GENERAL EDUCATION COMMITTEE ANNUAL REPORT, 2015-2016
MEMBERS
Kimberly Reiser, MC Applied Arts & Science (2016)- Chair
Mark Cracolice, Chemistry (2016)
Paul Muench (spring-only), Philosophy (2016)
Susan Bradford, MC Applied Arts & Science (2017)
Ray Fanning, Radio-TV (2017)
Tobin Shearer (fall-only), History & African American Studies (2017)
G.G. Weix, Anthropology (2017)
Liz Ametsbichler, MCLL (2018)
Julia Galloway, Art (2018)
Tammy Ravas, Mansfield Library (2018)
STUDENT MEMBERS
Chase Greenfield
Chris Smith (fall-only)
Taylor McDermott (spring-only)
ADDITIONAL REPRESENTATIVES (EX-OFFICIO)
Nathan Lindsay, Associate Provost
Joe Hickman, Registrar
Brian French, Executive Director of the Office for Student Success
The mid-year report was presented to the Faculty Senate at the March meeting. It included
details about the fall review of general education courses, the general education assessment pilot
project, and an evaluation of the need for general education reform.
This spring the committee worked on the rolling review of general education courses, refining
the criteria for Indigenous and Global (X) and American and European (Y) perspectives, and we
co-hosted a general education listening session with Dean Brock Tessman.
COURSE REVIEW
The Spring course review included several forms that were missed during the fall review, due to
confusion about how they were submitted, as well as some additional forms from instructors who
had missed the review in a previous year. We also completed Rolling Review of courses
submitted for renewal of designations in three General Education Groups: Expressive Arts (A),
Ethics and Human Values (E), and Social Sciences (S),
COURSE APPROVAL: The spring review is not intended for an expedited review of new courses,
but often courses are submitted out of sequence. The Committee requires justification for
considering these courses out of the normal sequence. The following courses were considered
and approved for General Education designations in the spring.
GPHY 121
Introduction to Human Geography
Indigenous and Global
GEO 191 (107)
Natural Hazards
Natural Science
NRGY 101
Introduction to Sustainable Energy
Natural Science
PHL 363
Ancient Greek and Roman
Philosophy
Historical and Cultural
HSTR 303
Ancient Athenian Social History
Indigenous and Global
ROLLING REVIEW. There were 67 forms submitted to renew Expressive Arts general education
courses, 21 to renew Social Science and 18 to renew Ethics. The rolling review is conducted in
accordance with policy 202.40. The subcommittees began the review and found that follow-up was
required on the majority of the courses with regard to the new assessment component. It
apparently was not clear on the form that the assessment should be of the specific learning
outcomes of the general education group. In response to this, some committee members plan to
propose some minor revisions to the form to make the instructions clearer to faculty and are
working to collect a better variety of sample forms to aid faculty in completing this section. .
Common Course Numbering issue. One issue that arose during course review was whether we
needed to review courses separately when they are being offered by different departments. This
came up in response to receiving multiple forms for courses offered at Missoula College that are
also offered by Colleges and Schools on Mountain Campus. Due to common course numbering
(CCN) and Banner limitations, if one such course is approved for General Education at UM, this
attribute will attach to all versions of the course at UM. The committee concluded that separate
submissions should still be encouraged and reviewed to assure high standards across both
campuses.
It should be noted that General Education courses up for review in the spring are given a one-year
grace period to submit in the fall. This allows programs to resubmit in the fall if courses are not
approved. Because of this, the rolling review approval list moves forward to the Faculty Senate the
following fall. This has also raised some logistical issues within the committee due to the fact that
the course review subcommittees that are formed in the spring may end needing to be reestablished, often with different members, following fall. This requires duplication of the work that
goes into subcommittee formation and may also lead to inconsistencies in the decisions reached in
spring and fall. Accordingly, the committee has taken action to shift the beginning of Rolling
Review from Spring semester to Fall semester within each Academic Year. This will move up the
submission deadline and move subcommittee formation to the fall, so it can coincide with the
annual course review and continue through spring semester as needed. A one-year grace period
will still be allowed for courses that miss the new deadline.
The committee also took action to change the Rolling Review from a four-year cycle to a five-year
cycle, beginning after the 2017-18 Academic Year. This idea was initially brought up during last
year’s rolling review, as a means to assist students who are Veterans and need to file an academic
plan to receive financial aid under the GI Plan. If changes to course attributes affect the students’
academic plan, they need to file a new plan and risk delays in their financial aid. Changing the
course review cycle does not address this completely, but increases the likelihood that most
courses designated in each General Education group will remain so for the duration four-year
degree cycle. This will also bring us closer to the campus norm for program review (seven-year
cycle) and will make the rolling review more manageable for faculty, who will renew courses
somewhat less frequently, and for the committee, whose review workload has increased due to the
introduction of new tasks associated with General Education Assessment.
GENERAL EDUCATION PILOT ASSESSMENTS
Building upon the pilot assessments on the Natural Sciences that were conducted last year, General
Education assessments were conducted in Mathematics and Ethics. In Mathematics, Laura Fern
assessed the M 105 and M 115 courses, Regina Souza assessed M 121 and M 151, and Leonid
Kalachev assessed M 162. In the area of Ethics, Armond Duwell assessed PHIL 110. Each of these
faculty members wrote strong reports showing that students were substantially meeting the course
learning outcomes related to the General Education outcomes. These reports outlined the course
learning outcomes, the associated measurements, assessment findings, and follow-up action steps.
Additional Ethics reports are being completed by Ramona Grey, Mary-Ann Bowman, and G.G. Weix.
All of these reports are beneficial for our NWCCU accreditation project that focuses on General
Education assessment. We will determine which General Education areas will be assessed in 20162017.
REVISION TO INDIGENOUS AND GLOBAL (X) AND AMERICAN AND EUROPEAN (Y)
PERSPECTIVES.
The General Education Committee submitted revised language for X and Y to ASCRC in December. The
original spirit of the American and European Perspective was intended to cover civics, or the old Western
designation, but the learning objectives did not convey this. The revised learning outcomes and title
(Democracy and Citizenship) are more focused on the specific skills and concepts that speak to this topic.
The revised Indigenous and Global Category (Cultural and International Studies) language was clarified
to emphasize cultural understanding and includes a comparative component. ASCRC had some concerns
regarding the revised learning outcomes and created a workgroup. The General Education Committee
requested that there be collaboration on the revisions, so a few General Education Committee members
collaborated with the ASCRC workgroup. The workgroup made minor revisions that were approved by
ASCRC on March 29th. These were discussed at the listening session on March 30th and presented to the
Faculty Senate on April 14th. A suggestion was made in Faculty Senate to make minor changes to
language in the X perspective. These edits were made and communicated to the General Education
Committee, ASCRC, and ECOS. Faculty Senate will vote on the revisions to the X and Y perspectives at
the May 12th meeting. If approved, a catalog change would need to be made to guide new course
proposals in the fall. The revisions would apply to current X and Y courses upon rolling review of these
courses in Spring 2018.
REVISED GROUP IX. DEMOCRACY AND CITIZENSHIP (Y)
These courses ground students in the ideas, institutions, and practices of democratic
societies and their historical antecedents. Knowledge gained through courses in the
Y perspective prepares students to understand the rights and responsibilities of
engaged citizenship and to assess the characteristics, contributions, and
contradictions of democratic systems.
Upon completion of a Democracy and Citizenship course, students will be able to:
1. Demonstrate informed and reasoned understanding of democratic ideas,
institutions and practices, from historical and/or contemporary perspectives;
2. Analyze and evaluate the significance and complexities of engaged citizenship;
and
3. Articulate the causes and consequences of key historical and/or contemporary
struggles within democratic systems or their antecedents, including but not
limited to those pertaining to issues of diversity, equity, and justice.
REVISED GROUP X. CULTURAL & INTERNATIONAL DIVERSITY (X)
These courses foster an appreciation for diverse cultures, their histories and
contemporary forms, and their positions in world spheres of power and change.
This includes knowledge of diverse cultures in comparative and thematic
frameworks. Students are encouraged to cultivate ways of thinking that foster an
understanding of the complexities of indigenous or international cultures and global
issues, past and present.
Upon completion of a course in this group, students will be able to:
1. Demonstrate an understanding of the diverse ways humans structure their
social, political, and cultural lives;
2. Interpret human activities, ideas, and institutions with reference to diverse
cultural, historical and geo-political perspectives and physical environments;
and
3. Recognize the complexities of inter-cultural and international communications
and collaborative endeavors, and relate this to the complex challenges of the 21st
century.
RE-ALIGNMENT CHART
Last semester a re-alignment chart was created to help articulate the relationship between the UM
general education program and the MUS Core. The MUS Core is referenced frequently in
conversations about re-alignment, so we thought a visual aid to facilitate a side by side comparison
would be helpful to elucidate such comments. The chart also featured a “draft realignment” column
that explored how the current UM requirements might be altered or re-arranged to better match
the statewide system. The idea was to envision an alternate that would encompass most of the
existing courses, but with a different structure. The chart also included several potential changes
as topics for discussion. For example, it did not include symbolic systems as an exemption from
modern and classical languages but proposed that these would stay in the major. Another
suggestion was that students in majors with heavy credit loads can take a 3 credit Cultural and
International Studies course. The draft realignment also proposed that there would no longer be a
specific ethics requirement, since ethics courses would be included under the Humanities and the
Citizenship and Democracy categories. The chart was a discussion topic at the March 30th listening
session. Responses varied, especially on some of the more controversial suggestions, which led to a
robust discussion. (see attached: Notes from March 30th Listening Session)
The MUS Core is not formerly communicated to students in any way. Missoula College students, as
UM students, are not considered transfer students. Therefore, they are generally advised to take
UM’s General Education, although for some students the MUS Core option could allow an easier
transition that is also less expensive. Missoula College does not currently offer courses in the Y
perspective or languages due to staffing and space limitations. Faculty advisors need to be
informed about the MUS Core. The Committee discussed the idea of forming a subcommittee to
work on the issue of training for faculty advisors.
LISTENING SESSION
The General Education Committee hosted a General Education Listening Session on March 30th in
the Davidson Honors College. The following invitation was sent to all faculty, Academic Advisors,
Academic Deans, and Administrators. ASUM also created a Facebook event for the session. A
summary of the notes from the meeting are appended.
Revitalizing UM’s General Education Framework
Please join the General Education Committee for café style breakout discussions to
brainstorm ideas for improving UM’s general education framework. Take off your
departmental hats and provide unauthorized, anonymous, and provocative feedback on
these important questions:



What aspects of our general education curriculum make UM great? What
enhancements could make us greater? Are there holes or redundancies in our
general education requirements?
Can we improve the current articulation of the American and European and Global
and Indigenous perspectives?
Can we make the current framework better for students, or easier to understand?
How do UM’s requirements compare to those in the MUS transfer core?
The session was well attended with 29 Faculty, 7 Students, 6 Advisors, 4 Deans, 2 Associate
Provosts, the Provost, and the Director of Office for Student Success. General Education Committee
members took notes in each of five break-out sessions (see attached: Notes from March 30th
Listening Session). These were reviewed by the Committee to determine agenda items for next
academic year.
There were many diverse perspectives offered during the listening session. Most participants
expressed favorable opinions of the proposed changes to Groups X and Y, but were more divided on
various ideas encapsulated in the re-alignment chart. A number of participants objected to the idea
of Ethics becoming less prominent as a requirement, while many other liked the idea of reducing
overall number of credits. One of the listening groups identified areas that transcend the groups,
such as Writing and Information Literacy. Undergraduate research and technology could also be
considered in this area. There were also many suggestions about how to improve General
Education. Some people also argued that ways to include more interdisciplinary courses,
integration and flexibility in the program should be considered.
Two faculty from the Department of Computer Science who attended the listening session later
followed up by approaching the Committee to share concerns and a paper entitled, “Computer
Science: A Liberal Art for the 21st Century.” They expressed that students need to be proficient in
technology to be prepared for their future lives. That is, more and more students need to know
how to conduct data analysis using technology across disciplines. This discussion is likely to
continue next year.
PROCEDURE TO ALLOW SUBSTITUTIONS FOR GENERAL EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS FOR
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
The review of general education substitutions for students with disabilities was folded back into the
graduation appeals committee guidelines. This came at the request of Legal Counsel, who noted
that there should not be a separate process for these students. The new proposal redesignates the
Graduation Appeals Committee as the Graduation and General Education Appeals Committee. The
final draft of the new policy was considered by the Faculty Senate in April.
PRESIDENT’S INITIATIVE TO INCREASE RETENTION
President Engstrom included improving the message about general education as one of the
initiatives to increase enrollment and retention. Late in Spring 2016, President Engstrom formed
a group to look at how best to communicate the Liberal Arts focus at UM. A student and a
faculty member of the committee are serving in the President’s Liberal Arts articulation task
force. It would be beneficial to have ongoing communication between the General Education
Committee and the President’s task force. The committee’s charge to evaluate and assess the
“appropriateness and effectiveness of the general education requirements… and to propose
revisions to its requirements….” goes hand in hand with the articulation of UM’s general
education mission.
The Committee doesn’t know how the general education program might be problematic in terms
of marketing. It also doesn’t know the existing message provided to students about general
education. It would be helpful to understand the issues moving forward, so it could invite
discussion with those working to recruit students. The current preamble for general education is
five paragraphs. This could be revised to be more concise. The content of courses should also
be considered in terms of relevance to the students’ future lives.
MUS GENERAL EDUCATION COUNCIL
Chair Reiser attended a meeting of the statewide MUS General Education Council in Helena on
March 31st. This Council was originally formed when the Board of Regents adopted Policy
301.10, but it has only met intermittently. One outcome of the meeting is that American Indian
Cultural Heritage courses may be specific to each campus. In the past the designation applied to
courses system-wide. During this meeting the OCHE coordinator also announced that she had
removed all upper-division courses from the list because the MUS Core transferrable gen ed
curriculum (MUS Core) focuses on lower-division general education (see: BOR Policy 301.10
and Operational Rule 6). OCHE is also requiring campuses to do an audit of their MUS Core
courses. The General Education Committee needs to complete that audit in the fall, at which
time new courses can be proposed to the council. The UM general education forms will be
revised so that proposing instructors can designate the MUS category that best fits the course,
including American Indian Cultural Heritage. However, the Council has the final say to the
MUS core category.
WICHE MAPPING PROJECT
The General Education Committee was provided with a summary of the WICHE Passport Mapping
Project from representatives from WICHE. The WICHE Passport is being developed as a transfer
framework for lower division general education courses based on learning outcomes, not credits.
The learning outcomes will be based on the LEAP Essential Learning Outcomes. The various stages
of the project are grant funded and involve several state institutions. Stage 1 developed learning
outcomes and proficiency criteria for three of the nine knowledge or skill areas. Stage 2 will
develop learning outcomes and proficiency criteria for the remaining 6 knowledge and sill areas.
Foundational Skills
Knowledge of Concepts
Crosscutting Skills
1) Oral communication
4) Natural sciences
8) Critical thinking
2)Written communication
5) Human cultures
9) Teamwork and value systems
3) Quantitative literacy
6) Creative Expression
7)Human society and
the individual
Stage 3 has several components, building an infrastructure (TaskStream) to support student
tracking with the National Student Clearinghouse, conducting a mapping pilot, and implementing
educational materials and outreach program; and an evaluation of the program by faculty from
Rutgers University.
The University of Montana and the University of Great Falls were committed by OCHE to be
involved in the mapping pilot. The project is essentially a general education assessment project. It
engages faculty in a closer look at how and what types of evidence are being used to determine the
same lower-division general education competencies within and across institutions. This project
has no bearing on whether or not an institute is a Passport Institute; UM would need to apply to
become a Passport Institute, once a process is in place for this, if deemed beneficial and appropriate
for the university.
Professor Reiser has been selected as the leader of the pilot at UM. A group of faculty chosen from
4 of the 9 knowledge/skill areas (Quantitative Literacy, Natural Sciences, Written Communication,
and Critical Thinking) will need to be selected to do this work. Next fall assignments will be pulled
from a sample of the courses in the block. This group of faculty will use rubrics to rate the critical
assignments and to rate student artifacts responding to the selected assignments. The review of
these will not focused on individual students or faculty. There is funding in the grant ($18,000) to
compensate faculty involved in the review.
It should be noted that the General Education Committee is not directly involved in managing or
implementing this project, but has expressed interest in the results. UM’s participation could help
guide the Committee’s work on learning outcomes and assessment. It will also help us make a more
informed decision about whether it is in UM’s best interest to apply to become a Passport Institute,
should that option become available in the future.
LOOKING AHEAD
As the year comes to a close, we have a great deal of new information to process with respect to the
ongoing interest in General Education revitalization. Specific priorities for the coming year will
take some time to identify, but there are a few areas that we can anticipate will be priorities:

Revise Group H, Historic and Cultural Studies, to eliminate overlap with the new language
approved for Group X, Cultural and International Diversity. Cultural studies would move to
Group X, but perhaps “History and Classics” would allow a broader range of courses to be
included in Group H.

Work to improve and clarify the course review process with respect to assessment. This is
needed to provide better guidance for faculty and to assist volunteers who engage in the
review subcommittees.

Review General Education Assessment Pilots and identify next steps. What have we learned
after 3 pilot projects (science, math, ethics)? Have we reached the point where we can
codify this process?

Continue discussions concerning “Revitalizing General Education.”
3/30/2016 LISTENING SESSIONS COMBINED NOTES
Draft Re-alignment
General



















Don’t like the realignment (but it is a good start)
This realignment is just as check boxy as the current perspective. We need to look at the
different ways we do advising. A lot of gen ed issues can come down to advising.
Fewer people will take literature courses is a downside
Need to have an emphasis on critical thinking
This is an incremental change; still has boxes to check off; does nothing to integrate gen ed
with the major; lacks transformative change; suggest that each individual major look at how
gen ed integrates. This just shuffles the deck chairs; boxes simpler to check off, but not
identifying what makes a UM student unique.
MUS core is lowest common denominator, not good to move toward it; Practicality is
already taken care of; meaning is what we should focus on
The MUS transfer core seems to promote efficiency over conceptual depth and reinforces
the checkbox syndrome.
Disturbed by having the foreign language component termed second language
Foreign language should be zero to ten, not 6-8.
Literature, ethics, fine arts are not represented in the realignment proposal.
Simplification of doing gen eds is good.
MUS core is simpler; need to ask why each category is important; redefine in terms of skills
that students will acquire. Blow up entire system; give individual departments freedom.
Skills transcend names of departments. Content is quickly forgotten, but the skills remain.
Widespread agreement on making everything more cohesive. Need some consistency in
general education.
What about double dippers? Will these increase or will each course be in one category only?
Could be difficult for instructors to meet criteria for two categories.
Applaud efforts time put into revisions – more holistic way to think about issues.
Some of the bigger principles should be separated from the general framework and
permeate all courses, such as critical thinking, ethics, writing, information literacy,
and etc.
We need to think beyond credits and percentages and focus on students
experiences.
When we simplify current requirements #4-8, we lose some of the richness in the Arts,
Humanities, and Social Sciences.
This paints a more holistic lenses in the general framework. Changes are overall positive.
We want it to be more than just a checkbox. Use it as a tool for exploration but how do we
excite students? What is the purpose of these general education requirements? Is the
purpose to help them explore or to enhance their learning and expose them to different
areas? What is the experience that you want these students to have?
Ethics














The elimination of Ethics from the re-alignment chart is very concerning. What would
happen if this hit the media? Clearly there is a need for ethics. What is the rationale:
administrative efficiency? It would be better to reduce the science requirement than to cut
ethics.
Ethical reasoning is not clearly conveyed in the Group X and Y revisions. This would only
water it down. Ethics needs to be its own category. There is a need for a more thorough
investigation of the courses in the category to prevent a watered-down perspective.
On the other hand, isn’t the existing ethics category problematic with the split between
traditional ethics and professional ethics? Isn’t this already watered down?
Students should be taught to reason through ethical issues, not just how to live as citizens in
society.
A student said that the realignment looks like it would be easier to skip an ethics course
entirely.
Ethics and Values seem to blend in with the Humanities and Fine Arts. Would Ethics have to
stay in this category? It was suggested that Ethics may not fit into Humanities and Fine
Arts. Some of the Ethics courses could fit in Democracy and Citizenship.
What makes us distinctive? Ethics. Only Stanford and UM have a required course on Ethics.
Many of these ethics courses focus on moral reasoning, but professional ethics is the focus
on other courses.
Ethics should be kept as a category so that students have a chance to question or reevaluate their values. In all of our Gen Ed classes, students should be questioning their
assumptions and knowledge.
Ethics courses could be combined with other disciplines, such as ecology (this was done at a
Tribal College). It is really helpful to evaluate one’s values and cultural diversity.
Student comment: I’m on board with eliminating ethics. Students shouldn’t have to devote
25% of their credits to general education, especially to classes they won’t remember in
three weeks.
It’s important to expose students to more abstract concepts- develop reasoning.
Very disturbing to give up on ethics; Important to talk about things like consent, race,
abortion; Must think about what it means to have a good life; Need abstract, difficult
questions to be addressed in courses.
What makes UM unique is the ethics component, but now proposing that it be eliminated.
What makes us great? Ethics. Strong in breadth. We are the liberal arts institution, and we
should emphasize this. But we need to do this in the fewest number of credits possible to
keep time to graduation efficient.
Public speaking

Should all students take public speaking? Maybe ethics should replace this?



On the other hand it seems important to take public speaking. Maybe this can include more
courses, like interpersonal communication and other dialogic courses that cultivate
speaking effectively. Maybe it would be better to call this oral communication.
One student suggested that requiring one specific course for a Gen. Ed. Requirement
seemed unusual, and did not like the idea of Public Speaking being its own category.
Public speaking is how about 80% of our students fulfill their Expressive Arts requirement.
We are planning to make some revisions in this area.
Writing

The place of writing is not clear in the new framework. Writing should be everywhere.
Could writing and ethics be infused throughout the curriculum?

Writing should be in every category. It should permeate and transcend the
framework.
Number of Requirements










Why require so many classes? An elective system, like Berkeley, lets students have choices
instead of forcing them to take prescribed courses. Everyone does not come out the same.
Reducing number of requirements is good, but this doesn’t go far enough.
Requirements are important. Students need to take all of these things – the more the better.
People know that liberal arts students are good at critical thinking. End results are more
important than any individual course.
An alternative structure could be more skill-oriented, instead of discipline-oriented. Focus
on what students need to learn to be prepared for life.
One of the issues in 2001 task force was the number of courses in broad categories meant
students had little in common, categories lost meaning with so many options to choose
from. Idea of core curriculum was floated but never took off.
Students find the new grouping more intuitive. They like the simplification.
The original intention of the General Education framework was not overlapping courses. It
was overlay—that facilitated some double dipping.
Could we have distribution requirements, and allow much more flexibility within the areas?
Why are fine arts clumped together with humanities, losing distinct categories and making
the combination too broad to grasp? This fosters the false perception that they are the same
backwater category.
Another possibility is distribution requirements by field. X credits in each of a series of
categories. Very easy for students. Three categories, 12 credits in each (as an example).
In 1981- the General Education was a distribution model: 12 credits in Humanities,
12 credits in Social Science, and 12 credits in Science separate from major. At that
time the concern was that we needed to be more precise about what we wanted for
general education.
Integration

The overall goal should be to get away from gen eds as a nuisance and move to something that
has real weight and value for students.

It would be wonderful to help students integrate their courses—to have interdisciplinary,
intentional experiences. The problem is professors have difficulty getting out of silos.
Academics are territorial.





Structure gen eds in clusters based on the major. Students studying biology wouldn’t be
required to take gen ed science courses, they would be focused in fine arts, social science and
humanities.
We need to integrate the gen eds into majors- and stress the idea that liberal arts has the ability
to enrich lives and make better citizens who participate in the political process. Liberal arts
have a value to employers across all areas.
Juniors and seniors also need opportunities to pause from their major studies and enrich their
lives with literature or other courses.
Right now the sense is that students have to get the gen eds out of the way and then get to the
good stuff in their majors. The two should work together.
Need more courses to facilitate students making connections
X and Y Revisions









The old framework for groups X and Y was poorly defined. This is a big improvement. Together
with ethics, this really strengthens ethics. Areas of distinction seem more defined in these
revisions.
Sensible and non-arbitrary categories are improvement. Philosophy may take a hit, but the
revisions are positive.
The global dimensions in Group X could be stronger. GLI has tried to emphasize “high impact
practices” and it would be nice to incorporate those here too. Maybe include some of the GLI
language.
There are still some gaps; students need to understand culture and international diversity. In
this formulation, they will often miss one or the other. Every student in the west should know
something about native peoples. They should also know something about the larger world.
There should be Indian Education for All at the university level, but we don’t have the staff.
Group Y revisions open up some new possibilities and include some classes that focus on native
issues.
Democracy and Citizenship seems easier to explain to students than the American and
European Perspective. The learning outcomes for this revised Perspective are clearer.
Could we have a very wide area of “Global Citizenship”?
Likes rebranding into democracy and citizenship









Should it be more than 3 credits?
Strength is that it gets at what students change their view of the world.
All perspectives should be like this: focus on how they change students.
Western vs. non-western is lost
Literature is suffering
Western civilization coverage is lost because of the emphasis on political theory
Cultural and international diversity is too broad and marginalizes Native Americans. Why was
indigenous removed from the title? Need to include more diverse populations such as LGBT, etc.
How are identity, diversity, and conflict integrated into the Democracy & Citizenship category?
Don’t like the use of the term democracy. Citizenship is all that is needed.
What’s Missing




Faculty and students need to understand the reasons or the intention behind Gen Ed.
We should include study skills in our General Education courses. We need to help students
learn about topics that can be explored for the love of learning.
Human interaction with the Environment is something that distinguishes UM.
Computer literacy should be a foundational part of a liberal education. Most universities don’t
have a computer literacy requirement. It may not be a requirement, but it could be a clearer
option within our General Education framework. Perhaps it could fit within Communications or
Mathematics.
Symbolic systems should have its own category and 3 credit requirements for all students so
they learn computer literacy. Tech is growing faster than any other category of employment it
will overtake tourism and agriculture in Montana. The gen ed class would focus on problem
solving and critical thinking using computers.
I like the idea of computer literacy, maybe with re-writing of criteria it could fit into math or
natural science.
Interdisciplinary categories for computer science- might play in several gen ed categories.
More upper division coursework outside the major would enhance the gen ed program with
more depth and experiential learning.
Student comment: Everyone needs research methods. The framework should be less granular
with more choices for students.
Performance outcomes-based concept should be the basis for general education.
Information literacy and all library expertise are missing from the re-alignment.

Research and scholarly activity should be imbedded in liberal arts







How to be greater?
Foreign Language

Why not learn more than one language? Wouldn’t students benefit from multiple languages?









Why not let students take one semester each of two different languages? This flexibility could
really help some students meet the requirements.
Learning a foreign language is a great way to really learn English grammar, improve speech and
writing.
Improved language and speaking is not the primary learning goal. Fluency also not likely in two
semesters. It’s more about cultural and linguistic appreciation.
US students lag behind other countries in language. This leads to missed opportunities. Poor
fluency affects economic growth, national security, and ability to collaborate on global issues.
One member particularly liked the removal of symbolic systems, and argued that if a particular
major needs their students to take a symbolic systems course, then it should be a requirement
within the major, not Gen. Ed.
One member said that for students in HHP, the reduction in credits (realignment) would allow
most students to take a first year language over symbolic systems.
70-80% of our students are not taking foreign language courses. We should have many more
students taking foreign language courses.
Students with disabilities need to have options for different experiences in these areas. Having
sign language and Native American languages could make us distinctive.
The university says it’s the global century--- U.S. citizens need familiarity with other cultures.
That’s not going to make you money in an of itself, but with other knowledge it will make you
stronger.
Marketing







Gen Ed should be less territorial. General Education should focus on classes that students can’t
get in high school. We could market Gen Ed as some of the things students haven’t studied in
high school. It is also a deeper engagement with a number of topics. For example, it would be
great if we could highlight how history in high school is different from history in college.
“Branding” is a term that is problematic, but Gen Ed is a really good way to brand our
institution.
We could use the word “core” instead of “requirements.”
It would be good to update the titles of the categories to have newer titles that are germane to
the 21st Century.
Advisors who have close contact with students can help students find a “pathway” through
General Education. The pathway doesn’t have to be straight as students explore areas that they
wouldn’t otherwise be exposed to. “Pathway” may be a better way to discuss Gen Ed than
“Core”. “Requirement” creates a negative psychological block.
What are the critical touch points for communicating our General Ed program? Our
advertising/marketing materials are an important part of this process. It would be helpful to
highlight student stories of their Gen Ed pathways. Marketing our General Ed materials can be a
great recruiting tool.
Students should understand why they are taking general education courses

Educators need to help students understand. We need a new image –perhaps a tree or
flowing water rather than check boxes
Other









Student perspective—My Gen Ed experience was not very enjoyable. Students and professors
have felt like courses were “just a Gen Ed” course.
When students think about Gen Ed as requirements, they go into a negative mindset. We should
talk about how students can use what they are learning in other contexts. At times, 18 year olds
don’t know what’s best for them.
Too often, students take Gen Ed courses because a) it fits their schedule b) it meets a specific
requirement.
Why is “easier to understand” an intrinsic good?
We should expand gen eds rather than cull them. The classes don’t need to be 101. Why not
upper division? We should move away from gatekeeping as we have with the writing
proficiency exam.
We need fewer and broader categories, from distinct sectors not from departments. We
shouldn’t have gen ed learning goals outside of the course learning goals.
Delay gen ed work until a student has reached 30 credits or chosen a major to allow for more
informed decisions on gen ed courses. More upper division courses would also give students an
opportunity to take courses outside the major later in their studies. In some cases, departments
are just using gen ed courses for recruitment.
Student in the session stated that half the time he choose gen ed courses depending on what fit
his schedule. Honestly, taking courses at random depending on days and times offered. Way to
rigid set of requirements now. Need to have students have categories. Questioned about why
advising didn’t help make more meaningful courses. Said advisor spent 30 seconds in advising
sessions. Results from some advisors not valuing gen ed.
We want students to be able to write and think. Good citizen, good person.

Biggest question what is the purpose /value. Is the purpose to explore or to expose to
different ideas in different areas that in general can enrich education? How we
approach gen ed depends on what we as a university see as the purpose.

Students want to have the critical skills important for their future; they view general education
as soft skills.
The General Education Committee needs to look at over filled course.
