HI, Jim,
This was a very interesting article, particulary the last 2 paragraphs. Thanks for having shared it.
Janet

Dr. Janet Nepkie
Professor of Music and Music Industry
Music Department
State University College
Oneonta, New York 13820
tele (607) 436 3425
fax  607 436 2718

----------
From:   Teaching Breakfast List on behalf of Jim Greenberg
Reply To:       Teaching Breakfast List
Sent:   Tuesday, March 1, 2005 3:28 PM
To:     [log in to unmask]
Subject:        What is a Generally Educated Person? - Forwarded to TB List by Jim Greenberg

"Labor economists have determined that, for a knowledge-based economy where
many people work on solving unscripted problems, a liberal education is
excellent preparation for the best careers (Carnevale and Strohl 2001).
These views reverse the old saw, derived from the time of the industrial
economy, that liberal and general education are impractical, irrelevant, or
unnecessary and that only the major or professional preparation is of value.
Indeed, a contemporary liberal or general education may be the most useful
career preparation for the knowledge-based economy."

The posting below looks at what it means to be a generally educated person
in the early 21st century.  It is an article by Jerry G. Gaff, senior
scholar, Association of American Colleges and Universities, appearing in,
Peer Review, Fall 2004, Volume 7, Number 1.
[http://www.aacu.org/peerreview/previous.cfm]. Copyright © 2004, all rights
reserved.
Reprinted with permission.





            WHAT IS A GENERALLY EDUCATED PERSON?

Jerry G. Gaff

The late Joseph Katz defined general education as "the knowledge, skills,
and attitudes that all of us use and live by during most of our
lives--whether as parents, citizens, lovers, travelers, participants in the
arts, leaders, volunteers, or Good Samaritans" (AAC 19888, 3). This
definition invites individuals into a discussion about which knowledge,
skills, and attitudes are most important for students to acquire and about
which curricular and instructional practices are most likely to cultivate
them.

It is important for campuses periodically to hold such conversations because
the reasoning behind decisions previously arrived at tends to fade with the
passage of time, eroding the social compact that explicitly defines the
expectations for student learning and provides a rationale for the
curriculum. Then faculty members tend to focus narrowly on their own courses
and the interests of their departments and to forget the larger educational
agenda facing their students. In such situations, faculty often advise
students to "get their general education requirements out of the way" or
teach their own courses in ways that neglect the broader purposes that
nurture the qualities that characterize an educated person.

Another reason for initiating periodic conversations about the aims of
education and the best curricular configurations for achieving them is that
large numbers of today's faculty have not been involved in such
conversations. In August, I visited three universities launching campus-wide
conversations about general education curricula. One had hired more than
half of its faculty in the last five years, and the other two had large
minorities of new faculty. The new faculty often did not understand the
rationale behind certain requirements and lacked commitment to a curriculum
that they inherited rather than invented. Most junior faculty welcomed
conversations that invited them to participate in making decisions about the
best curriculum for their students.

When an institution's faculty and other constituencies are asked what is
most important for their students to learn, they typically put the liberal
arts and sciences--their content, methods, and perspectives--at the top of
the list. For example, they commonly decide to emphasize knowledge of
history and culture and of science and mathematics; skills such as logical
and critical thinking and communication; and knowledge about diversity,
intercultural skills, and engagement in the local community. Indeed, there
appears to be a convergence about what used to be called the "marks of an
educated person" across a wide variety of groups. Leaders of the
professional accreditation bodies for business, education, engineering, and
nursing have declared the qualities of liberal education to be central to
the successful practice of all those professions. They and their colleagues
in regional accrediting and in several educational associations have agreed
that students should acquire the following attributes: breadth of knowledge
and capacity for lifelong learning; abilities to analyze, communicate, and
integrate ideas; and effectiveness in dealing with values, relating to
diverse individuals, and developing as individuals (AAC&U 2004a).

   The General Education We Need Today

Why are liberal and general educational outcomes valued so highly today? In
part, it is because the United States has moved from an agrarian economy,
through an industrial economy, to a knowledge-based economy. Labor
economists have determined that, for a knowledge-based economy where many
people work on solving unscripted problems, a liberal education is excellent
preparation for the best careers (Carnevale and Strohl 2001). These views
reverse the old saw, derived from the time of the industrial economy, that
liberal and general education are impractical, irrelevant, or unnecessary
and that only the major or professional preparation is of value. Indeed, a
contemporary liberal or general education may be the most useful career
preparation for the knowledge-based economy.

In addition, this nation is far more diverse than it ever has been, and it
is engaged in global affairs in regard to such matters as defense, the
environment, health, and justice. Educated people need to be able to
understand the similarities and differences among people and to develop the
capacities to bring different people together to solve problems, whether in
the workplace, one's community, or internationally.

    How to Secure Agreement about Aims?

How can campus-wide agreement about the most important goals of a college
education be secured? When faculty are invited into a conversation about the
curriculum, they tend to emphasize the issues important to themselves, such
as disciplinary turf, workload, and resources. Understandably, they want to
protect their own courses and departments, are wary of any extra work that a
curricular revision might entail, and suspect that there may not be enough
resources to support change. Although these are important issues, they ought
not to drive the conversation. In fact, if turf issues predominate,
curriculum discussions become little more than a political tug of war
dominated by the strongest factions. I typically advise campus leaders to
set aside these issues and to take up staffing, faculty workload, and
resources later, when specific curricular proposals are considered.

Instead, the conversation should be driven by learning goals for students
and the educational principles that are shared among the faculty. My
experience is that curriculum committees or task forces tend to rush too
quickly into the design of a new curriculum. It is important to take enough
time to discover what is common among the faculty and to secure basic
agreement about what they think students should learn and about what
qualities should characterize a high-quality, coherent college education. If
a faculty has done a lot of such talking and has worked across departments
and schools on innovations in teaching, learning, and the curriculum, then
agreement about these fundamentals may come fairly quickly. On the other
hand, if a faculty has done little talking or experimenting, it will take
faculty members longer to get to know one another, to determine what they
have in common, and to agree upon a curricular framework for their students.

How can one engage the faculty and keep them focused on deciding what a
high-quality education for students should consist of? One way--usually a
prescription for disaster--is for the members of a curriculum leadership
group to confine the conversation among themselves, develop the best
proposal they can devise, distribute it to their faculty colleagues, and
then hold a public hearing. Without prior conversations, awareness that
there are problems with the current curriculum, and agreements about what
students should learn, faculty are sure to attack any proposed change, no
matter how well thought out or cogently expressed.

A better approach is to lead the faculty into a collective inquiry involving
several dimensions:
 
* An analysis of problems with the current curriculum to preempt the
sure-to-be-heard remark that "if it isn't broke, don't fix it"
 
* Data from student evaluation of courses, surveys of student experiences,
exit interviews of students withdrawing, and evidence about student
retention, for example, which can provide useful information that is not
widely known
 
* Studies of national curriculum trends and of what other institutions are
doing
 
* Analyses of the professional literature containing issues and concerns
that may resonate on the campus
 
* Comments of community advisory bodies or employers about what they look
for in hiring new employees and the perceived strengths and weaknesses of
their graduates

Such new information is part and parcel of the kind of intellectual inquiry
already familiar to faculty members.

One other tendency of curriculum task forces is to hold discussions with
departments and schools. Although these groupings surely must be heard,
meetings in their departments tend to elicit protection of disciplinary or
departmental turf. At least at an early stage, it is better to organize
small interdisciplinary groups to discuss what students should learn and to
share educational ideas among individuals who may not have discussed these
matters. This can elicit more creative responses, as individuals play off
the ideas of their colleagues. These small groups are more conducive to
open, inclusive, and constructive dialogue than are department meetings
where a few voices tend to dominate.

One particularly interesting way to stimulate dialogue is by changing the
terms and getting outside the usual discussions. For example, one technique
I have used is to ask faculties to complete a brief questionnaire and then
discuss their various responses. In an exercise I call "The Fives," faculty
are asked to list the five ideas and skills they want students to learn, the
five persons (living or dead) they would want their students to know, the
five places they would like their students to visit, the five musical or
artistic performances their students should see, the five books students
should read, etc. Individuals can then discuss their answers and the
reasoning behind them. In another questionnaire,  Assessing General
Education (Meacham 1994), individuals are asked to rate their general
education program on twenty-eight different dimensions identified as
important in various AAC&U publications, such as the clarity of student
learning goals, coherence of the curriculum, and evidence of effectiveness.
Then responses can be compared, and discussions can focus on items where
there is much disagreement or on those dimensions with high or low scores.

   Two Remaining Challenges

After more than two decades of serious attention to assessing the outcomes
of a college education, few colleges and universities can answer legitimate
questions about how much their students are learning. While there are good
tests for measuring effectiveness in business, law, and other professions,
the outcomes of general education remain elusive and relatively unstudied.
In a recent statement from its board of directors, AAC&U (2004b) urges
institutions to focus on five widely valued sets of educational outcomes and
to concentrate on assessing them. The outcomes are (1) analytical,
communication, quantitative, and information processing skills; (2)
understanding inquiry practices of the natural sciences, social sciences,
humanities, and arts; (3) intercultural knowledge and collaborative
problem-solving skills; (4) proactive sense of responsibility for
individual, civic, and social choices; and (5) habits of minds that foster
integrative thinking and the ability to transfer knowledge and skills from
one setting to another. (An abridgement of this statement is published in
this issue on pages 26-29.)

Another challenge is to entice individual departments to incorporate
attention to general education goals into their major programs. In
traditional practice, general education has been separated from study in the
major, and preprofessional education has stood apart from other college
programs. Yet, as noted in AAC&U's report Greater Expectations: A New Vision
for Learning as a Nation Goes to College (2002, 31), "the goals of liberal
education are so challenging that all the years of college and the entire
curriculum are needed to accomplish them. Responsibility for a coherent
curriculum rests on the shoulders of all faculty members working
cooperatively." Indeed, the recommendation that college curricula integrate
general education and study in the major, including preprofessional
programs, lies at the very heart of the Greater Expectations vision.

Complex liberal learning outcomes ought to be developed across the
curriculum, creating a coherent educational experience. Through their course
requirements for the major, departments can do an excellent job of
addressing skills such as critical and analytic thinking, communication, and
the use of technology. They also can incorporate attention to ethics and
help students attend to diversity in their courses of study. At institutions
that value these kinds of learning, it is a mistake to neglect the power of
majors to embrace and cultivate them. As the late Ernest Boyer reminded us
(1988), "rather than divide the undergraduate experience into separate
camps, general versus specialized education, the curriculum of a college of
quality will bring the two together."

     Shared Responsibility

In the words of the seminal publication Integrity in the College Curriculum
(AAC 1985, 9), the task is "to revive the responsibility of the faculty as a
whole for the curriculum as a whole." It is the corporate quality of the
general education program that makes it so difficult to secure agreement
among the faculty about the aims and principles of education. It would be
easy for each individual to describe his or her concept of an educated
person, but the reality is that it is a community that must reach agreement.
This is the first and necessary step in renewing a general education
program, one that intentionally cultivates the essential qualities of an
educated person.

      References

Association of American Colleges (AAC). 1985. Integrity in the college
curriculum. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges.

---. 1988. A new vitality in general education. Washington, DC: Association
of American Colleges.

Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U). 2002. Greater
expectations: A new vision for learning as a nation goes to college.
Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

---2004a. Taking responsibility for the quality of the baccalaureate degree.
Washington, DC: Association of American Collegess and Universities.

 ---. 2004b. Our students' best work: A framework for accountability worthy
of our mission. Washington, DC: Association of Amerrican Colleges and
Universities.

Boyer, Ernest. 1988. College: The undergraduate experience in America. New
York: HarperCollins.

Carnevale, Anthony P. and Jeff Strohl. 2001. The demographic window of
opportunity: Liberal education in the new century. Peer Review 3(2):
Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.

Meacham, Jack. 1994. Assessing general education: A questionnaire to
initiate campus conversations.  Washington, DC: Association of American
Colleges and Universities.
--