DATE: May 2, 2003 TO: Provost Sedlak FROM: Bob Meyer, Dean College of Technology, Engineering and Management SUBJECT: Program Review Response for the General Education Technology Requirement The College of Technology, Engineering and Management commends the PRC consultant team for completing a review of the General Education Technology requirement. Below you will find the responses to the Planning and Review Committee’s recommendations of the General Education Technology requirement, completed by the Technology and Communications, Education and Training Department Chairs and the Dean’s Office, serving as the General Education Technology Coordinator. Recommendations for the General Education Coordinator: 1. Continue to monitor development and refinement of instruments for assessing achievement of Technology Component objectives in the various courses which satisfy the requirement. Report progress and results to the PRC annually in 2004­2006. 2. Initiate a dialog with program directors, the General Education Committee, and the Technology Component Committee as to the objectives of the component and how they may be most effectively and economically (in terms of student credits) met. Response from the General Education Coordinator (CTEM Dean’s Office): 1. The General Education Technology Component committee will continue to meet bi­annually to monitor, refine and interpret assessment tools and results. Reports will be provided to the PRC as requested 2. Leadership to initiate a dialog with program directors, the General Education Committee, and the Technology Component Committee as to the objectives of the component and how they may be most effectively and economically (in terms of student credits) met needs to be an agreed upon initiative by the Provost’s Office. If this is a charge the Provost wants to pursue, accommodations and authority to such a person must be granted. Recommendation for the Department Chair(s): 1. Work with the General Education Coordinator to make a consistent array of technology component courses available, perhaps through an agreement on rotation or other arrangements. Response from the Chairs of the Communications, Education and Training and Technology Departments: 1. a. There is still a large misconception on campus as to the intent of the Technology General Education Component. This component is to deal with technological literacy and is not to be a part of student’s technical component. Taking this into consideration, there is an array of approved technology courses that currently exist. There are also more courses that have been approved coming out the biology and chemistry departments. Having a technology general
1 component is very important to UW­Stout. There is a large body of literature supporting technological literacy as a broad­based requirement such as the original intent of Stout’s general education requirement. Technically Speaking, published by the National Academy of Engineering concludes by stating “As Americans gradually become more sophisticated with regard to technological issues, they will be more willing to support measures in the schools and in the informal education arena to raise the level of technological literacy of the next generation. In time leaders in government, academia, and business will recognize the value of widespread technological literacy to their own and the nation’s welfare” (p.114). b. Students should be able to fulfill the General Education Technology component with courses related to their disciplines, if they so choose. Examples include: The Built Environment for Construction, Interior Design and Interior Decorating majors; Communication & Information Technology for Telecommunication Systems, Marketing & Business Education and Technology Education programs. c. If these courses are a priority, the university needs to provide adequate resources so that they can be offered on a consistent rotation. Currently, those resources are not available, critically limiting the array of courses needed to support the general education technology component.
2