A Proposal to Reform General Education at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville


Design Team Members:


Elizabeth Adams Marks, Student, Art and Design and Art Education

Rita Arras, Assistant Professor, Family Health/Community Health, Nursing

Jo Gibson, Credit Articulation and Degree Audit, Office of the Registrar

Lydia Jackson , Associate Professor, Library and Information Services

Suzanne Kutterer-Siburt , Assistant Director, Kimmel Leadership Center

Cindy Scarsdale , Assistant to the Director, Undergraduate Assessment and Program Review

Nellie Shaul, Student, Chemistry and Biological Sciences

Lucian Stone, Assistant Professor, Philosophy

Tongele Te-Alakebanga, Assistant Professor, Mechanical and Industrial Engineering

Cheryle Tucker-Loewe, Assistant Director, Academic Counseling and Advising



Mark Bolyard, Professor, Biological Sciences

Sue Fisher, Coro Midwest Leadership Center

Norris Manning , Program Director, School of Business

Nikki Weinstein, Focus St. Louis




SIUE is poised for transformation. As a large four year public institution, the need for a redesigned general education program is upon us. University Connections offers a complex model based upon Portland State University 's General Studies Program that our team believes will invigorate and challenge students and faculty in new ways. For successful implementation, this design team acknowledges the need to:

-understand our student population and area we serve (access) 
-create a sense of curricular identity (student centered learning, curricular coherence) 
-commit collectively to a meaningful general education redesign 
   (based on SIUE Mission Statement, Values, Objectives for the baccalaureate Degree) 
-expect stated outcomes (essential assessment - institution and student) 
-identify the challenges and actively seek solutions (strong institutional leadership and meaningful incentives) 
-continually evaluate and recommend strategies for enhancement (ownership & oversight) 

This institution provides education for a large and diverse population. University Connections is designed to provide access to all undergraduates encouraging intentional learners through course content, pedagogy, and student learning.


The model will promote creative course development, integrate existing courses, and incorporate experiential opportunities. Central to the model are twelve explicit learning outcomes. These measurable outcomes will be defined by faculty and integrated into each general education course.


Students will be expected to explore integrated courses through the application of clusters, strands, and the capstone program. We suggest a peer mentor program to model leadership and demonstrate a commitment to student-centered learning. Furthermore, students will accelerate the classroom experience by participating in experiential activities.


Our proposal is intentionally structured to reinforce learning throughout the baccalaureate degree and to integrate general education to all disciplines. The ultimate goal is to foster lifelong learning and ensure our graduates will be active citizens emulating the mission, values and goals of SIUE.


Finally, our proposal addresses the need for continual evaluation and reflection. Mechanisms will need to be structured to accommodate faculty incentives, University governance, and assessment.





Two decades ago, the Berlin Wall and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics stood intact. Apartheid was alive and well in South Africa . The names “ Oklahoma City ” and “ World Trade Center ” were not yet etched into the American mindset as places in which terrorism had prevailed, nor was the word “Columbine” associated with a high school massacre. Personal computers, cellular telephones, and home satellite systems had not yet hit the market, and the World Wide Web did not exist.1 The minimum wage was $3.35,2 a gallon of unleaded gasoline was around 88 cents,3 and the current general education program was established at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville.4


In 1982, SIUE's current general education program was crafted. It was adopted two years later, and implemented in 1986. According to the 2006 SIUE Fact Book , more than 60 percent of our current students were not born when the University's existing general education program was designed.5 Furthermore, approximately 16% of the tenure-track faculty who are currently teaching at SIUE were part of the University at that time.6 In addition, SIUE has shifted from a “commuter campus” to having nearly half of its undergraduate students identified as residential when on-campus and nearby off-campus housing are factored together.7


In the past two decades, the composition of Southern Illinois University, its students and faculty have changed substantially. It is follows that the University's general education program should be realigned to be in synchronicity with the numerous changes that have reshaped and redefined SIUE.


In the words of Peter Smith, the founding president of California State University-Monterey Bay and a former state senator and lieutenant governor of Vermont:

“We have organized American higher education—from classroom architecture to graduation standards—around the interests of the university, not the needs and the learning profile of the student. We've built our systems and our structures largely on a traditional, academic, one-size-fits-all model instead of being responsive to the learning, experiences, and characteristics of students. We teach the curriculum, thus meeting the needs of the college because teaching the student would be terribly inconvenient and disorientating. In American higher education, too often, we apply the splint first and ask questions later.”8

The University Connections team contends general education should not merely serve as a bureaucratic framework to ensure students take a set of predetermined classes, but rather cultivate a culture of intellectual engagement toward democratic civil discourse. Our team believes general education should not be perceived as a mandatory workload that students, faculty, and staff must endure to attain the freedom to pursue other activities and studies at a later time. Rather, the general education component should be an invitation to the exciting dialogue that the unique environment of a university affords.


The reasons for proposing this new model at SIUE are myriad, not the least of which is preparing students for an ever-changing world. Former Carnegie Corporation Senior Associate Carol M. Barker states:

“Today's graduates, over their lifetimes, will experience change at an unprecedented pace. They will have not one career but perhaps many. To cope with this kind of change, they will need self-confidence and a sense of purpose coupled with adaptability and a capacity for continuous learning. A familiarity with the body of knowledge and methods of inquiry and discovery of the arts and sciences and a capacity to integrate knowledge across experience and discipline may have far more lasting value in such a changing world than specialized techniques and training, which can quickly become outmoded.”9

It is critical that changes in general education program be adopted and implemented. The beachhead of higher education is now in its sixth year of the wave of “Millennial Students,” also known as the “Echo Boomers” or “Net Generation.” This population was born in 1982 or later, and they are the “most numerous, affluent, and ethnically diverse generation in American history.”10 This generation thinks and functions differently than previous ones, and displays different learning styles. Claire Raines of Generations at Work offers, Millennial Students are goal-oriented, technologically savvy, and gravitate toward collaboration. They also want to be challenged, learn new knowledge, skills and participate in experiential activities.11 The current distribution general education program does not address the wants, needs, or learning styles of the Net Generation.


The existing general education program is also not adequately serving the large number of transfer students. With more than half of SIUE's graduates beginning SIUE as new transfer students, the wants and needs of this population cannot be ignored.12 Results released by the National Survey of Student Engagement indicate that, when compared with their senior-level cohorts who began as freshmen, transfer students “interact less with faculty,” “participate in fewer educationally enriching activities” and believe they gain “less from college than their peers.”13 Thus, transfer students often do not feel connected to their learning environments. An American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers Industry Update hones in on these findings. The article reports that:  

“transfer students are less likely to work with professors on research projects, participate in community service, or engage in other activities that enrich learning. George D. Kuh, the director of the survey (National Survey on Student Engagement) and a professor of higher education at Indiana University, said engagement is crucial to long term success because, ‘the more time and energy students devote to desired activities, the more likely they are to develop the habits of the mind that are key to success after college.' ”14


The Proposal Design


The University Connections BRIDGE Design Team is proposing a significant departure from the present general education program. We believe our proposal will satisfy the needs of the diverse student population, as well as provide new energy, cohesion, and curriculum integration for faculty. Our group believes the proposed reformation of general education will:


Ernest Boyer argued that students have to go beyond their majors to a more “integrated view of knowledge and a more authentic view of life.” Disciplines must overlap with general education so that students can explore. To achieve this balance, Boyer recommends an integrated core approach defined as:

“… a program of general education that introduces students not only to essential knowledge, but also to connections across disciplines, and, in the end, to the application of knowledge to life beyond the campus. The integrated core concerns itself with the universal experiences that are common to all people, with those shared activities without which human relationships are diminished and the quality of life reduced.”15

The core of this proposal is sculpted on the integration that Boyer advocates as essential; hence the name of our design team. University Connections proposes a complex model utilizing cluster learning communities as a means to restoring vigor, interest, respect, and rigor back into SIUE's general education program. This program will be tailored to the University's mission and employ elements of core programs, distribution programs, goals across the curriculum, and competency-based initiatives as well as provide a strong core identity in the curriculum.


The general education model University Connections proposes will span the entire undergraduate career. Students will no longer get their “gen eds out of the way” during their first two years at the University and then concentrate solely on classes in their majors. This structure will encourage a sustained and continuously self-reflective involvement in our community of inquiry and allow for a cumulative, building effect of abilities, skills and intellect. The design team believes our proposal will create the “intentional learners” referenced in Greater Expectations: A New Vision for Learning as a Nation Goes to College: 

“Becoming such an intentional learner means developing self-awareness about the reason for study, the learning process itself, and how education is used. Intentional learners are integrative thinkers who can see connections in seemingly disparate information and draw on a wide range of knowledge to make decisions. They adapt the skills learned in one situation to problems encountered in another: in a classroom, the workplace, their communities, or their personal lives. As a result, intentional learners succeed even when instability is the only constant.”16

During the planning stages of this proposed redesign process, the University Connections team examined and evaluated many programs at other institutions. Repeatedly, the team returned to the “University Studies” general education program at Portland State University . The team was drawn to this model because of its imaginative, interdisciplinary approach, emphasis on student learning, and the manner in which general education is implemented throughout the student's entire baccalaureate career. Additionally, Portland State is similar in both size and student population to SIUE. The team believes such a program has high potential for implementation here. Additional programs from Wagner College , Wheaton College and Elon University were also studied and taken into consideration during the design phase.


Learning Outcomes


Central to the design of the University Connections proposal is the principle of learning outcomes for all general education courses. This committee believes all general education courses must contain key learning outcomes, and these outcomes must be well defined, demonstrable throughout the entire general education curriculum as well as individual courses, and evaluated and assessed through student learning.


The learning goals of University Connections are designed to be consistent with SIUE's Mission, Vision and Values.17 The general education curriculum components of University Connections will assist SIUE's students in acquiring the following traits of Citizenship: social, civic and political responsibility and partnership and collaboration. The components will also address Excellence by producing high quality student learning, scholarship, improvement and innovation, accountability and honesty as demonstrated in Integrity . Openness will be reached through awareness and respect for differences, while students will attain Wisdom by acquiring the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that foster life-long learning.


These learning outcomes will prepare students to be responsible, reflective citizens who adapt constructively to change and become contributing and informed participants in a global community. The University Connections general education will include opportunities for interdisciplinary learning and experiences that increase intellectual curiosity, allow students to make connections between disciplines and different learning styles, and encourage continued personal development. This general education program will impart concepts, principles and behaviors related to critical thinking and logical problem-solving which SIUE students can utilize lifelong.


The group proposes a total of 12 learning outcomes for general education. It is no mere coincidence that seven of these outcomes are taken from SIUE's Objectives for General Education and the Baccalaureate Degree.18 They are Information Literacy, Mathematics and Quantitative Literacy, Oral Communication, Written Communication, Scientific Inquiry, Performing and Fine Arts, and Ethics . This design team would also argue that two other outcomes are present in the same statement, but the verbiage has been modified in this proposal: Cultural and Global Awareness (“Diversity” in the Baccalaureate Objectives ,) and Critical Thinking (the ability “to recognize, develop, evaluate, and defend or attack hypotheses and arguments” in the Baccalaureate Objectives. ) University Connections has also included an additional three objectives: Technology, Active Citizenship, and Experiential Learning.


To be adequately understood, these learning outcomes must first be well defined in a manner that is acceptable to all involved in SIUE's general education program. Therefore, our team has, to the best extent possible, attempted to broadly describe what each of these outcomes should be. (Appendix 1 ) In some instances, these components have already been well defined. The Written Communication component, for instance, is adapted from guidelines produced by SIUE's Department of English Language and Literature,19 while the Oral Communication outcome is based on rules from the Illinois Articulation Initiative20 and the SIUE's Speech Communication Department.21 The committee attempted to use internal resources for this aspect whenever possible and reviewed documents from other universities when internal resources were unavailable. We also realize these are “working definitions.” It is our intent that colleagues within the SIUE community who are “experts” in these learning objectives areas would share their wisdom, expertise and knowledge and be responsible for crafting the final versions of these definitions.


After determining the learning outcomes for our proposal, the question then became how to incorporate these into the general education curriculum. Our group developed a two-tiered approach, comprised of what we consider six core components and six complementary peripheral components. (Appendix 2) University Connections advocates that the six core components— represented in the “inner” ring of our illustration—are so imperative that they must be present in each and every general education course taught. These components are Critical Thinking, Written Communication, Oral Communication, Ethics, Technology and Information Literacy. We attempted to envision a general education course that could not incorporate all six components in some manner, we could not.


Our learning outcomes also contain what we reference as the “outer” ring components—Cultural and Global Awareness, Scientific Literacy, Math and Quantitative Skills, Performing and Fine Arts, Active Citizenship and Experiential Learning. These components will also be required in the general education curriculum. However, at this point, we are indecisive as to how many times students must be exposed to these areas. The debate is whether or not students should take courses in each of these “outer ring” areas at least twice, or if only part of them should be taken twice. We do not have an answer to this question, and will instead defer to an administrative body of the general education program. Our team also believes that once the Banner student information system is implemented the components could carry attributes for tracking within the students' records.


To ensure the learning outcomes are being met in general education courses, University Connections believes they must be embedded into the course from the beginning, not addendum to the course. Faculty designing general education courses will focus on learning outcomes from the initial stages of course development and envision how they will be reached. In a deliberate manner, faculty will outline which general education outcomes will be met, when this will occur in the course, and how students will demonstrate that they have achieved these outcomes in their learning. Faculty teaching general education courses will demonstrate these learning outcomes in their University Connections Course Application. (Appendix 3)


The University Connections Program


The University Connections model will require a smaller number of credits than the current program. We propose reducing the required general education credit hours from 41-44 to 36. These hours will be distributed across the curriculum in the following manner: 12 hours the freshman year, 12 the sophomore year, 9 the junior year and 3 the senior year. (Appendix 4)


For the freshman and sophomore level, we are advocating interdisciplinary, team-taught courses, which we are calling “Clusters.” All traditional freshmen would begin their first semester with the Freshman Cluster, then move on to the Sophomore Cluster the next year. When students are juniors, they would participate in the “Themed Strand,” in which courses are grouped around similar topics. Students would take a total of three courses in the strand, with one of them being team-taught and interdisciplinary. At the senior level, students will have an interdisciplinary, team-taught course that integrates the accumulation of their general education knowledge into their majors, while also preparing them for their professional lives. In addition, there will be a Transfer Transition Component at both the upper and lower division levels for students who enter the University from other institutions. This component will ensure that transfer students become acclimated to SIUE's unique culture and are prepared for the expected learning environment University Connections presents. Transfer students will be integrated into the different levels of the program, depending upon how many credit hours they have when they begin at SIUE. (Appendix 5)


All of the Cluster courses for the freshman and sophomore students will be six-hour classes that combine the major elements of at least two courses and are taught by faculty from different departments. Research has shown that these types of environments foster their own learning communities,22 which provide many benefits for both students and faculty. Chief among these are integration of curriculum, establishing support networks for students in and out of the classroom, orienting students into the college environment, and encouraging faculty to truly focus on the dynamics of teaching and learning.23


The foundation for this type of interdisciplinary course has been established at SIUE for quite some time. The CIV (Culture, Ideas and Values,) Honors Scholars, GBA 300 (General Business Administration) and IS (Interdisciplinary Studies) courses all contain major interdisciplinary components.24 Some, such as the Honors Scholars and GBA courses, are taught by a single faculty member and bridge disciplines in course content only. Others, such as the IS and CIV courses, are taught by two faculty members from different departments and intertwine content and materials from multiple fields of study.


At the freshman level, we envision the University Connections Freshman Cluster courses combining disciplinary-based courses with English 101 in the fall semester and with English 102 in the spring, for a total of 12 credit hours. Linked writing courses will present many advantages for students. As Nancy Shapiro and Jodi Levine wrote in Creating Learning Communities , “when faculty from both courses read and respond to student papers, students take their writing assignments more seriously because they know they will have multiple readers.”25 Members of our design team also believe these combined courses will provide an interesting spark to composition work for students and more successfully pave the way for writing across the curriculum at the University.


The model we propose is very similar to a New Freshman Seminar CIV course that will be implemented at SIUE in Fall 2006. (Appendix 6) This course will be a six-hour learning community that combines English 101 with History 111. There will be two principle faculty members--English and History—who will lead a large content-based lecture course of approximately 150-160 students. This session will meet twice a week for 75 minutes. In addition, eight smaller sections focusing on the actual writing process will also meet for 75 minutes twice a week, with assignments directly linked to the history content. Two of these sections will be led by the principle faculty members; six others will be taught by English faculty or graduate students. These additional instructors will also attend the lectures so they will have a better understanding of the course content.


We are proposing a virtually identical format for our Freshman Clusters. A main team-taught, interdisciplinary, lecture session and smaller composition sections would be led by individual English instructors. Similar to this Fall 2006 course, our Freshman Cluster courses could link a New Freshman Seminar course or incorporate the components of SIUE's New Freshman Seminar requirements: to assist new freshmen in making the transition from high school to college level work and expectations, to orient the students to the services and culture of the University, to engage students in an intellectual community of students and faculty, and to contain at least three out-of-class activities.26


Autonomy will remain with teaching faculty as the composition of the individual courses in the Freshman Cluster is developed. The only requirements would be that the courses be linked with English composition classes and contain the New Freshman Seminar. All departments and disciplines would be welcome and encouraged to participate. The possibilities for such courses would be endless and limited to only the creativity of the faculty involved. Imagine how exciting a combination of an introductory art class with a composition course would be, when it would allow students to view some of the University's vast art collection and then analyze these pieces through their own writing, or a class in which students explore the differences and similarities between writing for speech and composition. These combinations could invigorate and ignite new energy for faculty who teach such courses.


Our University Connections general education program, Freshman Cluster courses (along with all general education classes) must encompass the six core learning outcomes (Written Communication, Oral Communication, Critical Thinking, Information Literacy, Technology and Ethics.) They may also reach some of the six other learning outcomes as illustrated on the diagram. For example, if the New Freshman Seminar History 111/English 101 course implemented this fall were part of the University Connections program, it would also fulfill the Cultural and Global Awareness component on the “outer ring” of our learning outcomes.


An additional facet of the Freshman Cluster in the University Connections program will be the use of student peer mentors. The roles of these peer mentors would need to be more narrowly defined, but we foresee them assisting with classroom management, leading study sessions, organizing “field trips” to key SIUE resource areas (such as the Lovejoy Library and Writing and Speech Centers), and assisting with one-on-one technology instruction. Student peer mentors have proven to be a valuable component of many programs, including the Peer-Led Team Learning programs utilized by many higher education introductory science courses across the nation and the University Studies program at Portland State . The peer mentor aspect has been a great success at Portland State, and as noted in the 2003 edition of “To Improve the Academy”:  

“Faculty in Freshman Inquiry learned quickly that their mentors were valued colleagues in developing and delivering curriculum, managing classroom conduct, and providing collegial support as faculty endeavored to transform their own teaching strategies….mentors served as a communication bridge between faculty and students aiding faculty and program administrators with valuable feedback on the impact of the program on students….Mentors, just by their presence, are strong role models of success in the university and a sign that students are valued at the university. In addition, mentors role model and teach their students academic coping skills.”27


The Chemistry Department at SIUE currently utilizes “Workshop Leaders” for its CHEM 112 courses. This information from the department explains how the program functions:  

“At SIUE, peer leaders are selected based on their performance in the same course the previous year. Training is minimal, consisting of an initial meeting with faculty, as well as weekly meetings with faculty and other leaders. This system works for the SIUE chemistry department because the peer leaders are not expected to lecture on the material per se. Leaders simply ‘ask the right questions.' They lead discussion on the questions using tactics such as the round robin. Overall, the peer leader is much more approachable than the lecture professor, working with only 15 to 20 students. The material is fresh in their minds, and they serve as role models for students new to the university.”28

As the workbook employed by the SIUE Chemistry Department for its Student Workshop Leaders notes, “During the first years of college, students have the greatest need to connect with others and become part of a community of learners….Workshop teams that are led by successful students build an extensive network of ‘proximal' mentoring that includes students, student leaders, and faculty.”29


The student peer leaders for the Freshman Cluster would be juniors or seniors who are recruited expressly for this purpose, and they would receive classroom credit for their work, similar to how the Chemistry Department currently compensates its Workshop Leaders. They would also go through training to prepare them for their roles as mentors. Each faculty member who is teaching a “break-off” session of the composition course would be assigned his or her own student peer mentor, and the entire group of all faculty involved with the course as well as student peer mentors would meet weekly to discuss classroom issues. In addition, the student peer mentors would be required to attend all classroom sessions, including the main lecture section as well as their individual composition sections. They may also lead independent study sessions, on-campus field trips and the like as needed.


The Sophomore Cluster would consist of two six-hour interdisciplinary, team-taught courses, which will be taken consecutively in the fall and spring semesters. Again, faculty from at least two different disciplines would construct these courses. They must meet the six core University Connections learning outcomes. Our group believes that many of the six “outer ring” components will be met at this level, in particular A ctive Citizenship and Experiential Learning, which take learning out of the regular classroom environment and into other arenas and in turn provide powerful connections for students.


Similarly, the Lower Division Transfer Transition Component courses would incorporate existing Sophomore Clusters adding a writing-intensive element appropriate for sophomore level. These clusters will also introduce transfer students to the climate and culture of SIUE and the University Connections program. Courses with a Transfer Transition Component will be unique to the University, and cannot be transferred in from another institution. Students who have acquired baccalaureate oriented associate's degrees or have completed the Illinois Articulation Initiative General Education Core Curriculum would only take the appropriate level Transfer Transition Component Requirement incorporated into the Sophomore Cluster or Junior Themed Strand or Senior Cluster Requirement courses depending on class level at time of entry (Appendix 5). The Upper Division Transfer Transition Component will also be writing intensive (appropriate for Junior or Senior level) and will also introduce the transfer student to the climate and culture of SIUE and the University Connections program.


The Junior Themed Strand will provide a departure from the cluster, general education course model into more discipline-oriented content courses. For the Junior Strand, we propose utilizing existing courses from various departments that can be broadly grouped around a similar topic or concept. The objective of this strand is to allow students to see both the similarities and differences in how different disciplines approach related topics. Students would take courses outside their major or minor area of study, and may choose a themed strand that compliments their major or is completely unrelated. The choice will be up to the student. The one caveat is that once students make their strand selection, they can only take courses in that grouping.


Central to the Junior Themed Strand will be the Interdisciplinary Studies course. Each Themed Strand will have at least one 3-credit hour course that is interdisciplinary and taught by faculty from two different departments. The University Connections proposal does not call for any major modifications in the current IS class structure; it has functioned well and been a valued component of the general education curriculum. However, the IS courses may need to be modified to achieve all six of the core University Connections learning outcomes. It is feasible, though, that new IS courses may need to be developed to accommodate some of the Themed Strands.


In addition to the IS course, students will take two additional 3-hour, discipline-oriented classes that are grouped within the Themed Strand. These are already existing classes and will not need to be created from scratch by faculty, as the Cluster courses will need to be developed. However, they may need to be “modified” to ensure all six key learning outcomes for the University Connections program are being met.


Our design team has done a preliminary perusal of the SIUE Undergraduate Catalog and constructed several possible Junior Themed Strands. (Appendix 7) Among them is one entitled “The World Around Us” that would offer classes in Astronomy from Physics, Meteorology from Geography, and Transportation from Civil Engineering, along with other courses. Another potential strand would be “The Contemporary United States” that would contain the following courses: “The Economic History of the United States ” from Economics, “Multicultural Theater in America ” from Theater, “Issues in American Public Policy” from Political Science, “American Philosophy” from Philosophy, “Contemporary American Literature” from English, and “Urban Sociology” from Sociology.


Several themed strands will need to be developed to accommodate and compliment the many different student interests and majors. Additionally, some courses may not work in strands because of potential problems with prerequisites.


The Senior Cluster would consist of a 3-hour, interdisciplinary course that is taught by at least two faculty members from two different but probably related departments. Course content would be broadly grouped around discipline-related areas, such as health care or the social sciences, and students will be divided into small working groups. (Appendix 8) In this course, students will develop their own research portfolios and make formal presentations on them. They will reflect on the community of their discipline, and how they fit into their chosen professions. Students will also develop resumes and chart their long-range career goals. To achieve maximum benefits, the Senior Cluster cannot be taken in the final semester of the students' undergraduate career. Ideally, it will occur prior to the student's final semester.


University Connections promotes maintaining the Senior Assignment program. The design team believes that the Senior Assignment is one of the signature experiences for students at SIUE and, therefore, would not want to interfere with this program.


Administration of the University Connections Program


This design team considers it vital that the University Connections general education program be an organic model, one that has real ownership and accountability. A general education program needs to be a living, breathing entity that is constantly examined and reevaluated for improvement.


Formation of curricular consistency will require institutional coherence. Active leadership at the highest institutional level as well as enthusiastic collegiality of informed/valued faculty, staff and partnership entities (community colleges, community experiential settings, etc.) must occur with learning outcomes clearly defined, measured, and evaluated. Continual identification and response to expectations at the student, institution, community, state, and federal levels will require essential assessment and refinement in order to deliver a sustainable educational experience that prepares graduates for personal success and citizenship.


To this end, we are proposing the University Connections general education model establish cohesion and a distinct identity through the creation of an Assistant Provost-level position and unit to execute and manage the general education curriculum. The General Education program deserves greater visibility on campus, a direct voice where resource allocations are decided, and a clearly defined advocate. In addition to the administration of University Connections , the Assistant Provost would appoint a Nexus Committee (Appendix 9) responsible for organizing and assessing the general education program. The committee will work in an atmosphere of consultation with the Faculty Senate, specifically the Curriculum Council and General Education Subcommittee. Assessment is a continuous cycle that advances the quality of the general education program. As referenced Greater Expectations , the University Connections learning outcomes will make this a much easier process: 

“Assessment is part and parcel of the teaching/learning process. Explicit goals—written and widely shared—specifying what students are expected to know, form the basis for assessment. Learning goals establish the foundation for aligning curricula, teaching, and assessment. In a continuous manner, colleges should want to make sure that students are learning.”30

Assessment data will focus on the perspectives of those most involved with the program: students and faculty. However, consideration will be given to external constituents and the SIUE community. Assessment should utilize diverse methods of collecting both qualitative and quantitative data, such as focus-group discussions; reviews of syllabi, exams, other course documents; student portfolios; and participant and peer observations. Information gathered by assessment will be examined by the University Connections Nexus Committee and shared with department heads and faculty with the expressed intention that courses will be updated and modified to best meet the goals of the University Connections Program. Schools/Departments will report their program assessment feedback responses to the Assistant Provost for University Connections.


Other Considerations


Our design team's research into classroom space indicates cluster courses would be manageable at SIUE. There would not be any additional sections of English Composition 101 or 102 than there are currently; they would be linked with another course. Truly large classroom spaces are not a great commodity at SIUE, which would limit the size of the lecture component and thus the cluster itself. (Appendix 10) However, based on how many 111 courses are taught on campus (which are traditionally the largest general education course sections 31), we believe the cluster implementation would be possible. Our team advocates a more creative use of classroom space, i.e. the use of computer labs and classrooms in the residence halls for learning communities as well as course scheduling throughout the week including Friday afternoon, evenings and Saturdays.


As far as labeling of these cluster courses, we propose that they be called something like “UCONN 101” in the course catalog, but carry attributes within the student tracking system that indicate course content. This will assist students who may be transferring from the University, as well as indicate Illinois Articulation Initiative course fulfillments. For the Freshman Seminar cited previously, the Banner system would carry appropriate attributes and appear on student transcripts as HIST 111 and ENG 101. This system would be similar to how SIUE currently tracks the CIV courses.


We believe that the University Connections model would fulfill the Inter-group Relations component required by the State of Illinois. Although no longer taught as a stand-alone course, it would be embedded throughout the curriculum of general education program and could be demonstrated through assessment of student learning.


An additional aspect to our model, which we did not have time to study and develop further, is the use of electronic portfolios in the program. We were impressed with Stephen Trainor, Dean of Undergraduate Studies at Salve Regina, presentation at SIUE last month when he explained that their students begin working on an electronic portfolio in their freshman year. This allowed them to analyze and reflect on their own learning in a much more meaningful way.32 At SIUE, the School of Nursing will launch an e-portfolio component in Fall 2006 that will be housed on the Blackboard course management system. An e-portfolio component for the University Connections program could be meaningful to all SIUE students, not just those in a single school, and provide an additional and very valuable assessment tool for how the program is functioning.


Questions and Unresolved Issues


Despite the hours and resources utilized during this proposal, University Connections still has unresolved issues for further consideration. We do not have answers, and therefore will present them and leave their resolution up to the next phase of the BRIDGE process.


We realize the cluster model will require a tremendous amount of work and effort from those who will be designing and teaching these courses. A system for incentives should be considered to support this general education model. Some possibilities might include opportunities for research grants, providing teaching start-up funds for faculty, designating funds for course development, establishing faculty retreats, allowing release time, or funding travel support for conferences and workshops.


Another issue is whether or not to require additional linked courses in the same manner that the English composition courses are required in the Freshman Cluster. The two courses given serious consideration are Public Speaking (Speech Communication 105) and Critical Thinking (Philosophy 106). However, our group could not come to a consensus on this, and instead will leave that matter unresolved.


Another unanswered question involves the Experiential Learning outcome. Some disciplines, by their very nature, are already heavily involved in experiential learning, through practicums, service learning or research. Chemistry and Social Work are good examples. Should these out-of-classroom learning experiences conducted in the major count toward the Experiential Learning outcome? Or, should the outcome expose students to other disciplines?


Students who are not adequately prepared for college-level work present a potential problem to the University Connections design. We propose identified students participate in an expanded Summer Bridge program to improve basic skills.


Additionally, students who transfer in beyond the freshman level but have not completed an English Composition course may present another difficulty.


We foresee a phased implementation of the cluster program, which would require further study. Several components of this program will require a substantial increase or redistribution of resources needed for general education. It is also clear that faculty development and comprehensive student advising is critical to the success of University Connections.


The University Connections design team realizes this proposal is a radical departure from our current system and requires a paradigm shift to envision a general education of this nature at SIUE. We believe the University community is positioned to accept the challenge and indeed would embrace such a transformation!





  1. General Education Components, Definitions and Desired Learning Outcomes
  2. Learning Outcomes Illustration
  3. Sample Course Application
  4. 36 Semester Hour Program
  5. TRANSFER Level
  6. New Freshman Seminar Proposal, Eric Ruckh, Jeff Skoblow and Sharon James McGee
  7. Junior Themed Strands
  8. Senior Cluster Component
  9. Nexus Committee
  10. Classroom Space Availability, provided by Gloria Hartmann



Appendix 1


University Connections


General Education Components

Definitions and Desired Learning Outcomes





Written (Adapted from the Illinois Articulation Initiative )


Develop awareness of the writing process; provide inventional, organizational and editorial strategies; stress the variety of uses for writing; and emphasize critical skills in reading, thinking and writing.


(Modified from ENG101 & ENG 102 Goals and Objectives , as published on SIUE's English Department's Electronic Portfolio)


Oral (Adapted from the Illinois Articulation Initiative )


Develop awareness of the communication process by combining communication theory with the practice of oral communication skills; provide inventional, organizational and expressive strategies; promote understanding of and adaptation to a variety of communication contexts; and emphasize critical skills in listening, reading, thinking and speaking.


(Adapted from the Speech 103 & 105 Goals and Objectives , as published on SIUE's Speech Communication Electronic Portfolio)




Develop the ability to analyze and evaluate arguments and theories using formal logic, informal reasoning processes and systematic critical methodologies, and the ability to formulate sound, rational ideas and arguments.


(Modified from Loyola University )


INFORMATION LITERACY (Adapted from American Library Association )



Develop an understanding that ethics is ubiquitous in the life of a citizen and learn a variety of ethical theories (meta-ethics), applied ethics, and professional ethics.




Develop the ability to process quantitative information as it pertains to basic problem solving and research applications.


(Adapted from the Association of American Universities and the Pew Charitable Trusts)




Develop an understanding of life and physical sciences through laboratory and field investigations; develop an awareness of the influence of scientific and technological developments on society.


(Adapted from the Association of American Universities and the Pew Charitable

Trusts )


TECHNOLOGY (Adapted from George Mason University )


Develop skills that enable an individual to use computers, software applications, databases, and other technologies in a civil and professional manner to achieve a wide variety of academic, work-related, and personal goals.




(Adapted from Thomas Ehrlich, Civic Responsibility and Higher Education , AASCU & Campus Compact )


Develop awareness to promote leadership abilities in civic engagement “to make a difference in the civic life of the community and develop the combination of knowledge, skills, values, and motivation to make the difference in a democratic society.


(Adapted from University of Maryland )




Develop an appreciation for and understanding of cultures, traditions, and issues that influence individuals and communities; gain a respect for and sensitivity to human diversity; and develop an awareness of global interdependence.




Develop an appreciation for and understanding of the arts as they influence and reflect human life.


(Modified from standards by the National Art Education Association and the Illinois Board of Higher Education and the National Association for Music Education )


Experiential Learning (Adapted from Raise Your Voice, Corporation for National Service Washington, D. C. and David Kolb's Theory of Experiential Learning)


Develop direct experience that is meaningful to the student with guided reflection and analysis. Experiential Learning is a challenging, active, student-centered process that impels students toward opportunities for taking initiative, responsibility, and decision making. Experiential Learning includes but is not limited to following: volunteer services, service learning, community outreach, co-ops, practicums, internships, study abroad, and approved research.


(Adapted from Kolb's Theory and Campus Compact)


Appendix 2







Appendix 3



 Adapted from Portland State Recommended Components of Freshman Inquiry Course Proposal Application


Southern Illinois University Edwardsville

Proposal to University Connection Nexus Committee

(Freshman Cluster Course)

(Note: Separate forms for each cluster level will need to be reproduced)



I. Cover Sheet


Course Title
Date first offered  
Sections per year  
Statement of theme/topical area  



Signatures of participating faculty



Name (typed)                            Signature                                                                                 Date



Name (typed)                            Signature                                                                                 Date



Name (typed)                            Signature                                                                                 Date




Contact Faculty:



Name                                            Mail Box                                    Telephone                                  Email   


II. Course Narrative


A. Statement of theme/topical area (no more than 300 words)










B. Learning objectives specific to this theme:




C. Assessment of student learning specific in course:




D. Description of methods to ensure coherence of theme across participating faculty




E. Interdisciplinarity of course




F. Relation of course to other University Connections offerings (cohesion, ties to future learning)



G. How this theme will address the University Connections Goals:



University Connections Goal(s) Representative Assignment(s) Assessment Plan
Written Communication



Oral Communication



Cirtical Thinking



Information Literacy






Mathematics & Quantitative Skills



Scientific Inquiry






Active Citizenship



Cultural and Global Awareness



Performing and Fine Arts



Experiential Learning







III. Course Schedule and Topics


Topical Outline
Faculty Member(s)

First Semester







Second Semester








IV. Preliminary Reading List: selections from the following may be assigned:





Appendix 4



36 Semester Hours


Twelve Components:

Written Communication, Oral Communication, Critical Thinking, Information Literacy, Ethics, Mathematics and Quantitative Skills, Scientific Inquiry, Technology, Active Citizenship, Cultural and Global Awareness, Performing and Fine Arts, and Experiential Learning



Freshman Requirement (12 semester hours):

One cluster of 6 semester hours during the first and second semester.

Each freshman cluster will be writing intensive. One freshman cluster will include New Student Seminar requirements.


•  Appropriate for students with fewer than 30 semester hours earned

•  Must include the Written and Oral Communication component

•  Must include the New Student Seminar requirements

•  Must include all six “core” learning components

•  May include additional “outer ring” components

•  Must be taught by faculty from at least two departments


Sophomore Requirements (12 semester hours):

  One cluster of 6 semester hours during the third and fourth semester.


•  Appropriate for students with between 30 and 59 semester hours earned

•  Must include all six core learning components

•  May include additional “outer ring” learning components

•  Must be taught by faculty from at least two departments


Junior Requirement (9 semester hours):

  A strand of three themed courses during the fifth and sixth semester. One of these courses must be interdisciplinary.


•  Appropriate for students with between 60 and 89 semester hours earned

•  Must include all six of the core learning components

•  May include additional “outer ring” learning components

•  Must be taught by faculty from at least two departments


Senior Requirement (3 semester hours):

  One interdisciplinary course of 3 semester hours after earning 90 cumulative semester hours


•  Will be discipline oriented

•  Appropriate for students with over 90 semester hours earned

•  Must include all six core learning components

•  May include additional components

•  Will develop a research portfolio and concentrate on small group work

•  Must be taught by faculty from at least two departments



In order to fulfill the requirements of University Connections, students must successfully complete with a grade of C or better a pattern of courses which have been approved by the University Connections Nexus Committee as meeting each of the twelve components

Critical Thinking

ral & Global Awareness


Appendix 5






Entry Class


External hours at entry

Design Cluster Hours

If IAI Completed, minimum external hours

If IAI Institution AA/AS/ASA Completed, minimum class standing

Design Team Proposed General Education Requirements






(two 6 hr. cluster courses)



Freshman Requirement

(beginning w/New Freshman Seminar)





(one 6 hr. cluster)




Freshman Requirement (New Freshman Seminar)












(two 6 hr. clusters courses)



Sophomore Requirement

(beginning with lower division Transfer Transition component)





(one 6 hr. cluster)



Sophomore Requirement (includes lower division Transfer Transition component)

If IAI GECC completed, will have met lower division GenEd (lower division transfer transition component considered unique to SIUE mission)











(one strand of three courses)



Junior Requirement

(beginning w/upper division Transfer Transition component)

If AA/AS/ASA completed from Illinois community college (60+ hours), must complete upper division transfer transition component considered unique to SIUE mission











(one 3 hr. interdisciplinary course)



Senior Requirement

(upper division Transfer Transition component)




•  New Freshman Seminar is unique to SIUE mission and cannot be fulfilled via transfer credit

•  Cluster courses with a Transfer Transition component:

•  are unique to SIUE mission and cannot be fulfilled via transfer credit

•  are writing intensive (appropriate for class level: sophomore, junior, senior)

•  assist new transfer students in making the transition to SIUE level work and expectations

•  orient students to the services and culture of the University

•  engage students in an intellectual community of students and faculty

•  Upper division (Junior and Senior) requirement courses are unique to SIUE learning culture and assessment and cannot be

    fulfilled via transfer credit

•  Entry refers to registration

•  External hours at entry refers to transferable hours



Appendix 6

New Freshmen Seminar Proposal:

HIST 11B/ENG 101 Learning Community:

On History, Representation and Human Values



Sharon James McGee, Assistant Professor of English Language and Literature

Eric W. Ruckh, Associate Professor of Historical Studies

Jeffrey D. Skoblow, Professor of English Language and Literature




       Jeff Skoblow, Sharon James McGee and Eric Ruckh propose to create a learning community that links HIST 111B and ENG 101.  We propose to connect 8-10 ENG 101 sections with a single large section of HIST 111B.  We suggest that the ENG 101 sections be capped at 18 in order to facilitate writing instruction and discussion.  All faculty teaching in these linked ENG 101 sections will attend the HIST 111B lecture for which Jeff Skoblow and Eric Ruckh will be responsible. Faculty attendance in HIST 111 will allow us to break the lecture section down regularly into smaller workshops/sections for discussion.  This approach will foster the aims of the New Freshman Seminar initiative.  In both the HIST 111B lecture and in the ENG 101 composition sections, we will introduce students to university culture and rigor, as well as provide them with substantial opportunities to develop written and oral communication skills.  The effort to construct a learning community that links a skills course—ENG 101—with an introductory knowledge course—HIST 111B—resonates beyond the NFS initiative.

       The proposal to link HIST 111B and ENG 101 can serve as a pilot program both for the History Department as it re-conceptualizes its undergraduate curriculum and for the University more broadly as we move forward in revising the general education program.  The original intention of the 111 series was to introduce students to the enabling assumptions of the disciplines.  We intend to return this section of HIST 111 to this intention.  When actively pursuing research or in writing monographs, most historians have already settled a number of crucial, yet basic, questions to their own satisfaction.  Those answers are present when historians work and write—when they do history—but they are taken for granted.  We will highlight and examine these taken-for-granted questions in this learning community.  For example, historians must determine whether they think of doing history as principally a science or an art. Depending on how they answer that question will lead them to articulate different relationships between the (past) real that they are seeking to know and the representation (the historical narrative) they are creating.  A crucial dimension of that relationship between the real and representation will be epistemic:  different historians will locate the ‘truth' and the ‘production of the truth' in different domains.  These differing locations of the truth will affect how the historian understands the act and work of narration:  should the narrative flow be ‘taken' from the past or does it necessarily impose upon and  give form to a formless, chaotic past. Another dimension of the real/representation relationship will be an identity axis:  the historian will think of herself as either a collector/curator, protecting the past, an apologist for the present or a critic/prophet.  A third axis of this real/representation relationship will be the overall aim of the historical enterprise:  to preserve the past, to intervene in the present, to shape the future.  These different senses of the aim of historical knowledge and the function of the historian, will establish widely divergent senses of the appropriate political/communal function of history.  These are some of the enabling questions of the historical discipline.

       We propose to make them the focus of inquiry in this HIST 111B lecture.  In doing so, we will establish very quickly that the examination of history at a university unfolds at a different level of sophistication than in high school.

We propose to organize the HIST 111B lecture around three broad conceptual units:  1.)  Theory; 2.) Test-Case(s); 3.) Application in the Here and Now. We will raise the basic questions about the enabling assumptions of history—the relationship between knowledge and values, the relationship between the real and representation, the question of whether history is a science of an art—through the careful examination of a variety of short stories by Jorge Luis Borges and the seminal essay by Nietzsche, “On the Uses and Abuses of History.”  The first section of the course will introduce students to the experience of facing and interpreting a complex text; this basic situation is central to the whole of the University experience and students are often not aware that it is alright to be uncertain and uncomfortable before a text.  In the second section of HIST 111B, we will turn to either a test case or cases.  We continue to have open discussions about what the test case should be, but have been considering the issue of imperialism.  If we should decide to examine the implications of these enabling questions in relation to imperialism, we will use Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness , a variety of primary sources and some excerpts from historical monographs.  Finally we propose to organize the third section of HIST 111B around active student learning during which students will apply the framework we have collectively explored to specific topics relevant to them individually and in groups.  They will produce their own historical narratives using the resources of the University Museum or the City of Edwardsville .  This section will permit the different sections of ENG 101 to interact in substantial ways in the HIST 111 lecture.

       The English 101 sections that will be linked with History 111B will be taught by English Department faculty (with the exception of Eric Ruckh, who will be teaching a section). The faculty teaching these sections will strive to ensure that the English 101 sections meet both the learning objectives of Expository Writing at SIUE, which are articulated at www.siue.edu/ECPP , as well as the objectives of the Freshmen Seminar. Furthermore, the faculty teaching the ENG 101 sections will work closely together to develop writing assignments and classroom activities. While we do not expect that each of the ENG 101 sections will be in lock-step with one another, we will work diligently to make a comparable experience for all students across ENG 101 sections. That is, students in different sections may have different topics for essays depending upon the slant that the instructor wishes to take with the broader HIS 111B theme, but each student, regardless of section, will be writing the same basic kinds of essays, receiving feedback, engaging in the writing process, receiving instruction in writing, and working at the same level of rigor and expectation. This kind of multi-section experience will not only enrich student learning about both writing and history, but has enormous potential for increased faculty development as the faculty teaching these sections will work together closely. It is also very likely that the faculty will read and respond to student work collaboratively or at the very least spend time discussing how we read and respond to student writing.

       To maximize both student learning and faculty development, we propose lowering the enrollment cap on these ENG 101 sections to from 23 students to 18. With the current cap, we will be offering eight sections of ENG 101; if the cap is lowered to 18, we would offer a total of ten sections. Given that we are using an efficient model to teach the large History 111B, the trade-off is that we would lower the cap in the composition sections to facilitate intense focus on writing. Instructors would be able to work more with each student to tailor writing instruction for each individual writer. Research in writing indicates that students improve their writing most when the course involves extensive writing and revising and when students receive thoughtful feedback about their work both in written and oral commentary from the instructor. The more students per section, the harder this work is for the instructor to accomplish given that most writing faculty teach more than one writing-intensive course. Further evidence about lower class size can be found by examining the practices of institutions that emphasize lower-division writing—schools such as Duke University, Boston College, Boston University, Cornell University, George Washington University, and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, to name a few. These schools report a cap of 15-18 students per composition section ( http://comppile.tamucc.edu/classsize.htm ). Thus, lowering the class size of these composition sections will meet one of the goals of the freshman seminar, which is to help prepare students for the rest of their university coursework, by providing the space and time for faculty and students to work closely on their writing.

       We hope that the combination of an examination of the enabling assumption of the historical discipline along with an introduction to English composition will deepen student insight and generate unexpected illuminations.  While we don't foresee and will actively discourage the ENG 101 sections turning into discussion sections for HIST 111—they will pursue their own work and programmatic aims under the loose ‘umbrella' of the HIST 111 concerns—certain affinities should organically emerge—awareness of perspective, an emphasis of analysis of text, an awareness of the relationship between writer and audience.  In order to see whether this linkage of HIST 111 and ENG 101 is worth exploring more fully and at an even larger level—from the perspectives of the NFS initiative, the Department of History and the general education reform process—we will build assessment mechanisms into the structure of the courses.

       We hope that the NFS Committee gives us the opportunity to pursue the development of this learning community.  If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact any of us.  Thank you.





Appendix 7






Junior Cluster Strand



The Ancient World


ENG 310      Classic Mythology and its Influence

HIST 302      Ancient Egypt

HIST 304      History of Greece

HIST 306      History of Rome

MATH 300   History of Mathematics from Antiquity to Descartes


Contemporary Living


ANTH 350   Anthropology in Contemporary Life

ENG 309      Popular Literature

MC 335        Evolution of Entertainment Television


Contemporary United States


ECON 221      Economy History of the United States

ENG 411a,b   Contemporary American Literature

THEA 312      Multicultural Theater in America

PHIL 306       American Philosophy

POLS 342      Issues in American Public Policy

SOC 335        Urban Sociology


Economic Issues


GEOG   301    Economic Geography

HIST 345a,b   History of American Business

SOC 447        Underground Economy

ENSC 340      Ecosystem Management and Sustainability


Global Perspectives


ANTH 302     World Music

ART 225a,b   The History of World Art

GEOG 201    World Regions

GEOG 300    Geography of World Population

PHIL 233      Philosophies and Diverse Cultures

PHIL 334      World Religions

PHIL 390      Philosophy Here and Abroad

MUS 305      Non-Western Music

SOC 481       Population Dynamics


The Human Condition


BIOL 205      Human Diseases

HED 355        Community Health

MUS 401       Psycho-Physiology of Music

PAPA 245     Community Need and Social Responsibility (cross listed PHIL 245)

SOC 200       Foundations in Social Work

SOCW 300   Social Problems


Human Diversity


ANTH 340   Cultural Ecology

BIOL 450     Science, Gender, and Race (cross listed WMST 450)

CJ 366          Race and Gender in Criminal Justice

ENG 344      Topics in Ethnic Literature

SPC 210       Interracial Communication


Our Environment



GEOG 205   Human Geography

HED 410      Environmental Health Education

PHYS 350   Energy and the Environment


Political Impact


GEOG 406    Political Geography

MKTG 300   Principles of Marketing

SPC 411       Analysis of Political Communication

POLS 342    Issues in American Public Policy

POLS 346    Public Opinions

POLS 370    Introduction to International Relations

SOC 420      Leadership


Religious Exploration


ENG 306   Introduction to the Bible

HIST 342   History of Religion in America

PHIL 334   World Religions


The World Around Us


ANTH 332      Origins of Old World Civilization

CE 376           Transportation

ENG 315        American Nature Writing

GEOG   211   Meteorology

MUS 401       Psycho-Physiology of Music

PHYS 351      Music and Acoustics

PHYS 352      Physics of Modern Sound Reproduction

PHYS 356      Astronomy


Student Information System Summary Stats and Course Inventory Maintenance, March 14, 2006




Appendix 8


Senior Level Cluster Proposal for “University Connections”


Elizabeth Adams-Marks

Undergraduate Student, Art & Design and Art Education

Nellie Shaul

Undergraduate Student, Chemistry and Biological Sciences


  1. An interview: research someone currently working in their discipline, set up an interview, and write out the responses from a questionnaire. Students could relate this to an internship position they have held in their field. An internship could be encouraged, but not required.
  2. A section about other people working currently in this field, locally, nationally, and / or internationally.
  3. A section about how their field benefits society (ethics, values & social responsibilities).
  4. A section about their field as it applies globally.
  5. A section on the use of current technology in their field.
  6. A section on one or two state or national organizations related to their field.
  7. A section on available jobs, salaries, grants, deadlines, funding, etc. in their field (real world math), and how to apply for graduate school even if they are not applying immediately.
  8. A section on writing a resume, a CV, and a biography (and an artist statement if applicable). An on-line portfolio could be developed. A visit to the SIUE Career Development Center could be required.
  9. Attending an SIUE Job Fair might be required. A section about attending the SIUE Job Fair could be included in their portfolio – Was it helpful? What did they learn?
  10. A section about their own work in this field thus far, their goals for their future research and/or education, and their plan to obtain their goals.
  11. A section evaluating how the SIUE experience has prepared them to meet their goals?
  12. Each student would be required to present her / his research orally (10-15 minutes) at the end of the semester. Slides or Power Point images could be optional.




Appendix 9




Nexus Committee



The General Education Program deserves greater visibility on campus, a direct voice where resource allocations are being decided, and a clearly defined advocate. The Assistant Provost for University Connections will have primary responsibilities which include:



The Assistant Provost for University Connections will appoint a Nexus Committee. The committee will work in an atmosphere of consultation with the Faculty Senate, specifically the Curriculum Council and General Education Subcommittees. Furthermore, the committee will recognize the centrality of the general education curriculum at SIUE. The general requirements must incorporate a variety of interconnected components to build a strong, general education foundation. The fundamental goals of the program are to improve students' abilities to integrate knowledge from different fields; to provide more extensive opportunities for the acquisition and development of writing, linguistic, quantitative and literacy skills; to introduce greater flexibility in the scheduling of degree requirements throughout the undergraduate career; and to expand students' opportunities to interact with faculty and the world.


Duties of the Committee

The following duties are assigned to the University Connections Nexus Committee:

  1. Receive and act on recommendations proposed by the Assistant Provost for University Connections.
  2. Define curricular policies.
  3. Develop procedures and principles which govern the general education program.
  4. Define and establish specific standards and policies for the foundation skills requirements of the University Connections Program.
  5. Establish criteria for course approval.
  6. Certify courses.
  7. Decertify courses that are no longer taught or are no longer suitable for inclusion in the University Connections Program.
  8. Work with the Provost or (designee) to maintain a current list of courses approved for general education.
  9. Develop means for broad dissemination of University Connections policies to students, faculty and administration.
  10. Recommend policy decisions to the Academic Standards and Policies Committee as needed.
  11. Take a leadership role in collecting and reviewing data the extent and effectiveness to which the University Connections Program is meetings its explicit educational goals.
  12. Coordinate and assemble reports related to periodic review of University Connections.
  13. Propose changes on its own initiative and shall report to the Faculty Senate such recommendations.
  14. Refer any major revisions in the general education program to the Faculty Senate (Curriculum Council) for approval and recommendations to the Provost.
  15. Keep abreast of national issues and trends in general education and evaluate their relevancy to the University Connections Program at SIUE. 


Membership of the University Connections Nexus Committee may include: 


Appendix 10



Per Gloria Hartmann                                                                                1/21/06


                                                                 Room Number                                       Capacity

Science Building

                                Auditoriums:                SL 1105                                                 200

                                                                      SL 3114                                                 200


Alumni Hall

     Bank of Edwardsville Room                 AH 2401                                                 175


Founders Hall

                                                                      FH 0207                                                 150

                                                                      FH 3115                                                 100

                                                                      FH 0103                                                    90

                                                                      FH 0116                                                   90

                                                                      FH0107                                                     90

Peck Hall

                                                                     PH 2304                                                  150

                                                                      PH 2405                                                 100

                                                                     PH 0312                                                   100

                                                                      PH 0306                                                   90

Lovejoy Library

                    Abbott Auditorium                  LL 0044                                                    135


Engineering Building

            Engineering Auditorium                EB 1033                                                    135


Daytime General Classroom Pre-assignments by Schools

Academic Year Fall 2006

Supersedes all previous lists prior to 9.7.05

**Designated Smart Classrooms

PH 0302 (42)**AD
PH 0303 (40) AD
PH 0304 (80)** MATH
PH 0306 (85)** GEOG
PH 0307 (50) PHIL
PH 0309 (45) MATH
PH 0312 (110)** MATH
PH 0314 (40) AD
PH 0405 (60)** ANTH
PH 0406 (40) SOCW
PH 0408 (39)** ENG
PH 0409 (60) THEA
PH 0412 (40) AD
PH 0413 (50) HIST
PH 2403 (55)** HIST/SOC
PH 2405 (100)**ANTH/SOC
PH 2406 (30) FL
PH 2408 (30) ENG
PH 2409 (43) PHIL
PH 2410 (40)** FL
PH 2411 (40)** FL
PH 2412 (40) PHIL
PH 2413 (30) AD
PH 2414 (30) ENG
PH 2415 (30) AD
PH 2417 (30) AD 
PH 3303 (75)** MATH 
PH 3311 (17) 
PH 3312 (17) 
PH 3313 (50)**HIST
PH 3315 (60) ENG
PH 3316 (50) HIST
PH 3404 (55) ENG
PH 3406 (55) **POLS
PH 3415 (70) MUS
PH 3417 (75) 
FH 0101 (55)** ART
FH 0207 (150) ** 
AH 2321 (20)
AH 1301 (50)** SPC
AH 3317A(35) SPC
AH 3401 (35)** SPC
AH 3403 (50)** SPC
LB 0044 (135)
VC 2002(25) 
SL 0209 (065) MATH/CHEM
SL 0210 (075)**portable PHYS
SL 0226 (50) PHYS
SL 1105 (200)**BIOL
SL 1221 (50)**MATH
SL 2224 (45)** CHEM
SL 3114 (200)** CHEM

FH 0103 (90)**
FH 0107 (90)**
FH 2211 (50)**
FH 2407 (40)**
FH 2409 (50)**
FH 3115 (110)**
FH 3302 (65)**
AH 2401 (175)**
AH 3402 (60)**

FH 0111 (70)**
FH 0116 (88)**
FH 0300 (70)** (Evening assignments only)
VC 2003/5 (35)**Kinesiology only
VC 2007 (30)**Kinesiology only

EB 0011 (37chairs/14 tables)**
EB 0012 (54)**
EB 1010 (24 chairs/12 tables)**
EB 1012 (50chairs/26 tables)**
EB 2011 (47 chairs/19 tables)**
EB 1033 (100)**
FH 1407 (75)**
FH 1408 (75)**

PH 2304 (150)** 
PH 3302 (60)**
**Designated Smart Classrooms 




1 ”1985-1988; 1900-1999 AD World History.” 2005 Infoplease.com. 01 Mar. 2006. < http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001251.html>.
2 “ Federal Minimum Wage Rates, 1955-2005. 2005 Infoplease.com. 03 Mar. 2006. <http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774473.html>. 

3 Davis, Stacy C. Transportation Energy Data Book. 20 Edition. Oak Ridge  National Laboratory, Center for Transportation Analysis. 
   03 March 2006. <http://cta.ornl.gov/cta/>. 

4 Draft Plan to Reconsider and Redesign the General Education Program. Southern Illinois University Edwardsville. 15 Aug. 2004. 
5 2006 Fact Book. Southern Illinois University  Edwardsville. Institutional Research and Studies Department, 2006:41. 
6 Special Internal Report with assistance from Mark Bacus , Assistant to Provost and Vice Chancellor. Southern Illinois 
   University  Edwardsville. 8-9 Mar. 2006. 
7 Report to the University. Southern Illinois University  Edwardsville. Chancellor Vaughn Vandegrift. 19 Oct. 2005. 
8  Peter Smith. The Quiet Crisis ( Boston , Massachusetts : Anker, 2004) 47. 
9 Carol M. Barker. “Liberal Arts Education for a Global Society,” New York : Report for the Carnegie Corporation (2000) 7. 
10 Neil Howe and William Strauss “Millennials Rising: The Next Great Generation.” 2000. 09 Mar. 2006. <http://www.millennialsrising.com/>. 
11 Claire Raines. “Managing Millennials.” 2002. 10 Mar. 2006. <http://www.generationsatwork.com/articles/millenials.htm>. 
12  Fact Book. 2006 Edition. (Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University  Edwardsville, Institutional Research and Studies: 2006) 2.
13 “Exploring Different Dimensions of Student Engagement: 2005 Annual Survey Results” National Survey of Student 
      Engagement. 10 Mar. 2006. <http://nsse.iub.edu/pdf/NSSE2005_annual_report.pdf>. 
14 Kelly, James, “Nearly Half of all Seniors Have Completed Coursework at Multiple Institutions.” American Association of 
     Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers. 09 Nov. 2005. 10 Mar. 2006. <http://www.aacrao.org/transcript/index.cfm?fuseaction=show_view&doc_id=2942>. 
15 Ernest L. Boyer. College: The Undergraduate Experience in America  (New York: Harper, 1987) 91. 
16  “Greater Expectations: A New Vision for Learning as a Nation Goes to College,” Association of American Colleges and
       Universities: National Panel Report. 2002: 21-22. <http://www.greaterexpectations.org>. 
17 Mission, Vision, Values. Southern Illinois University  Edwardsville. 10 Mar. 2006. <http://www.siue.edu/about/mission.shtml>. 
18 “Objectives for General Education and the Baccalaureate Degree,” Southern Illinois University  Edwardsville. 
       Undergraduate Catalog, 2003-2005, 36. 
19 “Eng 101 Goals and Objectives” and “Eng 102 Goals and Objectives,” English Composition Pilot Assessment Project 
      On-Line Portfolio. Southern Illinois University  Edwardsville: Department of English Language and Literature. 
      06 Feb. 2006. <http://www.siue.edu/ECPP/>. 
20 “Communication Course Descriptions,” Illinois  Articulation Initiative. 21 Oct. 2005. <http://www.itransfer.org/IAI/GenEd/comm.taf?page=courseinfo>. 
21 ”Speech Communication Portfolio,” Southern Illinois University  Edwardsville. Speech Communication Department, 
      <http://www.siue.edu/SPC/SPC_Portfolio/spc_103.html>. and 07 Feb. 2006. <http://www.siue.edu/SPC/SPC_Portfolio/spc_105.html> 
22 Nancy S. Shapiro and Jodi H. Levine. Creating Learning Communities: A Practical Guide to Winning Support, Organizing 
     for Change, and Implementing Programs. (New York: Wiley, 1999) 23-25. 
23 Ibid, 3. 
24 Ibid, 4-6. 
25 Ibid, 82. 
26 New Student Seminar. Southern Illinois University  Edwardsville: Task Force Report and Recommendations June 2004.
     7 Feb. 2006. <http://www.siue.edu/UGOV/FACULTY/bridgeNewFreshmanSeminar.htm >. 
27 Candyce Reynolds. “Undergraduate Students as Collaborators in Building Student Learning Communities,” In To Improve
      the Academy 21 2003: 230, 232. 
28 Nellie Shaul. Personal Interview. 15 Feb. 2006. 
29  David K. Gosser et al. Peer –Led Team Learning: A Guidebook. ( New York : Prentice-Hall 2001) 
30  Op. cit., Greater Expectations, 39. 
31 Gloria Hartmann. 2006 Fall Course Offerings of Freshman Seminars and CIV Courses. Southern Illinois University
     Edwardsville: Academic Scheduling, Office of the Registrar. 07 Feb. 2006. 
32 Stephen Trainor. “Building Blocks for Integrative Learning.” Southern Illinois University  Edwardsville. 23 Feb. 2006. 



“1985-1988; 1990-1999 AD World History.” 2005. Pearson Education . Infoplease. 01 March 2006 <http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001251.html>.

Baker, Carol M., “Liberal Arts Education for a Global Society.” Report for the Carnegie Corporation of New York., 2000. 
Boyer, Ernest L. College: The Undergraduate Experience in America . New York : Harper, 1987. 

Davis, Stacy C. Transportation Energy Data Book . 20 Edition. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Center for Transportation Analysis. 03 Mar. 2006. < http://cta.ornl.gov/cta/ >.


“Exploring Different Dimensions of Student Engagement.” 2005. Annual Survey Results.” National Survey of Student Engagement Report . 10 March 2006. < http://nsse.iub.edu/pdf/NSSE2005_annual_report.pdf >.


Federal Minimum Wage Rates, 1955–2005.” 2005. Pearson Education. Infoplease. 03 March 2006. <http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774473.html >


Greater Expectations: A New Vision for Learning as a Nation Goes to College. Association of American Colleges and Universities, 2002. 21-22.


Hartmann, Gloria. 2006 Fall Course Offerings of Freshman Seminars and CIV Courses. (special report). Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Edwardsville, Academic Scheduling, Office of the Registrar. February 2006.


Howe, Neil and William Strauss. “Millennials Rising: The Next Great Generation.” 2000. <http://www.millennialsrising.com>. 09 Mar. 2006.


Illinois Articulation Initiative. “Communication Course Descriptions.” 21 October 2005.

< http://www.itransfer.org/IAI/GenEd/comm.taf?page=courseinfo >.

James, Kelly. “Nearly Half of all Seniors Have Completed Coursework at Multiple   Institutions,” 09 Nov.2005. American Association of Collegiate Registrars and   Admissions Officers. 10 March 2006 <http://www.aacrao.org/transcript/index.cfm?fuseaction=show_view&doc_id=2942 >.

Portland State University. University Studies. 2005-2006. <http://www.pdx.edu/unst/>.


Raines, Claire. “Managing Millennials,” 2002. 10 March 2006. < http://www.generationsatwork.com/articles/millenials.htm >.


Shaul, Nellie. Personal Interview, Chemistry and Biological Sciences Student. 15 Feb. 2005.


Smith, Peter. The Quiet Crisis: How Higher Education is Failing America. Bolton, Massachusetts: Anker 2004.


Southern Illinois University Edwardsville . Chancellor Vaughn Vandegrift's Report to the University. 19 Oct. 2005.


Southern Illinois University Edwardsville. Draft Plan to Reconsider and Redesign the General Education Program. August 15, 2004


Southern Illinois University Edwardsville. Fact Book , 2006 Edition. Institutional Research and Studies.


Southern Illinois University Edwardsville. Eng 101 and 102 Goals and Objectives. English Composition Pilot Assessment Project On-Line Portfolio. 06 Feb. 2006. < http://www.siue.edu/ECPP/ >.


Southern Illinois University Edwardsville. Mission, Vision, and Values. 10 March 2006. <http://www.siue.edu/about/mission.shtml >.


Southern Illinois University Edwardsville. Special internal report prepared by Institutional Research and Studies Department with additional information from Mark Bacus, Assistant to the Provost and Vice Chancellor, 08-09 Mar. 2006.


Southern Illinois University Edwardsville. Undergraduate Catalog: Objectives for General Education and the Baccalaureate Degree, 2003-2005.


White, Charles. “A Model for Comprehensive Reform in General Education: Portland State University.” 1994. 2005-2005. <http://www.pdx.edu/media/u/n/unst_overview_model.pdf>.





Additional Readings


“2005 Carnegie Classifications Initial Release.” 2005. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. 3 Mar. 2006 <http://www.carnegieclassification-preview.org/index.aspx>.


American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers. “Nearly Half of all Seniors Have Completed Coursework at Multiple Institutions.” 14 Nov. 2005. <http://aacrao.org/transcript/index.cfm?/fuseaction+show_prin...>.


American Association of State Colleges and Universities. “Stepping Forward as Stewards of Place.” (handout)


---. Engaged Campus Pictorial. (handout)


Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) Instruction Section. “Objectives for Information Literacy Instruction.” < http://www.ala.org/Content/NavigationMenu/ACRL/Standards_and_Guidelines/Objectives_for_ Information_Literacy_Instruction_A_Model_Statement_for_Academic_Librarians.htm>


“AQIP Criterion 3: Understanding Students' and Other Stakeholders Needs.” 1 Mar. 2004. Academic Quality Improvement Program. 7 Feb. 2006. <http://www.siue.edu/AQIP/SystemsPortfolio--AQIPCriterion3.pdf>.


Arenson, Karen W. “Switching Colleges Is Common but Takes a Toll, Study Finds.” New York Times 8 Nov. 2005.

9 Nov. 2005 <www.nytimes.com/2005/11/08/national/08student/html?emc=etal>.


Association of College and Research Libraries. January 2000. “Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education.” http://www.ala/Content/NavigationMenu/ACRL/Standards_and_Guidelines/Information_Literacy_



Austin, A.W. What Matters in College? Four Critical Years Revisited. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1993.


BELL Core Curriculum. Belmont University. n.d. Belmont University. 31 Jan. 2006 <http://www.belmont.edu/bellcore/>.


Bernstein Daniel, Michael Steven Mark, and Harvey Bender. “Disciplining the Minds of Students.” Change.

37:2 (March/April 2005):36-43


Boyer, Ernest L. College: The Undergraduate Experience in America. New York: Harper and Row, 1987.


Capriccioso, Rob. “Another Peek Into The ‘Toolbox.'” Inside Higher Ed . 15 Feb. 2005. Inside Higher Ed. 15 Feb. 2006. <http://insidehighered.com/news/2006/02/15/toolboxl>.


---. “A Collegiate Contract with America .” Inside Higher Ed . 15 Feb. 2005. Inside Higher Ed. 15 Feb. 2006. <http://insidehighered.com/news/2006/02/15/renewal>.


Colby, Anne, et al. Educating Citizens: Preparing America 's Undergraduates for Lives of Moral and Civic Responsibility. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2003.


“Conceptual Frameworks in Other Disciplines.” (handout)


“Conceptual Frameworks in the Social Sciences.” (handout)


Declining By Degrees: Higher Education at Risk. Fact Sheet.


Designs for Active Learning: A Sourcebook of Classroom Strategies for Information Education. Chicago: Association for College and Research Libraries, 1998.


Diamond, Robert N. Designing & Assessing Courses & Curricula: A Practical Guide. Rev. Ed. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass, 1998.


“Dimensions of Engagement. Adapted from “Civic Engagement: Renewing the Land Grant Mission.” The Final Report of the University of Minnesota 's Civic Engagement Task Force. <http: /www1.umn.edu/civic/reports/pdfs/final_report.pdf>.


“The Echo Boomers.” CBS News. 4 Sept. 2005. CBS Worldwide Inc. 9 Mar. 2006 <http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/



ECPAP: Grading Rubric for ENG 101. 2 Feb. 2005. Department of English. Southern Illinois University Edwardsville. 10 Mar. 2006 <http://www.siue.edu/ECPP/Statements/rubric101.html>.


ECPAP: Grading Rubric for ENG 102. 2 Feb. 2005. Department of English. Southern Illinois University Edwardsville. 10 Mar. 2006 <http://www.siue.edu/ECPP/Statements/rubric102.html>.


Eder, Douglas and Southern Illinois University Edwardsville. “Some Assessment Ways and Means.” 2005. In Both Ends of the Telescope: Asking For and Assessing Deeper Long-Term Learning. <http://www.siue.edu/assessment/Texas/1086>,

24, Some Assessment Ways and Means.


Ewell, Peter. General Education and theAssessment Reform Agenda. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Colleges and Universities, 2004.


“Examples of Assessable Student Learning Objectives or Outcomes.” University of Hawaii at Hilo. 14 Oct. 2005.

<http: //hilo.hawaii.edu/uhh/genedfac/objectives.php>.


Experiential Learning. In Henry, Jane. “Meaning and Practice in Experiential Learning” Making Sense of Experiential Learning. 03 Jan. 2006 . SRHE and OU Press .


Experimental Learning Requirement . n.d. Elon University . 15 Feb. 2006



Fox, Kate. “Coming of Age in the eBay Generation: Life-shopping and the New Life

Skills in the age of eBay.” Social Issues Research Centre 2005: 1-25.


Freeland, Richard M. “The Third Way .” The Atlantic Monthly 294 (2004): 141-147.


Hartman, Joel, Patsy Moskal, and Chuck Dziuban. “Preparing the Academy of Toady for

the Learner of Tomorrow.” Educating the Net Generation . Educause, 2005. 28 Feb. 2006 <http://www.educause.edu/EducatingtheNetGeneration/5989>.


Gelmon, Sherrill B. et al. Assessing Service-Learning and Civic Engagement :

  Principles and Techniques . Campus Compact, 2001. Tables 2 and 5.


“Goal Statements for Freshman Inquiry Faculty.” In A Model for Comprehensive

Reform in General Education: Portland State University . 17 Jan. 2005. pp. 8-32.

<http.://www.pdx.edu/media/u/n/unst _overview _ model.pdf>


Guskin, Alan E. and Mary B. Marcy. “Dealing with the Future Now: Principles for

  Creating s Vital Campus in a Climate of Restricted Resources.” Change . 35.4:

  (July/August 2003):10-21.


Halpern, Diane F. and Milton D. Hakel “Applying the Science of Learning to the

  University and Beyond.” Change . 35.4: (July/August 2003):37-41.


Hersh, Richard H. “What Does College Teach?” The Atlantic Monthly Nov. 2005.

7 Nov. 2005 <http://northonline.scccd.ctc.edu/IS/atlantic_monthly.htm>.


Holland, Barbara A. “Assessment of Service-Learning: Principles and Techniques.”

  Powerpoint Slides n.d. 26 January 2006 .


Iannuzzi, Patricia, Charles T. Mangrum, and Stephen S. Strichart. Teaching Information

  Literacy Skills . Boston : Allyn and Bacon, 1999.


Illinois Articulation Initiative. “Faculty Advisor Information.” 22 Nov. 2005 .



---. “IAI Policies and Procedures Manual. Revised 11/30/01 . (handout)


---. “Information for Inclusion in Institutional Catalog.” 14 Jan. 2000 . (handout)


---. “Transfer of Completed Associate Degrees: Compacts at

Public Universities.” 06 December 2005 . <http://www.itransfer.org/IAI/other/PublicArticulationAgreements.taf>.


---. “Transfer Shock.” 15 Nov. 2005 . <http://www.itransfer.org/IAI/TransferHints.taf?page=Transf...>.


---. “School Review of Southern IL University Edwardsville. “ 22 Nov. 2005 .

  <http://itransfer.org/IAI/ Fact/SchoolReview.taf?page=go&key=1759>.


Illinois Board of Higher Education. “Policies on Undergraduate Education.” 16 Nov.

  2005. <URL> http://www.itransfer.org/IAI/Fact/Forms/IAILibrary/Policy.html


Jaschik, Scott. “The Public Trust.” Inside Higher Ed . 7 Apr. 2005 . Inside

Higher Ed. 15 Nov. 2005 <http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2005/04/



Kuh, George D et al. Student Success in College: Creating Conditions that Matter .

  2005. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.


Kuh, George D et al. Involving Colleges: Successful Approaches to

  Fostering Student Learning and Development: Outside the Classroom . San

  Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1991.


Lederman, Doug. “No College Left Behind?” Inside Higher Ed. 15 Feb. 2006 .

15 Feb. 2006 <http://insidehighered.com/news/2006/02/15/testing>.


---. “Solutions for Our Future.” 15 Nov. 2005 . Inside Higher Ed . 15 Nov. 2005 .


---. “Student Success at Public Colleges.” Inside Higher Ed. 27 Sept. 2005 . 7 Nov.

2005 <http://insidehighered.com/news/2005/09/27/retain>.


Leiderman Sally et al. “Building Partnerships with College Campuses: Community

  Perspectives. Washington , D.C. : Council of Independent Colleges.


Leskes, Andrea. “A Draft Primer on General Education Reform.” November 2, 2005 .

  The 2002 Asheville Institute of General Education: Plenary Session:

Contemporary Trends in General Education . Washington , D.C. : Association of American Colleges and Universities, 2005.


Leskes, Andrea and Barbara D. Wright. The Art and Science of Assessing General

Education Outcomes . Washington , D.C: Association of Colleges and Universities, 2005.


“The Liberal Arts at Wheaton .” Wheaton College . 16 Jan. 2006 . Wheaton College . 31

Jan. 2006 <http://www.wheatoncollege.edu/Catalog/Contents/Liberal Arts/>.


Light, Richard J. Making the Most of College: Students Speak Their Minds . 4th ed.

Cambridge , Massachusetts : Harvard UP, 2001.

“Major Initiatives.” Business-Higher Education Forum . n.d. Business-Higher

Education Forum. 14 Feb. 2006 <http://www.bhef.com/initiatives/>.


Mansilla, Veronica Boix. “Assessing Student Work at Displinary Crossroads.” Change .

  357.1: (January/February 2005):37-41.


Marklein, Mary Beth. “Report: College Transfers Can Muddy Quality of Experience.”

USA Today 6 Nov. 2005 . 10 Mar. 2006 . <http://usatoday.com>.


Merrow, John. “Declining by Degrees.” Washington , D.C. : The Carnegie Foundation

for the Advancement of Teaching. 22 June 2005 <http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/perspectives2005.M...>.


---. Survival of the Fittest. The New York Times . 22 June 2005 .


  c4…> .


Miller, Margaret A. “The Meaning of the Baccalaureate.” The National Forum on

College-Level Learning . n.d. University of Virginia . 15 Feb. 2006 <http://curry.edschool.virginia.edu/centers/collegelevellearning/>.


Miller, Ross. “Using Assessment Tools for General Education Outcomes.” 2006

AAC&U Annual Meeting (Jan. 2006).


“New Study of the Literacy of College Students Finds Some are Graduating with Only

Basic Skills.” Pew Charitable Trusts . 19 Jan. 2006 . Pew Charitable Trusts. 9 Mar. 2006 <http://www.pewtrusts.com>.


Objectives and Requirements : The Scientific and Technological Literacy Program ,

  IONA . (handout).


Oblinger, Diana. “Boomers, Gen-Xers, and Millennials: Understanding the ‘New

Students.” Educause Review 38.4 (July/Aug. 2003): 37-47. 28 Feb. 2006



Oblinger, Diana G., and James L. Oblinger, eds. Educating the Net Generation . Boulder ,

CO: EDUCAUSE, 2005. EDUCASE . 2005. 28 Feb. 2006 <http://www.educase.edu/EducatingtheNetGeneration/5989>.


Osborn, Hugh. “Organic Education: Update 2005.” New Horizons for Learning . Sept.

•  New Horizons for Learning. 23 Feb. 2005 <http://www.newhorizons.org/



Quality Assurance: A Commitment to Students, Community, and Society . Southern

Illinois University Edwardsville. 1 Feb. 2006 . <http://www.siue.edu/~deder/assess/quality.html>.


“Portfolio Scoring Rubric.” In A Model for Comprehensive Reform in General

  Education: Portland.State University . n.d. Oregon : Portland State University ,

  1999.16 Jan. 2006. pp. 36-40,.<URL)


Portland State University . Recommended Components of FRINQ Proposals – 1999 . In

  A Model for Comprehensive Reform in General Education: Portland State



Ratcliff, James L., D. Kent Johnson, and Jerry G. Gaff. “Changing General Education

  Curriculum”. New Directions for Higher Education , no.125, 1-8., Spring, 2004.


“Renewing the Covenant: Learning, Discovery, and Engagement in a New Age and

Different World: Sixth Report.” Kellogg Commission on the Future of Stand and Land-Grant Universities . Mar. 2000: 1-34.


Rhodes, Bill. “Ethics Across the Curriculum and the Nature of Morality: Some

  Fundamental Propositions . Teaching Ethics . 3:2: (Spring, 2003). 03 Jan. 2006 .



Sandeen, Arthur. “Educating the Whole Student: The Growing Academic Importance of

  Student Affairs.” Change . 36 2(May/June 2004):28-33.


Shoenberg, Robert, ed. General Education and Student Transfer: Fostering Intentionality

and Coherence in State Systems . Washington , D.C. : Association of American Colleges and Universities, 2005.


---, et al. General Education in an Age of Student Mobility: an Invitation to Discuss

Systemic Curricular Planning . Academy in Transition 5. Washington , D.C. : Association of American Colleges and Universities, 2001.


Southern Illinois University Edwardsville. Institutional Research and Studies, RS,

  Summary of SIUE Faculty Attitudinal Responses . July 27, 2004


---. Service Learning/Volunteer Services. “Project Information Sign-Off Agreement.



---. Student Leadership Development Program. “Community Service Agency Feedback

  Form.” (handout)


---. Student Leadership Development Program. “Principles of Agreement with Service

  Agencies for Placement of Students in Volunteer Services Form.” (handout)


---. Student Leadership Development Program. “Verification of Service/Assessment

  Form.” (handout)


---. Volunteer Services. “Community Service Assessment Form. (handout)


Speech Communication Portfolio: Grading Standards—Public Speaking . 17 Apr. 2002

Department of Speech Communication. Southern Illinois University Edwardsville. 13 Mar. 2006 . <http://www.siue.edu/SPC/SPC_




State Education Data Profiles: Illinois . n.d. National Center for Education

Statistics . 2 Feb. 2006 <http://nces.ed.gov/programs/stateprofiles>.


State of Illinois . The Illinois Articulation Initiative History and Current Status . <URL>


Steffes, Jeanne S. “Creating Powerful Learning Environments Beyond the Classroom.

  Change . 36:3 (May/June 2004):46-55.


Trainor, Steve. “Building Blocks for Integrative Learning.” PowerPoint Slides. 23 Feb.



“Typology of Service Politics.” (handout)


Wheaton College . The Wheaton Curriculum . 31 January 2006 .



White, Eric R. and Jeremy Cohen. “Creating Shared Student Responsibility for General

  Education.” Fall, 2004.


University-wide General Education Committee. “The University-wide General

  Education Structure in a Nutshell.” n.d. University of Arizona . 17 Jan. 2006



---. “Proposal for a University-wide General Education Program.” n.d. University of

  Arizona . 17 Jan. 2006 <http://uge.web.arizona.edu/gened/uwgeprop.htm>.


---. “University-wide General Education Structure: Expected Outcomes for Course

Offerings.” n.d. University of Arizona . 17 Jan. 2006 <http://uge.web.arizona.edu/gened/outcomes.htm>.


White, Charles R. “A Model for Comprehensive Reform in General Education: Portland

State University .” Journal of General Education 43.3 (1994): 168-237.



Weingartner, Rudolph H. Undergraduate Education: Goals and Means . American

Council on Education Ser. on Higher Education. Phoenix , AZ : Oryx Press, 1993.


Wesemann, Jodi L. “Science and Global Learning in the Undergraduate Curriculum.”

Chemistry.org 27 Feb. 2006 . American Chemical Society. 28 Feb. 2006 <http://www.chemistry.org>.


Wright, Barbara C. “Criteria and Rubrics for Intellectual Skills and Academic

Disciplines.” 2006 AAC&U Annual Meeting (Jan. 2006).


(article) Liberal Education: Educating for Personal and Social Responsibility. 91 3:

  (Summer/Fall 2005). Washington , D.C. : Association of College and Research






BRIDGE Proposal Overview – Self Assessment


University Connections supports the values of SIUE by laying the foundation for the general education curriculum components. Students will acquire the traits of Citizenship: social, civic and political responsibility and partnership and collaboration. The components will also address Excellence by producing high quality student learning, scholarship, improvement and innovation, and accountability and honesty as demonstrated in Integrity. Openness will be reached with diversity and respect for differences, while students will attain Wisdom by acquiring the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that foster life-long learning.


Our proposed learning outcomes will prepare students to be responsible, reflective citizens who adapt constructively to change and become contributing and informed citizens in a global community. University Connections general education will include opportunities for interdisciplinary learning and experiences that increase intellectual curiosity, allow students to make connections between disciplines and different learning styles, and encourage continued personal development. Further, the program will impart concepts, principles and behaviors related to critical thinking and logical problem-solving which will enable students to utilize these skills for a lifetime.


University Connections Program supports the baccalaureate degree by proposing a total of 12 learning outcomes for general education. It is no mere coincidence that seven of these outcomes are taken virtually straight from SIUE's Objectives for General Education and the Baccalaureate Degree.18  They are Information Literacy, Mathematics and Quantitative Skills, Oral Communication, Written Communication, Scientific Inquiry, Performing and Fine Arts, and Ethics. This design team would also argue that two other outcomes are present in the same statement, but the verbiage has been modified in this proposal: Cultural and Global Awareness (“Diversity” in the Baccalaureate Objectives ,) and Critical Thinking (the ability “to recognize, develop, evaluate, and defend or attack hypotheses and arguments” in the Baccalaureate Objectives. ) University Connections has also included an additional three objectives: Technology, Active Citizenship, and Experiential Learning.


SIUE's current Carnegie Classification based on 2004 data indicates our undergraduate profile is a full-time four-year, selective, higher transfer-in and that we are a large four-year, primarily residential institution. University Connections believes in an engaging, enriching, experiential general education program accessible to the entire undergraduate program. It is structured to highlight current signature programs (Interdisciplinary Studies and Senior Assignment) and to enhance connections between general education and majors in the liberal arts and professional school through integrated study incorporating existing resources (clusters and strands). In addition it encompasses a Transfer Transition component for seamless transfer in. Other considerations recognize the need for those students lacking preparation for baccalaureate level course work by suggesting expansion of the current Summer Bridge program.


Our cluster fosters learning communities by integrating the curriculum, establishing support networks for students, orienting students to the University and encouraging the focus of teaching, learning, and research.