1. General Education Courses and the Promotion of Essential Learning Outcomes Thomas F. Nelson Laird Amanda Suniti Niskodé George D. Kuh Center for Postsecondary Research Indiana University – Bloomington November 3, 2006

2. Background  Consensus is emerging a to the essential learning outcomes of higher education for the 21st century (the outcomes of a liberal education)  Although all of these skills, competencies, and dispositions cannot be addressed in the required general education component of undergraduate study, General Education Courses (GECs) are widely presumed to provide the foundation on which these outcomes will be developed

3. Purpose  To examine whether faculty who teach GECs structure their courses differently than their counterparts who teach non-GECs  Specifically, to determine whether GECs are structured to emphasize essential learning outcomes and effective educational practices to a different degree than non-GECs

4. Data & Sample  Data from the 109 institutions that participated in the 2005 administration of FSSE  Faculty pick a course taught in the past year and answer survey items in the context of that course--items include course level & GEC status  After deletion for missing data the sample consisted of about 11,000 faculty  Faculty teaching a GEC  3,111 lower division  2,120 upper division  Faculty teaching a non-GEC  1,214 lower division  4,452 upper division

5. Measures  Amount courses structured to emphasize  Intellectual Skills (  = 0.63)  Practical Skills (  = 0.65)  Individual and Social Responsibility (  = 0.80)  Emphasis on effective educational practices  Deep learning (  = 0.85)  Active classroom practices (  = 0.73)  Student-faculty interaction (  = 0.76  Diverse interactions (  = 0.87)

6. Analyses  Standardized mean differences (i.e., effect sizes) calculated between GECs and non-GECs by course level for each of the seven measures  Differences calculated both with and without controls (gender, race, employment status, years teaching, teaching load, discipline, and course size)

7. Results  Faculty place greatest emphasis on promoting intellectual skills (quite a bit), less emphasis on practical skills (between some and quite a bit), and even less on individual and social responsibility (some) across course level and GEC status

8. Results  GECs place greater emphasis on:  Intellectual skills  Individual and social responsibility  Deep learning  Diverse interactions  Active classroom practices (only slightly)  Non-GECs place greater emphasis on:  Practical skills  Student-faculty interaction

9. Conclusion & Implications  Room for greater emphasis on all outcomes across course levels and GEC status  Results can help feed campus conversations about what outcomes should be emphasized where  Study largely exploratory, so there are many questions about what explains the observed differences (use of TAs, affinity for students in GECs v. non-GECs,…)

10. For More Information  Email:tflaird@indiana.edu aniskode@indiana.edu  FSSE website: http://www.fsse.iub.edu  NSSE website: http://www.nsse.iub.edu Copies of papers and presentations, including this one, as well as annual reports and other information are available through the websites