Charge/Guidelines/Constraints for Phase II-Design Teams
Final Aim: The best general education program possible for SIUE.
Phase II Goal: Three distinct, intellectually coherent proposals that support the SIUE objectives of the
baccalaureate degree [‘front-matter' (citizenship, appreciation of the arts, capacity of self-reflection, health,
life-long learning), oral/written communication, foundation in the liberal arts and sciences, scientific literacy,
ethics, value of diversity, analytic/problem-solving/decision-making skills, preparation in a discipline] and
offer an improvement over the existing program. Phase II proposals should be concrete enough to provide
the SIUE community with enough information/detail to make a rational choice in Spring 2007. They should
begin to approach the detail necessary to complete ‘Form 91A: Change in Program' (or equivalent).
Due Dates: Part One: 14 August 2006
Part Two: 6 November 2006
1.) Each general education proposal must explicitly show how it supports SIUE's objectives of the
baccalaureate degree (including ‘front-matter').
2.) Each general education proposal must explicitly address how it responds to the findings of the
Objectives Steering Committee (faculty concerns about students' capacities for integration,
communication, information and application).
3.) Each general education proposal must be flexible, showing explicitly how the revised general education
program can support the needs of a diverse student body (including part-time students, transfer students
and students with different entry-level skills) and a wide range of disciplines, units and professional schools.
4.) Each proposal must incorporate SIUE's existing commitments: a.) to the inter-group relations
component (IGR), as required by the State of Illinois; b.) to the needs of transfer students [codified in the
Illinois Articulation Initiative (IAI)] (The BRIDGE Committee and Office of the Provost will
provide support); c.) to an interdisciplinary studies component; d.) to the New Freshman Seminar
1.) A one page grid of the complete design of the proposed curricular structure.
2.) A drawing/diagram/visual that shows how the redesigned general education curriculum supports SIUE's stated
objectives of the baccalaureate degree (including ‘front-matter').
3.) A 2-5 page narrative describing the general education program (equivalent to a draft of the proposed
catalogue copy that would replace existing description), outlining its main components, such as: its philosophy,
rationale, aim, definitions of main terms, requirements, summary, etc.).
4.) A narrative (maximum 15 single-spaced pages) that explains: a.) the governing philosophy of the proposed
program; b.) its intention; c.) the way it responds to emerging faculty concerns identified by the Objectives Steering
Committee; d.) the way the program will prepare students for the first half of the Twenty-First Century; e.) the way
the program supports SIUE's objectives of the baccalaureate degree (including ‘front-matter'); f.) the way it
supports the mission of the University.
PART TWO [Work on Part two should begin in Summer 2006, but, due to the complexity of these tasks, will continue into and be completed in Fall 2006. Part two consists of moving us toward being able to file the necessary forms for change in program (Form 91A or equivalent).]
1.) New courses/linked courses. Proposals requiring a new course or courses should provide rough syllabi. The
rough syllabus should, minimally, present a course description, the learning outcomes, and the conceptual units of
the course. Proposals requiring links of courses (amongst departments/units or with a co-curricular unit) should
provide multiple examples of such linkages, examples drawn from a variety of the schools of the university.
2.) ‘Affected units' requirement. Each proposal should show evidence that the team has opened up a dialogue with
affected units in the University. This requirement is particularly important for proposals that require new courses,
linked courses, or new competency requirements (in physical health or critical thinking, for example). For example,
if a proposal involves a new course that all students have to take, the proposal should be able to project how
many sections of that course will have to be offered each semester, by which units, involving how many faculty and
instructors, in which spaces. (The BRIDGE Committee and Office of the Provost will provide support).
3.) ‘Anticipated budgetary effects' requirement. Each proposal should include a section that roughly projects the
anticipated budgetary effects of the revision to general education. New courses will need to be staffed; new
directors/assistant provosts will need to be paid. These effects will impact implementation of any revisions. (The
BRIDGE Committee Chair and Office of the Provost will provide support).
4.) Mechanisms to review student learning outcomes in general education. Each proposal must include a
discussion of mechanisms appropriate to the revised general education program that will help the faculty determine
how we are going to know if the program is working. In other words, what mechanisms will need to put into place
to review student learning outcomes in general education? ( The BRIDGE Committee, the Office of the
Provost, the Office of Undergraduate Assessment and Program Review and the Excellence in Learning
and Teaching Initiative (ELTI) will provide support.)
5.) ‘Benchmark' requirement. In order to help assess the feasibility of each proposal, each team must find a
‘benchmark' university (perhaps from our frame of reference schools?) that has a general education program
similar to the one being proposed and initiate preliminary contact in order to gather information about
implementation questions, success of the program, administration of program, assessment of outcomes of general
education, etc.). Minimally, proposals must find ‘benchmark' components of their programs. (The BRIDGE
Committee Chair will provide support).
6.) Spread-sheets of ‘proto-typical' students. Each proposal will include ‘spread-sheets' about how different types
of students will flow through the university with a reformed general education program (a variety of ‘prototypical'
full-time CAS, Engineering, Business, Nursing, Education students, transfer-students in a variety of programs, part-
time students in a variety of programs). (The BRIDGE Committee and Office of the Provost will provide
7.) IAI Mapping. Each proposal must provide a preliminary ‘mapping' (or translation) of the revised general
education program into the Illinois Articulation Initiative. ( The BRIDGE Committee and the Office of the
Provost will provide support).
8.) Additional narratives, appendices, supporting documentation , as needed, to introduce and explain the
proposal to the university community.
The BRIDGE Committee also may give specific ‘charges' to each of the phase two-design teams (in relation to perceived limitations/challenges) as the process unfolds over the summer.
The proposals now being developed will move forward to an all-faculty meeting at which one will be chosen as the ‘guiding framework' for the BRIDGE Committee's report and recommendation to the Faculty Senate.
Return to BRIDGE homepage