Rev 1 Responses

Responses

Faculty:

"Student Engagement" is too broad and vague, whereas the sub-topics are specific. Of the sub-topics, testing for competencies makes sense and seems necessary whether we have a QEP or not. I'm not sure there are systemic problems with advising that wait to be remedied, just advisors who try to draw students into interlocking majors and thus rob students of their electives. If the core does what it is designed to do, students will appreciate their course options when they use their electives in the junior and senior year. Instructional strategies is vague, except when connected to developing key competencies. Then the strategies are related to specific competencies. The "umbrella" topic should be related to the topic of key competencies. Deal with advisement and strategies under that general goal.

Why are all these strategies faculty based? Where is Student Affairs in this? Isn't that the office that ought to be involved in getting students "engaged" through activities that keep them interested in the college outside of the classroom?

Responses

Faculty:

	General knowledge certainly includes math, but it shouldn't be limited to math. A liberal arts curriculum needs to foreign language component. There is no foreign language component in the core, and currently only one major, I believe, requires a foreign language. This is unfortunate. Sure, let's work on improving our student's math abilities, starting with the math they are required to take. Let's also identify foreign language as a key competency and work on integrating more foreign language into the curriculum (core and majors), then we'll have a basis for improving student competence in this area.
	Our students do improve, at least in some of these areas, but when are they truly competent--'college graduate' competent. Defining or gathering rubrics for each of these areas would more clearly define what we mean by "real competency" instead of just looking at improvement--which seems to be how assessment has worked so far for each of these. Dr. Marley has a speech rubric and a writing rubric which might be of use. Although those rubrics really are for looking at freshman /sophomore work--meaning a senior should be doing work at the '5' level--and we would need to gather the data to test this--I doubt are students are doing that for the most part--but we do see improvement--just not enough. Would still need ones for math and reading...
	Perhaps faculty who have been attacking the Core for the last five years ought to take this occasion to celebrate their victory over the dark forces of the liberal arts and thereafter keep their criticisms of colleagues' efforts to themselves--or at least silence themselves when students are present. Really, besides collegiality, what can be done? IMPRESS ON EVERY STUDENT AND FACULTY MEMBER THE IDEA OF WHAT A LIBERAL ARTS COLLEGE IS AND WHAT IT DOES.

Responses

Faculty:

	Advising should be relatively simple. Make sure students finish the core in 2 years and start work on "one" major during this same period. Institute a writing across the curriculum requirement and have advisors monitor a student's progress in this area.
	I don't think it is a lack of faculty training which leads to such sloppy work. I would suggest that some faculty don't see the benefit in good advising, some students ignore advice or change their schedules no matter what advice we give, and probably most importantly, most faculty think they can figure a way around the system for their majors if need be. Faculty and students alike need real incentive in this area, not training.
	Advising is pretty much a lost cause. Call it "signing up for courses," issue rubber stamps, and get out of students' ways.