Participant Responses to the Core Model - Questions 1 and 2

1.) What are the strengths of the integrated core proposal?

• The major strength is that it has isolated 3 area of human inquiry . Conceptually, I like this idea: it is elegant and efficient.
• Integrated team approval gives greater exposure to knowledge
• Perhaps structure like research teams, where one is the lead and others are co-director/instructor.
• The idea of integrated skills & content
• Open to faculty creativity
• Reinforcement of overlap in issues across disciplines & how real, in-depth understanding can only come from multiple perspectives
• Students – 75-100/class
• Application focus to courses
• Attempts to provide relationships between disciplined & relevance to other U & lifelong learning
• “Integration” comes early in students' academic career (for those who now even object to theory vs. practice within their “own” discipline)
• Recognition of need for interdisciplinary work
• Skill classes are good, but distribution model has more
• FAH 101 – good, but with a structure to support real integration
• Cooperation between departments, exposure of students to various departments
• On paper the common core knowledge seems great.
• Radical change from current program – poses good opportunity for interdisciplinary knowledge sharing
• Enforces interdisciplinary learning throughout university
• Fuses disciplines
• Core courses that all must take to secure basic knowledge to all
• Encourages making connections = an essential aspect of liberal arts education + lifelong learning
• Uses IS model for all of gen. ed. is a usually very favorable for faculty. Helps spur new research, I think
• Assumes ideal of faculty collaboration – a wonderful lofty ideal!
• Perhaps pushes more full-time faculty to teach intro courses = good idea.
• Encourages collaboration among faculty
• It will enhance across-disciplinary content of the general education. The concern over the level of depth is valid but not necessary. Student should get broader knowledge of a variety of issues without worrying about the deeply understanding the whole disciplines.
• Course can be designed by a department – course syllabus, content, etc. the department should publize the course and let faculty pick the sections to teach.
• Standardization of GE
• Integration a definite plus
• Have a bit of trouble finding any real positive aspects of this model
• Theoretically team-taught classes are valuable when 2 instructors want to work together but I'm not sure it can be forced
• Found no strength to this particular model
• Its creative and outside of the box
• Global citizenship course, linkages, team taught
• Balance course idea good in that gives additional breadth – a deeper liberal education & like the integration that would result from the four core courses
• Interesting idea
• The concept of cross integration of disciplines provides students with a broad foundation. This would allow students to explore a variety of subjects and start to develop a sense of who they are and what they want to achieve.
• It's a long term philosophy
• Its broad based
• Global citizenship is critical in today's society
• Frankly I see very little to recommend us all negatives
• Goals are admirable but may not be achievable
• Connections across disciplines, global perspective, team teaching, citizenship, critical thinking
• Integration of courses across disciplines
• Team leading; citizenship
• Would work well with two instructors who have a desire to collaborate
• Concept of core integration. Team teaching
• They argue for the team taught model
• Linking similar themes across courses
• Concerns –
• Logistics of team teaching integrated courses, communication between integrated and skill course instructors, students having to retake a failed class? Complete an uncompleted class?, who's organizing the integrated and skills courses
• Emphasis on soft skills
• Global citizenship
• Smaller sections for skills courses
• Not much budgetry constrained
• Integration of knowledge for students, global citizenship class, team teaching models working together for students, linking course material helps students understand overlap, like balance classes
• Faculty from various depts will have an opportunity to teach courses outside their discipline
• Broad backgrounds for foundation
• Exposure of students to the various disciplines
• Quantitative literacy requirement
• Like the multi-disciplinary approach in team- split credit hours between departments
• A few faculty get their wildest dreams come true
• Most faculty do not
• Makes students take courses outside their major
• The interlinking of skills provides a very nice foundation both for current and life-long learning
• Strong foundation
• None that I am aware of at this time at this school
• Administrators would be busier
• An ideal liberal education foundation
• Interesting integration of disciplines
• Integration concept
• Nice addition of global citizenship component and quantitative reasoning. Good emphasis on writing
• Promotes interdisciplinary thought
• Like the idea of tying the skills with an academic course.
• Cross disciplinary nature of the courses
• Creative idea to have the 101 programs – good connections between information provided in the 101
• Clear, easy to follow
• Fewer credit hour requirements ( still too many)
• Allow some customization by program of study (needs more)
• Global citizenship
• Thematic connections a good idea
• Appreciate teaching across disciplines emphasis on diversity
• Integrated learning is powerful
• Multiple perspectives
• Global citizenship course
• Interdisciplinary
• Fluidity of the model
• Best thought out and planned
• The return of the FAH 101
• The disciplinary courses – FAH, SS, NSM – has real value. Team teaching a great plus
• Link of larger classes to smaller classes
• Exposure to interdisciplinary classes
• Very creative and willing to look at possibilities
• Writing intensive courses
• Connecting skills to content, showing commonesses and connections within broad disciplinary groups
• The integrated LAS course
• Team-taught courses that introduce students to multiple disciplines within a major area and to the relationships between these disciplines is a valuable concept
• Skills courses would be valuable as well
• <Foreign Language?>
• I like the idea of an integrated curriculum
• LAS courses
• Balance courses
• Balance of distribution & learning communities. Less logistical problems than learning communities w/ more integration then distribution
• Connects dots between courses
• Links between good in concept but is it practical
• Team taught FAH 101 linking 2 disciplines in Fine Arts and Humanities
• Continuance of 3 skill courses
• Team teaching connections between courses
• Linking skills courses with integrated 100 level
• Seems the most creative “out of the box” of the three
• Potential for students to see connections between disciplinary areas
• Helps students integrate knowledge into a coherent whole
• Teaches critical skills for career success
• Helps students understand the world in an interconnected whole
• Easy to follow
• Directing students focus toward connections between/across disciplines
• Establishes connections between disciplines
• Links basic skills to upper division course content
• Integration among majors
• Social interaction
• Quantitative literacy
• Promotes inter-disciplinary study
• No foreign language requirement for BSN
• Well be more flexible in allowing students to transfer into from junior college
• Nice idea to integrate across disciplines, difficult to implement
• Lower class size (?) not sure stated
• Strong distinction between BA and BS requirements
• Team taught courses as long as it is a team and not tag-teams can be powerful. I think the integrated core proposal also addresses diversity issues more than the other 2
• Interdisciplinary teams is the key to solving the “world's” problems. This proposal acknowledges this fact. Reduces number of hours.
• Team teaching of 100 level courses could potentially be a strength, but the large lecture format may not be effective in promoting student learning
• Diversity
• Less hours required, leaving more course for students to “liberally” select
• Life is integrated; this model demonstrates this concept
• Diversity – global citizen class might be helpful to change student perspectives
• I like the global citizenship course idea
• Integrating courses is good in theory but hard to implement. Our campus is too spread out – we don't do a very good job with many of the integrated courses we have tried to implement now.
• Closest in shape and content to present model
• It should have great ease of implementation. Unlikely to generate substantially different results.
• Philosophically it sounds good
• 36 credit hours; feasible with major requirements
• Try to link skills with content course
• Teaching students to see connections between disciplines
• The linked courses is an interesting idea. I don't know how practical this is to implement
• The “balance courses” may be an effective way to put breadth into the program, with fewer hours than, for example, the breadth component of the distribution model. Perhaps this approach could be integrated into a distribution model.
• Students were made to see the relevance of different disciplines to their specific major. Curriculum forces the students to understand the importance of the proposed courses.
• Understand linkages between fields.
• Less credit hours to accomplish, greater outcomes, good for transfers.
• Less hours total. Common foundation to draw on (in later courses).
• Less credit hours. Some colleges already take a globalization approach (e.g. business). Hence, a globalization course is redundant.
• Very little. Students may be better able to integrate common themes across disciplines.
• Globalize citizenship for IS freshmen seminar.
• A lot of early disciplinary integration. I like global citizenship. I like simplicity of “Balance” component. Smaller number of hours.
• A. An emphasis on interdisciplinary, collaborative teaching/ learning, B. Encourages faculty development through cross- disciplinary collaboration, C. Enhances intellectual atmosphere for faculty, D. Less credit hours required than.
• Large knowledge base, gives a basic diverse knowledge, good skill courses, good choice of integrated & skills courses, good foundation of content, much better than the other two, good because links the integrated with a skill course, gives freedom to departments require specific courses (the difference from 36 to 42 CRH).
• Content “added” to skills courses. LAS courses are a terrific idea. Quantitative reasoning. More coherent gen. ed.
• Better for transfer students. Integrates content & skills. Globalization. Flexibility and balance.
• I think this works.
• The team seems intelligently well thought out.
• 1. Integration of knowledge. 2. Present the different disciplines as a whole. 3. Inter discipline classes that in a – will benefit clusters of disciplines.
• Seeks to integrate knowledge. Global citizenship course.
• Interdisciplinary à various schools involved
• Need for collegiality among faculty – interdisciplinary
• Link of faculty
• Enhances knowledge- continued knowledge
• Identifying connections between classes
• Balance requirement are good idea
• Seems like a truly innovative proposal. Perhaps best captures the spirit of general education. Allows for exciting teaching and learning. “Balance” component is interesting.
• Seems most truly interdisciplinary.
• Like the idea of common cores and these seem very well thought through…emphasizing connections
• Global citizenship requirement is appealing to a sense of social justice sometimes absent in today's youth.
• None!!!
• Freshman Seminar
• I like this conceptually and hope that elements of it are integrated into whatever model we adopt. Has the best developed sense of the linkages and their potential.
• The “big picture” just makes sense
• Integrated learning across disciplines
• Int. disc. Approach, still allows depts. to institute 111
• Good idea in theory à interdisciplinary, team taught
• Interdisciplinary approach good in theory
• Written expressive course. New freshman seminar
• Well organized. Probably better understood by students as to “why” the need for these courses and how they fit with their major. Would work well with the Banner system. Good consideration of transfer and re-entering students. Includes diversity and a broad knowledge base to prepare for major courses. Good starting foundation. Requires least amt. of change, resources and costs.
• Easily understood. Gives consideration to prior learning. Easy to explain to students. Manageable with banner.
• Better organized, structured, easy to understand, problem solving; students can see better why they need these courses; Easy to explain to student what the requirements are. More manageable technically and systemically. More manageable in terms of lab financial report.
• Banner implementation appears to be cost effective – Articulation agreements would be manageable. Use of existing curriculum.
• More comprehensible. Prior learning experience included.
• Integration
• Global citizenship course
• Global Citizen course is a good addition to the curriculum
• Introduces students to the discipline areas (FAH, SS, & NS) before they choose more advanced courses.
• Broad experience in many disciplines
• Appreciate the introduction to broad discipline base. Facilitates articulation of transfer students. Applaud incorporation of a citizenship course.
• I don't see many strengths in this model except under very special sets of conditions, many of which do not fit the SIUE setting .
• Team teaching
• I do agree this model will solve the major problem in our General Education Program (as Com mentioned, many of our students tend to take the GE courses just satisfy GE requirements and their schedule in semesters w/o considering which courses will help them develop their career. The proposed program will improve the situation. I like the idea. Instead of letting students something really shallow, the plan will add “depth” even in GEP. “Two sequence” à show cleaner “goals” in GEP.
• Integration of related subject matters.
• Straight-forward plan. Well thought.
• Exposes the students to a wide variety of disciplines. No changes in hours; more room for focus on major courses…Global Citizenship course added – diversity/multicultural component would be excellent for the future teachers in our education programs. Straight-forward structure.
• The core courses are a good idea – as long as students also have time to take some “in depth” courses (besides the major's courses). “Balance” courses are a good idea.
• The idea that there should be a core of knowledge that all students are exposed to is admirable – may be difficult to implement in practice.
• Focus on skills. Provides for a balanced program. Extends across 4 years culmination course.
• Good emphasis in writing, communicated critical thinking. Emphasis on breadth & depth. Recognizes that each department will need to adapt.
• Emphasis on communicative writing skills. Has the greatest emphasis on academic major provides breadth with depth.
• Emphasizes core areas: writing, communication. Well organized. Breadth of subject area. Requires rigor in core courses.
• Emphasis on writing, communicating, cultural thinking; Breadth in depth; innovative
• Emphasis on critical thinking, writing, & communicating; academic rigor.
• More of lit. More writing int. at jr. level
• I believe the integrated core prepares students for real life situations. One does not practice on an island. Nurses provide service to many (diverse) cultures, it's essential to have a well rounded education. Global citizenship course will enhance this educational goal.
• The idea of integration is good. Fewer units req'd of students.
• The spirit of underlying themes and connections betw. courses.
• Balance requirement is interesting but as written, is too limited.
• Linked courses offer the potential for an excellent educational experience. The structure is clear and simple.
• Theoretically a great idea – in practice??
• Good conceptual structure; easy to understand.
• Not too difficult to implement; takes care of transfer students
• No
• Students liked it; like the theory behind the integration; better developed than LC
• Good to integrate disciplines; more knowledge across disciplines; more exposure; enhanced diversely; structured plan; more direct timeline of expectation.
• The integration of the program investigating human endeavor
• Retains new freshman seminar requirement; there is a Global Citizenship course; forcing thinking “outside the box”
• Three fields of liberal arts & sciences – relationships among disciplines; Team teaching; Global Citizenship; challenges faculty to work together
• In theory, the interdisciplinary focus is very good. I'm still concerned that, as is often the case w/ the IS courses, implementation will not be very good. Truly integrating content from multiple areas will require a substantive commitment from the Univ. Administration. Faculty must be incentivized for taking the time to create such courses. This is, in theory, the best approach. In practice, however, I don't know.
• Could have some positive aspects
• The integration is an interesting concept; would foster collaboration among faculty & students; efficiency; quantitative literacy
• Large class size
• Hooray, IS is gone
• Core is consistent! That is all students will have more “sameness” than learning community model.
• Citizenship point is interesting
• Combination of skills to LAS courses
• “Connected-ness” of disciplines….and knowledge
• Global – Div. 301 a must in this day and age ++writing intensive***
• Written expression a must
• Crit think – yes
• Innovative to expose students to more disciplines in LAS courses +++
• The integrated classes increase accessibility to more departments & faculty
• The interactive learning within the large classes with a variety of faculty interact with the students. In those classes, the students will learn the interrelationships of the class from different perspectives.
• Diversity within the curriculum
• Less credit hours – more feasible to implement
• Like some of liberal arts feel & intention –more practical, career-focused
• Like the idea of tying the skills with an academic course
• Cross disciplinary nature of the FAH, SS, NSM courses
• Integration of knowledge
• Present the different disciplines as a whole
• Interlink classes that in a sense will benefit clusters of disciplines
• Global citizenship/or IS
• Freshman seminar
• Very little
• Students may be better able to integrate common themes across disciplines
• Freshman seminar
• Students liked it
• Like the theory behind the integration
• Better developed than LC
• The integration of the program
• Integrating human endeavor

2). What would make the integrated core proposal even better?

• The strength noted above will depend on a faculty commitment to the concept of “integrated cores”. The university will have to support this commitment by devoting resources to the creation of this commitment and these courses.
• Implementation will be problematic. Very labor intensive; some team teaching can be difficult if personalities conflict. Will faculty want to do this much team teaching? Where will additional come from with not budget to hire?
• 1) difficult to deliver – must have small # of students, and requires control by a

Gen Ed. committee to make sure integrated courses are delivered in the way

envisioned by the plan

2) No foreign language requirement – a must in today's world

3) How will the skills teacher reinforce course content (of the integrated one) without specialized knowledge of fine arts, philosophy, etc.? Not all writing

instructors are trained to teach a wide area of subjects.

4) Issues for transfer students

• -more to address faculty incentives in teaching these courses

- needs more on how to get these skills needed to create such classes

-significant reallocation of funds to do this???

-recruit those w/ experience

- trainers brought in

- add back a foreign language requirement

- not necessarily learning a specific language but a “lang

communication/culture awareness courses.

• Requires too many new courses- unfair burden on faculty, it's confusing to me- more so to students?, team- teaching is usually disastrous: students don't like it- faculty collaboration is horribly time- consuming, how will team- teaching count toward faculty teaching load?, vague interdisciplinary courses provide instructors of more advanced courses considerable uncertainty about what students already know, not enough emphasis on fundamental skills, transferability problems penalize students for coming to SIUE
• Implement foreign language requirement and history, (too much money needed for new courses), Logistics of team teaching is difficult for legitimate integration, fewer new courses make it work w/ existing courses.
• Availability of resources, release time for staff to design, implement and coordinate core courses.
• Where are the resources to train/ encourage faculty to make truly cross disciplinary courses?, I fear the end result will be watered down curriculum., Casually gave up foreign language requirement.
• Currently limits some faculty from crossing disciplines- i.e. history is classified as a social science & that would prohibit linkages with arts & humanities., requires greater faculty knowledge across the disciplines beyond what is requires currently., difficult to quantify a collective curricular experience across the university when you have so many disciplines represented (quality control).
• It needs to be more practical given the resources we have. The way subjects are integrated seems to require professors to have a knowledge of other disciplines that they are not going to have. This problem will be even worse when adjuncts are involved.
• Make clearer how the linked courses would be linked.
• Foraging language should be included & health.
• Reduced class sizes for integrated LAS courses, reduced need for organization and team teaching, addition of Fl requirement to boost component of “Global Citizenship”.
• A total redesign
• Basic computer skills course
• Don't force team teaching
• Include technology component, get rid of Global Citizenship course, team teaching shouldn't be mandated.
• Technology requirement
• Go to a smaller liberal arts college, difficult to co- teach, difficult to get enough faculty.
• Not having it, team taught courses should be encouraged but not mandated.
• Eliminate team teaching
• COMMITTEE TO OVERSEE! Assess the process. Especially for first year. Communication between linked courses? May not be adequate communication?
• How will you get the faculty core teaching team on the same page? Maybe this curriculum could be applied or tried on a small group of interested select students. Need computer skills implemented early on.
• No means to implement founded
• Developing linking mechanisms between disciplines. Flexibility. Computer/ IS requirement. Iniate the proposal on a small scale vs. university wide.
• More uniformity in courses. Add basic computers. Make sure the courses meet the education and curriculum requirements as well as other such as computer sciences.
• Add health and technology components. Be more specific about options for students who are transferring. Decide on teaching styles while one of the professors demonstrate? Perhaps start with one or two integrated courses.
• Foreign language. Plan to schedule across dept.? Does courses meet state standards calculation?
• Health objective?
• Possible oversight committee to oversee the integration of integrated course with skills course.
• How will classes transfer to another school? What about failing classes?
• More details.
• This design should include more quantitative reasoning.
• Be more clear that it is not intended as a survey course, but is to be an in- depth thematic integration.
• Too focused vocational training. Intractable for art. Terrible model for transfer students. Not enough classrooms. AWFUL. Not well thought out. Links can easily fail .
• Loss of academic freedom because of inter- linking's is a big down side. I do not perceive that the manpower burden of the system has been adequately considered. Likewise, the adverse effects of increased class has not been considered.
• The integrated link need to be made more clear. You need to consider the added cost of more faculty.
• Better relationship to community college requirements. Nor force degree to work in teams. More faculty. Use at small private college. Classes that are not so large.
• Similarity amongst courses so you know someone has completed fin arts/ humanities has receive a certain basic set of skills. Transfer ability- how interpret for both incoming & outgoing students. ?Competence? Practicality?
• More choices for the student. FAH requirement limited to Engineering & Ps students. Linked courses may result in scheduling nightmares. May sacrifice depth for increased diversity of ideas.
• Should require a science lab. Should require two semesters of a foreign language. Difficult to implement linked courses.
• Concept of team teaching could be an administrative nightmare. Curriculum presumes a level of education from Hi School that is – in actuality – inconsistent.
• Scheduling complications. Impractical to assume, with as much breadth, as this is proposed in the integrated course, that it will actually provide a “rigorous foundation.” Too superficial. Change the name & make the description clearer.
• Clarify what you mean by science course – req'd lab?? The practical implementation needs further clarification (integrated core). More depth to the integrated core. Sustaining ‘teaching teams'? How to motivate?
• Courses address ways to keep writing at play throughout career.
• They don't have history or foreign language. Computer literacy course or show proficiency.
• The integrated courses could either be terrific or just horrible. It sounds great but not convinced it would be implemented as well consistently. No history or foreign language. Make clear foreign language is probably still required for a BA, just not “gen ed”. Tie to articulation.
• Include some type of foreign language requirement as well as history.
• Add history! Requirement. Add foreign language.
• Doesn't emphasize language and computer requirement and history. Need to address specific dept. reg. Recognition that faculty might need to build skills to teach.
• Add language requirement. Add a history component. Add computer literacy.
• Include history. Start skills first instead of linked to.
• Maybe have only one or two “core” courses (with a choice), and have more 111- like courses. Students should be able to get GE credits in GE courses outside of their major (more depth than the core courses). Courses need to approximately match courses offered elsewhere (eg. SWIC, L & C) for transfer purposes.
• What about history; foreign languages?
• More transfer-students friendly
• Not the problem, but as a trade-off, student will loose flexibility. I am not 100% sure if this plan does not give a problem to transfer-in students (may not be problematic, but?)
• The integrated courses are administratively speaking very difficult to pull-off.
• Lack of history &/or foreign language. Will require significant coordination among faculty. Complicated coordination among faculty. Complicated coordination/linkages of the LAS & skills courses.
• Foreign language requirement. History requirement. A more streamlined scope & sequence (which, unfortunately, might be too rigid)
• Should include history & foreign language. Need to simplify the links between LAS and skills courses, so everyone in a given LAS section is taking the same skills course (not necessarily the same section).
• Omission of history and foreign language are a weakness of the proposal.
• Limits ability to link in ways we might prefer. Would require for too much involvement by faculty in linked classes. Administrative nightmare. Too unwieldy. Would integrated course meet IAI. Problems of scale with so many sections of integrated CAS
• How can 2 faculty members cover art history, paintings, sculpture, theater, music, literature, poetry, philosophy? Integrated LAS courses have too large of enrollment (100 or so?!)
• Reconsider the – structure model of schools, integrating departments will make the roles of dept. chairs difficult if not impossible.
• Decouple the integrated courses. 1:1 faulty/ student ratio.
• Better transferability of courses. How can these integrated courses meet accreditation requirements in different departments & schools? (Education, business, nursing, ect.) A beautiful plan, but naïve. Less complexity would help. Needs foreign language! Needs clarity of new freshman seminar place w/in glaned.
• Those teaching integrated courses would need release time to coordinate with fellow instructors in order to make the linkage effective- would that extra cost be prohibitive? Address issues of transfer students & those earned credits elsewhere transfer in hours - - college credit for example
• Does not address needs of transfer students. How would it be feasible for PHIL 106? Any proposal should include both a quantitative reasoning course and reasoning & assortment.
• The foundation is strong for current SIUE only courses. But when students transfer in the are just taking a mixture of gen eds that don't really come together to create a positive experience. The 101 is difficult b/c integrates info but too much info and not enough time.
• Not finically feasible. Would over tax faculty. Needs to incorporate transfer students. How do we guarantee the “foundation” is solid?
• Address articulation agreement better. Many team taught courses costly. Allow courses in professional component to satisfy some general education contents.
• Doesn't work for transfer students. Logistics of offering integrated LAS courses.
• Get rid of large lecture introductory course breadth not depth, plus not pedagogy sound. Intro courses may be very disjointed to students. Need to incorporate diversity of programs. Need to be able to transfer into program, as its defeat.
• Flexibility in how to meet global citizenship requirement to meet program needs. Team teaching is a good model, but would require strong support.
• Eng 102 should not be linked (not mandated).
• Need faculty to commit totally to this model.
• Class size should be limited to ensure quality interaction.
• Loosely linked classes should not be allowed to become 2 separate classes with 1 very small shared component
• Look at a plan to include the areas that seem to be left out
• Also develop a specific plan for transfer students
• Information skills
• Integrate an information literacy component into the program
• Students need to study a foreign language. Course requirements in a foreign language need to be included
• Students need to become familiar with information literacy
• “written expression” should be “composition”
• Include computational literacy either as part of QL or independently
• Computer skills are essential even if considered remedial
• Calling ENG 101 & 102 “written expression” is a term in composition studies as a field from the late 1960s & 1970s; contemporary composition (rhetoric scholars use the term “Composition” (so, a term change: “ENG 101: Composition: and “ENG 102: Composition II”
• For ENG 102 courses integrated w/ content-based courses, ENG 102 content cannot be determined by content-based course teachers (entirely); doing so effectively makes ENG 102 teachers second-class instructors (at all levels)
• Integrated courses eliminated for more specialized courses, in each field.
• No team-teaching
• No linking skills courses with writing
• Keep 111 courses as intro courses without writing focus
• Balance requirement too prescribed
• Unsure faculty are qualified to participate in team teaching? Costs of administration and coordination would be greater. Lacks a required course in computer literacy
• Administratively seemingly too complex
• Add a health course
• More attention to administrative issues involved with implementation
• More efficient use of resources
• Add health course
• In some professional programs, students need core knowledge areas, eg. Human biology science, math
• Foreign language
• More thought & focus given to the difficulties that transfer students will face under this plan
• Difficulties for transfer students
• Too many credits
• Make writing discipline specific
• Rethink the integrated courses – they may not transfer well into other programs (master)
• Integrated courses may not have the depth or meet all the certification for education
• Transfer students may need to take more courses
• Enrollment problems w/ blocking out 2, 3 hr. courses
• No real commitment to health component
• Omits health, foreign language, study abroad
• Team taught courses are difficult to pull off!
• Large course size is troublesome
• Administratively difficult
• Consideration of how transfer students would be affected
• How would faculty loads be calculated in team-taught courses?
• Co-taught courses may integrate, but dilute the experience
• Large lecture classes seem required, but are not desirable
• The large size classes also discourage dialog
• Very difficult to administer, especially with reference to faculty load and teacher evaluation
• More faculty or release from duties
• Time allotted for planning
• Find someway to guarantee quality
• Implementation seems nearly impossible with current resources
• It would pull faculty out of teaching courses necessary for our majors
• This model is confusing. We need a model that can be easily explained to students, prospective students and their parents
• Linked courses increase the potential for scheduling conflicts for students.
• This model would make it impossible for students to graduate in 4 years, I'm afraid. Professional programs must meet requirements of outside certification agencies. This model has too many required courses which don't fulfill the requirements students need so they would have to add courses (especially history) beyond the gen ed requirements. By the time they add courses it would become unuretly
• A better description of the proposed courses
• It would take too long – too many hours
• Need lots more faculty, need training to teach faculty to team teach, and a scheduling nightmare perhaps
• Requires consistency and interdisciplinary communication between faculty from various departments. To a certain extent this may not be realistic. More faculty would definitely need to be hired for this program to work
• Questions about scheduling problems
• 6hrs of linked courses won't work for music in first 2 years with heavy major requirements
• Wider integration of courses from more diverse disciplines
• Expand integrated courses to cross disciplines that aren't in same area
• Integrated courses are a great idea but I don't think large lecture classes will accomplish that
• How is this an improvement over IS courses?
• I don't know how to revise this to make it workable. The integrated LAS courses seem to be an ineffective way to introduce students to the major area of arts and science. The problem is that students need a background in the various disciplines before they can see how to integrate them. It is not clear a freshman level interdisciplinary course makes sense pedagogically. It does not “solve” the problems with current IS courses. Rather it makes them unsolvable by making interdisciplinary courses at the intro level.
• I believe instructors should build into their coursework ways to help students inter-relate various disciplines. We don't need to implement a totally new model for that purpose.
• Furthermore, it will be a challenge to schedule students. Instructors also need to coordinate to team-teach a course
• Focus on outcomes
• Need to define how – will assess the learning outcomes
• How would outcomes be assessed to ensure core courses are meeting objectives?
• Will need special attention to integrate liberal ed. throughout curriculum since “bottom loaded in early years
• Computer proficiency exam for incoming freshmen and transfer students. Students who fail the proficiency should take CMIS 108 or equivalent
• Drop “Health/ Personal Wellness” requirement. I don't feel it is the job of a university to teach students how they should eat
• Links should not be to “skills” classes, but between introductory content classes. Should still be a junior level IS course. Should be smaller classes in integrated LAS courses.
• Don't “link” skills courses to specific NS, NAH, & SS courses (too unwieldy to manage). Integrated courses should not have enrollments over 60-80 students. Add a requirement for one IS course. Increase credit hours for team-taught courses, so instructors are not overtaxed. Allow more integration between science and art. Intro in technology course
• Retention of 300 level IS. Foreign language requirement. Increased # of balance courses, including upper division. Technology literacy. Address extra work created for English 102
• More emphasis on IS teaching. Add health. Add computer literacy. Add science learning. Provide more guidance to students on what to take could strengthen inter-group relations, not just “because we have to”
• A health and technology course should be included. Add sevice learning.
• Too much work for CAS. Hurts dep't upper level. Too much burden on dep't.
• Reduce team teaching. Address how semester course load will be assigned or assessed to faculty. LAS & skills course will only teach at a cursory depth, need to give students more flexibility if switch majors. Student evaluations will be confounded with other professors team teaching.
• Don't link courses and skills
• Implementation plan – lots of concerns
• Cannot achieve their goals in large lecture formats. Content and skill need to go together – not be separated. Constraint content in linked courses doesn't build breadth in gen. ed.
• Implement computed literacy. Eliminated large core lectures. Content & skill separate – make them integrated.
• The core proposal was the most problematic structurally for me. The separation of skills and content is deeply disturbing. We will set up a system that is hierarchical! The content lectures are disconnected from the service-based skills classes. Thus the adjuncts will be teaching the skills classes like ?? while ?? ?? take place in the content classes.
• Better method to integrate transfer students.
• Ensure that resources are in place to implement this proposal without placing the burden of it on already disenfranchised ENG 101/102 instructors!!!
• Ensure that this plan doesn't hinder transferability
• No computer/tech req.?
• I still worry about an implementation that could exploit instructors
• What if you can't find WE, CT, and CS instructors who want to be involved in, say, sculpture, dance, and the human body?
• Doesn't this create two classes of students, transfer and “homegrown”?
• Transfer challenges
• Afraid of staffing problems
• Seems like there may be many unanticipated complications
• Treats “skills” courses as if they have little or no autonomous content – simply a “vehicle” for the “real” class
• Skills courses are currently taught primarily by adjuncts – will they be the best people to “pair up”?
• Distinction between BA & BS
• How, logistically would team teaching be incorporated
• Lack of discipline specific intro course rather than overall LAS
• Foreign language
• Linked courses seem to be logistic nightmare
• Seems very confusing still
• Get rid of IS class and keep global citizenship
• Need technology requirements
• Really look into large scale scheduling problems that might occur w/ linked course
• How do you link 2 professors? There may be a possibility that one professor may be at the mercy of the other professor. Especially junior faculties.
• No technology and foreign language requirements
• No foreign language courses
• No computer courses
• English, speech comm.. etc area t mercy of other linked course
• Very weak general education program overall
• Transfer students not taken into consideration
• Integrated courses will not transfer out
• Scheduling nightmare
• I am deeply concerned about inequities that could develop between linked courses involving a full professor and a graduate assistant
• No foreign language requirement is a problem for me
• I would like to see the distribution model adopted with the eventual goal of phasing in Core over 12 years
• Reduce sizes of classes
• How are transfers accomplished?
• Budget that would allow smaller class sizes
• A method to integrate transfer students
• Deal with the transfer students better
• Adds too many courses
• Too much breadth vs. depth
• Doesn't account for transfers as substantive gen ed concerns
• Without significant support and reallocation of funds it will be seemingly be compromised
• Resources need to execute
• Pragmatic problems w/ staffing
• Staffing of the core classes could be a challenge
• Make sure that main faculty of course is expert in the field. Have speakers only on other disciplines give the integrated discipline
• Need to make concession for more in-depth courses
• Include history and technology
• Some majors may need to have a foreign language
• Increase health requirement
• Add a health component (3 hours)
• Clarify the budget implications – graduate students, instructors, support staff
• Quantitative requirements fuzzy
• Inclusion of foreign language and history
• Links between LAS and skills needs to be more clear
• Needs history and fl requirement
• Courses integrated seem to lack depth in order
• Seems like a scheduling nightmare
• History and foreign language issue addressed
• More health
• The 3 core courses are too broad. We have trouble to cover a course now that is related to a subject. How can any one cover themes in one semester that is supposed to cover arts and humanities or social science or liberal science?
• The concept is good. The task is impossible
• Not practical
• Each discipline should carefully think about health/ foreign language etc.
• Limits ability to link in ways we might prefer
• Would require for too much involvement by faculty in linked classes
• Administrative nightmare
• Too unwieldy
• Would integrated course meet
• Problems of scale with so many sections integrated LAS
• The fiscal resources to compensate faculty for spending the amount of time they would need to take to develop truly integrated courses
• Health requirement
• Computer concepts
• How does team teaching occur

- how can this be an advantage for students

- necessary to train faculty on team teaching techniques

- no foreign language or history

• There is no computer related course
• Staffing concerns
• Cumbersome model and confusing
• Skills courses, for example communication, are often taught by adjunet and teaching assistants, and would be linked with faculty from other departments. This is certainly problematic (will TAs meet with faculty?)
• Restricts freedom for skills instructors
• “team teaching” is extremely time-consuming.
• Hard to meet IAI requirements
• Integrate ideas across the broad area: eg. FAH & SS = can be linked, not just within SS. Choice of who to link with is limited
• Skills are often taught by adjuncts and TAs : how do you ensure continuity. How meaningful are linkages if b/w grad students and faculty
• You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink. Do students really get and appreciate integrated courses?
• Difficult logistics
• Consistency of gen ed experience for all students not achieved
• Do we have classrooms for 100-people lectures?
• Implementation of integrated (linked) courses will be difficult.
• Transfer students will have difficulty coming in if they have taken one course but not the other
• De-moralizing to faculty if two faculty with diverse teaching styles are required to teach together
• Impact on dept's nonmative cost
• Lack of computer literacy
• No foreign language, health
• The global citizenship course is fine but why no foreign language
• Flexibility in course substitutions, inclusion of technology and health
• How will courses be articulated for transfers?
• This plan, as is, does not ensure teacher certification standards will be met without additional courses
• The integrated courses will be extremely diverse in content. This will lead to a lack of common knowledge
• I am skeptical of the team-taught model taught in a large lecture format. They need to address how teams are formed. Also, I thought the trend in higher education was to smaller classes
• There are lots of issues regarding assessment of a model that is untried on a large scale
• Eng 102 should not be linked
• Will faculty want to teach the “integrated LAS courses”? will faculty be able to “free up” time to teach those kind of courses?
• Eliminate relying on team-teaching
• I'm not sure that this program takes into account the importance of the “skills course” when linking it to another course. How is all the content covered that was originally taught in the one “skills” course?
• Concerned about what teaching loads will be for departments primarily responsible for these courses
• With so many of our students entering SIUE to complete their BS in nursing I'm not sure how they fit in?
• It would work better if teachers had been trained under an integrated system
• No foreign language instituted
• No health or computer expectation
• If faculty taught theses courses regulary/ reliably, the work would have greater payoff
• Need computer literacy. Big assumption that all have been exposed or have access
• Clear delineation of BA vs. BS
• Some linked courses would have to be also unlinked (in case of failure on ½) (in case of transfer!). independent skills should be first semester of freshman year. Foreign language? Where is it?
• Intro to computer skills; digital literacy? Information literacy?
• More transfer friendly
• Difficult to implement with large classes how do we ensure that these classes will indeed be small (Eg. Given the current IS courses skills would include small enrollment)
• Computer literacy
• Reduce number of credits
• BA include foreign language
• Address visual literacy feebly. Promotes “arts” as individual arts which is essentialized but not in concert with post-modern thinking. This includes visual arts
• Individual expression requires smaller students numbers for classes not large format classes
• Seems to promote scientific literacy over other forms of literacy
• Needs depth in one area of humanities/fine arts in addition to breadth
• Large integrated courses not good – restricts approaches, not much contact with student
• The 100 student size of the 101 core courses is simply too large, if these courses could be reduced to 40 or 50 students, the model would be much more attractive.
• Also there are problems with the linkage to “written expression II” – the staffing on those courses (eng 102) is largely shouldered by poorly paid, overworked, adjunct faculty. If the linkage is to involve more than a token, assignment overlap (what wouldn't worth much as linkage)
• Too far, too fast. Try it on a pilot basis with volunteer faculty and see how well it is accepted by students and faculty.
• Learn how to do it better and decide later whether to expand or change or drop it.
• Faculty will need training on how to link courses. This will be an element of cost
• Possibly a little complicated to explain to students
• Technology? (Would disciplines pick-up and cover technology?)
• Links are administratively cumbersome (possibly?)
• How is credit hour production distributed?
• Complex to maintain development?
• Depth to courses? Vs superficial nature that integrated core courses could become
• Classes for integrated courses need to be smaller size
• Add service learning component in same way
• Concern with implem. – have full time regular fac teach these integ courses not adjunct-overworked
• Needs to be a way to have an alternate model for people who may need to transfer out
• More breadth
• Add foreign languages
• Providing smaller classes
• Team teaching exposes students to diverse ideas & experiences
• Needs more liberal arts context to improve this
• Several other course for FAS, SS, NS
• Forsee these being large lecture classes
• Might be faculty who are comfortable teaching in some ares/broad subject but with a different direction in the courses
• Problem with student transferring in – should be a course available for transfer students that integrates their skills within their majors
• Extreme large classes
• Mot a clear idea about university program that is their general education requirement
• Don't know how deal with very specialized classes
• Problematic in the integration
• No foreign language
• No technology
• Too much on lower level
• Extra class – 3-6 hours more
• Linking classes in the summer – won't work!
• How do you count faculty load!
• Not clear to student/advisor what the real content of the integ course is – changes from semester to semester & depends which instructors teach it
• No technology component
• Very difficult ( impossible ) for students to transfer out integ courses
• Scheduling nightmare for linked courses

•  No opportunity for taking these at a CC over the summer

•  Difficult to take over the summer at SIUE along with another course

•  Problematic when student fails one of the courses

• Integrated courses may not provide prereq's for upper level courses
• Realize – if implemented all departments will have to redefine, reevaluate, restructure because of the new gen ed
• Again-the issues are the practicalities of team-taught courses

•  scheduling

•  class load issues

•  class evals

•  does the material truly get integrated or class is turned into 2 mini-classes?

• Problems with articulation
• Specialized interest required of faculty, also specialized skills
• On-going professional development for faculty to see and appreciate the model & how to integrate it