The General Education Revision Task Force has developed four General Education Proposals, as well as one Enhancement Proposal that might be used with Proposals 1, 2, or 3. Brief 2-3-page summaries of each of these Proposals are provided in the left-hand menu. These Proposals are designed to provide a range of possibilities for how to deliver a General Education Program and are intended as a point of departure for the discussion of how we might revise General Education at UNCG.

After looking at these proposals, please offer your feedback. The links to the proposals and feedback form are in the left-hand menu. FAQs are listed at the bottom of this page.

A proposed new General Education curriculum will be submitted to Faculty Senate by March 1, 2019.


Intensive Campus Dialogue Forums

You are invited to attend the following public forums in the Virginia Dare Room of the Alumni House to discuss the General Education Revision:

  • Monday, September 24 at 3:00pm
  • Wednesday, October 17 at 3:00pm (Faculty Senate Forum)
  • Thursday, November 15 at 9am

Task Force members will also be discussing the proposals with multiple other groups on campus. View the full list of meetings.


Background on the Process

In spring 2017, the UNCG Faculty Senate and the UNCG General Education Council approved a call for a task force of UNCG faculty to conduct a self-study of the UNCG General Education Program.  The last study of the UNCG General Education Program was conducted in the 2005-2006 academic year.  That study produced the framework for the current General Education Program at UNCG, building on the AULER system that was in place earlier.  Part of that framework included the creation of the General Education Council, which has since overseen the establishment of new General Education courses, the recertification of existing General Education courses, and the assessment of the General Education Program.  Since that last study, the undergraduate student body at UNCG has grown more diverse, and UNCG is now a Minority-Serving Institution.  There has also been substantial overall growth in the UNCG student body, including increasing numbers of transfer students.  In addition, over the last decade, there have been significant changes in the national expectations concerning the conceptualization and delivery of General Education as part of a University education.  For the complete charge from the UNCG Faculty Senate and the UNCG General Education Council, see Appendix A of the report.

The task force created to conduct this self-study was composed of nine UNCG faculty, with voting representatives from all the academic units on campus, a non-voting faculty chair, and non-voting members from various non-academic units on campus.


General Education Revision Task Force Membership:

Co-Chair, Chuck Bolton, Associate Dean, Professor of History, ccbolton@uncg.edu
Co-Chair, Alice Haddy, Professor, Chemistry, aehaddy@uncg.edu
Kwasi Amoako-Gyampah, Professor, Department of ISSCM, k_amoako@uncg.edu
Ian Beatty, Associate Professor, Physics & Astronomy, idbeatty@uncg.edu
Frances Bottenberg, Lecturer, Philosophy, f_botten@uncg.edu
David Carlone, Associate Professor, Communication Studies, dacarlon@uncg.edu
Kay Cowen, Professor, School of Nursing, kjcowen@uncg.edu
Jenny Dale, Reference Librarian and First Year Instruction Coordinator, jedale2@uncg.edu
Lauren Haldeman, Associate Professor, Nutrition, lahaldem@uncg.edu
Amy Harris Houk, Head, Research, Outreach, and Instruction, University Libraries, a_harri2@uncg.edu
Lisa O’Connor, Department Chair, Associate Professor, LIS, lgoconno@uncg.edu
Sunny Spillane, Assistant Professor, Art, srspilla@uncg.edu
Linda Stine, Associate Professor of Anthropology, lfstine@uncg.edu
Larry Taube, Associate Professor, Undergraduate Programs Director, ISSCM, lrtaube@uncg.edu
Aaron Terranova, AP Associate Professor, Director of Undergraduate Studies, KIN, abterran@uncg.edu

Ex-Officio (without vote)

Angela Bolte, Assistant Dean, Lloyd International Honors College, akbolte@uncg.edu
Lisa Henline, Associate University Registrar, lmhenlin@uncg.edu
Jodi Pettazzoni, Associate Vice Provost and Director Office of Assessment, Accreditation and Academic Program Planning, jepettaz@uncg.edu
Dana Saunders, Director, Students First Office, Division of Enrollment Management, dfsaunde@uncg.edu
Julia Smith, Professor of Psychology, Chancellor’s Fellow for Campus Climate, jlmendez@uncg.edu
Jennifer Stephens, Associate Director, UTLC, Jennifer.stephens@uncg.edu

Administrative Support

Lynn Wyrick, Office of Assessment, Accreditation, and Academic Program Planning, plwyrick@uncg.edu


FAQs

What is the primary issue that this round of program revisions is intended to address?

The complexity of the program is the primary issue of concern. This issue includes the difficulty of pinning down exactly how many credit hours the program requires to complete, and the degree to which students can easily grasp the objectives of the program.

Our second important area of concern involves determining whether and how the program could help students build meaningful connections across their Gen Ed coursework.

A third issue was to consider how the curriculum currently meets the needs of our students and the mission/strategic direction for the university.

How do the four proposed models distribute the General Education credits?

The four proposed models range from being very similar to our current system to very different. 2-3 page summaries of each of the models, which go into some detail on credit distribution possibilities, as well as poster representations of each model, are accessible from the Provost’s website. (See the left side menu under “General Education Revision Materials”.)

All of the proposed models eliminate the Marker classification system. Why is this? What will happen to courses previously certified WI, SI, GL or GN?

All proposed models aim to preserve speaking, writing, critical thinking, and information literacy as General Education hallmarks. At the same time, our current Marker system causes undue complexity and opaqueness for the program and its users. Markers will be folded into whatever new structure is adopted.

Will students continue to be able to “double-dip” on courses, using a single course to satisfy two or more requirements?

This is not addressed in the proposed models as written, but this is certainly worth considering.

What is the rationale behind the Diversity in the U.S. and Health/Wellness categories?

Diversity in the US and Health/Wellness were suggested or endorsed by a robust cross-section of stakeholders whose survey responses or forum remarks contributed to last year’s Self-Study report. These categories or competencies also directly tie into the University’s mission statement and the Chancellor’s vision.

What are faculty being asked to comment on this fall: Which of the model proposals we like best? Or what we think of the details within each proposal?

Both. We are open to blending models, incorporating features of one into another. The Task Force will not begin working on the recommendations report until the end of the fall term.

Will the two systems co-exist for a few years, as the transition occurs? Will the Markers still exist even as the new system reclassifies them?

Having a few transitional years where the old and new programs coexist via grandfathering clauses does seem common practice.

Has the Task Force looked at professionalization issues within General Education? Some disciplines are pushing the direction of Gen Ed based on professional or disciplinary demands.

We have and will continue to consider this issue, but it is not specifically addressed in the proposals. One of the Self-Study report’s recommendations was that any course that is classified as General Education needs to count as General Education credit for students, regardless of their major.

Traditionally, Gen Ed courses carry no prerequisites. The AAC&U recommends they be “foundational.” Thus, 100-200 levels form most of the Gen Ed offerings on campus. Will revisions change this policy?

The Task Force has not yet worked through this question, though it seems reasonable to stick with a policy that allows new college students to take any course labeled Gen Ed and be reasonably expected to manage.

What will the process be for deciding which courses transfer to the new system with various degrees of alteration?

The degree and nature of the changes that are to be implemented, once a revision plan is adopted, will determine the process. If the revision measures are conservative, it stands to reason that many currently certified Gen Ed courses would remain so, pending appropriate updates.

Will the Associate’s (AA/AS) degree still transfer in the same way?

We must accept the Comprehensive Articulation Agreement. That said, Model 3 (Competency-based) does introduce the newly proposed Diversity and Health/Wellness categories as “University requirements.” If we go this route, presumably even transfers with an Associate’s degree would be expected to take these courses.

What body or office will be involved in implementing the changes and overseeing the transition?

The Self-Study report made several recommendations on this point, which Provost Dunn voiced support for, but requested that working out the details of any administrative restructuring wait until the Task Force develops its recommendations report.

What is the deadline for sending comments to the Task Force?

We need them by the end of the semester. The second open forum on November 15 is the last date to voice feedback on the proposals posted on the Provost’s website. The Task Force will shift gears after that, aiming to meet the March 1 deadline for completing a report on revision recommendations.

How will this affect FTEs?

While this committee can consider overall credit hours to be assigned to Gen Ed, how departments would fare under the different models is not part of the charge of the Task Force.

Would the assessment process for General Education courses change?

Assessment is based on the Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) associated with the course categories. For any new program, the SLOs would need to be reviewed and revised accordingly. The degree to which the SLOs would differ from the current ones would depend on the nature of the new program.