FAQs about
Liberal Studies Revision at IUP
Why is it necessary to revise the current Liberal
Studies program?
What is the rationale for labeling
the outcomes, University Undergraduate Student
Learning Outcomes?
Will departments be expected to
map all department course objectives to these University
Undergraduate Student Learning Outcomes?
How will a revised liberal studies
curriculum impact a departmental/program assessment
plan?
How will the proposed University Undergraduate Student
Learning Outcomes be measured?
What is the projected timeline for the revision process?
Liberal Studies
Revision Steering Committee members
Selected References
Why is it
necessary to revise the current Liberal Studies program?
Every program should be reviewed
with an eye towards improvement. The current
curriculum was designed in 1987 and has been in place
since 1989. While it served as a model of general
education at that time and was lauded in 1995 by the
Middle States Commission on Higher Education site
visitors as a “star in the crown at IUP,” it is
evident 17 years later that some essential knowledge,
values and skills are not addressed in the current
curriculum. Well respected academies in higher
education as well as our own regional accreditor,
Middle States Commission on Higher Education, expects
that baccalaureate graduates achieve a degree of
proficiency with content related to global awareness,
information literacy, oral communication, and values
and ethics. These concepts and skills are not
emphasized in the current liberal studies curriculum.
To continue to hold fast to a curriculum that is a
familiar friend but that fails to address these areas
in a deliberate manner short changes the students we
are educating for a world where these proficiencies
are expected as necessary, not ideal.
A revised curriculum can address these areas of
essential knowledge, values, and skills.
Educational research related to student retention
suggests that a well conceptualized and operational
first year experience is a factor that contributes to
positive outcomes in the area of student retention.
Many universities have implemented very successful
first year experience programs that can serve as
models. While our current curriculum was planned with
an intentional first year experience, the concept was
not embraced university-wide and for a number of
reasons it failed to be sustained over time.
A revised curriculum can address the area of
student retention by incorporating a first year
experience and by creating intentional bridges with
the student affairs division to help actualize the
experience.
The outcomes that relate to general education or
liberal studies should be achieved by students across
the curriculum, not just in isolated courses. The
current literature on general education issues
suggests that general education programs are often
structurally and philosophically disconnected and
separate from the major; as a result the
faculty-at-large perceive this component of the
students’ educational experience as someone else’s
responsibility. Student comments suggest that they
experience a chasm between liberal studies courses and
major courses when they state that liberal studies
courses have little or nothing to do with the
knowledge and skills they need in a particular field
of study.
A revised curriculum can be created with
intentional bridges between liberal studies and the
major. Finding ways to make an explicit connection
between a liberal education and a student’s place in
the workplace and society can help to make the
education more seamless, relevant and coherent. The
adoption of a set of university student learning
outcomes is one such first step.
The increasing number of requests for exceptions to
the requirements in the current curriculum suggests
that the foundational beliefs and assumptions that
underlie the current liberal studies program may not
be espoused by the majority of people who are in
positions to support and rule on exceptions.
A new curriculum is timely when there is evidence
to suggest that we no longer fully support the
philosophical and academic rationale of the current
program.
It is clear that faculty are concerned about the whole
notion of outcomes assessment. In the present academic
environment, the requirement for institutions to
examine the evidence that reflects the degree to which
students are achieving pre-determined outcomes is no
longer debatable. Having in place a systematic plan
for assessment that is meaningful and feasible for
informing faculty about student learning is required
by the PASSHE and our regional accreditor, Middle
States Commission on Higher Education.
Written over 17 years ago, the current liberal studies
goals were written with evaluation strategies in mind,
but the plan for assessment was not comprehensive
enough to meet the current expectations for
assessment, and the measurement tools relied too
heavily on self-reported data. In fact, a lack of
direct evidence about student learning was mentioned
in the recommendations from the 1995 Middle States
site visit. At that time it was recommended that we
move towards more direct measures that provided
evidence of students meeting LS goals.
In summary, a university-wide assessment plan for
determining whether IUP undergraduates achieve the
proficiencies associated with what is expected of a
liberally educated person is not in place; and the
current plan we follow fails to adequately meet the
requirements for outcomes assessment - that is, that
academic decisions be based on evidence, not whim. To
attempt to impose an assessment plan on the existing
liberal studies program would not be the best use of
faculty time and energy, especially when there are
areas of the curriculum that need revisited, revamped,
and some areas that need to be added.
A revised curriculum will be designed with an
associated assessment plan. The revised curriculum and
assessment plan will be faculty driven rather than
imposed from above or outside.
Assessment is an activity that all faculty conduct in
every course they teach; a systematic plan that is
designed to examine student learning more broadly
across the curriculum rather than in isolated courses
is a concept that we trust faculty will embrace rather
than reject. Feeling coerced to conduct specified
assessment activities often leads to invalid
assessment data and an attitude that negates the
primary purpose of assessment. It is the belief of the
LSRSC that the collective faculty at IUP can create
and endorse an assessment plan that is reasonable and
feasible. It is a worthy goal to develop a plan that
examines authentic student work at various points
across the curriculum for the purpose of understanding
where students are in relation to the overall outcomes
expected at graduation.
A new curriculum provides an opportunity to create
a relevant and coherent program in liberal studies
with an assessment plan that makes sense and is useful
to faculty and students.
It has been suggested that “tinkering with” or
“tweaking” the current curriculum should be
sufficient. The problem with this approach is
agreement on which components require change and which
ones stay intact. Such an approach is destined to
misdirect faculty energy from creating something new
and fresh to turf protection and defending why their
contributions to the current curriculum should remain
untouched. A piecemeal approach to curriculum revision
is likely to create division rather than synergy and
result in winners and losers.
A fresh, innovative curriculum with everyone
re-examining expected student learning outcomes,
curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment will take IUP
forward with a renewed commitment to insure a liberal
education for all students, regardless of major.
return to top
What is
the rationale for labeling the outcomes, University
Undergraduate Student Learning Outcomes?
This is not a new idea that has
been introduced into the process recently.1
The idea of an overarching set of outcomes that all
baccalaureate graduates should achieve is consistent
with trends in General Education, Middle States
Commission on Higher Education standards, and the
Association of American Colleges and University’s
Greater Expectations document. That is, one of
the assumptions underlying the revision process is
that faculty share the responsibility for producing
university graduates who are liberally educated.
In addition to the courses that are eventually
designated as liberal studies courses, an intentional
building on the proposed student learning outcomes as
students progress through the major should result in a
higher degree of proficiency in our graduates. For
instance, a student taking a single course in public
speaking cannot be expected to graduate with effective
oral communication skills unless this same outcome is
addressed throughout his/her education. So, in this
sense it requires faculty commitment across the
curriculum to insure that students graduate with the
capabilities that are described in the proposed
University Undergraduate Student Learning Outcomes.
While this approach requires a shift in our thinking
about general education, it is probable that the
majority of our departmental programs are already
designed to help students achieve some of the same
student outcomes, i.e., critical thinking,
communication, inquiry, problem solving, information
literacy.
In the Middle States Commission on Higher Education
Accreditation standards as well as the current
literature on higher education, it is clear that
faculty cannot assume to graduate liberally educated
students by having these students complete a selection
of courses in the arts, humanities and sciences; a
truly liberal education occurs across the span of the
curriculum. A set of overarching University
Undergraduate Student Learning Outcomes provides a
road map for all faculty as to what we espouse for all
graduates. If adopted, programs (major) could then
focus their assessment of student learning to
discipline-specific outcomes allowing the program
assessment process to be streamlined.
Adopting broad overarching liberal education outcomes
creates shared accountability. Our present curriculum
makes it easy to point fingers and blame others when
students can't think, read, do math, or research ---
and the brunt of the blame is placed on the faculty
who teach a Liberal Studies course. In reality, we
should recognize that it is unfair and unreasonable to
expect that faculty teaching liberal studies courses
can accomplish the goal of providing every student
with all the elements of a liberal education in a few
courses offered during the freshman and sophomore
years.
Therefore, re-conceptualizing a curriculum that is
coherent, relevant and meaningful for students, and
implemented by a faculty who support the idea that
expected liberal education outcomes occur over time
and across the curriculum can result in a wonderful
educational experience for students at IUP. A set of
University Undergraduate Student Learning Outcomes,
ones that transcend disciplinary boundaries, can
provide a shared vision for aligning educational
experiences in both liberal studies and in major
coursework.
1See email dated November 1 from Mary
Sadler and the January 31 Senate Agenda
www.iup.edu/senate
.
return to top
Will
departments be expected to map all department course
objectives to these University Undergraduate Student
Learning Outcomes?
No. While it is an assumption of the LSRSC that there
are courses in the student’s major that will continue to
foster student achievement of several of the outcomes
associated with the proposed University Undergraduate
Student Learning Outcomes, it is not anticipated that
individual department course objectives will be mapped
in this way. The assessment plan for liberal studies
will not affect faculty who are teaching non-liberal
studies courses.
However, faculty or departments that propose liberal
studies course offerings for a revised liberal studies
curriculum will be expected to identify how the course
outcomes, assignments and/or learning activities support
the achievement of the University Undergraduate Student
Learning Outcomes. Faculty and departments will be
expected to play a participative role in the assessment
of student learning that relates to specific liberal
studies courses and the associated University
Undergraduate Student Learning Outcome(s).
It is a premise of the LSRSC that a coherent, relevant
and meaningful curriculum can be achieved when
university faculty embrace the notion that students are
liberally educated not just by taking a distribution of
courses in the arts, humanities and sciences, but rather
by an intentional sequencing of relevant courses and
experiences across the span of the curriculum.
Utopia is achieved when faculty recognize the benefit of
contributing towards the achievement of the Student
Learning Outcomes over the entire curriculum, are eager
to articulate how particular courses support this
effort, and willingly participate in gathering evidence
of this student learning.
return to top
How will
a revised liberal studies curriculum impact a
departmental/program assessment plan?
The Middle States Commission on Higher Education asks
for evidence that students have achieved general
education goals at the time of graduation.
Interestingly, a number of the outcomes proposed for a
revised curriculum are ones that many departments
already espouse for their students (critical thinking,
communication, inquiry, problem solving, information
literacy, etc).
To create a revised liberal studies curriculum that is
relevant and cohesive for students and faculty, it is
expected that departments (programs) will identify which
of the University Undergraduate Student Learning
Outcomes are addressed within their own outcomes. This
exercise is beneficial not only because it articulates
how a particular curriculum builds on prior learning
with liberal studies courses as the foundation, but more
so it will help to identify the knowledge, values and
skills that are emphasized throughout the four years and
can alert us to areas of learning that get less
attention across the curriculum. Information such as
this can lead to course or program improvement.
The assessment plan for liberal studies that purports to
measure the achievement of the proposed University
Undergraduate Student Learning Outcomes should not
directly impact a department’s assessment plan. However,
the department plan should be congruent with or
complement the University Undergraduate Student Learning
Outcomes. Our challenge at IUP is to find ways to
streamline the assessment process, create feedback
loops, and build communication links between and among
departments so that we can make sound academic decisions
based on evidence.
return to top
How will
the proposed University Undergraduate Student Learning
Outcomes be measured?
When Barbara Walvoord, consultant from Notre Dame,
visited IUP in fall 2004 to lead workshops for faculty
groups, she urged us to keep all assessment plans
"simple, cost efficient and useful." The committee will
try to adhere to these principles.
The Student Learning Outcomes work group that was
chaired by Mary Ann Rafoth offered the following as
examples of tools that might be used to measure the
student learning outcomes: aggregated course
assignments; standardized tests; course grades based on
explicit criteria that are tied to learning outcomes;
rubrics for critical skills; performance and products;
capstone projects; recitals; senior class reports or
theses; practica ratings; graduate surveys; employer
surveys; and student self-reports.
In addition, we will consider ways to better examine
student success across the curriculum with essential
skills such as critical thinking, writing/communication,
problem solving, and information literacy. There are a
number of strategies that could be used to more directly
assess student progress on learning that is expected to
occur across the curriculum.
Some of our colleges have assessment plans in place that
rely primarily on direct evidence from student work to inform them about student
learning, e.g., Education and Educational Technology and
Health and Human Services. We can benefit from this
experience with assessment as to which measures have
proven to be successful and which ones are less
meaningful as it relates to informing faculty about
student learning.
Assessment, as it relates to
measuring student learning, should be authentic; it
should also be meaningful to faculty for making course
or program improvement decisions. We will
strive to create an assessment plan for student learning
that faculty can embrace; and one that is based on the
principle of Keep It Simple!
return to top
What is the
projected timeline for the revision process?
|
April 2006 |
Department liaisons will be
contacted about meeting with the LSRSC.
Fourth draft of Student Learning Outcomes prepared
and sent to university community for
comment/revision by 4-17-06. Final draft of
University Undergraduate Student Learning Outcomes
prepared by 4-18 and advanced to the UWUCC and
Senate agenda for action.
|
|
May 2, 2006 |
University Undergraduate
Student Learning Outcomes on the Senate agenda for
action.
|
|
May 22-26 2006 |
Retreat for Liberal Studies
Revision Steering Committee – best practice models
of general education will be examined more closely
for “fit” with IUP; discussion on a proposed
structure/framework; propose a recommendation for
overall credit requirement; begin drafting an
overall plan for assessment.
|
|
May-July 2006 |
4-5 weeks - campus experts
and department liaisons scheduled to meet with LSRSC
for the purpose of dialogue about curriculum
structure, issues, concerns and anticipated course
contributions to a revised curriculum. This is the
opportunity for departments to help create the
curriculum structure that will advance through the
curriculum process in the fall 06 semester.
|
|
Fall 2006 |
Continue work on proposed
revisions that were started during summer; meet with
senators, dept chairs, APSCUF executive council,
APSCUF reps, for input on proposed categories,
credit requirements and criteria; develop a proposed
plan for assessment with input from campus experts.
Send drafts of “work in progress” campus wide for
input; engage departments in discussions about how
courses in their majors may foster achievement of
the Student Learning Outcomes.
|
|
Oct/Nov 2006 |
Present a proposal that
includes categories, criteria for categories and
plan for assessment to LSC, UWUCC, and Senate for
discussion/dialogue/revision. Send copy of proposal
to university community for input.
|
|
Dec 2006 |
Present revised proposal on
curriculum framework, categories, criteria, and
assessment plan to UWUCC and Senate for action.
|
|
Spring/Sum/Fall 2007 |
Departments develop
coursework for the revised curriculum.
|
|
Fall 2007/Spring 2008 |
Approval process for new
courses and associated program revisions; engage
departments in discussions about how courses in
their majors foster achievement of the Student
Learning Outcomes.
|
|
Fall 2008 |
Implementation of new
curriculum for incoming freshman only.
|
|
2008-2012 |
Transition years for
continuing the existing curriculum and implementing
the revised curricula; departments continue to
propose new or revised courses for the revised
curriculum.
|
| return to top |
|
|
Liberal Studies
Revision Steering Committee members |
|
|
Mary Sadler, chair, Director of
Liberal Studies |
<Mary.Sadler@iup.edu>
|
|
|
Yaw Asamoah, Dean, College of
Humanities and Social Sciences |
<Yaw.Asamoah@iup.edu> |
|
|
Carmy Carranza, Developmental
Studies |
<Carmy.Carranza@iup.edu> |
|
|
Muhammad Numan, Physics |
<Muhammad.Numan@iup.edu> |
|
|
Jack Scandrett, Music |
<John.Scandrett@iup.edu> |
|
|
Gail Sechrist, Geography &
Regional Planning |
<Gail.Sechrist@iup.edu> |
|
|
B. Gail Wilson, Communications
Media |
<B.G.Wilson@iup.edu> |
|
|
Dawn Woodland, Technology Support
and Training |
<Dawn.Woodland@iup.edu> |
|
|
Selected
References
|
|
|
|
Association of American
Colleges. (1994). Strong foundations.
Washington, DC: Author.
Association of American
Colleges and Universities. (2005). Liberal
education outcomes: A preliminary report on student
achievement in college. Washington, DC: Author.
Association of American
Colleges and Universities. (2004). Taking
responsibility for the quality of the baccalaureate
degree. Washington, DC: Author
Association of American
Colleges and Universities. (2002). Greater
expectations: A new vision for learning as a nation
goes to college. Washington, DC: Author.
Association of American
Colleges and Universities. (2001). Project partners
with accreditors on assessment and student
achievement. Greater Expectations Update, 3,
1-5.
Barefoot, B. (1993).
Exploring the evidence: reporting outcomes of
Freshman Seminars (Monograph No. 11). Columbia, SC:
National Resource Center for the Freshman Year
Experience.
Bok, Derek. (2006).
Our underachieving colleges: A candid look at how
much students learn and why they should be learning
more. Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ.
Humphreys, D. Davenport,
A. (2005). What really matters in college: How
students view and value liberal education.
Liberal Education, 91, 36-43
Indiana University of PA. (2005). A Comprehensive
Self-Study of Indiana University of PA. Unpublished
document.
Indiana University of PA. (1988). Criteria for
liberal studies courses at IUP. Unpublished
document.
Meacham, J. (1996).
Assessing general education: A questionnaire to
initiate campus conversations, Washington DC:
Association of American Colleges and Universities.
Middle States Commission
on Higher Education. (2002). Characteristics of
excellence in higher education: Eligibility
requirements and standards for accreditation.
Philadelphia, PA: Middle States Commission on Higher
Education.
PA State System of
Higher Education Board of Governors (1997, January).
Assessing student learning outcomes (Policy
1997-01). Harrisburg, PA: Author
PA State System of
Higher Education Board of Governors (2003, October).
Program review (Policy 1986-04-A).
Harrisburg, PA: Author
Schneider, C.G. (2003,
June). Connecting general education and the
major, Paper presented at the meeting of the
Asheville Institute on General Education, Asheville,
NC
Schroeder, C. (2003).
The first year and beyond, Charles Schroeder talks
to John Gardner. About Campus,
September-October, 9-16.
Upcraft, M.L., Gardner,
J. and Associates. (1989). The freshman year
experience: helping students survive and succeed in
college. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Upcraft, M.L., Gardner,
J., Barefoot, B. & Associates. (2005).
Challenging and supporting the first-year student: A
handbook for improving the first year of
college. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. |
return to top
|