DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE
P.O. BOX 1656
EDWARDSVILLE, IL 62026-1656
March 1, 2007
Subject: Review of BRIDGE Proposals by the School of Engineering Curriculum Committee
From: Bryon K. Ehlmann, Chair of the SOE Curriculum Committee
To: Eric W. Ruckh, Chair of the BRIDGE Committee
The Curriculum Committee for the School of Engineering has reviewed the final phase-two BRIDGE
proposals relative to their strengths and weaknesses and their impact on the School’s programs and
students. This review was carried out by first delegating to each department the task of reviewing the
BRIDGE proposals relative to their programs and students. The reports that were submitted from each
department are attached.
After considering these reports and after further discussion of the BRIDGE proposals, the committee
members agreed on the following:
●
We applaud those who have worked on developing these proposals. While each offers some
improvements over our current General Education program, we will not endorse any of these
proposals at this point, not without more clarification being given on some aspects and/or some
changes being made to the proposals. All of the proposed plans have some potentially
troublesome features for one or more departments.
●
The Learning Communities proposal is the least favorite among the proposals. In fact, we
recommend against adopting this proposal since we believe it would impose on us the costs of
developing and offering Gateway and possibly ethics courses, add more credit hours to our
curriculums, and impose additional Gen Ed requirements on transfer students.
●
It is very important to the School of Engineering that none of the proposals cause us to add more
credit hours to our programs since most of our engineering programs already require close to or
over 130 credit hours for graduation.
●
It is very important to the School of Engineering that none of the proposals impose additional
Gen Ed requirements on transfer students since more than half of our engineering students are
transfer students and our ability to attract these students is crucial to our programs.
●
It is very important to the School of Engineering that none of the proposals impact our ability to
maintain the accreditations we have achieved for our programs.
●
In the Integrated Core proposal, the three "linked courses," each consisting of a total of 6 credit
hours, will be very challenging to schedule during the first two years for most of our students,
who often must take 5 credit hour courses and labs. It will also be difficult for students to take
such linked courses in the summer, especially along with another course.
●
We have quite a few Honors Students in our majors. None of the proposals address what the Gen
Ed requirements will be for these students.
The impacts of BRIDGE proposals vary from program to program within the School of Engineering.
Some aspects of these proposals appeal to some departments, but not others. More importantly, some
departments have expressed real concerns with these proposals, including both the Integrated Core and
SIUE Education proposals (see attached reports). For this reason and because of the above mentioned
general concerns related to possible increases in credit hours, transfer students, and accreditation
requirements, the committee highly recommends that no new proposal for General Education be adopted
until all of these concerns have been addressed.
CE Department Review of the BRIDGE PHASE II Proposals
Distribution Model:
The proposal is thorough and probably easiest to implement (i.e., it is an enhanced version of the
current model). However, for the high cost of the implementation, it does not include
significantly noticeable creative or original components. With regard to the transfer engineering
students (most than about ½ of civil Engineering students), it does not impose any new
requirements.
Learning Communities Model:
This is philosophically a good model, but it does not provide adequate evidence for practical
implementation in current engineering programs (although its cost is significantly less than the
Distribution Model). For example, a sample Civil Engineering curriculum is not provided, and it
is not clear how practical/feasible it will be to require faculty from different disciples to develop
new courses in order to integrate their expertise for freshmen students. Also, this model adds
two new courses (GATEWAY and HEALTH) which will result in a significantly less friendly
model for the transfer students (than Distribution Model or the current model).
Integrated Core Model:
This model is radically different from the other two models and the current model used at SIUE.
Thus, it will be very challenging to implement, i.e., there are practical concerns about the
logistics of offering FAH 101, SS 101, and NS 101 for large number of students in team-taught
environment where a link to two skill courses (ENG 101 as WEI and MATH 150 as QRI). This
model seems to be as friendly as the Distributed Model and less impact on the transfer students
than the Learning Community Model, where the budgetary impact is stated to be minimal.
Summary:
Based on available feedback from the CE faculty members, the following concluding remarks
are obtained:
The impact of all models on the total credit hours needed to obtain a B.S. degree in Civil
Engineering is none. The Learning Communities Model is the least favored model, mainly due
to the additional requirements imposed on transfer students compared to the other two proposed
models. The Integrated Core Model is favored based on delivering an enhanced product to the
students with minimal budgetary impact. The Distribution Model is solely recommended for its
ease of its implementation without consideration of its high implementation budge.
Respectfully submitted by N. Panahshahi (2/26/07)
Review of BRIDGE Proposals—Dept. of Computer Science
2/24/07
Attached are the detailed analyses of the BRIDGE proposals that were done within the Computer Science
department. The strengths and weaknesses of each proposal were analyzed in terms of the type of general
education they would provide our majors as well as their impact on our curriculums and costs.
Based on these studies and the discussions held in a faculty department meeting, the following consensus
emerged:
1. None of the proposals could be endorsed as they are currently specified. Each has major flaws. Thus,
amendments to these proposals should be allowed and any faculty vote to adopt one of these proposals
should offer the choice of "None of the above."
2. The Integrated Core proposal was viewed as the least favorable. The Learning Communities was a
close second.
3. The SIUE Education proposal was viewed as the most promising, i.e., it had some potential, but
should be adopted only if the following changes can be made:
● Require computer literacy proficiency by examination or course.
● Include Computer Science in the Physical Sciences Breadth Area.
● Change the Breadth requirement to: Select six courses from a minimum of five (or possibly four) of
the six Breadth areas. (This would give students more flexibility to more fully investigate a certain
area or forego an area that they have already explored in high school. It would also not force our
students to take BIOL 120 as one of their three required lab science courses.)
● Allow students to test out of a required skills course without having to take another advanced course of
the same type.
submitted by Bryon Ehlmann
Analysis of BRIDGE Proposals
and Their Impact on Computer Science Programs
submitted by
Bryon K. Ehlmann
(revised based on discussions in CS Dept. Faculty Meeting)
Integrated Core
Strengths
● Our students may be better able to integrate certain themes and essential ideas as they relate to the disciplines encounter
in their four integrated courses, i.e., more emphasis will be given to how certain disciplines are related versus how they
are different.
● Some learning may be enhanced by having one or more (minimum one) assignments in a skills course relate to the
subject matter in an integrated course.
● BS CS majors will require only 33 hrs. of Gen Ed, a reduction of 3 hrs.
● Have option of not requiring BA CS majors to take a foreign language, and if not required, BA CS majors will require
only 33 hrs. of Gen Ed., a reduction of 3 hrs.
Weaknesses
● It will not be clear to the student or advisor what subject matter will actually be presented in the integrated courses as this
will vary from semester to semester and will be based on the “themes” adopted and the disciplines of the pair of
instructors who teach them. (I would characterize this proposal as one requiring three IS courses instead of one.)
● Integrated courses may be developed based on lofty, abstract, and fuzzy ideas, but may be weak in subject matter content
and uneven in rigor. (Descriptions given of courses are often fuzzy, e.g., that of the QR course on p. 26).
● Less opportunity for our students to take courses that will give them a real solid foundation in terms of the fundamentals
of a particular discipline, e.g., a real introduction to sociology, economics, philosophy, psychology, etc.
● Not clear that integrated courses will provide the needed prerequisite knowledge to take a more advanced course in a
discipline that may be desired for the six credit hour Balance requirement.
● More difficult for our students to get transfer credit for Gen Ed courses when transferring to other institutions.
● More difficult for our students to transfer Gen Ed from other institutions, at least not without compromising the goals of
this proposed Gen Ed program.
● More difficult for our students to get transfer credit for Gen Ed courses taken (perhaps over the summer) at their local
community colleges.
● Gen Ed requirements are the same for both the BA and BS but should they be? Shouldn’t a foreign language be required
for a student with a BA?
● Its major focus is on “fostering awareness of the interrelationships among fields of human knowledge” rather than on
developing knowledge of the fields themselves. Assumes student is incapable of recognizing these interrelationships on
their own once they gain knowledge in the disciplines.
● More difficult for students to schedule their Gen Ed courses as three blocks of six units must be scheduled (Are the
scheduling problems worth the gain of having just one “major” assignment taking advantage of the linkage?)
● Scheduling a six credit hours for the linked courses in the summer will be problematic.
● Scheduling when only one of the linked courses is passed is problematic. Students linked assignment (or assignments)
may have to be individually assigned.
● More university resources will be required to develop and oversee the integrated courses as there will be less available
resources to draw upon, e.g., textbooks and instructor’s guides, etc. and more communication overhead required
● No one department or instructor will be fully responsible for an integrated course.
● Computer literacy is not addressed. CS 108 eliminated as a Skills course and CS 111 as an Intro course, which
will have a negative impact on our credit hours generated and thus normative costs.
● IS 376 eliminated, which again will have a negative impact on our credit hours generated and thus normative
costs.
Mapping From Current CS GenEd Requirements
BS (36 hrs.)
ENG 101 –
ENG 102 –
SPC 103 –
FL/IME/MATH/PHIL 106 –
3 Intro SS/FAH –
2 Distr SS/FAH –
IS –
IGR –
II&C –
Written Expression I
Written Expression II
Communication Studies
Critical Thinking
FAH 101, SS 101, and NS 101
2 Balance
Intergroup Relations (can be SPC 103)
Global Citizenship
Quantitative Reasoning I (satisfied by MATH 150)
Notes: Only 33 hrs. of Gen Ed would be required for CS majors, a 3 hr. reduction
BA (38 hrs.)
ENG 101 –
ENG 102 –
2 FL –
4 Intro SS/FAH/NS-MATH –
2 Distr SS/FAH –
IS –
IGR –
Written Expression I
Written Expression II
1 FL as FAH Balance, 1 FL
FAH 101, SS 101, and NS 101, Critical Thinking
1 SS Balance, Communication Studies
Global Citizenship
Intergroup Relations
Quantitative Reasoning I (satisfied by MATH 125)
Notes: Same number of Gen Ed hrs. if we continue to require a FL, if not, a 3 hr. reduction
Student’s Integrated and Universal Essential Education: SIUE Education
Strengths
● Exposes students to more of a variety of disciplines, i.e., emphasizes breath of depth.
● Eliminates distinction between Intro and Distr courses.
● More flexible in providing for transfer in/out of SIUE.
● Better ensures that students have required competencies.
● Differentiates between BA and BS.
● Requires foreign language for BA.
● Can be improved with simple modifications:
1) Include CS in list of Physical Sciences
2) Change Breadth requirement to: Select 6 courses from a minimum of 5 (or 4) of the 6 Breadth areas. (This
would allow give students more flexibility to more fully investigate a certain area or forgo an area that they have
already explored in high school.)
3) Do not require students to take another course of the same kind if they test out of a required skills course.
Weaknesses
● Adds from 7 to 10 additional hrs. of Gen Ed requirements to BA.
● Does not give students the flexibility to pursue a discipline in more depth, e.g., take both Econ 101 and 102 for Gen Ed
credit or take a sequence of Hist courses.
● No credit and thus no incentive for students to take a sequence of courses in one area in order to get the "complete story,"
e.g., American or World History or Micro and Macro Economics.
● Requires students who test out of skills courses to take a more advanced course thus providing little incentive to take the
proficiency exam.
● Mentions a science lab requirement but does not account for it in total number of hrs. required.
● Requires two foreign language courses for BA but Breadth requirements only facilitate for one.
● Computer skills and Health mentioned but not really addressed in requirements (What is an AD course, p. 6?).
● Suppose not all skill courses are taken or passed during the first 30 hrs.?
●
●
●
●
●
Provides no Gen Ed credit for taking CS 108 or CS 111. CS 108 eliminated as a Skills course and CS 111 may not be
included as a Physical Science course. Thus could have a negative impact on our credit hours generated and thus
normative costs.
In requiring exposure in all six areas does not take into account the extensive exposure that a student may have already
had in high school in a particular area (Why not require 6 courses in at least 4 (or 5) of the areas?)
Seems to require a significant increase in costs and resources, even assuming very low pay and no Strengths for new
faculty.
Costs to university seem high, even though salary estimates seem low???
Will make it difficult for students to take Physics sequence and still met ABET requirements of 12 credit hrs. in lab
science since BIOL 120 will be required and this course has a prereq. of Chemistry.
Mapping From Current CS GenEd Requirements
BS (36 hrs.)
ENG 101 –
ENG 102 –
SPC 103 –
FL/IME/MATH/PHIL 106 –
3 Intro SS/FAH –
2 Distr SS/FAH –
IS –
IGR –
II&C –
PHYS 211a or CHEM 121a
BIOL 120
ENG 101
ENG 102
SP 105
RA 101 (or IME/MATH/PHIL/FL 106 if pass prof. exam)
FPA, HELP, and LC Breadth courses
SS Breadth course, QL 101 (or Math 150 if pass prof. exam)
IS
US Cultures course
International Cultures course
PS Breadth course
LES Breadth course
Notes:
- Same number of Gen Ed hrs. assuming BIOL 120 is required
- Assumes NFS (New Freshman Seminar overlaps with another Gen Ed course.
- BIOL 120 would become a required course
BA (38 hrs.)
ENG 101 –
ENG 102 –
2 FL –
4 Intro SS/FAH/NS-MATH –
2 Distr SS/FAH –
IS –
IGR –
ENG 101
ENG 102
LC Breadth Course (FL), FL
FPA, HELP, LES, and PS Breadth courses (minus lab)
SS Breadth course and International Cultures course
IS
US Cultures course
SPC 105
RA 101
QL 101 (or Math 125 if pass prof. exam)
Notes:
- Adds additional 6 hrs. for SPC 105 and RA 101 and possibly additional 3 hrs. for
QL 101 plus a likely additional 1 hr. for science lab
- Assumes NFS (New Freshman Seminar overlaps with another Gen Ed course.
Learning Communities
Strengths
● Students might develop a bit more of a “learning community” in NFS, Gateway, and revised IS courses.
● Our students would be required to take an ethics course.
● Distinguishes between BA and BS.
● BA students are required to take a two course foreign language.
● Gateway course may end up not really being a Gen Ed course, but a major course.
Weaknesses
● Essentially subtracts requirements for any “Distribution courses” and adds Gateway and Ethics course, which lessens the
GenEd burden on CAS. Provides a very "weak" general education to our students in terms of required humanities
and social science courses.
● Only requires student to be exposed to three other disciplines outside there major and only at a very introductory level.
● Does not facilitate students taking additional or advanced courses in any discipline outside their major, e.g., multiple
history or economics courses. Cannot build on any interests developed in intro course or high school.
● Will have to develop a “Gateway course” at the 200 level and identify an ethics course for CS.
● Advertised as less hours, but CS students in BS program could end up taking 5 – 8 additional GenEd hrs. given QL,
Health, and Service requirements.
● IGR, II&IC, and possible Service Course requirement not shown in Requirements Tables. Why not?
● Less courses to double count as IGR and II&IC and Service since only three Intro courses required.
● BA students need only take one Math course or Science course beyond the Quantitative Literacy course, i.e., can get by
with zero Science experience.
● Our transfer students, even with completed IAI, will need to now take 7 hours of Gen Ed plus meet a Service
requirement.
● “Information Literacy” and computer literacy only given "lip service," as its importance is discussion, but there is no
course requirement.
● No incentive for students to take CS 108 or CS 111 as there will be no Skills or Gen Ed credit for them.
● Total costs are not really given, e.g., the costs to develop and teach the Gateway courses.
● Required Health course could be just a repeat of High School health class.
Mapping From Current CS GenEd Requirements
BS (36 hrs.)
ENG 101 –
ENG 102 –
SPC 103 –
FL/IME/MATH/PHIL 106 –
3 Intro SS/FAH –
2 Distr SS/FAH –
IS –
IGR –
II&C –
BA (38 hrs.)
ENG 101 –
ENG 102 –
2 FL –
4 Intro SS/FAH/NS-MATH –
2 Distr SS/FAH –
IS –
IGR –
ENG 101
ENG 102
SPC 103
Same
Intro FAH, Intro SocSci, Quantitative Literacy (unless pass
prof. test)
Gateway Course, Ethics and Social Issues
Same
Same
Same
Quantitative Literacy, 3 hrs. (unless pass prof. test)
Health/Personal Wellness, 2 hrs.
Service Course or requirement
Lab Science (already satisfied by Phys/Chem/Biol)
ENG 101
ENG 102
Same
Intro FAH, Intro NSM, Intro SocSci, Critical Thinking
Gateway Course, Ethics and Social Issues
Same
Same
Quantitative Literacy, 3 hrs. (unless pass prof. test)
Health/Personal Wellness, 2 hrs.
Service Course or requirement
Proposed BRIDGE Plans
Expected Impact on the Curriculum of the Computer Science Department
by Bill White
Service
Courses
IS
CS CS
376 111 108
Integrated Core
Students must take placement test and
may take this course for remediation
No longer counts as a skills course
Eliminated
Renumber 110 and resubmit for
approval as Introductory course in
Natural Sciences & Mathematics
Enrollment limited to 60 students per
section
Unclear – CS not included in list of
Physical Sciences departments for
Breadth Area GERs
Enrollment limited to 50 students per
section
 English 101-102, Intergroup
 English 101-102 and Interdisciplinary
Eliminated

B.S.
Only
Both B.S. & B.A.



courses replace English 101102 courses
Global Citizenship course
replaces Interdisciplinary
Studies course and
(apparently) International
Issues & Culture course
Critical Thinking,
Communication Skills, and
Intergroup Relations
requirements retained
3-Introductory GERs replaced
by “101” courses: 1 Fine &
Humanities, 1 Social Sciences,
and 1 Natural Science
2 Distribution GERs replaced
with one additional Fine Arts &
Humanities course and one
additional Social Sciences
course
Current: 10-12 GER courses
New: 11 GER courses
B.A. Only
 2-semester foreign language
New CS Courses
Required
Students’ Integrated and
Universal Essential Education
Eliminated
 Written Expression I & II
CS Degree Programs
Learning Communities
(apparently) not required
Current: 11-12 GER courses
New: 11 GER courses
None
Relations, International Issues &
Culture, and Interdisciplinary Studies
courses still required
 Freshman Seminar required (2 linked
courses, either skills/intro or
intro/intro)
 Communication skills course (e.g.,
SPC 105) still required
 Critical Thinking course (e.g., PHIL
106) required
 3 Introductory GERs replaced by 3
“110” courses: 1 Fine Arts &
Humanities, 1 Natural Sciences &
Math, and 1 Social Sciences (may not
count towards first major)
 Distribution GERs eliminated
 Quantitative Reasoning course
required (unclear whether this is
waived for CS)
 Health & Personal Wellness course
required
 Ethics & Social Issues in Professional
Practice course required
 Service Learning and Information
Literacy GERs required (possibly met
through other GERs)
Current: 10-12 GER courses
New: 10 GER courses (including
Gateway and Ethics & Social
Issues courses)
 1 Critical Thinking course required
 1 lab science course required
 2-semester foreign language still
required
Current: 11-12 GER courses
New: 12 GER courses (including
Gateway and Ethics & Social
Issues courses
 200-300 level “Gateway” course, to

“introduce concepts, processes, and
theoretical framework for the
discipline”
400-level Ethics & Social Issues
course to “introduce students to ways
in which the broad societal context
impacts the standards of conduct and
practices” of CS
Studies courses still required
 New Freshman Seminar required
 Reasoning & Argumentation 101





replaces Critical Thinking (Critical
Thinking still required if student
proficiencies out of RA 101; IME 106
serves as New Freshman Seminar
and Critical Thinking course)
Quantitative Literacy 101 (or
proficiency exam) required
SPC 105 required (alternatives
eliminated)
1 Life & Earth Sciences lab course
and 1 Physical Sciences lab course
required
3-Intro/2-Distribution GERs replaced
by “Breadth” courses: 1 Fine &
Performing Arts, 1 Human
Experience, Literature & Philosophy, 1
Language & Communications, and 1
Social Science
International Issues & Culture and
Intergroup Relations GERs replaced
by 1 International Culture and 1 U.S.
Culture (overlap with Breadth or IS
courses allowed)
Current: 10-12 GER courses
New: 8-13 GER courses
 2-semester foreign language still
required
Current: 11-12 GER courses
New: 9-13 GER courses
None
Review of BRIDGE Proposals—Dept. of Construction
Comments on final Phase Two BRIDGE proposals
Integrated Core
I.
Principal Strengths and Weaknesses from Viewpoint of Department of
Construction
This proposal addresses the weaknesses of the current general education program
by linking themes or networks of essential areas of learning to skills courses that
will help students apply the content of the integrated core courses. The philosophy
of the integrated core proposal is in harmony with the needs of students in the
School of Engineering, who must work across disciplines in teams and require a
broader understanding and appreciation of fields of study outside the narrow
bounds of mathematics, science, and engineering. This is in my opinion the
greatest strength of this proposal. The proposal also has considered the numerical
shifts in student credit hours and the needed shift in personnel and resources, and
has made an attempt to balance these impacts to minimize costs of
implementation. The proposal also makes a concerted effort to address the general
education objectives of the baccalaureate degree.
The weakness of the proposal is that it will require significant coordination
between faculty of different schools and colleges, development of new courses,
and some reallocation of resources between units. The requirement for students to
take linked courses in their first two years forces adjustment of our curriculum,
moving some courses in the major and minor later in the student’s program to
accommodate the integrated core courses in the freshman and sophomore year.
The proposal does not directly address the state requirement for a health
component in the curriculum. It is unclear what impact this (or any) proposal
would have on the honors scholars program. The impact of the proposal on
students transferring into or out of SIUE to other institutions is difficult to assess,
although the proposal indicates that there would be an attempt to be flexible with
incoming transfer students.
II.
Impact of Revisions on Construction Department
Positive Impacts. Our program is constrained by accreditation requirements and
offers students little freedom to select general education topics. Currently,
students select only two Introductory courses (either two FAH or one FAH and
one SS), and one Distribution FAH. We make every attempt to select courses that
also satisfy the II/IC requirement, and use SPC 103 to satisfy the IGR. Our IS
requirement is covered by IS 401 Business and Society, a required course for
Construction majors, who also must complete a minor in Business.
It appears that if we are to maintain our current curriculum in the major, the
Integrated Core proposal would require an increase from the current 128 credit
hours to as many as 131 credit hours for graduation. This assumption does not
include the addition of a health requirement, which we assume could be satisfied
with a zero-credit hour option.
Maintaining the current 128 credit hours may require deletion of one of three
technical electives that allow seniors to pursue additional knowledge in business
or construction topics. It is unclear what the global studies course would be. If IS
401 met the global citizenship requirements, it might be possible for us to
restructure the Business minor and keep our program to 128 credit hours with no
loss of technical content.
Negative Impacts. The implementation of this proposal could require an increase
from the current 128 credit hours to as many as 131 credit hours for graduation.
III.
Effect on Faculty and Students
It appears that there will be little impact on CNST faculty. Adding hours to the
curriculum makes SIUE a less attractive option for students when compared to
other construction management curricula—Illinois State University has a similar
program of 124 credit hours.
IV.
Budgetary Impacts
I foresee little budgetary impact on the Construction Department associated with
the Integrated Core proposal.
Comments on final Phase Two BRIDGE proposals
SIUE Education Proposal
I. Principal Strengths and Weaknesses from Viewpoint of Department of
Construction
This proposal addresses the weaknesses of the current general education program
by giving students “fundamental university-level skills and exposure to diverse
subjects and ways of knowing about the world.” It includes foundations courses,
breadth courses in 6 areas, and two cultures courses, one on international and one
on U.S. cultures.
The weakness of the proposal is that it seems to do little to change the current
general education program, but replaces the current system with one only slightly
different. It is unclear what impact this (or any) proposal would have on the
honors scholars program.
II.
Impact of Revisions on Construction Department
Positive Impacts. In the best-case scenario, this proposal has little net effect on
our current curriculum. Our program is constrained by accreditation requirements
and currently offers students little freedom to select general education topics.
Currently, students select only two Introductory courses (either two FAH or one
FAH and one SS), and one Distribution FAH. We make every attempt to select
courses that also satisfy the II/IC requirement, and use SPC 103 to satisfy the
IGR. Our IS requirement is covered by IS 401 Business and Society, a required
course for Construction majors, who also must complete a minor in Business.
One introductory level SS is satisfied by ECON 111, and a Distribution SS by
ECON 112, both required for the minor in Business.
The distribution model would change that mix to add a life and earth science
course that would effectively replace one of the two introductory courses. The
Human Experience, Literature, and Philosophy requirement would effectively
replace the current Distribution FAH, for no net effect. It may be possible to drop
one course, ECON 331, from our Business minor, with approval from the School
of Business. This course is currently part of the minor primarily because it meets
the Distribution Social Science requirement.
Negative Impacts. The worst-case scenario for adoption of this model would be an
increase from the current 128 credit hours to 137. Assuming CNST students, who
take 15 hours of mathematics and statistics in addition to a curriculum that is
highly quantitative and problem-solving in nature, would be exempted from QL
101, Quantitative Literacy, and that RA 101, Reasoning and Argumentation, be
satisfied by IME 106, implementation of this proposal would require an increase
from the current 128 credit hours to 131 credit hours. To maintain 128 credit
hours would require us to reduce the number of technical electives, or apply to
have CNST 301, Soils, adopted as a Life and Earth Sciences elective. ECON 331
is largely populated by CNST students, and dropping this course from our minor
may have negative impacts on the Economics department.
III.
Effect on Faculty and Students
It appears that there will be little impact on CNST faculty. Students would have
to take proficiency tests to test out of QL 101 and RA 101 under the current
proposal, or take these two courses in addition to the major and minor
requirements. Adding hours to the curriculum makes SIUE a less attractive
option when compared to other construction management curricula—Illinois State
University has a similar program of 124 credit hours, and Indiana State is
competitively priced and has a construction management program of 121 credit
hours.
IV.
Budgetary Impacts
I foresee little budgetary impact on the Construction Department associated with
the SIUE Education proposal.
Comments on final Phase Two BRIDGE proposals
Learning Communities Proposal
I. Principal Strengths and Weaknesses from Viewpoint of Department of
Construction
This proposal addresses the weaknesses of the current general education program
by incorporating social interaction between student and faculty, and among
students. The proposal suggests various types of “learning communities” in each
of a student’s four years, beginning with a new freshman seminar, linked courses
in the first or second year, a Gateway course in the third year, and an Ethics and
Social Issues in Professional Practice course that will challenge students to apply
an ethical perspective to their particular discipline. The principal strength of this
proposal is that it relates the content of skills courses to the later Gateway and ESI
courses by making completion of skills courses prerequisite, giving students a
more integrated learning experience.
The principal weakness of the proposal is its projected costs. In addition it will
require significant coordination between faculty of different schools and colleges
to develop linked courses at the freshman level, the development of new Gateway
courses by the various major departments, increased involvement of units to
develop additional sections of IS courses, and associated reallocation of resources
between units. It is unclear what impact this (or any) proposal would have on the
honors scholars program. The impact of this model on students transferring into
or out of SIUE to other institutions seems to be the most negative of any of the 3
proposals.
II. Impact of Revisions on Construction Department
Positive Impacts. Making the Ethics course required will allow us to more easily
meet accreditation requirements for ethics (although ethics must also be
incorporated across the construction curriculum).
Negative Impacts. The implementation of this proposal could require an increase
from the current 128 credit hours to as many as 131 credit hours for graduation.
This assumption includes the addition of a 2 credit hour health requirement, and a
3 credit hour quantitative literacy course, which we feel should be waived for
students completing a highly quantitative curriculum such as Construction.
Maintaining the current 128 credit hours may require deletion of one of three
technical electives that allow seniors to pursue additional knowledge in business
or construction topics. However, it may be possible for us to restructure the
Business minor and keep our program to 128 credit hours with no loss of
technical content. The proposal would also appear to require our department to
develop a Gateway course, requiring additional faculty resources since our faculty
is currently teaching at or above the maximum faculty workload.
III. Effect on Faculty and Students
The addition of a Gateway course will require additional call staff, overload for
existing faculty, or dropping technical electives to substitute the Gateway course.
Adding hours to the curriculum makes SIUE a less attractive option for students
when compared to other construction management curricula—Illinois State
University has a similar program of 124 credit hours, and Indiana State is
competitively priced and has a construction management program of 121 credit
hours.
IV. Budgetary Impacts
The Learning Communities proposal would require additional call staff, overload
pay for full time faculty to maintain the current number and variety of technical
elective offerings. The budgetary impact on the Construction Department would
be approximately $ $7,000 to 15,000 per year to teach a Gateway course in both
Fall and Spring annually.
Review of BRIDGE Proposals—Dept. of Electrical and
Computer Engineering
Regarding the BRIDGE proposals, the ECE department's view is:
1. The proposals should require the same or less number of credit hours as the
current program.
2. The proposals should not affect our ability to enroll transfer students.
Equivalency and articulation with general education programs at other colleges
should be well established.
3. The BRIDGE committee should clearly and concisely address the above issues.
4. The SOE can perhaps endorse one or more proposals.
Our response to the three proposals is:
1. Learning Communities
This proposal is impractical for the department and should not be adopted.
2. Integrated Core
This proposal has minimal impact on the department and appears to require the
same number of credit hours as the current program.
3. Integrated and Universal Essential Education
This proposal has minimal impact on the department. It requires two speech
courses (SPC 103 and 105). It appears that it requires the same number of
credit hours as the current program since one FAH course is dropped. We feel
that only speech course is needed (either SPC 103 or 105).
Review of BRIDGE Proposals—Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering
and the Associate Dean of the School of Engineering
Quite frankly, I don’t know why SIUE has to be different from other Illinois colleges and
universities. Other schools are also concerned about general education and their graduates are as
well prepared as ours for life and a career. My understanding was that many of our faculty
didn’t want SIUE to participate in the IAI GECC community. At the time Chancellor Werner
said the SIUE would participate and allowed the continued extra requirement for critical thinking
and interdisciplinary studies. While the 93 restructured general education program allowed
seamless transfer if transfer students took courses that met our rules at their schools, the result
has been that many transfer students took two or three courses that would meet IAI requirements
for an AA or AS degree, but would not fit into our rules. If over half of SIUE students are
transfer students as acknowledged in the proposals and true of engineering, why are we trying to
make it even more difficult? I know that the different teams will say they addressed the transfer
issue in their proposals, but I would disagree.
Okay, having gotten that off my chest, following are my assessments of each proposal including
the IAI GECC.
Distribution Model: I would dismiss this proposal off-hand as too expensive ($660,000 $900,00 plus the already spent $400,000 for the freshman seminar). The only positive to me was
the requirement for SPC 105, but that would add another course to our already large curriculum
for meeting the IGR requirement.
Learning Communities Model: Philosophically this would be a great gen-ed program but it is
impossible to get the entire faculty to think outside the box and develop new courses and ways to
integrate their expertise with others. If only a small number of faculty members would be
involved, it might be attainable. This model adds even more requirements (gateway and health
for sure plus other courses that would meet IAI requirements, but not fit our scheme) to transfer
students. This doesn’t seem right to me. Also, the model stated a cost of $240,000 with a
number of items indicating – to be determined. This model should be rejected as being
expensive and unfair to transfer students.
Integrated Core Model: This model has the least impact on transfer students and indicates little
or no budget implications. I like the ideal of the Global Citizenship course in lieu of the current
IS course. I would hope that it could be designed to include the IGR requirement. I’m not sure
that I buy the minimal budget impact based on the significant restructuring required. However,
if we must implement one of these models, the integrated core model would be my choice.
IAI – GECC Model:
Communication: Three courses (9 semester credits)
Select a two-course sequence in writing (6 semester credits, C grade required) and,
Select one course in oral communication (3 semester credits).
Mathematics: One or two courses (3 to 6 semester credits)
Physical and Life Sciences: Two courses (7 to 8 semester credits)
Select one course from Physical Sciences.
Select one course from Life Sciences.
Select at least one laboratory course.
(Students with the appropriate preparation may substitute an initial course designed for
science majors for a more general course.)
Humanities and Fine Arts: Three courses (9 semester credits)
Select one course from Humanities,
Select one course from Fine Arts and
Select one course from either Humanities or Fine Arts.
Social and Behavioral Sciences: Three courses (9 semester credits)
Select three courses from at least two different disciplines (e.g., no more than 2 courses
from, for example, psychology).
This curriculum is easy to understand and has been mostly adopted by most Illinois colleges and
universities. Why is it not good enough for SIUE? Our general education requirements will not
make us a “premier metropolitan university”. I have heard more than once through this process
that the IAI curriculum was to accommodate community colleges not 4 year universities. I have
served on the IAI Engineering Panel for seven years (Co-Chair the past year) and I have never
heard the implication once. Our panel has always viewed it as good for both community
colleges and universities. We view our mission as providing a seamless transition for
engineering transfer students and through the panel’s review process make sure that the
community college chemistry, mathematics physics, and engineering science courses meet 4year engineering requirements. I have collected statistics on engineering graduates since
calendar conversion and I have charts that indicate our students with 60 or more transfer hours
graduate with slightly higher GPAs than those who matriculated as freshman to SIUE. Some
will say that I am mixing apples and oranges because GPAs are only based on SIUE course
work. This is true, but I submit that those who don’t do well in the first two years do even worse
in upper-division engineering courses. My conclusion is that SoE transfer students are at least as
good as our students. What little we gain from having more rigorous general education will be
more than offset by unhappy students and parents.
Van Roekel
Associate Dean
School of Engineering
Bridge proposals: Strengths and Weaknesses
from the vintage point of Mechanical Engineering Department
submitted by Tongele N. Tongele
The three proposals:
(1) Integrated Core
(2) Students’ Integrated and Universal Essential Education: SIUE Education
(3) Learning Communities
Summary of strengths and the weaknesses for each one of the three proposals:
Bridge Proposal
(1)
Strengths
 Conciseness
 Has the least number of credit
hours compared to the other
proposals, and has the option of
allowing the second writing class
to be tailored toward more
specialized writing such as
technical writing.
(2)

Interaction between learner,
teacher and other students
(3)

Personalized, based on individual
student goals and interests
Weaknesses
 Rising number of
general education credit
hours
 Two semesters for
“written fluency” is too
much. The second
semester should be
consecrated to “technical
writing for engineers,”
or eliminated for
students with a good
English ACT scores
 Some science courses
such as chemistry and
physics, or introductory
engineering courses
should count toward
general education credit
hours
Other comments:
 The ME department could go along with either one the three proposals under the
condition that the number of credit hours be reduced to less than or equal to the
current number of credit hours.
 One writing course taught with more rigors would do it. For example, many
instructors say engineering students in SIUE do not write well, but many of these
students get A's in writing classes. There is obviously a problem of rigor and
enforcing writing standard(s).
 The ME Department would like to emphasize that our current general education
already requires more credit hours than most other universities in the US.
Further increasing the general education hours will make it very difficult
to have students graduate within four years and have enough ME courses to comply
with ABET accreditation requirements.