PROVOST’S REPORT GENERAL EDUCATION: OVERVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS DECEMBER, 1998 STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Message From the Provost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 CONTENTS Section I Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Section II Review of the Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Section III Principles of General Education Reform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Section IV Strengthening General Education at the State University . . . . . . . .14 Appendix I General Education Studies and Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1 Appendix II Provost’s Survey of General Education at the State University . . . . .A-14 Appendix III Final Report of the Joint Faculty Task Force on General Education . . A-23 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Provost’s Report on General Education supports an initiative designed to examine and enhance general education on all campuses of the State University of New York system. In preparation for this report, a review was undertaken of the state of college-level general education in the United States and specifically within the State University. Recommendations are presented that establish the framework for discussion and implementation of a rigorous and reformed System-wide general education program. Faculty and Campus Involvement Recommendations: - Faculty must be engaged as full participants at all stages. - Each campus should establish or designate a committee to review its general education curriculum. - The Provost will form a University-wide Task Force to see that recommendations are implemented by Fall 2000. Extent of General Education Course Work Recommendations: - General education should comprise 24-30 credits at the community colleges. - General education should comprise 36-42 credits at the baccalaureate campuses. Skill and Knowledge Areas Recommendations: - General education requirements on each campus should be sufficiently comprehensive to cover the following subject areas: writing, mathematics, humanities (including such subjects as history, philosophy, literature, languages), natural science, and social science. - General education requirements should be designed to give every student exposure to each subject area. - General education courses must cover basic knowledge in the subject area, be rigorous and effectively taught. Articulation and Levels of Student Preparation Recommendations: - General education requirements should be designed to ensure a smooth articulation between associate and baccalaureate institutions. - General education requirements should be designed to account for widely varying levels of preparation among first-time students. Delivery of General Education Instruction Recommendation: - General education requirements should ensure that formats and methods of subject matter delivery are most appropriate for each subject area of the curriculum. Resource Support Recommendations: - Each campus should devote sufficient resources to make its general education program as effective as possible. - The System should reward institutions that move vigorously to improve the quality of general education. Implementation Recommendations: - The Chancellor and Board of Trustees take action to make enhancement of general education a high priority. - A University-wide Task Force is formed and charged to implement these recommendations by Fall 2000. - The campuses are asked to establish or designate general education committees to review and enhance their general education programs. - The System Administration explores ways of providing greater financial support for a rigorous and comprehensive general education program across the University. - The Provost’s Office continues development of an assessment initiative to measure student learning outcomes resulting from a State University education. MESSAGE FROM THE PROVOST General education represents the academic subject matter, out of the totality of available knowledge and experience, that an institution considers of basic importance to the life of an educated person. It comprises the majority of coursework in the early years of collegiate study. It is the foundation for more specialized disciplinary study in all fields. It builds intellectual skills and habits of thought that serve a college graduate well in all of his/her subsequent endeavors. For all of these reasons, general education deserves the most serious attention and support from the university faculty, campus leadership and System Administration. As Provost of the State University of New York, it is my objective to work with the faculty and leadership of all our campuses to strengthen and enhance general education programs across the university in a consistent and systematic way. Although each of our campuses has a somewhat distinctive mission, and serves a somewhat different student body, general education represents the academic arena in which all State University institutions can and should have the most in common. While each institution may want to develop its own unique approach to general education, we have a shared interest in making all of our general education programs as rigorous and comprehensive as possible. Strengthening academic foundations across the university will not only help our students enrich their lives and succeed in their subsequent study and work, it will put the State University in the vanguard of American public higher education. A searching reexamination of general education within SUNY, mindful of best practices in other institutions, will help us focus our attention and resources. It will direct action at raising standards and aspirations at every institution within the 64 campus system. Further, it will clearly demonstrate our responsiveness and accountability to various constituencies including parents, the state legislature, civic groups, and the national higher education community. By means of this paper and actions attendant upon it, I hope to launch a process that will result in stronger, more rigorous, and more comprehensive general education programs at all State University undergraduate institutions. This paper will summarize recent research in general education and present some prototypical models. It will also develop several recommendations for enacting meaningful reform. However, this initiative cannot begin and end at the Provost’s Office, and it should not be done carelessly. If we are to be successful in enhancing our general education curricula throughout the university we must do so in a way that is thoughtful, and that incorporates appropriate participation from all bodies involved in the development of academic policy within SUNY. SECTION I. OVERVIEW Why is General Education Important? Virtually every college or university in the United States – including all the units of the State University – have a general education requirement. Therefore, the issue raised in this report is not whether to institute general education requirements, but whether those already in place are adequate to the academic aspirations of the State University today, especially as the university is now embarked on an ambitious program of “rethinking” and comprehensive reform. It is useful to begin this discussion by reiterating the important benefits to be derived from a rigorous and comprehensive general education. There are three: - General education gives students the academic foundation for successful career preparation – fostering skills necessary for intellectual growth. - General education enables each student to function as a broadly educated person – expanding horizons of knowledge in key scientific and cultural areas. - General education enriches society – enabling students to flourish as individual citizens and to benefit others. There is increasing evidence that employers value the personal and intellectual qualities provided by a strong general education as much as technically focused expertise. The United States Department of Education projects that today’s college graduate will pursue between 6 and 12 different vocations during a working lifetime. Colleges and universities cannot hope to provide the specific knowledge and training to prepare for jobs thirty years in the future. But a rigorous general education can prepare students to know how to learn and to adapt readily to rapid changes in workplace expectations. In addition to the functional benefits of a good general education, there are important intrinsic benefits. General education expands a person’s intellectual and cultural horizons. It provides a context within which to understand the world, a background for making judgments and for appreciating events and discussing issues. This kind of background will become more valuable as the world continues to become a smaller, more closely connected, and more interactive community. The education students receive in college equips them with an understanding of different peoples, different philosophies, and different ways of thinking and feeling. It also provides the scientific and analytical tools to make informed choices. In sum, it provides a foundational literacy needed to function successfully in the modern world. Beyond these benefits, a general education enriches our political system, our society and our culture. The modern American university can be one of the most effective institutions available to support the nation’s ideals of free inquiry and democratic access to prosperity and power. Sustenance of the United States’ traditions of participatory government and social inclusiveness depends on a well educated citizenry. At the same time, our graduating students will only be able to understand – and take a meaningful part in – their society’s political, social, economic and cultural heritage if they have been educated as to its origins and historical development, and the global context in which it evolved. Defining General Education In the introduction to their Handbook of the Undergraduate Curriculum Jossey- Bass (1996), authors Jerry Gaff, James Ratcliff, and associates identify one of the key issues in the curricular development of general education: Stripped to its essentials, [our thesis] is this: the history of the undergraduate curriculum is marked by the growth of specialization and proliferation of programs and courses, and while this specialization has generated a vast richness of scholarship, it has often led to disconnected bits of information, fragmentation of the learning experience of students, and disintegration of the academic community. What this suggests is that the purpose of undergraduate general education reform should be to offer students a coherent and broadly comprehensive academic foundation to prepare them for the curricular variety and specialization of their later undergraduate years. Ideally, general education should not only expose students to common areas of knowledge and skills that pertain to all educated persons, but it should furnish the essential academic preparation for them to succeed in the disciplinary majors and professional fields in which they elect to specialize. General education, liberal education, a core curriculum – the object of this review goes under a variety of names and has been defined in various ways. But, whatever the name or definition, there is broad agreement on the characteristics of that part of the undergraduate curriculum offered to, or required of, all students apart from the courses aimed at focused preparation for a career. John Buchan, writing in the Harvard Alumni Bulletin in 1938, expresses the view that a liberal education worthy of the name equips one to adapt to the unpredictable: We live in a distressed and chaotic world whose future no man can predict, a world where the foundations seem to be cracking and where that compromise which we have christened civilization is in grave peril. What must be the attitude of those like ourselves in this critical time, those who have behind them a liberal education? For if that education gives us no guidance in such a crisis it cannot be much of a thing at all. A complementary perspective is offered by Howard Lee Nostrand, The Mission of the University, (Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner (1946)) in the following definition of general education: General education means the whole development of an individual, apart from his occupational training. It includes the civilizing of his life purposes, the refining of his emotional reactions, and the maturing of his understanding about the nature of things according to the best knowledge of our time. The Middle States Association in Framework for Outcomes Assessment, (1996), offers a more descriptive characterization of the various components of a general education: The goal of general education is to develop the broad abilities, intellectual and other skills, ideas, and values that shape a student’s capacity to address problems across varied academic fields, including the arts and literature, history, the social and natural sciences, and mathematics. Among the important abilities underlying the transfer of knowledge are, for example: the ability to think critically; the ability to develop problem solving strategies; effective writing and oral communication; technological competence, especially with library and other information management resources; familiarity with mathematics and quantitative analysis; and a range of attitudes and dispositions associated with human values and responsible judgment. The statements of Nostrand and Buchan offer a somewhat poetic vision of the value of a liberal education. The Middle States report constitutes a more prosaic attempt to specify skills and knowledge characteristic of an educated adult. All three share the belief that it is possible to identify and design an educational experience that is of essential value to each individual as a person. The widespread acceptance of this view is supported by Jerry Gaff, vice president of the Association of American Colleges and Universities, who has placed the discussion of the general education curriculum on a sound empirical footing. Gaff establishes that the fact there is widespread agreement on how the ideals of liberal learning are presented. He found that the typical general education curriculum: - Is rooted in the liberal arts and sciences - Stresses breadth of knowledge, languages, and methodologies - Strives for integration, synthesis, and cohesion of learning - Encourages appreciation of one’s heritage and of other cultures - Examines values and controversial issues - Prizes a common educational experience for all students - Expects mastery of linguistic, analytic, and computational skills - Fosters personal development and an expanded view of self SECTION II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE In preparation for this report, a comprehensive review of the status of college-level general education in the United States was undertaken. This review includes empirical studies prepared by a professional association, faculty groups, and the Provost’s Office; blueprints for revised general education programs at specific academic institutions; position papers or other publications advocating a particular approach to general education; and more generalized guides to curricular reform offered by national organizations. Empirical studies: - Jerry Gaff, New Life for the College Curriculum: Assessing Achievements and Furthering Progress in the Reform of General Education. (1991). Gaff’s study provides an objective description of the form and content of general education curricula based on an examination of 20% of the four-year colleges in the United States. He identifies common structures and ways of delivering general education. - The National Association of Scholars The Dissolution of General Education 1914-1993. (1996). This work assesses changes in the core curriculum over three-quarters of a century and points to the lessening of requirements and the lowering of standards in the common college curriculum. - The Final Report of the State University of New York University Faculty Senate and Faculty Council of Community Colleges Joint Task Force on General Education. (1997). This study of SUNY general education programs identifies skills and domains of knowledge and inquiry common across the SUNY System. The Report presents four recommendations for dealing with general education reform with SUNY. It also demonstrates that campuses have different methods of presenting these requirements. - The Provost’s 1998 survey and analysis of SUNY general education practices. This survey of the general education practices and requirements is still incomplete, yet campus response is sufficient to draw broad conclusions about the state of general education within the State University. College and University studies: - Harvard University, Report on the Core Curriculum. (1978). This study resulted in Harvard’s reassessment of its general education curriculum. The earlier very broad distribution requirements in which literally thousands of courses could satisfy general education requirements were reduced to a limited distribution system with a much tighter roster of courses. - Columbia College, Report of the Commission on the Core Curriculum. (1998). Columbia’s core curriculum consists primarily of specific required courses with only the sciences and world cultures having a list of approved courses among which to choose. It provides a model, like Brooklyn College’s, of a standard set of courses required of all students. - Pennsylvania State University. Report of the Special Committee on General Education, (1996). This report provides a review of the general education literature by a special committee to study best practices in general education. The study attempted to identify what worked best in presenting general education. Key among the findings is that there is no clear consensus nationally about which colleges and universities are “best practice” sites for general education and that even among programs that are relatively prominent, there are few specific common traits. - The University of Minnesota, The Minnesota Transfer Curriculum. (1998) This document addresses the challenge of developing a general education program across a system. It attempts to balance the needs of a college to develop a general education curriculum according to its mission and student population and at the same time to provide the best articulation for students transferring within the system. - The Final Report of the State University of New York University Faculty Senate and Faculty Council of Community Colleges Joint Task Force on General Education. (1998). This survey of SUNY college and university general education programs provides valuable information on the similarities and differences of general education within the System. Books and Position papers: -Allan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind: How Higher Education Has Failed Democracy and Impoverished the Souls of Today’s Students. (1987). Bloom’s position is that in an effort to present an understanding of other cultures, American higher education has treated all cultures as value neutral. He maintains that Western civilization is better and more important and that it should be so presented in the ways it is taught. - Lynn Cheney, 50 Hours: A Core Curriculum for College Students. (1989). Cheney, writing for the National Endowment for the Humanities, puts forth a core curriculum heavily weighted toward cultures and civilizations (six courses) and foreign language (four courses). The areas of mathematics (two courses), science (two courses), and social sciences (two courses) are similar to the “typical” curriculum identified by Gaff. - E. D. Hirsch, Cultural Literacy. (Houghton Mifflin, 1987). Hirsch maintains that we have lost a common vocabulary – that there should be a standard corpus of shared terms and an understanding of their referents throughout our nation. Although he is writing about the lack of this shared knowledge at the high school graduate level, Hirsch is often cited in discussions on collegiate general education. Guides to improving the general education curriculum: - The Association of American Colleges, Integrity in the College Curriculum. (1985). This guide provides general suggestions on the process and concerns to be considered when an institution undertakes curricular reform. - The Association of American Colleges and Universities. Strong Foundations: Twelve Principles for Effective General Education Programs. (1994). In addition to the twelve principles to guide general education reform indicated in the title, this work presents summary information from surveys of institutions that have conducted general education reform. Several benefits in institutional effectiveness and faculty and student morale provide strong rationale for the enterprise. - The Association of American Colleges, A New Vitality in General Education. (1988). Additional suggestions and guidelines for institutions embarking on curricular reform. - The American Association for the Advancement of Science, The Liberal Art of Science: Agenda for Action. (1990). This group of science educators calls for a minimum of four semesters in laboratory based science education for all baccalaureate college students - A United States Department of Education workshop presentation by Jacqueline Woods on effective practices in general education reform (September 15, 1998). Ms. Woods’ presentation highlighted successes and pitfalls of collegiate general education reform from the perspective of the Department of Education. Dozens of individual college and university general education programs were studied, as well. SECTION III. PRINCIPLES OF GENERAL EDUCATION REFORM Although the foregoing literature represents a diversity of viewpoints and institutions, certain concerns and themes dominate the discussion. Moreover, in reviewing and analyzing these common elements, we believe they suggest a number of principles from which to proceed in considering the reform of general education at the State University of New York. These principles involve issues of both process and curricular content, and can be discerned in most current proposals for general education reform nationwide. The faculty must have an active and substantial voice in the design of an effective general education curriculum. The faculty at every higher education institution, including the State University, are quick to point out that authority over the curriculum – in terms of both content and requirements – is among the most fundamental of their professional prerogatives. Although the extent to which this claim can be legally substantiated is debatable – New York State education law specifically ascribes responsibility for the State University curriculum to the university’s Board of Trustees – it is foolhardy to attempt significant general education reform without the full involvement and support of the faculty. Most significantly, no curricular reform initiative will be effective without strong faculty cooperation because it is the faculty that must implement it. No external authority can micromanage how course rubrics, titles and content are interpreted by departments and instructors, and it is individual faculty members who stand before students in the classroom every day. Meaningful general education reform must get beyond nomenclature and involve agreement on desired curricular and learning outcomes. Active faculty involvement is one of the most prevalent themes in general education reform literature. (Woods, Gaff, 1983, 1991, American Association of Colleges and Universities, Twelve Principles). General education reform should clearly focus on the academic skills and subject areas to be learned. Debate on general education, whether taking place on a campus or initiated by external bodies, frequently centers on the specific topical rubrics (e.g. mathematics, science, Western civilization, diversity etc.) to be included. The “good news” emerging from the review of general education programs being offered at the State University and institutions elsewhere, as well as the curricular content of a wide variety of reform proposals, is that there is actually widespread agreement on key subject areas. The content of virtually all general education programs substantially conforms to Gaff’s typology of writing, mathematics, humanities, natural science, social science and often includes the fine arts. Apparent subject area disagreements center primarily on two issues: 1) Nomenclature – Institutions vary widely in the course names they use to identify subject matter, and 2) Grouping of subject matter – Institutions differ idiosyncratically in the way discrete subjects are grouped under thematic, multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary rubrics. Furthermore, such rubrics are often designed to link subject matter to target values, issues, and points of view. The recommendations of the Final Report of the State University of New York University Faculty Senate and Faculty Council of Community Colleges Joint Task Force on General Education (1998) are a case in point. The four areas in skills and competencies and the seven areas in knowledge and inquiry domains are named differently but conform to more standard categorizations. For example, “To develop in students the ability to write and speak English effectively as well as to read and listen critically” is generally termed “Writing.” Similarly, “To develop in students basic knowledge about and the ability to use quantitative data and processes to help them with decisions in their lives and careers,” is generally termed “Math.” This means that efforts at general education should focus on subject areas to be covered rather than on course names or themes. Additionally, it suggests that those engaged in revising a general education program must pay particular attention to specific course content and syllabi. General education reform should minimize the possibility of significant gaps in a student’s general education. Once an institution has clearly delineated the scope and subject area content of its general education program and defined the curricular objectives of courses in each subject area, it must make sure that every student is exposed to the full range of subjects. Gaps occur if required subject areas can be skipped, if some majors or professional fields require a less rigorous general education curriculum than others, or if students can sidestep critical components of the general education program in their election of courses. One of the most pervasive themes in the current critiques of general education practices is the ubiquity of gaps in students’ general education experience. This is ascribed to the looseness with which general education requirements are administered, and the ease with which students can escape rigorous general education subjects. The primary reason why so many students can graduate with a deficient general education (even in terms of an institution’s own standards) is the extensive reliance of many institutions (including most State University campuses) on broad distribution requirements. (National Association of Scholars, Columbia College Report, Lynn Cheney, 50 Hours, American Association for the Advancement of Science’s The Liberal Art of Science: Agenda for Action, E.D. Hirsch, Cultural Literacy, Provost’s Survey) The format of general education delivery must be suited to the discipline as well as to the broader curricular goals. The design of general education course formats is one of the most important aspects of a successful general education program. Skills and knowledge topics can be covered in subject specific courses, in courses organized around themes or larger subject area rubrics, in courses across the curriculum, or in a variety of issue-oriented formats. The choice of format will vary by subject area and should be chosen to facilitate the most effective learning. The Provost’s survey of general education shows that State University campuses rely very heavily on broad distribution requirements for most general education subject areas. As noted, there are reasons to be concerned about the coverage and the effectiveness of this format. Over time, general education distribution lists tend to grow. Departments add courses eligible for general education credit to increase enrollment with the result that broad distribution lists often include marginally appropriate courses. (American Association of Colleges and Universities, Twelve Principles, Department of Education, Woods, American Association for the Advancement of Science’s The Liberal Art of Science: Agenda for Action, The Association of American Colleges,’ A New Vitality in General Education) The General Education curriculum adopted should conform to the particular strengths, characteristics and missions of the campus. Campuses with a strong technical orientation may wish to develop general education curricula in mathematics and science. Campuses with a liberal arts orientation may wish to develop general education curricula with a bias toward courses in the humanities and arts. Community colleges have the dual mission of preparing some students for immediate employment and preparing others for transfer to baccalaureate institutions. This may result in general education requirements that vary to suit differing student aspirations. At a minimum, community college students planning to continue at baccalaureate institutions must have a general education foundation that permits them to articulate without penalty or later academic difficulty. All institutions must also deal with varying levels of incoming student preparation. Weaker students must be brought up to standards at the same time that stronger students must be challenged. (American Association of Colleges and Universities, Twelve Principles, Gaff, 1983, 1991, Penn State Committee Report, University of Minnesota Transfer Curriculum) General Education reform must receive appropriate resource support if it is to be effective. Given the large number of undergraduates taking general education courses, and the high cost of offering upper division courses in major and professional subjects, there is often an understandable institutional tendency to stint on general education. Campuses attempt to make general education courses less expensive by offering them in large sections, and to have them taught by junior and part-time faculty. In many cases these savings are gained at the expense of effectiveness of instruction and the quality of student learning. It can be argued that a greater investment in quality general education instruction early on will pay large dividends later in student retention and preparedness for upper division coursework. (Faculty Senate/Faculty Council Final Report, Woods, American Association of Colleges and Universities, Twelve Principles, Association of American Colleges’ Integrity in the College Curriculum) A credible, ongoing assessment program is needed to determine the effectiveness of general education. While external agencies and constituencies generate significant assessment efforts in specialized curricular areas, there is no comparable external oversight of general education. Nevertheless, there is widespread agreement among proponents of general education reform that learning outcomes must be assessed to assure that general education objectives are being fulfilled. (Faculty Senate/Faculty Council Final Report, Woods, American Association of Colleges and Universities, Twelve Principles, Association of American Colleges,’ Integrity in the College Curriculum) SECTION IV. STRENGTHENING GENERAL EDUCATION AT THE STATE UNIVERSITY The principles and themes identified above and the Provost’s Survey suggest a framework for implementing comprehensive and meaningful reform of general education at the State University. The following sets of recommendations are offered as a reasonable basis to effect this change. Faculty and Campus Involvement Recommendations: - Faculty must be engaged as full participants at all stages of the effort to reconsider and reform general education at SUNY. - Ideally, each campus should establish or designate a committee to review its general education curriculum and to address the concerns raised below. - A University-wide Advisory Task Force should be established to see that recommendations are implemented by Fall 2000. As indicated above, not only do academic governance structures and traditions at most institutions entrust development of the curriculum to the faculty, any successful reform depends on an engaged and supportive faculty for its implementation. Ideally this engagement and support will take place in a structured process. Our review of general education practices at the State University reveals that not all of our institutions have committees specifically responsible for the ongoing development and monitoring of general education (as apart from curricular matters generally). We believe it would be desirable for each campus to form or designate a committee (perhaps with disciplinary subcommittees) charged with reviewing and revising its general education program. At the same time, it goes without saying, all curricular reform must have the authorization and support of campus leaders and academic vice presidents. It is their responsibility to implement any curricular change, to assure that it meets high academic standards, and that it is backed with sufficient resources. Extent of General Education Course Work Recommendations: - General education should comprise 24-30 credits at community colleges, and 36-42 credits at baccalaureate campuses. - Community colleges can enhance their general education programs by instituting a general education honors program in addition to their regular general education requirements. In order to ensure consistency in academic standards, and to ease articulation among State University institutions, it is desirable to establish system-wide standards for the amount of general education course work. The standards proposed are consistent with current practices at the State University, as indicated in the Provost’s Survey, as well as practices in the rest of the nation. Skill and Knowledge Areas Recommendations: - General education requirements on each campus should be sufficiently comprehensive to cover at least the following subject areas: writing, mathematics, humanities (including such subjects as history, philosophy, literature, languages), natural science, and social science. - General education requirements should be designed to give every student exposure to each subject area prior to graduation. - The required courses within each category should be carefully selected to provide both rigor and appropriate coverage of basic knowledge, and they must be effectively taught. As indicated earlier, higher education institutions vary somewhat in the skill and knowledge areas they identify as essential to a general education program and in the ways they deliver them. However, when differences in nomenclature and the grouping of subject matter are accounted for, we find a substantial level of agreement as to areas of study deemed essential in general education. Although the Faculty Senate/Faculty Council Report identifies its prescribed domains of knowledge with somewhat idiosyncratic characterizations, these domains substantially cover the proposed subject areas. We recommend, however, greater emphasis on historical perspective and on mathematics and science as the basis for all forms of rigorous inquiry and learning. As important as the identification of subject areas, State University institutions must assure that requirements are designed and offered in such a way as to assure that all graduating students have completed a comprehensive and rigorous general education program. Articulation and Levels of Student Preparation Recommendations: - General education requirements should be designed to ensure a smooth articulation between associate and baccalaureate institutions. - General education requirements should be designed to account for widely varying levels of preparation among first-time students. As many as half the graduates of State University community colleges go on to continue their education at baccalaureate institutions (many of them within SUNY). This raises two issues with respect to general education. Community college students intending to earn baccalaureate degrees must complete a general education program comprehensive and rigorous enough to permit seamless transfer to a baccalaureate institution. Baccalaureate institutions must have an articulation policy that recognizes community college general education coursework. Both of these objectives can only be achieved with consistent SUNY-wide general education standards. Another key factor to be considered is that students enter the State University with widely varying backgrounds. Each institution must contend with their incoming students’ differing degrees of secondary school preparation as well as their differing levels of academic ability. A well-designed general education must intellectually challenge both the more and less well-prepared students without settling for the lowest common denominator of academic achievement. One approach might be to set fairly high target levels of subject area mastery for which well-prepared students can be granted credit without taking additional courses. Another might be to develop general education curricula in several tiers of difficulty so that well-prepared students could move on to more challenging courses if their mastery exceeded the minimum general education requirements. Delivery of General Education Instruction Recommendation: - General education requirements should ensure that formats and methods of subject matter delivery are most appropriate for each subject area of the curriculum. While the review of general education practices nationally indicates that effective general education instruction can be delivered through a variety of formats, there is clear concern about the over reliance on broadly defined distribution requirements. The appendices to this report include several interesting general education models at other institutions chosen to demonstrate the variety and scope of effective formats available and in use. The range includes a tightly prescribed core of survey courses that all students must take, limited distribution models, courses organized in tiers of difficulty, honors programs and senior-level capstone courses. It is evident from these models that there are a number of alternative ways of covering general education content, as long as rigor is maintained. Also, it is apparent that the format must be tailored to the subject matter. For example, a limited distribution may work well for the sciences, but survey courses may be most appropriate for the humanities and some of the social sciences. It is in the humanities and social science subject areas that thematic rubrics are attractive to unify material and to capture student interest. Given the diversity of State University institutions, as well as the varying interests of faculty and students, it is desirable to have a balance between survey and topically specific approaches. However, a key element in the reform of general education should be the scaling back of the broad distribution approach. Resource Support Recommendations: - Campuses should allocate sufficient instructional resources to enhance the quality and effectiveness of their general education programs. This may require smaller class sizes, greater assignment of senior faculty and creating incentives for faculty to devote more effort to general education instruction. - The System should examine ways to increase funding for general education and reward institutions that move vigorously to improve its quality. One common element in all examples of successful general education reform is the commitment of necessary resources to effect the change. Reform within the State University will require the infusion of new resources, but it will also require the reallocation of existing campus resources. For if general education is to be considered an important foundation to a baccalaureate degree, it must be well funded. Colleges must resist the temptation to underfund lower level courses. Efforts must be made to provide the resources to ensure small classes taught by full-time faculty. Implementation This report’s analysis of general education practices across the nation and at the State University, and the recommendations following from this analysis, are offered as a first step in developing a more comprehensive and rigorous general education curriculum at all of our institutions. As we take the next steps in such a program of reform, we must ensure that it is credible by national standards of undergraduate education, that it is fully supported by the Board of Trustees, the faculty and campus administrators, and that it is responsibly implemented with respect to campus resources and administrative capabilities. What follows are proposed implementation measures drawn from the above analysis and recommendations. - The Chancellor and Board of Trustees shall take action to make enhancement of general education a high priority. - The Provost shall form a University-wide Advisory Task Force, comprised of scholars and academic leaders from across the system, to see that the recommendations contained in this report are implemented by Fall 2000. - Each campus should be encouraged to establish or designate a committee to review its general education curriculum and to make recommendations that would satisfy concerns regarding comprehensiveness and rigor, while being appropriate to its institutional profile. Campuses may wish to establish subgroups along disciplinary lines. - The Provost working with the Chancellor, Executive Vice Chancellor and the Vice Chancellor for Finance and Business can explore ways of providing greater financial support for a rigorous and comprehensive general education program across the University. - The Provost’s Office continues development of assessment initiative to measure student learning outcomes resulting from a State University education. This initiative will be coordinated with general education reform to monitor effectiveness and show progress. APPENDIX I. GENERAL EDUCATION STUDIES AND MODELS Association of American Colleges and Universities (1991) . . . . . . . . . A-2 Pennsylvania State University (1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-2 U.S Department of Education (1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-4 Brooklyn College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-5 Washington State University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-5 Harvard University . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-6 California State University at Fresno . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-6 Kentucky General Education Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-7 Columbia College . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-9 University of Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-9 National Endowment for the Humanities-50 Hours (1989) . . . . . . . . . . . A-10 SUNY’s Core Curricula New York Association of Scholars & Empire Foundation (1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-12 A-1 STUDIES OF GENERAL EDUCATION Study of the Association of American Colleges and Universities In 1991, Jerry Gaff, Association of American Colleges and Universities, conducted a study of 305 colleges and universities undergoing general education reform. The study sample represented 20% of all four-year colleges in the United States. The study identified a tighter curriculum structure as a trend in general education. The power of Gaff’s research is in its empiricism. Gaff is objective and comprehensive in his reporting. Others publishing on the topic of general education or a core curriculum, like Allan Bloom and E.D. Hirsch, tend to advance general education plans based on subjective opinions. PROFILE OF A “TYPICAL” GENERAL EDUCATION CURRICULUM According to Gaff’s study, the profile of a “typical” general education curriculum includes the following: ¦ Two courses in writing ¦ One course in mathematics ¦ Four courses in the humanities ¦ One course in the fine arts ¦ Two courses in natural science (four-credit with a laboratory) ¦ Three courses in social science ¦ 73% have advanced or upper division courses ¦ 67% utilize interdisciplinary core courses ¦ 56% offer courses using original sources ¦ A little over half operate a freshman seminar (61% require it). ¦ A little under half have a senior seminar or project (55% require it). Colleges often teach the topic in several courses across the curricula. ¦ 93% report some kind of writing across the curriculum ¦ 71% cited critical thinking ¦ 50% noted computer literacy ¦ 63% global studies ¦ 58% cultural pluralism ¦ 57% ethics and values ¦ 53% gender issues 1996 Pennsylvania State University Study: “Best Practices” Pennsylvania State University, in 1996, created a special committee to study general education “best practices” as part of its general education reform. The extensive study of the literature on general education concluded the following: ¦ There is no clear consensus nationally about which colleges and universities are “best practice” sites for general education. Agreement is especially lacking for research and doctoral institutions. ¦ Even among programs that are relatively prominent, there are few specific common traits. Not all have a “core;” not all have a distribution requirement; not all have a “general college.” The Penn State study notes that though specific structures may vary, some general features are important: ¦ General education is idiosyncratic, tailored to particular institutions and their needs. ¦ Good general education is associated with a culture that values high expectations, recognizes diverse talents and learning styles and emphasizes early engagement. ¦ Good general education promotes coherence and wholeness, interdisciplinarity and continuity, integration and synthesis (of instruction, practice and experience). ¦ It encourages active learning and collaboration and a commitment to inquiry beyond the curriculum. ¦ Finally, good general education builds dynamic assessment and improvement into curricular processes. The Penn State Special Committee on General Education presented several recommendations for improvement of the general education program: ¦ Establish a first-year seminar experience for incoming, first-year students, provided by each of the colleges and campuses as part of the general education program. ¦ Improve the diagnostic instruments and measures used in the placement of entering students in skills courses and reduce the incidence of students taking courses with content that they have already mastered by encouraging placing out or exemption when proficiency has been attained and/or demonstrated. ¦ Identify the specific competencies and levels of proficiencies expected for, and constituting college-level mastery in, each of the skill areas (writing, speaking and quantification); identify the subsets of these competencies that are relevant for students intending on entering majors within each of the broad disciplinary categories (natural or applied sciences, business, social sciences, humanities, arts, communications, etc.); where needed, revise or develop new courses that will emphasize and help achieve these learning outcomes. ¦ Integrate key competencies for active learning (writing, speaking, quantitative reasoning, information retrieval and computer literacy, problem solving and critical thinking, collaboration and teamwork, intercultural and international competence), as appropriate, in all general education courses in the domain- knowledge areas (health sciences, sciences, arts, humanities, social and behavioral sciences). SUMMARY The primary objectives on which the Committee’s recommendations for change are founded are summarized as follows: To foster an understanding and appreciation of the importance of general education within the larger context of a student’s undergraduate experience. To recognize the differences in incoming students’ talents and needs in terms of skills development and enhance the emphasis given to appropriate mastery of those competencies and to their application in subsequent learning. To encourage a curricular approval process that is more flexible and less bureaucratic, offers opportunity for interpretation and experimentation, stimulates integration and collaboration and preserves portability of courses and mobility among the disciplines. To reformulate the general education and related requirements, as deemed appropriate, to meet carefully targeted academic goals. To institutionalize a process for formative assessment that is based on measurable outcomes and informs continuous curricular improvement. Clearly, a number of alternative strategies exist for accomplishing these goals, individually and collectively. The recommendations offered by the Committee are simply our best effort at selecting from the available or known options to put together a plan that is responsible and affordable and, we hope, will represent a significant improvement in the general education of our students. U.S. Department of Education Jacqueline Woods, U.S. Department of Education, in a recent presentation identified the following five factors essential to developing a general education model: ¦ General education must be institutionally defined and designed for all learners. It cannot be successfully imposed from without the institution. It is the responsibility and purview of the faculty to determine curricula according to the mission and the unique character of the institution. ¦ All faculty are essential to the development and implementation of the general education model. Discussion of the general education requirements and development of the curriculum must engage all disciplinary groups. ¦ General education must be vertically integrated and organized. In order for smooth movement to occur through the upper level general education courses, there must be the same effort to insure basic building blocks of general education which support higher level study. ¦ Student goals and outcomes must be clearly, precisely identified. Both students and faculty must understand general education goals and outcomes. There must be an explicit logic to the design of the program which can be stated and measured. Students must understand the reasons for the general education requirements and how each course requirement contributes to the whole of a baccalaureate degree. ¦ A comprehensive assessment plan is needed to document and profile general education competency. Institutions must be able to identify for themselves how well they are doing in meeting their self-defined goals. They must be able to evaluate areas of strength and areas in need of improvement, and they must be able to direct resources to bolster necessary reforms. Although these three strands of empirical research suggest the necessity of individual institutional definition and design, there are useful models that we can study in improving general education across SUNY. Consideration of these models, however, must be tempered with the understanding that SUNY enjoys a diversity and richness similar to that described in the following statement: Another historical condition that defines the nature of American higher education is the vastness of the enterprise, its great diversity – old private universities, small liberal arts colleges, huge multi-campus state universities, community colleges, one-time teachers’ colleges become state colleges, secular institutions and denominational institution – over three thousand of them, every one a center of action and responsibility, every one in its own way defining the American Experience in higher education. Models of General Education Gaff’s study notes that increasingly, colleges are deciding on the qualities they think educated students should possess, and they are designing more purposeful curricula to achieve those goals. Several different mechanisms reflect this movement. In practice, most new curricula use some combination of different mechanisms. The following models exemplify three different ways of approaching general education curricula: Brooklyn College Brooklyn College employs a strict core curriculum model. Ten courses are required of all students: ¦ Classical Origins of Western Culture ¦ Introduction to Art and Introduction to Music ¦ People, Power, and Politics ¦ The Shaping of the Modern World ¦ Introduction to Mathematical Reasoning and Computer Programming ¦ Landmarks of Literature ¦ Science in Modern Life I: Chemistry and Physics ¦ Science in Modern Life II: Biology and Geology ¦ Studies in African, Asian, and Latin American Cultures ¦ Knowledge, Existence, and Values Washington State University This model is a general education program organized vertically, allowing sequential study in depth from the freshman year to the junior or senior year. Distribution requirements in the Arts and Humanities, Social Sciences, and Sciences, etc., are organized in three tiers, indicating in broad terms the academic level of the courses and the order in which they should be taken. ¦ Tier I B is designed for entering freshmen and addresses the essential knowledge and skills needed for success in the rest of the undergraduate curriculum. (15 credit hours) World Civilizations - two courses Written Communication Mathematics Proficiency Sciences ¦ Tier II - typically introductions to the scholarly disciplines constituting the bulk of the distribution requirements in several academic areas: Arts and Humanities, Social Sciences, Intercultural Studies, Biological and Physical Sciences, and Communication Proficiency. (22 semester hours) Communication Proficiency Arts and Humanities Social Sciences Arts and Humanities/Social Sciences (total of nine hours, a minimum of three in either) Intercultural Sciences (three hours Biological, three hours Physical plus one additional hour for three clock-hours per week of laboratory) ¦ Tier III – the final component of sequential study in general education, the capstone course. Tier III courses are 400-level and have as a general prerequisite 60 hours of course work. Capstone courses for general education credit may not be taken within a student’s own major. Harvard University In 1978, Harvard University adopted a set of graduation requirements that were expected to foster “the knowledge, skill, and habits of thought that are of general lasting intellectual significance.” Ten semester courses in five substantive areas are required. Approximately 150 specifically-targeted courses constitute the general education curriculum, down from the roughly 2,500 courses among which students previously could select. ¦ Literature and the Arts – three courses literature fine arts or music the contexts of culture ¦ History – two courses some aspect of the modern world the historical process and perspective ¦ Social and Philosophical Analysis – two courses social analysis moral and political philosophy ¦ Science and Mathematics – two courses physical science and mathematics biological and behavioral science ¦ Foreign Cultures – one course Western Europe or a major non-Western culture In addition, proficiency is required in writing, mathematics, and a foreign language. California State University at Fresno Developed by both faculty and students, the university’s General Education Program is an introduction to the breadth and depth of the dynamics of human experience. It provides students with a foundation in the liberal arts and sciences and prepares them for specialized study in a particular discipline or program. The overall objective of general education is to create a context wherein basic skills are developed and strengthened, scholarship and disciplined thinking emerge, awareness and reflection occur, and ultimately the integration of knowledge begins. CORE, BREADTH, AND CAPSTONE The General Education Program is an integrated curriculum of courses organized into three phases: ¦ Core, the basic foundation of one’s university education, consists of courses in fundamental skills and knowledge. ¦ Breadth exposes students to a variety of disciplines within a structured framework that develops knowledge and skills representative of all areas of human endeavor. ¦ Capstone concludes the General Education Program by providing an interdisciplinary experience at the upper division level in which the skills and knowledge developed in CORE and BREADTH are integrated, bringing their interrelationships into focus. REQUIREMENTS The General Education Program requires students to complete a minimum of 51 semester units. This includes 18 units minimum in CORE, 27 units minimum in BREADTH, and 9 upper division units minimum, of which 6 units are in CAPSTONE. The 9 upper division units can be taken only after completing 56 units of coursework. Also, 9 units must be taken in residence at California State University, Fresno. Because the goal of general education is to provide a solid foundation with a broad scope and the goal of the major is to provide depth in a specific discipline or program, the following stipulations apply: ¦ A core course also may be applied to a student’s major requirement unless the department specifically prohibits it. ¦ A maximum of two general education courses from one department or program may be applied to satisfy breadth requirements. (However, a department or program may prohibit any general education breadth course from simultaneously satisfying its own departmental or programmatic requirements.) ¦ Courses used to satisfy capstone may not be used to satisfy requirements for the major. Kentucky General Education Agreement The Kentucky General Education Agreement was established to assist students as they transfer from one public institution to another through the acceptance of common general education requirements. These requirements have been defined as a 48-hour general education program which includes five categories encompassing a 33-hour Core Component. Students may transfer as Category Certified, having completed some but not all of the five categories; Core Certified, having completed the 33-hour Core Component; or Fully Certified, having completed the 48-hour general education program at the institution from which they are transferring. The sending institution is responsible for certifying which categories have been completed by the student. The receiving institution has agreed to accept the corresponding general education credits as meeting their institution- wide lower division general education requirements. This policy becomes effective Spring 1996. COURSE DESIGNATIONS BY CATEGORY AND DISCIPLINE The 33-hour Core Component is comprised of five categories. Courses have been coded to fulfill a discipline within a specific category. These categories, hours required in each category, and their disciplines are identified in the following table: COURSES FULFILLING GENERAL EDUCATION AREAS BY INSTITUTION The Kentucky system provides a list indicating, by institution, the courses used to fulfill the General Education areas. Those courses which have been coded as Gen Ed are general education courses which do not fit in an established category; generally, these courses fulfill the additional 15 hour difference between the 33 hour “core” and the 48-hour lower division general education requirement for each institution. At the University of Kentucky, those courses coded as “gen ed” fulfill the cross disciplinary, foreign language or inference requirement which have not been included in the 33-hour core. Also included is the University of Kentucky equivalency. For a hard copy of the table described above, please call: 518/443-5152 and ask for a copy of PROVOST’S REPORT, GENERAL EDUCATION: OVERVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DECEMBER, 1998 Columbia College POLICY ON DEGREE REQUIREMENTS The Committee on Instruction and the faculty of Columbia College review College degree requirements and curricular matters each year. The bulletin reflects these faculty recommendations and curricular changes in its yearly reprinting. College policy then requires students to fulfill all degree requirements as stated in the bulletin of the first year of their matriculation into the College. POINTS Every student must complete 124 points. One course may not normally be taken to fulfill more than one requirement for the degree. However, a course that satis fies the Major Cultures, the science, or the foreign language requirement may also be used to satisfy a student’s major or concentration requirements. Courses may not be repeated for credit, nor may course credit be earned in subjects for which Advanced Placement has been granted. Students also cannot receive credit for previous courses in which the content has been substantially duplicated, at Columbia or elsewhere. REQUIRED COURSES: THE CORE CURRICULUM The following required courses constitute the Columbia College Core Curriculum. They include general education requirements in major disciplines that are described in this section. The entire Core can be summarized as follows: ¦ Literature Humanities C1001 and C1002 ¦ Contemporary Civilization C1101 and C1102 ¦ Art Humanities C1121 ¦ Music Humanities C1123 ¦ Foreign Language Requirement four terms or the equivalent ¦ Logic and Rhetoric C1007 (C1004 may also be required and is determined by the Composition Office) ¦ Major Cultures Requirement two terms from the List of Approved Courses ¦ Physical Education Requirement two terms and a swimming test ¦ Science Requirement three terms from the List of Approved Courses Note: The College strongly recommends that students complete all or most of the above requirements by the end of the sophomore year. Students should also take at least one carefully chosen elective course each term during the first two years in order to make a more informed decision about a major or concentration before the beginning of the junior year. The University of Oklahoma The Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education have approved a University- wide education curriculum for the University of Oklahoma. This curriculum applies to all students who begin their higher education studies in Fall 1990 and enter the University of Oklahoma Norman Campus that semester or thereafter. The University-wide curriculum can be summarized as a distribution requirement model. ¦ Core Area I – Symbolic and Oral Communication (9-19 hours, 3-5 courses) English Composition: (6 hours, English 1113 and 1213) Foreign Language: (0-10 hours, 2 courses in the same language, which can be satisfied by successfully completing two years in the same foreign language in high school.) Mathematics: (3 hours, one course) Other: (for example, communication, logic or public speaking) Courses in this area may not be used to meet the minimum hourly requirement for Core Area I, but may be used to meet the 40-hour total general education requirement. ¦ Core Area II – Natural Science (Minimum of 7 hours, including at least two courses of three or more credit hours each, which must be from different disciplines. At least one course must include a laboratory component.) ¦ Core Area III – Social Science (6 hours, 2 courses, one of which is Political Science 1113) ¦ Core Area IV – Humanities (12 hours, 4 courses) Understanding Art Forms: (3 hours, 1 course) Western Civilization and Culture: (6 hours, 2 courses, one of which is History 1483 or History 1493) Non-Western Culture: (3 hours, 1 course) ¦ Core Area V – Senior Capstone Experience (3 hours, 1 course) In addition to the Senior Capstone Experience, students must take at least one upper-division general education approved course outside the student’s major. National Endowment for the Humanities – 50 Hours: A Summary 50-Hours: A Core Curriculum for College Students, a position paper written for the National Endowment for the Humanities, puts forth a core curriculum heavily weighted toward cultures and civilizations. ¦ Cultures and Civilizations (18 hours) I. The Origins of Civilization – a one-semester course that considers the beginnings of civilization on various continents (3 hours) II. Western Civilization – a one-semester course that considers the development of Western society and thought from Periclean Athens through the Reformation (3 hours) III. Western Civilization (continued) – a one-semester course that considers the development of Western society and thought from the Reformation into the twentieth century (3 hours) IV. American Civilization – a one-semester course that traces major developments in American society and thought from colonial times to the present (3 hours) V and VI. Other Civilizations – two one-semester courses to be chosen from the following: civilizations of Africa, East Asia, Islam, Latin America, South Asia (6 hours) ¦ Foreign Language (12 hours) A two-year requirement; it is recommended that students fulfill this requirement by taking more advanced courses in a language they have studied in high school ¦ Concepts of Mathematics (6 hours) A one-year course focusing on major concepts, methods, and applications of the mathematical sciences ¦ Foundations of the Natural Sciences (8 hours) A one-year laboratory course that focuses on major ideas and methods of the physical and biological sciences ¦ The Social Sciences and the Modern World (6 hours) A one-year course that explores ways in which the social sciences have been used to explain political, economic, and social life, as well as the experience of individuals, in the last 200 years A chart appears here that is described below: Freshman Year: students would take Cultures and Civilizations I and II, Concepts of Mathematics, and Foreign Language. The two remaining courses would be from their major or electives. Sophomore Year: Students would take Cultures and Civilizations III and IV, Foundations of the Natural Sciences, and Foreign Language. The two remaining courses would be from their major or electives. Junior Year: Students would take Cultures and Civilizations V and VI, The Social Sciences and the Modern World. The three remaining courses would be from their major or electives. The above chart, in which each course represents year-long study, shows the place of this core in undergraduate education and indicates a sequence of courses. According to this plan, students would take up the West and America – the cultures most accessible to most of them – before study of cultures with which they are less likely to be familiar. This plan would allow study of the natural and social sciences to build upon understanding of mathematics. A core program would have a sequence that most students follow. When professors know what students have studied, they can assume a base of knowledge and build upon it. They can reach across courses with references, adding depth, richness, and coherence to general education. SUNY’s Core Curricula The following three tables that appear in this document were excerpted from the publication, SUNY’s Core Curricula – the Failure to Set Consistent and High Academic Standards. Issued in 1996, the document is the joint project of the New York Association of Scholars and the Empire Foundation for Policy Research. These charts and the report appendices are available in hard copy by calling 518/443-5154 and asking for a copy of the "PROVOST’S REPORT, GENERAL EDUCATION: OVERVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS."