April 30, 2004

Break-out Groups and Large Discussion Summaries

Highlights from breakout sessions:

(a) Components that might be part of the Virginia Tech experience:

• First year experience – Small 1st year seminar (before ending up in large sections), 1st year experience (cohort) – common experience for all 1st year students – common book
• Undergraduate research (but targeted toward undergrads rather than as an extension of academic/scholarly research)
• Capstone experience – students working/pointing toward something throughout their academic career – inside or outside the major? (seemed to be differences of opinion on this…)
• Learning communities (to perhaps include residential colleges where faculty also live); service learning
• International – language, culture, study abroad – global literacy, global citizenship
• Postponing declaration of major until end of 1st year – or – first two years as distributional shopping and declare major at end of sophomore year – exploration of different majors – undecided freshman a positive!
• Articulating a vision for the Virginia Tech educational experience, what is distinctive about the VT experience – Ut Prosim. Who are VT students? Who do we want them to be?
• ePortfolio – tool to help students make connections, tool for faculty to help students make connections, Orientation – Freshman orientation – students using the course catalog to create their own experience – ePortfolio as a tool for piecing it all together, moving it into the discipline. Distribution – over 4 years – meaningful experience – refection – relevance. Organization – freshman seminar + capstone experience + courses across all 4 years. Delivery – careful design – student ownership – discussion (ePortfolio).

(b) Considerations:

• Resources - ability of the university to afford any of this, funding, need for smaller class sizes, faculty development/training/retraining, faculty unwilling to break out of the current box, tangible rewards (like FDI), equity, general ed to be taught exclusively by tenure track faculty, incentives for faculty participation
• Assessment - Have to teach and also assess – not only the class but also the core curriculum. What do we already know from previous assessments? Inventory of what is in the core curriculum? Need some information on current performance of the core curriculum. Need outcome information from previous assessment of the core. Does existing information justify the need to significantly change the core? From there identify what is missing? Reconsider how we got to the idea of a core curriculum, maybe move away from the idea? Student outcomes, designed to show integration across all 4 years.
• Implementation – NOT ALL AT ONCE, stages – provide incentives for faculty to participate
• Strengthen advising

Notes from first break-out session, Liberal and Integrative Learning at Virginia Tech—Exploring Possibilities:

(a) The process: At each of 11 tables, one facilitator took responsibility for orienting the other eight people at the table to the materials for discussion. These included:

• 4 blind models of education programs at similar institutions
• expertise at your table
• diverse people
• wonderful models
• foregoing presentations and discussions
• handouts
• ten years of the core at Tech

(b) The challenge for each group:

1. Pair-up and select a note-taker (3 minutes). Once table members are paired up, each pair is asked to select two of the models. (Please make sure that each model is evenly distributed around the table.)
2. In pairs (7 minutes). Review each of the models and select out those parts/components/premises of general education that are intriguing points for discussion and/or consideration as we explore possibilities to strengthen Liberal and Integrative Learning at Tech.
3. At the table (10 minutes). Each pair is asked to summarize each model’s framework, then to present their findings. The note-taker should make a list of those parts/components/premises.
4. As a table (15 minutes). Discuss the list and any other possible models and/or points that should be discussed and considered when developing a plan for Liberal and Integrative Learning at Tech.
5. For the larger group (5 minutes). Prioritize the list. Because the entire list will be collected, the note-taker should elaborate on the discussion in the table’s notes. The note-taker will report the top four items out to the larger group.

(c) The outcomes: models, points from other institutions that should be considered:

Include:

• First year experience – Small 1st year seminar (before ending up in large sections), 1st year experience (cohort) – common experience for all 1st year students – common book
• Undergraduate research (but targeted toward undergrads rather than as an extension of academic/scholarly research)
• Capstone experience – students working/pointing toward something throughout their academic career – inside or outside the major? (seemed to be differences of opinion on this…)
• Learning communities (to perhaps include residential colleges where faculty also live)
• Emphasis on enquiry – lab courses, active learning, building on past experiences – SPIRAL model
• International – language, culture, study abroad – global literacy, global citizenship
• Postponing declaration of major until end of 1st year – or – first two years as distributional shopping and declare major at end of sophomore year – exploration of different majors – undecided freshman a positive!
• Integrative learning – making connections – linkage between major and minor
• Service learning, citizenship – internship opportunities
• Information discovery and retrieval (library skills) – credit-based, 1st year
• Interdisciplinary connections, exploration – interrelated seminars, clusters
• Academic minors program – required? – encourage double majors
• Co-curricular experience
• Standardized senior exam
• Core curriculum as an institutional hallmark
• Undergraduate symposium
• Integrating core curriculum into discipline-specific studies

Avoid:

• Superficial studies
• First year as extension of high school
• Laundry list – overlap, redundancy, duplication
• Confusion, lack of cohesion

Considerations:

• Rationale for core curriculum: professional/career development vs. intellectual development, leadership development
• General ed to be taught exclusively by tenure track faculty
• Well-defined goals
• Assessment – student outcomes, designed to show integration across all 4 years
• Distribution rather than core?
• Link undergrad and graduate education?
• All undecided undergrads in learning communities?
• Contextualizing undergrad education
• Incentives for faculty participation
• Investment by faculty
• How fund an integrative learning experience at a large public institution
• Importance of sequencing courses appropriately
• Multiple vehicles for delivery
• Flexibility – transfer credits, moving between majors

Notes from the second break-out session, Building Integrative Learning—Goals, Values, and Projects

(a) The process: At each of 11 tables, one facilitator took responsibility for orienting the other eight people at the table to the materials for discussion. These included:

• expertise of your table
• comparative models
• diverse people
• handouts
• foregoing discussion
• ten years of the core at VT

(b) The challenge for each group:

1. Select a note-taker
2. As a table (35 minutes): Using the materials at hand, discuss and bring your table’s best thinking on what should be carried forth into a four year implementation plan. Make an annotated list.
3. For the larger group (ten minutes): Prioritize the list. Because the entire list will be collected, the note-taker should elaborate on the discussion in the table’s notes. The note-taker will report the top four items out to the larger group. Table members should be prepared to discuss their thinking during the larger group discussion.

(c) The outcomes—what to include in a 4-year implementation plan:

Include:

• Articulating a vision for the Virginia Tech educational experience, what is distinctive about the VT experience – Ut Prosim. Who are VT students? Who do we want them to be?
• Rewriting core curriculum goals. Reduced number of areas in the core curriculum but faculty address core concepts in the context of the major – infusion across the curriculum (particularly global/international) – integrating the major with the core curriculum – breaking out of disciplinary environments. Core curriculum as a concept rather than a prescriptive set of courses – weaving subject matter throughout the curriculum
• Organizers for the core curriculum: 1st year experience, capstone
• Common 1st year experience (of some sort…)
• Research
• Ethics in the discipline, integrity
• International/global experience, study abroad
• Experiential learning, evidence-based learning
• ePortfolio – tool to help students make connections, tool for faculty to help students make connections, Orientation – Freshman orientation – students using the course catalog to create their own experience – ePortfolio as a tool for piecing it all together, moving it into the discipline. Distribution – over 4 years – meaningful experience – refection – relevance. Organization – Freshman seminar + capstone experience + courses across all 4 years. Delivery – Careful design – student ownership – discussion (ePortfolio)
• Service learning
• Back to basics
• Strengthen advising
• Faculty collaboration, more integrated courses
• Capstone (“Good Housekeeping seal”)
• Critical thinking
• Creating a bridge between a 1st year course/program and a capstone course
• Design/redesign based on tracks/themes with threads across themes (to simplify)
• Self authorship across classes
• Batch enrollment
• Need for an open, campus-wide discussion

 

Considerations/Issues/Questions:

• Resources - ability of the university to afford any of this, funding, need for smaller class sizes, faculty development/training/retraining, faculty unwilling to break out of the current box, tangible rewards (like FDI), equity
• Assessment - (Have to teach and also assess – not only the class but also the core curriculum. What do we already know from previous assessments? Inventory of what is in the core curriculum? Need some information on current performance of the core curriculum. Need outcome information from previous assessment of the core. Does existing information justify the need to significantly change the core? From there identify what is missing? Reconsider how we got to the idea of a core curriculum, maybe move away from the idea?)
• Common philosophy of what we’re trying to accomplish
• Reduce number of areas while we develop more integrative approach
• Debate: core curriculum vs. general ed requirement
• Academic advisors
• Only those teaching in the core curriculum should be allowed to make decisions about the core curriculum
• Accreditation issues, SCHEV
• Students changing majors, major restrictions
• Faculty buy-in
• Let/encourage departments to rethink what they want from the core curriculum
• What is the core curriculum supposed to do? Where do the disconnects occur? How can interconnections be fostered?
• Achieving objectives rather than taking classes
• Better planning
• Balance of ideal vs. practical
• Students should take courses outside of the major
• Departments don’t view the core curriculum as part of their responsibility – need to figure out way to make them value the core
• Implementation – NOT ALL AT ONCE, stages – provide incentives for faculty to participate
  ß Students left with a sense of accomplishment
• ß Are the 1992 goals still valid? Are 7 areas still valid? 21st century model more relevant? Need to articulate a core curriculum philosophy?
• SCHEV – what role?
  ß Mission conflict – undergraduate education vs. top-30
• Core + governance – pulling together
• WI, lab requirement – changes made are/were not pedagogical (referring students to community colleges for lab courses)
• Don’t move forward with the core until there is agreement – 2-4 years
• Themes/tracks – one size doesn’t fit all – 1st year vs. senior year
  

Model (beginning, middle, end)

• One 3-hour freshman seminar – or – common book, learning communities, series of common courses, ePortfolios, common 1st-year course
• Middle: 3 hours service learning, 3 hours international, more? – or – service learning, international/multicultural experience, living in the 21st century, taught by GTAs, instructors and tenure-track faculty
• One 3-hour senior experience (capstone?) – discipline-specific, defined, blend broad and specific perspectives
  
• Make freshman orientation a 48-hour experience, teach students how to do the university – make a plan (individual plans of study), dovetail with ePortfolios. (Must set some standards for advising.)
  
• Global Citizenship, Natural Sciences, Humanities and Social Sciences (rather than 7 areas)
• Focus on set of criteria – 3 categories – ex., 30 learning objectives – integrate
  
• Increased integration of core curriculum concepts into existing (major-specific) courses – final demonstration project (in major)
• ePortfolio as the thread

These notes were compiled from the flip charts generated during the at large discussions and from the yellow and green sheets filled in by the note-takers at each table during the break out sessions. If you there are items that were raised and that should be added to these lists, please contact Karen Strickler at ks138@vt.edu.

 

Questions?