Designing gen ed_for_distance


Published on

WCET Annual Meeting Presentation

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Designing gen ed_for_distance

  1. 1. Cynthia Davis, PhD University of Maryland University CollegeKara VanDam, PhD, MBA Kaplan University
  2. 2.  Enrollment patterns ◦ Stop in and out ◦ Variable loads ◦ No cohorts Multiple institutions ◦ Transfer credit ◦ Not optimal sequences Variable backgrounds ◦ Ages ◦ Educational background ◦ Developmental stage ◦ Related experience
  3. 3.  State institution ◦ Distribution requirements ◦ Transferability from other Maryland colleges Open access ◦ Flexible degrees ◦ Many options for requirements ◦ Recommendations in degree plans Cross-curricular hallmarks ◦ Embedded across curriculum ◦ Apply to all degrees
  4. 4.  Hallmark and Gen Ed learning outcomes Recommended Gen Ed courses Common theme: “technological transformations” Criteria for designing Gen Ed courses Faculty development and support
  5. 5.  Effectively communicate ideas, information, arguments, and messages to achieve a specific goal. Access, analyze, interpret and evaluate information to foster learning and to guide decisionmaking. Make choices based on awareness of global, social, and ethical contexts. Apply understanding of roles, responsibilities, and relationships in order to advance the goals of a community or organization. Evaluate, select, and integrate technology to enhance communication, learning, and decisionmaking.
  6. 6.  Proprietary institution with a professionally- focused mission ◦ Adult learners, 20% military, 74% female Flexible degree programs accommodate prior learning (transfer, CLEP, experiential) Kaplan Commitment ensures right fit Strong focus on core skill proficiency ◦ ETS Proficiency Profile: 10.4 point increase vs. 7.9 point national average ◦ Core and distributed General Education ◦ Academic Support Centers (Writing, Math, Science)
  7. 7.  The Goal: Ensure that students understand and can apply the skills associated with ethics, critical thinking, research, technology, arts and humanities, communication, mathematics, science, and social science professionally and personally The Core: Six courses within the bachelor’s degree programs in communication/composition, mathematics, science, social science, and arts and humanities The Connections: Each required or elective course includes: ◦ A writing assignment and the use of technology, reinforcing the communications and technology literacies. ◦ An assignment based on one of the remaining seven literacies, addressing practical issues and engaging students. 9
  8. 8.  Social Science GEL: Accounting students evaluate the cultural impact of scandals like Enron Communication GEL: Criminal Justice students create a crisis negotiations training used to introduce police officers to the types of situations requiring a crisis negotiator, common negotiating tactics, and the indicators of negotiation progress Science GEL: Legal Studies students write a policy analysis on whether the U.S. should conduct offshore drilling on the east and west coasts and what effects offshore drilling may have on the environment, marine life, and the public health 10
  9. 9.  Helping all schools and programs understand and implement the General Education Program Ensuring proper integration across all programs Continuous training Improving data reporting and analysis to drive continuous curricular improvement
  10. 10. AVERAGE GENERAL EDUCATION LITERACY SCORES BY SCHOOL AND COURSE LEVEL 4.5 4.3 4.1 Arts & Sciences Business & Management 3.9 Average GEL Score Criminal Justice General Education 3.7 Health Sciences Information Systems & Technology 3.5 Legal Studies Nursing 3.3 3.1 2.9 100--200 300--400 Course Level Key Finding: COURSE LEVELSCHOOL 100--200 300--400 DifferenceArts & Sciences 2.97 3.60 +.63Business & ManagementCriminal Justice 3.77 3.78 3.87 3.99 +.09 +.21 Increased GEL scoresGeneral Education 3.61 3.63 +.02 from lower-level toHealth SciencesInformation Systems & Technology 3.71 4.11 4.16 4.33 +.45 +.23 upper-level coursesLegal Studies 3.98 3.94 -.03 across most schools.Nursing 2.93 3.83 +.90Note. GEL scores represent the three-year moving average (2009--2011)
  11. 11. “I enjoyed this course primarily becauseit opened my eyes up to the strategiesinvolved with making conclusions anddiagnoses in a clinical setting. Mostdisorders and issues that need attentioncan be properly assessed by followingethical guidelines while administeringspecific assessments. Great course.”
  12. 12.  Longitudinal design to assess learning across specific GEL outcomes Cohort design to assess learning outcomes at specified time intervals Compare specific GEL areas at various course-level subgroups to assess learning outcomes
  13. 13.  Embed throughout full curriculum Support individual courses with cross- curricular approaches Curriculum design ◦ Outcomes definition ◦ Assessment ◦ Integration of experience ◦ Supporting tools and resources
  14. 14. Cynthia Davis: cynthia.davis@umuc.eduKara VanDam: