General Education Annual Report 2008-2009
Draft
Membership
Member
Samantha Hines (co-chair)
Douglas MacDonald (co-chair)
Don Morton
Kate Shanley
Don Potts
Frank Rosenzweig
Maxine Ramey
Debbie Sloan
Julie Edwards
Tully Thibeau
Department
Mansfield Library
Anthropology & ASCRC
Computer Science
Native American Studies
Forestry
DBS
Music
College of Technology-Applied
Arts & Sciences
Mansfield Library
Anthropology- Linguistics
Term End
2009
2010
2010
2010
2010
2009
2009
2009
2011
2011
Subcommittee Membership
Group II: Mathematics
Dave Patterson, Mathematics (Chair)
Debbie Sloan, COT-Math & Gen Ed
Group III:a Modern and Classical
Languages
Robert Acker, MCLL (Chair)
Judith Rabinovitch, MCLL
Jim Scott, MCLL
Stephen Greymorning, Anthropology
Group IIIb Symbolic Systems
Don Morton, CS & Gen Ed (Chair)
Debbie Sloan, COT – Math & Gen Ed
Wendy Shields, Psychology
Merle Farrier, Ed Leadership
Luis Millan, Music
Tully Thibeau, Linguistics
Group IV: Expressive Arts
Maxine Ramy, Music (Chair)
Group VII: Social Sciences
Douglas MacDonald, Anth & Gen Ed (Chair)
Samantha Hines, Library & Gen Ed
Irene Applebaum, Linguistics
Dick Sattler, Anthropopogy
Steven Schwarze, Communication Studies
Group VIII: Ethics and Human Values
Albert Borgmann, Phil (Chair)
Ramona Grey, PSC (fall only)
Dane Scott, Ethics Center
Bradley Clough, Liberal Studies
Group IX: American and European
Perspectives
Jim Lopach, Political Science & Senate
(Chair)
Linda Frey, History & Senate
Paul Dietrich, Liberal Studies
James Randall, Music
Group X: Indigenous and Global Perspectives
Kevin Canty, English & Senate
Nicole Bradley-Browning, Dance
David James, Art
Group V: Literary and Artistic Studies
Frank Rosenzweig, DBS & Gen Ed (CoChair)
Casey Charles, English (Co-Chair)
Ona Renner-Fahey, MCLL
Rafael Chacon, Art
Group VI: Historical and Cultural Studies
Wade Davies, NAS (Chair)
Richard Drake, History
John Eglin, History
Tobin Shearer, AAS/History
Kate Shanley, NAS & Gen Ed (Chair)
Ulrich Kamp, Geography
Judith Rabinovitch, MCLL
Tim Bradstock, MCLL
Angelica Lawson, NAS
Gyda Swaney, Psych
Julie Edwards, Mansfield Library
Katie Kane, English
Group XI: Natural Sciences
Don Potts, Forestry, Gen Ed & Senate (Chair)
David Freeman, Pharmacy/Biomedical
Marc Hendrix, Geosciences
Garon Smith, Chemistry
Dan Reisenfeild, Physics
Ralf Judd, DBS
Review of General Education Courses
The General Education Committee worked through subcommittees to review all general
education courses with the exception of writing courses according to the revised criteria.
Approximately 360 forms were submitted in the fall. Follow-up and appeals continued through
the first part of the spring semester (see consent agendas presented to the Faculty Senate on
12/4/08 [link] and 2/12/09 [link]).
Groups II (Mathematics) and IIIa (Modern and Classical Languages)
Review of the Groups II and III GenEd courses was straightforward and largely represented a
continuation of the prior system. There was little debate within the broader GenEd committee
about the acceptance of courses in these groups.
Group IIIb: Symbolic Systems
There was much confusion regarding the review of symbolic systems courses and sequence.
Several additional communications were sent to department chairs regarding the review.
Dec 2nd – communication
According to the revised general education framework approved by the Faculty Senate on
October 11th 2007 students may substitute for the Modern and Classical Language requirement a
symbolic systems sequence required by their major and approved by ASCRC.
The General Education Committee has approved the appended list of symbolic systems courses
to be voted on by the Faculty Senate December 4th. Programs that require symbolic systems that
have not requested approval of a sequence need to submit a request to the General Education
Committee that includes reference to current catalog language and a pedagogical justification for
the requirement. This should be submitted in memo format electronically to
camie.foos@mso.umt.edu as soon as possible, preferably prior to the end of the semester. The
requested sequence must consist of courses on the approved list. It is hoped that the general
education course list will be finalized for vote at the February 12, 2009 Faculty Senate meeting.
February 3rd –communication
According to the revised general education framework approved by the Faculty Senate on
October 11th 2007 students may substitute for the Modern and Classical Language
requirement a symbolic systems sequence required by their major and approved by
ASCRC.
http://www.umt.edu/facultysenate/FSDocuments/FSDocs0708/ProposedGeneralEducationModel9-13-07.htm
The Faculty Senate approved the appended list of symbolic systems courses on
December 4th. The General Education Committee met yesterday to review follow-up
information. It seems there are still several programs that require symbolic systems that
have not requested approval of a sequence. Please submit a request that includes
reference to current catalog language and a pedagogical justification for the
requirement. This should be submitted in memo format electronically to
camie.foos@mso.umt.edu by February 9, 2009. If a sequence is not approved for the
major, students will be required to fulfill the modern and classical language
requirement.
Many majors currently require MATH 117 and a statistics course. However Mathematical
Sciences did not submit MATH 117 for review as a symbolic system course and recommends
that the terminal course meet the requirement. The subcommittee agreed with the
recommendation. The ASCRC Chair then contacted the departments with approved sequence
and informed them of the change in interpretation.
Group IV (Expressive Arts) and V (Literary and Artistic Studies)
Review of courses in these two groups was without incident and went very smoothly, with most
submitted courses accepted as GenEds under the new paradigm.
Group VI (Historical and Cultural Studies)
The subcommittee had concerns regarding the number of upper-division courses submitted for
review (see appended correspondence from Professor Eglin #1).
Co-Chair MacDonald Comment: The initial review of courses in this group was restricted to 100
and 200 level courses, dismissing all upper division courses without review. This was contrary to
instructions from the ASCRC and the Co-Chairs, which had told sub-committee chairs to be
“number-blind.” As such, after the initial review, another review of courses was conducted by
the entire GenEd group and several 300 level courses were accepted as being introductory and
foundational. Professor Eglin’s strict 100-200 level designation was contrary to all of the other
groups’ approaches to review, which was number-blind, meaning that if the course is
introductory and foundational, no matter what the number, it should be accepted as a GenEd
course. While not many 300 and 400 level courses made that cut as a whole, several were
accepted as GenEd courses across the groups which will be good for upper division students
looking for a higher level course. With that said, Group VI rejected more courses (mostly upper
division) than any other group, even after a second review with a more open interpretation.
Allowing some upper division courses as GenEds facilitates upper level students to double-dip,
so to speak, to achieve the 39 upper division credits and still get the GenEds.
Group VII (Social Sciences)
The Social Sciences groups reviewed numerous courses and rejected only a few. One course that
was rejected with objection from the instructor was MGMT 101 (Introduction to Entertainment
Business). The submitted course form did not meet the guidelines for a social science course in
two iterations. We instructed the course intstructor to submit the course again in the next annual
review (Fall, 2009) after considering our recommendations for changes. After some dispute, he
accepted those recommendations. Otherwise, the review of courses in the social science was
straightforward and unanimous in all course recommendations.
Group VIII (Ethics and Human Values)
The Ethics and Human Values Subcommittee drafted a check list for the review and identified
traditions of Ethical Thought (Documents appended #2). Several of the courses did not meet the
criteria at first, but revised forms and syllabi were received and approved. This was not well
received by many faculty members as communicated at the Faculty Senate:
It seems the Ethics and Human Values Subcommittee had a different understanding of
the criteria. Instructors teaching courses not approved for the Ethics and Human Values
group received letters that included a check list and a list of classic texts identified with
the traditions (Western, Eastern, and Native American). The Native American Faculty
strongly disagrees with one of the texts identified in the list for the Native American
tradition.
Co-Chair MacDonald comment: I would like to add that while the initial Ethics review was
fairly strict and may have offended some faculty members, the committee did a wonderful job of
facilitating courses improvements and revisions. As a result of the Ethics subcommittee’s
guidance, we have a good group of Ethics courses that are similar in approach regarding goals.
As Co-Chair, I greatly appreciated the subcommittee’s willingness to help and guide faculty
members to success in getting their courses listed in this GenEd category.
Group IX (American and European Perspectives)
On the whole review of courses in this perspective was straightforward; however, the overall
GenEd group disputed the subcommittee’s rejection of a Russian Culture course sequence. The
subcommittee felt that there was too much of an “Asian” point of view in the course approach;
the greater GenEd committee disputed this, feeling that Russia and the overall course (as
reflected in the form/syllabus) was largely a European approach. The course sequence was
accepted against the original recommendation of rejection. Otherwise, review of courses in this
group was timely and without conflict.
Group X (Indigenousand Global Perspectives)
Review of courses in this group was accomplished largely without incidence. The only real point
of debate was what letter designation to give it, due to the lack of available letters. It was
resolved to identify this group as “X” and Group IX as “Y”.
Group XI (Natural Sciences)
Several courses in this group were accepted initially under the condition that the course forms be
revised due to incomplete information; as it turns out, for whatever reason, several natural
sciences faculty submitted course forms that were not complete and were generally missing
complete syllabi and other pertinent information. In the end, most of these faculty responded
with revised forms and syllabi and the courses were accepted. Otherwise, review of courses in
this group was straightforward.
General Comment by Co-Chair MacDonald on the Review of General Education Courses: The
General Education committee owes a special thanks to Camie Foos of the Faculty Senate Office
and G.G. Weix (Chair, ASCRC and prior Chair, GenEd) for their help in facilitating the timely
completion of the review of General Education courses under the new paradigm. Without their
help, Co-Chairs MacDonald and Hines (and the rest of the members) would have likely not
completed the task as scheduled. The whole review of General Education appeared quite
daunting to the two co-chairs who had no prior experience in this process. As such, we are
grateful for the aid provided by Camie and G.G. to facilitate the completion of our task.
Appeal and follow-up process:
Department Chairs were notified of pending courses and were reminded that:
All General Education courses must be at least 3 credits, must be introductory and
foundational, and have no more than one pre-requisite. ASCRC may allow exceptions
for upper-division courses, courses fewer than three credits, and for courses with more
than one-prerequisite.
Several courses were not approved because they had hidden pre-requisites- the pre-requisite
course had a prerequisite, the course required senior standing or was restricted to majors. These
courses will require a rationale to be granted an exception.
Appeal Information:
Instructors wishing to appeal the General Education Committee’s decision may petition to have
the course re-evaluated based on additional justification. A strong argument must be made for
the course meeting the criteria and learning goals and it must be clear from the syllabus that the
course is introductory and foundational. Appeals will be reviewed by the appropriate
subcommittee and then by the General Education Committee as a whole. If necessary the
instructor will be invited to attend a meeting to answer questions. Appeals must be received by
the Faculty Senate Office (camie.foos@mso.umt.edu) by January 20, 2009 for review by
committee. Appeals received after 1/20/09 will not be considered until the following year.
Material for appeal should include a revised general education form with changes identified
(underlined). It is hoped that the general education course list will be finalized for vote at the
February 12, 2009 Faculty Senate meeting.
There were a few additional follow-up items that were acted on through email communications
and approved by ASCRC (see 3/12 consent agenda [link]).
Implementation workgroup
A joint workgroup with ASCRC was established to work through implementation issues. Chair
Macdonald served on the workgroup. It drafted catalog language and general education
conversion guidelines (see 3/12/09 Faculty Senate agenda [link]).
_____________________________________________________________________________
#1
Historical and Cultural Studies Communication
As background, I have been involved in the revision of gen-ed for the past eight years, serving in
the Senate, ECOS, ASCRC, and the Gen Ed Committee (which I chaired). A central concern has
always been that there are too many gen-ed courses, and that gen-ed designations have been
handed out too freely, and often on slight pretexts. Without due diligence, I fear we will be faced
with this prospect again. To wit:
In reviewing gen-ed proposals, the perspective 6 subcommittee noted that nearly half (30 out of
61) of the courses submitted for this perspective were at the upper division level. According to
the General Education framework adopted last year, the expectation was that gen-ed courses
would ordinarily be lower division courses, but that exceptions would be *considered* for upper
division courses. Given that these cases are supposed to be exceptional, I am alarmed by the
large number of upper division proposals in this perspective, and am concerned about the
possibility of similar proportions of such proposals for other perspectives.
The provision for these exceptions was a compromise adopted at the behest of departments
whose majors carried heavy lower division requirements. The proviso was that these courses
meet the standards for "introductory and foundational" as defined in the criteria for each of the
perspectives. Through discussions with ECOS and the chair of ASCRC, the only recourse
appears to be applying strict scrutiny to upper division proposals vis-a-vis the "introductory and
foundational" language. Otherwise, we risk the stillbirth of a major reform of general education.
____________________________________________________________________
#2
Check List for Submission of Courses for Group VIII
Ethics and Human Values
1. The ethics component will be introductory and foundational not just to the concerns of a
particular discipline, but to the conduct of life as an ethical and engaged citizen of local
and global communities.
2. The course proposals have to provide brief and explicit answers to the following
questions:
a. What specific tradition or traditions of ethical thought does this course focus on?
b. If the course focuses on a professional practice, what is the particular tradition of
ethical thought within which the professional practice is placed?
c. What are the basic ethical topics or basic concepts of this tradition or these
traditions?
d. What are the forms of reasoning in the particular tradition of traditions?
e. How is a rigorous analysis of the basic concepts and forms of reasoning provided?
Traditions of Ethical Thought
The following list is the result of the deliberations of the Ethics and Human Values
Subcommittee of the General Education Committee. It is not an exclusive list, rather it reflects
the traditions that so far have come to the attention of the Subcommittee.
I.
Western Traditions
There are three standard traditions.
(1) The ethics of rights and liberties, also called deontological ethics. The classic text
is Immanuel Kant’s Foundations (sometimes translated as The Groundwork) of the Metaphysics
of Morals. It’s best to read the first two sections (two thirds of the text) only.
There is a helpful paraphrase with notes available at
http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/pdfbits/miu1.pdf
(2) The ethics of pleasure and prosperity, also called utilitarian ethics. The classic text is John
Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism. For that text too a paraphrase and notes are available at link above.
(3) The ethics of moral excellence, also called virtue ethics. The classic text is Aristotle,
Nicomachean Ethics. It’s best to read the following books (chapters, we would call them) only:
Books 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, and 10.
There are many anthologies available, and they usually reflect the traditions above. Often,
however, they contain more text than you could cover, and they deal with specific and applied
issues that go beyond the basic traditions.
II.
Eastern Traditions
There are four major traditions and canonical texts for each.
(1) Buddhism: The Dhammapada, The Bodhicaryavatara (translation titles:
Bodhicaryavatara, The Way of the Bodhisattva, A Guide to the Bodhisattva Way of Life,
Entering the Path of Enlightenment).
(2) Hinduism: The Dharmasutras, The Laws of Manu, the Bhagavad Gita.
(3) Confucianism: The Analects of Confucius, Mencius or Mengzi, The Great Learning,
Doctrine of the Mean.
The
(4) Taoism, The Tao Te Ching or Dao De Jing of Lao Tzu/Laozi, Chuang Tzu or Zhuangzi.
III.
Native American Traditions
The following are some of the basic texts:
(1) Betty Bastien, Blackfoot Ways of Knowing: The Worldview of the Siksikaitsitapi. Calgary,
Alberta: University of Calgary Press, 2004
(2) Vine Deloria, Jr., The World We Used to Live In. Golden, CO: Fulcrum Press, 2006.
(3) Claire R. Farrer, Thunder Rides a Black Horse: Mescalero Apaches and the Mythic Present.
2nd ed. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, 1996.