1 / 30

approaches to general education

Philosophies of GE. Core or

Jims
Download Presentation

approaches to general education

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

    1. Approaches toGeneral Education Presented to the GER Task Force September 9, 2005

    3. Core or “Great Books” The aim of education (or GE) is neither pragmatic nor practical Fixed, prescribed curriculum Antidote to specialization (thus the term “general” education) In purest form – “almost unconsciously interdisciplinary”

    4. Core or “Great Books” Reminiscent of early colleges – when faculty were generalists Not found at Doctoral/Research Extensive universities (except, perhaps, as an alternative GE path)

    5. Scholarly Discipline Supporters of this approach view the Core model as backward looking and outdated Purpose of GE is to introduce students to a variety of disciplines Can sub-classify this approach: Familiarity Modes/Methods of Inquiry

    6. Scholarly Discipline Familiarity – no objective other than to introduce students to the disciplines Can imply categories (Natural Science, Social Science, etc) and open distribution Simplest model – probably the hardest to assess

    7. Scholarly Discipline Modes/Methods of Inquiry: essentially what NCSU has now (objectives for each category that emphasize the methods used in the disciplines) Implies categories and menus of approved courses (approval process varies widely)

    8. Scholarly Discipline Scholarly Discipline approach meshes well with the administrative organization of the typical research institution Allows faculty members to teach GE courses w/in their discipline – comfort zone for faculty, no need for awkward cooperation across departments

    9. Problem Solving/Citizenship Closely associated with John Dewey Dewey argued that the purpose of education was to prepare students to “change the world” Dewey argued that the Scholarly Discipline approach was “ivory tower”, focused on what faculty want to teach (as opposed to students)

    10. Problem Solving/Citizenship In purest form, students are required to go into the community and solve (or at least work on solutions for) real world problems Can lead to categories and menus type of approach Often emphasizes interdisciplinary courses and/or sequences

    11. Problem Solving/Citizenship Often includes a capstone course (or experience) that is focused on a single problem or issue The real point is not the particular problem(s) presented, but the development of students’ problem solving skills in realistic situations

    12. Blended Approaches Most common – most research universities have some prescribed courses in addition to ‘categories and menus’; capstone courses are becoming more common (although they are nearly always within the major) Most institutions at least pay lip service to problem solving skills

    13. Interdisciplinarity Most observers have concluded that “interdisciplinarity for its own sake” is not successful Successful interdisciplinary courses or sequences are tightly focused on a specific issue or theme (often a social problem or issue)

    14. Interdisciplinarity Examples of this type of thematic approach include: UCLA – “Clusters” University of Michigan – “Global Change Curriculum” University of Texas – “Connexus”

    15. Interdisciplinary Approaches Those involved with the development of interdisciplinary courses and/or sequences report that it is a difficult process The biggest hurdles are reported to be: Lack of imagination Budgetary implications Administrative hurdles

    16. Interdisciplinary Approaches An easier approach is to allow (or require) students to develop a “three course minor” The three courses can be from a single department, or can be from multiple departments but structured around a coherent theme

    17. Interdisciplinary Approaches Some universities have developed a number of these sequences so that students may choose a “pre-packaged” minor Many institutions require the minor to be “non-contiguous” to the major At some institutions, these approaches are offered as an alternative GE

    18. Multiple GE Paths Trend at large research institutions appears to be a system that is blended but with alternative paths to completing the GE requirements Students can choose the ‘Categories and Menus’ path; or a Core/Great Books path; or an interdisciplinary sequence focused on a single theme or issue

    19. Some Examples UCLA: “Clusters” – Students (freshmen only) take a 2 course, team taught sequence plus a small enrollment seminar that focuses on a narrower aspect of the theme Themes include History of Social Thought, Biotechnology and Society, and Interracial Dynamics

    20. Some Examples University of Michigan: “Global Change Curriculum” – Students enroll in a three semester sequence of courses that examine the physical/biological aspects of global change (GC1), the social aspects (GC2), and a team taught course that builds on the first two courses (GC3)

    21. Some Examples University of Texas: “Connexus” – This is a broad program that encompasses a number of programs directed (mainly) toward freshmen Bridging Disciplines – interdisciplinary sequences built around six broad themes; each theme has a faculty steering committee

    22. Texas - continued Students are required to take a “Forum Seminar”, an interdisciplinary, team taught introduction to the theme 12 to 18 hours of course work approved by the faculty steering committee Students must complete a “Connecting Experience” – either a research experience or an internship

    23. Examples - summary UCLA – allows faculty members to develop clusters in any area UM – focuses on a single theme UT – has six focus areas (but can develop sequences that focus on a specific aspect of the focus areas)

    24. GE Assessment Models Portfolio approach – IUPUI and Truman State University Students begin portfolios in freshman seminar, submit them in capstone course Requires careful design, costly implementation, and faculty must evaluate (using rubrics)

    25. Assessment, continued Sampling – samples of student work in various areas (typically writing and math) are collected Samples are evaluated by faculty committees using rubrics Samples can be collected from GE courses, non-GE courses, or both

    26. Assessment, continued Sampling – Oklahoma State collects samples from both GE and non-GE courses Georgia Tech samples from GE courses only Can sample portfolios for GE assessment purposes

    27. Assessment, continued Course based assessment: NCSU Virginia Tech uses course based assessment; courses are assessed on a five year cycle (rather than every year)

    28. Assessment, continued Pros and Cons Portfolio Pros: provides a large number of artifacts to assess Cons: can be expensive, requires a long term commitment by the entire campus; not clear how information gathered can be used for improvement

    29. Assessment, Pros & Cons Sampling Pros: Reduces assessment workload; relatively inexpensive; uses “real” student work from embedded course assignments Cons: Requires development of a single rubric (in writing, for example) that is to be used for all artifacts; must be some similarity across artifacts collected (implies similar assignments or prompts)

    30. Assessment, Pros & Cons Course Based Pros: Puts assessment under the control of those who are expected to make improvements; evaluates authentic student work; usually embedded (looks at artifacts that would be collected in any case) Cons: Can be time consuming if done every semester or year; does not get at the assessment of the overall program

More Related