1 / 46

Past, Present, and Future of Core Curriculum at MCLA

Past, Present, and Future of Core Curriculum at MCLA. Presented at SoTL’s 6 th Annual Conference May 18, 2006 London. Nancy Ovitsky, Ph.D. Department of Business Administration & Economics. MCLA Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts.

annora
Download Presentation

Past, Present, and Future of Core Curriculum at MCLA

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Past, Present, and Future of Core Curriculum at MCLA Presented at SoTL’s 6th Annual Conference May 18, 2006 London Nancy Ovitsky, Ph.D. Department of Business Administration & Economics

  2. MCLA Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts • Small state public liberal arts college in northwest corner of Massachusetts • Area renowned for its natural beauty, cultural attractions and outdoor recreation • College has 100 year history of programs in teaching, liberal arts, and the professions

  3. A 1000 Words

  4. A Brief(!) History of Core Curriculum Development at MCLA • Pre-1992 – work done for several years on reforming General Education • Fall 1992 – Undergraduate Experience Committee formed • Spring 1993 – Assumptions, Desired Outcomes, and Criteria proposed

  5. History (cont) Fall 1993 – Summer Study Group presents Three models: 1. Inquiry Model 2. Problems & Projects Model 3. Seminar-Based Model

  6. Inquiry Model

  7. Problems & Projects Model • First Year – Two multi-disciplinary seminars equal to 3 courses each (18 cr) • Second Year – Two cluster courses, each consisting of 3 linked courses • Junior Year – A single course on individual & society taken in the major • Senior Year – A multi-disciplinary seminar on an ethical problem

  8. Seminar-Based Model • 8 multi-disciplinary seminars distributed over 4 years • First 4 semesters – one 6-credit seminar each semester • Last 4 semesters – one 3-credit course each semester

  9. Fall 1993 – Assumptions, Desired Outcomes, Criteria for Revision • Assumptions included our expectations of challenges our graduates would need to meet in the 21st century • Desired Outcomes were the Knowledge, Perspectives, Abilities, and Values needed in the 21st century

  10. Desired Outcomes • Knowledge – be informed about perennial human questions, possess sufficient knowledge to be qualified for a position in one’s chosen field • Perspectives – historical - to understand long-run trends; cultural - for living in a diverse world; global - to be responsible 21st century citizen

  11. Desired Outcomes (cont.) • Abilities – to think critically & creatively, to communicate effectively, including social skills; to become a lifelong learner; quantitative & computer-oriented; to access & evaluate information; to know how to ask the right questions & examine issues from multiple perspectives; capacity for aesthetic appreciation

  12. Desired Outcomes (cont.) • Values – taking responsibility for defining one’s values & convictions, participating in the responsible play of ideas in the search for truth, striving for excellence in each undertaking, recognizing one’s responsibilities in an interdependent world

  13. Criteria for Gen Ed Revision • Be a 4-year developmental curriculum • Provide foundational knowledge & skills in different curriculum domains for subsequent interdisciplinary approach • Challenge students to make connections • Promote across-the-curriculum the development of communication and critical thinking skills

  14. Criteria for Gen Ed Revision (cont.) • Enable students to access & manipulate data with computers • Active learning as individuals & in collaboration with others • Provide opportunities to integrate liberal arts & professional programs • Increase awareness of diverse historical, cultural, ideological perspectives

  15. Criteria for Gen Ed Revision (cont.) • Provide an understanding of the impact of science & technology on contemporary life • Challenge students to understand the foundations of ethical judgments; understand & question their own value systems; carefully formulate their beliefs & values • Account for the special needs of non-trads and transfer students

  16. Criteria for Gen Ed Revision (cont.) • Be sufficiently distinctive to attract funding sources & higher quality students • Have clear objectives for each curricular domain & level of the program • Develop & implement evaluation procedures for these objectives which incorporate a variety of assessment techniques.

  17. Some Models We Reviewed • Alverno College • Evergreen College • American University • Morse Academic Plan at New York University • King's College • The Core Curriculum - Saint Joseph's College

  18. History (cont) • 1993-1995 – Models considered; various conversations, First Year Seminar a first step towards change • 1995-1997 – revisited Gen Ed and re-certified courses for inclusion in Gen Ed • 1997-2000 - Format of a Core Curriculum emerged and became refined into two models

  19. Major Institutional Change1997 • Changed name of institution from North Adams State College to Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts to reflect the adoption of the public liberal arts mission four years earlier

  20. Recent History – Core Curriculum • 11-3-97 – General Education Subcommittee of the Curriculum Committee commences meeting. Its role: to examine current general education requirements and to make recommendations to the Curriculum Committee as to what changes should occur given the revised mission of the college as a premier liberal arts institution

  21. Recent History – Core Curriculum • Continuing conversations throughout the 97-98 and 98-99 academic years resulted in the model on the next slide • Spring 1999: Generic criteria approved for all domains. The first Tier 1 courses were piloted • Spring & Summer 2000: faculty worked throughout to develop Tier 1 and Tier 2 courses

  22. Models – 2 versions into 1 Tier 1 – Great Ideas Tier 2 – More focused Other model had Tiers reversed

  23. Recent History – Core Curriculum • 2000 – decide on Core Curriculum model; pilot courses developed and offered; develop Domain criteria • Spring 2001 – Curriculum and All College have close votes on implementation proceeding in Fall 2001; President decides we should proceed

  24. Recent History – Core Curriculum • Fall 2001 – Entering Freshmen required to complete Core Curriculum • 2001-2002 - Curriculum Committee and All College continue to consider approvals and reapprovals of Core Courses and deal with the myriad side effects, expected & unexpected, of Core implementation and Gen Ed phaseout

  25. Recent History – Core Curriculum • Fall 2002 – Core Conversations – we learn we can keep faculty on campus on Friday afternoons! • Fall 2003 - Conversations lead to suggestion to allow each student to opt out of one Domain; passes Curriculum but not ACC. Leads to a reexamination of what we want from Core Curriculum

  26. Proposed modifications The All College Committee recommended in May 2003 that a summer work group (SWG) should discuss the status of the core curriculum, due to a consistent demand from departments for discipline based courses

  27. Summer 2003 • The summer work group reviewed material from previous work groups • Generated a list of issues that had been identified as concerns • Suggested changes in response to the issues and concerns identified • Kept the campus community informed via e-mail on meeting updates, and welcomed comments and suggestions • Held a college wide meeting early fall 2003 to inform the campus community.

  28. Proposed Changes Fall 2003 • Remove the term competency. Make the basic skills part of the core. Move to become the first tier (Tier I) • Combine 100 level courses and 200 level courses into Tier II • Students required to take a total of eight courses, two from each of the four domains. • Discipline based courses, as long as they meet the learning outcomes, can be submitted for core approval.

  29. 2004-2006 Core Issues • Approved various discipline based courses for Core designation • Postponed Capstone implementation to Fall 2006 to allow time for development and staffing – ILP Project • Required foreign language as of Fall 2006 • Expanded Math competency requirement

  30. MCLA Involvement in ILP • Submitted Proposal September 2003 – work on outcomes and assessment of and proposals for Tier 3 Capstone Courses • One of 10 institutions selected – out of 140 applicants • Project covers 3 years – 3 January meetings and 3 July workshops 2004-2006

  31. Core Curriculum at MCLA Fall 2006 Tier I Competencies Writing Math Computer Literacy Foreign Language Tier II Domain Courses 2 courses from each domain Tier III Capstone to the Core 1 course incorporating at least two of the above domains

  32. Core Capstone • Challenges students to integrate knowledge from several disciplines, applying academic learning and critical thinking skills to modern-day issues. • Encourages students to work with others and become engaged citizens in the context of today's world.

  33. Connecting Institutional Outcomes to Course Learning Outcomes Need to review these Institutional Outcomes Connections we need to make to Tier 3 Core School & Program-Level Outcomes including Professional Accreditation Outcomes Course/Service Learning Outcomes • Cooperation & Collaboration between Academics and Student Affairs • Student Ownership of their Learning

  34. Pilot Core Capstone Courses • Stipends were provided to six faculty in Summer 2005 for development of pilot capstone courses. Currently two faculty have applied for Summer 2006. • Assessment of the capstone course will serve as assessment for our Core Curriculum program

  35. Pilot Capstone Courses 2005-2006 • America on the World’s Stage: Angel or Devil? (History, political and economic theory, philosophy, and literature are utilized to explore American foreign policy.) • Culture, Power, and Protest (Social movements from the point of view of historians, political scientists, and environmentalists) • The Robotic Incursion (Technology and society) • Science & Human Values (Emphasis on genetics and society) • Science & Spirit (Faith and spirituality in this technological age) • Foster Care & Adoption (Sociology meets local politics and economics)

  36. Summer 2006 proposals • Course in women's poetry to explore how women have used lyrical voices to understand and explain their lives. • Course in language and censorship looking at first amendment issues (this faculty member is nationally known for his work on cursing).

  37. Related Institutional Initiatives • MCLA's 4th Annual Undergraduate Research Conference - April 13, 2006.  Students presented their research in either a poster format or as a short talk. • Service Learning – Important aspect of MCLA education • Berkshire Compact for Higher Education – Countywide collaboration on education K-16

  38. Who’s in Charge of this Show (and what have they done lately)? • Faculty Professional Development Team (Nuts and Bolts) • College Curriculum Committee (Governance Approval) • Dean of Academic Affairs ($) • Faculty Professional Development Team: Recruited faculty to teach pilot capstone courses. Will oversee and guide course approval/implementation and future recruitment efforts. • Curriculum Committee: approved pilot courses and CCAP courses to be offered beginning Fall 2006 • Dean of Academic Affairs: Found some extra cash laying around.

  39. Professional Development Activities for Core and Assessment • November 2004: 6 faculty members attended seminar presentation by Peggy Maki at Salve Regina • March 2005: Day of Assessment for all faculty at MCLA by Dick Gerber, President, New England Educational Assessment Network • September 2005: Martha Stassen (University of Massachusetts, Amherst) presented assessment activities for all faculty • Pilot courses presented to campus November 2005 and April 2006

  40. Assessment of Tier I Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts Core Curriculum

  41. Mean Grades by Professor

  42. Expected Grade and Interest • Expected grade correlates with end-of-semester interest (τ = .33; p < .001 • Not much difference between A and B grades • Expected grade also correlates with initial interest (τ = .16; p < .001

  43. Student Opinion • Students have mainly a “moderate” opinion of the Core and mostly take its courses to fulfill requirements. • The “end-semester” interest level is generally higher than the initial level. • Student opinion varies significantly by domain and course. • Since discipline courses were added to Core, they are rated higher on interest level.

  44. Summary of Assessment • Students appear mainly satisfied with Core experience, based on questionnaires and grades • Questionnaires provide means for professors to compare with peers (unlike previous Gen Ed program) • Faculty and student concerns - grade inflation (leniency), unequal workload, highly variable standards, and high variability in classroom techniques

  45. Issues for Future of Core • Tight Staffing – reason Capstone was postponed, still an issue • Impact of discipline specific courses on integrity of the Core • Assessment, assessment, assessment! • Intentional learning – creating a campus culture

  46. As our oldest building is renewed, so too our Core Curriculum…

More Related