Senate Select Committee on General Education
Sub-Committee on Consultation of Stakeholders
REPORT
April 4, 2002
Sub-Committee Members: Stephen Chris, Linda Gleckel, David Hunter, Kerran Sanger
To receive feedback from the Buffalo State College community on its Interim Report, the Senate Select Committee on General Education decided to run focus groups, four involving a mixture of faculty, administrators and staff and one involving students. The first four have been completed, and we are currently organizing one with students.
This is a report on the results of the first four focus groups. We first provide a brief statement of the most significant lessons we think we learned from the focus groups. We then describe the composition and function of the focus groups and provide a more detailed analysis of the responses.
Lessons
- Support among faculty and administrators for a meaningful General Education program at Buffalo State College is spirited, intelligent and heartening. This is reflected in the fact that so many of the program chairs chose to attend themselves rather than send representatives, that their comments were well-informed and articulate, and that most agreed that a General Education program deserves an important share of BSC’s limited resources.
- There are deep concerns about whether all programs and faculties will be treated fairly and equally in our proposal. Though these worries were forcefully expressed by FASE representatives, they were echoed by representatives of all three faculties, and were not restricted to the treatment of FASE programs.
- There will be a need to educate the Buffalo State College community about the reasons underlying our final proposal. For while many of the participants were unclear about the details of our interim report’s proposal, many also wanted to know about the justification underlying these details.
- The issues discussed and feelings expressed by the participants were, by and large, those we anticipated. In many respects, they echoed the discussions we have had among ourselves. This indicates, we think, that our committee’s deliberations have been focused on the proper issues and have been sensitive to the relevant campus attitudes.
Focus Group Composition and Function
Each of the focus groups was composed of representatives from the three faculties, the administration and relevant support programs. The chair of each department/program was invited to attend or send a representative. A list of the participants, together with the dates and times of the groups, is appended to this report.
Participants were asked to share their thoughts and feelings on any part of our Interim Report, but were directed to pay special attention to the draft mission statement and to the proposed General Education structure. In turn, the participants shared their comments which, along with the commentator’s affiliation, were recorded on a large sheet of paper. Discussion was not allowed, and previously made comments could not be repeated. This continued until no participant had any comments left. Participants were then asked to indicate which five of the comments made during the session were the most important. These votes were then totaled, yielding the ‘score’ for each comment.
Analysis
Overview
We identified 11 themes. Only a relatively small number of comments fit more than one theme, and there were very few ‘repeat’ comments.
Given that repeat comments were not allowed, the number of comments in each theme may reflect the relative complexity of the theme more than its relative importance: the more complex a theme is, the more there was to say about it, even if what was said was not at the end judged to be relatively important.
The voting score for each theme does reflect, in a rough way, the importance of each theme in the eyes of the participants at the end of the meeting: the higher the score for a given theme the more important comments in that theme were judged at the end of the session to be.
Five themes concern the structure a General Education program should take. Together, these five themes received the greatest number of comments and the highest score. But some ‘non-structural’ themes received more comments and a higher score than some of the structural’ themes.
Theme # of comments score
Need for Dedicated Resources 10 28
Structure: need for balance 9 23
Impact on Students 19 20
Structure: need for simplicity 7 17
General Education Mission 12 15
Structure: miscellaneous 11 15
Structure: competency areas 12 14
Implementation concerns 21 12
Structure: integrative courses 11 9
Negative Impact on Departments & Programs 3 7
Description of Themes and Sample Comments
Need for Dedicated Resources
Three needs were identified: (1) the Administration must clearly articulate its commitment to the structure and goals of the GenEd program, (2) the Administration must provide resources for faculty development and (where needed) new faculty lines; and (3) there should be a dedicated faculty group responsible for general education.
Sample Comments:
· “Very strong feeling—Accountability should not be left with the departments. Their concern is with majors. Currently, part-timers teach a lot of GenEd. Suggestion: a faculty sub-group—accountable and with resources needed” to administer GenEd program
· “Need a team of people and resources (time, people) so that GenEd does what it is intended to”
· “Mission of Buffalo State is ‘excellence in teaching and scholarship.’ Distinct low wage for part-time faculty means we cannot assure quality or attract faculty from outside WNY area.”
Structure: need for balance
There must be equal/fair distribution of core requirements across faculties and programs. These comments prompted perhaps the strongest feelings, and centered around issues of "turf.” It was clear that a number of participants were advocating for including courses/experiences that are close and dear to them.
Sample Comments:
· “Core of "liberal arts education"--old news. Need to expand and think outside the box (very disappointed in elimination of CT).”
· “Biggest concern generally is balance within core areas--lost AST and expanded other core areas (history & social science) and reduced Arts and NS.”
· “Reduction from 9 credits to 6 in Gen. ed. social sciences "waters" down the program. No courses yet developed for West and non-West Civilization.”
Impact on Students
Concerns relating to students included: 1) the large size and perceived lack of flexibility of the GenEd program; 2) the college’s obligation (and current failure) to deliver enough seats in the courses we require of students, and 3) issues regarding articulation agreements with 2-year colleges and effect of the proposed program on transfer students
Sample Comments:
· “Implementation problem—63 credits [in GenEd] is too much. Cannot be done in 4 years, especially in Education programs. Transfers will not have any of it when they arrive.”
· “availability of courses. Number of seats to fill #7 [non-western civilizations] is too small given number of students who need to take it. Need to make sure we can satisfy created demand.”
· “Articulation agreements—how will they change? How will transfer students be affected?”
Structure: need for simplicity
The general education program should provide a common, shared experience that has integrity, is more cohesive, and is easy for advisors and students to navigate.
Sample Comments:
· “Goal of common curriculum reflecting general education experience is thwarted by wide number of courses. Need to be very determined to trim core to shorter list of options (within each category).”
· “Will the number of core courses in each area be greatly reduced? In favor of no A & B lists and smaller, but well chosen, groups of courses.”
· “Is this program going to be less cumbersome than past programs? Currently, there are far too many mistakes made in advising, e.g., audit system and human errors. Should avoid long lists of Gen. Ed. courses.”
General Education Mission
The GenEd program could, and should, be part of the signature experience offered at Buffalo State. Some participants recommended changes in the wording of the draft mission statement, such as adding “responsible and informed decision making,” and “values of artistic expression.”
Sample Comments:
· “In mission statement, “like idea of ‘skills and habits’ of the mind. Too often the focus is on content, not process/method. Critical thinking is especially not taught. Should be stressed in a first-year course.”
· “My hope is that this [GenEd] will characterize the culture of Buffalo State. Better characterize and describe the college culture for purposes of marketing and recruiting.”
· “Concern that aligning this process with strategic planning is not being done. Clarity and simplicity is virtue. ‘Signature’ parts of campus very important. GenEd could provide a signature with a service [learning] course.”
Structure: miscellaneous
Some broadly ‘structural’ comments did not fall clearly into any other subcategory related to structure. Some of these concerned the need for rigor in the general education requirement as well as for stronger connections between courses in the major and courses in general education. Comments regarding double dipping general education courses with major courses were mixed, although there appeared to be support for breadth. There is no consensus as to whether General Education courses are best offered at the lower division level versus the upper division level.
Sample Comments:
· “Concerning double dipping--must allow more than one course in major for double dipping. If Gen. Ed. is to be rigorous, it should allow more majors courses--to increase the rigor of Gen. Ed.”
· “Should 1-7 (identified "core" areas) be lower division? Could not be rigorous enough. Gen. Ed. and major should be more interactive. Eliminating upper level Gen. Ed. would be very disruptive.”
· “Committee is encouraged to identify additional outcomes beyond those identified by the Board of Trustees. Support notion of shared experiences as much as possible.”
Structure: competency areas
This theme concerns math, basic communication, foreign language, information management, critical thinking, global issues, and diversity. The method and effectiveness of infusing these competencies/skills into courses was questioned. There were also concerns about how courses meeting these competencies would be selected and assessed.
Sample Comments:
· “The same standards need to be applied to judge college-level competency in foreign language and math. as are applied to judge college-level competency in English and history.”
· “Need clear criteria for "infusion," e.g., diversity and global could be infused in the "Other Civilizations" courses, but what about critical thinking, and who determines the criteria?”
Implementation Questions
Among the implementation issues are (1) how core courses will be assessed; (2) whether the selection procedure for core courses will be fair and impartial; (3) whether the new audit system can handle the proposed requirements.
Sample Comments:
· “General education is extremely important. Currently, some problems derive from poor advising, not poor GenEd program. Need good advising system.”
· “Who is going to decide what courses meet requirements of each category, e.g. department, Senate committee, GC, Albany? Will current courses be grandfathered?”
· “Ensure that courses meet outcomes. In favor of adding more to Trustees learning outcomes, e.g. Bloom’s taxonomy.”
Structure: integrative courses
There was interest in service learning. There was also worry that incorporating 6 to 9 credit hours into students' programs would, especially for transfer students, prove to be intractable.
Sample Comments:
· “6-9 upper-level credits will be very difficult to schedule especially with senior seminars and independent studies.”
· “Need to consider the negative impact of integrative courses will have on transfer students, and on doing minors, especially if all Gen. Ed. courses are lower division.”
· “Would like capstone at upper level and service learning. Local companies look for it in hiring.”
Negative Impact on Programs
Surprisingly few people described specific negative impacts the proposed GenEd program would have on their programs. But there was, as indicated by the theme of balance above, considerable concern that some programs and faculties were being treated unfairly.
Sample Comments:
· “Resources needed, especially lines, e.g. Math—every student must take MAT 103, which places a heavy demand on the Math program. Need substantial commitment to tenure-track lines”
· “Eliminating area of technology will negatively impact number of majors in FASE”
PARTICIPANT LIST
Sally Arnold / Speech Language Pathology / Tuesday, February 26, 2002Michael DeMarco / Physics /
Tuesday, February 26, 2002
William Engelbrecht / Anthropology / Tuesday, February 26, 2002Warren Gleckel / Exceptional Education / Tuesday, February 26, 2002
Dennis McCarthy / Arts & Humanities / Tuesday, February 26, 2002
Judy Miller / Records & Registration / Tuesday, February 26, 2002
Suk Oh / Dietetics & Nutrition / Tuesday, February 26, 2002
Roswell Park / Academic Support Programs / Tuesday, February 26, 2002
Ted Schmidt / Economics & Finance / Tuesday, February 26, 2002
Ron Smith / Communication / Tuesday, February 26, 2002
Richard Stempniak / Business / Tuesday, February 26, 2002
Michael Fox / Creative Studies / Friday, March 1, 2002
Lesa Loritts / Admission / Friday, March 1, 2002
Nancy Monaco / Educational Foundations / Friday, March 1, 2002
Anthony Neal / Political Science / Friday, March 1, 2002
Michael Parks / Art Education / Friday, March 1, 2002
Peter Pawlik / Technology / Friday, March 1, 2002
Steve Saracino / Design / Friday, March 1, 2002
Randy Snyder / Biology / Friday, March 1, 2002
Peter Sowiski / Fine Arts / Friday, March 1, 2002
Steven Vermette / Geography & Planning / Friday, March 1, 2002
Catherine Ansuini / Health & Wellness / Tuesday, March 5, 2002
William Durfee / Chemistry / Tuesday, March 5, 2002
Cynthia Eggleston / Enroll./Support/Retention / Tuesday, March 5, 2002
George Hole / Philosophy & Religious Studies / Tuesday, March 5, 2002
Richard Lee / FASE / Tuesday, March 5, 2002
Jill Norvilitis / Psychology / Tuesday, March 5, 2002
Larry Scott / Computer Information Systems / Tuesday, March 5, 2002
Christopher Aviles / Social Work / Thursday, March 7, 2002
Carol Beckley / Performing Arts / Thursday, March 7, 2002
Lily Bink / EOP / Thursday, March 7, 2002
Virginia Grabiner / Sociology / Thursday, March 7, 2002
Kevin Mulcahey / Hospitality & Tourism / Thursday, March 7, 2002
Kevin Railey / English / Thursday, March 7, 2002
Debra Ross / Criminal Justice / Thursday, March 7, 2002
Robin Sanders / Mathematics / Thursday, March 7, 2002
Lucy Schwartz / Modern & Classical Languages / Thursday, March 7, 2002
2