Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The Global Citizenship Program: A Report of the Global Citizenship Project Task
Force to the Webster University Faculty Senate, November 2010
Bruce Umbaugh, Professor of Philosophy and Director, GCPTF
Table of Contents
Background 1
The approach of the Task Force 5
General Education Program Models 8
Which model? 10
Outline of earlier GCPTF recommendations and intent 13
Final Program Recommendations, November 10, 2010 15
Overall 15
Goals 15
Requirements for courses 17
Recommendations for implementation 19
Additional recommendations 20
Rationales 21
General 21
Program components 21
Breadth 25
Accommodations 25
Transfer 27
Assessment 29
Faculty and Curriculum Development 31
Advisor Training 32
Summary of recommendations 33
Appendix 1 35
Bibliography 37
1
Background
In June 2009, in a series of unanimous votes, the Faculty Senate of Webster
University articulated a new mission for the undergraduate, general education
program – now to be called the Global Citizenship Program (GCP) – and created and
charged the Global Citizenship Project Task Force (GCPTF). The GCPTF was charged
with conducting an open, transparent, and inclusive process to identify the core
competencies of global citizenship and to identify best practices in general
education and general education assessment, making recommendations to the
Senate for the creation and implementation of the Global Citizenship Program,
overseeing the implementation of the Global Citizenship Program, and subsequently
dissolving. (See Appendix 1.) This report offers some background to help members
of the Webster community understand the process, articulates the
recommendations of the Global Citizenship Project Task Force, and presents a brief
rationale for the program recommendations.
Only rarely do the faculty as a whole body address curricular decisions. Faculty
members carry diverse language and unarticulated assumptions into discussions
about curriculum. These factors compound the difficulty of such a collective effort.
The GCPTF has facilitated conversation using shared language and assumptions. In
addition to conducting its own research and fact-finding, the Task Force included
twelve non-member faculty in travel to conferences, conducted a series of coffees
and lunches for open discussion (attended by approximately one-half of the non-
administrative, full-time faculty), presented research findings at brown bag lunches,
and made presentations and participated in discussion at two faculty institutes, five
or more meetings of the Faculty Assembly, two Worldwide Directors meetings,
three school or college faculty meetings, two department faculty meetings, and
multiple meetings with the leadership teams of one department and one school.
Faculty members approach curricular discussions from diverse points of view, and
there is little consensus on the rationale for existing general education programs.
Variously, faculty members identify the aims as breadth of study, imparting
disciplinary knowledge, basic skill acquisition, providing foundational knowledge,
improving student retention, making students educated persons, enabling students
to synthesize disparate information and make interdisciplinary connections, helping
students to become lifelong learners, and more. [ CITATION Cou99 \l 1033 ]
2
We are forced to look outside the institution for much of our evidence to guide
making decisions about a new program, because we lack adequate assessment data
regarding the programs currently in force. Anecdotally, faculty frequently report
that existing programs do not adequately prepare students for the sorts of work
expected of them in more advanced courses. The University’s current general
education programs do not have explicitly stated missions.
Developing skills takes time and repeated practice, yet current programs require
students to address skill areas only once. A program that approached student
development more intentionally could help in several ways, not only by providing
repeated practice at expected skills, but also by helping students to understand the
faculty’s expectations. By the same token, moving from programs with no missions
or coherence to a more intentionally designed program with a clear mission might
help students to understand why the faculty expects them to complete a program of
study beyond the requirements of their major field.
The Task Force found that Webster’s experience is much like that of other
institutions of higher education in the past few decades. Jerry G. Gaff, in "General
Education at Decade's End: The Need for a Second Wave of Reform,” summarized
critiques of American colleges and universities in the 1980s as alleging, “too many
students failed to develop the marks of generally educated people—a broad span of
knowledge; skills to communicate clearly, to think logically and critically, and to get
along with different kinds of people; the capacity to work independently and as a
part of a team to solve problems.” [ CITATION Gaf89 \l 1033 ]
According to a story in the Webster University Journal, the faculty began discussing
general degree requirements in 1985, only approving the University’s first general
education program in 1992. According to the 2008 Webster University Self-study
Report, in the late 1980s
The ultimate result was the general education programs Webster has now: the “four
of nine areas” program for students pursuing Professional Baccalaureate degrees,
the 36-hour, disciplinary distribution program for students in the School of
Communications, and the “nine areas” program for all others. To make our
educational opportunities more readily available to students who matriculate
elsewhere and transfer to complete their Baccalaureate degree programs at
Webster we evaluate transfer courses in relation to our own curriculum, waive the
(lower-level-only) general education program for students who have earned the
Associate of Arts (AA) degree, and develop transfer agreements to guide students
3
studying at other schools in taking courses that will meet the expectations we have
here.
In addition to the general sense of dissatisfaction with existing programs, two other
considerations helped to move the Faculty Senate to initiate the process of re-
envisioning undergraduate, general education. One was the adoption of a new
University Mission Statement, as a result of a planning process started in 2007 as
part of the University’s self-study process for reaccreditation. The other was the
most recent Comprehensive Evaluation Visit for the Higher Learning Commission of
the North Central Association of Colleges and Universities, in 2008.
This replaced the page-long Mission Statement that had been adopted in 1992.
Such language was not completely new, but rather dates at least to the strategic
planning process of 2000. That Strategic Plan includes a Vision that refers to
“empowering [students] to reach their full potential as productive citizens in the
global community.” The action plan identifies as a “key area” to enhance
institutional quality “Building a Global Citizenry.” And the plan calls on the
University to “expand the curriculum to promote the values of global citizenship.”
The newest mission statement arose out of this context and was one reason for the
Senate to begin the process of rethinking undergraduate degree requirements.
In 2008, the University completed its self-study process for reaccreditation and
hosted members of a Visit Team representing the Higher Learning Commission. The
“Assurance” section of the Team Report presents the Team’s evaluation whether
each Criterion for accreditation is met, and cites evidence that criteria are met,
require organizational attention, or require Commission follow-up. The Report finds
fault with Webster’s “lack of progress in implementing a robust, campus-wide
assessment program and completion of a full cycle of assessment,” and called for
follow-up in the form of a progress report. [ CITATION Tal08 \l 1033 ]
With respect to the general education program, specifically, the Report found a need
for institutional attention, rather than Commission follow-up. The Report stated:
In June, Faculty Senate formed the Global Citizenship Project Task Force. Members
have included one student (Emily Bahr), faculty from the five schools and colleges
(Paula Hanssen, Chris Risker, Kit Jenkins, Vicki McMullin, and Gary Glasgow), a
faculty member from the undergraduate Curriculum Committee (John Aleshunas),
faculty with responsibility for International Studies, General Studies,
interdisciplinary programs, and Freshman Seminars (Donna Campbell, John Watson,
Kate Parsons, Larry Baden, and Robin Assner), the Assistant Director for
Undergraduate Advising (Kim Kleinman), the General Education Coordinator (Gary
Kannenberg), members of the General Education Institute team (Bruce Umbaugh
and Stephanie Schroeder), an Academic Director from the International and
Extended Campus network (Ron Daniel), the Director of First-year Experience
(Sarah Tetley), the Dean of Students (Ted Hoef), the Head of Instruction & Liaison
Services at Emerson Library (Holly Hubenschmitt), and the five school and college
deans (Benjamin Ola Akande, Debra Carpenter, Brenda Fyfe, Peter Sargent, and
David Carl Wilson).
5
We were charged with identifying the core competencies required for responsible
global citizenship in the 21st century. In the fall, we recommended that we largely
adopt the AAC&U "Essential Learning Outcomes" as statements of those
competencies. Throughout the coffees and lunches preceding that recommendation,
and in discussion at the November 2009 meeting of the Faculty Assembly, we
shared these outcomes with members of the University community. We found
overwhelming consensus that this approach would be consistent with what we view
to be best for our students. That was not surprising, since the "Essential Learning
Outcomes" represent AAC&U's codification of the consensus view of what academics
and employers alike expect students to learn as part of their undergraduate
educations. (Accreditation requirements in business, nursing, and teacher education
were also taken into consideration during the multiyear dialogue to develop the
outcomes.)
6
The learning outcomes include two, broad "knowledge" areas (of human cultures
and of the physical and natural world). In the best case for student learning,
addressing these would not involve only knowledge acquisition, but, rather, study
directed also at achieving various of the "skills" and "understanding" outcomes, as
well. So, for example, in a history or a literature course, we might expect students to
have practice that would help achieve greater competence at skills such as written
communication and information literacy, as well as content knowledge of human
cultures. Students in a course on the environment might complete assignments that
increase their knowledge both of human cultures and of the physical and natural
world, as well as their quantitative literacy, teamwork, civic knowledge and
engagement, ethical reasoning, and integrative learning. Intercultural knowledge
and competence might be developed in courses that also develop oral
communication and creative and critical thinking. And so on.
(All of that depends on the details of what happens in the course, naturally, not only
on the topic of the course.)
Members of the GCPTF and others in our community have been impressed by the
research on high-impact learning practices. Some teaching and learning practices
have extraordinary effects on students that go well beyond the learning that takes
place in the experiences themselves. George Kuh reports that students participating
in “high-impact practices” (such as first-year seminars, internships, collaborative
projects, global learning, problem-based learning, undergraduate research, service
learning, capstone experiences, learning communities) have higher grade point
averages than other students, self-report having learning more than other students,
and are more likely to continue in school than other students. These relationships
are more pronounced for students at greater risk (lower test scores, e.g., or racial
minority status) and for students participating in more such activities. [ CITATION
Kuh08 \l 1033 ]
Rather than continuing to provide such experiences merely as options for students,
we committed to building them into the program requirements. This shift in
thinking about undergraduate education introduces complexities and forces us to
learn new ways of approaching students and calls on us to address challenges we
have not previously. Still, we concluded that the potential benefit from exposing
students to these practices throughout their undergraduate coursework completely
dwarfs the challenges and uncertainty.
7
At the open session on January 29, 2010, members of the GCPTF discussed co-
curricular and community-based learning with other faculty and members of the
University community. Attendees listed at least two dozen potentially relevant
activities, including the Surfacing festival of student-written, directed, and acted
plays, the computer programming contest, serving at Sts. Peter and Paul, the student
AES conference, the European audio conference, Student Literacy Corps,
interchange with Canadian students in art, Forensics and Debate, Model UN at
multiple campuses, Webster LEADS, the national fashion show in Thailand, the
Geneva version of LEADS, Delegates' Agenda, and Holden Public Policy Forum.
These co-curricular activities build teamwork, foundations and skills for lifelong
learning, problem solving, and more. They inherently rely on active learning and
engagement with real world challenges for the learning that occurs, and they
frequently involve engagement with diverse communities
In a similar vein, we have recommended that study abroad experience "count" for
completing part of the requirements of the Global Citizenship Program. We have
every reason to think that the experience of studying abroad develops intercultural
knowledge and competence, for example. We also have reason to think that good
internship experiences potentially teach things about personal and social
responsibility. Again, the learning that occurs as a result of the experience itself
involves engaging diverse communities, learning actively, and engaging real world
problems.
The Task Force initially recommended that learning experiences beyond the
classroom could substitute for traditional coursework for some of the requirements
of the Global Citizenship Program. The final recommendations contained in this
Report instead consolidate a range of experiential, high-impact, educational
opportunities into the single category of “Practical Learning Experience.”
This latter course of curriculum development in General Education does not fit
well with most regional accreditation expectations and assuredly is not prone
to facilitate an institution’s assessment efforts. This approach leads
departments such as English, Math, History, etc., to implement some type of
course-based assessment procedures for their many service courses.
9
As higher education has moved towards learning outcomes assessment and greater
purpose in the design of undergraduate degree requirements, distribution-only
models have been called into question. The Irvine Group, comprising a number of
former college presidents, reported in 1990 that distribution requirements:
With the move towards outcomes assessment and the recognition of the import of
high-impact practices, the trend in higher education in recent decades has been
away from distribution-only models. Only 15% of institutions surveyed by Hart and
Associates rely on a distribution model with no other integrative features.
[ CITATION Har09 \l 1033 ]
10
Which model?
The Global Citizenship Project Task Force's recommendations move to neither of
the two poles, but, instead, attempt to garner the advantages of each and minimize
the corresponding disadvantages. We have proposed a framework that has the
advantages of greater coherence than our existing programs, with the concomitant
benefits for assessment. With appropriate collaboration (and, perhaps, some
evolution over time), we hope that students might appreciate their work in the
program as coherent and still have the flexibility and choice that they (and we)
clearly value.
Our current general education programs are all distribution model programs. They
all consist of collections of credit hours earned for completing academic
coursework. They all are structured to allow students to complete courses in any
order and at any point in their enrollment. They demand as few as 12 and as many
as 36 credit hours of the 128-hour minimum for graduation.
The variation is dramatic. Requirements range from about one-quarter to a full two-
thirds of undergraduate credit hours meeting requirements of the general education
program at these peer schools.
Figure 3 – Credit hours devoted to requirements of Major, GCP, and elective courses
The figure above shows that a little over one-half of 128 credit hours would be
12
devoted to required courses (both the major and GCP) for a student with a 42-credit
hour major completing the required 30 hours of the Global Citizenship Program.
Fifty-six credit hours would remain available as electives or to be used in the pursuit
of a minor or certificate.
The Task Force presentation to the Assembly said, “Our intention is that the
same set of goals should apply to all undergraduate, degree-seeking students.
We further intend that no undergraduate program be compromised or
disadvantaged by the Global Citizenship Program.” That same presentation
expressed the intention that the Global Citizenship Program should promote
integration, as well as the intention to build upon high-impact practices. The
Faculty Assembly endorsed the “Global Citizenship Program” name
(Overwhelming vote, with Yea votes not counted, 13 members voting Nay).
Spring Faculty Institute, March 26, 2010, and Faculty Assembly meetings, April
2010.
The Faculty Assembly encourages the Task Force (a) to continue developing
the Global Citizenship Program in the directions it has indicated so far, (b) to
work collaboratively with academic departments to insure that no
undergraduate major be compromised or disadvantaged by the change in
general education programs, and (c) to work collaboratively with other parts
of the University to prepare for eventual implementation. (Overwhelming
approval: Yea votes not counted, 16 Nay.)
Implementation: No later than September 30, 2010. (54 votes Yea, 37 Nay, 4
Abstentions.)
Faculty Assembly meetings, September 14 and 21, 2010, and Fall Faculty Institute,
October 1, 2010
Overall
Thirty credit hours, plus one “Practical Learning Experience” which may or may not
be credit-bearing.
Goals
Knowledge of Human Cultures and the Physical and Natural World (achieved
through five courses in the areas Roots of Cultures, Social Systems and Human
Behavior, and Physical and Natural World)
Two Seminars: the first-year Great Thinkers Seminar and the upper-level
Global Keystone Seminar. (6 hours, total)
Five Knowledge courses: two in the area Roots of Cultures, two in the area
Social Systems and Human Behavior, one in the area Physical and Natural
World. (15 hours, total)
Three other Global Citizenship Program courses: (at least) one Global
Understanding course, (at least) one Quantitative Literacy course, and a Global
Citizenship Program course of the student’s choice (9 hours, total)
16
Breadth requirements: (1) No course required for the student’s first major
may be used to meet the requirements of the Global Citizenship Program, (2)
No course prefix may be used twice in satisfying the requirements for a given
Knowledge area.
No course may be included in more than one of the named Global Citizenship
Program areas (i.e., Roots of Cultures, Social Systems and Human Behavior,
Physical and Natural World, Global Understanding, Quantitative Literacy).
Quantitative Literacy courses must show evidence of promise that they will
help students to develop Quantitative Literacy. (Quantitative Literacy and the
other outcomes referenced in this section may be understood for now as being
operationalized according to the Rubrics developed through the Valid
Assessment of Learning in Undergraduate Education (VALUE) project. As we
develop the Global Citizenship Program and gain both evidence and
experience, it might be desirable to modify these rubrics.)
All other courses must show evidence of promise that they will help students
to improve their abilities with respect to at least one communications skill (i.e.,
18
All courses in the areas Roots of Cultures, Social Systems and Human Behavior,
and Global Understanding must show evidence of promise that they will help
students to develop their understanding of personal and global responsibility
in at least one of Intercultural Knowledge and Competence, Civic Knowledge
and Engagement, and Ethical Reasoning.
Social Systems and Human Behavior courses are expected to help students
develop knowledge of human cultures and how people and their cultures and
institutions work, focused by engagement with “big questions,” whether
contemporary or enduring.
Physical and Natural World courses are expected to help students develop
knowledge of the physical and natural world, focused by engagement with “big
questions,” whether contemporary or enduring.
Second academic year: Program applies to continuing GCP students and new
full-time, degree-seeking students, with fewer than 30 hours of college credit,
who have not previously matriculated at a post-secondary institution, who are
not majoring in programs in the departments of Dance, Music, and Theatre
only. Continue development, training, and coding. Advisor training extended
campus U.S.
Third academic year: Program applies to the two previous years’ GCP
students, new full-time, degree-seeking students, with fewer than 30 credit
hours of college credit, who have not previously matriculated at a post-
secondary institution, who are not majoring in programs in the departments of
Dance, Music, and Theatre, and transfer students with fewer than 75 transfer
credits outside the departments of Dance, Music, and Theatre. Continue
development, training, and coding.
20
Additional recommendations
Beyond the recommendations for the Global Citizenship Program, members of the
Task Force concluded that two other recommendations are warranted to help the
new program succeed.
First, we were persuaded by the arguments of Mike Salevouris and others in our
community that all of the Essential Learning Outcomes are things we desire for our
students to achieve but that they need not all be outcomes for a general education
program alone. In response, we abbreviated the list of outcomes built upon the
Knowledge courses. We recommend, though, that the Webster faculty adopt the full
list of learning outcomes as undergraduate learning outcomes, along with an
outcome for study in depth (i.e., in each student’s major field of study).
21
Rationales
General
In general, the approach of the recommended program is to achieve the four main
goals – knowledge of human cultures and the physical and natural world, practical
and intellectual skills, understanding of personal and global responsibility, and
abilities to integrate and apply what is learned – through repeated practice in the
curriculum and co-curriculum (as well as in students’ work in their major fields of
study). Rather than assigning a single function to each course or experience, each
serves multiple functions, as indicated in the Figure, below.
22
Figure 5
Program components
Citizenship Program, the Task Force regards these as essential competencies for
responsible global citizenship in the 21st Century.
The aims of integration and application also reflect the AAC&U’s study of consensus
in higher education on expected learning outcomes for undergraduate students.
Also, the Task Force judges these crucial in preparing students to deal with
uncertainty in the world after they graduate and as an important foundation for
lifelong learning.
for students to see how what they are learning works in different settings, on
and off campus. These opportunities to integrate, synthesize, and apply
knowledge are essential to deep, meaningful learning experiences. While
internships and field placements are obvious venues, service learning and
study abroad require students to work with their peers beyond the classroom
and test what they are learning in unfamiliar situations. ([ CITATION Kuh08 \l
1033 ]
The Great Thinkers Seminars and the Keystone Seminars are two examples of High
Impact Practices that are recommended by AAC&U. Considerable evidence supports
the benefits that these two seminars have when they bookend students’ general
education experience. Students beginning college study fresh from high school often
have confused ideas about what to expect from college education and experience.
[ CITATION Boy87 \l 1033 ] Students new to college frequently report they are not
24
confident they can succeed in college without special help. [ CITATION Ast94 \l
1033 ] This is the thinking that motivated the introduction of freshman seminars in
an effort simultaneously to provide support for students transitioning to college, to
set expectations for their academic experience while attending Webster, and to
prepare them to persist and succeed in their study here.
Pascarella and Terenzini report, “The weight of the evidence suggests that a first-
semester freshman seminar is positively linked with both freshman-year
persistence and degree completion. This positive link persists even when academic
aptitude and secondary school achievement are taken into account.”[ CITATION
Pas91 \l 1033 ] That has been Webster’s experience, as well. Since the
implementation of freshman seminar at Webster, retention has increased. Since all
new freshmen have to take a seminar, we lack a control group for good statistical
analysis. Still, we know freshman seminar is not a reason students report for leaving
but may be a reason why they stay at Webster. Sum & Substance 2009 shows our
first-time freshman completion rates are higher than Consortium for Student
Retention Data Exchange (CSRDE) selective institutions.
The recommendation for requiring the Global Keystone Course stems from the
desire to insure that undergraduate students participate in high-impact practices
and from the desire to provide an occasion for students to practice integrating what
they are learning – within the Global Citizenship Program, but also in the courses for
their major, their other studies, and all their experiences. Pascarella and Terenzini
advocate for capstone experiences on the basis of their research finding that
“[intellectual development] is stimulated by academic experiences that purposefully
provide for integration.” [ CITATION Pas91 \l 1033 ]
In addition, Task Force members and others were impressed by several conference
sessions on general education programs at other colleges and universities that
employ capstone courses as part of the general education core. The general
education requirements at Lehman College, in The Bronx, New York, for example,
require that all students complete two interdisciplinary, capstone courses: The
Humanities and the Sciences, and The American Experience. For students who
transfer having earned a CUNY/SUNY Associate’s degree, the lower-division
requirements are counted as having been satisfied, the two upper-level, capstone
courses are required. [ CITATION Pro10 \l 1033 ]
25
A Task Force similar to ours, at North Carolina State University, found the 1994-era
general education program at that school was perceived as “disjointed” and as a
“checklist” with no intentional way for students to integrate or otherwise make
connections among the various courses. The recommendations which arose out of
that process included eliminating school- or college-specific mandates of courses for
students within them to take, as well as introduction of first-year and capstone
courses for the general education program.
The addition of the First Year GER Course and the Capstone serves two
purposes. Most importantly, they will serve to provide coherence and
structure for the entire General Education Program as noted above. However,
they will also serve as the primary arenas for assessment of general education
at NC State. This should simplify the process as compared to the current
system, in addition to making general education assessment more efficient and
effective. [ CITATION NCS06 \l 1033 ]
Our research found that many schools with recently renewed general education
programs feature general education capstone requirements. The Task Force settled
on the name “Keystone” for the general education capstone course to make it easier
to distinguish between requirements and expectations within the Global Citizenship
Program and within the various majors, as well as to connote “bringing together”
rather than “completing.”
Finally, the student choice category is a flexible option because faculty and students
alike have communicated to the Task Force that they value the flexibility for
students to choose in our existing programs. For some students, it will allow for
additional depth of study (e.g., an additional semester of a language or pursuit of a
minor). For some students, it will be a place for a skills course to enhance their
writing abilities. For all students it provides additional “mist” to help develop the
core competencies required for responsible global citizenship in the 21 st Century.
Breadth
Many faculty have stressed the importance of breadth of study as one of the
desiderata for a program of undergraduate degree requirements. Breadth is not the
only aim of the Global Citizenship Program, but the program’s breadth requirements
seriously strengthen the general education commitment to breadth of study.
The breadth requirements take two forms, both of which are more stringent
versions of requirements of the current, nine-areas general education requirements.
26
The current program allows a student to use as many as two courses (with different
prefixes) from the student’s home department to satisfy general education
requirements, including courses that might also satisfy requirements of the major.
The program places no restrictions on the overlap of courses for the major with
courses achieving breadth of study in the general education program.
By contrast, the Global Citizenship Program – with exceptions noted below, under
the discussion of accommodations – prohibits “double counting” of courses for both
requirements of the major and breadth requirements for general education. Further
to insure breadth, the new program demands that students use courses with two
different prefixes to meet the Knowledge requirements that require more than one
course.
In these ways, the Task Force sought to retain the flexibility that so many in our
community value in our existing general education programs while, at the same
time, raising the standards for our community’s expectations of breadth of study.
Accommodations
The Global Citizenship Project Task Force has recommended two sorts of
accommodations for students with respect to the Breadth Requirements of the
recommended program. The Task Force came to the conclusion that, for high-credit
hour majors, an institutional decision has already been made that breadth of study
is not an institutional priority or commitment. When a program of study requires
some specified 96 or 114 hours of a required 128, the University has already
committed, implicitly if not explicitly, to a course in which students in those
programs stand to be exposed to less of the rest of the University than students
completing majors requiring 36 or 42 hours.
Having recognized that University decision, the GCPTF reviewed the credit hours
required for majors in the current Undergraduate Catalog, and came to the
conclusion that 75 required hours appears to be an appropriate number to
distinguish between “high” and “ordinary” credit-hour commitments. The first
accommodation for high-credit hour majors allows for – but does not require –
relaxing the breadth demands of the GCP by waiving the requirement that courses
meeting GCP requirements be in addition to any courses completed to meet the
requirements of the major. This accommodation leaves it to the discretion of the
relevant academic department whether relaxing that breadth requirement is
necessary or appropriate for any given program constituting a high-credit major
administered by the department.
contrasts the professional orientation of the BFA degree with the liberal arts
framework and breadth of study associated with a Bachelor of Arts in Theatre. At
Webster, for example, the Directing program combines theatre study, general study,
and a focus on one area of theatre, to lead to a BA degree.
As of the time of our review, twenty-six different majors fell into the high-credit
category. Eight academic departments administer such programs: two departments
in CAS, two in GHWSBT, and all four in LGCFA. All BFA and BM degrees fall in
departments in LGCFA.
The programs that appear to face the most obvious challenges in implementing the
Global Citizenship Program for Webster students are all in the departments of
Dance, Music, and Theatre. For that reason, implementation of the new program for
students in those areas is deferred. The Task Force and faculty leaders in those
areas jointly expect that the time cushion provided makes it possible either to
insure that the program as adopted will not harm those students or to permit
alternative proposals, as reason and evidence might dictate.
certification requirements are, thus, not courses required for the major. As with
professional preparation programs in the arts, reason and evidence might later
dictate that accommodations for teacher education students with respect to the
breadth requirements are needed.
Transfer
As we move into any new general education program, we would necessarily need to
evaluate transfer courses in relation to our new curriculum. This is true no matter
what meaningful changes we implement. Whatever our new program, we will
develop instructive criteria for categorizing course within the new framework as we
identify and develop our own courses that meet general education goals. Those
criteria will inform our evaluation of transfer courses, just as Tom Nickolai's "Gen
Ed Online" document guides our thinking for transfer into the current general
education programs. Standard courses common to all colleges and universities will
transfer readily into Webster, just as Webster versions of those courses do
elsewhere. As with, for example, Critical Thinking under the current system, we will
readily find guidelines that capture specifically what we mean for our students to
master in relation to roots of cultures, quantitative literacy, and the rest, and we will
gain practice in identifying those characteristics in courses from other institutions.
The recommended implementation timeline allows a period of years to develop the
criteria and related systems.
For students who transfer having completed a degree, the expectations would be
almost identical to those for our current systems. Students who have earned a
previous baccalaureate degree may apply to pursue a sequential degree in a
different area of study. Sequential degree students are not required to complete the
University's Global Citizenship Program requirements. Students with an Associate in
Arts (A.A.) will have fulfilled all of Webster University’s lower-level general
education requirements. As noted above, these students are still required to
complete the upper-level, Global Keystone requirement. Students with an Associate
in Science (A.S.) degree, Associate in Applied Science (A.A.S.) degree, or Associate in
Fine Arts (A.F.A.) degree will have their transfer coursework evaluated on a course-
by-course basis for equivalency with Global Citizenship Program requirements, as is
done for general education requirements in our current programs.
29
Assessment
We assess, first, “to ensure that [we] are actually doing what [we] set out to do,
namely to produce educated persons.” [ CITATION Lev09 \l 1033 ] We aim also to
assess the Global Citizenship Program in order to be able to improve it. Specifically,
we want to be able to improve the performance of our education mission with
respect to preparing students for responsible global citizenship in the 21 st Century.
We propose a rolling evaluation of student learning outcomes performance, along
with other, indirect measures, to provide longitudinal data which can inform future
decisions about undergraduate education at Webster. As Astin, notes:
just as in the major, the General Education program should develop its own
long list of intended educational outcomes and from that list select a more
reasonable number of between three (3) and five (5) intended outcomes for
assessment during any one time period. [ CITATION Nic00 \l 1033 ]
Student work will be evaluated from the beginning and the end of the program to
investigate the impact of the Global Citizenship Program. Work from the Great
Thinkers Seminars and from the Global Keystone Seminars will be archived in a
digital repository, using an “organization” created in Blackboard Learn, according to
a plan developed in collaboration with the Online Learning Center. Each year, two
skills and one responsibility area will be assessed. A random sample of student
papers from the digital repository will be reviewed in a process approved and
supervised by the Global Citizenship assessment committee. The process will use
common rubrics to rate levels of competence in regard to the global citizenship
learning outcomes, and raters will be trained in the use of the rubrics, as well as
scored to maintain inter-rater reliability. The results will be tabulated and
documented. The Global Citizenship Program Review Committee will review and
discuss the results.
30
The Task Force is confident that this approach will provide data that can
meaningfully inform decisions to modify the GCP in the future – or to stay the
course. The use of a systematic program of periodic evaluation of the program, with
multiple methods of assessment and a balance of direct and indirect measures
provides further assurance that the process will not be a mere exercise. Indeed,
those factors, as well as the approach of objective, blind review of a random sample
of artifacts of student work, are among the specific suggestions offered in the
“Advancement” section of the Team Report that followed the 2008 HLC visit.
[ CITATION Tal08 \l 1033 ]
Finally, note that the assessment plan outlined above (and detailed in a separate
document), is a starting point, rather than something carved in stone tablets. As we
gain experience with assessing the Global Citizenship Program, we will learn. We
might come to learn that the portfolio approach of the GCP has much to recommend
its use in other programs in the University. We might learn that it requires
modification to be successful. We might find that it needs supplementation to give
us all the information we want and need to improve the education of our
undergraduate students. Whatever the case, moving forward we will make choices
about assessing the GCP, not primarily out of fealty to words in a Task Force report,
but, first and foremost, in order to improve our performance of our educational
mission.
31
Suggested activities and topics for GCP Faculty LAB communities include:
Reflection on how to infuse global citizenship into existing general education
courses
Identify and test strategies and practices for achieving GCP outcomes
Sharing of interdisciplinary opportunities for developing experiences that
address GCP outcomes.
Advisor Training
In addition to faculty and curricular development, successfully implementing the
Global Citizenship Program requires reorienting faculty advisors and professional
staff advisors, both in St. Louis and at extended campuses. The Extended Campus
Directors in discussions in September 2010 identified this as a specifically
important need. It became clear, also, in a September meeting of Task Force
members and faculty of the School of Communications, that the Global Citizenship
Program model involves a paradigm shift in advising in the SOC unlike that for other
parts of the University. Consequently, special attention must be paid to helping SOC
advisors prepare to advise students within the new program.
Summary of recommendations
The Global Citizenship Project Task Force recommends that Webster University
undergraduate degree requirements be amended to substitute “Global Citizenship
Program” for “general education program.”
The mission of the Global Citizenship Program is ensure that every undergraduate
student emerge from Webster University with the core competencies required for
responsible global citizenship in the 21st Century. These competencies are
Knowledge of Human Cultures and the Physical and Natural World; the practical and
intellectual skills of written and oral communication, critical and creative thinking,
information literacy, and teamwork; an Understanding of Personal and Global
Responsibility, including intercultural knowledge and competence, ethical
reasoning, and civic knowledge; and Abilities to Integrate and Apply what is learned,
including integrative learning and the foundations and skills for lifelong learning.
The Task Force further recommends that the Global Citizenship Program be
implemented using the course requirements, timeline, and accommodations for
high-credit majors and students completing BFA and BM degrees specified in this
Report.
The Global Citizenship Project Task Force recommends that Webster University
adopt undergraduate learning outcomes that reflect the full list of “Essential
Learning Outcomes” promulgated by the Association of American Colleges and
Universities, and including also at least one outcome for study in depth.
34
The Global Citizenship Project Task Force recommends that the Global Citizenship
Program be considered a starting point rather than an eternal requirement in all its
details. The Task Force recommends, as part of the process for assessing the Global
Citizenship Program, that the Program be evaluated every six years. The Task Force
recommends that courses not be included in the program in perpetuity, but that
courses are to be reviewed at intervals specified in the Global Citizenship Program
Assessment Plan. The aims of all such periodic review shall be to maintain the
quality of the Global Citizenship Program, insure that the Program and its
component parts are accomplishing their goals, and to modify the Program to
improve its educational value. The Global Citizenship Program Review Committee
should be expected to report to the Faculty Assembly in at least the second and fifth
year of program implementation.
35
Appendix 1
36
37
Bibliography
38
Leskes, A., & Miller, R. (2005). General Education: A Self-Study Guide for Review and
Assessment. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and
Universities.
Leskes, A., & Miller, R. (2006). Purposeful Pathways: Helping Students Acheive Key
Learning Outcomes. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and
Universities.
Leskes, A., & Wright, B. The Art and Science of Assessing General Educaion Outcomes.
Levi, A. J., & Stevens, D. D. (2009). Assessment of the Acdemy, for the Academy, by
the Academy. In T. L. Rhodes, Assessing Outcomes and Improving Achievement:
Tips and Tools for Using Rubrics. Washington, DC: Association of American
Colleges and Universitites.
Moseley, M. E. (1991). Proceedings. Asheville Institute on General Education.
Asheville: Association of American Colleges and University of North Carolina
Asheville.
National Association of Schools of Theatre. (2007). NAST Handbook: Standards for
Accreditation. National Association of Schools of Theatre.
National Leadership Council for Liberal Education and America's Promise. (2007).
College Learning for the New Global Century. Washington, D.C.: Association of
American Colleges and Universities.
Nichols, J. O., & Nichols, K. O. (2000). The Departmental Guide and Record Book for
Student Outcomes Assessment and Institutional Effectiveness, Third Edition. New
York: Agathon Press.
Pascarella, E. T., & Ternzini, P. T. (1991). How College Affects Students: Findings and
insights from twent years of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Prohaska, V., & Whittaker, R. (2010, February 19). Interdisciplinary Capstone
Courses in Gen Ed: Recruiting Faculty and Supporting the Development of
Learning Objectives for Effective Assessment. AAC&U General Education and
Assessment Conference . Seattle.
Shell, J. (2010). Design Outside the Box. (J. Shell, Performer) DICE 2010, Las Vegas.
Shoenberg, R. General Education and Student Transfer.
Talburt, N. L. (2008). Report of a Comprehensive Evaluation Visit to Webster
University for The Higher Learning Commission, A Commission of the North
Central Association of Colleges and Schools. unpublished.
Tinto, V., Love, A. G., & Russo, P. (1994). Building Learning Communities for New
College Students: A summary of research findings of the Collaborative Learning
Project. University Park, PA: National Center on Postesecondary Teaching,
Learning, and Assessment.
Virginia. (1999). General Education in Virginia: Assessment and Innovation, A
Challenge to Academic Leadership. Council of Higher Education of Virginia,
Richmond.
Webster University. (2008). Webster University Self-Study Report 2007-2008. (B.
Umbaugh, Ed.) Webster Groves, MO.
White, C. R. (1994). A Model for Comprehensive Reform in General Education:
Portland State University.