University Curriculum Committee

Assessment of the Drake CurriculumA Summary Report of

Findings and Recommendations to Faculty SenateMarch 12th, 2014

Committee Members

UCC Members: Todd Hodgkinson (Chair) (Education), Michael Andreski (Pharmacy), Bill Boal (Business), Maria Bohorquez (Chemistry), Lee Joliffe (Journalism), Marcia Keyser (Cowles Library), Karen Leroux (History), Joanna Mosser (Political Science), Daniele Shelton (Law),

Arthur Sanders (Ex-officio member), Chrystal Stanley (CAAD representative),

Consulting Members: Bruce Gilbert (DCAC chair) (Cowles Library), Kevin Saunders (Office of Institution Research & Assessment), Stephanie Majaran (Office of Institution Research &

Assessment) , Kevin Moenkhaus (Office of Student Records).

Our Charge

• Engage in a broad review of the Drake Curriculum.• Identify areas of success and improvement. • Investigate alternative models of liberal arts/general

education.• Consider the place of experiential learning.• Consider resource implications, if a revision is warranted.

Our Process• August: Discussed charge; Asked for

clarification.• September: Clarified the charge; Established

goals; Broke up into sub-committees.• October: Reviewed literature on gen ed/lib

ed; Faculty Open forum.• November: Reviewed lit, DSS results.• December: Reviewed lit, alternate models.• January: Reviewed charge; Reviewed

literature; alt models, Focus group results.• February: Reviewed lit, alt models, Wabash

report findings & NSSE data.• March: Came to a consensus and formed

recommendations; composed report.

Data Points Considered

Findings

Points of Pride• Allows for a great amount of choice.

• Gives students the freedom to explore personal interests, while exposing them to a liberal arts education.

• Emphasizes 21st Century skills

(critical thinking, written communication, information literacy, etc.)

• Allows for students to count major

coursework towards general education requirements.

Expressed Concerns• Lacks rigor and relevancy.

• Has deviated from its original intentions (e.g., transfer coursework counting AOI credit, major coursework counting for two AOI requirements).

• Too many course offerings in some AOI categories (History, Global and Cultural Understanding); too few in others (Artistic Experience, Values and Ethics, and Information Literacy.)

• Too complex (Conceptual framework)

Expressed Concerns• Too ambitious (Hybrid model

attempts to provide both a liberal arts and “ways of thinking” experience.)

• Lacks cohesiveness. • Perpetuates a “checklist

mentality.”• Is difficult to assess (10 separate

AOI categories with 39 outcomes).

• Has failed to achieve its desired learning outcomes.

Alternative Models of Gen Ed

• In addition to gathering data on the efficacy of the Drake Curriculum, the UCC also explored alternative models of general and liberal arts education.

• Looked for “peer institutions” with similar missions and learning goals.

• Considered size of the institution, make up of the student body, range of degree programs, etc.

Alternative Models of Gen Ed

• A trend away from disciplinary-centered, distributive models of general education.

• A focus on integrative coursework that invites cross-disciplinary reflection and action upon a common theme or problem.

• An emphasis on fostering students’ ability to think and act across disciplinary boundaries.

Alternative Models of Gen Ed

• Sequenced curricula designed to span a student’s four-year experience.

• Linked/clustered courses that invited students to explore a common theme from a multi-disciplinary perspective.

• A focus on key academic skills

development (e.g., writing, speaking) across the curriculum.

• An emphasis on outcomes-based assessment targeting identified learning outcomes.

Integrated Core Curriculum

Source: Portland State University. Retrieved from https://www.pdx.edu/unst/home on February 25th, 2014.

Integrated Core Curriculum

Integrated Core Curriculum

Integrated Core Curriculum

Positives:• Cohesive learning experience lends

Itself to purpose.• Allows for the targeting of student

developmental needs

Negatives:• Resource intensive (human and financial)

o Curriculum developmento Faculty Developmento Coordinator of Programo Core of instructors

Major-Minors Model

Source: College of Idaho. (2014). PEAK Curriculum. Retrieved from http://www.collegeofidaho.edu/peak February 25th, 2014

Major-Minors Model

Source: College of Idaho. (2014). PEAK Curriculum. Retrieved from http://www.collegeofidaho.edu/peak February 25th, 2014

Major-Minors Model

Source: College of Idaho. (2014). PEAK Curriculum. Retrieved from http://www.collegeofidaho.edu/peak February 25th, 2014

Major-Minors Model

Source: College of Idaho. (2014). PEAK Curriculum. Retrieved from http://www.collegeofidaho.edu/peak February 25th, 2014

Major-Minors Positives:

• Combination of liberal education and professional studies.

• More cohesive/purposeful.• Flexibility.• Easy to advise.• Provides breadth, but also greater

depth.

Negatives:• Re-conceptualize our “minors.”• Curriculum Development• “Fit” within certain colleges/schools.

Attributes of a Distinctive General Education Curriculum

Attributes of a Distinctive General Education Program

• Realize the mission of the university to integrate liberal arts education with professional preparation for all students.

• Emphasize the acquisition of 21st Century learning skills and dispositions (e.g., systems thinking, communication skills, information literacy, personal and social responsibility, etc.) and incorporate best practices in teaching and learning (integrative and applied learning, ongoing reflection, etc.)

• Have a simple conceptual framework that could be explained in a clear,

compelling way. • Encourage students to experiment broadly outside their major and

develop interests to be pursued in their years beyond college, while giving some coherence to that experimentation.

• Be considerate of the developmental needs of students.

Attributes of a Distinctive General Education Program

• Discourage the “checklist/requirement” mentality, often associated with distribution models of general education.

• Be taught by existing faculty in the disciplines,

interdisciplinary programs, and professional schools, without a large investment in faculty development or in additional hiring.

• Preserve and build on existing FYS and Senior Capstone

experiences. • Maintain or reduce to the current number of credits

required to complete the general education curriculum.

Recommendations

RecommendationsRecommendation #1: Vote to approve a revision of the Drake Curriculum.

Recommendations

• Informing students about its purpose.• Reducing the number of AOI categories. • Improving the quality of AOI course offerings,

focusing on High Impact Learning practices (integrative and collaborative learning).

• Examining where more course offerings are needed.

• Reviewing the number of AOI requirements a course can fulfill.

• Reducing the number of learning outcomes.• Decentralizing more curricular authority and

responsibility to the departments and programs.

Option # 1: Improve the efficacy of the existing Drake Curriculum by:

RecommendationsOption # 2: Embrace an alternative model of general education.

• Major-Minors model• Integrated Core Curriculum

RecommendationsRecommendation #2: Vote to establish a working group to revise the Drake Curriculum.

Questions

Todd Hodgkinson, PhDAssistant Professor of Secondary Education

Department of Teaching and Learningtodd.hodgkinson@drake.edu(515) 271-4565