DATE:
April 25, 2001
TO:
Julie Furst-Bowe
FROM:
John Murphy, Dean
College of Arts and Sciences
SUBJECT:
Review Response for General Education: Natural Sciences Component
CAS Review Response for General Education: Natural Science Component
I would like to commend the PRC for its thorough and thoughtful evaluation of the
General Education Natural Sciences Component curriculum. Their discussion of
program strengths in assessment methodology, the quality and dedication of the faculty
and staff and the proposed Science Wing renovation are appropriate and consistent with
current conditions.
I also concur with the PRC’s identified areas of concern. A four-credit natural science
requirement is inadequate. It cannot meet the needs of students who will live and work in
a technological, global environment that will increasingly demand a competent
understanding of the physical world in order to make informed decisions in their chosen
occupations and lifestyles. The obvious choice from the CAS perspective would be to
increase the number of credits required in the Natural Sciences component. Until that
occurs, it would be wise to consider the cross-disciplinary synthesis of knowledge into
the existing curriculum. The CAS dean will meet with the appropriate department chairs
and faculty to discuss this idea. However, doing so will not eliminate the fact that current
general education requirements do not offer adequate opportunities for students to obtain
a sufficient command of the sciences and scientific reasoning needed to make measured
decisions regarding the natural world.
The lack of improvement between the pre and post-test scores is puzzling. The CAS
dean will encourage the faculty to address this issue and recommend a plan of assessment
that will demonstrate the value-added learning that takes place in the Natural Sciences
general education curriculum.
There are glaring space limitations in the Natural Sciences physical facilities. As the
report noted, these should be resolved when the Science Wing renovation is completed.
Without adequate space and sufficient budgets, it is difficult to suggest interim solutions
to the problem. Nevertheless, the CAS dean will establish an advisory committee of
concerned faculty and staff to discuss and suggest reasoned solutions.
DATE:
July 26, 2001
TO:
John Murphy, Dean
College of Arts and Sciences
FROM:
Danny Bee
Chair, Planning and Review Committee
Cc:
SUBJECT:
Julie Furst-Bower, Associate Vice Chancellor
Janice Gehrke, GE: Natural Sciences Coordinator
Clarification of PRC Concerns Regarding Natural Sciences Review
At the last PRC meeting of the year, the PRC received your response to the General
Education: Natural Science Component review. Two of your responses created concern
among the committee membership. As chair of the committee, I was directed to send a
clarification memo to you about these concerns and to make sure the committees’
concerns are clarified in the cover memo that Faculty Senate receives with the review
materials.
The first concern deals with the committee’s first recommendation: “The four-credit
general education science requirement needs to be examined as part of a larger evaluation
of the parameters of general education as a whole.” The PRC members were concerned
that your review response states, “I also concur with the PRC’s identified areas of
concern. A four-credit natural science requirement is inadequate.” The PRC did not state
this as our recommendation. We simply pointed out that there is a belief that the fourcredit requirement is inadequate, and we recommend that consideration of this
recommendation should be limited to the general education requirement itself, but could
be expanded to include science required as part of the professional section of students’
programs.
The second concern deals with the committees’ second recommendation: “The lack of
improvement on the assessment measure from pre-test to post-test suggests that the
advisory committee should reexamine the instrument.” The PRC members were
concerned that your review response states, “The CAS dean will encourage the faculty to
address this issue and recommend a plan of assessment that will demonstrate the valueadded learning that takes place in the Natural Sciences general education curriculum.”
The PRC wants to clarify that the intent of the committees concern was not to have the
value-added learning demonstrated, rather that the assessment measure needs to assess
outcomes for the improvement of the natural sciences component of general education.
This memo does not require a response, rather it has been sent from the PRC to clarify
its’ recommendations and ensure CAS has not misinterpreted the PRC Review
Recommendations.