Monthly Archives: January 2015

From Renee Borromeo:

I just got home from a 2-day retreat for the Gen Ed Task Force and there is some new information available. Of course, the website (http://gened.psu.edu/ ) is full of information, but sometimes a quick email message is easier to digest. If you have comments, they are still looking for feedback on the website, but time is running out, as the final proposed model will be unveiled very soon.

There are some things that I can say for sure and some that I can say I think are going to happen. First the “for sures”:

1. At the University Faculty Senate (UFS) meeting on Jan. 27, 2 reports will be presented by the Gen Ed Task Force (GETF)
   1. A legislative report on the proposed Learning Objectives (Effective Communication, Critical and Analytical Thinking, Creative Thinking, Global Learning, Social Responsibility & Ethical Reasoning, Integrative Thinking)
      These objectives, if approved by the Senate, will be the scaffolding of the new Gen Ed curriculum
   2. An advisory and consultative report on the need for a Gen Ed Institute or some kind of administrative structure to oversee the Gen Ed curriculum
   3. These reports will be available on line attached to the UFS agenda, which will be available sometime next week at http://www.psu.edu/ufs/
2. Assuming all goes well for the GETF at the UFS meeting, the final Gen Ed Model will be completed in early February, and be presented as a legislative report at the UFS meeting in March.
3. Two different models for 2-year programs have been developed. They focus on foundational coursework, and will not include the integrative coursework or thematic coursework that might be included in the model for 4-year students. Once the 4-year model is complete, the 2-year model will be finalized and both will be presented at the same time.
4. There has been no effort to eliminate any particular Gen Ed discipline (arts and activities courses are still going to be required). It might be that not all students take the same number of credits in each category, as there will be more flexibility, depending upon student interest, but none of the proposed models eliminate GA or GHA requirements.
5. If approved, the implementation would happen over a period of years (100 level courses the first year, 200 level the second year (something like that)).
6. A budget is being developed and will be presented and approved before implementation. (Side note: the GETF has been reassured that if the faculty can agree upon a Gen Ed curriculum, the administration will find the money)

These are things I would say will probably happen:

1. The Task Force will probably make recommendations that GHA (Health and Activities) be changed to GHW (Health and Wellness) and change the description of the requirement for GHW courses to meet the Gen Ed requirements. They will have to demonstrate that they meet at least some of the learning objectives.
2. There will probably be more than one way for students to meet their Gen Ed requirements. Flexibility seems to be important. This might make advising more complicated, but the goal is to allow students to have an gen ed experience that is meaningful to them, not to be easy for us to keep track of on a degree audit.
3. Risk-taking for both students and faculty was discussed. For students, it was agreed that it is desirable for students to explore new and unfamiliar topics, and be able to take courses of interest without the worry of possible negative effects on the GPA. There will likely be a change to the present Pass/ Fail policies (Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory) that do not allow students to take Gen Eds P/F. The Task Force will probably recommend that the P/F option be available for at least some number of credits. A student would have to earn a C or better to get a P, and there is a very strong likelihood that faculty will not know which students are taking classes P/F. Also, it looks like a C or better will be required in all Gen Eds.
4. Risk-taking for faculty will also be encouraged. Some ideas that were presented: give faculty a respite from SRTEs for a semester if they are trying something new; give incentives like annual awards for faculty who demonstrate excellence in innovative teaching; funding for training; support through a Gen Ed Institute
5. There is a chance that students might be able to receive some sort of distinction for excellence in Gen Eds. They would have to demonstrate something other than a high GPA – maybe participate in a capstone project or submit a portfolio of work.
6. It looks like IL and US  classes will be re-evaluated for content. The GETF will probably recommend that at least 50% of the content be “international” or “United States.” Some people were arguing for 75%-100%.

I think those were the main points of discussion, but we met for 10 hours yesterday and 6 hours today, so I could provide more detail if you have questions. E-mail me if you want to talk about anything. And if you really want the GETF to know anything, please get on the website soon.

Thanks for your attention.

Renee

From Renee Borromeo on 12/20/14:

I guess the Gen Ed Task Force was working up to the last minute yesterday, as I got an email directing me to the revised Gen Ed curricular prototypes on the Gen Ed website. There are now only 2 to review, and again, the committee is very clear about using these prototypes for comment and discussion. Neither will be THE Gen Ed curriculum. I know looking at this website is not a high priority for many people during the holiday break, but I hope you get a chance to see it before we get back to the campus. I will be attending a Gen Ed retreat January 15-16, and I would love to have some feedback from Mont Alto prior to that meeting. I’ll mention it again at MADE. Thanks and have a wonderful holiday season.

Renee

http://gened.psu.edu/prototypes/