UNCA Experience Report
Edward Katz is an Associate Professor in the Department of Literature and Language at the University of North Carolina at Asheville (UNCA). In the Fall of 1999, as the University was preparing for re-accreditation, Ed was asked to serve as Chair [Dedicated Champion] of the General Education Review Subcommittee (GERS). This is his story of leading the faculty toward a change in the general education curriculum.
GERS was originally comprised of 22 faculty and student members. We began our work in the spring of 2000 by discussing student development issues, reflecting on our experiences with students at UNCA [Time for Reflection], talking about our own college years, and studying trends in general education and curricular reform [Study Group]. In a series of meetings with a large group of colleagues, we wrote mission statements for our project and our idea of general education [Group Identity] and recommendations for revising and administering a new curriculum. I created a Web site to share our work with the faculty, staff, administration, and students [In Your Space] that became a clearinghouse for a variety of information: meeting minutes, documents, reports, and links to publications on curricular development and revision.
At the end of re-accreditation, the Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs [Corporate Angel] asked us to continue by revising the present curriculum. This assignment turned out to be very controversial. Because UNCA has a strong tradition of governance by its Faculty Senate, some felt that Academic Affairs had overstepped its authority by asking us to work on curricular revision. Over the next several weeks, I met with members of the Faculty Senate to hear their concerns [Fear Less, Corridor Politics]. We had some heated discussions, but the Senate finally decided to authorize the subcommittee, renamed the General Education Review Task Force (GERTF), to do a program review and revision [Group Identity]. I agreed to make status reports each semester to the Senate [Stay in Touch]. We were taking important steps and the reports became a great way to keep our forward momentum [Sustained Momentum].
We initially reviewed all Senate Academic Policy Committee reports and investigated general education reform [Study Group]. Some members researched professional journals and books on curricular reform in the liberal arts [External Validation].
In June 2000, several of us attended the Asheville Institute on General Education, a nationally recognized forum on general education programming and curricular reform [Location, Location, Location]. We consulted with experts [Mentor] and talked with other teams about the programs they had developed and the problems they had encountered [Shoulder to Cry On]. By the end of the institute, the team had come together around our mission, shaping an eight-point plan for continuing its work [Group Identity]. We were now convinced that an innovative curricular revision was possible, and we were excited about working to gain faculty buy-in [Small Successes].
Team members wanted to get right to curricular design, but I held them back to allow for development of a campus-wide overview [Just Enough]. This was frustrating for those who wanted to finish the task and some were openly skeptical about whether a revision was even possible. I countered this negativity with humor and end-of-semester gatherings at a local pub, as a reward for their energy and hard work [Do Food, Just Say Thanks]. Even so, two members withdrew from the group citing other commitments, two students graduated, and one of the alumni moved away from Asheville. I used this opportunity to pull a smaller task force of 17 together around a sense of ownership of this project [Group Identity].
Starting campus-wide discussion was difficult. An online Web forum failed, and I worried that this might undermine our morale. At the Asheville Institute, I had thought of conducting a Listening Project based on focus-group approaches. Though everyone agreed that would be a lot of work, the idea energized the team. So we went in pairs to departments or programs contributing to the general education requirements. The pairs met with faculty and recorded their responses to questions we’d given them in advance [Personal Touch].
The responses were anonymous and posted on a Web site. A social scientist and natural scientist on the task force [Ask for Help] studied the data and prepared a Summary Analysis Report. Faculty members were encouraged to read this summary to identify recurring issues and themes [In Your Space]. This work took over a semester, but the faculty could see that we wanted to reach out to them and understand their perspective. Faculty across campus reported feeling part of a public, community process [Involve Everyone], and team members were excited about talking to colleagues about curricular innovation [Small Successes]. The Listening Project replaced the failed Web forum and gave the impression of a discussion [e-Forum].
The Listening Project also helped us formulate a Statement of Institutional Principles for Design [Tailor Made]. The principles became discussion topics, so that faculty and staff could begin defining the way they wanted to develop a new curriculum.
During this period, I spent time with people who were excited about what we were doing [Innovator]. They energized me when the going got tough. I discovered several professors who were already using some of the cutting-edge teaching approaches envisioned for the new program [Piggyback]. Others were supportive of the revised program, which featured flexibility that they found especially attractive. I began to identify a small group of colleagues who were voicing support for the effort [Early Adopter].
To crystallize faculty interest and increase buy-in [Involve Everyone], we scheduled another campus-wide discussion in the Faculty Forum series [Piggyback] to discuss the Institutional Principles. We provided food and wine [Do Food] so the event would be special. I contacted about 150 colleagues [Corridor Politics]. I explained that our process had been organic [Step by Step], faculty driven [Involve Everyone], and based on quantitative and qualitative data [External Validation] from the beginning. The time I spent really paid off—attendance was around 90, nearly two-thirds of our full-time faculty, and several colleagues publicly expressed support. This was a key moment—the faculty enthusiasm turned the skepticism of those who doubted a revision could ever happen [Small Successes].
After the forum, I split the team into three groups: a Design Team (DT), a Curriculum Research Team, and a Resource Research Team, and provided members with clear roles [Group Identity]. The DT used the two research teams to study curricular and resource issues both internally at UNCA and at other schools [External Validation]. These teams drafted reports, which I posted on the Web site [Stay in Touch]. This reinforced the public nature of the process [Involve Everyone] and assured faculty that we were being thorough. Often, faculty would e-mail us to offer feedback or other resources. The Web site was becoming a learning tool for the campus community [In Your Space].
I held the DT back from discussing specifics. They started with a study of the principles, since they would have to be familiar with these to shape a program that met these requirements [Just Enough]. As we discussed the principles, we asked the research teams for specific data or information [External Validation]. I kept in touch with faculty, the Senate [Connectors], and the Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs [Corporate Angel, Stay in Touch].
As the DT moved from general to specific curricular issues [Step by Step], I reminded everyone about faculty wishes for more flexibility in the curriculum. We considered “topical clusters”—sets of courses that might be designed around a larger topic or subject, and “intensives”—courses that would give students enhanced experiences in key skill and content areas. Our aim was to shape a structure that would reflect our institutional culture and faculty needs, concerns, and interests [Tailor Made].
We analyzed several models, looking for common and divergent elements. This was an exciting moment for the team. We allowed ample time for debate. The team was so engrossed in its work and had developed such intimacy that we were not afraid of conflict [Fear Less]. We were able to work through our differences and come to consensus on a single curriculum that we could enthusiastically support.
The DT’s next step was to get input and approval from the entire GERTF [Guru Review]. I started with the most influential member, a key member of the university faculty [Whisper in the General’s Ear]. Without her support, the plan would most likely fail. After hearing her initial reaction, I realized that our materials were not clear enough, so I explained what this plan would offer her as a chairperson of an important department and to other departments like hers [Personal Touch]. This captured her interest. I asked if she would be willing to work with me to create more effective documents to introduce the concept to others [Ask for Help]. She agreed. I then showed the new materials we created to other key players [Guru on Your Side], to expose GERTF members, one by one, to the new curriculum [Corridor Politics].
When we finally took the model to the entire GERTF team, my work in preparation really paid big dividends. GERTF spent two sessions discussing and refining elements of the architecture and the phrasing of documents, coming, for the most part, to quick agreement. Two or three difficult issues were resolved. Several DT members [Connectors] became mediators for the rest of the GERTF, helping the entire group reach agreement. By the end of the second meeting we were ready to take the model public.
Before going to the full campus, I met with key department chairs, program heads, and other faculty who might be seriously affected by the changes we were proposing [Personal Touch, Corridor Politics]. Other GERTF members talked with colleagues opposed to certain innovations, to convert them or at least reduce the threat of resistance [Bridge-Builder]. We went from office to office to talk with faculty who had different ideas about what was appropriate for the general education program at UNCA.
This next phase was conducted as the earlier portion of the process had been—as an open, faculty-driven stage of an ongoing conversation about curricular reform [Involve Everyone]. GERTF held five faculty focus groups on elements of the model and two student-faculty forums on diversity in the curriculum. At the end of the week, we led another faculty meeting on general education, where we presented the proposed model. Again, I contacted individuals before the meeting [Corridor Politics]. About 95 people attended the forum. The response to the proposal was favorable, though concerns about particular changes persisted, as we expected. We assured our critics that we were happy to adapt the model to address any problems and that flexibility would continue to be fundamental, as it had been throughout the process [Fear Less].
The plan was sent to the Academic Policies Committee of the Faculty Senate for approval [Guru Review]. Following their recommendation, the proposed architecture for the new curriculum passed the Senate, which gave us the authorization we needed to advance to the implementation phase [Small Successes]. We plan to build on the approach we have taken so far as we move to make the revision a reality in our university’s curriculum [Step by Step].
Following approval of the new curriculum architecture, Ed was appointed Associate Vice Chancellor for University Programs. The announcement memo by the university Vice Chancellor spoke of Ed in this way: “…he has become identified on campus as an energetic, thoughtful, principled, and purposeful force for general education reform that also retains the best of our existing programs.”