ࡱ> _ Jbjbj .bbJD<d'1'3'3'3'3'3'3'$t)&,fW'W'l'%%%1'%1'%%1&&uDg&''0'&,%,(&&,& %W'W'%', :  REPORT OF THE Ad hoc GENERAL EDUCATION COMMITTEE May 2002. Members: Linda Bakken, Stephen Brady, JoLynne Campbell, Jim Clark, Peter Cohen, Walter Horn, Jay Mandt, Victor Markovich, Peer H. Moore-Jansen (Chair), Martha Shawver, Beth Smith, David Soles. I. BACKGROUND The General education Ad hoc committee is a faculty committee appointed for one year by the then faculty senate president, Will Klunder. The committees charge was broad and quite open to interpretation. On October 3rd, 2001 Faculty Senate President Jeri Carroll convened a joint meeting of the Faculty Senate General Education Committee and the newly appointed Ad hoc General Education Committee. The Vice-President of Academic Affairs gave a special address on the topic of General Education to the joint committees. Although the purpose of the meeting was to examine the program assessment efforts needed from both committees in the 2002 academic year, the meeting did end without issuing a specific charge to the Ad hoc committee. A number of vaguely phrased concerns and related questions were raised and a general request to assess the General Education program was formulated. The Ad hoc General Education committee is composed of members representing all colleges and the administration. The committee met approximately every two weeks during the period of October 2001 to May 2002 although a number of members were unable to attend committee meetings regularly because of illness, teaching conflicts, or other faculty service conflicts. One member was unable to attend a single meeting all year and two members were unable to attend during the spring 2002 semester. Throughout the year the Ad hoc committee kept contact with the standing General Education committee via the General Education Coordinator. Unfortunately, the Coordinator was not able to attend most of the meetings of the Ad hoc committee and most contact was achieved through email. Because of the enormity of the general charge to review the General Education program, the committee proceeded to discuss the better way to address its charge. The members defined several issues and decided to focus on program structure, and content, advising and faculty perception, and, to a lesser degree, outcomes. The activities of the Ad hoc committee grew increasingly throughout the year as the complexity of the General Education program a became ever more apparent. Several issues arose and can be summarized as matters of short-term and long-term consequence to be dealt with by the faculty senate or future taskforces. The committee report below addresses a number of issues particularly with reference to program identity, program structure, program content, and outcomes. The committees findings are based on institutional data, survey information, practical experience, and at some level intuition. From our serious efforts to learn more about the daily operation of the general education program, it has become evident to the committee that the general education program requires greater uniformity and more formal enforcement. II. CURRICULUM ENROLLMENT HISTORY Unfinished summary of course enrollment histories. III. PROGRAM IDENTITY and IMPLEMENTATION A major concern about the general education program is one of identity. A commonly asked question addresses the extent to which student and faculty associate with the program. The committee addressed this issue in several ways. Among other things, the committee looked at student enrollment, curriculum components, and participant perception. The committee surveyed faculty and provides a proposal for options to address student outcomes. A primary factor in the assessment of the general education program is the identification of the student body to which it applies. The committee determined from its inquiries into past and present guidelines and procedures that only an estimated 25-30% of the graduates are affected in full by the General Education requirement. Thus a large number of perceived difficulties may indeed reflect the misapplication of the program guidelines to students to whom the program does not apply under the current guidelines. Guidelines for implementation - Transfer credit issue. The current general education program requires between 42-45 credits depending on a students high-school science experience. Course requirements are spread across four categories including basic skills, introductory, further study, and issues and perspectives courses. Only students starting and ending their college education at are required to meet the requirements of the general education in full. A large number of student (exceeding 70%) transfer credits hours taken elsewhere which are frequently applied to meet their general education obligations. This has the effect of exempting the student from the program to varying degrees. The transfer is to be carried out in accordance with an articulation agreement which is summarized below and presented in full at the end of this report (Appendix A). Students transferring to with an Associate of Arts or and Associate of Science degree based on a baccalaureate oriented sequence at state or regionally accredited Kansas public community college, and whose program of study has met the requirements of the Kansas Public Community College-Kansas Regents Transfer Agreement and Articulation Guide will be accepted with junior standing and will have satisfied the general education requirements of all Regents Universities. Students transferring to Regents institutions who have not completed an Associate of Art or Associate of Science degree will be given general education credit for any articulated general education course completed at the community college. The committee discovered what it considers to be serious issues with respect to the implementation of the guidelines for the transfer of credits and the determination of equivalency of course work between and two year institutions. Board of Regent guidelines identify two year institutions as offering only introductory level courses thus limiting transfer credit to course of this category. The committee learned that regular exceptions to these guidelines are made. To explore this matter, the committee consulted with the Advisor Council members and it also examined transcript records. A study of student transcripts includes the graduating class of spring 2001. From the transcripts, the committee found evidence of both formally specified and informal college specific exceptions granted to students in lieu of general education credits. The observed inconsistencies raised several questions about implementation and the degree to which exceptions were made. Key to this agreement is perhaps two statements based on a baccalaureate oriented sequence and credit for any articulated general education course Both statements indicate a qualification of the implementation of the agreement. It is the concern of the committee that granting of transfer equivalency is presently characterized by a level of complexity that raises questions about the process and makes sound implantation difficult for advisors. On one hand advisors are limited by certain inconsistencies in the frequency of course offerings of curriculum, matters of course numbering, and dated equivalency agreements. On the other hand there is the question of the application of the concept of comparability in lieu of equivalency in advising and credit transfer (i.e. non-departmental assessment of comparable courses being used as equivalent course work to satisfy certain specified requirements). Through its work the committee learned of specific examples of college specific application of general education course work. The committees understands that each college follows college-specific guidelines for the content of the general education program as is their prerogative. But at times some applications and exceptions were directly contrary to General Education guidelines. This is not acceptable and is in direct conflict with the Transfer/Articulation agreement between and other Kansas institutions (e.g., the committee was informed of the alternate use of STATS 370 as either an introductory or an Issues and Perspectives course in the College of education). This is not an acceptable practice. To further add to its own findings the committee invited the Advisor council members from across the colleges to meet with the committee to discuss the program. Several advisors representing each of the colleges were in attendance and graciously contributed with both insight and experience. The Ad hoc committee is especially grateful to the Advisor Council for their special efforts of cooperation, their forthrightness and dedication to help educate the committee about the issues referred to here. At the committees request the Advisor Council prepared the following resulting recommendations for modification for improving the universitys General Education Program. All college academic advisors try to frame general education program requirements following the Goals/Outcomes statements in the University Catalog. We would appreciate, however, a training program for faculty members teaching GEP classes at all levels - that facilitates their communication of these goals/outcomes to the students in their classes. Since basic skills classes are critical for success in any further courses taken by the student, we would appreciate support of a statement that students complete all skills classes in the first 48 hours of enrollment. We (Advisory Council) recommend that the prerequisite structure for Further Studies and Issues and Perspectives classes receives immediate and critical attention. Many of these classes DO NOT require a prerequisite, especially in humanities/fine arts/some social sciences disciplines, but some faculty expect more than an introductory class as foundation for success. If a course has a prerequisite, it should be indicated. The prerequisite statement might also include an expectation such as English Composition 101 and 102 with a C or better should be completed. Its also important to note that if a FS or I&P class have multiple prerequisites, it likely will not receive adequate enrollment to run. (As a side note, if the Board of Regents action to require 54 upper division hours is actually implemented, considering how to increase the number of upper division general education courses that do not have a prerequisite may be important for a number of our colleges.) Eliminate all references to Q and G classes from an earlier GEP. Current students from those catalog years who are still enrolled are easily accommodated by the current GEP program, and the letters create considerable confusion for our current and new students. We (Advisory Council) are considering the use of Further Studies rather than second course terminology in our Community College Transfer Guides as these are edited for a new round of communication. We feel this will bring GEP expectations for transfer students closer in line with what students who begin at experience and will not create complications in our encouraging students to transfer to . The most difficult element of the current program to work with concerns I & P classes. Specific definition of what these courses entail is not consistently found in our descriptions of the GEP, numbers of classes offered are often inadequate, classes are not accessible in all enrollment blocks and from all divisions on a regular basis, and scheduling problems for our diverse student population occur frequently. One creative solution might be to consider allowing individual colleges and/or programs to develop their own course in some respects a capstone model that meets general outcomes determined by the committee. This would address the I & P element OUTSIDE the universitys GEP and would move the I & P course to a program requirement. This type of change would also help us consider at least one unique element in the structure of the GEP for all students, and as a major program requirement would assure that transfer students and domestic students experience the same course. Ad hoc General Education Committee Recommendations: a. The committee is concerned about the question of the imposition of the general university transfer agreements and articulation guidelines on the general education program and the effect it may have in effect waiving the requirements for a large number of students to facilitate their progress. Also of concern is the lack of regularity of the assessment of transfer equivalency of individual courses. The committee recommends a review of this issue. b. The committee also recognizes the difficulty sometimes faced by advisors who implement the practice of establishing transfer equivalency. Whenever agreements signed by a department are in effect, it is the responsibility of that department to regularly revisit and confirm (or rescind as appropriate) the agreement. Where no such agreement exists but instead assessments of comparability are made, the committee firmly recommends a stricter enforcement of the equivalency policy requests that all exceptions (including assessment of equivalency) are always approved by the department offering a particular course. c. The committee recommends that the faculty senate appoint one or more separate taskforce(s) to address transfer equivalency issues. The taskforce(s) should address the need for corrections and updates to existing transfer agreements; address the coordination of individual departmental reviews of existing transfer agreements; review the issue of a need for consistency and standardization of departmental course numbering at in accordance with national standards; determine the parameters for accepting equivalency transfer credits from two-years institutions (community colleges); address enforcement of the Board of Regent directives of accepting only introductory level course work from two year institutions. IV. PROGRAM IDENTITY Based on the collective experience of the committee members, some issues were found to be extremely relevant to the continued assessment of the General Education program. Primarily this is about program identity. Intuitively, the committee has identified two basic philosophies behind the prescription of a general education program among the faculty. Both appear to have broad support on campus and both address the educational mission. However, a major difference between the two models can bee seen in how they affect the underlying general education program structure. 1. On one hand, general education can be considered equivalent of a broad liberal arts education. The institutional mission, the goals and objectives are all consistent with this philosophy. It also corresponds with the course structure of approximately 85-90 introductory courses, 300 or more Further Study courses, and approximately 26-30 Issues and perspectives courses reflect this perception. Indeed, in such a model, all upper level courses in Liberal Arts and Sciences listed with proper prerequisite could be Further Study studies. Introductory classes would continue to be monitored in the present used model. 2. Alternatively, General Education can be viewed as a more clearly defined core component (see original General Education program objectives) of an otherwise broad liberal Arts and Science based educational experience. In such a model, there is a call for greater definition of the objectives of the program, thus a corresponding definition of the nature of the courses in the curriculum. This model, although it addresses the same mission, goals and objectives, should be defined more specifically to address particular components such as writing, numerical skills, and introductory level exposure across the existing program divisions (Humanities and Fine Arts, Social Science, Biological and Natural Science). Ad hoc General Education Committee Recommendations: a. Were faculty to accept the former model (1.) the General Education committee charge should be changed to monitor program assessment, intro and basic skills courses. b. If the latter model (2) is selected, the curriculum should be limited with a clearly defined focus. Course selections for the Introductory and further study courses should be reviewed regularly for their content and program specific substance. Courses should be judged on content and not division or discipline. Limits on numbers of courses in this alternative model should be enforced strict enforcement of the prescribed formats c. The committee suggests that a General Education program with a limited number of course is more difficult to administer and maintain but that it could be meaningful if a focus is defined in relation to a broader Liberal Arts education while remaining a distinct component thereof. Without such a distinction, there is little basis for identifying what the program stands for and less basis for defining the course curriculum comprising the program. V. STRUCTURE The committee recommends continued engineering of some components of the program to help simplify the structure, more successfully integrate the established course components, thus enhancing integrity and clarity of purpose of the program overall. The committee does recommend the immediate removal of all G and Q designations. Further recommendations by the committee are listed in the following. Ad hoc General Education Committee Recommendations: 1. Basic Skills (12 Credits) a. Revisit structure of the Basic Skills component. The committee supports the enforcement of the Basic Skills component of the General Education program and a reexamination of the core content. The committee did address the composition of the basic skills component and debated a modification to include the omission of the requirement for a free standing Speech class and more rigorously integrate the speech component into the remaining classes taught in the general education program. A suggestion to replace the speech requirement with a critical thinking/logic component was also debated. However, at the time of this writing, the committee believes that it has insufficient data to make an official proposal for such a change. b. Enforcement. The committee supports stricter enforcement of the implementation of the directions for the Basic Skills portion of the General Education program which require the Basic Skills courses each passed with a grade of C to be completed within the first 48 hours. c. Clarification. The committee supports reiterating the flexibility of the Math 111 or 112 requirement by reinstating the or further course in Math clause omitted in recent catalogs. d. Basic skills Outcomes Assessment Exam. Add a basic skills assessment exam to test students proficiency in overall basic skills and critical thinking. The exam is to be taken by a statistically appropriate sample of students within their first 60 credit hrs. The exam applies to all students at regardless of where they completed their basic skills or general education course work. The purpose for this exam is to assess the students level of preparedness for their continued education at and should perhaps also address minimal information literacy competency standards. The exam should at least serve as a means of outcomes assessment of the basic skills component of the program. Committee members were split over issue of whether all or only some students should take the exam and whether students who score low on the basic skills exam should be required to take remedial course-work to correct any deficiencies. Some members argued that to implement remedial work would strengthen the foundation skills of all students and address a frequently voiced concern about individual student basic skills. Other members found such a requirement to be a potential obstacle to student progress, cost prohibitive, and impossible to implement. They believed the exam should be used primarily to assess the effectiveness of our curriculum. The decision whether to use a standardized exam with national norms or develop own need to be decided. The development of the basic skills exam should be charged to a senate task force and the administration should be the charge of the General Education Coordinator. 2. Introductory courses The committee proposes to leave the current introductory course structure as is. The category is manageable in number and in breadth. Depending on the faculty senates decision on broader issues defining the program, the parameters defining the Introductory Course concept may have to be reexamined. 3. Further Study Courses (Upper Division) The committee discussed the renaming of the Further Study category to Upper Division. Awaiting the larger debate over the role of the General Education program, the committee recommends maintaining the current distribution requirements of 12 hours in Humanities and Fine Arts, 9 hours in Social Science, and 9 12 hours in biological and natural science. In accordance with its decision on the question of program identity, the faculty senate should act accordingly and either open up the further study courses to include all upper division courses in the College of Arts and Sciences. One requirement of all courses is that to qualify as general education, they should carry a defined prerequisite (Introductory course or category) facilitating proper advising. 4. Issues and Perspectives (Integrative Courses) The category of courses identified as Issues and Perspective is currently conceived as a way to address the need for a component in the general education that exposes students to certain valuable subjects and methodologies including courses having as their focus issues or problems which have merged as matters of concern from contemporary conditions of life and culture. The number of Issues and perspective courses comprises a small group of listings (approximately 25) many of which are irregularly offered. The current general education program requirement of at least one Issues and Perspectives course is currently not enforced in degree audits. Advisors cite the regular unavailability of courses in this category as the primary reason for making this exception although no formal guideline for making this exception is in place. Based on a limited study of course offerings during the academic fall semester from the period 1998-2001 the committee identified a total of 85 sections of 25 courses offered in the Issues and Perspectives category. Only 18 of the courses were offered more than once during the four semesters included in the study. Ad hoc General Education Committee Recommendations: The committee recommends that the Issues and Perspectives category be dropped from the General Education program. The committee is concerned that courses in this category are not offered frequently enough to facilitate the implementation of this requirement of the General Education program. It also expresses concern that there is not sufficient distinction between the Further Study and Issues and Perspectives categories of courses in the current curriculum. Finally, the committee finds it a serious concern that transfer students who frequently fulfill their General Education elsewhere are not exposed to an integrative course such as originally intended by the Issues and Perspective category of courses. To address these concerns, the committee recommends replacing the Issues and Perspectives requirement with an integrative graduation requirement to be taken by ALL graduates regardless of transfer or other status. The course should be based on a general Liberal Arts perspective but the focus can be college specific. This change will have the effect of simplifying the structure of the General Education program while also enhancing the potential achievement of the University educational mission by assuring exposure to this level course to all future graduates. VI. FACULTY PERCEPTION SURVEY As part of its effort to assess the general education program at , the Ad hoc committee administered an electronic survey to all faculty inquiring about their perceptions of the program. The survey consisted of 17 questions about faculty and student perceptions and revealed genuinely limited interest based on the number of responses despite separate electronic messages announcing the survey to faculty. A response was received from a total of 18 faculty, including ten from the college of Liberal Arts and Sciences, three from Fine Arts, two from the college of Education and 2 from Health professions. One response was not identified by college. Ten of the responses represent faculty who have been at for 10 or more years and four have been at two years or less. Despite the paucity of the responses, the general findings of the survey are reported below. 1. Faculty perception findings. When asked about the General Education program, 17 of 18 faculty identify themselves as having a good or excellent understanding of the purpose of the general education program at . Only three of 18 suggest that students have a good or better understanding of the purpose of the program with one response expressing no opinion. When asked if they understand the relationship of the general education program to the institutional mission a total of 11 surveys respond in the affirmative where as 7 responders express a less than good understanding. The survey is divided on the question whether the General education program provides students with the means to integrate the diversity of information they have been exposed to at . Ten stated somewhat in the affirmative and six stated hardly ever or definitely not. Two thirds of the faculty who participated in the survey agreed that it is important for the General Education program to reveal the dimension of cultural diversity and other intellectual, moral and political struggles in the culture of the university. One response suggested that this is somewhat important, one suggested not at all, and one had no opinion. When asked if general education program is capable of providing a mechanism for bridging disciplinary fields the survey responded 11 yes and six in the negative with one no response. When asked about the administrations understanding of the General education program the response was split evenly between the affirmative and negative. When asked about the administrations commitment to the program, the answers were 11 to 7 in recognition of the administrations commitment. When asked whether or not General Education should be a significant element in tenure and promotion decisions the vote was nearly evenly split. The faculty surveyed, were also evenly split about whether or not the general education program provided faculty members with an opportunity to explore new approaches to teaching and learning in ways that enhanced their effectiveness in working with students. Ad hoc General Education Committee Recommendation: The faculty were either not sufficiently aware of the survey despite direct notification to all faculty or faculty did not exhibit particular interest. The survey can be summarized as not particularly successful and the results cannot be considered reflective of a general/diverse opinion of the faculty body. This leaves the committee without tangible data to describe general faculty perception. The committee does recommend continued education of faculty about the program and its implantation but no specific approach can be addressed from the present survey. Faculty perception and understanding of the program mission and structure is extremely important to appropriate implementation and should be addressed by the faculty senate. VII. STUDENT PERCEPTION The question of how students identify with the general education program is complex and may be assessed in many ways. Perhaps there is no single avenue to make students understand the nature of "general education" in a time when many are here merely to most expeditiously obtain a diploma which is so often equated with a better salary. The forum for explaining the nature of a general education is clearly in the class room, however, it may be that this discussion occurs less commonly than is appropriate leaving this task in the hands of the teachers of general education classes. The present system of enrollment and advising may have the effect of limiting student contact with their instructors thus reducing academic exchange among students and their teachers. Ad hoc General Education Committee Recommendations: The committee recommends integrating teachers in the general education process by involving them more greatly in regular advising. This may have the effect of stimulating academic contact between professor and student thus enhancing the student understanding of the purpose or particular relevance of their education. VIII. OUTCOME ASSESSMENT. No assessment of the General Education Program is complete without some way of knowing if the students are attaining the desired outcomes of the program. This approach is commonly known in the accreditation lingo as Outcomes Assessment. There are different opinions on how this information is gained and some would argue if the students satisfactorily completed the courses in the General Education program the same students will demonstrate the appropriate outcomes. This argument is based on the assumption that each course in the General Education program fits neatly into the goals of the program. However, since courses qualify as general education courses based on a general set of guidelines and to a lesser extent a review of syllabi to determine if the courses actually do mesh with the goals of the program, such assumptions are likely not valid. Regardless of the degree to which the General Education Committee reviews a course prior to approval, there is no assurance that the course continues to maintain that integrity 3-5 years later (e.g. changes in content, instructor, perspective). The process required to administer proper and regular review of all courses in the general education curriculum is time consuming and ongoing. Alternative tools to assess student outcomes require faculty to determine what skills are essential outcomes of the general education program and select the approach accordingly. One such tool includes the standardized tests such as: 1. The ACT CAAP (Collegiate Assessment of Academic Proficiency) assesses academic achievement in core general education academic skills in writing (objective and Essay), reading, mathematics, science reasoning, and critical thinking. 2. College BASE (Basic Academic Subjects Examination) evaluates knowledge and skills in English, mathematics, science, and social studies after the student finish the core curriculum. Another approach to outcomes assessment is the interview. Some schools conduct senior interviews. For example, a panel of 3 faculty members would interview 1 student for 45-50 minutes. A random sample of 100 students from the target group of students is selected. Interview questions focus on the goals of the program and faculty independently rate the responses. This approach would require faculty training, time, and money. This approach has been used by our state peers: KU and KSU. Ad hoc General Education Committee Recommendations: The Committee finds systematic outcomes assessment of the general education program is a critical dimension of the overall evaluation. The committee recommends the establishment of a faculty senate task force whose sole responsibility will be to develop this tool in conjunction with studying the cost/benefits of each approach. No approach for assessment of this nature comes without cost. These costs include faculty time as well as outright costs for materials such as standardized tests. This type of assessment requires significant commitment from faculty as well as University Administrators. For this reason, a task-force needs to use caution when considering these issues. IX. SUMMARY It is the recommendation of the Ad hoc committee to terminate the current Ad hoc committee and appoint task forces to work on individual recommendations including the mode of outcomes assessment; advising policy, enforcement, transfer equivalency/transfer issues, departmental reviews of curricula and clarifying what the faculty at mean to be the General Education program. Appendix A. TRANSFER AGREEMENT AND ARTICULATION GUIDE KANSAS PUBLIC COMMUNITY COLLEGES - KANSAS REGENTS UNIVERSITIES We, the undersigned representatives of public institutions of higher education in the State of Kansas, adopt the following transfer agreement terminating with the end of the 2002-2003 academic year. A student who completes an Associate of Arts or Associate of Science degree based on a baccalaureate oriented sequence at a state and regionally accredited Kansas public community college, and whose program of study has met the requirements of the Kansas Public Community College-Kansas Regents Transfer Agreement and Articulation Guide, will be accepted with junior standing and will have satisfied the general education requirements of all Regents universities. Students transferring to Regents institutions who have not completed an Associate of Arts or Associate of Science degree will be given general education credit for any articulated general education course completed at the community college.* This voluntary commitment reaffirms the intent to cooperate with sister colleges and universities in matters of student transfer and articulation for the ultimate benefit of all transfer students in the State of Kansas. *See the points of clarification on the reverse side of this agreement. REGENTS UNIVERSITIES: Date:____________________ _____________________ _____________________ _____________________ Robert Hemenway, Chancellor Jon Wefald, President Eugene Hughes, President UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY WICHITA STATE UNIVERSITY _______________________ ______________________ _______________________ Robert Glennen, President John Darling, President Edward Hammond, President EMPORIA STATE UNIVERSITY PITTSBURG STATE UNIVERSITY FORT HAYS STATE UNIVERSITY POINTS OF CLARIFICATION 1. This Agreement applies only to Associate of Arts and Associate of Science degree transfers from state and regionally accredited public community colleges in Kansas. The agreement does not include transfers from nonaccredited community colleges or any other colleges. 2. Transfer students accepted for admission at Kansas Regents universities with the Associate of Arts or Associate of Science degree will automatically be given junior standing with the understanding that: a) Each receiving institution has the right to determine admission standards to the various majors in their institutions. b) Transfer students are subject to the same institutional assessment policies and procedures as resident students of the receiving institution. 3. General education is defined as follows: General education provides students with facility in the use of the English language and a broad intellectual experience in the major fields of knowledge. It insures that each graduate will have experienced some of the content, method and system of values of the various disciplines which enable humanity to understand itself and its environment at a level of abstraction beyond that found in secondary school studies. Although the following distribution of courses does not correspond to the General Education requirements at any Kansas Regents institution, it will be accepted as having satisfied the general education requirements of all Kansas Regents universities. A minimum of 45 credit hours of general education with distribution in the following fields will be required. General education hours totaling less than 45 will be accepted, but transfer students must complete the remainder of this requirement before graduation from the receiving institution, which may require an additional semester(s). 12 hours of Basic Skills courses, including: 12 hours of Humanities courses from at least three of the following disciplines: 12 hours of Social and Behavioral Science courses from at least three of the following disciplines: 9 hours of Natural and Physical Science courses from at least two disciplines (lecture with lab). 6 hours of English Composition 3 hours of Speech Communication 3 hours of college level Mathematics (statistics will be required of transfer students where University curriculum requires it) Art* Theater* Philosophy Music* History Literature *Performance courses are excluded. Sociology Psychology Political Science Economics Geography Anthropology  Transcripts of students fulfilling the requirement of this agreement will be appropriately coded by the sending institution. 4. Other associate degrees and certificates may be awarded for programs which have requirements different from baccalaureate-oriented sequences or a primary objective other than transfer. Students in such programs wishing to transfer to Kansas Regents universities are to be considered outside of the terms of this agreement. Students attempting to transfer into Technology, Engineering and Architecture programs are considered outside this agreement. It is recommended that 2 + 2 and 2 + 3 arrangements be developed for the above programs of study. Acceptance of course credit for transfer from such programs will be determined by the receiving institution on the basis of application of the courses to the baccalaureate program in the major field of the student. Credit for equivalent technical courses may be granted by departmental examination. 5. Each institution will define its own graduation requirements. 6. Foreign Language requirements are viewed as graduation requirements and not as general education requirements for purposes of this agreement. 7. A transfer student may be required to take freshman or sophomore courses to meet particular requirements or course prerequisites of a given major or minor. 8. Transfer students preparing for teacher certification must meet the general education requirements as outlined by the State Board of Education. Teacher certification requirements have been incorporated into the degree requirements of Kansas Regents universities. 9. The spirit of the Agreement indicates that transfer students are to be judged academically in the same way as non-transfer students. Other information about General Education ad hoc studies can be found at:  HYPERLINK "http://webs.wichita.edu/senate/structure.html" http://webs.wichita.edu/senate/structure.html 45>?@ABC    | RX$%ABdeꦐꦐꦐzzz+hNhN5B*OJPJQJ\^Jph+hNhN6B*OJPJQJ]^Jph%hNhNB*OJPJQJ^Jph3hNhN6B*CJOJPJQJ]^JaJph-hNhNB*CJOJPJQJ^JaJph)hNhNB*CJOJPJQJaJph05?AC  %Be|ddd[$\$]|gdNddd7$8$[$\$`gdNddd[$\$`gdNddd7$8$[$\$gdN$ddd7$8$[$\$a$gdN dgdN0!!!!"""""""#:#<&=&>&?& ) )=*C*++----1122z4{4g8h88+hNhN6B*OJPJQJ]^Jph3hNhN6B*CJOJPJQJ]^JaJph)hNhNB*CJOJPJQJaJph+hNhN5B*OJPJQJ\^Jph%hNhNB*OJPJQJ^Jph9""=&?& )+--12 & FdgdN & FdgdN & FdgdN & FdgdNhddd[$\$^hgdN|d]|^gdN|hd]|^hgdN & F|d]|gdN2{4h88k:<??BDqGGVH JKuMMddd[$\$^gdNddd[$\$gdN|d]|^`gdN|ddd[$\$]|gdN & FdgdN & FdgdN88888j:k:<<????BBDDDpGqGGGGTHUHVHXHYH J JKKtMuMMMNNPPPPQQQQRRRRTTYYYYYYJZKZvZwZw]x]]] _!_+hNhN6B*OJPJQJ]^Jph+hNhN5B*OJPJQJ\^Jph)hNhNB*CJOJPJQJaJph%hNhNB*OJPJQJ^JphCMNPPQQRRTYYKZwZx]]!_`3bhbogg|ddd[$\$]|gdNddd[$\$^`gdNddd[$\$^gdNddd[$\$`gdN!_``2b3bfbgbhbngoggg kkkk5k6kwmxmpphsissssvvvvyyyyy{{8{9{ ݂ނ̈́΄τPQȇɇDEQS)hNhNB*CJOJPJQJaJph+hNhN5B*OJPJQJ\^Jph)hNhNB*CJOJPJQJaJph%hNhNB*OJPJQJ^Jph?gk6kxmpissvvyy{9{w$ddd[$\$a$gdN|ddd[$\$]|gdNddd[$\$`gdNddd[$\$gdNddd[$\$^gdN8ddd[$\$^8`gdN|ddd[$\$]|`gdN 9{ ނτQɇESpddd[$\$gdNhhddd[$\$^h`hgdN|hhd]|^h`hgdN|ddd[$\$]|gdNhddd[$\$^hgdN0ddd[$\$^`0gdN$hddd[$\$`ha$gdN S|}HI%&noŎƎIJ‘23GH/0`aUҽҥҽҽҽҽҽҐҽҽҐҽҐ{{{{{{{{{)hNhNB*CJOJPJQJaJph)hNhNB*CJOJPJQJaJph/hNhN6B*CJOJPJQJ]aJph)hNhNB*CJOJPJQJaJph)hNhNB*CJOJPJQJaJph/hNhN5B*CJOJPJQJ\aJph0S}I&oƎJ‘3H$hddd[$\$^h`a$gdN$ddd[$\$a$gdNddd[$\$^gdNddd[$\$gdN$ddd[$\$a$gdN0aVXZddd$If[$\$gdNdxdd$If[$\$gdN$ddd[$\$^a$gdN$ddd[$\$a$gdN$ddd[$\$^`a$gdNUVWXYZLMNOҚӚ45rstuIJ hNhNCJOJPJQJaJ)hNhNB*CJOJPJQJaJph)hNhNB*CJOJPJQJaJphMMOӚ5suddd$If[$\$^`gdNdxdd$If[$\$gdNdd:$If[$gdNddd$If[$\$gdNJhUdxdd$If[$\$gdNWkd$$If0%FF t622 x4BadytNdd:$If[$gdNddd$If[$\$gdN$ ddd$If[$\$^$ `gdN V8eA?yybhddd[$\$^h`gdN$hddd[$\$^ha$gdN$hddd[$\$^h`a$gdN$ddd[$\$a$gdNDkd$$If%F# t622 x4BadytN -4UV78cde@Aӣԣ|gMgM2jhNhNB*CJOJPJQJUaJph)hNhNB*CJOJPJQJaJph)hNhNB*CJOJPJQJaJph)hNhNB*CJOJPJQJaJph/hNhN6B*CJOJPJQJ]aJph)hNhNB*CJOJPJQJaJph,hNhN>*B*CJOJPJQJaJph)hNhNB*CJOJPJQJaJph=>ABCDEFIJϺh4)hNhNB*CJOJPJQJaJph)hNhNB*CJOJPJQJaJph2jhNhNB*CJOJPJQJUaJph,hNhN>*B*CJOJPJQJaJph ?ACEGIJ$ddd[$\$a$gdN,1h/ =!"#$% $$If!vh#v #v0:V t655/ /  / 22 x4 BadytN$$If!vh#v :V t65#/ / 22 x4 BadytNj 666666666vvvvvvvvv666666>6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666hH6666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666662 0@P`p2( 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p 0@P`p8XV~ OJPJQJ_HmH nH sH tH J`J Normal dCJ_HaJmH sH tH DA`D Default Paragraph FontRi@R 0 Table Normal4 l4a (k ( 0No List 4U`4 N0 Hyperlink >*phfZ`f N0 Plain Textddd[$\$!B*CJOJPJQJ^JaJphXoX N0Plain Text Char!B*CJOJPJQJ^JaJphPK![Content_Types].xmlN0EH-J@%ǎǢ|ș$زULTB l,3;rØJB+$G]7O٭V$ !)O^rC$y@/yH*񄴽)޵߻UDb`}"qۋJחX^)I`nEp)liV[]1M<OP6r=zgbIguSebORD۫qu gZo~ٺlAplxpT0+[}`jzAV2Fi@qv֬5\|ʜ̭NleXdsjcs7f W+Ն7`g ȘJj|h(KD- dXiJ؇(x$( :;˹! I_TS 1?E??ZBΪmU/?~xY'y5g&΋/ɋ>GMGeD3Vq%'#q$8K)fw9:ĵ x}rxwr:\TZaG*y8IjbRc|XŻǿI u3KGnD1NIBs RuK>V.EL+M2#'fi ~V vl{u8zH *:(W☕ ~JTe\O*tHGHY}KNP*ݾ˦TѼ9/#A7qZ$*c?qUnwN%Oi4 =3N)cbJ uV4(Tn 7_?m-ٛ{UBwznʜ"Z xJZp; {/<P;,)''KQk5qpN8KGbe Sd̛\17 pa>SR! 3K4'+rzQ TTIIvt]Kc⫲K#v5+|D~O@%\w_nN[L9KqgVhn R!y+Un;*&/HrT >>\ t=.Tġ S; Z~!P9giCڧ!# B,;X=ۻ,I2UWV9$lk=Aj;{AP79|s*Y;̠[MCۿhf]o{oY=1kyVV5E8Vk+֜\80X4D)!!?*|fv u"xA@T_q64)kڬuV7 t '%;i9s9x,ڎ-45xd8?ǘd/Y|t &LILJ`& -Gt/PK! ѐ'theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsM 0wooӺ&݈Э5 6?$Q ,.aic21h:qm@RN;d`o7gK(M&$R(.1r'JЊT8V"AȻHu}|$b{P8g/]QAsم(#L[PK-![Content_Types].xmlPK-!֧6 0_rels/.relsPK-!kytheme/theme/themeManager.xmlPK-!0C)theme/theme/theme1.xmlPK-! ѐ' theme/theme/_rels/themeManager.xml.relsPK] J 8!_SU JSUXZ]`de2Mg9{S?JTVWY[\^_abcfӛ=JX8@0(  B S  ?RXip+3?B998e@e[ijiii%-AGQXLq ,,//??OHPXT\T'`.`iapaocvc FQ~>IL333333333333333{ylOpD4;c6kpAA[oF~^ HQ~q6sqZW^`.^`.pp^p`.@ @ ^@ `.^`.^`.^`.^`.PP^P`.^`.^`.pp^p`.@ @ ^@ `.^`.^`.^`.^`.PP^P`.^`.^`.pp^p`.@ @ ^@ `.^`.^`.^`.^`.PP^P`.^`.^`.pp^p`.@ @ ^@ `.^`.^`.^`.^`.PP^P`.^`.^`.pp^p`.@ @ ^@ `.^`.^`.^`.^`.PP^P`.^`.^`.pp^p`.@ @ ^@ `.^`.^`.^`.^`.PP^P`.^`.^`.pp^p`.@ @ ^@ `.^`.^`.^`.^`.PP^P`.sHQ~qAA[oF4;c6O{\4NJL@IIIIJX@UnknownG*Ax Times New Roman5Symbol3. *Cx ArialQBaskerville Old Face?. Arial Black7.@ CalibriACambria Math"qhffSOSO120KHP  $PN2!xx Dreiling, BobbiDreiling, Bobbi(       Oh+'0, px   $Dreiling, Bobbi Normal.dotmDreiling, Bobbi1Microsoft Office Word@@HtD@HtDS՜.+,D՜.+,, hp|  O  Title 8@ _PID_HLINKSA.http://webs.wichita.edu/senate/structure.html  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefgijklmnoqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry FuDData h1Tablep,WordDocument.SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjr  F Microsoft Word 97-2003 Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q