Participant Responses to the Learning Communities Proposal

 

•  What are the strengths of the learning communities' proposal?

 

•  Great in theory. Gateway courses are great. Service learning is great. However, we are not doing this campus wide – and to do so well will be a great challenge.

•  The philosophy – a multidisciplinary approach; avoidance of “learning in isolation”. The most innovative (but also dangerous – much time to incorporate – years ; funding)

•  The fact that students see community as irrelevant makes me compelled to vote for this one! Health courses great – a must in my book. My favorite concept/feature of this design.

•  Requirement of passing skills courses with a C or better. Flexibility of meeting requirements with existing courses.

•  No mechanisms for linking the learning communities. Some faculty teach in areas which do not fit into the integrated approach. Emphasizes skills at the expense of content based courses within disciplines. Administration will be costly overhead.

•  None I can find (service component maybe).

•  Service learning requirement. Gateway course – good idea.

•  Lower class size limit. Ethics component is a positive inclusion. Social interaction among teacher, learner.

•  Information literacy

•  Information literacy. Service learning – tutors? – complicated

•  Learning communities is the most innovative and far-sighted of the proposals. Only learning communities recognizes the need to emphasize Information Literacy. This plan also emphasizes the need for numerical or quantitative literacy. It also requires service learning.

•  Impact assessment performance indicators. Cohort learning. Support and familiarity.

•  Fosters community among students. Gateway course is a good idea.

•  Gateway course interesting idea, but can departments sustain?

•  Supports retention. Supports cohort learning. Like Gateway course – concept.

•  The “gateway” nation. It's a four year model.

•  Service learning component. Addresses information literacy.

•  Social interaction and education definitely go together! Sequencing makes sense. Service learning.

•  Gateway course – retain students from sophomore to junior year. Course designed for sophomores. Learning communities – retain students. Ethics requirement is good. Service learning requirement is good. Showing students link between course materials. Lower class size is good.

•  Availability of gateway course. Interaction among students/faculty.

•  Gateway course at sophomore level

•  I like the idea of integrating their program. The four year curriculum. I also like the emphasis on ethics in the fourth year. I like the idea of smaller class sizes. I like their emphasis on health and wellness component.

•  Focus on communities. Service learning component. Gateway courses. Inclusion of tech and health

•  Ethics

•  Communities are essential for collaboration. Teach them to work with others as they will in the real world. Ethics and health/wellness objective specific. Connections are made between courses. Gateway concept. Service learning is beneficial for students as well as the community.

•  The service learning component. The “Gateway” to create major communities.

•  Integration of the small groups is very attractive. Gateway concept is excellent. Service learning should be an adopted concept in practice. Information literacy component is a strength and should be utilized in any implementation.

•  Information literacy. Could control numbers of majors with gateway course. Reinforcement of student self-sufficiency. Could be adapted to online format.

•  Gateway course as a link with gen ed and major disciplines. GE integrated into four years of study, not the early semester, hence allowing for potential increase in the value of GE courses. Health course. Smaller IS courses.

•  Gateway course useful in preparing students for senior assignment.

•  Gateway courses are good things and chosen by department. Crosses levels – isn't limited to an underclassmen experience smaller sections for freshmen av classes. BA/BS revisions are good. Smaller sections are imperative. Thinks about entirety of the bacc. Degree, not just intro courses.

•  Reasonable class sizes for freshmen seminar and IS integration occurs throughout degree.

•  I like the gateway course; makes sure students know what major is really about and preps them! Continues gen ed through for years. Smaller sections for intro courses are great ! Can get more writing in. Excellent to limit size of IS courses! I like attention to BA/BS distinction.

•  More equal BS and BA. Service learning is a neat addition (it is problematic for some majors?). Small class sizes.

•  Integrated learning at freshman level. Skills focus. Information literacy.

•  Ethics and social issues in professional practice is a good component in this proposal. It can be incorporated in the other proposals if this proposal is rejected.

•  Service learning

•  “Learning communities” is a nice concept, but it won't work at a large school like this.

•  Course reduction

•  Credit hour reduction

•  Very much based on learning 2.0 philosophy – taking responsibility for own education and teaching other – all experts possible. Students may not know the terminology, but definitely engage in the activities. Would help students with the concept of taking responsibility for their own learning. Good example of this model with the business corporate world. Model is adaptable/flexible enough to allow disciplines to respond to “problems discovered through assessment” to be addressed at this level. Online learning tech very useful for this model.

•  Many aspects of the proposal are good in theory. Don't think really can be implemented as desired though.

•  Departments retain control over courses. Monitor enrollment numbers.

•  Has quantitative literacy

•  ?

•  None

•  Idealistic (not realistic)

•  None . This proposal is not logistically flexible.

•  Good concept

•  None

•  None

•  Nice hierarchy of (couldn't read this word) – gateway – etc.

•  The gateway would be a great addition to the curriculum to transition students to their specialized curriculum. The sr. course in ethics and social issues is particularly useful for students to apply ethical models to critical decisions and problems the students may face in his/her profession.

•  Ethics and quantitative literacy courses. Gateway course

•  None – looks weak and expensive to implement.

•  Ethics course in discipline. Values interdisciplinary sharing of knowledge and linking of skill/content.

•  Useful/valuable six-hour skills/topics course

•  Appreciate ethics component. Fewer hours for graduation.

•  Flexibility. Gateway courses are interesting

•  Innovative. Gateway course

•  Builds socialization at students weakest year. Increases faculty/student contact – assumes this mean students receive greater support.

•  Self identified (by department) gateway courses

•  Strong first year experience would help define some disciplines. Integration to discipline (less “artificial”). Flexibility for students.

•  Gateway course

•  Gateway courses

•  Health and wellness component

•  Warmer, friendlier initiation to the university

•  Gateway courses could be very beneficial in many majors. Quantitative literacy

•  Gateway concept. Fh requirement

•  Great idea. Implementation could be very interesting with 1500 freshmen in residence halls and all in NFS. Gateway course!- love it

•  The gateway idea. Quantitative literacy.

•  Gateway course is a good idea – it provides cohesive foundation for upper level courses in major.

•  Smaller class size. Better writing opportunities.

•  Limited class size in IS class

•  Overlap and connection between disciplines deep linked or lightly linked course combinations.

•  Gateway course. Ideally, connections via freshman seminar and gateway. Builds on the CIV model. Skills courses concluded before gateway. III's are re-looked at.

•  Ethics courses in senior year. Freshman seminar. Gateway course. Diverse community

•  It's an interesting concept in that it is more of an interactive model

•  Good in theory, but the practicalities of it are overwhelming

•  I like the concept of the gateway course and the freshmen seminar. It reduces the number of general education credits.

•  I agree with this conceptually and if I were constructing a new university, might adopt it. Some of these ideas should be adopted in whatever proposal we adopt. I like that all skills courses must be taken prior to the gateway courses – I think this should be adopted in whatever proposal we adopt. Attempts to build more community and institutionally supports it.

•  Does not rely on “faculty” itself to integrate cross-discipline material in learning.

•  I like the concept, but I don't see it working with our large transfer mission.

•  Learning in community – people constructing knowledge together with peers – is what a university should be about. Gateway course is a good idea.

•  The health/wellness course. Interdisciplinary course.

•  In theory the idea of having a group of students move through classes together is good (for freshman year). The health and personal wellness objective is a great idea.

•  Service learning component. Group relations and international.

•  Most innovative approach of the lot. If it works, the cohort idea is powerful. Gateway allows logical point to assess GE program.

•  The notion of community is interesting and might encourage student investment.

•  ‘Seminar' style courses. Weakness: not practical

•  Courses are diverse and interesting. Works for group-oriented students.

•  Helps identify weak students and connects students socially for academic and moral support.

•  Addresses group learning and outcomes.

•  Promotes “forced” interaction with diverse population. Identifies needs for developmental instructions prior to enrollment.

•  Implements class numbers (limits) and pre-reqs for IS courses. More workable class sizes. Takes into consideration the importance of living in various groups. Identifies needs for skills improvement early. Good integration of transfer and re-entering students.

•  Not much

•  Like the concept of a gateway course. Team teaching-more diverse perspective. QL requirement

•  Great idea in theory – student collaboration and cooperation; creation of an intellectual atmosphere and student led discussion.

•  Concept of gateway course. Quantitative lit intro at skills level. Team teaching may result in good learning outcomes.

•  Ql course as skills. Health and wellness course.

•  Builds community/support

•  Too loose

•  Great idea, but may not be practical to implement. Addresses diversity.

•  Sounds interesting. Idea is good.

•  Service learning component is great idea

•  Conceptually, the idea of developing a learning community is wonderful.

•  Emphasis on ethics and social issues. May promote active learning. May promote engagement.

•  It is a radical departure from the present model. Think feature should be introduced in making a maximal impact on the culture of the institution. It is a good precursor to moving towards to (I have no idea what the end of this sentence says).

•  The main strength is the freshman seminar, but that is a feature of every proposal.

•  Broad-based learning system. Well laid out curriculum; however, this model risks students running into scheduling problems. I like the proposed sequence of interdisciplinary studies within the junior year.

•  Student cohort groups. Intent to build cohesiveness among students.

•  Very idealistic, would develop a good general education environment if it could be implemented (but have doubts). Idea of a gateway course would be valuable in some majors. New freshman seminar. Integration of skills with real content. Reduction in gen. ed. Credits (if true).

•  Connections between courses to aid in knowledge transfer (but if connections are too loose benefit is lost). Gateway course could be nice way for majors to meet each other (esp. from large courses pull out majors).

•  Linked courses. I have real trouble with this proposal – hard to visualize meaningful strengths. Service learning requirement is a good idea. Including a health and wellness component is a good.

•  Link between skill and content courses.

•  A nice idea…in theory.

•  None. Does not really deliver on “learning communities”. Perhaps occurs in Freshman seminar or gateway course.

•  None

•  None!

•  None

•  Nice in theory, but unworkable in practical terms.

•  None. No connection with gateway in the major. Nice theory, but it won't work for all majors. Won't work with community collections! Professional class (III) courses we don't have them! Class size – budget!! Scheduling – nightmare!

•  Excellent choice for small liberal arts college for gifted students.

•  None. Ancora Imparo

•  Good idea, but I am not sure it can be implemented.

•  Hard to identify any strengths except in the minds of those who with to teach a course without – having to cover required subject matter.

•  Sounds good in theory .

•  Critical thinking and quantitative literacy.

•  Lower class sizes in freshman year. Service learning and health and wellness is a plus but not a requirement or could be integrated in courses. Like idea of interdisciplinary courses, but difficulty with transfer students and depth of courses. Could test out of foreign language if proficient. Must take lab science – important but should be for both BA and BS.

•  The byzontine complexity of the system would be entertaining to observe. Watching undergrads burst into tears in despair each semester as they tried to understand what they should be doing would be fun!

•  Like the idea of having (creating) a cohort. Only proposal with a dedicated health class for all undergrads. I like the “learning by doing” service learning component. Focus on smaller classes.

•  Class curricular integration – though it is very unclear how that would be implemented. Unfriendly to transfers and new individuals. Cannot enforce “community”.

•  Its vision, especially regarding ethics and the integration of knowledge is innovative and would likely make SIUE a stand out at the metro comprehensive university level.

•  While in principle, it is a good idea, seems impractical to implement. Emphasis on ethics is a strong point.

•  This is a very extensive proposal that will expose the students to a variety of learning experiences.

•  The concept of communities seems good but I still have no idea how they propose to implement it.

•  Great concept … in theory.

•  Lower class sizes. Doesn't require foreign language for BSN in nursing. Can test out of some classes without having to replace it with another class.

•  Gateway course level. Integrated learning experiences.

•  Service learning. Health requirement. New and different. Could draw students here. Technology class. Welcoming to new and transfer students. Links skills to coursework. More integrated.

•  Quantitative literacy. Gateway course. Service learning.

•  Service learning is excellent. Gets students out in community. This helps with job placement and reserve building, and helping the community at large.

•  Gateway course

•  Focus on interdisciplinary nature of university education transparent – easily understood.

•  Integration throughout

•  Service learning. Interdisciplinary. Health and wellness. Minimum C is good. Ethics – social issue – VIP. Information literacy (but test out to be available)

•  Flexibility, ability to team teach, distinction between type A & B service learning

•  Interdisciplinary is central and this plan provides for a more flexibly than the core model ( not restricted here in the LC plan to FAH, SS, or NSM, but allowing links across these areas in both type A and type B L.C.'s). The CIV 6-hour model is especially powerful as an intro to the university and to integrating intellectual inquiry.

•  Technology literacy is a strength. Interdisciplinary aspect if it is taught by 2 committed faculty.

•  Flexible. Interdiscipling – unusual links can form. Service learning. Class size

•  Combining disciplines in a community makes learning in a broader field.

•  Cross (something) of ideas among students and faculty. Different views of world for students. Cooperation. Communication.

•  Gives the student several views of the world from the various disciplines. Service learning is beneficial to students.

•  Encourages faculty collaboration. Different views of world in classroom. Service learning good component. Gateway component.

•  Gateway course. Service learning component.

•  More meaningful learning. With team taught courses, widen exposure to styles, viewpoints, etc.

•  Health and wellness. Interdisciplinary approach

•  Service learning. Health and wellness. Interdisciplinary learning.

•  Inclusive of all topics and concentrations. Classes are co-taught.

•  The student's don't like it.

•  Only the ideology.

•  Transition to college. Feeling of belonging. Connections with faculty.

•  Linked courses.

•  It incorporates at least 2 team taught interdisciplinary courses (NFS & IS). Requires a course in ethics. Requires service learning. Smaller enrollment for IS courses.

•  Women liked it. Adds more interdisciplinary. Good focus on 1 st year needs. Smaller IS classes. I like the idea of a learning community.

•  Female students liked it better. Interdisciplinary.

•  Class size limits for IS courses. Skill courses are required – won't be taken late. Distinction between BA & BS.

•  Probably an open gate per student to come into the university. Promotes collective learning.

•  The idea of communities might be good, but it is hard to force community.

•  Nice idea

•  Very idealistic – could be a nice approach to help students make connections and feel a part of the university and thus help with retention.

•  N/A

•  The idea as learning community: There are other ways to develop community.

•  Students have the opportunity to see familiar faces in their classrooms to create a community.


•  What would make the learning communities proposal even better?

 

•  Requires service learning to be implemented thoughtfully – which will likely not happen because we are too busy and have too few resources – so we will create a superficial program that “complies technically” but not in the spirit of the proposal.

•  Community building is a great idea, but I am not sure how this model will structurally ensure it.

•  Serious logistical problems; course planning. Teaming of course descriptions with co-taught courses. Service learning needs much more detail (funding for prep., developing community contacts, university liability for students off campus, course releases for faculty during implementation)

•  This might (something) a huge redesign of nursing curriculum.

•  No technology component . Information technology is an integrated part of everyone's role in the work systems of the future.

•  I still don't understand the reps who came and spoke with us – did not demonstrate to me high goals, but rather courses.

•  No team teaching. Needs to be easier to understand. No gateway.

•  Combine this and the distribution proposal.

•  Links/integrated classes costs much money and limits the fees for this makes it better.

•  Show us how it can work?

•  Could be complicated logistically. How does liability fit? Course releases?

•  Students need to study a foreign language. Course requirements in a foreign language modal need to be included. Students need to become familiar with information literacy. A course requirement in information literacy needs to be included.

•  Reduce gender bias. More flexible with professional majors.

•  Reduce the # of (something). Need example of gateway courses to understand the value.

•  Too many credit hours cause even greater conflict with 4 year lock on tuition. Too many students are worried about finishing in 4 years. Perhaps some gender specific learning communities (all male/all female).

•  Gateway courses (something) specific students.

•  How do students repeat courses? Will scheduling be hard?

•  Having departments take responsibility for high cost to implement this model could be changed. Departments should not have to pay for this.

•  Build in flexibility in course substitutions. Maybe link service learning and gateway course as a way to ‘document' service learning. Need to be able to hire more faculty.

•  Add computer science course, integrate computer into a course.

•  You would have to locate funding for more faculty otherwise current faculty would be overwhelmed.

•  Understanding how the proposed solution would be “managed”.

•  Articulation agreements – problematic. Linkage structure would seem to be very difficult to organize, control and sustain. Perhaps a concept more conclusive to a small core of students.

•  Tough to transfer. Gateway course tough to teach. Would we have enough faculty to teach this gateway course as envisioned?

•  There would need to be fewer requirements.

•  How to implement service learning. Requires more guidance to navigate.

•  How will scheduling logistical problems be overcome? Will resources be committed to help faculty integrate between the gen. ed. Content and skills link?

•  It doesn't seem to account for non-traditional students who don't function on the traditional. Idea of “gateway” is nebulous…is it major defined or should it serve as an intro to upper level study?

•  It needs to be clearer how transfer students will link their courses. Some majors already have the gateway courses they need.

•  Links and requirements of timing of classes is not as appropriate for transfer students. This model assumes full time 8-semester straight sequence with out time off or transfer (non-traditional). Why do we need a gateway as part of gen. ed. – justify this. Not clear how gateway is used: gateway to SS/NSM/FAH or to a single major? Tell us where we get the money for these smaller classrooms?

•  Organization is a bit difficult to follow (seems least planned). Service learning is particularly time consuming. Problematic for transfer students (these are a big part of our university). Would be better if departments had a choice in offering gateway. Some depts. are streamlined and do not need and extra class. No foreign language required for BS. No oral communication for BA/oral comm. is the #1 sill requested on job market).

•  Doesn't work well with highly (something), multi-requirements

•  Increase health objective to 3 hours

•  Broaden the ownership across all disciplines. Make clear the articulation agreement issues for community colleges. Clarify the cost of implementation for instructor cost and administrative cost. Improve or make clear the cost for faculty development.

•  Increase health objective

•  Increase health objective from 1-3 hours. Assumes everyone comes in as a freshman so need to show what will be done with transfer students or students who start in Jan/Spring. Revise so it would apply to all majors equally.

•  Increase health to 3 hours. If chosen increase faculty, grad students, and job space for the sciences.

•  Make it less costly. III may not count for majors. Renumbering will make it a challenge for IAI

•  Departments should have complete control over the introductions to their disciplines. III's should rant toward a major if the dept. chooses so. The plan is too authoritarian.

•  Don't tell departments how to handle their III's – too authoritarian. Renumbering courses could be a huge problem.

•  Make sure faculty have voice in course development.

•  Cannot deal easily with students who change major many times since each time they would have to take a new “gateway” course. Would they have to re-take a gateway course if they re-enter a major after wondering around in other field for a while?

•  Difficult to implement learning communities in a commuter school. Reduction of requirements in sophomore, junior and senior years. Major programs have course and content requirements that need to me met prior to graduation. The learning communities plan will interfere with major curriculum.

•  Wouldn't be practical – communities form naturally by student interests, students organizations, freshmen seminar, facebook, dorm groups, etc. Most expensive. The program requires too many hours and extra classes.

•  Guarantee students have technology & interpersonal skills. Have to have pre-requisites for teacher ed embedded.

•  Too many hours ! For students professional programs, there are so many requirements imposed by certification agencies, that these students cannot have gen ed requirements added to junior and senior year. They also need to cover specific content in their freshman and sophomore years to prepare them for their new professional program courses. This model has too many required hours that may not fulfill our students' needs. They would then have to take additional courses, which would then make it impossible to graduate within 4 years. The student feedback that was presented suggested SIUE students don't want choices.

•  Need to think through implementation more.

•  Costs and impacts on the university (in terms of various departments) need to be clearly annunciated.

•  I don't see how a revision of this would be an improvement over the current gen ed program. Its main features are: Freshmen seminar, gateway courses. The freshman seminar is a component of all gen ed designs. The gateway courses are really an issue for individual programs, not general education. Many programs already have such courses. I am sympathetic to the skepticism expressed in the student focus groups regarding the usefulness of learning communities.

•  Music majors take major course (lessons) all 4 years. Scheduling linked courses would be difficult as would finding gen ed courses in the first 2 years. I suggest a hybrid model. Have volunteer faculty develop the courses in the traditional (unlinked) format. This would have several benefits. It would serve as a pilot test of the concept to see how well it works in SIUE's circumstances and for individual schools and programs. Lessons learned could be shared.

•  This model seems to cover more breadth than depth. This might be ideal for the mission of our university which focuses a lot on liberal education. But, I don't feel convinced that we are preparing our students with solid groundwork.

•  What happens for undeclared majors or those who change majors? Are non-majors allowed in gateway course? Maybe too “lock step” in the gateway course sophomore year. This model may not expose students to enough variety in terms of students. Given size of dept. I'm not sure the gateway course could be seminar style. Will transfer students automatically be behind because of the gateway course? Is gateway course a preface for all other classes in the major? What does cohort of gateway course do to content in other courses?

•  Proposal is too inflexible for some majors. Music students for example take major courses all 4 years. They cannot delay private lessons, etc. until last 2 years. As a result, the learning community plan is inflexible and not correctable.

•  Clearer idea of how “unifying idea” for a student is chosen. Lost accounting? Many new small courses reduced demands on transfer students?

•  Concept is too abstract for me. Would be very tough for transfer students.

•  Computer proficiency exam for all incoming freshmen and transfer students. Students who fail the proficiency should take CMIS 108 or equivalent.

•  No focus on upper level courses. Make our students uncompetitive for graduate school. Not academically rigorous. What happens when students change majors? Cannot guarantee smaller classes. Strains existing resources to finance the costs.

•  Very weak gen ed in required humanities and social sciences – requires only 3 intro courses. Does not allow students to take additional or more advanced gen ed classes for any credit. Essentially just wipes out the distribution courses. No requirement or credit given for computer literacy classes. Some how nee to correct these flaws! But how?

•  Lack of focus on upper level courses which will wipe out departments. Transfer credit will meet IBHE standards, ours will not – how will discrepancy be handled? Gateway courses could be problematic if student switches major. Scheduling nightmare from hell. NO ONE can guarantee smaller classroom. No foreign language component. No technology component. Team has failed to convince.

•  What happens if students switched majors during their junior year??? Would this mean the gateway courses to “an old major” be put to waste?

•  Should have investigated and analyzed the various departments' curriculum and requirements.

•  More concern for transfer students. Have concern about scheduling. Have concern about where money for all freshman III courses added will come from. Problems with students changing majors and gateway courses.

•  Reduce enrollment of university by 25-50% during implementation process. Increases average ACT from current level to 25. Consider the university move to more fully embrace community colleges as feeder schools. How will these students integrate upon transfer?

•  Reduce enrollment increase budget/financial support UNIV112 should not be freshman seminar. Cut forced collaboration.

•  Need more information on how this could be implemented.

•  Eliminate linked courses.

•  Better for a school with smaller overall enrollment. Can it work with our large and diverse student population? More faculty – not forcing links on faculty. How does this impact transfer students?

•  Some higher level courses for credit are not offered. Too much stem on the community not as much on the content, lack of diversity. Needs a course in technology. Narrows down the opportunity for cross sectional.

•  No additional courses in Jr. and Sr. year. Option would be better rather than mandate of interdisciplinary courses. Need to consider ramification for transfer students. The linked courses may not meet all of the required state standards for teacher certification.

•  This proposal fails to deal with: Expense of implementation, added staffing burdens, added classroom burdens, ill-prepared entering students.

•  To make certain that students had flexibility to take the linked classes that can fit it into their schedules.

•  Much clearer guidelines as to implementation. Somehow show how this will be integrated.

•  It has to be transfer friendly or else SIUE's mission will be significantly underminded.

•  Would need to be modified to make it more “friendly” to transfer students. It needs to be modified to put less burden on programs.

•  Developing a method for student transferring into the program that would not require that they take all of the courses that would presently be difficult.

•  I would need to see a much cleaner justification for the need for such a radical change. The proposal does not address the issue of transfer students who make up about half of our juniors but would be unlikely to have gen ed experience remotely like this proposal. How would they join a community at such a stage?

•  Too many requirements. Impractical to implement without a lot of roaring and shouting. Not fair to transfer students. Hardly “liberal arts.”

•  ??? Maybe down number of courses – may take our nursing students too long to graduate.

•  Decrease number of required courses – our majors can't work well with these courses – it will take longer to graduate. Nice concept, too time consuming for practicality.

•  Punishes transfer students – have max of 1 course they would have to take. Logistical concerns – phase in gradually.

•  Be careful that IS courses have pre reqs. Pre reqs may lead to discipline specific IS courses for specific majors. This undermines the inter disciplinary nature.

•  Interdisciplinary studies throughout. Support idea/incentives for gateway courses.

•  Take out volunteerism accept of service. Standard rubric in all uniting classes to insure standards meet expectations to succeed in gateway.

•  I would strike the Kimmel LDP as an adequate fulfillment of that requirement. Either it is service learning (academic course based) or it is volunteerism (Kimmel).

•  The type A classes will require much more prep time for faculty to be done well. For call staff and non-tenure will need to be compensated accordingly. Need a vehicle for students passing skills courses, but not passing gateway courses to gain some remediation. Also need to look at how this problem arises and how to alleviate this problem.

•  Combining only academic classes from various disciplines.

•  We would have to start with a meaningful orientation period where students can appreciate the concept and benefits of a community of learners.

•  Be explicit in how service learning will be implemented.

•  How does student “ownership” of community fit in or how is that “ownership” cultivated? How are different views of world cultivated? Marketing of concept of “learning” communities? To students? To new faculty? Tracking of completion… Administrative issues. Recourses withdrawals transcript tracking.

•  I would like to see a more detailed analysis of cost and implementation.

•  Plan for professional development to support course development.

•  Gateway class pigeon hole you at the beginning. What if you don't know what you want to major in? You may be stuck/wasted your time in that gateway class.

•  More clearly articulated for students. May be just as “confusing” as present model.

•  Difficult to deal with large numbers of students. To constrained.

•  It should shed the gateway course (puts too much pressure or emphasis too soon on “specialist” narrowing). Redefine ethics course so it doesn't necessarily only emphasize “professional practice” (Also, too “specialist” for gen ed)

•  Clarified requirements. No gateway . Not make a BA/BS distinction.

•  To make the links clearer for student: The average student who is not college-ready would find the large learning communities unfamiliar and challenging. Many of our students are helped thru the first years while they become college-ready by small unity classes. The learning community model (something) its large lecture classes will lose there students.

•  Gateway course requirement should not be required for major programs. Elimination of some type of computer literacy course as a skills set. Large lecture/large classes. No diversity.

•  Logistical nightmare. Impractical

•  I don't think this is financially feasible and with so much collaboration teaching faculty would need to release time – just not feasible or realistic. Gateway is nice idea but our faculty are already overloaded.

•  Gateway courses = too much faculty resources in a seminar format. Older model.

•  Confusing model could be problematic for transfer students. Seems like logistical nightmare. Would take a great deal of extra planning. Time for coordination of the learning communities and thus be very expensive.

•  Old model. Logistics of linking courses. Too many roadblocks for transfer students. Format and content of gateway course is prescriptive – limits to seminar format won't be financially feasible for professional schools.

•  Nothing – too inflexible.

•  Need to be able to provide a good experience for transfer students. Gateway course is too difficult for all majors and would need too many faculty. Need more freedom for students to overlap course requirements so can double majors and add multiple disciplines to their academic career!

•  Too costly. Does not address the articulation agreement. Credit how requirement too high, unrealistic to implement considering the professional component for professional program.