Introduction

We understood our charge this year to be to continue to implement the new General Education Program, to advise the Provost regarding larger policy issues, and to make smaller, local policy decisions that did not affect the structure of the program.

Our approach this year has been to balance our concern for the integrity of the program with the practical needs of others affected by the program and its policies—students, staff, administration, other offices and programs, etc.

We made some compromises along the way that future administrators of the program will need to understand. In the list of issues and policy decisions discussed below, we will start with the decisions and compromises we think were most significant.

Transfer Credit (national and international) and Study Abroad Credit Policies for General Education

The Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, Advisors, the Transfer Office, the Registrar’s Office, the Degree Audit Office, and Study Abroad Program all asked us to make our policies as flexible as possible in order to, among other things, encourage transfer admissions.

To accommodate their needs, we agreed that students could transfer in credit for the second-year core courses and distribution courses, and we made the distribution requirements more flexible for transfer students (national and international) and students who study abroad. We drew the line at the first year core courses, maintaining that those students who begin their studies at MTU must take Perspectives and World Cultures on our campus, and even though they can transfer in credit for all other general education courses, they still must follow the distribution course rules (2 classes from one list with World Cultures as a prerequisite, 2 classes from one list with Institutions as a prerequisite, 1 class from any list).

We call these compromises because they somewhat weaken the integrity of the program at the same time that they address the needs of students, staff, programs, and offices across campus. On the one hand, not all students will have the same general education experience as a result of those decisions, and the decisions tend to reinforce the perception that general education is not that important or is something to be taken off campus when possible. On the other hand, the program suffers when people find it inflexible, when studying abroad is hard to do, etc., so we feel we reached a reasonable compromise, by drawing the line at the first-year core courses.

We strongly suggest that any future decisions that might affect the integrity and coherence of the program be made with the understanding that past decisions were compromises that to a degree compromised the program as it was originally designed.

Perspectives Staffing and Funding Issues

There continues to be a need for broad support and participation across campus for the General Education Program, generally, and for the Perspectives course, specifically. We changed our transfer policy and now we allow students who transfer in as sophomores to count any English composition course for Perspectives.

We also decided to permit students to use English AP credit toward Perspectives. This also was a compromise, since the Perspectives course is different from a composition course and the original idea was that it would help provide a common experience for all students. The decision was made in order to keep all of our policies consistent. Students who transfer in credit for English composition and other general education courses receive credit for Perspectives if they have taken one semester of first year English composition, and credit for Revisions if they have taken a second semester of English composition. When students transfer in a year of course credit, including a semester of first-year English composition, it is difficult to explain to them why we are insisting they back up and take Perspectives, a first-year course, hence the decision to make first-year English the rough equivalent of Perspectives. Once we made that decision, the other decisions about AP credit fall into line, since AP English credit is traditionally associated with first-year English. These decisions also reduce the number of students who need to take Perspectives, and specifically reduces the number of special spring sections of Perspectives to be offered to transfer students, which was one our goals this year.

We also suggest that any future decisions regarding who is required to take Perspectives be made in the light of these past compromises.

We recognize that many of the adjunct faculty are teaching excellent Perspectives classes and are keeping the program strong, and we support their efforts. At the same time we discussed the issue at length and reaffirmed that the program should continue to work toward the original goal for the Perspectives course to be taught mostly by senior faculty.

Funding for World Cultures and Revisions GTAs

We spent much time explaining to various administrators the need for GTA support for both World Cultures and Revisions: Oral, Written, and Visual Communication. We maintain that there should be a university policy for GTA allocation as it impacts the General Education Program.

Assessment

NCA expects a report next February. We still need to develop a plan for assessing the program as a whole, including the distribution part of the program. The core courses are all piloting assessment procedures that will contribute to the report, but they are behind in this (getting the courses up and running in the very short time-frame we were allotted was enough to expect). Bill Kennedy coordinated the assessment of the core courses, and he has gathered written descriptions of these efforts from the core directors. Bill and Dennis also sketched out a plan for assessing the distribution requirement, but there is no actual written plan that lays out how we will assess the distribution courses or the program as a whole.

Administrative Structure of General Education

We spent much time discussing the existing structure, including the three main committees responsible for watching over the program. The Executive Committee did most of the work this year. The Advisory Council met once to discuss the issues around transfer policy. And the General Education Council (the largest body) did not meet at all. Its function is/was to decide large policy issues, none of which were entertained, except for Dean Seel’s proposal. The year ended with a detailed report from the Executive Committee to the Provost on Dean Seel’s proposal. Outcome pending. Whatever changes are made to the administrative structure, we do think it is important to acknowledge the important, regular input from the Director of the Writing Center and the Director of First-year Experience.

Co-Curriculum, Orientation and General Education, the Math and Science Requirement, and the Distribution Requirement

Continued support for academic planning and faculty development for general education are essential. For instance, the original plan included a vigorous “co-curricular” program, but we have not had time or resources for developing this. Likewise, the original plan included Perspectives faculty participating in orientation, but we have not had the time to develop this either.

When we redesigned the program, we put Math and Science aside, so to speak. We did not look at the role of math and science in the context of the rest of the General Education Program, nor did we think about special math and science courses for general education. Future academic planning efforts will want to do this.

Next year students for the first time will enter the upper division or “distribution” part of the program in large numbers. At that time we need to look carefully at how that part of the program is working, at the prerequisite course structure, and at the criteria for inclusion on the lists.

Distance Learning and General Education

The connection between the General Education Program and Distance-Learning Programs on campus remains extremely unclear. Part of the problem stems from the fact that some distance learning initiatives that involve general education were developed in isolation from the new General Education Program and the faculty involved in general education.

A distance-learning version of Institutions has been developed and piloted, and one for Perspectives is scheduled to be developed, but these are individual initiatives without much direct connection to the program and its administration.

Modern Language Option for World Cultures

We approved a proposal by the Modern Languages faculty to change how they administer the Modern Language Option. The Director of Modern Languages will become the coordinator (instead of a separate coordinator, as in the past). They will maintain their ties with the World Cultures course and faculty, of course, but they also will develop a special set of activities (movies, cultural evening events) specifically for the students taking the MLO. Individual modern language instructors will be responsible for assignments based on the cultural activities program and for grading the students in their classes who are taking the MLO.

Catalogue Copy and Layout for General Education

We redesigned the copy and layout to make it easier for students and advisors to understand.

Conclusion

We outlined our concerns for future action in our response to Dean Seel’s proposal. Whoever accepts responsibility for administering the General Education Program next year might benefit from looking at that report.