The complete North Central Report is available in the Office of the Faculty Senate. The following excerpts from the report deal with General Education program. Information from the 1987 visit is available at the end of the 1997 report.
CONCERNS EXPRESSED BY THE NORTH CENTRAL ASSOCIATION during the visit of April, 1997 regarding the General Education Program
“In the 1987 comprehensive evaluation, the NCA team identified ten major concerns. In reviewing these concerns, the 1997 team found that many of the concerns have been addressed and progress had been made in several other areas. However, three of the original issues remain as concerns. In summary, the current status of the ten programmatic areas can be stated as follows: 1) General education is more reflective of institutional politics than of student needs -- The program is more restrictive and focused, but still lacks goals, sequencing patterns, and measurable outcomes assessment. ………
ACCREDITATION EVALUATIVE CRITERIA
The NCA team assumed the responsibility to review the institution as a whole. To accomplish this goal, the team applied the five criteria, as appropriate to each aspect of the institution. The recommendations in the final section of this report build upon all institutional components, their interrelationships, and the degree to which these segments contribute to the overall effectiveness of the institution. …….
CRITERION THREE: The institution is accomplishing its educational and other purposes.
General Education Program: Wichita State has taken important steps to respond to concerns expressed in 1987, installing a new general education requirement structure in 1994. Oversight of the general education program is delegated to a faculty committee, appointed by the Faculty Senate, which is to review the new program in 1997. The 1987 cafeteria of almost 300 courses has been reduced to about 50, and the offerings have been focused in the College of Liberal Arts & Sciences with required offerings in Fine Arts.
Many colleges require students to take specific courses in the second two tiers (introduction to discipline and further studies). Often these requirements seem directly related to majors, and might be required in any case. This practice may vitiate both the “breadth” and the “depth” intentions articulated for these second two tiers. However, concerns regarding general education as Wichita go deeper than this.
The program still operates on a cafeteria model, albeit restricted from that offered in 1987. The bulk of the program (21 credits in introduction to the disciplines and up to six credits of further study) is composed mostly of courses in the majors. General education is necessarily secondary to such a context. The specific objectives of the second and third tiers are unclear, as is the profile of “the generally educated student.” The program as a whole lacks sequential and developmental goals articulated student outcomes, and although the tools designed for this year’s program review (e.g., portfolio, focus groups) appear appropriate, neither course design nor assessment can proceed effectively without such cumulative goals.
In addition, there is no administrative oversight of the program and no group of faculty with basic allegiance to general education; members of the office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs were only generically informed about the program. No program is likely to prosper as the institution without senior administrative support. Because of the centrality of general education to the institutional mission, to students’ curricula, and to Criterion3, senior administrative support and oversight should be provided.
INSTITUTIONAL STRENGTHS AND CONCERNS:
CONCERNS: …..
4. In the general education program, there is an absence of sequential and developmental goals articulated in terms of measurable outcomes that can be assessed.
Information regarding the General Education program from the North Central Association report March, 1987
The present General Education program is a result of a revision which eliminated professional programs from the courses available for student selection, changed the administrative structure, and made some effort at limiting the options available to students by grouping courses and limiting numbers of qualifying courses. The result, however, is more reflective of institutional politics than of student needs.
At present, the area groupings allow the student to choose from among 40 different concentrations, each of which is free to designate eight qualifying courses. The possible combinations from 320 potential courses (currently, approximately 200 are available) assure that there is no common educational experience for WSU graduates. It is also possible to avoid courses in literature, history, language, philosophy, and still fulfill the general education requirements.
There is a core of skill courses in math, writing and reading that is required of all students. However, since there is no indication that these courses or any others are prerequisite to advanced study, it appears that the program allows under-prepared students to participate with majors in a given field. Thus, the program lack cohesion, sequence, and any focus that might mark a WSU graduate.
However, the program appears less responsive to student needs or educational priorities than to departmental concerns and maintaining faculty lines. Since faculty perceive the present distribution of courses as generating the number of credit hours needed for assuring the status quo, the program's effectiveness is compromised by the shift from student needs to faculty issues.