiritual well-being), and a life-long learner. He or she values education for its own sake, the natural world, the rights of other individuals, the richness of diverse cultures and peoples, the need for community, and has respect for the common good. The liberally educated person is actively engaged as a learner and a citizen with his or her world in all of its complexity, diversity, and dynamism. He or she is characterized by an attitude of openness, curiosity, and seeks to make a positive contribution to the future of humankind.

 

The general education experience at the College of Charleston should aid in developing such skills as: oral and written communication (including foreign languages); scientific methods and quantitative methodologies; research and technical capacities; ethical, critical, logical, analytical, and synthetic thinking and problem solving; and an aesthetic sense. Along with these skills it is expected that students will acquire substantive knowledge that is historical, philosophical, mathematical, scientific, cultural, literary, political, social and economic in content.

 

Above all, we seek to instill in our students a desire to learn- - to actively seek new ways of knowing and new knowledge. Over the course of their lives they should strive to integrate their skills and substantive knowledge and use that knowledge for the betterment of humankind and the stewardship of the natural world. We have tried to reflect this in the Goals for General Education and in the draft proposal, both of which follow below.

 

III. Goals for General Education

 

Over fifteen years ago, Ernest Boyer and Arthur Levine described general education in the context of liberal education as the study of "those experiences, relationships, and ethical concerns that are common to all of us simply by virtue of our membership in the human family at a particular moment in history" (Boyer and Levine, 1981). While the goals that follow speak most directly to the knowledge, values and skills acquired through formal study, our broader goals for liberally educating students require that we acknowledge the contributions and role that the extra-curricular program plays in a student’s education and work to better integrate academic and student affairs. "The liberally educated person, many now argue, needs not only substantial knowledge but also the skills and awareness to negotiate what philosopher Maxine Greene has called ‘a world lived in common with others.’ Thus colleges and universities must educate not in terms of mind alone but also in terms of a life lived in relationships with others whose experiences and assumptions may be very different" (Schneider and Shoenberg, 1998, p.12).

 

Although these goals were developed within the context of reviewing general education, they cannot and should not be seen as goals appropriate only for general education. This proposal relies on work in the major to accomplish progressive development of skills and provide students with study in depth in a chosen field. Once adopted, some effort at aligning the goals in the disciplinary and professional majors with these institutional instructional goals should be undertaken (perhaps facilitated by the Committee on General Education).

 

There is substantial support across campus for turning Goal 9 into a preamble for the Goals.

 

We recommend the faculty consider the following language in that regard:

 

The College of Charleston intentionally creates a climate of civility that enables students and faculty to form learning communities where dialogue about intellectual debates and controversies can occur. The College is committed to developing in its students intellectual honesty and curiosity, a commitment to lifelong learning, a sense of personal responsibility, and informed active, responsible citizenship. To that end, students are expected to:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Draft Goals for General Education

(Endorsed in principle by the Faculty Senate, April 15, 1997)

 

Students, through the curricular and extra-curricular General Education experience, are expected to:

 

 

1. acquire basic knowledge of the arts, humanities, mathematics, and the natural and social sciences, the languages which define and convey this knowledge, and the relationship among the branches of knowledge.

 

 

2. acquire an interdisciplinary understanding of major contemporary ethical, political, economic, social and scientific issues and movements including their origins, implications and interrelationships.

 

 

3. develop a knowledge of diverse cultures, natural and human-made environments, and their global interrelationships.

 

 

4. develop effective reading, writing, and oral communication skills in English, and basic communication skills in a language other than English.

 

 

5. develop skills in the methods and technologies of inquiry, critical thinking, problem solving, scientific research, quantitative and historical analysis.

 

 

6. employ the available resources to retrieve, use and evaluate information from a variety of sources.

 

 

7. develop the ability to set and achieve personal goals.

 

 

8. work and interact effectively with others.

 

 

9. develop intellectual honesty and curiosity, a commitment to lifelong learning, a sense of personal responsibility, and informed, active, responsible citizenship in a climate of civility where dialogue about intellectual debates and controversies can occur.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IV. Strengths and Weaknesses of the Current Program

 

Since this review grew out of a self-reflective interest in examining what we are currently doing well in general education and what we might improve, the strengths and weaknesses of the current general education program have been addressed over time by a variety of campus constituencies.  It is worth reviewing their recommendations since the Ad Hoc Committee’s proposal attempts to address as many as possible. As noted earlier, the Ad Hoc Committee has also reviewed the reports stemming from the SAC’s review in 1996. Included below are reports from the Faculty Assessment Committee, recommendations for Action Steps from participants at the first General Education Retreat held in 1995, and a synopsis of Inquiry Group evaluations of the current program done in 1997.

 

 

A. The Assessment Committee Database and Findings, 1992; 1994-95

 

In 1992, the Assessment Committee assessed the general education program on one objective: to develop reading, writing, and oral communication skills (Assessment of General Education Memo, June, 1992). The Committee asked departments to note which of their classes developed skills related to this objective (and later the remainder of the institutional objectives). The goal was to identify the number of opportunities a student would have to enroll in a course in which any one or more of the institutional objectives were present.

 

In 1994, the Assessment Committee refined its grid, expanded the explanations and definitions of the objectives and again asked departments to report on whether their courses met any number of the institutional objectives. The committee next examined the transcripts of 524 May 1994 graduates who had applied no more than 12 hours from another school to their degrees at the College of Charleston. For each student and each goal, the committee made a tally of the number of times he/she passed a course addressing that goal. Analysis of the refined database, like the analysis of the preliminary figures, reveals that in their course work all of our students are receiving considerable exposure to developing reading and writing skills; critical thinking and problem solving skills; familiarity with information retrieval systems; an appreciation for cultural diversity; and a social, political and historical awareness that extends beyond the United States. In fact, the database reveals that the sample of students averaged over 10 classes covering each of these areas, and each student had some classes emphasizing each of these categories. The database also revealed that our curriculum does less to emphasize the development of communication skills, computer competence, and social, political and historical awareness beyond the Western world. Still, our students are averaging about 5 courses that emphasize each of these objectives, and there are very few students who are not exposed to classes that emphasize each of these. (For more information on the database, see the final report on the General Education Assessment Project, 1993-94.)

 

 

B. Recommendations for Action from the General Education Retreat, Sullivan’s Island,

August, 1995:

 

In August of 1995, using the "Twelve Principles for Effective General Education Programs" ( Strong Foundations, AAC&U, 1994) as a guide, groups of faculty and staff reviewed our current program and practices. The retreat produced the following observations and recommendations for action:

 

 

Mission Issues:

 

Program Structure Issues:

 

 

Outside the Classroom Recommendations:

 

Faculty Development:

 

Governance Issues:

 

Specific Recommendations:

 

 

C. Inquiry Group Review, Spring Semester 1997:

 

Groups were asked to consider the following question: "In light of the new Goals for General Education, to what extent does the current General Education experience (curricular and extra-curricular) support or fail to support the Goals?" This summary is based on eight groups reporting. The full text of each report can be found on the GenEd website: www.cofc.edu/~donatoh/GenEd/hpage.htm.

 

The areas of strength in the current experience lie in the breadth of opportunities for students both in and outside of class. The areas of content knowledge are well covered (although it was noted that while Fine Arts appear in the goals (goals 1-3, referenced on page 6 of this report), under the current program a student can complete the requirements without taking a Fine Arts course nor is there any compulsory non-western or "diverse cultures" experience), however there is little to connect one course to another or to connect the curricular with the extra-curricular. A stronger advising system was suggested as one possible means for making the connections more explicit. Others suggested adding or requiring interdisciplinary seminars for all students. The interdisciplinary minors offer one possibility, however several groups noted that the minors vary in their degree of coherence and the financial resources dedicated to interdisciplinary teaching are not currently sufficient to provide the experience for every student. Others suggested that some courses be designated as "GenEd" courses and prohibited from being required for a major. Almost every group perceived institutional barriers to providing interdisciplinary experiences (compartmentalization, advising weakened by online registration, lack of financial resources for connective activities like WAC, theme days, poster sessions, etc).

In relation to opportunities for students to develop and improve skills, English and Foreign Language requirements currently provide one avenue for reading, writing, and oral communication. Groups that addressed Goal 5 perceived that upper division courses in the major addressed these skills, but that no mechanism exists to guarantee that inquiry, critical thinking and analytical skills are developed in students. Several groups noted a lack of computer or technology requirement. Universal access to technology is seen as a limitation to supporting Goal 6.

There is a considerable range in the evaluation of experiences to meet Goals 7 through 9. Some groups question their relevance to General Education and recommend that they be dropped from the list of goals entirely. Some identified these goals as basic to "good teaching." Others identified extra-curricular experiences as particularly important to fulfilling these goals and suggested additional opportunities for service learning, 1 or 2 credit courses, study abroad, community-campus activities, and better connections between academics and Student Affairs. Again, there is the perception that the campus offers a wide range of opportunities, but there are no guarantees that students will take advantage of them or that the connection to learning is clear. Inadequate space for developing an academic community among students and among faculty and students is noted as well as a lack of rewards or incentives for faculty to devote time to service in the area of student life. Concern was expressed over the growth of the student population, increasing class size, as well as the expansion to the North Area campus where fewer student life resources are available in creating a "community".

 

 

V. The Five Framework Proposals and Research on General Education:

Six Guiding Principles for Change

 

During the 1997-1998 academic year, five groups of faculty, staff and students worked to create new organizational frameworks for general education that would realize the Goals and based on guiding design questions provided by the Ad Hoc Committee. The plans were presented in March, 1998, and reviewed by the campus community throughout March and April. Comments were submitted at numerous open forums and in writing. The five plans are available for review on the General Education Website: www.cofc.edu/~donatoh/GenEd/hpage.htm The Ad Hoc Committee used the five plans as a basis for developing this proposal.

 

The Ad Hoc Committee began the summer’s work by listing the common elements across all five proposals:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other features were supported by more than one group, but not all five:

 

 

 

 

 

 

No group proposed adding a senior year experience or capstone to the general education program, although more than one group recommended that all departments develop capstone experiences. Faculty felt that departments were better able to tailor these integrative, synthesizing experiences to student needs within the major in preparation for graduation. This line of reasoning is consistent with this proposal’s reliance on work in the major to progressively develop skills.

 

The Committee, therefore, proceeded with six central principles for change:

 

  1. retain the basic distributive framework, but articulate a rationale and statement of the objectives for each element;

    2.  

  2. put a primary emphasis on skill development without neglecting the knowledge base required to prepare students for advanced interdisciplinary work and study in the major;

    3.  

  3. address the pervasive desire to transform the campus culture;

    4.  

  4. add coherence (intellectual and programmatic) to the general education program while maintaining maximum flexibility for students;

    5.  

  5. create a "home" for general education by establishing an administrative structure unique to general education to take responsibility for meeting the goals and remain accountable for program quality; and

    6.  

  6. create a process for faculty review and assessment of student outcomes, general education course objectives, and the overall program to ensure support for the Goals of General Education and college-wide stewardship of General Education.

 

Research on Change and Curricular Designs in General Education

 

The impetus for the aims of general education can be traced back to World War II and the Harvard Committee on General Education (1945). Their rationale and structure emphasizing the twofold values of freedom (the power of individual choice and the right to think for oneself) and free society (the obligation to cooperate) has structured fifty years of curriculum development in U.S. higher education (Ratcliff, 1997). During the past decade, over 90 percent of colleges and universities have undertaken some form of revision in their undergraduate curriculum (Gaff, 1989). Literature on the process of curricular reform suggests that the effects of adopting reform are largely positive for all institutions, at least in the short term (Gaff, 1991). Simply adding a course or changing a single requirement without considering the whole, however, is far less likely to impact the institution positively. Comprehensive change, or "large scale" change, is reported to have the most positive range of consequences. However, designing curricular change is not a "one size fits all" enterprise. Each institution must take into account its own set of unique circumstances, the variation in student interests, abilities, and prior achievements, and recognize its own capacity for change (Ratcliff, 1997).

 

Curriculum designs include, on one end of the spectrum, a "core curriculum" model, in which a body of course work is identified and required of all students as a common experience. Institutions with a true core curriculum tend to be highly selective small, private, liberal arts colleges with a narrowly defined mission. The distributive model, in many ways the opposite of the core, is designed to expose students to a wide range of disciplines and the theories and methods of those disciplines. Astin (1992) found that while over 90 percent of all general education programs use a ‘distributional system,’ the varieties of implementation do not appear to make much difference in their effectiveness. Distributive arrangements provide students with the least curricular coherence. The research literature consistently cites coherence as a fundamental characteristic of effective general education curriculum (Association of American Colleges and Universities, 1985; Boyer, 1987; Gaff, 1989; Ratcliff, 1993; Ratcliff and Associates, 1995, Zemsky, 1989). Coherence in the curriculum, according to Ratcliff, provides students with "more opportunities to figure out how different elements, themes, or ideas can be connected and applied to social situations and human reflection" (1997, p. 147).

 

An Overview and Justification of the Proposal in light of the Five Proposals and the Research

 

The level of change that the Ad Hoc Committee proposes with this conceptual framework and set of requirements could most likely be characterized as "modest." We did not feel compelled to radically alter our basic framework, but rather to specifically address its weaknesses and improve upon its strengths.

 

First, we have attempted to address the climate on campus by reaffirming our commitment to a "seriousness of purpose" as a liberal arts and sciences institution, establishing positive student-faculty relationships, improving student retention, and increasing student academic performance through a new course: Introduction to the Liberal Arts. Two of the five proposals called for an "orientation" to the liberal arts and academic culture. The scope of the proposals varied from a one-week experience to a shorter 3-day session. No group proposed creating an integrated year-long freshman experience. The Ad Hoc Committee opted for a shorter, intensive 3-day model in recognition of the value of having roster faculty teach the course balanced by the workload issues involved in a longer, more significant commitment. The course proposal (see Appendix B) is designed to be "academic" in its orientation. While there are several good models that emphasize personal development, access to campus resources, and an introduction to student life and activities, the Ad Hoc Committee believes strongly that our greatest need rests in orienting students to an academic culture and modeling the liberal arts experience with a substantive, but short, course. This course will require additional resources and it cannot be accomplished without additional resources. This component has perhaps the greatest potential of all to transform the culture of the College of Charleston over the long term.

 

Foundation courses, taken during the first year (two years for foreign languages) will provide an explicit emphasis on developing and demonstrating competence in essential skills. The presence of a "Foundations" layer in the curriculum adds a temporal dimension to the curriculum that is important and absent from our current curriculum. We know that students learn best from logical sequences of courses that build on one another (Ratcliff, 1997) and that the acquisition of higher order skills depends on basic competencies. By ensuring that students can write effectively, possess quantitative and statistical literacy, and are working toward building the capacity for proficiency in a foreign language in the first year, faculty teaching in the major and upper division general education courses can concentrate on the application and progressive development of intellectual skills, study in depth in a single field, and integration of knowledge, skills and perspectives across multiple disciplines.

 

We have been less ambitious in altering the distributive framework since strength in the disciplines was identified as a positive feature of our current curriculum. The proposed review process promises to introduce greater intentionality in course purpose, design and delivery. The Ad Hoc Committee believes the review will reduce the number of general education courses by designating only those with broad (rather than highly specialized) learning objectives as appropriate for general education. Titling the distributive feature, "Intellectual Traditions in the Liberal Arts and Sciences," reinforces our primary mission as an institution.

 

The greatest weakness identified in our current curriculum is a lack of coherence. Therefore, the common goal in all five of the proposals presented last spring was to increase coherence in the curriculum. Four of the five groups accomplished greater coherence by adopting interdisciplinary sequence or cluster requirements. The form and relative weight of the interdisciplinary component varied considerably. Group Three advocated replacing the existing requirements in History, Humanities, and Social Sciences (24 hours) with two, 12-hour interdisciplinary exploratory clusters. Groups 1,2 and 5 advocated retaining some elements of the basic distribution requirement, but adding an interdisciplinary cluster of courses. Group one, for example, proposed two sequences outside the major. One thematic in nature (9 hours) and one international in its focus (6 hours). Hours in each sequence would count toward distribution requirements. Group Two proposed adding a nine to twelve-hour thematic sequence, but allowing seven hours of credit to count toward distribution requirements. Group Five’s proposal placed the thematic cluster at the advanced level outside a student’s primary major and designed it to reinforce the skills developed at the introductory level.

Having decided to retain the basic distributive architecture, the Ad Hoc Committee designed an interdisciplinary thematic sequence that most closely resembles that of Group Five, but includes features from the other proposals as well. The requirement is limited to nine hours in each of three different disciplines, designed to encourage higher-level learning outside a student’s primary major with courses at the 200 and 300-levels, and provides a synthesizing experience in that courses are organized around a single theme. We believe it is important for the entire campus to contribute to general education and so we did not adopt a thematic model that acts as a substitute for distribution requirements in any area(s). While we tried to exercise care that the power of the experience is not diluted by serving too many purposes (e.g. we do not require thematic sequences to accomplish the global perspectives goal), they do provide a number of new opportunities. For example, while the Committee was positively predisposed to the idea that students would benefit from more science courses, or exposure to more than one science, and perhaps an interdisciplinary natural science course. However, given the finite space in the curriculum, we could not find room to increase the science requirement beyond 8 hours. The interdisciplinary thematic sequences as currently constructed, however, offer the opportunity for science faculty to develop a wide variety of additional science courses taught within an interdisciplinary context. Faculty in the schools of Business and Education will also be able to teach courses in the thematic sequences and participate in general education for the first time.

 

Additionally, we have recommended two broad "across-the-curriculum" components with a writing intensive course requirement and the requirement that students complete two courses with global perspectives. The SAC’s self-study indicated a concern that the current general education requirements do not address a knowledge of diverse cultures. Requiring students to complete two courses with global perspectives will ensure that no student graduates without a knowledge of diverse cultures and an understanding of their global interrelationships. Writing is the one skill everyone agrees is fundamental and an advanced writing course completed in the major or in another area of interest serves to strengthen our collective commitment to developing effective written communcation skills.

 

Finally, the most significant change embodied in the proposal is largely invisible in the curricular requirements–campus-wide stewardship of general education. As a campus, we do not currently have an adequate mechanism to coordinate general education and engage in long-term planning for continuous improvement. The creation of a Committee on General Education and the position of Director of General Education will increase coordination and coherence in the program overall. A dedication to ongoing review and quality assessment efforts as the means of producing an evolving curriculum and program will ensure that we do not wait another 25 years to revisit general education.

 

The Committee’s Summer Work Practices

 

The Ad Hoc Committee met in two hour blocks approximately 16 times over the summer from May until August. Attendance at the meetings ranged from 12-15 people at each and a student representative was present at nearly all of the meetings. During the month of June, we divided into two subcommittees of about 7 people each. The subcommittee on Thematic Sequences held three, 2 hour meetings and the subcommittee on the Freshman Course met in five, 2 hour meetings. Communication at every meeting was collegial and open. The Chair came with a working agenda, but members frequently added items and dictated the pace of work. Minutes of the meetings were circulated. There were no recorded votes taken, but one straw vote was used to decide whether we had reached an impasse in our deliberations over the nature of the science requirement. On all other matters, positions garnered a consensus after lengthy discussions and exchanges–often by returning to a topic several times.

 

The Committee’s Approach to Designing the Proposal

 

The committee began work in late May with two half-day sessions devoted to reviewing the elements of the current distribution framework and developing a sense of what each contributes to the whole, identifying essential skills and competencies developed through particular elements of the distribution requirements, and trying to write basic objectives for each. Our intention was to establish a set of "first principles" that we could return to when negotiating the inevitable battles over which courses should be required, etc. The month of June was largely spent in sub-committee work and in expanding the discussion of the temporal "phases" of study in general education (foundations, middle, end).

 

In late June and early July, we started working on developing objectives and requirements in the major areas of the distribution framework. We decided to start with the two areas that received the least attention within the five proposals; natural science and foreign languages. In both cases, through retreats and faculty meetings, the divisions themselves have done significant work in revisiting the role they play in general education and revisiting the objectives that guide course development. The Division of Foreign Languages (DFL) has developed a mission statement and formed liaison committees with non-language departments in order to explore modifications in LANG 202 that will create better linkages between the study of foreign language and career or post-graduate study plans. The School of Science and Mathematics (SSM) sponsored two speakers on "science literacy" in the spring 1998 semester, convened their own SSM Science Literacy Committee, and held a SSM Chair’s Retreat (a significant portion of which was dedicated to discussing general education). All of these developments were useful to the Ad Hoc Committee in thinking about the appropriate objectives for each major component of the curriculum. In addition to reviewing all of the written documentation from these events, the committee invited the Chairs of Science and Math to act as resources and invited Dr. Rick Rickerson (Head, DFL) and Jack Parson (Director, International Education) to act as resources on foreign language and the "internationalization" question. We took this additional step in these areas (and not others) because so little attention had been paid to these questions in the five proposals submitted in March, most likely because of low participation among faculty in these areas.

 

The month of July was devoted to crafting the distribution architecture and deciding how hours would be apportioned among the various areas in order to facilitate early development and demonstration of competence in essential skills, exploration in the modes of inquiry and disciplines that make up the liberal arts and sciences, and finally, in adding intellectual coherence through an interdisciplinary experience. In late July and early August, we concentrated on writing objectives for each of the substantive areas of the proposal. We also re-examined the entire proposal in light of the guiding design questions we gave the five groups last year.

 

The proposal presented below is the product of many hours of deliberation, debate, and in the end, innumerable compromises. Each member of the Ad Hoc Committee can honestly say that if drafting the proposal alone, they would have made different choices. However, by discussing an issue until we could reach a point of agreement or compromise, or by returning to an issue several times, we have crafted a proposal that, when taken as a whole, we believe best meets our goals and is true to the process that brought us to this point.

 

 

VI. The Conceptual Framework and General Education Requirements

 

The challenges in devising a quality general education experience are many. "General Education involves many tensions: between what to teach and how to teach it, between the great classics of the past and contemporary works , between the classroom and students’ out-of-class life, between students’ individual objectives and the needs of the community, between what students want and what their institutions think they need, and between its means and ends—that is, between its reality of daily assignments and its goals of fostering the desire and capacity to continue learning" (A New Vitality, 1988). This framework and set of requirements represent our attempt to negotiate the tensions and provide for a quality general education experience. The conceptual framework is temporally organized in the sense that it is intended to span the student’s four year experience and is designed to have a beginning, a middle and an end; it is intended to provide support for the disciplinary majors by providing a broad knowledge and skill base; and it is intended to strengthen the student’s experience by providing more coherence through advanced interdisciplinary study.

For most students, this will mean increasing the required hours in general education from the current 56 to 60. We have added four (4) hours to the requirements that have not been offset by reductions in other areas. One credit was added with the "Introduction to the Liberal Arts" course and three additional credit hours are added by the interdisciplinary thematic sequence requirement. The Interdisciplinary Thematic Sequence is a nine-hour requirement, but the remaining six hours have been offset by reducing the Humanities requirement from 12 to 9 hours, and by allowing one course to double-count in another area of general education. We have not made any recommendation regarding the total number of hours required for graduation (currently 122). See Table 1: Comparison of Current General Education Requirements and Proposed General Education Requirements.

 

A. Introduction to the Liberal Arts

 

Students often arrive at the College of Charleston without knowing that they have enrolled in a liberal arts and sciences college and so they are unprepared for the broad set of curriculum requirements that a liberal arts education entails. Students may also fall victim to well meaning, but misinformed messages from home and the marketplace that course work is only "useful" in so far as it advances specific occupational or career objectives. The new course proposed, "Introduction to the Liberal Arts," designed to address these concerns as well as work toward changing the culture and reputation of the College of Charleston from that of a "party school" to one where a serious and ongoing exchange of ideas can take place within a supportive campus culture that values a student’s intellectual development, rewards the hard work that is required to attain college-level academic success, and creates disincentives for negative behaviors. Our own institutional assessment data on incoming freshmen show that "there has been a shift in the reasons why freshmen indicate they have selected the College of Charleston, with far greater emphasis on the social reputation and low tuition of the school than ten years ago. In 1985, 19% identified social reputation as a reason for selection, while in 1995 this number had increased to 35%"(A. Abrams, memo, April 20, 1996). While the academic reputation of the school remained the number one reason students selected the College in 1995 among 50% of the entering class, that is down from 54% in 1985. The opposing trends are suggestive of the need to address this situation.

 

The first course in the new curriculum proposal, Introduction to the Liberal Arts, is intended to provide a shared academic experience for all first year and transfer students. It will allow faculty to set immediate and appropriate expectations for college-level academic work, give students prompt feedback on their preparedness and confirm their ability to learn, and advance the student-as-learner over the student-as-consumer model of education. We believe that over time, this component has the power to transform the culture at the College of Charleston.

 

 

 

Recommendation for a new course (See specific course proposal and example syllabus in Appendix B):

 

Introduction to the Liberal Arts (1 credit)

The course consists of an intensive 3-day academic experience prior to the start of classes for all entering freshmen and transfer students with 30 or fewer credits followed by a limited number of assignments in the subsequent semester. Upon acceptance of admission to the College, students will receive the summer reading and a letter from the President about the course and discussing the value of a liberal arts and sciences education. The goals of the course are to provide students with a common intellectual introduction to the liberal arts and liberal learning within a rigorous academic culture supported by an early and positive relationship with faculty and a learning community of peers. Students will engage with one another and a faculty member around a common reading mailed out over the summer, supplemented by additional readings, films, lectures, cultural and social events organized around a common theme. A convocation will follow. Peer mentors will assist the faculty member in delivering the course. The faculty member will continue to advise the student throughout the first year.

 

 

 

 

 

B. Foundations

 

While students will arrive at the College with varying degrees of competence in the essential skills, we believe that it is crucial for all students to demonstrate competence before moving into more advanced courses in the liberal arts and sciences. The second component, Foundations, is dedicated to developing and refining essential skills. Essential skills include effective written communication, quantitative and statistical literacy, and basal knowledge and skill in a foreign language sufficient to build proficiency. The Foundations component is designed to support study in the major and upper division general education courses.

 

Students will begin the Foundation courses in the first semester and remain enrolled in Foundation courses throughout subsequent semesters until they are completed. Students may augment these course by beginning work in the major, by selecting introductory courses in the Intellectual Traditions, or by choosing electives. Students who cannot demonstrate competency through acceptable work in required Foundation courses will be expected to seek supplemental instruction until competency can be demonstrated. Resources will be provided through computer assisted tutorials, labs in writing, math and foreign language instruction, as well as other forms of supplemental instruction.

 

 

The Ad Hoc Committee recommends a new emphasis on essential skills, demonstrated competence in essential skills, and viewing foundation courses as the cornerstone of the curriculum in general education and important preparation for work in the major.

 

English (6 credits)

 

Students must complete ENGL 101 and 102 and demonstrate competence in written communication. Competence may be demonstrated through acceptable work in English 101-102. Upon the recommendation of the instructor, students who receive a D in either ENGL 101 or 102 will be required to complete additional labs or tutorials beyond ENGL 101-102 until competence in written communication is demonstrated.

 

Mathematics and/or Formal Logic and Statistical Literacy (6 credits)

 

Students must complete two Mathematics courses (alternatively, students may complete one Mathematics course and one course in Formal Logic) and demonstrate statistical literacy. Statistical literacy may be demonstrated by completing Math 104 or 250 or by completing an approved course outside the Mathematics area that emphasizes statistics.

 

Foreign Languages, Classical or Modern (3-12 credits)

 

Competence in a foreign language at the intermediate level may be demonstrated by satisfactory completion of course work through the 202 level or by an approved examination and validation course. Students will be encouraged to view preparatory work in a foreign language as providing the foundation for links to areas of interest in the major, Interdisciplinary Thematic Sequences, study abroad opportunities, and courses with global perspectives.

 

 

 

Recommendation for a change in the placement policy:

 

Students who have completed two years of study in a single foreign language in high school and who place into Lang 101 will be required to enroll in Lang 102 or be advised to select study in a new language to fulfill the foreign language requirement. If the student chooses to continue in the same language, credits earned in Lang 101 will not count toward graduation.

 

Rationale: The current policy allows students to aim low and elect to enroll in 101 courses even if they have placed into higher level courses. The results have negative effects on the Division of Languages (increase in the number of 101 sections, increase in the number of students per section, increase in the number of roster and adjunct faculty needed) and negative effects on learning and the classroom. Large numbers of students who have taken a language in high school (particularly Spanish) enroll in 101 and are bored while true beginners feel as if they are behind from day one and are often intimidated. The mixture of experience with the language complicates teaching and with more students per section, there is less opportunity for individual practice in language. This rationale arises directly from materials and discussions from within the Division of Foreign Languages.

 

 

C. Intellectual Traditions in the Liberal Arts and Sciences

 

The middle of the framework is designed to allow students to explore and sample courses within the liberal arts and sciences. Intellectual Traditions in the Liberal Arts and Sciences, most resembles the current distribution architecture. There are, however, some important differences. Upon the recommendation of a department, the Committee on General Education will review courses for inclusion in the "approved" general education course listings. No department or faculty member should assume that courses currently receiving general education credit will automatically count within the new framework. The Committee on General Education will work with departments and the faculty in developing and publicizing appropriate criteria for review; the committee will work in a consultative fashion directly with departments or faculty interested in revising existing courses or developing new courses. It is important that this task be approached as a collective enterprise and in the spirit of collegiality. General Education serves the entire campus and the entire campus should be a part of the ongoing review and assessment process.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Natural Science (8 credits)

 

Students are required to complete two lab science general education courses.

 

NOTE: The committee has considered the following options and is divided as to the appropriate choice for General Education Science for non-science majors. We recommend that the faculty consider the following and offer input:

 

  • Students would complete two lab science courses within the same scientific discipline. This option may provide students with sequential study in some depth within a single science discipline.

 

  • Students would choose either sequential study within a single scientific discipline or complete one lab science course in each of two disciplines. This option may allow students to achieve some breadth and diversity by selecting study in two sciences while maintaining the option of sequential study in a single science for those students who prefer it or for those who are required to complete a two-course sequence (ie. Teacher Certification). Implementing this option would require the creation of GenEd lab science courses that could stand alone.

 

  • Science departments would designate their General Education science courses as sequential or non-sequential. Students would then select courses from within that framework. It might mean that the range of science disciplines a student could choose from would be more limited if more than one department maintained the sequential course requirement.

 

 

Social Science (6 credits)

 

Students are required to complete two general education social science courses.

 

Humanities (9 credits)

 

Students may choose any 3 approved general education courses from the Arts and Humanities disciplines (excluding History). No more than 2 courses can be selected from any one discipline.

 

 

History (6 credits)

 

Students are required to complete six hours from a list of designated History courses. Approved courses will provide students with a broad historical context as well as introduce historical methods of inquiry. In order to meet the "broad historical context" requirement, a course must provide integrated discussion of multiple aspects of human culture over a significant expanse of historical time. Courses that focus on short time spans or on a single dimension of history (ie. political, intellectual or social history) will not meet this requirement nor would survey courses in US History since this is one area all SC students study in high school; courses with a comparative component are desirable. Where courses are designated and approved by the Committee on General Education as a sequence, both courses in the sequence must be taken to satisfy the requirement. The Ad Hoc Committee anticipates that, upon review by the General Education Committee, History 101-104 will satisfy this requirement. We recommend and encourage the development of additional courses to meet the history requirement.

D. Integrated Liberal Learning

 

"Both students and faculty members benefit when they are challenged to think about the connections among ideas and issues across disciplinary and departmental boundaries" (AAC&U, 1988, p.8). Building upon the foundational knowledge and skills, interdisciplinary study will enable students to make meaningful connections among ideas and disciplines so that they may work toward a deeper, more coherent understanding of the world. Integrated Liberal Learning courses will provide coherence through interdisciplinary thematic study; an expanded world view through global perspectives courses; and an opportunity to further develop writing skills through a 300-level writing intensive course.

 

 

Recommendation for a new Interdisciplinary Thematic Sequence requirement

(See specific course proposal in Appendix C):

 

Interdisciplinary Thematic Sequence (ITS) (9 credits)

 

After 45-60 hours of study, students will select and complete one Interdisciplinary Thematic Sequence. The Interdisciplinary Thematic Sequence is designed to provide an advanced, interdisciplinary learning experience organized around a common theme. Within an ITS, students will complete 3 courses from three different disciplines, each outside of their primary major. Courses must be at or above the 200-level, and at least one must be at or above the 300-level. A student may apply all courses taken within an ITS toward the completion of an interdisciplinary minor. Only one course from an ITS may be applied toward another General Education requirement.

 

 

 

The Ad Hoc Committee recommends that two course designations be developed to identify courses with global perspectives and writing intensive courses.

 

Global Perspectives (two courses)

 

Approved global perspectives courses are designated with an icon in the catalogue and schedule of courses. Students may apply global perspectives courses toward General Education (with the exception of the History requirement) or credit in the major or minor.

(See Objectives and Criteria for courses with global perspectives on page 26)

 

 

Writing Intensive Course (one course)

 

Every student must choose at least one approved writing intensive course at or above the 300-level. Students may apply writing intensive course toward General Education or credit in the major or minor.

(See Objectives and Criteria for Writing Intensive courses on page 27)

 

 

 

 

 

VII. Learning Objectives and Course Criteria for the New Framework

 

In order to help faculty develop general education courses and to distinguish these courses from the more specialized disciplinary courses appropriate for the major, learning objectives and course criteria are offered below for each element of the new framework.

 

Foundation Courses

 

General Objective for General Education Foundation Courses:

 

  • students are expected to develop essential skills and demonstrate lasting abilities in: effective written communication, quantitative analysis and/or formal reasoning, statistical analysis and applications, and the basis for competency in a foreign language.

 

Written Communication: Through approved general education courses, students are expected to:

 

  • develop the ability to read with insight, perception and objectivity;

 

  • develop an understanding of the writing process and the ability to write with clarity and precision following the rules of standard English grammar and composition;

 

  • learn invention, revision, editing, and documentation techniques;

 

  • explore the ways of thinking and understand the relationship between the writer and the reader;

 

  • understand the importance of careful observation, specific detail, and the logical development of ideas and demonstrate how these principles are embodied in quality writing;

 

  • demonstrate the ability to retrieve information and evaluate its use as evidence in creating and supporting an argument; and

 

  • prepare research papers.

 

 

Foreign Language: Through sequential study in an classical or modern foreign language through the intermediate level, students are expected to:

 

  • demonstrate sufficient knowledge of an classical or modern foreign language to build fluency in that language when future personal or professional needs require it;

 

  • be able to read, write, and speak (for spoken languages) and demonstrate sufficient knowledge of vocabulary and language construction to build fluency;

 

  • demonstrate an appreciation of foreign cultures, ancient and modern, and acquire knowledge about the literature, culture and intellectual achievements of countries other than the United States; and

 

  • using their foreign language skills, investigate areas of interest related to their major or other course work, personal interests, or future goals.

 

 

Quantitative Analysis: Through approved general education courses, students are expected to:

 

  • develop an appreciation for the practical value of mathematics in the modern world and

 

  • interpret mathematical models such as formulas, graphs, tables, and schemata, draw inferences and make decisions from them, and communicate these conclusions verbally;

 

  • organize information, recognize patterns and relationships, and represent them mathematically;

 

  • use mathematical and/or statistical methods to solve problems and recognize the limits of those methods;

 

  • estimate and check answers to mathematical problems in order to determine if an answer is reasonable, and critically appraise numerical information;

 

  • apply mathematical methods in the context of other disciplines; and

 

  • reason logically and recognize what conclusions can be drawn from a set of hypotheses.

 

 

Formal Reasoning: Students will develop proficiency using one formal/abstract system (ie. a system that uses a formal language) and are expected to:

 

  • represent information in this formal system;

 

  • draw correct inferences from information presented formally;

 

  • recognize abstract patterns and relationships and represent them in the formal system;

 

  • use the system to solve practical problems; and

 

  • understand the power, precision, and limits of this system.

 

NOTE: These objectives for courses in formal reasoning are relevant only for students who opt to complete the Foundation requirement with one course in formal reasoning in addition to completing a mathematics course and demonstrating statistical literacy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Statistical Literacy: Through approved courses in applied probability, students are expected to:

 

  • develop an appreciation for the practical value of statistics in the modern world;

 

  • perform statistical analyses (both descriptive and inferential) in applied settings;

 

  • understand variation in data and in models used to represent nature;

 

  • understand the reasoning used and limitations in statistical arguments;

 

  • recognize the importance of unbiased sampling in designing experiments; be able to critically examine the design of a statistical study and determine the appropriateness of the design in relation to the background setting which provides the data;

 

  • effectively communicate statistical conclusions orally and in writing;

 

  • use a statistical software package and interpret the results; and

 

  • use statistical reasoning to assess risks in making routine decisions.

 

 

 

Intellectual Traditions of the Liberal Arts and Sciences Courses

 

 

General Objectives for all Intellectual Traditions Courses:

 

  • acquire general knowledge of the arts, humanities, the natural and social sciences, and the languages which define and convey this knowledge;

 

  • acquire knowledge of and experience with the multiple modes of inquiry that create knowledge in the arts, humanities, and the social and natural sciences;

 

  • develop knowledge and understanding of diverse cultures, histories and societies in the global community; experience the methods of inquiry that produce this knowledge and understanding;

 

  • further develop and demonstrate effective written communication, quantitative analysis and critical thinking skills; and

 

  • gain an understanding of the value of active participation in the life of one’s community.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Natural Science: Through approved general education courses in the natural sciences, students are expected to:

 

  • demonstrate an understanding of some of the fundamental scientific concepts and theories about the natural world;

 

  • acquire knowledge of the evidence, ideas and models that scientists use to make judgements about the natural world;

 

  • acquire knowledge about science and technology as they shape contemporary experience and values, and demonstrate an appreciation of the historical and contemporary impact of science on daily life;

 

  • develop the skills of logical and critical thinking necessary to explore how the natural world works;

 

  • demonstrate an appreciation and understanding of the scientific method of inquiry; understand that scientific knowledge is based on the outcome of testing of hypotheses and theories that are under constant scrutiny and subject to revision based on new observations, and not just a collection of facts; and

 

  • demonstrate an ability to distinguish between science and technology and appreciate the capabilities and limitations of science.

 

 

Social Science: Through approved general education social science courses, students are expected to:

 

  • acquire knowledge of the evidence, ideas and models needed to understand how people relate to one another, to institutions, and to communities; and

 

  • demonstrate knowledge, understanding and skill in the multiple ways of knowing and methods of inquiry appropriate to the social science disciplines;

 

 

 

Humanities: Through approved general education courses in the humanities, students are expected to:

 

  • acquire knowledge of major achievements in the fine arts of our own and other civilizations and the cultural, social and historical context in which they were created;

 

  • acquire knowledge of the world’s great literary, philosophical, and religious traditions; and

 

  • demonstrate knowledge, understanding and skill in the multiple ways of knowing and methods of inquiry appropriate to the humanities disciplines.

 

 

 

 

 

History: Through approved general education history courses, students are expected to:

 

  • acquire the knowledge, ideas and methods necessary to reconstruct human actions and events ordered chronologically and topically;

 

  • demonstrate skill in the historical method of inquiry, the ability to analyze written, oral, visual and material evidence in order to make interpretations and generalizations, properly qualified and placed in contexts that reveal the process of change over time;

 

  • acquire knowledge, understanding and the perspective cultivated through sensitivity to cultural and geographical differences and awareness of conflicting interpretations of the same occurrences.

 

  • demonstrate a sense of the chronological ordering of events and of simultaneity–of understanding relationships of diverse events at a given moment; and

 

  • demonstrate an ability to effectively communicate historical data orally and in writing.

 

 

Integrated Liberal Learning Courses

 

General Objectives for all Integrated Liberal Learning Courses:

 

  • apply knowledge, skills, perspectives and appropriate methodologies of inquiry across disciplinary boundaries at the advanced level of study; and

 

  • demonstrate the ability to effectively synthesize the knowledge derived from multiple disciplines.

 

 

 

Interdisciplinary Thematic Sequences: Through course work in approved Interdisciplinary Thematic Sequence, students are expected to:

 

  • acquire an interdisciplinary understanding of major ethical, political, economic, social and scientific issues and movements including their origins, implications, and interrelationships.

 

 

Proposals for Interdisciplinary Thematic Sequences submitted for approval by the General Education Committee must:

 

  • clearly articulate how the chosen theme effectively links courses across disciplines to provide a coherent, interdisciplinary experience for students;

 

  • demonstrate how the sequence meets the objectives for Integrated Liberal Learning;

 

  • include evidence and plans for regular faculty collaboration, including regular distribution of syllabi among participating faculty;

 

  • include an integrative reflective essay assignment for students completing their final course in a sequence;

 

  • designate a faculty coordinator; and

 

  • demonstrate that students will be able to complete the sequence in no more than four semesters.

 

 

Global Perspectives: Through completion of two courses with global perspectives, students are expected to:

 

  • develop familiarity with two or more global issues or themes; for example, human rights, global warming, war and peace, economic relations, demographics and comparative global cultures;

 

  • develop a knowledge of diverse cultures, natural and human-made environments, and their global interrelationships; and

 

  • acquire and demonstrate the ability to effectively use the appropriate analytical skills and research tools necessary to develop knowledge, understanding, and familiarity with themes across two or more parts of the world.

 

 

Courses submitted for approval for "Global Perspectives" designation must:

 

  • articulate and show evidence of a major content emphasis on global issues or themes;

 

  • show evidence of study in depth in one region of the world, or comparative study across two or more regions of the world, organized around the global issue or theme;

 

  • include assignments that facilitate the development of, and require students to demonstrate abilities in, analytical skills appropriate to the study of other cultures, political and economic systems, natural and human-made environments.

 

Skills Progressively Developed Through Work in the Major

 

The Ad Hoc Committee has identified several skills which are best developed through multiple exposures and experiences: writing, oral communication, research with the appropriate use of information retrieval technology, and critical thinking. We spent quite a bit of time trying to define each of these and decide where (GenEd courses or the major or both) such skills are best developed and how many opportunities for progressive development of each skill should be required. We agreed that there is an important distinction to be made between requiring that students actually demonstrate the skills and simply requiring that students be given the opportunity to develop the skills through course work.

 

The Ad Hoc Committee recommends that students be required to demonstrate competence in the essential skills and, through work in the major, progressively develop skills in writing, oral communication, critical thinking, and research. All students will be required to complete a writing intensive course at or above the 300-level. Faculty teaching advanced courses in the major should require that students demonstrate skills in writing, oral communication, research, and critical thinking.

Objectives for Writing, Critical Thinking and Oral Communication

 

Writing is a focus in the required Foundations courses, ENGL 101-102, and students will engage in a reflective integrative writing assignment as a part of the thematic sequence, but writing should be further developed through writing intensive courses designated within each major at or above the 300-level. Obtaining a writing intensive course designation presupposes not only that instructors will require a minimum amount of writing, but that they will also emphasize the writing process and will furnish in-class writing instruction which is integrated with the teaching of course content. Enrollments in Writing Intensive courses should be limited to 20 students.

 

Writing Intensive Courses: Through completion of one writing intensive course at or above the 300-level, students are expected to:

 

  • plan and execute advanced writing assignments appropriate to the disciplinary or interdisciplinary expectations.

 

Courses approved for a Writing-Intensive designation will:

 

  • require a variety of forms of writing including, but not limited to formal and informal writing. Formal writing is defined as graded writing-- polished papers, suitable for the nature of the course and discipline. Informal writing is defined as ungraded writing–for example, journals, lab notebooks, prewriting done in the preparation of final papers, early drafts, progress reports, and proposals.

 

  • require extensive writing. Extensive writing is defined as the equivalent of 30 double-spaced pages (including both formal and informal writing). Of the 30 pages, at least 15 pages must be formal writing.

 

  • require frequent writing. Students must write throughout the semester. Although formal writing assignments may build toward a long paper, a single 15 page term paper submitted at the end of the term without attention being paid to the writing process is not suitable for a writing intensive course.

 

  • furnish appropriate instruction in writing. At the very least, "appropriate instruction in writing" involves clearly defined writing assignments, including clear statements of the goals and requirements of each assignment; helpful commentary on each student’s written work; and some discussion of the writing process in class before each assignment is due and after it is returned. (In addition, the instructor might assign a writing text, distribute handouts on writing, confer individually with students about the drafts of their papers, critique early drafts or have students critique one another’s drafts, or require students to seek additional help from the Writing Lab.)

 

  • support the fundamentals of good writing common to all disciplines. Those fundamentals include: adherence to the assigned task; clear, sufficient, but limited purpose; solid development of the paper’s or report’s purpose or thesis, with relevant and ample supporting details; originality of thought; focus and clarity; organization suitable to the writing task; standard grammar, spelling, use of language and punctuation; correct and appropriate documentation.

 

  • require that writing assignments constitute a significant portion of the grade in the course. Assignments must be graded on the quality as well as the content of the writing.

Oral Communication as a progressively developed skill proved more difficult to situate than writing. Although we discussed several alternatives, including requiring every student to complete a communication course, we recommend that work in the majors provide students with multiple opportunities to develop oral communication skills. Our first preference is for majors to require students to demonstrate effectiveness in oral communication, but we agreed to accept for now programmatic evidence that every major is providing every student with the opportunity to develop effective oral communication skills (through a senior capstone, a required course or alternative experience).

 

Oral Communication Objectives Courses in the major will build upon skills introduced in General Education courses and will equip students to:

 

  • effectively organize their ideas and materials in a coherent manner;

 

  • analyze their audience and adapt the presentation to their audience;

 

  • develop effective delivery skills to improve their confidence when making oral presentations;

 

  • understand the importance of language and develop the ability to use language appropriate for their subject and audience in order to elicit a desired response;

 

  • be able to recognize and evaluate types of appeals (ethical, logical, emotional, mythic) and be able to use these appeals in an appropriate manner;

 

  • be able to recognize and evaluate types of evidence used to support arguments and be able to use different types of evidence to support oral arguments they make;

 

  • develop critical listening skills which enable the careful evaluation of material presented by others; and

 

  • develop an understanding and appreciation for the role of effective communication in our everyday lives.

 

We recommend that faculty development sessions be developed to assist faculty in learning how to teach as well as evaluate effective communication skills. The Department of English and Communication could serve as a resource.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Critical thinking proves most difficult of all of the skills to define and situate within the required or elective curriculum. Everyone agrees it is a vital skill for students to develop, yet there isn’t any common definition of critical thinking. We have offered a set of objectives related to developing critical thinking below , but recommend that multiple faculty development sessions be devoted to further exploring the concept of critical thinking.

 

Critical Thinking Objectives Courses in the major will build upon skills introduced in General Education courses and will equip students to:

 

  • interpret information, perform analyses, evaluate arguments, draw inferences and conclusions, provide explanations, and conduct self-examinations;

 

  • approach issues with open-mindedness and the determination to seek truth even if such knowledge fails to support preconceptions or self-interest;

 

  • demand the application of reason and evidence in considering complex issues;

 

  • develop self-confidence and a trust in using their reasoning skills to solve problems;

 

  • use prudence in making, suspending, or revising judgments; and

 

  • not only use the above skills and habits of mind to solve problems presented to them but formulate problems whose solutions can provide insight into complex issues.

 

 

 

VIII. Support for Faculty Contributions to General Education

 

Institutional resources have been dedicated to organized Faculty Development Seminars since 1992. In 1997, following the recommendation of the Faculty Committee on Academic Planning, Dr. Conrad D. Festa, Provost, created the Center for Effective Teaching and Learning (memo to faculty, July 8, 1997). The Center is dedicated to assisting College faculty in achieving their highest potential as teachers. In that capacity, CETL will provide opportunities for College faculty to interact with other faculty regarding teaching and learning effectiveness through ongoing development seminars, new faculty orientation, an ongoing campus dialogue about teaching, and the creation of space for meetings and for housing resource materials. The work of CETL is essential to developing and sustaining high quality teaching in both general education and the undergraduate major.

 

Resources and Appropriate Recognition

 

Additional resources will be required to expand CETL’s programming in the pedagogies and teaching strategies required to support the Goals and curriculum in General Education. The liberal arts and sciences are fundamental to educating citizen leaders for South Carolina and the nation. Liberally educated graduates will be expected to assume leadership positions, to take the initiative in all kinds of situations, and apply their knowledge and skills of analysis in ways that advance society as a whole regardless of their primary occupation. These outcomes will not happen without the intentional commitment of new resources. External funding through a variety of sources should be vigorously pursued. Any capital gifts campaign should make support of General Education in the Liberal Arts and Sciences a top priority. The Ad Hoc Committee recommends that the administration take the following additional steps in the promotion of quality teaching in General Education:

 

  • Awards for Research on Student Learning: To support research in all fields and across fields about how students learn, with emphasis on improving instruction in general education.

 

  • The creation of a Liberal Arts and Sciences General Education Development Fund: In recognition of the primacy of general education to our mission as a Liberal Arts and Sciences institution; to support school-wide, departmental, and interdisciplinary projects that expand opportunities for student learning in general education courses and reward innovative pedagogies; to support faculty participation in conferences devoted to pedagogy.

 

  • The creation of the Distinguished Liberal Arts and Sciences Teaching Award: To recognize and honor outstanding undergraduate teaching in General Education.

 

 

Amending the Incentive and Reward Structures for Faculty

 

In addition to finding new resources to support the faculty’s commitment to general education, the incentive and reward structures must be reviewed and amended if necessary to insure that contributions to general education are considered. If the statement regarding the primacy of general education in the liberal arts and sciences is to have real meaning, it must be modeled in our institutional practices as well as through our curriculum.

 

Participation in General Education is a crucial part of the duties of all faculty members at the College of Charleston. While it should not replace disciplinary teaching and professional activity, faculty contributions in the area of General Education should be encouraged and viewed favorably relative to other choices. The Ad Hoc Committee recommends that the guidelines on promotion, tenure, and departmental annual evaluations be changed to include participation in the general education program as a separately identified component of the evaluation criteria. Participation in the general education program should be understood to include teaching general education courses (including the first year course, courses in Thematic Sequences, and/or general education courses within a discipline); contributing to the vitality of general education through service on the Committee on General Education, participation in College Convocations or other related events; and scholarship in the area of pedagogy related to general education.

 

 

IX. Sustaining the Vitality of General Education

 

The research on sustainability and vitality in General Education programs suggests that an administrative structure is crucial and that a governing body has to have both "authority" and "responsibility" for the program as a whole (Arnold and Civian, 1997; Kanter, Gamson and London, 1997). In most programs, directors have responsibility for the day-to-day operations and management, but little authority. General education committees, on the other hand, have traditionally had great authority but little responsibility since that most often resides with departments. Overall program management by committee is problematic and so a careful partnership needs to be created between the roles of the director and committee. The director needs meaningful authority, but both authority and responsibility must be shared through a collaborative partnership with the General Education Committee. There may be some who object to another layer of administrative bureaucracy. We view both the director and the committee functioning to support faculty in course development, sustaining faculty development initiatives, and coordinating activities across campus related to liberal education.

 

 

The Ad Hoc Committee recommends that the Faculty Senate and the Provost jointly establish the "Committee on General Education" as a committee of the College in accordance with their respective authority granted in Section H of the Faculty/Administration Manuel (p. 26). We further recommend that the Provost appoint a Director of General Education. Both the Committee and Director will have responsibility for overseeing and proposing changes in the program as it evolves and for coordinating assessment of general education.

 

Committee on General Education

 

This College Committee serves, in conjunction with the Director, as the primary mechanism for administration and coordination of the General Education program.

 

(1) PURPOSE:

The General Education Committee will be charged with college-wide oversight, planning, and assessment of General Education.

 

(2) MEMBERSHIP: (13 voting members; 3 ex officio, non-voting members)

This will be constituted as a Committee of the College. Five (5) faculty who serve on the committee will be nominated by the Senate Committee on Nominations and Elections and elected by the Senate. One faculty member will be nominated and elected from each of the five schools: Business, Fine Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences, Science and Math, and Education; Three (3) additional faculty members appointed by the Provost; Representatives from the Faculty Curriculum Committee and the Faculty Assessment Committees (2) appointed by the chair and membership of their respective committees; two (2) students, appointed by the Student Government Association; the Senior Vice President for Student Affairs, the Director of Orientation, and a representative from the Office of Advising (3) are non-voting ex-officio members. The Director of General Education will participate as a voting member of the committee and serve as Chair.

 

(3) TERMS OF SERVICE:

 

Faculty committee members will serve two year terms; terms begin the day after spring commencement. No committee member may serve more than two consecutive full terms. One half of the committee will be elected each year. In the first year, election is for seats of one or two year terms, determined by lottery. A member elected in the first year for a one-year term is then eligible to be re-elected to two additional full terms. Vacancies due to resignation or any other reason may be filled by special election by the Senate. Members selected by special election will serve out the term of those they replace and be eligible for re-election to two additional full terms. Representatives from the Curriculum Committee and the Assessment Committee may serve on the General Education Committee for no more than two consecutive years in their representative capacity and may not continue to serve in this capacity if they leave the associated committee for any reason.

 

 

Because of the nature of this committee, work over the summer will be expected and necessary. Faculty on nine-month contracts should receive additional compensation for this period of service.

 

(4) DUTIES:

 

Working with the Director, other relevant faculty committees, departments, and faculty, the General Education Committee will:

 

  • serve as trustees of the College interest in general education in the liberal arts and sciences;

 

  • prepare and disseminate regular reports to faculty on the state of General Education. When necessary, convene the campus community in discussions about General Education in the liberal arts and sciences;

 

  • upon approval of the proposal, initially solicit, review and approve all course proposals for inclusion in the general education program assuring consistency with the general education goals;

 

  • establish and publicize a review cycle and regularly review courses and course sections included in the general education program to ensure the goals for general education and learning objectives are being supported through the curriculum;

 

  • upon a positive recommendation by the Faculty Curriculum Committee, review new course proposals for inclusion in the general education program and forward a recommendation to the Faculty Senate for action;

 

  • work with faculty in reviewing and approving new Interdisciplinary Thematic Sequence Proposals and regularly assessing existing Interdisciplinary Thematic Sequences in three-year cycles; and

 

  • work with the assessment committee to develop and implement an assessment plan for the general education program.

 

Process for Reviewing and Approving Courses in General Education

 

New Course Proposals:

New course proposals will be reviewed by the relevant departments and submitted to the Faculty Curriculum Committee. Upon the positive recommendation of the Curriculum Committee, the Committee on General Education will review the course for general education credit. Upon a positive review, the course proposal will then be sent to the Faculty Senate for final approval.

 

Existing Course Review:

Upon adoption of this proposal, the Committee on General Education will publish review criteria and procedures as well as a timetable for the initial review process. Departments and faculty wishing to have specific courses included for credit in general education will submit materials according to the published procedures. Once adopted for general education credit, a course will be reviewed by the Committee on General Education every three years.

 

 

Amendments to the General Education Program:

The Committee on General Education is designated to serve as the trustee of the College interest in general education. To that end, the Committee is obligated to maintain the integrity of the general education program as a whole. Any changes to the general education program requirements or architecture is subject to campus-wide input and must be submitted to the Senate for final approval. When changes are proposed, the Committee on General Education is expected to facilitate campus-wide discussion and offer multiple opportunities for faculty input prior to forwarding any recommendation to the Faculty Senate and/or Senate Committees.

 

Director of General Education

 

The Director shall be a tenured member of the faculty, appointed by the Provost in consultation with faculty. He or she will serve a 5-year non-renewable term and while in this capacity will be employed on an 11 month contract. The director will be expected to teach at least two courses per year, at least one of which should be in the general education program. The director will report directly to the Provost. The director will act as a facilitating and support administrator without faculty reporting directly to her or him. The director will be expected to provide active and continuous support for the development of general education initiatives, courses, special programming, and interdisciplinary and multi-departmental planning efforts.

 

Along with an administrative assistant, the director will be expected to carry out operational implementation of all aspects of the General Education program in consultation and with the advice and consent of the General Education Committee. The director will provide operational continuity for the Committee, work as a liaison with deans, department chairs, directors of interdisciplinary minors, the director of international education, and the many offices of student support services in coordinating academic and special programing.

 

Specific responsibilities of the director will include:

 

  • facilitating all of the work of the General Education Committee;

 

  • working with schools, department chairs, and the Office of Enrollment Management to ensure that sufficient course sections are offered to meet demands;

 

  • working with faculty, establish a planning and development steering committee for the Introduction to the Liberal Arts course; working with department chairs, recruit faculty and provide faculty development seminars appropriate for those teaching the course;

 

  • working with the Center for Effective Teaching and Learning (CETL) to develop and administer faculty development programs aimed at improving teaching effectiveness in support of the General Education program;

 

  • working with CETL to develop effective new faculty orientation related to the goals, requirements and expectations of general education in the liberal arts and sciences;

 

  • preparing and disseminating regular reports to faculty on the state of General Education. When necessary, convening the campus community in discussions about General Education in the liberal arts and sciences;

 

  • working with faculty coordinators, to regularly review the effectiveness of specific Interdisciplinary Thematic Sequences and to conduct systematic reviews every three years;

 

  • with faculty in Interdisciplinary Thematic Sequences, developing and implementing a process by which to review student reflective writing assignments and disseminate information to faculty; and

 

  • assisting the General Education Committee in their review of course proposals; in conjunction with the General Education Committee and the Assessment Committee, planning and conducting reviews of overall program effectiveness.

 

Advising

 

High quality academic advising is essential to a student’s academic success and to maintaining a quality general education program. The Ad Hoc Committee recognizes an important distinction between "advising" and "scheduling". Faculty should devote their time to advising, but students may not recognize the distinction and coupled with the introduction of Cougar Trail, it may be difficult to get students in the habit of seeing faculty (or recognizing the need to see faculty) for more than scheduling. The Ad Hoc Committee recommends using the newly proposed freshman course as the primary method of re-connecting students to faculty for advising. The new course proposal recommends that the faculty member serve as the student’s advisor throughout his or her first year on campus. This relationship might be strengthened by including faculty in the summer orientation sessions as well. Faculty would meet their group of 20 students first in the summer, then work with again them in the freshman course, and serve as their advisor through their first year at the College (or until the point of declaration).

 

X. Assessment

 

While the 1994 Faculty Assessment Committee effort and subsequent follow-up reports represent significant progress in assessing General Education, there are several issues to keep in mind in designing the next wave of assessment. First, in past assessment studies, departments self-reported data on the content of their courses and no independent review took place. Further, the 1994-1995 assessment was designed to measure exposure to course content directed at producing the institutional outcomes and not designed to assess demonstrated student learning outcomes. We believe that if students have multiple opportunities to encounter reading and writing skill development, for example, that their skills will improve; however, this assessment design does allow to us to state with any certainty that students can demonstrate competence in these areas.

 

The Ad Hoc Committee recommends that any curriculum the faculty approves have an emphasis on skill development and that we adopt a student learning based model for assessment in general education

 

Assessment in General Education and the Major

 

The Ad Hoc Committee recommends that the General Education Committee and the Faculty Assessment Committee designate a work group to develop and present a multi-faceted assessment plan ready to be implemented within one year of final approval of the general education program.

 

We envision assessment occurring at different levels. The first is assessment of student performance at the classroom level. We recommend that faculty require students to demonstrate essential and higher order skills, as well as demonstrating competency in the knowledge base and facility with the tools of inquiry appropriate for the discipline. The second level is the assessment of the contribution of each course toward the general education goals. The General Education Committee will play a vital role at this level and should work closely with departments and faculty in a consultative fashion to ensure that course objectives and learning outcomes are consistent with the Goals for General Education. A process of regular review should be established for all courses within the General Education Program. The third and final level of assessment is the overall assessment of student outcomes at the end of their program of study. We recommend that departments adopt a "Capstone" experience, in whatever form is most appropriate to the discipline, to aid students in assessing their own development. Capstones offer a chance for students to synthesize and integrate knowledge and skills acquired throughout the general education and major fields of study.

 

The Ad Hoc Committee recommends that the College of Charleston carefully consider portfolio-based assessment of student learning. We recognize that this carries a variety of logistical questions and it will require careful planning and execution to make the process meaningful for students and the institution. However, the Introduction to the Liberal Arts course offers an opportunity for students to begin a portfolio and within General Education alone, the Interdisciplinary Thematic Sequences final reflective writing exercise offers an opportunity for reflection and assessment. Departmental Capstones offer additional possibilities. We view the portfolio primarily as a way for students to focus on setting and achieving academic goals with an eye toward opportunities after graduation.

 

 

XI. A View from the Administration on Supporting the Costs of the Proposal (forthcoming)

 

The administration has agreed to analyze the costs incumbent in the proposal prior to its submission to the Faculty Senate for consideration and approval. This section will be provided based on the final version of the proposal developed by the Ad Hoc Committee after faculty input at the General Education Retreat, August 18 and 19, and any subsequent open forums.

 

 

XII. Active Planning and Implementation Recommendations

 

The Institutional Context for Change

 

While other institutions faced fiscal crises in the 1980s due to state cutbacks and declining enrollments, the College of Charleston was able to develop new educational programs, hire hundreds of new faculty and acquire property in surrounding neighborhoods even in the face of diminishing state support due to large and steady growth in enrollments. However, both institutional culture and physical space constraints make it impossible to continue this strategy. While the College will acquire two properties in 1998 that will allow some relief in terms of faculty offices and classrooms, the institution has probably maximized its growth potential in its current location in historic downtown Charleston. The faculty-student ratio is currently 18:1 and there is deep sentiment to limit future enrollments to preserve the character of a liberal arts experience for both faculty and students. At the same time, South Carolina is one of several states to adopt a performance-based funding strategy for higher education. Future funding will be allocated based on performance, efficiency and quality of programs across a set of 36 indicators. Initially the College expected to fare well under this arrangement. However, it now appears that no institution will be severely penalized for non-performance meaning that no institution will likewise be rewarded for exceptional performance since there is a finite set of resources. The College can therefore expect flat or diminishing state support at a time when the institution has committed to reducing future enrollments. Thus, the bottom line is that any change in educational programs, improvements in teaching and faculty development, and enhancement of the student experience will have to come as a result of a re-allocation of existing resources.

 

Resources are currently managed and allocated through a highly centralized and compartmentalized procedure that is really only capable of dealing with immediate needs rather than undertaking long-term planning or the restructuring necessary to accomplish new educational goals. We recommend that a strategic planning and budgeting process be established that includes faculty input in making allocation and re-allocation recommendations.

 

To accomplish the goals of this proposal, faculty and staff will have to re-orient the way they think about General Education and the role it plays relative to the major. We have labored as individual units in competition with one another for resources and institutional attention for so long that we need to develop new ways of working together as collaborative partners. General Education provides a place to start.

In whatever form the faculty and College adopt changes to the current general education program, the Ad Hoc Committee recommends a planning year be designated. During the planning year, the Director of General Education will be hired and the General Education Committee constituted.

 

A Timetable for Implementation (forthcoming)

 

The Ad Hoc Committee will make recommendations for phasing in implementation after the proposal has been reviewed and modified as a result of the retreat.

 

 

 

 

 

 

XIII. Conclusion

 

The Ad Hoc Committee has offered a set of recommendations for a general education program that we believe builds on our strengths and specifically addresses our weaknesses. Furthermore, by affirming the value and primacy of general education in the liberal arts and sciences through shared stewardship, we rededicate ourselves as a campus to our institutional tradition and mission. We have based this proposal on a set of goals for general education, the results of research, the experiences of other institutions; and most importantly, this proposal is the result of many hours of campus-wide, collegial discussion and creative collaboration. It is, therefore, a rather complicated set of compromises that create "the whole." In striking those compromises, we have tried to keep student learning at the forefront. We have tried to honor the traditions of the College of Charleston while simultaneously moving the campus and curriculum forward in order to prepare students and faculty to meet the needs of a rapidly changing global society. The faculty and administration have approached this challenge as partners, both groups seeking educational excellence. Educational excellence is not achieved without the commitment of significant institutional resources. This program is clearly designed to achieve and maintain educational excellence and offers faculty across the campus the opportunity to contribute. There must, however, be adequate support for those contributions or we run the risk of disaffection and drift.

 

 

Everyone who has participated in this review has done so out of a genuine commitment to the mission of higher education and with the intention of creating a strong intellectual community at the College of Charleston. Boyer (1990) offers a vision of a strong campus community that we embrace:

 

  • The campus is an educationally purposeful community where faculty and students share the academic goals and work together to strengthen teaching and learning.

 

  • It is an open place where freedom of expression is protected, and civility affirmed.

 

  • It is a just community where sacredness of the person is honored and where diversity is aggressively pursued.

 

  • It is a disciplined community where individuals accept their obligations to the group and where well-defined governance procedures guide behavior for the common good.

 

  • It is a caring community where the well-being of each member is sensitively supported and where service to others is encouraged.

 

  • It is a celebrative community where the heritage of the institution is remembered and where rituals affirming both tradition and change are widely shared.

 

If the proposal is implemented, we believe that over time, the culture of the campus community will be transformed into that of an academically strong, supportive, and intellectually challenging place to work and study.

 

We urge the faculty to carefully consider the proposal presented here. This does not represent an end to our work, but we believe it is a significant step forward. We welcome your observations, constructive criticism, and suggestions for improvement.

 

 

Sources

 

Arnold, Gordon and Janet T. Civian. 1997. "The Ecology of General Education Reform." Change,

July/August, pp19-23.

 

Association of American Colleges. 1985. Integrity in the College Curriculum: A Report to the Academic

Community. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges.

 

Association of American Colleges and Universities. 1988. A New Vitality in General Education:

A Task Group on General Education, Washington, DC: AAC&U.

 

Astin, A.W. 1992. What Matters in College? Four Critical Years Revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

 

Boyer, Ernest and Arthur Levine. 1981. A Quest for Common Learning.

Princeton: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

 

Boyer, Ernest. 1987. College: The Undergraduate Experience in America. New York: HarperCollins.

 

Boyer, Ernest. 1990. Campus Life: In Search of Community. Princeton: The Carnegie Foundation for

the Advancement of Teaching.

 

Coye, Dale. 1997. "Ernest Boyer and the New American College: Connecting the Disconnects."

Change, May/June, pp. 21-29.

 

Gaff, Jerry G. 1989. "General Education at the Decade’s End: The Need for a Second Wave of Reform." Change, 21: 11-19.

 

Kanter, Sandra L and Zelda F. Gamson, Howard B. London. 1997. Revitalizing General Education in a

Time of Scarcity: A Navigational Chart for Administrators and Faculty.

Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

 

Ratcliff, James L. 1993. What we can Learn from Coursework Patterns About Improving the Undergraduate

Curriculum. University Park, PA: National Center for Postsecondary Teaching, Learning,

and Assessment.

 

Ratcliff, James L. 1997. "Quality and Coherence in General Education," in Handbook of the

Undergraduate Curriculum, edited by Jerry G. Gaff, James L. Ratcliff, and Associates.

Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities, pp. 141-169.

 

Ratcliff, James L. and Associates. 1995. Realizing the Potential: Improving Postsecondary Teaching,

Learning, and Assessment. University Park, PA: National Center for Postsecondary Teaching, Learning,

and Assessment.

Schneider, Carol Geary and Robert Shoenberg. 1998. Contemporary Understandings of Liberal

Education, Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

 

Zemsky, R. 1989. Structure and Coherence: Measuring the Undergraduate Curriculum.

Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges.

Endnotes