Report from the

Sub-committee on Information Collected from the five August 31, 2005 concurrent Fall Faculty Conference sessions that discussed “General Education at Pacific Lutheran University”

Sub-committee Members: Ken Blaha, Erin McKenna, Norris Peterson, Ann Kelleher

Part I – Reporting Sorted Comments

Each session’s Recorder collected the comments written on post-its relevant to the headings of “hopes,” “fears,” and “needs.” Using lists of all the comments, the Sub-committee’s members reviewed every one, developed categories, and used them to compile the following information. The numbers of comments in each category determine the order in which they are listed. Given their multiple subjects, a few comments are included in more than one category. For some of the categories, sample comments are noted in parentheses.

Hopes

No. of comments		Type of Comment
60	H1.	The university’s general education curriculum will express an overall, commonly accepted, substantive goal. (“education for a changing world,” “creativity,” “distinctive identity,” “defensible rationale.”)
37	H2.	We will attend to process. (“careful discussion,” “wide participation,” “open minds.”)
35	H3.	We will attend to the university “community” as the basis for deliberation. (“better faculty interaction,” “get to know each other,” “sense of common purpose,” “shared responsibility.”)
35	H4.	Specific courses, fields, or type of course should be included. (“include ethics,” “language requirement,” “communication course,” “peace studies,” “team teaching.”)
27	H5.	Simplify the requirements, make them more manageable.
21	H6.	Make them more flexible.
17	H7.	Ensure that the requirements fit the university’s mission. (“shared vision,” “institutional goals.”)
13	H8.	Recognize the importance of designing a cross/multidisciplinary/integrative set of requirements.
11	H9.	(Unclassified comments, such as “no frogs this time,” “provide accurate information to student nurses about working with people who have mental illness.”)
9	H10.	Recognize the importance of the “liberal arts.”
8	H11.	Highly value both liberal arts and professional education
8	H12.	We will learn about each others’ disciplines.
7	H13.	We will require fewer courses.
3	H14.	Students will participate in the process.
3	H15.	Recognize the importance of disciplines.
1	H16.	Recognize the importance of professional education.

Fears

No. of comments		Type of Comment
87	F1.	Redesigning general education requirements could lead to divisive debates and turf protection.
45	F2.	Redesigning GURs could take a long time and lead to no real change.
21	F3.	The new GURswill not be creative enough.
18	F4.	The new requirements could be increased or become even more complex.
18	F5.	The new requirements might be of low quality.
15	F6.	Administrative changes might result, such as restructuring specific departments through the addition or deletion of faculty positions, or compelling existing faculty to teach courses outside of their sub-fields.
14	F7.	The process could lead to divisiveness between faculty in the liberal arts and professional schools.
11	F8.	The new requirements could become abstract with vague goals.
10	F9.	The new requirements could become too linked to the university’s tradition/mission.
9	F10.	Specific elements might be lost. (“diversity requirement,” “writing,” “lose the Freshman Year Program.”
8	F11.	(Unclassified comments, such as “technology,” “some faculty will misunderstand others’ disciplines,” “confusion about transitions for advising.”)
7	F12.	The rationale could become budget dominated.
7	F13.	We could lose the liberal arts emphasis.
6	F14.	We could lose the disciplinary orientation.
2	F15.	We could lose the link to the university’s tradition/mission.

Needs

No. of comments		Type of Comment
43	N1.	Develop a clear, fair process.
36	N2.	Collect examples of GURs at other institutions.
20	N3.	Determine a rationale and a method of assessing the effectiveness of the current GURs.
17	N4.	Attend to PLU’s mission and the philosophy for revising the GURs.
15	N5.	(Unclassified comments, such as “diverse connections are made,” “administrative support for the process,” “mutual respect about diversity,” “how changes relate to education theory.”
14	N6.	Collect students’ views.
14	N7.	Collect examples of processes used by other institutions to review their general education requirements.
13	N8.	Collect the views of employers and entrance priorities of graduate schools.
12	N9.	Disseminate knowledge of the current GURs.
11	N10.	Determine the budgetary impact of proposed revisions.
7	N11.	Review PLU’s history of revising its GURs.
7	N12.	Collect alumni views.
6	N13.	Consider the consequences of implementing revisions.
5	N14.	Factor in qualifications of incoming students.
3	N15.	Consider a review by an external consultant.

Part II – Comparing Categories

The sub-committee then noted that within the three headings (hopes, fears, needs) some of the categories dealt with similar subjects. Its members suggest that the following linkages of categories might prove useful in thinking about the university’s GURs.

Hopes

1. Items H2, H3, and H12 express an interest in attending to collegiality and an informed, respectful process, totaling 80.
2. Items H1 and H7 deal with substantive, overall goals for the GURs, totaling 77 responses.
3. Items H5, H6, and H13 show a perceived hope for greater flexibility and a simplification of the GURs, totaling 55.
4. Items H8, H10, H11, H15, and H16 deal with mid-level content issues as important (not focusing on specific courses or topics, or on overall general education goals), totaling 34.

Fears

5. Faculty are concerned that the process may result in the same or lower quality GURs than currently, as reflected in fears F2, F3, F4, F5, and F8, totaling 113 comments
6. Divisiveness is a primary concern, particularly when F1 and F7 are added together totaling 101.
7. Items F6 and F12 illustrate a concern for administrative issues, totaling 22.
8. Items F13 and F14 deal with mid-level content issues, totaling 13 comments.
9. Items F9 and F15 show that mission matters, although in opposite ways, with a total of 12 responses.

Needs

10. Items N1, N4, and N10 convey a request by faculty for a clear process for GUR revision, consistent with PLU’s mission and philosophy, totaling 71 comments
11. Items N2, N7, and N15 show an interest in the experience of other colleges and universities, totaling 53.
12. Items N3, N9, and N11 express a desire to review our current GURs, totaling 39.
13. Items N6, N8, and N12 indicate a willingness to collect the opinions of others in the wider university community, totaling 34.

The sub-committee also constructed the following list of issues that crossed the “hopes-fears-needs” distinctions.

14. A desire to build collegiality and concerns that divisiveness would threaten cooperative dialogue may be inferred by Hopes items H2 and H3, Fears items F1 and F7, and Needs item N1, totaling 216,
15. Interest in the overall, conceptual rationale for the GURs is reflected in Hopes H1 and H7, Fears F3, F5, F8, F9, and F15, and Needs N4, totaling 156.
16. Concerns with the assumed complexity of present and future GURs is reflected in Hopes H5, H6, and H13, and Fears F4, totaling 73.
17. Comments making specific suggestions as to courses or content topics surfaced in Hopes H4 and Fears F10, totaling 44.
18. The liberal arts-professional school distinction surfaced in Hopes H10, H11, and H16 and Fears F7 and F13, totaling 39.
19. Students were noted in Hopes H14 and Needs N6, totaling 17.