Return-path:
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 1997 15:34:27 -0500
From: Hugh Wilder
Subject: Inquiry Group 9 Report
X-Sender: wilderh@ashley.cofc.edu
To: gened@cofc.edu
Errors-to: gened-error@cofc.edu
Reply-to: GENED@cofc.edu

Inquiry Group 9 met on March 13 to continue discussion of the nine General Education Goals, Final Ad Hoc Version. Two general concerns were raised:

1. The nine goals now under discussion are an attempt by the Ad Hoc Gen Ed Committee to represent some consensus from the reports of inquiry groups last fall and early this semester. As they stand, however, these nine goals have never received general study, evaluation or approval. Inquiry groups have been asked to assess how well current resources support these goals. But we have not (yet) been asked whether these goals are good goals. Members of Inquiry Group 9 worry that these goal statements may gain status and legitimacy simply by being used in the way they are this semester. While they are an attempt to represent a consensus from earlier discussion, we need to return to the task at some point of evaluating these nine goal statements. Are they really the ones which we want to guide us in reforming the general education program at the College?

2. The intent of some of the nine goals seems to be to make the acquisition of certain skills or knowledge mandatory for all students (e.g., effective reading, writing and oral communication skills in English...), while the intent of others may be to make resources available to students (e.g, to set and achieve personal goals). This should be clarified for each goal.

Our inquiry group then disucssed each of the nine goal statements, to determine (a) whether it requires abilities of students or makes resources available to them, and (b) how well current resources support either.

Goal 1: Each clause imposes a requirement on students. Adequate resources are available to support all but that mentioned in the last clause (knowledge of the relationship among the branches of knowledge).

Goal 2: Should be required of all students. Current resources are inadequate. (Though courses like Honors Western Civ are good resources which are available to a few students in meeting this goal.) Two problems: (a) Organized structures are lacking (e.g., some interdisciplinary programs have coherent curricula and coordination [e.g., Women's Studies and Environmental Studies], while others exist simply as menus of options with little coherence), and (b) financial resources are lacking (interdisciplinary courses are expensive, funds for faculty development and team-teaching are scarce, etc.).

Goal 3: Our inquiry group did not reach consensus on whether this goal should be required of all students. A majority thought that it was less important than Goals 1,2, 4, 5 and 6, but more important than Goals 7, 8, and 9. Pockets of supporting experiences currently exist for satisfying Goal 3, but not nearly enough for all students to satisfy it.

Goal 4: Should be required of all students. English and foreign languages adequately support the development of effective reading, writing and oral communication skills. Other departments bear the responsibility of addressing the goal also; however, neither the resources nor the will are present to address this responsibility.

Goal 5: Should be required of all students (all clauses). Current support is adequate.

Goal 6: Should be required of all students. Current support is adequate.

Goal 7: Resources should be made available to students in achieving this goal. Current resources are adequate.

Goal 8: Same as #7.

Goal 9: While the sentiments expressed are admirable, this goal, as currently witten, is too ill-defined and includes too many disparate elements to allow for reasonable assessment.

Reported by Hugh Wilder for Inquiry Group 9.