Parts of this site were modified October 2, 2001.
The content of this site is the responsibility of Carruth McGehee, Chair
of the Committee from 1999 to 2001, email address mcgehee@math.lsu.edu.
The General Education Requirements appear on pages
69-72 of the 2001-2002 LSU Catalog.
Alphabetical List of Topics
The Committee reviews student appeals of the General
Education requirements, usually proposing substitutions. An appeal
originates with a student and comes through the student's College
and the Office of Academic Affairs. The Committee then makes a recommendation
to that Office.
This year we established a new
form, designed to be user-friendly and to clarify the process. At
the end of the form there are some examples of successful appeals filed
in the past.
During the academic years 1999-2000
and 2000-2001, we dealt with 13 appeals. Of those, we recommended approval
in five cases, denial in six. The other two were returned with the advice
that they should be examined and decided by the Office of Academic Affairs,
since they turned not on educational issues, but on questions of incorrect
advising.
Return to top.
Catalog Statement
The preamble to the Gen Ed requirements
that appears in the first column on page 69 of the 2001-2002 catalog
is the product of two or three past committees' efforts to state the
purposes of the program. The Committee has found this preamble to be
not very useful, either as a guideline to departments or as an explanation
to students, and has recommended that it be replaced by something much
briefer. When discussing courses with departments, we prefer that they
develop and present their own conception of why a given course belongs
or does not belong in Gen Ed. Here in a PDF file is our memo to Provost
Fogel dated June 25,
2001. He is considering the matter.
Return to top.
Communication Across the
Curriculum
During 1999-2000 the Committee met
twice with members of the General Education Learning Outcomes Assessment
Committee, which was conducting a study of students' writing skills.
In response to their report of October 26, 1999, the Committee sent
a memorandum,
dated August 7, 2000, with a number of comments and questions.
The Committee pays considerable attention
to writing requirements, and other appropriate modes of active student
engagement with subject matter, in General Education courses. But of
course, the challenge to improve our graduates' communication skills
is present, indeed, across and throughout the curriculum.
Return to top.
The Core Curriculum Idea
The commission that designed the General
Education Program at LSU, in the eighties, discussed (among other things)
the idea of a Core Curriculum, whereby there would be a small number
of courses taken by all students. This year the Committee has had several
occasions to discuss the Program's overall design, and in particular
to talk over the Core idea. We offer some remarks in this two-page statement,
entitled The
Core Curriculum Versus the Well-Selected List.
Return to top.
Actions Regarding Foreign
Languages
When General Education began at LSU in
1987, the first two semesters of foreign language study were excluded
from General Education credit. That decision, which followed extended
discussion in the original Commission and in the Faculty Senate, was
reversed in the mid-1990s, pursuant to a recommendation by a special
Commission. The first- and second-semester language courses were listed
in the Humanities Area, effective with the 95-96 catalog. The reasons
for this reversal were (1) a concern by some that language study was
being slighted; and (2) the severe budgetary situation of that period.
(Since many students took the beginning foreign language courses anyway,
getting General Education credit for them meant that the enrollment
pressures on other Humanities Area courses would be reduced.)
Early in the Fall of 1999, the Committee
began a review of several courses in the Department of Foreign Languages
and Literatures. This led to a review of the question of first- and
second-semester courses' presence in Gen Ed. We studied enrollment trends
and consulted widely. We decided that the decision of the mid-1990s
should be partially reversed, and the original policy partially restored,
by de-listing the first-semester courses in foreign languages. We sent
this recommendation in a detailed report, dated February
6, 2001, to Provost Fogel, and he approved it. We considered it
essential also to address problems of articulation with the high schools
in this subject area. We sent a memo to Provost Fogel dated February
7, 2001. We believe he will move to implement the recommended measures.
Note: These PDF files do not contain all the tables and attachments
which are referred to. Requests for copies may be sent to the email
address at the top.
Return to top.
The Review of Courses
in Geography and Anthropology.
Eight courses taught by this department
are listed in the Social Sciences Area of Gen Ed. The Committee completed
reviews of seven of those, and recommended the renewal of all seven.
Here is a PDF file, a copy of the report to Provost Fogel dated June
22, 2001. Class size and grade distributions are among the issues
addressed.
The review of the eighth course, Anthropology
2423 (Introduction to Folklore), cross-listed as English 2423, was begun
but cancelled, out of consideration for the fact that teaching personnel
are changing and the departments are reviewing the course.
Return to top.
A Statement Regarding the
Humanities Area
During the past year, in the process
of reaching decisions as to whether to list, or to renew the listing,
of courses in the Humanities Area of General Education, the Committee
developed a one-page
statement about pertinent questions and criteria.
Return to top.
Membership
of the Committee During 2000-2001.
Professors Barbara Apostolou (Accounting),
Ken Denny (Curriculum and Instruction), Michael Gurt (Music), Marybeth
Lima (Biological and Agricultural Engineering), Marchita Mauck (Art),
Carruth McGehee (Mathematics), Robert McMullen (Mass Communication),
Roger McNeil (Physics and Astronomy), and Carol O'Neil (Human Ecology).
Ex officio members are the Chair of the Committee on Courses
and Curricula and the Provost or his representative.
Return to top.
The Natural Sciences Area
The Committee has devoted a number
of meetings to discussions of the Natural Sciences Area. We have reached
the decision that the offerings in the Area need attention and possibly
substantial revision. For a preliminary summary of our thinking, see
this PDF file.
Return to top.
The
Review of Courses in Philosophy and Religious Studies
The Committee reviewed all seventeen
General Education courses offered by this department. In a memorandum
to the Provost dated August
6, 2001 we recommended the renewal of all of them.
Return to top.
Proposals to List Courses
in General Education
During 99-00 and 00-01, ten courses
were proposed for listing. The Committee said Yes to seven, No to three.
The Committee adopted a
new form to use when making such a proposal. Page 2 of the new form
calls for answers to twelve questions, indicating the kinds of issues
that we have considered important in the past. Question 8 concerns grading
standards.
Return to top.
The Review of Existing General
Education Courses
The Committee is reviewing all General
Education courses on a ten-year cycle. Over time, the process should
provide a careful and critical reconsideration of all the listings.
The review of each course leads either to the renewal and confirmation
of its listing, or to its de-listing. As the reviews proceed, we hope
to get a grasp of how each individual course is functioning, but also
to address general issues and problems.
There is no set schedule by which the
reviews take place. Each year, in consultation with the Office of Academic
Affairs, the Committee selects a number of courses and begins the review
process for them. Typically we have selected groups of courses, each
group consisting of courses in one Area of Gen Ed taught by one department.
Before settling on courses to review, we consult the department concerned
to see if it's a `good time' to do it. For example, if the department
is currently conducting its own analysis and revisions, we might well
decide to leave them be and come back later.
When a review begins, we encourage
the department faculty as a whole, or appropriate committees thereof,
to think through the role of their discipline and their courses in General
Education, and to examine how well the courses are functioning. Perhaps
the list needs to be trimmed, or the courses modified, or new courses
created.
The Committee and the Department custom-design
and administer a questionnaire for students in the courses. The Measurement
and Evaluation Center processes the survey near semester's end and produces
a report on the results.
We seek to understand the enrollment
patterns for courses under review. Is the course serving only a small
range of majors? What's the distribution of students' year classifications?
How many students take it who would not do so anyway were it not listed
in Gen Ed? If it were not listed in Gen Ed, what difference would it
make?
Here is the
form for proposing that a course's listing in Gen Ed be renewed.
The second page of the form lists information to be submitted by the
Department.
The review process began in 1999, following
a couple years of preparation by the Committee. A list of the courses
whose reviews have begun appears in this report
of August 15, 2001, with an indication of the results as of that
date.
Return to top.
|