1
An Assessment of the Efficacy of the University of the District of Columbia’s General Education Curriculum
Projects for Institutional Change
Request for Proposals
General Education Subcommittee
Rachel M. Petty
April Massey
Jeffrey Fleming
Katie Inmon
Matthew Petti
Donald Ramsey
December 15, 2006
An Assessment of the Efficacy of the University of the District of Columbia’s
General Education Curriculum
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 2005, a Middle States evaluation team found the University’s general education curriculum to be “sufficient in scope to enhance students’ intellectual growth.” Nonetheless, the curriculum has not been restructured in excess of thirty years, and University self-study documents substantiate the concerns of faculty and administrators regarding the program’s currency and efficacy relative to our students’ varied and ever-evolving goals. The need for a systematic and institutionalized process of review and renewal is identified by University stakeholders as an essential step toward revitalizing the University’s general education program and supporting the institution’s mission of academic relevance and accountability.
SECTION 1. The Problem
1.1Statement of the Problem
General education requirements at the University of the District of Columbia have not been updated since the merger of its three predecessor institutions in the mid 1970s. Since that time, much has changed both within the University and in the external environment. Over the years, several different College and University committees and self-study task forces have identified a need for review and revision of both the requirements and the structure of general education at the University. However, these reviews and the recommendations emanating from them have never led to formal proposals for curricular change. One of the reasons earlier efforts to revise the structure and content of general education have not succeeded is because the motives for making change have not been well-defined and communicated.
1.2Forces Driving Change
Recent developments in educational reform are motivated by persistent demands from national and local politicians, regional and professional accrediting groups, and students and their parents for greater accountability from academic institutionsrelative to the ever-expanding knowledge and skill sets expected of today’s college graduates. Institutions are facing the challenge of either demonstrating that students are learning the skills necessary for the workplace, or losing accreditation, federal funding – and ultimately, the ability to continue to operate. Thus, a new effort to review, evaluate and, if necessary, revise the University’s general education program to ensure optimal student outcomes is unavoidable.
1.3Measuring What Changes
Historically, the University’s general education program has operated largely without challenge to evidence of its mission, connection to the institutional academic strategic plan or other performance standards, student outcomes, and plan of oversight. The proposed general education initiative will generate information that educates the university community and assesses the effectiveness of the current general education program. Level of success will be defined by the relationship between student and alumni academic, occupational, and socio-cultural performance relative to the desired outcomes expressed in the University’s academic strategic plan, mission statement, accreditation standards, etc. The specific describable and measurable targets include:
1)Faculty and student knowledge of current general education trends, expectations, and mandates. (To be measured by survey instruments pre and post opportunities for exposure to information.)
2)Faculty and student knowledge and expectation of the University’s current general education curriculum. (To be measured by survey instruments pre- and post-opportunities for exposure to information.)
3)Faculty and student satisfaction/dissatisfaction with the current general education program. (To be measured by survey instrument following information exposures for items 1 and 2.)
4)Historical and current assessments of student learning outcomes as a result of exposure to the University’s current general education requirements. (To be measured by assessment of student academic performance e.g., historical and current test data -- common exams in Math and English, capstone and portfolio performance; success in major courses, e.g., graduation and completion rates by major; occupational success, e.g., job placement rates, promotion rates; and graduate admission and completion rates.)
5)Faculty engagement in the curriculum review process. (To be measured by counts of participants across information sharing events and survey administrations.)
1.4Benefits to be Realized
It is imperative that the University have plans for documenting outcomes for all aspects of its educational programming as evidence of its success in preparing graduates for work, lifelong learning, and engaged citizenry in a global environment. This evidence also speaks to the institution’s commitment to its mission and legacy. The University has an obligation to affirm to its stakeholders that it is meeting a minimum standard of accountability, and the data associated with evaluation of general education outcomes should serve as the oversight mechanism that assures future quality and currency in the general education curriculum.
1.5Issues that must be Addressed
The most salient concerns facing attempts at general education review at the University are resistance to change, poorly defined change processes, and poor communication regarding change plans. Four challenges that predominate in discussions of efforts to renew general education curricula,and that are common to change attempts at the University include: 1) Faculty Resistance -- Faculty who are responsible for leading change can be so generation-centered that they do not see a need for moving away from models and requirements that may have been effective in the past but are no longer relevant; 2) Factionalized Resistance -- Political forces within the University often oppose change because it threatens the delicate power balance that exists among campus units and poses the threat of loss of faculty lines within units if curriculum change results in a loss of credit hours in their discipline; 3) Competing Academic Priorities -- Change in general education is not a priority of students who are increasingly focused on major or professional courses that they feel are more important for their career or for graduate/professional school admission; 4) Diverging Theoretical Perspectives -- Discussions regarding the goals and objectives of general education often become mired in long-standing philosophical arguments concerning whether education should be practical training for work or provide a liberal, broad foundation for subsequent learning. Further, there is controversy regarding the effectiveness of the various general education approaches currently promoted in the higher education arena. For example, the feasibility of the newer hour glass shaped curriculum model is being widely debated given the broad content that must be included in professional degree curricula.
The proposed general education initiative sets clear expectations for the University’s general education review including: identification of competent leadership for the entire process, facilitation of widespread campus involvement in discussions about the goals and objectives of general education toward improved information sharing, constituent “buy in,” transparency in the process, assessment of the effectiveness of the University’s current general education curriculum, and recommendation of a general education scheme that satisfies the institution’s academic strategic mission.
These preliminary goals will be addressedby the following activities:
- Compile historical documents that outline the goals of the current program, therationale for the courses included as well as recommendations from prior reviews.
- Review models and exemplary programs that have been developed at other
Institutions, and share the best with the campus community.
- Develop and conduct surveys of faculty, students, alumni, and employers to assess their opinions about the effectiveness of the University’s general education program.
- Secure any data that can be used to assess the effectiveness of general education offerings. Existing data from a variety of sources -- common exams, placement tests, comprehensive exams, capstone projects and portfolio reviewsetc. -- may be helpful in the assessment of student learning outcomes.
- Design a cross-sectional study to assess the knowledge and skills of students with different levels of exposure to the current general education program.
1.6Alignment to the University’s Strategic Plan
The proposed general education initiative promotes establishing academic paradigms that are responsive to student need within and beyond the reaches of the University, and that have concretized and institutionalized schemes for evaluating that requisite outcomes are being met. This institution’s strategic academic mission is to educate students to embrace cultural diversity; and to be highly skilled, academically prepared, and committed to civic engagement, personal integrity, and individual responsibility. The proposed plan of review offers a targeted self-study opportunity for the University toward the end of optimizing curricular offerings and promoting student success while developing faculty commitment to continuous evaluation and renewal of the institution’s academic programs.
1.7Literature Referenced
Association of AmericanColleges and Universities, 2005. Our students’ best work: A framework for accountability worthy of our mission. Washington, DC: AAC&U.
Association of AmericanColleges and Universities, 2002. Greater expectations: A new vision for learning as a nation goes to college. Washington, DC: AAC&U.
Gaff, J. G. (1980). Avoiding the Potholes: Strategies for Reforming General Education. Educational Record, Fall, 50 – 59.
Graff, Gerald (1991). Colleges are depriving students of a connected view of scholarship. The Chronicle of Higher Education, February 13, A48.
Huber, Mary T., and Hutchings, Pat (2005). Integrative Learning: Mapping the terrain. Washington, DC: AAC&U.
Palomba, Catherine A., and Banta, Trudy W. (1999). Assessment essentials: Planning, implementing, and improving assessment in higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
SECTION 2. Vision for Change
2.1 Future Vision
The goal of the proposed initiative is to develop a UDC community -- students, faculty, administrators, and staff -- who are more aware of the mission of this university (including the desired characteristics of the UDC graduate), the ways in which our current general education curriculum supports this mission, and the gaps in that support. Awareness of the current state of our General Education program will include a knowledge of UDC’s current general education standards and practices, an understanding of university-wide perceptions of those requirements and practices, a greater awareness of national trends in general education, an ability to communicate the academic significance of general education, and a willingness to assess the efficacy of our program.
2.2 Gap Analysis of the Differences
The 2004 Self-Study Report included a survey of faculty regarding their understanding of UDC’s General Education requirements and practices. The report noted that of faculty surveyed, less than one-half indicated they had a very good understanding of the goals and purposes of general education at UDC. Moreover, nearly three-quarters felt the current general education curriculum had not met their understanding of the goals of the general education experience. Our project seeks to improve awareness of, satisfaction with, willingness to assess, and, if appropriate, willingness to modify our current general education curriculum.
2.3Values Change
The vision for change proposed by this project includes promotion of a greater sense of faculty and student “buy-in” with regards to the current general education program. This “buy-in” would include awareness, willingness to assess, willingness to collaborate across disciplines, and willingness to change. Ideally, students and faculty will come to embrace the general education curriculum as supporting the mission of UDC by enhancing students’ intellectual growth as well as critical academic skills and abilities. The community will be aware and proud of the ways in which our general education curriculum improves proficiency in oral and written communication, scientific and quantitative reasoning, technological capabilities, information literacy, and critical reasoning.
SECTION 3. Project Plan
3.1 Description of Tasks
See Exhibit 1
3.2 Project Timeline
See Exhibit 2
3.3 Personnel
See 3.5
3.4 Risk Analysis and Readiness for Change
The proposed initiative will likely be met with resistance of varying levels across the University community as is expected of change processes applied to large and diverse groups. However, any resistance experienced is overshadowed by the readiness for change in the University’s general education curriculum expressed by faculty in response to surveys associated with the 2000 and 2005 Self-Study processes.
3.5 Project Budget and Personnel
The scope of the activities that will be completed in this project will require more hours of work than the budget will support. Therefore, the Committee that has planned the project will seek commitments from Chairpersons and Deans for in-kind support of this important initiative. Specifically, we are requesting that committee members who will staff the project are granted release time or Authorized University Assignments as compensation for their work during Spring 2007. Funds that will be received could then be used for summer salaries/stipend for project staff, consultant costs and supplies.
The Project will be co-directed by the Dean and Assistant Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences. The Project Staff will be led by a Project Coordinator (to be announced) who will oversee the activities and supervise other project staff. The faculty member selected as Project Coordinator will be released from 50% of the required workload in Spring 2007. A summer stipend of $2500 will be awarded for summer work. Three other faculty (Profs. Fleming, Petti, and Inmon) will be granted release from one-fourth of their teaching loads to assume responsibility for major components of the initiative: faculty and student surveys and alumni and advisory committee focus groups, student learning outcomes study, and community dialogue and education regarding general education. These individuals will receive stipends of $700 for summer work. At least six members of the General Education committee will be awarded AUAs for assuming responsibility for major tasks associated with major project components. They will complete these assignments prior to the end of the academic year. The Project Coordinator will request a Student Employment Program worker to assist with clerical and administrative functions in Spring 2007. In Summer 2007, secretarial staff within the College of Arts and Sciences will be detailed to the project to assist with development of the final report.
The additional funding, $2,900, will be used to cover the cost of consultants who will assist with project design and statistical analysis, focus group facilitators, and supplies, including tests that may be used in the student learning outcomes study.
3.6 Benefit-Cost Analysis
The known and immediate benefit to the University is facilitation of a community of transparency and accountability that safeguards the institution’s future in both the internal and external environments.
SECTION 4. Transition Plan
4.1 Groups and Individuals Impacted
General education impacts everyone. University-wide, all colleges and academic departments are involved in -- and feel they have a stake in -- the general education curriculum. All rightly understand the significance of their disciplines toward the development of a well-prepared graduate. Thus, there would be resistance to any investigation that generates a perception that one or another academic department’s power -- in terms of prestige, number of classes offered in the major, number of staff employed, etc. -- was threatened. In addition, students would likely not support any investigation which they felt might limit their ability to efficiently and thoroughly pursue a degree in their majors.
4.2 Support Strategies
This proposal intends to involve all stakeholders in the exploration of our current General Education system. Every college and department would be represented in planning and assessment committees, as would students. We invite the entire university community to look together at general education, and we hope to limit the negative impact of anxiety by genuinely including everyone in the process, beginning with step one. Ideally, by the end of our change project, all stakeholders will have a greater appreciation of what our current General Education curriculum both accomplishes and fails to accomplish.
4.3 Professional Development Efforts
As UDC transitions to becoming an academic community with an increased awareness of its general education programs and goals, we will conduct open forums to present and discuss ongoing assessment efforts and data. In addition, we propose to invite students, faculty, and staff to presentations of innovative general education curricula by academic programs from around the country. Ideally, these presentations will increase our sense of what is possible in the area of general education.
4.4 Clarifying the Change roles – Sponsor, Advocate, and Agent
The sponsor for this project is the Office of the Provost. Provost Cooke has indicated that both she and President Pollard are very interested in and will support an assessment of our current general education curriculum. Advocates for community-wide dialogue about general education would bea newly-appointedGeneral Education Committee, charged by the Provost with assessing our current program. The agents for changewould include the Project Team, in close collaboration with those University stakeholders (faculty, students, administration, staff, alumni, current and future employers) who engage in education, dialogue, and assessment as it pertains to general education programs in general, and our general education program in particular.
4.5 Long-term Efforts to Support Change
As mentioned above, we invite the entire university community to look together at general
education. If assessment of our current program leads to further change initiatives, we will continue to involve the community, especially stakeholders, in planning and implementation. It is important that those interested in general education reform not be considered a special interest group.
SECTION 5. Communications Plan
Purpose. An effective communication function is essential to the development of a program serving the needs of a large number of individuals. It will support a sense of awareness, ownership, participation, and transparency, as well as facilitating operation of the study.