General Education Committee Annual Report, 2013-2014
Membership
Nadia White, Journalism, Chair
Hayden Ausland, MCLL (fall)
Ebo Uchimoto, Physics (spring)
Susanne Caro, Mansfield Library
Linda Frey, History (fall)
Tobin Shearer, History / AAS (spring)
James Randall, Music
Kimberly Reiser, Applied Arts & Sciences
Angela Dresselhaus, Mansfield Library
Khaled Huthaily, Anthropology
Lilian Calderon, BMED
Mark Cracolice, Chemistry (spring)
2014
2016
2014
2016
2015
2015
2015
2015
2015
2016
Student Member
Tucker Squires
Regular Guest Attendee and Contributor
Sue Bradford, Missoula College- Applied Arts and Science
ADDITIONAL REPRESENTATIVES (Ex-Officio)
Arlene Walker-Andrews, Associate Provost
Joe Hickman, Interim Registrar
Nancy Hinman, Interim Associate Provost
Beth Howard, Interim Director, Office for
Student Success
General Education Course Review
The General Education Committee reviewed 21 proposed courses for general education groups
and 10 one-time only experimental general education courses. Most of these were for the Global
Leadership Initiative. Three of the one-time-only courses were not approved and 7 of the
proposed existing courses were not approved for general education. Four of these were 300 level
courses taught in French. The instructor appealed the committee’s decision, but the Committee
was not persuaded. One course was recommended for a different group, a revised form was
submitted and it was approved.
Two history courses (HSTR 364, Environmental History and HSTR 472, Problems of Peace and
Security) to be offered one last time as Ethics courses. Both faculty members are retiring and did
not submit paperwork for the last review cycle. The courses will be removed from History’s
curriculum after this spring. The courses have been taught as Ethics courses for the past 20
years. The exception was granted for the courses.
The four-year rolling review of Historical & Cultural, Natural Science and Mathematics began
last spring and continued this fall. Six additional courses were renewed for the Historical and
Cultural Group and 10 for Natural Science. One of the Historical Courses was recommended to
transition to Literary and Artistic Studies. The rolling review consent agenda was presented to
the Faculty Senate in December and changes were entered for the fall 2014 catalog.
Two history courses (HSTR 364, Environmental History and HSTR 472, Problems of Peace and
Security) were granted an exception to be offered one last time as Ethics courses. Both faculty
members are retiring and the courses will be removed from History’s curriculum..
Again there seems to be some issues with the clarity of the criteria and learning goals for some of
the groups. For example there has been some contention over the Ethics and Human Values
Group. One proposed ethics course: LSH 389, Placebos, The Use of Words was not
recommended for approval but was approved by the full committee. The Committee also
considered an appeal for an ethics course that was denied: CHMY 302 Chemistry Literature &
Scientific Writing. It went through several iterations in order to be approved. There is concern
that Ethics courses not be too specialized, but there appears to be the need for professional ethics
to count for general education for some of the professional programs and sciences considered
extended majors due to credit requirements in excess of 120 for graduation.
This spring the review of Literary & Artistic Studies, American & European, and Indigenous &
Global was conducted. Courses approved in 2011 or later were exempt from the review and
programs were given a one-year grace period. Many of the forms were not filled out properly
and revisions were requested. In addition many of the justifications for inclusion of upperdivision courses were missing or insufficient. The Committee will consider creating an FAQ or
provide guidelines for reasonable reasons for upper-division courses to be include in general
education.
Courses
Existing Submitted Exempt
Approved Followup
pending
Not
approved
Will
contact to
submit in
the fall
Literary &
Artistic
Studies
47
32
2 remove
3
34
6
2
American &
European
25
15
3
15
Indigenous
& Global
58
43
8
22
5
removed
9
2
12
Three experimental courses were approved for one-time-only general education designation
during the spring. The courses missed the fall deadline due to the delay in available budget
notifications.
Language Requirement Motion
After considerable debate and follow-up email correspondence from Senators, and additional
efforts by ASCRC, the motion: “Effective fall, 2015, undergraduate students must fulfill the
general education modern and classical language requirement (and cannot use a symbolicsystems exception to this requirement) unless they are enrolled in a program of study requiring
over 48 credits for a first baccalaureate degree.” was approved by the Faculty Senate on
February 13th
In order for the motion to be implemented by fall 2015 the exemptions to the language
requirement will be reviewed next fall. ASCRC drafted a form to be used for this process.
Continued discussion of issues with the criteria and learning outcomes for Indigenous &
Global and American & European Groups
The Committee discussed the difficulty with the definitions of American and European and
Indigenous and Global perspectives. Last year’s American and European workgroup proposed
three options: 1) eliminate the category, 2) fix criteria and learning goals with minor changes to
clarify criteria, 3) realign group with other groups to address overlap with other areas and clarify
alignment of groups with the MUS core, and 4) review entire General Education Framework.
Both the American and European and Indigenous and Global Perspectives are so broad that they
are ambiguous. It is unclear whether the distinction is between geography, discipline, or identity.
Because of this the Committee considered the possibility of a diversity requirement which would
align better with the MUS Core. The Ethics category is inherently American & European, but
the criteria and learning outcomes could be refined to allow for professional ethics and include
respect for others. The History and Culture perspective could be narrowed by removing the
culture component.
The general education framework might be easier to manage with fewer clearly stated categories.
Any revision must consider the pragmatics of assessment.
The committee compared the MUS Core to UM’s and MSU’s General Education Requirements.
The major differences from UM’s program include:
o
o
o
o
Ethics and Human Values
Upper-division Writing in the major
Language requirement
Two of the MUS Core categories (Social & History and Humanities & Fine Arts )
require 6 credits and give students the choice.
o MUS Core has an American Indian Education for All Component
The MUS Core categories have stronger criteria and learning goals. UM’s program is more
discipline bound. Montana States general education program (Core 2.0) aligns better with the
MUS core, but has some differences. It specifically requires a Social Science and Fine Arts
course, and requires courses in Contemporary Issues in Science, University Seminar,
Quantitative Reasoning, and is very clear about the College Writing.
Assessment
Associate Provost Walker-Andrews spoke to the Committee on February 19th about the
accreditation requirement to assess the University’s General Education Program. The third year
self-study addresses the core themes, resources, and various standards. Section 2C.9 and 2C.10
concern General Education. The seven-year report must show evidence of assessment:
2.C.10 The institution demonstrates that the General Education components of its
baccalaureate degree programs (if offered) and transfer associate degree programs (if
offered) have identifiable and assessable learning outcomes that are stated in relation to
the institution’s mission and learning outcomes for those programs.
The committee reviewed expectations, existing general education assessment programs from
other universities, the history and intention of general education at the University of Montana,
and various evaluation rubrics, including the Essential Learning Outcomes Rubrics. A Moodle
shell was set up to house all the materials considered by the committee.
Assessment of General Education has been, and continues to be an ongoing concern central to
the work of the General Education Committee. (See Gen Ed Current Assessment Activities,
attached.)
Assessment of General Education can be conducted in a variety of ways and the General
Education Committee reviewed options, examples and models, including:


Assess each of the general education perspectives. Ask instructors how they are assessing
learning outcomes. Randomly select courses and students’ answers to test questions or some
other assignment. One concern with this approach is the perception of assessing the faculty
member’s teaching.
Review and revise the General Education mission statement/preamble to ensure its goals are
assessable then develop a mechanism to assess students’ demonstration of those goals before
they graduate. Then create a new mechanism for measuring the stated outcomes. One
suggestion was to use work produced in capstone courses as points of assessment. The
committee was concerned that the current goals are difficult to assess outside of a broad
portfolio review.
Currently, the goals of the preamble are:
To develop competent and humane individuals who are informed, ethical, literate, and
engaged citizens of local and global communities. Students should become acquainted
with issues facing contemporary society, participate in the creative arts, develop an
understanding of science and technology, cultivate an appreciation of the humanities, and
examine the history of different American and global cultures. Upon completion of the
general education requirements students should be able to articulate ideas orally and in
writing, understand and critically evaluate tangible and abstract concepts, and employ
mathematical and other related skills appropriate to a technologically focused society.
The rolling review of the general education perspectives assesses the inputs and reviews syllabi
and stated course goals for alignment with Gen Ed goals. In 2014, an assessment section was
added to the general education form for faculty to state specifically how learning outcomes will
be measured. This should start the process of collecting metrics and ensure that departmental
assessment of outcomes addresses General Education goals as well as departmental goals.
The committee discussed the challenges of a campus-wide assessment of goals as broad and
foundational as those set forth in UM’s General Education. The assessment should be systematic
and involve shared definitions. A four-point rubric is typically used. Associate Provost Walker
Andrews indicated that a sample size of perhaps 50 students from each general education area
would be acceptable. There are several levels where the assessment could take place.
A new self-reporting Likert survey from the preamble was drafted (appended). It evaluates
perception /opinion not the educational experience, but may fill in some of the gaps. The
Committee will explore having GLI students complete the survey since they are randomly
selected. The committee acknowledged that both student self reports and grades are insufficient
to evaluate student learning outcomes. Assessment of student work would be the gold standard,
but implementing such a portfolio review, to evaluate the full range of general education goals, is
far more complex than a single perspective review, even one as complex as the new writing
assessment review process at UM.
It will be difficult to develop a mechanism that fits everything. Several examples of types of
assessment were discussed. Such as asking students the same question at the beginning of the
semester and at the end, or collecting portfolios of random students’ work embedded in courses
from diverse disciplines. Moodle could be used for instructors to upload students work as
evidence of their learning course outcomes. The Committee could start by asking instructors
teaching general education course on Moodle to send student artifacts.
Another option would be to look into the possibility of portfolio review for assessment. The
Committee could investigate whether individual programs /schools accreditation reports include
assessment data that could be linked to the essential leaning outcomes /general education.
Student focus groups and survey results might be feasible.
Although portfolio review is the gold standard for assessment, testing actual outcomes by
evaluating student work is complicated. Collecting student outputs from current general
education courses offered on Moodle could be an option, but would require extensive work on a
rubric and logistics. The Oregon Model involved individual professors’ using value rubrics and
holding discussions. It seemed very involved and time consuming. Another suggestion was to
collect student work from discipline capstone courses to see whether they cover some of the
learning outcomes implied in the preamble.
One thing the committee can do now is improve the collecting of data on the current evaluation
of the groups in terms of how many forms were incomplete, required follow-up, were approved,
or denied.
Although the Committee adopted the Essential Learning Outcomes as a tool for assessment at the
recommendation of Associate Provost Walker-Andrews, actual adoption of this national standard
to evaluate UM’s General Education Program would required too complete an overhaul of the
program to be effective in a timely manner. In order to actually use the essential Learning
rubrics it would be necessary to revise the general education criteria and learning outcomes to be
parallel with the Essential Learning Outcomes language. For now, the Essential Learning
Outcomes may be a resource, but not, ultimately, a guiding document.
Additional Discussion Items
Board of Regents General Education Council
Chair White attended the BOR General Education Council meeting in Helena and discussed
revisions to the MUS Core courses.
Other concerns about General Education
The current program does not prepare students to be engaged citizens through
experience in discourse.

Technology / computer literacy is a proficiency component missing from the General
Education program.

It seems that some majors offer many general education courses and do not encourage
their students to take courses outside of the major. There has long been tension between
the professional programs and the liberal arts. One possibility would be to differentiate
that students pursuing a Bachelor of Arts degree are expected to take general education
courses outside of their major, but students pursuing a professional degree may satisfy
several general education courses within their major. This is another area where data
would help to determine whether this is a pervasive issue. It should be possible to get
data from the Registrar’s Office as long as the committee is very specific about what is
needed. The Committee could also consider conducting a survey.
Concerns about recommendations in the President’s Advisory Academic Planning
Group’s impact on General Education
Chair White asked that the Committee consider three questions/ issues:
1) The relationship of the Global Leadership Initiative and General Education
2) How should the General Education Committee work to ensure a broader campus
understanding that interdisciplinary, international and global courses are already part of
the General Education course offerings and programmatic goals?
3) What is the role of a traditional liberal arts education at a public research institution?
Attachments/
Spring 2014
A memo on the state of General education assessment
at the University of Montana
Assessment of the University of Montana’s General Education program was initiated in 1984 and was
most recently revised in 2009 after a broad restructuring of the General Education program was
approved by the Faculty Senate in 2008. That revision signaled the beginning of a four-year cycle of
review at two levels of the General Education Program: Each perspective is reviewed as are the courses
that comprise each perspective up for review. The committee is completing the first turn of that review
cycle in Spring 2015.
The General Education program for the University of Montana Mountain Campus requires at most 49
credits of approved General Education credits. Students may opt to take more designated classes, but
there are several ways that students might satisfy the General Education course load by taking fewer
than 49 credits. For example, a student might test out of the language requirement, double dip in one or
two perspectives, transfer into UM with a completed Associates degree, or pursue a major for which a
symbolic systems class has been approved instead of a foreign language.
Course review
Courses for which General Education status is newly sought are reviewed for suitability each autumn.
Review of existing General Education courses is completed each spring.
The process for reviewing existing courses is cyclical and occurs concurrently at two levels. Courses are
reviewed every three years by way of a rotation through the perspectives. Major changes of a course
may trigger an early review. In turn:


Each course is reviewed to see if it satisfies the goals of the perspective it represents.
Each perspective is reviewed to see if the goals of the perspective are clear and appropriate to
the General Education mission;
Course review is completed by a subcommittee comprising a chair from the General Education
Committee and members of the faculty at large and the General Education Committee who teach in
fields relevant to the perspective. The subcommittee specifically reviews the course syllabi and narrative
provided by the sponsoring faculty member to ensure the clear description of:




the goals of each General Education class,
how those goals satisfy the intent of the perspective,
how the goals will be met in the class,
and how achievement of those goals by the students is to be measured by the faculty member
who teaches the class.
Assessment of individual courses and student performance remains in the hands of the faculty who
teach each General Education course and their respective department.
Courses that fall short in subcommittee review are returned to the sponsor for revision before being
considered by the full General Education Committee. Where no resolution is reached, a grace period of
course review is extended and the sponsoring faculty member is asked to complete clarifications and
resubmit for review during new course review in the Fall. If that fails, the General Education designation
for the course is removed from the course catalog the following year.
Currently, 90 courses are under review by subcommittees from the perspectives Literary & Artistic (38,)
Global & Indigenous (37), and European & American (15). A substantial minority of the courses
reviewed was returned for revision. A subset of those has entered the grace period and may seek
further review in the Fall.
Perspective review
When preparing to address individual courses up for review, the subcommittee considers the
perspective as a whole to be sure the perspective description and goals are clearly stated and useful to
the committee and that the perspective articulates clearly with the General Education preamble.
The subcommittee reports perspectives that require clarification or revision to the full General
Education Committee and remedial actions a re considered. Those actions may include improving the
perspective definition, overhauling the perspective description or goals, or recommending elimination
or replacement of the perspective to the Academic Standards & Curriculum Review Committee.
Currently, three of the eight perspectives overseen by the General Education Committee are under
review as part of this process: Indigenous and Global Perspectives, American and European Perspectives
and Ethics and Human Values. Additionally, any perspective may be brought up for review by a vote of
the majority of the committee membership.
Program outcome review
During the completion of the first full cycle of review several concrete steps have been taken to initiate
the process of developing program level assessment of the General Education Program, the next step
towards a comprehensive assessment strategy. The committee has:






Reemphasized the University of Montana’s commitment to a Liberal Arts education by clarifying
the foreign language requirement.
Seen the completion of a pilot project of authentic assessment of the Writing perspective of the
General Education requirements and initiated planning of the next perspective-level assessment
pilot project.
Evaluated UM’s General Education mission statement for its potential to be assessed. As a
result, the committee revised the course renewal request form to require faculty to identify
specific assignments used to evaluate student’s grasp of key concepts related to the Gen Ed
perspective assigned to that course.
Identified perspectives that are more readily assessed, and those for which defining language
posses assessment challenges.
Created an assessment survey tool for evaluating student perceptions of the General Education
material they have studied.
Initiated review of assessment models that examine student outcomes and identify existing
relevant data and resources for the assessment of program goals and learning objectives. These
include tools such as The Essential Learning Outcomes and VALUE rubrics developed by the
Association of American Colleges and University.
As the school year draws to a close, the committee would like to draw attention to two areas of
concern: Assessment workload and General Education disengagement.
Assessment workload
As a committee, we support the call for student-level assessment and concur that examining student
outcomes is an important metric for evaluating our educational mission. At the same time, even as we
develop a model for student-level program assessment, it is increasingly clear that the task of additional
assessment falls on members of the faculty without a concomitant work reduction.
This committee believes that Gen Ed instructors already complete student-level outcome assessment.
As such, assessment is more appropriately overseen at the departmental level. It is likely that the same
faculty completing assessment at the departmental level would be the most taxed by an additional, an
in some ways redundant and less personal, assessment at the campus-wide level. We view our task as
one of empowering departments to coordinate and collect the results of student assessment rather
than adding another layer of bureaucracy and work for faculty.
Disengagement
The General Education Program at the University of Montana affects almost everyone involved in
undergraduate education but few outside of this committee claim responsibility for it. And so it is of
concern that several efforts to restructure the undergraduate curriculum appear to misunderstand the
General Education Program and would benefit from the participation of a knowledgeable advocate for
General Education.
Specifically, areas of concern include:

The release of the Task Group on Academic Programming report in 2013 illustrated a broad
misunderstanding of the General Education Program. The group reported it was unable to avoid
the General Education program in its work, yet never consulted with the General Education
Committee and suggested a variety of contradictory changes to the Gen Ed Program.

Initiation of the Academic Alignment and Innovation Program has begun, using the Academic
Programming report as a springboard without specifically seeking involvement from the General
Education Committee or broader Gen Ed community.
In sum, the General Education Committee is charged with advocating for a strong liberal arts education
through a well-structured set of undergraduate requirements. While assessment of the program is
appropriate and ongoing, development of a student-level assessment of General Education’s broad
goals is not an appropriate use of faculty resources at this point in time. The implementation of such an
assessment will duplicate departmental level assessment, prove prohibitively expensive, and take years
to implement. Such an effort will likewise preclude investment of faculty time and energy at higher level
planning that appears likely to alter the General Education Program before an assessment program can
be implemented.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………
General Education Assessment Survey
The General Education Program at The University of Montana –Missoula articulates the following
objectives:
Students completing the General Education Requirements of The University of
Montana – Missoula will…








Become acquainted with issues facing contemporary society
Participate in the creative arts
Develop an understanding of science and technology
Appreciate the humanities
Examine the history of different American and global cultures
Able to articulate ideas orally and in writing
Understand and critically evaluate tangible and abstract concepts
Employ mathematical and other related skills appropriate to a
technologically focused society
The following survey instrument will assess student perceptions concerning whether or not this program
succeeded in accomplishing its stated objectives:
General Education Questionnaire
Please complete the following information:
Age: _______
Gender: ______
Culture/Ethnicity: ____________________________________
In what semester/year did you complete the General Education requirements: ___________________
Did you complete all of your General Education coursework at University of Montana? Yes ⬜
⬜
No
For each item below, please indicate one response that best reflects your learning
experiences in completing the University of Montana General Education Program.
1. General Education courses provided me with an awareness of issues facing contemporary
society.
⬜ Strongly Agree
⬜ Agree
⬜ Undecided
⬜ Disagree
⬜ Strongly Disagree
2. My General Education courses included opportunities to participate in one or more of the
creative arts (drama, dance, music, fine arts, oratory, or writing).
⬜ Strongly Agree
⬜ Agree
⬜ Undecided
⬜ Disagree
⬜ Strongly Disagree
3. General Education courses helped me develop an understanding of science and technology.
⬜ Strongly Agree
⬜ Agree
⬜ Undecided
⬜ Disagree
⬜ Strongly Disagree
4. I have a greater appreciation of the humanities as a result of my General Education courses.
⬜ Strongly Agree
⬜ Agree
⬜ Undecided
⬜ Disagree
⬜ Strongly Disagree
5. General Education courses required me to examine the history of different American and global
cultures.
⬜ Strongly Agree
⬜ Agree
⬜ Undecided
⬜ Disagree
⬜ Strongly Disagree
6. General Education courses improved my ability to articulate ideas orally and in writing.
⬜ Strongly Agree
⬜ Agree
⬜ Undecided
⬜ Disagree
⬜ Strongly Disagree
7. As a result of General Education courses, I can understand and critically evaluate tangible and
abstract concepts.
⬜ Strongly Agree
⬜ Agree
⬜ Undecided
⬜ Disagree
⬜ Strongly Disagree
8. Completing the General Education requirements improved my ability to employ mathematical
and other related skills appropriate to a technologically focused society.
⬜ Strongly Agree
⬜ Agree
⬜ Undecided
⬜ Disagree
⬜ Strongly Disagree