Structural Reform #1: Do Nothing * Make no changes to the General Education program. * Remove the moratorium on new IN and ID courses. * Resume 5-year reviews of existing IN and ID courses. Our Gen Ed program isn’t broken, so don’t try to fix it.Addendum to Structural Reform #1: Specific Feedback from a Faculty + [feel that this process of reform is greatly flawed; however, because it is the process at hand, I will submita proposal. + Iwould like to propose that General Education (GE) at SLCC NOT undergo a major reform process. I propose that we look carefully at the GE system that we are currently using and find ways to strengthen said system without undergoing sweeping changes that may lead to unexpected impacts college-wide Tbelieve that this reform needs to have larger final assessment and approval than just the GE committee, and that the best place to obtain this larger input is through the school curriculum committees. Curriculum development is a central key to quality education and I feel that it should be carefully assessed by the largest possible body of faculty. 1. Carefully define the “content” criteria for each designation, using input from the appropriate school curriculum committees. a. Define, and include in the handbook, a process by which each class will be placed into a designated category. This process should involve the appropriate school curriculum committees. The school curriculum committees would approve the content of the course for a specific designation; whereas the GE committee would have final approval for the other GE criteria. 2. Carefully define the meaning of the “content’ criteria for the ID designation. The CCO for any course that is given ID designation should clearly state the two or more disciplines that the course is integrating. a. Define, and include in the handbook, a process by which each class will be placed into the ID category. This process should involve the appropriate school curriculum committees; however, the GE committee would have the final approval for a course obtaining ID designation 3. . Carefully define the meaning of the “content” criteria for the IN designation. The CCO for any course that is given IN designation should clearly state how that course fulfills this content area. a. Define, and include in the handbook, a process by which each class will be placed into the IN category. This process should involve the appropriate school curriculum committees; however, the GE committee would have the final approval for a course obtaining 1D designation 4, Carefully define the meaning of the “content” criteria for the DV designation. The CCO for any course that is given DV designation should clearly state the two or more disciplines that the course is integrating, a. Define, and include in the handbook, a process by which each class will be placed into the DV category. This process should involve the appropriate school curriculum committees; however, the GE committee would have the final approval for a course obtaining DV designation ‘The Northwest Accreditation Team found no issues with our GE. The SLCC GE system is often referred to as an exemplary model in state and even some national meetings. Thus, | feel that the underlying format of our system seems to be quite sound, | feel that one of the goals of GE should be, as it has been in the past, to expose students to multiple ways of thinking, learning, and viewing the world. The ideas of critical thinking, aesthetics, communication, etc. provide the 2commonality among the various GE classes and should allow students to feel the connectedness of their GE classes. Itis in the area of “content, knowledge” that each class can shine as an individual type of class to provide that diversity of thought. | propose that, during the process of rewriting the GE handbook, the GE committee and the appropriate school curriculum committees look carefully at the criteria for each designation and record these criteria in a manner that will aid future committees in the assessment of proposed and reviewed courses. Because the area of content is what separates the courses into the different distribution areas, itis this “content” that needs to be assessed by the faculty in those areas. I agree that no department “owns” a GE designation; however, I do believe that distinct schools should be designated, not to own, but to oversee the content of specific GE designations. For example, it seems obvious that the School of Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS) should have the final say as to appropriate content in courses that receive an SS, HU, or FA designation. Itseems obvious that the School of Science, Math, and Engineering(SME) should have the final say as to the appropriate content in courses that receive a QL, PS, BS, or LW designation. This is not to say that a course from outside of the School of HSS cannot receive an SS, HU, or FA designation, or the composition and American Institutions designations, it only means that the faculty in that school should be the ones to decide if said class meets the content required to receive that designation. I have just presented two examples here; the college curriculum committee should probably assign oversight responsibility for these variations to the appropriate schools.Structural Reform #2: Six-Credit Student Choice * Create a new Student Choice Category that replaces the IN and ID categories. «Students take two courses from Student Choice, each course from a different designation. © The new Student Choice category will have the following designations: © Global Learning (GL) * Personal Skills and Capacities (PC) * Technology and Society (T'S) * Communication, Thinking, and Argumentation (CA) Rationale: This is a conservative proposal that keeps all existing courses, but reorganizes them into more rational Student Choice categories that will be relevant to student interests Comments: No / wo Oo Replore Ke wf 2 / 1 ns Ldhentkey a1 Ch rile $e 4 ? ote option h ual vf Hane ephans [supper 3.Structural Reform #3: Student Choice and Integrated Studies * Create a new 3-4 credit Student Choice category that replaces the IN and ID categories, with the four designations in option 2 above. ‘© Global Learning (GI) © Personal Skills and Capacities (PC) © Technology and Society (T'S) © Communication, Thinking, and Argumentation (CA) Students take one course from one Student Choice category. Create new Integrated Studies courses (IS) that focus on key unstructured problems (e.g., Climate Change, The Individual in Society). Students would be required to take one IS designated course. * No Department can offer more than one IS designated course. Rationale: This reform keeps the new Student Choice categories from proposal #2, but injects more integration into Gen Ed by asking departments to come up with one integrated studies course. Comments: = D Dey Vow Ge fase WS to ke cote? Desyceet - Capilense 2 Wan arse [supe ) Vibe une aphn Legh Gamy He, FRE HD TY Qike ae Seminars in UnstuchrecL Pobume furfilling scrdmee comes .Structural Reform #4: Eliminate Diversity Requirement + Eliminate Diversity as a double-dip requirement, but not the Diversity courses themselves. + Begin a conversation about replacing the Diversity requirement with a different double- dip requirement in Gen Ed, or do away with double-dip requirement altogether because of its impact on student course-taking patterns, Rationale: It is unclear what impact the Diversity requirement has had on students. The ideas inherent in the Diversity requirement are well-infused throughout SLCC’s Gen Ed curriculum, in the DV courses and in others that are not so designated. This reform could be coupled with any of the other proposals. commenss Tang gwves Arbre. L atnmc in aw alinee of a DV Cee Moment ehwre = yuved veld 4o be qpeater GUAAH ok dinemity we uses ad =e DEP | Suro Duared NO. =| de nek Seppe BRS Od A DY Fe quwonet \ cle Supt Une tenn tua we clo a beth | an wan ~ bold oe Du comes de Mghe StavsadsStructural Reform #5: Expanded American Institutions «Eliminate either Student Choice (Depth or IN) or Interdisciplinary (ID) designations. «Expand the American Institutions (AI) requirement to 6 credits instead of 3. In other words, to satisfy the Al category, students would take a two-course POLS, HIST, or ECON sequence, Rationale: There just isn’t enough time in one semester to adequately introduce students to U.S. history, politics, or economics. Many institutions around the country require a two-course sequence Comments 11) An lees you do ues fo Cw Aevlarohns a ym coed mole aes a4. atom [oo VS ow HY oe well: (\o- aoyee 3Structural Reform #6: Emphasize Liberal Arts and Sciences (Comm and Argumentation) * Eliminate Student Choice (Depth or IN) and Interdisciplinary (ID) designations. ‘© Reform the existing distribution areas into the following, from which each student must take one course: © Fine Arts (FA) © Social and Behavioral Sciences (SS) © Humanities (HU) ©. Life Sciences (LS) © Physical Sciences (PS) * Create two new institutional requirements, from which students would take one course: © Global Learning (GL) © Communication and Argumentation (CA) © Courses currently designated IN or ID would need to either fit into one of the above categories or lose their Gen Ed status. itudents need a firm grounding in the traditional disciplines of the liberal arts and plus experience with communication and argumentation. This proposal better groups our courses into seven distribution areas, five of which (FA, SS, HU, LS, and PS) are mandated by the state. We would be adding Global Learning (GL) and Communication and Argumentation (CA) categories as institution-level requirements. r Comments: (Nas oc we opy tb Barttood yt 0% ) yp Le1020 wf “Perera! Yes < ~ Bcapeer”? ) G veplece- MN of She ~4 A of Infi9 te, Gk 1 ¥ he pact w] cneiees?Structural Reform #7: Emphasize Liberal Arts and Sciences (Communication and Writing) Eliminate the Student Choice (IN or Depth) and the Interdisciplinary (ID) designations. Reform the existing distribution areas into the following, from which each student must take one course: ° ° ° ° © Create two new institutional requirements, from wl ° ° © Courses currently d Fine Arts (FA) Social and Behavioral Sciences (SS) Humanities (HU) Life Sciences (LS) Physical Sciences (PS) students would take one course: Global Learning (GL) Communication and Writing (CW) ignated IN or ID would need to eit er fit into one of the above categories or lose their Gen Ed status. Rationale: Students need a firm grounding in the traditional disciplines of the liberal arts and sciences, plus experience with writing and communication. This proposal better groups our courses into seven distribution areas, five of which (FA, SS, HU, LS, and PS) are mandated by the state. We would be adding Global Learning (GL) and Communication and Writing (CW) categories as institution-level requirements. Comments: \ Ole Anes ophim over He becawe of One enynaeis * om we.Structural Reform #8: General Education Seminars + Eliminate either Student Choice (Depth or IN) or Interdisciplinary (ID) designations. * Create General Education Seminars intended for freshmen students. * Make the Gen Ed Seminars prerequisites or co-requisites with certain key Gen Ed courses to ensure that students take them early. Each seminar would be 3 credits, and students would need to take one. ‘* The Gen Ed Seminars would introduce students to threshold concepts in Writing Studies, the Physical and Life Sciences, the Social and Behavioral Sciences, the Humanities, Communications, and Fine Arts. They would also introduce students to General Education and SLCC’s ePortfolio requirement. Rationale: We want to catch students early in their educational career and provide them with an intellectually stimulating, integrative educational experience that will help them better understand the rest of the Gen Ed courses they take, These seminars could anchor First Year Experience learning communities. Comments: Goon ipek. Wud semivare Grell! me of “we eM od reqecemiv ? CHv o- LS Fv eran) COR We ee Hrotnl d oe He WS. Qure \ Ger Gh wit Senticn lok yanad ovord # 10Non-Structural Reform #1: Do Nothing Rationale: Our General Education program is fine, so don’t make changes Comments: Yo uvNon-Structural Reform #2: Breadth Alignment with State Practices * Biological Sciences" to “Life Sciences’; “Social Sciences” to “Social and Behavioral Sciences”; “Physical Science” to “Physical Sciences.” * No current change to criteria, but criteria language to be revisited in the near future through a process determined by the Gen Ed Committee. Rationale: These changes would be in accordance with the terminology used in the Board of Regents’ R.470 document on General Education. Comments: pa. Yat L 12Non-Structural Reform #3: HIPs in General Education Change the Gen Ed 5-year course review process to encourage departments to emphasize high impact educational practices. © Charge the FTLC and the Office of the Gen Ed Director with fostering HIPs. * Showcase student HIP work in their ePortfolios. Rationale: This reform would improve our Gen Ed program by infusing it with the kinds of educational practices that have been shown to engage students and improve their learning. Comments: FILO ROL Directer a hore MPs a aayaed . Unuresn bur conse vevied Axes nese vor Aor] veotwunlet rss. ye te IY QA syerdvoonts 13Non-Structural Reform #4: Clearer Pathways in General Education © Define a relatively few number of meta-majors (eg., Health Sciences, Business). Within each meta-major, define a set of General Education courses that are recommended to students. «This would essentially be a different way to “package” Gen Ed for students who have a major outside of General Studies. Rationale: The purpose of this reform is to help students make choices in General Education if they have declared a major. Comments: . . Sut. 1D tie bo see e7plorabud Pecompamyy 46 re cOmindohens 25, vby Pn $8 Conse of oly There Ma cor Gy WEA. law Ws (comownect) Winder vey? 14Non-Structural Reform #5: Writing in General Education Courses ‘+ Make the following changes to the Gen Ed course review criteria: © Emphasize “writing to learn” activities as the basis of the writing requirement in 1000-level courses. (Writing to learn” activities include informal responses, reflections, journaling, etc. instead of more formal recall and reporting-based writing activities.) o Emphasize “writing from research” activities in 2000-level courses. Rationale: The purpose of this reform is to help students to help students achieve the Effective Communication, Substantive Knowledge, and Critical Thinking learning outcomes. Comments: Hus lor Supfetel ~ Stvally Clos S40 fo 3505 foes Noo oll fear wales: pek- bet Wow will be veniowech? (awe olaries vm actually doin 117 Vows is Vr asco”) 15