COLLECTIVE TABLE RESPONSES --

INTEGRATED CORE MODEL

 

•  Strengths

 

•  Connects skills to content and shows connections w/in broad disciplinary groups. Integration of LAS courses. “Emphasis on ways of knowing.” Offers linkage and diversity of options for students.

 

•  Good to have radical change

 

•  Linking/integration is generally for Lib. Arts/Fac Rsch/Lifelong Learning

 

•  Assumes wonderful lofty ideal of faculty collaboration

 

•  Match BRIDGE goals nicely

 

•  LAS links, Balance – better logistically than the LC model

 

•  Continuing focus on skills-writing, thinking, speech, and critical

 

•  Promotes interdisciplinary study and makes connections between disciplines

 

•  Good to require transfer students to take GC 301

 

•  Promotes quantitative literacy

 

•  We see the advantages of cotaught courses (as they exist now)

 

•  Integrated learning

 

•  Decrease in # of credit hours

 

•  Linkage btw skills and content

 

•  Transfer into SIUE will have an advantage

 

•  FAH101 concept – interdisciplinary

 

•  Flexibility

 

•  Integration of different knowledge

 

•  Team work in teaching idea, however, implementation might be problematic

 

•  Citizenship course – good idea

 

•  Emphasis on skills and small enrollment

 

•  Team taught courses encourage work together

 

•  Like link themes across courses

 

•  House analogy

 

•  Global citizenship

 

•  Fewer hours

 

•  Separate grades for integrated courses (ex. skills & content)

 

•  Autonomy – minimum of 1 major course

 

•  Linked, integrated courses

 

•  Depts could choose gen ed courses for their programs

 

•  Greater flexibility

 

•  Teaches integration vs letting students integrate independently

 

•  Better for transfer students

 

•  The reduction in total hours is positive

 

•  Ideally it will allow students to pursue diverse interests on their own

 

•  Linked courses and disciplines is good for encouraging a holistic understanding of knowledge

 

•  Integrated courses increase experiences with other faculty and disciplines

 

•  Delineation between BS, BA

 

•  If students change majors may not need to retake gen ed courses

 

•  Less credit hours

 

•  Good for transfer

 

•  More realistic, easier to implement

 

•  Integration and diversity are addressed

 

•  Integration may be good philosophically, buy may be difficult to implement

 

•  The effort to get students to make connections (though we are skeptical)

 

•  The linkage might work out well

 

•  Common foundation that all SIUE students would experience (except transfer students)

 

•  Consistent approach to meeting the IS requirement

 

•  301 explicitly meets an SIUE value

 

•  Linked courses facilitate collaboration and provide reinforcement

 

•  Integrated courses provide explicit links across disciplines to students

 

•  Link & cap to smaller classes

 

•  Collaborative effort would be good

 

•  Global citizenship course is writing intensive

 

•  Fits well for traditional students @SIUE

 

•  Global citizenship

 

•  Idea of global citizenship seems appealing

 

•  Good to have large body of central, core knowledge expected of all students

 

•  Good organization and structure

 

•  Easy to understand for students

 

•  Considers prior learning

 

•  Easier to explain to students

 

•  Offers flexibility

 

•  Manageable with current methods of record keeping

 

•  More manageable lab components

 

•  Intro to broad disciplines/content allows for articulation

 

•  Applaud global citizenship

 

•  Seems most truly interdisciplinary

 

•  Like emphasis on connections

 

•  Most “general” of GE proposals

 

•  Like some of the exciting teaching opportunities

 

•  Like balance requirement

 

•  Team teaching

 

•  More meaningful general education program. Instead of letting students take some courses just to satisfy GE requirements, the proposed program provides students more “direction” and “depth”.

 

•  NS 101, etc. sound like fun and interesting courses

 

•  Clearly defines what the student is required to do

 

•  Defines the “spirit” of gen ed

 

•  Forces students and faculty to connect across disciplines

 

•  Most exciting!

 

•  Addresses holistic goals of gen ed

 

•  Forces thinking “outside the box”

 

•  Creative, intriguing design

 

•  Structurally invites faculty to collaborate across disciplines

 

•  Global citizenship course is critical ; great idea ( environmentalism included?)

 

•  Retains freshman seminar

 

•  Students in focus group liked

 

•  Strong integration

 

•  Addressed holistic goals of general education better than any model

 

•  Added writing intensive course for nursing a plus

 

•  Emphasis on writing & communicating

 

•  Emphasis on breadth

 

•  Global citizenship class has a positive impact

 

•  Rigor

 

•  Critical thinking & logic

 

•  Integrating individual experience

 

•  Exposes students to the “gestact” of being human

 

•  Interdisciplinary approach

 

•  Still allows depts. To implement 11's as they so desire

 

•  Allows faculty to go beyond the “basics” of 111's and focus on particular areas of interest

 

•  An impressive emphasis on depth

 

•  Writing intensive class at 300 level

 

•  This seems like a successful way to approach interdisciplinary learing

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

•  Suggestions

 

•  Need information literacy component

 

•  Will require concerted effort of faculty and university resources

 

•  Integrate across FAH/SS/NSM not just within

 

•  Convince us that this is administratively logistically possible

 

•  How can we ensure continuity across the LAS courses & no t put too much burden on fac to do constant new preps?

 

•  Skills courses often taught by adjuncts, TAs – how to make sure they integrate w/ LAS?

 

•  Written expression = composition

 

•  Information literacy needs to be a component -> links to library faculty?

 

•  Become more flexible

 

•  Weaknesses

•  Feel the proposal is less flexible

•  Feel the integration will water-down the subject matter – surface courses

•  Eng Depart has concern about link with Eng 102

•  Team teaching is problematic. Difficulty coordinating

 

•  Include a computer literacy component

 

•  Include a foreign language requirement for the BA

 

•  Reduce the number of credit hours

 

•  To mandate cotaught courses is unrealistic

 

•  Addition – foreign language or health (Despite Global Citizenhip req)

 

•  Solutions to logistical problems related to integrated team-taught courses: e.g. pedagogical models, cost for faculty salary, courses with large enrollments, instructor dynamics

 

•  Solutions to difficulties in dealing with transfer credit

 

•  Enhance or change transfer student ability to transfer out of SIUE

 

•  Add technology (computer science)

 

•  Add foreign language

 

•  FAH 101 implementation – not dictated by others; let team teacher determine content

 

•  Make this work w/o relying on team teaching (logistics)

 

•  Develop “structure” to support team teaching (integrating)

•  release time, planning resources

•  training of faculty, professional development

•  compensation (team taught does not mean ½ taught)

 

•  Make it work with existing courses, texts

 

•  Make it transferable (in/out)

 

•  Allow foreign language

 

•  Team teaching implementation, question mark

 

•  Make computer technology as a selective course for science and engineering major students

 

•  Substantial integration vs superficial mix-up

 

•  Student intentionality?

 

•  Clarity how team taught courses chosen, evaluated

 

•  Logistics & organization of offering team taught and skills

 

•  Assignment FTE load

 

•  Flexibility requires skills course for student schedules OR possibility student flunked one & need retake

 

•  Took out other IS -> still require IS

 

•  Too much work for CAS

 

•  Less interdisciplinary -> team taught from people from 2 disciplines

 

•  Loses upper level gen ed

 

•  Needs health requirement

 

•  Needs technology requirement

 

•  Most challenge to implement

 

•  Add service learning

 

•  Add courses of how to write for social sciences, etc. more than just joint courses

 

•  Not as strong a link between skill & content for integration

 

•  Care must be taken the construction of team taught courses. They are easy in theory but very difficult to properly execute.

 

•  Effort must be taken to clearly demarcate real differences between academic disciplines for the sake of student knowledge.

 

•  Lower class size

 

•  Integrated courses may not have the depth or meet all certification for education & nursing

 

•  Needs to address health & wellness

 

•  Enrollment problem

 

•  Transfer out of these courses may be a problem

 

•  Computer proficiency exam for incoming freshmen and transfer students. Students who fail the proficiency should take CMIS 108 or equivalent

 

•  How would outcomes (of core courses) be assessed to ensure core courses are meeting objectives?

 

•  Would require more faculty to be hired to meet the requirements of this type of program

 

•  Program requirements not very clear for students to understand

 

•  Quality may be jeopardized

 

•  May prolong educational time frame beyond 4 years

 

•  The integrated LAS courses are too limited on which areas can overlap. Currently an IS can integrate across say English and Sciences.

 

•  Linking courses will make scheduling difficult – students need 6 hours set aside for gen ed & demands of programs make this difficult

 

•  Matching the LAS & skills will create scheduling difficulties

 

•  Faculty training costs

 

•  Concern that LAS courses will be too surfacey

 

•  Difficulty teaching an interdisciplinary area without first learning each area

 

•  Would the disciplines/degree programs be equipped to identify/require some of the “missing elements” (I.T., foreign languages, etc.)

 

•  While less administratively complex than learning communities, plans would need to be developed to make the liberal courses work

 

•  Linked courses may be difficult to implement (for the teaching faculty) -> plan to facilitate this

 

•  Implementation – how to plan workload so linked faculty workload not so great

 

•  Use tenure or tenure-track faculty for these classes

 

•  Negative impact on some majors – loose faculty research time to this

 

•  Need faculty development to implement

 

•  Doesn't fit well for transfer students

 

•  Prescribed courses too limited/limiting

 

•  Logistics of offering integrated LAS courses

 

•  Not friendly to traditional students who take AP courses in high school

 

•  Address the following weaknesses:

 

•  English, math & speech are at the mercy of the other linked course in terms of content

•  No foreign language

•  No technology

•  Integrated courses are not useful to students who transfer & complete their education elsewhere

•  Does not fully consider the impact on the other “non-professional” schools

•  Scheduling is extremely difficult for linked courses in conjunction with the major requirements of other departments

•  What happens when students fail a “linked” course with respect to the student's overall program of study?

 

•  Good concept – sounds like would take a LOT of planning/cooperation

 

•  Looks very complicated – hard to follow

 

•  Not sure if team taught 300 level course would fly – also wouldn't his be a drain on faculty resources? $

 

•  What is quantitative literacy?

 

•  Not enough science

 

•  Needs a health course (3 hours)

 

•  Coordination between/among core disciplines seems complicated

 

•  Links seem “too loose' to be integrated

 

•  Lack of history & foreign language

 

•  Seems like lots of logistical challenges w/ staffing, load

 

•  Lack of discipline specific intro

 

•  No foreign language, computers

 

•  Transfer problems – seems like it gives a “mulligan” to A.A. students

 

•  Implementation not thought through

 

•  Treats skill courses as second-class

 

•  Potential negative impact on graduate education – shifts many resources down

 

•  Require more science

 

•  Require more fine arts/humanities

 

•  It is impossible to implement in its current form

 

•  This seems impossible to implement

 

•  Math/Bus. Majors would receive only one science course except for NS 101 - & NS 101 will be a superficial course. There is not enough time to learn in depth about chem or bio or physics in 3 hr when all are together.

 

•  Seems like a weakening of the B.S.

 

•  Too much breadth may sacrifice substance

 

•  Difficult to find effective teaching teams & sustaining them over time

 

•  Reducing “balance” requirement & placing that into linked courses area would give engineering/nursing programs enough space to complete their programs in 4 years

 

•  ***Swap I. A. with V. B. on model design sheet (page 5). Push integration out of 1 st year, move to either 2 nd semester freshman year or sophomore year – would let transfers into system

 

•  Note; Table liked this model least because impossible to integrate transfer students into this model, but liked it most in terms of really integrating learning

 

•  Collaboration should be fostered, not forced

 

•  Pragmatics of implementation (scheduling, class load issues, course evaluations, etc.)

 

•  Most costly design

 

•  Longest phase-in – Must build in co-teaching training

 

•  Plenty of summer & night courses offered

 

•  Needs to address foreign language & history

 

•  Needs to address impact of potential decline in 111 for specific departments (i.e. Psychology)

 

•  Training for team teaching

 

•  What's the faculty incentive for additional work involved in team teaching (i.e. money or additional credit)

 

•  Staffing could be a challenge

 

•  IS has already been invented – perhaps we can do a bit more from an IS approach without making such radical changes

 

•  Many majors rely on the 111's as a recruiting technique

 

•  We're not fully convinced that this model will work w/ programs w/ intensive requirements

 

•  Transferability