GENERAL EDUCATION AT CSU, CHICO

5-YEAR REVIEW

SELF STUDY MARCH 2018

2

Table of Contents Foreword 3 Background 4 Program Overview 5 Data on Student Enrollment 9 Student Survey Results 22 Faculty Survey and Round Table Discussion Results 36 Staff Survey Results 43 GE Assessment Reports – Summary 47 Reflections 50 Appendices A. GE SLO matrix B. GE Planning Sheet C. Student Survey Questions D. Faculty Survey Questions E. Staff Survey Questions

3

Foreword

The mission, values, and learning outcomes of the General Education Pathways program are the most holistic and broadly shared statements of institution-wide qualities of an undergraduate education at Chico State. The current program is the result of an extended, deliberative, and participatory process that led to its launch in fall 2012. It consists of ten Pathways that organize the breadth of general education offerings in the arts, humanities, natural and social sciences into broad, multi-disciplinary, but intellectually coherent areas of study. An important feature is that the GE Pathways serve as the basis for interdisciplinary minors that students can, if they choose, complete by earning 18 GE units – nine lower division and nine upper division – in a single Pathway. The university’s GE revision received national recognition through a spring 2011 AAC&U Peer Review article titled “Putting High-Impact Practices and Inclusive Excellence at the Center of GE Reform.”

In Fall 2017, the Curriculum Advisory Board (CAB) that oversees General Education at Chico State conducted a full review of the program that included detailed analysis of enrollment patterns; faculty, staff and student perceptions of the program; and a review of assessments of the ten GE learning outcomes that have been undertaken since the program’s inception in 2012. The CAB devoted three two-hour meetings in March 2018 to discussion of these findings, and a summary of those reflections concludes this report.

This self-study process confirmed many good things about general education at Chico State—its perceived value, its reflection of campus values, and the significant student learning that it fosters. At the same time, three areas of concern have emerged: (1) whether the values of the program (personal and social responsibility, creativity, etc.) should be retained as student learning outcomes given the challenges of assessing them; (2) whether the Pathways model has succeeded in creating an intellectually coherent GE experience, given the limitations on faculty collaboration and the relatively modest student interest in the Pathway minors; and (3) whether the limitations on the number of courses in each disciplinary area—intended to support predictability and pathway coherence—has been unduly rigid for departments and suppressive of creativity and innovation in the curriculum. A fourth area of concern, the complexity of its requirements for writing intensive and capstone courses, has already been addressed with a revision to EM 18-005 that removes writing requirements from GE, and the creation of a EM 17-009 establishing a Writing Across the Curriculum program that revises writing requirements and shifts oversight to the University Writing Committee.

We look forward to engaging with the external reviewer on these and other aspects of Chico State’s distinctive General Education program.

4

Background of the New CSU, Chico GE Program, implemented Fall 2012. As early as 2009, Chico State was engaged in a thorough revision of our general education requirements. The provost charged a GE Design Team to “engage in a deep, deliberative examination of the current General Education program and the policies that guide it, and through consultation revise General Education to improve student learning of the essential knowledge, skills and attributes for an educated participant in civic and intellectual life in the 21st century.” The design parameters for the team’s work included creating a program that would be:

• Compatible – with State and CSU system-level mandates regarding GE. • ‘Portable’ – students who transfer in or out are not penalized. • Assessable – essential learning outcomes are articulated and capable of being

observed. • Affordable – given the current and projected budget environment of our campus. • Coherent – an integral and integrated contribution to a student’s academic

experience at CSU, Chico. The nine-member Design Team, supported by a grant from the AAC&U, engaged the campus in an extended and deeply participatory process that culminated in a proposed new General Education Program – the GE Pathways Program. After extensive debate, the Senate unanimously approved the program in February 2010. The president signed EM 10-001, codifying the new program, in March of that year. Importantly, the design and consultation process included the definition of 10 goals and associated student learning outcomes (SLO’s) of the new program. This was the first time that program level SLO’s were defined for GE at Chico State. Four of these SLO’s coincide with what WASC later defined as Core Competencies: oral communication, written communication, critical thinking and mathematical reasoning. (We did not initially define information literacy as an SLO, though the “active inquiry” SLO covers many of the same competencies.) All courses in the new program were required to address at least one of the GE SLO’s. The provost then charged an Implementation Team to operationalize the ideas embodied in EM 10-001. EM 10-001 mandates the creation of “no more than ten” Pathways that organize the breadth of general education offerings in the arts, humanities, natural and social sciences into broad, multi-disciplinary, but intellectually coherent domains of study – the Pathways. Another period of consultation ensued to define the intellectual focus of the Pathways, and the courses that would comprise them. After two years of diligent, consultative work directed by faculty, but including input from Student Affairs professionals, students, and administrators, ten Pathways were created and populated with courses. In Fall 2012, the new GE Pathways Program went live. Continuing students were “cross-walked” to the new program and lost no credits or progress to degree in the process.

5

Overview of the CSU, Chico General Education Program The structure of the General Education program at CSU, Chico is governed by both EO 1100 and EM 10-001 (a revision of which is awaiting a presidential signature for ratification). There are currently a total of 225 courses that are part of the General Education Program at CSU, Chico, not counting foreign-language courses, which give students GE credit as well. The entire list of courses, with all designations noted, is attached in Appendix A. Each course has several designations that show where it fits into the program:

• GE Area: A course can only count as credit towards one of the 16 GE Areas. Areas A1-A4, B1, and B2 constitute the “Foundation”, HIST 130 and POLS 155 are the “American Institution” courses, and there are 5 other lower-division and 3 other upper-division GE Areas, listed in Table 1. Area C2 (Humanities) also includes all 100 and 200-level foreign language courses.

• Pathway Designation. Each course outside of the Foundation and American Institutions areas is part of one or more of the GE Pathways. Many (though not all) of the Foundation Courses are also “associated” with one or more pathways. There are 10 Pathways in the CSU, Chico GE Program; the courses within each pathway are displayed in an organized fashion on the GE Planning Sheet, which is attached as Appendix B. Note that each area within a pathway can have no more than three possible course choices, except where department has a pair of “complementary” courses, one of which is offered in Fall and the other in Spring (such as ARTH 110 and ARTH 120)

o Diversity Studies o Ethics, Justice, and Policy o Food Studies o Gender & Sexuality Studies o Global Development Studies o Great Books & Ideas o Health & Wellness o International Studies o Science, Technology, and Values o Sustainability

• Student Learning Outcomes (SLO’s). There are 10 SLO’s defined by EM 10-001, including “foundational” SLO’s and “value” SLO’s. Descriptions of those are found in EM 10-001, and each course has 1-8 of the SLO’s officially designated (an average of 3.25 per course). The number of GE courses with a particular SLO is included in the list below. Each course’s designated SLO’s are listed in the matrix in Appendix A.

o Oral Communication (40) o Written Communication (105) o Critical Thinking (124) o Mathematical Reasoning (30) o Active Inquiry (83)

6

o Personal & Social Responsibility (90) o Sustainability (62) o Diversity (104) o Creativity (39) o Global Engagement (61)

• US Diversity or Global Cultures. 45 of the GE courses have status as a USD course and 42 have status as a GC course. Many courses outside of the GE program also have such designations.

• Writing Intensive or Capstone. 57 of the GE courses have been approved as “Writing Intensive” courses. Of those, 20 have a further classification as a “Capstone” course.

The basic regulations governing students’ requirements are outlined below: 1. Each student is required to take 16 courses in General Education, one in each of

the Areas listed below in Table 1.

Table 1 – The 16 GE Areas Several types of substitutions exist, which make it possible for a student to get credit for a particular GE Area by taking a course that’s not part of the GE program:

• Advanced Course Substitutions for Foundation Courses. Several courses have been approved as acceptable substitutions for Areas A4 (Math), and B1 and B2 (Science). For example, BIOL 151 is an Advanced Course Substitution for Area B2, since it has a more advanced curriculum than the GE courses in B2. If a student in any major takes BIOL 151, he/she gets credit for completing their Area B2 requirement, and does not have to take one of the GE B2 courses.

• Major Course Substitutions for GE Areas. Around 40 courses have been granted approval for counting as substitutions for particular GE Areas. For example, MUSC 304 is an approved Major Course Substitute for Area C1 (Arts) for Music majors. If a MUSC major takes this course he/she gets credit for GE Area C1, and does not have to take a GE C1 course.

7

• Foreign Language courses are not technically “substitutions”, but completion of any 100 or 200 level foreign language course gives a student credit in Area C2, so he/she would not have to complete one of the GE C2 courses.

2. Each student is required to take their three upper-division GE courses within the

same pathway. Some exemptions for this are possible: • If a student has a Major Course Substitution for one of his/her UD GE courses,

then he/she must take the remaining two UD GE courses in the same area. • Students can request that other GE courses (which belong to different pathways)

count in lieu of one of the courses. These requests are granted as the discretion of the pathway coordinator.

• Students in special programs including Liberal Studies, Study Abroad, and Honors programs are exempt from this requirement.

3. Each student, if they start as a first-time freshman at CSU, Chico is required to

complete four “Writing Intensive” GE courses, at least one of which must be a “Capstone” course. Transfer students are only required to complete one “Capstone” course. These courses must have writing assignments in which students have the opportunity to improve their writing through an iterative process such as multiple drafts, sequential writing assignments, constructive feedback and discipline-appropriate pedagogy. Writing intensive courses will have no more than 30 students, unless an alternative classroom structure with larger enrollments or different delivery formats has been approved by CAB. 57 GE courses are Writing Intensive, and 20 of those are Capstone courses. There are also plenty of non-GE courses designated as “Writing Intensive Substitutions” and “Capstone Substitutions” within various majors – those count towards these GE requirement. Note: effective Fall 2018, the CSU, Chico Writing Requirements are changing drastically: these GE writing requirements are being phased out and replaced by a campus writing requirement with different regulations. Four designated Writing (“W”) courses will still be required, but the “Capstone” requirement is being phased out.

4. At CSU, Chico there is a “Diversity” requirement, which requires students to take

two courses that focus on particular cultures. This includes one course that focuses on and contextualizes the experiences of one or more groups found in the U.S. that are distinct from the dominant U.S. culture (“U.S. Diversity”, or USD), and one course that focuses on non-U.S. culture(s) distinct from the dominant U.S. and European experience (“Global Cultures”, or GC). 87 GE courses have one of these designations, plus there are many courses outside of the GE program which also give students USD or GC credit.

An added feature of the CSU, Chico GE program is the existence of Pathway Minors. Any student who completes six courses (18 units) within a single pathway (with the conditions below) receives an interdisciplinary GE Pathway Minor, which is included on his/her transcript. To receive this minor, a student must:

• Take three upper-division GE courses (9 units) in one pathway • Take three lower-division GE courses (9 units) in the same pathway:

8

o One (but no more than one) of the lower-division GE courses can be an associated “Foundation” course

o One (but no more than one) of the lower-division GE courses can be a foreign-language course; these are not pathway-specific; a foreign-language course can be used to count towards any pathway minor

Note that students are not required to complete a pathway minor. Since the initial implementation of the program in Fall 2012, approximately 90% of the course offerings have remained the same. There have been a few changes to the course offerings, including:

• 10 courses added to the program between Fall 2015 and Fall 2017 • 8 courses to be added in Fall 2018 • 5 courses removed from the program between Fall 2015 and Fall 2017 • 2 courses to be removed effective Fall 2018 • Changes to designations of courses within the program, including:

o Being added to additional pathways o Adding Writing Intensive or Capstone status o Adding US Diversity or Global Culture status

One of the requirements of any course in the GE program is that at least one section be offered each semester, except in the case where a department has a pair of complementary courses (one offered only in Fall, the other only in Spring). Departments have generally been very good at meeting this requirement, with never more than 9 courses (about 4%) not being offered in a particular semester. CAB has adopted a policy where any course which is not offered for three consecutive semesters is subject to removal from the GE program.

9

Data on Student Enrollment Since Fall 2013, records of student enrollment in GE courses have been compiled by the Advising office. Tables 2 and 3 below shows the combined (Fall/Spring) academic year enrollment and % capacity (defined as enrollment ÷ spaces offered) for classes in the GE Pathway courses. These numbers don’t count substitutions, foreign language courses, or foundation associations. Courses which are present in more than one pathway have their registration split evenly among those pathways.

Table 2 – Lower-Division course enrollment in each pathway by academic year

Table 3 – Upper-Division course enrollment in each pathway by academic year Figure 1 displays the upper-division data graphically. There are some clear strata among the UD courses in the pathways:

• Health & Wellness is by far the most highly subscribed, with over 2500 students per year.

• Sustainability, Ethics/Justice/Policy, and Gender/Sexuality have similar numbers to each other and have been ranked 2nd, 3rd, and 4th in UD enrollment each year.

• Diversity, Science/Tech/Values, International Studies, Food Studies, and Global Development have been ranked 5th through 9th each year, with fairly similar enrollments (except Global Development, which has fallen) and some fluctuation in rankings amongst the pathways

• Great Books & Ideas has had, by some ways, the lowest UD enrollment each year – never more than 11% of that of Health & Wellness.

10

Figure 1 – Graphical Representation of Pathway enrollment, 2013-14 through 2016-17 Data on students earning pathway minors based on S17 graduation data is presented below in Figure 2. Around 17% of students earned a pathway minor, including 5 out of 2200 students (0.2%) who earned two pathway minors. In that same semester, 33% of students earned a non-GE minor.

Figure 2 – Pathway minors earned by S17 graduates

11

The breakdown of pathway minors earned by S17 graduates is in Table 4 and graphically represented in Figure 3. The greatest number of minors were granted in the Ethics/Justice/Policy pathway, and the least were granted in Great Books & Ideas. Remarkably, 70% of Pathway minors were awarded to female students, even though only 56% of S17 graduates were female. A breakdown of students earning pathway minors by ethnicity is found in Table 5; there is no significant difference in the ethnic makeup of students earning pathway minors than that of graduates in general.

Table 4 – Pathway minors earned by S17 graduates

Figure 3 – Graphical Representation of Pathway Minors S17

12

Table 5 – Pathway Minors earned broken down by student ethnicity. To examine if there was a correlation between students’ majors and the Pathway Minors they earned, the majors of each student earning a Pathway Minor were tabulated. Those are included in Table 6, spread over two pages. Note that the number of majors is sometimes greater than the number of Pathway Minors, since several students were double (or triple) majors. Some notable correlations:

• A large percentage of Ethics/Justice/Policy minors were earned by Criminal Justice, Political Science, and Psychology majors. This is in part because the GE courses POLS 365 and PSYC 391 are electives in these programs.

• A large percentage of Health & Wellness minors were earned by Exercise Physiology majors. This is in part because the GE course NFSC 303 is a required of the BS in Exercise Physiology.

• A large percentage of International Studies minors were earned by majors in International Relations.

Table 6 – List of majors of students earning each Pathway Minor – S17

13

Table 6 (continued) – List of majors of students earning each Pathway Minor – S17 To get a better idea as to what GE courses our students were taking, a randomly selected subset of 100 of the S17 graduates were selected for further analysis. Each student’s DPR was reviewed and the courses used by each to complete the various GE requirements (areas, WI, and Capstone courses) were tabulated. Table 7 shows some of the demographic information of these students. Some other information:

14

• Two of the 100 students completed the Liberal Studies program. At the moment that program has the GE requirements integrated within the program, so they don’t take many of the same GE courses. In each case there will be two students marked as completing their GE Area requirements in their LBST program rather than through “normal” GE channels.

• A few students started at CSU, Chico well before the new GE program was implemented. If they got credit through an old GE course (which is no longer in the GE program) that is listed as “old program”.

• Some students completed Honors courses or got credit through Study Abroad (INED). Those meet GE requirements but aren’t part of the mainstream GE program either.

Table 7 – Characteristics of the 100 S17 graduates randomly sampled Table 8 shows what courses these students used to complete the Foundation and American Institution courses. In each case about half of the students earned credit for these GE areas from a transfer institution; 48 out of 100 students earned transfer credit for more than half of their lower-division GE requirements. Around half of those taking A4 or B1 courses at CSU, Chico used an Advanced Course Sub, as did about 20% of those taking B2 at CSU, Chico. Area A3 is waived for Engineering majors.

Table 8 – Foundation and American Institution courses – 100 S17 graduates Table 9 shows how students met their other lower-division GE requirements. Engineering majors are exempted from one of C1 or C2. The lowest demand on lower-division pathway courses is in C2, since foreign-language courses count as well.

15

Table 9 – Lower-Division Area C, D, E requirements Table 10 shows how the upper-division requirements were fulfilled – transfer credit from community colleges is no longer possible. Some students had major course substitutions (typically in Area B).

Table 10 – Upper-division GE requirements Table 11 shows how these 100 students met their Capstone and WI requirements. Formally they are required to do one Capstone course, plus two further WI courses (not counting the WI course in area A2). Transfer students are not required to complete the WI courses – only the Capstone course. Many met these through substitutions, and others had exemptions.

16

Table 11 – Capstone and WI requirements met by 100 S17 graduates Figure 4 shows how these 100 graduates met the requirement that they take all three of their UD GE courses in the same pathway. 61 students actually did so. Of the rest, 19 had one or more “major course substitutions” from outside GE, 13 had other UD GE courses approved in lieu of one or more courses in their pathway, and 7 others were parts of other programs (Honors, LBST, Study Abroad, or the pre-2012 system). Table 12 shows these in red, plus counts how many completed the three-course sequence in each pathway.

Figure 4 – Completion of UD Pathway course sequences by random sample of 100 S17 graduates.

17

Table 12 – completion of UD GE pathway course sequences. Those in red did not complete the 3-course sequences; their reasons are noted. Of these 100 randomly selected S17 graduates, 16 of them earned Pathway minors, including one student who earned two pathway minors. To get a sense for how students are meeting their requirements of 6 courses (3 lower-division and 3 upper-division) to earn a pathway minor, these 16 students’ records were reviewed and the numbers of courses they took in the pathway determined. Table 12A below lists some information about these students, including names, demographics, majors, Pathway minors, and how many courses they completed (or for which they were granted substitutions) within their pathway.

Alma Hispanic Female Double Major: Child Dev. and Psychology Ethics/Justice/Policy Minor 7 courses in pathway 1 Foreign Language Class 3x LD GE courses (D1, D2, E) 3x UD GE courses

Annie Asian Female Double Major: Psychology & Social Work Ethics/Justice/Policy Minor 7 courses in pathway 1 Foreign Language Class 3x LD GE courses (D1, D2, E) 3x UD GE courses

Diana Hispanic Female Double Major: Child Dev. and Psychology Ethics/Justice/Policy Minor 9 courses in pathway 1 Foundation Assoc. (A1) 1 Foreign Language Class 4x LD GE courses (C1, D1, D2, E) 3x UD GE courses

Kathy Hispanic Female Major: Business Admin (HR) Ethics/Justice/Policy Minor 7 courses in pathway 1 Foundation Assoc. (A1) 1 Foreign Language Class 2x LD GE courses (D1, D2) 3x UD GE courses

18

Esther Asian Female Major: Comm. Sci. & Disorders Gender/Sexuality Minor 6 courses in pathway 1 Foreign Language Class 2x LD GE courses (D2, E) 3x UD GE courses

Rebecca White Female Double Major: Child Dev. and Natural Sci. (Biol.) Gender/Sexuality Minor 7 courses in pathway 1 Foundation Assoc. (A2) 1 Foreign Language Class 2x LD GE courses (C1, D1) 3x UD GE courses

Alan White Male Major: History Global Development Minor Sustainability Minor G.D. Sust. 6 courses 6 courses 2 LD transfer 3 LD GE 1 LD GE (C1) (C1, D2, E) 3 UD GE 3 UD GE (1 UD GE double counted)

Linda Asian Female Major: Nursing Health & Wellness Minor 6 courses in pathway 1 Foundation Assoc. (B2) 1 Foreign Language Class 1 LD GE course (D2) 3x UD GE courses

Megan White Female Major: Social Science Health & Wellness Minor 6 courses in pathway 1 Foundation Assoc. (B2) 2x LD Transfer courses 3x UD GE courses

Meghan White Female Major: Psychology Health & Wellness Minor 6 courses in pathway 3x LD Transfer courses 3x UD GE courses

Randi Black Female Major: Exercise Physiology Health & Wellness Minor 9 courses in pathway 1 Foundation Assoc. (B2) 1 Foreign Language Class 4x LD GE courses (C1, D1, D2, E) 3x UD GE courses

Brittany White Female Major: Exercise Physiology Health & Wellness Minor 7 courses in pathway 1 Foundation Assoc. (B2) 3x LD GE courses (C1, C2, D2) 2x UD GE courses 1 UD GE course Sub*

Willis Two+ Race Male Double Major: German and Mechanical Engineering International Study Minor 6 courses in pathway 1 Foreign Language Class 2x LD Transfer courses 3x GE credit for Study Abroad

McKenna White Female Major: Business Admin (Marketing) Sci/Tech/Values Minor 8 courses in pathway 3 Foundation Assoc. (A2, B1, B2) 2x LD GE courses (D1, E) 3x UD GE courses

Kiaya White Female Major: Business Admin (Project Management) Sustainability Minor 6 courses in pathway 2x LD Honors Courses 1 Foreign Language Class 2x UD GE courses 1x UD Honors course

Masam White Male Major: Applied Math Sustainability Minor 6 courses in pathway 1 Foundation Assoc. (B2) 2x LD GE courses (D1, E) 1x UD GE course 2x UD GE course Subs*

Table 12A – Profiles of the 16 students (of 100 randomly selected S17 graduates) earning Pathway Minors Since Fall 2014, records of the numbers of sections and student enrollment and demand (including those on waiting lists) in GE Writing Intensive (WI) and Capstone (C) courses have been kept, along with enrollment in courses classified as Writing Intensive Substitutions and Capstone Substitutions. Tables 13a and 13b, which have data in reverse chronological order, show clearly that the enrollment in these classes has built substantially over time. From 2014-15 to 2017-18, enrollment in these courses in Fall has increased by 55%, and enrollment in these courses in Spring has increased by 74%.

19

Table 13a – Courses offering writing credit: Enrollment F16-S18

Table 13b - Courses offering writing credit: Enrollment F14-S16 Table 14 shows the relative demand for these courses from S16 through S18 as a percentage: calculated as the percentage of students enrolled and waitlisted in these courses over the total space available (data typically taken a few days before the semester began). Data for the Substitution courses for S18 are not available. The data in Tables 13a, 13b, and 14 show that the supply of GE WI and Capstone courses has increased substantially – enough to essentially meet all of the demand in WI courses and nearly all of the demand in Capstone courses.

20

Table 14 – Overall demand (based on enrollment and wait lists) for GE WI and Capstone courses, including non-WI and non-Capstone sections of those same courses Table 14 also includes data on the demand for “non-Writing Intensive” and “non-Capstone” sections of WI and Capstone courses as always being below 100%. Departments were allowed to offer courses with WI and Capstone status at the section level – these courses give students credit for completing a GE Area but do not count towards the GE writing requirements. Departments were obliged to offer at least one section of a course that met the WI criteria, with an “I” for “Writing Intensive” or a “Z” for “Capstone” appended onto the course number, indicating that the section gave students WI or Capstone credit. They could then offer additional sections of the course, typically with a larger enrollment cap, that did NOT grant students WI/C credit; these courses would not have a suffix on their course number. For example, ANTH 340Z gave students credit towards completing a writing requirement (the Capstone requirement in this case), but ANTH 340 did not. This co-existence of non-WI and non-Capstone sections proved confusing to faculty and students alike – those taking (and teaching) the non-WI/non-Capstone sections did not always realize that these courses were different from the WI/Capstone sections. Table 15 shows that enrollment in such courses has declined from S15 to S18 by 42%; departments have been encouraged to cease offering non-WI/non-Capstone sections of their GE WI/Capstone courses.

Table 15 – Enrollment in non-WI and non-Capstone sections of GE WI/C courses

21

As of February 2018, the University Writing Committee, which will be assuming responsibility for oversight of writing courses from Fall 2018 onwards, is still debating whether to continue to allow GE WI/Capstone courses (all of which will be automatically redesignated as “W” courses) to continue to offer sections that do not grant students writing credit.

22

Student Survey Results To get the students’ perspectives on the current status of the GE program, an on-line survey was designed and implemented by CAB in Fall 2017. The entire set of survey questions is included in Appendix C. The survey consisted of:

• 16 statements to which students could respond “Strongly Agree”, “Agree”, “Disagree”, or “Strongly Disagree”

• 4 additional such questions (and one free-response question) for students who were in the process of completing a pathway minor

• A list of possible reasons why students who were not in the process of completing a pathway minor could say why not

• 3 multiple-choice questions about their use of advising services, and • 3 free-response questions about what they liked and disliked about the program

and for any further comments. Students in upper-division GE Courses in F17 were sent an e-mail to their mail.csuchico.edu accounts informing them that the survey was open on November 15, 2017. Two follow-up reminder messages were sent while the survey was open, and the survey was closed on December 14, 2017. There were just over 7000 students enrolled in these classes, though many students could have been enrolled in two or more such classes simultaneously, so there were certainly less than 7000 students contacted. Students used a link to the survey that included their campus ID. That allowed for matching of student responses to their demographic information to look for any trends. Over 900 responses were recorded, but many of those consisted of all blank (“NULL”) answers. There were 771 survey responses which had at least one valid answer (approximately an 11% response rate), 743 of which were connected to their biographical information – 28 students must have used a generic link that resulted in their not being identified. Tables 16 and 17 present the survey results for the first 16 questions. Scores were tabulated based on this correlation. That meant that an overall “neutral” response would be a score of 2.50. Strongly Agree 4 Agree 3 Disagree 2 Strongly Disagree 1 Some results that can be gleaned from this survey data include:

• For every question except question 16, students presented a “favorable” disposition (a score about 2.50) towards the GE program, in terms of value (Q1), appreciation for different fields (Q3-Q6), and understanding of the program (Q11).

• For questions 1-10, 12, 13, and 15, which reflected student attitudes towards the program, pathways, and WI courses, there were noticeable differences in the results between various demographic categories, including:

23

o White students had a less favorable view of the program than Asian, Black/African-American, and Hispanic-Latino students.

o Male students had a less favorable view of the program than female students.

o Students whose majors were in the colleges of Business and ECC had a less favorable view of the GE program than the students at large.

o First-generation college students had a more favorable view of the program than non-first-generation college students.

o Pell-eligible students had a more favorable view of the program than non-Pell-eligible students

• Student responses to questions 11 (understanding how the program works) and 14 (it is easy to get into the classes I need showed little differences between groups.

• All students agreed (3.11/4) that “we take too many GE courses”, with small differences between groups.

Table 16: Student Survey results for questions 1-8, Nov-Dec 2017

24

Table 17: Student Survey results for questions 9-16, Nov-Dec 2017 Student responses to questions 17-21 are in Table 18. Only students who said they had or were planning to complete a pathway minor were asked questions 18-21. It’s interesting to note that 40% of students said they were planning to complete a pathway minor, but S17 graduation data (Figure 2) only had 17% of students actually doing so. Again all responses showed a net “positive” view of the GE program (all scores above 2.50). Students in the College of Business were outliers, with only 17% saying they were completing a pathway minor, and their average scores to the follow-up questions having lower average scores than the group at large.

25

Table 18 – Student survey results, questions 17-21 When asked why they chose a pathway minor (free-response question 22), 240 students gave responses. They can be grouped together into several categories, with some sample quotes given in each case: Related to major or enhances major: 75 responses

• Ethics, Justice, and Policy: I chose this pathway because I am planning to major in Criminal Justice and this pathway would look good to have different perspectives for my major.

• I am a physical geography major and learning about sustainability helped reinforce some of the techniques I’m learning in my major

• I am a nutrition major with a marketing minor and I chose the health and wellness pathway because I felt it made the most sense. It is also the only pathway that really struck my interest!

• I am choosing my pathway minor because it will go well with my major. I agree with a lot of the idea that the GE classes that I took and am taking as of now. It also presented me with new ideas to agree with or disagree with.

• I am pursuing a GE pathway minor in Great Books and Ideas. Due to my interest in the courses and my love for books. I am in the Honors Program so the courses I was interested in were part of their requirements. I believe books also give way to critical thinking and a variety of ideas that can be allied in any field.

26

• I chose the Food Studies pathway because as a food and nutrition communication student, I feel I need a broad understanding of food studies. I have also spent so much time working on G.E that I felt it would be a disservice to not declare it as a pathway minor

Best suited for future or enhances career choice: 39 responses

• Because I want to work with children at some point and i wanted to learn about more about women

• Ethics, Justice, and Policy pertain to my career choice. This pathway includes classes that provide valuable knowledge that I can use in my future and in my life currently.

• I selected my pathway because I love reading and gaining more knowledge. I see myself as a lifelong learner. I enjoy soaking in interesting material to share with others. I love discussing ideas and gaining knowledge from others as well. I plan to become a teacher someday so my minor will help me with my career.

• I want to be a good leader and knowing about ethics, justice and policy in the workplace would be very beneficial

• It gave me another aspect to set me apart from other FUTURE employees, even though it is a totally different field form my MAJOR, it gives me a new perspective and set of skills.

• To put on my resume Passion or interest about topic: 39 responses

• As Biochemistry (Pre-Med) major, I strongly feel that the wellbeing of the individual begins with the well being of the environment it inhabits as everything is interconnected. Choosing a pathway in sustainability will help me bridge these two aspects of life as I navigate my way into becoming a Medical Professional.

• I chose my pathway because I took a GE class that got me interested in the topic, and I connect personally with the topics.

• I chose my pathway because it was something I wouldn’t get to explore in-depth in my major.

• I chose the pathway of sustainability because I would like to create change in the world around me and influence people to see that the world we are living in. It’s in a danger situation, which has been provoked by us while a large portion of the population do not realize it. I want to change this mindset and thus form part of the movement to change the course of history.

• I have loved all my GE classes, they are usually very interesting and I love the content and my professors.

• Seemed interesting at the time and still does. Had to pick something/random decision/serendipitous: 28 responses

• I chose the pathway because the GE classes I needed to take landed in the categories and they seemed interesting

27

• I did not consciously choose a Pathway Minor in International Studies, I accidentally achieved a Pathway Minor by taking random classes in GE. I work as an intern in Academic Advising Programs, and I have noticed that most students have never heard of the pathway minor, and the ones who achieve the minor do so by accident.

• I did not really choose it, it chose me based on the classes I was taking. I wish I had room to move to different things and try different experiences but I had to stick to this one pathway in the time required.

• I didn’t necessarily choose one I. It so happened that many of the classes I enjoyed fell into the same category and it helped me declare my major overall.

• I had initially wanted to go into the area of my pathway and thought it would be a good insight for future classes. Once I changed my MAJOR I did not want to continue with it because I realized how tedious the courses were. I am still going through with my minor pathway because it would have been merely a waste of my time to have taken all the GE courses and have them be completely worthless.

• I wasn’t specific on which pathway minor to choose. I just randomly chose the classes for my pathway minor and ended up loving it.

• It was a rushed decision and ultimately it will have little impact on my overall college CAREER. I have an overwhelmingly negative view on upper division GE courses. I picked my pathway minor because it was the best way to knock out the GC and US diversity requirements while still getting an additional benefit. I picked the tech pathway minor because it is something I know about and it would be the least painless of all of the other decisions.

• My MAJOR doesn’t have a capstone so I chose one that did. • My Pathway Minor is Gender & Sexuality Studies. I actually never planned on

doing a Pathway Minor until my academic advisor pointed out that I had taken so many classes in the same column that I might as well declare it. That being said, I do feel that my Pathway minor helped me pinpoint my interests, educated me on topics I would have never otherwise known about, and that my minor is extremely applicable to not only my MAJOR, but to everyday life.

Best fit for schedule: 18 responses

• I needed USD, GC, and Writing intensive courses to graduate, the one I chose had all three.

• It was the only one available for online sociology students. Health and Wellness Important: 12 responses

• Health is important to me, choosing the health and wellness pathway allows me to see the importance about heath and gives me an opportunity to think about an optional carrier choice.

• I chose health and wellness because I am currently a Pre-nursing major. I wanted to be able to choose a pathway in which I will still learn about the body, nutrition, and anything that relates to other classes I’ve taken. The minor I have

28

chosen definitely do connect with one another and it helps me a lot through my studies.

Values Diversity or Gender and Sexuality: 10 responses

• I think that it will help me out in the future with being more open minded and just by learning about different cultures.

• When I first took a cultural anthropology class I noticed how much I didn’t know about the importance of being culturally aware. I was disappointed that I had done or said things that would be highly offensive to others I may surround myself with. I wanted to continue to educate myself on how diverse the world is and how to positively contribute to my society.

Easiest to complete: 8 responses

• I am pursuing my minor because I transferred to Chico and had three courses from the lower-division courses in one path. I then decided that since I didn’t see the value in the upper division general education options, I would at the very least receive a minor to go with the work I was mandated to complete. There was nothing applicable to my future career goals, so my minor reflects my lower-divisions coursework and not my interests in my own major.

Interested in sustainability: 5 responses

• Engineering and Sustainability are two areas that go hand-in-hand, especially in a time when environmental awareness is becoming more important.

Global Development and International Issues: 3 responses

• I choose International Studies as my minor because the world is becoming more globalized and it is important to learn about global information than just domestic information. Furthermore, I just found the minor interesting.

In question 23, students who had said they were not pursuing a pathway minor were asked why not, and given a list of items they could choose, as well as an “other” category they could check and explain. Their responses, in descending order of popularity, are in Table 19.

29

Table 19 – Choices given by students as to why they were not completing a Pathway Minor. Their free-responses under “other” can be categorized as such (with sample quotes included): Time: 32

• Double majoring takes up all the space in my schedule for a four-year plan to graduate.

• I have enough units with just major courses. • More classes added to my work load. • I am already a semester behind. • I don’t have enough room in my schedule in order to graduate in 4 years. • I want to graduate on TIME and the Pathway minor I thought about completing

was not offered winter and summer sessions. • I want to minor in International Relations, but I don’t know when I will have the

energy or TIME. Transfer Student: 26

• I don’t see the value of a minor due to having an Associate’s degree. • I transferred from an out of state school so a pathway minor was unavailable to

me. • Transferred here, I cannot start from the beginning to choose the lower division

GEs all in one pathway. • Transfer credits not accepted toward minor

Money: 5

• I do not want to waste my TIME and MONEY taking classes that most likely will not help me.

• I feel strongly that the upper division G.E. Pathway classes are just a way to make students pay more for their degrees. By requiring superfluous classes you are holding my future earning potential ransom.

Don’t see the point/not related to my major: 4

30

• I don’t see the point in taking additional classes that have nothing to do with my area of study. That being ART which has no GE courses/pathway whatsoever.

• I had a lot of AP credit, so I did not take a lot of the actual GE courses. This made it so I didn’t qualify for the GE pathway minor. Also, I don’t believe the minor is credited on your diploma, so I don’t see the point

• My lower division core classes overlap with GE classes in separate pathways. Im not going to take extra classes for an extra minor that is unrelated to my career field.

• Wasn’t too interested, there should be a pathway minor focused on arts/music. •

Not required: 3 • The general advising office told me pathway minors were only for freshman and

sophomores. I was planning one and the rep told me not to do it. Broader interests 3

• I have 3 other minors in other subjects. • I felt that choosing a pathway would limit my exposure to other topics.

Couldn’t get requirements met in one pathway 3

• I took the GE classes that also were a prerequisite for a major class, and they were in totally different pathways.

• I was not able to take all of the required classes in order. • Too restrictive. Does not allow for flexibility when trying to explore courses or

decide on a major. • I was planning on completing a pathway minor in Sustainability, but when I got to

my junior year I realized I would have to take more classes to acquire it, which is not what I was told when I was a freshman and I feel like I was lied to.

Didn’t know about it 3

• I don’t understand. I am taking a pathway, but I thought it was a requirement in order to graduate. If a pathway minor is something different, then I don’t know what that is.

• Not sure what to minor in AP Student/Honors 3

• I had a lot of AP credit, so I did not take a lot of the actual GE courses. This made it so I didn’t qualify for the GE pathway minor. Also, I don’t believe the minor is credited on your diploma, so I don’t see the point

• I took honors courses as some of my GE, and those did not fall under the same pathway, thus causing me to be unable to get a pathway minor

• GE units completed in HS Mental Health 1

• I need to graduate before my financial aid runs out. But I cannot take more than 12 units per semester due to my work schedule and my mental health load.

31

Questions 24-26 of the Student Survey were related to the advising options available on campus. For those who had used the various advising services, their responses were generally favorable, particularly for their advisors in their home departments. Responses are summarized in Table 20.

Table 20 – Survey responses to questions of advising Questions 27-29 were free-response questions. There were more than 400 responses to questions 27 and 28 and over 300 to question 29, so a lot of work was required to categorize student responses to paint a coherent picture. The most common responses to question 27, “What features of GE do you appreciate?”, are aggregated below in Table 21, with a few representative quotes. Broadening intellectual horizons beyond major 65 Wide selection of classes on offer 44 Academic advising: 16 Classes on diversity: 14 Pathway structure: 14 The teachers: 13 Comparatively easy classes: 8 Availability of seats: 5 Double-counting: 4 DPR as handy tool: 3 Foreign language classes: 3 Easy minor: 3 Writing classes: 2

Table 21 – Answers to Student Survey question 27

• “A variety of different classes that allow you to explore the classes. I took a U-course my freshmen year first semester and I think that was the best decision of my life because it eased me into the college setting and it was super nice to have a group of people that at the end became some close friends.”

• “At Chico State, I appreciate the advisors, staffs, and members of the GE program. More importantly, I am a EOP student so I appreciate my academic advisor at the EOP program for helping me with my general education plan. The general education planning sheet is very helping and easy to understand.”

32

• “I appreciate getting to meet other professors and learn a variety of topics outside of my major.”

Question 28 asked, “What features of the General Education program at Chico State, if any, should be changed or eliminated?”. The 400+ responses are aggregated here, with some representative answers.

1. GE is a waste of time. 17 “All of it. General Education is a complete waste of time and doubles the amount of time and money it takes to get a bachelor’s degree. And people wonder why graduates are up to their neck in student loan debt. I could see it taking 4 years to get a degree in certain fields but it just doesn’t make sense forcing students to take the same classes we took in high school. The argument that it lets you meet people outside your major is ridiculous as well. That’s the whole point of clubs and intramural sports. General education is just a cash grab used by the education system to justify high tuition”

2. Mildly negative of GE. 76 “I personally think all of it should be removed, or the amount of courses required should be severely cut down.” “Not forcing people to take classes that are of no interest to them. Maybe give more options for sections in all fields. For me the classes I was not interested in I did poorly in because when there is no interest in a subject it is hard to focus and that results in poor grades.”

3. Very positive of GE. 6 “I actually really like our general education program, and really would like more emphasis on diversity with classes like languages.” “Everything is almost perfect in every way!”

4. Mildly positive of GE. 40 “I feel that the GE program as I have seen it so far is adequate to meet students’ needs”

5. Better advising needed. 6 Make it easier to understand and much more simple. It is like a puzzle trying to figure out all the specific classes you need to take just to graduate on time, and getting help with figuring it out is an entire process in itself.

6. Opposed to Pathways. 29 “I do not like the Pathway aspect of the General Education program because if I am forced to take General Education I should be able to at least choose from a wide range of classes not from a narrow pathway that does not necessarily cater to what I am interested in or passionate about”

7. Opposed to Upper Division GE. 28

33

“As a senior, I feel that upper GE is unnecessary. These classes should be part of lower G.E. Even though my G.E has been valuable, it takes time away from other classes and opportunities such as research/internship or picking up a minor”

8. Classes difficult to get/more options needed. 28 I think that there should be more classes so that when they are full, others students still have a chance to get their degree on time.

9. GE is confusing. 7 I think that they should make it a bit clearer with the GE planning sheet

10. GE is too limiting- let us pick. 32 It’s great to broaden your horizons and worldview with classes outside of your major, but they should be optional and encouraged. Don’t force people to take classes they hate and then they end up getting a bad grade in it. Just require students to pick 8, for example, classes not in their major to take as electives. Students do poorly in classes they aren’t interested in or with professors they dislike. Don’t exacerbate that with the GE program!

11. Don’t make us repeat lower division GE we took in high school. 24 Classes that are required to graduate high school should not also be required for students who are high school graduates. I took American Gov both my senior year of HS, and my sophomore year here at Chico, and did not learn anything new as a result of retaking it here. It was a complete waste of my time, and Gov is far from the only class I and my fellow students have experienced this with.

12. Complaints about Capstone and Writing Intensives. 17 “I do not like that there are capstone classes and writing intensive courses since they are already included in my major. This limited the classes I was able to take and consider with my course load.” “Remove capstone and diversity requirements. They feel like bullshit “oh you’re so well rounded;”; requirements imposed by someone who doesn’t have to deal with it themselves. They detract from actual major class related learning by wasting my brain cells thinking about something I couldn’t give two shits about.” 13. A vote for more Sociology classes. 1 “YOU SHOULD PUT MORE SOCIOLOGY CLASSES INTO THE GE SYSTEM. Make sociology of gender a required course, Or Sociology of oppression and prejudice, and educate people on the serious dangers of our culture today! People simply do not know!” Question 29 asked for any “additional comments”. Their responses are aggregated into categories in Table 22. The reviewers noted that there was some overlap between opposition to the Pathways and opposition to UD GE, and it wasn’t always easy to make the distinction.

34

1. GE is a total waste of time: 103 2. Mildly negative of GE: 12 3. Very positive experience of GE: 70 4. Mildly positive: 11 5. Calls for better advising: 10 6. Opposed to Pathways: 14 7. Opposed to UD GE: 11 8. Classes too difficult to get: 13 9. GE too confusing: 9

Table 22 – Aggregated responses to Student Survey question 29 On Monday, February 26, 2018, the Office of Undergraduate Education arranged for a focus group discussion involving students who had completed a Pathway minor or were in the process of completing one. 12 students were present, representing 7 Pathways. Their aggregate responses to the questions asked by facilitators are outlined below. Question 1: How did you hear about the GE Pathway minors? Why did you choose the Pathway minor you did?

o Advising: from major advisor, GE advisor, and Summer O. o Convenience: wanted to double count classes from major, thought content

aligned well, easy to organize (info from website), already had classes that would count for the minor (ex. Honors GE courses), went as a “package” with the major.

o Seems to be an even divide between people who cite advising leading them to the minor and people who feel it was straightforward enough that they chose it and organized it on their own.

Question 2: What are some highlights of your learning in the Pathway courses? What are your main takeaways from this series of classes?

o Interdisciplinary value, exposure to different cultures and perspectives o Provides context for classes and sense of the broader purpose of course

material, connects GE to major o Many felt the Pathway supplemented or applied well to their major o (Specific learning relevant to each Pathway noted in detailed notes)

Question 3: Did you feel a sense of coherence across these classes? Can you describe any valuable connections or overlap between courses in the Pathway?

o In general there is a good sense of coherence and connection both between classes in minor and between minor and major (more limited in International Studies, where the only common thread was “not the U.S.”)

o Students who have only taken lower division classes report fewer connections between classes in the Pathway

o Varies based on subject, most students named 2 or 3 classes that paired well Question 4: Did pursing the minor make it any harder to graduate?

35

o No reports of slowing down graduation personally, though one reported that other students have said this

o Getting into required classes is easy and double counting with major helped with efficiency

Question 5: Do you think you’ll make use of this minor in your career or further studies? How?

o Viewed as an asset for resumes and interviews o Broadened perspective (diversity) and skillset (Spanish language) is expected to

be valued in workplace o Beneficial in continuing to grad school in related subject

Question 6: Were there any disappointments in this Pathway? What could have improved your experience? Are their changes you’d like to see to the Pathway minors or GE program as a while?

o Mostly very positive, few suggestions for improvements o Information--let students know how easy minoring is, have profs inform about

Pathway minors during syllabus week o More choices, there are too few options for classes per “stone” o One said that classes in the Pathway should be more broad, another said that

not all required classes related closely enough to the Pathway

36

Faculty Survey and Round Table Discussion Results To get input from faculty members on their opinions about the current GE program, an on-line survey was written by CAB and sent to all faculty members. All faculty, whether full-time or part-time, and whether or not they regularly taught GE courses were sent an e-mail with a link to the survey on November 27, 2017. Two additional reminders were sent over the next few weeks, and the survey was closed on December 31, 2017. The faculty survey data was collected anonymously, so faculty could feel free to speak their mind. The survey began with gathering of data (familiarity with the program, whether or not they have taught in the program since its renewal in 2012, etc.), and asking for opinions about GE in general and the CSU, Chico GE Pathways program. Faculty were also asked to rank the current 10 pathways on a scale of 1-10 (10 = “most appropriate in a GE program”; 1 = “least appropriate in a GE program), asked several Likert-scale opinion questions, and allowed free-responses on what they liked and disliked about the program plus further comments. The entire survey is included in Appendix D. In all, 232 responses that had at least one question answered were received. After the survey had closed, the Institutional Research department discovered that two of the free-response questions had not been properly coded into the survey so no results were obtained, those questions were:

21. If you would like to see an additional Pathways in the GE Program, what would its focus be? 35. What do you consider the best characteristics of the current GE program?

CAB decided to ask these questions again, so a supplementary survey with just these two questions was opened on January 29, 2018 and closed on February 9, 2018. Approximately 70 responses to each question were received. Table 23 below shows that, of those faculty providing a response, 72% were “somewhat” or “very” familiar with the program, over half of respondents had taught GE courses since the renewal in 2012, and of those, 86% knew what their course(s)’ pathway associations were. Only a small number of respondents had served on CAB, the body governing CSU, Chico’s GE program.

Table 23 – Faculty Survey Questions 1, 2, 4, and 7

37

Table 24 shows that we had responses from GE instructors from all across the GE Pathway program.

Table 24 – Pathway course affiliations for GE faculty Table 25 shows that a large majority of faculty see value in General Education, and still a sizable majority of those with an opinion see value in a GE Pathway minor. Currently there are 10 pathways – and more faculty think there are too many pathways rather than too few. 62% of those expressing an opinion said that the current GE Pathways program is an improvement over the pre-2012 system.

Table 25 – faculty opinions about GE in general and the GE Pathways program When asked to score the “appropriateness” of each pathway in a GE program from 1-10, each pathway received a score above 5 (the “neutral” answer). Table 26 shows the different votes as well as average scores: the study of Science/Technology/Values had the highest net score, and Food Studies had the lowest.

38

Table 26 – Pathways ranked from 1-10 on “appropriateness in a GE program” (10 = high; 1 = low) When asked (in the supplementary survey) what, if any, additional pathways faculty would like to see, their free-response comments fell into two main categories: Changes to Pathways / Pathways Policies, and Suggested Pathways. One takeaway is that a significant number of faculty thought there should be an integration of existing pathways in order to reduce the overall number and that these revised pathways should take into account suggested themes as indicated below. Regarding the revised pathways, one of the emerging themes is “How can we maintain and improve our humanity in a more technologically complicated world?” Changes to Pathways / Pathways Policies There were a total of eighteen comments that fell into one overall category that can be thought of as maintaining or reducing the number of pathways (14 comments), and combining integrating existing pathways (4). Suggested Pathways A total of nine comments can be classified as involving Technology / Creativity / Future thinking (6) and Creativity / Entrepreneurship (3). A total of eight comments can be classified as Civic Engagement (5) and Civility (3). There were other comments that we included in two other arguably related categories: Societal Problems (2) and Human Rights (1). The results of the Likert-scale opinion questions are shown in Table 27. Some pertinent results:

• The answers to Questions 23-28 show that faculty find value in the GE program and GE courses.

• The average score to questions 29-31 are below 2.50, meaning that on balance there is more “negative” sentiment than positive. This shows that faculty don’t find the program to be well-organized and easy to navigate (Q29, 2.31), don’t find

39

the pathways to be intellectually coherent (Q30, 2.46), and don’t find the pathways to be effectively coordinated (Q31, 2.31).

• Questions 32 and 33 show a slightly above neutral knowledge of the GE SLO’s and efforts to address them in GE courses

• Question 34 shows that the faculty find value in GE advising.

Table 27 – Results of the Likert-scale opinion questions from the Faculty survey The final three questions in the survey were free-response questions. The questions and summaries of the answers are outlined below. Question 2 (supplement) “Best Characteristics of the GE Program”: Responses from faculty regarding the best characteristic of the GE Program varied. Faculty responses could be subdivided into the best of the GE Program, Pathways, and Pathway Minors. The majority of faculty comments (n = 23) centered on the breadth and menu of classes the GE program offers. Eight more responses built on the theme, highlighting the interdisciplinary nature of GE (n = 4) and the opportunity to explore non-major disciplines (n = 4). For Pathway courses (n = 8), including Pathway Minors (n=8), faculty favored the concept of Pathways and Pathway Minor, including choice, themes, and connecting ideas between classes. Furthermore, faculty responses indicate a

40

perceived value of having a minor on the student’s education and subsequent employment. While the survey question focused on the ‘best’ of the GE Program, responses (n = 24) critical of GE were also received. Criticism was specific in nature but centered on the perception of the GE program being too complex and lacking cohesion. Question 36 “Do you have any suggestions for improving the current GE program?” There were a wide variety of responses to this question. There were three types of responses that, with ten or more responses, seemed especially popular: (1) pathways need more cohesion and integration; (2) pathways should be combined or reduced; and (3) the pathway program should be eliminated or we should return to the previous GE program. Regarding (1), some faculty members thought that the current design of the pathways incorporate courses that were not appropriate for the pathway, while others thought that the instructors needed to be better coordinated with respect to what they taught. There were a few comments that also were mentioned by at least five respondents. A large number of respondents were in favor of “simplifying” the GE program, although these suggestions mostly did not come with any practical suggestion for how to simplify. A surprising number of faculty advocated adding more courses to each “stone” within a pathway (especially at the upper division) in order to facilitate graduation by giving students more options. There were also a number of respondents in favor of adding a foreign language requirement. Question 37 “Please share other comments regarding your experience with the GE program” Responses from faculty regarding the GE program ranged from the very positive and “is a significant component of a successful college education” to the negative, including elimination. From the responses, categories were identified and included responses regarding the GE Program, Pathway (Minors), GE/Pathway Advising, Assessment, CAB, and General Comments. The specific nature of many of the comments made categorization difficult. The majority of comments were in the first two categories. General themes were identified among responses within each. While the responses varied, the theme with more responses than any other (n = 12) centered on the GE program as a valuable experience and supported the program. Other themes generated from responses regarding the GE program included the current program being too complicated (n = 7), needing a redesign or for improvements (n = 5), lacking value (n = 5), and finally, more positive messaging and buy in regarding the importance of GE (n = 5). After further evaluation of the comments, the latter theme represents faculty reflection on student perception of courses taken in GE. Regarding Pathways (Minors), multiple response themes (n > 4) included the lack of cohesion among pathways and lack of pathway coordination. The latter comments centered on more

41

engagement between pathway coordinators and faculty representing courses taught in the particular pathway. In a further effort to solicit faculty input on the GE program for this review, members of CAB were invited to department meetings of seven departments with large numbers of courses and FTES in the GE program. Faculty members were asked two questions:

• What’s working well in the GE program? • What should be changed/fixed in the GE program and why?

CAB members visited the Departments of Anthropology, Biology, Comparative Religion and Humanities, English, Geography, History, and Sociology. Notes were kept in each meeting and the amalgamated results are summarized in Table 28. An overarching sentiment was that there is generally a very positive opinion about General Education but a neutral-to-negative view of many of the specific aspects of the GE Pathways program at CSU, Chico.

Positive Responses • Faculty enjoy teaching GE courses and most faculty are dedicated to the goals of GE • Likes having Science in GE – student exposure and some recruitment of majors, and faculty like teaching

those courses. • Likes the WI/Z funding model – are happy to offer lots of WI/Z sections • Departments like the FTES they get from participating in GE • Say that students like the pathway connections • Appreciate specific aspects, like the civic engagement project, courses where students have prior

knowledge, students in classes (like Global Development) that wouldn’t otherwise be there Concerns

• Issues with Pathways o added complexity and confusion o advising issues o delayed graduation o lack of coherence o not enough students are competing them o creates bottlenecks in specific classes o faculty don't understand them o cost extra due to the Pathway Coordinators o “purpose” of GE lost in the complex details o different levels of demand among pathways o students don’t know which one they’re in o are courses which are in more than one pathway actually conforming. o too many pathways

• Concerns about the upcoming changes to the Writing requirements • Complaints about the initial development – stressful competition between departments, and the system

being “forced” upon them. • Concerned that some courses (Like BIOL 103/104) aren’t really “GE courses”. • Concern with writing - a “WI” may scare away a student who is interested in the topic. • Concern with the organization, funding, and scheduling of GE courses, including “competing” courses

which fight for students. • Concerns about funding – not properly funded – reflects the university’s priorities • Area C2 is too “big”, particularly to include foreign languages • Issues with the setup – 3 courses per “stone” is too limiting, not enough opportunity to “experiment” with

new GE courses • Too many students to teach in their GE courses – the Department is looking to back away • Feeling “disconnected” from the rest of the program • Concern about SLO’s – not assessable and faculty need more education on them

42

Recommendations • Suggestions to keep the UD connections but lose the LD pathway connections • Foreign language requirement suggested • Repeatedly suggested to either “go back” to the old system or else leave as is; avoid fixes that would

make things worse Table 28 – Synopsis of Faculty Meeting discussions about the GE Program.

43

Staff Survey Results To gain the perspective of University staff, an on-line survey was put together by CAB and made available to all staff in the Academic Affairs and Student Affairs divisions. The survey was structured in much the same way as the Faculty survey; the entire survey itself is included in Appendix E. Once the on-line survey was ready, an e-mail was sent to staff on December 15, 2017, inviting them to participate. Two follow-up reminders were sent while the survey was still open, and it was closed on or around January 15, 2018. There were 137 responses that had at least one question answered. Data was collected anonymously so staff could feel free to express their opinions. The results of the general questions are found in Table 29. They show 82% of staff report being “somewhat” or “very” familiar with the program, and 87% (of those with an opinion) finding value in GE. However, only 53% found a similar value in a Pathway minor, with a majority saying there are too many pathways and only 45% (of those with an opinion) saying the new program is better than the pre-2012 program. Note that staff were directed to say “Not sure” if they had no familiarity with the old program.

Table 29 – Staff opinions results from survey questions 1-5. Just as for faculty, staff were asked to rate, on a scale of 1-10 (10 being highest) how “appropriate” they felt various pathways were in a GE program. The results are in Table 30. Ethics/Justice/Policy had the highest score and Food Studies the lowest, but all scores were at 6.00 or above (above the “neutral” score of 5).

44

Table 30 – Staff ratings of “appropriateness” of the 10 pathways Staff were also asked 11 Likert-scale opinion questions; the results are shown in Table 31. Some pertinent results:

• Staff had a net negative (below 2.50) score on several questions, indicating that they don’t find the program to be well-organized and easy to navigate (Q16), don’t find the pathways to be effectively coordinated (Q18), really don’t find that faculty are knowledgeable about the program (Q22), and don’t agree that involvement in GE is valued at CSU, Chico.

• Staff did express positive opinions about the advising team (Q20; noting that GE advising requires a disproportionate effort in Q21), about their own abilities to act as advisors (Q23), the GE website (Q24), and GE connections to campus events (Q25).

Table 31 – Likert-scale opinion results of the Staff survey Staff were also asked three free-response questions. A synopsis of the responses follows.

45

Q30: What do you consider the best characteristics of the current GE program? (20 responses)

• Common Themes o GE is broad and covers breadth of subject matter. This gives students the

opportunity to learn about majors that fit their interests. – 9 o Flexibility to complete GE outside of a Pathway in order to allow for Study

Abroad and timely graduation. – 2 Other Comments of Note:

• None. • It’s just another distribution model – not much positive to say about this kind of

archaic system. • It is well organized. • GE resources webpage is helpful. • Liberal arts component of GE is essential. Would like to see science and

engineering programs cut back their courses instead of cutting back on GE courses.

• Some majors have connection to program and the majors that don’t those students complain about the courses, don’t take them seriously which impacts their GPA.

• The pathways are a good idea with bad implementation. The pathway coordinators need mandates to actually bring faculty together, to do assessment, to work on curriculum, and the coordinators need support to make this happen.

• The pathways do provide some interesting learning experiences, but why require even more units when the goal is to get students to graduate in 4 years?

Q28 Do you have any suggestions for improving the current GE program? (54 responses)

• Pathways o Generally Negative – 27 o Confusing, needs to be simplified – 11 o Embed requirements such as writing, USD/GC

Other Comments of Note: • Do away with UD GE in favor of more rigorous major courses. • Revamp the required courses to match with today’s millennials and our student

population • Any appropriately taught US History course should certainly contain enough US

Diversity to have requirement embedded • The current general education structure, all of its limitations and constraints, and

its inherent nature of force funneling students into certain courses based on need, eliminates the original intent of a true college general education experience.

• I have very strong negative feelings relative to students required to take two science labs when only one is required to graduate.

• Add foreign language coursework as a requirement across pathways. • Colleges should have financial incentive to offer GE

46

• Reduce the number of SLOs and work harder to ensure they are addressed and assessed.

• We have to more strongly encourage (pay/stipend/reward) faculty for cohesion within the pathways.

Q29: Please share other comments regarding your experience with the GE program? (46 responses)

• Common Themes o Difficult to navigate and/or confusing – 21 o Conflicts with our graduation initiative goals – 6 o Embed requirements in GE such as writing, USD/GC – 5 o University does a dismal job of creating excitement, value, or interest in

GE – 5 o Prefer over our last version of GE. Feel that just minor changes are

needed – 4 o Pathway program creates bottlenecked courses, long waitlists – 3 o GE is important and should be valued however students feel disconnected

and only “jump through hoops” to complete it/check off a box – 3 o GE Planning sheet can be extremely overwhelming for first-generation

students and these and other students become anxious when viewing it – 2

o Students do poorly in GE – 2 o GE courses should be paid at the same rate as other courses. Teaching

is teaching – 2

47

GE Assessment Reports One of the mandates set out in EM 10-001 was that the SLO’s in the GE program. Beginning even in the first year of implementation of the new GE program in 2012-13, data collection began. The final three assessment reports of the first 5-year “cycle” were completed and submitted to the CSU, Chico Academic Assessment Council in February 2018. All of the GE Assessment Reports are available to the public here. None of the GE assessment is course-specific. CAB’s efforts were to assess student learning and improvement in there SLO’s throughout the program as a whole. That proved to be a large effort in many cases, since there are between 30 and 124 courses in the program to which a particular SLO is designated. Table 32 shows the overall assessment timetable between 2012 and 2018. A typical assessment effort involved creating an assessment “team” of 3-6 CAB members (plus other recruited faculty members from outside of CAB) for a particular SLO, coming up with an assessment plan, asking faculty teaching the involved courses for access to their students’ work or to give their students surveys, carrying out review of the work or analysis of the survey results, and then writing a report. In every case the report was not completed in the year the assessment was initiated, but analysis carried over to the next year. In two cases (Active Inquiry and Diversity), funding was available to create Faculty Learning Communities to initiate discussion and planning on what sort of assessment methods would be used and even how particular SLO’s were to be defined. Assessment of Critical Thinking and Written Communication was done twice. The first Critical Thinking assessment just looked at students in Area A3 courses (lower-division). The second reviewed Critical Thinking throughout the whole program. Written Communication was assessed twice to look for (among other things), differences in student writing capabilities between those who had not gone through the new GE program vs. those who had, and between freshmen from 2012-13 and those “at or near graduation” in Spring 2017.

Table 32 – GE SLO Assessment Timetable A variety of methods were used in assessment – each one was chosen as the most suitable for that particular SLO. Several assessment efforts employed multiple approaches. The different methods used are listed in Table 33.

48

Table 33 – Assessment Methods used for the 10 GE SLO’s, 2013-2018 The 12 GE SLO Assessment reports all contain a large volume of data and statistical analysis. In Table 34 (which spans two pages), a very brief summary of some of the chief findings of these assessments are given; most of these are paraphrased from the conclusions sections of these reports. Of course many more conclusions were drawn from all of the data available; this table just provides an overview.

SLO Date Important conclusions Written Communication

2013 • Students in upper-division Writing Intensive (WI) courses outperformed students in lower-division WI courses, including A2.

Written Communication

2017 • Overall between 64-79% students met the “benchmark” in each review criterion.

• White students had better scores than Hispanic/Latino students across all review criteria.

• Students in UD GE courses showed gains vs. students in A2 courses, but nearly all the net gain is accounted for by White students and male students.

• UD GE students in 2017 did not show an improvement over UD GE students from 2012-13.

Oral Communication

2014 • CSU, Chico students’ oral communication skills are “adequate”. • Students currently enrolled in a class in Oral Communication

outperform other students in the delivery of oral presentations. Critical Thinking

2013 (A3 only)

• Students in all A3 courses showed gains (post-test vs. pre-test). Students in one particular section (PHIL 102-01) had the greatest gains.

Critical Thinking

2016 (all GE)

• The ability of our UD students to correctly use critical thinking skills to make written arguments is wide-ranging but, on average, adequate.

• No significant differences in students’ abilities to use their critical thinking skills to make written arguments were found based on students’ gender, transfer status, college of study, or ethnicity.

• UD Students in 2016 scored lower than students just completing A3 courses from 2012-13. The ability of UD students to answer questions based on systematic use of logic and reasoning had faded since they completed an A3 course.

Mathematical Reasoning

2015 • Students in MATH 105 (A4) showed gains in their knowledge of statistics.

• UD GE students mathematical reasoning scores on a normed instrument were low, but not substantially lower than scores of students at comparable institutions.

49

Active Inquiry 2015 • As “Active Inquiry” is such a wide field, CAB chose to focus on “Information Literacy” as a subset of Active Inquiry.

• Students’ Information Literacy performance was unimpressive. • Students do appear to develop more of these skills as they move from

lower to upper division courses. • Students were lukewarm in recognizing the integration of these skills

in their university experience. Diversity 2014 • There is terminological confusion: many conflate the Diversity SLO

with the Diversity pathway, and also with the U.S. Diversity (USD) requirement.

• Methodological shortcomings in the instrument used results in no useful conclusions.

Creativity 2014 • There is a contradiction in how creative the students perceive themselves to be (based on student survey data) and the level of evidence of creativity in their assignments (based on faculty review of the assignments).

Personal & Social Responsibility

2015 • Chico State students agree that completing courses with this SLO enhanced their knowledge and skills to take personal responsibility for their actions, and enhanced their ability to recognize opportunities and responsibilities to become engaged in various communities.

• Chico State courses have a stronger impact on values that are not as well established (or are perceived to be) among students.

Global Engagement

2017 • If one of the objectives of this SLO is being able to conduct analysis while considering the global systems in place (as defined in the rubric), instructors could put more focus on this aspect of their curriculum.

• A disconnect between the rubric used in this assessment and the content of the assignments could make it difficult to draw useful conclusions from the results.

Sustainability 2017 • Sustainability Studies pathway students had the highest knowledge scores, as well as greater participation in sustainability events when compared to several other pathways.

• The results suggest that the sustainability curriculum is not serving Pell-eligible, first generation, and underrepresented minorities students as well as it could be.

• Participation in sustainability events is correlated with an increase in self-reporting of sustainability behaviors.

Table 34 – Overview of GE SLO Assessment Reports, 2014-2017

50

Reflections The General Education program is a huge part of our curriculum: up to 40% of a student’s degree program and over one-third of our faculty teaching assignments. This report contains many positive and encouraging revelations about our GE program. Some of the most notable include:

• To our very pleasant surprise, student attitudes towards the GE program (see pages 21-23) were positive. Student numerical score averages were particularly positive when rating:

o The value of GE in general, o How the GE program helps them appreciate arts, culture, social sciences,

and science, o How the GE program helps them understand cultural diversity, and o How important it is that GE exposes them to a variety of fields of study.

• Students from underrepresented minorities, female students, and first-generation students had an even more positive attitude towards the GE program than the student population at large.

• Students who completed a pathway minor were very positive about the experience (see pages 24 and 33-34).

• Faculty and staff were very positive about GE in general, liked the breadth and interdisciplinary nature of the GE program, and faculty enjoyed teaching GE courses (see pages 36, 38, 40, 43, and 44).

• Assessment results showed that students were making gains through their GE careers in areas including Written Communication (see page 47).

• The Sustainability Assessment report reveals how campus events improved students’ knowledge and influenced their sustainable behaviors (see page 48).

• Many values woven through the GE program, including diversity, gender/sexual identity, sustainability, and civic engagement are reflections of campus priorities and demonstrate the commitment our campus community has for these important issues.

The vast majority of faculty and staff on campus are committed to providing our students with a high-quality and beneficial GE experience. Our internal review showed that in large part the students do consider their GE experience worthwhile. However, there are several areas of concern that came to light during this review. Discussed next are some aspects of the GE program where CAB thinks improvements could be made.

51

1. Rethinking the GE SLO’s Based on the assessment results in Table 34, CAB noticed a disparity between the usefulness of assessment efforts in the “Foundational” SLO’s (Oral and Written Communication, Critical Thinking, and Mathematical Reasoning) and the remaining “Values” SLO’s. Getting meaningful and actionable assessment data for these five SLO’s proved difficult for a number of reasons:

• Active Inquiry • Diversity • Creativity • Personal & Social Responsibility • Global Engagement

These reasons included differing interpretations as to what those SLO’s stand for and what methods, rubrics, and instruments can and should be used for their assessment. Note that the assessment of the Value rubric of “Sustainability” was much more successful To deal with this issue of having SLO’s which, while worth including in the program as important values, don’t lend themselves to ready forms of assessment when applied across a wide berth of courses, CAB discussed a number of possible changes to the GE SLO’s:

• Keep all 10 GE SLO’s as they are, but find new more effective methods of assessment. Since there are no Institutional Learning Outcomes, the 10 GE SLO’s function as a proxy for ILO’s. If the University truly wants meaningful assessment data for these SLO’s, coordination of those efforts through a properly funded Office of Assessment is called for.

• Redefine “Active Inquiry” as “Information Literacy”, to be more directly in line with WASC’s 5 core competencies. “Information Literacy” was the only subset of “Active Inquiry” assessed in this cycle; those 83 courses with “Active Inquiry” as one of their SLO’s should be reviewed to see which of those could claim to have “Information Literacy” as an SLO instead.

• Change, integrate, or remove some of the SLO’s with the idea of making them more assessable. One new suggested lineup of 8 SLO’s is a combination of the WASC core competencies and 3 major campus initiatives:

o 5 Core competencies (Oral Comm., Written Comm., Critical Thinking, Mathematical Reasoning, Information Literacy)

o Sustainability (kept as is) o A new single SLO integrating Diversity and Global Engagement o Civic Engagement (in place of Personal & Social Responsibility) o Removing the Creativity SLO altogether

• Redefine the other 5 Value SLO’s (Diversity, Creativity, Personal & Social Responsibility, Global Engagement, and Sustainability) as GE Values rather than SLO’s. This would imply that the GE program (and the campus as a whole) considers these important goals for the program but lets CAB focus its assessment efforts on the 5 core competencies

52

• Keep all 10 GE SLO’s as they are (besides “Active Inquiry”, which would be redefined as “Information Literacy”) but assess only the 5 core competencies rather than all 10 SLO’s. This would result on the program having “non-assessed” SLO’s. For these SLO’s, rather than using performance tests, surveys, or reviews of student work to assess their competencies, CAB would ask the faculty to provide information about how they are including these SLO’s in their curriculum. CAB would report on the types of activities, discussions, readings, and other content students are exposed to that help develop their competencies in these areas, rather than directly assessing student work or performance. Note: currently 26 of the 225 GE courses (12%) do not have at least one of the “foundational” SLO’s or Active Inquiry designated. If we assess only the core competencies this should be revisited.

2. Rethinking the GE Pathways Another major concern about the GE program are issues with Pathways. This is evident in all of the survey results (particularly the faculty and staff surveys) and in the enrollment data: only 17% of S17 graduates completed a Pathway Minor (0.2% getting two such minors). Major issues included:

• The Pathway system being too complex for students to navigate and for faculty to understand. This is based not on student survey data but on responses to the faculty and staff surveys and faculty discussions.

• There being insufficient cohesion between lower-division courses and upper-division courses in the same Pathway

• The Pathway Minors lacking intellectual cohesion, lessening their worth as minors

• The Pathway system “streamlining” students into a particular Pathway rather than allowing them a freer choice of GE courses, which some feel is contrary to the overall philosophy of General Education

• Courses that do not fit into a particular Pathway are unfairly left out of the GE program.

If major goals of the Pathway program were to build communities of Pathway faculty in order to discuss curriculum and build cohesion within the Pathways, those goals have not been achieved. A consensus of CAB members is that the Pathway program be simplified by removing Pathway designations from lower-division courses. The effects of this change would include:

• No longer offering Pathway minors, or significantly re-engineering them • Pathway faculty communities would be smaller (only the faculty teaching the 7-9

UD courses in each Pathway would be included) – the smaller numbers would make it easier to coordinate

• Reducing the complexity of the program • The requirement for each student to take his/her three UD GE courses within one

particular pathway would remain in place to give some cohesion to his/her UD GE experience.

53

3. Rethinking the GE Course restrictions Another concern among faculty was the limit of three courses allowed within each “stone” (within a particular GE area and a particular GE pathway). This resulted in a dearth of new course proposals, since 90% of the stones (72 of 80) are full as of Fall 2017. This in turn diminishes the flexibility and creativity of Departments developing curriculum for the GE program. CAB recommends allowing for an increased number of courses in each of the UD GE Pathway stones (and the same for the LD GE Pathway stones, if the LD GE course Pathway designations are retained). If Items 2 and 3 are both implemented, that would be a major change to the organization of the system; some ideas to follow when completing this redesign could include:

• In order to maximize coherence within UD GE courses in the same 3-course Pathway, an UD GE course would be restricted to a single pathway. This parallels the pre-2012 GE “Themes”, where each UD GE course could be part of one Theme only. Currently, of 83 upper-division GE courses, 13 belong to two or three Pathways.

• Based on collaborative discussion, new 3-course Pathways could be added and current ones could be recommended for removal. The current EM 10-001 lists a maximum of 10 Pathways; that restriction would be lifted.

4. Upcoming modifications to the Writing Requirements One other aspect of the program’s complexity are the writing requirements, which mandate that first-time-freshmen students complete four “Writing Intensive” courses, at least one of which must be a Capstone course. The presence of non-WI and non-Capstone versions of those courses has been a problem; students will sign up for such courses thinking they are going to earn Writing credit when they in fact are not. Some of the faculty aren’t always clear which version of the course they are teaching. Furthermore, GE course sections that offered writing credit had an “I” or “Z” suffix, but Writing Intensive substitution and Capstone substitution courses did not. This confusing state of affairs was one reason that the Writing requirements have been changed, effective Fall 2018. The new system still requires students to fulfill four writing requirements, but:

• EVERY section that offers writing credit will have a “W” suffix – whether that course initially was GE WI course, a GE Capstone course, a WI substitution, a Capstone substitution, or the WP course within each major. If there is a “W” suffix, a student completing the course gets writing credit – if there is no “W” then the student does not get writing credit

• For now, GE courses will still be able to offer “W” sections and “non-W” sections. This regulation is now in the hands of the University Writing Committee, which may revisit this in the future.

 DEPT Number Semester Pathway(s)

GE_Area

Oral  Com

m

Written  Com

m

Crit.  Think

Math

Active  Inq.

Pers/Soc  Resp

Sustainability

Diversity

Creativity

Global  Eng.

WI

USD  

GC

Capstone

ABUS 101 Food D-­‐‑1  IS 1 1 1 1ABUS 390 Food UD-­‐‑D 1 1 1 1AFAM 170 Div D-­‐‑2  SI 1 1 1 1

AFAM/HIST 231 Spring  only Div C-­‐‑2  Hum 1 1 1AIST 170 GBI D-­‐‑1  IS 1 1 1 1

AIST/ENGL 252 SUST C-­‐‑2  Hum 1 1 1 1AIST/HIST 230 Fall  only Div C-­‐‑2  Hum 1 1 1 1

ANTH 111 Div,  STV B-­‐‑2 1 1 1 1 1ANTH 112 Food,  GBI,  Sust D-­‐‑2  SI 1 1 1 1ANTH 113 H&W,  IS D-­‐‑1  IS 1 1 1 1ANTH 116 E,J&P,  SUST D-­‐‑2  SI 1 1 1 1 1ANTH 140 G&S,  H&W,  STV D-­‐‑2  SI 1 1 1 1ANTH 268 Spring  only Gdev D-­‐‑1  IS 1 1 1 1ANTH 333 STV UD-­‐‑D 1 1 1 1 1 1ANTH 340 Food UD-­‐‑D 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1ANTH 376 Fall  only Gdev UD-­‐‑D 1 1 1 1 1 1ANTH 377 Spring  only Gdev UD-­‐‑D 1 1 1 1 1 1

ANTH/AIST 261 Fall  only Gdev D-­‐‑1  IS 1 1 1 1ARTH 100 G&S,  H&W C-­‐‑1  Arts 1 1 1 1ARTH 110 Fall  only IS C-­‐‑1  Arts 1 1 1 1ARTH 120 Spring  only IS C-­‐‑1  Arts 1 1 1 1ARTH 130 Div,  G&S C-­‐‑1  Arts 1 1 1 1ARTH 150 Gdev C-­‐‑1  Arts 1 1 1 1

ASST/AAST 110 Fall  only IS D-­‐‑1  IS 1 1 1 1 1BIOL 103 H&W B-­‐‑2 1BIOL 104 H&W B-­‐‑2 1 1BIOL 105 Div,  Food B-­‐‑2 1 1 1 1BIOL 302 Div,  GBI UD-­‐‑B 1 1 1 1 1BIOL 303 E,J&P,  STV UD-­‐‑B 1 1 1 1 1BIOL 318 H&W UD-­‐‑B 1 1BIOL 323 Div,  G&S UD-­‐‑B 1 1BIOL 334 SUST UD-­‐‑B 1 1 1BIOL 345 H&W UD-­‐‑B 1 1 1

BIOL/PHIL 322 E,J&P,  GBI UD-­‐‑B 1 1 1 1 1 1 1BIOL/SCED 102 STV,  SUST B-­‐‑2 1 1 1

BSIS 111 A-­‐‑4 1CAGD 110 STV C-­‐‑1  Arts 1 1 1 1 1 1CHEM 100 STV,  SUST B-­‐‑1 1 1CHLD 252 Div,  GBI E 1 1 1 1 1CHLD 255 G&S E 1 1 1CHLD 272 Gdev E 1 1 1 1CHLD 333 G&S UD-­‐‑D 1 1 1 1 1

CHST/FLNG/HUMN 254 Spring  only G&S C-­‐‑2  Hum 1 1CHST/HIST 135 E,J&P C-­‐‑2  Hum 1 1 1 1

CIVL 175 SUST B-­‐‑2 1 1 1 1 1CMGT 275 SUST C-­‐‑1  Arts 1 1 1 1CMSD 256 C-­‐‑2  Hum 1 1 1CMST 131 EJ&P A-­‐‑1 1 1CMST 132 Div A-­‐‑1 1 1 1 1CMST 234 G&S E 1 1 1CMST 235 IS E 1 1 1 1CMST 255 EJ&P A-­‐‑3 1 1 1CSCI 102 STV E 1 1 1 1ECON 101 Food D-­‐‑2  SI 1 1 1 1ECON 102 Gdev,  IS D-­‐‑2  SI 1 1 1ECON 103 E,J&P D-­‐‑1  IS 1 1 1ECON 340 Div,  EJ&P UD-­‐‑D 1 1 1 1 1ECON 352 H&W UD-­‐‑D 1 1 1 1ECON 365 SUST UD-­‐‑D 1 1 1ENGL 130 A-­‐‑2 1 1ENGL 203 E,J&P,  G&S C-­‐‑1  Arts 1 1 1 1ENGL 220 Food C-­‐‑2  Hum 1 1 1 1ENGL 240 E,J&P,  GBI E 1 1 1ENGL 258 Gdev C-­‐‑2  Hum 1 1 1 1 1ENGL 260 GBI C-­‐‑2  Hum 1 1 1 1ENGL 261 G&S C-­‐‑2  Hum 1 1 1 1ENGL 264 Div C-­‐‑2  Hum 1 1 1 1 1 1ENGL 338 SUST UD-­‐‑C 1 1 1 1 1ENGL 342 H&W UD-­‐‑C 1 1 1 1 1ENGL 350 STV UD-­‐‑C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1ENGL 353 Gdev UD-­‐‑C 1 1 1 1ENGL 354 Spring  only GBI UD-­‐‑C 1 1ENGL 355 Fall  only E,J&P,  GBI UD-­‐‑C 1 1 1 1 1ENGL 356 Spring  only E,J&P UD-­‐‑C 1 1 1 1 1ENGL 364 DIV UD-­‐‑C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1ENVL 105 SUST E 1 1 1 1 1FLNG 340 Spring  only IS UD-­‐‑C 1 1 1

Appendix A - GE SLO Matrix

 DEPT Number Semester Pathway(s)

FLNG 355 Div UD-­‐‑C 1 1 1 1 1FLNG 380 Fall  only IS UD-­‐‑C 1 1 1FLNG C-­‐‑2 1 1GEOG 101 Div,  Food,  Gdec,  IS,  STV,  SUST B-­‐‑1 1 1 1 1GEOG 102 Div.  IS,  SUST D-­‐‑1  IS 1 1 1 1GEOG 103 STV D-­‐‑1  IS 1 1 1 1GEOG 105 Div,  Food D-­‐‑2  SI 1 1 1 1GEOG 106 GBI,  SUST D-­‐‑2  SI 1 1 1 1 1GEOG 301 Food UD-­‐‑D 1 1 1 1 1GEOG 303 IS UD-­‐‑D 1 1 1 1GEOG 304 SUST UD-­‐‑D 1 1 1GEOG 352 Div UD-­‐‑D 1 1 1

GEOG/LAST 357 Gdev UD-­‐‑D 1 1 1 1GEOS 101 Food,  GBI,  IS B-­‐‑1 1 1 1 1GEOS 104 A-­‐‑3 1 1 1GEOS 110 B-­‐‑1 1 1 1GEOS 130 Gdev,  H&W,  SUST B-­‐‑1 1 1 1 1

1GEOS 330 SUST UD-­‐‑B 1 1 1 1 1GEOS 355 Div,  EJ&P,  IS UD-­‐‑B 1 1 1GEOS 375 Food UD-­‐‑B 1 1 1 1HCSV 160 H&W E 1 1HCSV 265 G&S,  H&W D-­‐‑1  IS 1 1 1HCSV 323 IS UD-­‐‑B 1 1 1HCSV 370 H&W UD-­‐‑D 1 1 1

HCSV/WMST 368 G&S UD-­‐‑B 1 1 1HIST 101 GBI D-­‐‑1  IS

aerA_

GE1 1 1 1

HIST 102 H&W,  IS,  STV D-­‐‑2  SI 1 1HIST 105 SUST D-­‐‑1  IS 1 1 1 1 1HIST 130 AI

mmoC  la

Or

1HIST 305 H&W UD-­‐‑C 1 1 1 1 1

mmoC  net

Writ

HIST 341 Food,  SUST UD-­‐‑C 1 1 1 1HIST 381 Spring  only Gdev UD-­‐‑C 1

knihT  .tiCr

1 1 1HIST/LAST 382/350 Fall  only Gdev UD-­‐‑C 1 1 1 1

htMa

HIST/MEST 362 Fall  only IS UD-­‐‑C 1 1 1 1 1HIST/MEST 363 Spring  only IS UD-­‐‑C

.qnI  evitAc

1 1HIST/WMST 326 Fall  only G&S UD-­‐‑C 1 1 1 1 1

pseR  coS/sr

PeHIST/WMST 335 Spring  only G&S UD-­‐‑C 1 1 1

ytilibaniatsSu

HUMN 220 E,J&P C-­‐‑1  Arts 1 1 1HUMN 222 GBI C-­‐‑1  Arts 1 1

ytisrevDi

1 1HUMN 224 Fall  only G&S C-­‐‑2  Hum 1 1 1 1

ytivitaeCr

HUMN 281 Food C-­‐‑1  Arts 1 1 1 1HUMN 300 GBI UD-­‐‑C 1 1 1 1

.gnE  laboGl

1 1 1INST 110 Gdev,  IS E 1 1 1 1 1

WI

1ITAL 260 H&W C-­‐‑2  Hum 1 1 1 1

 D

US

JOUR 130 Div,  G&S,  STV A-­‐‑2 1 1 1 1 1 1GC

JOUR 210 STV D-­‐‑2  SI 1 1 1 1 1JOUR 255 STV E 1 1 1 1

enotspCa

JOUR/WMST 211 G&S D-­‐‑1  IS 1 1 1KINE 110 H&W E 1 1KINE 152 Div,  H&W C-­‐‑1  Arts 1 1KINE 247 IS E 1 1 1 1 1KINE 295 Div E 1 1 1 1LAST 110 Gdev,  IS D-­‐‑2  SI 1 1 1LAST 120 Gdev C-­‐‑2  Hum 1 1 1 1MADT 217 Fall  only STV C-­‐‑1  Arts 1 1 1MADT 218 Spring  only STV C-­‐‑1  Arts 1 1 1MADT 307 STV UD-­‐‑D 1 1MATH 101 A-­‐‑4 1MATH 105 A-­‐‑4 1MCGS 155 Div,  EJ&P D-­‐‑1  IS 1 1 1 1 1MCGS 310 G&S UD-­‐‑C 1 1 1 1 1 1

MCGS/THEA 315 G&S UD-­‐‑C 1 1 1 1 1MEST 110 Spring  only IS D-­‐‑1  IS 1 1 1 1MUSC 290 Spring  only Gdev,  IS C-­‐‑1  Arts 1 1 1 1MUSC 292 GBI C-­‐‑1  Arts 1 1 1NFSC 100 Food,  SUST E 1 1 1 1NFSC 200 H&W D-­‐‑1  IS 1 1 1 1 1 1NFSC 303 H&W UD-­‐‑B 1 1 1 1NFSC 310 Food,  Gdev UD-­‐‑B 1 1 1 1

NURS/MCGS 326 G&S UD-­‐‑B 1 1 1 1 1PHIL 101 GBI,  IS,  STV C-­‐‑2  Hum 1 1 1PHIL 102 GBI A-­‐‑3 1PHIL 104 Food,  H&W C-­‐‑2  Hum 1 1 1 1PHIL 110 E,J&P C-­‐‑2  Hum 1 1 1PHIL 129 SUST C-­‐‑2  Hum 1 1 1PHIL 207 STV E 1 1PHIL 217 GBI E 1 1 1 1

 DEPT Number Semester Pathway(s)

GE_Area

Oral  Com

m

Written  Com

m

Crit.  Think

Math

Active  Inq.

Pers/Soc  Resp

Sustainability

Diversity

Creativity

Global  Eng.

WI

USD  

GC

Capstone

PHIL 303 Fall  only GBI UD-­‐‑C 1 1 1 1PHIL 323 E,J&P UD-­‐‑C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1PHIL 327 H&W UD-­‐‑C 1 1 1 1 1 1PHIL 336 SUST UD-­‐‑C 1 1 1 1 1PHIL 337 Div UD-­‐‑C 1 1 1 1 1 1PHIL 340 Spring  only GBI UD-­‐‑C 1 1 1 1PHIL 341 E,J&P UD-­‐‑C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1PHIL 370 STV UD-­‐‑C 1 1 1 1

PHIL/RELS 339 Food UD-­‐‑C 1 1 1 1 1 1PHIL/RELS 204/241 STV C-­‐‑2  Hum 1 1 1 1

PHYS 100 GBI B-­‐‑1 1 1 1 1PHYS 376 IS UD-­‐‑B 1 1 1 1 1POLS 101 GBI D-­‐‑2  SI 1 1 1POLS 102 Gdev D-­‐‑1  IS 1 1 1 1 1POLS 112 Fall  only E,J&P D-­‐‑1  IS 1 1POLS 155 AI 1POLS 250 Spring  only E,J&P D-­‐‑1  IS 1 1POLS 341 IS UD-­‐‑D 1 1POLS 365 E,J&P UD-­‐‑D 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

POLS/MCGS 401 Spring  only G&S UD-­‐‑D 1 1 1 1 1POLS/WMST 324 Fall  only G&S UD-­‐‑D 1 1 1 1

PSSC 101 Food B-­‐‑2 1 1 1 1PSSC 390 Fall  only Food,  Gdev,  SUST UD-­‐‑B 1 1 1 1PSSC 392 Spring  only Food,  Gdev,  SUST UD-­‐‑B 1 1 1 1PSYC 100 Div,  G&S,  H&W A-­‐‑3 1 1PSYC 101 E,J&P,  Food E 1 1 1PSYC 151 Div,  Food D-­‐‑1  IS 1 1 1 1PSYC 152 H&W D-­‐‑2  SI 1 1PSYC 321 STV UD-­‐‑D 1 1 1 1 1PSYC 345 G&S UD-­‐‑D 1 1 1PSYC 391 E,J&P UD-­‐‑D 1 1 1 1RELS 100 E,J&P C-­‐‑2  Hum 1 1 1RELS 110 GBI,  IS C-­‐‑2  Hum 1 1 1 1RELS 180 Food,  H&W C-­‐‑2  Hum 1 1RELS 212 Spring  only Gdev,  IS C-­‐‑2  Hum 1 1 1 1RELS 247 SUST C-­‐‑2  Hum 1 1 1 1 1RELS 264 Div,  Gdev E 1 1 1 1 1RELS 332 Gdev,  IS UD-­‐‑C 1 1 1 1RELS 357 STV UD-­‐‑C 1 1 1 1 1 1

RELS/HIST/MEST 202/261 Fall  only Gdev C-­‐‑2  Hum 1 1 1 1RELS/MCGS 224 Fall  only Div C-­‐‑2  Hum 1 1 1 1 1RELS/MJIS 204 Spring  only Div C-­‐‑2  Hum 1 1 1 1RELS/MJIS 205 Fall  only IS C-­‐‑2  Hum 1 1 1 1 1

RELS/WMST 275 G&S C-­‐‑2  Hum 1 1 1 1 1RHPM 180 H&W E 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1RHPM 210 SUST D-­‐‑1  IS 1 1 1 1SCED 101 STV,  SUST B-­‐‑1 1 1 1 1SCED 300 GBI UD-­‐‑B 1 1 1 1 1 1SOCI 100 Food,  GBI,  STV D-­‐‑1  IS 1 1 1 1 1SOCI 133 E,J&P,  G&S E 1 1 1SOCI 200 E,J&P D-­‐‑2  SI 1 1SOCI 227 G&S D-­‐‑2  SI 1 1 1SOCI 335 Spring  only IS UD-­‐‑D 1 1 1 1SOCI 354 Spring  only Gdev UD-­‐‑D 1 1 1 1SOCI 363 H&W UD-­‐‑D 1 1 1SOCI 370 Fall  only Gdev,  IS UD-­‐‑D 1 1 1 1SOCI 420 SUST UD-­‐‑D 1 1 1 1 1

SOCI/AAST 152 Spring  only Div D-­‐‑2  SI 1 1 1 1SOCI/CHST 157 Fall  only Div D-­‐‑2  SI 1 1 1 1SOCI/MCGS 350 Div UD-­‐‑D 1 1 1SOCI/WMST 230 G&S D-­‐‑1  IS 1 1 1

SOSC 300 GBI UD-­‐‑D 1 1 1SWRK 170 E,J&P D-­‐‑2  SI 1 1 1 1 1 1TECH 180 STV D-­‐‑1  IS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1TECH 182 STV C-­‐‑2  Hum 1 1 1 1 1TECH 380 STV UD-­‐‑B 1 1 1 1 1THEA 110 GBI C-­‐‑1  Arts 1 1 1THEA 112 H&W C-­‐‑1  Arts 1 1 1 1THEA 251 Fall  only Gdev,  IS C-­‐‑1  Arts 1 1 1 1THEA 252 Div,  EJ&P,  SUST C-­‐‑1  Arts 1 1 1 1UNIV 105 SUST E 1 1 1 1 1WMST 170 G&S D-­‐‑2  SI 1 1 1 1WMST 233 Gdev D-­‐‑1  IS 1 1 1 1

Lower Division

 GE Pathway Cou

rses 

(One

 cou

rse may be an

 associated Foun

datio

n Co

urse)

Upp

er Division

 GE Pathway Cou

rses

1 2 

3 4 

5 6 

GraduationRequirem

ents

:Me

t In

pr

ogre

ss

Need

ed

1.To

tal un

its: 1

20 –

128 (

includ

es re

quire

ments

#2-9

below

)

2.Up

per D

ivisio

n: 40

units

(Cou

rses n

umbe

red 3

00 an

d abo

ve)

3.Re

siden

ce:

___

_/30 u

nits;

____

/UD

24 un

its; _

___/M

ajor 1

2 unit

s; __

__/G

E 9 u

nits

4.Ge

nera

l Edu

catio

n: 48

units

(to i

nclud

e 9 U

D un

its; s

ee al

so “R

eside

nce”

abov

e)

(Che

ck fo

r high

unit m

ajor m

odific

ation

s) (C

heck

for W

riting

Inten

sive “

I” an

d Cap

stone

“Z

” req

uirem

ents

need

ed w

ithin

Gene

ral E

duca

tion)

5.Di

versi

ty Re

quire

ments

:

a.Un

ited S

tates

Dive

rsity

(USD

)

b.Gl

obal

Cultu

res (

GC)

6.Am

erica

n Ins

titutio

ns R

equir

emen

t: (Me

t with

in Ge

nera

l Edu

catio

n)

7.Ma

thema

tics &

Writi

ng S

kills:

a.

Mathe

matic

s: Pa

ss th

e Qua

ntitat

ive R

easo

ning

Cour

se (

Area

A4)

in G

E wi

th a C

- or b

etter

Gr

ade _

____

_

b.W

riting

: Pas

s two

cour

ses w

ith a

C- or

bette

r (se

e belo

w)

i.W

ritten

Com

munic

ation

(Are

a A2)

in G

E Gr

ade _

____

_

ii.Ma

jor D

epar

tmen

t Writi

ng P

rofic

iency

(WP)

Gr

ade _

____

_

8.Ma

jor: _

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

__ (

See m

ajor a

dviso

r)

9.G.

P.A.

(2.0)

: Chic

o___

____

____

_; Cu

mulat

ive __

____

____

__; M

ajor _

____

____

____

Impo

rtan

t:  This s

heet is fo

r plann

ing pu

rposes only.  Refer to

 you

r Degree Progress Rep

ort 

(DPR

) in your Stude

nt Cen

ter for a com

plete list o

f you

r gradu

ation requ

iremen

ts and

 an 

evaluatio

n of you

r progress tow

ard graduatio

n.  

Notes

:

GeneralEducationRequirem

ents:

FOUN

DATI

ON (1

8 uni

ts):

Selec

t one

cour

se fr

om ea

ch ar

ea.

Met

In

prog

ress

Ne

eded

A1. O

ral C

ommu

nicati

on (C

- or b

etter

) CM

ST 13

1, 13

2

A2. W

ritten

Com

munic

ation

(C- o

r bett

er)

EN

GL 13

0(I),

130E

(I), 1

30P(

I); JO

UR 13

0(I)

A3. C

ritica

l Thin

king (

C- or

bette

r)

CMST

255,

GEO

S 10

4, PH

IL 10

2, 10

2E, P

SYC

100

A4. Q

uanti

tative

Rea

sonin

g (C-

or be

tter)

BS

IS 11

1, MA

TH 10

1, 10

5, (A

dvan

ced c

ourse

subs

titutio

ns:

MATH

107,

108,

109,

110,

118,

119,

120)

Lab

requ

ireme

nt me

t

B1. P

hysic

al

Scien

ces

CHEM

100,

GEOG

101(

I), G

EOS

101,

110,

130;

SCED

101,

PH

YS 10

0 (Ad

vanc

ed co

urse

subs

titutio

ns: C

HEM

107,

108,

111;

GEOS

102;

PHYS

202A

, 204

A)

B2. L

ife

Scien

ces

ANTH

111,

BIOL

/SCE

D 10

2, BI

OL 10

3, 10

4, 10

5; CI

VL 17

5, PS

SC

101 (

Adva

nced

cour

se su

bstitu

tions

: BIO

L 151

, 152

, 153

)

AMER

ICAN

INST

ITUT

IONS

(6 u

nits

) Me

t In

pr

ogre

ss

Need

ed

U.S.

Hist

ory (

HIST

130)

Am

erica

n Gov

ernm

ent: N

ation

al, S

tate a

nd Lo

cal (P

OLS

155)

WritingIntensive(I)&

Capstone(Z)Requirements:

Note:

Not

all co

urse

secti

ons w

ill sa

tisfy

the (I

) or (

Z) re

quire

ment,

only

those

with

(I) o

r (Z)

next

to the

cour

se nu

mber

in cl

ass s

ched

ule.

Writ

ing

Inte

nsive

(I) R

equi

rem

ents

(tran

sfer s

tuden

ts re

fer to

DPR

, req

uirem

ent m

ay be

met)

Comp

lete 3

(I) c

ourse

s. Me

t In

pr

ogre

ss

Need

ed

1.W

ritten

Com

munic

ation

Cou

rse (A

rea A

2): E

NGL 1

30(I)

, 130

E(I),

130P

(I); J

OUR

130(

I)

2.W

riting

Inten

sive (

I) Co

urse

: (No

te: ch

eck y

our m

ajor f

or W

riting

Inten

sive s

ubsti

tution

s)

3.W

riting

Inten

sive (

I) Co

urse

: (No

te: ch

eck y

our m

ajor f

or W

riting

Inten

sive s

ubsti

tution

s)

Caps

tone

(Z) R

equi

rem

ent

Comp

lete 1

(Z) c

ourse

in yo

ur up

per-d

ivisio

n Path

way.

Met

In

prog

ress

Ne

eded

4.GE

Cap

stone

Cou

rse: (

Note:

chec

k you

r majo

r for

GE

Caps

tone s

ubsti

tution

s)

DiversityRequirement:UnitedStatesDiversity(U

SD)GlobalCultures(GC)

Note:

You

r dive

rsity

requ

ireme

nt ca

n dou

ble co

unt w

ith co

urse

s in l

ower

divis

ion an

d upp

er di

vision

GE.

Me

t In

pr

ogre

ss

Need

ed

Comp

lete 1

Unit

ed S

tates

Dive

rsity

Cour

se (a

ny co

urse

desig

nated

(USD

)

Comp

lete 1

Glob

al Cu

lture

s Cou

rse (a

ny co

urse

desig

nated

(GC)

ContactUs:

StudentServicesCenter220

chicoadvisor@csuchico.edu

530‐898‐5712

www.csuchico.edu/aap

Date

form

comp

leted

: Fo

rm co

mplet

ed by

:

GeneralEducationPlanningSheet

CaliforniaStateUniversity,Chico

If you are completing an

 optiona

l GE Pathway m

inor, list classes below

.

Appendix BGE Planning Sheet

GeneralEducationPathways

Lowe

r Divi

sion

GE P

athw

ay C

ours

es (1

5 uni

ts):

Selec

t 1 co

urse

from

each

Disc

iplin

ary A

rea.

Met

In Progress

Needed

*Opt

iona

l* GE

Min

or (1

8 uni

ts):

Comp

lete 6

cour

ses f

rom

the s

ame P

athw

ay

-3 lo

wer d

ivisio

n cou

rses,

each

from

a dif

feren

t disc

iplina

ry ar

ea (1

cour

se m

ay be

used

from

the F

ound

ation

Ass

ociat

ion)

-3 up

per d

ivisio

n cou

rses,

each

from

a dif

feren

t disc

iplina

ry ar

ea

Foun

datio

n →

As

socia

tion

ANTH

111

, BIO

L 10

5,

CMST

132

, GEO

G 10

1(I),

JO

UR 1

30(I)

, PSY

C 10

0

CMST

131

CM

ST 2

55

BIOL

105

GE

OG 1

01(I)

GE

OS 1

01

PSSC

101

PSYC

100

JO

UR 1

30(I)

GE

OG 1

01(I)

GE

OS 1

30

GEOS

101

PH

IL 1

02, 1

02E

PHYS

100

BIOL

103

BI

OL 1

04

GEOS

130

PS

YC 1

00

GEOG

101

(I)

GEOS

101

AN

TH 1

11

BIOL

/SCE

D 10

2

CHEM

100

GE

OG 1

01(I)

JO

UR 1

30(I)

SC

ED 1

01

BIOL

/SCE

D 10

2

CHEM

100

CI

VL 1

75

GEOG

101

(I)

GEOS

130

SC

ED 1

01

Path

ways

→

Disc

iplin

ary

Area

s ↓

Diversity

Studies

Ethics,

Justice&

Policy

Food

Studies

Gender&

Sexuality

Studies

Global

Development

Studies

Great

Books&

Ideas

Health&

Wellness

International

Studies

Science,

Technology

&Values

Sustainability

C1.

→

Arts

: Se

lect 1

cour

se.

ARTH

130US

D

KINE

152

THEA

252

ENGL

203

HUMN

220

THEA

252

HUMN

281(

I)AR

TH 10

0GC

ARTH

130US

D EN

GL 20

3

ARTH

150GC

THEA

251(

F)

MUSC

290GC

(S)

HUMN

222(

I) MU

SC 29

2 TH

EA 11

0

ARTH

100GC

KINE

152

THEA

112

ARTH

110(

F)

ARTH

120(

S)

THEA

251(

F)

MUSC

290GC

(S)

CAGD

110

MA

DT 21

7(F)

MA

DT 21

8(S)

CMGT

275

THEA

252

C2.

→

Hum

aniti

es:

Selec

t 1 co

urse

.

Any o

f the f

ollow

ing ap

prov

ed co

urse

s can

be us

ed to

fulfil

l the C

2 req

uirem

ent a

nd m

ay be

appli

ed to

ward

s any

Path

way M

inor:

CMSD

156,

256;

ARAB

101A

, 102

A, 20

1, 20

2; CH

NS 10

1A, 1

02A,

201,

202;

EFLN

170;

FREN

101,

102,

201,

202;

GERM

101,

102,

201,

202;

GREK

101,

102;

HBRW

101A

, 102

A; IT

AL 10

1, 10

2, 20

1, 20

2; JA

PN 10

1, 10

2, 20

1, 20

2; LA

TN 10

1, 10

2; PO

RT 10

1A, 1

02A;

RUS

S 10

1A,10

2A, 2

01, 2

02; S

PAN

101,

102,

201,

201N

, 202

, 202

N

AIST

/HIS

T 23

0USD (F

) AF

AM/H

IST

231US

D (S)

ENGL

264(

I)USD

MCGS

/REL

S 22

4USD

(F)

MJIS

/REL

S 20

4(I)US

D (S

)

CHST

/HIS

T135

USD

PHIL

110

RELS

100

ENGL

220(

I)

PHIL

104

RELS

180

ENGL

261(

I) HU

MN 22

4GC(F

) CH

ST/ F

LNG/

HUMN

254US

D (S)

RELS

/WMS

T 27

5(I)GC

ENGL

258(

I)GC

LAST

120GC

HIST

/MES

T 26

1GC/

R

ELS

202GC

(F)

RELS

212GC

(S)

ENGL

260(

I) PH

IL 10

1 RE

LS 11

0GC

ITAL

260(

I) PH

IL 10

4 RE

LS 18

0

PHIL

101

MJ

IS/R

ELS

205US

D (F)

RELS

212GC

(S)

PHIL

204/R

ELS

241

PHIL

101

TE

CH 18

2

AIST

/ENG

L 252

USD

PHIL

129

RELS

247(

I)

D1.

→

Indi

vidua

l &

Socie

ty:

Selec

t 1 co

urse

.

GEOG

102GC

MCGS

155(

I)USD

PSYC

151US

D

ECON

103

MCGS

155(

I)USD

POLS

112US

D (F)

PO

LS 25

0USD (S

)

ABUS

101

PSYC

151US

D SO

CI 10

0

HCSV

265

JOUR

/WMS

T 21

1 SO

CI/W

MST

230

AIST

/ANT

H 26

1USD (F

) AN

TH 26

8GC(S

)

POLS

102GC

WMS

T 23

3GC

AIST

170US

D

HIST

101GC

SOCI

100

ANTH

113GC

HCSV

265

NFSC

200(

I)USD

ANTH

113GC

AAST

/ASS

T 11

0(I)GC

(F)

MEST

110(

I)GC (S

)

GEOG

102GC

GEOG

103(

I) SO

CI 10

0 TE

CH 18

0

GEOG

102GC

HIST

105

(I)GC

RH

PM 21

0

D2.

→

Socie

tal

Inst

itutio

ns:

Selec

t 1 co

urse

.

AFAM

170US

D CH

ST/ S

OCI 1

57 U

SD (F

) AA

ST/ S

OCI 1

52 U

SD (S

) GE

OG 10

5USD

ANTH

116GC

SOCI

200

SWRK

170

ANTH

112GC

ECON

101

GEOG

105US

D

ANTH

140GC

SOCI

227

WMS

T 17

0USD

ECON

102

LAST

110GC

AN

TH 11

2GC

GEOG

106US

D

POLS

101

ANTH

140GC

HIST

102GC

PSYC

152

ECON

102

HIST

102GC

LAST

110GC

ANTH

140GC

HIST

102GC

JOUR

210US

D

ANTH

112GC

ANTH

116GC

GEOG

106US

D

E.

→

Lear

ning

for L

ife:

Selec

t 1 co

urse

.

CHLD

252US

D KI

NE 29

5 RE

LS 26

4(I)GC

ENGL

240

PSYC

101

SOCI

133

NFSC

100

PSYC

101

CHLD

255

CMST

234

SOCI

133

CHLD

272GC

IN

ST 11

0(I)

RELS

264(

I)GC

CHLD

252US

D EN

GL 24

0

PHIL

217

HCSV

160

KINE

110

RHPM

180

CMST

235US

D IN

ST 11

0(I)

KINE

247GC

CSCI

102

JOUR

255(

I)

PHIL

207

ENVL

105(

I)

NFSC

100

UNIV

105(

I)

Uppe

r Divi

sion

GE P

athw

ay C

ours

es (9

uni

ts):

Sele

ct 1

Path

way a

nd co

mpl

ete 1

cour

se fr

om ea

ch D

iscip

linar

y Are

a with

in th

at P

athw

ay

Met

In Progress

Needed

Note:

It is

reco

mmen

ded t

hat y

ou co

mplet

e at le

ast 4

5 sem

ester

units

befor

e you

begin

your

uppe

r divi

sion P

athwa

y cou

rses.

Path

ways

→

Disc

iplin

ary

Area

s ↓

Diversity

Studies

Ethics,

Justice&

Policy

Food

Studies

Gender&

Sexuality

Studies

Global

Development

Studies

Great

Books&

Ideas

Health&

Wellness

International

Studies

Science,

Technology

&Values

Sustainability

UD-B

.

→

Natu

ral S

cienc

es

BIOL

302(

Z)

BIOL

323

GEOS

355

BIOL

303

BIOL

/PHI

L 322

(I)

GEOS

355

GEOS

375

NFSC

310GC

PSSC

390GC

(F)

PSSC

392GC

(S)

BIOL

323

HCSV

/WMS

T 36

8 MC

GS/ N

URS

326(

Z)

NFSC

310GC

PSSC

390GC

(F)

PSSC

392GC

(S)

SCED

300(

Z)

BIOL

318

BIOL

345

NFSC

303

GEOS

355

HCSV

323

PHYS

376(

Z)

BIOL

303

TECH

380(

Z)BI

OL 33

4 GE

OS 33

0(Z)

PS

SC 39

0GC(F

) PS

SC 39

2GC(S

)

UD-C

.

→

Arts

/ Hum

aniti

es

ENGL

364(

I)USD

FLNG

355US

D

PHIL

337(

I)USD

ENGL

355(

F)

ENGL

356(

S)

PHIL

323(

Z) G

C

PHIL

341(

Z) G

C

HIST

341US

D

PHIL/

RELS

339(

Z)HI

ST/W

MST

326(

F)

HIST

/WMS

T 33

5USD (S

) MC

GS 31

0(Z)

USD

MCGS

/THE

A 31

5USD

ENGL

353US

D

HIST

382GC

/LAST

350GC

(F)

HIST

381GC

(S)

RELS

332GC

HUMN

300(

Z)

PHIL

303(

I)(F)

PH

IL 34

0(I)(

S)

ENGL

354(

S)

ENGL

355(

F)

ENGL

342(

Z)

HIST

305GC

PHIL

327(

Z)

FLNG

380(

F)

FLNG

340(

S)

HIST

/MES

T 36

2(Z)

GC

(F)

HIST

/MES

T 36

3 GC (S

) RE

LS 33

2GC

ENGL

350(

I)USD

PHIL

370(

I) RE

LS 35

7(I)

ENGL

338(

Z)HI

ST 34

1USD

PHIL

336US

D

UD-D

.

→

Socia

l Scie

nces

ECON

340(

I)

GEOG

352US

D MC

GS/S

OCI 3

50US

D

ECON

340(

I)PO

LS 36

5(Z)

USD

PSYC

391US

D

ABUS

390GC

ANTH

340(

Z) G

C

GEOG

301(

I) GC

CHLD

333(

Z)PO

LS/W

MST

324(

I)(F)

MC

GS/P

OLS

401(

I)USD (S

)

PSYC

345

ANTH

376(

Z) G

C (F)

AN

TH 37

7(Z)

GC

(S)

GEOG

/LAST

357GC

SO

CI 37

0GC(F

) SO

CI 35

4GC(S

)

SOSC

300

ECON

352

HCSV

370

SOCI

363

GEOG

303GC

POLS

341

SOCI

370GC

(F)

SOCI

335 U

SD(S

)

ANTH

333GC

MADT

307

PSYC

321

ECON

365

GEOG

304

SOCI

420 U

SD

Lege

nd:

(I) W

riting

Inten

sive

(Z)

Caps

tone (

Cour

ses l

isted

with

“Z” c

an be

used

to sa

tisfy

a Cap

stone

“Z” O

R W

riting

Inten

sive “

I”, no

t both

.) (U

SD)

Unite

d Stat

es D

iversi

ty (G

C)

Glob

al Cu

lture

s (F

) Of

fered

fall s

emes

ters o

nly

(S)

Offer

ed sp

ring s

emes

ters o

nly

Upda

ted 12

/2017

Back to Admin Home

GE Five Year Program Review Student Survey Informed Consent

Hello Chico State Student:

The following online survey is part of an important university five year review for the General Education(G.E.) program. You are currently enrolled in an upper-division G.E. class, so you have nearly completed all of your G.E. requirements. That means we need your input for our review – we want comprehensive feedback from students on their experiences in G.E. at Chico State.

Please fill out the following survey, so we can add your voice to our report, which will provide us guidancefor the next 5 years of administering the G.E. program. Note that this isn’ t a review of the particular G.E. course(s) you are in now or theinstructors in those courses – your responses will be about the program as a whole.

Taking part in this research is completely voluntary. If you choose to participate in this research, it is veryimportant that you answer the questions as thoughtfully and frankly as possible. All your answers will be kept strictly confidential. W e would alsolike to emphasize that you will NOT be penalized if you choose to omit answers to some questions on the survey .

Thank you for filling out this survey as completely and honestly as you can. We are asking you to do thisbecause we value your experience and ideas about how to improve the General Education program here at Chico State.

Thank you very much for your help in making the Chico State G.E. Program as worthwhile as possible!

Christopher Nichols Chair, CAB (G.E. Committee)

Page Break

General Education Feedback

Appendix C - Student Survey Questions

4 3 2 1

General questions about feedback regarding the GE ProgramReview

StronglyAgree Agree Disagree Strongly

Disagree

Q1 1. The GE program is a valuable part of myeducation.

Q2 2. Some of my best educational experiences at ChicoState are in GE classes.

Q3 3. GE courses help me understand and appreciate thevisual and performing arts .

Q4 4. GE courses help me understand and appreciateculture, history, literature, and language.

Q5 5. GE courses help me understand and appreciatesocial systems and the social sciences.

Q6 6. GE courses help me understand and appreciatescience and technology.

Q7 7. GE courses help me understand the role of culturaldiversity in the human experience.

Q88. The GE program helps prepare me to be an active,constructive participant in my community and in society.

Q99. The GE program has helped me explore a widevariety of fields of study useful in my overall intellectual development.

Q10 10. It is important that GE provides broad exposureto a number of fields of study.

Q11 11. I understand how the GE program works.

Q12 12. The GE Pathways program is well organized andeasy to navigate.

Q13 13. The Pathways provide a good structure to the GEprogram.

Q14 14. It is easy to get into the GE classes I need tograduate.

Q15 15. My Writing Intensive courses in GE helpedimprove my writing.

Q16 16. Students have to take too many GE courses.

Page Break

17. Have you completed or are you planning to complete a Pathway minor? Q17Yes Yes (If Yes, skip to question 18)No No (If No, skip to question 23)

Page Break

4Strongly

3Agree

2Disagree

1Strongly

√ = 1 Not interested in the available Pathways Q23__1√ = 1 Not helpful to career Q23__2√ = 1 Too complicated Q23__3√ = 1 Could not obtain the classes Q23__4√ = 1 I am taking non-GE courses as substitutions Q23__5√ = 1 Was not aware of Pathway minors Q23__6√ = 1 Q23__7 Other (please specify)

Agree Disagree

Q18 18. My Pathway Minor was a valuable part of my GEeducation.

Q19 19. My Pathway Minor will help me in my career.

Q2020. My lower division Pathway courses prepared mewell for my upper division

Pathway courses

Q2121. There was good cohesion between my lowerdivision Pathway courses and

my upper division Pathway courses. 22. Why did you choose the Pathway minor you are pursuing? Q22You Have 3200 Characters Remaining.

Page Break

23. If you are not going to complete a Pathway minor, why not? (check all that apply) Q23

Nested Question Group for Response [7] of question [Q23]

If 'Other,' please describe Q23_Other

You Have 250 Characters Remaining.

Page Break

4 3 2 1

How helpful were the following resources for your GEadvising:

Very helpful

Moderatelyhelpful

Not at all helpful

Have not used

Q24 24. Advising in Student Services Center.Q25 25. Pathway Coordinator.

For Survey Content Questions, contact Institutional Research: ir@csuchico.edu

Q26 26. Advisor in the department of my Major.27. What features, if any, of the General Education program at Chico State do you appreciate? Q27You Have 3200 Characters Remaining.

28. What features of the General Education program at Chico State, if any, should be changed or eliminated?Q28

You Have 3200 Characters Remaining.

29. Please share other comments regarding your experience with the General Education program: Q29You Have 3200 Characters Remaining.

Page Break

Thank you for participating in this importantprogram review!

Your responses will be kept confidential!

Back to Admin Home

GE Five Year Program Review - Faculty Survey Informed Consent

Dear Faculty Member:

This year the General Education committee at Chico State is doing a review of the entire G.E. program. We want input from as many facultymembers as possible – both those who teach lots of G.E. courses and those who teach few or none – to guide us towards the next 5 years of running G.E.at Chico State.

You will find below a link to a survey. Please fill it out so we can add your voice to our report.

Thank you very much for your help in making the Chico State G.E. Program as worthwhile as possible!

Christopher Nichols Chair, CAB (G.E. Committee)

Page Break

General Education Pathways Program Feedback1. How familiar are you with Chico State’s General Education Pathways Program?

Q14 Very Familiar3 Somewhat Familiar2 Somewhat Unfamiliar1 Very Unfamiliar

2. Have you taught GE classes at Chico State since the new program was introduced in Fall 2012? Q2Yes Yes (If Yes, move to question 3)No No (If No, skip to question 6)

Page Break

Have You Taught classes in the new General Education Program

3. Please list the GE classes you are teaching or have taught at CSU Chico since Fall 2012. (Please use the following format to list classes:BADM 101-02) Q3You Have 3200 Characters Remaining.

4. Do you know if your GE courses are in or affiliated with any GE Pathway(s)?Q42 Yes1 No

Appendix D - Faculty Survey Questions

√ = 1 Diversity Studies Q5__1√ = 1 Ethics, Justice and Policy Q5__2√ = 1 Food Studies Q5__3√ = 1 Gender and Sexuality Studies Q5__4√ = 1 Global Development Q5__5√ = 1 Great Books and Ideas Q5__6√ = 1 Health and Wellness Q5__7√ = 1 International Studies Q5__8√ = 1 Science, Technology and Values Q5__9√ = 1 Sustainability Q5__10√ = 1 Don’t know/not sure Q5__11

5. If your GE courses are affiliated with a Pathway(s), please identify the GE Pathway(s). (Check all that apply) Q5

Page Break

Demographic Questions

6. Please list your home department. Q6You Have 125 Characters Remaining.

7. Have you served on the Curriculum Advisory Board (which oversees the GE program)? Q72 Yes1 No

8. Do you think GE adds value to a student's undergraduate degree? Q83 Yes2 No1 No Opinion

9. Do you think a GE Pathway minor can add value to a student's undergraduate degree? Q93 Yes2 No1 No Opinion

10. Do you think the current number of ten GE Pathways is too many? Or too few? Q104 Too many3 Just right2 Too few1 No opinion

Page Break

Feedback Questions on GE Program Review

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

The ten Pathways are listed below. Please rate each of themfrom 1–10 in terms of their appropriateness in a GE program.

10 Most Appropriate

9 8 7 6 5 Appropriate 4 3 2

1 Least Appropriate

Q11 11. Diversity StudiesQ12 12. Ethics, Justice and PolicyQ13 13. Food StudiesQ14 14. Gender and Sexuality StudiesQ15 15. Global DevelopmentQ16 16. Great Books and IdeasQ17 17. Health and WellnessQ18 18. International StudiesQ19 19. Science, Technology and Values

3 Yes2 No1 Not able to judge, I am unfamiliar with the GE program that was in place prior to Fall 2012.

Q20 20. Sustainability21. If you would like to see an additional Pathways in the GE Program, what would its focus be? Q21You Have 3200 Characters Remaining.

22. The current GE program (with the Pathways) is an improvement over the former GE program. Q22

Page Break

Pathway Minor Questions4 3 2 1

Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements. Choices will be: Strongly Agree, Agr ee, Disagree,Strongly Disagree.

StronglyAgree Agree Disagree Strongly

Disagree

Q23 23. The GE program at CSU, Chico is a valuable part of our students'education

Q24 24. Some of the best classes at CSU, Chico are GE classes.

Q25 25. GE courses at CSU, Chico add very little to our students'education.

Q2626. The GE Program helps prepare students to be active, constructiveparticipants in their communities and in society .

Q2727. The GE Program helps students explore a wide variety of fields ofstudy useful in their overall intellectual development.

Q2828. It is important that GE at CSU, Chico provides students withbroad exposure to a number of fields of study.

Q29 29. The GE program at CSU, Chico is well-organized and easy tonavigate.

Q30 30. GE Pathways are intellectually coherent.

Q31 31. GE Pathways are effectively coordinated to ensure intellectualcohesion.

Q32 32. I know what the GE Student Learning Outcomes are.

Q33 33. I make a concerted effort to address the GE SLO's associated withmy GE course(s).

Q34 34. GE advising is helpful to students in planning the classes theyneed to take.

Page Break

35. What do you consider the best characteristics of the current GE program? Q35You Have 3200 Characters Remaining.

36. Do you have any suggestions for improving the current GE program? Q36You Have 3200 Characters Remaining.

For Survey Content Questions, contact Institutional Research: ir@csuchico.edu

37. Please share other comments regarding your experience with the GE program. Q37You Have 3200 Characters Remaining.

Page Break

Thank you for participating in this survey of the GE ProgramReview!

Your responses will be kept confidential!

Back to Admin Home

GE Five Year Program Review - Staff Survey Informed Consent

Dear Staff Member:

This year the General Education committee at Chico State is doing a review of the entire G.E. program. Wewant input from as many staff members as possible, especially those whose work is influenced in some capacity by General Education (i.e. advise students, teach a course, process substitutions, etc.). This valuable feedback will help to guide us towards the next 5 years of runningG.E. at Chico State.

Please click on the button below to go through the survey, so we can add your voice to our report. To ensurefreedom in responding, this survey is completely anonymous.

Thank you very much for your help in making the Chico State G.E. Program as worthwhile as possible!

Christopher Nichols Chair, CAB (G.E. Committee)

Page Break

General Education Pathways Program Feedback1. How familiar are you with Chico State’s General Education Pathways Program?

Q14 Very Familiar3 Somewhat Familiar2 Somewhat Unfamiliar1 Very Unfamiliar

2. Do you think GE adds value to a student's undergraduate degree? Q22 Yes1 No

Appendix E - Staff Survey Questions

3. Do you think a GE Pathway minor can add value to a student's undergraduate degree? Q33 Yes2 No1 No Opinion

4. Do you think the current number of ten GE Pathways is too many? Or too few? Q44 Too Many3 Just Right2 Too Few1 No opinion/Not sure

5. The current GE program - with the Pathways - is an improvement over the former GE program - Mark “NotSure” if you are unfamiliar with the GE program that was in place prior to Fall 2012.

Q5 3 Yes2 No1 Not sure

Page Break

Pathways Program Appropriateness Feedback

The ten Pathways are listed below. Rate each of them from 10 to 1 in terms of their appropriateness in a GE program (10 = most appropriate to 1 = least appropriate)

10 9 8 7 6 5 1

Most Appropriate 10

9 8 7 6 Appropriate5

4 3 2

4 3 2Least Appropriate 1

Q6 6. Diversity StudiesQ7 7. Ethics, Justice and PolicyQ8 8. Food Studies

Q9 9. Gender and SexualityStudies

Q10 10. Global DevelopmentQ11 11. Great Books and IdeasQ12 12. Health and WellnessQ13 13. International Studies

Q14 14. Science, Technology andValues

Q15 15. Sustainability

Page Break

General Education Pathways Program Appropriateness Feedback

Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of the following statements. Choices will be: Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree, and Not Applicable.

4 3 2 1 99

StronglyAgree Agree Not

Applicable Disagree StronglyDisagree

Q16 16. The GE program at CSU, Chico is well-organized and easy to navigate.

Q17 17. GE Pathways are intellectually coherent.

Q18 18. GE Pathways are effectively coordinated toensure intellectual cohesion.

Q19 19. I know what the GE Student LearningOutcomes are.

Q20

20. GE advising team - Admissions TransferAdvisors, Academic Advisors and Graduation Advisors - are helpful to students in planning the classes they need to take.

Q2121. GE advising requires a disproportionateamount of effort compared to advising in the major .

Q22 22. Faculty are knowledgeable about GeneralEducation and the GE program.

Q2323. If applicable - As an advisor I feel confident inmy understanding of and how to advise in the GE Program.

Q24 24. If applicable, I utilize the General Educationwebsite as a resource when advising.

Q25

25. I like the way the GE courses connect tocampus programs and events - Book in Common, This W ay toSustainability conference, Town Hall, etc.

Q26 26. Involvement in GE is highly valued on thiscampus.

Page Break

Open-Ended Feedback Questions on GE Program Review

28. Do you have any suggestions for improving the current GE program? Q28You Have 3200 Characters Remaining.

For Survey Content Questions, contact Institutional Research: ir@csuchico.edu

29. Please share other comments regarding your experience with the GE program. Q29You Have 3200 Characters Remaining.

30. What do you consider the best characteristics of the current GE program? Q30You Have 3200 Characters Remaining.

Page Break

Thank you for participating in this survey of the GEProgram Review!

Your responses will be kept confidential!