Brian Schwartz
November 6, 2008 at 5:26pm

A new core curriculum should not be implemented without a detailed plan for assessment.

When the issue of core revision was first raised last year, many of us asked “What’s wrong the current core?  Show us evidence that it doesn’t work.”  Some responded: “Show us that it does work.”  Ultimately, no one can answer these questions because there has been little or no assessment done.

Let’s resolve that when the question arises again in ten years or so that we will have the necessary data to answer these questions.

Also, when formulating learning outcomes, we need to keep assessment in mind.  How will we assess each outcome?  Should we include outcomes that we can’t adequately assess?  I don’t know the answer to this question, but it needs to be considered.

Alan Gabrielli
November 11, 2008 at 5:13pm

We are all required to demonstrate to SACS that we are effectively delivering the general education component.  Unfortunately, the learning outcomes defined for our current core do not lend themselves to a workable assessment process.  See for yourself (http://www.usg.edu/academics/programs/core_curriculum/outcomes.phtml), there are 38 identified outcomes!  A good place to start would be to reexamine the USG gen ed outcomes and reduce them to a manageable list.

David Garrison
November 12, 2008 at 4:31pm

I agree with comments from Brian, regarding the importance of building the assessment machine along with the learning outcomes, and from Alan, regarding the need to simplify the “core” requirements. An additional thought: we would do well to avoid the notion that the outcomes of general education are only applicable to gen ed. Whatever those outcomes are, we should expect students to continue to show greater and greater expertise and adaptability with those sets of skills and knowledge in the work they do in major and minor courses. It’s a mistake to draw a circle around the core courses as the sole place in which those outcomes are to be pursued. (A similar mistake is the assumption that writing facility can and should be mastered in the composition sequence.)

George Rainbolt
November 16, 2008 at 9:38pm

[NB: This proposal comes from the chair of the USG Core Curriculum Evaluation Committee but it has not be discussed, or even seen, by any member of the committee (or anyone else except my wife) prior to being posted here.]

I think that there should not be very many USG-specified gen ed learning outcomes.  They should be seen as a minimum.  One merit of a limited number of USG-specified outcomes is that it leaves room for individual institutions to add gen ed learning outcomes in light of their specific missions.  Another reason to limit the number of System level gen ed learning outcomes is that institutions need to assess the gen ed outcomes.  More outcomes means more to assess.  Finally, I tend to think that it is better to do a few things well rather than attempting to do many things and therefore doing none of them well.  Relatedly, each of the USG Gen Ed Learning Outcomes should be general so that the many different institutions in the USG can take the route to these goals that best fits their mission.

As one previous commentator on the blog noted, the current USG Gen Ed Learning Outcomes contain of 38 learning outcomes.  It is not realistic to ask all USG institutions to assess progress towards 38 goals.  With these thoughts in mind, here is a proposal based on national norms. Outcomes 1, 2, and 3 are chosen because I believe that they are the most common gen edu outcomes at US institutions of higher learning.  See Tom Mundie’s useful Survey of General Education Learning Outcomes across the US. Outcome 4 is an expression of the fact that the vast majority of core curricula in the US (at both the high school and university level) require knowledge in the four areas of the liberal arts. 

Students who successfully complete the USG Core Curriculum will be able to:

Learning Outcome 1: Written Communication Skills
communicate effectively using appropriate writing conventions and formats.

Learning Outcomes 2: Quantitative Skills
effectively apply symbolic representations to model and solve problems.

Learning Outcome 3: Critical Thinking
effectively identify, analyze, evaluate and provide convincing reasons in support of conclusions; discover and overcome personal prejudices; and make reasonable, intelligent decisions about what to believe and do.  (This language is based on Bassham, et al., Critical Thinking: A Student’s Introduction, McGraw-Hill, 2005.)

Learning Outcome 4: Liberal Arts
effectively examine themselves, their society and other societies in light of the fundamental bases of human knowledge.  To do this, they will have an basic grounding in the content and methods of each of the four parts of the liberal arts tradition: the arts, the humanities, the natural sciences, and the social sciences.

Institutionally Specified Goals
Institutions are encouraged to add additional general education learning outcomes that fit their missions.  They may wish to consider goals such as:
  oral communication
  collaboration
  technology
  international awareness
  ethics
  civic responsibility/service learning

Hugh Hudson
November 18, 2008 at 10:26am

Core learning outcomes have to be general so that faculty at all of our units can investigate and experiment with enhancing student learning.  That said, liberal education for over 200 years has been based on the principle that an educated person must know how to “analyze” in order to free him/herself from the prejudices of the day.  We tend to call that critical thinking—during both the Renaissance and the Enlightenment it was simply called thinking.  To analyze one must be able to read and listen (critically) and to obtain power from knowledge one must be able to express oneself (writing and oral communication).  Finally one has to understand the nature of knowledge (an understanding of the sciences, social and natural, and the humanities).  In short, we should not abandon hundreds of years of knowledge in order to follow some fad.

Robert Maxwell
November 18, 2008 at 11:16am

While it may be the institution’s responsibility to report outcomes to the BOR, it will be the individual colleges and departments of an institution that will be compiling these results.  George is correct in that we must give the institutions the power to fit the learning objectives into their mission, but the colleges and departments must also be considered.  Individual colleges within a university, and departments with colleges, have specific missions.  The USG needs a simplified core learning outcome, but there must also be a bottom up process where the specific context of the different departments is considered.  Outcome assessments, by necessity, must originate from the individual faculty members of a given department, thus there is the need for discipline specific evaluations that can be presented to the institution and the BOR.  The Regent’s Exam does an adequate job demonstrating basic skill.  Deeper assessment must come in the context of the student’s chosen major.  Please note that I relate this to the context of the major.  There is no exclusion of the general concepts of the liberal arts, as most disciplines require at least a basic understanding and appreciation of multiple disciplines, but the evaluation must be in the context of the student’s major.  I am opposed to a system wide standard of learning outcome assessment, but instead, institutional review of individual departmental outcome assessment with the focus begin on whether or not the USG and Institutional objectives are being met.  Ultimately, it is the faculty of a department that can best judge if their students are meeting the learning outcomes established by the faculty, institutions and USG.

Joe Thomas
November 19, 2008 at 10:38am

To the “institutionally specified goals” I would add “viewing.”  Or maybe it should be covered somewhere else.  Anyhow, that’s an important skill—the ability to view critically, just like reading critically.

Also, it’s important to alleviate current imbalances in the gen ed distribution (which is weighted towards social sciences).

Stephen Taylor
November 19, 2008 at 10:55am

While I am firmly supportive of the idea of a core curriculum, and generally supportive of the definition that George Rainbolt offered above, I am very wary of a one-size-fits-all approach to assessment.  In an outcomes-based climate, will individual institutions still be able to determine the means by which success is to be measured? 

I also think it’s worth remembering that “not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts.”  Assessment, while important, should not be allowed to define everything we do as educators, lest we end up stifling innovation in the name of making everything fit into neat little boxes.

Bryan Davis
November 19, 2008 at 10:56am

The proposed learning outcomes for general ed are unexceptional and reasonable, but the problem will be how to apply them to a Core curriculum.  As an English professor with experience of the treatment of the Regents’ Testing Program, I worry that there will be a Balkanization of foundational skills, such as communication, and critical thinking, that should be taking place in all courses even if they are more central to some courses than others. I worry that most faculty members will expect that mathemtics departments, for instance, to be responsible for teaching quantative reasoning in much the same way that most faculty assume English departments are responsible for teaching reading. An effective assessment scheme should encourage all stakeholders in general education to show how their courses contribute to the full range of learning outcome acquisition, and development.

Kerry R. Stewart
November 19, 2008 at 11:00am

I tend to agree with the comments made by Hugh. We have had higher education for centuries where the primary method of “assessment” was whether the individual could think and analze critically. Everything is not quantifiable and more than that, should not be quantifiable. We already experience the problems of assessment in k-12 education. The student comes ill prepared to higher education because teachers are not allowed to teach anymore. The fad of assessment I firmly believe is counterproductive to our mandate. Educate the mind, not assess it.

Ed Green
November 19, 2008 at 11:07am

I think the question is wrong.  Shouldn’t we be focusing on the final product i.e. the outcomes for students receiving a bachelor’s degree?  By focusing on the core in isolation, we may actually diminish the overall educational experience.

Robert Bauer
November 19, 2008 at 11:48am

Learning outcomes and their assessment need to be considered together.  If the USG Core under discussion were to include Learning Outcome 2: Quantitative Skills, the BOR Regents Exam should be updated to include basic quantitative skills.  There are many measures on the market and teacher preparation programs statewide require students to pass both the Regents and the GACE I.

GACE I- Basic Skills Assessment- The Basic Skills assessment is designed to assess knowledge and skills in the areas of reading, mathematics, and writing. The assessment is composed of three tests—both the reading and mathematics tests consist of selected-response questions; the writing test consists of selected-response questions and a constructed-response assignment.

Anthony J. Giovannitti
November 19, 2008 at 11:55am

Are we doing a disservice to the students in the USG by not having a system-wide outcome that addresses the basic knowledge and ability to use and apply technology to solve problems, do research, etc?

Joe Corrado
November 19, 2008 at 12:22pm

The idea of adding civic responsibility to the core curriculum is a good one. I think that students need to have education tied to real life goals particularly political engagement. This would enable them to become empowered and overcome the lack of political efficacy that young people often have.

Camilla Baker
November 19, 2008 at 12:37pm

Along with critical thinking, information literacy is a broadly-based outcome that may or may not be addressed in current core curricula, either as a general outcome or as an institutional goal.  This is an area where faculty in the disciplines often note a knowledge gap between what they assume college students know, and the evidence given of what students know, either in the classroom or in course assessments.  In the current USG guidelines for the core, information literacy is mentioned as one of the basic understandings that general education is supposed to help students achieve.

Over the last several years, since SACS has apparently abandoned any mention of information literacy in its guidelines, some institutions in our region have adopted information literacy as their QEP.

For those curious enough to delve further, I have a page that describes information in general terms, with some data that is specific to Augusta State, at http://rlinstruction.pbwiki.com/What-Is-Information-Literacy .  If any readers wonder how this concept is currently applied at your own institutions, talk to your instruction librarians.

Fred Cohen
November 19, 2008 at 5:00pm

I like what George Rainholt wrote (11/16).  I wonder if “Learning Outcomes 2: Quantitative Skills
effectively apply symbolic representations to model and solve problems.” would include music notation?  One could make a compelling argument in favor…
I particularly like the way in which the goals he lists may be addressed in a creative, innovative manner, depending on the resources and imagination of the home institution.

Venu Dasigi
November 19, 2008 at 7:35pm

Two comments:

1. Absolutely, need to keep the number of outcomes small.

2. Anthony J. Giovannitti suggests an outcome that addresses the basic knowledge and ability to use and apply technology to solve problems, do research, etc.  Closely related to this would be an outcome that deals with the ability to understand the basic capabilities of computers, productivity tools, etc., and to make effective use of them.  It would be interesting to see if there is any consensus, if at all, on the level of need for such literacy, since we seem to take it for granted at some level.

Warren Church
November 20, 2008 at 9:11am

Why is anybody talking about “system-level student learning outcomes” and “national best practices” when this initiative evidently applies to the USG, but not its flagship and brain-trust UGA in Athens?

Why is the tail trying to wag the dog??

Until a satisfactory academic reason for the process to proceed this way is presented up front, the logic of this initiative will elude me.

Kristina Watkins Mormino
November 20, 2008 at 10:26am

Should the USG emphasize information technology competency by including it in a handful of core outcomes?  Well, that depends on how closely the outcomes are tied to specific courses, disciplines, and departments.  If individual institutions could address such an outcome through technology applications throughout the curriculum, that would be fine.  If the inclusion of technology as a core competency on par with written communication and quantitative analysis would result in a system-wide requirement that students take an IT course (like the current area-A requirements in math and English comp.), I am opposed. 

Most disciplines would argue that we do a disservice to our students by not assuring that they all learn… (fill in the blank with a prefered discipline).  To add a technology outcome might amount to privileging technology courses above any of the liberal arts. 

Perhaps there could be a broader objective: Research Skills.  This could include using technology to retreive and organize information but also the abiility to do things like perform research through scientific experimentation or gather information from print or archival sources.

Tim Crimmins
November 22, 2008 at 3:01am

The core curriculum is a distribution requirement for courses taught by the faculty of system colleges and universities.  While many of the courses in the core have common numbers and titles in each system institution, many of the faculty who teach these courses have wide latitude in determining their course content and requirements.  At the system level, the attention should be on a distribution framework that permits transfer from feeder institutions—two-year programs—to receiver institutions—four-year programs.  Learning outcomes should not be determined at the system level; rather, they should be worked out by the faculty at each institution for each area of the core, because faculty at the institutions determine what courses will constitute the core and then teach those courses.  Faculty develop learning outcomes for the set of courses that they offer in each area, assess whether students are achieving these outcomes, and then make changes in either the outcomes or the courses to improve student learning.  All of this needs to be done by faculty at the institutional level.  If there are to be system learning goals, they should be both simple and few.

Marika Lamoreaux
November 27, 2008 at 5:28pm

As an academic, my first instinct is to find out if anyone else has done work on a problem I am approaching, and that instinct has served me well here.  I did a simple google search “core curriculum learning outcomes” and found that many other schools have faced this challenge.  Rather than try to re-invent the wheel, I think it would be quite useful to investigate other schools’ models, and develop from there.

David Sehat
December 1, 2008 at 11:35am

It seems to me that the core of any educational curriculum should be concentrated on what used to be called liberal learning.  That is, it should ask the big questions and encourage students to acquire the critical skills necessary to ask and answer those questions.  In terms of skills, what I have in mind here is what Dorothy Sayers called the “tools of learning.”  These tools of learning are the essential end of any education, not merely the acquisition of workplace skills.  They inculcate the ability to analyze texts, ideas, visual artifacts, performances.  They provide students with an understanding of analysis, synthesis, and evaluation.  And most importantly, a liberal education allows students to become learners outside of the classroom, able to educate themselves and thereby advance through the many careers and challenges of their lives.  The core is what make a university education something more than an elaborate vocational/technical program.  Its ends are necessarily fuzzy, but still measurable and also essential.

Kristina Watkins Mormino
December 1, 2008 at 4:34pm

In the new proposed goals, Learning Goal 5 (U.S. and Global Perspectives) is redundant.  Since it does not require that students take courses with a non-U.S. or non-Western focus, it adds nothing that is not already accomplished by Learning Goals 4B and 4D, which require studies in the Humanities and Social Sciences.

By the way, according to the 1965 National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities Act, which created the National Endowment of the Humanities, the term “humanities” includes (among other things) history, modern and classical languages, religion, philosophy, and criticism and theory of the fine arts.  If the USG is to have learning goals broken down according to broad disciplinary categories, I’d like to know who is defining these cateogries and how.

Rodney Hill
December 4, 2008 at 10:58am

I agree with Stephen Taylor, Kelly Stewart, and others. The over-emphasis on assessment is putting the cart before the horse, in my opinion. Outcomes-based assessment tends to simplify and minimalize (see the pro-assessment comments above), not only threatening to defang the general-education core but also ignoring the immeasurable traits and benefits of our students’ becoming more enlightened.

Theresa Gerson
December 5, 2008 at 9:21pm

I appreciate the thoughtful comments posted prior to mine. As an American who lived abroad for 32 years, I returned to the United States four years ago when I settled in Georgia. Given my close observation and study of American culture since my return and especially my experiences in Atlanta for two years and here in Savannah for the last two years, my perspective is more like that of an eagle in the sky rather than that of a person on the ground.

Here is what I have been considering this past week:

1. “The need is real.  Arizona education statistics include: 1) below-average college going rates; 2) high remediation rates at the postsecondary level; and 3) feedback from business and industry that Arizona’s students enter the workforce lacking adequate preparedness for success.” Janet Napolitano, Governor.

2. “Are students experiencing a truly seamless education system?” Chris Gregoire, Governor of Washington (state)

These are only two statements of many concerns that have been expressed over the last 30 years in the United States about the quality of our public educational systems and its graduates. Since public education is neither independent of nor unrelated to the concerns of the federal, state, and local governments, we should not be surprised that a day of judgment would come at some time unknown to all of us. I cannot think of a single person who would hope to say on his/her graduation day: This was a wonderful experience. I had fun, I learned nothing, and I leave no different from who I was when I entered this institution (learning community). In fact, this has been foreshadowed for a very long time. The United States in no longer a pre-industrial society. There no longer matters that one can be skilled in a trade or successful in business and be illiterate. The benefits of being educated (= civilized) can no longer be restricted to the privileged whose social or economic standing buy them entry into the world of “leadership.”  Why would we want to return to the days when a person’s religion, class, colour, ethnicity, etc. determined what they could learn and how they could live?  We claim that even those who have disabilities of one sort or another have an important place in our society. The American Dream used to be that “given the opportunity a man can make something of himself in America.”

3. I for one intend to use the knowledge and skills I have acquired and continue to perfect. I intend to create a syllabus that shows what is expected and how to meet those expectations. I intend to use good strategies and methods, such as “curriculum mapping,” to plan how my courses fit with (align) with those of my colleagues in a way that the students have the opportunity to perform the best that they can. I want my students to leave my course armed for battle. I want them to wage war against ignorance, stupidity, lies, and the greatest illness of all – acedia.

4. I suspect that any revision of the core curriculum will, no matter the jargon invented, reflect the time-honoured purpose of “classical education”: the training of the mind. This is only possible by closely observing the world in which we live (science) ; thinking through arguments to judge what is not only valid but that which is true; to learn the structure and function of language in its spoken and written forms and use language clearly, logically, simply, and elegantly;  to be attentive to cause and effect and how different areas of knowledge relate to one another, to build a capacity for abstract thought (mathematics), to learn who we are and where we came from (history and knowledge of other people’s cultures who are similar to and different from ourselves); and to know what is right and to choose to do what is right (ethics, philosophy, religious beliefs). (The current economic crisis in the United States and across the globe is certainly connected to what used to be called virtue and vice.)

5. There is revolution occurring in the world today and it concerns what some might call “the right to be educated.”  Perhaps John Donne was right after all: “No man is an island.”

Recommended reading for thoughtful consideration:

Post Secondary Connection at http://www.postsecconnect.org/higher-educations-role-defining-college-readiness  and http://www.postsecconnect.org/files/align standards steps.pdf and http://www.postsecconnect.org/making-case

Connections Champions at http://www.postsecconnect.org/connection-champions

Missouri - P-20 Council at http://www.p-20.mo.gov/promising.html

Arizona – P-20 Council at http://www.governor.state.az.us/p20/

Washington – P-20 Council at http://www.p20council.wa.gov/ and http://www.washingtonlearns.wa.gov/

Colorado – P-20 Education Council at http://www.colorado.gov/governor  and http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?c=Page&cid=1228470148734&pagename=GovRitter/GOVRLayout

Delaware – P-20 Council at http://www.doe.k12.de.us/infosuites/ddoe/P20council/ and http://www.doe.k12.de.us/infosuites/ddoe/P20council/docs/NOv08P-20progress.pdf

Jessie Wise at http://peacehillpress.net/samples/2007_JessieWise_Essential.doc

Robin Huff
December 8, 2008 at 12:01pm

As is evident in many of the other state core curriculum documents, I too feel that the ability to deal with questions of values, ethics, or aesthetics as they are represented in literature, philosophy, religion, and the arts, is fundamental to general education.  In the Humanities section of the core curriculum I see a pressing need to retain the study of foreign languages to properly address this learning outcome.  Anyone who has traveled abroad and has been engaged in dialectic or even business negotiations can attest to the inadequacy of English in full participation in global issues.  An increased interdisciplinary approach to all of these fields of study, including cross-listed classes and team teaching, can only enhance educational goals at a research university.

Kathleen DeMarco
December 10, 2008 at 4:27pm

Venu’s point is important, since technical literacy in the age of social networks is a hallmark of the twenty-first century. It is important to note, however, that students often view social networks as entertainment, and they sometimes do not engage fully in academic technology because it requires a serious commitment from them. We have to assess, then, that they can use instructional technology effectively and efficiently.

Bernice Nuhfer-Halten
December 10, 2008 at 4:39pm

The Bologna Process, being adopted beyond Europe—in America (the continent, not the country) and elsewhere, needs to be taken into account in order to provide our students and graduates with global academic mobility and articulation. 
http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/

WIlliam C. Bogner
December 15, 2008 at 9:25am

The Undergraduate Program Council of the J. Mack Robinson College of Business (Council) would like to make the following comments with respect to the issues that the USG Core Evaluation Committee (Committee) was asked to consider for their report to Susan Herbst, Executive Vice Chancellor and Chief Academic Officer of the University System of Georgia.  The undergraduate Core is of particular interest to the Robinson College due to the large number of transfer students that enter the College each semester.  Further, the Council has worked extensively with two-year institutions that matriculate a large number of students to the Robinson Collage to assure that uniform content and standards exist for Area F courses.  The Council, therefore, would like to add those comments to those already posted here for consideration by the Committee.

With respect to the request for “Learning Outcomes” comments, the Council supports the decisions of the Committee as reported in the minutes of their meeting of November 24, 2008.  The Council thinks that is critical that the term “Learning Outcomes” be reserved for use on the institution level.  It is important that the construction of the Learning Goals should not be able to be interpreted by accrediting agencies as Learning Outcomes or part of a Mission Statement to which Learning Outcomes should be linked.

Additional comments are included in the other sections of this blog.

Camilla Baker
December 18, 2008 at 2:08pm

To my fellow posters Dasigi, Mormino, and DeMarco, as well as to any others who may agree with those posts up to this point, let me say that what you are proposing and questioning in your comments are some of the basic tenets of information literacy.

Technology is inextricably woven into the pursuit of any form of information.  Unfettered access to the ‘fun parts’ of internet—as either the repository of the information you seek or as the mechanism by which you get your hands on it—clouds the issue of serious information retrieval—you know, the kind of stuff we keep expecting our students to come to college prepared to do, whether they know how to or not.

True, much of the use of technology by late adolescents and young adults is social and recreational.  And, if the analytical and research skills that address serious information retrieval are not built into the curriculum in achievable ways that lend themselves to assessment, this will continue to be the case. 
We have goals that deal with skills.  Why not research skills, stated deliberately?

Paul Katz
December 18, 2008 at 3:13pm

I agree with Camilla Baker that research skills are important as learning outcomes in the Natural sciences.  I would also stress quantitative skills.

In looking at the draft document “LGoals2008-12-16-1.pdf”, I’d like to comment about the Learning goals for the Natural Sciences.  Currently it states:
Learning Goal 4C:  Natural Sciences
-Students have the ability to understand the physical universe and science’s relationship to it.
-Students have the ability to understand the changing nature of science.

I don’t mean to quibble with the current language, but I don’t see how a learning goal can be for the student to have an “ability to understand”.  Perhaps a student could “demonstrate an understanding of..”

If there are to be learning goals, then they should be achievable and assessable. These goals as written are vague and potentially trivial.

Callie McGinnis
January 12, 2009 at 10:49am

I thoroughly agree with Camilla Baker: Information Literacy should be spelled out as a student learning outcome for the core curriculum.

It is not enough to teach students how to use a particular database; they should understand what a database is. In researching topics for a college-level papers or projects, they should understand what a journal database is, and, especially, what a peer-reviewed journal is.  They need to know when it’s appropriate to use Google or Wikipedia and when they should be using authoritative scholarly databases via GALILEO.

Information Literacy should be interdisciplinary core competency.  USG graduates should be a notch (actually a few notches)above the person on the street who relies on Oprah and blogs for his/her information.

The USG goal of creating a more educated Georgia should include creating an information literate Georgia.

Marika Lamoreaux
January 12, 2009 at 11:25am

I think it’s a good idea that specific learning outcomes not be required, as different universities may be able to generate learning outcomes that are most appropriate to their unique situations.  However, I do think it would be quite beneficial for the committee to provide suggested or potential learning outcomes for universities to use as a starting point.  Universities could either adopt those learning outcomes, or use the suggested learning outcomes to guide generation of their own learning outcomes.

Pamela Hayward
January 12, 2009 at 2:43pm

One thing I have seen go wrong with this type of Core system is the territory grab by departments/units for representation in the Core. Departments start to make very broad claims that their unit is addressing many of the varied outcomes. Departments try to get as big of a piece of the pie as possible. At a prior institution I saw one nursing course deemed to be dealing with intercultural diversity since all people have different blood types and that would be addressed in that course. I also saw departments claim their courses dealt with communication skills because students “discuss in class.”

Roger Lloyd
January 13, 2009 at 12:55pm

We should be mindful that the reason for learning outcomes is to look for measurable evidence of weather our students are actually learning what we want them to learn. In order to complete an assignment cycle the two processes that need to be in sharp focus are an organized information gathering process, and a valid data analysis process. Both of these processes are required so that rational decisions can be possible, which may affect future policies, instructional design and evaluation practices.

Anna Holloway
January 15, 2009 at 2:45pm

I agree with Theresa Gearson’s statement, as follows:
“I suspect that any revision of the core curriculum will, no matter the jargon invented, reflect the time-honoured purpose of “classical education”: the training of the mind. This is only possible by closely observing the world in which we live (science) ; thinking through arguments to judge what is not only valid but that which is true; to learn the structure and function of language in its spoken and written forms and use language clearly, logically, simply, and elegantly;  to be attentive to cause and effect and how different areas of knowledge relate to one another, to build a capacity for abstract thought (mathematics), to learn who we are and where we came from (history and knowledge of other people’s cultures who are similar to and different from ourselves); and to know what is right and to choose to do what is right (ethics, philosophy, religious beliefs). (The current economic crisis in the United States and across the globe is certainly connected to what used to be called virtue and vice.)”
I’d like to emphasize that “knowing who we are” also requires being well aware of the history and knowledge of our own culture. The general public, including college-educated citizens demonstrates daily a lack of knowledge and understanding of how the U.S. came to be, including the contributions made over three thousand years or more to the belief in human liberty and the rights of the individual. Understanding of basic economic principles is lacking, as well. A state university system has some obligation to be sure its graduates are informed citizens in the broadest sense.

Liz Throop
January 16, 2009 at 10:55am

Mormino raises an important point regarding Fine Arts – that it is traditionally a subset of Humanities. I would add that Fine Arts education also involves Communication Skills and Critical Thinking skills. When we go on to consider how important Quantitative Skills and Global Perspectives might be to understanding Social Sciences, for instance, we see that rating one Learning Goal above another is a bit like choosing the most important leg of a three-legged stool. Students need some education in all these areas in order to move into their areas of specialization.

It is admirable to articulate Learning Goals, but we should use great caution when subjecting them to popularity contests.

Carol Bray
January 23, 2009 at 9:33am

As chair of RACL, Regents Academic Committee on Libraries, I want to submit suggestions for three examples of Learning outcomes that we will be using to promote information literacy or information competency.  Library personnel want to have representation in this effort and we realize that our area does not need the same focus as a course.  Following are 3 examples of Learning outcomes that USG library staff can use as a system for promoting GALILEO and GIL and individually at our campuses.

We have chosen two Learning Goals to attach appropriate Information Literacy examples.
For Learning Goal 1, Communication, we are suggesting one additional outcome:

-  students demonstrate an understanding of what constitutes plagiarism and acknowledge the use of information sources

For Learning Goal 3, Critical Thinking, we are suggesting two additional outcomes:

-  students have the ability to recognize when information is needed and have the ability to locate, evaluate, and use effectively the needed information

-  students have the ability to identify the audience, intent, value, and disciplinary perspective of potential sources of information

Thomas E. Rotnem, on behalf of the Political Scien
February 9, 2009 at 2:23pm

The Political Science Regents’ Advisory Council supports the efforts to evaluate and reconsider the USG core curriculum.  However, the membership of the council strongly urges and recommends that the proposed Learning Goal #5 be subdivided into two sub-goals, i.e., one pertaining to U.S. “Civic Engagement” learning objectives and one advancing students “global engagement.”  The first sub-goal would emphasize that all USG undergraduate students be expected to acquire an understanding of the American and Georgian constitutions and political systems, including institutions, policymaking processes, electoral processes, and citizen political participation.  These objectives can best be achieved through a system-wide USG core curriculum requirement that POLS 1101 American Governnment, or its successor, be required at all USG institutions of all undergraduate students.  The second sub-goal would emphasize many of the other globally-related learning outcomes already included in Learning Goal #5…. 
Furthermore, we believe that, while it is imperative that future generations of citizens and civic leaders be conversant in the fundamental elements of the American Political System/Georgia Constitution and Government and be knowledgeable concerning vital issues affecting the world, one course that serves both larger goals will be woefully inadequate.
Respectfully submitted,
Political Science Regents’ Advisory Council membership

Therese
February 19, 2009 at 11:15am

I would like to comment on the newly proposed learning goals/outcomes (Feb) particularly 4B Natural Sciences.
All of the other “content” areas had an outcome that linked the material to people/culture.  I think its important to show that sciences are integrated with culture, economics, etc. too.  I would propose to add a learning outcome that addresses the understanding of how science plays a role in the world.

Kristina Watkins Mormino
February 19, 2009 at 12:21pm

I applaud the committee for separating U.S. and global goals.  However, the following objectives now listed under “global” are very U.S.-centric: “-Students are engaged and informed global citizens, aware of global multicultural issues, and able to explain the differences among personal social, political and economic decision making processes at the state, federal and international levels of government. -Students effectively explore the place of the U.S. in the diverse realm of societies across the
globe.”  Other nations do not necessarily have state and federal levels of government.  Exploring the place of the U.S. within the world community should properly remain a U.S. objective.  At what point do we declare that our students must focus primarily on cultures, histories, languages, and politics other than their own?

Crawford Elliott
February 19, 2009 at 12:52pm

If it has not been said before then it should be said that the 4B objectives need to include knowledge and application of the scientific method. 

Also, following Therese, it should be stressed that humankind has impacted Earth tremendously the objectives should speak to the ways these impacts are approached and studied.  Again, application of the scientific method.

It is difficult to capture in short statements the concepts and knowledge you want students to learn in this area. The present form is open to much interpretation.

Elena B. Odio
February 20, 2009 at 1:41pm

Bravo for including the statement in Goal 6 that, “Students [should] have communicative competence in a second language.”  According to my chairperson, our institution has considered doing away entirely with foreign language courses.  Language24

Thomas E. Rotnem, on behalf of the Pol. Science Re
February 25, 2009 at 11:46am

On behalf of the Political Science Regents’ Advisory Committee, I submit the following learning goal (for Learning Goal 5: U.S. Perspectives) to be considered by the committee for inclusion in the draft USG General Education Learning Goals document:

“Students understand the constitutional principles and related political, social, and institutional developments and governmental processes fundamental to an understanding of American democracy and political participation, from colonial times to the present.”

Robert Batchelor
March 24, 2009 at 12:41pm

Why is it that the United States has a history under learning goals 1 but the rest of the world does not under learning goals 2?

There was a book by the anthropologist Eric Wolf back in 1982 called “Europe and the People Without History”.  It now seems that we have retreated from European history to be “The United States and the People without History.”

More to the point—is there an intellectual justification for shifting from a more comprehensive approach in which students are at least exposed to a little bit of the history of say China, India or Europe and shifting to “global multicultural issues.”

Finally, in the name of consistency why is the language “Western/Non-Western” in Learning Goal C and US vs. the World in Learning Goals I & II.

Kathleen DeMarco
March 24, 2009 at 12:55pm

The criteria in Learning Goal A1: Communications Skills could be strengthened with a line such as, “Students will be able to create digital messages and other mediated information for online informational platforms.”

The criteria in Learning Goal B: Institutional OptionsLearning is vague and could be made more specific.

DONNA KAY SLEDGE
March 25, 2009 at 5:41pm

It is my belief that education is leaving out the individual learner. We teach job skills and information needed for careers, somewhere in the mix we as educator need to teach individuals how to live. In our country, we have 66% of our population are overweight. 40% of adults in America are physically inactive (CDC-center of disease control). We have decreased the number of Physical education activity courses in middle school and high school and now we don’t even list physical activities as required as a part of higher learning.
I cannot help but wonder have we missed value of the individual learner and the longevity of their life. When we fail to include courses which enhance and elongate the lives of those instructed.
The center for Disease Control and Prevention 2005 and journal of the American Medical Association 29(3):293-294.Mokdad, A.H. ET al2004. Actual causes of death in the United States 200.Journal of the American Medical Association 291(10):1238-1245. Rank 1st Tobacco related 440,000 deaths per year and then 2nd Obesity related 112,000 deaths. There was a note to this research which presented a controversy, were the ranges 112,000 death or were they 365,000 death associated with obesity. For me either is too high.
It is my hope for Physical Activity to be a part of all studies at the college level. I believe the individual has to be healthy to have a higher quality of life.
Most individuals do not learn how to take care of their health, wellness and Physical activity from their work environment, should we not instruct them before they get to the work place.