Core Review Frequently Asked Questions
Review of the University Core Curriculum
Frequently Asked Questions
Why is the university core curriculum being reviewed and revised?
Core revision stems in part from requirements by our accrediting body, the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities-developing learning outcomes for the core and assessing them, and correcting what the accreditors saw as inconsistencies in our university core curriculum. Learning Outcomes: In 2005 the NWCCU said that the university was out of compliance because we did not have a mechanism for a comprehensive, holistic assessment of the core curriculum. However, at the time we had no criteria by which to evaluate the core. To do this we needed to identify and express the specific learning outcomes for the education we promise our students. In 2007 NWCCU again recommended that we develop an assessment plan that would "include expected learning outcomes for General Education." In response, then-Academic Vice President Thayne McCulloh asked two senior faculty members to engage faculty, students, and staff in an examination of desired learning outcomes for Gonzaga graduates. Again in a 2009 Interim Report the NWCCU recommended that we needed "to create a faculty-based program for assessing general education in light of identified learning outcomes." Inconsistencies: NWCCU standards require that "baccalaureate degree programs . . . include a recognizable core of general education that represents an integration of basic knowledge and methodology of the humanities and fine arts, mathematical and natural sciences, and social sciences." Even if one looks at the college or school cores together with the university core, there are still some Gonzaga students who graduate without taking courses in History, Fine Arts, Social Science, or Lab Science. Along with the preceding AVP and acting AVPs, AVP Killen has made the decision not to fill in holes in the core but rather to use this opportunity to do responsibly re-examine the core and make sure it serves our students well.
What speaks to us more profoundly, however, is that core review is consistent with the university's Jesuit identity. To reflect upon the goals and structure of the core curriculum is to carry out the responsibility of educators at a Jesuit university as described by Father General R. P. Peter-Hans Kolvenbach, S.J.: in order to assist in students' formation, "individual courses are related to one another within a well-planned educational program," and "the curriculum should be so integrated that each individual course contributes toward the overall goal of the school" ("The Characteristics of Jesuit Education"). It is to take into account the emphasis on context in Ignatian pedagogy which compels us to keep in mind who our students are and who we want them to become, and to allow for change in our curriculum and pedagogy in order to best form our students for the world in which they will operate. The world our students come from, and the world to which we send them, is very different from the one in which the current core was developed 30 years ago. It is to focus on our students as persons, going beyond our individual classrooms to examine the larger student experience in the curriculum.
Where did the proposed core objectives and models come from?
The proposed objectives and models were produced by the Core Curriculum Committee, a faculty committee that was charged with bringing together the 2007-2008 institution-wide conversations about what a Gonzaga graduate should look like to shape Core models that respond appropriately to the input. The models are intentionally designed to promote the capacities and knowledge that the Gonzaga community has said it wants our students to have. Please see a more detailed timeline here.
Why didn't we assess the old core first before changing it?
We did not start with an assessment of our current core because there were no specified outcomes that the current core was designed to achieve, so we had no way to determine whether it is doing what it is supposed to do. We did, however, begin with an informal assessment of the core in the 2007-2008 conversations that Mike and Patricia had with multiple constituencies about the characteristics of an ideal Gonzaga graduate, and about the efficacy of the current core. Among the questions that faculty, students, and staff were invited to discuss were these: "Are you satisfied generally with our current Core and its role in the formation of Gonzaga students? If you could do so, what would you change about our current Core? Is our Core cohesive? Does it have central or organizing principles or ideas? Should it?" Notes from these conversations are on this website at http://www.gonzaga.edu/Faculty-and-Staff/core-curriculum-committee/Institutionwide-Conversations.asp
That informal assessment suggested that while many aspects of the current core are valued, other desirable characteristics are missing. In particular, the university core is not understood by those who take it, it is not integrative across disciplines, and it leaves out important components (e.g., natural and social sciences). Those conversations, and the work of the core committee, then led to the development of the Baccalaureate Goals-specific outcomes for the undergraduate experience-and the proposed Core Learning Objectives. Those documents can now be used to evaluate the current core and any proposed changes to the current core. It should be said, however, that a full, formal assessment of the current core using these goals and objectives would require many years.
If there has not been an assessment of the current core, then why do some people think that it fails to meet the Baccalaureate Goals and the proposed core Learning Objectives?
In spring 2011, the core committee attempted an initial mapping of the current core against the proposed objectives. We requested existing outcomes for the core courses, but at the time, only three of the five departments that offer core courses were able to provide learning outcomes or drafts of them. While some committee members could say how sections of core courses they teach meet the goals and proposed objectives, we did not have enough evidence or information to complete the mapping exercise.
That said, there are some areas of the proposed Core Learning Objectives that the current university core does not address-for example, "Basic principles of matter, energy, and the processes that have shaped the universe and earth's ecosystems." With respect to "the basic modes of inquiry and expression used in the arts, humanities, mathematics, social sciences, and natural sciences," literature is represented in the current core, but not other arts, history, social sciences, or natural sciences. Depending on which courses students take, they may or may not gain "understanding and aesthetic appreciation of global cultures" and understand "Principles, beliefs and practices of other world religions." Keep in mind that these are objectives for all Gonzaga students, and that while the college and school cores might supply some of the missing areas, they do not supply all of them
Why aren't we just making small changes to the current core to make it work?
If faculty wanted to propose a model by the November 1 deadline that is based on minimal change to the current core, and could show how that model would support the Baccalaureate Goals and the Core Learning Objectives, they could do so. The Core Committee felt that greater changes were needed in the structure of the core, and most importantly, in how the core is taught, to address the weaknesses identified in the broad discussions with the university community. In other words, our informal assessment of the current core identified deficiencies that the Core Committee felt required more than just minimal change (or added courses) to address.
It is also true that, while some people are resistant to changing the core, many others see the possibility of significant change as a welcome opportunity to update and invigorate the core curriculum. In this view, the fact that the core is 30 years old is in itself sufficient justification for considering change. As stated above, the emphasis on context in Ignatian pedagogy compels us to keep in mind who our students are and who we want them to become, and to be open to changing our methods and our content in order to best form our students for the world in which they will operate. This, too, is a conclusion from the informal assessment of the cure curriculum, the only form of assessment we can do.
What is the process for changing the core?
The process of curricular decision making at Gonzaga has not been altered. A new core would be voted on by the Academic Council, which acts in an advisory capacity to the AVP. The AVP makes recommendations to the President, and whatever the President proposes must be approved by the Board of Trustees.
The constitution of the Faculty Assembly states that the Assembly has the power and duty to "[a]ctively participate-directly, through the Faculty Senate, and through the University Committee structure-in the review, revision, and planning of all aspects and activities of the University affecting faculty, including: the curriculum; the budget; the Jesuit, Catholic, and humanistic mission of the University; methods of instruction; research; faculty status; faculty compensation and benefits; and those aspects of student life which relate to the educational process." The Faculty Assembly consists of "all full-time members of the ranked faculty". Ranked faculty are defined by the Faculty Handbook as including the following ranks: Lecturer, Senior Lecturer, Instructor, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor. These would be the faculty who could vote on proposals or resolutions from the Faculty Assembly. A quorum for the Faculty Assembly is 20% of the membership, and a simple majority of those present and voting is required for approval. Nothing in the Handbook gives the faculty ultimate authority over curriculum decisions.
The Faculty Handbook states in Section 100.02 that the Board of Trustees "bears full and final legal responsibility for the University, including its financial well being, policy determinations, budget adoption, investment of endowment funds, the establishment of tuition and fee rates, and major changes in academic programs and curricula." The board delegates authority to the President; specific authorities are not mentioned in the handbook. Section 100.06 states that the Academic Vice President "is responsible for academic planning and academic standards." How and when the Board would weigh in on proposed changes to the core will likely be determined by the President, in deliberations with the Academic Vice President.
Faculty members provide their approval of recommended changes through their representatives on the Academic Council. Handbook section 200.02 describes the Academic Council as "a major guardian of the academic standards of Gonzaga University and the primary advisory body to the Academic Vice President regarding the university's programs, curriculum, academic policies, academic planning, and procedures.... Its members shall also review and provide recommendations on any action that has a bearing on the integrity of any academic program." Hence, in addition to the discussions and votes taking place under the auspices of the Faculty Assembly (through the Faculty Senate), the Academic Council is also leading discussions, gathering input, and is expected to provide recommendations to the Academic Vice President on changes to the core curriculum.
AVP Patricia Killen has laid out her plans for gathering input into the core revision process, which involve discussions led by the Faculty Senate, those led by the Academic Council, and at least one "sense of the faculty" votes on proposed changes. This information will be summarized and reviewed by a subcommittee of the Academic Council and deliberated upon by the Academic Council. AVP Killen has announced that "the Academic Council will make a recommendation to the Academic Vice President no later than May 1, 2012 regarding the adoption of a revised university core curriculum. After the Academic Council makes its recommendation, the Academic Vice President, with the advice of the Academic Council will develop a time line and process for final refinement and eventual implementation of a revised university core." How that will then be presented to and approved by the President, and the Board of Trustees will be determined by AVP Killen.
What will be the process/procedure for courses to be "approved" as part of the core?
The process for approving courses to be part of the core has not yet been determined. That doesn't mean we have no idea how it might happen. The current thinking is as follows:
Depending upon faculty responses to the proposed Core Learning Objectives, there may be further shaping of the proposed objectives that will involve faculty. Outcomes for core courses or for meeting core requirements will be published, and guidelines about the course proposal process will be developed and publicized. In their course proposals, faculty will describe how they build the CLOs in within the course and the discipline, and they will describe how students demonstrate these in the discipline.
There will be support for faculty developing core courses; the AVP has acknowledged that "extensive faculty development is needed, whether we institute a significant or a minor change to the university core curriculum." The CTA is planning course development workshops that will start in the summer and continue through the academic year to help faculty modify existing courses and design new ones to meet the guidelines for approval. The process is expected to be formative and developmental. That is, if a course is not approved the first time, suggestions for changes will be provided and faculty will be encouraged to revise and resubmit.
A faculty committee (to be Chaired by the Core Director) will be created; this committee will review course proposals and syllabi. With the addition of this level of review, course proposals will proceed as they do now, first through review at the department level, then through the college or school curriculum committee, and the Academic Council Curriculum Committee, which makes a recommendation to the Academic Council, which makes a recommendation to the AVP for approval.
