Review of the University Studies Program2007-2008

Review of the University Studies Program at SoutheastMissouriStateUniversity

Prepared by the University Studies Council

Chair of Review, Cheryl McAllister

2007-2008

Introduction:

The University Studies Council was charged with doing an internal review of the University Studies Program during the 2007-2008 academic year. The Council is composed of two faculty members from each school and college plus one from Kent Library, a representative from Administration and Enrollment Management, a representative from Student Government, the Registrar, and the Dean of University Studies. In preparation for the review, the University Studies Council spent the spring 2007 semester discussing the review process and identifying issues with the program that needed review. The Dean of University Studies visited 19 departments, as well as student government and faculty senate to get additional input into aspects of the program needing review. A 6-member team from the University Studies Council attended the General Education Institute administered by the AAC&U (Association of American Colleges and Universities) in late May 2007. The Institute, designed to help campuses at different stages of general education review or reform, was helpful in educating the attendees on issues related to nation-wide efforts to provide excellent liberal education programs, stimulating ideas about what aspects of Southeast’s program needed attention, and discussion of the review process. A rough draft of a review process was developed during the institute. The entire University Studies Council held a retreat in early June 2007 to define the focus of the review, develop procedures to gather and analyze data for the review, and refine the draft of the review process. Dr. Cheryl McAllister, a faculty member from the Department of Mathematics, was selected to chair the review.

The review focused on four major areas of the University Studies Program:

  • The administration of the University Studies Program
  • The current structure of the University Studies Program
  • The relationship between specific majors and degree programs to the University Studies Program
  • Issues related to specific University Studies courses.

A copy of the review outline, timeline, and organizational chart can be found in Appendix A.

At the first meeting of the University Studies Council in August 2007, a timeline for the review was approved and the Council was divided into subcommittees for the purposes of gathering and analyzing data to inform the review. The subcommittees were formed around the four main areas from which data would be drawn: quantitative data from Institutional Research, archival information in historical and current documents within the School of University Studies, qualitative input from stakeholders (i.e. faculty, students, staff), and external sources (i.e. the Missouri Department of Higher Education, other institutions within and outside of Missouri, the Higher Learning Commission, AAC&U).In addition to these four subcommittees, the UI100 Advisory committee was asked to do a review of the UI100 course to be incorporated into the larger University Studies Program review. A copy of the charges to the four subcommittees and the UI100 Advisory committee can be found in Appendix B.

In keeping with the timeline approved by the University Studies Council in August of 2007, the subcommittees proceeded to gather and analyze data pertaining to the University Studies Program. The Institutional Research subcommittee put together a list of queries to submit to the Institutional Research office and collected data related to enrollment trends, class sizes, instructor assignments, grade distributions, and course offerings. The Qualitative Research subcommittee designed and administered surveys for full time faculty members, students enrolled in UI400-level courses, alumni, and department chairs. Input was also requested from the deans of the colleges and schools. The Dean of University Studies and the Chair of the review visited with Faculty Senate, the Deans Council, and Student Government to inform and gather additional input. In April of 2008 an open forum was held where preliminary results from the review were shared. Faculty and staff attending were encouraged to share their thoughts. The subcommittees summarized the survey data. Summaries of the faculty survey, the UI400-level students’ survey, the alumni survey, and the department chairs surveycan be found in Appendices C, D, E, and F respectively. The Archival Research committee had a daunting task of going through multiple filing cabinets and boxes containing documents related to the development, implementation, review, assessment, and operation of the University Studies Program since its inception. A catalogue of pertinent documents the subcommittee reviewed is found in Appendix H and the most recent version of a mission statement for University Studies is found in Appendix G.

Additionally, during the spring 2008 semester a syllabus was requested for every section of every University Studies course being taught that semester. The members of the council were assigned to evaluate 10 randomly selected and assigned syllabi to determine if the course syllabus was in alignment with the Course Approval Document. The results of this evaluation can be found in Appendix I. The Dean of University Studies provided a summary of information concerning the general education programs of other Missouri universities and colleges. It is included in Appendix J. Data from the Institutional Research committee can be found in Appendices K through Q. Working with the University Studies Council, the UI100 Advisory committee gathered and analyzed data related to the UI100 course. That group generated a report and a set of recommendations for UI100 and that can be found in Appendix R.

During the spring semester of 2008, the University Studies Council worked on analyzing the data that had been gathered and formulated recommendations for the review. On April 28, 2008 the Council met to discuss the recommendations that would become the output of this review. On June 2, 2008 the Council held a retreat to finalize the review.

Section I -Review of the administration of the University Studies Program:

Review Process:

This section of the review is concerned with the general structure of the current program, assessment issues, and the administrative issues related to policy and procedures that govern the program. To inform this part of the review, the University Studies Council reviewed the following:

  • The University’s mission statement
  • The University Studies mission statement from the mid-1990s (Appendix G)
  • Missouri’s transfer and articulation policy related to general education (can be referenced at: )
  • The general education programs of other Missouri universities and colleges (Appendix J)
  • Data related to University Studies Program credit given through CLEP subject exams, Advanced Placement, Dual Credit, and other early college credit means (Appendix K)
  • Department chairs survey question related to how decisions were made with regard to determining course offerings, assigning instructors, and determining enrollment caps for University Studies courses (Appendix F)
  • Archived documents related to University Studies Program policy (Appendix H)
  • Data concerning how many courses and sections of University Studies were being offered by department (Appendix N)
  • Data on the number of transfer students having UI100 waived (Appendix K)

Findings:

The Council found that reviewing the current policies of the University Studies Program was problematic, due to the lack of a single source document or manual that outlined the policies and procedures of the program. For many of the policies the Council had been following, no original source or official document could be found to authorize the policy.Even finding the most recent mission statement for University Studies was difficult. While several documents were found in the archived materials that indicated program reviews had been done in previous years, no actual copies of a previous review were found.

With the addition of EN100 to the University Studies Program, Southeast is in compliance with the state transfer and articulation agreement. It should be noted that UI100 is part of the SoutheastMissouriStateUniversity 42-hour general education transfer block.

The data related to University Studies Program credit given through CLEP subject exams, Advanced Placement, Dual Credit, and other early college credit means can be found in Appendix K, Table 2. The data indicates for fall 2004 – fall 2007 semesters, about 8% of the incoming freshman came to Southeast with previous college credit for University Studies courses earned during their high school years.

The survey given the department chairs asked questions related to how decisions were made concerning which courses to offer, assigning instructors and enrollment caps for University Studies courses (Appendix F). The chairs indicated that past offerings, student demand, and requests from upper administration were factors in making these types of decisions. Data on enrollment trends can be found in Appendix Q. The data suggest that some categories have higher enrollment than others. This is likely due to dual credit offered by SoutheastMissouriStateUniversity for courses in history, sociology, speech, psychology, and mathematics.

UI100 is the course designed to introduce students to the purposes, philosophy, and structure of the University Studies program. Since the Council has been considering adopting a policy requiring all students to take UI100, data related to that policy was gathered. The data related to the number of students having UI100 waived due to transfer credit can be found in Appendix K, Table 1. This data shows that an average of approximately 500 students transfer in enough hours each fall semester to have UI100 waived. Based on this data, requiring all students to take UI100 would require that approximately 23 – 27 additional sections of UI100 be offered each semester.

Recommendations:

As a result of evaluating all of the information available, the Council makes the following recommendations:

  • Since the most recent version of the mission statement for the University Studies program that was found predates the adoption of UI100 in place of GS101, the University Studies Council should update the original Mission Statement for the University Studies Program
  • To insure that SoutheastMissouriStateUniversity remains in compliance with Missouri’s Transfer and Articulation agreement, the Dean of University Studies should continue to monitor any changes to the University Studies Program that might remove it from compliance with state policy regarding general education.
  • Currently no research is being done to determine if students who transfer in a significant number of University Studies Program credits, gained from dual credit, CLEP subject examinations, or Advanced Placement, have a comparable educational experience to students who take all of their University Studies courses at Southeast. While the number of students affected by this is still relatively small, the Dean of University Studies should continue to monitor the number of University Studies Program credit hours students are earning through such means.
  • Trying to determine the exact policies of the University Studies Program related to many administrative issues is problematic due to a lack of a well defined Policies and Procedures document. It is recommended that the creation of such a document is of utmost importance. In the process of creating this document, the Council should determine what the explicit and implied policies of the University Studies program are, officially document them, and either enforce the policy or change it. Once this document is created and approved, it needs to be readily available through the University Studies website for the entire Southeast campus community to reference as needed. This document needs to include (at a minimum) the following:
  • A Mission Statement and the 9 University Studies Objectives
  • Definitions of the Perspectives and Categories
  • Course Approval Procedures and a template of the Course Approval format
  • Instructor Qualifications for teaching University Studies courses
  • Policies related to enrollment caps and delivery methods
  • Course syllabus guidelines
  • Procedures to assess the program, the instructors and the students
  • Policies related to the membership of the University Studies Council
  • Policies for course waiver/substitution
  • Course ownership policy
  • Policies, procedures, and forms related to requesting professional and teaching enhancement funds for University Studies instructors
  • Policies related to the University Studies courses that are actually courses in a major, taking University Studies courses in the same department as the major, and the number of classes that a student can take from the same department
  • Policies related to having University Studies courses waived or substitutions made
  • Policies related to enforcing pre-requisites
  • The assessment of students’ progress towards the University Studies Objectives has been lax in recent years and needs to be re-established in a systematic and meaningful way. The Council recommends re-implementing a program of periodic assessment for the University Studies program and category objectives.
  • Support the efforts to adopt MAPP as the assessment instrument used for compliance with the VSA and state general education assessment requirements.
  • Establish an instrument or processes to assess the nine objectives and category themes (not already covered by MAPP)
  • Focus on assessment of Objectives 4 – 9 through embedded assessment in courses (See Appendix S for the list of the University Study objectives)
  • Continue the successful writing assessment program via the current process or a new process established as an outcome of the review of writing assessment occurring independent of the University Studies Council review.
  • Since the assessment of University Studies is a complex and time-consuming task, it is recommended that an Associate Dean of University Studies position be reestablished. This position would be charged with assessing the program through periodic review of courses to determine their alignment with the corresponding Course Approval Documents, periodic review of instructors teaching University Studies courses, and developing a valid assessment program of students to insure they are making progress towards the nine University Studies Objectives.
  • Students who transfer in 24 or more credit hours and have UI100 waived are actually 3 hours short of the 42 hours dictated by the state transfer and articulation agreement. It is recommended the 24-hour UI100 course waiver policy be revisited after some of the recommendations concerning UI100 have had time to take effect.

Section II - Review of the current structure of the University Studies Program:

Review Process:

The University Studies Council determined that issues related to the size, objectives, perspectives, categories, and perceptions about the University Studies Program needed to be reviewed. To inform this part of the review the Council considered the following:

  • The general education programs of other Missouri universities and colleges (Appendix J)
  • Recommendations from AAC&U and LEAP for quality liberal education programs (these can be referenced on-line at: )
  • A survey of full time faculty members (Appendix C)
  • A survey of students taking UI400-level courses during fall 2007 semester (Appendix D)
  • A survey of Southeast Alumni who graduated from 1998 – 2007 (Appendix E)
  • A survey of department chairs (Appendix F)

Findings:

A comparison of Southeast’s University Studies program to the general education programs of other institutions indicated that University Studies is comparable to the other programs in terms of size, requirements, and objectives. Differences include the 9 hours of upper division interdisciplinary coursework and the 3 hour freshman seminar. A comparison of the 9 University Studies objectives to the recommendations from AAC&U and LEAP for quality liberal education programsindicate the University Studies program is in line with the most current ideas about best practices for liberal education for today’s students.

The surveys indicated that while there seems to be general support for the University Studies program, there is a lack of understanding and misperceptions among faculty and students as to the purposes of parts of the University Studies program. Among faculty there is universal agreement that a liberal education component is to be desired in Southeast’s degree programs, but there is a lack of consensus as to what the goals and structure of that component should be. Documents from the Archives committee indicate that this lack of consensus has been an issue since the conception of University Studies, so it should not be surprising that almost 20 years later faculty still have widely divergent opinions about the goals of a liberal education, as well as how those goals should be achieved.

The majority of the 194 faculty members who responded to the survey believe the structure of the program supports the goal of having all students make significant progress towards reaching the 9 University Studies Objectives (Appendix S). About three-fourths of faculty indicated they believe the current 9 University Studies Objectivesare appropriate. About one quarter of the faculty felt that one or more of the objectives should either be eliminated or combined with another objective. The most frequent criticisms of the last 6 University Studies Objectives focused on whether the objectives could be reasonably assessed to determine if students were making progress towards reaching those objectives. When asked to compare the rigor of University Studies courses to courses in the major, just over half of the faculty felt the University Studies courses were as least as rigorous as courses in the major. When asked about the value of the UI300 and UI400 level courses, almost three-fourths of the faculty indicated those courses provide valuable educational experiences for students. The biggest concern from the faculty survey was the faculty’s perception of the value of the UI100 course. Only forty percent of the faculty felt UI100 was a valuable part of the University Studies Program.

Similar results were reported by students taking a UI400-level course during the fall 2007 semester. Sixty percent of the students felt the University Studies Program had helped them make significant progress towards meeting the nine objectives and fifty-eight percent agreed that the University Studies Program at Southeast had been a valuable part of their overall learning experience. Of the 274 students who responded to this survey, only 181 indicated they had taken UI100. Of those 181 students, just over half felt the course helped them make significant progress towards meeting the first 3 University Studies Objectives and about forty percent agreed that UI100 had been a valuable part of their overall learning experience. Issues related to the UI100 course will be discussed later in this review.