PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS IN THE UNL

COMPREHENSIVE EDUCATION PROGRAM

December 2003

I. Preamble.

The UNL Comprehensive Education Program (CEP) was introduced in 1995. It is an innovative program comprised of two main parts: essential studies (ES) which aim at developing breadth in the student experience and integrative studies (IS) which seek to develop higher-order learning, notably written communication, oral expression, critical thinking and consideration of human diversity. The other parts of the CEP (library and co-curricular activities) are not addressed in this proposal. While the ES and IS programs have a critical role to play in undergraduate education, they have not been as effective as envisioned and this has led to calls for reform. In response, the Academic Senate established an ad hoc committee charged with proposing modifications based on the following principles: 1) uniformity across colleges; 2) simplification; 3) no increase in general education credit hour requirements; and 4) consideration of the original principles of the CEP. The committee includes John Ballard (Engineering), Scott Fuess (CBA), Mike Goff (Journalism), Mark Griep (Chemistry), Fayrene Hamouz (Education and Human Sciences), Ruth Heaton (Education and Human Sciences), Mark Hoistad (Architecture), Pete Pinnell (Art), Sheila Scheideler (IANR), and Joe Skopp (IANR). Rita Kean (Dean of Undergraduate Studies). Patrice Berger (Honors), D'vee Buss (CBA Advising), Ann Kopera (A&S Advising), Nick Clatterback (ASUN), Jeff Schlechte (ASUN), and Wes Peterson (Academic Senate) served as ex officio members of the committee.

The committee sought to strengthen the current program and to explore ways of making it more effective, accessible, transparent, and easier to understand. The purpose and objectives of both the ES and IS programs are seen as laudable. The proposal below focuses more on changes in the administration of the programs and assessment of outcomes for general education rather than on revising the conceptual basis upon which they rest. It is the committee's belief that the breadth objectives targeted by the ES program are best handled by university-wide requirements as described below. On the other hand, the learning objectives embodied in the IS program seem difficult to accomplish outside students' majors. The current CEP gives control of the ES program to the Colleges with the IS program administered on a university-wide basis. The proposal described below shifts control of IS to degree programs and their academic units while calling for a university-wide general education program. The committee believes these adjustments will strengthen the general educational requirements at UNL and generate better learning outcomes for our students.

II. Proposed General Educational Requirements.

A. Summary of proposed changes in the ES program.

1. The name "Essential Studies" is replaced with "General Education Requirements."

2. Students are required to take one course in each of eight subject matter areas for a total of eight courses altogether.

3. The eight subject matter areas bear the same titles as in the current ES program with two exceptions: Area A, "Communications" is re-named "Written Communications" and Area C, "Human Behavior, Culture and Social Organization" is re-named "Social Sciences."

4. The lists of courses for each subject matter area will be generated by academic units and colleges. Only the academic unit that offers a given course can add it to or delete it from the list. The final list developed through this process (described in more detail below) will constitute the university list. Courses on the university list will be accepted by all Colleges as fulfilling the general education requirements in the specific areas.

B. Additional Details Related to the General Education Requirements.

1. This proposal includes the following proposition concerning the creation of the university-wide general education course list:

The process for creating the initial university-wide general education course list begins in the academic units which are asked to review their course offerings currently on the Essential Studies list and to propose a set of courses that are consistent with the area descriptions for inclusion on the list. This proposal also includes a set of guidelines described below suggesting procedures for the development of the proposed course lists. Academic unit proposals will be compiled and reviewed by the relevant College Curriculum Committee which will then forward the College list to the appropriate administrative office for inclusion on the university-wide list.

After the initial list is compiled, academic units and Colleges are expected to develop methods for periodically reviewing their course offerings and deciding if any courses on the current list should be removed because they are no longer consistent with the spirit of the general education requirement or if there are courses that should be added. Courses will be added to the list following approval of the College.

2. Guidelines for general education course listings.

These guidelines are intended to refine the university-wide expectations for courses included on the general education areas lists. They are not intended to be rigorously enforced by a university committee. Rather, they are to be seen as indicative, with the final academic unit and College offerings left to the good faith of these units.

a. In general, a course will be listed in only one area. There may be some reasonable exceptions to this guideline in the case of courses that fit well in both areas C or E and area H, for example.

b. Cross-listed courses should not be listed separately but rather grouped together with the primary home academic unit listed first, e.g., HIST/ETHN 150 rather than separate listings for HIST 150 and ETHN 150.

c. Courses proposed for inclusion on the university list should be offered on a regular basis and there should be an expectation that they will continue to be offered on a regular basis for the indefinite future.

d. Academic units and Colleges are encouraged to reflect seriously about which courses make the most sense for the list. Ideally, all courses included on the lists should be consistent with the original area descriptions.

e. General education requirements should be decoupled from major requirements in the sense that all courses on the lists will satisfy general education requirements; however, some courses that satisfy general education requirements may not satisfy major requirements. The use of general education courses to satisfy major requirements is completely at the discretion of the degree program that administers the major.

C. Summary of Proposed Changes in the IS program:

1. The intent of the IS program is retained but responsibility for its implementation and outcome assessment is shifted to academic units.

2. Academic units are required to develop plans for insuring that students demonstrate competency in written communication, oral expression, critical thinking (including analysis of controversies and exploration of assumptions and intellectual bias), and consideration of diversity where appropriate to the content of the course. These plans will be reported to the appropriate college committees (e.g. curriculum and/or assessment committees) as part of the assessment and program review processes.

3. The university-wide list of IS courses eliminated and replaced with the academic unit plans.

4. Monitoring and control of these educational objectives is vested in the Colleges which will report on their realization as part of the assessment process required for North Central Association of Colleges and Schools accreditation and/or the particular professional accreditation required for that College.

D. Additional Details on Changes in the IS Program.

Academic units are encouraged to think creatively about the best way to accomplish the educational objectives noted above. They may continue to require particular courses that cover all of these objectives or they may elect to cover them in several different courses. The number of required courses or other experiences, the level at which required courses are taught and the specific format or approach are entirely up to the academic units. Particular approaches to realizing these goals will vary from one academic unit to another in line with the educational needs of the students.

E. Approval and Implementation.

Once approved by the Academic Senate, this proposal will be sent to the colleges for ratification. If ratified, the Colleges agree to direct their academic units in the construction of the general education lists and, subsequently, to accept any course on the UNL list in fulfillment of the general education requirements. They also agree to create mechanisms for the development of unit plans related to writing, oral communication, critical thinking and considerations of diversity and to incorporate these plans into the assessment, accreditation, and program review processes.

III. Rationale and justification for the proposed changes.

Among the most frequently cited problems with the current program is the observation that it is unnecessarily confusing and cumbersome. It takes 18 pages in the current bulletin to describe it. This complexity makes advising more difficult and is harmful to UNL's efforts to recruit talented students, most notably, transfer students. Dean of Admissions Alan Cerveny indicated that students considering transfer to UNL are acutely interested in how courses they have taken will fit into UNL requirements and are often put off by the current system.

There has been widespread criticism of the Integrative Studies (IS) program because courses with IS designation are often no different from other courses and many courses that do not have the IS designation actually come closer to meeting the IS criteria than courses so designated. Students find the IS requirement puzzling. For the Essential Studies (ES) part of the CEP, the primary source of confusion is the college grid next to the course list that reflects college decisions about which courses they will accept to fulfill the area requirements. Some have argued that the appropriation of the ES list by Colleges makes transfers both within UNL and between UNL and other universities more difficult. The committee found that the transfer problem has been exaggerated but the existence of the College grid does contribute to the overall complexity of the CEP.

At the same time, there is general agreement that the basic ideas behind the current CEP are valid. Thus, there appears to be widespread support for a university-wide general education requirement. An internet sampling of approaches to general education at other universities showed that about half leave general education up to the colleges while the other half has university-wide general education programs. Most of these programs require courses in areas very similar to those found in the current CEP. No other university surveyed had a program similar to the IS program. There is a widespread feeling at UNL that, although the current IS program leaves much to be desired, the underlying rationale for that program is sound.

The committee proposal aims to address these problems while maintaining what is good in the current program. The organizing principle is that there should be a university-wide general education requirement that implicates eight of the forty or more courses taken in a typical undergraduate program. Beyond these eight courses, academic units and Colleges are free to design curricula that meet their particular needs. Even within the university general education requirements, Colleges and academic units can advise their students in the choice of courses to fulfill the various area requirements. The only restriction is that all Colleges agree to accept any course on the list in fulfillment of an area requirement. This change will eliminate the need for the college grid which, as noted above, is a major source of confusion in the current ES program.

The other changes in the ES program include a reduction from nine courses to eight. This change responds to some of the special accreditation and certification needs of certain colleges. The eight subject-matter areas are maintained although there are minor name changes. The committee consensus was that the primary general education requirement in communications is for written communications. It turns out that every College has additional communications requirements beyond the one required course. Because writing is a fundamental skill required in all other course work, it seems to be a reasonable requirement. Colleges will undoubtably add other communications requirements that apply to further training in written, oral or visual communication. Changing the name for area C is essentially cosmetic.

Although some have expressed concern over the length of the current ES course list, many on the committee feel that there is an advantage to an expansive list. Students are almost infinitely diverse and strict limitations, such as a rule that would limit the lists to only 100/200 level courses, may be disadvantageous to some of our best students. In generating lists of courses to be offered, it is hoped that the Academic units and Colleges will take the guidelines listed above seriously but the committee has no desire to make these hard and fast rules and no institutions are being proposed to carry out such an enforcement effort.

Educational goals related to writing, oral expression, critical thinking and diversity seem to be better achieved within the major rather than the more-or-less random selection from the university list that characterizes the current system. There are substantial differences in the many majors offered at UNL. In some academic units, for example, writing skills may be less important than other higher-order learning skills. Likewise, the particular types of critical thinking skills that need promotion may vary from one academic unit to another. The objective of the proposed changes is to give academic units maximum flexibility to design programs that will achieve these general objectives in ways that are most appropriate for particular majors.

This change in no way diminishes the importance of the objectives of the current IS program. It does confer a degree of trust in the academic units to take responsibility for realizing and assessing these objectives. The committee hopes and expects that academic units will take this effort seriously. Monitoring and control of this program are transferred to Colleges which, if this proposal is ratified, take responsibility for incorporating the plans into the college assessment efforts and academic program reviews. The proposal also gives substantial responsibility for the general education course lists to academic units and Colleges. While the course lists must be accepted by all Colleges, their constitution is through a voluntary process relying on decisions by academic units and Colleges.