An Augsburg Curriculum
for General Education
A Proposal to the Faculty
6 September 2002
Table of Contents
1. Figure 1: ÒThe Augsburg ArchÓ -- A Visual Model
2. Preface
3. Design Rationale: Overview
4. Design Rationale: Relationship to Principles
3. Goals and Objectives
4. Outline of the Proposed Revision
5. Narrative Description:
o Courses
o Delivery Mechanisms
6. Overall FAQs
7. Assessment
8. Appendix:
Preface
This proposal for a re-energized general education curriculum continues, and we hope, culminates a process begun three years ago in response to specific suggestions for general education curriculum revision recommended in Augsburg 2004. This design reflects a truly a collaborative effort among many people whose work and ideas have brought us to this point.
Academic Master Planner Marie McNeff launched a review of General Education in Fall 1999; Emily Hause, then Director of Assessment, provided skills critical for reviewing General Education courses in 2000-2001. Three faculty/student committees also worked on curriculum revision: the AAC/Faculty Senate Task Force of Summer 2000, the 2001-2002 General Education Steering Committee, and the present Steering Committee Summer/Fall 2002. Membership across those groups includes Nora Braun, Janelle Bussert, Larry Crockett, Jill Dawe, Su Doree, Barbara Edwards, Garry Hesser, Anne Kaufman, Chris Kimball, David Lapakko, Brad Motl, Norma Noonan, Sandra Olmsted, Mike Schock, John Schmit, Nancy Steblay, Bev Stratton, Kathy Swanson, Mark Tranvik, and Jesse Woodroff. The design team wishes to acknowledge and express its appreciation of the work of all the people who labored on these committees.
Recognition is also due the authors of the 1999 Janus Project-- Stu Anderson, Lois Olson, Phil Quanbeck, Bridget Robinson-Riegler and Michael Schock-- whose work helped define the learning outcomes of the proposed capstone course.
This list gets considerably longer when we include faculty, staff, and students who attended open hearings and "critical conversations," sent e-mails, and sought opportunities in informal conversations to criticize, suggest, question, encourage, and even occasionally praise -- all of your efforts were essential to shaping the finished proposal.
Thank you. This work belongs to all of us.
Summer 2002 Design Team
Joan Griffin Dal Liddle
Lori Brandt Hale Diane Pike
Merilee Klemp Ambrose Wolf
Design Rationale: Overview
The design of this proposed General Education curriculum is rooted in the AAC charge: "to create a proposal that both streamlines General Education and incorporates Augsburg 2004." As noted in the Preface, this design did not begin with a blank slate. The design team enjoyed the advantage of being able to build upon previous efforts and to learn from those experiences.
Additionally, the work of the design team was guided by the ÒPrinciples for General Education RevisionÓ, endorsed by the faculty as a working document in April 2002 and the May 2002 faculty survey. Based on the AAC charge and these documents, certain ideas were understood to be non-negotiable. These "boundary conditions" follow.
The Revised Curriculum will
1. Be reduced by 2-4 courses from the current 16 (typically 13 perspectives, Eng 111, and 2 language)
2. Attend to/include themes of the CollegeÕs mission and vision
a. Vocation: as a manifestation of our understanding of a transformative education
b. Christian faith
c. Civic engagement: understanding what it means to be an intentionally urban college
d. Diversity
e. Liberal arts
3. Include the following curricular components
a. Skills
b. Liberal arts content knowledge, "ways of knowing," and values
c. AugSem (in some form)
d. Some disciplinary courses
4. Include pragmatic implementation (costs, resources, sustainability and serving all student populations
The Design Team will
1. Critically review all present curricula components, including language and lifetime sports--not previously addressed.
2. Consider the best ways of delivering the curriculum:
a. Learning communities
b. A Common core
c. Multi-disciplinarity
d. Capstone
e. Experiential education, broadly defined
f. Developmentally appropriate offerings for all student populations
3. Consider the relationship between the major, electives and general education; e.g. mission and vision themes.
Additionally, the design team operated within certain "reality checks":
a distinctive course.
The present design responds to all of these parameters. While greater simplicity is one important goal of general education revision, we think that its apparent simplicity may partly mask the complexity of what this design accomplishes. We believe that this proposal achieves the following:
Design Rationale: Relationship to Principles[1]
Educational Principles
Principle 1: Create a learning environment in which students discover their interests, talents, and sense of vocation that will enable them to navigate their present and future lives.
A. Include courses specifically calling for student reflection on vocation.
At least four courses in the curriculum will accomplish this goal:
á Search for Meaning 1 & 2
á AugSem
á Capstone (aka ÒKeystoneÓ)
B. Allow students to explore possible majors, either through the inclusion of major courses in the general education program or by creating room for students to take elective courses, especially within the first several semesters.
The Liberal Arts Foundation (LAF) provides the opportunity for students in most majors to take introductory or required support courses in a variety of disciplines.
C. Create room for students to take electives by requiring approximately two to four fewer courses than the present program.
The program is smaller by two courses.
D. Design a curriculum that fits developmentally with students by
respecting their intellectual development, respecting their emotional and social development, and meeting the needs of day, weekend, and transfer populations.
First-year day students are oriented to college in general and Augsburg in particular through AugSem, first semester learning communities (paired courses) and Engaging Minneapolis courses. The Search for Meaning sequence engages students at two different stages of their academic careers, as first or second year students and later as upper-class students. The keystone course provides an upper division senior experience. ÒLifetime WellnessÓ expands learning outcomes and allows the development of new courses to better meet the needs of adult students.
E. Pay deliberate attention to transformative education by emphasizing the connection between study and experience.
This goal is accomplished in first-year courses using service learning, the Augsburg Experience courses, and the keystone.
F. Address Òthe whole studentÓ by retaining the purposes of AugSem
and include courses or experiences in which students explore the
relationship between body and mind, e.g. lifetime sports and health education.
The proposal retains AugSem. The Lifetime Wellness requirement expands/revises the learning outcomes to allow more varied experiences. Fine arts courses in the foundation also cultivate ways of knowing that emphasize the relationship between mind and body.
Principle 2: Build a learning community with students, faculty, and staff.
A. Include some common educational experiences for all students.
All students take two Search for Meaning courses that include common texts and ideas. Students participate in campus-wide ÒCritical Conversations on VocationÓ in the keystone course. AugSem will continue to provide a common experience, as will shared texts and common themes in Effective Writing (English 111).
B. Encourage teaching and learning practices that connect students to each other (e.g. collaborative learning,)
First year students participate in learning communities in course pairs. Faculty learning communities address best teaching/learning practices.
C. Build student/faculty relationships by minimizing the use of adjunct faculty in first-year courses.
Faculty teaching first-year paired courses and Engaging Minneapolis courses must be full-time faculty where possible. Some Search for Meaning 1 faculty may be adjuncts, but they will be long-term adjuncts engaged in a Religion Department learning community. ENG 111 will continue to need the services of some adjuncts.
D. Build a teaching community that provides a structure for connecting general education faculty to each other and encourages collaboration in designing, teaching, and revising courses.
Faculty teaching first year paired courses, Engaging Minneapolis courses, keystone courses, and graduation skills courses will be required to participate in teaching/learning communities. Other collaboration will take place at the departmental level as colleagues discuss which courses to offer in general education courses.
ÒConnectionsÓ courses within the Liberal Arts Foundation provide the opportunity for faculty to develop and teach interdisciplinary LAF courses collaboratively. Support for such development will be contingent on funding.
Principle 3: Create opportunities for students to become leaders in
service to society by exploring multiple ways of knowing the world
through the liberal arts tradition and discovering connections among
diverse ways to truth and meaning.
A. Include courses that span the full range of the liberal arts tradition.
The Liberal Arts Foundation requirements span all four traditional liberal arts learning domains. They ensure balance by requiring two courses in different departments within each domain, except Math and Natural Science, where students may fulfill the requirement by taking a two-course science sequence. Every student must have at least one semester of science with a lab.
B. Provide an opportunity for students to integrate general education with their major.
Most students will be able to take at least one Liberal Arts Foundation course in their major. The keystone will ask students to reflect on all components of their education, linking general education to the major.
C. Incorporate AugsburgÕs commitment to both the contemplative and active (liberal and practical) traditions of the liberal arts.
The proposal bridges the liberal and practical by embedding skills in the majors and placing responsibility for skills there. This change greatly simplifies general education tracking for students. Requiring graduation skills to be linked to the major or to major-designated skills courses ensures careful attention to skills appropriate to the discipline.
The keystone course asks students to connect their major with their lives beyond college. The Augsburg Experience will also provide this opportunity.
Principle 4: Create a learning environment in which students explore the traditions of western society and the Christian faith; help students develop their individual intellectual, ethical, and spiritual commitments.
A. In keeping with the identity and mission of Augsburg College, include courses in Christian faith traditions.
The two Religion courses, Search for Meaning 1 & 2, make theological inquiry and the investigation of Biblical texts the center of the signature curriculum.
B. Address spiritual, religious, and ethical questions not only in religion courses, but throughout the general education curriculum so that students see how these issues may affect all aspects of human activity.
Liberal Arts Foundation courses will have the opportunity to re-enforce the theme "Search for Meaning." The keystone addresses the theme of vocation.
Principle 5: Provide opportunities for students to become leaders and citizens in the city and in a complex, interconnected, and diverse global community.
A. Include courses and/or experiences in which students experience the city and reflect on urban issues and opportunities as they explore the practice of civic engagement.
Engaging Minneapolis courses use the city as a text and ask students to reflect on their learning in the city. The current CIC grant, which is to be fully implemented next year, calls for service learning components in first-year AugSem-related courses. The SENCER grant in the Sciences is transforming at least some science courses to include attention to civic engagement. AugEx connects students to communities beyond the campus.
B. Include courses and/or experiences in which students reflect on the nature of human differences: cultural, religious, sexual (gender and orientation), racial, etc.
The proposal argues that attention to the theme of human diversity is the responsibility of many courses. Students should repeatedly encounter this theme. It will, however, be imprinted in AugSem, ENG 111 Effective Writing, Search for Meaning, Engaging Minneapolis, and the keystone. The proposal also recommends that departments study the ways in which their students will encounter this important theme of an Augsburg education.
C. Include courses and/or experiences in which students explore the theme of global citizenship.
This proposal does not make Global Citizenship a separate course (nor does it do so for any specific theme.) The theme is imprinted in some courses--Search for Meaning 1, for instance, and potentially is addressed specifically in the AugEx opportunity for international study. An additional imprint of the theme occurs in the language requirement. This proposal argues that it is important for students to repeatedly encounter the theme of global connectedness in their majors as well as in general education.
Principle 6: Establish and maintain a learning community in which students develop the intellectual skills and habits of thinking and learning that will help them adapt to and flourish in a changing workplace.
A. Incorporate the best practices of teaching and learning into the curriculum to encourage studentsÕ commitment to lifelong learning.
1. Attend to best practices of learning (e.g., experiential education).
2. Include a strong faculty development component within the general education curriculum.
3. Encourage good teaching by building a program on facultyÕs expertise and passions.
Central to the quality of this design is participation by general
education faculty in faculty learning communities (FLC). Faculty who teach Engaging Minneapolis sections, for example, will work together to
articulate its learning outcomes. Faculty who teach keystones will engage
in learning communities and participate in the campus wide critical
conversations. LAF domains will have Faculty Learning Communities (a
version of LETs) around issues of common learning outcomes in their
areas. Such opportunities would occur twice a semester, supplemented
by electronic exchanges and the sharing of good ideas.
B. Include courses that help students develop essential skills that will help them succeed both in college and beyond.
AugSem will continue to address college success skills. First year learning communities (in paired courses) will also address this concern.
Implementation Goals
Goal 1: To simplify General Education advising.
We believe that this design is easier and more transparent for transfer students. Record keeping is simplified for students and advisors.
Goal 2: To facilitate studentsÕ progress through degree and licensure
programs with heavy requirements (e.g. B.S.,B.S.W., B. Music).
This proposal cuts general education by two courses. Because the B.S.W. requirements occur in five areas of the current curriculum, it reduces that major only by one, provided that the keystone is in the major.
Goal 3: To support the sustenance of liberal arts departments.
The Liberal Arts Foundations require courses in the traditional liberal
arts.
Goal 4: To improve student retention.
The proposal maintains AugSem. In addition, it mandates learning communities for all first year day students through paired courses. As noted, faculty teaching those courses will participate in teaching/learning communities which will keep them abreast of best practices of teaching and learningÑsomething that should result in improved retention.
Goal 5: Recognize institutional economic constraints.
The proposal does not add courses that would require substantial addition of faculty. In fact, in some areas it may reduce the need for adjuncts. There are enough sections of LAF courses at present to accommodate students; some under-enrolled courses will fill to capacity. Some shifted FTE may be needed for general education keystones. We anticipate that the necessary slots will come from slots freed up by revisions in the requirements. Departments will provide sufficient Liberal Arts Foundation courses from their current FTE.
Departments choosing to offer capstones must do so within their
present FTE.
Goals and Objectives
This Augsburg Curriculum for General Education is designed to prepare students to become effective, informed, and ethical citizens through their engagement in a curriculum that:
As a college of the Lutheran Church (ELCA), Augsburg believes that every student is endowed with distinctive abilities and is called to a unique purpose in the world: a vocatio, or calling. Vocatio is translated into meaningful action through caritas (the divine love and concern for creation that supports and sustains human endeavors). An Augsburg Education asks students to discover and develop the full range of abilities/talents that they will use throughout their lives to investigate and celebrate creation, to probe the mysteries of the human condition, and to further the well-being of themselves, their communities, the global community, and the planet.
The curriculum has three major components:
Outline of the Proposed Revision
¯ Natural Sciences and Math: *Bio/Chem/Physics/Math
¯ Social and Behavioral Sciences: Psych/Soc/Econ/PoliSci
¯ Fine Arts: Music/Theater/Art
¯ Humanities and Letters: Philo/History/Religion/English/ForLangLit
Skills and Requirements:
Ÿ Lifetime ÒWellnessÓ (2 non-credit)
Ÿ Graduation Skills embedded in courses in the major or outside of the major as determined by the department: Writing (2) Speaking (1) Critical Thinking (1) Quantitative Reasoning (1)
Ÿ Effective Writing
Ÿ Foreign Language Study (0-1-2 depending on entry level)
Maximum Number of Courses =14.25 if capstone is not included in major
A Liberal Arts Foundation (2 in each domain in different departments*)
¯ Natural Sciences and Math: Bio/Chem/Physics/Math
¯ Social and Behavioral Sciences: Psych/Soc/Econ/PoliSci
¯ Fine Arts/Performing Arts: Music/Theater/Art
¯ Humanities and Letters: Philo/History/Religion/English/ForLangLit
Skills and Requirements:
Ÿ Lifetime ÒWellnessÓ (1 non-credit)
Ÿ Graduation Skills embedded in courses in the major or in courses determined by the major: Writing (2) Speaking (1) Critical Thinking (1) Quantitative Reasoning (1)
Ÿ Effective Writing (or transfer course)
Ÿ Foreign Language Study (0-2 by entry level)
Number of Courses = 4 or 5: Search for Meaning, Capstone if not in major, 2 language, Effective Writing (if nor transferred); plus LAF courses as required
Narrative Description
Signature Elements: Courses
Search for Meaning 1 and Search for Meaning 2
Augsburg College, in its central vision document, affirms that the College Òwill continue to assert its identity as a college of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America whose academic mission is shaped by its religious heritage. This heritage has both religious and intellectual components that can be summarized by five basic concepts: grace, vocation, caritas, paradox, and freedom.Ó (Augsburg 2004, p.7) Comprehensively understood, these concepts underscore and enrich the mission statement of Augsburg: ÒTo nurture future leaders in service to the world by providing high quality educational opportunities, which are based in the liberal arts and shaped by the faith and values of the Christian Church, by the context of a vital metropolitan setting, and by an intentionally diverse campus community.Ó (Augsburg College Catalog) The entire general education proposal is designed to best serve the hopes and goals of this statement and its ability to do so is strengthened by the signature elements and imprints.
At the core of AugsburgÕs Curriculum for General Education are two signature courses titled Search for Meaning I: Theological Inquiry and Vocation and Search for Meaning II: Biblical Texts and Human Identity. All students will take these two courses, one in the first year and one in the second or third year. (Junior level transfer students will take one Search for Meaning course that incorporates elements from both SFM I and SFM II into its design.) Search for Meaning I is the pre-requisite for Search for Meaning II, as well as upper division religion courses. Designed to introduce themes important to both the mission and vision of Augsburg College (vocation, identity, and Christian faith), sections of these courses will substantially share questions, concerns, and some common texts, and, as such, will serve as a common experience for all Augsburg students.
The whole of an Augsburg education, from the exposure to the breadth of knowledge provided by the liberal arts foundation to the more specialized ways of knowing and doing mastered in courses in the major, is designed to aid students in their respective searches for meaning, vocation, and a place in a diverse world. The two Search for Meaning courses are intended to help students begin (and continue) to think and reflect on these important questions/issues in a substantive way. The two courses are also designed to take seriously the texts and resources of the Christian faith and Christian tradition, especially as they illuminate possibilities and answers to those most difficult of questions. The Search for Meaning courses, like the courses upon which they are built (Introduction to Theology and Introduction to Biblical Studies) are not, however, dogmatic. The Augsburg Vision Document (Augsburg 2004) is also clear on this point: ÒAugsburg eagerly claims an ecumenical tradition that welcomes and values students who come from a variety of religious Ð and non-religious Ð backgrounds. Because it maintains that its academic mission requires full and open exploration of the truth, Augsburg does not seek to indoctrinate its students. But Augsburg does not confuse academic freedom with intellectual or moral indifference. An Augsburg education leads to commitment: what one believes does matter.Ó (Augsburg 2004, p.7)
The Search for Meaning course sequence will help students begin to articulate those commitments; the courses will help students express what they believe and why. Questions of vocation and human identity will be woven into thoughtful and critical study of theological texts and claims, not only from the Christian theological tradition but also from other world religious traditions; these questions will be revisited through examination of Biblical texts and interpretations. While specific course objectives and student learning outcomes will be determined by the learning community within the Religion Department, the general education student learning outcomes are that students will articulate initial questions and ideas about meaning and vocation and demonstrate understanding of the context in which such transformative inquiry takes place.
1. Who teaches the Search for Meaning courses?
Full-time faculty (or long-term adjuncts) in the religion department. The Religion Department will be responsible to the general education program/governance structure.
2. Can departments offer these Search for Meaning courses?
No. These courses, as a common core experience for all students, provide opportunities for all other departments and faculty to build on the themes and texts explored in these courses. And, departments are encouraged to address the theme Ôsearch for meaningÕ in their own disciplines.
3. Are these just REL 111 and REL 221 with a new name?
No. Although the content will be similar, the Religion Department will meet as a learning community to develop the two courses that will fit this new role as the Augsburg common core curriculum experience.
4. What are the advantages of a two-course sequence?
Common experience beyond the first year; opportunity to build upon the pre-requisite and have a developmental approach to imprinting the major themes of the College.
5. What about upper division religion courses?
These courses would still be offered in support of completing the Religion major and the program in Youth and Family Ministry, as well as being options for students in the Liberal Arts Foundation Humanities requirement.
Students transferring from another Lutheran college with similar course offerings might be encouraged to take the Search for Meaning blended course 2XX in order to acknowledge their previous work but still provide the opportunity for the signature of AugsburgÕs curriculum. We would anticipate that the final decision would be made through consultation of the Religion Department, the Director of General Education, and the Dean.
We are recommending ÒSearch for MeaningÓ as an inclusive phrase that captures many of the pieces addressed in the Vision document, including dialogue between faith and reason, transformative discovery, and finding oneÕs place in the world. The final course sub-title may change as the Religion Department clarifies specifics of the course, but we would not expect a significant shift in direction if this design were approved.
8. Can Biblical studies be first?
As a department and learning community, the religion department can make a recommendation to the General Education Director.
9. What are the implications for the Religion department?
The number of adjuncts and sections taught by adjuncts will probably
be reduced.
No. The Religion Department will play a central role in this General Education plan. What had been 3 requirements is reduced to 2 requirements, but two courses that form the common core experience for all Augsburg students. Additionally, students have the opportunity to take a third course in the religion department in partial fulfillment of the Humanities Liberal Arts Foundation.
11. What about the Òdialogue between faith and reason?Ó
We see this thread as subsumed under the broader theme of search for meaning.
The Keystone Course
Taken during the senior year, this signature course provides a final opportunity for imprinting the central themes of our Augsburg curriculum Ñ vocation and the search for meaning in a diverse and challenging world. Students will reflect upon the meaning of their educational experiences and consider issues of transition as they prepare for their lives after Augsburg. The ÒkeystoneÓ connects the broad liberal arts foundation with the professional skills and in-depth study of the major. This keystone course takes advantage of a moment when studentsÕ cumulative experiences best equip them to think critically, reflectively, ethically and Ñ we hope Ñ successfully about their place in the world as leaders and servants.
Students will:
a) Identify the curricular and co-curricular components of their education and analyze how their skills and abilities can be used in all areas of life.
b) Analyze connections between and among the components of their education and articulate how they will translate theories, ideas, and values learned at Augsburg into their lives in meaningful ways.
c) Describe how they have been transformed as a result of their education and explore the depth to which AugsburgÕs understanding of vocation calls them to live intentionally.
d) Recognize the criteria they have used in making decisions
and investigate how their decision-making criteria influence their service to and leadership in communities, both local and global.
e) Review the questions that shaped their search for meaning and for the understanding of vocation and evaluate the commitments and conclusions that have emerged from their discoveries.
The keystone course can take one of two forms:
a) It may be offered within the major, focusing on content material from the discipline while incorporating the student learning outcomes. It may be a seminar, capstone or internship;
b) It may be offered outside the studentÕs major department as an interdisciplinary or disciplinary general education course. Departments will determine how their majors will complete the Keystone requirement (e.g., a student could take any keystone course or must take a prescribed keystone offering.) Related disciplines may collaborate to offer a keystone course anchored in a great question, problem, or a particular theme. The number of such sections offered will be limited.
FAQs about the Keystone Courses
1. Why do this?
It reflects the developmental nature of the curriculum and the importance of a senior signature experience that imprints the themes of the College. The work of the original Janus project team highlighted ÒWe want to consciously and deliberately help students see what they know and to understand how their education can be applied as they look ahead to the transition from college life.Ó
2. What are the advantages?
This design provides a structured opportunity for students to assess their educational experiences (gened, co-curricular, major, and electives) and to prepare for change in an intentional, focused and shared way. It can be a creative forum for faculty who elect to teach in this rubric.
3. What are the disadvantages?
This option may reduce electives in some majors that elect to add a capstone in the major; Departments must consider FTE resources, size of their current major, and the 13 course rule.
4. Who teaches keystones?
Courses are either in the major or are an interdisciplinary or disciplinary general education course. Each department will decide how it wants to provide this experience.
5. What makes it a keystone?
The student learning outcomes. Note the attention to vocation, leadership and service in a diverse world, and the linking of all components of an Augsburg Education.
6. How will keystones connect to the search for meaning?
Faculty who teach keystones will participate in learning communities clustered appropriately. One of the opportunities will be for faculty to share ideas about how to meet the student learning outcomes and ways to build upon the foundation provided in the common Search for Meaning courses.
7. Who controls courses?
Learning communities of faculty teaching capstone or keystone courses will work together under oversight of the General Education Director.
8. How much will it cost?
The cost depends upon the departmentÑfrom minimal course revision to new course development. Some support may come from the Lilly Grant for keystones on vocation and to promote components of vocational conversation in other keystone courses.
9. What about large and small majors?
Some departments will need to decide if they want to develop their own keystone (if one does not already exist in an adaptable form) or if they will have students take the course outside the Department. Some large majors already have a capstone, so size is not prohibitive in and of itself. Very small majors might decide to collaborate in creative ways to offer divisional or other clustering of general education keystones.
10. If students double major, must they take 2 capstones?
Each major will determine that independently.
11. Does the course count toward the major?
Yes, if offered within the in Department. This requirement cannot be used to add a 14th course in violation of the 13-course rule now in place.
12. How will the number of sections offered be determined?
By the Deans in consultation with each Department, given estimated need for number of sections outside the majorÕs offerings.
Signature Elements: Delivery Mechanisms
Engaging Minneapolis
Engaging Minneapolis courses are specially designed or revised general education courses required only of first year day students. Every Engaging Minneapolis course fulfills a Liberal Arts Foundation or other general education* requirement. Other general education required courses that are appropriate for first-year students, such as Effective Writing or a foreign language course, might also become E.M. courses. Students may take this course either in the fall or spring.
What distinguishes Engaging Minneapolis courses from other general education classes is their intentional and substantial use of the resources of the city as they orient first year day students to the place where they will be studying, living, and working during their college careers. The city will function as a course text or learning laboratory.
Some of these courses may be newly designed; others may be revised versions of existing courses. A limited number--enough to accommodate first year day students--will be offered each year. These courses will not satisfy an Augsburg Experience requirement. The relationship between the new Engaging Partners Augsburg Seminar service-learning requirement and Engaging Minneapolis will need to be further articulated.
Engaging Minneapolis courses have three major learning outcomes. Students:
a) Fulfill the learning objectives of the designated Liberal Arts Foundation or other required general education course intended for first year students.
b) Gain an introductory orientation to the resources and opportunities of Augsburg's city location.
c) Understand and appreciate the dynamic and diverse nature of Augsburg's urban community.
Administration: How does a course qualify?
1. A limited number of Engaging Minneapolis sections (about 15)
will be offered each year. The specific courses to be offered each
year will be determined by the appropriate General Education governing body.
Most likely there will be at least some rotation of courses meeting
this requirement each year. Some Engaging Minneapolis
sections will be paired courses. Efforts will be made to include
courses across all Liberal Arts domains.
2. All Engaging Minneapolis courses must use the city as a
learning laboratory and commit a significant portion of the course--about 20-25%--to the use of urban resources. This may include
some guest speakers--but it is essential that these courses require
students to leave campus and experience the city.
3. Engaging Minneapolis faculty must commit to participating in a faculty learning community. It is expected that faculty will incorporate the best
practices of experiential education into their courses.
4. Engaging Minneapolis faculty must be mindful of their student audience: first year day students. All courses must be an orientation to Augsburg's location. They must emphasize the opportunities and cultural advantages of the city. Because they are intended for first year students, Engaging Minneapolis courses will be introductory--100 or 200 level--courses.
5. Engaging Minneapolis courses must fulfill a Liberal Arts
Foundation or other appropriate first year general education
requirement.
6. Engaging Minneapolis courses will not duplicate the AugSem
Engaging Partners service learning requirement, although it may incorporate it.
FAQs about Engaging Minneapolis Courses
1. So what's new about this course? Isn't this just the old City perspective?
No. For one thing, the focus of an Engaging Minneapolis course isn't necessarily the city. Rather the city provides the resources for the study of a liberal arts foundation subject or other general education requirement appropriate to the first year. Course topics are NOT limited to urban issues. There will be a greater disciplinary range of courses than those offered under the current City requirement.
Second, as an orientation to Augsburg College for first year day students, these courses emphasize urban opportunities--the advantages of studying in an urban environment: not urban dysfunction. A substantial number of courses will focus on the city as a place of culture and opportunity. Moreover, these courses require explicit attention to the particular needs of first year day students.
Third, although many of the City perspective courses have a significant experiential component, all will be required to include substantial "learning laboratory" time in the city.
That aside, there's something to be said for old wine acquiring new bottles. Augsburg's urban location continues to make it unique among ELCA Lutheran colleges and remains part of its mission. Engaging Minneapolis courses lend visibility to this component of Augsburg's mission--old wine-- but give it a coherent place in the overall structure of general education requirements.
2. If I currently teach a "City" perspective course, will it automatically qualify as an Engaging Minneapolis course? Who decides?
Some current "City" courses may become Engaging Minneapolis courses-- but not automatically. Courses may need to be revised to meet the criteria described above; they will need to be departmentally (or otherwise appropriately) approved Liberal Arts Foundation courses or other general education courses intended for first year students. Moreover, because the intention is to make this experience available across a broad range of disciplines and because the number of sections will be limited to 15, not every course that qualifies as an Engaging Minneapolis course will be offered under this rubric every year.
A more fully developed proposal will more fully answer the "Who decides" question. However, some species of general education administrative control is implied--whether it is the Dean's Office and/or a general education director, or either or both in consultation with a Gen Ed subcommittee of AAC remains to be determined. This will not necessarily become part of AAC's work, although of course AAC will continue to approve all new courses.
3. Can an Engaging Minneapolis course be part of a first-year course pair?
Yes--both courses in the pair can collaborate to make substantial use of the city. Moreover this requirement can intersect with the first year "learning community/paired course" requirement.
In addition, Engaging Minneapolis courses can realize the collaborative efforts of several faculty members by asking them to develop and team-teach one course with multiple sections (e.g. aesthetic courses developed under a Teagle grant by arts faculty).
4. Can we ensure that we can offer enough sections of ÒEMÓ each year? Why would faculty want to do this? What are the incentives for the extra energy?
One attraction might be the opportunity for first year students to be exposed to a potential major at an early point in their college careers. Such a course will be hard work and support, financial and otherwise, will need to be offeredÑe.g. course development stipends, resource pools, and support staff.
5. Can a course that doesn't meet a general education requirement be an Engaging Minneapolis course?
At present, no. This is a species of "double dipping" in general education. Because there will be a limited number of EM sections, each enrolled to capacity, we want to be sure that students will be taking a course that meets a general education requirement. EM is not a discrete general education requirement: it is a delivery mechanism. Faculty teaching in areas outside the Foundation, however, may collaborate with colleagues in liberal arts domains to create either ÒConnectionsÓ courses or cross-listed courses that traditional liberal arts departments are offering as LAF courses.
First-Year Learning Communities
Students who come to Augsburg will join a community of learners who are united by their search for truthÉAugsburg College tries to realize models of education through formal structures. Thus the research that shows Ôthe effectiveness of linked courses, learning clusters, freshman interest groups and coordinated studies programsÕ is reflected in the classroom practices of Augsburg faculty.Ó (Pp.19-20)
Interdisciplinary courses likewise provide opportunities in which faculty can join students as learners; and experiential learning emphasizes the place of a community in education.Ó (p.20)
--Augsburg 2004: Extending the Vision
Building on the philosophical principles outlined in Augsburg 2004 and specifically Principle 2 (ÒBuild a learning community with students, faculty, and staff.Ó) of the ÒPrinciples for General Education RevisionÓ endorsed by the faculty in April 2002, the proposed new Augsburg Curriculum provides ample opportunity to utilize the delivery mechanisms of both the community of learners and interdisciplinarity.
Places in the proposed general education revision that will establish a community of learners include Search for Meaning I and II courses, the keystone course, the Freshman Engaging Minneapolis courses, AugSem, paired Liberal Arts Foundation courses, and all the Graduation Skills courses Ð QR, W, CT, and S. All students will take two Search for Meaning courses that include some common texts and ideas. The Religion faculty who teach the Search for Meaning courses will form a learning community in the revision of its current curriculum (REL 111, 221) to insure a commonality of content and purpose. Although some Search for Meaning 1 and 2 faculty will need to be adjuncts, they will be long-term adjuncts engaged in a Religion Dept learning community. Students will participate in campus-wide ÒCritical Conversations on VocationÓ in the keystone course. Faculty teaching the keystone courses, whether the course in be in the major or a general keystone course, will be engaged with a community in designing, teaching and revising courses. AugSem will continue to provide a common experience, as will dimensions of Effective writing.
Connections courses within the Liberal Arts Foundation will provide the opportunity to develop and teach interdisciplinary Liberal Arts Foundation courses in collaboration with other faculty. One example might be a collaborative/experiential course in the Fine Arts domain in which faculty from the Art, Music and Theatre Departments use the rich resources of the Twin Cities to survey the arts. Another example would include the recent SENCER grant in the Sciences by pairing courses and transforming at least some science courses to include attention to civic engagement.
AugSem
The Augsburg Seminar will not be changed by this proposal. As is the case now,
AugSem will be attached to a first-semester course or course pair. The attached course does not have to meet a General Education requirement. However, there will be a sufficient number of AugSem sections so that no student will need to register in a course that he or she otherwise would not enroll in simply to meet an AugSem requirement.
AugExperience
Augsburg Experience will not be changed from the proposal approved by the faculty in April 2002. Engaging Minneapolis courses will NOT meet an AugEx requirement.
In its mission statement, Augsburg College commits itself Òto nurture future leaders in service to the world by providing high quality educational opportunities, which are based in the liberal arts and shaped by the faith and values of the Christian church, by the context of a vital metropolitan setting, and by an intentionally diverse campus community.Ó At the core of a liberal arts education is the study of knowledge and modes of inquiry across a wide range of disciplines and subjects. The course offerings in the traditional liberal arts provide the opportunity for students to acquire a broad and solid foundation.
This component of the proposal requires two courses from different departments in each area of the liberal arts. The design responds to the ÒPrinciples of General Education RevisionÓ endorsed by the faculty in April 2002ÑÒCreate opportunities for students to become leaders and servants in society by exploring multiple ways of knowing the world through the liberal arts tradition and discovering connections among diverse ways to truth and meaning.Ó Through this balanced structure, students will be able to identify and appreciate the bodies of knowledge and epistemologies represented by the liberal arts domains. Furthermore, students will be able to articulate the broad framework for understanding the organization of human knowledge, an important step in their search for meaning and vocation.
Within each liberal arts category, two courses must be selected, each from a different department. One of the courses in the natural sciences must have a lab; designated year-long lab courses in natural science departments will also be allowed.
Humanities English, History, Religion, Philosophy, Foreign Language Literature
Fine Arts Art, Music, Theater
FAQs about the Liberal Arts Foundation
1. Do the Liberal Arts domains reflect our divisional structure?
No. These categories reflect a widespread and traditional understanding of the liberal arts.
2. Can Departments reside in multiple domains?
No. A Department can offer courses in one liberal arts domain.
3. How will this affect transfer students?
This system should make transferability much more transparent.
4. Who controls which courses will count in the Liberal Arts domains?
This structure will ask departments to identify and explain which of the courses they will offer as the liberal arts opportunities (within FTE parameters determined by the Dean). But, it will not require independently running each existing syllabus through another AAC review. We will move from individual level negotiations to departmental rationale and accountability.
5. Will there be opportunities for innovation in the delivery of liberal arts courses?
6. Can a keystone course fulfill a learning domain requirement?
No. The keystone courses are intended to reflect on the entire educational experience.
7. Can upper division courses count as liberal arts foundations?
Because general education is intended to provide breadth within a college education, most courses will be introductory disciplinary courses or courses designed for non-majors. Moreover, prerequisites will preclude most students from taking upper division courses. However, some departments offer courses that depend more on studentsÕ cognitive and skill development than on bodies of knowledge and may choose to count upper division courses. This may be advantageous for upper division students with remaining liberal arts foundation requirements.
8. Will area studies courses be included?
Some area studies courses are anchored in liberal arts departments and thus may be applied toward a liberal arts domain if a department designates them
as general education courses. Those courses which are not attached to a traditional domain, however, will not meet LAFs.
9. What is the situation with math and science?
Every student must take at least one science course with a lab. For their second course choice, he or she may: take another science with a lab in a different department, take another science in a different department without a lab, or take an appropriate college-level math course (as determined by the Math Department. As is currently the practice, students taking year long major course sequences (e.g., Chem. 115,116) would be allowed to do so to meet the requirement.
10. Will Professional Studies courses be included?
No. This proposal recommends a traditional liberal arts foundation. However, individual faculty from Professional Studies departments may wish to collaborate with colleagues in traditional liberal arts departments to create Connections courses. Such courses will be offered under a Connections prefix (SCI, etc.),
will not meet major requirements, must address liberal arts epistemologies and
knowledge areas, and will involve collaboration among several faculty.
Skills and Other Requirements
Skills
The proposed skill requirements will be much as they have under the current general education model. There are significant changes, however, in the implementation of graduation requirements. In addition, ENG 111 Effective Writing will be asked to provide an initial "imprint" of the themes of identity and diversity. There are three sets of skills requirements:
1. Preparatory/Entry Skills:
¥ Critical Thinking
¥ Mathematics
¥ Study Skills and College Preparation
¥ Writing
Students' entry skill levels are determined by placement exams when they enter college and other measures. Depending on placement results, students MAY be required to take:
¥ GST 100 Critical Thinking
¥ MAT 103 and/or 105 Everyday Math and/or Applied Algebra
¥ GST140 Introduction to the Liberal Arts
¥ ENG 101 Developmental Writing
Because these courses are preparatory to college work, they are not included among the 14-course General Education total.
2. Foundational Skills:
¥ ENG 111 Effective Writing
¥ Modern Language (0-2 courses)
Placement in ENG 111 is determined by the placement test. On rare occasions, a student may test out.
Language placement is likewise determined by a placement exam. Depending on exam results, students may be required to take zero (0) to
two (2) courses.
3. Graduation Skills
There will continue to be four graduation skills:
¥ Critical Thinking
¥ Quantitative Reasoning
¥ Speaking
¥ Writing
In addition, this proposal recommends that technology skills continue to be embedded in Augsburg Seminar (rudimentary and computer skills) and that each department attend to information technology skills appropriate to its major.
The implementation of graduation skills will change in the following way:
1. Each major is required to provide graduation skill courses within the major.
2. Major courses meeting graduation skill requirements must be included
in all sections of required major courses. Elective courses within the
major may not meet graduation skill requirements (unless the department explicitly notes that students have the option of taking this
course or some other designated course(s) outside the department. With this requirement, students will be able to complete the graduation skills requirement simply by completing the major. Departments, not individuals, will determine which courses meet the skills requirements.
The goal of this requirement is to simplify record-keeping, both for
students and for the Registrar's Office. It also ensures that students will
take the graduation skill courses most appropriate to their major.
3. If a department is unable to provide a specific graduation skill requirement
within the major, it must designate which course (or limited selection of
courses) its students may take to fulfill the requirement. These courses
may be specific courses in other departments that have been approved
as meeting a graduation skill requirements or may be specially designed
GST courses approved by AAC in consultation with the General Education governance structure to be determined.
This course will not count as part of the major. However, departments will make it clear to their students that the "additional" general education requirement is imposed by the department.
4. Each department will submit the courses meeting skills requirements to AAC and the appropriate general education governing body. If a course has not already been approved to meet the requirement, it must be submitted to AAC for approval.
5. All faculty teaching graduation skills courses must participate in a skills
learning/teaching community before teaching the graduation skills course. They will be required to:
a. Attend an introductory skills consultation.
b. Participate in a one-to-two hour workshop with colleagues teaching
similar courses once a semester.
Lifetime Wellness
This proposal broadens the former Lifetime Sports requirement to include attention to content more broadly related to health and wellness as well as physical activity. It encourages the offering of a wider range of activities that
explore the link between mind and body (e.g. yoga, T'ai Chi) and encourage developing courses that can meet the needs and interests of adult as well as traditional student populations. We propose 2 non-credit experiences for 4 year students and 1 for junior transfer students.
This proposal endorses the following proposal by the Physical Education Department:
Proposed core course for Lifetime Activity Skill Requirement
1. The student will be aware of the components and benefits of lifetime physical fitness and wellness.
2. The student will be aware of how to incorporate the components of physical fitness into a lifetime fitness/wellness program which will help meet individual physical, mental and social needs.
2. The class will be encouraged to discuss the validity of articles, TV Ads, etc. as they relate to the science of fitness and wellness.
FAQS about Skills
1. What happens if a department decides to offer none of the four graduation skills requirements?
Nothing, as long as its students can graduate within the 32-course graduation limit. If the combination of Augsburg Education (14 courses),
major requirements, and extra-departmental graduation requirements exceed 32 courses, the department will be asked either to lower its requirements or embed
the skills requirements in the major.
2. Is the English Department willing to cover themes of diversity and identity in Eng 111?
We have mentioned this possibility to the Chair and several members of the Department. This option appears feasible and as the design develops we will hope to be able to have the Department respond.
3. What about foreign language study?
This issue was discussed at great length and many options were considered. To retain a 0-2 option, acknowledging that currently most students take 2 courses, seems quite in line with what most comparable and non- comparable schools are doing. We are currently persuaded that the opportunity to expand understanding of other cultures through language study, the cognitive value of learning another language, and the learning about universal language principles are needed. We would encourage scheduling that might allow more students to take 112 (and thereby have only one semester to build on high school skills), as it seems some take 111 and 112 Òby default.Ó
Overall FAQs
1. What is the role of professional studies departments in general education?
These departments and majors will play several important roles:
á They--not individual students--will determine which courses their majors should take to satisfy Graduation Skills requirements.
á They are likely to have major responsibility for the AugEx requirement.
á They may offer the capstone course, in which students relate their general education to their major.
á It is possible that some professional studies faculty will be able to collaborate with colleagues in traditional liberal arts departments to develop Connections courses.
2. Will every course currently offered as general education be able to be shaped into this design?
No. The design team understands its charge to streamline general education to include both reducing its size and improving its coherence. One of the difficulties with the implementation of the present system is that it included too many courses and finally lacked philosophical coherence.
3. How will this curriculum be governed? What role will AAC have?
In the immediate future the general education program will continue to report to AAC. A Faculty Senate task force is studying the Dean's recommendation regarding divisional reorganization, but unless the faculty approves an eventual proposal, the present structure will remain in place.
This proposal recommends that AAC, in consultation with the General Education director and Dean, appoint a transition team, responsible to AAC.
The team will:
á review liberal arts departments recommendations regarding which existing courses will be offered with the Liberal Arts Foundations;
á review revisions of presently existing capstones to meet the new capstone general education components;
á review the general education component of new capstone courses before they go to AAC;
á Assist the director in identifying Engaging Minneapolis courses and first-year paired courses.
4. How will quality be maintained?
General education faculty will participate in Teaching/Learning Communities that will attend to the best practices of teaching and learning in capstones, graduation skills, and first year general education courses. Departments will be responsible for maintaining the quality of courses offered in the Liberal Arts Foundation. Also, this proposal is accompanied by an assessment plan. The College's commitment to AQIP mandates continuous attention to assessment.
5. Will there be money to support this design?
The 2002-2003 College budget sets aside some money for course development. The Lilly grant may help fund the development of the Search for Meaning core courses and the "critical conversations" about vocation included in the keystone.
This design improves the efficiency and thus cost effectiveness of first year courses by designating a limited number of courses to meet the paired course and Engaging Minneapolis requirement by requiring that each course be enrolled close to capacity.
All first-year students will be required to take a paired course in order to meet the commitment to creating learning communities. Some additional support to sustain paired collaborations and faculty Òlearning communities about learning communitiesÓ will be needed.
No additional FTEs will be granted to participate in this general education program. New courses, like Connections courses, will need to be funded through existing faculty development funds or new grants. Anticipated efficiencies related to advising this general education may help the College cut costs.
6. Will some faculty lose FTE?
This design is committed to preserving the FTE of current tenure track faculty. It is possible that some departments may lose some adjunct slots.
7. Does the Registrar/Enrollment/Advising Center support this?
This proposal will be accompanied by a formal recommendation from those Offices.
8. If we're trying to cut General Education requirements, why are we adding an Arts course when we used to have just one?
This is an important question, but it is based on two assumptions we believe are mistaken. The first is that requirements in the Fine Arts LAF domain can be directly compared to those in the "Aesthetics" perspective, as if the former were a renaming of the latter.
The proposed system is not a translation of the old one, but a qualitatively different way of organizing students' experience of the liberal arts. Because the Perspectives system is not based in traditional disciplines, it does not actually require students to take even a single course in the Fine or Performing Arts -- the "Aesthetics" perspective can be fulfilled by a popular English course. On the other hand, students in the current system may take multiple Arts department courses to fulfill requirements in Human Identity, City, Christian Faith, Intercultural Awareness, and Western Heritage. Because the two systems are incommensurable, it is a bit misleading to suggest that the new program directly adds to or subtracts from the old one.
A second important assumption built into this question is that cutting courses was the only goal of the new curriculum. The most important goal, of course, was to create a responsible curriculum that would serve our students, reflect our ideals and identity, and fulfill our institutional mission. We believe that the design we have proposed meets that goal. Once we decided to organize the Liberal Arts Foundation around traditional disciplines, in fact, the design team agreed strongly that our identity as a college based in the liberal arts committed us to balance these four domains.
It is not necessary, for an audience of Augsburg faculty, to start from scratch to defend the value of the fine and performing arts for enriching life, creating engaged citizens, and promoting sympathetic awareness of the diversity of human experience. If Augsburg is committed to using a liberal-arts based curriculum to transform its students into citizens and leaders in service to the world, then the role of the arts in conveying the beauty, range, and diversity of human experience is hard to overestimate, and certainly no less than the contribution of the natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities.
The design team believes that a strong arts component is necessary to educate "the whole student," and that an education ultimately committed to helping students discover their vocations--their full range of talents and ways of being in the world--should include a strong arts component. Among the most important arguments for the full two-course LAF are these:
Finally, a two-course LAF in the Arts will correct an important design flaw in the current program. Because students at Augsburg receive academic credit for participating in music ensembles, four years of ensemble participation satisfy the Aesthetics perspective without the student taking any other arts-related coursework. At a large majority of our peer institutions, ensemble participation is an extra-curricular activity, and does not fulfill general education requirements. The old program therefore does not require students in ensembles to take Arts courses to graduate. The new proposal ensures that such students encounter at least one other offering in this domain.
Assessment
It is essential that assessment of AugEd be built into the design of this proposal, not added later. Assessment centers on both formative and summative review of course-level goals and objectives and on program-level goals and objectives. Faculty in general education learning communities will agree on common student learning outcomes, as well as process goals and outcomes.
Assessment of general education must be part of the overall campus assessment plan and work should be co-coordinated with the Assessment Committee. A proposal for possible program level outcomes (to be complemented by individual course outcome measures and common learning- community- determined measures) is attached. The general mechanisms will be sample based, standardized instrument and multi-method assessments that provide input for continuous improvement. A sample of general education learning outcomes follows.