FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
ABOUT THE GENERAL EDUCATION TASK FORCE
AND ITS PROPOSED GOALS
From what source does the General Education Task Force have authority to propose goals for a reformed curriculum?
In May 2002 the UCF voted to create what it termed the General Education Task Force. The UCF nominated faculty members who would represent a broad diversity of academic departments from all schools at the university. The UCF charged the task force with creating a new model for the general education curriculum to be discussed and voted upon by UCF and the faculty.
What representation did faculty and students have on this task force?
The task force is composed over approximately a dozen faculty members (it varies slightly by semester). One student participates on the task force as well. Dean Fredeen is the designated representative for the administration, but she has left the week-to-week work of the committee largely to the faculty members.
What is so wrong with the current general education curriculum that it needs reform?
Universities nationwide, including Harvard, Columbia, and Duke, have invested in curricular transformation of their general education requirements over the past fifteen years. SCSU’s current curriculum serves many useful purposes, but is out of step with current practices. There are no articulated goals in the current program, nor is there an explicit relationship between classes. The program as it is lacks depth, namely courses do not deliberately build on knowledge from previous course work. It is impossible to tell what students are taking away from the all-university requirements other than receiving a passing grade. Can we as a faculty honestly say that we are pleased with the ability of the current all-university requirement system to prepare students to undertake upper-division course work? Many faculty members and students alike tend to view general education courses as something that should be avoided if at all possible. The primary function of the current system seems to be to recruit majors and defend institutional resources. Because of the difficulty of making change under the current system, it discourages curricular innovation. Finally, NEASC, NCATE, and other accrediting agencies have urged the university to update our general education program.
What body of knowledge has informed the members of the task force about curricular reform?
Task force members have spent literally hundreds of hours reviewing the most recent research on general education reform nationwide. We have also attended a series of academic conferences organized by the Association of American Colleges & Universities (AAC&U). Along the way, we have studied efforts at reform—successful and otherwise—at a host of universities that are somewhat ahead of us on the curve, including Longwood University (Virginia); Portland State University; Duke University; Southern Methodist University; Dickinson College; Columbia University; Columbia College (South Carolina); Grand Canyon University; and Michigan State. Task force members were invited to present their work at the AAC&U conference on general education in Newport, R.I., May 2004.
Will the goal-oriented curriculum water down the content of our general education at Southern?
There is no reason that it should. Faculty will remain in control of implementing a model. If we do so with academic integrity, are reasonable, and seek to challenge our students to meet their potential, the new curriculum should be at least as rigorous as our current one, only more up-dated and innovative.
Will general education still constitute 42 credits of course work?
Yes. It is a mandate of the state’s Department of Higher Education that a minimum of one-third of the minimum total credits needed for graduation be general education. SCSU requires a minimum of 122 credits to graduate.
What role does remediation play in the task force’s goals?
The task force has concentrated its efforts on general education, not remedial courses. If the goals are accepted, the task force will consider remediation at the implementation stage.
What place will the academic disciplines have in a goal-directed general education program that transcends individual disciplines?
The disciplines are not going away. There will still be academic departments with the same names we have today. There is no reason that the new model would not include any department that currently participates in the all-university requirements. The goal of this reform effort, after all, is to make the general education program more rigorous in skills and knowledge and certainly not less extensive. It will also, however, provide the opportunity to create multi-disciplinary and inter-disciplinary offerings. The best aspects of our current program can be integrated into the new program, along with exciting, innovative, and imaginative offerings that invigorate the curriculum.
What role will assessment play in the new curriculum?
Regardless of whether the faculty endorses a revised curriculum or not, assessment of student learning outcomes is here to stay. The task force, however, believes that a goal-oriented program will facilitate assessment more readily than our current general education program. For one thing, the current program does not have explicit goals that can be measured.
What can the task force do about the vagueness of the document?
The proposed goals are in many respects nebulous at this juncture. That is because we strove to set lofty goals that are attainable, measurable, and intellectually imaginative. Such goals—like university mission statements—are necessarily subjective and broad and will only attain analytical precision once the faculty puts them into operation.
If these goals are approved, what will happen in the implementation stage?
That depends on the will of the faculty as a whole. The task force expects that, if the faculty approve its goals, constituency groups (especially the academic departments) will propose ways in which they can deliver a new curriculum. At that point, the task force will engage in university-wide dialogue to facilitate discussions of implementation that will be as inclusive as possible