Back to the Main Page
Mr. Ed Flippen, Commission Chairman, welcomed members of the Commission to their third meeting of the Commission and introduced Dr. William M. Anderson, Jr., President of Mary Washington College (MWC). Dr. Anderson also welcomed the Commission and read a short address from Mr. Paul Dresser, the Rector of the Board at MWC, who could not attend because of an illness.
Dr. Larry Sabato moderated the panel discussion. Each panelist was allowed to make opening remarks and then each was encouraged to focus on two questions. First, what skills should graduates from Virginia's colleges and universities have? Second, what should the general education core contain?
Before beginning the discussion, Dr. Sabato suggested that curriculum ought to be at the heart of the Commission's work and thanked the chairperson of the Commission for bringing focus to this topic.
Dr. Danny K. Axsom, President of the Faculty Senate of Virginia
Dr. Axsom stated in his formal remarks that faculty are committed to quality in teaching, research, and service and that the quality in our institutions is a reflection of their commitment. He suggested that higher education had multiple legitimate goals and that higher education is more than just job or career training. He reviewed a handout containing some general principles regarding general education and stated that:
He suggested that the purpose of the 120 hours needed for graduation was to (a) develop or nurture a passion for life-long learning, (b) serve as the corpus of specific knowledge in a discipline, and (c) build skills to create new knowledge. Finally, he shared his view that the specifics of the general education core would prepare students for change and the future, expose students to cultural traditions, and develop skills in writing and speaking.
Dr. Deborah M. DiCroce, President of Tidewater Community College
Dr. DiCroce suggested that the critical work of the Commission was loaded with controversy and that to be successful, open, free discourse is required.
She stated that liberal education consists of (a) a broad body of knowledge plus the specific knowledge contained in a major, and (b) the development of "intellectual habits of the mind." These habits include thinking and writing skills, values and the ability to make judgments, an appreciation of the arts, an appreciation of culture, and technology literacy.
From her prepared remarks, Dr. DiCroce urged the Commission to view quality in higher education from its larger context and to frame the conversation about quality in the curriculum as the quality of the collegiate experience. She suggested that without a first rate faculty there will be no quality in the curriculum. Facilities have an important effect on the quality of the curriculum. Yet, we have no real plan for capital outlay. Equipment, or the lack of it, affects quality. Support services (e.g., library, counseling, career placement) all play a part, and the extracurricular, too, are all part of the quality equation. She also noted that these aspects of quality are just as important for the two-year setting as they are for the senior institutions.
Dr. Patricia P. Cormier, President of Longwood College
Dr. Cormier began her remarks by saying that there was no simple solution to ensuring a quality curriculum. The trick to good teaching is finding what works for the individual. Hence, a quality education is different for every student.
In her formal remarks, Dr. Cormier suggested that general education was the core of common learning - a set of common experiences that all citizens share. This core is the connection between ideas, concepts, and experiences. This core should: (a) stress the acquisition of knowledge, (b) stress the development of those skills that will ensure success, (c) be coherent and well organized, and (d) contain measurable goals and measures for student learning.
She indicated that the results of general education should be that students will write and speak well. They will possess good presentation skills. They will have an understanding of mathematical thought. They will be able to apply scientific methods to solve problems. They will have a foundation in western thought, history, and comparative cultures. And, they will have the ability to make informed, ethical decisions.
Dr. Cormier also said that curriculum is not limited to the classroom but that students learn in an environment. This learning environment must be flexible and responsive to the diverse needs of the consumer. One size does not fit all. She suggested that the Commission should focus its attention on the outcomes of higher education, rather that the inputs such as the courses contained in the core.
Mr. Michael Krauss, Professor of Law, George Mason University
Mr. Krauss, represented the Virginia Association of Scholars (VAS). In addition to his prepared remarks, he made the following observations:
Mr. Krauss encouraged Commission members to read, "50 Hours" a Report from the National Endowment for the Humanities, as a guide for a general education core. He closed his presentation with a quotation from William Bennett.
Dr. Jeffrey Wallin, American Academy for Liberal Education
Dr. Wallin suggested that liberal education includes an understanding of a number of different perspectives. He said that the results of the VAS Report indicate that reform in Virginia's colleges and universities is needed. Dr. Wallin went on to make the following points:
Dr. Wallin concluded his remarks by saying that it is not easy to evaluate the quality of liberal education. He said that the American Academy for Liberal Education was in the process of developing such an assessment. He said that he firmly believed that quality can be measured against specific goals.
Responses to the Panelists
Dr. Merten, President of George Mason University, expressed concern for the first generation college student and suggested that we have an obligation to those students to help them make wise decisions about their programs of study. He suggested that administrators (i.e., deans and provosts) must also get involved in the discussions about what should be included in the core.
He suggested that there may be a problem with the 3 credit hour model and the 120 hours for graduation. Knowledge doesn't always fit this mold and poor trade offs may result if we confine ourselves to this box.
While Dr. Merten said that the VAS Report serves as an important wake up call, he disagreed with the methodology and results. Despite his reservations about the study, he encouraged institutions to examine general education requirements carefully.
He encouraged the group to view cores as complex and suggested that two cores could be different without one being better.
Another Commission members suggested that the shape of the core requirement was very much the same as it was 25 years ago. The major shift has been in the number of options made available to satisfy core requirements.
In practice, however, he said students still take a rather traditional set of courses. The VAS study doesn't take this into account and this is a major flaw in the study.
He suggested that a core curriculum should take the student's ability into account. To require that students take freshman calculus when they have already had such a course doesn't make sense.
Mr. Jim Dyke said that K-12 is an essential part of this discussion. He also said that faculty advising was key to guiding students into the right courses. The difficulty here is that faculty are not rewarded for this activity.
Another member of the Commission suggested that 90% of us agree that there are basic skills that should be acquired in college. Ninety percent of colleges claim to have a core but only 2% really do. Cores are important, but we cannot develop them by drifting. We must be purposeful.
A final speaker asked several broader questions. Are young people learning? How do we know? Having a core does not guarantee the outcomes we want. He asked, "How do we fix that?"
As the Commission reconvened after the lunch break, Mr. Flippen asked the chairpersons of the Task Forces to collect input from members as to what ought to be placed on the 1999 work plan for the Commission. The Task Forces and chairpersons were identified as being:
| Economic Development and Research | Dr. Alan Merten |
| Cost | Mr. Frank Atkinson |
| Accountability and Governance | Ms. Elizabeth McClanahan |
| Quality - Curriculum | Dr. Larry Sabato |
Dr. Anderson began his presentation by defining what quality meant to Mary Washington College (MWC). He suggested that MWC faculty want to teach students to think analytically and creatively. Before beginning a PowerPoint presentation on the core curriculum, Dr. Anderson recommended to the Commission that additional funds need to be allocated for faculty training in the area of instructional technology.
Dr. John Morello, the Assistant Vice President for Academic Affairs, presented the changes to MWC's core curriculum as a case study. The new curriculum, now approved and adopted, ties content directly to six stated educational goals, did not result in faculty layoffs, reduced 176 courses that met the old requirements to 59 courses, and was developed with heavy involvement of MWC's Board of Visitors.
Dr. Anderson finished the presentation by suggesting that faculty take their work in revising the curriculum seriously. He said that feedback in this area should be welcomed but that curriculum reform should be left to the faculty. It is not something with which someone should tinker.
Finally, Dr. Anderson reviewed the vision and plans for the Stafford campus that will now be called the James Monroe Center for Graduate and Professional Studies. Dr. Anderson made it clear that this center would offer a different type of instruction for graduate/professional training and retraining where non-tenure track faculty would be able to respond quickly to the needs of the professionals in the fifth most rapidly growing area in the United States.
Mr. Rocovich presented to the Commission a detailed paper on distance learning. He highlighted the content of the paper through a PowerPoint presentation. He suggested:
Responses
Dr. Merten said that more and more colleges and universities are developing the content modules and we have more and more of the necessary technology. He also suggested that we need to use this technology in the classroom to complement what happens in the traditional setting as well. Blending the two can also be very exciting.
Mr. Dewberry suggested that the Commission needs to identify incentives for the faculty to develop and use this technology.
Distance Learning Resolution
At the end of this discussion, Mr. Rocovich distributed a resolution on distance learning and asked that the Commission adopt it. The resolution was seconded and was approved unanimously.
Mr. Flippen stated that it was his intention to issue interim reports after the Commission completed its work on each major issue. Recommendations would be developed at the end of the Commission's work.
Ms. Matsen reviewed several changes that had been offered by Commission members throughout the day. The interim report was accepted by acclamation. The approved changes were to be made by the week's end and the interim report was to be delivered to Governor Gilmore.
Mr. Flippen reminded Commission members that if there was no objection, he would assume responsibility for making the final edit of the interim report. He announced the following meeting schedule:
Each of the presentations included visual materials in the form of an outline and/or charts. Copies of these presentations are available in the office of Steve Janosik (sjanosik@vt.edu) 306 E. Eggleston Hall, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia 24061.
Posted: December 14, 1998
By The Educational
Policy Institute of Virginia Tech
sjanosik@vt.edu