This month, we'd like to put the focus on planning a single course.
Question of the Month for November/December:
- How would you describe an ideal general education course? What, in your view, should be the goals or aims of any single general education class?
A gen ed course should be a course that gives you a workable overview of the subject matter that the class covers. It shouldn't be as in-depth as a "track-specific" class, but it should give the student a "college-level" understanding and the ability to work with the knowledge from that class.
ReplyDeleteTwo great examples we have right now are Our Living World and Our Physical World. Professors Ash and Klockziem and Professor Sponholz present a class that is more than what you get in High School Bio or Physics, and present so that students look at the subject more "maturely."
Everyone should be required to take general education courses in college unless specifically exempted by AP or CLEP credits. For example, taking a class at LPS should not get you out of a gen ed at MLC unless you take the AP test for that class.
ReplyDeleteI can't beat what Jeffery said - the ideal class should be more in depth than high school for a college-level undersanding.
ReplyDeleteI would add that the ideal gen-ed class should be something that is portable to any other school and that any similar gen-ed class from another institution would count at MLC. This would make it easier for transfers out/in to receive credit for classes they have already taken.
I agree with the point made by MLC Student. A person being excused from Introduction to Music simply because of the amount of music courses that he or she took at Luther Prep should absolutely not be happening. When I took the course, I asked several different Luther Prep students what a triad was and how to create one, and they were all unable to assist me. At the very least, they should be forced to take the Intro to Music placement test like everyone else.
ReplyDeleteThanks Jason, I forgot to add that part into my comments. A gen ed should transfer in/out. The only thing I might question are certain courses where there are topics of evolution and the like, but a meeting with the professor for twenty minutes and passing a test could/should get them out of taking the course (Our Living World is the prime example - so if they take AP Bio and score a sufficient amount on the test, they talk to one of the professors, get the info, study, and take the test covering that topic).
ReplyDeleteMLC Student and Kyle do have a point. The purpose of a general ed is that it is to be taken by everyone. Giving preferential treatment in regards to gen eds to those who had the benefit of attending Luther Prep is not something that belongs in college, especially given that we try to break down those "high school" identities in order to become a unified campus family.
Using the music as an example. I had PLENTY of music in school. I was in band from 5th grade on, elementary school music and then choir until 7th grade, took AP Music Theory and Composition, and couldn't take the test because it was scheduled the same time as the English Lit and Comp test (no idea why, since half the AP English Lit and Comp people were also in AP Music Theory - seems a bit stupid to do it that way, but oh well) and I still had to take the Intro to Music placement test, on which I passed with flying colors. If someone who did the same or a lesser amount of "music" than I did and didn't have to take the test because they went to Prep, that is a problem in my eyes. The same could be said for other classes that "Prep gets you out of" as well.
First: I do find that "introduction to music" example quite funny and preposterous. A meeting with a professor and/or a short test is an acceptable way to demonstrate your knowledge. There's no sense in re-learning something when you can further your education with a more advanced class.
ReplyDeleteRelating to JefferyClark's comment:
OH NOES THE "E" WORD: "evolution". This is a qualm that I get rather bored of addressing.
Evolution is a proven and observable fact;
species will change over time. Some bacteria, a microscope, and three hours will prove that.
Now imagine how that bacteria might evolve over millenia? Macroevolution. What macroevolution does *not* prove is that we evolved from monkeys. Logically, if our DNA is 60% identical to a fruit fly, shouldn't we, logically, have evolved from or at least resemble a fruit fly? If 50% of our DNA is identical to cabbage, shouldn't we resemble cabbage? Simple answer: no. Species do not evolve into other species, or else God's wonderful world would be full of intermediate-species and not millions of unique critters.
At the risk of sounding elitist: Gen Ed courses should teach students how to think in a disciplined, creative manner, to answer questions new and questions whose solution is still debated.
Which is why I said that a meeting with the prof and a test covering the evolution/birth control topics covered from the WELS perspective in OLW would be sufficient enough for me to get credit for OLW without having to be in the class.
ReplyDeleteThe goals and aims of any Gen. Ed. course should be to give a broad foundation of knowledge in the specific course area. This foundation should be what any 'educated' adult needs to have. The goal should not be "a mile deep, an inch wide" but more spread out.
ReplyDeleteI would also agree with Jeff Clark and the others - Gen. Ed. courses should be such that they can transfer out of MLC without any problems. Transfering in, either via a placement test, AP test, CLEP test, or via another institution's credit should also work with these courses.
There is ample opportunity while at MLC for a person who tested out of a specific class while at the high school level to answer questions about that subject, thus demonstrating their knowledge.
Posting as a MLC 2007 grad, WLS 2011 (Vicar)
ReplyDeletePlease don't let this discussion stray into the tired and worn out discussions about "prep schools vs. everyone else" and "percieved entitlement." All that does is enflame people about the same silly resentments left over from our immature days in high school. This post is about what a gen ed class's goals and aims are, not who has to take what classes.
1. A gen ed should provide knowledge essential for future ministry. This means foundational knowledge to be able to speak intelligently on whatever the subject might be, if it is music, literature, science, or something else, WHETHER THE STUDENT HAS AN INTEREST OR APTITUDE IN THAT SUBJECT AREA OR NOT. This doesn't mean a deep knowledge. Some MLC gen eds, in my experience, seek to cover so much material that the standards are lowered so everyone is able to pass, and the end result is that most students don't remember anything longer than a few weeks. Being able to speak intelligently is the point of a well rounded liberal arts education - general knowledgable on a lot of different topics.
2. A gen ed course should fulfill the requirements of the degree being pursued. That means that a gen ed in a BA or BS program should fill requirements in BA or BS programs across the country, not just at MLC.
3. A gen ed should teach students to think critically about the subject matter. For example, even though science isn't a huge part of pastoral ministry, it's valuable to know enough about how science works to avoid being led astray by things that are supposedly "proven," be it evolution, genetic disposition to sexual orientation, or any number of other things. I see teaching critical thinking as teaching students to teach themselves. Gather information from different sources, evaluate that information, look at your problem, and make an educated and informed decision to try and solve that problem based on logic and critical thinking learned in gen eds, the foundation of education. No matter what form of ministry you enter, the day will come when there is no one looking over your shoulder telling you how to do stuff. Every situation is different - you have to figure out for yourself what is best at your church with your people. Called workers can't affored to EVER be "finished" learning.
With a simple Google search I took a peek at what Harvard's philosophy towards GenEd is, and what they are currently offering.
ReplyDeleteMLC's challenge for GenEd, of course, is that we have too small a faculty to offer an entire panoply of options (electives). But taking a look at someone else's approach might prove beneficial.
Here: (oops, link doesn't paste. But just Google "harvard general ed courses" and you'll get their homepage.)
KCW
Keith, as you might have guessed, the Harvard report on general education is already on our GenEd task force's radar screen. We are looking not only at the study of the issue that Harvard did, but at various programs at various other institutions.
ReplyDeleteIf anyone knows of a college whose GenEd program is especially worth looking at, feel free to give us those recommendations!
David Sellnow
MLC GenEd Task Force chairman
I tend to agree with what "WLS Vicar 2011" said -- as is the way with blogs, the conversation here seems to wander off the point of the original question at times. (That was the case with our first blog question as well.) Some wandering is okay, we expect that, and we might learn from what folks out there are thinking.
ReplyDeleteBut we do want as much thought as possible on the main question here: What makes for an ideal GenEd course? Not just matters of transferability and such, but
... what sort of learning should take place there?
... what approaches to teaching general courses have you found effective?
... should the outcomes of the course be measured in terms of content (knowledge) acquired, or in terms of skills and abilities that have been developed? Or both?
Our task force is still thinking quite theoretically and philosophically about such issues. Before we go to the point of mapping out specific courses to fulfill specific aims, we should have a clear understanding of what sort of aims we want to ... well, aim at. :-)
D.Sellnow
Task force chairman
I'll admit up front that I haven't read the entire discussion that's taken place in these comments, so I hope you'll forgive me if I overlap a bit.
ReplyDeleteFor me, the most rewarding general education classes have been the ones that, although they focus on one specific area of study, stimulate my mind and lead me to think and make applications to life and other areas of study. Those are the sorts of classes that will enrich our lives and our ministries long after the general education credit requirements have been fulfilled.
[sigh] Where to start?
ReplyDeleteWell, following KCW's advice,I perused the philosophies and objectives of the gen-ed programs at Harvard University and several others. I found three common threads. First,there should be a wide-variety of trans-disciplinary courses from which to choose. Second, Gen-ed courses should introduce the student to the reasoning tools necessary for gaining a deeper understanding in his/her particular field. Third, Gen-ed courses should prepare a student for 'success' as a citizen in today's complex world.
As far as MLC goes, covering the first principle is tricky to say the least. The faculty is indeed small and already overworked. Professors could, however adjust their attitude toward gen-ed courses. These courses are often outside of a student's interests and strengths, and this is done purposefully, according to the first principle. For this reason, professors can ill afford to present the course as a formality--a hoop to jump through on one's way to upper-level classes. In many cases(and there have been many), underwhelming enthusiasm for the merit of a course on the part of the professor has bred disillusionment on the part of the students.
I am extremely passionate about the second common thread. For this reason I'll wait for a blog question that addresses it directly. Suffice it to say, MLC needs great improvement throughout all coursework regarding the introduction and implementation of critical thinking. My ideal gen-ed class would include ANY sort of critical thinking or analysis.
The third thread is very different according to the mission of MLC. We are all here for one distinct purpose. Elsewhere, being a 'successful' citizen could mean almost anything. That said, sometimes I feel MLC's curriculum doesn't foster social responsibility. There are very important social topics that effect our lives and the lives of those to whom we will minister. An ideal Gen-ed course would address some of these complex social questions (as some posted previously)in the context of that course.