Some of the many important conversations that are occurring on campus are conversations about CORE or general education (GE). Our current general education or CORE requirement is nearly two decades old and to a large degree based on “Promises to Keep” AKA the 1987 Pease report ( http://www.inform.umd.edu/CampusInfo/Reports/pease) on general education. CORE was approved by the campus senate in 1998 and went into effect in May of 1990. It represented the campus's continuing evolution in recognizing the importance of high quality undergraduate education. While CORE has served the campus for many years it is clear that it no longer meets the needs of today's students and students view CORE as a set if hurdles, hoops or distractions that get in the way of their “real education” i.e. the major. In the words of my respected colleagues, “ CORE is broken ”. Whether one agrees that the present system of CORE is or is not broken it is clearly time to step back and rethink the purposes of general education in the 21 st century and what general education can and needs to accomplish in a large research institution.

As I listen to and participate in conversations about general education I am struck by the elevated level of passion in the faculty conversations. Perhaps this passion stems from the fact all of us experienced “general education” during the formative intellectual period of our undergraduate experience. Certainly my general education requirements contained aspects not generally present in our CORE program e.g. a two semester physical education requirement, a foreign language requirement. In truth I can barely remember what the other requirements were, or the classes I took to fulfill them much less how they impacted or shaped my educational journey or professional path. As students we experienced general education requirements (good and bad) at a variety of institution types and these experiences color what we think general education should be. While there is wisdom and value in reflecting on our own GE experiences, the nature of the world and even how people learn has changed in the decades that have passed since we were undergraduates. While I personally love the idea of every student taking a great books seminar, learning a foreign (second) language, engaging in an authentic research experience, being civically engaged, having a broad knowledge base, appreciating the arts, being able to effectively communicate and being quantitatively literate, this does not mean that these traditional GE components have to be our GE components. A simple reality check brings up an old adage “so much ----- so little time”. While it is possible to impose a GE system that would encompass all of these laudable components, would it be a system that serves the need of our students? Or would the result be that, like me, our students will not remember what courses they took when they are mid-career professional 20 years from now? In truth, as faculty we love to learn and so this type of general education has tremendous appeal, but … our students are not us …. So when we are asked to step back and rethink general education we need to first remember that today's general education needs to meet the needs of all students, not only those few who will go on the become our replacements. One approach is to first reflect on three things: i) what do we our students to know, do, and appreciate, e.g. what will be the general education outcomes?; ii) what is essential and what is useful but not essential; and iii) what are the parameters and limitations that define and confine what is doable? e.g. student numbers, faculty workforce, State MHEC requirements , etc.

When I do the hard work of looking for principles first, general education distils down to two essentials: a set of essential competencies and the ability to self-learn (self-teach). What I mean by essential competencies is the ability to communicate effectively through writing, presentations and emerging media; the ability to understand, use and appreciate the everyday mathematical aspects of the world we live in; and technology literacy or fluency, e.g. the ability to navigate and use the technology that is increasingly part of everything we do, from email to internet usage, to Web 2.0 social networks to virtual realities. The current CORE fundamental studies requirement addresses writing and math literacy, and technology literacy is embedded throughout the curriculum in a variety of ways, e.g. ELMS usage, digital presentation projects, discussion boards, etc. Ensuring that the next set of GE requirements meets the needs of our current and future students will require some modifications to our current fundamental studies, although the changes are likely to more operational then changes in the underlying goals.

The idea that GE should enable students to become knowledgeable self-learners is different to the current goals of CORE's distribute , diversity and advance studies requirements. Currently, CORE requires students to have classes in the sciences, humanities and the social sciences, a human diversity course, and two upper-level courses outside their major, one of which can be substituted by a capstone course in the major. For detail on the current CORE requirements see the CORE website . The purpose is to provide students with intellectual breath and help in choosing a major. While these are important and relevant goals, the truth is that they are seldom met. To a large degree students choose CORE courses to get them out of the way and the primary consideration is most often when the class is offered or how easy it is perceived to be rather then the subject matter. Once in the course often it is the teacher or the pedagogy that turned students on or off to subject. In math and science it is well documented that we lose or alienate many students who might have gone on to careers in math or science because of teaching environments, as shown by the work of Shelia Tobias, e.g.. They're not Dumb, They're Different and others. While I believe and cherish the idea of GE being a part of a liberal education if GE requirements mainly serve to disenfranchise student from various discipline domains then the idea of forcing students to be exposed to each of our own cherished discipline domains may in the end be unwise.

Ultimately career success is determined not only by what we know, but how effective we are in learning and adapting to new environments and topics. General education needs to focus on helping students to learn how to learn in areas outside their major. The 2020 perspective component in the current draft general education proposal provides a vehicle which could accomplish the goal of helping students learn how to learn. The 2020 perspective courses will focus on current topic(s) and modes of thinking related to broad societal issues. If constructed correctly these courses will be the types of course that students well seek out and want to take. The Marquee Courses and World Courses are and were pilots of this concept and in both cases enrollments in these courses were student driven and met expectations. Students engage and learn when the topic is of interest and relevance to their life. The 2020 perspective courses, if correctly choosen, will be of this ilk. Moving students from learning about a topic they care about to thinking about their own learning is not difficult. It does require the instructor to tweak her/his of pedagogy so that metacognition is an expected part of the course. CTE has various resources on this. When students are required to think about their own thinking/learning learning improves. By helping student understand and practice learning we enhance their learning and their capability for self-learning. Truly the goal of GE should be to produce effective and engaged life-long learners. If we are successful in this, then we have equipped our graduates to explore and learn any discipline when the need and desire for that learning are present.

Lastly before returning to your thinking about what general education needs to be and to accomplish, watch “ A Vision of Students Today ” from Professor Michael Wesch and his cultural anthropology students at Kansas State University . In the end GE is about students and learning not about disciplines and academic castles.

If you would like to comment on this article or express other views on GE we have set up a CTE-GE blog. Simply comment below on General Education.