General Education Committee Report
General Education Committee Report
Presented to the UH Hilo Congress
May 11, 2007
Recommendations
After careful consultation of WASC reports and WASC officials, we are ready to make the following recommendations:
WASC has a guideline for General Education (GE) programs of at least 45 credits. We have been informed that they really want “at least 1/3 of all degree credits”. With degree requirements varying roughly between 120 and 130 credits, it may be best to try for a minimum of 42. Up to 12 credits or so of major requirements can count towards GE. Using one course to fulfill several GE requirements like we have been doing is no longer allowed, unless we exceed the 45-credit limit (UH Manoa does this). To meet WASC guidelines, we should coalesce our current “General Education” and “Graduation Requirements” into a single program called “General Education”.
GE appears to be taken as seriously by our accreditation agency as the degree programs themselves. Therefore, the same standards of quality and assessment are expected. WASC is not trying to impose a specific model or mechanism; rather, they want us to implement our own.
The first step to be taken is to develop a collective vision of our GE program. The statement that appears in uhh.hawaii.edu/academics/ is vague and not supported by the current program requirements. Wide consultation with faculty, students, administrators and WASC officials is the best way to come up with a GE program that reflects our mission and vision and that highlights UHH’s competitive advantages and character.
A first series of surveys of faculty and students and consultation with the faculty senates showed considerable misunderstanding and confusion about the previous (2005-2006) proposal, but also a moderate willingness to try a system of course certification and assessment (3.0 in a 1-5 scale). Overwhelmingly, (4.6 in a 1-5 scale), the faculty indicated that a priority of our GE should be to educate better informed and more engaged citizens. The faculty also indicated clearly that skills should be an important part of GE.
A WASC visit is planned for the Spring of 2008. By that time, we have been told we should show significant progress in defining our GE program. Two steps are essential: to develop a “Principles and Philosophy” (PP) statement that has wide support from our community, and to implement a pilot certification and assessment program in at least one or two areas of GE. In contrast to the previous proposal, we believe that several centrally managed committees are the best mechanism to put these procedures in place. Our Writing Intensive committee is a prototype example.
More details can be found in two documents previously presented to the UHH Congress (a report on the faculty survey, and one titled: WASC and General Education: Where do we stand?)
Where to go next?
The roadmap to a successful 2008 visit by WASC includes the following steps:
Further consultation of faculty and students should lead to the development of a widely supported statement of “GE Principles and Philosophy”. We suggest the administration of further surveys, the creation of focus groups, consultation with faculty senates, and feedback from our WASC contact, Dr. Richard Giardina. A good model to learn from is San Francisco State University ( ). The PP statement should reflect a collective vision of what we want our students to be, and be as free as possible from turf battles. In our view, it should not be very different from the current scheme. Additional citizenship-related courses and a requirement that reflects our vision of the Big Island as a “learning laboratory” should be considered.
Once this is done, the actual GE program must be developed. What will be the requirements? How to distribute the 45 hours? Within each requirement, what are the criteria courses must satisfy? Who is to determine these criteria: Congress, the GE committee, or committees appointed for each area? Will possible additions (Citizenship and Learning laboratory) take away credits from other existing requirements? These and related questions must be addressed by the 2007-8 GE Committee in consultation with a wide variety of interested parties, that include the faculty and students, college senates, the Director of the Advising Center, representatives from Hawaii Community College, the Writing Intensive Committee, and the Mathematics Department.
Once we have agreed on a program, we need to implement criteria and assessment procedures for at least two areas. The WASC officer we consulted suggested Quantitative and Writing requirements as a good place to start, since these are almost universal components of GE programs.
However, things are not this simple. Currently, one college (CAFNRM) has different WI requirements than the other three. We have discussed with the WI Committee and the English Department the possibility of a 4-course, “Writing across the curriculum” program that would merge the current Freshman Composition course and three WI courses into an articulated series of courses that would include at least 2 writing courses in, or very close to the student’s discipline. A program along these lines will need widespread university support.
The Quantitative Requirement is not a simple matter, either. Whether to accept courses outside math (accounting, statistics for the social sciences, formal logic) as legitimate quantitative courses, and to perhaps require a strong computational or problem-solving (not just conceptual) component to this requirement is likely to be a contentious issue.
Similar cans of worms probably exist within each area. We can, however, learn from past mistakes within the UH System. From the Manoa experience we have learned that it’s best to limit the course criteria to learning outcomes. Excessively detailed requirements will be perceived as micro-management in the part of the faculty. As stated above, we can also learn more about how to implement a sensible assessment programs from other WASC institutions that have gone through this process in the recent past. Finally, our WASC contact seriously suggested that we bring in a “General Education” expert. What the appropriate time for this would be is for the 2007-8 Committee to decide.
Final remarks
Should the GE program be decided and implemented all at once? Should we heed WASC’s suggestion to start with one or two areas, so we can show progress by 2008?
Do we preserve a two-tiered set of requirements (our current GE vs. graduation requirements)?
Many schools seem to like this. It also makes it easy to join articulation agreements with other system campuses (see below), and draw agreements with schools from which we get transfer students. The Director of Student Advising should be consulted on this. On the other hand, a two-tiered structure makes it hard to implement a four-year WI program, and goes against KCHL’s idea of deferring several basic GE courses to the second year.
How do we deal with articulation issues? Do we want to be part of system-wide agreements regarding the easy transfer of Writing Intensive, Foundations and Hawaii/Asia/Pacific courses?
To what extent should we include new or unfamiliar requirements? There are numerous courses that could satisfy a citizenship requirement (ethics, politics, diversity, etc.) A few new ones, addressing social and environmental issues should be created. It is reasonable that the GE program should promote the development of a few courses in a direction that supports the PP statement. On the other hand, something like a new “critical thinking” requirement for which almost no courses are currently available would create an incredible bottleneck for the students.
How do we ensure that externally accredited programs (business, perhaps nursing) and programs that require a high number of credits (B.S. degrees in biology and CAFNRM) can accommodate changes in GE without over-burdening the students?
To what extent should the Congress Executive Committee give the General Education committee leeway to pursue what it thinks is the best course of action?
Useful contacts
*Noreen Yamane (HCC contact): noreeny@hawaii.edu
Dr. Richard Giardina, (WASC Senior officer): rgiardina@
Philippe Binder (Former GE chair) pbinder@hawaii.edu
Marilyn Brown (Former GE chair) marilyn@hawaii.edu
*Kainoa Ariola (Director, Student Advising) kariola@hawaii.edu
*Karla Hayashi (Chair, WI Committee) karlah@hawaii.edu
*New Vice-Chancellor for Academic Affairs
New President of UHH Student Association (Justin Avery, justinavery@ ?)
(* ex-officio membership recommended).
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- why general education is bad
- general comments for report cards
- general education requirements
- ministry of general education zambia
- byu general education requirements
- csub general education requirements
- general education requirements for nursing
- california general education requirements
- iep general education teacher input
- why is general education important
- gmu general education requirements
- general chemistry lab report example