To: The General Education Committee 
Cc: Gough, Joan; Nicholson, Ben
Subject: Question on Ballot to Consider

Dear All,

After reviewing the Draft Ballot I believe there is a critical question we must consider and revise the language. I come to this after reflecting on our discussion about clearly stating the results of the vote. The results of Issue 1 & 2 seem straightforward and clear. But they seem murky and ill defined as it pertains to transferability.

Under Issue #3: Transferability of Courses

3B. states fairly clearly the criteria which would be applied to gain (or maintain) GE status. (is this the current "unapplied" 2005 criteria?)

3A. states that Transferability would be considered but not be the deciding factor. What does this mean? In absolute and unequivocal terms?

I think if the faculty votes that transferability should not be the deciding factor that the only responsible action would be that Transferability will NOT be included on the application for Gen Ed Status, and we state this. If a course meets the requirements of the Competencies and Proficiencies it COULD NOT be denied based on Transferability. This is too critical a question to be left open ended and unstated. Who, when, and HOW will it be decided what "considered" means?

This follows our discussion of what "exclusionary" means. If a course can be denied by some "consideration" of Transferability then it is by definition an exclusionary category.

Again, following on our last discussion, it seems clear that this issue is primarily an ADVISING issue. And if transferability is voted to not be the deciding factor that we resolve this by putting clear language in the catalogue, and other information provided to Students (website, etc) that they should seek out and receive counseling as to specifics of how courses that transfer may be applied to their future areas of study (major, core requirements, etc).

I think it only fair and responsible of the Gen Ed Comm to state this in advance of the vote ( so that the voters are fully and fairly informed) and abide by the results of the vote when decisions are made in the future about courses' Gen Ed status.

I know that this was squeezed in during the course of much discussion last meeting, but I hope everyone has had a chance to reflect on the topic. I think it essential that we give the topic our full attention today.

Gen Ed Committee Member

From: Hluch, Kevin
Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2008 4:56 PM
To:  The General Education Committee

Cc: Gough, Joan; Nicholson, Ben; McCrohan, Kathleen
Subject: RE: Question on Ballot to Consider

Had faculty known that we could have provided input (and had a significant impact) on the nature of the questions posed by the General Education Committee via the Ballot I certainly would  have recommended the questions concerning Transferability be thrown out precisely for the reasons Lincoln enumerated below.  I insist that I did not know that that was a possibility!  Had I known I WOULD have insisted on this course of action by the General Education Committee.

Please note that had the Amendment Process been allowed to proceed the Transfer Amendment, as submitted, would have been an important issue that would have been voted on by the full faculty.  Instead,  the General Education Committee, without soliciting input from interested parties,  fabricated the question and without solicitation from faculty, dismissed the Amendment Process.  This, it appears to me, has been the process all along the way.  (I'm not sure whether the Transfer Amendment was "friendly" or not, but perhaps this was partly the problem perceived by some.)

Had I known I could have written the Transferability ballot question (or provided significant input in its formulation) it would have looked very similar to the Amendment on Transferability that was put forward and summarily eliminated by the General Education Committee.

The current Ballot Questions on Transferability, in my view, distort the nature of the question and do not acknowledge the purpose of COMAR regulations concerning students' Transfer issues.  As we all know by now a "Transfer Standard" already exists: it's called COMAR.  The third choice should be the original Transfer Amendment that was thrown out with the Amendment Process.  Obviously, this concept was looked upon unfavorably by the General Education Committee since it was not incorporated into the Ballot Question even though the Transfer Amendment was a viable, worthwhile and important addition to the transfer discussion.

(Also please note that my teaching schedule prevents me  from attending meetings in the afternoon.)

Thank you.

Kevin A. Hluch
Professor of Art

Ben Nicholson

----------------------------------------

Ben,

Since the subject is General Education courses I can only re-iterate that if a course is accepted as General Education then COMAR regulations apply.  One simply cannot survey the vast field of educational institutions to insure that every single one of MC students' courses transfer to each and every institution across the country. (And many of our students do not transfer at all.) One would think we need to be accountable first to the regulations and laws that have been constituted by the Maryland legislature prior to being accountable to other educational institutions outside the state.

If,  as you say,  the transferability potential of the course "must be investigated by the proposer", then why isn't  this a COMAR regulation?  The history of this issue is that particular departments at certain receiving  institutions were making the decisions about whether particular courses transferred.  Now that was chaotic.  COMAR brought ORDER to the process.  And it also allowed full academic freedom for the faculty at sending institutions to devise courses deemed best for their students.   

By putting the onus on the faculty to PROVE transferability one basically says that these COMAR Transfer regulations are irrelevant.  If they are irrelevant and not to be followed then perhaps it would be best for Montgomery College faculty to apply for the approval of Gen. Ed.  courses directly to a Transfer Committee at UMCP.   Then our Curriculum Committee could get some well-deserved rest.

Dr. Shartle-Galloto indicated in her recent email that ALL courses could be Gen. Ed. courses if they satisfied the competencies which apparently, in the future, may be applied to every course at Montgomery College.

This raises the question, at least to me, as to why there needs to be a "General Education Curriculum" at all.  What, in fact, differentiates those courses from any other if it is only these standardized competencies which are utilized to judge the value of a course?    Perhaps in the future any course accepted as a "General Education Course" will simply require the faculty member to provide proof that it transfers....... Curriculum actions at MC could just then revolve around the UMCP Transfer Committee.  That will certainly simplify matters for everyone.

And one could toss out the COMAR regulations as a bonus since it appears they don't appear to be factor in this discussion anyway.

Have a pleasant break.

Kevin
-------------------------------------------------------

From Karissa Silver

2/29/08  To the General Education Committee:

When I first learned of the potential changes to the General Education requirements, my first concern was about the projected requirement for all Gen. Ed. courses to have Reading and English assessment levels.  I immediately thought of two populations of Montgomery College students: (1) students who test into the AELP/ESL program, and must complete one - four semesters of English as a Second Language courses, and (2) students who test into developmental courses, and must complete one or two semesters before they are eligible for EN 101.  At present, these students may take courses such as Art, Music, and a number of others with no pre-requisites or assessment levels. 

This is particularly critical for international students who must maintain full-time status each semester.  If courses which currently do not have an assessment level are either removed from the General Education distribution lists, or gain assessment levels, these students will be in quite a bind.  For example, let us say an international student has completed his/her Speech requirement, but still has Writing and Reading remaining.  This student will need a third course to be full time.  A parallel example would be a student who must take developmental courses, and must be full-time to maintain coverage under his/her parents' insurance.   At present, these students have a variety of courses to choose from - including courses which can fulfill Arts or Humanities distribution requirements - but with the proposed changes, this will no longer be true. 

As a Counselor, I work with a wide variety of students.  I can state that when students in AELP or developmental courses is steered towards the list of courses without assessment levels in order to bring their course loads up to full-time, generally the first question is, "Will this count towards my major?"   If these courses remain part of the General Education distribution categories, the answer can remain "yes".

Therefore, I strongly feel that transferability should not be the only criterion for courses to remain part of General Education.

Thank you.
Karissa Silver
Counseling and Advising
_______________________________________________________________________

New Comments - Yes, Make Transferability One, but not the Sole Criterion for Gen Ed

Submitted by Professor Carol Malmi, English, Rockville Campus on 2/14/08

Transferability should not be the sole determiner of a course’s acceptance in the General Education program.   

1. Testing courses for universal, or near-universal, transferability is impractical, impermanent, and to some degree irrelevant. 

2. Applying transferability tests to General Education courses could result in removal from the General Education curriculum of courses that are particularly valuable to students for whom the A.A. will be a terminal degree, at least in the near term, as well as to students who do not seek a degree, but seek certification or college course work to improve their employability and performance as employees.  Removal of these courses would be a significant disservice to these students.  It could also be a significant disservice to transferring students in some disciplines or majors.

If we accept the argument for retention of EN109 as a GenEd course because of its relevance and value to student, the issue of transferability yields to the MC mission of serving the needs of community college students, no matter how their post-MC education may evolve.

Section 1:  Testing courses for universal, or near-universal, transferability is impractical, impermanent, and to some degree irrelevant.   

            Impractical:  Testing for transferability principally involves requesting the transfer institution’s evaluator to rule on transferability based on review of the course catalog description.  Evaluators compare the description to potentially equivalent courses at the transfer institution.  The result can be a determination of no equivalency, equivalency to a General Education course, or equivalency to a non-General Education course. 

Semantic and vocabulary differences or mis-matches can trigger denial.  For example, a comparison of course descriptions of Freshman Composition General Education requirements at MC’s top thirty transfer schools revealed significant differences in language and apparent meaning.  See Attachment A for details. 

If MC applied the General Education Committee’s original Proposal premise, that universal or near universal transferability is desirable, the range of discrepancy among the 400 transfer institutions might expand substantially. 

Impermanent:  In addition to the practical problems inherent in comparison of course descriptions, transferability determinations would require re-evaluation when a transfer institution changed its course description.  Tracking and responding to these changes would be a long-term, labor-intensive task.

Irrelevant:  Approximately 80% of MC graduates transfer to the University of Maryland system.  The Maryland Higher Education Commission decrees that all MC General Education Courses transfer as General Education courses to its institutions.   The remaining 20% of MC transferring students go in large numbers to a handful of schools, and in numbers less than ten to over 300 schools.  It would be inefficient and expensive to establish a transfer testing and tracking apparatus to support these rare birds of passage.

Section 2:  Applying transferability tests to General Education courses could result in removal of particularly relevant and valuable courses, thus performing a significant disservice to students.   Example Course:  EN109 Writing for Technology and Business.

As Section 2 shows, applying transferability tests could result in removal from the General Education curriculum of courses that are incorrectly interpreted by transfer evaluators.  Some of these courses could be particularly valuable to students for whom the A.A. will be a terminal degree, at least in the near term, as well as to students who do not seek a degree, but seek certification or simply college course work to improve their employability and performance as employees.  Removal of these courses would be a significant disservice to these students.  It could also be a significant disservice to transferring students in some disciplines or majors.  One example of such a course, with which I am familiar, is EN109 Writing for Technology and Business.   This section will use EN109 as a case study; courses in other disciplines may be similarly challenged by issues of transferability.

EN109’s Value to Students at MC

EN109 is the curricular and transfer equivalent of EN102 (advanced composition).  Both are Foundation Courses.  Both fulfill the freshman composition requirement at the University of Maryland and many other schools.  The courses share a core emphasis on rhetoric, argument, and persuasion.  EN102 assigns academic document types such as the formal essay.  EN109 also assigns workplace document types such as analytical reports and proposals.  Both courses require a substantial, thoroughly researched, and correctly documented research paper.

            Because EN109 applies the study of rhetoric, argument, and persuasion to workplace as well as academic needs for analysis and documentation, the course is of practical value to any student currently working as an employee in a position that requires analysis and writing.  EN109 is sought out by transferring business majors and majors related to technical professions (for example, engineering, nursing, medical technology), who find the course’s content directly relevant to their educational and career preparation.   EN109 addresses the needs of the community college student and the college’s commitment to workforce development by applying knowledge gained in an academic environment to workplace needs.

Students who enroll in EN109 are satisfying a General Education requirement and a Foundation Course requirement.  If EN109 loses its standing as a General Education course because it does not transfer universally as a General Education course, it would presumably also lose its standing as a Foundation Course.  Most students would then select EN102, which satisfies both GenEd and Foundation requirements.  Some transferring business majors might continue to select EN109, even though it would mean sacrificing a GenEd credit, but their numbers are likely to be relatively small.  Decline in demand for EN+109 would eventually – perhaps soon – warrant removal of the course from the MC schedule.  Its removal would deny many students a valuable, uniquely relevant resource.

EN109 as a GenEd Course Transfer Equivalent

Some at MC misunderstand EN109 to be a technical writing course.  Transfer evaluators at outside institutions may also misinterpret EN109 and deny it transferability as a General Education course.  Some have ruled that EN109 would normally follow the basic English composition course as a specialized area, perhaps with a higher course number – not as a General Education course.

            A limited survey conducted by the GenEd Committee inquired into EN109’s transfer status with eight schools.  Five, all in the University of Maryland System, accept EN109 as a GenEd equivalent in accordance with MHEC direction:  UMd-College Park, UMd-UMUC, UMd-Baltimore County, Towson University, Salisbury University.  Approximately 80% of MC transfer students go to Maryland state schools.  Three private institutions do not accept EN109 as the transfer equivalent of the freshman composition requirement:  Howard University, Columbia Union College, George Washington University.  This survey is the basis for the General Education Committee Proposal’s challenge to EN109’s General Education course status.

Removal of EN109 and Similarly Situated Courses Due to Non-Universal Transferability is a Disservice to Students

If we accept that EN109 has relevance and value for students, the issue of transferability should yield to the MC mission of serving the needs of community college students, no matter how their post-MC education may evolve.

            Both the Outcomes Assessment process and the General Education Committee Proposal challenge to EN109 as a General Education course have led the MC EN109 Coordinators to revise the EN109 course description to accurately represent the course and to prevent this misunderstanding.  This revision is in the preliminary process of going to the Curriculum Committee.

Attachment A:  Semantic and Vocabulary Quandaries

Inherent in Course Equivalency Determination Based on Comparison of Course Catalog Descriptions of Freshman Composition
At the Top 30 MC Transfer Destinations

NOTE:    Gen Ed composition course requirements and descriptions could not be recognized at six destinations.

The content of this Attachment clearly illustrates how syntactic differences could lead to arbitrary or unjustified denials of transferability.  It also shows that it would be functionally impossible to write a course description to match all these sets of expectations reliably and simultaneously.

Part 1:  Key words in Gen Ed / Core Composition Course Descriptions at MC Top 30 Transfer Destinations 

The following list of key words was compiled during a review of course descriptions.   As the list of words suggests, the course descriptions differ substantially in their emphasis on composition course objectives and the way in which the composition course relates to the rest of the curriculum.

Part 2:  Vocabulary and Emphasis in Course Descriptions

The language below was extracted from course descriptions to demonstrate their wide range of vocabulary and emphasis.  Each numbered item corresponds to a single course description at one of the top thirty MC transfer institutions.

1. Develop issues, analyze and create arguments, use and represent sources,

2.  Formulating purpose, identifying an audience, and selecting and using research resources and methods of development. 

3. Critical methods, expository writing.  Focus on logical thinking and critical reading and writing.

4. Expository writing.  Focus on logical thinking and critical reading and writing.

5. To express ideas clearly and effectively in writing and to read with perception and accuracy.

6. To write effectively, to read critically, and to present ideas logically. 

7. Students write clearly and effectively. 

8. Writing skills for college and professional purposes.  Audience and purpose organization, development, coherency, and stylistic consistency

9. Analyze a variety of texts and develop critical thinking skills.

10.  Process of writing a research paper.

11. Coherent expository essays in various modes. The course reinforces and emphasizes the concept of writing as a process that includes developing and narrowing a topic, logically organizing ideas, drafting, and revising. The course introduces the process of using sources to support ideas and documentation of sources in accordance with citation styles.

12. Fundamentals of composition

13. Grammar, punctuation, and conventional usage, and to provide skills of organization and development in writing. 

14. Written analysis and oral discussion

15. Organization and development.  research paper

16.  Essays and reports organization of paragraphs and the writing of clear and vivid prose  significant amount of speech and oral presentations.

17. Rhetorical situations encompassing the writer, the audience, and the message. Students write a research essay 

18. Expository writing emphasizes the fundamentals of grammar, sentence structure and paragraph construction

19. Expository writing course that emphasizes reading to become a better writer. Classes will focus on close reading, and students will respond to the texts in short analytical essays

20. Rhetorical concepts, logic, and research techniques applied to expository and argumentative writing.

21. Emphasize effective processes   writing as a major tool for discovering what they think, examining these thoughts, communicating them effectively, and generating ideas as they take in new information.   various strategies for refining their thinking

22. Drafting, revising, and editing expository essays of some length and complexity. Study of the logical, rhetorical, and linguistic structure of expository prose. Methods and conventions of preparing research papers

23. Research papers based on argumentative models

24. Expository prose that shows sensitivity to audience and purpose.

25. How to read and summarize texts, how to analyze texts, and how to organize their thinking in clearly written essays.  concepts and strategies of academic argument.  Students learn to analyze and evaluate sources, to develop their thinking with evidence, and to use analysis to write clear and persuasive arguments. 

26. Writing reports and other common forms of business communication.

Submitted 2/20/08 by Dr. Steve Lietz, Counselor, Rockville Campus

A major part of the work I do at MC is to assist students with transfer plans to universities both within the State of Maryland and to universities across the United States and around the world.  The transfer requirements assist student in making choices in the type of classes they desire to take to fulfill General Education requirements and have those courses transfer to other schools of higher education.  I write this in refection of student feedback and the knowledge gained over years of assisting students finding the clearest path to achieving their goals. 

There must be a standard by which transferability can be weighed.  To rely on the regulation as stated in the Code of Maryland Regulations is negate the importance of the student in the process.  These regulations were instituted to counter a bias against community college courses by the four-year institutions. MC has a responsibility to uphold the General Education philosophy and not attempt to force the university system to take any course offered at MC that is chosen for General Education status.

COMAR does guarantee the transfer of General Education courses to in-state colleges and universities leading to a false belief that students can take these courses anywhere they wish to transfer.   Transfer students make up the majority of our student population and I feel deserve the best Gen Ed program possible to assist them in reaching their transfer goals.  With appropriate construction of the curricula and advising by departmental faculty students should be able to be guided in choosing courses most appropriate to meet their goals.

Transferability should not be the only criteria used to determine Gen Ed status.  It makes sense to use it as an important qualifier in the consideration for Gen Ed status in upholding the spirit of Gen Ed but also the reality that we only have most students less than two years and that the transfer institution bears some responsibility in completing the general requirements and providing continued education in the liberal tradition espoused in the philosophy of General Education.  The fact of the matter is that many students do not seek advising and use materials provided by the College to make decisions for their future.  By using a transfer standard which specifies how a potential Gen Ed course will be received and producing materials consistent with transfer requirement issues students will be best served both in the time they take to complete the course and the money and resources expended in quest of a higher education.

The State of Maryland gives all colleges and universities the ability to determine what is best for their own students.  The University of Maryland, College Park has decided that "Merging the Multiple Me's: Developmental Origins of the Integrated Adult Self" is an important Social and Behavioral Science CORE Gen Ed course, and so it fits the definition  of a General Education course, no further questions asked.  None of those Me's are called to the stand to define their choice of a course.

The standards for community college General Education courses need to be slightly different from general education standards for four year schools.  MC does not have a consistent population from entry to graduation. We recently heard that only 11% of all students who enter MC will stay to complete an associate's degree.  Creative general education programs can be built for stable student populations.  Montgomery's location offers students more options for transfer than most MD community colleges.  At Wor-Wic Community College, it's a pretty safe bet that most transfer students will head to Salisbury University and Wor-Wic's Gen Ed Program is built with that in mind. Students at the Takoma Park/Silver Spring campus show the variety of variety transfer destinations - many students who enroll under reciprocal tuition agreements with the District of Columbia will return to DC schools that include UDC, Howard, American, GW and Catholic University, as well as Marymount U. in Virginia, to complete their four-year degrees.  Over 450 students transferred to DC and Marymount in 2006.  That's not an insignificant number.  Could they successfully transfer a "Merging the Multiple Me's" course to all of those schools without question?  

The MC Collegewide Curriculum Committee asks proposers of new courses to show how a course might transfer to Maryland public schools, regardless of whether it's a Gen Ed course or not.  Proposers who can show where a course might fit on the four-year continuum provide a service to students who are very concerned about transfer in general.  This is a factor for all courses, not just General Education courses.  

Providing information about transferability can help a fledgling course grow into a solid General Education course.  A recent example is BI 130, The Human Body.  This course was first titled "Introduction to Human Structure and Function" and although the proposer intended it to be a 3-credit non-lab science for non-science majors, both the title and the course description sounded as though it was a preparation course for BI 204, Human Anatomy and Physiology.  Encouraged by the Gen Ed Committee to examine non-lab science offerings at MD and DC four-year institutions, the proposer found similar courses with titles and descriptions that were truly introductory courses not intended for science majors.  Students benefit by understanding from the start that this is not an anatomy & physiology prerequisite, and four-year institutions can read the description and quickly recognize this as a general education non-lab science.  It successfully received General Education status at MC because the proposer looked at other General Education science courses at other schools for ideas.

But what happens if Montgomery College wants to forge ahead as a leader of the General Education pack?  Evidence of transferability can help demonstrate that an innovative course deserves general education status.  Let's say that MC decides to propose a music course within the arts category of gen ed titled "The Genius of Guitarist Joe Bonamassa."  Strangely, no other Maryland school has a similar General Education course offering.  Sending the catalog course description, along with course outcomes and text(s), or a sample syllabus, off to 3 - 5 different schools can allow other schools to consider why MC believes this course is so critical to a student's general education in the arts.  Even without a direct equivalent course, schools may be willing to agree that a course fits the scope, competencies and intent of their general education arts category.  Lack of a direct equivalency at transfer schools does not stop a course from approval.

Now, let's say that only one other MD school agrees that the Bonamassa course is a brilliant and worthwhile Gen Ed arts course.  The proposer might expand the scope of the course to call it "The History of American Blues Rock."  Or, if unwilling to modify, the proposer can still work to convince the General Education Committee that this learning experience fulfills our own competencies and is worth offering to our students regardless of its transferability.  If the course does not get General Education approval, it still could be taught as an elective at MC. Not having the "blessing" of general education status does not mean that a course is not going to run.  Only two Theater courses currently have Gen Ed status, but the Theater Program is alive and well with students who are taking TH courses for either a major or as electives.  Gen Ed status does not always guarantee greater enrollments.  Poor "Death and Dying" (a Behavioral & Social Science) is, well, dying from lack of enrollment, even though it IS a Gen Ed course.

General Education transfer comparisons can help MC judge where our courses fit into a four-year general education scheme.  We can be inspired to expand our offerings by looking at the wealth of other general education course offerings within the State and out-of-state.  To operate in a vacuum ignores the reality of transfer concerns of two year community college students.  Four year schools can afford to expand creatively in general education because they assume that students will stay to complete the comprehensive package.    At a community college, we can engage in some creative course designs but we must also be ready to tell students how courses will eventually transfer if we promise that they are part of Gen Ed because students, parents, and state and national officials want to know.   

Anne Schleicher