General Education Core Curriculum 7
Town Hall Meeting Minutes
3-30-2012
General Education Core Curriculum Town Hall Meeting
March 30, 2012
UL Lilly Auditorium
Presiding: Associate Vice Chancellor Kathy Johnson
Presenters: Tom Davis, Margaret Ferguson, Kathy Johnson, Kathy Marrs, and Jeff Watt
Johnson welcomed attendees. She explained that she is the chair of a task force that was charged with looking at general education. This is a challenging topic, and it is difficult to engage in this conversation without a background in the national literature. She told about a website (http://gened.iupui.edu/) that serves as a repository of information, including literature and other documents. She also gave a brief overview of the Indiana Core Transfer Library (for more information, see www.transferin.net/CTL.aspx).
The work of the General Education Task Force started about two years ago. The original task force, which was appointed by the IUPUI Faculty Council Executive Committee, was led by Rick Ward and worked for about a year. They concluded that the biggest challenges were with the School of Liberal Arts and the School of Science. Task force members met with the curriculum committees in their schools. The suggestion was made that this should be a campuswide project.
At the beginning of the fall 2011 semester, Johnson asked each dean to submit names for the new task force. The task force did not achieve a complete consensus. The main sources of dissension were pretty clearly drawn over whether IUPUI should go with IUB’s Common Ground or remain with a model that fits with the PULs and the health and life sciences emphasis of our campus.
Johnson reviewed the time line for a general education core curriculum. The rationale of the task force was that it is easier to start with something rather than nothing. They wanted to have a document that people could react to. Task force members were asked to share the general education document with their schools and curriculum committees. This is the first campuswide meeting that will inform the draft. Johnson wants feedback from the meeting. If things go well, this project could be completed by the spring. If not, the final deadline is December 2012.
Marrs explained that this is an opportunity for the campus. There is a national and statewide push to be sure undergraduates have a streamlined way to get their bachelor’s degrees. We need to make that as easy as possible, including for transfer students. Performance-based funding is now a small portion of our budgets, but it could become larger in the future. Marrs explained Senate Bill 182 and House Bill 1220. We want to see an increase in the number of students successfully completing college. Faculty take a great deal of pride in this. It is a shame to see students take six or seven years to finish their degrees. We want students to be able to transfer across degree programs between schools, and we want students to reduce their time to degree and student debt.
Johnson gave examples of struggles that students have with transfer issues. Students may be attaining competencies in one course that is similar to another.
Watt shared things that are happening off campus relative to this issue. It is very clear on the state level that if a student completes an associate degree with 60 credit hours, then 30 of those credit hours will count toward their bachelor’s degree. Two problematic areas are math and science. For example, if a student starts at a community college and takes calculus and then transfers to another university, there is an expectation that the course will count toward a degree. One question that comes up is about students changing majors. The ICHE understands that if a student changes majors, the students will have to pick up new courses. Watt believes the model we are building is probably the most forward-looking in terms of competencies. A question was asked about remedial courses. Watt said there is an expectation that problems in K–12 will be addressed and fixed. However, this will take time to implement. Remedial courses do not count toward a degree. Watt gave examples of this.
Johnson said one question she gets frequently is about the term “block courses.” This is a term used by the state legislature. Johnson does not believe we will have to accept entire blocks of courses. This terminology is for simplicity. All courses will be distributed somewhere in the degree, even if as electives.
Davis told about a Far Side cartoon with a bull’s-eye. There are a lot of good things about the common core, and it is a good conversation starter. He hopes no one sees it as a bull’s-eye. We need to look at the situation we find ourselves in and build on what IUPUI does quite well. IUPUI has received recognition for the PULs, and we are very good at it. Davis said once he understood how the PULs were perceived off campus, he thought it best to use the PULs to create a model that is workable. When students graduate from IUPUI, they should, at minimum, be able to do these things. Davis reviewed the PULs. Interesting things have emerged from these discussions. One thing is that general education looks different across the schools. Some see general education as the first two years, while others see it as going through all four years. PULS are a combination of competencies and types of knowledge. Most members of the task force agreed that a competency-based curriculum is desired.
Marrs gave an overview of how other state higher education institutions have responded. A handout was distributed to show this. Marrs compared requirements at Ivy Tech, IUB, and Purdue to the proposed IUPUI core curriculum for communication skills, mathematical and analytical reasoning, science, humanities and social sciences, and cultural understanding.
Ferguson said that rather than limit our conversation to 30 credit hours, the discussion should be about what is unique about IUPUI and what we want to incorporate after that 30 credit hours. She reviewed the illustration of the common core. The second ring offers things that the task force hopes the schools will offer. As students move into their majors, they have more requirements. What we must do today for the legislative requirement is to think about the common core.
Ferguson explained that the conversation should not be about specific courses or engaging in a lobbying process, but rather about competencies. It is hoped that a committee of faculty will determine what courses count for particular competencies. Johnson asked the audience to provide feedback on a handout that was distributed. All feedback will be added to the archive.
When someone asked about different levels of courses, Ferguson said this would be part of what the faculty committee does.
Comment: Herron is well represented today. We believe the arts are important to the lives of students. She wants to comment on creativity and how it is taught. The visual arts and fine arts are part of the PULs. She read from a report. There have been national studies on core arts. She told how students use objective reasoning and application of analytical reasoning. This is applicable to all majors in all disciplines.
Watt said one thing the task force discussed is what makes a bachelor’s degree from IUPUI unique. One thing that is unique about IUPUI is its art school. He agrees that the fine arts should be included. Ferguson told about the evolution of the core curriculum.
A question was asked about whether IUB will change the Common Ground with the new state legislation. Johnson believes the expectation is that students will have to take more courses.
Comment: The issues we are facing are practical ones. The legislature is trying to figure out how institutions can take a 30 hour core and make it transfer across schools. What is unique about IUPUI needs to come beyond the 30 hours and not within the 30 hours. How do we find 30 hours that will go across all schools and also transfer to other state institutions? The challenge is in finding commonality to take the 30 hours across various schools and institutions.
Comment: He applauds the work the committee has done so far. Everyone thinks their canary sings the loveliest. His colleagues in the School of Engineering and Technology support the core and think it is vital. He told about a study that one of his colleagues did. We need to look at a couple of things. We cannot be specific in everything. He believes the core should be at least 36 credit hours. Aesthetic values are important. He does not see technology in the core. Is there anything more important in the lives of students than technology? He encouraged the committee to look at more hours.
Ferguson reminded the audience that anything in the core must be accepted from other universities.
Comment: She appreciates the comments that others have made about Herron. She takes issues with the diagram [of the common core]. She does not believe physical education is important. She discussed visual representation and how students use it in different majors. As a life science and medical campus, students depend on visual representation to communicate.
Davis said the task force never believed that any of the rings in the diagram were less important. He was one of the task force members pushing the notion that the things that make IUPUI unique should be in this discussion. You cannot put everything in 30 credit hours. This is the transfer core. This does not mean that we cannot have our own IUPUI core. This is where we could bring in things that are unique to IUPUI. We could bring in Herron and emerging technologies. The question is, how do we set this up to be in compliance with the new state laws and add to that?
Comment: When you look at general education, it is an opportunity to be thoughtful and innovative. He explained how general education has evolved at Harvard over the last 10 or 20 years. They had a core curriculum, threw it out, and then returned to a core curriculum. Their faculty must submit courses to meet these categories. The courses end up being renamed. You do not say: “Here is an existing course, throw it in the bucket.” Courses need to be integrative and need to be taught in innovative ways. He discussed three PULs (1, 5, and 6) as an example. The idea is that courses would have to show how they meet the requirements in the core area. We could build on the expertise of the faculty and teach courses in innovative ways. This would make IUPUI’s common core more exciting. Why can’t we do what private schools have done and create an interesting general education?
Johnson said that she appreciated that comment. She believes we can get part way to that goal through themed learning communities.
Comment: What are the strengths of IUPUI? When we talk about the arts, we can look at what strengths we have at the university. This puts importance on collaborations. The core curriculum should accept breadth.
Comment: The core curriculum is exciting and it is critical for our campus. We are all interested in teaching and learning. She is retiring soon, but she hopes faculty and staff can get advancement for their interests and their work in the area of teaching and learning. She would like to see this work be recognized and count toward advancement, promotion, and tenure. This work should count along with research.
Marrs said the task force discussed what to call the core. Perhaps Super Core? She would love it if we had mini cores to offer students, such as biology students going to medical school. The core curriculum will get schools talking about this across campus. This is an opportunity to talk about these things.
When a question was asked about the PULs not being connected to a school or course, Ferguson said this would be up to the curriculum committee. For example, when students come to Ferguson’s class, she expects them to write well. Some students complain that Ferguson’s class is not a writing class. We suffer from having compartmentalized. If we could think about ways of knowing, there could be other pathways to achieve competencies.
Comment: Thanked the committee for using the PULs. There is a disconnect in that circle between having the PULs and the disciplines. First, decide which PULs, then what disciplines, and third is the courses. We are seeing some links. We are falling back on a traditional model. Other institutions have used specific disciplines. We should do something along the line of what was suggested with the Harvard curriculum. It would be more consistent. There should not be assigned credit hours next to the PULs. The task force is doing a great job.
Ferguson said the task force had this conversation. The core curriculum blends different concepts. Johnson added that this is modeled after the Essential Learning Outcomes. They also have that blend.
Comment: She wants to talk about aspects of competencies. We are an institution built on credit hours. Apart from that, many of us grew up with courses as the unit. Some are starting to rethink that; others are just beginning that process. Everyone claims they are doing critical thinking in their courses. At this point, we are not doing a terrific job. She is in a discipline that is going national. It is hard work, but it is also very rewarding. If we can, we should take this conversation to the legislature.
Comment: A lot of comments have been very aspirational. He wants to come back to the idea of a transfer core. Is this going to be a checklist? There must be a practical realism about the common core. He would encourage maximum flexibility within the common core so that students do not have to spend a lot of time with advising staff and in admissions trying to figure out what transfers. We should think about the common core as an area that has a great deal of flexibility. He sees a lot of fear coming out of people’s comments in what schools will accept from other schools. Are schools going to be cut out of this process? Should there be an IUPUI common core committee to manage and process this? Where we are going is to try to make students better citizens. This process should build all the schools in a flexible way.