Faculty Feedback on Gen Ed Structure [2-23-2007]
Includes feedback from the January Workshop 2007, solicited email input, and GEC questionnaire
Feedback from Faculty at January 2007 Workshop Days
Note: 100 copies of goals picked up
50 questionnaires picked up—only 9 submitted
Suggestion box—only 6 cards dropped off
Request for Feedback Sent to Those Helping with Goal Areas—17 responses (COSE 3, COE 1, COFAH 1, COSS 12)
Workshop Feedback
Email Input
1. Gen Ed goals and student learning outcomes:
(2) satisfied
(1) satisfied
(8) too long
(7) too long
Reduce to 10-12 (1 said 7)
Reduce to Most said 12 goals
Suggestions:
Suggestions:
Areas to be combined:
#8 & 15
*Most feedback argued against combining
#5, 12, & 13
Goals 8 & 9 combining 8, 9, & 10. (See
#8 & 9 [2 suggested this]
sample feedback at end of document.)
#4,7,8 & 9 (goals involving *Individual Rights gets folded into Civic
understanding culture & society)
Engagement and Diversity.
#6 & 11
*If students see the list, the outcomes
#12, 13, & 14
should not be visible, or only hypertext
#7, 8, & 9
linksed. It will be overwhelming
Delete # 12, 13, 14, & 15
otherwise.
#1 with #6 or #7
*It IS a very good idea to demonstrate that
some goals will be met in the major as well
“I would expect integrative
as in GenEd. It will help students see
learning to be measured through upper
SCSU experience as a whole. My
division courses in a major. May also be
recommendation: Stick to 10 goals like the
GEC Questionnaire
(3) satisfied
(4) too long
Reduce to Most said 12 goals
Suggestions:
Designate 3-5 goals as “upper division” to
be met through the major. Other goal
areas should align with the MnTC.
Goals to combine:
Integrative Learning & Collaboration
Put Environmental Goal into Reason
Scientifically and Global
Put Concern for Individual Worth into
Civic Engagement and Ethics Goals
Environment option within Reason
Scientifically
Combine Diversity & Global
MTC, and tack on a short slate of “GenEd
goals to be met across the student’s
education at the university”—which will
be 3 (or 4): integrative learning,
collaborative learning, and technology.
Possibly also Ethics.
*#6 & #11 are very related, perhaps
combine
*#12 and #13 could perhaps be combined
#4 and #10 could be combined
education learning outcomes that students
* I believe several of the goals reflect
would take during their junior and senior year
important pedagogical goals that are
that could be integrated in their major program,
integral to a quality Liberal Arts degree.
then these high order learning outcomes would
The Goals that emphasize Critical
not compete with major courses. As I was
Thinking, Civic Engagement, strong
thinking about this idea, I realized that this is
what would distinguish an education at a 4
writing and speaking skills, and scientific
year comprehensive institution from an
and mathematical knowledge are essential
education at a 2 year community college or
characteristics to a General Education
technical school. The MTC would be “core” or
core. I also firmly support keeping Goal
“baseline” (or some other word) learning
areas 8, 9, and 10 as separate Goal areas.
outcomes. Higher order learning outcomes,
such as the additional 5 proposed by the
Each of those goal areas reflect distinct,
general education committee, would be the
though interrelated, areas of study. To
value added education of a 4 year degree.
combine them, as some of the previous
These could complement or be incorporated
solicited comments suggest, would be to
into a major program.
move the university backward in its ability
I’m wondering if some of these
learning outcomes could be incorporated fairly
to prepare our students for living in a
easily, e.g. integrative learning would be
diverse world.
accomplished by an internship. Collaboration
* Some of the goal areas lend themselves
might be accomplished through service
to being combined with the others because
learning.”
they can be accomplished in multiple
areas. Critical reasoning, applied and
true of collaborating with others—linked
to various aspects of experiential learning,
working in groups, etc.”
“There sure are a lot of goals all
being given equal value. Could we
condense this somehow?”
“15 goal areas X 6 outcomes—
seems too large for students to
comprehend.”
“…, if there were higher order general
Ethics to include Human Rights Goal
engaged learning, collaborative,
integrative, and ethics goal areas are skills
sets that can be developed in multiple
settings, and so may be a way to reduce the
number of goals while also enhancing the
interconnectedness of our curriculum.
*If goals needed to be combined I
recommend combining goals 12
(Integrative Learning) and 13 (Collaborate
with Others) and possibly combining goal
15 (Ethics) with goal 4 (Civic
Engagement).
* Goal 3: Critical Reasoning, Goal 12:
Integrative Learning, and Goal 15:
Ethics, can, I believe, be most efficiently
and effectively combined with other goals.
These three items do not need to stand
alone, inasmuch as most disciplines
already incorporate these issues in their
classes. If some disciplines have not been
very explicit about this inclusion, your
committee can simply require associated
faculty so to do. If this is done, the list of
fifteen goals will be reduced to twelve.
* I agree with combining some of the goals
and reducing the list to 12. For example, Goal
Area 3: Critical Reasoning, Goal Area 12:
Integrative Learning, and Goal Area 15:
Ethics do not have to be separate goals but so
essential to the students’ learning process that
they should be incorporated into all of the
other goal areas. That will reduce the goals to
12.
*Perhaps Goal #1 and Goal #15 could be
better addressed through upper division
courses.
*Goal #12 could be combined with either Goal
#4, 5, or 10.
*Goal #13 could be addressed by another
means: i.e., internships, community service,
etc. or combined with Goal 3, 4, or 5.
*Goal #10, 12, 13 combined; #9 & 15
combined
2. Size of the General Education Program.
(4) satisfied with the current size
(5) reduce in size
Comment: Larger programs should
propose that some of their major courses
be included in goal areas (e.g. PHYS 231
is not Gen Ed). Allow double counting
between major/minor and Gen Ed and
eliminate waivers. Students understand
double counting, but not waivers.
(4) satisfied with the current size
Comment: Our Gen Ed is really 41,
including PESS—Let’s be honest about
that. 40 or 41 are fine. With doublecounting, the program is 38. That seems
about right.
(3) reduce in size
Comment: While I understand that some
programs are quite large and require that
students enroll in major courses
immediately so as to graduate in four
years, students are able to meet Gen Ed
requirements under the current system,
with waivers and double counting, so I am
unconvinced that this new system will be
dramatically different. Some of the goal
(1) satisfied with the current size
(6) reduce in size
Comment: Have heard our program is too
large and personally don’t agree. If we
had better assessment & solid outcomes
met by program, [others] may be more
amenable to current size. Also, allowing
waivers or goals to be met within some
majors may pacify them.
areas that emphasize crucial skill sets,
such as critical thinking, collaborative and
integrative learning, and so on, could be
fulfilled through courses in some of the
other goal areas through a mutually
enriching curriculum. Having worked with
the rather confusing current system, I also
understand the need for efficiency and
clarity.
However, I am concerned that the move to
reduce the Goal areas and number of
credits will result in a privileging of
certain disciplines over others (in some
ways, like the ways that left hand column
courses are inherently privileged over
right hand courses in the current system.)
Given that SCSU touts itself as the
“flagship” of the MNSCU system, I believe
we should insist on offering our students a
quality Liberal Arts education, and that
means reflecting and valuing a breadth of
knowledge. When we start saying that
some areas on this list are crucial and
others are merely elective,(which the
current model implies and which I would
like to not reproduce in the new model), we
run the risk of marginalizing or devaluing
some forms of knowledge while marking
other forms as “real” knowledge. In my
field of Women’s Studies, a great deal of
scholarship has been done on what counts
as knowledge and who gets to define that,
who defines what is the “cannon,” for
instance, and who is excluded from that. I
believe students gain a great deal by
considering those discussions, including
skills (such as critical thinking), so that the
goal areas can be mutually enriching.
3. Characteristics for our General Education program and add others that apply.
Elegant, simple, and transparent to students, faculty,
and advisors (8)—1 underlined simple
Based on student outcomes (4)
Reflects the mission/core values of the university (7)
Integrated with and reinforced within the majors (6)
Constructed so that it satisfies the graduation
requirements of all of our undergraduate colleges (4)
Accommodates the full range of undergraduate
students (e.g. transfer students, distance students,
diverse students, rising achievement levels of
incoming undergraduates, etc.) (5)—1 said yes/no
Enhances the undergraduate experience by providing
broad exposure to multiple disciplines,
complementing the major and helping students
develop important reasoning, inquiry, and civic
capacities (5)
Sustainable within existing resources (4)
Other characteristics
Elegant, simple, and transparent to students, faculty,
and advisors (7)
Based on student outcomes (2)
Reflects the mission/core values of the university (4)
Integrated with and reinforced within the majors (4)
Constructed so that it satisfies the graduation
requirements of all of our undergraduate colleges (3)
Accommodates the full range of undergraduate
students (e.g. transfer students, distance students,
diverse students, rising achievement levels of
incoming undergraduates, etc.) (6)
Enhances the undergraduate experience by providing
broad exposure to multiple disciplines,
complementing the major and helping students
develop important reasoning, inquiry, and civic
capacities (7)
Sustainable within existing resources (2)
Other characteristics
Elegant, simple, and transparent to students, faculty,
and advisors (7)
Based on student outcomes (5)
Reflects the mission/core values of the university (6)
Comment: change to “consistent with”
Integrated with and reinforced within the majors (4)
Constructed so that it satisfies the graduation
requirements of all of our undergraduate colleges (4)
Accommodates the full range of undergraduate
students (e.g. transfer students, distance students,
diverse students, rising achievement levels of
incoming undergraduates, etc.) (5)
Enhances the undergraduate experience by providing
broad exposure to multiple disciplines,
complementing the major and helping students
develop important reasoning, inquiry, and civic
capacities (4)
Sustainable within existing resources (3)—2 “NO”
Other characteristics:
Focused
Unique to SCSU, but aligned with MnTC.
4. Left side-right side arrangement
___Remain
(8) Be eliminated
(1) Remain
(6) Be eliminated
___Remain
(6) Be eliminated
Comment: Again, just like waivers,
students don’t get this. Let’s be simple.
Selecting one or two courses from a goal
area is easy. Worrying about left/right is
something students don’t need.
Comments: *Don’t know—it depends on
what you are trying to accomplish. * The
left hand/right hand column seems an
arbitrary division that implicitly privileges
the left hand column courses over the right
hand column courses, thereby creating a
hierarchy between departments and even
disciplines. It sends a message that I think
undermines the goals of a Liberal Arts
education, and it is confusing to students.
* The left/right side arrangement should be
Comment: Have personally promised it
would be gone.
discarded: it unfairly signals that some courses
are “different” and not as important without any
easily understandable explanation to students
or advisors.
5. Should any departments be excluded?
(2) Yes, follow the MnTC
guidelines.
(6) No, allow all departments.
(1) Indicate in bulletin copy which
courses would not meet MnTC guidelines
(1) Yes, follow the MnTC
___Yes, follow the MnTC
guidelines.
guidelines.
(1) No, allow all departments.
(6) No, allow all departments.
(4) Indicate in bulletin copy which
(3) Indicate in bulletin copy which
courses would not meet MnTC guidelines
courses would not meet MnTC guidelines
Comment: Not sure, because it is unclear
on what grounds those exclusions would be
made. If the exclusions are made on the
basis of which are gen ed areas and which
are professional degrees, that may make
some sense. It would depend on how it is
determined. Again, it seems to suggest that
certain departments and courses are
“unnecessary” or superfluous, and its
unclear how that would be decided.
Though these courses are not currently
included on the list above, historically,
diversity courses, or those courses
reflecting the experiences of marginalized
groups have been excluded (as disciplines,
but then those experiences are also
generally lacking in the wider curriculum,
which means the exclusion is virtually
complete). While that may not be likely to
happen if we retain Goals Areas 8, 9, and
10 as distinct categories, it is still unclear
why and how we would determine which
disciplines are less important. Again, if it
has to do with the particular requirements
of professional programs, that may make
more sense.
5. Allowed to meet more than one goal area? [Currently, under the MnTC, a single course can address no more than two areas.]
(6) Yes
(6) Yes
(7) Yes
(3) No
(1) No
___No
Comment: Double counting and waivers
Comments on number: 2; 2; 3; 4; 2-3
Comments on number: 2; 2-3; might
contribute to excessive complexity and
*No—therefore, you can’t have 15 goal
depend on goal area; as many as its SLOs
inevitably are abused
areas @ 3 cr. per goal (45 cr.).
accomplish.
*Yes—should have a system of a course
partially meeting a goal, perhaps.
6. Percentage of student learning outcomes should a course have to meet?
___100%
___100%
(2) 75%
___75%
___100%
(3) 75%
(5) 60% [Currently, GE status]
(2) 51%
(3) 60% [Currently, GE status]
(4) 51%
Comment: 50-51% seems reasonable. (That
said, I think that some of the learning
outcomes need to be redefined and
broadened. For instance, Goal Area 11
“Understand the Inter-relatedness of
Humans and the Natural Environment”
needs to be redefined a bit so that it more
fully reflects the ways that environmental
issues are addressed in the social sciences
and humanities, as well as in the hard
sciences. There’s currently a little bit of
room for that, but it does tend to privilege
the hard sciences as a lens through which to
study the environment. While that lens is a
highly important one, there can be valuable
cross sections for students as sociology or
Women’s Studies courses teach about the
environment as well.
7. Should we allow General Education goals to be met through coursework in the major?
(7) Yes
(5) Yes
(2) No
___No
Comments: *50% of goals could be met
Comments:
through the major. *Goals that could be met
If so, how many? Respondents said 2-4.
through the major: 1,3,4,12,13,14,15.
One said, if 15 goals, then up to 3.
*No limit on how many.
What particular goal areas could best be
*Could be along the lines of the current
connected to programs? (Please list.)
waiver/double counting standard and limits.
Integrative learning (2)
*Goal #6 should be met by many majors in
Ethics (2)
(1) 60% [Currently, GE status]
(2) 51%
Comment: Set the percentage as high as it
needs to be to ensure that meeting the Gen
Ed outcomes also meets the MnTC outcomes.
This will depend upon how many of our
outcomes do not correspond with MnTC’s.
(6) Yes
(1) No
Comments: *Number depends on major. I
don’t know enough programs, but science
programs generally meet Natural Sciences
goal and possibly collaboration. I would
assume CMST also meets collaboration
goal.
*Could specify number like 3-5? *Let the
Collaboration (2)
“We need to make sure that our general ed
program does not disadvantage certain
colleges and programs.”
“Only if each major is associated with an
equal number of goals.”
COSE.
programs apply/decide on this.
8. Should we allow General Education goals to be met through assessment of high school work?
(2) Yes
(3) Yes
(3) Yes
Comments: *E.g., AP Calculus would meet
(5) No
(3) No
goal 2: Math Reasoning with proper
Comments:
Comments: *Only AP, International
assessment. *Through test-out procedures,
*No—unless it is part of the current system
Baccalaureate, Sr. to Soph., PSEO.
not through courses taken.
in which high school students take college
*Perhaps only when test-out options are
(7) No
level credit in courses monitored by the
available through departments teaching
Comment: These should be college classes.
departments.
these goals. *My gut reaction is that it’s not
*Yes—AP or International Baccalaureate
a good idea. I suppose there may be ways to
only. Need more info. On this.
determine whether a high school course
meets our outcomes. Not allowing this
would put us at a competitive disadvantage,
so we probably should find a way to do it,
but the assessment aspect will be difficult.
9. Should we continue with double-counting and waivers?
(3) Yes, both.
(8) Yes, both.
(4) Yes, double-counting.
___Yes, double-counting.
(0) Yes, waivers.
___Yes, waivers.
(1) No.
___No.
Comments: “Get rid of the waivers!
Comments:
The idea is good, but can be accomplished
*I guess this means that, currently, GenEd
by having some major courses count in goal is really a 38-credit program in most
areas and allow double counting between
majors. So that helps us include the PESS.
(2) Yes, both.
(5) Yes, double-counting.
___Yes, waivers.
___No.
Comments: The present waiver policy makes
no sense for a gene d program based on
goals rather than department/programs.
Perhaps some other waiver policy would
goals/major.”
“We need to do this in some form, but not
so that students can avoid Science and Math, which
we know they are currently doing.”
“May want to allow a course to double
count in major and Gen Ed (even if a single course
cannot “double count” for two Gen Ed
requirements.”
It does signal that your major is part of a
general field of study, so it has educational
purposes. Also, Education majors will be
nightmarish if this isn’t allowed.
*Must maintain flexibility or it will affect
graduation rates.
work.
10. Should we allow General Education goals to be met with coursework at upper-division levels (3xx and 4xx courses)?
(8) Yes
(7) Yes
(5) Yes
(1) No
___No
(1) No
Comments: “The transfer curriculum
Comment: *This should be especially true Comments: I look forward to this
now allows this. We should do more not
for controversial issues: Environmental
distinctive feature.
less.”
studies, MGMs, etc. Students will have
“But, only with uniform standards
more buy-in to controversial subjects if
for all departments.”
they see them central to their major
“Especially for ‘higher order
courses of study.
goals’ (e.g., integrative learning).”
11. What other structural issues should we consider at this time?
*Our program should allow more classes
*We can’t fix everything in four years.
that are part of majors.
*It should not just be at the
Freshman/Sophomore level.
*It is too big.
*Keep it easy for all students to
understand.
*Goal areas are great.
*No waivers or left-right columns.
*We’re stuck with “dual” programs vis-àvis MnTC. We will need to provide an
MnTC Gen Ed for transfers out, accept an
MnTC core as meeting those goal areas
that are a match for our own, and continue
with university requirements for our own
grads.
*The architectural structure of the
programs.
12. Are there issues other than structural that the GEC needs to address at this time?
*Consider how new Gen Ed will impact transfer
*Linkage to high school graduation
students.
outcomes.
*The goals will make it much easier for most of our
students who transfer from a school that uses the
MnTC.
*Also consider impact on DARS.
*It should not be a “make work” program.
Email from Dean Nook (12-12-06):
The constraints that I personally believe are important include:
1.
2.
3.
The general education curriculum must be transparent to students, faculty and staff. This means that it is relatively easy to understand what needs to be
taken to complete the general education requirements. I think this has implications for right-left column, flags to meet secondary requirements, waiving,
and double counting scenarios. I know that flags are being considered, and they might be able to be implemented in a transparent way, but in some
cases they are really identical to the right-left column arrangement we have now. The flags on certain courses give them more importance (i.e. make
them a left column analog) than the non-flagged courses (i.e. a right column analog) in an area. This should not be interpreted as a statement indicating
that flags won’t work. It is simply recognition that flags typically add a layer of complication that can impact transparency within the curriculum.
The general education curriculum should provide a straightforward conversion to the Minnesota Transfer curriculum. If this isn’t the case, then we
really do have two very different gen. ed. programs and this impacts transparency.
The general education curriculum really can’t exceed 40 credits. Many of the majors on campus are built around a 40 credit general education
curriculum (a few on one somewhat less than 40 credits). Increasing the number of credits in the general education curriculum would require these
departments to restructure their major and/or seek exemptions to the general education requirements to meet accreditation demands.
I think it is possible to get around the waiving and double counting issues by removing the constraint on the maximum number of courses that a department can
offer for general education credit. This constraint does not exist in the MnTC, and SCSU has acknowledged that in our MnTC approved general education
courses. I don’t know that removing the 5 course maximum would help with waiving and double counting in all colleges or even all departments in COSE, but I
think it might be something that should be discussed with input from each department.
I haven’t met with Michael or Mitch on these comments, so take them as my personal comments at the moment. I will try to speak with Mitch and Michael and
try to get let you know of any administrative constraints.
Suggestion cards—additional feedback:
Goal Area #6: Reason Scientifically and Understand the Natural World
Add learning outcome #8—“Evaluate natural science issues from a social scientific/historical perspective, question the
evidence presented, and make informed judgments about these issues.” Can be met by courses in COSS, ETS, HIST(?) as well as
(perhaps) courses in natural scientific disciplines that address the topics (e.g., history of biological thought, or chemistry, physics,
engineering, etc.—or, philosophy of biology, etc.)
Goal Area #11: Understand the Interrelatedness of Humans and the Natural Environment
Outcome 1: …and how human activities reshape ecosystems (to meet their adaptive needs and activities of other organisms)—
i.e., niche construction, not just adaptation.
Excellent job. I liked the new goal area on integrative learning.
Elimination of right/left column is the right move in the right direction.
Manageable goal areas (15 or 10?)
Goal area #11 should consider CLO related to science, technology, and their impact on human-built and natural world.
Incorporate social history of technology and its impact on environment.
All the goal areas should consider anthropological (especially cultural) elements. Perhaps integrative learning is a good place.
Thank you for all the hard work.
Drop PESS 122 as a University requirement.
Arguments Against Combining Goal Areas (#8, #9, #10):
 I firmly support keeping Goal areas 8, 9, and 10 as separate Goal areas. Each of those goal areas reflect distinct, though
interrelated, areas of study. To combine them, as some of the previous solicited comments suggest, would be to move the
university backward in its ability to prepare our students for living in a diverse world. It would also reduce the opportunity for
students to take courses that emphasize applied learning and that educate students about racial formations and diverse social
groups and the issues they face in the U.S. and globally. To do so would do our students a disservice in this transnational
world, would fail to reflect trends in several disciplinary trends throughout higher education, and would weaken efforts to
create a campus community and climate that are supportive to all students, including students from marginalized groups that
the university has difficulty recruiting and retaining. The courses that fall in areas 8, 9, and 10 go a long way in addressing


those issues, and, as each Goal area covers distinct content, I would strongly argue for keeping them as distinct areas. I also
strongly urge the committee to maintain the Racial Issues requirement for first year students.
All MGM and Racial Issues courses should be included in our MnTC.
With regard to Goal 8: Understand and Respect Values of a Racially and Ethnically Diverse U.S. Society, and Goal 9:
Demonstrate Concern for Individual Worth and Human Rights these must, I feel, be maintained as they are. I know that the
MGM requirements at SCSU have a long history, and it is therefore very important that we maintain Racial Issues as one of
the MGM requirements. SCSU has played a leading role in addressing the enhanced diversity and ever-changing
demographics of our society by making Racial Issues one of the MGM requirements. It is therefore essential that we maintain
goal eight and goal nine as clear and independent goals; issues of ethnicity, race, nationalism, identity, and transnationalism
will continue to dominate our lives in the twenty-first century, and the Racial Issues courses prepare our young people to
understand and come to terms with our increasingly multicultural, multiracial society, thereby allowing them to thrive in an
ever-changing world. To inhibit the spread of sectarian violence as it is happening now in Iraq and in other parts of the world,
we must maintain the Racial Issues requirement by which our students are exposed to a diversity of societal structures and
worldviews. Apropos of this matter, I take the liberty of attaching to this text a few newspaper articles documenting the
prevalence of hate crimes, racism, prejudice, and discrimination in our American society for the review of your committee
members' and you; these items amply demonstrate the need for us to educate our young people about racial issues.

I strongly oppose combining Goal Area 8: Understand and Respect Values of a Racially and Ethnically Diverse U.S. Society and Goal 9:
Demonstrate Concern for Individual Worth and Human Rights. From what I hear, the MGM requirement at SCSU dates back to 1993 and
it is very important that we maintain the Racial Issues and MGM requirements. SCSU is on the cutting edge by having these
requirements. With the racial and ethnic demographic change occurring in Minnesota and the United States, it is important that Goal 8 is
kept as a clear and independent goal for General Education. Consistent with the globalization and the new mission of President Saigo to
internationalize SCSU, it is essential that the students have an understanding of issues surrounding race and racism if they are to become
contributing global citizens.

I strongly uphold the Goals 8, 9, 10: Approach Issues from a Global Perspective, and 11: Understand the Inter-relatedness of Humans and
the Natural Environment the way they are currently written. These goals correspond with SCSU’s university mission to “be a leader in
scholarship and education for excellence and opportunity in a global community.” These very critical goals should not be diluted by being
incorporated into or combined with other goals.

The bulk of my comments relate to goals #8 and #9. I strongly believe that all students at SCSU need to critically
consider racial issues. As I relate to my students, whatever careers our graduates pursue, it will be essential for them to

have a basic knowledge and understanding of race and ethnicity as it affects American society. Target, Best Buy,
General Mills, and nearly every other corporation address race and ethnicity explicitly in their mission statements
and/or statements of ethics. Certainly, government agencies and educational institutions likewise place great emphasis
upon employees successfully interacting with others in a diverse society. Given these realities, our institution needs to
explicitly address race and ethnicity in its General Education Requirements. If for no other reason than the practical
concern that employers know our students have a basic understanding of these concepts, it is imperative that SCSU
retain a clearly articulated requirement regarding race and ethnicity in its General Education Curriculum.
The current racial issues requirement is a nation-leading innovation and should be maintained as part of the general
education requirements.
Other Suggestions:
The Women’s Studies Advisory Board also recommends … the learning outcomes for the Human rights area need to be broadened to
reflect the many courses that address that area, though they might not focus on policy (Gerontology courses, for instance, cover aging
and human rights, though they might not fit into that area as the learning outcomes are currently defined).
For Goal Area #8:
Goal Area 8: #3 This doesn’t make much sense.
Goal Area 8: #5 suggested change: Describe discrimination against non-white groups. Describe the contributions of white and
nonwhite people.
Race has to include white people. Students should understand the power of whiteness and any discussion of contributions to society
should not be limited to only non-whites.
For Goal Area #10:
Approach Issues from a Global Perspective
Globalization encompasses local-global connections so this part is redundant. It seems proposals one and two are very close
and need to be more succinct. Further, a global perspective has to include everyplace. There’s no need to make a sharp
distinction between Western and non-Western. The days of silly binaries are over. And the whole point of globalization is
that what’s Western and non-Western has been mixed up.
For Goal Area #11: Understand the Inter-relatedness of Humans and the Natural Environment
Suggested rewrite:
Explain the basic structure and function of various ecosystems.
Discern the relationships between bio-physical and socio-cultural systems.
Understand the social institutions involved in caring for, degrading, managing or using the environment
Critically evaluate the relationships among power, politics and environments
Understand and assess just, sustainable solutions to local-global concerns such as climate change, toxic waste disposal, water
scarcity, habitat destruction, sprawl, biodiversity loss and threats to livelihoods.
I have heard mentioned that Goal 11 (Environment) may be hard to meet with existing resources on campus. This may be a reason that
some have suggested combining Goal 11 with Goal 6. I disagree. Currently, seven SCSU courses meet the MTC People and the
Environment Goal; other existing and proposed courses could fulfill this goal.
The Women’s Studies Advisory Board also recommends redefining the learning outcomes for Goal area #6 (“Reason Scientifically
and Understand the Natural World”) should be redefined to recognize that environmental issues can be taught in the Social Sciences
and Humanities as well as the hard and natural sciences. A broader definition of this area would enable students to connect their
learning across the many disciplines that do valuable work on the environment.
Some Thoughts From Engineering:
1. Our collaborative class (and integrative learning class) is a senior level capstone project. This is an ABET requirement (but the form of it
2.
3.
isn’t). We would want Senior Design (2 courses, 6 credits) to satisfy both the integrative learning and the collaborative learning. It makes
no sense to do it at a lower level in engineering.
On “waivers”: the current Gen Ed gives us a “waiver” for Area B. To me, this is almost insulting. Our students take so much Area B that
they are well beyond what students from other parts of campus take. We satisfy Area B as part of the program. The language needs to
change. If a program satisfies an area as part of the coursework, it should be stated as satisfied, not waived. This should be true for all
programs on campus, most of which will probably satisfy one aspect of General Education as part of the coursework. Taking upper
division Art courses should satisfy at least some of the Fine Arts goal area, not waive the requirement. Same for Mathematics. This is
something that just bugs me about the language we use in General Education.
For an engineering student taking the current General Education: 3 credit waiver from the distribution, 3 credits in the program for Core 3
(Mathematics), 9 credits in Area B, for a total of 15 credits either waived or part of the curriculum. This leaves 25 credits of General
Education that our students must take. If this changes dramatically, we will have problems with our program. The MTC doesn’t work for
our students, since we can’t find 15 credits that fit into our program that match the MTC courses.
Addendum to Faculty Feedback Document [2-15-2007]
I was glad to see “age” included in goal #9, but concerned to see the sole focus of the student outcomes to be human rights. Is there room for
more outcomes? How many of the outcomes will a particular class need to meet?
I had a class (GERO 208 – Introduction to Gerontology) that is currently GEN ED and I had hoped to keep it there. Among other student learning
outcomes, I thought that the following should have fit under goal #9. Thoughts?




Understand societal stereotypes of aging and their impact on the diverse experience of aging
Understand the biological, sociological, and psychological realities of aging in order to be able to identify stereotypes that
lead to ageism
Know that older persons are a highly heterogeneous group and understand how the experience of aging is influenced
significantly by cohort, gender, social class, minority group status, and cultural/societal context
Know the current demographics of the world's aging population and understand the theoretical and applied implications of
these demographics
************************************************************************
I am concerned about the desire to collapse the goals primarily from what I can see out of expediency or perhaps some notion of efficiency. While
I agree that the list is long I do not want to see the areas dealing with diversity watered down. I think it is essential that these be kept intact so that
are students are not only able to thrive in a global community but in their own "backyard" where ever that may be. And as [someone else] pointed
out, the inclusion of aging is much appreciated. It is hard to see how courses will qualify for designation - will it be one or more. I look forward to
more on this and please let me know if I can be of assistance
***************************************************************************************************************
I have heard mentioned that Goal 11 (Environment) may be hard to meet with existing resources on campus. This may be a reason that some
have suggested combining Goal 11 with Goal 6. I disagree. Currently, seven SCSU courses meet the MTC People and the Environment Goal;
other existing and proposed courses could fulfill this goal.
**********************************************************************************************************
…If the number of goal areas need to be reduced, one way to do so would be to recognize that some of the skills that they cover, such
as strong writing and communication skills, critical reasoning, civic engagement, and integrative learning, can be developed through
many different courses and disciplines. We strongly support that all these areas be included in a General Education plan, and there
might be ways to acknowledge how they can be fostered through some of the other goal areas.
***********************************************************************************************************
Feedback from a COSE faculty member on Goal Area 14 (changes in italics bold):
Goal Area 14 [NEW]: Information Literacy & Technology [Change to Technology & Its Impact]
To effectively research topics using a variety of resources. To think critically as they gather, evaluate and use information.
Student Learning Outcomes:
Students will be able to…
1. Recognize an information need, construct an effective search strategy, and locate information using appropriate sources. [Not
sure where this belongs.]
2. Critically evaluate information and its sources in order to judge information reliability and accuracy, and discern its point of
view, bias, and authority. [Critical Reasoning]
3. Categorize, synthesize, and interpret information and data, and use appropriate technologies to communicate with an intended
audience. [Quantitative Literacy]
4. Demonstrate information technology’s impact on society (e.g., the economic, legal, social and ethical issues surrounding the
creation, dissemination, and use of information). [Demonstrate knowledge of technology’s impact on society (e.g., the
economic, legal, social and ethical issues surrounding the creation, dissemination, and use of technology.]
5. Demonstrate the technology skills necessary to accomplish the tasks described above. [Demonstrate the technology skills
necessary to accomplish tasks in an area of study of sufficient complexity.]
6. Apply information literacy skills and knowledge to appropriate academic disciplines. [Apply technology literacy skills and
knowledge to appropriate academic disciplines. (This would include #1 also.)]