lorrie hoffman
December 10, 2008 at 4:12pm

this is my first visit to the blog.  i should have done so to see what is up since about a year ago when there was a pause in the core revisions.  i disliked both of the plans put forth on the core revisions and will admit it is due to my own bias that i think that quantitative courses need more emphasis.  if we really are thinking 21st century then look around!  everyone has blackberries, bluetooth etc.  database/information is exploding and needs to be harnessed.  i do believe in a good general education that facilitates instruction in ‘how to learn’ but after that we need to recognize that for the US to remain near the front of industrial giants we need to have good communications, data etc. technicians.  oh, and now onto comments on the survey.  i think it is a bit scarey that we are being asked to help formulate the survey…seems someone is gun-shy after the last bad start.  perhaps we should hire nielsen
http://www.nielsen.com/  i have a contact. 

Richard McGrath
December 10, 2008 at 5:41pm

Overall comments:
1. This is a sloppy draft. Consider having a few of the many USG faculty who write surveys work on it. I’m guessing by the quality of the draft that most of your committee lacks the experience to write, collect and analyze survey data. Please make sure you use some of us who know how to handle survey data to analyze it for you.

2. The survey does not include questions about the respondents such as rank, discipline, teaching duties, advising duties, etc. To come up with sensible results from this study, the analysis should be weighted by our experience in dealing with these issues. For example, I advise more than 100 students per term. Many have transferred in and many are transferring out. My experience on transfer issues should be weighted more heavily than the responses by faculty who don’t handle transfer students. I do not teach sciences, and am likely to respect the opinion of science faculty on which content of their disciplines is most appropriate to the 21st century. If you can’t put the responses in the context of the respondents, your survey is trash.

Section I
I’d like to see a learning goal related to putting separately-acquired knowledge together. OOPS, I’m answering the survey here instead of critiquing the survey.

The survey should at least be able to provide a sentence or two description for each goal.

Section II
Indicate the intellectual strengths and weaknesses of the current core should not be just open ended. That is too hard to analyze. Instead use Likert scale questions from SA to SD on hypothetical strengths and weaknesses and see how we react. Then leave space for open ended comments after.

Section III
If you think the core is too small (large), shouldn’t you ADD (SUBTRACT) things to (from)it.

“Before answering, blah, blah, blah” should go before SECTION II.

Don’t even include the question about 120 hours. Academics are vain enough to always think students should sit at our feet longer. It is hard enough already to finish in four years.

Section IV
This section should be analyzed by discipline. Also, we have the usual false symmetry in the second question. We need to separate being able to transfer into the USG from transferring out of the USG. We should be concerned with students’ ability to transfer in. We have no reason to care about their ability to transfer out.

Also, ask for specific areas where transferring could be made easier. Some are easy, some are not.

We also need to focus the transferring discussion not just on logistics but on philosophical issues. What is our unified philosophy on liberal arts that guides the process of accepting transfer credit?

Lorrie,
I agree with the gun-shy comment, but let’s not propose throwing away money on nielsen. Some of us know how to do this stuff.

Rick McGrath
Professor of Economics
AASU Curriculum Committee Chair

Roberta Lacefield
December 10, 2008 at 9:59pm

Rick makes an excellent suggestion—use the expertise in our ranks to craft a survey.

That said, my immediate criticism of the survey is the use of the terms “goals” vs. “outcomes” without including a definition. I am not at all confident I understand what you are asking.

Roberta Lacefield
December 10, 2008 at 10:06pm

To clarify my previous comment, take a look at this outcome from the USG website.

“Quantitative Reasoning and Mathematics: quantitative reasoning and mathematics will be characterized by logic, critical evaluation, analysis, synthesis generalization, modeling, and verbal, numeric, graphical, and symbolic problem solving.”

I don’t know about anyone else, but this is certainly a goal in my math classes—and I assume in ALL math classes. So, how would a goal different from this outcome. And, equally important, why does it matter? I really don’t get what part 1 of the survey is asking.

Kristina Watkins Mormino
December 11, 2008 at 10:19am

I agree that USG employees expert in crafting surveys should be tapped in the design of this survey.  It should also be edited by someone who has taught a lot of English Composition to weed out errors like the following: “There is currently a rule that bachelors’ programs must be include precisely 120 semester hours.”  (Yes, I know, this is only a draft.)

I don’t like the phrasing “Indicate your view of the importance of the proposed learning goals to college graduates in the 21st century.”  The question seems designed to skew the responses in favor of goals that stress economic utility and STEM competencies, since these goals would more explicitly address the here-and-now.  We are all in the 21st century.  There is no need to underline the fact, except for those who erroneously believe that the liberal arts somehow become irrelevant with time and changing trends.

Finally, the destinction between goals and outcomes should be made clear on the survey, and the subcategories of the liberal arts need to be defined.

Mary Nielsen
December 11, 2008 at 11:48am

Under Section I, Learning Goal 4, I’d like to see a separate heading for foreign languages.

Some of the phrasing in Section III is backwards:
If the current core is too small, we shouldn’t be removing items; if too large, we shouldn’t be adding.

And I’m in no way related to the earlier Nielsen who did not use capital letters.

Rosa Williams
December 11, 2008 at 6:03pm

Section I:
The first question (ending “please comment on this proposal”)  does not give enough specifics about the proposal for anyone to comment on it!  What’s a learning goal, and how does it differ from an outcome?  How might this be implemented?  How would it substantively change the current core structure?

The “rate these subjects” portion seems completely non-productive to me.  Since these are the, ahem, core areas we wish to expose students to, it seems likely that all you’d get is a re-confirmation that yes, everyone still thinks reading, writing, ‘rithmatic - and history, science, social science, art, etc. - are important.  That doesn’t address the key point of the core revision, which is how we might better see to it that students have adequate exposure to these important subjects.

Section II is a bit broad, although soliciting input on what needs to be improved seems a logical first step, and I like seeing that part.

Section III has had the large/add, small/remove problem pointed out by others, of course. Also, the “too large/right size/too small” completely leaves out the question of whether, regardless of size, it represents the most efficient way to introduce students to the aforementioned important subjects.

Finally, a small rant:  “Communications Skills”, “Humanities”, “U.S. and Global Perspectives” ... these aren’t learning goals, these are chapter headings.  Coupled with the idea that they will be “stated without descriptions”, this suggests that faculty are being asked to comment on something too vague to even be called a proposal or a plan.  If faculty are being asked to comment on a specific proposal, the proposal should be stated in concrete terms. If faculty are being asked to help develop such a proposal, cut out Section I entirely and go straight to asking faculty what would improve on the current system.

Roschelle L. Bautista
December 16, 2008 at 8:20am

Foreign Languages should definitely be included, but it spans several different learning goals, including communication and arts and sciences. I don’t know what is going on in Georgia, but the topic of second language learning seems a bit taboo lately. We really should remember that there is life outside of this beautiful state, and that our students need to be trained and educated socio-culturally in this global society. Bilingualism and trilingualism is an assett in our society and in a global economy. Let’s begin to discuss how many languages we can offer on our campuses in an effort to provide our students with a more well-rounded and useful education. Foreign languages should not be forgotten and left out of our discussions. In fact, I’d like to see them required in more disciplines as a requirement for graduating.

Cheryl Goldsleger
January 15, 2009 at 10:53am

The learning goals for the arts and sciences, section 4 in the draft, are less extensive in each area when compared to the other learning goals. Each sub-section of the arts and sciences has 2 learning goals. For whatever reason this was done, it appears to give less weight to the arts and sciences than this area deserves. The learning goals for the fine arts seem particularly short and and incomplete. The fine arts address the role of creativity’s impact on society, help students compare and contrast cultural needs and preferences and why those priorities develop over time, address critical thinking issues and the intrinsic value of the arts to society at large. Please consider expanding on the learning goals summaries for the arts and sciences section of the survey.

Roberta Lacefield
January 15, 2009 at 12:54pm

The problem with any survey is that we sometimes have to “vote” in ways that don’t clearly reflect our thinking.

For example, I would say [Learning Goal 5: US and Global Perspectives] should not be included in the list—NOT because it is not important but instead because the whole concept is a dated one that will (hopefully) sound absurd in 20 years AND, if we are doing are job in with the other goals, is already taken care of.

For example, if [Goal 4B: Humanities] includes study of important world texts (including studying a text in the original language—nod to Roschelle’s comment—we are already including the global and US perspective. Let’s not add another category when we don’t need one. We craft a PT-boat, not a freighter.

Denise L. Montgomery
March 24, 2009 at 12:09pm

Think one thing that is sorely lacking is a course in computer literacy. As a librarian, I see students who do not know how attach documents to e-mails, how to print documents, or, as one professor put it in speaking to me recently, how to write a proper e-mail. Their search skills are also sadly lacking and they could use a course in information literacy as well.

David Sarrette M.Ed.
March 25, 2009 at 1:13pm

There is no mention of Health or Wellness in the proposed draft of the new curriculum. Those classes are as important and probably more important in terms of useful practical information every student can use regardless of his or her major. Everyone needs to know about their bodies and how to take care of them. Preventive medicine is the only way we will ever win the war on heart disease,cancer ,stroke and diabetes, all catastropic preventable diseases related to our lifestyles.  Dr. Mehemet Oz,famous US cardiac surgeon and best selling author, said it best. “I would much rather prevent heart disease in my patient than to perform bypass on him. Preventive medicine is the only way to handle the epedemic.”