Location

Cheatham 212

Event Website

http://www.cpe.vt.edu/cuenr/index.html

Start Date

27-3-2010 11:30 AM

End Date

27-3-2010 12:00 PM

Description

Some novel general education requirements have been in place at Oregon State University (OSU) since a major and admirable development effort in 1988, but implementation has become overly problematic over the last decades. This observation and other pressing issues on campus drove a major review effort last year involving administration, faculty, staff and students. We were reassured by those results in terms of the philosophy and structure of our “Baccalaureate Core” and how well they align with emerging ideas from the American Association of Colleges and Universities and peer institutions nationwide. However, our campus community was consistently unsatisfied with the evolved, checklist nature of our general education requirements, the associated strategizing and gaming required of students and advisors, and the implications that this has for lack of horizontal and vertical integration of related components, both within the Core and across curricula to majors/minors. We are therefore starting a significant revision process centered on: 1. a renewed focus on basic learning outcomes for our graduates that tie together general education and major/minor curricula, with better description and communication of the overall design; 2. stricter requirements for first‐year experiences and advising that are more closely aligned to campus retention efforts; 3. expansion of experiential learning opportunities (e.g., research, study abroad and service learning) that could be used to meet several learning goals within our general education requirements; and 4. identified, centralized administrative support to assist with implementation in terms of departmental offerings, instructor support and course access. I will summarize our review and revision process/results and provide detail for each of the four proposed changes above, including specific issues from OSU and observed national trends related to each. From this, I hope to generate discussion (if not controversy) on the role of general education for students in our respective professional programs vs. those in more general (and flexible) natural resources majors.

Comments

Citation: Bailey, J.D. 2010. Trends in general education requirements for forestry and other professional program students. UENR Biennial Conference, Session Curricula and Assessment, Paper Number 4. http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cuenr/Sessions/Cirricula/4/

 
Mar 27th, 11:30 AM Mar 27th, 12:00 PM

Trends in General Education Requirements for Forestry and Other Professional Program Students

Cheatham 212

Some novel general education requirements have been in place at Oregon State University (OSU) since a major and admirable development effort in 1988, but implementation has become overly problematic over the last decades. This observation and other pressing issues on campus drove a major review effort last year involving administration, faculty, staff and students. We were reassured by those results in terms of the philosophy and structure of our “Baccalaureate Core” and how well they align with emerging ideas from the American Association of Colleges and Universities and peer institutions nationwide. However, our campus community was consistently unsatisfied with the evolved, checklist nature of our general education requirements, the associated strategizing and gaming required of students and advisors, and the implications that this has for lack of horizontal and vertical integration of related components, both within the Core and across curricula to majors/minors. We are therefore starting a significant revision process centered on: 1. a renewed focus on basic learning outcomes for our graduates that tie together general education and major/minor curricula, with better description and communication of the overall design; 2. stricter requirements for first‐year experiences and advising that are more closely aligned to campus retention efforts; 3. expansion of experiential learning opportunities (e.g., research, study abroad and service learning) that could be used to meet several learning goals within our general education requirements; and 4. identified, centralized administrative support to assist with implementation in terms of departmental offerings, instructor support and course access. I will summarize our review and revision process/results and provide detail for each of the four proposed changes above, including specific issues from OSU and observed national trends related to each. From this, I hope to generate discussion (if not controversy) on the role of general education for students in our respective professional programs vs. those in more general (and flexible) natural resources majors.

http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cuenr/Sessions/Cirricula/4