Report #3 on Theme I, Issue No. 5: Review of General Education Program

We are an institution in transition. We are moving from a culture which assumed it was educationally effective towards one that is systematically assessing its educational effectiveness. We are moving from an administrative/pedagogical model that validated that each course met stated criteria toward a model in which each instructor and course has stated goals and objectives. As we continue forward, it is our intention to use the presence of goals and objectives to assess our effectiveness and, when we discover areas that do not benefit students educationally, to inform and direct change.

We have made a great deal of progress in some disciplines and with some faculty. If assessment were a train, everyone now accepts that there is such a thing as a train. Almost no one grimaces or roll their eyes when the train is mentioned, and very few people now believe that the train is evil. Some say we do not need the train; others pretend that it does not exist. The great majority are on board the train but are unsure of the advantages it offers, and a few are eagerly making full use of all that the train can do.

In light of the old culture on campus, the process of reviewing General Education (G. E.) courses was designed to ensure that each course in the program met a set of specific objectives for such courses as laid out in Title 5 of the Education Code and in Executive Order 595. The 72-units Core of the General Education curriculum is mandated by Title 5 of the California Education Code and by Chancellor's Office Executive Order 595. This Core is divided into five categories:

In addition to this core, California State University, San Bernardino has added some additional coursework to the General Education curriculum:

The General Education program is reviewed by the General Education Committee, an appointed Faculty Senate committee with both administrative and student representation. (It is worth noting that while we routinely solicit student participation, we seldom get any. No student representative attends committee meetings on a regular basis, and in most years, no student attends any meetings of the General Education Committee. This lack of student participation is not unique to this committee, and the campus and our student government organizations need to work together closely to find ways to encourage and facilitate more committed student involvement.)

The committee is charged with a five-year review of GE courses with approximately a fourth of the program being reviewed in years one through four and the overall program in the final year. The review is based on material submitted by the faculty who taught the individual courses in the area being reviewed in a given year. Instructors are asked to complete a questionnaire, which was based on the original form submitted to justify including the course in the GE program. The questionnaire asks instructors to explain how their course section continues to meet the established G. E. objectives and to comment on the objectives themselves. Additionally, instructors of all course sections are asked to provide a portfolio of information on the course to include (1) the completed course questionnaire, (2) copies of the midterms and final examinations, and (3) the course syllabus, hand-outs, assignment sheets, and other course materials. The materials just described allowed the committee to say that each section of a course offered in multiple sections was meeting (or failing to meet) stated criteria such as those quoted below for courses in the critical thinking category.

Beyond determining whether a course satisfies the criteria, the committee is now in the early stages of determining whether students learned what the instructor proposed to teach. The G. E. Committee has recommended that the Faculty Senate direct faculty to clearly state the learning (outcomes assessment) objectives of the course that the student is taking. The committee will look for the presence of these learning objectives in future reviews of all courses.

The structure for assessing compliance works well, and the reports produced annually by the G. E. Committee are valuable in making sure the courses are functioning as they should. We are less successful at translating the recommendations of the G. E. Committee into concrete action. The Faculty Senate receives the report of the G. E. Committee as an Information Item, and typically no further action is taken.

Persistent concerns raised by the G. E. Committee in its annual report have generated little debate or action. For example, the Committee found in its 1996-97 review of the Natural Sciences Breadth Area, that the capstone courses in Natural Sciences did not help students build upon basic skills in written and oral communication, nor did they help students to develop higher-order intellectual skills. These weaknesses, in the committee's collective view, stem from teaching the capstone courses in a large lecture format without providing additional support for the faculty member. That additional support would allow the instructor to design, include, and evaluate assignments that would meet those goals. Over the course of the five-year cycle, the committee found similar weaknesses in each of the breadth areas that included a capstone course or courses.

During the last review cycle (AY 1996-97 to AY 2000-01), the General Education Committee made a host of recommendations to the Faculty Senate. Below is a summary of those recommendations divided into several broad categories. The first section (I) simply lists courses that were recommended for decertification. The second section (II) lists courses that, for one reason or another, were not reviewed when they should have been. The most frequent cause was materials needed to complete the review were not submitted or only a partial packet of materials was submitted. In another handful of cases, the committee wanted to review a specific course earlier than the next time it would normally have come up. With these courses, serious concerns on the part of the committee had been conveyed to the department with instructions for the department to look carefully at the course and then re-submit review materials at a specified date. Finally, some courses were inadvertently left off the list, and were, therefore, not reviewed with the other courses in their G. E. category. When that occurred, the committee recommended that those courses be reviewed the subsequent year. The third section (III) below details recommendations about specific courses. These recommendations range from the pedantic to much more substantive comments. The fourth section (IV) provides a summary of more general recommendations. Of these, the one that was most repeated every year for every category was that the committee wants course syllabi to more clearly address course objectives and to contain assessable outcomes. The final section (V) of this summary addresses recommendations the committee made about entire categories (i.e. Category D-2 American Institutions).

I. Requests that courses be decertified:

Course	Date of Review	Request Initiated By
BIOL 250	(1997)	At the request of the department
PE 146	(1997)	At the request of the department
PHIL 193	(1998)	At the request of the department (This request must have been rescinded because the department now teaches multiple sections of this course.)

II. Requests that materials be re-submitted for review in the following year:

Course	Date of Scheduled Review	Reason
PE 147	(1997)	Incomplete submission
FREN 202	(1998)	Omitted from list
GER 216	(1998)	Incomplete submission
GER 290	(1998)	Omitted from list
SPAN 102	(1998)	Omitted from list
SPAN 150	(1998)	Omitted from list
SPAN 155	(1998)	Omitted from list
SPAN 212	(1998)	Incomplete submission
SPAN 213	(1998)	Incomplete submission
SPAN 214	(1998)	Incomplete submission
SPAN 216	(1998)	Incomplete submission
SPAN 290	(1998)	Incomplete submission
HIST 201	(1999)	Incomplete submission
PSCI 203	(1999)	Corrective action requested
HIST 142	(1999)	Corrective action requested
HIST 144	(1999)	Corrective action requested
HUM 460	(2000)	Omitted from list
NSCI 110	(2000)	Incomplete submission
ANTH 325	(2000)	Omitted from list
PHIL 364	(2000)	Omitted from list

III. Recommendations about individual courses in specific categories:

TA 160: "The Committee also encourages the Theater Arts department to consider the present observations about changing the title of TA 160." (Here is the suggestion: "The Theater Arts and English departments also are encouraged to consider changing the course title from the present all encompassing "World Drama" to something like "Selections from World Drama," as this is more reflective of the way the course is (and was proposed in its originating G.E. documentation to be) taught.")

FREN 290: The writing component of FREN 290 should be strengthened.

GER 102 & GER 150: "In general, the syllabi submitted for the German courses were incomplete. Both GER 102 and GER 150 have a required laboratory component, but the syllabus for GER 150 does not even mention this component and the syllabus for GER 102 provides no details about the laboratory requirements. Several of the syllabi mention required reports, although no details are provided. None of the syllabi detail learning objectives or assessable outcomes. All of these weaknesses should be addressed promptly."

PSCI 203: The G.E. Committee recommends (1999) that the College of the Social and Behavioral Sciences look carefully at the delivery of PSCI 203 with specific emphasis on written work and coverage of multicultural and gender issues. The College is asked to submit a report on its findings to the G.E. Committee by the end of the 1999-2000 academic year (see part (a) of Recommendation I on page 17).

ENG 101: The Chair of the English Department made several recommendations to the G. E. Committee to revise the review objectives for that course (2000).

HON 103C: This course should be fully integrated with HON 103 A & B.

IV. General recommendations:

The CSU system reduced the minimum number of units needed to graduate from 186 quarter units down to 180. "The Executive Committee (of the Faculty Senate) asked that the General Education Committee consider whether the number of units in the general education program could be reduced from the current 82 (quarter units), and if the reduction could be achieved without compromising the purposes of the general education program."

After a good deal of analysis by G.E. Chair Dr. Joe Chavez and discussion in the committee, the decision was to leave the number of units in G. E. at their present level (82) as previous reduction was achieved by reducing the number of elective units available for students. This option required the fewest programmatic changes because most students routinely used their electives to take additional courses in their majors.

College-level committees should be established to oversee implementation of G.E. within each College, and these committees should submit annual reports to the G. E. Committee.

The university needs to better communicate the purposes of general education to the students, most of whom have little idea about why they are asked to take General Education courses or how those courses mesh with courses in their major.

The "syllabi for all G.E. courses should clearly state the learning objectives for the course and how they relate to the overall G.E. program. Additionally, syllabi should contain a list of assessable outcomes for the course." Currently, "syllabi for reviewed courses commonly describe the courses and their purposes, but few syllabi present explicitly stated learning objectives and/or assessable outcomes."

V. Recommendations about categories:

Category A-4 (Critical Thinking): "First, the Committee is concerned that some critical thinking courses are not being taught in the small class size format, as is required by the current objectives and criteria. Second, it is clear that not all of the courses are addressing all of the objectives that are listed for critical thinking courses."

Category A-3 (Basic Skills: Mathematics) and B-1 (Natural Sciences: Mathematics): G. E. mathematics courses are listed in two areas (A-3 and B-1). These courses meet the A-3 requirements, but they fail to meet one of the B-1 requirements. Courses in the Natural Sciences area all have, "to explore the philosophical presuppositions and examine the social and historical context of scientific developments within the natural sciences, and the mathematics courses fail to do this (1997).

Category B-4 (Natural Sciences: Special Topics): These courses are mandated in the category criteria (4-a) to be taught in the small-lecture format, but they appear from the evidence submitted to the Committee to be routinely taught in large-lecture size (1997).

Category C-4 (Philosophy): G. E. philosophy courses (PHIL 190, 191, 192, and 194) are still least effective in satisfying the multiculturalism and gender criteria for Humanities G.E. courses. The other course in that category PHIL 193, "Introduction to Eastern Philosophy" naturally does introduce students to multiculturalism.

Category D-2 (American Institutions): Further the Committee is concerned that gender issues are not being adequately addressed in Category D-3, and that both gender and multi-cultural issues are not being adequately addressed in Category D-2.

Category D-3 (World Cultures): The G.E. Committee is concerned that basic skills, and particularly writing skills, are not adequately reinforced in several of the courses in this category. While some courses, such as ANTH 100, ES 100, GEOG 100, and PSCI 100, are exemplary in their requirements for written work, other courses do not even require as much as an essay question on an exam. The G.E. Committee strongly urges the College of Social and Behavioral Sciences to consider ways that all of the courses in this category might reinforce basic skills in general, and writing in particular.

The Committee recommends that the following actions be taken:

The College of Social and Behavioral Sciences shall conduct a review of the courses in Categories D-2 and D-3 with particular emphasis paid to the concerns outlined above. A report detailing the College's findings shall be forwarded to the G.E. Committee by the end of the 1999-2000 academic year. The Dean of the College of Social and Behavioral Sciences is requested to ensure that this process is completed.

Category F (Upper-division writing requirement): This category prompted several recommendations. The first was that there was an inconsistent amount of writing being required across sections, especially when the comparison was being made of sections from different Colleges. A second recommendation was that the courses should have a discipline specific focus. The Committee said "that the students' experiences in upper-division writing would be enhanced if they enroll in the section most appropriate to their major and if that course is taught in a more discipline specific manner."

The Committee also recommended that the campus try to get more faculty to participate in the common midterm reading. Alas, this has gone the way of the Dodo, so carrying out such a request will not be possible unless the common mid-term is reinstated.

Category G (Multicultural/Gender Requirement): ANTH 333 is an exemplary course, and shows what can be done in such a course if the instructor is willing to do it.

The next steps are clear, and we have begun to take them. The G. E. Committee must make sure that its reports are delivered in such a way that the Faculty Senate can take action on recommendations. Administrative support must be improved so that courses are not omitted, and the College Deans will need to develop mechanisms to ensure that the G. E. Committee gets the information it needs to complete course reviews in the scheduled year. Campus-wide, the issue of low student participation on committees needs to be addressed.

The G. E. Committee must meet jointly with the G. E. Outcomes Assessment Committee to make sure that the work of the two bodies is consistent and supportive. To this end, the Chair of the GE committee is now a member of the G. E. Outcomes Assessment Committee. Faculty teaching G. E. courses must be made aware of the need for putting learning objectives on their syllabi.

The G.E. Outcomes Assessment Committee has made some preliminary efforts to assess the effectiveness of the General Education program. The Committee administered the Academic Profile (ETS) during AY 2000-2001. The information we received from the Academic Profile was problematic for several reasons. The students who completed the Profile had little, if any, incentive to perform well. This is a problem inherent in such surveys. "Our campus' scores were below the mean in every category measured." Please see "WASC Theme I-Issue 5 Student Learning and Program Effectiveness for further information about results from the Academic Profile."

Several issues emerged from our use of this instrument. Because it did not focus on our curriculum, it was less useful than we had hoped as an indicator of how effective our G. E. program is. One response to that finding is that the campus is in the process of developing a local instrument that will more readily assess our particular constellation of courses. Reading scores were disturbingly low for those students taking the survey, but this is a problem system wide in the CSU. For several years now, students taking the English Placement Test have been placed in remedial courses more often because of low reading comprehension scores than for poor performance on the essay component of that test.

The Chancellor's Office has also recognized the need to improve the reading skills of incoming freshmen. A system-wide initiative to teach high school teachers how to teach reading was implemented in AY 2002-2003. Unfortunately, after only a brief rollout, the program has been reduced because of cuts to the system-wide budget. A scaled down version of the program that will make instruction available to approximately 1,000 teachers across the state will be offered in AY 2003-2004, and our campus has been given sixty training slots.

Beyond the issue of reading skills, it is time for the campus community to examine the larger purpose of the General Education program. The system made reforms to GE in 1987 and again in 1992 with Executive Order 595. In the earlier reforms, "the issues of gender, race, ethnicity, global and multicultural perspectives" were added as key areas to be addressed by all GE courses whenever possible. The directive in the Executive Order says "Instruction approved to fulfill the following requirements should recognize the contributions to knowledge and civilization that have been made by members of diverse cultural groups and by women."

The campus derives the macro goals of its General Education curriculum from E. O. 595, which talks in terms of what students will be able to do when they complete the G. E. program. The Board of Trustees, through this Executive Order expect that students:

In addition to reforms made by the system, the campus commissioned an external review of the General Education program in 1995. (See Review and Recommendations prepared by Carol Geary Schneider and Donald S. Castro). Some of the key recommendations from their report are detailed below.

We need to find compelling ways to convey to our students the purposes behind G. E., and we need to strengthen advising in relation to G. E. making sure to tailor that advising so that a transfer student gets something different from a student who starts at CSUSB as a first-time freshman.

We need to develop pre-transfer materials that will help community college students understand the rationale for taking G. E. courses.

The size of the capstone courses is an issue that must be addressed. There is not likely to be an easy solution to the problem because there are conflicting demands that will influence the outcome. When capstone courses are taught in a large lecture format, they generate resources for the Colleges, which give the Deans programming flexibility. The downside of the large lecture format, however, has been noted frequently. The consultants stated that in conceiving the capstones courses, the campus did an admirable job. However, faculty members are unable, as a general rule, to implement the pedagogical goals for capstone courses because these courses are almost always taught in a large lecture format.