Transcript University Core of Common Studies revision process

University Core of Common Studies
Revision Process
Core Revision Facilitation Group
Lowell Barrington
Sarah Bonewits Feldner
Lars Olson
John Su
What might success look like?

Alumni able to articulate how the Core helped to
prepare them for their post-Marquette
opportunities

Faculty, staff, and administrators able to
articulate to prospective students and their
parents how the Core delivers on our promise to
provide a transformative education, meriting
their significant financial investment
Marquette's revision process

From the Provost and President (May 2015):
1. Charge
2. Roles
and responsibilities
3. Timeline
Charge for Core revision process
 Jesuit/Mission-centric
 Transformational
 Innovative
 Integrative
 Measurable/Assessable
 Transparent
Roles and responsibilities: what's
distinctive to Marquette's process?
Openness
 Proposals for frameworks
will be solicited from
campus, not restricted to
a single committee
Transparency
 All proposals will be
reviewed by three
representative bodies:
 CCRC
 UBUS
 UAS
Core revision process website

Key documents from Provost and President

Announcements of upcoming meetings, events, or other opportunities
to provide input in process

Research data from campus and from peer and aspirational
institutions

Opportunity to provide anonymous feedback
Timeline: goals for AY 2015-16

To discuss and design frameworks for the next Core
(Campus community)

To review and potentially endorse one or more framework
proposals (CCRC, UBUS, UAS)

To announce in May 2016 which framework will structure
the next Core (Provost and President)
What's a framework?

Distributional

Sequential

Theme-based or clustered

Competency-based

Tiered (e.g., first-year seminar/capstone or
foundation/exploration)
To reach our May 2016 goal, what needs
to happen this Fall?

Campuswide survey #1: what's essential for all undergraduates to be able to
do or know or experience because of completing the Core? (9/7-15)

Campuswide conversations sponsored by colleges: using the data from survey
#1 and research data, what learning outcomes should be associated with the
Core? (9/21-10/23)

Campuswide survey #2: Likert scale to evaluate the various learning outcomes
proposed during campuswide conversations (10/26-30)
The data collected from these surveys and conversations +
research on best practices at peer and aspirational institutions
(see Core revision website resources) will guide framework
proposals
Next steps for faculty across colleges?

Meetings with clusters of departments (9/21-10/23)

Establishing cross-disciplinary working groups to talk
about increasing integration and/or designing proposals
for Core frameworks
What's exciting about Core revision?

Increased integration through theme-based or paired
courses

Experiential learning components designed to connect
academic work with co-curricular activities

Increased depth and rigor through
foundation/explorations or other sequential designs
How can we represent what the Core
does?
University of Santa Clara
Rutgers University
What might success look like?
 Alumni
are able to articulate how the Core
helped to prepare them for their postMarquette opportunities
 Faculty,
staff, and administrators able to
articulate to prospective students and their
parents how the Core delivers on our promise
to provide a transformative education,
meriting their significant financial investment