Committee Report

Core Reform Task Force

Progress Report

June 30, 2009

Contents

I. History and Overview Click here for PDF Version

II. The Case for Change

III. Trends in Higher Education

IV. Useful Vocabulary and the Importance of a Name

V. Draft Statement of Guiding Philosophy

VI. Draft Statement of University Learning Outcomes

VII. One Program Model

VIII. Next Steps

I. History and Overview

This report outlines the preliminary findings and recommendations of the Core Reform Task Force (CRTF) for Boise State University.

The CRTF was formed in December of 2008 at the request of the Provost’s office and consists of thirteen University faculty members representing diverse constituencies:

College of Arts and Sciences - Arts and Humanities
College of Arts and Sciences - Sciences and Mathematics
College of Business and Economics
College of Education
College of Engineering
College of Health Sciences
Honors College
College of Social Sciences and Public Affairs
Adjunct instructors and Special Lecturers
Core Curriculum Committee
Deans’ Council
Learning for Life steering committee
Office of the Provost
Office of Student Affairs

Committee membership is available on the CRTF website.[1]

The impetus for the creation of the CRTF springs from the activities of two separate groups: the Core Curriculum Committee, and the Learning for Life steering committee.

The Core Curriculum Committee (CCC) operates under the aegis of the Boise State Faculty Senate and is charged with two tasks.[2] First, the committee is responsible for vetting proposals to add courses to the core curriculum, particularly with regard to considerations of how the proposed course serves the core learning outcomes. Second, since its approval by the Faculty Senate in Fall 2006, the committee has supported a multi-year assessment process designed to determine the degree to which core courses are succeeding in meeting the stated learning objectives of Boise State’s core curriculum. The core assessment process is straightforward and focused on reporting of the course-embedded assessment of learning outcomes.[3] The assessment has illuminated: (i) inconsistencies in the outcomes emphasized across sections; (ii) a lack of intentionality regarding learning outcomes by some departments and faculty members; (iii) unrealistic expectations regarding the outcomes that can and should be addressed in a given course; and (iv) that core outcomes are not always being adequately supported, even in courses in which one would expect those core outcomes to be central. It should be noted that not all faculty and departments have provided the committee with data/information that can be used by the CCC to understand the extent to which students are achieving core learning outcomes.

The Learning for Life steering committee is an ad hoc group that formed in 2007 to explore ways to enhance the liberal arts at Boise State and to seek opportunities to propel liberal arts disciplines toward the University’s goal of becoming a Metropolitan Research University of Distinction. The steering committee members facilitated eleven conversations focused in part on enhancing the undergraduate experience. One of the significant conclusions drawn from those faculty conversations is that “some of what ails the liberal arts at Boise State University can be cured through attention to the curriculum, including the core.”[4]

Noting that the efforts and interests of these two groups might be better served through collaboration, the Provost’s office convened a meeting in December 2008, at which time the CRTF was formed and charged with the following tasks:

1. Examine Boise State University’s current philosophy, learning objectives and structure for the core

2. Research how other institutions are addressing their core requirements

3. Examine SBOE policies that relate to associate degree core articulation[5]

4. Develop recommendations to the Faculty Senate as to how Boise State University’s core requirements might best facilitate student learning of core learning outcomes through modification of the current structure or objectives, an alternative core path, and/or reaffirmation of existing learning outcomes or structure

These activities are well aligned with one of the four main destinations in Boise State’s strategic vision, Charting The Course, namely “Academic Excellence: high quality student focused programs that integrate theory and practice, engage students in community-based learning, and are informed by meaningful assessment.”

The CRTF conducted its work to date over the course of the spring semester of 2009, convening first for a retreat in January. At this meeting, the committee produced a list of idealized learning outcomes and curricular features, discussed the relevant existing research and work of national organizations (e.g., the AAC&U) and other universities, examined the current state of the core curriculum, and established a timeline with goals. Thereafter, several plenary meetings were held, between which times subcommittees met independently and worked on specific assignments. Of particular interest to the committee were the academic frameworks and learning outcomes adopted by other institutions, and “potholes” that might be encountered in reforming the core curriculum at Boise State.[6] A Google Apps site (wiki) was implemented for document sharing. A two-day retreat was held in May 2009 to compile the provisional findings and recommendations articulated below.

II. The Case for Change

The Core Curriculum Committee’s work and the Learning for Life initiative both indicate that Boise State’s core curriculum is not delivering its intended results. The CRTF has identified three critical areas of concern: lack of vision for the core, problems at the curricular level, and problems at the course level. A more detailed description of these areas of concern follows.

A. Current core is characterized by a lack of vision and unfocused delivery

1. There is nothing distinctive or special in our offerings

Boise State’s goal of becoming a Metropolitan Research University of Distinction requires that its general education curriculum be something of real value and should distinguish it from other institutions.

2. Core curriculum has no “presence” at Boise State

a. The University website does not contain any information about the core, except for what appears on the Core Curriculum Committee website (which has only forms for assessment).

b. Students and advisors lack knowledge about the curriculum at the course level and have little context in which to discuss the value of general education.

c. Similarly, students tend to approach courses simply as a means to check off the requirements to “get through it”.

3. Faculty have little or no incentive/reward to teach core courses

For many faculty, there is strong preference to teach smaller, more focused courses to majors (at the upper level). There is no culture of value around teaching core courses.

B. Problems at the curricular level

1. Area I, II, and III issues

The current structure of our core curriculum is not linked in any substantive way (structural or otherwise) to its stated learning outcomes. The requirements are articulated in terms of Area I, Area II and Area III. These labels are uninformative and contribute nothing to the development of a university culture in which students (or advisors) can be in dialogue with the ideas embodied by the intended outcomes of our core curriculum.

2. Smorgasbord for faculty

For any particular core course, the instructor can choose to support student learning of as many or few of the core learning outcomes as he/she wishes. The core learning outcomes chosen can be central or peripheral. Thus, there is a great deal of variability in the extent to which any particular course (or section of a course) is focused on supporting core outcomes.

3. Smorgasbord for students

A student can choose from a fairly large number of courses and, as such, has no guarantee that the general education outcomes of the core will be addressed by those courses. For example, a student may, either purposefully or inadvertently, avoid courses that are writing intensive or that are focused on civic responsibility. It is nearly impossible for a student to be assured that he/she has enrolled in a set of core courses that addressed all core outcomes, as no information about the emphasis of given courses is centrally available either to students or to advisors. This smorgasbord approach has led the university to “attach” extra requirements (e.g., the diversity requirement) because the current structure is not able to ensure students will get anything in particular from the basic core structure.

4. Insufficiently robust outcomes

While the general philosophy and articulated outcomes of the current core are sound, they would benefit from some fortification. For example, we have not, as a university, indicated that we are committed to providing our students a foundation in ethical reasoning. Nor have we followed up on the 2006 Internationalization Task Force Action Plan, which called for an internationalization of the curriculum.[7] Perhaps a more obvious gap in outcomes is the lack of any reference to students’ ability to integrate knowledge across time or disciplines.

5. Current structure makes it difficult to know whether we are successfully supporting student learning goals

Because the current assessment process requires the Core Curriculum Committee to work within the decentralized curricular structure, it is challenging (if not impossible) to gather information from faculty and departments offering Core courses. Without this information, it is impossible to determine in what ways the core is successful and in what ways it is falling short.

6. Assessment process isn’t embedded within the course structure

The process being used by the Core Curriculum Committee is attempting to assess courses based on the Core outcomes, but the courses in the core were not intentionally designed around these outcomes.[8] Because of the mismatch between the assessment approach and the course design, the process is not working well.

C. Problems at the course level

1. Many core courses serve as “gateway” courses for degree programs, and as such are focused more intently on major outcomes than on core outcomes

The needs of a degree plan’s majors (or prospective majors) are often different from the needs of nonmajors. When a particular course is expected to meet the needs of both, more often than not the former will take precedence over the latter.

2. Inadequate teaching preparation for core faculty

Approximately 55% of core course sections in Spring and Fall 2008 were taught by adjunct faculty. While many adjunct faculty are gifted and dedicated teachers, these instructors are less well integrated into the life of the university and are thus less likely to appreciate the role of general education at Boise State. This conclusion is supported by recent efforts by the Core Curriculum Committee to assess the outcomes of the Core curriculum: by and large, it has been harder for departments to engage adjunct faculty in the process of assessing learning of course outcomes.

3. Discouraging assessment results

The assessment data that have been collected by the Core Curriculum Committee indicate that many courses are doing a good job in supporting some of the core learning outcomes. However, some core courses appear not to be designed to support these outcomes; and when considered collectively, the data do not support the view that the core curriculum is serving the full complement of Core learning outcomes.

III. Trends in Higher Education

The rapidly changing social, economic, and geopolitical conditions within the past decade have prompted many institutions of higher education to reevaluate the ways in which they achieve their instructional missions and operations. In 2005 the Association of American Colleges and Universities initiated a nation-wide campaign called ‘LEAP’ (’Liberal Education and America’s Promise’), the purpose of which was to compile evidence drawn from a wide variety of sources - including leaders in business and industry - to determine what sorts of knowledge, skills, and habits are most characteristic of productive and successful college graduates, to identify the conditions under which the acquisition of such traits is most likely to occur, and the ways in which current practices fail to create those conditions.[9]

As part of the committee’s attempt to immerse itself in current ideas concerning general education, it reviewed a LEAP report published in 2007. The report identifies commonly-reported shortcoming in general education curricula at various types of institutions, shortcomings that include many of those attributed to Boise State’s core curriculum in the preceding section. Moreover, the LEAP framework overlapped with many of the idealized learning outcomes produced at the CTRF’s January retreat. These facts were encouraging to the committee members, insofar as they indicate that our situation is by no means unique, and that various ideas for addressing it are already available.

The LEAP report identifies what it calls “Essential Learning Outcomes”:

Knowledge of Human Cultures and the Natural and Physical World

Grounded in study of the sciences and mathematics, social sciences, humanities, histories, languages, and the arts
Focused through engagement with big questions, both contemporary and enduring

Intellectual and Practical Skills

Written and oral communication
Quantitative Literacy
Information Literacy
Teamwork and problem solving
Inquiry, critical and creative thinking

Individual and Social Responsibilities

Civic knowledge and engagement - local and global
Intercultural knowledge and competence
Ethical Reasoning and action
Foundations and skills for lifelong learning

Integrative Learning

Synthesis and advanced accomplishment across general and specialized studies
The demonstrated capacity to adapt knowledge, skills, and responsibilities to new settings and questions

This framework has been adapted by several well-respected universities across the nation, including Brown University, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, University of Southern California, University of Virginia, University of Wisconsin Oshkosh, among others.[10] The degree of correspondence between the LEAP report and the CRTF’s own diagnoses and aspirations moved the committee to treat the LEAP framework as a source of ideas and inspiration, without assuming that it would provide a ready-made solution to the unique circumstances at Boise State.

IV. Useful Vocabulary and the Importance of a Name

The committee commonly encountered terminological difficulties in discussing aspects of the core. Consulting the literature and exploring common practices at other institutions was also somewhat problematic, because the terms did not always point to the same curricular or outcome elements. Another cautionary note is that some terminology conjures up different meanings and associations. For instance, ‘liberal education’ was used from time to time; some members expressed doubts about their own understanding of the term and feared that it conveyed unintended political content. ‘General education’ is free of that particular flaw, but seems too broad a term for the intended topic of discussion. In the interest of facilitating more effective communication among the campus community, a glossary of terms has been included as an appendix to this report.

In addition, significant confusion resulted from the use of ‘core’, which refers equivocally to the general education requirements specific to Boise State and to the lower-division general education requirements specified by the State Board of Education. Perhaps more significantly, the committee believes that, should Boise State’s core curriculum be revised, retaining use of the term ‘core’ would result in confusion for students who are enrolled when the old requirements are in place for outgoing cohorts. Finally, there is sufficiently strong agreement among faculty regarding the inadequacy of the current core requirements so as to warrant belief that ‘core’ cannot be used without prejudice.

For these reasons, we have adopted specific terminology:

Learning For Life Program: A collection of course- and experience-related requirements and learning outcomes that every Boise State graduate is expected to have met, irrespective of major or baccalaureate degree type (sketched in Section VII below).

In order for the Learning For Life Program to remedy the failings of the current core,[11] it must be: (i) founded on a strong guiding philosophy; (ii) structured so as to support carefully-articulated and assessable learning outcomes that can be built in at the level of course design; (iii) consistent with the State Board Requirements; (iv) flexible with respect to transfer students; and (v) implementable within the constraints imposed by the existing environment at Boise State.

In the following sections we offer our best current recommendations for satisfying these requirements. We fully recognize that, as draft statements and models, each suggestion is subject to substantial expansion and revision as new evidence and ideas are brought to bear. The final section of this report outlines the next steps to be taken in order to gather such evidence and ideas.

V. Draft Statement of Guiding Philosophy

To elevate Boise State’s Learning for Life Program to the level of a “signature” program, it must be based upon an ambitious vision of how a graduate of Boise State should be characterized.

Boise State’s Learning For Life Program is designed to provide a transformative experience for every student. Individual students bring unique histories, interests, and experiences to the University that inform their educational development. As members of a community of learners actively addressing enduring questions and timely problems, students will develop intellectual and practical skills and will acquire integrated knowledge of human cultures and the natural world within a context of ethical behavior and global responsibility.

While this philosophy statement shares common themes with the current statement, it also contains elements not included in the current philosophy statement. The key difference between the two is that the proposed guiding philosophy is intended to embody a total university experience, not simply a collection of courses intended to satisfy the State Board Requirements.

VI. Draft Statement of University Learning Outcomes

Learning outcomes occupy a conceptually intermediate position between the guiding philosophy of a general education program and the specific curricular requirements that constitute the program. Their role is critical insofar as they link the concrete activities taking place in or out of the classroom with the more holistic, future-oriented content of the guiding philosophy.

The expectation is that the learning outcomes reflect and support the university-level vision for Boise State graduates. As such, some outcomes would be satisfied by the courses that are specifically offered as part of the Learning for Life Program, while others are supported within a student’s major. Still others would be supported by both parts of the student’s curriculum and co-curricular experiences.

One role of central importance played by learning outcomes is as objects of assessment when they are pursued or populated by particular class offerings. Given the historical difficulties experienced by the Core Curriculum Committee, the CRTF recommends that, whatever learning outcomes might be adopted, and whatever program might be implemented, assessment must be built-in at the ground level. One such model is described in the following section.

The committee examined the learning outcomes of several universities against the background of the LEAP framework and constructed a variety of alternatives before adopting the following proposed set of learning outcomes.

Throughout their experience at Boise State University, students should be challenged to develop foundations, skills, and habits of mind for lifelong learning. Students should be able to…

Use intellectual and practical skills, including inquiry and analysis, critical and creative thinking, written and oral communication, quantitative literacy, information literacy, teamwork and problem solving.
Gain and apply knowledge of human cultures and the physical and natural world
Practice personal and social responsibility, including civic knowledge and engagement-local and global, intercultural knowledge and competence, ethical reasoning and action
Integrate ideas, skills, and experience, and be prepared to address new situations and a broad range of questions

In order to facilitate the achievement of these outcomes across the university curriculum, the University Learning Outcomes can be organized into the following framework:

University Learning Outcomes developed over time, in multiple contexts:

1. Communicate effectively in writing, using a variety of forms appropriate to their audiences and purposes, incorporate research and other sources of evidence, use accurate documentation to give credit to sources, and demonstrate critical reading of written work.

2. Demonstrate effective oral and interpersonal communication skills by giving oral presentations, executing team-based projects, and/or problem-solving in a group setting.

3. Demonstrate critical thinking skills to define problems/issues, utilize inquiry to gather and investigate evidence, develop hypotheses/positions, and frame assumptions and implications of one’s conclusions.

4. Analyze ethical issues in personal, professional, and civic life and produce reasoned evaluations of competing value systems and ethical claims.

5. Demonstrate a commitment to participating in and positively influencing the communities - from local to global - in which they live and work.

6. Synthesize diverse educational content, methods, medium, and form, from across disciplines; connect and transfer ideas and strategies from one context to another

7. Demonstrate self-awareness of one’s own culture and knowledge of other cultural frameworks, and use these to interact with people of diverse cultures and backgrounds with appropriate flexibility, curiosity, and respect.

University Learning Outcomes that represent perspectives to be encountered during an academic career:

8. Use mathematics, statistics, and other forms of quantitative reasoning to solve quantitative and formal problems.

9. Apply knowledge and the methods of scientific inquiry to think critically about issues in the physical and natural sciences and to understand and solve theoretical and practical problems rooted in the sciences.

10. Apply knowledge and the methodologies characteristic of the arts to produce creative products or performances, or to interpret artistic meaning and significance.

11. Apply knowledge and the methods of inquiry characteristic of the humanities to address enduring questions about human culture past and present.

12. Apply knowledge and the methods of inquiry characteristic of the social sciences to explain and evaluate human behavior.

University Learning Outcomes supported within specific field of study:

13. Synthesize ideas, including those that are contradictory or divergent, to think creatively about problem solving, project implementation, or generation of new ideas within a field of specialized study.

14. Access and use sources of information within a field of specialized study ethically/legally and effectively for specific purposes.

15. Demonstrate breadth and depth of ideas integrated within a field of specialized study

The CRTF regards fifteen learning outcomes as too many. At this stage of the process, however, we believe that it is better to be more inclusive, with the thought that further refinement and revision in collaboration with faculty will likely reduce the number.

VII. One Program Model

The University Learning Outcomes articulated in the previous section are conceived (in part) as a mechanism to intertwine the Learning For Life Program requirements with other, specific degree requirements so that students, advisors, and instructors would no longer view core requirements as a mere appendage to the major, as so many irrelevant courses to be checked off of a list and thereafter forgotten.

The members of this committee recognize the danger of appearing to encroach on the “turf” of academic units. Consequently, the following point cannot be emphasized strongly enough: the CRTF has neither the authority nor the intention nor the interest to change the way that any department structures or delivers its degree program(s).

Rather, it is the committee’s considered view that: (i) whatever the nature of the degree program in question, its goals will more likely be achieved (other things being equal) when accompanied by a general education program that is more well integrated with its goals and requirements than by one less well integrated; and, (ii) a general education program that is more well integrated with various degree programs is capable of achieving loftier goals than one that is less well integrated. In short, integration serves both general and degree-specific academic interests without demanding that the latter be compromised to accommodate the former.

After considering the learning outcomes and consulting general education structures used by other institutions (some of which have adopted the AAC&U LEAP framework), the committee developed ideas for a curricular structure for the Learning for Life Program. We were also mindful that the proposed structure meet the State Board requirements for general education. One particular goal of the committee was to describe a program whose number of total credits is equal to or lower than that of the current core curriculum.

Learning for Life Courses - Focused on process skills for students

The first component of the proposed curriculum is for a series of courses that all students at Boise State would complete: LL101, LL201, and LL301. There are a variety of models that can be used to inform the choices we make about the structure of these courses, and (with two exceptions noted below) we envision these courses primarily in terms of their functional role within the program, rather than in terms of their content. LL101 would serve as a foundation to the Learning for Life Program and would have as its goal introducing students to the learning emphasized by the program and equipping them to be successful as students at Boise State University. It might be offered as a team-taught, multidisciplinary course organized around a central theme (e.g., “Water” or “Life and Death” or “Infinity”), which would help students to see, early in their career, that the university expects them to seek ways to integrate knowledge. LL301 would serve to help students revisit the idea of integration of ideas later in their undergraduate careers, perhaps after all the foundational course requirements were completed.

LL101 could be designed specifically to meet ULO number 4 (ethics).

LL201 could be designed specifically to meet ULO number 7 (multicultural competence).

Foundational Courses - Focused on exposing students to a breadth of disciplinary thinking

Requirements in this area most closely resemble those in our current core curriculum. For example, students could choose from a set of mathematics courses to address ULO number 8 and a set of social science courses to address ULO number 12.

Courses within a field of Study - Focused on disciplinary depth and refinement of skills

In order to help students connect the university learning outcomes to their major field of study, the proposed structure envisions an integration of major requirements into the Learning for Life Program. The first requirement would be for a writing intensive course in each major. It was the committee’s judgment that many majors already focus on this outcome to some extent. Additional outcomes addressed in the major would be those focused on creative thinking, information literacy, and integration of ideas within the major. It was the committee’s assumption that many, if not most, majors on campus already address these outcomes within the structure of the major. Integrating these goals into the Learning for Life program would then serve to better support those goals within the major.

Requirements for the proposed structure are shown in the table below.

Curricular Requirements for the Proposed Learning for Life Program

ULO number	ULO shorthand	Requirements	Credits
	Developed over time in multiple contexts
1	Writing	ENGL 101/102 and writing-intensive course in major	6
2	Oral communication	COMM 101 or communication-intensive course in major	(3)
3	Critical thinking		3
4, 5, 6	Ethics, Engagement, Integration	LL 101/201/301 and major	9
7	Multi-cultural competence	LL201
	Perspectives to be encountered during an academic career	Foundational Courses
8	Quantitative reasoning	Mathematics course	3 - 4
9	Science	Science courses (with a lab)	7
10	Arts	Arts course	3
11	Humanities	Humanities course	3
12	Social Sciences	Social Science courses	6
	Outcomes supported within specific field of study
13,14,15	Creative thinking, information literacy, integration	Major requirements

Total Credits: 40-44

Assessment

It is the committee’s view that whatever program structure is ultimately adopted, we must consider how the learning in the program will be assessed before we implement the program or design courses.

We explored a variety of ideas related to assessment and recommend that we explore further as a structure for the Learning for Life Program emerges from discussions with stakeholders. Two important ideas we expect to come back to are:

Use of electronic portfolios. Institutions using e-portfolios attest to their value both for assessment and as a support for student learning. We envision that students might begin to use an e-portfolio to document their learning in LL101. Such work would be supported as students moved to LL201 and LL301. In addition, students would be expected to provide support for their learning in the Foundational Courses. Maintaining e-portfolios would help students to see how their coursework was linked to the university learning outcomes. The e-portfolio contents could be used by individual faculty to assess student learning within a course and could be used to provide samples of student work to assess how the program overall was supporting student learning.
Use of LEAP metarubrics. A project related to the AAC&E LEAP project is the AAC&U VALUE project (VALUE = Valid Assessment of Learning in Undergraduate Education).[12] This project, which is still in process, has developed a variety of rubrics that can be used to assess learning outcomes emphasized by the LEAP framework.[13]

VIII. Next Steps

The CRTF regards this document as a progress report describing its preliminary work. At this point, the rest of campus must become engaged in the conversation, provide input on concepts and implementation details for the CRTF to consider and incorporate into the reform plan. Support from the Faculty Senate, which has approved this process and task force membership and is the body vested with making curricular changes, will be foundational to our next steps. The CRTF has requested time on the Faculty Senate agenda in November. At that meeting, we would like to get endorsement of three principles: (1) the learning outcomes need to be updated to better reflect the vision for BSU students, (2) the curricular structure needs to change to better align with the learning outcomes, and (3) assessment strategies and expectations will be incorporated into that structure.

The first step in reaching out to the relevant constituencies will be the creation of a web site whose purpose will be posting updates and collecting faculty feedback. To engage a wide audience in the discussion, CRTF will promote the conversation process, target existing groups for discussion, and sequence the implementation stages of the reform.

Promotion strategies:

Announcement & discussion at Chairs Program on August 11
Informational flyers at College meetings prior to the start of classes
Website of process, updates, and resource information

Targeted groups:

Faculty Senate
Deans Council
Chairs programs
ASBSU representatives
All-campus forums

Discussions of the following issues will help the committee determine how best to collect the relevant data, refine models, and implement details:

Draft statement of guiding philosophy, University Learning Outcomes, and Program model
Staffing models for the Program
Fiscal resources required to support the Program
Possible impact on departmental FTE trends
“Ownership” of LL 101/201/301
Professional development opportunities and requirements
Assessment models
Strategies and timelines for piloting the program

Provost

Committee Report

BSU Links