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