The Global Citizenship Program: A Report of the Global Citizenship Project Task Force to the Webster University Faculty Senate, November 2010Bruce Umbaugh, Professor of Philosophy and Director, GCPTF

Table of Contents

Background 1

The approach of the Task Force 5

General Education Program Models 8

Which model? 10

Outline of earlier GCPTF recommendations and intent 13

Final Program Recommendations, November 10, 2010 15Overall 15Goals 15Requirements for courses 17Recommendations for implementation 19Additional recommendations 20

Rationales 21General 21Program components 21Breadth 25Accommodations 25Transfer 27

Assessment 29

Faculty and Curriculum Development 31

Advisor Training 32

Summary of recommendations 33

Appendix 1 35

Bibliography 37

0

Background

In June 2009, in a series of unanimous votes, the Faculty Senate of Webster University articulated a new mission for the undergraduate, general education program – now to be called the Global Citizenship Program (GCP) – and created and charged the Global Citizenship Project Task Force (GCPTF). The GCPTF was charged with conducting an open, transparent, and inclusive process to identify the core competencies of global citizenship and to identify best practices in general education and general education assessment, making recommendations to the Senate for the creation and implementation of the Global Citizenship Program, overseeing the implementation of the Global Citizenship Program, and subsequently dissolving. (See Appendix 1.) This report offers some background to help members of the Webster community understand the process, articulates the recommendations of the Global Citizenship Project Task Force, and presents a brief rationale for the program recommendations.

Engaging in an effort to devise an effective program of general education is one of the biggest tasks a faculty body undertakes. As Gaston and Gaff put it:

whereas most educational decisions can be made by individuals or small groups of faculty in their departments, the entire faculty must coalesce around a single program of general education. (Gaston & Gaff, 2009, p. 7)

Only rarely do the faculty as a whole body address curricular decisions. Faculty members carry diverse language and unarticulated assumptions into discussions about curriculum. These factors compound the difficulty of such a collective effort.

The GCPTF has facilitated conversation using shared language and assumptions. In addition to conducting its own research and fact-finding, the Task Force included twelve non-member faculty in travel to conferences, conducted a series of coffees and lunches for open discussion (attended by approximately one-half of the non-administrative, full-time faculty), presented research findings at brown bag lunches, and made presentations and participated in discussion at two faculty institutes, five or more meetings of the Faculty Assembly, two Worldwide Directors meetings, three school or college faculty meetings, two department faculty meetings, and multiple meetings with the leadership teams of one department and one school.

Faculty members approach curricular discussions from diverse points of view, and there is little consensus on the rationale for existing general education programs. Variously, faculty members identify the aims as breadth of study, imparting disciplinary knowledge, basic skill acquisition, providing foundational knowledge, improving student retention, making students educated persons, enabling students to synthesize disparate information and make interdisciplinary connections, helping students to become lifelong learners, and more. (Virginia, 1999)

1

We are forced to look outside the institution for much of our evidence to guide making decisions about a new program, because we lack adequate assessment data regarding the programs currently in force. Anecdotally, faculty frequently report that existing programs do not adequately prepare students for the sorts of work expected of them in more advanced courses. The University’s current general education programs do not have explicitly stated missions.

Developing skills takes time and repeated practice, yet current programs require students to address skill areas only once. A program that approached student development more intentionally could help in several ways, not only by providing repeated practice at expected skills, but also by helping students to understand the faculty’s expectations. By the same token, moving from programs with no missions or coherence to a more intentionally designed program with a clear mission might help students to understand why the faculty expects them to complete a program of study beyond the requirements of their major field.

The Task Force found that Webster’s experience is much like that of other institutions of higher education in the past few decades. Jerry G. Gaff, in "General Education at Decade's End: The Need for a Second Wave of Reform,” summarized critiques of American colleges and universities in the 1980s as alleging, “too many students failed to develop the marks of generally educated people—a broad span of knowledge; skills to communicate clearly, to think logically and critically, and to get along with different kinds of people; the capacity to work independently and as a part of a team to solve problems.” (Gaff, 1989)

According to a story in the Webster University Journal, the faculty began discussing general degree requirements in 1985, only approving the University’s first general education program in 1992. According to the 2008 Webster University Self-study Report, in the late 1980s

a faculty committee developed a list of voluntary education goals which students were urged (but not required) to fulfill during their time at Webster. A team visit by North Central accreditors in 1988 pushed Webster to develop a set of clear and sensible requirements. (Webster University, 2008)

The ultimate result was the general education programs Webster has now: the “four of nine areas” program for students pursuing Professional Baccalaureate degrees, the 36-hour, disciplinary distribution program for students in the School of Communications, and the “nine areas” program for all others. To make our educational opportunities more readily available to students who matriculate elsewhere and transfer to complete their Baccalaureate degree programs at Webster we evaluate transfer courses in relation to our own curriculum, waive the (lower-level-only) general education program for students who have earned the Associate of Arts (AA) degree, and develop transfer agreements to guide students

2

studying at other schools in taking courses that will meet the expectations we have here.

In addition to the general sense of dissatisfaction with existing programs, two other considerations helped to move the Faculty Senate to initiate the process of re-envisioning undergraduate, general education. One was the adoption of a new University Mission Statement, as a result of a planning process started in 2007 as part of the University’s self-study process for reaccreditation. The other was the most recent Comprehensive Evaluation Visit for the Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Universities, in 2008.

The new Mission Statement reads:

Webster University, a worldwide institution, ensures high quality learning experiences that transform students for global citizenship and individual excellence.

This replaced the page-long Mission Statement that had been adopted in 1992.

Such language was not completely new, but rather dates at least to the strategic planning process of 2000. That Strategic Plan includes a Vision that refers to “empowering [students] to reach their full potential as productive citizens in the global community.” The action plan identifies as a “key area” to enhance institutional quality “Building a Global Citizenry.” And the plan calls on the University to “expand the curriculum to promote the values of global citizenship.” The newest mission statement arose out of this context and was one reason for the Senate to begin the process of rethinking undergraduate degree requirements.

In 2008, the University completed its self-study process for reaccreditation and hosted members of a Visit Team representing the Higher Learning Commission. The “Assurance” section of the Team Report presents the Team’s evaluation whether each Criterion for accreditation is met, and cites evidence that criteria are met, require organizational attention, or require Commission follow-up. The Report finds fault with Webster’s “lack of progress in implementing a robust, campus-wide assessment program and completion of a full cycle of assessment,” and called for follow-up in the form of a progress report. (Talburt, 2008)

With respect to the general education program, specifically, the Report found a need for institutional attention, rather than Commission follow-up. The Report stated:

The team found no evidence of a clear feedback loop between general education assessment data and the improvement of teaching and learning. (4b) As the institution moves forward with assessment, general education and graduate programs need to be included. (Talburt, 2008))

3

In February 2009, Webster submitted a proposal to send a team to the Association of American Colleges and Universities’ Institute on General Education and Assessment. The proposal was accepted, and a team participated in the Institute in May and June.

In June, Faculty Senate formed the Global Citizenship Project Task Force. Members have included one student (Emily Bahr), faculty from the five schools and colleges (Paula Hanssen, Chris Risker, Kit Jenkins, Vicki McMullin, and Gary Glasgow), a faculty member from the undergraduate Curriculum Committee (John Aleshunas), faculty with responsibility for International Studies, General Studies, interdisciplinary programs, and Freshman Seminars (Donna Campbell, John Watson, Kate Parsons, Larry Baden, and Robin Assner), the Assistant Director for Undergraduate Advising (Kim Kleinman), the General Education Coordinator (Gary Kannenberg), members of the General Education Institute team (Bruce Umbaugh and Stephanie Schroeder), an Academic Director from the International and Extended Campus network (Ron Daniel), the Director of First-year Experience (Sarah Tetley), the Dean of Students (Ted Hoef), the Head of Instruction & Liaison Services at Emerson Library (Holly Hubenschmitt), and the five school and college deans (Benjamin Ola Akande, Debra Carpenter, Brenda Fyfe, Peter Sargent, and David Carl Wilson).

4

The approach of the Task Force

We have sought to advance the interests of students in a principled manner, beginning with the mission of Webster University and the parallel mission given to the new general education system: the Global Citizenship Program.

Figure 1 – The General Education Reform Process

We were charged with identifying the core competencies required for responsible global citizenship in the 21st century. In the fall, we recommended that we largely adopt the AAC&U "Essential Learning Outcomes" as statements of those competencies. Throughout the coffees and lunches preceding that recommendation, and in discussion at the November 2009 meeting of the Faculty Assembly, we shared these outcomes with members of the University community. We found overwhelming consensus that this approach would be consistent with what we view to be best for our students. That was not surprising, since the "Essential Learning Outcomes" represent AAC&U's codification of the consensus view of what academics and employers alike expect students to learn as part of their undergraduate educations. (Accreditation requirements in business, nursing, and teacher education were also taken into consideration during the multiyear dialogue to develop the outcomes.)

5

Subsequently, in the remainder of Fall 2009 and continuing in Spring 2010, we turned to thinking about how we as a university might lead students to achieve those outcomes and how we might tell how well we were doing at it. In other words, we moved to considering different models of general education programs and related "delivery mechanisms," on one hand, and models of program assessment, on the other.

The learning outcomes include two, broad "knowledge" areas (of human cultures and of the physical and natural world). In the best case for student learning, addressing these would not involve only knowledge acquisition, but, rather, study directed also at achieving various of the "skills" and "understanding" outcomes, as well. So, for example, in a history or a literature course, we might expect students to have practice that would help achieve greater competence at skills such as written communication and information literacy, as well as content knowledge of human cultures. Students in a course on the environment might complete assignments that increase their knowledge both of human cultures and of the physical and natural world, as well as their quantitative literacy, teamwork, civic knowledge and engagement, ethical reasoning, and integrative learning. Intercultural knowledge and competence might be developed in courses that also develop oral communication and creative and critical thinking. And so on.

(All of that depends on the details of what happens in the course, naturally, not only on the topic of the course.)

Members of the GCPTF and others in our community have been impressed by the research on high-impact learning practices. Some teaching and learning practices have extraordinary effects on students that go well beyond the learning that takes place in the experiences themselves. George Kuh reports that students participating in “high-impact practices” (such as first-year seminars, internships, collaborative projects, global learning, problem-based learning, undergraduate research, service learning, capstone experiences, learning communities) have higher grade point averages than other students, self-report having learning more than other students, and are more likely to continue in school than other students. These relationships are more pronounced for students at greater risk (lower test scores, e.g., or racial minority status) and for students participating in more such activities. (Kuh, High-impact Educational Practices: What They Are, Who Has Access to Them, and Why They Matter, 2008)

Rather than continuing to provide such experiences merely as options for students, we committed to building them into the program requirements. This shift in thinking about undergraduate education introduces complexities and forces us to learn new ways of approaching students and calls on us to address challenges we have not previously. Still, we concluded that the potential benefit from exposing students to these practices throughout their undergraduate coursework completely dwarfs the challenges and uncertainty.

6

Moreover, things students do beyond traditional, classroom study often play important roles in building the competencies described in the learning outcomes. The AAC&U statement of the Essential Learning Outcomes notes that the items under personal and social responsibility "should be fostered through active learning and engagement with diverse communities and real world challenges." So, the Task Force investigated these, as well.

At the open session on January 29, 2010, members of the GCPTF discussed co-curricular and community-based learning with other faculty and members of the University community. Attendees listed at least two dozen potentially relevant activities, including the Surfacing festival of student-written, directed, and acted plays, the computer programming contest, serving at Sts. Peter and Paul, the student AES conference, the European audio conference, Student Literacy Corps, interchange with Canadian students in art, Forensics and Debate, Model UN at multiple campuses, Webster LEADS, the national fashion show in Thailand, the Geneva version of LEADS, Delegates' Agenda, and Holden Public Policy Forum. These co-curricular activities build teamwork, foundations and skills for lifelong learning, problem solving, and more. They inherently rely on active learning and engagement with real world challenges for the learning that occurs, and they frequently involve engagement with diverse communities

In a similar vein, we have recommended that study abroad experience "count" for completing part of the requirements of the Global Citizenship Program. We have every reason to think that the experience of studying abroad develops intercultural knowledge and competence, for example. We also have reason to think that good internship experiences potentially teach things about personal and social responsibility. Again, the learning that occurs as a result of the experience itself involves engaging diverse communities, learning actively, and engaging real world problems.

The Task Force initially recommended that learning experiences beyond the classroom could substitute for traditional coursework for some of the requirements of the Global Citizenship Program. The final recommendations contained in this Report instead consolidate a range of experiential, high-impact, educational opportunities into the single category of “Practical Learning Experience.”

We have not recommended that internships, or study abroad, or service learning, or any other specific Practical Learning Experience be required of every student. We recognize that such experiences benefits students differently depending on their fields of study, sensibilities, aptitudes, and experiences. We further recognize that some such experiences could sometimes pose barriers to degree completion for the nontraditional students sometimes referred to as “adult learners.” For some students returning to school after years in the world of work, many such requirements could easily feel redundant. So, we have aimed to fashion the Practical Learning Experience requirement so as to capture the benefits of such high-impact

7

learning without imposing insurmountable or pointless hurdles for students or unbearable administrative burdens for faculty and others in advising.

General Education Program Models

Two familiar sorts of models for general education are the core and distribution models. In a distribution model, students choose courses from a “cafeteria line” of options for each of various required areas. In a core model, students instead take a required set of courses in common. Done right, core models promote coherence in the general education program, facilitate assessment, and allow instructors in the general education program to focus on program goals, as opposed to the goals of a major, in the general education courses. Core models can lend their identity as signature programs to the institution more broadly. (Think, for instance, of the Columbia University core or the great books approach of St. John's.) Core models present challenges in resource allocation and staffing (except, perhaps, when a specific unit is created with responsibility for general education). To the extent that the content of the core is developed to take greatest advantage of institutional strengths or to align with institutional values or mission, a core model may complicate student transfer. Also, many students value the greater choice and flexibility provided by a distribution model and resist the core structure. Core models require ongoing faculty development to bring new faculty on board and to maintain the distinctive focus of the program. Finally, the core curriculum inevitably overlaps with the content of disciplinary courses, yet does not count towards the major and may not be controlled by the department.

By contrast, the distribution model achieves flexibility at the cost of complicating assessment and sometimes promotes political quarreling or economic competition between departments that staff the program's courses. As another institution's general education reform committee noted, once in place, distribution models tend towards maintaining the status quo, save for the occasional addition of new objectives. Exploration within the distribution model can sometimes lead students to choice of a major, which is a benefit.

Distribution models canonize some departments service departments and others consumer departments, with the consequence that the groups have conflicting interests in the general education program. Nichols and Nichols point out that distribution models of general education are frequently adopted exactly because they avoid “necessary value judgments” about the value of courses and because they “[minimize] institutional conflict.”

This latter course of curriculum development in General Education does not fit well with most regional accreditation expectations and assuredly is not prone to facilitate an institution’s assessment efforts. This approach leads departments such as English, Math, History, etc., to implement some type of

8

course-based assessment procedures for their many service courses. Ordinarily, this results in a number of uncoordinated assessment activities, which are both burdensome and ineffective. While attractive from a campus political perspective, this in an approach that leads many General Education assessment efforts to “choke and die.” While challenging, approaching General Education curriculum development and assessment as a whole is in the long run much more preferable. (Nichols & Nichols, 2000)

Distribution models will be familiar to many of our faculty. They became commonplace, according to White, “because [general education] was typically posed in terms of the bodies of knowledge and/or courses all students should be required to take.” (White, 1994)

As higher education has moved towards learning outcomes assessment and greater purpose in the design of undergraduate degree requirements, distribution-only models have been called into question. The Irvine Group, comprising a number of former college presidents, reported in 1990 that distribution requirements:

have failed to accomplish what is intended. These courses amount to electives, not general education. For too many undergraduates, their educations do not fit into a coherent whole, and the distribution of courses is more frequently the result of campus political considerations than of educational ones. (p. 2)

With the move towards outcomes assessment and the recognition of the import of high-impact practices, the trend in higher education in recent decades has been away from distribution-only models. Only 15% of institutions surveyed by Hart and Associates rely on a distribution model with no other integrative features. (Hart Research Associates, 2009)

9

Which model?

The Global Citizenship Project Task Force's recommendations move to neither of the two poles, but, instead, attempt to garner the advantages of each and minimize the corresponding disadvantages. We have proposed a framework that has the advantages of greater coherence than our existing programs, with the concomitant benefits for assessment. With appropriate collaboration (and, perhaps, some evolution over time), we hope that students might appreciate their work in the program as coherent and still have the flexibility and choice that they (and we) clearly value.

Our current general education programs are all distribution model programs. They all consist of collections of credit hours earned for completing academic coursework. They all are structured to allow students to complete courses in any order and at any point in their enrollment. They demand as few as 12 and as many as 36 credit hours of the 128-hour minimum for graduation.

A committee studying and evaluating general education requirements at Pacific Lutheran University collected data from several sets of peer institutions. The figure below shows the fraction of hours required for graduation that are committed to general education at each of these other colleges and universities.

Figure 2 – General Education Percent of Graduation Requirements at 40 Schools

10

The variation is dramatic. Requirements range from about one-quarter to a full two-thirds of undergraduate credit hours meeting requirements of the general education program at these peer schools.

By comparison, Webster’s SOC 36-hour program requires students to commit 28% of the required 128 credit hours in completing general education. The Nine Areas program requires a commitment of 21% and the Professional Baccalaureate requirements require a commitment of just over nine percent of the minimum hours required for graduation. Webster’s three programs for general education, thus, would all fall near the lower bound relative to institutions in the Pacific Lutheran study, with none higher than fourth lowest

In all our discussion as a faculty about what we desire in a new program of undergraduate degree requirements, there has been no clamor to commit a much greater share of undergraduate education to the satisfaction of requirements of the Global Citizenship Program, rather than to study in students’ major fields, pursuit of minors or language competence, or freely chosen electives. If Webster were at the midpoint in the figure above, we could more easily require study in a large number of disciplines, mastery of a new language, or any of several other suggestions that have been made in meetings of the Faculty Assembly or on the discussion list. Without that freedom, the Task Force has felt constrained to try to construct an especially efficient program that can be effective in developing both knowledge and skills in our students.

Figure 3 – Credit hours devoted to requirements of Major, GCP, and elective courses

The figure above shows that a little over one-half of 128 credit hours would be

11

devoted to required courses (both the major and GCP) for a student with a 42-credit hour major completing the required 30 hours of the Global Citizenship Program. Fifty-six credit hours would remain available as electives or to be used in the pursuit of a minor or certificate.

The GCPTF recommends neither an old-fashioned core- nor a Seventies-era distribution-model program of general education. We propose maintaining much of the flexibility and choice of a distribution model. We propose building on high-impact practices and taking into account more of students' entire experience as undergraduates in addition to academic coursework. We propose moving towards a more developmental, purposeful structuring of student learning in general education, moving from a required first-year experience, through common sorts of courses and experiences, and finally through an upper-level, integrative, "keystone" course.

12

Outline of earlier GCPTF recommendations and intent

October 31, 2009 to Senate, followed by Faculty Assembly, November 10, 2009Learning outcomes recommended, principles stated

The Task Force presentation to the Assembly said, “Our intention is that the same set of goals should apply to all undergraduate, degree-seeking students. We further intend that no undergraduate program be compromised or disadvantaged by the Global Citizenship Program.” That same presentation expressed the intention that the Global Citizenship Program should promote integration, as well as the intention to build upon high-impact practices. The Faculty Assembly endorsed the “Global Citizenship Program” name (Overwhelming vote, with Yea votes not counted, 13 members voting Nay).

Spring Faculty Institute, March 26, 2010, and Faculty Assembly meetings, April 2010.

GCPTF presented recommendations concerning learning outcomes and program structure, but not program content. These recommendations included the “matrix” structure, which the Task Force subsequently withdrew in response to faculty discussion.

Faculty Assembly passed three motions:

The Faculty Assembly encourages the Task Force (a) to continue developing the Global Citizenship Program in the directions it has indicated so far, (b) to work collaboratively with academic departments to insure that no undergraduate major be compromised or disadvantaged by the change in general education programs, and (c) to work collaboratively with other parts of the University to prepare for eventual implementation. (Overwhelming approval: Yea votes not counted, 16 Nay.)

The Faculty Assembly endorses in principle the idea of a more purposeful program structure such as the Task Force has presented in Appendix 2. (Overwhelming approval: Yea votes not counted, 13 Nay.)

The Faculty Senate shall create a Global Citizenship Program Review Committee with authority to oversee coding of courses and other experiences for implementation of the Global Citizenship Program, subject to approval of clear implementation guidelines by the Faculty Assembly. All five schools/colleges shall be represented on the membership of the Committee.

13

Implementation: No later than September 30, 2010. (54 votes Yea, 37 Nay, 4 Abstentions.)

Faculty Assembly meetings, September 14 and 21, 2010, and Fall Faculty Institute, October 1, 2010

Recommendations concerning learning outcomes, program structure, and program content – subsequently revised in light of discussion.

14

Final Program Recommendations, November 10, 2010

Overall

Thirty credit hours, plus one “Practical Learning Experience” which may or may not be credit-bearing.

Goals

Knowledge of Human Cultures and the Physical and Natural World (achieved through five courses in the areas Roots of Cultures, Social Systems and Human Behavior, and Physical and Natural World)

Development of Intellectual and Practical Skills required for Responsible Global Citizenship (written and oral communication, critical and creative thinking, information literacy, quantitative literacy, teamwork – addressed repeatedly throughout the program)

Understanding of Personal and Global Responsibility (intercultural knowledge and competence, civic knowledge and engagement, ethical reasoning – addressed in Knowledge and Global Understanding Courses, as well as in the two Seminars)

Abilities to Integrate and Apply Learning (addressed in at least seven of eight courses and both Seminars)

Requirements for students entering as new full-time degree-seeking freshmen (who have not previously matriculated at another post-secondary institution or who have fewer than 16 credit hours of college credit):

Two Seminars: the first-year Great Thinkers Seminar and the upper-level Global Keystone Seminar. (6 hours, total)

Five Knowledge courses: two in the area Roots of Cultures, two in the area Social Systems and Human Behavior, one in the area Physical and Natural World. (15 hours, total)

Three other Global Citizenship Program courses: (at least) one Global Understanding course, (at least) one Quantitative Literacy course, and a Global Citizenship Program course of the student’s choice (9 hours, total)

15

One Practical Learning Experience: approved by the student’s advisor, with self-assessment and documentation furnished by the student

Figure 4 -- Global Citizenship Program Requirements Form

16

Breadth requirements: (1) No course required for the student’s first major may be used to meet the requirements of the Global Citizenship Program, (2) No course prefix may be used twice in satisfying the requirements for a given Knowledge area.

Accommodations for students completing high-credit-hour majors: On the initiative of the Department responsible for a high-credit-hour major (greater than 75 credit hours), the first breadth requirement may be waived.

Accommodations for students completing high-credit-hour majors leading to the B.F.A or B.M. degree: On the initiative of the department responsible for the major, both breadth requirements may be waived, or the Knowledge requirements may be reduced to one course in each area, or both.

Sequential degree students are not required to complete the University's Global Citizenship Program requirements. Transfer students entering with 16 or more hours of college credit, who have previously matriculated at another post-secondary institution, may satisfy the program requirements with a combination of Webster University courses and credits transferred from other, accredited institutions, subject to these constraints: (1) Students with an Associate in Arts (A.A.) will have fulfilled all of Webster University’s lower-level general education requirements, (2) for all students, the upper-level, Global Keystone Seminar must be completed at Webster University, (3) a student may substitute for the Great Thinkers Seminar either GNST 2200, Transfer Student Seminar, any equivalent course, or any course addressing integrative learning and skills for lifelong learning, whether taken at Webster University or elsewhere and whether required for the student’s major or not.

Requirements for courses

No course may be included in more than one of the named Global Citizenship Program areas (i.e., Roots of Cultures, Social Systems and Human Behavior, Physical and Natural World, Global Understanding, Quantitative Literacy).

Quantitative Literacy courses must show evidence of promise that they will help students to develop Quantitative Literacy. (Quantitative Literacy and the other outcomes referenced in this section may be understood for now as being operationalized according to the Rubrics developed through the Valid Assessment of Learning in Undergraduate Education (VALUE) project. As we develop the Global Citizenship Program and gain both evidence and experience, it might be desirable to modify these rubrics.)

All other courses must show evidence of promise that they will help students to improve their abilities with respect to at least one communications skill (i.e.,

17

Written Communication or Oral Communication) and at least one other skill from among Critical and Creative Thinking, Information Literacy, and Teamwork.

All courses in the areas Roots of Cultures, Social Systems and Human Behavior, and Global Understanding must show evidence of promise that they will help students to develop their understanding of personal and global responsibility in at least one of Intercultural Knowledge and Competence, Civic Knowledge and Engagement, and Ethical Reasoning.

To satisfy any of the named requirements, above, courses must be integrative or interdisciplinary. (A course that is neither integrative nor interdisciplinary may be included in the Global Citizenship Program, but only as the student choice course.)

Roots of Cultures courses are expected to help students develop knowledge of human cultures and the sources of meaning, focused by engagement with “big questions,” whether contemporary or enduring.

Social Systems and Human Behavior courses are expected to help students develop knowledge of human cultures and how people and their cultures and institutions work, focused by engagement with “big questions,” whether contemporary or enduring.

Physical and Natural World courses are expected to help students develop knowledge of the physical and natural world, focused by engagement with “big questions,” whether contemporary or enduring.

Global Understanding Courses are expected to help students understand cultures foreign to them, international languages, or forces that draw people of the world together and forces that push us apart.

Great Thinkers Seminars emphasize exploration and discovery through a range of topics, teach students to think critically in a community of learners, and set a standard for academic excellence that continues throughout the academic career of every student. “Great Thinkers” are visionaries who can be defined in various ways, from the well known to everyday people who find solutions to everyday questions. A great thinker has the necessary mindset, as well as the drive and desire, to learn. In completing this seminar, students become better critical and creative thinkers and cultivate the skills and knowledge necessary for lifelong learning. Other goals for the Great Thinkers Seminars include making students more purposeful in their thinking, exploring interdisciplinary approaches to subject matter, developing critical and creative thinking skills, improving communication skills, and developing a connection to Webster through interpersonal relationships.

18

Global Keystone Seminars serve as culminating, integrative experiences for the Global Citizenship Program. Students practice skills for lifelong learning and integrative learning through analysis, synthesis, integration and application (transfer) of prior learning (formal academic concepts as well as personal life experiences) to address complex problems, locally or globally. This course engages students in developing and using intellectual and practical skills to demonstrate their understanding of responsible global citizenship, through collaborative participation in meaningful, real-world projects and problem-solving experiences.

Practical Learning Experiences take place outside the context of college instructional coursework and contribute to a student’s achievement of one or more of the global citizenship learning outcomes. Although some credit-bearing experiences qualify (such as some internships), these need not be graded or for credit. Examples may include study abroad, internship, and service learning.

Recommendations for implementation

Prior to implementation: admissions training, advisor training (St. Louis and International), faculty and curricular development initiated, Global Citizenship Program Review Committee created, course coding begun.

First academic year: Program applies only to full-time, degree-seeking students, with fewer than 30 credit hours of college credit, who have not previously matriculated at a post-secondary institution, who are not majoring in programs in the departments of Dance, Music, and Theatre. Continue development, training, and coding.

Second academic year: Program applies to continuing GCP students and new full-time, degree-seeking students, with fewer than 30 hours of college credit, who have not previously matriculated at a post-secondary institution, who are not majoring in programs in the departments of Dance, Music, and Theatre only. Continue development, training, and coding. Advisor training extended campus U.S.

Third academic year: Program applies to the two previous years’ GCP students, new full-time, degree-seeking students, with fewer than 30 credit hours of college credit, who have not previously matriculated at a post-secondary institution, who are not majoring in programs in the departments of Dance, Music, and Theatre, and transfer students with fewer than 75 transfer credits outside the departments of Dance, Music, and Theatre. Continue development, training, and coding.

19

Fourth academic year: Program applies to all students previously in the program and to all newly enrolled students, without regard to transfer status or major department.

Additional recommendations

Beyond the recommendations for the Global Citizenship Program, members of the Task Force concluded that two other recommendations are warranted to help the new program succeed.

First, we were persuaded by the arguments of Mike Salevouris and others in our community that all of the Essential Learning Outcomes are things we desire for our students to achieve but that they need not all be outcomes for a general education program alone. In response, we abbreviated the list of outcomes built upon the Knowledge courses. We recommend, though, that the Webster faculty adopt the full list of learning outcomes as undergraduate learning outcomes, along with an outcome for study in depth (i.e., in each student’s major field of study).

Second, we think it important to address the special circumstances of undergraduate programs that aim primarily at professional preparation in the arts. While we are not persuaded that these programs should have free rein to implement whatever general education program requirements they choose for their students, neither are we persuaded that the integrity of the Global Citizenship Program demands that all students experience it in exactly the same way, without regard to the educational aims of their chosen programs of study. Historically, these students have participated in general education with accommodations on account of the different educational aims of their academic programs. The high-credit accommodations and BFA/BM accommodations are aimed to navigate between the Scylla of autonomy and the Charybdis of conformity. The delayed implementation for programs in Dance, Music, and Theatre are aimed at allowing our community to try to see whether it is a successful tack. We recommend that, if even our best faith efforts fail to accommodate simultaneously any established program of study and the GCP, the Assembly be committed to a further program modification that achieves the integrity of both undergraduate, baccalaureate education in general and also of specific professional degree disciplines at Webster.

20

Rationales

General

In general, the approach of the recommended program is to achieve the four main goals – knowledge of human cultures and the physical and natural world, practical and intellectual skills, understanding of personal and global responsibility, and abilities to integrate and apply what is learned – through repeated practice in the curriculum and co-curriculum (as well as in students’ work in their major fields of study). Rather than assigning a single function to each course or experience, each serves multiple functions, as indicated in the Figure, below.

Figure 5

This is the “mist” approach, to use John Aleshunas’ evocative metaphor.

Program components

The specific Knowledge divisions recommended reflect the AAC&U’s study of consensus in higher education on expected learning outcomes for undergraduate students, reflect the disciplinary divisions of the School of Communications general

21

education requirements, and are weighted according to the results of Task Force’s Learning Outcomes Survey and the Task Force’s assessment of resource constraints.

Skills reflect the AAC&U’s study of consensus in higher education on expected learning outcomes for undergraduate students, and the results of Task Force’s Learning Outcomes Survey. Emphasis on improving students’ abilities to communicate are routinely given high importance in such surveys, and our faculty often report that they are not prepared to teach those skills within courses for the major. A similar account can be given for critical and creative thinking. Information literacy is similarly foundational, and collaboration is widely regarded as a key skill for all of us in the 21st Century. (Shell, 2010)

Intercultural Knowledge and Competence, Ethical Reasoning, and Civic Knowledge and Engagement also reflect the AAC&U’s study of consensus in higher education on expected learning outcomes for undergraduate students, and the results of Task Force’s Learning Outcomes Survey. Taking seriously the mission for the Global Citizenship Program, the Task Force regards these as essential competencies for responsible global citizenship in the 21st Century. The aims of integration and application also reflect the AAC&U’s study of consensus in higher education on expected learning outcomes for undergraduate students. Also, the Task Force judges these crucial in preparing students to deal with uncertainty in the world after they graduate and as an important foundation for lifelong learning.

Quantitative Literacy is singled out as a separate requirement both because experience suggests that too many of our students will seek to avoid addressing these skills unless compelled to do so and because faculty stated they wanted to see it emphasized.

Global Understanding is singled out as a requirement to provide an additional occasion for students to participate in a high-impact practice and to ensure that we emphasize the global in “responsible global citizenship.” In addition, in discussion at coffees and lunches, and over the course of recent meetings of Faculty Assembly and Fall Faculty Institute, many faculty members expressed a desire to see this aspect of the program expressed obviously in the program requirements.

The Practical Learning Experience requirement gives value to experiential learning that takes place outside the context of college coursework and contributes to each student’s achievement of one or more of the global citizenship learning outcomes. The Practical Learning Experience may be a prior learning experience (living abroad, volunteer work, civic involvement, community leadership, etc.) or a future planned experience (e.g. service learning, study abroad, contribution to the community, volunteer work, participation in a professional or student organization). The advisor must agree that the experience is likely to contribute to the student’s achievement of one or more of the global citizenship learning outcomes. As Kuh

22

notes, such experiences are occasions:

for students to see how what they are learning works in different settings, on and off campus. These opportunities to integrate, synthesize, and apply knowledge are essential to deep, meaningful learning experiences. While internships and field placements are obvious venues, service learning and study abroad require students to work with their peers beyond the classroom and test what they are learning in unfamiliar situations. ((Kuh, High-impact Educational Practices: What They Are, Who Has Access to Them, and Why They Matter, 2008)

The Great Thinkers Seminars and the Keystone Seminars are two examples of High Impact Practices that are recommended by AAC&U. Considerable evidence supports the benefits that these two seminars have when they bookend students’ general education experience. Students beginning college study fresh from high school often have confused ideas about what to expect from college education and experience. (Boyer, 1987) Students new to college frequently report they are not confident they can succeed in college without special help. (Astin, The American Freshman: National norms for fall 1993, 1994) This is the thinking that motivated the introduction of freshman seminars in an effort simultaneously to provide support for students transitioning to college, to set expectations for their academic experience while attending Webster, and to prepare them to persist and succeed in their study here.

Pascarella and Terenzini report, “The weight of the evidence suggests that a first-semester freshman seminar is positively linked with both freshman-year persistence and degree completion. This positive link persists even when academic aptitude and secondary school achievement are taken into account.”(Pascarella & Ternzini, 1991) That has been Webster’s experience, as well. Since the implementation of freshman seminar at Webster, retention has increased. Since all new freshmen have to take a seminar, we lack a control group for good statistical analysis. Still, we know freshman seminar is not a reason students report for leaving but may be a reason why they stay at Webster. Sum & Substance 2009 shows our first-time freshman completion rates are higher than Consortium for Student Retention Data Exchange (CSRDE) selective institutions.

The recommendation for requiring the Global Keystone Course stems from the desire to insure that undergraduate students participate in high-impact practices and from the desire to provide an occasion for students to practice integrating what they are learning – within the Global Citizenship Program, but also in the courses for their major, their other studies, and all their experiences. Pascarella and Terenzini advocate for capstone experiences on the basis of their research finding that “[intellectual development] is stimulated by academic experiences that purposefully provide for integration.” (Pascarella & Ternzini, 1991)

23

The Global Keystone Course is intended to enhance both integration and engagement. Kuh found:

A well-designed culminating experience . . . can also be a springboard for connecting learning to the world beyond the campus. NSSE results show a net positive relationship for students who have had some form of culminating experience after controlling for a host of student and institutional variables. (Kuh, High-impact Educational Practices: What They Are, Who Has Access to Them, and Why They Matter, 2008)

In addition, Task Force members and others were impressed by several conference sessions on general education programs at other colleges and universities that employ capstone courses as part of the general education core. The general education requirements at Lehman College, in The Bronx, New York, for example, require that all students complete two interdisciplinary, capstone courses: The Humanities and the Sciences, and The American Experience. For students who transfer having earned a CUNY/SUNY Associate’s degree, the lower-division requirements are counted as having been satisfied, the two upper-level, capstone courses are required. (Prohaska & Whittaker, 2010)

A Task Force similar to ours, at North Carolina State University, found the 1994-era general education program at that school was perceived as “disjointed” and as a “checklist” with no intentional way for students to integrate or otherwise make connections among the various courses. The recommendations which arose out of that process included eliminating school- or college-specific mandates of courses for students within them to take, as well as introduction of first-year and capstone courses for the general education program.

As a coda to their general education, students will complete an interdisciplinary capstone course as a way for them to reflect on their general education experience and to see how these courses connect to each other and to their major courses. . . . . The addition of the First Year GER Course and the Capstone serves two purposes. Most importantly, they will serve to provide coherence and structure for the entire General Education Program as noted above. However, they will also serve as the primary arenas for assessment of general education at NC State. This should simplify the process as compared to the current system, in addition to making general education assessment more efficient and effective. (GERTF, 2006)

Our research found that many schools with recently renewed general education programs feature general education capstone requirements. The Task Force settled on the name “Keystone” for the general education capstone course to make it easier to distinguish between requirements and expectations within the Global Citizenship

24

Program and within the various majors, as well as to connote “bringing together” rather than “completing.”

Finally, the student choice category is a flexible option because faculty and students alike have communicated to the Task Force that they value the flexibility for students to choose in our existing programs. For some students, it will allow for additional depth of study (e.g., an additional semester of a language or pursuit of a minor). For some students, it will be a place for a skills course to enhance their writing abilities. For all students it provides additional “mist” to help develop the core competencies required for responsible global citizenship in the 21st Century.

Breadth

Many faculty have stressed the importance of breadth of study as one of the desiderata for a program of undergraduate degree requirements. Breadth is not the only aim of the Global Citizenship Program, but the program’s breadth requirements seriously strengthen the general education commitment to breadth of study.

The breadth requirements take two forms, both of which are more stringent versions of requirements of the current, nine-areas general education requirements. The current program allows a student to use as many as two courses (with different prefixes) from the student’s home department to satisfy general education requirements, including courses that might also satisfy requirements of the major. The program places no restrictions on the overlap of courses for the major with courses achieving breadth of study in the general education program.

By contrast, the Global Citizenship Program – with exceptions noted below, under the discussion of accommodations – prohibits “double counting” of courses for both requirements of the major and breadth requirements for general education. Further to insure breadth, the new program demands that students use courses with two different prefixes to meet the Knowledge requirements that require more than one course.

In these ways, the Task Force sought to retain the flexibility that so many in our community value in our existing general education programs while, at the same time, raising the standards for our community’s expectations of breadth of study.

Accommodations

The Global Citizenship Project Task Force has recommended two sorts of accommodations for students with respect to the Breadth Requirements of the recommended program. The Task Force came to the conclusion that, for high-credit hour majors, an institutional decision has already been made that breadth of study is not an institutional priority or commitment. When a program of study requires

25

some specified 96 or 114 hours of a required 128, the University has already committed, implicitly if not explicitly, to a course in which students in those programs stand to be exposed to less of the rest of the University than students completing majors requiring 36 or 42 hours.

Having recognized that University decision, the GCPTF reviewed the credit hours required for majors in the current Undergraduate Catalog, and came to the conclusion that 75 required hours appears to be an appropriate number to distinguish between “high” and “ordinary” credit-hour commitments. The first accommodation for high-credit hour majors allows for – but does not require – relaxing the breadth demands of the GCP by waiving the requirement that courses meeting GCP requirements be in addition to any courses completed to meet the requirements of the major. This accommodation leaves it to the discretion of the relevant academic department whether relaxing that breadth requirement is necessary or appropriate for any given program constituting a high-credit major administered by the department.

The second accommodation for high-credit programs refers specifically to programs of study leading to the BFA and BM degrees. The Task Force recognized that distinctions in degrees awarded mark a variety of differences in programmatic aims and expectations. The National Association of Schools of Theatre, for example, contrasts the professional orientation of the BFA degree with the liberal arts framework and breadth of study associated with a Bachelor of Arts in Theatre. At Webster, for example, the Directing program combines theatre study, general study, and a focus on one area of theatre, to lead to a BA degree.

By contrast, most other programs of study administered by the Conservatory of Theatre Arts are professional undergraduate degrees in theatre. In BA programs, study of theatre is an emphasis or focus “as part of a broad program” of general study. BFA programs are expected to involve intensive study of theatre, “supported by a program of general studies.” (National Association of Schools of Theatre, 2007) Similar distinctions are made with respect to the BM degree.

So, to accommodate the professional orientation of these baccalaureate programs, the Task Force proposed the additional modification of the breadth requirement for students in programs of study leading to the BFA and BM degrees. As with the first accommodation, this modification is conditioned on the initiative of the administering department and the judgment of that faculty as to what is necessary or appropriate for the students in question.

These accommodations would mean that students in high-credit programs, and especially students in high-credit, professional baccalaureate programs in the arts, would be required to achieve less breadth of study than many other students in the University. There are two principal reasons why members of the Task Force believe that these are reasonable accommodations. First, they are principled and tailored to the different educational missions of different programs in the University. Second,

26

we believe that the breadth demands of the GCP represent a dramatic increase over the breadth demands of our current programs of general education. Consequently, we hope that, even for students in programs for which departments trigger the accommodations, those students will achieve meaningful breadth of study – and greater breadth than is expected of them in the status quo.

As of the time of our review, twenty-six different majors fell into the high-credit category. Eight academic departments administer such programs: two departments in CAS, two in GHWSBT, and all four in LGCFA. All BFA and BM degrees fall in departments in LGCFA.

The programs that appear to face the most obvious challenges in implementing the Global Citizenship Program for Webster students are all in the departments of Dance, Music, and Theatre. For that reason, implementation of the new program for students in those areas is deferred. The Task Force and faculty leaders in those areas jointly expect that the time cushion provided makes it possible either to insure that the program as adopted will not harm those students or to permit alternative proposals, as reason and evidence might dictate.

Teacher education programs also present interesting issues. Teacher certification requirements are not academic majors. Courses satisfying state-mandated teacher certification requirements are, thus, not courses required for the major. As with professional preparation programs in the arts, reason and evidence might later dictate that accommodations for teacher education students with respect to the breadth requirements are needed.

Transfer

As we move into any new general education program, we would necessarily need to evaluate transfer courses in relation to our new curriculum. This is true no matter what meaningful changes we implement. Whatever our new program, we will develop instructive criteria for categorizing course within the new framework as we identify and develop our own courses that meet general education goals. Those criteria will inform our evaluation of transfer courses, just as Tom Nickolai's "Gen Ed Online" document guides our thinking for transfer into the current general education programs. Standard courses common to all colleges and universities will transfer readily into Webster, just as Webster versions of those courses do elsewhere. As with, for example, Critical Thinking under the current system, we will readily find guidelines that capture specifically what we mean for our students to master in relation to roots of cultures, quantitative literacy, and the rest, and we will gain practice in identifying those characteristics in courses from other institutions. The recommended implementation timeline allows a period of years to develop the criteria and related systems.

27

For students who transfer having completed a degree, the expectations would be almost identical to those for our current systems. Students who have earned a previous baccalaureate degree may apply to pursue a sequential degree in a different area of study. Sequential degree students are not required to complete the University's Global Citizenship Program requirements. Students with an Associate in Arts (A.A.) will have fulfilled all of Webster University’s lower-level general education requirements. As noted above, these students are still required to complete the upper-level, Global Keystone requirement. Students with an Associate in Science (A.S.) degree, Associate in Applied Science (A.A.S.) degree, or Associate in Fine Arts (A.F.A.) degree will have their transfer coursework evaluated on a course-by-course basis for equivalency with Global Citizenship Program requirements, as is done for general education requirements in our current programs.

28

Assessment

We assess, first, “to ensure that [we] are actually doing what [we] set out to do, namely to produce educated persons.” (Levi & Stevens, 2009) We aim also to assess the Global Citizenship Program in order to be able to improve it. Specifically, we want to be able to improve the performance of our education mission with respect to preparing students for responsible global citizenship in the 21st Century. We propose a rolling evaluation of student learning outcomes performance, along with other, indirect measures, to provide longitudinal data which can inform future decisions about undergraduate education at Webster. As Astin, notes:

If institutions wish to revise their assessment practice to focus more on their talent development mission, they must view assessment much more as a form of feedback that can be used to enlighten both teacher and student about the student’s progress and the effectiveness of the teaching. Such a view of assessment frequently requires that repeated (longitudinal) assessment be used so that growth or change in the student can be assessed. (Astin, Assessment for Excellence: The Philosophy and Practice of Assessment and Evaluation in Highe Education, 1991)

Although students’ entire educational experience is implicated in developing the core competencies for responsible global citizenship in the 21st Century, our focus here is on assessment of the general education component of that experience, the Global Citizenship Program. For direct assessment of student learning, we propose to follow the plan of Nichols and Nichols, who recommend:

just as in the major, the General Education program should develop its own long list of intended educational outcomes and from that list select a more reasonable number of between three (3) and five (5) intended outcomes for assessment during any one time period. (Nichols & Nichols, 2000)

Student work will be evaluated from the beginning and the end of the program to investigate the impact of the Global Citizenship Program. Work from the Great Thinkers Seminars and from the Global Keystone Seminars will be archived in a digital repository, using an “organization” created in Blackboard Learn, according to a plan developed in collaboration with the Online Learning Center. Each year, two skills and one responsibility area will be assessed. A random sample of student papers from the digital repository will be reviewed in a process approved and supervised by the Global Citizenship assessment committee. The process will use common rubrics to rate levels of competence in regard to the global citizenship learning outcomes, and raters will be trained in the use of the rubrics, as well as scored to maintain inter-rater reliability. The results will be tabulated and

29

documented. The Global Citizenship Program Review Committee will review and discuss the results.

In addition to the direct assessment of student learning by way of evaluation of authentic student work, several indirect methods will be employed. These include surveys of employers, exit interviews of graduates, focus groups of students, periodic review of syllabi from coded courses to verify use of outcomes and map outcomes in the curriculum, and review of enrollment patterns. The Global Citizenship Program Review Committee will produce a report summarizing the results of both indirect and direct assessment as well as the Committee’s findings.

The Task Force is confident that this approach will provide data that can meaningfully inform decisions to modify the GCP in the future – or to stay the course. The use of a systematic program of periodic evaluation of the program, with multiple methods of assessment and a balance of direct and indirect measures provides further assurance that the process will not be a mere exercise. Indeed, those factors, as well as the approach of objective, blind review of a random sample of artifacts of student work, are among the specific suggestions offered in the “Advancement” section of the Team Report that followed the 2008 HLC visit. (Talburt, 2008)

Finally, note that the assessment plan outlined above (and detailed in a separate document), is a starting point, rather than something carved in stone tablets. As we gain experience with assessing the Global Citizenship Program, we will learn. We might come to learn that the portfolio approach of the GCP has much to recommend its use in other programs in the University. We might learn that it requires modification to be successful. We might find that it needs supplementation to give us all the information we want and need to improve the education of our undergraduate students. Whatever the case, moving forward we will make choices about assessing the GCP, not primarily out of fealty to words in a Task Force report, but, first and foremost, in order to improve our performance of our educational mission.

30

Faculty and Curriculum Development

The Task Force applied to participate in the Greater Expectations Institute held in June 2010, on the campus of Vanderbilt University. Erik Palmore, Director of the Faculty Development Center, was a member of the team that worked together that week. As a result, the FDC has developed a framework for faculty development for the Global Citizenship Program, featuring two paths for faculty involvement and learning. As he explains it:

The Faculty Development Center (FDC) is committed to supporting implementation of a Global Citizenship Program. The formats preferred by the task force based on input from consulted experts are 1) faculty learning communities and 2) and a GCP “academy.”

Faculty LAB (Learning Across Boundaries), the faculty and professional learning community (FPLC) initiative of the FDC is an excellent opportunity to for faculty and curriculum development to support the GCP. A Faculty LAB community is a cross-disciplinary group of 8-12 faculty and professional staff that engage a topic or set of issues in an active, collaborative program of activities related to enhancing and transforming teaching and student learning. Individual community members apply their learning to provide outputs that strengthen institutional capacity to excel in the subject area, in this case, the objectives of the GCP

A Faculty LAB community supports: Opportunities to support change and transformation of teaching and learning

as a collective Improvement of faculty teaching and student learning based upon theory,

evidence, practice and assessment The scholarship of teaching and its application to student learning

Suggested activities and topics for GCP Faculty LAB communities include: Reflection on how to infuse global citizenship into existing general education

courses Identify and test strategies and practices for achieving GCP outcomes Sharing of interdisciplinary opportunities for developing experiences that

address GCP outcomes.

The GCP Academy will be a collection of interactive workshop experiences to provide a deep understanding of the GCP program and the high-impact and high-quality teaching methods used to address the knowledge and skill outcomes of the program. An optional capstone experience for the academy

31

would demonstrate application of those methods and illustrate the learning-centered nature of the GCP.

Advisor Training

In addition to faculty and curricular development, successfully implementing the Global Citizenship Program requires reorienting faculty advisors and professional staff advisors, both in St. Louis and at extended campuses. The Extended Campus Directors in discussions in September 2010 identified this as a specifically important need. It became clear, also, in a September meeting of Task Force members and faculty of the School of Communications, that the Global Citizenship Program model involves a paradigm shift in advising in the SOC unlike that for other parts of the University. Consequently, special attention must be paid to helping SOC advisors prepare to advise students within the new program.

Kim Kleinman, Assistant Director for Undergraduate Advising, is preparing advisor training for St. Louis-based faculty and professional advising staff. Moreover, we propose to work with Ron Daniel, Academic Director of the Geneva campus and representative of extended campuses on the GCPTF, and with the Extended Campus Advisory Council and the Office of Academic Affairs to develop a plan for training advisors at the international campuses in the first year and at domestic campuses with undergraduate instruction in the second year of implementation. (Because of the staging of implementation that defers new program requirements for transfer students, no domestic campus outside St. Louis will be affected by new requirements in the first year of the new program.)

32

Summary of recommendations

Global Citizenship Program

The Global Citizenship Project Task Force recommends that Webster University undergraduate degree requirements be amended to substitute “Global Citizenship Program” for “general education program.”

The Global Citizenship Program is a program comprising these educational experiences:

Two seminars (the lower-level Great Thinkers Seminar and the upper-level Global Keystone Seminar)

Eight additional courses (two in Roots of Cultures, two in Social Systems and Human Behavior, one in Physical and Natural World, one in Global Understanding, one in Quantitative Literacy, and one other)

One Practical Learning Experience

The mission of the Global Citizenship Program is ensure that every undergraduate student emerge from Webster University with the core competencies required for responsible global citizenship in the 21st Century. These competencies are Knowledge of Human Cultures and the Physical and Natural World; the practical and intellectual skills of written and oral communication, critical and creative thinking, information literacy, and teamwork; an Understanding of Personal and Global Responsibility, including intercultural knowledge and competence, ethical reasoning, and civic knowledge; and Abilities to Integrate and Apply what is learned, including integrative learning and the foundations and skills for lifelong learning.

The Task Force further recommends that the Global Citizenship Program be implemented using the course requirements, timeline, and accommodations for high-credit majors and students completing BFA and BM degrees specified in this Report.

Undergraduate learning outcomes

The Global Citizenship Project Task Force recommends that Webster University adopt undergraduate learning outcomes that reflect the full list of “Essential Learning Outcomes” promulgated by the Association of American Colleges and Universities, and including also at least one outcome for study in depth.

Periodic review and assessment

33

The Global Citizenship Project Task Force recommends that the Global Citizenship Program be considered a starting point rather than an eternal requirement in all its details. The Task Force recommends, as part of the process for assessing the Global Citizenship Program, that the Program be evaluated every six years. The Task Force recommends that courses not be included in the program in perpetuity, but that courses are to be reviewed at intervals specified in the Global Citizenship Program Assessment Plan. The aims of all such periodic review shall be to maintain the quality of the Global Citizenship Program, insure that the Program and its component parts are accomplishing their goals, and to modify the Program to improve its educational value. The Global Citizenship Program Review Committee should be expected to report to the Faculty Assembly in at least the second and fifth year of program implementation.

34

Appendix 1

35

36

Bibliography

37

Astin, A. W. (1991). Assessment for Excellence: The Philosophy and Practice of Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. New York: American Council on Education.

Astin, A. W. (1994). The American Freshman: National norms for fall 1993. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, University of California, Losd Angeles.

Boix-Mansilla, V. (2009, October). Reflections on the Future of Learning. Integrative Learning: Addressing the Complexities Conference . Atlanta.

Boyer, E. (1987). College: The undergraduate experience in America. New York: Harper and Row.

Clayton-Pedersen, A., Parker, S., Smith, D. G., Moreno, J. F., & Teraguchi, D. H. (2007). Making a Real Difference with Diversity: A Guide to Institutional Change. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

Cross, P. (1982). Thirty years have passed: Trends in general education. In B. L. Johnson, General Education in Two-year Colleges (pp. 11-20). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cueso, J. (1991). The freshman orientation seminar: A research-based rationale for its value, delivery, and content (Monograph No. 4). Columbia, SC: National Resource Center for The Freshman Year Experience, University of South Carolina.

Evans, G. G. (2010, June). Assessment of General Education: Course and Program Levels. AAC&U Greater Expectations Institute . Nashville.

FCA Approves New Education Model. (1992, Octoer 22). Webster University Journal , 1.

Ferren, A. S., & Slavings, R. (2000). Investing in Quality: Tools for Improving Curricular Efficiency. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

Gaff, J. G. (1989). General Education at Decade's End: The Need for a Second Wave of Reform. Change , 21 (4), 10-19.

Gaston, P., & Gaff, J. G. (2009). Revising General Education - And Avoiding the Potholes. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

GERTF, N. (2006). Proposed New General Education Program (GEP) at NCSU. North Carolina State University, Raleigh.

Goodman, K., & Pascarella, E. T. (2006, Summer). First-Year Seminars Increase Persistence and Retention: A summary of the evidence from How College Affects Students. Peer Review , pp. 26-28.

Hart Research Associates. (2009). Trends and Emerging Practices in General Education.

Kolb, D. A. (1983). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kuh, G. (2008). High-impact Educational Practices: What They Are, Who Has Access to Them, and Why They Matter. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

Kuh, G., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., Whitt, E. J., & al., e. (2005). Student Success in College: Creating Conditions That Matter. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

38

Leskes, A., & Miller, R. (2005). General Education: A Self-Study Guide for Review and Assessment. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

Leskes, A., & Miller, R. (2006). Purposeful Pathways: Helping Students Acheive Key Learning Outcomes. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

Leskes, A., & Wright, B. The Art and Science of Assessing General Educaion Outcomes. Levi, A. J., & Stevens, D. D. (2009). Assessment of the Acdemy, for the Academy, by

the Academy. In T. L. Rhodes, Assessing Outcomes and Improving Achievement: Tips and Tools for Using Rubrics. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universitites.

Moseley, M. E. (1991). Proceedings. Asheville Institute on General Education. Asheville: Association of American Colleges and University of North Carolina Asheville.

National Association of Schools of Theatre. (2007). NAST Handbook: Standards for Accreditation. National Association of Schools of Theatre.

National Leadership Council for Liberal Education and America's Promise. (2007). College Learning for the New Global Century. Washington, D.C.: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

Nichols, J. O., & Nichols, K. O. (2000). The Departmental Guide and Record Book for Student Outcomes Assessment and Institutional Effectiveness, Third Edition. New York: Agathon Press.

Pascarella, E. T., & Ternzini, P. T. (1991). How College Affects Students: Findings and insights from twent years of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Prohaska, V., & Whittaker, R. (2010, February 19). Interdisciplinary Capstone Courses in Gen Ed: Recruiting Faculty and Supporting the Development of Learning Objectives for Effective Assessment. AAC&U General Education and Assessment Conference . Seattle.

Shell, J. (2010). Design Outside the Box. (J. Shell, Performer) DICE 2010, Las Vegas.Shoenberg, R. General Education and Student Transfer. Talburt, N. L. (2008). Report of a Comprehensive Evaluation Visit to Webster

University for The Higher Learning Commission, A Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools. unpublished.

Tinto, V., Love, A. G., & Russo, P. (1994). Building Learning Communities for New College Students: A summary of research findings of the Collaborative Learning Project. University Park, PA: National Center on Postesecondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment.

Virginia. (1999). General Education in Virginia: Assessment and Innovation, A Challenge to Academic Leadership. Council of Higher Education of Virginia, Richmond.

Webster University. (2008). Webster University Self-Study Report 2007-2008. (B. Umbaugh, Ed.) Webster Groves, MO.

White, C. R. (1994). A Model for Comprehensive Reform in General Education: Portland State University.

39