DOCUMENT RESUME ED 409 932 JC 970 396 TITLE Integrity in Liberal Learning: A Core Curriculum for the New Millennium. The Final Report of the Chancellor's Task Force on General Education Reform. INSTITUTION Saint Louis Community Coll., Mo. PUB DATE 10 Jun 97 NOTE 49p. PUB TYPE Reports - Descriptive (141) EDRS PRICE MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *College Planning; Community Colleges; *Core Curriculum; Curriculum Design; *Curriculum Development; *General Education; *Minimum Competencies; Outcomes of Education; Program Implementation; Required Courses; Two Year Colleges IDENTIFIERS Saint Louis Community College MO ABSTRACT In November 1995, Missouri's St. Louis Community College established a task force to reevaluate the role of the general education (GE) curriculum and recommend an appropriate curriculum design. This final report summarizes the efforts and results of the task force. Following lists of task force and subcommittee members, an introduction reviews current ideas regarding the nature and purpose of GE and the college's existing GE program. A schedule of task force activities is then presented for November 1995 to September 1997 and beyond and the four stages used by the task force to develop a new GE proposal are described. The next sections indicate that the task force chose the core curriculum as the paradigm for reform efforts and review issues related to designing GE courses; developing a GE review board; and dealing with developmental education, transfer students, and career students in the proposed core curriculum. Next, the procedure determined by the task force for developing new courses is discussed and an assessment plan to evaluate the effectiveness of the core curriculum is described. Finally, the recommended core curriculum and the knowledge areas, skill areas, and skill area outcomes developed by the task force are presented. Contains 13 references. The task force reading list and a plan for implementing the curriculum are appended. (TGI) ******************************************************************************** * Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made * * from the original document. * ********************************************************************************
Transcript
DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 409 932 JC 970 396
TITLE Integrity in Liberal Learning: A Core Curriculum for the NewMillennium. The Final Report of the Chancellor's Task Forceon General Education Reform.
INSTITUTION Saint Louis Community Coll., Mo.PUB DATE 10 Jun 97NOTE 49p.PUB TYPE Reports - Descriptive (141)EDRS PRICE MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS *College Planning; Community Colleges; *Core Curriculum;
Curriculum Design; *Curriculum Development; *GeneralEducation; *Minimum Competencies; Outcomes of Education;Program Implementation; Required Courses; Two Year Colleges
IDENTIFIERS Saint Louis Community College MO
ABSTRACTIn November 1995, Missouri's St. Louis Community College
established a task force to reevaluate the role of the general education (GE)curriculum and recommend an appropriate curriculum design. This final reportsummarizes the efforts and results of the task force. Following lists of taskforce and subcommittee members, an introduction reviews current ideasregarding the nature and purpose of GE and the college's existing GE program.A schedule of task force activities is then presented for November 1995 toSeptember 1997 and beyond and the four stages used by the task force todevelop a new GE proposal are described. The next sections indicate that thetask force chose the core curriculum as the paradigm for reform efforts andreview issues related to designing GE courses; developing a GE review board;and dealing with developmental education, transfer students, and careerstudents in the proposed core curriculum. Next, the procedure determined bythe task force for developing new courses is discussed and an assessment planto evaluate the effectiveness of the core curriculum is described. Finally,the recommended core curriculum and the knowledge areas, skill areas, andskill area outcomes developed by the task force are presented. Contains 13references. The task force reading list and a plan for implementing thecurriculum are appended. (TGI)
********************************************************************************* Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made *
Brian Gordon, Chair Florissant ValleyHoward Rosenthal Florissant ValleyThessalonia Ford Forest Park
-2-
BEST COPY AVAIA.Ski
INTRODUCTION
For more than a decade, general education reform has been a critical institutionalpriority for America's colleges. The current wave of general education reformhas been profoundly influenced by three seemingly disparate projects:Harvard's Report on the Core Curriculum (Harvard Committee, 1978), anupdate on the perennial quest for the liberally well-educated person; Miami-Dade's curriculum reform initiative, General Education in a Changing Society(Lukenbill & McCabe, 1978), aimed at making community college educationcount for something, while also being accountable; and Boyer and Levine's, AQuest for Common Learning, which reminds us of our common humanity andthe ties that bind people who are outwardly different
Higginbottom (1995) captures the thinking of the above and other influentialtheorists and publicists of the contemporary reform effort as follows:
What has inspired the work of these thinkers and curriculumreformers is the conviction that undergraduate education ought tobe purposeful and edifying and that a portion of it ought toprovide the grounding for broadly inclusive civic conversation.College educators, they argue, should define clearly and justify toeach other what is essential to a college education, as well asprescribe a common set of learning objectives encompassingknowledge, cognitive and performance capabilities, the capacityfor moral judgment, and dispositions of intellect and temperamentFurthermore, these learning goals should have a practical purport,enabling generally educated graduates to cope successfully withthe myriad challenges of contemporary living and, in particular,with the requirements of competent, participative citizenship.
Although these contemporary reformers have advocated a morecoherent general education for all levels of postsecondaryeducation, each has acknowledged that the collision of perspectivesand interests within and among diverse institutions wouldprecipitate a variety of objectives and curricular contentUniversities, for example, influenced by graduate school valuesand faculty research interests, would most likely favor a generaleducation plan based upon established academic disciplines andtheir unique modes of intellectual inquiry. Liberal arts colleges,presumably more student-centered, would have greater latitude incertifying general education courses according to broadly sharedcriteria or in experimenting with thematic cross-disciplinaryofferings. The most pragmatic of postsecondary institutions,
-3-
7
community colleges would need to balance the interests ofoccupational and transfer-oriented curricula and faculty, lestgeneral education goals be too abstract or, worse, misappropriatedin the service of a narrow vocationalism. (pp. 89-90)
Perhaps the most sustained reform effort of general education inquiry to datehas been that of Jerry Gaff. In two significantbooks (Gaff, 1983, 1991), as editorof the GEM Newsletter (Gaff, 1979-1982), and as Vice President and Director ofthe Project on Strong Foundations for General Education at the Association ofAmerican Colleges and Universities (AAC&U, 1994), he reported on trends ingeneral education reform, finding that it had become a total programmaticundertaking permeating all aspects of postsecondary education. Gaffacknowledged that although the various pressures of the academic culture"conspire to whittle down good ideas that call for significant change from thestatus quo" (Gaff, 1991, p. 77), there were good reasons to persist with a reformagenda in light of survey responses that show large increases in favorableattitudes toward general education by both faculty and administrators as aconsequence of reform efforts.
Gaff concludes the following:
Indeed, a new concept of general education seems to be emergingat a large number of institutions that have analyzed undergraduateeducation. The old idea equated general education with breadthand, in an institution organized around academic departments,involved a sampling of courses from the broad array of academicdisciplines. The method of securing breadth was by means ofdistribution requirements, and students were typically given agreat deal of latitude to choose among alternative courses withinbroad domains of knowledge, such as the humanities, social, andnatural sciences. Usually all courses designated by a department,typically introductory or lower level ones, met the requirements.These courses were regarded as a "foundation" on whichspecialized study would build. Such a program required littleadministrative coordination, simply a registrar to verify thatrequirements were met. Faculty members tended to view teachingsuch courses as "service" to students who were concentrating inother fields, and students were advised to "get your distributionrequirements out of the way, so you can get on with moreimportant work in your major." Each of these elements is part ofan old, and increasingly discredited, way of thinking about generaleducation.
-4-
8
A new concept is emerging from conversations among facultiesabout the qualities of an educated person and the redesign of theircurricula. One after another, college faculties are concluding thatgeneral education must be much more than breadth and simpleexposure to different fields of study. Collectively, they aredeciding that students should:
receive a generous orientation to the intellectualexpectations, curricular rationale, and learning resources ofthe institution;
acquire specific skills of thought and expression, such ascritical thinking and writing, that should be learned "acrossthe curriculum" and imbedded within several courses;
learn about another culture and the diversity that existswithin our own culture in terms of gender, race, ethnicbackground, class, age, and religion;
integrate ideas from across disciplines to illuminateinterdisciplinary themes, issues, or social problems;
study some subjects beyond their majors at advanced,not just introductory, levels;
have an opportunity near the end of their course of study topull together their learning in a senior seminar or project;and
experience a coherent course of study, one that is more thanthe sum of its parts.
Surely, study of various disciplines is important, but thisincreasingly is seen as a minimalist definition that is notsufficiently rigorous for the demands that students will face intheir lifetimes. A more robust concept is needed to raise thequality, stature, and frankly, the value of general education.(pp. ii-iv)
-5-
9
GENERAL EDUCATION REFORM AT ST. LOUIS COMMUNITY COLLEGE
The currently existing general education program at St. Louis CommunityCollege, a classic distribution paradigm, is organized as follows (St LouisCommunity College, 1996-97):
Missouri General EducationRequirements
Students who complete the following requirements will have
noted on their transcripts Missouri General Education Requirements
completed Students who achieve this certification will have satisfied allgeneral education requirements of any Missouri public college or
university to which they transfer.
St. Louis Community CollegeGeneral Education Requirements
A minimum total of 39 credit hours is required from the following
courses:
CommunicationsChoose three courses, two from Group 1 and one from Group 2:
205, 206, 207, 208, 209 or 210Theatre THT:101, 107 or 110
Physical and Biological SciencesSelect two courses, at least one laboratory course:Laboratory Course -1310:111, 124, 140 or 141; CHM:101, 102, 105,106,201, 210 or 211; GEO:111 or 112; PHY:111, 112, 122, or 223;
Note: Courses listed may not be offered at all campuses or during
every semester. Courses may be added to the list. Students should
contact a counselor or advisor for the latest information.
Note: The general education courses recommendedfor degrees in Art, Computer Science, EngineeringScience, Music and Photography do not meet theMissouri general education transfer guidelines foracceptance as a biodc by other Missouri publiccolleges and universities. The courses in theseprograms we evaluated on a course-by-course basis
at institutions offering bachelor's degrees.
(pp 6-7)
The current general education program was cited in 1988 by a visiting team fromthe North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, Commission onInstitutions of Higher Education. The visiting team report concluded that "Thegeneral education program lacks an articulated philosophy and rationale"(NCA, 1988, p. 18). It is the clear expectation of the North Central Association ofColleges and Schools that significant reform in general education would haveoccurred by the time of the College's next accreditation visit in March, 1998.
St. Louis Community College began its reform movement on November 2, 1995,with the formation of the Chancellor's Task Force on General Education Reform.Chaired by President Irving Pressley McPhail, Florissant Valley Campus aveteran of successful general education reform movements in the private liberalarts college and in private and public research and comprehensive universitiesthe Task Force was assigned the following responsibilities:
answering the fundamental question:"What is the point of general edu-cation at St. Louis CommunityCollege for the requirements of the21st Century?"
reviewing and analyzing the contem-porary issues and trends in gener-al education reform in the follow-ing disciplines:
Arts and Humanities
Social and Behavioral Sciences
Mathematics, Science,Engineering and Technology
reviewing and analyzing examples ofinnovative courses, programs andapproaches, including:
integrating basic skills develop-ment with general educationcourse sequence
-7-
infusing international and multi-cultural perspectives
improving teaching and learning
assessing outcomes
integrating general educationinto transfer and career pro-grams
introducing interdisciplinarycourses
defining district vs. campus issuesand concerns in sustaining thevitality of general education
providing interim reports of task forceaccomplishments to the Collegecommunity through periodic publi-cation of General EducationUpdate
providing a final report to ChancellorStephenson in June, 1997
THE WORK OF THE TASK FORCE
The Task Force embarked immediately on an ambitious two-year schedule ofreading, thinking, debating, conferencing, sharing and reaching consensus onmajor aspects of curricular reform in liberal learning. Our schedule was asfollows:
DATE TOPIC LOCATIONNovember 2, 1995 Organizational Meeting Cosand Center
December 1, 1995 The Aims of General Florissant ValleyEducation at SLCC: I
December 15, 1995 The Aims of General Forest ParkEducation at SLCC: II
January 11- 13,1996 82nd Annual Meeting of Washington, D.C.AAC&U
January 19,1996 The Aims of General MeramecEducation at SLCC: III
January 26, 1996 The Aims of General Florissant ValleyEducation at SLCC: IV
February 16,1996 Multicultural Paradigms Forest Parkand Curricular Choices'
March 8,1996 Multicultural Paradigms Meramecand Curricular Choices
March 22, 1996 Multicultural Paradigms Florissant Valleyand Curricular Choices
March 29,1996 Arts and Humanities Forest ParkParadigms andCurricular Choices: I
April 19, 1996 Arts and Humanities MeramecParadigms andCurricular Choices: II
-8-
12
May 3,1996
May 17, 1996
May 31, 1996
June 14, 1996
June 21, 1996
June 28, 1996
YEAR TWO (1996-97)
DATE
September 16, 1996
Social & BehavioralSciences Paradigms andCurricular Choices: I
Social & BehavioralSciences Paradigms andCurricular Choices: II
Mathematics, Science,Engineering &Technology Paradigmsand Curricular Choices: I
Developmental StudiesParadigms andCurricular Choices: I
Developmental StudiesParadigms andCurricular Choices: II
TOPIC
Models of GeneralEducation Programs:Distribution Paradigmsand Assessment Models:I
-9-
Florissant Valley
Forest Park
Meramec
Florissant Valley
Forest Park
Meramec
LOCATION
Florissant Valley
September 27, 1996 Models of General Forest ParkEducation Programs:Distribution Paradigmsand Assessment Models:II
October 11, 1996 Models of General MeramecEducation Programs:Core CurriculumParadigms andAssessment Models: I
October 15, 1996 Models of General Florissant ValleyEducation Programs:Core CurriculumParadigms andAssessment Models: II
November 8, 1996 Models of General Forest ParkEducation Programs:Learning CommunityParadigms andAssessment Models: I
November 15-16, 1996 AAC&U Conference on Seattle, WashingtonGeneral EducationReform in CommunityColleges
November 22,1996 Models of General MeramecEducation Programs:Learning CommunityParadigms andAssessment Models: II
December 6, 1996 Models of General Florissant ValleyEducation Programs:Other Paradigms andAssessment Models
December 20,1996 Meeting with Dr. Robert Forest ParkStein, CBHE
January 16-19, 1997
January 31, 1997
February 7, 1997
February 21, 1997
March 7, 1997
April 7-9, 1997
April 18, 1997
Apri119 throughmid-May, 1997
June 10, 1997
June 23, 1997
September, 1997 andbeyond
83rd Annual Meeting ofAAC&U
Renewing and SustainingEffective Pedagogy inGeneral EducationCourses: I
Atlanta, Georgia
Meramec
Renewing and Sustaining Florissant ValleyEffective Pedagogy inGeneral EducationCourses: II
Consensus onPreliminaryRecommendations
Consensus onPreliminaryRecommendations
Open Forums on ThreeCampuses
Consensus on FinalRecommendations
Preparation of FinalReport
Presentation of FinalReport to ChancellorChancellor's Luncheonfor Task Force
Forest Park
Meramec
Florissant ValleyForest ParkMeramec
Forest Park
Clayton, Missouri
Board Presentation on Cosand CenterGeneral EducationApproval, Implement- ationand Formative/ SummativeEvaluation of New SLCCGeneral Education Program
FOUR STAGES OF GENERAL EDUCATION PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT
The two-year schedule of activities was organized into four stages as follows:
STAGE ONE
The Task Force immersed itself in reading and debating the classic andcontemporary literature of the general education reform movement (seeAppendix A for required reading list). This knowledge acquisition phaseprovided the intellectual context for developing the first draft statement of Aim,Knowledge Areas, Skill Areas, and Skill Area Outcomes for General Education.The results of this stage of deliberation were published in General EducationUpdate #1 (February 12,1996). Open Forums were conducted on all threecampuses following dissemination of General Education Update #1.
STAGE TWO
The Task Force was organized into four discipline area sub-committees toconsider the following questions: (1) How does the current St. LouisCommunity College general education curriculum address the discipline area?(2) How do current thinking and curriculum reform efforts impact change in thediscipline area? (3) How does General Education Task Force specification ofAim, Knowledge Areas, Skill Areas, and Skill Area Outcomes impact change inprocess and content in discipline area? and (4) How would the discipline areasub-committee restructure process and content for inclusion in new generaleducation program for St. Louis Community College? The results of this inquirywere published in General Education Update #2 (October 8, 1996), followed byOpen Forums on all three campuses.
STAGE THREE
The Task Force engaged in a critical analysis of paradigms and assessmentmodels (distribution, core, learning community, other) and reviewed currentinnovations in teaching and learning underway on all three campuses thatsupport the renewal and sustenance of effective pedagogy in general educationcourses. Based on feedback from the first and second series of Open Forums, theTask Force revised the statement of Aim, Knowledge Areas, Skill Areas, andSkill Area Outcomes for General Education. The revised statement waspublished in General Education Update #3 (February 7, 1997).
-12-
1 IS
STAGE FOUR
The Task Force reached consensus on the paradigm and structure for a newgeneral education program for St. Louis Community College for the newmillennium. The tentative proposal for general education reform was publishedin General Education Update #4 (March 20, 1997). A final series of OpenForums were held on all three campuses.
-13-
27
WHAT FORM OF PARADIGM?
The Task Force considered several alternatives and weighed their advantagesand disadvantages. We determined that the Core Curriculum paradigm best fitour comprehensive aims of general education statement At the same time, werecognized that the diverse needs of our students in a variety of associate degreeand certificate program tracks obligated us to preserve some measure offlexibility and options. Consequently, we have undertaken to develop a"Modified Core Curriculum" that includes a set of fundamental coursesordered, purposive and coherent and a limited distribution of coursesdesigned to fit the aims of general education at St. Louis Community College forthe 21st century. The core curriculum will demonstrate what is possible for acommunity college to do with a general education program, and it will providea basis for measuring the effectiveness of our achievement of the aims of generaleducation.
PRINCIPLES FOR DESIGN OF GENERAL EDUCATION COURSES
The Task Force recommends that if this reform proposal is accepted forimplementation, all currently existing general education courses will be wipedout All courses for the new general education program fundamental coursesand distribution courses will be designed or redesigned by interdisciplinaryteams of faculty, and no course will be considered for the new general educationprogram unless that course meets the following set of criteria:
1. General education courses should be college-level courses and notdevelopmental.
2. General education courses should be truly general and not narrowspecializations or courses intended for select audiences.
3. General education courses should be foundational and should deal with thefundamental concepts, methods, problems and theories of a discipline, ordisciplines in the case of interdisciplinary courses. Upper-level courses thatrequire foundational prerequisites should not be considered generaleducation.
4. General education courses should aim to open the mind, broaden awarenessand widen horizons rather than at specific career preparation. They shouldaim at cultivating the intellect and imagination, at developing general mental
-14-
18
skills rather than vocational skills. In the long run, such general skillsconstitute the best preparation for any career.
5. General education courses should give the student a perspective, an overallview of a subject or branch of learning, and a substantial amount of essentialinformation, which together with other core courses provide a solidbackground in the liberal arts and sciences.
6. General education should be desirable for all students as expressed in thedegree requirements. Consideration of the purpose of the separate degreesshould be taken into account, but impact of the requirements on particularprograms ought not to be a guiding principle. Courses designed and adoptedby a career program cannot be used to fulfill general education requirementsfor that same program.
7. General education courses should emphasize written and oralcommunication, reading, and mathematics across the curriculum.
8. General education courses should emphasize interdisciplinary approachesand connectedness.
9. The review of general education must be an ongoing activity. Opportunitiesto include new courses, new content, new practices or new configurations forgeneral education must be encouraged.
-15-
1
GENERAL EDUCATION REVIEW BOARD
The Task Force recommends that the challenge of administering thedevelopment of the core curriculum be given to a new General EducationReview Board. This body would report directly to the Vice Chancellor forEducation. The membership of this body would include the current facultymembers on the Chancellor's Task Force on General Education Reform andothers as determined by the Review Board. The chair of the General EducationReview Board would be restricted to one of the current faculty members on theChancellor's Task Force on General Education Reform. Membership, includingthe designation of a chair, would be by appointment of the Chancellor.Following the approval by appropriate governance bodies of newly designed orredesigned courses for the core curriculum, all changes to the general educationparadigm and all new general education course proposals would require theapproval of the General Education Review Board before moving to campus-leveland district-level curriculum committees.
DEVELOPMENTAL EDUCATION AND THE CORE CURRICULUM
As part of the process of admission to St Louis Community College, enteringstudents are examined for proficiency in the following three basic skills:reading, writing and mathematics. The Accuplacer Tests in reading, writing andmathematics are district-wide tests. Because the core curriculum as a wholeconsists of fair but demanding college-level courses, students are normallyexpected to achieve passing scores on the Accuplacer Tests before beginning corecourses. However, the Task Force recognizes the need for flexibility and thelikelihood that many students taking developmental courses in one or two areasmay be capable of performing successfully in another area of the corecurriculum. Therefore, the Task Force recommends that students indevelopmental courses plan their academic programs (developmental and corecurriculum) with a college advisor. Further, the Task Force recommends that allpre-core curriculum basic skills courses be linked with one or more transfercourses, and that a required orientation course be included for all students in thedevelopmental education sequence.
-16-
20
TRANSFER STUDENTS AND THE CORE CURRICULUM
There is great concern among many faculty and staff that any changes made inthe current Missouri General Education Requirements will result in transferstudents not being protected by the Missouri Coordinating Board for HigherEducation (CBHE) policy on credit transfer. The Task Force met with Dr. RobertStein, Assistant Commissioner, CBHE, on December 20, 1996, to clarify issuesrelated to general education reform and transfer. The following major pointswere stressed in this meeting:
Missouri's system of higher education places strong value on local autonomyand institutional distinctiveness while at the same time acknowledging theimportance of designing programs that provide for smooth transfer andarticulation among institutions.
St. Louis Community College is to be commended for its commitment to aredesigned general education program that better prepares its students forthe next century.
Whatever changes are made in the program, it is important to do a cross walkbetween the current 39-hour core that is defined in the CBHE policy on credittransfer and the new program that is introduced.
Assessment should be built in as early as possible. A strong assessmentprogram will serve the college well in articulating and documenting whatstudents know and are able to do at the completion of their general educationprogram.
Conversations should occur between St. Louis Community College and itsmajor receiving institutions for transfer students about anticipated changesand how the new program is at least minimally equivalent to the currentdistribution model.
There is ample time to work out articulation for all of St. Louis CommunityCollege students as any new program will be phased in rather than startedimmediately. The current thinking is that a new program would not beginuntil Fall 1999 with the first graduates in 2001.
Dr. Stein encouraged President Henry Shannon, Forest Park Campus, to bring tothe CBHE Committee on Transfer and Articulation the issue of generaleducation reform and its relationship to the 39-hour distribution model.President McPhail will address the CBHE Committee on Transfer andArticulation on Monday, June 9, 1997.
CAREER STUDENTS AND THE CORE CURRICULUM
Current AAS, CS and CP programs sample general education courses in a rangeof 15-credit hours to 38-credit hours. Such a sampling will also be possible in theproposed core curriculum paradigm. Directors of AAS, CS and CP programswill again have the opportunity to determine which components of the corecurriculum are most critical and relevant for a specific vocationaljoccupationalprogram. The Task Force noted with interest the criteria for excellence in AASdegree programs (as adopted in 1987 by the American Association ofCommunity and Junior Colleges) which states in part
The AAS degree requirements should be limited to 60-72 semester hours or90-108 quarter credit hours.
The technical specialty component of the AAS degree should constitute 50%to 75% of the course credits.
The general education component of AAS degree programs should constitutea minimum of 25% of the course credits with the combination of generaleducation and related studies constituting up to 50% of the course credits.
-18-
22
DEVELOPING THE COURSES
With the acceptance of the Task Force recommendations for a core curriculum,the General Education Review Board will formally solicit course proposals thatfit the structure of the core curriculum, that address specificareas of the Aims ofGeneral Education, and that meet the criteria and standards of the Principles forDesign of General Education Courses. It is expected that many of the courseswill be proposed as team-developed and team-taught efforts.
The Task Force recommends thata group of course developers make acommitment to a year-long process of collaborative course building, and thatthese course developers be offered contracts for released time from theirteaching responsibilities or supplemental stipends. This group will meet twice amonth throughout the fall and spring semesters to critique each coursesubmitted for review. The Task Force, further, recommends that this group bedirected by the chair of the General Education Review Board. (See alsoAppendix B).
-19-
23
ASSESSMENT PLAN
St. Louis Community College is presently engaged in implementing acomprehensive assessment plan in all areas of the College. The Task Forceproposes a macro- and micro-level assessment process to evaluate theeffectiveness of the core curriculum in helping students to achieve the statedAims of General Education.
At the macro-level, the Task Force recommends that all students complete TheAcademic Profile published by the Educational Testing Service as an entryassessment and upon completion of Tier Three (Capstone Project) of the corecurriculum. The AP measures college-level reading, college-level writing, andcritical thinking in the context of material from humanities, social sciences, andnatural sciences. It also measures mathematics. Available empirical research(see Chen, McClung, & Miller, 1994) suggests that the AP is a useful measure ofthe academic skills acquired through undergraduate general education coursesand that the instrument satisfies the demands of internal and externalconstituencies for accountability.
The Task Force, further, recommends that all general education courses beevaluated against the specification of Skill Area Outcomes. This micro-levelassessment effort will ensure that the Aims of General Education are met.
-20-
f2,4
THE RESULT
The Task Force recommends the acceptance and implementation of a corecurriculum organized in three tiers and supported by a visionary statement ofAims of General Education and the specification of Skill Area Outcomesnecessary to make our students viable citizens in the global village of the newmillennium.
THE AIM OF GENERAL EDUCATION AT ST. LOUIS COMMUNITY COLLEGE
The purpose of general education at St. Louis Community College is to preparestudents to:
1. LIVE EFFECTIVELY by understanding and dealing constructively with thediversity of the contemporary world, a diversity manifested not only in ideas andways of knowing, but also in populations and cultures;
2. LEARN CONTINUOUSLY by constructing a coherent framework for ongoingintellectual, ethical, and aesthetic growth in the presence of such diversity;
3. WORK PRODUCTIVELY by enlarging their personal and vocational pathways,developing life-long competencies such as critical and creative thinking, effectivecommunication, and abilities to reason quantitatively and engage in substantiveproblem solving.
-21-
2
GENERAL EDUCATION KNOWLEDGE AREASHumanitiesCommunicationsTechnologyMathematicsAestheticsEthical DevelopmentInternational/lntercultural
GENERAL EDUCATION SKILL AREASA. Think criticallyB. Communicate effectivelyC. Interact productively with othersD. Value and practice inquiryE. Access, analyze, understand, and use
information
F. Accept personal responsibilityG. Accept social responsibilityH. Appreciate aesthetic expression
SKILL AREA OUTCOMES
A. THINK CRITICALLYDefinition:Critical thinking is inherent in logical reasoning and problem solving. One
must value critical thinking in order to reason logically and solve problems.To think critically, one must understand the context of an idea and how itrelates to the whole.
1. Integrate ideas: The student...a) identifies, organizes, and defines ideas c) presents ideas using correct vocabu-
from various sources which are then laryanalyzed and synthesized d) recognizes how small tasks can be
b) examines his/her own viewpoint while combined to perform larger tasksalso interpreting and integrating theideas and beliefs of people from variouscultures
2. Reflect ethically: The student . . .a) identifies and analyzes his/her own
valuesb) questions and critiques personal, soci-
etal, and cultural assumptionsc) generates decisions based on rational
and ethical analysis
d) evaluates unpopular decisions fortheir value to the whole
e) explores values related to social, polit-ical, economic, scientific, and techno-logical developments
-22-r,4; 0
3. Reason logically: The student...a) recognizes both formal and informal
arguments, their premises and conclu-sions
b) distinguishes inductive from deduc-tive arguments
c) determines the strength or weaknessof logical arguments
d) formulates strong arguments
4. Solve problems: The student...a) identifies., researches, and analyzes a
problemb) uses inductive and/or deductive rea-
soning to solve the problemc) develops appropriate hypothesesd) models situations from the real world
and uses the models to make predic-tions and informed decisions
e) uses research, brainstorming, andcreativity to formulate and evaluatesolutions
B. COMMUNICATE EFFECTIVELY
e) examines supporting evidence anddetermines its relevance to a particu-lar issue
0 considers all sides to an issue or argu-ment, using past experience, logicalanalysis, and fairness in assessingother viewpoints
f)g)
revises solutions as neededuses past experiences to solve prob-lems, when appropriate
h) uses, values, and evaluates mathe-matical and quantitative reasoning
i) develops conceptual understanding,decision-making, and analytic skillsdealing with quantities, their magni-tudes, and interrelationshipsuses technology as an aid to under-standing and as a tool in the solutionof problems
j)
Definition: Effective communication requires the ability to accurately and critically utilize readingmaterial, to produce clear and effective writing, to send coherent messages and to performobjective analysis. It also requires observational skills and the ability to effectively receiveinformation. Good communicators know their own strengths and weaknesses in this area.
1. Read effectively: The student...a) reads actively by previewing, setting
goals, modifying approaches, and ana-lyzing / synthesizing key elements
b) recognizes how his experiences,assumptions and values influence thecomprehension of what is read
2. Write effectively: The student...a) generates topics, organizes ideas, and
produces an initial draftb) develops a topic in form and style
appropriate to the audience, purpose,and content
c) revises written work
c) examines how the author's experi-ences, assumptions, values, and pur-poses influence content and structure
d) utilizes skills and resources to pro-duce written work which demon-strates proper grammar, sentencestructure, and spelling
e) uses reference citations appropriately0 utilizes an effective note-taking systemg) summarizes information in clear,
coherent terms
-23-
27
3. Send messages effectively: The student...a) develops messages that are suitable
in form and delivery to a particularindividual, group, occasion, setting, orpurpose
b) recognizes the many variables whichinfluence effective communication:culture, gender, nonverbal symbols,the demands of the setting, changingcontingencies, etc., and demonstratesadaptability and flexibility
c) expresses ideas, opinions, and feelingspolitely and ethically with clarity andefficiency, using appropriate verbal/nonverbal channels to achieve goals
d) obtains feedback in an appropriatemanner: asking questions, paraphraszing, etc., and adjusts her communica-tion based on feedback from others
e) demonstrates appropriate and effec-tive leadership and membershipbehaviors
f) identifies and evaluates his andothers' strengths and weaknesses ascommunicators
4. Receive messages effectively: The student...a) identifies, paraphrases, and evaluates
the main ideas in a messageb) selects effective receiving behaviors
based on the particular communica-tion context and demonstratesinvolvement and responsiveness
c) recognizes that she may interpret amessage in a way that is differentfrom that intended by the sender
d)e)
fl
C. INTERACT PRODUCTIVELY WITH OTHERS
follows instructionsunderstands and evaluates variouscommunication methods andtechnologiesidentifies the cognitive, affective,and behavioral dimensions ofcommunication
Definition: Productive interaction requires that we appreciate and accept each person's individuality,foster cooperation, constructively solve conflicts, view others in a positive light, encourageself-awareriess, adapt to a fluid social environment, and use all of the above to work pro-ductively in a group.
The student...a) shows respect for othersb) associates willingly with others in
order to meet social and task goalsc) understands, values, and respects
differencesd) accepts responsibility for his own
behaviorse) recognizes the interdependence of
the global communityf) demonstrates the ability to live
and work in a diverse societyg) recognizes when interaction is
appropriate
-24.-
03
h) uses self and group criticism toachieve desired outcomes andgoals
i) evaluates roles and performanceduring group activitiesraises issues and conflicts effec-tively and appropriately, as wellas resolves conflicts
k) integrates appropriate techniquesinto group activities to enhanceinteraction and achieve goals
.1)
D. VALUE AND PRACTICE INQUIRY
Definition: Inquiry is not only seeking information, but looking beyond the question at handto seek new questions.
The student...a) formulates and evaluates questionsb) looks for innovative and creative
approachesc) respects the questions of others
d) gives and receives constructivecriticism
e) understands and values the role oflife-long learning
E. ACCESS, ANALYZE, UNDERSTAND, AND USE INFORMATION
Definition: Information is stored in a variety of formats and locations. One must understandthe need for information and have the ability to identify what type of informationis needed before one can access, evaluate and effectively use information for life--long learning.
The student...a) understands how information and
information sources are identified,defined, and structured
b) evaluates sources and information interms of quality, currency, usefulness,and truthfulness
c) understands the variety of waysinformation sources are physicallyorganized and accessed
F. ACCEPT PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY
d) incorporates a variety of tools tosearch for necessary information
e) uses technology to access, retrieve,and communicate information
f) uses gathered information forplanned purposes
Definition: Responsibility requires a balance among the intellectual, physical, psychological,social and spiritual aspects of self, and compels one to act upon consequentconvictions.
The student...a) develops a process of self-assessment d) establishes personal goals
for personal understanding e) formulates a code of ethicsb) defines and maintains a well-rounded 1) understands the importance of
self physical and emotional well-beingc) establishes the self as the locus of
control
-25-
29
G. ACCEPT SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITYDefinition: Liberal learning nurtures the capabilities for transforming human culture
through inculcating a commitment to positive change, ethical development andthe betterment of society and its communities.
The student...a) thinks and acts in ways that manifest
positive human developmentb) acts in an ethical mannerc) thinks about and participates in
activities that promote human andsocial development
d) states and understands the rights andresponsibilities of citizenship
e) identifies ways to exercise the rightsand responsibilities of citizenship
0 demonstrates an understanding ofethical principles (duties/ dilemmas)and their impact on society
g) recognizes the diversity of politicaland social motivations _
h) commits to positive change, ethicaldevelopment, and the betterment ofsociety by proposing courses of actionto address social and political issues
H. UNDERSTAND AND APPRECIATE AESTHETIC EXPRESSION
Definition: The many forms of art are personal and social expressions of how we organizeand understand the world. They reveal values, perspectives, and stereotypes ofself and others. The arts can entertain, edify, and exalt; they can construct ouridentity as both unique individuals and as members of a group; they can reinforceor challenge beliefs, values, and behaviors.
The student . . .a) articulates her responses to a vari-
ety of artistic expressionsb) identifies and uses criteria to form
aesthetic judgments
c) identifies and evaluates the influ-ence of the arts
d) identifies roles, purposes, func-tions, and values of artistic expres-sions
-26-
3D
ASSESSMENT
\l/
ENG: 101(3-credit hours)
MTH: 155 or 160(4-credit hours)
TIER ONE[22-23 Credit Hours]
Humanities Elective(3-4 credit hours)
-27-3 1
Missouri RequirementCourse(3-credit hours)
TIER ONE[Continued]
Technology and the HumanCondition
or
Introduction to Word Processing,Spreadsheets, and Graphics
(3-credit hours)
Health, Wellness, andIntroduction to Physical
Education
(2-credit hours)
*May also be completed at Tier Two
-28-
32
TIER TWO[21-23 credit hours]
Studies in Non-Western Culture
and/or
Studies in American EthnicMinority Culture
(Including Sensitivity to theRole of Language)
(4-credit hours)
Linked With
Topics in Composition II
Language Awareness
Multiple Perspectives(1.5 credit hours)
Research
and
Topics in Oral Communications II
Communication AmongCultures
(1.5 credit hours)
Aspects of Science IIncludes lectures and labs in
Chemistry and Biology(4-credit hours)
These courses may be taken in twomodules of two credit hours each
Linked With
Topics in Composition II
Logic/Critical Thinking(1.5 credit hours)
Research
and
Topics in Oral Communications II
SmallGroup/Leadership/Membership
Discussions(1.5 credit hours)
TIER TWO[continued]
Aspects of Science IIIncludes lectures and lab in
Physics and Physical Sciences(4-credit hours)
These courses may be taken in twomodules of two credit hours each
Physical Sciences may includeGeology and Astronomy
Social Scienceor
Behavioral Scienceor
Business Elective(3-credit hours)
Health, Wellness, andIntroduction to Physical
Education(2-credit hours)
May also be completed at Tier One
-30-
34
TIER THREE[3- credit hours]
Capstone Project
Skill Application
PortfolioOral Presentation
Community ServiceLinked to Area of Study
(3-credit hours)
TOTAL GENERAL EDUCATION COURSEWORK146-47 credit hours]
Although the increase of seven to eight credit hours is a significant change fromthe current general education requirement., the additional hours will impactstudents in a meaningful and positive way helping them to be more effectiveand independent learners. In addition, each of the previously stated goals andobjectives regarding skill areas, knowledge areas, and desired outcomes isaddressed. Even with the additional hours, virtually every program can remainwithin the current 64 to 70 credit hours shown in our current catalog (17-24credit hours remain for course work in the major field and a choice of electives).
-31-3 5
SUMMARY
The Chancellor's Task Force on General Education Reform has fulfilled itscharge. We have provided everyone connected with the thrust of generaleducation at St. Louis Community College an Aims statement representing aphilosophical description of what we ought to be about, and a recommendedcurriculum designed to achieve these aims in a structured, coherent, andpurposeful manner.
We believe that the overarching aim of any general education program shouldbe the development of the learner along the lines we view as beneficial to oursociety and compatible with the goals of living effectively, learningcontinuously, and working productively. We know that change will be aconstant in the lives of our students, and we believe that liberal education hasthe power not only to prepare our students to deal perceptively with thesechanges, but to encourage our students to contribute to and direct these changes,particularly as they pertain to their yearning to lead thoughtful, committed lives.
Students need an orientation, essential knowledge, and the requisite skills tothink critically, communicate effectively, interact productively with others, valueand practice inquiry, access, analyze, understand, and use information; acceptpersonal responsibility, accept social responsibility, and understand andappreciate aesthetic expression. They need, also, to be encouraged andsupported to become mature, autonomous individuals.
If every general education course is designed in both its content andmethodology to develop the Aims we recommend and to contribute in its ownway to the important insights, essential knowledge and required skills orcompetencies that support that point of view, then the development of thelearner can become the common concern of all faculty who participate in thegeneral education courses. The core curriculum is one way of promoting thisoverarching aim of higher education and achieving the expected outcomes of thelearning college.
-32-
REFERENCES
American Association of Community Colleges. (1987). Criteria for excellence inthe Associate of Applied Science (AAS) degree. Washington, DC:Author.
Boyer, E.L., & Levine, A. (1981). A quest for common learning. The aims ofgeneral education. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for theAdvancement of Teaching.
Chen, H., McClung, P.O., & Miller, E. (1994, August). Assessing generaleducation: Selection and implementation of an instrument to satisfyinternal and external constituencies. Paper presented at the annualconvention of the Southeastern Association for Community CollegeResearch, Savannah, GA.
Gaff, J.G. (1983). General education today: A critical analysis of controversies,practices, and reforms. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gaff, J.G. (1991). New life for the college curriculum: Assessing achievementsand furthering progress in the reform of general education. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gaff, J.G. (1994). The revival of general education. In Project on StrongFoundations for General Education, Strong foundations: Twelveprinciples for effective education programs (pp. i-xi).Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.
Harvard Committee. (1978). Report on the core curriculum. Cambridge, MA:Office of the Dean, Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
Higginbottom, G. (1995). Concluding remarks. In G. Higginbottom, & R.M.Romano (Eds.), Curriculum models for general education (pp.89-95). SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lukenbill, J.D., & McCabe, R.H. (1978). General education in a changing society.Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt
-33-
3
North Central Association of Colleges and Schools. (1988). Report of a visit toSt Louis Community College. Chicago, IL: NCA Commission onInstitutions of Higher Education.
Project on Strong Foundations for General Education. (1994). Strongfoundations: Twelve principles for effective general education programs.Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges & Universities.
St Louis Community College. (19964997). General information, programs andcourse descriptions catalog. St Louis, MO: St Louis Community College.
-34- 3,3
APPENDIX A
TASK FORCE REQUIRED READING
American Association of Community Colleges. (1987). Criteria for excellence inthe Associate of Applied Science (AAS) degree. Washington, DC: Author.
Association of American Colleges & Universities. (1990). Current issues inliberal education. Washington, DC: Author.
Association of American Colleges & Universities. (1995). The drama of diversityand democracy: Higher education and American commitments.Washington, DC: Author.
Boyer, E.L., & Levine, A. (1981). A quest forcommon learning: The aims ofgeneral education. Princeton, NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for theAdvancement of Teaching.
Cohen, D. (1995). Ed.). Crossroads in mathematics: Standards for introductorycollege mathematics before calculus. Memphis, TN: AmericanMathematical Association of Two-Year Colleges.
McPhail, I.P. (1995-1997). (Ed.). General education notebook: Vol. I-III. St.Louis, MO: St. Louis Community College.
Mester, C.S., & Tauber, R.T. (1991). Oral communication skills for vo-techstudents: A competency-based approach. Ann Arbor, MI: PrakkenPublications, Inc.
Parnell, D. (1995). Why do I have to learn this? Teaching the way children learnbest. Waco, TX: Cord Communications.
Project on Redefining the Meaning and Purpose of Baccalaureate Degrees.(1985). Integrity in the college curriculum: A report to the academiccommunity. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges &Universities.
Project on Strong Foundations for General Education. (1994). Strongfoundations: Twelve principles for effective general educationprograms.Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges & Universities.
-35- 3D
Ratcliff, & Associates. (1995). Realizing the potential: Improvingpostsecondary teaching, learning, and assessment. University Park, PA:National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment.
Schmitz, B. (1992). Core curriculum and cultural pluralism: A guide for campusplanners. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges &Universities.
-36-
APPENDIX B
ACTION PLAN FOR IMPLEMENTINGCORE CURRICULUM
-37-4 1
AC
TIO
N P
LAN
NIN
GW
OR
KS
HE
ET
OB
JEC
TIV
E 1
.0 T
oap
prov
e C
hanc
ello
r's T
ask
For
ceon
Gen
eral
Edu
catio
nR
efor
m (
CT
FG
ER
)re
com
men
datio
n fo
r a C
ore
Cur
ricul
um b
y 11
/1/9
7
Act
ion
Ste
psA
ccou
ntab
ility
Sch
edul
eR
esou
rces
Fee
dbac
kM
echa
nism
sP
rimar
yO
ther
sS
tart
Com
plet
eD
olla
rsT
ime
1. D
efin
e ap
prov
alpr
oces
s fo
r C
ore
Cur
ricul
um r
ecom
men
datio
n
2. Im
plem
ent a
ppro
val p
roce
ss fo
rC
ore
Cur
ricul
um r
ecom
men
datio
n
3. A
nnou
nce
appr
oval
of C
TF
GE
Rre
com
men
datio
n fo
r a
Cor
e C
urric
ulum
Cha
ncel
lor
Cha
ncel
lor
Cha
ncel
lor
.Boa
rd o
fT
rust
ees
.Dis
tric
tG
over
n-an
ce.C
ampu
sG
over
n-an
ce
6/17
/97
8/15
/97
11/1
/97
6/30
/97
11/1
/97
5 ho
urs
2 1/
2m
os.
1. O
pen
com
mun
icat
ion
to C
olle
ge c
omm
unity
2. M
inut
es o
f mee
tings
docu
men
ting
appr
oval
proc
ess
3. O
pen
com
mun
icat
ion
to C
olle
ge c
omm
unity
243
AC
TIO
N P
LAN
NIN
GW
OR
KS
HE
ET
OB
JEC
TIV
E 2
.0 T
o de
sign
cour
ses
for
Cor
e C
urric
ulum
by
12/1
/98.
Act
ion
Ste
psA
ccou
ntab
ility
Sch
edul
eR
esou
rces
Fee
dbac
kM
echa
nism
sP
rimar
yO
ther
sS
tart
Com
plet
eD
olla
rsT
ime
1. A
ppoi
nt G
ener
al E
duca
tion
Rev
iew
Boa
rd (
GE
RB
)C
hanc
ello
rC
TF
GE
R8/
1/97
8/15
/97
1. O
pen
com
mun
icat
ion
toC
olle
ge c
omm
unity
2. A
ppoi
nt c
ours
e de
velo
pers
GE
RB
Vic
e11
/1/9
712
/1/9
7$3
5,00
02.
Cou
rse
deve
lope
rsC
hanc
ello
r(1
0@un
der
cont
ract
for
12fo
r$3
,500
mon
ths
(1/1
/98-
1/1/
99)
Edu
catio
nea
ch)
(VC
E)
3. S
olic
it co
urse
pro
posa
lsG
ER
BV
CE
1/1/
989/
1/98
8 m
os.
3. F
ully
-dev
elop
ed s
etof
cou
rses
w/c
ompl
ete
units
rea
dy fo
rpr
esen
-ta
tion
to c
ampu
s/di
stric
t cur
ricul
umco
mm
ittee
s4.
Sub
mit
core
cur
ricul
umco
urse
s as
a pa
ckag
e to
cam
pus/
dist
rict
curr
icul
um c
omm
ittee
s
GE
RB
VC
E9/
1/98
11/1
/98
2 m
os.
4. C
ore
curr
icul
umco
urse
s ap
prov
ed b
yca
mpu
s/di
stric
tcu
rric
ulum
com
mitt
ees
4445
AC
TIO
N P
LAN
NIN
G W
OR
KS
HE
ET
OB
JEC
TIV
E 2
.0 (
Con
tinue
d) T
ode
sign
cou
rses
for
Cor
e C
urric
ulum
by 1
2/1/
98
Act
ion
Ste
psA
ccou
ntab
ility
Sch
edul
eR
esou
rces
Fee
dbac
kM
echa
nism
sP
rimar
yO
ther
sS
tart
Com
plet
eD
olla
rsT
ime
5. S
ubm
it co
re c
urric
ulum
cour
ses
asa
pack
age
to B
oard
of T
rust
ees
for
final
app
rova
l
6. Im
plem
ent c
ore
curr
icul
um
Cha
ncel
lor
.GE
RB
.Fac
ulty
VC
E
.VC
E.A
cade
mic
Adv
isor
s.A
cade
mic
Dea
ns.A
cade
mic
Dep
t.C
hairs
11/1
/98
1/1/
99
12/1
/98
Ong
oing
----
1 m
onth
---
5. C
ore
curr
icul
umco
urse
s ap
prov
ed
6. F
orm
ativ
e an
dsu
mm
ativ
e ev
alua
tion
docu
men
ts o
n fil
e
47
AC
TIO
N P
LAN
NIN
GW
OR
KS
HE
ET
OB
JEC
TIV
E 3
.0: T
oco
mpl
ete
new
gen
eral
edu
catio
n tr
ansf
erag
reem
ents
with
maj
or r
ecei
ving
inst
itutio
nsby
12/
1/99
.
Act
ion
Ste
psA
ccou
ntab
ility
Sch
edul
eR
esou
rces
Fee
dbac
kM
echa
nism
sP
rimar
yO
ther
sS
tart
Com
plet
eD
olla
rsT
ime
1. C
ompl
ete
"cro
ss w
alk"
bet
wee
ncu
rren
t 39-
hour
dis
trib
utio
n m
odel
and
new
cor
e cu
rric
ulum
mod
el
GE
RB
VC
E9/
1/97
11/1
/97
1. E
quiv
alen
cies
esta
blis
hed
for
new
core
cur
ricul
um m
odel
w/3
9-ho
ur d
istr
ibut
ion
mod
el2.
Com
plet
e di
scus
sion
s w
ith m
ajor
.Aca
dem
icV
CE
11/1
/97
11/1
/98
122.
Min
utes
of m
eetin
gsre
ceiv
ing
inst
itutio
ns o
n ho
wco
recu
rric
ulum
is a
t lea
st m
inim
ally
equi
vale
nt to
cur
rent
39-
hour
dist
ribut
ion
mod
el
Adv
isor
s.A
cad
Dea
ns.A
cad
Dep
t.C
hairs
mos
.w
ith m
ajor
rec
eivi
ngin
stitu
tions
.Fac
ulty
3. C
ompl
ete
form
al a
rtic
ulat
ion
agre
e-V
CE
.GE
RB
12/1
/98
12/1
/99
123.
For
mal
art
icul
atio
nm
ents
in g
ener
al e
duca
tion
with
maj
orre
ceiv
ing
inst
itutio
ns.A
cade
mic
Adv
isor
sm
os.
agre
emen
ts s
igne
dan
d on
file
.Aca
d D
eans
.Aca
dem
icD
ept.
Cha
irs.F
acul
ty
4849
U.S. Department of EducationOffice of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)
Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)
REPRODUCTION RELEASE
I. DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION:
(Specific Document)
0
TC, all° 39 1.0
Title:Integrity in Liberal Learning: A Core Curriculum for the New Millennium:The Final Report of the Chancellor's Task Force on General Education Reform
Author(s):Irving Pressley McPhail, Task Force Chair and Executive Editor
Corporate Source: Chancellor's Task Force on General Education ReformSt. Louis Community CollegeSt. Louis, Missouri
Publication Date:
June 10, 1997
II. REPRODUCTION RELEASE:
In order to disseminate as widely as possible timely and significant materials of interest to the educational community, documents announcedin the monthly abstract journal of the ERIC system, Resources in Education (RIE), are usually made available to users in microfiche, reproducedpaper copy, and electronic/optical media, and sold through the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS) or other ERIC vendors. Credit isgiven to the source of each document, and, if reproduction release is granted, one of the following notices is affixed to the document.
If permission is granted to reproduce and disseminate the identified document, please CHECK ONE of the following two options and sign atthe bottom of the page.
Check hereFor Level 1 Release:Permitting reproduction inmicrofiche (4" x 6" film) orother ERIC archival media(e.g., electronic or optical)and paper copy.
Signhere)please
The sample sticker shown below will beaffixed to all Level 1 documents
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL
HAS BEEN GRANTED BY
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)
Lovell 1]
The sample sticker shown below will beaffixed to all Level 2 documents
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS
MATERIAL IN OTHER THAN PAPERCOPY HAS BEEN GRANTED BY
ciTO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)
Level 2
Documents will be processed as indicated provided reproduction quality permits. If permissionto reproduce is granted, but neither box is checked, documents will be processed at Level 1.
Check hereFor Level 2 Release:Permitting reproduction inmicrofiche (4" x 6" film) orother ERIC archival media(e.g., electronic or optical),but not in paper copy.
hereby grant to the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) nonexclusive permission to reproduce and disseminatethis document as indicated above. Reproduction from the ERIC microfiche or electronic/optical media by persons other thanERIC employees and its system contractors requires permission from the copyright holder. Exception is made for non-profitreproduction by libraries and other service agencies to satisfy information needs of educators in response to discrete inquiries."
mule:
izat n/ cidress: unity Collegeat Florissant Valley
III. DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY INFORMATION (FROM NON-ERIC SOURCE):
If permission to reproduce is not granted to ERIC, or, if you wish ERIC to cite the availability of the document from another source,please provide the following information regarding the availability of the document. (ERIC will not announce a document unless it ispublicly available, and a dependable source can be specified. Contributors should also be aware that ERIC selection criteria aresignificantly more stringent for documents that cannot be made available through EDRS.)
Publisher/Distributor:
Address:
Price:
IV. REFERRAL OF ERIC TO COPYRIGHT/REPRODUCTION RIGHTS HOLDER:
If the right to grant reproduction release is held by someone other than the addressee, please provide the appropriate name and address:
Name:
Address:
V. WHERE TO SEND THIS FORM:
Send this form to the following ERIC Clearinghouse:
ERIC Clearinghouse for Community Colleges3051 Moore HallUniversity of California, Los AngelesP.O. Box 951521Los Angeles, CA 90095-1521 EE 45
However, if solicited by the ERIC Facility, or if making an unsolicited contribution to ERIC, return this form (and the document beingcontributed) to:
ERIC Processing and Reference Facility1100 West Street, 2d Floor
