A Review of the University of Arizona's General Education Program Fall 1998 through Spring 2003

Prepared by the

University-Wide General Education Committee

March 2004

Table of Contents

Preface ...............................................................................................................................1 Section I.

Rationale for the New General Education Program.....................................2

Section II. Design and Structure of the Program ...........................................................5 Section III. Role of the University-Wide General Education Committee ......................8 Section IV. Implementation of the Program.................................................................. 12 Section V. Student, Faculty and Community Perspectives on the Program ................ 25 Section VI. Lessons Learned ......................................................................................... 39 Appendix A ..................................................................................................................... 42 Appendix B ..................................................................................................................... 43 Appendix C ..................................................................................................................... 49 Appendix D ..................................................................................................................... 55 Appendix E...................................................................................................................... 58 Appendix F...................................................................................................................... 60

List of Figures Figure II-1

Key Features of the University-Wide General Education Program ........... 7

Figure III-1

University-Wide General Education – Spring 2003................................ 10

Figure III-2

University-Wide General Education – Spring 2004................................ 11

Figure IV-1

Tier One Strands ...................................................................................... 16

Figure IV-2

Tier Two Study Areas.............................................................................. 16

Figure IV-3

Tier One INDV Course History............................................................... 17

Figure IV-4

Tier One NATS Course History .............................................................. 17

Figure IV-5

Tier One TRAD Course History.............................................................. 18

Figure IV-6

Tier Two ARTS Course History.............................................................. 18

Figure IV-7

Tier Two HUMS Course History............................................................. 19

Figure IV-8

Tier Two INDV Course History .............................................................. 19

Figure IV-9

Tier Two NATS Course History.............................................................. 20

Figure IV-10 Tier One Class Size – Fall 2003 .............................................................. 21 Figure IV-11 Tier One Class Size – Spring 2003.......................................................... 21 Figure IV-12 Tier Two Class Size – Fall 2003.............................................................. 22 Figure IV-13 Tier Two Class Size – Spring 2003 ......................................................... 22 Figure IV-14 Participation of General Education Instructors in Teaching Teams Program ........................................................................ 24

List of Tables Table IV-1

Instructors of Tier One Courses............................................................... 20

Table IV-2

Participation by College in General Education Instruction ..................... 23

Table V-1

Percent of Graduating Seniors Who Believe Their Abilities Were “Much Better” or “Somewhat Better”.. ................................................... 26

Table V-2

Survey of New Freshman (2002-2003) Self Assessment of Learning Abilities .................................................................................... 27

Table V-3

Survey of New Freshman (2002-2003) Long-term Importance of Learning Abilities .................................................................................... 28

Table V-4

Student Perceptions of the Long-term Importance of Their Learning Abilities.................................................................................................... 28

Table V-5

Types of Activities Students Experience in Their General Education Courses..................................................................................................... 29

Table V-6

Frequency of Written Work in General Education Courses.................... 29

Table V-7

Types of Activities Students Experience in Tier One Strands ................ 30

Table V-8

Percent “Strongly Agree” or “Somewhat Strongly Agree” with Statements On Tier One Teacher Course Evaluations ............................ 31

Table V-9

Student Performance with TASKS in all Disciplines – Spring 2001...... 33

Table V-10

Student Learning Skills Inventory as Determined by 25 Tier One Faculty...................................................................................................... 35

Table V-11

Perceptions of 25 Tier One Faculty on the Effectiveness of the General Education Curriculum to Develop Learning Outcomes .......................... 35

PREFACE After our review of the University-wide General Education Program, we remain convinced that the current General Education Program serves the fundamental needs of our university students. “General Education is designed to accomplish several goals: first, to afford students the opportunity to learn how different disciplines define, acquire and organize knowledge; second, to provide a basis for examination of values; third, to develop analytic, synthetic, linguistic and computational skills useful for lifelong learning; and finally, to provide a common foundation for wide-ranging dialogue with peers on issues of significance. Taken together, the experiences of general education encourage the student to develop a critical and inquiring attitude, an appreciation of complexity and ambiguity, a tolerance for and empathy with persons of different backgrounds or values and a deepened sense of self. In short, the goal of the general education program is to prepare students to respond more fully and effectively to an increasingly complex world” (The University-wide General Education Committee http://w.3.arizona.edu/~uge/gened/nutshell.htm). These objectives are not disputed in the Program Review; rather, the review cites and explains numerous examples of all of the aforementioned goals of the program. An ambitious undertaking across all colleges that was launched in the early nineties and that became a curricular reality in the Fall of 1998, the University-wide General Education Program serves the large and diverse entering class during its first two years of university study while at the same time fostering skills and critical awareness necessary for undergraduate learning in a learner-centered educational environment. A bold, challenging, and broadly based academic initiative in which all colleges were to assume and play an active, participatory role, the “new” University-wide General Education Program was designed to accomplish the goals listed above. What follows is an assessment of the first five years of the program and an overall review of the process as of May 2003. In the early nineties, the formation of the “new” University-wide General Education program began as both a result of and as a response to ABOR directives, new college admission requirements both entrance and exit, changes in state-wide High School curricula and graduation requirements, and newly established articulation agreements state-wide as Community Colleges began to assume new and important roles. The “new” General Education Program came about both within and because of the changing environment. The rationale for the General Education Program is reviewed in Section I, and the design of the curriculum itself is described in Section II. In Section III, the University-Wide General Education Committee (UWGEC) is discussed. It was created under the then new Office of Undergraduate Education to provide curricular oversight of the Program. Section IV reviews statistics on the numbers of faculty and students involved in the program as well as ancillary support structures concerned with collaborative learning and teacher training. Section V brings together assessment information that sketch out student, faculty, and community perspectives on the Program, and the concluding section outlines some lessons learned that need to be considered in further deliberations upon general education, along with appendices with supporting materials. The student outcomes set out for the Program are consistent with related programs at Arizona State University (where the corresponding program is called "General Studies") and Northern Arizona University (where the corresponding program is called "Liberal Studies"). All three State universities are required by the Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR) to base their educational goals upon the philosophy of Learner-Centered Education (LCE). For more information, see the white paper on general education in Arizona's public universities. Emphasis is on direct involvement of students in their own education as well as administrative and institutional policies and decisions that foster LCE-compliant learning environments. LCE techniques should influence the entire undergraduate experience, but their leverage on learning and student outcomes is especially high in general education courses. 1

Section I. Rationale for the New General Education Program A.

Guiding Assumptions. The Program is no less than a declaration of the University's overall educational philosophy, which is summarized below to serve as background for this program review. Although the implementation of this philosophy has evolved over time, the current general education curriculum still adheres to the three fundamental learning objectives listed below that are the hallmarks of higher education. The text was adapted from the Report of the President’s Task Force on Undergraduate Education (May 1992) which was itself adapted from text in the Plan for Assessing Undergraduate Education at The University of Arizona written by the Task Force on Assessment of the Quality and Outcomes of Undergraduate Education (May 1987). Undergraduate education at the university level must provide citizens with the knowledge, skills, and attitudes of mind that are the foundation of a lifetime commitment to learning, personal development, and social responsibility. •

First, knowledge. Educated persons are aware of a substantial body of facts, ideas, and theories and have a critical appreciation of the ways this knowledge is acquired and used. They understand and appreciate other cultures as well as Western culture. They are familiar with the various modes of access to knowledge that can facilitate a lifetime of learning.

•

Second, skills. Educated persons have at their disposal various intellectual skills that can serve them throughout their lives. Among the most important are the skills of analysis, synthesis, problemsolving, and evaluation – the ability to define the issues in a complex problem, place the issues in their appropriate context, identify the pertinent facts and their relations, examine alternative interpretations, and arrive at sound conclusions. These skills are integral parts of the abilities to write, speak, listen and reason effectively; to employ the symbolic and quantitative language of mathematics; and to interpret the semiotics of culture--the ways societies constitute values and meaning systems through literature and art as well as through rituals and institutions.

•

Third, attitudes of mind. Four attitudes--all essential to the wise and humane use of knowledge and intellectual skills--are especially important. The first is intellectual integrity, that is, a respect for evidence, reason, and the contingent nature of truth. The second is open-mindedness, that is, a respect for different views and the ability to suspend judgment until convincing evidence is available or until the bases for these differences are understood. The third is motivation, that is, such personal characteristics as initiative, curiosity, and an appetite for learning. The fourth is intellectual commitment, that is, the willingness to pursue a line of inquiry to its logical conclusion – no matter how uncomfortable the conclusion.

Thus equipped, university graduates should be ready to take their place in the world: to pursue careers or advanced degrees, to participate in a democracy, to serve their fellow human beings, and to achieve personal fulfillment. General education instruction is an important end in itself. The knowledge, skills, and attitudes of mind developed in the general education curriculum are what produce the “lifelong learners” who are the intended graduates of a higher education. General education instruction also influences the next generation of teachers both through course content and skill development. Pre-education majors constitute about 58% of most general education classes, and many undecided students might also choose teaching as a career if motivated early enough. Finally, performance in general education classes is used as an 2

“admission criterion” to some major programs that insist on broad intellectual perspective and welldeveloped study skills and attitudes. General education instruction is a challenging research endeavor in its own right. These courses often require faculty to engage in independent study to teach insightfully outside their discipline. Faculty must experiment iteratively to find effective ways to integrate active learning strategies into their courses, especially in large classes, and they must adapt assessment practices to analyze and respond to student outcomes in their courses. Instructors in general education courses also learn from their students by acquiring external perspective on their discipline, including realistic feedback on their students' perceived relevance of the course material to their academic and professional development. B.

Guiding Needs. The University's fundamental educational philosophy has not changed much with time, but it must be reinterpreted periodically to assess how effectively institutional resources are being used to meet students' needs. The following issues drove the creation of the general education program that was introduced in 1998 (most of the text that follows is adapted from material presented in the Proposal for a University-Wide General Education Program that was adopted by the Faculty Senate in March, 1997). •

Need #1: General education requirements varied by colleges. Because of such variations prior to Fall 1998, students who changed colleges often had to take additional general education courses to satisfy the degree requirements of their new college. Furthermore, transfer students did not know how to prepare themselves for admission unless they had already chosen a specific college. This situation was very frustrating to students and often added to the time required to graduate.

•

Need #2: Many faculty were not involved in general education. Prior to Fall 1998, most of the responsibility for decisions about the content and delivery of general education courses resided in the Arts and Sciences Colleges, leaving much of the University faculty without either a teaching role or a curricular “stake” in general education. The degree to which the Program has actually engaged faculty University-wide in designing and delivering general education courses is reviewed in Sections III & VI.

•

Need #3: Enrollment management was inefficient. The complexity of tracking different colleges’ general education programs made it very difficult to anticipate student demand for courses and insure space for all students in a timely manner. The Program promised to facilitate enrollment management and make optimum use of limited faculty resources throughout the general education curriculum. The extent to which the Program has adapted to student needs is reviewed in Section IV.

•

Need #4: General education courses were taken throughout students’ programs of study. Before Fall 1998, students often took general education courses throughout their four years of study. As a result, faculty could not design and teach advanced courses with reasonable expectations that students had acquired critical learning skills and minimum levels of exposure to critical areas of inquiry.

•

Need #5: Resources were inadequate. One of the promised benefits of the Program was that no new University resources would be required to implement it, although some reallocation of resources would be necessary. The extent to which this promise has been realized in terms of course availability, graduate teaching assistant support, and classroom availability is reviewed in Section IV.

3

•

Need #6: Students’ needs and outcomes had not been programmatically assessed. It was considered absolutely essential that the Program be monitored for its effectiveness in addressing the problems that led to its inception. Changes in student behavior, changes in student learning, and changes in faculty satisfaction were specifically named as objectives for program assessment. Available data that relate to these and other assessment topics are reviewed in Section V.

•

Need #7: Some students were taking too long to graduate. Guiding the University's educational philosophy was a recognition that the Program should enable students to progress toward their degrees in a reasonable and timely fashion. The Program was devised during a time when the University was engaged in extensive dialogue with Arizona's high schools, community colleges, and the other State universities to reduce the average time required to complete undergraduate degree programs. The consequences of these outside agreements could only be anticipated in 1998, but can now be assessed.

•

Need #8: Transfer students had to negotiate complex and uncertain differences in requirements. Also beginning in Fall 1998, the University accepted the Arizona General Education Credit (AGEC) from any community college in the State. In doing so, the University hoped to provide smooth transfer pathways for community college students while supporting the community colleges in their efforts to give students a comprehensive general education. Meanwhile, the transfer pathways to specific degree programs, also introduced in Fall 1998, limited the number of units that the University could require beyond the associate's degree and therefore limited its ability to mandate any general education experience for transfer students. The University encouraged transfer students to complete the AGEC; however, it could not prevent students from transferring individual courses or "swirling" back and forth between institutions.

Progress has been made with some of these issues, while other needs have emerged. For example, transfer issues have clearly remained a concern. Partial transfers have created problems for advisors and faculty because the Program's interdisciplinary Tier One courses have no direct equivalent at other Arizona institutions. The Program's disciplinary-based Tier Two courses are designed to build on skills, knowledge, and attitudes developed in Tier One courses, and yet even the Foundations courses in math and composition have different placement measures at different institutions. Because in-state transfers represent a substantial portion of the students who earn bachelors degrees from this University, the Program must establish criteria for assessing and completing transfer students' general education, such as with a reduced Tier One requirement or an interdisciplinary Tier Two requirement with appropriate advising within the transfer student's college.

4

Section II. Design and Structure of the Program A.

Cumulative Structure. The Program was conceived as a three-component structure with courses organized into Foundations, Tier One and Tier Two sequences as illustrated in Figure II-1 at the end of this section. Depending upon students’ foreign-language needs, the general education curriculum constitutes between 35-47 of the 120 units required for graduation. The Program’s key design features are summarized below: •

University-wide Infrastructure. All Tier One and Tier Two courses have been approved by the University-wide General Education Committee. These courses have also been approved at the college and department level by the relevant curricular bodies prior to being submitted to the UWGEC for Program approval. The UWGEC, an interdisciplinary body of faculty, staff, and students, is charged with managing aspects of the Program such as reviewing the program and approving courses proposed by faculty in each study area.

•

Student-Centered and Faculty-Generated Offerings. All instructors of Tier One and Tier Two general education courses were to be ranked faculty. This requirement was intended to enable lowerdivision students to have contact with research faculty. The Program invites faculty to teach general education courses from any department or academic unit within the University. These collaborations bring fresh ideas and broad interdisciplinary perspective into the general education curriculum to replace more traditional, narrowly focused “introductions” to specific fields.

•

A Learner-Centered Curriculum. The Program emphasizes breadth of knowledge to complement the depth of knowledge that will be acquired in students' major fields. Students are intended to develop transferable skills, prepare for lifelong learning, and gain understanding of the importance of teamwork, the uses of information technology, a receptive but critical response to information, and an ability to learn in a variety of ways (independent, collaborative, and interactive). The Program's curriculum encourages students to develop a critical and inquiring attitude, an appreciation of complexity and ambiguity, a tolerance for and empathy with persons of different backgrounds or values, and a deepened sense of self and our heritage. Finally, the interdisciplinary focus of general education courses introduces students to the methods of diverse academic disciplines, thus helping undecided students identify career options and select appropriate majors to prepare for them. In sum, the Program has the goal of preparing students to respond more fully and effectively to an increasingly complex world.

B.

Foundations Courses. Foundations courses build essential skills that can be further developed in Tier One, Tier Two, and the major. Foundations requirements include a course in Mathematics determined by the major, courses in English Composition, and either a fourth-semester or second-semester competency in a Second Language for B.A. and non-B.A. degree candidates respectively. All Foundations courses use home department numbers and prefixes (e.g., ENGL 102). See Appendix A for a closer look at Foundations.

C.

Tier One Courses. Tier One courses introduce students to fundamental issues and concepts in three interdisciplinary study areas, or strands: Natural Sciences (NATS), Individuals & Societies (INDV), and Traditions & Cultures (TRAD). Tier One courses develop critical thinking skills, opportunities for analysis and synthesis, competency in basic skills, and a foundation of knowledge in the sciences, humanities, and social sciences. Tier One instructors are encouraged to employ active learning methods that support student opportunities to work collaboratively, and to provide exposure to 5

computer/multimedia applications. Students select two courses from each of the three strands. Tier One courses are taken concurrently with Foundations courses. Students are expected to finish their Tier One courses by the end of their second year. The three Tier One strands use the following university-wide numbering system for all approved courses. •

•

•

Natural Sciences o

NATS 101 -- Study area: Earth and Its Environment

o

NATS 102 -- Study area: Beyond the Earth in Space and Time

o

NATS 104 -- Study area: Biological Sciences

Traditions & Cultures o

TRAD 101 -- Study area: Non-Western Cultures and Civilizations

o

TRAD 102 -- Study area: Western Cultures and Civilizations: Classical to Renaissance

o

TRAD 103 -- Study area: Western Cultures and Civilizations: Renaissance to Present

o

TRAD 104 -- Study area: Topics in Culture and Civilization

Individuals & Societies o

INDV 101 -- Study area: Mind, Self and Language

o

INDV 102 -- Study area: Social Interaction and Relationships

o

INDV 103 -- Study area: Societal and Institutional Systems

There may be several dozen courses in each study area, each with its own unique title. See Appendix B for a closer look at Tier One courses. D.

Tier Two Courses. Tier Two courses are organized into four study areas: Humanities, Natural Sciences, Individuals & Societies, and Arts. Tier Two courses provide more in-depth examination of topics introduced in Tier One offerings, but they are not designed as introductory courses to majors. Students select either one course or three units of credit from each study area. Tier Two courses are taken only upon completion of the relevant Tier One strand. Courses in all Tier Two study areas use home department course numbers and prefixes (e.g., ASTR 203). See Appendix C for a closer look at Tier Two courses.

E.

Other Features of the General Education Curriculum. All Tier One and Tier Two courses must include a substantial amount of writing in multiple formats. Each course must also include an Honors component for qualified students. Students must include at least one course with an emphasis on gender, race, class, and ethnicity, or one that focuses on a non-western civilization. During it’s February, 2003 meeting, the UWGEC voted to work towards formal incorporation of information literacy skills in the Program's guidelines and expected outcomes for Tier One courses. See Appendix D for a closer look at these other features of the program.

6

Figure II-1 Key Features of the University-Wide General Education Program

Minimum of 120 units to graduate Major, Minor, & Elective Courses

General Education Curriculum 35-47 units Tier Two Courses • Arts (3 units) • Humanities ( 1 course) • Natural Science (1course) • Individuals & Societies (1 course)

Foundations Courses

Tier One Courses

• Mathematics (1 course)

• Natural Science (NATS) 101,102,104 (2 courses)

• English Composition (2-3 courses)

• Individuals & Societies (INDV) 101,102,103 (2 courses)

• Foreign Language (1-2 courses)

• Traditions & Cultures (TRAD) 101,102,103,104 (2 courses)

7

Section III. Role of the University-Wide General Education Committee A.

Charter. The Faculty Senate established the UWGEC in December, 1995. The UWGEC is charged with the review and approval of all curriculum changes in the Program's courses, assessment of the Program, establishing policy in relation to general education, and disseminating information about general education to the campus community. The UWGEC does not manage enrollment nor does it allocate instructional resources. In Spring 2003, the UWGEC reported directly to the Office of Undergraduate Education as depicted in the organizational chart in Figure III-1 at the end of this section (see Figure III-2 for the organizational chart as of Spring 2004).

B.

Membership. The UWGEC includes voting representatives from the following Colleges: Agriculture and Life Sciences; Architecture, Planning and Landscape Architecture; Business and Public Administration; Education; Engineering; Fine Arts; Honors College; Humanities; Nursing; Science; Social and Behavioral Sciences; University College; and the School of Health Related Professions. There are also representatives from the Foundations programs: English Composition, Mathematics, and Second Languages. The UWGEC includes non-voting representatives from support units that directly affect general education instruction such as professional academic advisors, the Library, transfer and articulation services, and assessment and enrollment research. Faculty and support staff serve three-year terms. The UWGEC also includes non-voting undergraduate and graduate student representatives to provide a student perspective for all committee discussions. Student members are appointed annually. The UWGEC elects a Chair annually from within its membership who is responsible for the smooth operation of monthly UWGEC meetings and for establishing the goals and priorities of the UWGEC through consultation with the Vice President for Undergraduate Education. The membership as of Spring 2003 of the UWGEC is listed in Appendix E. The membership as of Spring 2004 is listed in Appendix F.

C.

Liaison. Liaison between the UWGEC, support groups and other committees concerned with undergraduate education is maintained through two primary pathways: the Office of Undergraduate Education’s Senior Program Coordinator and an Assistant Vice President for Undergraduate Education, or when that position was not filled, a Faculty Associate chosen by the Vice President for Undergraduate Education. The Senior Program Coordinator’s responsibilities extend well beyond general education per se. But in terms of the UWGEC’s work, the Senior Program Coordinator provides administrative oversight for UWGEC functions, maintains all records of the UWGEC’s meetings and decisions, assists the UWGEC Chair, Assistant Vice President or Faculty Associate, and Vice President for Undergraduate Education in all matters concerning general education, and is the primary contact person for campus inquiries concerning the Program. The Senior Program Coordinator position is permanent, thus promoting continuity in the UWGEC’s operations. The Assistant Vice President or Faculty Associate’s responsibilities also extend beyond general education. S/he acts as liaison between members of the UWGEC and the University administration, and between the UWGEC and the Undergraduate Council (UGC) which in turn connects to the Faculty Senate’s Instruction and Curriculum Policy Subcommittee. The Assistant Vice President or Faculty Associate also provides leadership for general education initiatives and assessment.

D.

Activities. To prepare for initiating the new Program in Fall 1998, the UWGEC had to concentrate on setting guidelines for the curriculum and evaluating the flood of new course proposals from departments. The interdisciplinary insight provided by UWGEC's faculty members and the advice contributed by UWGEC's support unit representatives allowed course proposals to be evaluated according to the Program's learner-centered guidelines, which thereby became real drivers of education reform. Thanks to the UWGEC's unstinting efforts, the new Program was successfully launched in Fall 1998 with enough seats in Tier One courses to meet demand. The UWGEC soon had to redirect its attention to setting up the 8

Tier Two curriculum and once again enough courses were proposed and accepted to meet student demand. Tier Two was successfully launched in Fall 1999. This success is all the more commendable because the University had to maintain courses in the old program for students admitted prior to Fall 1998. During this period, the UWGEC was also involved with planning for the University’s Integrated Learning Center which is dedicated substantially to general education instruction. From the outset, the UWGEC encouraged and strongly supported using new technologies in the classroom to enhance undergraduate education. Beginning in 2000, the number of Tier One and Tier Two offerings appeared sufficient to meet demand, and the number of new course proposals was decreasing significantly. The UWGEC therefore changed its modus operandi in anticipation of changing roles. The UWGEC divided itself into subcommittees (Course Proposal Review, Policy, University Liaison, and Program Assessment). Biweekly plenary meetings were replaced by sub-committee meetings, and reports from these subcommittees were made at monthly plenary sessions. Though the agenda and names of the subcommittees have changed somewhat, the restructuring of the UWGEC has proven effective in adapting to the Program's evolution. At present, the UWGEC is redirecting part of its time and attention to assessing the Program.

9

Figure III-1. University-Wide General Education – Spring 2003

10

Figure III-2. University-Wide General Education – Spring 2004

Vice Provost for Instruction

Faculty Senate

Program Coordinator, Sr.

Executive Committee

University-Wide General Education Committee

Academic Personnel Policy

Office of Curriculum and Registration

Academic Advisors Instruction and Curriculum PolicyCommittee

Undergraduate Council

Research Policy

Student Affairs Policy

11

Section IV. Implementation of the Program Few vestiges of the former general education program now exist, but not until Spring 2002 did students graduate in large numbers solely under the present Program. The Program was introduced in the Fall 1998 semester with no shortage of courses. Support staff and advising units have helped implement the Program's guidelines and expectations in order to assist students through the process. General education reform at the University has increased faculty and staff collegiality, an unforeseen benefit. A.

Faculty Development and Support. During the preliminary phases of the shift to the new general education program the office of the Vice President for Undergraduate Education invested substantial amounts of funds in faculty development and course design. Individual faculty members who were developing pilot courses for the Tier One curriculum were given advanced training in technology and were then provided with a laptop computer—this was the genesis of what would later become the “laptop” program described below. Teams of faculty were also identified in several departments and trained in course design using advanced technology. The sponsoring departments were provided with substantial technology grants for the purchase of hardware and software to be used for faculty development of courses. Several teams of faculty were formed to develop parallel courses in INDV and TRAD in specific subject areas. For example, $10,000 was given to a team from History, Spanish and Portuguese and Latin American Studies to develop the parallel courses on Latin America that exist in TRAD and INDV. All first-time instructors of general education courses are invited to an orientation at which they are provided with peer input and advice regarding the teaching of general education courses, with special emphasis being placed on problems dealing with large classes. Faculty members have received substantial technical support through the Office of Undergraduate Education, by receiving laptop computers if they attended instructional technology workshops offered by the University Teaching Center (UTC). This was important, since many classrooms across campus have been completely upgraded for Program courses. This program was a huge success that enlivened faculty and invigorated courses through the use of these new technologies. Unfortunately, this program is no longer in place because of lack of funding. The UTC also offers instructional support, including videotaping and teaching evaluation, and offering workshops during the semester. Graduate assistants in teaching (GATs) may also avail themselves of these services. Most instructors have internet access and projector capabilities in the upgraded classrooms. The Center for Computing and Information Technology (CCIT) continues to offer a substantial amount of instructional support, described on its web page (http://www.computing.arizona.edu). CCIT reports that these services are widely used by faculty. The University Library has designated content-specific research librarians for the colleges and departments. Librarians are available to collaborate with General Education faculty members to design library-related research assignments. Librarians will develop pathfinders, guides, and web sites related to course disciplines or topics. Librarians can provide in-class instruction, emphasizing active learning, to introduce information literacy skills and concepts. The Library also provides services for electronic reserves.

B.

Courses. The charts in Figures IV-1 and IV-2 at the end of this section illustrate the overall evolution of the Tier One and Tier Two curricula from the Program's Tier One debut in Fall 1998, Tier Two debut in 1999 on through the Spring 2003 semester. Both charts reveal that the Program annually attempted to accommodate the increasing size of each incoming freshman class. The charts reflect end-of-semester enrollments. However, for the 2002-03 academic year day 21 (census date) enrollments are used. The Tier One curriculum provides for about 16,000 students every semester. The lower number of seats in Spring semesters is due primarily to a cyclic pattern among TRAD courses. The Tier One chart shows that seat availability has been reasonably constant over the past few years, but student demand is now increasing as the undergraduate population continues to grow.

12

1999-2000 marks the first full year of Tier Two course offering. The Tier Two curriculum currently provides about 11,000 seats each Fall semester and about 9,800 seats each Spring semester. Typically, fewer Tier Two seats are offered each Spring. An inventory of seats slightly in excess of demand must continue. Tier One Strands. Details of course enrollments in each the three Tier One strands are illustrated in Figures IV-3 – IV-5 at the end of this section. Enrollment in INDV courses has been quite steady at about 6000 students per semester. TRAD courses peak near 6000 students in Fall semesters and drop to about 4500 students in Spring semesters. The Tier One NATS enrollment approaches 5500 students per semester, but a definite decline occurred in the past year. This decline is probably influenced by budget cuts, but there may be other factors, such as the level of mathematics preparedness by incoming students. Tier Two Strands. Details of course enrollments in each Tier Two strand are illustrated in the charts in Figures IV-6 – IV-9 at the end of this section. It is noteworthy that so many Tier Two courses were available early in the Program, with the exception of NATS courses, which have now increased. C.

Instructors. The present curriculum was designed to have more interaction between tenure system faculty and lower division students. The data in Table IV-1 for Tier One courses in the Fall 2002 and Spring 2003 semesters demonstrates that this goal has been largely met.

D.

GAT Support. In 1997, the Program planned to accommodate about 26,500 students per semester in Tier One and Tier Two courses. The UWGEC tried to determine the actual number of GATs assigned to the Program's courses in the Fall 2002 semester and the funding source associated with course sections where GATs were providing instructional support. It was difficult to determine actual funding because it is derived from a variety of sources often affiliated with Department, College, and University budget distributions.

E.

Class Sizes. Tier One. The two charts in Figures IV-10 and IV-11 at the end of this section illustrate the distribution of Tier One class sizes in the Fall 2002 and Spring 2003 semesters, where data reflects census date (day 21) enrollments. Only the size of the lecture session was noted for courses with discussion sections. For both semesters, the Program was enrolled to capacity, that is, there were few seats available at the beginning of classes. For Fall 2002, the average class size was 150 students and the median class size was 130 students, and in Spring 2003 the average was 139 students and the median was 123 students. Both charts show two pronounced spikes at about 50 and 150 students and a skewed distribution toward very high enrollment classes, with some exceeding 500 students. Tier Two. The two charts in Figures IV-12 and IV-13 at the end of this section illustrate the distribution of Tier Two class sizes in the Fall 2002 and Spring 2003 semesters, where data reflects census date (day 21) enrollments. For Fall 2002, the average class size was 81 students and the median class size was 50 students. For Spring 2003, the numbers were somewhat higher: the average class size was 96 students and the median class size was 57 students. Both charts show a pronounced spike at about 50 students and a rapid decrease towards very high enrollment classes. Few Tier Two classes have separate discussion sections. Regrettably enrollments in many Tier One and Tier Two courses exceed values that many faculty consider manageable, both in terms of classroom climate and meeting the Program's requirements for writing and hands-on research projects.

E.

College Participation. Table IV-2, at the end of this section, summarizes contributions by Colleges to Tier One and Tier Two instruction. The order in which these Colleges are listed is based on the total number of seats that they provided in their Tier One and Tier Two courses over the first five-year history of the Program. Several Colleges continue to support the Program (as they did in the former General 13

Education Program) by delivering a large proportion of the courses. However, overall the contribution to teaching seems to be proportional to the number of students in the various Colleges, demonstrating that the program is "university-wide." F.

Honors Participation. The Program's guidelines for accommodating Honors students states, "The Honors component of Tier One and Tier Two courses must provide students with an enhanced learning experience, different qualitatively, rather than quantitatively, when compared to the experience of nonHonors students. Honors assignments should be different in kind, but comparable in number, to assignments given other students." The format preferred by Honors students and The Honors College is small, independent Honors sections of courses where students can actively engage the material and interact intensely with the professor and other students. The Honors College recommends a class size of 20 students to facilitate discussion and interaction. The formats in which Honors experiences can be incorporated into general education courses include independent Honors sections, Honors discussion sections in large lecture courses, co-convened sections of Honors and non-Honors students, lab sections reserved for Honors students, and Honors contracts negotiated with individual students. With three of the five formats listed above: co-convened sections, discussion sections, and independent courses, the most popular format with faculty is the separate discussion section for Honors students (9 in Fall 1998 and 22 in Spring 2003), which along with co-convened sections (3 in Spring 1999 to 7 in Spring 2003) have held reasonably steady. The Honors College's preferred format, independent sections of courses offered exclusively to Honors students has ranged from 7 to 15 per semester. Honors credit was available in all Tier One and Tier Two study areas during the four-year period between 1998 and 2002, with 4247 students enrolled for Honors credit. The following are the data available on the use of Honors contracts. In Tier One courses, there were 192 contracts in Fall 1998, 64 in Spring 1999, 92 in Fall 1999, 55 in Spring 2000, 48 in Fall 2000, 35 in Spring 2001, 4 in Spring 2002, 287 in Fall 2002, and 208 in Spring 2003. These numbers will probably continue to increase since the Honors College is allowing more units through Honors contracts. Honors contracts are important since they allow for a greater diversity of courses from which students can earn Honors credit.

G.

Peer-Assisted Learning. Instructional use of undergraduate peer assistants at the University is not new; at least 18 programs have been identified over the past decade. However, no University-wide program existed to develop this strategy in the general education curriculum. Perhaps the largest and most successful of these programs is the Teaching Teams Program (TTP; for details, see http://hal.lpl.arizona.edu/teachingteams/) is an innovative program that was created by a grassroots collaboration of faculty and staff. The TTP is a peer-assisted learning program designed to mitigate the negative influence of large, passive classes on learning. TTP's basic objective is to encourage and support "teaching team" consisting of faculty, GATs, and preceptors (undergraduate peer assistants) working together both inside and outside the classroom to provide more attention to individual students and to conduct more group activities than in traditionally taught, high enrollment lecture classes. Preceptors earn academic credit in training courses organized and facilitated by TTP. In five years, 111 faculty in 46 academic departments engaged 1790 preceptors on teaching teams in 263 courses in which more than 38,000 students were enrolled. The chart in Figure IV-14 at the end of this section illustrates the participation of the Program's instructors in TTP: 51% Tier One, 22% Tier Two, and 23% "Other," which includes lower division Foundations courses and upper division classes in majors.

H.

GAT Training. All new GATs from across the University are required to participate in a teaching seminar before they are formally hired. In addition to this seminar, a number of departments require substantially more training and support for their GATs. For example, in some units GATs are required to enroll concurrently in graduate courses on the methodology of teaching or graduate colloquia designed to assess and sustain GAT preparedness while teaching General Education courses. There is also a 14

certification program in college teaching offered to graduate assistants, one that requires three classes directed exclusively at teaching at the post-secondary level, and one of which deals with ethics in teaching. A substantial demand for these courses has been reported, and special workshops have been created to assist graduate students from abroad who want to teach University classes. I.

Quality Control. The Faculty Senate asked for periodic review of the General Education Program (FS Meeting Minutes, 1/27/97). During the second year of the Program, course syllabi were collected from a subset of courses. These were reviewed by a sub-committee of the UWGEC.

15

Figure IV-1

Figure IV-2

16

Figure IV-3

Figure IV-4

17

Figure IV-5

Figure IV-6

18

Figure IV-7

Figure IV-8

19

Figure IV-9

Table IV-1. Instructors of Tier One Courses

Title of the Instructor of Record Professor Adjunct Professor Associate Professor Assistant Professor Adjunct Assistant Professor Instructor Senior Lecturer Lecturer Adjunct Lecturer Research Associate Research Specialist Assistant Research Social Scientist Graduate Teaching Associate Graduate Teaching Assistant

Number of Courses in Fall 2002 36 0 34 27 0 3 2 7 3 0 1

Number of Courses in Spring 2003 34 1 26 23 1 2 2 4 0 1 1

0 3 1

Total Courses

Percent of Total

70 1 60 50 1 5 4 11 3 1 2

32.3% 0.5% 27.6% 23.0% 0.5% 2.3% 1.8% 5.1% 1.4% 0.5% 0.9%

4

4

1.8%

0 1

3 2

1.4% 0.9%

20

Figure IV-10

Figure IV-11

21

Figure IV-12

Figure IV-13

22

Table IV-2. Participation by College in Tier One and Tier Two Instruction Fall 1998-Spring 2003 College Social & Behavioral Sciences Science Humanities Fine Arts Business & Public Administration Agriculture & Life Sciences University College Engineering Interdisciplinary Studies Education Architecture Nursing Health Related Professions

Tier One (% of enrolled students) 51.4 18.9 10.4 0.6 1.7 8.4 3.1 1.4 2.2 0.9 0.9 0.0 0.0

Tier Two (% of enrolled students) 20.7 10.5 17.8 25.1 19.3 1.7 3.0 0.8 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.4 0.1

23

Figure IV-14 Participation of General Education Instructors in the Teaching Teams Program

24

Section V. Student, Faculty and Community Perspectives on the Program The UWGEC has used portions of some of its meetings to hear and address concerns from students, faculty, and administrators from across campus. It has increased its non-voting membership to include representation from advisors, librarians, and other campus professionals who need to know about general education at the university. Since 1998 it has had standing subcommittees on assessment, policy, and community relations. The first group has worked to gather information from students, faculty, and others about the program’s effectiveness. The second group has worked to clarify published statements of policy and procedure, while the third group has promoted campus awareness through such means as fairs, publications, and bulletin boards. This section provides a summary of student and faculty perceptions and attitudes about general education, and a summary of feedback received from business and civic leaders on their perceived relevance of the University's general education curriculum. The information reviewed in this section is obtained from student and faculty surveys, teacher-course evaluations, an assessment of a sample of students’ critical thinking ability, and forums on general education.

Student Perspective The Office of Assessment and Enrollment Research (AER) administers three similar surveys to undergraduate students in different phases of their education: the Survey of New Freshmen (SNF), the Student Experiences Questionnaire (SEQ), and the Survey of Graduating Seniors (SGS). These surveys solicit students’ selfassessment of the curriculum’s impact on their learning and skill development, and the degree to which they perceive these to be personally important. These data are primarily subjective and the surveys from which they were obtained were designed to assess desired student outcomes for university graduates, not general education per se. However, we feel that the evidence obtained from students at several points in their careers sets the scene, in part, for evaluating a few aspects of the impact of the Program on student learning. (As of Fall 2003, AER has been renamed as the Office of Instructional Assessment). •

The Survey of New Freshmen. The SNF provides a self-assessment by students of their incoming skills and content area understanding for eleven desired outcomes of university graduates. o o o o o o o o o o o

•

Written communication Oral communication Mathematics Critical thinking ability Understanding people (both as individuals and in groups) Understanding natural sciences (both biological and physical) Understanding traditions and cultures (ideas and values) Understanding the arts Understanding the humanities (e.g., literature, philosophy, religion) Knowledge about your academic field Use of technology and research skills

The Student Experiences Questionnaire. The SEQ addresses many of the same issues as the SNF, but it is administered to students later in their undergraduate careers. The SEQ includes questions about the same eleven outcomes and their importance to the student, but the questions are restated to obtain each student’s self-assessed degree of improvement. The SEQ was administered when students completed the Upper-Division Writing Proficiency Exam, which comes at a point about mid-career. In theory, students were late sophomores or early juniors as they received the SEQ, but in practice many delayed the exam 25

(and thus the SEQ) until they were well into their senior year. •

The Survey of Graduating Seniors. The SGS repeats the same set of questions used on the SEQ, but the student's perspective is now that of a graduating senior and the student’s self-assessed degree of improvement relates to the overall undergraduate experience.

Graduating Seniors, 1999-2003 These data present a reflective view of a student’s entire educational career at the University. Seniors were asked to assess the change in their abilities across eleven desired outcomes of skill and knowledge. The question was worded as “How have your abilities in the following areas changed since you began your education at the UA?” Responses are summarized in Table V-1; uncollapsed SGS data for these years may be viewed at https://surveys.aer.arizona.edu/surveys/results/SurveyResults.asp.

Table V-1. Percent of Graduating Seniors Who Believe Their Abilities Were ”Much Better” or “Somewhat Better” as a Result of their Education at the UA, for the years 1998 to 2003.

Ability Dimension Written communication Oral communication Mathematics Critical thinking ability Understanding people Understanding natural sciences Understanding traditions and cultures Understanding the arts Understanding the humanities Use of technology and research skills Knowledge about your academic field

98-99

99-00

00-01

01-02

02-03

84% 84% 44% 85% 82% 55% 70% 51% 52% -96%

80% 81% 45% 85% 82% 55% 67% 52% 52% -95%

82% 79% 34% 84% 80% 45% 61% 44% 50% 75% 96%

78% 76% 40% 80% 75% 43% 62% 47% 53% 71% 86%

78% 80% 41% 82% 82% 48% 63% 43% 53% 80% 94%

Trends Among Graduating Seniors If we consider that these data represent probably three cohorts of graduating seniors (those who graduated under the former general education curriculum, those with at least one year under the new Program, and those graduates who completed the entire Program), it appears that the three cohorts reported the same levels of perceived change in many of their abilities.

Entering Freshmen Students were asked to “Rate yourself on each of the following skills as compared with your estimate of the average UA Freshman. Please provide the most accurate estimate you can of how you see yourself.”

26

Table V-2. Survey of New Freshmen (2002-2003): Self-Assessment of Learning Abilities

Ability Dimension Written communication Oral communication Mathematics Critical thinking ability Understanding people Understanding natural sciences Understanding traditions and cultures Understanding the arts Understanding the humanities Use of technology and research skills Knowledge about your academic field

Highest 10% / Above Average 61% 60% 47% 61% 75% 34% 41% 37% 39% 49% 43%

Average 36% 35% 37% 36% 24% 49% 49% 41% 48% 44% 48%

Below Average/ Lowest 10%” 3% 5% 16% 3% 1% 17% 10% 22% 13% 7% 9%

If nothing else, entering freshmen report a great deal of confidence in their abilities relative to those of their classmates. More than 50% of respondents viewed their abilities as above average (“Highest 10%” plus “Above Average” >50%) in four areas: written communication, oral communication, critical thinking, and understanding people. Entering freshmen appeared less confident in their technical abilities and their understanding of specific knowledge domains. One goal of the University-wide General Education Program is to attempt to allow for students to begin to explore new areas of study, “general” areas where the curriculum seeks to plant foundational seeds for lifelong learning. A question addressing the importance of the eleven desired outcomes was asked in selected years of the SGS, SEQ, and SNF. It reads: “Predict how important each of these abilities will be to your long-term goals.” This question was first asked on the 2000-2001 SGS, but not until the 2001-2002 versions of the SEQ and SNF. The results are summarized in Tables V-3 and V-4.

Freshmen, 2001-2003 Six of the 11 desired outcomes were considered “Essential” or “Very Important” to the long-term goals of at least 75% of the 01-02 and 02-03 entering freshmen, including written communication, oral communication, critical thinking, understanding people, use of technology and research skills, and knowledge of their chosen academic field. Mathematics was viewed as “Essential” or “Very Important” by a little over half (53%) of those questioned, while fewer than 50% hold this view in the remaining areas which include understanding natural sciences, traditions and cultures, the arts, and the humanities. With the exception of “Mathematics” (60% endorsed ‘Essential/Very Important, 27 ‘Important’, and 18% ‘Somewhat Important/Not Important’ on the 0102 SNF) and “Understanding the natural sciences” (47% endorsed ‘Essential/Very Important’, 33% ‘Important’, and 21% ‘Somewhat Important/Not Important’ on the 01-02 SNF), percentages were quite similar across the two years.

27

When Tables V-1 and V-3 are compared, there is a strong correspondence between the ability dimensions entering freshmen viewed as important and those for which they felt they had above average abilities. Table V-3. Survey of New Freshmen (02-03): Long-Term Importance of Learning Abilities Ability Dimension Written communication Oral communication Mathematics Critical thinking ability Understanding people Understanding natural sciences Understanding traditions and cultures Understanding the arts Understanding the humanities Use of technology and research skills Knowledge about your academic field

Essential/Very Important

Important

77% 89% 53% 81% 81% 40% 47% 31% 42% 79% 88%

20% 10% 29% 17% 16% 35% 36% 35% 37% 17% 11%

Somewhat Important/ Not Important 3% 1% 13% 2% 3% 25% 17% 34% 21% 4% 1%

The entries in Table V-4 track the students' perceived importance of the desired outcomes across their education. The SNF, SEQ and SGS data are from 02-03. The entries in Table V-4 represent only the percentage of respondents to each survey claiming that a given ability dimension is “Essential” or “Very Important” to their long-term goals.

Table V-4. Student Perceptions of the Long-term Importance of Their Learning Abilities (sum of "Essential" and "Very Important" responses only) 2002-03 2002-03

Ability Dimension

Written communication Oral communication Mathematics Critical thinking ability Understanding people Understanding natural sciences Understanding traditions and cultures Understanding the arts Understanding the humanities Use of technology and research skills Knowledge about your academic field

SNF*

SEQ*

SGS*

77% 89% 53% 81% 81% 40% 47% 31% 42% 79% 88%

80% 92% 36% 89% 86% 39% 42% 24% 25% 80% 94%

88% 94% 34% 89% 86% 28% 45% 23% 26% 79% 87%

*SNF= Survey of New Freshman, SEQ=Student Experiences Questionnaire, SGS=Survey of Graduating Seniors

The responses for mid-career students and graduating seniors closely resemble those observed for incoming freshmen. In general, the abilities in Table V-4 viewed as most important to students' long-term goals are the same abilities in Table V-1 in which students perceived significant gains in their abilities while at the University. 28

On the other hand, abilities initially perceived to be less important to incoming freshmen remain so upon graduation. Four abilities in Table V-4 are noteworthy for their persistently low levels of perceived importance: arts, humanities, natural sciences, and mathematics. These four areas represent a significant part of the core of the general education curriculum. The Program initially was designed to provide students with various opportunities to produce written work and develop and practice a variety of critical thinking skills and tools. Table V-5 illustrates students’ perceptions of a number of activities relevant to their experiences in Tier One courses. This Table indicates responses of graduating seniors in the 2002-03 SGS to the question “How often were you able to participate in the following activities in your general education courses at the UA?” Table V-5. Types of Activities Students Experience in Their General Education Courses SGS 2002-03 Activity

A Lot

Opportunities for writing in multiple formats Opportunities to engage in library and web research Opportunities to do math and other quantitative analyses Oral presentations Group/team projects Opportunities to develop critical thinking skills

73% 63% 29% 47% 52% 54%

A Few Times 22% 30% 36% 37% 35% 33%

Once or Twice 4% 6% 24% 12% 11% 10%

Never 1% 1% 11% 4% 2% 3%

As shown, writing, library and web research, and critical thinking activities are areas where the greatest percentage of students reported having had experience. Opportunities for utilizing Mathematics and other quantitative analyses are fewer, as 11% of these graduating seniors appear to indicate. This, however, could be attributed to the fact that Science and Engineering students are not required to enroll in Tier One NATS courses. Additionally, graduating students do not necessarily report on their experiences in Foundation Mathematics when asked about General Education courses. Mid-career students were asked in more detail about their opportunities to write in their general education courses. Specifically, students responding to the SEQ since 1997 have been asked in how many courses (1) they were required to write essay exams, (2) they were provided with feedback on their written assignments, and (3) the quality of their writing was an important component of the grading of assignments. For all three queries, respondents were explicitly asked to “exclude Freshmen Composition courses, English 100 through 109.” Table V-6 displays the percentages of respondents experiencing each activity. Table V-6. Frequency of Written Work in General Education Classes Zero to two times

Approach to written work You had to take an essay exam Your professor gave you written or oral feedback on your writing Your grade on a paper depended on the quality of your writing

Six or more times

97-98 37%

98-99 45%

99-00 33%

00-01 32%

97-98 28%

98-99 34%

99-00 32%

00-01 35%

44%

41%

36%

32%

23%

27%

31%

35%

42%

41%

36%

31%

25%

28%

32%

36%

There has been a noticeable decline in the percentages of students reporting that they experienced each form of writing activity two or fewer times. This is matched by growing percentages of students reporting six or more instances of writing activities. These trends correspond well with the shift to the new Program, and seem to suggest that efforts to incorporate writing into general education courses have seen some success. 29

Another way to estimate writing in the Program is to examine student evaluations of the writing component of specific courses. Such data are available from the Teacher Course Evaluations (TCE) administered by AER at the conclusion of each course. Two questions relevant to student writing were included on TCEs administered between Fall 2001 and Spring 2003. They asked students completing Tier One courses in INDV, NATS, and TRAD whether they received feedback on written work and were given the opportunity to revise at least one major writing assignment. The percentages of students reporting that each feature was incorporated into the course they had just completed are listed in Table V-7.

Table V-7. Types of Activities Students Experience in Tier One Strands General Education Activity

INDV

NATS

F 01 S 02 F 02 S03 F 01 S 02 F 02

TRAD S03

F 01

S 02

F02

S03

I was given feedback on my written work 62% 69% 75% 76% 58% 65% 71% 63% 74% 79% 80% 74% I had the opportunity to revise at least one major written 44% 49% 58% 66% 41% 49% 51% 42% 68% 65% 64% 50% assignment This course required me to work with students on a group 23% 32% 34% 30% 60% 55% 59% 57% 33% 39% 36% 27% project (paper, presentation, test, experiment, etc.).

A broader assessment of student perceptions of the Program is possible using all queries on the TCE that relate specifically to Tier One courses. The full set of queries is presented in Table V-8 along with the percentages of students in four recent semesters who “Strongly Agreed” or “Somewhat Agreed” with the statements.

30

Table V-8. Percent “Strongly Agree” or “Somewhat Strongly Agree” with Statements on Tier One Teacher Course Evaluations TCE Questions

INDV

NATS

F 01 S 02 F 02 S03 F 01 Common Questions Assignments and examinations required 87% independent thinking My interest in the subject matter 70% increased as a result of taking this course. Outside of fulfilling a requirement, this 71% course was worthwhile to me. This course provided opportunities during class time to discuss course topics 79% and materials. Similar Questions This course helped me to understand 75% how social science applies to daily life. This course helped me to understand how science applies in daily life. This course helped me to understand the value of culture in daily life. This course helped me to understand the 71% methods of inquiry used in the social sciences. This course helped me to understand the methods of inquiry used in the sciences. This course helped me to understand the methods of inquiry in the humanities. Specific to INDV I know more about social systems now 78% than I did at the beginning of this course. This course helped me learn about 81% individual and social differences. This course helped me learn about 58% myself as an individual. Specific to NATS As a result of this course, I think critically about scientific issues presented in the media. This course provided hands-on experience doing science experiments or investigations. This course provided opportunities to collect and interpret data. This course required me to interpret numeric or graphic data. Specific to TRAD This course encouraged me to compare and contrast different cultures. This course encouraged me to interpret fundamental concepts of other cultures. This course made me aware of the impact of history on current events and how these events shape the future.

TRAD

S 02

F 02

S03

F 01

S 02

F 02

S03

85% 86% 89% 88%

81%

84%

85%

88%

87%

87%

88%

73% 69% 76% 66%

60%

69%

71%

68%

70%

67%

66%

74% 71% 78% 69%

62%

69%

72%

69%

70%

67%

66%

85% 85% 86% 77%

76%

80%

84%

75%

84%

85%

81%

74%

78%

80% 74%

73%

71%

69%

70%

71%

69%

71%

78%

74%

76%

72%

77%

76%

76%

75%

80%

77%

78%

76%

75% 75% 80% 77%

71% 71% 69%

65%

69%

79% 77% 82% 83% 81% 87% 64% 59% 66%

58%

55%

61%

60%

60%

60%

67%

62%

70%

67%

76%

70%

62%

63%

66%

67%

31

In general, regardless of strand and the generality of the question, there is strong agreement from students that Tier One classes provide an array of desired instructional outcomes related to generalized skills and contentspecific knowledge. On average, about three-quarters of the students responding either “Strongly Agreed” or “Somewhat Agreed” with the statements on the Tier One TCE form.

Summary of Student Perspective as Derived from Survey Data Written Communication. Students at all levels see written communication both as important and as something they do at above average levels. Students also report being given substantial opportunity to develop their writing skills (three-quarters of graduating seniors saying they had “A Lot” of opportunities for writing in many formats). Specifically in Tier One courses, most say they received individual feedback on their writing (less in NATS, most in TRAD) but a majority did not feel they had an opportunity to revise a major assignment (with the exception of students in TRAD courses, where 68% report they did have such an opportunity). They also report a general increase in the number of classes that require them to write essay exams, where instructors provide them with written feedback on their writing assignments, and where writing is seen as an integral part of the grading scheme. Oral Communication. Students enter the University as freshmen feeling that oral communication skills will be important to their long-term goals, and a majority believe they enter with above average skills in this area. The same can be said of graduating seniors. Indeed, about half of all seniors questioned said they had “A Lot” of opportunities to give oral presentations in their general education courses, and almost 90% said they were given at least a few opportunities. Critical Thinking. Critical thinking is one of the abilities felt by incoming freshmen to be most important, and one that most feel they do at above average levels. It remains one of the two or three most important abilities as perceived by students surveyed at mid-career and as graduating seniors. In addition, the percentage feeling they have improved their critical thinking skills appears to grow larger in each successive cohort. Five out of ten seniors questioned said they had “A Lot” of opportunities to develop critical thinking skills in their general education courses, and almost nine out of ten said they were given at least a few opportunities. TCE results show that students in all strands felt their courses forced them to think independently. Over three-quarters felt TRAD courses encouraged specific aspects of critical thinking (e.g., comparing and contrasting), while nearly six out of ten students felt NATS courses helped them think critically about scientific issues presented in the media. Mathematics. Among the basic, content-independent skills addressed on the SNF, mathematics fares the worst. Just under 50% of all incoming freshmen felt they entered the University with mathematical abilities above average, and only six out of ten felt that math was important to their long-term goals. In a similar fashion, the percentage of graduating seniors feeling that their math skills improved while at the University is actually smaller in the 2000-2001 cohort than it was for the three prior cohorts of seniors. The same can be said of the importance attributed to math among successive cohorts of graduating seniors. However the relevant question’s wording focuses on their “long-term goals,” which could be interpreted by many students as referring to their careers rather than their lives in general. To the extent that this is true, students in majors that are not dependent upon math (e.g., English, History) would not be expected to report high levels of importance. Research and Analytic Skills. Freshmen enter the University with a solid appreciation for the importance of technology and research skills, and this is reproduced among mid-career students and graduating seniors. In each case, approximately 8 out of every 10 students questioned felt that technology and research skills were either essential or very important. About half of all entering freshmen felt they held above average skills in this area, and at least seven out of ten mid-career students and graduating seniors felt that their skills improved. Regardless of strand, TCE results show that students felt their Tier One courses helped them understand the 32

appropriate methods of inquiry. With respect to one specific area of research, approximately two thirds of graduating seniors responded that they had “A Lot” of opportunity in their general education courses to engage in library and web research. (These may be forms of research available to all students, regardless of major, but it does not examine lab research opportunities, etc.) Content Knowledge in General Education. A majority of incoming freshmen did not feel that having an understanding of various general education content areas (i.e., natural science, traditions and cultures, arts, and humanities) was essential or very important to their long-term goals, nor did they feel they entered the University with above average abilities in these areas. The lone exception is an understanding of people, which eight out of ten felt was important and on which nearly three-quarters believed they had above average abilities. Overall, a majority felt their abilities improved in these content areas while at the University, but survey results suggest that the perceived importance of most of these content areas is even lower among mid-career students and graduating seniors.

Student Outcomes Assessment Following the recommendation of a faculty work group, the UWGEC worked with the Office of Assessment and Enrollment Research and the University Composition Board to identify and pilot a standardized test of critical thinking. They selected the Tasks in Critical Thinking offered by the Educational Testing Service (ETS) because it was designed to measure students’ skills in inquiry, analysis, and communication – three skills often associated with critical thinking. Each “Task” sets a problem and directs students through various steps in order to solve it. Students respond to a series of eight to ten short-answer questions and then write an essay or a report based on issues raised in the task. They are given 90 minutes to complete the assignment. In selecting the ETS “Tasks,” the UWGEC noted that they were available in three different areas (Humanities, Social Sciences, and Natural Sciences) that resembled the three strands of Tier One courses in General Education. They also noted that similar tasks could be developed at UA, based on material covered in Tier One courses, and that such tasks could be used to assess students’ learning skills at different points in their education – for example, at the end of their sophomore year. ETS “Tasks” were piloted in Spring 2001 during two sessions of the Upper-Division Writing Proficiency Exam (UDWPE). A total of 385 students were randomly selected to take the “Tasks” when they registered for the UDWPE. Preparatory workshops similar to those provided for students taking the UDWPE were provided. Each student was given a “Task” in Humanities, Social Sciences, or Natural Sciences on a random basis, without regard to the student’s major. A group of UA faculty and appointed personnel was trained by ETS to score the “Tasks.” Table V-9 shows that 64% of UA students were “Fully Proficient” or better on Inquiry, 61% on Analysis, and 67% on Communication. Table V-9. Student Performance with TASKS in all Disciplines -- Spring 2001 Performance Level Superior Performance Exceeds Requirements Fully Proficient Some Proficiency Limited Proficiency Not Proficient

Score

Inquiry

Analysis

Communication

6 5 4 3 2 1

3% 20% 41% 28% 6% 2%

4% 24% 33% 29% 8% 2%

6% 28% 33% 27% 5% 1%

33

Students performed slightly better on the Natural Science Tasks, perhaps because these were the most “straightforward” in the view of faculty readers. The success rate overall was similar to that on the UWGEC, but with fewer results of “unsatisfactory” (limited proficiency) and more of “excellent” (superior performance). In follow-up discussion, faculty graders reported that the structure and organization of the test were noteworthy and that the longer written pieces were the most informative. They observed that students who skipped the preliminary assignments did not appear to do as well on the longer writing pieces. Overall they thought that the UA faculty could create more valuable assessment tests, but that the experience with ETS had furthered the discussion of what critical thinking entails. The faculty participants recommended both the development of a "home grown" test to assess skills associated with general education and the use of course-embedded assignments.

B. Faculty and Community Perspective During the academic years from 1998 to 2002, the Office of Undergraduate Education sought feedback from faculty actively engaged in delivering the General Education program. The Office organized a forum each semester, at which Tier One faculty could discuss their experiences with the Vice President of Undergraduate Education. The Vice President for Undergraduate Education also organized study groups of Tier One faculty to evaluate the learning outcomes in the three strands: Individuals and Societies, Natural Sciences, and Traditions and Cultures. Finally, the Vice President for Undergraduate Education and the UWGEC organized a series of activities to reach faculty across the campus. Most recently, following a charge from the Arizona Board of Regents, the office and committee held a community forum on the role of undergraduate education in shaping the workforce of the future. The Tier One Faculty Survey During Fall 2000, the UWGEC sent a survey to all Tier One faculty. The survey asked open-ended questions about the goals and outcomes of Tier One courses, possible improvements of the Program, and Program’s success to date in their opinion. The response rate was very low, and the open-ended questions really gave no information different than was gathered by the Vice President for Undergraduate Education in his Tier One faculty forums each semester. The Tier One Faculty Retreat The UWGEC organized a Tier One Faculty Retreat in November 2001 to share experiences and best practices among Tier One Faculty. Invited participants included 25 faculty who had taught at least one Tier One course, as well graduate teaching assistants, undergraduates, the Vice President for Undergraduate Education, and a member of the Arizona Board of Regents. Participants shared successful strategies for teaching communication, quantitative reasoning, critical thinking, and group work skills across the three strands. Faculty and staff presentations, roundtable discussions were followed by displays of Tier One course portfolios. Participants reported that they found the exchange of ideas most useful. The retreat had the double goal of reintroducing faculty to the learning outcomes of Tier One courses, and of determining the extent to which their courses met those goals. Participants were given the learning outcomes in advance, along with directions for compiling a course portfolio. At the retreat they engaged in activities designed to help the UWGEC determine whether the portfolio review could be a viable means of reviewing all Tier One courses. •

Strategies for Student Learning. Participants filled out worksheets to capture their strategies for motivating students, getting them actively involved in their own learning, and for meeting the goals of their courses. 34

•

Course Portfolio Exhibit. According to some respondents, the display and presentation of Tier One course portfolios was an especially helpful way to facilitate sharing of ideas, experience, and "best practices" and to generate a body of data from which to help measure if the desired learning outcomes were being met.

•

Desired Student Outcomes. The 25 participating Tier One instructors were asked to rank the importance in their courses of the eight learning outcomes listed in the Table V-10. Responses were limited to "Essential," "Very Important," "Important," "Somewhat Important," "Not At All Important," and "Not Applicable to the Course." Table V-10. Student Learning Skills Inventory as Determined by 25 Tier One Faculty at the Tier One Faculty Retreat. Desired Student Skills and Outcomes

Communicate in writing Communicate orally Think critically Think creatively Reason quantitatively Use computer applications Select and evaluate information Work on group projects

Importance Essential/ Somewhat/ Important Not Important

Opportunity Not Applicable

A Lot

Some

Very Little

92% 80% 100% 80% 68%

8% 20% 0% 4% 24%

0% 0% 0% 4% 8%

75% 25% 75% 52% 41%

25% 58% 25% 35% 23%

0% 17% 0% 13% 36%

56%

32%

12%

36%

27%

36%

96%

0%

4%

61%

39%

0%

60%

32%

8%

27%

45%

27%

At least 80% of the respondents considered four of the eight learning outcomes (writing, critical and creative thinking, information literacy) to be “Essential” or “Very Important” to students' success in their courses. Not surprisingly, these were the same learning outcomes for which instructors provided “A Lot” of opportunity to practice and develop these skills. Finally, participating Tier One faculty were asked to rate the effectiveness of the Program in developing and applying the eight learning outcomes based on their experience. These results as presented in Table V-11 show that faculty perceptions of program effectiveness were consistent with this group's rankings and opportunities in Table V-10. Table V-11. Perceptions of 25 Tier One Faculty on the Effectiveness of the General Education Curriculum to Develop Learning Outcomes. Desired Student Skills and Outcomes Communicate in writing Communicate orally Think critically Think creatively Reason quantitatively Use computer applications Select and evaluate information Work on group projects

Almost Always/ Usually Effective

Sometimes Effective

Rarely/Almost never Effective

100% 64% 93% 69% 85% 54% 61% 50%

0% 36% 7% 31% 15% 39% 38% 50%

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 7% 0% 0%

35

The Forum on 21st Century General Education This forum on February 14, 2003, was sponsored by the Arizona Board of Regents and organized by the UWGEC and the Office of Undergraduate Education to obtain feedback from business and civic leaders on their perceived relevance of the University's general education curriculum. The 29 participants included 15 affiliated with the University and 14 from the community. The forum was structured around roundtable discussions of the two questions listed below. There were five roundtables, each consisting of five to six participants, including a member of the UWGEC to answer questions about the structure and operation of the Program. Individual’s responses were written onto flip charts, and then shared with and discussed by the entire group. The responses below are from the flip charts, and can be one person’s comment, and are not necessarily the consensus of the group. First Discussion Question. Which skills, values, and knowledge should a college graduate possess for success in life after college? •

Skills o o o o o o o o o

•

Values o o o o o o o

•

The ability to think critically: to access, question, and evaluate information, and to solve problems The ability to integrate knowledge The ability to communicate clearly in writing The ability to communicate verbally, without a script The ability to understand technology and its role in society The ability to understand change and to be flexible The ability to process, retain, record, and synthesize information The ability to work as part of a team (social adaptability) The ability to lead (self-direction/motivation) Integrity Curiosity Love of learning Professionalism Appreciation of various cultures Respect for standards (rigor) Sense of civic responsibility

Knowledge o o o o

A sense of history An understanding of society Understanding what is ‘in the box’ (shared intellectual heritage) Experience of the fine arts

Second Discussion Question. How well does the University-Wide General Education Program at the UA address the observations and goals suggested by the earlier discussion? How could we do better? Again these are individual comments, and there was no vote to see how the group felt about the comments. The Assessment Subcommittee of the UWGEC felt that upon reflection this was not a well stated question, since it seemed to ask for weaknesses, and not strengths. Weaknesses of the Current Program o o

The name itself is unexciting/unoriginal! What is special about UA General Education? Unclear academic goals; lack of a specific set of things everyone should know. 36

Lack of choices for students; students not knowing the possibilities open to them. Lack of class availability (or at least undocumented availability); lack of classes for employed students. o Class size; question whether large classes can be effective. o o

•

Suggestions for Improvement o o o o o o o

Practical applications for general education classes (internships/partnerships); link to real-world experience K-20 articulation Increase mentoring Make links between general education and the majors Add a first-year experience class (to include institution-wide orientation, introduction to academic resources, etc.) Include more student self-assessment Improved "marketing"; the Program's visibility needs to be more consistent and prominent to stimulate both students and faculty.

The Course Portfolio Review The UWGEC organized and facilitated the Program's first Course Portfolio Review session in April 2002 as a pilot for periodic review of all Tier One and Tier Two courses and for the identification and dissemination of "best practices" among faculty teaching general education courses. Portfolio review teams, consisting of two general education faculty and one undergraduate student, evaluated each portfolio, using strand-specific worksheets devised by the UWGEC. Participants received written summaries from the review team as to how the portfolio addresses the desired student outcomes for both Tier One and Tier Two courses, how well the portfolios reflected course content, and how they might strengthen their portfolio. Review panelists noted that these course portfolios were from a select and dedicated group of general education instructors, were of very high quality, and were impressed with the amount of work revealed in some of the course portfolios. The Course Portfolio Workshop The UWGEC organized and facilitated the workshop Constructing Course Portfolios: Conversations, Discussions, and Preparations in November, 2002, as follow-up to the Course Portfolio Review and the next step in implementing a Program-wide curriculum review. The central theme of the workshop was to promote the course portfolio as a comprehensive yet efficient means of documenting the intellectual work of teaching a particular course and one way to ensure that quality teaching is recognized, valued, and rewarded in promotion, tenure, and post-tenure reviews. The workshop created an initially broad overview of a model course portfolio with questions such as: •

What are the learning objectives for your course?

•

What are the teaching strategies and materials you use to accomplish your course objectives?

•

What student performance measures do you use to evaluate how well your students achieve your course objectives?

•

How do you use these student performance measures to improve the way you teach your course?

•

What is the central question or focus you would like to represent in your course portfolio? 37

A composite portfolio was distributed to participants giving examples how these questions might be addressed. The composite portfolio was organized into five sections, outlined below, with each section containing multiple examples copied from the Tier One course portfolios from the Portfolio Review discussed above. • • • • •

Course Philosophy. Course Objectives. Methods Reflections Examples of Student Achievements.

38

Section VI. Lessons Learned "In many respects, this review is coming at an especially inauspicious time. With weakening state and national economies, and in the face of diminishing resources, existing programs are threatened, and funds for fixing pressing problems are not readily available. Responding to the University's problems will require sensitive, wise, and decisive leadership, as well as a clear sense of priorities, both inside and outside of the University." This quotation could aptly apply to the budget crisis that is provoking changes that are continuing to affect the University's academic programs, but these statements actually appeared in 1992 in the Report of the President's Task Force on Undergraduate Education. In spite of limited resources, this report called for transformational changes that moved the university away from a college-based general education program to the current university-wide program. After more than five years of deliberations and planning, the General Education Program was introduced in Fall 1998. The years since then have brought sustained attention to undergraduate education that has succeeded in reducing students' time to graduation, easing difficulties in transferring into the university, raising undergraduate admissions requirements, establishing a center for the first-year educational experience, and eliminating many of the problems that arose when students changed majors and had to negotiate differing general education requirements. The Importance of General Education Our extended review of the university-wide general education program is but a part of the sustained collaborations on the basic purposes of a university education. A general education curriculum adds breadth to a student’s course of study, and is a major part of what distinguishes a university education. General education gives our graduates knowledge (facts, ideas, theories) from areas outside their fields of study, a critical understanding of how knowledge is acquired and used in other disciplines, and an appreciation for other cultures. General education helps students to learn how to analyze issues, synthesize research, solve problems and evaluate solutions, and to acquire the skills needed to write and speak about issues and compute solutions. Finally general education helps develop the attitudes of mind and respect for differences that enable students to become lifelong learners. Our general education curriculum brings faculty from across the university to provide students with opportunities to gain the knowledge, skills and attitudes of mind that distinguish a generally educated person. The shared commitment to a common curriculum has allowed students to change colleges with much greater ease, and it has enabled transfer students to negotiate differences in requirements. Faculty members from more colleges are involved in the instruction of general education courses, and students now take their general education requirements earlier in their academic careers. Collaboration. The University-wide General Education Program has raised awareness of general education as a key ingredient of undergraduate education at the University of Arizona. General education fairs, forums, and workshops for different campus groups, including students, faculty, and advisors have contributed greatly to the program's visibility. They have also increased collaboration among members of many different units on campus. Collaborative efforts to enhance the learning environment in general education courses include the Laptop program run by the University Teaching Center, the Classroom Renovation project, the Teaching Teams program and the construction of the Integrated Learning Center, on which teams of faculty, librarians, advisors, and information technology specialists collaborated. These efforts have gone beyond general education to improve learning across the campus, but they demonstrate that general education is central to the undergraduate experience. Students and advisors need up-to-date information on courses and requirements, while general education faculty need opportunities to meet other instructors, see examples of innovative teaching practices, and appreciate how their courses fit the larger picture. We have learned that good Internet resources and successful general 39

education events require funding for support staff as well as event expenses. Some early efforts at community building, such as the General Education Speaker Series, have been cancelled for lack of resources but are worth reviving. Other efforts like the workshops for development and review of course portfolios and the Provost's General Education Teaching Awards, though important for career development of individual faculty, are essential to the success of general education as a coherent program.

Coordination. The University-wide General Education program was developed through a series of compromises within the university. There were also compromises within the state's higher education system. . Statewide initiatives like the Arizona General Education Certificate (AGEC) and the transfer pathways for major degree programs were designed to ensure a more coherent learning experience for students. We have learned that decisions made by committee on subjects like course equivalency have far-reaching implications. We anticipate the need to review certain compromises, especially where they affect the quality of learning in our general education courses, but we recognize that these will be difficult deliberations, best made in consultation with all involved. Student Outcomes Assessment. The University has a long commitment to building and assessing skills associated with written communication, from Foundations courses through upper-division writing emphasis courses in each major. However, similar approaches have not been implemented for other skill areas (e.g., mathematical and quantitative skills, oral communication, critical thinking, information literacy) in spite of their importance to the University’s goal of producing lifelong learners. For example, the vast majority of students, faculty and community groups agree that communication skills are important and the responses on the associated items are similar to those on critical thinking, understanding people, and knowledge of subject disciplines. Between 1997 and 2001, 97% of student responses indicated that writing is essential or important. There has also been a continual increase in the numbers of students who report that writing has been emphasized in their general education courses, with a majority of students reporting that they have received feedback on their writing in all three areas of their Tier One courses. Similarly, student responses indicate that the general education program has increased the emphasis not only on writing but on critical thinking, collaborative learning, and informative literacy experiences. While these results are compelling, they are perceptual in nature and do not provide much information about students’ performance in these areas. It is therefore recommended that a more comprehensive, ongoing, university-wide plan be developed to assess the outcomes associated with general education courses. Course Availability. Enrollment in Tier One classes has continued to increase each year since the curriculum was launched. This is an extraordinary accomplishment, given the simultaneous growth in the student population and particularly in the size of each successive freshmen class. Ensuring incoming freshmen have a full and appropriate course load during their first semester is a key to providing them with the opportunity to graduate on time if they chose to do so, and an essential component in efforts to raise first-year retention rates. Instructional resources Experience has shown that instructional units are generally able to provide an adequate supply of seats for the program when adequate funds are provided in a timely fashion. The University has made significant strides in meeting student needs. The basic challenge is to provide permanent funds to colleges and departments, thus enabling them to marshal adequate instructional personnel.

40

Sustainability. Among the special strengths of the University of Arizona is the success with which interdisciplinary and collaborative partnerships foster and encourage on-going communication among faculty and among faculty and students. This is one of the hallmarks of the University-wide General Education Program. Sustaining this dialogue is essential to our ability to meet University-wide responsibilities for preparing, educating, and engaging our undergraduates as they become informed students, global citizens and vital lifelong learners. Curricular, academic and participatory partnerships have successfully brought about the university-wide structure, the overall process for delivery of courses, and the timely availability of seats for the incoming class. On-going and long term institutional financial support, however, are necessary in order to continue and sustain the demonstrated strengths and overall goals of this university-wide curricular program. The University-wide General Education Program involves coursework in the Foundations, Tier One and Tier Two. It remains innovative in its design, broad in its delivery, excellent in fostering collaborative and interdisciplinary partnerships throughout the university, and extensive in its service and commitment to new students. These results require a firm commitment to stabilized, permanent, and on-going financial support so that colleges, departments, programs, faculty, and students can continue to contribute to, enhance, and bring about the Program’s overall goals. Stable funding is fundamental to ensuring that the established partnerships and the open dialogue will continue in the University’s curricular cornerstone – the University-wide General Education Program.

41

Appendix A. A Closer Look at Foundations Courses Foundations courses in Mathematics, English Composition, and Second Language comprise an essential component of a university education. They give students extensive practice in fundamental academic skills, principle, and habits that foster learning in all other coursework. Together with Tier One and Tier Two courses, Foundation courses help students to think critically and to deal with complexity. After completing the Foundations requirement in Mathematics, students should be able to: • • •

Understand how to use arithmetic, algebraic, geometric, or statistical methods to solve problems. Interpret mathematical models and represent information symbolically, visually, numerically, and verbally. Estimate answers to mathematical problems and determine their reasonableness.

After completing the Foundations requirement in English Composition, students should be able to: • • • •

Read and summarize critical arguments. Organize information coherently. Choose language and format appropriate for different audiences Revise their writing effectively.

After completing the Foundations requirement in a Second Language, students should be able to: • Read, write, hear, and speak the language at an appropriate level of proficiency. • Recognize the major cultural norms, beliefs, and traditions of the regions where the language is used

42

Appendix B. A Closer Look at the Tier One Curriculum A. Tier One INDV Courses INDV Course Proposal Requirements. All proposals to teach Tier One courses in Individuals & Societies (INDV 101, 102, 103) must: • • • • • •

Emphasize fundamental issues and concepts pertinent to the broad exploration of questions about human beings and their societies. Foster independent, creative, and interactive learning. Provide students with opportunities to discuss course topics and material. Inspire students to think about themselves, others, and social organizations in new insightful ways. Instill in students a love of learning, excite them about the university experience, and leave them with valuable skills and knowledge applicable to their lives. Focus on both individuals and societies, or on either.

Representative areas of study include, but are not limited to: basic human thought processes (e.g. conceptual systems, symbolic representation of the world, knowledge acquisition, judgment and decision-making, problem-solving); personal identity; group identity; family and kinship structure; religious, political, economic, and legal institutions; individual freedom and social control; ethical and moral principles; and ideas of social justice. This list is not meant to be exhaustive, and it is not expected that any single course will necessarily span all the areas above. Expected Student Outcomes for INDV Courses. The knowledge, skill, and attitudes of mind that students will acquire after taking Tier One courses in Individuals & Societies include: • • • •

Understand more clearly issues of self-identity, social difference and social status, and the effects of major institutions on individual experiences. Demonstrate knowledge of the formal and informal structures and processes that make social systems, governments, and economies work. Have an informed opinion about socio-cultural problems and issues, which can be expressed orally or in writing, and based on knowledge about social, cultural, political, economic, philosophical, and religious theory. Demonstrate a well-developed critical faculty for distinguishing among the various theoretical and ideological interpretations of world events as they are presented in the media.

INDV 101 Mind, Self and Language. Explores central questions about the nature of human beings, focusing on the individual experience. Approved courses are listed below; not every course is offered every semester. • • • • •

Problem Solving for Daily Life The Structure of Mind and Behavior Philosophical Perspectives on the Individual Language The Politics of Difference

INDV 102 Social Interactions and Relationships. Explores central questions about the nature of human beings in social context. Approved courses are listed below; not every course is offered every semester. 43

• • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Black and White: The Causes and Consequences Business in Modern Society Gender and Contemporary Society Human Geography and Global Systems American Design on the Land Modern Latin America: A Social Science Perspective Personal Morality Current Issues in the Psychology of Gender Social Issues in America Sex, Health and AIDS Many Ways of Being Human: Anthropological Perspective Individuals and Information from Manuscript to Modem Lesbian and Gay Studies Sport, Leisure and Consumer Culture

INDV 103 Societal and Institutional Systems. Explores the nature of human beings and their individual experiences in a social context. Approved courses are listed below; not every course is offered every semester. • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Environment and Society An Economic Perspective U.S. Society and Institutions Modern Latin America What is Politics? World Food Issues Philosophical Perspectives on Society Private, Public, or Profit? The Organization of Social Life World History, 1600-2000 Globalization and Global Governance Popular Culture, Media, and Latina/o Identities Europe in the Modern World Islamic Civilization: Traditional & Modern Middle East

B. Tier One TRAD Courses TRAD Course Proposal Requirements. All proposals to teach Tier One courses in Traditions & Cultures (TRAD 101, 102, 103, 104) must: • • • • •

Study historical development and fundamental concepts in European or other world cultures. Provide an awareness that we, as historical beings, are shaped by the thoughts and actions of our predecessors and that we will influence the lives of those who follow us. Examine cultures as distinct heritages of ideas, values, and artistic expressions and view them as having undergone continual adaptation due to social changes. Have a broad sweep both in terms of chronology (no less than an epoch) and in terms of geography (no less than a subcontinent). Engage in a rigorous exploration of fundamental knowledge that emphasizes interdisciplinary and cross-cultural analysis of texts, forms and artifacts. 44

• •

Teach critical thinking, emphasizing the assessment, evaluation, and critique of culture. Require significant essay assignments.

Expected Student Outcomes for TRAD Courses. The knowledge, skill, and attitudes of mind that students will acquire after taking Tier One courses in Traditions & Cultures include: • • • •

Identify references and allusions to the periods, ideas, people, artifacts, and events generally felt to have been important in the past. Identify and define their own world view, compare and contrast their world view with other world views, and through written and oral communication present and defend their world view. Appreciate the art, history, politics, and philosophies of cultures other than their own, including nonwestern cultures. Analyze how perceptions, values, beliefs, and customs influence individual and societal behavior and to use these analyses before judging.

TRAD 101 Non-Western Cultures and Civilizations. Courses examine how members of a particular culture are shaped by a distinct heritage of ideas, values, and artistic expressions that may be in sharp contrast to traditional western ideas and values. Approved courses are listed below; not every course is offered every semester. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

The Worlds of Buddhism Chinese Civilization Colonial Latin America The French-Speaking World African Diaspora: Religion and Culture Many Nations of Native America Languages and Cultures of East Asia Confucian Asia Asian Humanities: China and Japan Colonial and Post-Colonial Literatures Patterns in Prehistory The Africana Experience Colonialism and Native Peoples Ancient Civilizations of the Near East Writing Systems of the World

TRAD 102 Western Cultures and Civilizations: Classical to Renaissance. Courses examine the heritage of ideas, values, and artistic expressions that shaped western tradition from ancient times to the Renaissance. Approved courses are listed below; not every course is offered every semester. • • • • • • • •

Democracy in Theory and Practice: The Greek Experience From the Rise of Cities to the Counter Reformation Humanities: Ancient Times to Renaissance In the Beginning: Roots of Western Culture The Italian Perspective: Antiquity through the Middle Ages World History to 1600 Books in Dialogue: Classical to Medieval Drama and Dance in Western Cultures: Origins to 1603 45

TRAD 103 Western Cultures and Civilizations: Renaissance to Present. Courses examine the heritage of ideas, values, and artistic expressions that have shaped western tradition since the Renaissance. Approved courses are listed below; not every course is offered every semester. • • • • • • • • • •

The Arts and Politics in Latin America Books in Dialogue: Early Modern and American Democracy and Its Limits: The Modern Experience Drama and Dance in Western Cultures: 1603 to Present Humanities: Renaissance to Present Introduction to Science, Technology and Society The Making of American Cultures, 1600-1877 Russia: From Empire to Federation The Americas - Renaissance to the Present Day Architecture and Society

TRAD 104 Topics in Culture and Civilization. Courses examine culture as a distinct heritage of ideas, values, and artistic expressions that undergo continual adaptation due to social changes. Approved courses are listed below; not every course is offered every semester. • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Justice and Virtue Comparative Religions Eroticism and Love in the Middle Ages Mind, Matter and God Oral and Spiritual Roots of Traditional Cultures Science and Inquiry Issues in Latin American Society and Popular Cultures Introduction to African American Literature Origins of Human Diversity Jewish Thought and Culture Images of the Pacific America and Antiquity Art and Society in the Western Tradition Love in World Religions

C. Tier One NATS Courses NATS Course Proposal Requirements. All proposals to teach Tier One courses in Natural Science (NATS 101, 102, 104) must: • •

Demonstrate the importance of physical, chemical, and biological processes and their application to events in the everyday world. Be rigorous and emphasize the integrative nature of science, including cross-discipline contributions, and exposure to scientific thinking and procedures applicable throughout the sciences. To insure this interdisciplinary perspective, every offering must include course content that integrates two or more disciplinary or cross-disciplinary applications such as Astronomy/Planetary Science, Engineering/Technological Science, and Environmental Science. 46

• • •

Emphasize ideas and processes rather than broad fact-based survey offerings that fail to provide an in-depth exposure to science. The nature of the scientific endeavor should be a key part of all courses. Some kind of hands-on, inquiry-based laboratory is required. These experiences can be imaginatively constructed to be part of a lecture/discussion-based course. Encourage students to think critically about the world around them, the processes leading to the evolution of diverse life forms, the interdependence of living systems, the importance of understanding and preserving life around us, and the benefits of playing an active role in their own health and well-being.

Expected Student Outcomes for NATS Courses. The knowledge, skill, and attitudes of mind that students will acquire after taking Tier One courses in Natural Sciences include: • • • • • • • •

Understand the nature and application of physical and/or biological science. Apply ideas and processes beyond the classroom. Recognize the complexity of many scientific issues. Design experiments, generate and analyze actual data, use abstract reasoning to interpret these, and formulate and test hypotheses with scientific rigor. Speak and write about scientific knowledge. Appreciate the relative scale of objects, rates of change, and linear and nonlinear growth. Present data in tables, graphs, and charts and perform appropriate mathematical calculations and data analysis. Read and understand scientific literature from popular sources such as magazines and newspapers.

NATS 101 Earth and Its Environments. An overview of the key concepts in physical and chemical processes in an inter-disciplinary context, drawing from areas such as environmental sciences, atmospheric sciences engineering/technological sciences, and others. Approved courses are listed below; not every course is offered every semester. • • • • • • • • • • • •

Earth's Environment: Introduction to Physical Geography Earth Resources and the Environment A Geological Perspective Introduction to Environmental Science Introduction to Global Change Science, Technology and Environment Planet Earth: Evolution of the Habitable World The World Around Us Introduction to Weather and Climate Water in Our Environment Connections: A Study of Science, Technology and Innovation Basic Concepts in Water-Related Applications

NATS 102 Beyond Earth in Space and Time. Introduction to the study of the planetary and geological sciences and their application to events in the everyday world. Approved courses are listed below; not every course is offered every semester. • • •

The Physical Universe The Role of Time in Science The Universe and Humanity: Origin and Destiny 47

•

Aeronautics: Science and People

NATS 104 Biological Sciences. Introduction to the study of biology and its application to events in the everyday world. Approved courses are listed below; not every course is offered every semester. • • • • • • •

Biology in Medicine, Engineering and Applied Science Evolution of Modern Biology Plants and Our World Nutrition, Food and You Human Variation in the Modern World Life on Earth Views of Life Animal Sexual Behavior

48

Appendix C. A Closer Look at the Tier Two Curriculum Tier Two Course Proposal Requirements and Expected Student Outcomes. Tier Two courses should be advanced beyond Tier One courses in conceptual level, if not always in specific content. Such courses may provide exposure to the primary aspects of a discipline, but they are not to be constructed as introductions to a major. •

Arts. Art courses emphasize verbal, visual, musical, spatial or kinesthetic forms of expression. Components of these courses will either emphasize student creativity, expression, and production or require students to identify and analyze the impact of cultural and historical factors on the creation and reception of artistic works. All Arts courses ask students to develop critical thinking and interpretive abilities.

•

Humanities. Humanities courses explore aspects of human culture such as religion, history, philosophy, literature and languages. In general, these courses will deal with these aspects in an interdisciplinary fashion, rather than as discrete phenomena. All Humanities courses ask students to develop critical thinking and interpretive approaches to culture and cultural productions.

•

Natural Science. A Tier Two Natural Science course must build on concepts developed in Tier One Natural Science courses. Tier Two courses may be discipline-based (e.g. chemistry or molecular and cellular biology) or integrate physical and biological sciences. A Tier Two course need not advance all concepts from Tier One physical and biological sciences, but proposals must make clear which concepts are being advanced. Tier Two natural science courses should be designed for non-science majors.

•

Individuals & Societies. Tier Two courses in Individuals & Societies study human behavior and the cognitive models and societal constructs that humans create. These courses may have a disciplinary focus (e.g. anthropology, linguistics), so long as they are designed broadly enough to address the needs of students who may take only a single course within this area. Tier Two Individuals & Societies courses should focus on self-contained topics that develop one or more theories to which students were exposed at the Tier One level.

Tier Two Arts Courses. These courses emphasize verbal, visual, musical, spatial, or kinesthetic forms of expression. Components of these courses will either emphasize student creativity, expression, and production, or require students to identify and analyze the impact of cultural and historical factors on the creation and reception of artistic works. Approved courses are listed below; not every course is offered every semester. • • • • • • • • • • •

ARE 130 Appreciating the Visual Arts ARH 201 Survey of Western Art in Society: Prehistory through Gothic ARH 202 Survey of Western Art in Society: Renaissance through Modern ARH 203 Survey of Art in Non-Euro/American Societies ARH 312 Survey of Medieval Art and Architecture ARH 314 Art and Culture of Renaissance Europe ARH 315 Survey of Baroque and Rococo Art ARH 322 Introduction to Prehispanic, Hispanic, and Chicano Art ART 203 Survey of Contemporary Studio Art DNC 100 Looking at Dance DNC 112A Introduction to Ballet 49

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

DNC 112B Ballet for Beginners with Limited Experience DNC 112C Intermediate Ballet DNC 143 Improvisation DNC 144A Introduction to Jazz Dance DNC 144B Jazz Dance for Beginners with Limited Experience DNC 144C Intermediate Jazz Dance DNC 152A Beginning Modern Dance DNC 152B Modern Dance with Limited Experience DNC 152C Intermediate Modern Dance DNC 175 Theatre Dance DNC 176A Beginning Tap DNC 176B Tap Dance for Beginners with Limited Experience DNC 200 History of Dance DNC 276A Intermediate Tap Dance ENGL 209 Introduction to the Writing of Poetry ENGL 210 Introduction to the Writing of Fiction ENGL 300 Literature and Film HUMS 333 Interdisciplinary Approaches to Human Mortality in Western Civilization HUMS 335 Bible and the Arts HUMS 370 Nobel Laureates of Literature JPN 245 Popular Culture in Japan M AR 102 Discovering Media MUS 100 Basic Musicianship MUS 101A Exploring Music through Piano for General Students MUS 107 Understanding Music through Listening MUS 108 Survey of Music, Meaning and Culture MUS 109 Rock and American Popular Music MUS 231 Jazz History MUS 328 American Pop Music: Sinatra Era MUS 334 Music in World Cultures MUS 337 Survey of Mexican Folk Music MUS 344 Arab and Asian Music MUS 360 Music Fundamentals through Experience NES 344 The Art and Architecture of the Islamic World T AR 100 Acting for General College Students T AR 103 Theatre Appreciation T AR 238 Modern Drama Through Performance T AR 336 Shakespeare Through Performance

Tier Two Humanities Courses. These courses explore aspects of human culture such as religion, history, philosophy, literature, and languages. These courses deal with these aspects in an interdisciplinary fashion, rather than as discrete phenomena. Approved courses are listed below; not every course is offered every semester. • • • •

AFAS 200 Africana Studies AFAS 222 African American Studies: A History of Ideas AFAS 224 Models of Resistance AFAS 255 African American Politics 50

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

AFAS 320 The African American Slave: History and Literature AFAS 381 African/Indigenous Religions CLAS 220 Classical Tradition I CLAS 221 Classical Tradition II CLAS 300 The Classical Ideal in 1930's Art CLAS 342 Homer CLAS 346 Classical Greek Tragedy CLAS 360 Gods and Goddesses of the Ancient Mediterranean ENGL 220A Literature of the Bible ENGL 231 Shakespeare's Major Plays ENGL 260 Major British Writers ENGL 265 Major American Writers ENGL 267 Dramatic Literature ENGL 280 Introduction to Literature FREN 280 Introduction to French Language, Linguistics and Culture FREN 282 The French Novel and Society FREN 283 Existentialism and the Absurd: The French Foundations FREN 284 French Theater in Translation GER 273 Tradition and Revolution: German Romanticism GER 275 The German Classical Heritage: 1755 to 1945 GER 276 Rebellion and Crisis: The Many Faces of the Weimar Republic GER 278 Medieval Answers to Modern Problems GER 325 History of German Cinema GER 373 Women's Fictions in Twentieth-Century Germany GER 375 Love, Madness and Decay in Fin-de-Siecle Vienna GER 376 German-Jewish Writers GER 379 Religion in German Culture HUMS 250A Introduction to Humanities: Origins of Western Humanities HUMS 250B Introduction to Humanities: Medieval To Renaissance HUMS 250C Introduction to Humanities: Baroque to Realism HUMS 250D Introduction to Humanities: The Twentieth Century HUMS 340 The Humanities and Medicine: An Interdisciplinary Experience HUMS 365 Journey, Pilgrimage, Adventure ITAL 230A Italian Culture: Middle Ages and Renaissance ITAL 230B Italian Culture: Baroque Age to the Present ITAL 240 Italian Folklore and Popular Culture ITAL 250A Italian Literature in Translation: The Middle Ages ITAL 250B Italian Literature in Translation: The Renaissance ITAL 250C Italian Literature in Translation: Italian Theater ITAL 250D Italian Literature in Translation: The Novel ITAL 330B Italian Americana in Fiction and Film: Crossing Oceans JPN 220 Religion in Japanese Society JPN 311 Death in Traditional Japanese Literature LAT 201 Intermediate Latin LAT 202 Intermediate Latin II MSE 317 Science Fiction Studies NES 277A History of the Middle East 51

• • • • • • • • • • • •

NES 330 Language and Society in the Middle East and South Asia PHIL 260 Ancient Philosophy PHIL 261 Medieval Philosophy PHIL 262 Early Modern Philosophy RELI 250 Religion and Culture in the Southwest RELI 300 Christian Literature and Thought RELI 304 The Question of God RUSS 210 Utopian Visions: Promises and Reality in 20th Century Russia RUSS 340 Accursed Questions: Russian Writers and Society, 1825-1904 RUSS 350 The Soviet Experiment SPAN 210 Latin America on Film W S 200 Women and Western Culture

Tier Two Natural Sciences Courses. These courses build on concepts developed in Tier One NATS courses. They may be discipline-based or integrate physical and biological sciences, and should be designed for non-majors. Approved courses are listed below; not every course is offered every semester. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

ANTH 261 The Human Species: Heredity, Environment, and Behavior ANTH 364 Natural History of Our Closest Relatives ASTR 201 Cosmology ASTR 202 Life in the Universe ASTR 203 Stars ASTR 204 Great Debates in Astronomy ATMO 336 Weather, Climate and Society ECOL 206 Environmental Biology ECOL 223 Human Genetics and Evolution ENTO 205 The Universe of Insects GEOG 220 Our Diverse Biosphere GEOG 230 Our Changing Climate GEOG 240 Our Dynamic Landscape GEOS 210 Environmental Geology GEOS 212 Introduction to Oceanography GEOS 218 Geological Disasters and Society GEOS 220 Environmental History of the Southwest HWR 201 Water Science and the Environment HWR 202 The Water Cycle HWR 203 Arizona Water Issues MSE 208 Materials Science in Material Culture Studies MSE 257 Materials Science of Art and Archaeological Objects MSE 258 Laboratory for Materials Science of Art and Archaeological NRSC 282 Biology of Sensation PHIL 305 Introduction to Philosophy of Science PHYS 201 How Things Work: Physics through Everyday Tools and Devices PSIO 220 Human Physiology: The Facts of Life PTYS 206 Our Golden Age of Planetary Exploration PTYS 209 Exploration and Discovery in Planetary Science PTYS 212H The Science and Politics of Global Warming RA M 222 Arizona Plant Life 52

• • •

SP H 261 Anatomy and Physiology of the Speech Mechanism SP H 262 Neurobiology of Communication WFSC 225 Wildlife Conservation and Society

Tier Two Individuals & Societies Courses. Tier Two Individuals & Societies courses study human behavior and the cognitive models and societal constructs that humans create. They may have a disciplinary focus so long as they are designed broadly enough to address the needs of students who may take only a single course within this area. Approved courses are listed below; not every course is offered every semester. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

AFAS 340 The Politics of Race and the African Experience AGTM 380 Global Agricultural and International Relations ANTH 202 Applying Anthropology in a Global Context ANTH 203 Caribbean Transformations from "Cannibals" to Reggae ANTH 205 Clovis to Coronado: Archaeology of the Southwest ANTH 206 Native Peoples of the Southwest ANTH 207 Material Culture Studies ANTH 307 Ecological Anthropology ANTH 316 Political Economy of Language ANTH 320 The Earliest Civilizations AREC 350 Economics, Ethics and Environmental Management CLAS 240 Ancient Athletics CLAS 305 Greek and Roman Religion CLAS 306 The Transformation of Society: Christianity in the Greco-Roman World CLAS 335 Roman Empire: Rulers and Ruled CLAS 362 Women and Gender in Antiquity ECON 200 Basic Economic Issues ECON 210 Survey of Economics EDL 200 A Global Perspective on Schooling GEOG 210 The Political & Cultural Geography of Globalization GEOG 251 World Regions: Comparative and Global GEOG 367 Population Geography GER 274 Dialogue of the Sexes: Men and Women in Contemporary German Society HUMS 260 Intercultural Perspectives ITAL 330D Women in Italian Society LING 210 American Indian Languages LING 211 Meaning in Language and Society LRC 204 Language, Culture, and Race in Education MAS 265 Overview of Mexican-American Studies MAS 365 Latinos and Latinas: Emerging Contemporary Issues MAS 375 Mexican Americans in Contemporary Society MSE 259 Society and the Technology of Art and Archaeological Objects NES 334 Islamic Thought NURS 310 Family Health and Deafness NURS 376 Death and Dying Experiences: A Cross-Cultural Perspective PHIL 233 Philosophy of Religion PHIL 264 20th Century Philosophy PHIL 323 Environmental Ethics 53

• • • • • • • • • • • • • •

PHIL 346 Minds, Brains and Computers PLN 256 Sustainable Cities and Societies POL 201 American National Government POL 202 International Relations POL 203 Political Ideas POL 204 Comparative Politics PSYC 277 Law and Policy in Society: Psychological and Sociological Perspectives RUSS 275 The Balkans: Identity in Crisis RUSS 328 Women in Russian Literature and Culture SERP 200 Social Perspectives on Disability as Reflected in American Media and Literature SOC 260 Ethnic Relations in the United States SOC 280 Schools, Students and Society W S 210 Cultures of Biology, Medicine, Gender and Race W S 240 Suffragists, Sisters, & Riot Girls: Introduction to Women's Studies

54

Appendix D. General Curriculum Guidelines A. The Integration of Writing. All proposals to teach Tier One and Tier One general education courses must adhere to the following guidelines for writing: •

•

• • • •

Writing in general education courses should place students in an active relationship to the body of facts, ideas, and theories presented in the course and help students develop a critical appreciation of the ways in which knowledge is acquired and applied. Most important is that the writing assignments are relevant to the discipline and appropriate to the course level. Writing should be integrated into general education courses through a variety of formats including written papers, reports, quizzes, examinations, journals, and ungraded writing during class. Examinations alone are not sufficient even though they may include essay questions. The writing process and the writing assignments should emphasize critical inquiry, including gathering, interpreting and evaluating information appropriate to the area of study. Written work should be evaluated for form, organization, grammar, and punctuation as well as content and argument. At least one writing assignment must involve revision after feedback on a first draft. The writing assignments may vary in number but should add up to a minimum of 10 pages or 2500 words over the semester. At least one writing assignment must be an out-of-class or lab assignment at least 500 words long.

B. Guidelines For Gender, Race, Class, and Ethnicity. One course in a student’s degree program must focus on Gender, Race, Class, Ethnicity, or Non-Western Area Studies. This requirement may be filled by a designated Tier One or Tier Two course, or by a designated course taken from another area of the University’s curriculum. A course proposed to meet the gender, race, class and ethnicity requirement must involve at least two, and should, whenever possible, involve all three, of the following: • • •

Explicit representation of gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, race or social class in course material. The systematic use of gender, sexual orientation, social class, race or ethnicity as analytical categories. A substantial quantity of materials written or interpreted by members of the targeted group or groups.

C. Guidelines For Non-Western Civilization. Broadly defined, non-Western means non-European. Beyond this general guideline, the term points to cultural perspectives, behavior, and influences delimited less by geographical location than by their contrast with those shaped by the dominant thoughts and economies of western Europe and America. Courses may be designated "non-Western" if they involve at least two, and when possible all four, of the following: • • • •

Explicit representation of non-Western civilizations (institutions, perspectives, patterns of behavior, and cultural products) in course materials. The systematic exploration of non-Western modes of thought and analysis. Consideration of the nature of contacts between traditions. Materials written, created, or interpreted by non-Westerners.

D. Guidelines for Information Competencies. Throughout the country, universities are recognizing the importance of integrating information literacy into their curricula to graduate information literate 55

students. The Association of College and Research Libraries created a set of Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education (http://www.ala.org/acrl/ilcomstan.html) that was adopted by the American Association of Higher Education. These standards are common to all disciplines, all types of learning environments, and all levels of education, but it is particularly important to develop them in general education courses to prepare students to deal effectively with information-intensive tasks in their major fields. The five standards are: • • • • •

The information literate student defines and articulates the need for information. The information literate student accesses needed information effectively and efficiently. The information literate student evaluates information and its sources critically and incorporates selected information into his or her knowledge base or value system. The information literate student individually or as a member of a group uses information effectively to accomplish a specific purpose. The information literate student understands many of the economic, legal and social issues surrounding the use of information and accesses and uses information ethically and legally.

Each standard includes both performance indicators and outcomes so that student competency can be demonstrated and measured. Examples of student outcomes associated with the first standard include: • • • • • •

Confers with instructors and participates in class discussions, peer workgroups, and electronic discussions to identify a research topic, or other information need. Develops a thesis statement and formulates questions based on the information need. Explores general information sources to increase familiarity with the topic Defines or modifies the information need to achieve a manageable focus Identifies key concepts and terms that describe the information need Recognizes that existing information can be combined with original thought, experimentation, and/or analysis to produce new information.

Student outcomes for the fifth standard include: • • • •

Identifies and discusses issues related to privacy and security in both the print and electronic environments. Identifies and discusses issues related to free vs. fee-based access to information. Identifies and discusses issues related to censorship and freedom of speech. Demonstrates an understanding of intellectual property, copyright, and fair use of copyrighted material.

Many of the competencies that these standards and outcomes address are at least an implicit part of the existing general education curriculum. Skills and concepts associated with these competencies include developing thesis statements, identifying potential audiences, differentiating between primary and secondary sources, recognizing prejudice, deception, or manipulation in text sources, and determining whether to incorporate or reject viewpoints encountered. Explicit attention to information literacy skills is becoming more and more central to learner-centered undergraduate education. From the final report of the Information Assessment Committee, Indiana University, 1989, "The information environment is too complex and changing too rapidly to expect students to acquire information literacy without a planned, systematic, cumulative instructional program. The hit-or-miss process that worked for students and scholars in the past is not efficient or effective today. Disciplines are changing. Students are expected to employ sophisticated information-gathering techniques for their coursework." 56

Information literacy skills were not formally or consistently addressed when designing the Program in the late 1990s, perhaps due to the focus on technology that prevailed then. Now, the University of Arizona's Strategic Plan does mention information literacy. One paragraph inserted into the SPBAC document reads, “a general education program that offers students the opportunity to develop a basic foundation of general knowledge and skills in critical thinking, quantitative analysis, information literacy, and reading, speaking and writing”, and language regarding information literacy was inserted into two more sections of the document. Thus, the UWGEC's recent resolution, at the February 2003 meeting, to work towards formal incorporation of information literacy skills in the Program's guidelines and expected outcomes for Tier One courses is consistent with these institutional and national trends. The University's Library Information Literacy Team is forming small working groups of faculty and librarians to prepare strandspecific guidelines and present them to the UWGEC for adoption. The University Library intends to organize and facilitate workshops to help faculty revise their curricula, especially their assignments and projects, to give students multiple opportunities to practice information competencies. Two years ago, University librarians proposed the following general guidelines for information literacy emphasis that were modeled after the writing emphasis guidelines: • • • • • • • • •

Students should be able to think critically about a research assignment, identify their information need, and solve their research problem. Students should be able to organize and synthesize information and present it to the instructor for a grade. This could take the form of a research paper, speech, leader of class discussion, web page, class presentation, poster session, etc. Students should be able to apply technology skills to find, access, organize, and communicate information. Students should be introduced to the stages in the information search process: preparing for selecting a general topic, exploring the topic, formulating a focus, gathering information, and organizing and presenting the results. Students should have time and assistance to explore a topic and formulate a focus. Through reading and reflecting, students are able to narrow and broaden their topics as needed. Students should be able to write a research statement or question and select key words or phrases along with Boolean operators to create an effective search strategy. Students should be able to analyze information from various sources in order to evaluate reliability, validity, accuracy, authority, timeliness, and point of view or bias. Students should demonstrate their awareness of social issues involved with the use of information: copyright, censorship, and plagiarism. Students should know that assistance is available from a variety of sources at any point in completing their assignments: the Library reference desk, the Writing Center, subject librarians, and technical staff.

57

Appendix E. UWGEC Committee Members (Spring, 2003) Agriculture and Life Sciences • Dennis Ray, Professor, Plant Sciences • Peter Waller, Associate Professor, Agriculture and Biosystems Engineering Architecture, Planning, and Landscape Architecture • Laura Hollengreen, Assistant Professor, Architectural History and Theory Business and Public Administration • Suzanne Cummins, Lecturer, Management and Policy • Edella Schlager, Associate Professor, Public Administration and Policy; Director, Undergraduate Program Education Open position Engineering • John Kemeny, Associate Professor, Geological Engineering Fine Arts • Richard Obregon, Coordinator, Studies in Mexican Music Foundations • Second Language: Malcolm Compitello, Professor and Department Head, Spanish and Portuguese • Mathematics: Ted Laetsch, Associate Professor, Mathematics • English Composition: Yvonne Merrill, Associate Writing Specialist, English Honors College • Richard Kissling, Associate Dean, Academic Affairs Humanities • Albrecht Classen, Professor and Faculty Undergraduate Advisor, German Studies • Elizabeth Zegura, Associate Professor and Undergraduate Advisor, French and Italian Humanities Program • Michelle Bolduc, Assistant Professor Nursing • Judith Nolen, Clinical Instructor, Psychiatric Mental Health Nursing Science • Richard Hallick, Professor, Biochemistry and Molecular Biophysics • Harold Larson, Chair, UWGEC; Professor, Department of Planetary Sciences; Project Director, Teaching Teams Program

58

Social and Behavioral Sciences • James Shockey, Associate Dean, Instruction; Associate Professor, Sociology • Steven Johnstone, Associate Professor, History Student Representatives • Alwen Bledsoe • Mark Christensen • Brandy Clary • Joseph Mullen • Marci Holmes, ASUA Office of Undergraduate Education • Randy Richardson, Vice President for Undergraduate Education; Professor, Geosciences • Mark Luprecht, Faculty Associate; Associate Professor, Humanities Program • Marthena Maley, Senior Program Coordinator University College • Lynne Tronsdal, Associate Dean, University College Advisory • Bill Fee, Director, Transfer Curriculum and Articulation • Louise Greenfield, Librarian, University Main Library • Sheril Hook, Assistant Librarian, University Main Library • Gwendolyn Johnson, Assistant Director, Office of Assessment and Enrollment Research • Deb Kruse, Academic Specialist, Office of Academic Services • Karen Lutrick, Program Coordinator, Teaching Teams Program • David Padgett, Director, Articulation Services, Pima Community College • Glenda Wilkes, Assessment Coordinator, University Teaching Center

59

Appendix F. UWGEC Committee Members (Spring, 2004)

AGRICULTURE and LIFE SCIENCES •

DENNIS RAY Professor, Plant Sciences and Arid Lands Adjunct Professor, Arid Lands Chair, UWGEC 2001-02 and 1997-98 [email protected] 621-7612 Appointed Fall 1997 as a voting member. Serves on the Program Review subcommittee. http://ag.arizona.edu/pls/faculty/ray.html

•

JAMES RILEY Associate Professor, Soil, Water and Environmental Sciences [email protected] 626-6681 Appointed Fall 2003 as a voting member. Serves on the Program Review subcommittee. http://ag.arizona.edu/SWES/people/cv/riley.htm

ARCHITECTURE, PLANNING and LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE •

JOHN MESSINA

Assistant Research Architect, School of Architecture and Southwest Center [email protected] 621-5774 Appointed Fall 2003 as a voting member. Co-chair, Course Preview subcommittee. http://capla.arizona.edu/architecture/faculty/messina/default.htm BUSINESS and PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION •

SUZANNE CUMMINS Lecturer, Management and Policy [email protected] 621-4193 Appointed Fall 2002 as a voting member. Serves on the Policy subcommittee. Professor Cummins has taught INDV 102, Modern Business and Society, and a Freshman Colloquium “Law and Society”.

•

EDELLA SCHLAGER Associate Professor, Public Administration and Policy Director, Undergraduate Program [email protected] 621-5840 Appointed Spring 2003 as a voting member. http://www.bpa.arizona.edu/spap/faculty/schlager.html

EDUCATION TBA

60

ENGINEERING •

JOHN KEMENY Associate Professor, Geological Engineering [email protected] 621-4448 Appointed Fall 2002 as a voting member. Serves on the Community Relations subcommittee. http://www.mge.arizona.edu/faculty_staff/kemeny/kemeny.htm

FINE ARTS •

LAURA MCCAMMON Associate Professor, School of Theatre Arts [email protected] 621-8741 Appointed Fall 2003 as a voting member. Co-chair, Course Preview subcommittee. http://web.cfa.arizona.edu/people/bio.php?bio=131

FOUNDATIONS Second Language •

MALCOLM COMPITELLO Professor and Department Head, Spanish and Portuguese [email protected] 621-1983 Appointed Fall 2000 as a voting member. Serves on the Program Review subcommittee. Professor Compitello has taught TRAD 103 The Arts and Politics in Latin America, and also teaches a Freshmen Colloquium on reading Hispanic Fiction each fall semester.

Mathematics • JOHN LEONARD Senior Lecturer, Mathematics [email protected] 621-6874 Appointed Fall 2003 as a voting member. Serves on the Program Review subcommittee. http://math.arizona.edu/portraits/leonard.html English Composition •

TOM MILLER Professor, English [email protected] 621-7401 Appointed Fall 2003 as a voting member. Serves on the Program Review subcommittee. http://150.135.136.80/theappfront/faculty.jsp?userid=30

HONORS COLLEGE •

TOM WILLARD Associate Professor, English [email protected] 621-1154 Appointed Fall 2003 as a voting member. Serves on the Program Review subcommittee. http://www.u.arizona.edu/~willard/

61

HUMANITIES •

ALBRECHT CLASSEN Professor and Faculty Undergraduate Advisor, German Studies [email protected] 621-1395 Appointed Fall 2002 as a voting member. Serves on the Course Preview subcommittee. http://www.gened.arizona.edu/aclassen/

•

JUDITH NANTELL Vice Dean, College of Humanities Professor, Spanish and Portuguese [email protected] 621-9293 Appointed Fall 2003 as a voting member. Serves on the Program Review subcommittee. As a vice dean in a college that offers a large number of General Education and Foundations courses, Dean Nantell serves as a liaison between the college and the UWGEC.

HUMANITIES PROGRAM •

PETER FOLEY Assistant Professor, Humanities Program [email protected] 621-1258 Appointed Fall 2003 as a voting member. Serves on the Policy subcommittee. http://info-center.ccit.arizona.edu/~dante/foley.htm

NURSING JUDITH NOLEN Clinical Assistant Professor, Psychiatric Mental Health Nursing [email protected] 626-6172 Appointed Fall 2002 as a voting member. Serves on the Community Relations subcommittee. Professor Nolen teaches Nursing 483, Mental Health Experiences: Care Provider Across the Life Span. SCIENCE •

RICHARD HALLICK Professor, Biochemistry and Molecular Biophysics [email protected] 621-3026 Appointed Fall 2001 as a voting member. Serves on the Policy subcommittee. http://www.biochem.arizona.edu/dept/ppl/profiles/hallick.htm

•

HAROLD LARSON Chair, UWGEC Professor, Department of Planetary Sciences Project Director, Teaching Teams Program [email protected] 621-6943 Appointed Fall 2001 as a voting member. Serves on the Program Review subcommittee. http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/faculty/larson.html

62

•

KAREN LUTRICK Program Coordinator, Teaching Teams Program [email protected] 621-3991

Appointed Fall 2000 as a non-voting member. Serves on the Community Relations subcommittee. Karen served on the UWGEC as a student representative from Fall 2000 through Spring 2002. SOCIAL and BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES •

JAMES SHOCKEY Associate Dean, Instruction Associate Professor, Sociology [email protected] 621-1112 Appointed Fall 2001 as a voting member. Serves on the Program Review subcommittee. As an associate dean in a college that offers a large number of General Education courses, Dean Shockey serves as a liaison between the college and the UWGEC.

•

STEVEN JOHNSTONE Associate Professor, History [email protected] 621-3961 Appointed Fall 2001 as a voting member. Serves on the Policy subcommittee. http://datamonster.sbs.arizona.edu/history/faculty/j/johnstone.htm

OFFICE OF THE PROVOST •

LYNNE TRONSDAL Assistant Vice President for Retention [email protected] 621-8257

Appointed Fall 1997 as a voting member. Chair of the Community Relations subcommittee. •

JERROLD HOGLE Vice Provost for Instruction Professor, English [email protected]

•

ANNE MARIE JONES Program Coordinator, Senior

[email protected] STUDENT REPRESENTATIVES •

MARK CHRISTENSEN Student Preceptor, Teaching Teams Program [email protected] Appointed Fall 2002 as a non-voting member. Serves on the Website subcommittee.

•

JILLIAN TOOMEY English Graduate Union [email protected] 626-8098 Appointed Fall 2003 as a non-voting member. Serves on the Course Preview subcommittee.

63

•

JOSEPH MULLEN Phi Eta Sigma [email protected] Appointed Fall 2002 as a non-voting member. Serves on the Community Relations subcommittee.

ADVISORY •

DAVID PADGETT Director, Articulation Services Pima Community College [email protected] 206-4903 Appointed Fall 1997 as a non-voting member.

•

BILL FEE Director, Transfer Curriculum and Articulation [email protected] 621-4464

Appointed Spring 2000 as a non-voting member. Chair, Policy subcommittee. •

SHERIL HOOK Assistant Librarian, University Main Library [email protected] 621-9919

Appointed Fall 2002 as a non-voting member. Serves on the Policy subcommittee. •

GWENDOLYN JOHNSON Director, Office of Instructional Assessment [email protected] 621-7726 Appointed Fall 1997 as a non-voting member. Chair, Program Review subcommittee.

•

DEB KRUSE Coordinator, University School [email protected] 621-7763 Appointed Fall 2001 as a non-voting member. Serves on the Policy subcommittee.

•

GLENDA WILKES Assessment Coordinator, University Teaching Center [email protected] 621-7788/7826

Appointed Fall 2000 a non-voting member. Serves on the Community Relations subcommittee.

64