Distribution Model - Participant Responses

 

Question 1. What are the strengths of the student's integrated and universal essential education (distribution) proposal?

 

-Easiest to understand and implement without additional resources

-Corresponds well with current articulation efforts with community colleges

-Can use a course from a major to meet a gen ed requirement

-Allows “proficiency out” of a requirement, easier for transfers (in and out)

-Associate degree transfers --> only need to take one IS course (easier for the more than 55% transfers

-Some math- quantitative literacy- required (good for those students who want to avoid math)

-International cultures emphasis

-It will help to reduce the number of hours required by major

-Articulation

-Flexibility

-Student choice with greater freedom for individual inclination

-Easy transfer in

-Language/ lab requirement

-Most easily articulates with IAI

-Flexible

-Does not change number of hours required for graduation

-Facilitates transfer students

-Requiring SPC 105 for communication-students really need public speaking training

-Easiest for transfers, accommodating IAI

-Flexibility for individual choices, diversity

-Differentiating BA and BS degrees

-Fits best with IAI requirements

-Allows for student choice / flexibility

-Lab/ language requirement in BA/ BS without proficiency

-Distinction between BS and BA

-Making use of current resources

-Minimizes new resource needs

-Flexibility

-Student interest focus—more student choice

-Breadth combined with specific interest --> overlap *

-Cultures strong emphasis

-Basics for foundation

-Students like the structure

-Its transfer friendly

-Its not going to ask too much of already-disenfranchised instructors (English and others)

-Its flexible

-Implementation at low cost

-BA/BS distinction

-If there is a major change the student does not have to take an additional load of classes to catch up

-Making freshmen seminar meaningful

-Easy transition for students entering university during spring semester or with transfers

-Distinguishes the BA from BS
-Ability to enter as transfer or mid year start

-Seems most logical structurally

-Easy for students to follow

-Balanced

-Sensible enough to facilitate easy in and out

-Not too “foreign” to learn easily

-Most confident in cost projections

-Flexibility of choices for our adult learners

-Fewer classes

-More choice

-More options to students to arrange a pattern for their major

-Takes the major into consideration

-Good skills tracks

-Least disruptive to current system

-Incorporates “critical thinking” at early stage

-Clear sequence for coursework

-Flexible for specific majors

-Least disruptive (more of current system can be used)

-Supports transfer students better

-Reduced class size in IS courses and skills courses

-Simplicity

-Could be implemented

-It works well with current model

-Ease of IAI

-Streamlines current model

-Makes faculty feel safe about general education change as it does not violate discipline boundaries

-This model is close to the current model meaning that a complete overhaul will not be necessary

-The proposed courses would be diverse in nature and increase overall well-roundedness

-Flexibility with Illinois Articulation Initiative

-Flexible, adaptable

-Requires SIUE and community resources

-Offers diversity in required courses

-Distinction between BS and BA degrees

-Broad spectrum of core knowledge with integration of general education courses throughout gen ed curriculum

-Integrates many types of general education areas throughout multiple courses

-Seems most similar to what we have, yet BETTER transition thus might be the most smooth

-Seems the most practical to implement in terms of time, space, money- no team taught courses

-Purely selfish: this one, in keeping the traditional intro classes, definitely works the best for the psych dept.!

-Students like it, seems to offer a mix balance of breadth/depth and content/skills

-Least upheaval of the current program

-I like that students get advanced placement (rather than proficiency it out)

-I like having the LC and HELP design components

-Least disruptive (most in line with current model)

-Accommodating to transfer students

-Efficient use of credits

-Would cost least money

-Reductions of class size recommendations

-Best possibility of thriving within our institutional constraints

-More clear than current plan

-Quantitative Literary course is great -needed!

-Provides good diversity of courses

-Allows for students to take upper division rather than Intro. courses if they wish

-Glad to see foreign language requirement and a level of proficiency beyond beginning level

-Student focus groups liked clarity

-Simpler than the current system

-Emphasis on students taking Gen. Ed. courses during the first two years

-Streamlined. Can count courses more than once

-Allowing majors to overlap with gen ed requirements

-Quantitative literacy

-Eliminates problems in the classroom-e.g. seniors taking 100 level classes, distribution satisfied with any course in the 6 areas—the “upper distribution” course has been a headache—students wind up in classes for which they are unprepared

-More manageable enrollments

-Not much change from current

-Administrative

-Early teaching of critical thinking

-Appears more flexible

-Flexible

-Least change with current resources

-The model builds on expertise

-The model requires the smallest amount of administrative change

-The model will require the smallest amount of technological change

-The model integrates best with articulation agreements

-Smaller changes from existing model

-Less disturbance for transition from current system

-Presented better than “learning community” model

-We actually have the resources (structure, money, time) to do it

-Gives student choice = encourages student response for own program

-Flexibility and adaptability is appreciated

-Students seem most comfortable with it= most student friendly

-Students have to find links themselves between individual disciplines –I like this as an ideal

-I like flexibility of 5 breadth area instead of 3

-BS-requires 2 lab sciences

-BA- cannot test out of Foreign language

-More diversity in learning across academic areas

-Students will be assessed on computer skills upon entering the university

-Preparation and transition to college—this is very important for kids just out of high schools

-Fits Gen ed objectives well

-Fits IAI and would transfer in/ out well

-Balances BA/ BS requirements re: foreign language

-Retains flexibility for student choice

-Inclusion of foreign language, health

-Flexibility

-Easiest to understand

-Flexibility

-Added breadth

-Easy to understand

-Serves diverse student population

-Easy to articulate transfer students

-Student choice encourages responsibility

-Quantitative Literacy

-Easier to understand

-Breadth

-Has Quantitative Literacy

-Flexibility

-Requirement of quantitative literacy

-Breadth

-Flexible

-Easy to understand

-Practical, appropriate for our students, easy to put in place

-Easy to understand

-Flexible

-I like the breadth aspect

-Easier implementation

-Flexibility-especially for transfer students

-Helps compensate for those ‘undecided' students

-Easier to understand

-Flexible

-Breadth of courses is good

-Good for transfer students

-Greater possibility to select courses for the interests and needs of the students

-Less gen ed requirements

- Requires students to hit all major areas with some depth (as opposed to LC design)

-Very transfer friendly

-Very well thought out

-The breadth areas as currently configured seem to be a strength

-I agree that the new system will make transfer students easy

-Administratively more tractable and less resource intensive than alternative models

-Its simplicity renders it more understandable and hence easier to adopt across disciplines

-Options for BA and BS

-This is an improvement of the current GE curriculum as long as there is no increase of GE hours

-Easy to understand of implement good for advanced students (opting out of proficiency areas)

-Improvement over airvent program w/out reinventing the whell

-Addresses “diversity” at all levels (lower and higher)

-Organized Quant Literacy

-Best chance of implementation

-Manageable improvement works with articulation agreements

-Uses support services well

-Addresses diversity of our student body remedial as well gifted

-Organized

-Recognition of and use of support services to strengthen student learning (writing center, math resource area, East St. Louis center, etc.)

-Strengthening distinction between BA and BS

-Fits well c most majors at the table without destructing current program

-More math

-More language

-Less confusing for students

-Will appear to be of value to students

-Relevant to current “global” orientation of our society

-Straightforward sequence that will make immediate sense to students

-Relatively simple program description

-More flexibility

-Potentially (can't read) credit hours

-Same as or similar to tred

-Low budget implications

-Addresses major weaknesses in current gen ed

-Protects 111 courses, which allows lesser addressed disciplines in high schools the opportunity to recent majors here.

-Wouldn't talk to faculty away from their majors by forcing them to to teach more inter/multi disciplinary course (e.g. FS, finish sem to some extent

- Potentially easier for transfer students to assimilate in to

-Still have a large population of transfer students who will be better served by a gen ed program that is similar to most other state schools

-A more conservative approach than the other 2-can be more easily implemented without radical changes

-Requires quantitative lit.

-Low budget implementation

-Protects 111's

-Easy transition

-More transfer student “friendly”

-Potential for decrease in credit hours

-I like the specific foundation requirements in written, quantitative, resourcing, and oral communication skills that can't be “avoided”

-May be easier for transfer students to fit in

-Easiest to implement because it's the most similar to the current program. Better for transfer. Making sure all SIUE graduates have a quantitative course most flexible and most practical

-Its most closely aligned with the needs of a diverse student population

-It appears to be “easier” to implement

-Its flexible

-Better for transferring students

-More flexible

-Global part of diversity

-Probably the closest to overt gen. ed curriculum and the easiest to implement

-Smaller IS classes

-Flexibility of distribution requirements

-I like the public speaking requirement

-Allows for pambility of linkage

-Articulation

-Flexibility

-Most familiar classes assignment c current (can't read)

-Overall the best

-Tweaks current system

-Easiest to implement

-Most flexible

-Smaller class sizes

-Ease of implementation-This is a refinement of what to do currently in place

-Easiest for students who transfer to another school

-Transfer students friendly

-Smaller class sizes

-Doesn't change existing framework as much as others (easier transition)

-Best for transfer students

-Difference between BA and BS degree

-Encourages students to make decisions

-Added math requirement

-Reduced IS size courses

-Smaller class sizes

-Easier to understand

-BA vs. BS

-More student flexibility

-Concern-flexibility could create advising confusion. Model assumes students know what they're doing. Perhaps students need the guidance

-Flexibility

-Distinguish between BS and BA

-Foreign Language

-Easier for transfer student

-Quantitative literacy! Excellent!

-Reduce student/faculty ratio!

-Overlaps in cultural studies!

-Organized structure

-Easiest to implement and cheapest (does not require so many new courses)

-Freshman seminar preserved

-The easiest to implement among the three proposal

-Allows transfer students to be able to transfer the courses already faken, to be applicable under this proposal

- Organized structure

-Quantitative literacy foundation

-Integration of cultural overlaps

-Freshman seminar preserved

-Easiest to implement since there are existing courses

-Easy of transfer in or out for students

-More organized

-Its much more realistic and feasible than others

-Accreditation/transferability concerns are considered in this model

-Uses courses that are already in place; transition will be smoother with this model

-Emphasis on fundamental (writing, quantitative) skills

-Diversity/Multiculturalism is integrated into model

-Fewer total credit hours for students gives students flexibility and ability to graduate sooner

-May be one best available option. Especially considering transfer credit requirements.

-Culture study requirement

-Foreign language study

-Easy to follow by advisors and students, easy for transfer student

-More straightforward to implement

-Easy articulation with cc's

-Easiest to understand

-Implemented with minimum amt. of (can't read)

-Articulation with community college easier

-Not a drastic change from current plan

-Gives students more flexibility and choice (as well as faculty)

-Public speaking requirement is useful and is a better math w/universities across the country. (this is a great strength)

-Seems like it would provide a seamless transition

-Emphasis on public speaking

-It is the only proposal that SIUE has the resources to implement

-Gives students more choice to pick the subjects they want to study

-Most implemental proposal

-Senior assignment is a stay component

-Easily implemented/explainable to students

-Consistency-/general ed more similar across students

-Easiest to implement

-Accommodates the needs of transfer students

-Most easily implemented

-Least resources required

-Not as much change (but sure that's good)

-Provide more consistency to 4 yr SIUE graduates

-Flexibility

-Tries to accommodate transfer students

-Ensures exposure to more areas

-Considers overlap with majors to reduce redundancy

-Like attention to proficiency and transfers

-Smallest change

-Incremental change may be easier to implement

-Is a lot like what we have now so may be least painful to implement

-Exposure to breadth of areas

-Retain much of format of existing gen. ed

-Some effort to reduce irrelevant and redundant content

-Does not articulate good systematic methods of Integration a day curriculum

- Well structured!! Has great potential. Includes foreign language, but what about technology.

- A better proposal, relative to the other proposals

- Force students to gain quantitative literacy

- Emphasizes breadth

- Exposes students to a variety of disciplines

- Eliminates distinctions between Intro and Distr courses - simplifies

- More flexible in providing for transfer in/out

- Differentiates between BA & BS – requires foreign language for BA

- Better ensures that students have req'd competencies

- Foreign language and Breadth

- Very tight-limited curriculum, central to students learning

- Smooth transition from current to general education rationale

- Realistic

- Most feasible, closer to what we have now

- Greater flexibility

- Most thorough proposal, well organized

- Might reduce gen ed. credit hours because of overlap possibility

- ease of transferring credit

- Smoothest to implement

- The BA/BS distinction

- Works well for transfer students

- The distribution model is the most useful for this University. This is the only proposal that addresses both fundamental skills (foundation) and breadth adequately.

- Required of completing Foundation in 1 st 30 hours

- I very much like the BA/BS distinction

- The allowance overlap is good.

- Defines BS and BA degrees

- If students plan programs effectively they may have hours they can take as electives in their major.

- Best fit with state of IL requirements for certification (teaching)

- Good course requirements – beneficial, realistic, and feasible. I like the distinction between BS and BA degrees

- Will equip students with needed skills while providing a good, fairly well-rounded liberal arts education.

- More practical and doable

- Defines the degrees better

- Easiest to choose

- Overlap part good

- Uses resources better

- best of all 3 models

- Practical and clear to implement.

- addresses diversity

- clear differentiation in requirement criteria for BA vs BS

- Works well with major requirements

- Requirements count regardless of changing major

- Students can choose courses in breadth areas

- Realism

- Clearly focused changes

- It should remain consistent even as faculty change over time

- This model is the most flexible. Our program could work with this model

- This model is the easier to understand. Simplicity is critical for present and future students.

- This model allows the most choice for students – I think that helps us attract students, & also increases the chance that our students will take a course that really excited them.

- I like the difference between requirements for the BA/BS

-Better sequencing of courses

- Flexible

- Easy to follow

- Time restrictions for completing skills.

- Physical sciences distinct from life sciences.

- Flexibility. Restructuring of the “breadth areas” from 3 to 6 - - makes lots of sense! Sequencing requirements provides coherence to program. BA/BS clarification much needed.

- Student intentionality and ownership

- Flexibility overlap

- Flexible; meets students “where they are”

- gives students a greater role & ownership

- Realistic to implement in terms of $ and labor – this is important

- overlap concept is good!

- Reduces # of courses for beginning students

- ability to test out of certain courses

- quantitative literacy is an excellent requirement

- allows major courses to count for gen ed.

- freshman seminar

- written course

- Oral communication

- Distinction between BS/BA is very clear!

- Requires public speaking

- Definitely can be adapted to many majors

- Includes a two semester sequence in foreign languages. Attempts to make clearer to students the point of the curriculum.

- Emphasis on ethics

- Potential overlap of courses

- QL required

- fluid

- Proficiency exams for better placement into advanced courses.

- Breadth allows overlap

- acknowledge prior learning

- BA/BS distinction

- Oral comm.

- flexible across majors

-Possible reduction in number of gen. ed. courses required for graduation, allowing courses to count for major as well as gen. ed.

-Easy transfers of courses

-Seems the least problematic to implement, to actually put into practice; easier to take transfer students into account; I like allowing overlap of assignments

-Understandable

-Good variety

-Integrates gen. ed. with major

-No team teaching required

-More easily phased in and funded

-Good breadth

-Keeps 111's w/o writing component

-Forces skills courses early on

-Good for transfer students

-Minimal logistical concerns

-Good variety

-Doesn't require teachers to team-teach

-Good structure, but allows for freedom of choice within each area of disipline

-Easiest to implement

-Thorough

-Easy to understand

-Easy for transfer students

-Works well with professional programs Comm. skills values and diversity emphasized also, analytical and prob-solve skills

-Seems easiest to adapt to feed of professional program

-I like international culture components addresses some of our isolationism as Midwesterners

-Least amt of change required (though this may not be strength if we want change)

-Easier for transfers

-Easiest to implement

-Least costly

-Makes students take skills courses w/n 1 st 30 hrs.

-Close to what we have while attempting to fix problems

-Can be implemented step by step

-Basic familiarity significantly reduces the learning curve for advisors at all levels, and of course, for students

-Clearly identifying the desired skills, along with courses, should have strong appeal for students who have major responsibilities beyond school

-Firming up requirements for the BS will remove much of the “BS” from that degree

-Reducing the size of IS is ideal

-The proposal is transfer student “friendly”

-It is easy to see how it may be implemented

-Provides students with more choices

-The organized “structure” that this proposal provides is helpful to students and their advisors

-It is feasible to implement (unlike the other two proposals)

-Will articulate with gen. ed. as transferred in

-Potentially reduces the number of hours required

-Distinguishes B.A. from B.S.

-I like the emphasis on national and international (Can't read), diversity

-I like the ethics and health objectives

-This seems like a true liberal arts system

-It's the easiest to implement here, because it's essentially an improvement over the current system

-Works best for transfer students

-Allows more choices for students, which makes it the closest model to true “liberal arts” education

-This model incorporates some aspect of the other models from a conceptual perspective thereby covering the content. It provides support systems to ensure students success. When transferring into their university. Provides the student with more choices.

-5 foundation classes

-Written fluency requirement early in the program

-Straightforward easy for students and parents to understand

-Great to limit class sizes

-Breadth areas addition

-Easy to understand

-Doesn't screw around-straightforward

-Like lab wormer for BS, PS, on Joc Su

-Easiest to get our majors graduated

-Has writing course early on

-Has more diversity

-Has a lot of good building blocks in it

-Very easy for parents and students to understand and be able to apply in the “real” world

-As a parent, “I'll know where my money is going.”

-Like distinction between BA and BS (But lab science should be required for both)

-Does meet certification requirements for education

-Written fluency

-Adds an additional math course

-Easier than other models for transfer students and complete program in 4 yrs

-Caps enrollment

-Allows flexibility for students to switch or discover majors

-Gives in depth coverage of material across disciplines

-Creates a great foundation for students thus integrates knowledge

-A significant improvement of current model

-It is the easiest to implement into this current curriculum

-The jr. and sr. students will be better “prepared” for the higher level classes (their major)

-Differs between the BS and BA

-Mandatory 30 credit hour for foundation knowledge

-Foreign language requirement

-Possibilities for overlap-flexibility

-Most easily understood

-Does not infringe upon majors

-Cover background better-get to skills needed for upper level courses

-More flexible

-Quantitative literacy good

-Foreign language requirement well covered

-works well with majors, interests of students

-Most clearly articulated in terms of foundation skills of undergraduates

-Quantitative literacy

-Diff. b/w the B.A. and B.S. made clear. Also intensifying on foreign lang.

-Incorporates sequencing of foundation courses

-Retains is requirement

-Makes basic requirements distinction between B.A./B.S. degrees (Which we don't have now and Need )

-It's familiar

-It would be easy

-:”foundations” better than “skills”

-Good that you can't proficiency out of foreign language

-Ability to double-dip

-At least it addresses computer literacy but..

-1 st 30 hours for foundation courses

-easiest to implement

-BA and BS distinction

-Allows for flexibility if (can't read) a learning commuter

-Fits well with our upper divisions breadth ones more highly defined

-Streamlines the current program. But that's all. This model does nothing to address the central question of integration and interdisciplinary.

-Ease of transferability

-Ease of implementation

-Ease of scheduling for students and faculty

-Allows for the emphasis on linked courses without requiring it.

-Does not mandate particular pedagogical styles

-Leart favorite model

-Breadth areas better defined

-Most likely for many it represents an easier transition-many familiarities with current gen. ed. a may be easier to have buy in a implement

-Easier to implement

- U.S. and international cultures –great to have both

-Breadth courses-ensure wide variety of info

-Need foreign language

-Seems flexible

-Less emphasis on intro courses

-Allowing overlap

-Quantitative literacy

-Best one-least change

-Upper level courses

-BA/BS distinction

-Exposure to diverse courses

-Easy to understand

-Excellent foundation-2 semesters English-Students need reading/writing and 2 semesters Quantitative Reason/reason and argumentation

-Very well organized and clear cut

-Some major courses might count toward gen. ed. and therefore might cut down on overall hours required

-The most “user friendly” plan for students and especially is less complicated for our many, many transfer students

-This is the model I would vote for if I were given the opportunity to vote. I teach some of these courses and will be affected by thee outcome of this!

-It is strength that students can take any level course to meet breadth area. Students are able to take more courses (any course level) of choice. Culture is involved in and out of U.S.

-Great overlap! Students benefit greatly by being able to overlap. Helps transfer students b/c gen. ed. aren't so prescribed

-I would vote for this if I were given the opportunity to vote. It is the best program option

-Most flexibility and most friendly feasible

-Like the first part it allows overlap between some major courses and health ones

-says 6 strategically favored

-Good use of requiring diversity of exposure

-Overlap good

-Like that courses at any level

-Addresses articulation issue well

-Freedom to choose preferred

-Friendly to transfer students

-User-friendly to all students

-Flexible scheduling

-Early requirement for taking foundation courses so students aren't taking 100 level courses as seniors

-Making foundation courses required w/n first 30 hours

-Making it so that students who pass a proficiency test must take on advanced course in the area. This is a good change over current system

-This is the best model for ENG 101 or ENG 102 since their courses are not linked with any other courses.

-Supportive of transfer students

-BS lab requirement

-BA course requirement (beyond proficiency exam) allows for more advanced coursework to apply to gen. ed.

-I like division of breadth areas

-Doesn't penalize changing majors

-Fewer total credit hours

-Great breadth study. Clear requirements

-More differences in BA and BS

-Stimulating and exciting yes understandable a save (can't read)

-Will be easier to implement than the others

-Easily implemented!!

-addresses actual problems without a large risk of simply replacing them with new ones

-Good to require ENG 101 early (30-60 hours)

-Good that UNIV 112 is not freshman seminar

-Trusts CAS faculty

-Implementation

-Cool acronym

-Easily implemented

-Simpler than current program

-Effective and doable

-Current enrollment growth curve can be implemented, can be implemented incrementally

-Best for transfers in and out

-Could be fewer gen. ed. hours required

-Easiest to schedule for students

-Fewer facilitative concerns

-Works better for part time and summer students

-Deeper courses than continued discipline 3 hour courses

-Good option for health

-Better for students who change majors

-Quantitative Literacy course

-Flexibility-Courses, scheduling, teaching “freedom”

-Having certain courses cover multiple requirements: excellent. Students with careful advising- can get gen. ed. done quickly and efficiently, leaving room for major courses and electives (“liberal” education possible in this professionally-focused world)

-Proficiency testing to higher level course (as opposed to exemption)

-Requires public speaking (SPE 105)

-Best reflects needs to grads in our discipline (can't read)

-Chart helpful supports quantitative literacy

-Acknowledge prior learning

-Clearly articulated-well/ easily understood

-Great idea to map out this plan as it applies (or would apply) to each department!

-Requires public speaking-clear and effective verbal

-Communicates necessary any fed and especially in education

-Most flexible plan

-Seems most compatible with departmental programs/ requirements(supportive)

Participant Responses to Distribution Model

 

Question 2. What would make the student's integrated and universal essential education (distribution) proposal even better?

 

 

- “Oral” communication should be broadened to include other comm. methods

-Strengthened with a gateway class

-residency at university could be increased

-Resources for science labs

-Is this enough of a change?

-IS courses at different levels

-Resources for science labs

-Integration of IS at different levels

-Certain limitations

-Technology requirement connected to student interest (and possible major) i.e. technology and historical methods/ teaching

-Adjust the grouping of the natural sciences so biology is not in with PE (oops, I mean Kinesiology)

-Reduce cultures requirement to “global citizenship” cause (one cause)

-Scaffold the courses i.e. prerequisite intro courses before advanced -->

-Need string advising for students especially those without clear major ideas/ goals

-Technology aspect (?)

-A technology component

-More innovation? (maybe impossible)

-I think the addition of “healthy community” or “healthy lifestyles” seems like such an important focus today

-Add technology as a core requirement

-Worried that the “art” of minimizing the number of credit hours will become an end unto itself

-Lack of computer skill requirement

-Computer skills class

-Less overlap—Breadth area becomes almost irrelevant because a savvy student will overlap the NFS, US culture, IS culture, and one class from their major easily reducing total credit hours to 33, going for minimum classes taken and thus narrowing their education. This overlap is almost automatic. No overlap.

-Need to consider cost increases in this model

-Need to include health and computer skills and knowledge

-Add health and computer component

-Increased instruction in health and computer literacy

-Make sure not credit heavy for professional degrees

-Require proficiency (placement) tests

-More variation (choose 6 courses from at least 5 areas)

-SPCom classes taxed

-Doesn't seem to stretch us-(more of the same of what we have)

-Can't figure out why “foreign language” is advantaged under this model

-Environmental stewardship?—Isn't the big issue of the day Climate Change?/ Global Warming

-How does this model create a structure for students to integrate knowledge when courses follow artificial disciplines? How can such an integrated issue be addressed under this system?

-Why would students have to take additional foreign language if they already receive college credit that would be used to satisfy the BA degree requirement?

-Technology course-integrate

-Make sure that key concepts that are held highly are integrated into the gen ed foundations so they aren't lost

-Content mapping across all gen ed courses to maintain quality of content

-Ned tech support

-Will these courses transfer to other universities?

-Integrated stewardship

-Technology class

-An additional IS course would be useful

-I would like to see this model prevail but do a little more to add integrated coursework to it

-Least visionary of the options

-If public speaking is required, then additional resources will be needed

-Computer technology component

-Mandated completion of core courses in first year could create problems in some specialized majors which have heavy freshmen requirements

-Freshman seminar needs to retain flexibility in content

-Require 2 semesters of foreign language for BS, as well as BA

-Excluding health and computer requirements discriminates against the socioeconomic groups that need them the most

-Lab fees

-Need faculty, grad students, space and computer classes

-Computer course

-Health course

-Include technology, increase the funds for graduate students and labs

-Include a monetary analysis of cost

-Better identify how many total hours students need to complete college—On paper, the model still requires 124 hours. As chancellor states, we may reduce that to 120 hrs, the national average

-How expensive is this? Technical requirements?

-Does it set up a turf war --> shifting resources away from certain bread and butter 111's to skills courses: e.g. SPC105 and QL?—Convince me it doesn't...or if it does: c'est la vie

-CMIS and CS are not part of general education

-Computer technology is required

-Doesn't allow students to take one area in depth—Instead of 6 courses from 6 areas, make it 6 courses from at least 4 areas

-Placement rather than proficiency exams

-Addition of technology/ computer literacy

-Computer and technology course needs to be added

-Add computer and technology course, that you can test out of

-Should be able to test out (not into higher level course)

-CPN/ technology requirement that you can pass out of

-Add flexibility to substituting comparable courses from departmental courses for gen ed courses

-Add technical skills (computer literacy class) with option to test out

-Basic computer education required

-Computer/ technical skills requirement should be added

-? unmotivated students?

-Incorporate technology (possibly into freshman seminar)

-Work in computer literacy

-A philosophically based critical thinking component should be required, as well as, perhaps, an introductory philosophy class

-Just providing opportunities for flexibility in general education may not work as efficiently as designed. Will it be possible for SIUE to come up with some guidance system?

-Increasing flexibility without supporting guidance may just guide many students to easy courses (instead of selectively subjects)

-I'd like to see even stronger restrictions (less flexibility) regarding

-Does not seem to be as “leading edge” as other models as it relates to “integration across disciplinary silos”

-Needs to include computer literacy in some way

-Technology integrated with freshman seminar

-Make clear how the technology component is integrated

-If integrated to freshman seminar, make it more specific

-Can they start out?

-IS requirement of major?

-Computer literacy course

-Will need to address computer literacy

-Need to fund a way to impress upon students the importance of english and math—Students can take 2 writing classes, but if they don't do better than C work, they won't succeed

-Make sure it does not add hours to current degree—“numbers-misc”

-Information technology components

-Freshman seminar should be 1 credit

-Foreign language requirements for both BA and BS

-The diagram does not show a distinction between BS/ BA degrees

-If you test out of course you have to take another—Why?

-BA/BS—not sure where this fits? confusing

-Re-introduce computer skills as a requirement somehow

-Need for a more coherent theme for gen ed--> not ver evident now and this was one of attractive features of the core proposal

-More integrated ethics component

-Add health and computer requirements

-Either give credit for testing out of don't require them to choose another

-Add back computers

-Address the issue that students are mature enough, or knowledgeable enough to personalize their program

-Gen ed still gets too many credit hours

-Uses the existing framework (which I believe is not working), need to be more innovative

-What are we scared of change?

-More confusing for students to keep track of

-Skills should be taken in first 30-45 hrs, not 60 hrs

-Not very different from what we have

-Add health and technology

-Add some technology, although technology changes so rapidly and many students are computer savvy

-Allowing students to take any course does not work in some developmental disciplines (Theater, Music, Art— All fine arts )

-Add one computer literacy course

-The breadth area—Should requiring students to take a course like the existing 111's.

-Students should not take any course in the field, in the fine and performance arts, is taking a course in guitar playing a broad enough course for a gen ed course? Same with theater make-up. Does this course give the student an understanding of theater?

-Just need to make it clearer to voting faculty that this is the most feasible plan

-Computer literacy—I know many students come in with this knowledge, but in many of the poorer school systems, this knowledge may not be provided. These students would start with a decided disadvantage

-A gateway course to the major

-Mandating smaller IS courses

-Required computer literacy course, as we should not assume that all incoming students have the desired skills

-Problem of resources for science labs

-Is this enough of a change?

-Why include a Health Ed course?

-A clear, easy form that clearly spells out gen ed requirements that a student understands

-Ensuring we have the proper resources (instructors and equipment) is critical. For example, the oral comm (SPC 105) requirement involves a major shif for the SPC dept. It would require a lot of money for cameras, tripods, and smart classrooms (for Power Point). It requires more TA's and adjunct—a major staffing difference for SPC.

-Potential problem—Will SPC be able to cover major courses if much of faculty is taken with SPC 105?

-More options could be confusing to students

-Take away importance of 111 courses

-Will require distribution of resources

-It needs a clear design philosophy explaining exactly why some courses are required but not others

-The team does explain why they think some courses are useful, but every course at SIUE is presumably useful

-More guidance and structure for beginning level students

-Each department has its own say on foundations courses

-More collaboration among faculty who would be teaching courses

-Integration—where is it? There should be more

-Get rid of IS requirement

-May not be the most innovative

-Does it or should it increase additional faculty collaboration

-Make more collaboration apparent and required in your model – too much is left to the discretion of individual departments

-Ensuring overlap (to keep # credits reasonable) is essential

-Computer proficiency exam for all incoming freshmen and transfer students

-Students who fail the proficiency should take CMIS 108 or equivalent

-Focus on outcomes and documentation of achievement of outcomes

-All proposals need to ensure adequate resources to implement any model

-More money needed to set 80 sections of the speech course

-Too much overlap—Should not be able to use major and minor requirements to be used toward general education

-No more 111 courses

-The elimination of all 111 classes would require the restructuring of requirements for many departments—which are part of NCATE

-Doesn't make sense to require students who proficiency out of specific courses to take more advanced courses in their place

-Might be better to implement higher expectations in proficiency examinations than to require students to take a more advanced course if he/ she can pass the proficiency test

-Question requirement for 2 nd year foreign language if proficiency out of first year

-Make proficiency more challenging and have most students just take one year of 101-102

-If a student “proficiency tests out” they have to take an advanced course in its place?!?!

-Needs technology requirement

-May have to have a technology proficiency option in order to ensure that students are capable

-Clarify “additional components” portion of design—How will these be implemented and enforced?

-Needs more technology—maybe intro computer course they can test out of

-A technology course

-Technology component

-A course requirement in the junior or senior year does not fit with our program—Our students have too many courses required for professional certification to fit in an extra course in their last two years

-Include information literacy component reduce # of hours needed for graduation

-Needs better integration connectedness

-Student advising will be critical for the success of this model. This may add extra burden to faculty.

-The skills oriented foundations courses. Are they comprehensive and “foundational” enough?

-Burden on faculty to do better advising-some faculty/depts struggle with this

-Technology should be included

-Proficiency test for computer skills

-Transfer students? Fit?

-Not necessarily fond of so many proficiency test options concerned with this generation of student need for instant gratification (shortcuts to a degree)

-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. A course requirement in Information Literacy needs to be included.

- Computer science should be included in the “physical sciences” (page 12)

-Shouldn't QL be a pre-req. for reasoning and argumentation

- Info. literacy should be included either independently or integrated

-Elaboration of numerical literacy

-Computer science not listed?

-Technology requirement

-Allowing students more flexibility-more “open” choices

-Computer skills course needed

-Add a computer literacy requirement

-BS candidates do not need 2 lab sciences

-strengthen computer and statistics areas

-I'm unclear about the no credit graduation credit or health means

-I'm also unclear about proficiency testing out why would student want to do this-they still need to take another course in it's place

-Be able to substitute CMIS/CS course in skills, include required health course(required stats for teaching certif.)

-If st test out of skills, they shouldn't be required to take another unless their major requires one

-Take skills in first 30 hours

-Make breadth course on overall survey course only. Limit eacollage in all 6E courses

-Needs to integrate better with education requirements

-We need our 111 courses for many dept's – they're bread and (can't read)

-The university must make a firm commitment to support IS to the level described in this plan

-A computer/technology course should be required

-Inclusion of a computing skills course

-200-level language courses could also satisfy IC requirements

-All scientists on the design team;too much emph. on labs

-Doesn't necessarily lower the amount of courses students must complete

-Suggest 4 semesters of a foreign language for B..A., and then you can displease with need for I.I/I.S. course requirement

-Commitment of administrators to support the faculty and staff

-Need to give some weight to addressing health and wellness issues

-Change the students ability to test out-if they test out of math or foreign language, they should be made to take another alternative

-Allow students to test out of math or foreign language if they want to or have prior credits or knowledge of.

-Lets students who proficiency foreign lang. requirements count them for B.A.

-Where is university getting money to fund. 3x the number of IS class if numbers are reduced to 25

-Adding classes to the programs-QL 101

-Not as ambitious in terms of collective, interdisciplinary work, such as in the core model

-Keep Spc. choices open

-1 lab sci.-2 is not practical with current lab space

-Allows for interpersonal communication or public speaking

-half of our students have not had a computer course—it is important to include these technological skills into the gen ed curriculum

-In the implementation phase on assessment plan for the skills delivered must be put in place for SIUE to continuously improve how we are educating our students

-Clarification if Quantitative literacy required

-Need to clarify the health objective

-Need to have standards for what will fulfill this requirement

-Add intensive writing course

-Allow for students to test out of foreign language requirement

-Provide for lab science in all BS and BA

-Technology course is important, maybe could be integrated into English and Math course

-Nothing can be perfect, but this proposal is quite close

-Implement technology course

-Add technology/ computer class

-Very similar to the traditional program

-Fragmentation of knowledge

-Incorporate sense of belonging (i.e. learning communities) for incoming freshmen

-Need technology skills

-I cannot really speak to this, because I think this model is so similar to what we have now, it doesn't represent the real structural change our system needs—but it is an improvement over existing program

-Shouldn't have a BA/BS distinction

-Should be more interdisciplinary earlier in student career

-Knowledge still a bit fragmented

-Incorporate a computer literacy course as a skills course

-CMIS 108 is not a keyboarding class

-Seems like just an improvement on the old one

-More IS coursework, more opportunities for linkage and team teaching

-This plan essentially says we are more or less happy with our current program

-We're happy in our separate boxes of the checklist, and we don't want to step across disciplinary boundaries—yet we claim we want

-Need to ensure depth of learning in general ed

-Should require interdisciplinary freshman seminar and IS courses

-Need a technology component

-Not innovative

-Need sustained continuance of interdisciplinary collaborations

-More depth needed

-Need integration with other disciplines

-Need Serv. Learning Global Citizen

-Doesn't bring attention to SIUE

-Not new and unique

-Puts too much on students to make good choices--> provide more guidance

-Provide some proposed plans students could choose from

-If this has reduced hours, why was the health requirement not included?

-I'm concerned that students could take all Introductory level courses instead of moving into in-depth topics

-Technology

-More upper level courses

-Proposed courses of gen ed study in order to assist students in obtaining coherence

-More upper level courses in majors

-Easier checklist--> this is too hard to understand still even though the TEAM understands it

-All degrees should require foreign language

-Have proposed model of study that students could follow if they wish

-I would love to see CORE eventually phased into the distribution model--> (over a 10-year time period)

-More well defined requirements

-Difficult to apply, very fuzzy from student point of view; they will be very confused

-What exactly do they need to register for specific majors that they plan

-Making at least Eng 101 a prerequisite for Reasoning and Argumentation

-Need computer and technology requirement

-What about transfer students?

-Re-visit the issue of proficiency tests

-Don't require additional hours at a higher level (if I understand that aspect correctly)

-If students proficiency out of something don't make them then take these classes at a higher level. Ex. If I proficiency SPAN 101 and 102—do not make me take SPAN 201 and 202 to meet my requirements

-Be certain of proficiency in terms of transfer credit and computer literacy

-All graduates must be computer literate and able to read and write, and able to do fundamental math

-Inclusion computer requirements in Foundations

-Also let students take more advanced course without taking Proficiency Exam—Leads to the notion, “Why would I want to proficiency out, I can just sleep in and get an easy A”

-Lots of proficiency exams are much harder than course

-Maybe exams could be given during Spring Board to all students

-Have freshman seminar meet breadth requirement

-Reduce the number of credit hours

-Allow more courses in professional component to satisfy some general education contents

-Students passing the proficiency tests have to take additional courses—Suggest either waiver or require an honor class (such as calculus)

-Needs computer literacy to be addressed

-Include interpersonal communications, perhaps take out (substitute for) public speaking or give the student/ major the choice

-Add technology

-Needs interpersonal communication over oral communication

-Interpersonal skills are taken out of this model—One can learn all the math and science they want but if they can't relate to others they've got nothing—Students need it today more than any other time

-Not very innovative

-Another IS course would be beneficial

-Give students choice of SPC 103 or SPC 105

-Add a gateway course

-Oops-nevermind-I understand more fully now

-Clarity for advisors

-Prerequisites

-Could add a technology component

-Poor preparation of incoming students must be dealt with more strongly and more explicitly

-The student's observation of the need for a basic tech course is an excellent one!

-Too much double-dipping=33 crh possible to complete GE

-Eliminates THEA 111 for GE-replaced with acting !!?! (THEA 112a)! No!

-Wrong info re theater history-it is required core class for majors-it should NOT be GE

-This model breaks with mandate from state for 111 to be offered

-Student criticism of lack of technology should be addressed

-Better clarity in “information literacy” or “computer literacy”

-Better specificity re: what quantitative literacy course looks like

-Lacking a transfer seminar

-Health and technology requirements lacking at least a proficiency exam

- Address technology !

-Include CS in list of Physical Sciences or add new breadth area: Mathematics and Computation (MC—mathematics, statistics, computer science *

-For more flexibility require only 5 of 6 or 6 of 7 areas. This would allow: area to be skipped if covered by HS courses, a 2 nd course can be taken in an area of interest

-Hopefully, advisors will channel students into the areas of need

-*or perhaps Information and Computation (IC)

-Flexibility could create advising confusion—model assumes students know what they're doing. Perhaps students need the guidance

-*Short changed health and computer skills objectives—If this model has 1 area over represented e.g. Cultures has a minimum of 2 classes, why not combine and free up a course for health/ wellness and/or technology

-If proficiency course doesn't force them to take other courses-language or skills

-Two lab courses are too much for every BS student

-No innovation re: integrating disciplines, why not try it on a trial basis and see how it is accepted by faculty and students

-Don't need 2 culture courses—VSA and international

-Adequate funds required to “cannot read” core concept and requirement, (i.e. course sections) are provided for with realistic class size/ “cannot read”

-Identify a scope and sequence (breadth) supporting, over time student learning (depth) developing pre-reqs? In “cannot read” take only courses out of sequence?

-Life/ed/h science versus Physical science forms “cannot read” (e.g. Chemistry and Biology should go together)

-Course offered here should ( approximately ) correspond to courses offered in most other colleges (if possible) (like SWIC, L&C) for transfer purposes, since we have a lot of transfer students

-Does not address transfer “cannot read” with a required transfer servitude

-As students suggested health course

-Though I disagree with the thought of computers, I feel at this point in time a computer literacy class should be added as an AD class rather than a part of the gen ed model

-More IS classes or allow larger numbers

-No technology

-Transfer students-disadvantaged

-Advig class-

-Proficiency out- shouldn't student be allowed a “cannot read” breadth of courses to choose from other than those in that subject area

-Computer literacy

-English 101 prerequisite for Reasoning/ Argumentation to insure

-For many students, the hours will be too high. These can be reduced by: a) Eliminating the restrictions on proficiencies. I can see no persuasive rationale for this. b) Reducing the hours required for breadth. This can be done by either consolidating the areas to 3 or 4, or by requiring 3 or 4 total courses from 3 or 4 of the 6 areas. c) Eliminate the IS requirement. This is a carry-over from the old program that I don't believe has a persuasive rationale for general education