Saint Mary's College General Education

The Committee met among itself briefly to discuss the revision process of the three remaining models. We hope to have those models ready to be distributed early next week. There was also an announcement about the upcoming General Education Lunch on Monday featuring presentations by four students.


The Committee then met in the parlor of Holy Cross Hall with faculty from Business Administration and Economics, Communication and Performance Studies, and Humanistic Studies. The three different models for SMC General Education (1.0) were discussed. A summary of that conversation appears below.

---

Those at the meeting were first asked to provide feedback to the three models.

A faculty member began by stating that her 'philosophical preference' is for Model B, which she judged the least oppressive and most freeing. She also appreciated skills it highlighted that could be applied in various directions. Model C in her view seemed to unduly separate self, systems, and others as though they could be examined individually and in abstraction from the other two. A deficit in all the models was reliance on oral and written communication to the exclusion of mediated communication, which was defined as using technology to convey knowledge to others. If the next general education program truly wanted to be contemporary, it needed to include skills in using technology to communicate.

Another faculty member agreed, saying that public speaking remains very important, but that we've leapt ahead in communications technology and needed to account for that.

A committee member asked how should that competence be exhibited in the general education models. A response was that there were various ways to encounter this in existing classes at the College. That led to the question of what criteria would be used to categorize courses (in whatever categories they end up being bundled) and who would do that work. A committee member responded that there would need to be a standing general education committee to make those decisions, and that that is what is anticipated at the end of this process.

The point was then brought up that we need to be aware of the changing frameworks in which communication goes on these days, both in our students' lives and in wider culture (politics, advertising, etc.). The act and content of writing have been transformed into a hybrid of visual and text-based communication. This raises issues of design that go beyond the printed word by itself. Technology also creates new forms of interaction and virtual community. Somehow the role of technology in contemporary life needs to be included in general education.

If this is indeed incorporated into general education, it should be found in more than one place or in more than one department's course offerings, much as we might hope that issues relating to women or Catholicism are found more broadly throughout the curriculum. A clarification was offered that we're not speaking here just about things like designing webpages or the more technical matters relating to contemporary communication. We're talking about incorporating attention to what various forms of communications technology means in today's world. We're talking about more than skills here, but about being aware of the role of technology in one's life and in communication through popular electronic media. Another faculty member said that she hoped general education could be fluid enough so that it's applicable both in 2007 and 2017. In short, we can expect the unexpected and need to have an adaptable program capable of sustaining whatever changes will come.

Another faculty member added that along with technological fluency, there needs to be interdisciplinary and inter-cultural pieces in general education and that these need to be thought through. She then asked about the essential differences between the three models because she felt (and others agreed with this) that there were pieces of each that she liked. For example, in Model A she appreciated the inclusion of the professional programs and the idea that Student Affairs should be collaborators in educating our students. In Model B she liked the clarity of the division in the skills presented. In Model C she found the core sequence interesting. A committee member said that Model B tries to keep things about where they are now, but attempts to reshuffle the deck a bit. A faculty member said in response that she felt that Model A was closest to what we currently offer, because it seemed to offer a kind of hierarchical model of required knowledge. This person thought that Model A tries to connect every dot for every student, which she regarded as a kind of micromanaging their experience and not allowing young people to make their own way. A committee member offered that Model A highlights the Catholic nature of the institution more than the other models, though Model C also includes this without foregrounding to the extent it's found in Model A.

Another faculty member asked about the process of narrowing down these models. Will we just go with one of them? Is there a possibility to combine elements from each? A committee member answered that though not everything is simultaneously possible, the committee is committed to trying to develop the best of each model. Hybrids are indeed possible.

A question was then raised by another faculty member whether implementing changes in general education could take place gradually though selectively piloted programs that might reach, say, 40% of the an entering class. One member of the committee responded that we would want to be careful in piloting programs not to convey that there's an option of going back to what we have now. The matter was then raised about how to present a pilot program in the college bulletin. How would students be separated into various arms of the program, and how would they know what to take? A committee member then spoke against a piloted program by saying that it would be very difficult to adequately measure staffing implications of a general education program if only a percentage of students were on it. Secondly, the group on the piloted program might well resent their role as 'guinea pigs' and resent that they weren't members of the 'control group.' Another faculty member agreed and said that the College needed to take a leap of faith and just go with one program. Still, another faculty member said that there are practical matters here that deserve much more attention. What about staffing implications, for example, if all students are required to take certain kinds of classes or courses from a new category in general education? It was noted that this is also an area where the move to a 3-3 course load would have a significant effect. How could professional programs be brought into general education in light of these staffing considerations? A committee member responded that perhaps the interdisciplinary minors in Model B or the course clusters in Model A could help here.

A faculty member said that he liked Model B for four reasons: (1) it allows the students to make the connections between classes, (2) it seems the most possible to implement because we already have tandems in place, (3) it requires students to own their education early in their academic careers, and (4) it is the most flexible. Students need to own their own education and be more self-reflective about what they're learning, and that the choice for which model to pursue should depend on which one is integrating education better than the others.

Another faculty member said that while tandems are great, perhaps there are other ways to derive their benefits. But a member of the committee said that tandems are unique because they establish a learning community and allow students to bond early on in sheer virtue of the amount of time they spend together each week. Also, they could incorporate an advising component and so solve several issues at once. Several practical matters were then discussed about how time slots could be allocated for tandems if they were required of all students (and the problems with doing this) and how many tandems could we reasonably expect to offer if, as Model B requires, every student would be required to take one. It was noted that Purdue offers learning community opportunities which are like tandems in enrolling the same group of students in two classes, but the professors of each class do not sit in on the other's. Perhaps this is a way to go to address the staffing issues. Another faculty member said that we should find out what other places are doing for their general education programs. Ours looks like it's from the 1970's. He also said that he's glad students have a voice here and emphasized that whatever program we come up with has to be understandable and exciting for prospective students. A faculty member said that Saint Mary's is small enough that we ought to be able to tailor programs to the students.

Another faculty member said that Model B doesn't give enough attention to the Mission of the College and that Model A is better on that account. She hadn't thought of Model C in this regard either. A colleague said that she liked the vision and goals of Model A.

If we emphasize skills, we need to define them better. What, for example, are 'life skills'? Being clearer about our definitions might help allay faculty anxiety. A committee member noted that much was abridged from these models as they were initially distributed to encourage faculty to concentrate on the structures and not the details. But there are examples in the fuller statements that could be used to flesh out some of these terms.

---

Any comments on the models or on any of the other issues discussed above can be posted below by anyone from the community.