Participant Responses to 'None of the Three"

Participant Responses to ‘None of the Three' Option

• What are the two most valuable elements of the current general education program?

Choice - IAI articulation
None
Flexibility- Familiarity-Articulation w/IAI
Work with IAI- Provides a lot of flexibility for individual students with diverse backgrounds and career goals.
Flexibility- Articulate with IAI
Flexible course choices and scheduling
Flexibility-Consistency with IAI
Distribution is good- NSM/FAH/SS
It exists
Good Distribution- Students Required, For instance, to tame sca. /social sca. /humanities. -It's already in place. –We know it: We speculating About the 3 proposals, and all need more concrete detail
We know the costs and the impact upon all academic units. For any of the alternatives we still need to know accurate information about the costs of implementation and the costs in terms of impact on all the units.
Allows department to gear gen, ed. to the needs of their students.
The University has grown and developed around this program. All of the University organizations and infrastructure is designed for this program, and not learning communities or core.
It is there
None
IS course I a good idea: Skill courses hit some key pieces (communication, critical thinking) but are not enforced early enough to be built on
It exists –It works to some extent
IS Courses is a good idea –Skills courses
I feel that currently we cover the physical & natural sciences and the fine arts, etc.
With excellent advising our students get a well rounded program. Still some problems w/ undecided or transfer students.
Is course requirement –Senior Seminar
It's really hard to say –IS requirement
None
Choices –Still has a computer course as an option
The senior assignment
Having III courses
None
Promotes well roundedness
None
I like the Breadth: exposes them to a variety

We know we can do it! Some of the proposed plans aren't feasible
None
Flexible
Breadth across different areas
Breadth -111 courses in fine arts are excellent
Broad range of fields covered –I.S. courses seem to be effective
Flexibility –Compatible with many other Universities
IS + all area are included
IS Courses –Variety
The IS course –All areas being represented. FAH, SS, NSM
The IS course
None
It meets the requirements of our program
None
Flexibility
None
IS class –Critical Thinking Requirement
Upper division general ed. classes
None
Current literature explains program Science labs are workable
None
None
None
Breadth –Advisors understand the system
Ease of use –Good balance of education
None
Fairly easy for transfer students to articulate
None
Flexible for students to take selected courses
IAR Courses –The one year freshman unity program –Small first year classes
Straight forward: Easily understood –Flexibility: A lot of choices
Freshman Seminars –IS classes
Skills and diversity courses (1 GR & 11/1c)
It is known –It works (maybe not perfectly, but works) –good breadth
Familiar –IS courses: but the commitment to inter-disciplinary techniques
IS courses- Idea behind it if the students copied –Exposure to other areas of the major
All areas represented- Interdisciplinary?
Broad exposure-?????????
? implemental experience
Familiar –IS course: but the commitment to interdisciplinary techniques must be carried throughout the curriculum

Skills components: in 18 + 2 yrs.- International Issues and culture course (Diversity)
Breadth= ? ? to get outside of your discipline –Forced skills classes: writing and critical thinking
English composition and critical thinking: Eng 101/102, Phil 106
Is courses from a wide group of disciplines- all study of areas are represented in the curriculum
Basic skills should be more focused before Junior year- Does not encourage students
Breadth of program-Students are well supported and scaffold through instructional services classes and support labs (Writing, math)
Flexibility for department- Hands off approach where departments are not ordered to make changes they may oppose
Flexibility for department to shape their own programs (for example business can require Econ or a department can require nothing)- Can do a B.A or B.S
Departments can easily incorporate general education requirements into the curriculum- Allows departments a lot of freedom.
The computer system and advisor are set up to handle it. Less administrative change.-
Current general Education is in line with State articulation plan. Easy for transfer students and re-entering students. Easy for current students to understand and register for courses.
LIT is good – Fewer administration changes- Convenient for transfer students
No changes required- Maintains status quo_ Manageable with current computer system. - System understood by faculty and students. _ meets state articulation plan- convenient for transfer students.
Standard in general- (people have always done it this way) – Flexibility
Clear disciplinary lines (no touchy feely integrated courses disciplinary lines speaks to expertise of professors) – there is nothing wrong with current plan
It is straightforward and well understood – flexibility- transfer is well understood and implemented
It's straightforward – it's flexible
Computer skills are addressed and General Education credit given for CS111- Facilitation course transfers is /out of SIUE – Foreign Language required for B.A- 2 nd / advanced courses is ????
Intro and distribution coursework- students and faculty and schools can more easily facilitate what is required by state
Allows for building skills as an intro and dist. coursework
NCATE standards course aligned
Easy to understand
It fits with NCATE statement
IS class
Critical thinking requirement
Interdisciplinary courses (ideal fit in current form)

New freshman seminar
Familiarity
IS courses, they've gotten so big and are so isolated in the curriculum they seem hardly effective
Flexibility for students and faculty
A variety of choices are available
Flexibility of transferring students in and out of university
It is NOT that difficult or confusing to navigate students through the curriculum if advisors care enough about their advisees and take the time they deserve in order to adequately advise them.
Cover 4 major areas: Humanities and Fine Arts, Soc. Sciences, Physical Science, Natural Science
Variety but do not know whether all students end up with the same competencies
Transfer
Variety
Transferability (both into and from SIUE)
Broad exposure to disciplines
Variety of choice
Transferability
Broad but unconnected/exposure to discipline
Flexibility
Transferability – transfer students have few problems
Lots of courses
Variety of courses
Flexibility (breadth in topics in which students can select their GE courses)
None
Critical thinking required – system is understood by faculty and advisors
It's a known entity with understandable drawbacks, but it is at least functional- we constantly hear about how “great” our graduates are and how SIUE is a “premier” school Well by that logic we must be doing something right. Maybe a better “strategy” is to place a “greater amount of resources” on reducing class sizes and retraining current faculty to be better equipped to handle the demands of the future.
Breadth, I guess- theoretical emphasis on writing and critical thinking skills
Im not sure I can answer this as I am new to SIUE this year and do not teach any general education courses.
Requires degree of breadth – seems to genuinely cover most of the bases
I don't think we need to lower the number of credit hours for grad. requirements-this is lowering standards in my opinion. I believe current curriculum offers individuals units and departments the ability to adapt curriculum to fit their discrepancies needs
student ability to enter from community colleges or proficiency and meet all graduation requirements. skills requirement
skill-oriented course requirements
None
effort towards learning outside the principle. Faculty autonomy
Breadth-students are exposed to multiple discipline. Depts. require more study in some disciplines.
None
Flexibility. Gives faculty the autonomy over what they teach and how.
Its emphasis on skills and breadth. Also, the distinction between intro and upper lever distribution requirements.
Matches what our program has articulated with community colleges for transfers. Complete with state requirements for teacher certification.
None
We need a flexible model; that can work with all the diverse programs across campus. The number of required courses need to be limited to fit the unique needs of each department.
Choice, Values
That all students must to an inter-group relations class. Exposure to different learning models
Planning the schedules based on “known” factors. Negative: Current program is like the visual from the construction management. Hard to advise and understand.
I don't have a good idea of what is and what could be done. Maybe more technology and environmental factors in the courses
None
None
None
None
concern for integration in general and the rest of the student's programs (despite its lack of ability to address it well.
Flexibility and familiarity
Flexibility known
Flexible/We understand it and can implement it
comfort-familiarity/flexibility
Flexibility/Requires different levels of courses.
Students choices/feasible i.e. manageable
no implementation costs
number of classes to choose from
Most effective
cost is fair
none
flexibility/breadth
none
the current general education is too complicated to understand, even for faculty, let alone students/ strive to provide a “liberal-education” background/attempts to meet goals of baccalaureate degree which may or may not be addressed by content/discipline
it's components
seems to work quite well
Its courses
its courses/flexibility/requirements for honor students
It's courses/breadth of courses
Its courses/flexibility/breadth
Its courses/flexibility/breadth
Its courses/flexibility
Its course options/flexibility
current general education program is robust and needs to be some reform/we need to standardize what we teach our students no matter who is going to teach the course.
Flexibility/student choice
Written and oral communication
Confusing question
We know that it kind of works/how much it cost
“Better with the devil you know...”/The distributed nature of current program/transfer student friendly
Easy to understand/flexibility
Breadth of learning experiences/some students choice in course selection
We know how it works
Exposure to breadth of disciplines. It may be in a survey at a particular discipline but not in another.
Meets criteria for grad students
It works/number of required hours
Its courses/absolute transferability among colleges
Test over time/It's working. Have we produced qualities graduates with the existing G.E. plan?
It's familiar as a model/no budget impact or personnel shift
Its not perfect, but not broken either. There is no need to spend this level of involvement and resources to revamp it/ It's already in place and will cause disruption. If we use it, maybe slightly adjust it.
Breadth of current program
Students get an idea of what other disciplines are like and my get ideas on what they should major in
Flexibility of individual disciplines to pick and chose general education courses/Flexibility for students in choices of classes
It is there
Choice/IAI articulation
None
Flexibility/Articulation of IAI
Works with IAI/Provides a lot flexibility for individual students with diverse backgrounds and career goals
Written oral communication/knowledge of access on formation/appreciation do importance of offering opinions\
Flexible course choice and scheduling
Flexibility/Consistency with IAI
Distribution is good-NSM/FAH/SS
It exists
Good distribution-students required, for instance, to take sci/sol. sci/humanities/it's already in place/ we know about it: we a speculating about the 3 proposals, and all used much more concrete detail
We know the costs and the impact upon all academic units. For any of the alternatives we still need to know accurate information about the costs in terms of impact on all the units
Allows department to gear gen. ed. to the needs of their students
The university has grown and developed around this program. A lot if the University organization and infrastructure is designed for this program, and NOT learning communities or core. Maintaining a ??? of departments and courses is inherently efficient

2. What is missing from all of three models?

assessment of levels with program/university objectives/interdisciplinary
Where is the “evidence” based approach to change?
Assessment of links and objectives
dealing with transfers/assessment of G.E. outcomes/mechanism for monitoring the G.E. program
Assessment of learning/identification of computer skills course
Assessment of G.E. program effectiveness
Assessment of links with objectives and skills/lack of required computer skills course
I'm not sure-upper level composition in the disciplines?/writing across the curriculum?
computational literacy-which is more than (and exclusive of) information literacy and computer skills-should be included in some way (i.e. what computer can/not do, some problems cant be solved by computers, computers can be misused,...)/other literacies?
Details RE: “information literacy”/ Details RE: Logistics-schedules, etc., etc., etc,. and resources-time and money/ Will administration be willing to provide compensation to teachers at all levels to compensate for what may be-if implemented properly-much more work
Emphasis upon information literacy/emphasis upon the study of foreign languages
A technology component
Technology
An adequate way to make a transition. Insufficient attention to transfer students
Not knowing how outcome will be assessed
Attention to how outcomes will be assessed
Ignores computer literacy for the most part
Focus on outcomes and accountability for achievement or outcomes
Each one is missing different aspects
Each has something missing
A computer literacy requirement
Technology-computer course
Technology skills
Computer course-CMIS is needed. This is a foundation course necessary for continued skills set in other courses
Technology-computer literacy
Including technology exposure
Technology. Some students come from backgrounds where they did not have the opportunity to improve skills in technology and also literacy
Coherence and clarity/students still end up with the grab bag approach
None
Clear implementation plans. This is very troubling considering some of these plans require major shifts for specific departments/courses on environmental issues(caring for our planet)
Where's the money going to come from? (I'm half-joking, but except for the distribution model, the others look expensive)
None
Required computer skills class
All are too complicated
Writing across the curriculum
Health issues/technology requirements
Too many credit hour requirements/insufficient recognition for the contents taught in course required by major/ a course on “what does it mean to be an engineer/teacher, etc. It should be a one credit class
Upholding standards while accepting transfer credit
None
A specific way to handle transfer students who do not have a general education waiver but should also receive the general education experience all other SIUE students receive
Where do other schools; not CAS, courses fit in?/ 1credit elective on-what it means to be.... and what can I do with a (...) degree?
None
Adequate technology/oversight of integrated classes
Technology component. Otherwise, there are good features of each plan, but no plan is ideal/there is a concern and general education courses will bear the blunt of there forced pedagogical changes.
Computer skills
The existential inquiry/spiritual development/education that is beyond job preparation
None
Individual department curriculum was not taken into consideration
Does not address the competitiveness of SIUE grads when applying to graduate school/some plans will be viewed negatively in the admissions process
Health component
none
A clear understanding of the budgetary implications
Computer literacy
None
None
Computer literacy
Computer literacy
health/epidemiology/ computer proficiency
Computer literacy. We need to keep CMIS 108. This is a fundamental course and as the students focus groups mentioned, we need to keep the computer competency courses intact
Current events, health technology/simplicity is missing
Issues in current events
A course to help students make intergraded choices of courses that either support their major or their interests
no emphasis on training/ for advisors should be mandatory
address time service experience/ really understand diversity
1 credit elective
no evaluator of (?) flexibility
Do not address the large class size/ teaching loads/emphasis in stimulated research
An overseas experience/ a true service learning experience
Service learning component/technology in a few areas
clear $ plans
a clear philosophy explaining why some subjects are required and others are not/ sufficient understanding of subjects a student needs to be a voting citizen (History, Geography, the political system)/ allowing sufficient time for faculty research
computer literacy
Technology focus in GE before junior year/ Self-motivation from students needs to develop
Computer literacy
Math requirement
Computer class requirement
A base computer literacy course should be required for all students
Financial and provisions of needed resources to implement the models/ health learning segment is weak or missing from proposal models- need at least 3 hours/ computer literacy is missing
Clean health component/financial resources to guarantee implementation of proposed changes
clean guideline on how they meet state articulation plans/ Health requirement (3 credit hours)/ clean understanding of Budget requirements
Component of why students should care and what would draw them to SIUE because of the general ed.
they are more difficult to understand than the current plan/ not enough upper level courses in general ed. classes
simplicity, flexibility, stronger technology emphasis
They all need stronger technology component/ flexibility, simplicity
technology component/ faculty and students taking 2 nd course in gene d area (Hist 111a,111b or econ 111, 112
technology
practical application and consideration of transfer students
technology
nothing they are all better than what we have now
financial implications and how practical to implement/ more learner centered focus rather than teacher
The others lack about how they will work
None
All three models may face shortage of faculty and classrooms
emphasis on advisors taking their time and interest to ask quarterly
None
Resources/ assessments of educational outcomes
Philosophy based critical thinking as a requirement
none
implications for graduate education true cost
none
none
computer concepts and technology must be included in any of the selected models
none
environmental stewardship/ technology
none
None
Technology/ environmental stewardship
actual implementation
None
student input
more student input
None
More student commentary
two semesters of foreign language for all students/ more student input
a focus on literacy/choices for health and wellness
technology requirements/ diversity/current events
Study abroad
technology requirement
technology course
technology
technology/ computer courses
technology
technology courses
None
None
None
Computer and technology literacy are missing
technology course
technology
technology courses
flexibility to substitute courses/ computer skills course
clear path/ quality of freshman seminars/ more student impact
None
More foreign language
none
none
predictability of operation
foreign language/ elimination of IS requirement
None
None
none address any fourth coming changes in the articulation process/ limited class space/ resources for faculty to teach those expanded courses/ assessment plan for education outcome
none
intergraded core courses
space for 35 person courses
faculty to teach those courses
assessment plan
resources requirements
assessment plan is needed
nothing that I can think of, except that it is unclear to one for impact on the institution departments
implementation considerations (except for the distribution model)
I would like information about what colleges/universities have adopted those models and what their expenses have been
faculty consent
research on what other universities are doing
trying some of the innovative ideas on a trial and have to see how well they are accepted by faculty and students
data about success/problems of similar models in use at other universities(response from faculty, students, cost studies, etc)
If we truly want to develop a community within the classroom we need smaller class size. The freshman seminar should be structured as a true seminar with 20 or fewer students. This is the place to develop a true community.
integration between the models(All of these have good elements and although a hybrid model is not necessarily being thought, the possibility of a hybrid model should also not be rejected without consideration)
time frames for proposed implementation.(In general terms)
The proposed long term value of the recommended solution
change for improving general education
Emphasis on making all faculty better teachers who would naturally seek opportunities to build community and integrate their specialty into real life. provide service learning opportunities, seek ways to provide test out opportunities
They all offer good elements that can be combined into a new model. They all have weaknesses. cannot think of anything more specific than this right now
A general introductory course that teaches basic skills needed for effective learning at university level. For example, note-taking skills, research skills, computer skills, organizational skills, effective methods for learning content, making connections etc.
quality control
no student should ever feel that it was a waste of time to take a course
Practically nothing. All have merit; all should do the job. Some are simple and that's a plus. But none are true liberal arts. also no implementation plans included
None
An evaluation component that asks what's the new model has been effective since the implementation
I would like to see an option for computer literacy
Ways to change campus climate to have liberal arts. How to change intellectual climate on the campus
Can't identify one yet, in general. Increasing overall hours in learning community and distributing plans is a no- no for engineering disciplines.
time budget and personnel, how that affects programs, departments , courses and university
They could claim to fix problems in the current system. but not quite clearly identify what are the problems and how exactly its new models fix the problems
Not enough writing in all three
no writing across curriculum
None
A computer technology course
A basic understanding about true viability of each on giving the current availability of very tight resources and other real constraints that must be faced when implemented
a structured plan for those students transferring into SIUE.(Thinking of those associated degree students coming back for BS)
I don't think they are clear
An adequate way to make a transition. Insufficient attention to transfer students
Assessment of??? with program/diversity objectives/inter-disciplinary
Where is the evidence-based approach change?
Assessment of links & objectives
IC &LC: Dealing with transfers/SIUE: simplify, group natural sciences together; doesn't recognize staffing & assignment problems/assessment of GE problems, mechanism for monitoring GE program
Assessment of learning/Identification of computer skills course
Assessment of program effectiveness
Assessment of links with objectives and skills/lack of required computer skills course
I'm not sure-upper level composition in the disciplines? Writing across the disciplines?

3. What are your remaining concerns?

With any generated model we need to demonstrate hoe the courses will meet the generated program level objectives/outcomes of SIUE.(Not just the requirements)
None
Staffing effect of campus
cost of implementation, impact on existing department hires
Effects on faculty members- need more?
Resources (faculty, facilities)
whatever model is chosen, it must continuously be assessed and reviewed and renewed to avoid drift on at least to drift systematically
my concerns are all based in my own program-will have to make some big decisions once all of this is decided(BA vs. BS for example)
Logistics
transition: Faculty, students, advisors etc
impact on accreditation
Logistics and transition, training, financing, impact on textbook services, integration of changes into banner
whatever eventual plan is developed, it should be submitted once again to the entire faculty for a vote and not just approved by the faculty senate
How will we implement the model we choose?
The plan must be designed to be implementable in increments. It must accommodate the reality that we will continue to grow without additional resources
The models would create a mess and require too much administration
None
How will the change be supported – administrative and resources
Economic Viability
Will implementation actually take place as designed
None
None
None
Will the model we choose actually be supported, financially by administration?
don't puts a heavy burden on instructors and lecturers
financial support
How are we going to handle these changes with an ever growing student population? cant just use students and adjuncts
How do we ensure that the skills we are trying to install will also be in the students we transfer in?
Faculty workload
success of student understanding
eliminating core skills classes that are needed
how are all of these generated changes going to affect the majors that have so many requirements and governed by national governing bodies(such as nursing and pharmacy)
that a proposal will be decided based on the ideology and not the reality
class sizes course load
Focus and preparation in order to have students who are able to apply the knowledge content.
Method to encourage faculty to teach general education courses. Not to come up with innovations that put more pressure and responsibilities on the faculty .
None
Will we be able to financially implement any of the plans? Is the scheduling feasible? Will SPC Department receive financial assistance for distribution model that requires SPC 105?
We can not afford to radical a reform in GE; thus SIUE education/distribution model is the only reasonable model. Why cant we make minor adjustments to the existing system?
None
Resources to support any proposed changes/facilities and faculty/increases workload
Lacking simple applicants/quality of new preparation and faculty time
Writing skills/critical thinking
I am concerned that none of the three models will be chosen and that would be back to square one. So much time and effort has been put into the process so far-I hope the effort is not undermined by a few people who enjoy playing “devils advocate”
SIUE already requires more general education than most other universities. Further increase of general education will hurt professional programs further
Transfer credits
not too many credit hours
Undecided students or students who change their major right now may end up having to take completely new general education courses that are specific to the newly chosen major. General education courses should fill all majors.
Major changes in the general education should work with all majors/not too many credit hours for gen. ed. courses/not too many busy work classes
How will it be implemented/seemingly a huge investment in faculty time (new course development-integrated courses)/ will this affect scholarships/will credit be given?
Adequate support for new teaching models
Labor will not be equitably distributed nor will it be rewarded. How will the integrated courses be evaluated to be sure they are following the model?
Effect upon study of foreign languages/will many courses fulfill general requirements?
None
None
None
Not listening to the faculty as a whole
None
None
None
None
Resources available for which ever plan is chosen especially with team taught alternatives/implementation problems/articulation
How to implement and encourage team-taught courses/concept of “ownership” is abstract
None
Teaching preparation and support for team taught courses
Teaching integrated courses but faculty and departments have to be given resources and preparation in order to implement/cost
Can transfer students go into these without problems
None
Students take courses to “check” the box of our current general ed requirements under our current GE plan. this should be changed
Relies on good advising and not all departments do this will/why is there no advisor training?
None
Major changes in undecided students-gen ed should cover everything/not too many credit hours; not too much busy work
None
Class size
Articulation-we “depend” on transfer students/implementation-are we really committed to doing this?
Keep computer literacy/being flexible with change of major situations/faculty issues
Money for resources to implement/no unfunded mandates/much preparation and time needed for new courses and redesign of department curriculum
None
Cost of implementing/current economic situation-state and local tuition
Student advisors need to have better trainings on how to advise students/leadership skills need to be motivated in class/learn how to learn on their own
If team teaching is involved in a plan, training and release time for faculty should be included/cost of implementation of the plans
None
Transfer students may not be able to transfer as easily
Transfer students may not be able to transition to SIUE as smoothly
Assessment of outcome measures of learning cost, resources and faculty/unclear implementation/faculty support for majors change in teaching responsibilities and assignments.
Financial commitment of administration
Funding/faculty re-education/moving to fast/faculty support-help desk
Don't want to see us take the easy way out/want reasonable, non-punishing options for transfers/want buy-in from all regardless of final approach
Not enough upper level courses in gen.ed/ too much work for CAS-and Core both hurt CAS majors and departments
Too many credits in almost all proposals/students will not understand the program
I think the existing gen. ed. works fairly well—it could work better if original intentions (e.g. writing intensive) were re-established—I don't see the point of completely scrapping the gen. ed.
Will department concerns be taken into account?
Effects and affects generally/how will this reflect students applying to our school?
Cost/too much theory..too little practiced
Incorporate the intro course and development courses
None
Trying to create an new model out of the three choices, you will dilate the underlying philosophy of the model
None
None
Resources may not be sufficient for the proposal models
There is nothing wrong with the current model
Students don't take longer than four years or eight semesters to graduate
Resource allocation-can administration decide to meet the status quo/ do we address the new articulation initiatives
The practicality of implementing any of these plans-adequate support to enable faculty to do what is required for successful implementation
I find it difficult to fully “back” any model in which implementation is muddy. I might like a given mode, but I cant be sure that it wont potentially exploit instructors (for example). I cant vote for it.
Worry that whichever one wins will not get “corrected” in any accountable way
The logistical implementation of two of these-practical considerations/transfer students how do they fit in the three proposals/intro classes-taught largely by call staff
No single model is perfect. While SIUE education model looks most appealing, I have concerns over the areas that need to be covered in a college education (technology). My idea of a good general education program centers around teaching our students more depth than breadth to some extent. After all, it's always better to train our students to be masters of all things.
Staffing in any of the proposals
None
Implementation/ training/cost
That after choosing a model, the model will not be reevaluated and problems wont be identified/implementation logistics
How do these models affect every department?
Cost/implementation/strategy
Small class sizes are necessary for writing courses./conversion costs
Not enough focus in transfer students
Transfer students/sustained commitment to energy/etc for new ones
Implementation of the integrated core or learning communities
None
None
Implementation seems vague-will any of these plans need more faculty hired?/financial support for change?/have faculty required to collaborate been asked if they wish to team teach and how does this affect academic freedom
Will students understand it
If we go through with this, are we losing control?
Integrated core classes/method of voting will cause minority proposal get selected
Method of voting could alter results
That the distribution model will be implemented / voting method could cause problems
That the core or learning com. models may be chosen, but they are impossible to implement
Flexibility from current program.
Graduating seniors with basic computer literacy
Team teaching and interdisciplinary/the cost to cover extra course offerings is not clear
My main concern is that it seems like the university is looking to replace its GE program, rather than adjusting and improving the current one.
Impact on behavior/impact of degree
None
That any other proposal expect for distribution model is implemented/difficult voting will allow a minority choice to be selected
Implementation feasibility for each
That either the integrated core or learning communities approaches will be used
That we will choose an option that doesn't allow for change and progress / that we might choose an option that is inflexible, which would make it difficult to meet needs for teacher certification.
How these plans will be managed
Where is service learning placed/what courses
None
Cost effective/learning communities=not clear
Learning communities model was not well defined and communicated
Driving the secretaries crazy and overwhelming the NTT teachers who teach most of the gen. ed. classes
Students find it complicated
That our teacher education program requirement will have to change if some models are chosen (learning communities and integrated care)
This questionnaire design is a radical departure from all three models. I am not sure how this information will be used.
Depending on whatever model is chosen, if there are not enough resources to accomplish the implementation phase what will happen? resources? students don't end up with same competencies/will departments drop courses if not required for gen. ed.?
I am concerned about implementation and phase in/although I guess I'll have to have faith
Cost of implementation/ transfer-in students-how friendly will it be for them?/does it look attractive to prospective students?
I think there are many unanswered questions and some of the proposals (i.e. learning communities)seem like a patchwork quilt
I've been involved with IS courses in the past and know colleagues who team teach right now. On paper such paradigms are admirable but the coordination and compatibility of “co-teachers” is 10 times more important than the mere fact that courses are “team-taught”. We do very little to address facet of term/integrated teaching.
Cost of implementing
Compatibility of courses with courses at other colleges (e.g. SIUC) for easy transfer
Student are still graduating without proper training/students can still graduate without knowing how to write
Uncertain redistribution and students and resources among programs and departments. Any model would kill a particular program
Impact on specific majors and professional programs/distribution of credits and requirements from outside accrediting agencies
I vote for a “core” plan
That we will discuss a program that is impossible to implement given limited resources
Developing a truly creative option is severely limited by fiscal and bureaucratic structures. I do wonder whether we are going through all this simply so people can think we've engaged in a creative enterprise.
Where will the resources come from to implement these plans?
We must avoid a program that makes transfers difficult. We need transfers for SIUE to flourish.
The best model is already in place. The closest and best model for true liberal arts education in reserved at SIUE for only Dean's and Chancellor's Scholars.
Often plans look great on paper...the devil is in the details. Important that faculty be engaged in the process as it moves forward
Current system is too complex and difficult for faculty to learn and it's hard for them to advise students.
Unprepared students—need more help at the lower levels to strengthen their quantities backgrounds and ability to express themselves clearly and in an informed fashion.
Resources required to make any changes—if not supported by the university and administrators, many faculty will be very discouraged by the amount of time and effort that has gone into this process/many students here are not functionally literate—gen. ed. can solve that problem
Cost of implementing of possible needs of redistribution of UBBC's
How the university implements change/has the university(committees) looked at the students needs (from the students perspective)/how might we get the input from various professions, companies, etc.
I would like to see core eventually phased in with a distribution model initially adopted (to immediately fix current problems) and allow us time to smoothly transition to core.
We need to have a model that can coordinate well with the requirements our students must meet for certification. None of the proposals do this well, although the distribution model comes closest
Logistical problems with core and learning community cost. Amount of work for faculty to redesign curricula. Lack of faculty interest in teaching linked courses.
That students will not be able to graduate in a timely fashion
I see the learning communities model as unworkable at a practical level. How will these plans affect students who change majors?
“Core” and “learning community” models do not fully address the issue of transfer students
I am concerned about the details to be implemented
Are resources available to implement models/will it be innovative?
Resources/no clear outcomes/how are majors going to deal with gen. ed. changes/does each model fit into IAI or C.A.S.

4. As we go forward with general education reform, identify the two most

essential components you would like to see developed.

Where are the objectives/outcomes of SIUE/outcomes and ways to assess these
None
Systematic assessment of new program to control change/drift
Simplicity for students and advisors
Written and oral communication/knowledge of ability to access information
A way to constantly assess success of whatever model is selected
Assessment
Continuous review and improvement
Information literacy
multicurriculum/ pluralism
none
emphasis on interdisciplinary at the same as we avoid hierarchies in the education ( for instance, Eng 101 + 102 or Speech 103/105 being “handmaiden” to other disciplines and their teachers being perceived as 2 nd class)
Clarify to facilitate choices by the students. Emphasis upon substance rather than pedagogy in both general education courses and in courses for major.
Quantitative literacy Technology literacy
Better writing and quantitative literacy emphasis. Efficiency of implementation and execution is key given enrollment and financial pressures mounting on SIUE.
Require skills courses in first 30 hours. Test transfer students in skills.