What General Education Courses Contribute to Essential Learning Outcomes

Transcription

1 { What General Education Courses Contribute to Essential Learning Outcomes Thomas F. Nelson Laird, Amanda Suniti Niskodé-Dossett and George D. Kuh Consensus is emerging as to what twenty-first-century college and university graduates need to know and be able to do. These essential learning outcomes of higher education are rooted in the long-standing belief that baccalaureate study should reinforce the values of liberal democracies, foster enlightened thought, and encourage engaged citizenship; they resonate with what educators, alumni, and business leaders believe students need to function effectively in a rapidly changing world (Association of American Colleges and Universities [ aac&u ], 1995, 2005a, 2007). These outcomes are broad knowledge of human cultures and the natural and physical world, including social sciences, science and mathematics, humanities, histories, and the arts; intellectual and practical skills, including effective writing, inquiry, quantitative and information literacy, and teamwork and problem solving; individual and social responsibilities, including civic knowledge, intercultural knowledge and competence, ethical reasoning and action, and lifelong learning skills; and jge: the journal of general education, Vol. 58, No. 2, 2009 Copyright 2009 The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.

2 integrative learning, including the capacity to adapt knowledge, skills, and responsibilities to new settings and questions ( aac&u, 2007). Even if students often see this type of liberal learning as a luxury (Zinser, 2004), the outcomes are more relevant today than ever before because the demands of this era require citizens to actively engage in the larger world community; work effectively in both collaborative and competitive environments with people from different backgrounds; and deal with messy, complex, unscripted problems ( aac&u, 2007). Existing research suggests that exposure to activities consistent with a liberal arts education affects a range of the desired outcomes (Pascarella, Wolniak, Seifert, Cruce, & Blaich, 2005). For example, stronger exposure to liberal types of education resulted in such positive outcomes as greater reading comprehension, critical thinking, science reasoning, writing skills, openness to diversity/challenge, learning for self-understanding, sense of responsibility for one s own academic success, preference for deep and difficult intellectual work, and positive attitude toward literacy (Wolniak, Seifert, & Blaich, 2004). While encouraging, this work does not directly address the component of the curriculum frequently viewed as responsible for liberal learning: general education courses ( gec s). The Role of General Education Courses gecs are widely presumed to provide a foundation for further developing the skills, competencies, and dispositions that make up the essential learning outcomes. Katz (2005) points out, Many of the attempts to package liberal education in the modern university have centered on general education (p. B6). And while what happens outside the classroom also can make meaningful contributions to student outcomes (Kuh, 1993, 1995; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005), ultimately responsibility rests with the faculty to assure that the general education program is strong, that it reflects the best contemporary thinking, and that it meets the particular educational goals of the institution (Gaff, 1999, p. 13). For the purposes of this study, general education is the part of the curriculum shared by all students ( aac&u, 2005a, p. 2). As a complement to specialization and career preparation, gec s introduce students to a variety of topics (history, culture, science, and mathematics) and modes of inquiry thought to be necessary to become liberally educated citizens ( aac&u, 2005a; Ratcliff, Johnson, La Nasa, & Graff, 2001). In essence, essential learning outcomes are the goals, and gec s are the building blocks for achieving the goals. 66 Nelson Laird et al.

3 The purposes and structure of general education have evolved over time to keep pace with the growth in the number, size, and functions of American colleges and universities (Rudolph, 1977). From beginnings traceable to Cornell University and its first president, Andrew D. White, general education has been viewed and implemented as a necessary complement to specialized forms of education, as the curricular means of developing well-rounded students, as an essential component of cultural transmission, and as foundational education (Gaff, 1991; Rudolph, 1977; Stark & Lattuca, 1997). Even though many faculty members understood the value of general and liberal learning, they were not always supportive or committed to promoting the outcomes. According to Rudolph (1977), general education curricula were the hobby horses of new presidents, ambitious deans, and well-meaning humanists of the sort who were elected to curriculum committees by colleagues as a gesture of token support for the idea of liberal learning. When that gesture collided with the interests of department and the major field, only occasionally did the general prevail over the special (p. 253). By 1977, general education was called a disaster area by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (Kanter, Gamson, & London, 1997). In the past three decades, however, interest has been rekindled in the role and potentially important contributions of general education. As a sign of this renewed commitment, about three-quarters of higher education institutions revised their general education curriculum during the 1990s (Ratcliff et al., 2001). Institutions were prompted into this action, in part, by influential philanthropic organizations and federal agencies that called for efforts to examine and strengthen general education. Higher education organizations, particularly the aac&u, also played a role by hosting conferences and producing reports about general education and liberal learning. Making general education relevant in the twenty-first century, Harvard University (which for better and worse is seen as a bellwether of sorts for general education) recently revised its core curriculum. Echoing the aac&u statement, the goals of the revamping at Harvard were to prepare students for civic engagement, teach students to understand themselves as products of and participants in traditions of art, ideas, and values, prepare students to respond critically and constructively to change, and develop students understanding of the ethical dimensions of what they say and do (Harvard University, 2007, pp. 5 6). Especially relevant for this study, the Harvard report encourages faculty teaching gec s to promote these outcomes by using engaging pedagogies, because evidence shows that such pedagogies promote the desired outcomes (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). However, there is no complementary body of evidence suggesting that gec s emphasize essential outcomes or effective practices more or less than other courses on campus. General Education Courses and Learning Outcomes 67

4 Understanding Faculty Emphases and Practices in General Education Courses Despite what skeptical faculty may claim, students generally do what is assigned and encouraged by their instructors (Kuh, Nelson Laird, & Umbach, 2004; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). For example, at colleges and universities where faculty members emphasize and more frequently employ good practices in undergraduate education, such as active and collaborative learning activities, students do those activities more and benefit more in terms of desired outcomes than students on other campuses (Kuh et al., 2004). The explanation for these findings is, as many educators assume, that the quality of teaching and learning whether in gec s or elsewhere in the curriculum is in large part a function of the instructional approaches faculty members use and the nature of the activities they emphasize. gec s or participation in a broad general education appear to be effective at promoting a host of outcomes, including critical thinking (Tsui, 1999) and the importance students place on making a difference in their communities (Nelson Laird, Engberg, & Hurtado, 2005). Whether at the system level, at a single institution, or based on a select set of courses, the research on gec s generally shows positive effects on desired student outcomes (e.g., Anderson et al., 2007; Choi, 2005; Kramer, 2006; Mahoney & Schamber, 2004; Mazer, Hunt, & Kuznekoff, 2007; Nelson Laird et al., 2005; Spiezio, Baker, & Boland, 2005). While this work sometimes highlights certain pedagogies or draws implications for instructional practice based on findings about course effects on student outcomes, research into what faculty members try to accomplish when teaching gec s and their methods of doing so lags behind. In particular, it is surprising that little research has focused on distinctions between gec s and non- gec s (i.e., those courses that do not meet a general education requirement, presumably courses primarily for a major) in terms of what faculty members emphasize or which pedagogical practices they employ. In fact, we know of no studies that systematically document the pedagogical approaches typically employed in these two types of courses. Given the importance of liberal education outcomes and the assumed role of gec s in promoting them, it is prudent to investigate whether faculty teaching gec s are addressing essential learning outcomes and whether gec s focus on the requisite knowledge, skills, and competencies to a greater or lesser extent than other courses (i.e., non- gec s). By comparing the two types of courses, educational leaders and policy makers can improve their understanding of which areas of the curriculum are doing what they say needs to be done. 68 Nelson Laird et al.

5 Further, this type of comparative information can inform ongoing conversations about the role of general education. While Harvard (2007) reinforced the strong connection between gec s and liberal education, aac&u (2007) argues that institutions need to emphasize the essential learning outcomes throughout the entire curriculum. Because the number of gec s required for a baccalaureate is relatively small, the general education component by itself is almost certainly insufficient for realizing the complex outcomes associated with the liberally educated person ( aac&u, 2005b, 2007). If liberal learning is just as much the business of the major and just as essential to a baccalaureate level of mastery in a field as it is to general education ( aac&u, 1998, p. 16), institutions, departments, and faculty need to figure out how the different parts of the curriculum work together to promote essential learning outcomes. Critical to that task is developing an understanding of how faculty currently teach their courses and what practices they use differentially in gecs and non-gecs. Purpose of the Study Toward this end, this study seeks to discover the degree to which faculty members structure their courses to promote essential learning outcomes and the amount they emphasize effective educational practices. Specifically, we compare the degree to which instructors of gec s and non- gec s emphasize intellectual and practical skills as well as individual and social responsibility. In addition, we examine whether faculty practices emphasis on deep approaches to learning, use of active classroom practices, student faculty interaction, and diverse interactions vary between gecs and non-gecs. Methods Data Source The data for this study come from the 2005 administration of the Faculty Survey of Student Engagement ( fsse ), an annual survey of faculty members at four-year colleges and universities designed to complement and enrich findings from the National Survey of Student Engagement ( nsse ). Faculty respondents answered questions about their expectations for students as well as how they structured classroom activities and course assignments to encourage certain student behaviors and desired outcomes. The survey also collected information about how faculty members spend their time on activities such as teaching, advising, research, and service and the kinds of learning experiences their institutions emphasize. General Education Courses and Learning Outcomes 69

6 Institutions that participate in nsse can choose to participate in fsse and select their own sample of faculty to survey. Since fsse s focus is on undergraduate teaching, institutions are encouraged to submit samples consisting of faculty members who teach undergraduates. In 2005, the vast majority of the 109 institutions that participated in fsse surveyed all undergraduate teaching faculty or all faculty members on their campus. Although not representative of all U.S. four-year institutions, a wide cross section of colleges and universities used fsse in For example, 21 percent were doctoral, 46 percent were master s level, 8 percent were liberal arts, 17 percent were baccalaureate general, and 7 percent were other types of institutions. In addition, public and private institutions were almost equally represented among the 109 colleges and universities (52 percent and 48 percent, respectively). In 2005, as in every year, fsse respondents completed the survey online. The instrument is relatively short (most faculty members finished the questionnaire in around fifteen minutes). A campus representative, such as the chief academic officer, often sent a message promoting participation prior to the survey opening on a campus. Faculty responses were anonymous, which is one reason response rates tend to be fairly strong, as the estimated average institutional response rate for 2005 was over 50 percent. Measures Th e survey asked faculty members to answer a series of questions about a particular course they taught during the academic year. After choosing a course, each faculty member provided some information about the course, including whether or not the course met a general education requirement and whether the course was lower (primarily first-year students and sophomores) or upper (primarily juniors and seniors) division. In addition, faculty respondents indicated how much they structured their courses so that students would learn and develop in areas such as writing clearly and effectively, working effectively with others, understanding people of other racial and ethnic backgrounds, and developing a personal code of values and ethics. Responses to these items were measured using a four-point scale ranging from Very little to Very much. From these items, we derived scales that represent three of the categories of liberal arts outcomes identified by aac&u (2005b, 2007): intellectual skills (alpha = 0.63), practical skills (alpha = 0.65), and individual and social responsibility (alpha = 0.80). Table 1 presents a list of the scales and their associated items, as well as scale and item means and standard deviations for gec s and non- gec s. 70 Nelson Laird et al.

7 table 1 Scales and Component Items Representing the Extent to Which Faculty Structure Their Courses to Promote Student Outcomes Scale and Item General Education Non General Education Mean SD Mean SD Intellectual Skills (alpha = 0.63) Writing clearly and effectively Speaking clearly and effectively Thinking critically and analytically Learning effectively on their own Practical Skills (alpha = 0.65) Using computing and information technology Working effectively with others Solving complex real-world problems Acquiring job or work-related knowledge and skills Individual and Social Responsibility (alpha = 0.80) Understanding themselves Understanding people of other racial and ethnic backgrounds Developing a personal code of values and ethics Developing a deepened sense of spirituality note: Faculty responded to all items on a scale where 1 = Very little, 2 = Some, 3 = Quite a bit, and 4 = Very much. Scale scores are means of faculty responses to the component items. Other variables used in this study include faculty demographics (gender, race, years teaching), course characteristics (course size and disciplinary area), and indicators of faculty emphasis on good educational practices (emphasis on deep learning, active classroom practices, student faculty interaction, and diverse interactions). See Table 2 for a complete list of these additional variables. table 2 Measures Used in Analyses Measure Faculty Demographics Gender Description 0 = man, 1 = woman (continued) General Education Courses and Learning Outcomes 71

8 table 2 Measures Used in Analyses (continued ) Measure Race/ethnicity a Employment status Years teaching Number of courses taught this academic year Course Characteristics General education course ( gec ) Course level Disciplinary area a Description African American/black, Asian/Asian American, Hispanic, other, white (reference) 0 = part time, 1 = full time Continuous Continuous 0 = non- gec, 1 = gec 0 = lower division, 1 = upper division Arts and humanities, biological sciences, business, education, engineering, physical sciences, professional, social sciences, other (reference) Course size Continuous Effective Educational Practices Emphasis on deep learning 12-item scale, alpha = 0.85 Use of active classroom practices 5-item scale, alpha = 0.73 Student faculty interaction 3-item scale, alpha = 0.76 Diverse interactions 2-item scale, alpha = 0.87 a Dichotomous coding for each category used in analyses. The reference group is indicated. Sample After deletion for missing data, usable responses were available from 5,231 faculty members (3,111 lower division and 2,120 upper division) who based their responses on a gec and 5,666 faculty members (1,214 lower division and 4,452 upper division) based on a non- gec. About 43 percent were women, nearly 85 percent were white, and almost 90 percent were full time. The average faculty respondent had sixteen years of teaching experience and had a five-course teaching load in the current year. The average course sizes for lower- and upperdivision courses were about fifty-three and thirty-four students, respectively. The disciplinary breakdown depended on the course level. For faculty teaching lower-division courses, well over half came from three disciplinary areas (arts and humanities, 35 percent; physical sciences, 18 percent; and social sciences, 13 percent). Faculty members teaching upper-division courses were more evenly 72 Nelson Laird et al.

9 spread across disciplinary areas (for example, only 44 percent came from the arts and humanities, physical sciences, and social sciences combined). Analyses Mean differences were calculated to compare how faculty structured gec s and non- gec s to promote intellectual skills, practical skills, and individual and social responsibility. Since course structures and approaches can differ by course level, these analyses were run separately for faculty teaching upper- and lower-division courses. Mean scores for each type of course ( gec and non- gec ) were compared within each division (upper and lower). Similar comparisons were run to determine differences in the use of effective educational practices between gec s and non- gec s. Means were calculated and compared for four indicators of effective educational practice similar to those used in previous studies (Kuh et al., 2004; Nelson Laird, Shoup, Kuh, & Schwarz, 2008). We examined these additional practices to see if differences in the practices would help us explain the pattern of results found for the promotion of the essential learning outcomes. Effect sizes (standardized mean differences) were calculated both with and without controls at each course level. Control variables included gender, race, full-time/part-time status, years teaching, number of courses taught in the current year, course size, and disciplinary area. The effect size without controls represents the difference in structure and emphasis experienced by the students in these courses. That is, for a student in a typical gec, the effect size without controls represents the magnitude of the difference in the emphasis placed on the respective essential learning outcomes or effective educational practices compared with the typical non- gec. The effect size with controls represents how much of the difference is due to the fact that the course is a gec and not to other characteristics of the course such as its associated discipline or field or characteristics of the faculty instructor such as gender. Limitations This study has two primary limitations. First, institutions choose to participate in fsse and determine which faculty members are invited to participate. This self-selection limits the claims we can make about the representativeness of the sample. However, we know that participating institutions represent a wide variety of colleges and universities, even if in general there is a slightly greater proportion of doctoral, master s, and public institutions relative to four-year institutions nationally. Moreover, the types of colleges and universities slightly overrepresented in the sample enroll a disproportionately large number of undergraduates. In addition, the faculty members who participated mirror General Education Courses and Learning Outcomes 73

10 the national population of faculty at four-year institutions along several characteristics such as gender and disciplinary area. Second, gec s at the institutions were not sampled. Rather, faculty members chose the courses about which they responded. This approach, while it produced roughly equal numbers of gec s and non- gec s, makes it impossible to determine whether the courses in the study are representative of all courses at participating institutions. As a result of these limitations, caution should be used in generalizing beyond the institutions and courses covered in the study. Results Table 3 gives the frequency of faculty responses to the component items for the intellectual skills, practical skills, and individual and social responsibility measures. Differences by general education designation are apparent for both lower- and upper-division courses. Mean comparisons for the overall scales illustrate the magnitude of these differences. Table 4 shows the means calculated by course level and general education designation for the categories of essential learning outcomes. These results indicate that the average faculty member places the greatest emphasis on promoting intellectual skills ( quite a bit ), less emphasis on practical skill acquisition (between some and quite a bit ), and even less emphasis on cultivating individual and social responsibility ( some ). Because the scale scores are placed on the original scale of the component items, a mean close to 2 suggests that the average faculty member promotes the outcome to some degree, while a mean close to 3 suggests that the average faculty member promotes the outcome quite a bit. The means in Table 4 also suggest that faculty members teaching upper-division courses emphasize all of the outcomes to a greater degree in their courses than their counterparts do in lower-division courses. The effect sizes reported in Table 4 indicate that the faculty members teaching a gec generally structure their courses to emphasize intellectual skills and individual and social responsibility to a greater extent than their counterparts who were teaching non- gec s. For intellectual skills, the effect sizes without controls are modest in size: 0.21 for lower-division courses and 0.20 for upperdivision courses ( p <.001 in both instances). At the item level, this translates into somewhat significant differences; for example, 39 percent of faculty teaching gec s indicated that their courses very much emphasized writing clearly and effectively, while only 31 percent of faculty teaching non- gec s indicated this. For individual and social responsibility, the effect sizes without controls are larger: 0.30 for lower-division courses and 0.32 for upper-division courses ( p <.001 in both instances). Illustrative of this difference is the fact that 48 percent of gec 74 Nelson Laird et al.

11 table 3 Item Frequencies for the Extent to Which Faculty Structure Their Courses to Promote Student Outcomes by General Education Designation and Course Level Item Intellectual Skills General Education Course (gec) or Non-gec2 Very Little Some Lower Division Upper Division Quite a Bit Very Much Very Little Some Quite a Bit Very Much Writing clearly and effectively gec 16% 23% 25% 36% 9% 20% 29% 43% Speaking clearly and effectively Thinking critically and analytically Learning effectively on their own Practical Skills Using computing and information technology Working effectively with others Non-gec 23% 30% 26% 22% 10% 26% 29% 34% gec 26% 32% 23% 20% 14% 28% 30% 27% Non-gec 29% 31% 23% 17% 17% 32% 29% 22% gec 1% 10% 29% 60% 1% 4% 27% 68% Non-gec 1%9% 36% 54% 0% 5% 31% 63% gec 1% 15% 48% 37%1% 13%45% 41% Non-gec 2% 17% 46%35% 1% 17% 46% 36% gec 28% 37% 20% 15% 26% 32% 22% 19% Non-gec 26% 34% 18% 21% 24% 33%22% 21% gec 19% 33% 27% 21% 15% 29% 27% 30% Non-gec 16% 31% 25% 27% 12% 29% 29% 29% (continued) General Education Courses and Learning Outcomes 75

12 table 3 Item Frequencies for the Extent to Which Faculty Structure Their Courses to Promote Student Outcomes by General Education Designation and Course Level (continued ) Item Solving complex real-world problems Acquiring job or work-related knowledge and skills Individual and Social Responsibility General Education Course (gec) or Non-gec2 Very Little Some Lower Division Upper Division Quite a Bit Very Much Very Little Some Quite a Bit gec 14% 33% 30% 23% 10% 23% 32% 36% Non-gec 15% 32% 29% 24% 9% 23% 33% 35% gec17% 32% 29% 22% 11% 23% 26% 39% Non-gec 7% 19% 29% 45% 7% 17% 27%49% Understanding themselves gec 19% 25% 26% 29% 14% 25% 27% 33% Non-gec 27% 27%23% 23% 24% 28% 25% 24% Understanding people of other gec 29% 25% 20% 25% 25% 24% 20% 31% racial and ethnic backgrounds Non-gec 45% 25% 16% 14% 35% 28% 18% 18% Developing a personal code of gec 22% 33% 24% 21% 16% 29% 27% 27% values and ethics Non-gec 27% 32% 24% 18% 20% 32% 25% 23% Developing a deepened sense gec 65% 21% 8% 6% 60% 22% 10% 8% of spirituality Non-gec 77% 15% 4% 3% 70% 19% 6% 4% Very Much 76 Nelson Laird et al.

13 table 4 Mean Comparisons of the Amount General Education and Non General Education Courses Are Structured to Promote Essential Learning Outcomes by Course Level Learning Outcome and Course Level General Education Non General Education Mean Difference Effect Size a Effect Size with Controls b Mean SD Mean SD Intellectual Skills Lower Division *** 0.16*** Upper Division *** 0.14*** Practical Skills Lower Division *** 0.09*** Upper Division *** 0.04 Individual and Social Responsibility Lower Division *** 0.28*** Upper Division *** 0.27*** note: Sample sizes: lower division, general education course (gec) = 3,203; lower division, non-gec = 1,262; upper division, gec = 2,182; and upper division, non-gec = 4,563. a The effect size is the mean difference divided by the pooled standard deviation. b Effect size with controls is the unstandardized regression coefficient for general education courses from analyses where all nondichotomous variables were standardized. Controls include gender, race, employment status, number of years teaching, disciplinary area, and number of courses taught in the current academic year. * p <.05; ** p <.01; *** p <.001. General Education Courses and Learning Outcomes 77

14 faculty, compared to 35 percent of non- gec faculty, indicated that their course was substantially (quite a bit or very much) structured to increase students understanding of people of other racial and ethnic backgrounds. For both outcomes and for both lower- and upper-division courses, introducing controls reduces the effect sizes slightly, but they remain of comparable magnitude and significance. Faculty teaching gec s tended to place less emphasis on acquisition of practical skills compared to their colleagues teaching non- gec s. In addition, this difference appears to be greater at the lower-division level, as reflected in effect sizes without controls of 0.30 and 0.12 for the lower and upper division, respectively ( p <.001 for both). Indeed, after the introduction of controls, the effect size at the upper-division level becomes quite small (0.04, p >.05). The differences in this area are driven by faculty responses to how much their courses are structured to promote acquiring job or work-related knowledge and skills. While only three in ten (29 percent) of gec faculty indicated that they do so very much, nearly half of non- gec faculty (48 percent) indicated the same. Given that gec s emphasize intellectual skills and individual and social responsibility to a greater degree than non- gec s, it is reasonable to expect that gec s would emphasize deep approaches to learning and diverse interactions to a greater extent than non- gec s. Table 5 indicates that this is so. For emphasis on deep learning, the effect sizes are modest to small (effect sizes range from 0.11 to 0.19, p <.001 for all), with slightly larger effect sizes at the lower-division level (0.19 without controls and 0.16 with controls, p <.001 for both). For diverse interactions, the effect sizes were relatively small, but there were no appreciable differences in magnitude between lower- (0.14 without controls, p <.001; and 0.12 with controls, p <.01) and upper-division (0.14 without controls and 0.11 with controls, p <.01 for both) courses. Active and collaborative learning in the form of small-group activities and activities where the instructor and students share the responsibility for learning are viewed as an effective means to achieve most outcomes, including intellectual skills, practical skills, and individual and social responsibility (Chickering & Gamson, 1987; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Thus, one would hope that no differences would be found between gec s and non- gec s. Table 5 shows that instructors of gec s use active classroom practices to a slightly greater degree than in non-gecs (effect sizes range from 0.06 to 0.08). However, the size of the effect is trivial and in one case not significant (the effect size without controls at the lower-division level equaled 0.06, p >.05). A substantial body of research shows that, similar to active teaching practices, student faculty interaction is linked to a wide range of student outcomes (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Faculty teaching non- gec s report 78 Nelson Laird et al.

15 table 5 Mean Comparisons of the Amount General Education and Non General Education Courses Use Effective Educational Practices by Course Level Effective Educational Practice and Course Level Emphasis on Deep Learning General Education Non General Education Mean SD Mean SD Mean Effect Size with Difference Effect Size a Controls b Lower Division *** 0.16*** Upper Division *** 0.11*** Use of Active Classroom Practices Lower Division * Upper Division ** 0.06* Student Faculty Interaction Lower Division *** 0.15*** Upper Division *** 0.11*** Diverse Interactions Lower Division *** 0.12** Upper Division *** 0.11*** note: Sample sizes: lower division, general education course (gec) = 3,111; lower division, non-gec = 1,214; upper division, gec = 2,120; and upper division, non-gec = 4,452. a The effect size is the mean difference divided by the pooled standard deviation. b Effect size with controls is the unstandardized regression coefficient for general education courses from analyses where all nondichotomous variables were standardized. Controls include gender, race, employment status, number of years teaching, number of courses taught in the current academic year, course size, and disciplinary area. * p <.05; ** p <.01; *** p <.001. General Education Courses and Learning Outcomes 79

16 more interaction with students than faculty teaching gec s, as the effect sizes for gec s range from 0.11 to 0.23 ( p <.001 for all). Although the magnitude of the effect is modest, it appears to be greater at the lower-division level, as the effect sizes without controls are 0.23 and 0.16 for lower- and upper-division courses, respectively. Discussion and Implications Those arguing for more emphasis on essential learning outcomes across the curriculum ( aac&u, 2007) may be disappointed in the degree to which faculty in this study focus on these outcomes, especially in the domain of individual and social responsibility. While certainly more attention to these areas would be welcome, it is also the case that faculty teaching gec s place more emphasis on a variety of essential learning outcomes than their counterparts teaching nongecs. That is, compared with non- gec s, gec s are structured to a greater extent to promote intellectual skills (writing and speaking clearly and effectively, thinking critically, and learning effectively on one s own) and individual and social responsibility (understanding oneself, understanding people of other racial and ethnic backgrounds, developing a personal code of values and ethics, and developing a deepened sense of spirituality). Also, faculty teaching gec s emphasize deep approaches to learning, types of learning experiences that encompass integrative learning, to a greater extent and report more diverse interactions in their courses than faculty teaching non- gec s. These findings hold even after controlling for differences in faculty and course characteristics. Taken together, these findings suggest that the faculty teaching gec s are aware that these skills and competencies are critical for success in advanced course work in the major as well as in students lives after college and that the practices used in their courses are generally consistent with these goals. A different pattern of results characterizes the practical skills domain of essential learning outcomes, which includes using technology, working effectively with others, solving complex real-world problems, and acquiring job or work-related skills. Instructors of non- gec s focus on these skills and competencies to a greater extent than in gec s. Practical skills may be an area where faculty recognize the value of these outcomes but defer to courses in the major to build the requisite knowledge and skills. In order to more effectively promote the acquisition of essential learning outcomes, faculty members may have to more clearly delineate which practical skills can be fostered in both general and majorspecific components of the curriculum and how to most effectively realize these outcomes. Alternatively, practical skills, while valued, may simply have less priority for faculty members who are already trying to achieve a lot in their courses. 80 Nelson Laird et al.

17 Non- gec faculty reported greater student faculty interaction such as communicating via and discussing grades and career plans. What is it about the structure of gec s that limits student faculty contact? While we controlled for some of these characteristics such as class size and discipline, are there other factors, such as use of teaching assistants, that might help explain the differences? One factor may be that gec s tend to be viewed by students and faculty as survey courses that should not require much contact between students and faculty. One encouraging finding is that the differences between gec s and non- gec s were quite small for the frequency of use of active and collaborative learning activities. This suggests that small-group work, discussion, and in-class writing are being used across the curriculum. While proponents of these practices may prefer more frequent use of such approaches and less reliance on lecturing, our results suggest that many courses are using these practices, at least modestly. This study was largely exploratory in nature. While some differences between gec s and non- gec s were found, the proximal causes of these differences are not well understood. Understanding why such differences exist and the inconsistencies in the results are important areas for future research. In addition, the items that measure the extent to which courses are structured to emphasize essential learning outcomes were not designed intentionally to tap these constructs. It is, in fact, coincidental that the item set used to examine essential learning outcomes contains three factors that mirror categories identified by aac&u (2005b, 2007). Scale development and examination of a wider range of faculty emphases and practices should be a component of future comparisons of gec s and non- gec s. Such inquiries could inform national conversations about the quality of undergraduate education at the national, sector, institution, and classroom levels. Conclusion Decades ago, the typical undergraduate student lived on campus and had numerous opportunities to interact frequently with faculty members who lived nearby and to test and integrate the ideas presented in class readings and discussions in the company of peers. These experiences in part fostered students development as whole persons and added a measure of liberal learning. Today, less than a fifth of undergraduates live in campus housing; many are part time and do not partake of the many enriching educational activities institutions provide to expose them to a wide range of human differences. As a result, what happens in the classroom becomes all the more important because it is the one venue all students have in common (Kuh, Kinzie, Buckley, Bridges, & Hayek, 2007). General Education Courses and Learning Outcomes 81

18 As other research shows (Pace, 1990; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005), students learn what they study. Moreover, students report doing what faculty members emphasize (Kuh et al., 2004). That is, when faculty members require more writing, students report writing more and gaining more in their ability to write clearly and persuasively. When faculty members emphasize higher-order mental activities such as synthesis and analysis, students say that they enlarge their capacity to think critically and analytically and are better able to solve complex problems. When faculty members present diverse perspectives in their courses, students report having more experiences with diversity and appreciating human diversity to a greater degree. In short, students do what is asked of them and benefit accordingly. The differences between gec s and non- gec s found in this study suggest that there is room for improvement in terms of promoting liberal learning outcomes. If institutions want their students to be liberally educated by the end of their undergraduate careers, there is potential to promote these outcomes more and to place greater emphasis on the practices that will lead to those outcomes. Beyond increased focus on these outcomes by individual faculty members, our findings and the work of aac&u (2005b, 2007) would suggest that significant improvement will require greater coordination and improved curricular design. Institutions and their faculties need to decide in what courses and programs certain outcomes and practices should be emphasized more, what purposes should be served by gec s, and, more important, how the pieces of the curriculum fit together to effectively promote the essential learning outcomes all students need to survive and thrive in the twenty-first century. References Anderson, M. W., Teisl, M., Criner, G., Tisher, S., Smith, S., Hunter, M., et al. (2007). Attitude changes of undergraduate university students in general education courses. Journal of General Education, 56, Association of American Colleges and Universities. (1995). American pluralism and the college curriculum: Higher education in a diverse democracy. Washington, D.C.: Author. Association of American Colleges and Universities. (1998). Contemporary understandings of liberal education. Washington, D.C.: Author. Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2005a). The art and science of assessing general education outcomes and contemporary understandings of liberal education. Washington, D.C.: Author. Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2005b). Liberal education outcomes: A preliminary report on student achievement in college. Washington, D.C.: Author. Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2007). College learning for the new global century: A report from the National Leadership Council for Liberal Education and America s Promise. Washington, D.C.: Author. 82 Nelson Laird et al.

19 Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for food practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39 (7), 3 7. Choi, N. (2005). Self-efficacy and self-concept as predictors of college students academic performance. Psychology in the Schools, 42 (2), Gaff, J. G. (1991). New life for the college curriculum. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Gaff, J. G. (1999). General education: The changing agenda (Series No. 3). Washington, D.C.: Association of American Colleges and Universities. Harvard University. (2007). Report of the Task Force on General Education. Cambridge, Mass.: President and Fellows of Harvard College. Kanter, S. L., Gamson, Z. F., & London, H. B. (1997). Revitalizing general education in a time of scarcity: A navigational chart for administrators and faculty. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Katz, S. N. (2005, April 1). Liberal education on the ropes. Chronicle of Higher Education, p. B6. Kramer, P. I. (2006). Assessment and the fear of punishment: How the protection of anonymity positively influenced the design and outcomes of postsecondary assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 31 (5), Kuh, G. D. (1993). In their own words: What students learn outside the classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 30, Kuh, G. D. (1995). The other curriculum: Out-of-class experiences associated with student learning and personal development. Journal of Higher Education, 66, Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Buckley, J. A., Bridges, B. K., & Hayek, J. C. (2007). Piecing together the student success puzzle: Research, propositions, and recommendations (ASHE Higher Education Report 32, No. 5). San Francisco: Wiley Periodicals. Kuh, G. D., Nelson Laird, T. F., & Umbach, P. D. (2004). Aligning faculty activities and student behavior: Realizing the promise of Greater Expectations. Liberal Education, 90 (4), Mahoney, S. L., & Schamber, J. F. (2004). Exploring the application of a developmental model of intercultural sensitivity to a general education curriculum on diversity. Journal of General Education, 53, Mazer, J. P., Hunt, S. K., & Kuznekoff, J. H. (2007). Revising general education: Assessing a critical thinking instructional model in the basic communication course. Journal of General Education, 56, Nelson Laird, T. F., Engberg, M. E., & Hurtado, S. (2005). Modeling accentuation effects: Enrolling in a diversity course and the importance of social action engagement. Journal of Higher Education, 76, Nelson Laird, T. F., Shoup, R., Kuh, G. D., & Schwarz, M. J. (2008). The effects of discipline on deep approaches to student learning and college outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 49, Pace, C. R. (1990). The undergraduates: A report of their activities and progress in college in the 1980s. Los Angeles: Center for the Study of Evaluation, University of California Los Angeles Graduate School of Education. Pascarella, E., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research (Vol. 2). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Pascarella, E., Wolniak, G. C., Seifert, T. A., Cruce, T. M., & Blaich, C. F. (2005). Liberal arts colleges and liberal arts education: New evidence on impacts (ASHE Higher Education Report 31, No. 3). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. General Education Courses and Learning Outcomes 83

20 Ratcliff, J. L., Johnson, D. K., La Nasa, S. M., & Gaff, J. G. (2001). The status of general education in the year 2000: Summary of a national survey. Washington, D.C.: Association of American Colleges and Universities. Rudolph, F. (1977). Curriculum. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Spiezio, K. E., Baker, K. Q., & Boland, K. (2005). General education and civic engagement: An empirical analysis of pedagogical possibilities. Journal of General Education, 54, Stark, J. S., & Lattuca, L. R. (1997). Shaping the college curriculum: Academic plans in action. Needham Heights, Mass.: Allyn and Bacon. Tsui, L. (1999). Courses and instruction affecting critical thinking. Research in Higher Education, 40, Wolniak, G. C., Seifert, T. A., & Blaich, C. F. (2004, March). A liberal arts education changes lives: Why everyone can and should have this experience. LiberalArtsOnline, 4 (3), 1 5. Available at Zinser, E. (2004). Making the case for liberal education. Liberal Education, 90, Nelson Laird et al.

21