Collective Table Responses – Question 1. What are the strengths of the student's integrated and universal essential education (distribution) proposal?
-Friendly to transfer students
-Counts some courses in their major
-Diversity
-User friendly to all students
-Flexible scheduling
-Very arhns parent
-A great dice of student agency
-Exposes students to more/varied disciplines
-Quantitative literacy
-More flexibility w/transfer in and out
-Eliminates distinction b/t intro and dist. courses
-Differentiates between BA and BS
-More science for B.S.
-Emphasis on competency early on
-We like the general design
-Best for transfer, part-time, summer students, and those switching majors
-Most feasible to inplenet
-Least risk of changing major that doesn't work
-Clear BA/BS
-Overlap of gen eds w/ majors is good
-We like the health optice
-Realistic and flexible
-Maximizes student choice
-Ties very well with the majors
-Clarify and practical nature
-Better resource utilization
-Good distinction between BA/BS
-Suits professional schools
-A familiar system that could be implemented easily
-It is very transfer friendly, a must for the mission of SIUE
-The four basic requirements are clearly delineated along
-The BS degree is totally divested of “BS” in this system
-Reducing the size of the IS courses is ideal
-More bredth; includes basic core
-Easy to understand, transfers well, students know what they will learn
-Focus on communication (written and oral)
-This model meets the education and nursing requirements
-Great to cap courses (but maybe realistically some of them)
-Most easily levitated since it is worst ? least disruptive in terms of resource reallocation
-Better accommodates the needs of transfer students
-Requiers the student to tke courses in wore area than does the current model
-Exposure to breadth of areas
-May be less painful to implement-closer to existing structure
-Can integrate existing courses, books
-Probably cleanest
-Easy to communicate to students
-Early incorporation of skills courses
-Transferability
-Organized structure
-Quanliture literacy foundation great
-Multiculturalism great
-Presentation of freshman semester
-Doesn't appear to increase units to graduate (especially not for engineer dept.)
-Strength in integration
-The level of the ownerships from students
-Based on the existing proposal, there are no dramatic changes for the university
-Faculty expertises
-It allows over lap. It can help the graduation rates.
-Flexible. Easy to follow. Sequencing. Physical science distinct from life sciences. BA/BS distinction clarified.
-Flexible
-Overlap
-Quantitative literacy=good
-We can understand this proposal
-Intergrades better c community colleges. Serves our students better
-Easier to see relationship c current system
-Transition easier to accomplish. Less new resources
-Courses can integrate into major allows overlap.
-Makes sense, cuary laid out
-Easy writing courses
-You can test out of some basic classes
-Quantitative literacy
-Distinction between BA and BS
-Speech 105 requirement good
-Easiest for transfer students
-Smaller class sizes (Especially in IS)
-Strengthening of BS degree and equalizing of BA degree requirement
-Allows more overlap between general education and major
-Like the breadth
-Flexibility
-Easier to understand
-Gives students freedom of choice better for transfer students because of flexibility
-Foreign Language requirement pairedo/lab requirement. Connecting the B.S. and the B.A.
-Flexibility of overlaps
-Better chances for advisement if student switches from B.A./B.S.
-Preparation for transition to college
-Students are required to take 2 lab sciences for BS and for BA you can not proficiency out of you language
-Economically possible
-Areas divided up a little bit more
-Assess student's computer/technology efficiency
-More diversity and learning across the academic areas
-Modeled after current system
-Allows students to overlap major requirements with gen Ed
-Allows for student choice-channeling interest
-Flexibility for individual departments to control classes for major
-Expands breadth requirements to 5 from 3
-Doesn't really tax existing university resources or bureaucracy
-Have to pass writing classes more strongly than the other models
-Reduced # of hours as a strength
-Implemental with the min. amount of resources
-Easy articulation with community colleges
-Integration of study of International cultures/subcultures in the U.S.
-Allowance of proficiency out of certain courses
-Easier to transition
-Allow pairing down to 120 MS.
-Serve state better with IAI collaboration
-Requires com quantitative literacy
-Low budget implication
-Protects 111 courses in disciplines that aren't taught in high schools
-Flexibility
-Appreciate focus on culture
-Appreciate BA/BS distinction
-Logical structure, easy for all to follow
-Easy to adopt
-Easy to transfer in or out
-Relevance of freshman seminar
-Minimal strain on resources
-Does the best job of the 3 alternatives of incorporating transfer students under IAI agreements
-Flexibility of choice for students
-Language and lab components that cannot be proficiencied out of
-Speech 105 is important as students need this skill
-It is individualized and flexible
-Critical thinking taught early
-Smallest amt. of administrative change and cost for reprogramming of the Banner system would be capped.
-Lab courses can be handled better c some options available
-Potentially implemental
-Allows better segue into gen ed for transfer students
-Least disruptive and most efficient compared to current model
-Most supports students transfering in and out
-Requires 1 year foreign language c different levels for BA, makes BA/BS distinction.
-More student-driven choice-allows them a greater chance to success.
-Reduces is course sizes
-Ease of implementation
-Least upheaval of current program
-Most practical to do
-Proficiencies still require advanced placement
-More breadth of courses
-Simplicity-easy to understand
-Easiest to implement
-Diverse
-Builds on strengths of current program
-Less confusing structure for students
-Value apparent to students
-Separates sciences-Life science and Physical science
-Obvious focus on diversity and culture
-Organized plan
-Easy to understand
-Easier to implement
-Improvement w/o reinventing the wheel
-Good for advanced students
-Addresses level of diversity of student prep
-Good use of support services and academic
-Quant lit. is good
-Students can apply gen ed reqs. to major
-Students need more math and science
-The breadth areas as currently configured seem to be strength
-Very transfer friendly
-Very well thought out
-Administratively more tractable and less resource intensive than alternative models
-Its simplicity renders it more understandable and hence easier to adopt across discipline options for BA and BS
-Easiest to understand
-Fewer credit hours
-US and international cultures
-More breadth
-Can take either lower or upper level breadth
-Less info on “intro” classes
-Works with Banner
-Familiar and lest radical
-Very transparent
-A great deal of student agency
-Transfer-“can't read”
-Lab requirements for BS
-Language requirements for BA
-Advanced coursework counts toward Gen Ed
-Flexibility
-Feasible
-Have to pass writing classes more strongly than other models
-Breadth areas ensure that most areas covered
Collective Table Responses – Question 2. What would make the student's integrated and universal essential education (distribution) proposal even better?
-Systematic assessment of change
-More qualitative analysis be integrated, more reflection on data
-Need requirements for non technology
-Computer literacy is lacking—needs to be strengthened
-Freshmen seminal should be 1 credit -once a week meeting for 1 st semester should suffice
-Make sure this corresponds to other campuses- articulation agreements
-Total # of hours exceeds current requirements; ex. ME
-Transfer in and out of SIUE should be considered
-Courses here should “match” other institutions to assist students in their transfer
-Foreign language should be required for BS also (Proficiency ok)
-Technology perhaps considered
-Environmental stewardship should be addressed
-Speech Communication classes would be reversed, requiring 80 sections of Public Speaking and 30 interpersonal (opposite of now)—(requires major infrastructure $ support)
-Needs more integration of coursework-less intellectually challenging
-Consider meeting breadth requirements with one intro and one advanced course in discipline
-Create “computer center” in lieu of technology course along same lines as writing/speech centers
-Clearer advising tools for students so that they understand how system works
-It would make it stronger to have a gateway class component
-Take the first paragraph of the executive summary and the LL one and put it on top of distribution-that would be a better plan
-Technology-needs some component-computer, technology, literacy
-Library/research education component?
-Seems to be less “liberal”
-More science for BS students
-More language for BA students
-Maybe should be true the other way around?
-Less labs and fees for students (ie. Increasing lab courses increases cost to SIUE and students)
-More equipment is also needed
-Include a request for hidden cost increases that could hinder this model
-Include health component and the computer/ tech. component is necessary now
-These two arenas are needed for students who do not have computers at home and need to be educated re: health issues for life
-Flexibility of choice, in that students may have too much freedom when they are uncertain freshmen
-No technology requirement
-No health requirement
-Worried about credit-hour reduction becoming an end in itself
-Keep up with choice of SPC 103, 104 or 105
-Lab science not practiced with limited space
-Increase the # of hours of residency of the university
-A gateway course
-Problem: resources for science labs
-Is this enough of a change?
-Offer IS classes at different levels (200-300 etc.)
-Better classification of what makes a required class
-Shifts burden to skills courses from 111 classes/ erases distinction between skills and intro classes
-Larger administrative burden for departments and grad checks
-Flexibility can be confusing and overwhelming
-CMIS is omitted and should be included in general education in some form
-Programming lab, ex: CS 140 to be added to the physical sciences
-There is some concern that there is little chance for students to take additional hours in a breadth area as an elective
-With no overlap, there would be little opportunity to explore further areas of interest
-Perhaps the model could spell out how this could be aligned with overlap
-Perhaps students could select a subset of the breadth areas (e.g. 4 of the 6)
-More specified computer literacy/ technology
-Computer technology course must be added-student should be allowed to test out of it
-Flexibility in choosing courses could cause difficulty in student selection (assume students know what they need)
-Short-changed health
-Added 2 culture courses-should be integrated into 1
-What kind of strain would it put on instructional services (Proficiency test)?
-Require at least a proficiency exam for health and technology
-All departments would be included in breadth, right?
-No information literacy
-Info literacy should be like IGR—integrated across the curriculum
-Need information literacy
-Need to reduce number of hours required for graduation
-Connections between component parts not clear
-Students and faculty would appreciate more clarity here
-Making up hours after taking proficiency courses
-Computer literacy skills-test out of skills course
-Flexibility not as apparent as suggested
-Do not believe breadth/ diversity achieved when major/ minor can overlap with gen ed requirements
-Requirements for not including proficiency exams and requiring upper level language requirements may reduce # of BA degrees
-No 111's
-Need to address technology: list courses as physical sciences or make new breadth are called mathematics/ computation
-Students choose 6 out of 7 breadth areas
-Undermines Education Degree and secondary education programs
-Eliminate all restrictions on proficiencies
-Maybe 2 labs is too much for BS, maybe 1 lab will suffice
-If possible, reduce the Diversity requirement to 1 cause
-Maybe only links causes
-Needs a technology component
-Unclear about “additional component”
-Course requirements in junior/ senior years are not correlated to some major
-The administration must commit the sources to make the IS proposal work
-Add a computer/ technology requirement
-Freshman Seminar could include wellness/ fitness, technology, campus resources including research skills (discuss plagiarism, honesty, ethics), include community service
-Should include lab science for BS and BA
-Allow students to test out of foreign language requirement if bilingual
-Check out Western Illinois —all freshmen need 1 course that is also designated as freshman seminar
-Could something be added to enhance the integration requirements of this proposal?
-Computer proficiency exam for all incoming freshmen and transfer students
-Students who fail the proficiency should take CMIS 108 or equivalent
-Focus on outcomes—goals of baccalaureate—need to assess the desired goals
-Only allow truly ‘appreciation' classes (not intro to guitar)
-Gear requirements to classes that are not developmentally based of that eliminate breadth
-e-literacy: give appreciation that technology is changing; acknowledge diversity of computing backgrounds
-Computer technology courses should be added as a requirement for science and engineering major students
-More responsibilities from student advisor because students might not be able to make their decisions on which courses to take
-I'd like even stronger restrictions (less flexibility) regarding
-Does not seem to be as “leading edge” as other models as it relates to “integration across discipline silos”
-May not work as efficiently—guidance system needed
-Philosophy based critical thinking should be required
-Work in computer literacy
-Not as unique
-Simplify charts, etc. so easier checklist for advisors and students
-Make easy for students to figure out what meets what
-Add health requirements
-Could have requirement for technology @ higher level if necessary
-Students can get by with only taking intro courses --> may take easy way out --> provide more guidance
-Proposal courses of study for gen ed --> students can choose proposal one so classes fit together better but would have a choice --> would lay out a more integrated plan
-Lesser development requirement beyond IS
-Not a lot of integration
-Technology
-Make sure writing is across curriculum—has to be central
-Do not allow lower division courses to satisfy breadth requirements
-Had outstanding integration across curriculum
-Freshmen seminar experience should be interdisciplinary