FOUNDATIONS
1. Communicate effectively in writing, oral presentation, and visual argument.
2. Find, evaluate, and ethically use information using appropriate technology.
3. Apply critical analysis and problem solving skills.
KNOWLEDGE
4. Demonstrate knowledge of natural sciences principles, concepts, and methods using appropriate vocabulary.
5. Demonstrate knowledge of social sciences principles, concepts, and methods using appropriate vocabulary.
6. Analyze and evaluate artistic and literary contributions of diverse cultures across time.
APPLICATION
7. Demonstrate basic communication skills in a second language.
8. Analyze the implications of diversity among human groups, their histories, cultures, and the plurality of human experiences.
9. Evaluate the consequences of health decisions.
10. Exhibit responsible citizenship.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
8 comments:
Comments may be added in the text block below. You will then be required to fill out:
A Word verification field - this is used to reduce spam.
A "choose an identity" option. Either create a free Google account for purposes of blogging (you may tie this to your BU email address) -- or comment using the Anonymous option. When using the Anonymous option, include your name in the text block with your comments if you wish it to appear.
Thank you!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I am concerned that the GEU system will be yet another layer of accounting and complexity with limited benefits. I mentioned this scenario as a concern in one of the open meetings.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I fear there will be a "rush" by students to enroll in those classes with the highest GEU density, to the detriment of many worthy courses.
A general question. Before I buy a car, I test drive it. Is there a way for us to 'test drive' any of this without committing to it long term?
Mike Shepard
POST 2 of 2
ReplyDeleteContinued from Previous post.
3. What is meant by “Application”?
On the second page of the proposal the boxes labeled foundations, knowledge, and application are shown in the foreground, with a pyramid in the background. I interpreted this as an analogy, suggesting a hierarchical arrangement of goals. Applications are at the peak of the hierarchy, and therefore it is implied are achievable only after mastering the foundations and knowledge. However, skill in a second language is not an application requiring college level foundations and knowledge to achieve. There are bilingual six year olds, who manage quite well without our foundation courses or college level knowledge. Even if there was no intent to imply a hierarchy, I am not sure how the word “application” applies to learning a second language. As academics we should strive to use the correct words. Similar arguments can be applied to goals 8, 9 & 10. Can we come up with a better term to describe these goals or a better analogy to explain their organization?
4. In earlier discussions of Goal 7 the term “competency” was used where the term “basic communication skills” is now used. Does this mean a lower level of expectations? Earlier discussion had suggested that “competency” meant understanding equivalent to what was expected in the fourth foreign language course. Will GEUs for goal 7 be awarded so that it can be completed with Spanish I and II or will it require the completion (or demonstration of equivalent ability) of Spanish IV? I strongly oppose the latter as excessively burdensome.
While all the other goals will likely have multiple departments competing to offer courses to meet the goal, the bulk of the courses to meet goal 7 will be provided by a single department. One department should not have the power to make the decision about what courses will meet this requirement unilaterally.
5. What is meant by “Evaluate the consequences of health decisions?” Will the courses that are currently included in our Fitness and Recreational Skills requirement receive GEUs towards goal 9?
6. The distribution of GEUs is heavily slanted towards the foundation goals. Is this intended to discourage mass lectures? General education courses which receive GEUs for goals 1, 2 & 3 will be more attractive to GEU hungry students than courses that only include points for goals 4, 5 & 6. However, the sort of activities that are likely to win points for goals 1, 2 & 3 (e.g. writing intensive assignments, library assignments, case studies, and etcetera) do not lend themselves to large class sizes. While I heartily support fewer mass lectures, I am also painfully aware that we are unlikely to receive more resources or faculty to meet these goals. Our program must be one that we have the resources to implement.
7. Will GEUs be awarded to courses that are intended strictly for majors? For example most of the upper level biology courses include components that could meet goals 1, 2 & 3. Would it be possible for biology majors to earn the bulk of the GEUs for goals 1, 2 & 3 from their major courses? If this is the intent, are we weakening our general education requirements by having students take fewer courses outside their majors?
Respectfully – Kevin Williams
Post 1 of ?
ReplyDeleteI have had difficulty posting this so I am breaking it into smaller chunks and trying again.
I have deep concerns about this proposal.
1. The omission of mathematics from the general education requirement is extraordinary. Granting college degrees to the numerically illiterate should not be acceptable. “Critical thinking” and “problem solving skills” are not acceptable substitutes for mathematical prowess.
In my experience some (many?) of our students are coming to us with a weak background in math to allow them to graduate without improving that background is a disservice to them, the state, and the nation.
Historically, mathematics has been the one of the foundations of any education. Would an accrediting agency approve a general education program that doesn’t include a mathematical component? Can the committee give examples of universities with general education programs that do not require any mathematics?
If the assumption of the committee is that individual departments will still require the appropriate mathematics of their majors, there are two points to bear in mind. First, general education requirements should set the minimum requirements for all majors, in my opinion some knowledge of mathematics is a minimum requirement for any university graduate. To not include math in the general education is to say it isn’t important. (Note: departments could be left to decide what second language requirements were appropriate for their majors, are we saying knowledge of a second language is more important than mathematics?) Second, moving what were general education requirement into major requirements does not free up any credit hours to take more general eds. Those departments that will continue to require math should not be forced to cut content from their majors to meet less pressing general education needs than mathematical literacy.
CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
why are 200, 300, and 400-level courses being grouped into general education requirements. No one can take an advanced course without completing all the required prerequisites, so it is not really a gen ed course. I don't want my 400 level course to be a gen ed. If we only did the work for those courses that are truly gen eds then it would reduce the potential work load increase each faculty member and departments are facing.
ReplyDeleteI think it important that this Gen Ed Council have only faculty as Chairs and/or Co-Chairs. Further, a case can be made for faculty only membership. Staff and Administration have input at BUCC, through Deans, and ultimately the Provost. Staff/Administration as non-voting ex officio members would allow for information flow. The precedent of past Provosts proclaiming BUCC "only advisory" suggests this Council be an undiluted faculty body.
ReplyDeleteThis proposal clearly is a serious effort of well intended people who care about out students, while operating under the pressure of Middle States. But when we come up for air in the real world of advising students, and helping them get a common foundation of the knowledge and skills they ought to have,I am concerned that this is the assessment tail wagging the curriculum and faculty judgment dog. It can result in an incoherent schedules, uncertainty in planning course offerings, and difficulties along the way in determining whether any given student is "on track" to graduate. How we assess where any given course fits into general education will potentially be open to micromanagement by folks who may not understand the discipline they are being asked to assess. It adds yet another layer to the course review process, while potentially reducing the relevance of the BUCC. The time spent re-reviewing every single course now on the books against this criteria is time taken from teaching, research and student advisement. In the end, it will have us constantly spinning our wheels, unless after initial struggle it devolves into another formula to be lived with till the next iteration of outside demands. Do we really want to go down this road without, as someone else suggested, a trial run and evidence it can really work?
ReplyDeleteIf every course on campus will have GEU's. How does this plan preven tthat a student in the humanities may never taking a class in the sciences or vice versa. Can this plan 100% guarantee that this will never happen because I don't see how it could. Programs like anthropology, psychology, sociology, etc could have GEU's in the sciences, thus eliminating the need for students to take a "old group C course" Also, a chemistry, biology, or physics course could have writing GEU's and students woudn't need the "old group A's and B's." As this appears to be a very likely scenario, how is this a better general education curriculum. A student of the humanities without any science or a student of science without any humanities is not a well rounded student.
ReplyDeleteWait...amidst all those vagaries, no basic math or logic assessment??? Also, why the obvious bias to the scoring system...I don't remember voting for membership on the Task Force...maybe I just forgot about that.
ReplyDelete