GENERAL EDUCATION COMMITTEE MID-YEAR REPORT
2/22/2016
The fall course review approved 4 new courses in 4 perspectives. This was a relatively low number
compared to recent years, which may reflect the ongoing uncertainty regarding budget cuts as well as
rumors about potential General Education Reform.
The rolling review of general education courses for this spring will include Ethics, Expressive Arts, and
Social Science. In addition to reviewing the courses in these Groups, the faculty on these several
subcommittees will be asked for their feedback on the learning objectives. This will help us assess
whether the criteria for any of these groups should be considered for revisions. Incorporating this as a
routine element of Rolling Review will enhance our ongoing assessment of General Education and
provide another channel for faculty input concerning any potential revisions.
GENERAL EDUCATION ASSESSMENT
During the last three years our committee has been charged to develop a strategy for General Education
Assessment. During the first year we reviewed a variety of models and resources from other
institutions. Last year, with the help of Associate Provost Nathan Lindsay and committee member Mark
Cracolice, we conducted a pilot study to evaluate Group N, Natural Sciences. This went well, but was
somewhat limited in scope by virtue of the types of courses and related assessment data within this
Group. In particular, we still have many questions about how well this will work for our courses in the
humanities or expressive arts, which tend to be much more diverse and to utilize more qualitative than
quantitative assessment. Accordingly, we are planning to complete a second pilot this spring to assess
Group E, Ethics, as well as Mathematics. This should help us refine and articulate a general strategy for
assessment that will address a broad range of courses and disciplines.
In order to facilitate General Education Assessment, we also revised the General Education Form to
address this. Our initial revisions added a new section for Assessment, where faculty are asked to
outline how they will assess whether students are meeting the learning objectives for the General
Education Group in question. Based on last year’s pilot we made further edits to expand on this with an
additional section where they can describe their GE assessment outcomes and explain how they can/will
use this data to improve course design or delivery. This section is currently optional, but as the pilot is
expanded to more groups, this will provide a place to record ongoing assessment practices and results.
In the meantime, Chair Reiser provided a sample form using the assessment information from Professor
Cracolice’s CHEM 141 course, which was included in the assessment pilot last year.
Some important features of the pilot assessment model include the following:





Faculty participants invited from specific GE Group
Faculty meet several times to discuss possible assessment strategies, compare notes, etc.
Asst. Provost Lindsay assists with group facilitation, guidance and faculty support
Participants develop strategy for individual courses and collaborate to refine these
Ongoing process scan eventually be linked to Rolling Review Cycle, which already includes
faculty subcommittees

Providing faculty with a model that encourages them to discuss and compare assessment
strategies promotes collegiality and professional development
The revised General Education Form not only provides a means for recording this information, but
implicitly notifies faculty that General Education assessment is something they need to consider when
submitting any course for approval. While this has created some initial confusion as faculty submit
courses for review, our response has been to engage faculty with feedback and guidance to help them
complete the form. This frequently involves explaining the distinction between “course assessment”
and “program assessment.”
EVALUATION OF NEED FOR GENERAL EDUCATION REFORM
The Faculty Senate Charge of the General Education Committee is as follows:
The primary responsibility of the General Education Committee is ongoing evaluation
and assessment of the appropriateness and effectiveness of the general education
requirements and criteria. The General Education Committee acts as an advocate for
general education, proposes revisions to its requirements and criteria, reviews
proposals, and ensures that all general education requirements are feasible within
campus constraints, Board of Regents policies, and legislative actions.
The General Education Committee’s charge is to not only review general education course proposals,
but to consider the appropriateness and effectiveness of the general education curriculum at the
University of Montana. The committee devoted a great deal of time and energy in response to this
charge and increased discussion concerning general education revision during Fall Semester 2015. The
following issues have been and will continue to be a focus of discussion over the 2015-2016 academic
year:
Issues with the Indigenous and Global, American and European, Historical and Cultural, and Ethics and
Human Values perspectives.
Ways to make the program easier to navigate.
GLI/Honors College intersection with general education.
Items missing from the General Education Program-Diversity and Indian Education for All, Discourse,
Civic and Community Engagement, and Technology and Information Literacy (although this is a
requirement for writing courses).
The intersection between the MUS Transfer Core and UM’s General Education Requirements
Continued clarification of learning objectives to facilitate assessment of General Education and address
“relevance”
Needs Analysis. The General Education Committee set a goal to engage in a process of needs analysis
over the course of the fall semester, with the hopes of putting forth recommendations for revision of
current general education perspectives during Spring 2016. Their needs analysis has included diverse
members of the campus community. For example, members of the Diversity Advisory Council (Co-Chair
Phyllis Ngai and Professor Lucila Rudge) attended a General Education meeting to engage in discourse
concerning revisions to the American and European Perspective that are more inclusive of diverse
student populations. In addition, Professor G. G. Weix attended a Native American Student Advisory
Council meeting, and invited Advisor Kate Shanley and Chair of the Council, Iva Croft to one of our
meetings. Associate Provost Nathan Lindsay, who is also an advisor of this council, is an Ex-Officio
Member of the General Education Committee. These individuals joined us in discussing proposed
revisions to both the American and European (Y) and Global and Indigenous (X) perspectives and offered
perspectives on how to address Indian Education for All.
Needs analyses have also included feedback from the Chair of Faculty Senate, Bill Borrie from his
listening sessions with ASUM, Associate Provosts, the Provost and ECOS. Professor Tobin Shearer
attended an advising conversation on general education, and our members were involved in the
October 26th and 27th Defining a 21st Education for a Vibrant Democracy. Professor Liz Ametsbichler was
on the planning committee, Professor Tobin Shearer moderated a panel Fostering Engaged Citizens
through General Education, and Chair Kim Reiser presented in that panel. Many of our members were
in attendance at that conference.
Preliminary Findings. Based on the comments and feedback we have received to this date, the
committee has identified the following issues for further consideration as we evaluate potential
revisions:














The philosophy and articulation of the general education requirements needs to be more
inclusive to diverse student populations.
Overcoming the either/or approach to education, so that it’s “both/and”—“fostering engaged
citizenship and professional success”
Helping students understand the purpose and importance of General Education classes, so it’s
not just checking boxes
Importance of “evidence-based learning” and how to evaluate information
Focus on transferable learning skills that students can apply beyond the classroom in other
contexts and real-world, “unscripted problems”
Still teach content, but emphasizing learning outcomes and principles
Include interdisciplinary courses in General Education
Importance of building cultural awareness, which can be done through foreign languages, as
well as a greater focus on indigenous perspectives (especially Native Americans)
General Education—Honors—GLI—Climate Studies: How do we help students do all of these so
that they aren’t competing
Develop more general education courses outside of the student’s major
Include and broaden focus on computer literacy
Looking for intersections and duplications in the general education requirements as a step
toward simplifying and more clearly articulating them
Perception is a big factor: Some community members are unaware of current framework (e.g.
some suggestions for “revisions” are things already in framework)
Any attempt at major reform will benefit from broad community discussion; task-force model
did not work last time due to lack of buy-in




Major reform may be less critical than better articulation of how General Education strengthens
students’ skills and abilities across the curriculum and professions.
Refinements to the current framework could make it easier to understand and navigate, without
requiring major overhaul of every Group (e.g. proposed revisions to groups X, Y, H could address
some noted deficiencies and eliminate overlap).
Develop a structure for constructive dialogue among faculty; how do we promote listening and
collaboration in the face of discipline-oriented communities of practice, anxiety about budgets,
and resistance to change?
Increasing online offerings of our general education courses
Next steps. Our analysis and outreach concerning the need for general education reform is ongoing.
We envision the following steps in the coming months:




Refine proposed revisions to Groups X and Y in with input from ASCRC.
Solicit feedback from the rolling review subcommittees concerning potential revisions to these
groups, especially Group E which has come under scrutiny during previous course reviews.
Solicit feedback from faculty on proposed model for re-aligning groups to make framework
more navigable (then revise as needed to continue discussion next fall).
Continue “community conversation” begun last fall (through conference) with a follow-up event
this spring. The idea is to organize a café-style or charrette-style event to provide a structure
where community members are invited to engage in multiple small groups to generate ideas or
feedback.
We will reevaluate our progress at the close of Spring Semester to bring closure to the needs
assessment. This will help us develop a specific recommendation for how to proceed with potential
revisions or revitalization. If it appears that some strategic revisions to a few specific Groups will
address key concerns, much of this can be advanced through the normal committee process. On the
other hand, any proposal for major revisions to the framework will take more time to fully vet with
faculty and students, as well as the broader community. Even a modest re-alignment will need to be
fully vetted to engage faculty in a way that invites their insights as a means to strengthen the proposal
and enhance ownership, or buy-in. In some sense, the very activity of engaging faculty in this
conversation may be the most essential step towards revitalizing this defining element of the UM
experience.