General Education Tactical Team February/March 2011

 Janet Moore Lindman, History, co-chair  James Newell, Associate Provost, co-chair  Bryan Appleby-Wineberg, Music  Jay Chaskes, Sociology, Exploratory Studies  Roberta Harvey, Writing Arts, Provost Fellow  David Klassen, Physics/Astronomy  Mira Lalovic-Hand, Associate Provost, Institutional Effectiveness  Rory McElwee, Psychology, Rowan Seminar  Cindy Vitto, Associate Dean, CLAS  Rihab Ezzat Saadeddine, graduate student  Joseph Perella, undergraduate student

 “A well-crafted and distinctive GE could be the bedrock of a Rowan education. Rowan’s carefully crafted effort may no longer fit the needs of its students. Both the GE curriculum and its assessment might benefit from a thorough reconsideration and possible update.”  –Middle States Report, 2009

 Concerns for the Current Model: Input, menu-driven model: assumes learning outcomes are met through course completion Rationale for general education and relationships among knowledge areas not clear to students “Banks” of loosely affiliated courses lack coherence Misalignment between stated goals and actual curriculum

Social and Behavioral Sciences Bank: 1. Students will demonstrate an understanding of major concepts, theories, and methods in one or more of the social and behavioral sciences 2. Students will demonstrate an understanding of the development of human society as it relates to culture, geography, and language in the context of an emerging interdependent, global community 3. Students will demonstrate an ability to apply basic methodologies used in the measurement of social and behavioral science. How many students take a constellation of courses that actually address these goals comprehensively? How would we know if they have met this goal?

 Transparency & communication: Meetings with each College and with other constituencies (Deans, Senate, Advisors, Chairs, Students) Information and updates on the Faculty Center website (forthcoming) Open forums for the University community updates  Stages of the reform process: Conceptual phase Implementation phase

 Inclusive source material: Shared values in Rowan mission statements (University, Colleges, Programs) Current and former Rowan gen ed models & proposals Literature on best practices in higher ed (AAC&U, etc.)

A Re-Formed View of Undergraduate Education:  Our values for what every Rowan student should be like at graduation (knowledge, dispositions, skills)  Distinct from, and supportive of, the values that each College and Program has for its students  Gives more flexibility to Colleges and Programs to specify learning outcomes for their own students

 Identification of Core Literacies: What are the knowledge, skills, and dispositions for every Rowan graduate that are best developed universally, independent of the disciplines?  Core literacies What are the knowledge, skills, and dispositions for every Rowan graduate that are best developed in the context of the disciplines?  Transdisciplinary competencies

 Core Literacies Characterize every Rowan graduate and form the general education program  Transdisciplinary Competencies Developed throughout the general education and major curriculum; individual programs define and assess each according to its own values  Discipline-Specific Knowledge, Dispositions, and Skills: Defined and assessed by individual programs

 Aesthetic Literacy  Communicative Literacy  Mathematical Literacy  Scientific Literacy  Sociocultural Literacy

 Technological literacy  Information literacy  Critical thinking  Inquiry  Problem-solving  Creativity  Intentional learning  Teamwork  Integrative learning  Leadership

 Spring 2011: Develop core literacies Plan implementation Continually seek input from constituencies Issue preliminary report  Fall 2011: issue final report & submit curriculum proposal  Fall 2012: implement new model

 Questions?  Comments?