New General Education Planning

Who is the Planning Group, and what is the current status of the group’s work on a new general education pathway?

The Planning Group is a faculty-led group formed in early 2005, comprised of roughly twenty-five faculty and staff.  It was formed by a wide invitation to all faculty members within CAS, and through outreach to other schools and to administrative functions like advising, student life, and the library.  Eighteen of its twenty-five members are full-time faculty, of whom fifteen are tenured and fifteen are in CAS.  It was charged with developing a “core replacement” pathway that will  have to be approved by the General Education Council (GEC) and the USM faculty senate.

A timeline of its work over the past 15 months:

• February – August 2005: Conducted early stages of learning about national general education literature, participated in a national institute, and developed an early draft of a curricular framework that allows for maximum faculty control and creativity in delivering curriculum while accomplishing for students the learning objectives passed by the GEC and Faculty Senate.
• September 2005 – January 2006: Continued curricular design and focused on extensive outreach to faculty and staff.  Leaders of the Planning Group met with 24 of 27 CAS departments and programs (in about 12 public meetings), and in college wide meetings with CAS, ASET, CONHP.
• January 2006-April 2006:  Returned to intensive work to complete a draft design of the curriculum to present to the GEC for initial review and feedback.
• Fall 2006: Revised the curriculum plan; offered first pilot EYE courses.
• February, 2007: Presented curriculum proposal ro GEC and received provisional approval.
• Spring 2007: finalized plans for implementation and administration.
• Fall 2007: 27 sections of EYE pilots scheduled; finalize assessment plan; seek final approval of the curriculum from the GEC; seek approval of the curriculum from the Faculty Senate.

What is provisional approval?

• Provisional approval is permission and authority to pilot and begin early implementation of the pathway, but requires revisions and another GEC review for final recommendation for approval within two years.  The Planning Group expects to submit any revisions to the General Education Council in 2008, which will then forward its recommendation to the Faculty Senate for final approval.   Recommendation for Overall final approval means that the new general education curriculum becomes part of the catalog.

Next steps:

The Planning Group is reaching out to develop a close relationship with faculty and departments, especially in CAS, to understand the new pilot curriculum, enlist participation in piloting the curriculum, and in working to further improve it and work out remaining concerns and issues.  It is important to note that parallel sets of relationships are being developed with relevant staff (library, student life, advising, and transfer).

Most importantly, the CAS Dean has created a liaison committee of CAS chairs and directors to establish a close and on-going relationship between the Planning Group and CAS around all issues relating to moving forward with piloting and eventual implementation.  These include:

• Establishing a regular and formal mechanism for communication between CAS faculty and the Planning Group that allows any and all issues related to the curriculum to be brought forward and discussed.
• Any and all matters relating to allocating faculty to developing new courses and/or participating in the new curriculum. 
• Developing CAS-wide departmental procedures for curriculum developments, in consultation with the Planning Group.
• Assisting in the recruiting and development of faculty and courses for the new curriculum.
• Identifying resource issues and constraints and bringing them forth to the Chairs and Directors and to the Dean.

Is the new curriculum transparent to faculty and students?

Answer: The new curriculum will be easier to understand and explain in part because it is designed to be a coherent and developmental experience for the student.  Students progress through entry, mid-level, and capstone experiences.  Different courses appear at specific points in the curriculum in order to focus on particular aspects of the student’s intellectual and personal development.  While students currently take a somewhat random collection of introductory courses in no particular order, the new curriculum emphasizes both the development of skills over time and the integration of knowledge gained across courses and disciplines.

What are the elements of the new curriculum? Has anything changed significantly since earlier presentations?

Answer:  The curriculum has changed since the draft which faculty saw in Fall 2005.  In response to several concerns raised by faculty, the Planning Group made two significant modifications in its original curriculum plan: the inclusion of a minor as an alternative to the thematic cluster and the inclusion of two additional curriculum components (Cultural Interpretation and Socio-cultural Analysis) at the second level of the curriculum.  In addition, as a result of feedback and planning help from faculty not on the Planning Group, a diversity requirement has been added. The main components of the curriculum are listed below. See the Curriculum Description and Summary section for details.

*Capstone credits may vary depending on the department/program offering the capstone experience

Is there a signature to this curriculum?

Answer:  Several, but especially integration and increasing intellectual complexity and self-awareness. The curriculum requires students to integrate what they learn as they go along, and it develops epistemological sophistication and ethical awareness while providing training and practice in the skills necessary to achieve both. Unlike the current core, the new curriculum is organized and driven by a clearly articulated set of goals and objectives for general education as a whole.

How will students learn disciplinary methodologies and perspectives that are at the heart of a liberal arts education?

Answer: All 11 (or more) courses in the curriculum are content and discipline-based courses.  Eight will be disciplinary (within departments), two interdisciplinary, and the capstone will be about integrating disciplinary perspectives.

How will departments be able to recruit majors once the new curriculum begins?

Answer:  The same way they do now—through participation in the new curriculum.   Students will take slightly more credits in the new pathway compared to the core (and this is especially true of transfer students, who will take more general education credits at USM than under core), so there will actually be more opportunities for departments to expose students to their faculty, and therefore their major. Moreover, although fewer in number, core courses will continue to be offered for many years as we transition to the new curriculum.

But since there is a shift to upper-level classes, won’t this reduce recruitment opportunities for small-major departments?

Answer: Not at all.  A typical “traditional” student entering as a freshman will take six introductory-level general education courses in their first year, along with electives and/or beginning major courses.  They will likely take four additional upper-level courses in their sophomore year.  Of these ten classes, two would be interdisciplinary “experience” courses, and eight would be in disciplines; CAS would heavily predominate in all of these courses.

Is any department’s existence threatened by the new curriculum?

Answer: No.  Indeed, through course clusters and minors, small major departments are likely to increase their enrollments, even if majors don’t increase. Furthermore, the Provost has said publicly that no existing lines will be sacrificed because of the new curriculum.

Aren’t individual departments hurt by participating in pilot courses where faculty receive release time?  Example: Faculty A normally teaches two introductory courses, but instead participates in an entry course, teaching the four credit class and receiving “release” from the additional two credits.

The Planning Group’s role on this question has been limited to securing adequate faculty development support from the administration for individual faculty developing new courses.   It is up to the Dean of CAS to assist departments with resources for hiring adjuncts (or overloads) to cover high “SCH” introductory sections. (Note: the Dean and Provost have a heavy incentive to do so).  Note also that “faculty A” is now in a high-profile course and will likely be exposed not just to the 25 students in his or her own section, but to the total 75-125 students in the other sections of the course as well..

What impact will new general education courses have on department curricula – especially introductory classes that have historically served both major and core? 

Answer: A range of possible outcomes exists here: 

• The most obvious – “Intro. to the major courses” will no longer be forced to do double duty for the major and the core.  Fewer, more dedicated (i.e. to the task of preparing majors) sections of these courses will be run.  In turn, faculty are freed to develop either new general education courses or more courses in the major. 

• For at least five years, there will be a continuing need to offer core-designated classes.   Departments may want to seek both core and general education designation for their classes during this interim. 

• Newly developed general education classes could be also designed as courses for the major. Unlike the current core, there is no penalty for double-dipping in general education and major requirements. The only exception for this is the criteria for minors. Otherwise, the shift to an outcomes-based curriculum required for accreditation allows departments to create general education courses for their majors as long as they meet the published outcomes for that part of the curriculum.

Is participating in the new curriculum mostly about developing new classes?

Answer: Not necessarily.  Existing classes in minors and in new course clusters will serve a significant portion of the new curriculum.  Inquiry courses (science explorations, creative expression, analysis and interpretation) will be new courses, but they will likely emerge from modifying existing course contents to add the development of specific skills and sensibilities.

How will faculty be compensated for developing new curricula?

Answer: Provost Wood committed $240,000 for 2005-2009 to support faculty development for general education initiatives.   Most of this will support faculty developing new courses.  For example, full-time faculty working in interdisciplinary teams to design entry experience or the mid-level seminar courses will receive a course release for the first time they teach the class along with additional financial compensation.

How will new courses in the curriculum be approved?

Answer:   The process will be similar to the one currently used for core.  The department will have an opportunity to comment on any course proposed by one of its faculty members.  Disciplinary courses will be reviewed by the CRC of the school/college.  A committee like the one that now approves core courses will approve all courses and clusters for the new curriculum.

Sequencing: how will it work?  Is it restrictive (which will create bottlenecks), or permissive (and if the latter, is it still really sequencing)?

Answer: The proposed sequencing system is not rigid, but not so permissive as to be meaningless.  The basic rule is that students at the first several steps must complete two of the three courses in each step and can take the third concurrent with commencing the next step.  Once students are at the ethical explorations course, they may proceed with clusters.  Once they’ve completed ethical explorations, they can take a capstone concurrent with the completion of the minor or the completion of the cluster.

Transfer students with sufficient credits can enter at the mid-level “ethical explorations” course.  Most transfer students will take this course, an analysis and interpretation course, a course cluster or minor, and the capstone.  If they transfer in the equivalent of a minor, they will take ethical explorations (and perhaps analysis and interpretation), and the capstone.

How will the new curriculum be administered? 

The Planning Group is working on a plan for the administration of the new curriculum.  With the guidance of the CAS Chairs Liaison committee we are developing a plan which would involve an administrative council composed of faculty who would oversee the implementation and maintenance of the curriculum with appropriate course releases and/or other compensation for this work.  A full statement of this administrative plan will be available in Spring 2007.

How will courses and curricula get approved?

In general, the new pathway would have a curricular review process similar to, and overlapping with, CAS.  Faculty advisory committees (likely to be made up predominantly of full-time CAS faculty) would give a first-step review to a course or cluster, and it would then have to be approved by the GEC for acceptance as part of the pathway.

However, all general education pathway courses and clusters emanating from CAS departments/programs should receive first comment by the proposing faculty’s home department or program.  There will be several categories of overall review.

Example 1:  a history faculty proposes to revise a survey course to meet the analysis and interpretation outcomes.    The faculty would first have the course reviewed by the history department, which would make recommendations to both the Gen Ed pathway and to the CRC.  A faculty advisory committee in the pathway asks for minor revisions to ensure acceptance by the GEC.  The course then moves forward for approval by the GEC and CRC.  Note: this is virtually identical to a new CAS course getting CRC and Core approval, with the added step of a supportive pathway faculty committee giving feedback on the course proposal prior to going to the GEC.

Example 2:  a group of faculty from Biology, English, and Economics are proposing a new entry experience interdisciplinary course.   The three faculty would bring their proposals for first comment from their home departments.  They would then bring their proposal to the entry experience faculty advisory committee for review.  The advisory committee asks for minor revisions.  The revised course proposal then goes to the GEC.

Example 3: a group of faculty from Economics, Geography-Anthropology, History, Political Science, and Sociology propose a working class studies cluster.  They put together a proposal listing approved courses, a rationale for the theme, and a three-year schedule.   They bring their proposal to each of their departments for first comment, and then follow the steps outlined in example 2.

How will transfer students be handled?

Answer: a transfer committee spent the past year developing, in coordination with the GECPG as a whole, a streamlined transfer process that is aimed at being transparent to students and faculty, manageable for staff, and respectful of both student’s needs and the aims of USM faculty maintaining a coherent pathway for general education.  Below are the “transfer principles” adopted that will be part of our recommendation to the GEC:

Guiding Principles Regarding Transfer Credits in General Education

• The General Education Curriculum will be clearly presented and easily accessible.
• Course equivalencies for all General Education requirements will be interpreted flexibly for transfer students by those making preliminary and official evaluations of transfer credit.
• Transfer credits will be evaluated by the Transfer Affairs Office, in consultation with faculty when appropriate.  The age of transfer credits does not affect the transferability for General Education requirements.
• USM will develop a grid showing how credits completed within the UMaine System and the Maine Community College System will transfer into the USM General Education Curriculum.
• All students will demonstrate competency in English Composition and Quantitative Reasoning.
• All students will satisfy Analysis and Interpretation, Science Explorations, and Creative Expression either through appropriate transfer credit or by completing the requirement at USM. 
• Students transferring fewer than 24 semester hours are required to complete all levels of the General Education Curriculum, either in transfer or by completing appropriate USM courses.  These students must take the Entry Year course if they have not completed a comparable course.
• Students transferring in 24 or more semester hours are not required to take the Entry Year course, but must complete all other General Education requirements either through appropriate transfer credit or by completing the requirement at USM. 
• In reference to USM’s minimum 30 semester hour residency requirement, transfer students will be required to complete a minimum of 9 semester hours in the General Education Curriculum (Planning Group Pathway) to include Mid-Career, at least one Thematic Cluster course (if this option is taken) and Capstone.
• Students who have already earned a baccalaureate degree will not be required to complete the General Education Curriculum.

How will transfer students’ appeals be handled?

In general, the same type of determinations will be made by transfer affairs about the applicability of prior courses to USM’s G.E. pathway.    The availability of a minor as an option to waive clusters will help many students.    Faculty coordinators in the pathway can be available to assist Transfer Affairs the same way that department chairs do currently.

Example: a transfer student has three of what that student considers “labor/working class studies” courses from a prior school, but only two of the three fit courses approved in the USM cluster.  A third course, labor and literature, is proposed by the student to meet the cluster.  This is referred to the working class studies cluster faculty coordinator, who can make a decision to accept, or not accept, this as a third course.  (Likely: yes!)   Another student proposes that a personnel management class be accepted (likely: no – because it is not a liberal arts course).

Is the Planning Group recommending a foreign language requirement?

After consultation with the Modern and Classical Languages and Literatures (MCLL) Department, GECPG decided to recommend that CAS enforce its existing foreign language requirement (i.e. that all CAS graduates show the equivalent of two years of a foreign language).   We decided not to recommend a foreign language requirement for our pathway, primarily because of the high number of credits involved.  We will encourage MCLL to develop courses in the pathway, including entry experience, analysis and interpretation, and especially course clusters (such a semester of study abroad in a foreign language, or a literature and language cluster).

Is it true that there is no “history requirement”?

No.  The outcomes for a number of courses, including the Entry Year Experience, Cultural Interpretation, and Socio-cultural Analysis involve significant teaching and learning of historical perspective and content.   See the Curriculum Description and Summary at our website for more information.

Won’t clusters be difficult to mount because of the problem of prerequisites?

This is not obviously the case.   First, many 200 or above level courses either have minimal prerequisites (e.g. ENG 100C) or can be adapted to have minimal or no prerequisites.    Second, students requiring a certain type of introductory course (imagine a natural science-based cluster) as a prerequisite could be steered through advising to take particular early pathway courses (e.g. a particular science explorations course).   Cluster faculties will need to decide for themselves if there are essential prerequisites for, and decide whether or not these can be met through earlier courses in the pathway or by additional classes outside the pathway.