1. 0
The Global Citizenship Program: A Report of the Global Citizenship Project Task
Force to the Webster University Faculty Senate, November 2010
Bruce Umbaugh, Professor of Philosophy and Director, GCPTF
Table of Contents
Background 1
The approach of theTask Force 5
General Education Program Models 8
Which model? 10
Outline of earlier GCPTF recommendations and intent 13
Final Program Recommendations, November 10, 2010 15
Overall 15
Goals 15
Requirements for courses 17
Recommendations for implementation 19
Additional recommendations 20
Rationales 21
General 21
Program components 21
Breadth 25
Accommodations 25
Transfer 27
Assessment 29
Faculty and Curriculum Development 31
AdvisorTraining 32
Summaryof recommendations 33
Appendix 1 35
Bibliography 37

2. 1
Background
In June 2009, in a series of unanimous votes, the Faculty Senate of Webster
University articulated a new mission for the undergraduate, general education
program – now to be called the Global Citizenship Program (GCP) – and created and
charged the Global Citizenship Project Task Force (GCPTF). The GCPTF was charged
with conducting an open, transparent, and inclusive process to identify the core
competencies of global citizenship and to identify best practices in general
education and general education assessment, making recommendations to the
Senate for the creation and implementation of the Global Citizenship Program,
overseeing the implementation of the Global Citizenship Program, and subsequently
dissolving. (See Appendix 1.) This report offers some background to help members
of the Webster community understand the process, articulates the
recommendations of the Global Citizenship Project Task Force, and presents a brief
rationale for the program recommendations.
Engaging in an effort to devise an effective program of general education is one of
the biggest tasks a faculty body undertakes. As Gaston and Gaff put it:
whereas most educational decisions can be made by individuals or small
groups of faculty in their departments, the entire faculty must coalesce
around a single program of general education. (Gaston & Gaff, 2009, p. 7)
Only rarely do the faculty as a whole body address curricular decisions. Faculty
members carry diverse language and unarticulated assumptions into discussions
about curriculum. These factors compound the difficulty of such a collective effort.
The GCPTF has facilitated conversation using shared language and assumptions. In
addition to conducting its own research and fact-finding, the Task Force included
twelve non-member faculty in travel to conferences, conducted a series of coffees
and lunches for open discussion (attended by approximately one-half of the non-
administrative, full-time faculty), presented research findings at brown bag lunches,
and made presentations and participated in discussion at two faculty institutes, five
or more meetings of the Faculty Assembly, two Worldwide Directors meetings,
three school or college faculty meetings, two department faculty meetings, and
multiple meetings with the leadership teams of one department and one school.
Faculty members approach curricular discussions from diverse points of view, and
there is little consensus on the rationale for existing general education programs.
Variously, faculty members identify the aims as breadth of study, imparting
disciplinary knowledge, basic skill acquisition, providing foundational knowledge,
improving student retention, making students educated persons, enabling students

3. 2
to synthesize disparate information and make interdisciplinary connections, helping
students to become lifelong learners, and more. (Virginia, 1999)
We are forced to look outside the institution for much of our evidence to guide
making decisions about a new program, because we lack adequate assessment data
regarding the programs currently in force. Anecdotally, faculty frequently report
that existing programs do not adequately prepare students for the sorts of work
expected of them in more advanced courses. The University’s current general
education programs do not have explicitly stated missions.
Developing skills takes time and repeated practice, yet current programs require
students to address skill areas only once. A program that approached student
development more intentionally could help in several ways, not only by providing
repeated practice at expected skills, but also by helping students to understand the
faculty’s expectations. By the same token, moving from programs with no missions
or coherence to a more intentionally designed program with a clear mission might
help students to understand why the faculty expects them to complete a program of
study beyond the requirements of their major field.
The Task Force found that Webster’s experience is much like that of other
institutions of higher education in the past few decades. Jerry G. Gaff, in "General
Education at Decade's End: The Need for a Second Wave of Reform,” summarized
critiques of American colleges and universities in the 1980s as alleging, “too many
students failed to develop the marks of generally educated people—a broad span of
knowledge; skills to communicate clearly, to think logically and critically, and to get
along with different kinds of people; the capacity to work independently and as a
part of a team to solve problems.” (Gaff, 1989)
According to a story in the Webster University Journal, the faculty began discussing
general degree requirements in 1985, only approving the University’s first general
education program in 1992. According to the 2008 Webster University Self-study
Report, in the late 1980s
a faculty committee developed a list of voluntary education goals which
students were urged (but not required) to fulfill during their time at Webster.
A team visit by North Central accreditors in 1988 pushed Webster to develop a
set of clear and sensible requirements. (Webster University, 2008)
The ultimate result was the general education programs Webster has now: the “four
of nine areas” program for students pursuing Professional Baccalaureate degrees,
the 36-hour, disciplinary distribution program for students in the School of
Communications, and the “nine areas” program for all others. To make our
educational opportunities more readily available to students who matriculate
elsewhere and transfer to complete their Baccalaureate degree programs at
Webster we evaluate transfer courses in relation to our own curriculum, waive the
(lower-level-only) general education program for students who have earned the

4. 3
Associate of Arts (AA) degree, and develop transfer agreements to guide students
studying at other schools in taking courses that will meet the expectations we have
here.
In addition to the general sense of dissatisfaction with existing programs, two other
considerations helped to move the Faculty Senate to initiate the process of re-
envisioning undergraduate, general education. One was the adoption of a new
University Mission Statement, as a result of a planning process started in 2007 as
part of the University’s self-study process for reaccreditation. The other was the
most recent Comprehensive Evaluation Visit for the Higher Learning Commission of
the North Central Association of Colleges and Universities, in 2008.
The new Mission Statement reads:
Webster University, a worldwide institution, ensures high quality learning
experiences that transform students for global citizenship and individual
excellence.
This replaced the page-long Mission Statement that had been adopted in 1992.
Such language was not completely new, but rather dates at least to the strategic
planning process of 2000. That Strategic Plan includes a Vision that refers to
“empowering [students] to reach their full potential as productive citizens in the
global community.” The action plan identifies as a “key area” to enhance
institutional quality “Building a Global Citizenry.” And the plan calls on the
University to “expand the curriculum to promote the values of global citizenship.”
The newest mission statement arose out of this context and was one reason for the
Senate to begin the process of rethinking undergraduate degree requirements.
In 2008, the University completed its self-study process for reaccreditation and
hosted members of a Visit Team representing the Higher Learning Commission. The
“Assurance” section of the Team Report presents the Team’s evaluation whether
each Criterion for accreditation is met, and cites evidence that criteria are met,
require organizational attention, or require Commission follow-up. The Report finds
fault with Webster’s “lack of progress in implementing a robust, campus-wide
assessment program and completion of a full cycle of assessment,” and called for
follow-up in the form of a progress report. (Talburt, 2008)
With respect to the general education program, specifically, the Report found a need
for institutional attention, rather than Commission follow-up. The Report stated:
The team found no evidence of a clear feedback loop between general
education assessment data and the improvement of teaching and learning.
(4b) As the institution moves forward with assessment, general education
and graduate programs need to be included. (Talburt, 2008))

5. 4
In February 2009, Webster submitted a proposal to send a team to the Association
of American Colleges and Universities’ Institute on General Education and
Assessment. The proposal was accepted, and a team participated in the Institute in
May and June.
In June, Faculty Senate formed the Global Citizenship Project Task Force. Members
have included one student (Emily Bahr), faculty from the five schools and colleges
(Paula Hanssen, Chris Risker, Kit Jenkins, Vicki McMullin, and Gary Glasgow), a
faculty member from the undergraduate Curriculum Committee (John Aleshunas),
faculty with responsibility for International Studies, General Studies,
interdisciplinary programs, and Freshman Seminars (Donna Campbell, John Watson,
Kate Parsons, Larry Baden, and Robin Assner), the Assistant Director for
Undergraduate Advising (Kim Kleinman), the General Education Coordinator (Gary
Kannenberg), members of the General Education Institute team (Bruce Umbaugh
and Stephanie Schroeder), an Academic Director from the International and
Extended Campus network (Ron Daniel), the Director of First-year Experience
(Sarah Tetley), the Dean of Students (Ted Hoef), the Head of Instruction & Liaison
Services at Emerson Library (Holly Hubenschmitt), and the five school and college
deans (Benjamin Ola Akande, Debra Carpenter, Brenda Fyfe, Peter Sargent, and
David Carl Wilson).

6. 5
The approach of the Task Force
We have sought to advance the interests of students in a principled manner,
beginning with the mission of Webster University and the parallel mission given to
the new general education system: the Global Citizenship Program.
Figure1 – The General Education Reform Process
We were charged with identifying the core competencies required for responsible
global citizenship in the 21st century. In the fall, we recommended that we largely
adopt the AAC&U "Essential Learning Outcomes" as statements of those
competencies. Throughout the coffees and lunches preceding that recommendation,
and in discussion at the November 2009 meeting of the Faculty Assembly, we
shared these outcomes with members of the University community. We found
overwhelming consensus that this approach would be consistent with what we view
to be best for our students. That was not surprising, since the "Essential Learning
Outcomes" represent AAC&U's codification of the consensus view of what academics
and employers alike expect students to learn as part of their undergraduate
educations. (Accreditation requirements in business, nursing, and teacher education
were also taken into consideration during the multiyear dialogue to develop the
outcomes.)

7. 6
Subsequently, in the remainder of Fall 2009 and continuing in Spring 2010, we
turned to thinking about how we as a university might lead students to achieve
those outcomes and how we might tell how well we were doing at it. In other words,
we moved to considering different models of general education programs and
related "delivery mechanisms," on one hand, and models of program assessment, on
the other.
The learning outcomes include two, broad "knowledge" areas (of human cultures
and of the physical and natural world). In the best case for student learning,
addressing these would not involve only knowledge acquisition, but, rather, study
directed also at achieving various of the "skills" and "understanding" outcomes, as
well. So, for example, in a history or a literature course, we might expect students to
have practice that would help achieve greater competence at skills such as written
communication and information literacy, as well as content knowledge of human
cultures. Students in a course on the environment might complete assignments that
increase their knowledge both of human cultures and of the physical and natural
world, as well as their quantitative literacy, teamwork, civic knowledge and
engagement, ethical reasoning, and integrative learning. Intercultural knowledge
and competence might be developed in courses that also develop oral
communication and creative and critical thinking. And so on.
(All of that depends on the details of what happens in the course, naturally, not only
on the topic of the course.)
Members of the GCPTF and others in our community have been impressed by the
research on high-impact learning practices. Some teaching and learning practices
have extraordinary effects on students that go well beyond the learning that takes
place in the experiences themselves. George Kuh reports that students participating
in “high-impact practices” (such as first-year seminars, internships, collaborative
projects, global learning, problem-based learning, undergraduate research, service
learning, capstone experiences, learning communities) have higher grade point
averages than other students, self-report having learning more than other students,
and are more likely to continue in school than other students. These relationships
are more pronounced for students at greater risk (lower test scores, e.g., or racial
minority status) and for students participating in more such activities. (Kuh, High-
impact Educational Practices: What They Are, Who Has Access to Them, and Why
They Matter, 2008)
Rather than continuing to provide such experiences merely as options for students,
we committed to building them into the program requirements. This shift in
thinking about undergraduate education introduces complexities and forces us to
learn new ways of approaching students and calls on us to address challenges we
have not previously. Still, we concluded that the potential benefit from exposing
students to these practices throughout their undergraduate coursework completely
dwarfs the challenges and uncertainty.

8. 7
Moreover, things students do beyond traditional, classroom study often play
important roles in building the competencies described in the learning outcomes.
The AAC&U statement of the Essential Learning Outcomes notes that the items
under personal and social responsibility "should be fostered through active learning
and engagement with diverse communities and real world challenges." So, the Task
Force investigated these, as well.
At the open session on January 29, 2010, members of the GCPTF discussed co-
curricular and community-based learning with other faculty and members of the
University community. Attendees listed at least two dozen potentially relevant
activities, including the Surfacing festival of student-written, directed, and acted
plays, the computer programming contest, serving at Sts. Peter and Paul, the student
AES conference, the European audio conference, Student Literacy Corps,
interchange with Canadian students in art, Forensics and Debate, Model UN at
multiple campuses, Webster LEADS, the national fashion show in Thailand, the
Geneva version of LEADS, Delegates' Agenda, and Holden Public Policy Forum.
These co-curricular activities build teamwork, foundations and skills for lifelong
learning, problem solving, and more. They inherently rely on active learning and
engagement with real world challenges for the learning that occurs, and they
frequently involve engagement with diverse communities
In a similar vein, we have recommended that study abroad experience "count" for
completing part of the requirements of the Global Citizenship Program. We have
every reason to think that the experience of studying abroad develops intercultural
knowledge and competence, for example. We also have reason to think that good
internship experiences potentially teach things about personal and social
responsibility. Again, the learning that occurs as a result of the experience itself
involves engaging diverse communities, learning actively, and engaging real world
problems.
The Task Force initially recommended that learning experiences beyond the
classroom could substitute for traditional coursework for some of the requirements
of the Global Citizenship Program. The final recommendations contained in this
Report instead consolidate a range of experiential, high-impact, educational
opportunities into the single category of “Practical Learning Experience.”
We have not recommended that internships, or study abroad, or service learning, or
any other specific Practical Learning Experience be required of every student. We
recognize that such experiences benefits students differently depending on their
fields of study, sensibilities, aptitudes, and experiences. We further recognize that
some such experiences could sometimes pose barriers to degree completion for the
nontraditional students sometimes referred to as “adult learners.” For some
students returning to school after years in the world of work, many such
requirements could easily feel redundant. So, we have aimed to fashion the Practical
Learning Experience requirement so as to capture the benefits of such high-impact

9. 8
learning without imposing insurmountable or pointless hurdles for students or
unbearable administrative burdens for faculty and others in advising.
General Education Program Models
Two familiar sorts of models for general education are the core and distribution
models. In a distribution model, students choose courses from a “cafeteria line” of
options for each of various required areas. In a core model, students instead take a
required set of courses in common. Done right, core models promote coherence in
the general education program, facilitate assessment, and allow instructors in the
general education program to focus on program goals, as opposed to the goals of a
major, in the general education courses. Core models can lend their identity as
signature programs to the institution more broadly. (Think, for instance, of the
Columbia University core or the great books approach of St. John's.) Core models
present challenges in resource allocation and staffing (except, perhaps, when a
specific unit is created with responsibility for general education). To the extent that
the content of the core is developed to take greatest advantage of institutional
strengths or to align with institutional values or mission, a core model may
complicate student transfer. Also, many students value the greater choice and
flexibility provided by a distribution model and resist the core structure. Core
models require ongoing faculty development to bring new faculty on board and to
maintain the distinctive focus of the program. Finally, the core curriculum inevitably
overlaps with the content of disciplinary courses, yet does not count towards the
major and may not be controlled by the department.
By contrast, the distribution model achieves flexibility at the cost of complicating
assessment and sometimes promotes political quarreling or economic competition
between departments that staff the program's courses. As another institution's
general education reform committee noted, once in place, distribution models tend
towards maintaining the status quo, save for the occasional addition of new
objectives. Exploration within the distribution model can sometimes lead students
to choice of a major, which is a benefit.
Distribution models canonize some departments service departments and others
consumer departments, with the consequence that the groups have conflicting
interests in the general education program. Nichols and Nichols point out that
distribution models of general education are frequently adopted exactly because
they avoid “necessary value judgments” about the value of courses and because they
“[minimize] institutional conflict.”
This latter course of curriculum development in General Education does not fit
well with most regional accreditation expectations and assuredly is not prone
to facilitate an institution’s assessment efforts. This approach leads

10. 9
departments such as English, Math, History, etc., to implement some type of
course-based assessment procedures for their many service courses.
Ordinarily, this results in a number of uncoordinated assessment activities,
which are both burdensome and ineffective. While attractive from a campus
political perspective, this in an approach that leads many General Education
assessment efforts to “choke and die.” While challenging, approaching General
Education curriculum development and assessment as a whole is in the long
run much more preferable. (Nichols & Nichols, 2000)
Distribution models will be familiar to many of our faculty. They became
commonplace, according to White, “because [general education] was typically posed
in terms of the bodies of knowledge and/or courses all students should be required
to take.” (White, 1994)
As higher education has moved towards learning outcomes assessment and greater
purpose in the design of undergraduate degree requirements, distribution-only
models have been called into question. The Irvine Group, comprising a number of
former college presidents, reported in 1990 that distribution requirements:
have failed to accomplish what is intended. These courses amount to
electives, not general education. For too many undergraduates, their
educations do not fit into a coherent whole, and the distribution of courses is
more frequently the result of campus political considerations than of
educational ones. (p. 2)
With the move towards outcomes assessment and the recognition of the import of
high-impact practices, the trend in higher education in recent decades has been
away from distribution-only models. Only 15% of institutions surveyed by Hart and
Associates rely on a distribution model with no other integrative features. (Hart
Research Associates, 2009)

11. 10
Which model?
The Global Citizenship Project Task Force's recommendations move to neither of
the two poles, but, instead, attempt to garner the advantages of each and minimize
the corresponding disadvantages. We have proposed a framework that has the
advantages of greater coherence than our existing programs, with the concomitant
benefits for assessment. With appropriate collaboration (and, perhaps, some
evolution over time), we hope that students might appreciate their work in the
program as coherent and still have the flexibility and choice that they (and we)
clearly value.
Our current general education programs are all distribution model programs. They
all consist of collections of credit hours earned for completing academic
coursework. They all are structured to allow students to complete courses in any
order and at any point in their enrollment. They demand as few as 12 and as many
as 36 credit hours of the 128-hour minimum for graduation.
A committee studying and evaluating general education requirements at Pacific
Lutheran University collected data from several sets of peer institutions. The figure
below shows the fraction of hours required for graduation that are committed to
general education at each of these other colleges and universities.
Figure2 – General Education Percent of Graduation Requirements at 40 Schools

12. 11
The variation is dramatic. Requirements range from about one-quarter to a full two-
thirds of undergraduate credit hours meeting requirements of the general education
program at these peer schools.
By comparison, Webster’s SOC 36-hour program requires students to commit 28%
of the required 128 credit hours in completing general education. The Nine Areas
program requires a commitment of 21% and the Professional Baccalaureate
requirements require a commitment of just over nine percent of the minimum hours
required for graduation. Webster’s three programs for general education, thus,
would all fall near the lower bound relative to institutions in the Pacific Lutheran
study, with none higher than fourth lowest
In all our discussion as a faculty about what we desire in a new program of
undergraduate degree requirements, there has been no clamor to commit a much
greater share of undergraduate education to the satisfaction of requirements of the
Global Citizenship Program, rather than to study in students’ major fields, pursuit of
minors or language competence, or freely chosen electives. If Webster were at the
midpoint in the figure above, we could more easily require study in a large number
of disciplines, mastery of a new language, or any of several other suggestions that
have been made in meetings of the Faculty Assembly or on the discussion list.
Without that freedom, the Task Force has felt constrained to try to construct an
especially efficient program that can be effective in developing both knowledge and
skills in our students.
Figure3 – Credit hours devoted to requirements of Major, GCP, and elective courses
The figure above shows that a little over one-half of 128 credit hours would be

13. 12
devoted to required courses (both the major and GCP) for a student with a 42-credit
hour major completing the required 30 hours of the Global Citizenship Program.
Fifty-six credit hours would remain available as electives or to be used in the pursuit
of a minor or certificate.
The GCPTF recommends neither an old-fashioned core- nor a Seventies-era
distribution-model program of general education. We propose maintaining much of
the flexibility and choice of a distribution model. We propose building on high-
impact practices and taking into account more of students' entire experience as
undergraduates in addition to academic coursework. We propose moving towards a
more developmental, purposeful structuring of student learning in general
education, moving from a required first-year experience, through common sorts of
courses and experiences, and finally through an upper-level, integrative, "keystone"
course.

14. 13
Outline of earlier GCPTF recommendations and intent
October 31, 2009 to Senate, followed by Faculty Assembly, November 10, 2009
Learning outcomes recommended, principles stated
The Task Force presentation to the Assembly said, “Our intention is that the
same set of goals should apply to all undergraduate, degree-seeking students.
We further intend that no undergraduate program be compromised or
disadvantaged by the Global Citizenship Program.” That same presentation
expressed the intention that the Global Citizenship Program should promote
integration, as well as the intention to build upon high-impact practices. The
Faculty Assembly endorsed the “Global Citizenship Program” name
(Overwhelming vote, with Yea votes not counted, 13 members voting Nay).
Spring Faculty Institute, March 26, 2010, and Faculty Assembly meetings, April
2010.
GCPTF presented recommendations concerning learning outcomes and
program structure, but not program content. These recommendations
included the “matrix” structure, which the Task Force subsequently withdrew
in response to faculty discussion.
Faculty Assembly passed three motions:
The Faculty Assembly encourages the Task Force (a) to continue developing
the Global Citizenship Program in the directions it has indicated so far, (b) to
work collaboratively with academic departments to insure that no
undergraduate major be compromised or disadvantaged by the change in
general education programs, and (c) to work collaboratively with other parts
of the University to prepare for eventual implementation. (Overwhelming
approval: Yea votes not counted, 16 Nay.)
The Faculty Assembly endorses in principle the idea of a more purposeful
program structure such as the Task Force has presented in Appendix 2.
(Overwhelming approval: Yea votes not counted, 13 Nay.)
The Faculty Senate shall create a Global Citizenship Program Review
Committee with authority to oversee coding of courses and other experiences
for implementation of the Global Citizenship Program, subject to approval of
clear implementation guidelines by the Faculty Assembly. All five
schools/colleges shall be represented on the membership of the Committee.

15. 14
Implementation: No later than September 30, 2010. (54 votes Yea, 37 Nay, 4
Abstentions.)
Faculty Assembly meetings, September 14 and 21, 2010, and Fall Faculty Institute,
October 1, 2010
Recommendations concerning learning outcomes, program structure, and
program content – subsequently revised in light of discussion.

16. 15
Final Program Recommendations, November 10, 2010
Overall
Thirty credit hours, plus one “Practical Learning Experience” which may or may not
be credit-bearing.
Goals
Knowledge of Human Cultures and the Physical and Natural World (achieved
through five courses in the areas Roots of Cultures, Social Systems and Human
Behavior, and Physical and Natural World)
Development of Intellectual and Practical Skills required for Responsible
Global Citizenship (written and oral communication, critical and creative
thinking, information literacy, quantitative literacy, teamwork – addressed
repeatedly throughout the program)
Understanding of Personal and Global Responsibility (intercultural knowledge
and competence, civic knowledge and engagement, ethical reasoning –
addressed in Knowledge and Global Understanding Courses, as well as in the
two Seminars)
Abilities to Integrate and Apply Learning (addressed in at least seven of eight
courses and both Seminars)
Requirements for students entering as new full-time degree-seeking freshmen (who
have not previously matriculated at another post-secondary institution or who have
fewer than 16 credit hours of college credit):
Two Seminars: the first-year Great Thinkers Seminar and the upper-level
Global Keystone Seminar. (6 hours, total)
Five Knowledge courses: two in the area Roots of Cultures, two in the area
Social Systems and Human Behavior, one in the area Physical and Natural
World. (15 hours, total)
Three other Global Citizenship Program courses: (at least) one Global
Understanding course, (at least) one Quantitative Literacy course, and a Global
Citizenship Program course of the student’s choice (9 hours, total)

17. 16
One Practical Learning Experience: approved by the student’s advisor, with
self-assessment and documentation furnished by the student
Figure4 -- Global Citizenship Program Requirements Form

18. 17
Breadth requirements: (1) No course required for the student’s first major
may be used to meet the requirements of the Global Citizenship Program, (2)
No course prefix may be used twice in satisfying the requirements for a given
Knowledge area.
Accommodations for students completing high-credit-hour majors: On the
initiative of the Department responsible for a high-credit-hour major (greater
than 75 credit hours), the first breadth requirement may be waived.
Accommodations for students completing high-credit-hour majors leading to
the B.F.A or B.M. degree: On the initiative of the department responsible for
the major, both breadth requirements may be waived, or the Knowledge
requirements may be reduced to one course in each area, or both.
Sequential degree students are not required to complete the University's
Global Citizenship Program requirements. Transfer students entering with 16
or more hours of college credit, who have previously matriculated at another
post-secondary institution, may satisfy the program requirements with a
combination of Webster University courses and credits transferred from other,
accredited institutions, subject to these constraints: (1) Students with an
Associate in Arts (A.A.) will have fulfilled all of Webster University’s lower-
level general education requirements, (2) for all students, the upper-level,
Global Keystone Seminar must be completed at Webster University, (3) a
student may substitute for the Great Thinkers Seminar either GNST 2200,
Transfer Student Seminar, any equivalent course, or any course addressing
integrative learning and skills for lifelong learning, whether taken at Webster
University or elsewhere and whether required for the student’s major or not.
Requirements for courses
No course may be included in more than one of the named Global Citizenship
Program areas (i.e., Roots of Cultures, Social Systems and Human Behavior,
Physical and Natural World, Global Understanding, Quantitative Literacy).
Quantitative Literacy courses must show evidence of promise that they will
help students to develop Quantitative Literacy. (Quantitative Literacy and the
other outcomes referenced in this section may be understood for now as being
operationalized according to the Rubrics developed through the Valid
Assessment of Learning in Undergraduate Education (VALUE) project. As we
develop the Global Citizenship Program and gain both evidence and
experience, it might be desirable to modify these rubrics.)
All other courses must show evidence of promise that they will help students
to improve their abilities with respect to at least one communications skill (i.e.,

19. 18
Written Communication or Oral Communication) and at least one other skill
from among Critical and Creative Thinking, Information Literacy, and
Teamwork.
All courses in the areas Roots of Cultures, Social Systems and Human Behavior,
and Global Understanding must show evidence of promise that they will help
students to develop their understanding of personal and global responsibility
in at least one of Intercultural Knowledge and Competence, Civic Knowledge
and Engagement, and Ethical Reasoning.
To satisfy any of the named requirements, above, courses must be integrative
or interdisciplinary. (A course that is neither integrative nor interdisciplinary
may be included in the Global Citizenship Program, but only as the student
choice course.)
Roots of Cultures courses are expected to help students develop knowledge of
human cultures and the sources of meaning, focused by engagement with “big
questions,” whether contemporary or enduring.
Social Systems and Human Behavior courses are expected to help students
develop knowledge of human cultures and how people and their cultures and
institutions work, focused by engagement with “big questions,” whether
contemporary or enduring.
Physical and Natural World courses are expected to help students develop
knowledge of the physical and natural world, focused by engagement with “big
questions,” whether contemporary or enduring.
Global Understanding Courses are expected to help students understand
cultures foreign to them, international languages, or forces that draw people of
the world together and forces that push us apart.
Great Thinkers Seminars emphasize exploration and discovery through a
range of topics, teach students to think critically in a community of learners,
and set a standard for academic excellence that continues throughout the
academic career of every student. “Great Thinkers” are visionaries who can be
defined in various ways, from the well known to everyday people who find
solutions to everyday questions. A great thinker has the necessary mindset, as
well as the drive and desire, to learn. In completing this seminar, students
become better critical and creative thinkers and cultivate the skills and
knowledge necessary for lifelong learning. Other goals for the Great Thinkers
Seminars include making students more purposeful in their thinking,
exploring interdisciplinary approaches to subject matter, developing critical
and creative thinking skills, improving communication skills, and developing a
connection to Webster through interpersonal relationships.

20. 19
Global Keystone Seminars serve as culminating, integrative experiences for the
Global Citizenship Program. Students practice skills for lifelong learning and
integrative learning through analysis, synthesis, integration and application
(transfer) of prior learning (formal academic concepts as well as personal life
experiences) to address complex problems, locally or globally. This course
engages students in developing and using intellectual and practical skills to
demonstrate their understanding of responsible global citizenship, through
collaborative participation in meaningful, real-world projects and problem-
solving experiences.
Practical Learning Experiences take place outside the context of college
instructional coursework and contribute to a student’s achievement of one or
more of the global citizenship learning outcomes. Although some credit-
bearing experiences qualify (such as some internships), these need not be
graded or for credit. Examples may include study abroad, internship, and
service learning.
Recommendations for implementation
Prior to implementation: admissions training, advisor training (St. Louis and
International), faculty and curricular development initiated, Global Citizenship
Program Review Committee created, course coding begun.
First academic year: Program applies only to full-time, degree-seeking
students, with fewer than 30 credit hours of college credit, who have not
previously matriculated at a post-secondary institution, who are not majoring
in programs in the departments of Dance, Music, and Theatre. Continue
development, training, and coding.
Second academic year: Program applies to continuing GCP students and new
full-time, degree-seeking students, with fewer than 30 hours of college credit,
who have not previously matriculated at a post-secondary institution, who are
not majoring in programs in the departments of Dance, Music, and Theatre
only. Continue development, training, and coding. Advisor training extended
campus U.S.
Third academic year: Program applies to the two previous years’ GCP
students, new full-time, degree-seeking students, with fewer than 30 credit
hours of college credit, who have not previously matriculated at a post-
secondary institution, who are not majoring in programs in the departments of
Dance, Music, and Theatre, and transfer students with fewer than 75 transfer
credits outside the departments of Dance, Music, and Theatre. Continue
development, training, and coding.

21. 20
Fourth academic year: Program applies to all students previously in the
program and to all newly enrolled students, without regard to transfer status
or major department.
Additional recommendations
Beyond the recommendations for the Global Citizenship Program, members of the
Task Force concluded that two other recommendations are warranted to help the
new program succeed.
First, we were persuaded by the arguments of Mike Salevouris and others in our
community that all of the Essential Learning Outcomes are things we desire for our
students to achieve but that they need not all be outcomes for a general education
program alone. In response, we abbreviated the list of outcomes built upon the
Knowledge courses. We recommend, though, that the Webster faculty adopt the full
list of learning outcomes as undergraduate learning outcomes, along with an
outcome for study in depth (i.e., in each student’s major field of study).
Second, we think it important to address the special circumstances of
undergraduate programs that aim primarily at professional preparation in the arts.
While we are not persuaded that these programs should have free rein to
implement whatever general education program requirements they choose for their
students, neither are we persuaded that the integrity of the Global Citizenship
Program demands that all students experience it in exactly the same way, without
regard to the educational aims of their chosen programs of study. Historically, these
students have participated in general education with accommodations on account of
the different educational aims of their academic programs. The high-credit
accommodations and BFA/BM accommodations are aimed to navigate between the
Scylla of autonomy and the Charybdis of conformity. The delayed implementation
for programs in Dance, Music, and Theatre are aimed at allowing our community to
try to see whether it is a successful tack. We recommend that, if even our best faith
efforts fail to accommodate simultaneously any established program of study and
the GCP, the Assembly be committed to a further program modification that
achieves the integrity of both undergraduate, baccalaureate education in general
and also of specific professional degree disciplines at Webster.

22. 21
Rationales
General
In general, the approach of the recommended program is to achieve the four main
goals – knowledge of human cultures and the physical and natural world, practical
and intellectual skills, understanding of personal and global responsibility, and
abilities to integrate and apply what is learned – through repeated practice in the
curriculum and co-curriculum (as well as in students’ work in their major fields of
study). Rather than assigning a single function to each course or experience, each
serves multiple functions, as indicated in the Figure, below.
Figure5
This is the “mist” approach, to use John Aleshunas’ evocative metaphor.
Program components
The specific Knowledge divisions recommended reflect the AAC&U’s study of
consensus in higher education on expected learning outcomes for undergraduate
students, reflect the disciplinary divisions of the School of Communications general

23. 22
education requirements, and are weighted according to the results of Task Force’s
Learning Outcomes Survey and the Task Force’s assessment of resource constraints.
Skills reflect the AAC&U’s study of consensus in higher education on expected
learning outcomes for undergraduate students, and the results of Task Force’s
Learning Outcomes Survey. Emphasis on improving students’ abilities to
communicate are routinely given high importance in such surveys, and our faculty
often report that they are not prepared to teach those skills within courses for the
major. A similar account can be given for critical and creative thinking. Information
literacy is similarly foundational, and collaboration is widely regarded as a key skill
for all of us in the 21st Century. (Shell, 2010)
Intercultural Knowledge and Competence, Ethical Reasoning, and Civic Knowledge
and Engagement also reflect the AAC&U’s study of consensus in higher education on
expected learning outcomes for undergraduate students, and the results of Task
Force’s Learning Outcomes Survey. Taking seriously the mission for the Global
Citizenship Program, the Task Force regards these as essential competencies for
responsible global citizenship in the 21st Century.
The aims of integration and application also reflect the AAC&U’s study of consensus
in higher education on expected learning outcomes for undergraduate students.
Also, the Task Force judges these crucial in preparing students to deal with
uncertainty in the world after they graduate and as an important foundation for
lifelong learning.
Quantitative Literacy is singled out as a separate requirement both because
experience suggests that too many of our students will seek to avoid addressing
these skills unless compelled to do so and because faculty stated they wanted to see
it emphasized.
Global Understanding is singled out as a requirement to provide an additional
occasion for students to participate in a high-impact practice and to ensure that we
emphasize the global in “responsible global citizenship.” In addition, in discussion at
coffees and lunches, and over the course of recent meetings of Faculty Assembly and
Fall Faculty Institute, many faculty members expressed a desire to see this aspect of
the program expressed obviously in the program requirements.
The Practical Learning Experience requirement gives value to experiential learning
that takes place outside the context of college coursework and contributes to each
student’s achievement of one or more of the global citizenship learning outcomes.
The Practical Learning Experience may be a prior learning experience (living
abroad, volunteer work, civic involvement, community leadership, etc.) or a future
planned experience (e.g. service learning, study abroad, contribution to the
community, volunteer work, participation in a professional or student organization).
The advisor must agree that the experience is likely to contribute to the student’s
achievement of one or more of the global citizenship learning outcomes. As Kuh

24. 23
notes, such experiences are occasions:
for students to see how what they are learning works in different settings, on
and off campus. These opportunities to integrate, synthesize, and apply
knowledge are essential to deep, meaningful learning experiences. While
internships and field placements are obvious venues, service learning and
study abroad require students to work with their peers beyond the classroom
and test what they are learning in unfamiliar situations. ((Kuh, High-impact
Educational Practices: What They Are, Who Has Access to Them, and Why
They Matter, 2008)
The Great Thinkers Seminars and the Keystone Seminars are two examples of High
Impact Practices that are recommended by AAC&U. Considerable evidence supports
the benefits that these two seminars have when they bookend students’ general
education experience. Students beginning college study fresh from high school often
have confused ideas about what to expect from college education and experience.
(Boyer, 1987) Students new to college frequently report they are not confident they
can succeed in college without special help. (Astin, The American Freshman:
National norms for fall 1993, 1994) This is the thinking that motivated the
introduction of freshman seminars in an effort simultaneously to provide support
for students transitioning to college, to set expectations for their academic
experience while attending Webster, and to prepare them to persist and succeed in
their study here.
Pascarella and Terenzini report, “The weight of the evidence suggests that a first-
semester freshman seminar is positively linked with both freshman-year
persistence and degree completion. This positive link persists even when academic
aptitude and secondary school achievement are taken into account.”(Pascarella &
Ternzini, 1991) That has been Webster’s experience, as well. Since the
implementation of freshman seminar at Webster, retention has increased. Since all
new freshmen have to take a seminar, we lack a control group for good statistical
analysis. Still, we know freshman seminar is not a reason students report for leaving
but may be a reason why they stay at Webster. Sum & Substance 2009 shows our
first-time freshman completion rates are higher than Consortium for Student
Retention Data Exchange (CSRDE) selective institutions.
The recommendation for requiring the Global Keystone Course stems from the
desire to insure that undergraduate students participate in high-impact practices
and from the desire to provide an occasion for students to practice integrating what
they are learning – within the Global Citizenship Program, but also in the courses for
their major, their other studies, and all their experiences. Pascarella and Terenzini
advocate for capstone experiences on the basis of their research finding that
“[intellectual development] is stimulated by academic experiences that purposefully
provide for integration.” (Pascarella & Ternzini, 1991)

25. 24
The Global Keystone Course is intended to enhance both integration and
engagement. Kuh found:
A well-designed culminating experience . . . can also be a springboard for
connecting learning to the world beyond the campus. NSSE results show a net
positive relationship for students who have had some form of culminating
experience after controlling for a host of student and institutional variables.
(Kuh, High-impact Educational Practices: What They Are, Who Has Access to
Them, and Why They Matter, 2008)
In addition, Task Force members and others were impressed by several conference
sessions on general education programs at other colleges and universities that
employ capstone courses as part of the general education core. The general
education requirements at Lehman College, in The Bronx, New York, for example,
require that all students complete two interdisciplinary, capstone courses: The
Humanities and the Sciences, and The American Experience. For students who
transfer having earned a CUNY/SUNY Associate’s degree, the lower-division
requirements are counted as having been satisfied, the two upper-level, capstone
courses are required. (Prohaska & Whittaker, 2010)
A Task Force similar to ours, at North Carolina State University, found the 1994-era
general education program at that school was perceived as “disjointed” and as a
“checklist” with no intentional way for students to integrate or otherwise make
connections among the various courses. The recommendations which arose out of
that process included eliminating school- or college-specific mandates of courses for
students within them to take, as well as introduction of first-year and capstone
courses for the general education program.
As a coda to their general education, students will complete an
interdisciplinary capstone course as a way for them to reflect on their general
education experience and to see how these courses connect to each other and
to their major courses. . . . .
The addition of the First Year GER Course and the Capstone serves two
purposes. Most importantly, they will serve to provide coherence and
structure for the entire General Education Program as noted above. However,
they will also serve as the primary arenas for assessment of general education
at NC State. This should simplify the process as compared to the current
system, in addition to making general education assessment more efficient and
effective. (GERTF, 2006)
Our research found that many schools with recently renewed general education
programs feature general education capstone requirements. The Task Force settled
on the name “Keystone” for the general education capstone course to make it easier
to distinguish between requirements and expectations within the Global Citizenship

26. 25
Program and within the various majors, as well as to connote “bringing together”
rather than “completing.”
Finally, the student choice category is a flexible option because faculty and students
alike have communicated to the Task Force that they value the flexibility for
students to choose in our existing programs. For some students, it will allow for
additional depth of study (e.g., an additional semester of a language or pursuit of a
minor). For some students, it will be a place for a skills course to enhance their
writing abilities. For all students it provides additional “mist” to help develop the
core competencies required for responsible global citizenship in the 21st Century.
Breadth
Many faculty have stressed the importance of breadth of study as one of the
desiderata for a program of undergraduate degreerequirements. Breadth is not the
only aim of the Global Citizenship Program, but the program’s breadth requirements
seriously strengthen the general education commitment to breadth of study.
The breadth requirements take two forms, both of which are more stringent
versions of requirements of the current, nine-areas general education requirements.
The current program allows a student to use as many as two courses (with different
prefixes) from the student’s home department to satisfy general education
requirements, including courses that might also satisfy requirements of the major.
The program places no restrictions on the overlap of courses for the major with
courses achieving breadth of study in the general education program.
By contrast, the Global Citizenship Program – with exceptions noted below, under
the discussion of accommodations – prohibits “double counting” of courses for both
requirements of the major and breadth requirements for general education. Further
to insure breadth, the new program demands that students use courses with two
different prefixes to meet the Knowledge requirements that require more than one
course.
In these ways, the Task Force sought to retain the flexibility that so many in our
community value in our existing general education programs while, at the same
time, raising the standards for our community’s expectations of breadth of study.
Accommodations
The Global Citizenship Project Task Force has recommended two sorts of
accommodations for students with respect to the Breadth Requirements of the
recommended program. The Task Force came to the conclusion that, for high-credit
hour majors, an institutional decision has already been made that breadth of study
is not an institutional priority or commitment. When a program of study requires

27. 26
some specified 96 or 114 hours of a required 128, the University has already
committed, implicitly if not explicitly, to a course in which students in those
programs stand to be exposed to less of the rest of the University than students
completing majors requiring 36 or 42 hours.
Having recognized that University decision, the GCPTF reviewed the credit hours
required for majors in the current Undergraduate Catalog, and came to the
conclusion that 75 required hours appears to be an appropriate number to
distinguish between “high” and “ordinary” credit-hour commitments. The first
accommodation for high-credit hour majors allows for – but does not require –
relaxing the breadth demands of the GCP by waiving the requirement that courses
meeting GCP requirements be in addition to any courses completed to meet the
requirements of the major. This accommodation leaves it to the discretion of the
relevant academic department whether relaxing that breadth requirement is
necessary or appropriate for any given program constituting a high-credit major
administered by the department.
The second accommodation for high-credit programs refers specifically to programs
of study leading to the BFA and BM degrees. The Task Force recognized that
distinctions in degrees awarded mark a variety of differences in programmatic aims
and expectations. The National Association of Schools of Theatre, for example,
contrasts the professional orientation of the BFA degree with the liberal arts
framework and breadth of study associated with a Bachelor of Arts in Theatre. At
Webster, for example, the Directing program combines theatre study, general study,
and a focus on one area of theatre, to lead to a BA degree.
By contrast, most other programs of study administered by the Conservatory of
Theatre Arts are professional undergraduate degrees in theatre. In BA programs,
study of theatre is an emphasis or focus “as part of a broad program” of general
study. BFA programs are expected to involve intensive study of theatre, “supported
by a program of general studies.” (National Association of Schools of Theatre, 2007)
Similar distinctions are made with respect to the BM degree.
So, to accommodate the professional orientation of these baccalaureate programs,
the Task Force proposed the additional modification of the breadth requirement for
students in programs of study leading to the BFA and BM degrees. As with the first
accommodation, this modification is conditioned on the initiative of the
administering department and the judgment of that faculty as to what is necessary
or appropriate for the students in question.
These accommodations would mean that students in high-credit programs, and
especially students in high-credit, professional baccalaureate programs in the arts,
would be required to achieve less breadth of study than many other students in the
University. There are two principal reasons why members of the Task Force believe
that these are reasonable accommodations. First, they are principled and tailored to
the different educational missions of different programs in the University. Second,

28. 27
we believe that the breadth demands of the GCP represent a dramatic increase over
the breadth demands of our current programs of general education. Consequently,
we hope that, even for students in programs for which departments trigger the
accommodations, those students will achieve meaningful breadth of study – and
greater breadth than is expected of them in the status quo.
As of the time of our review, twenty-six different majors fell into the high-credit
category. Eight academic departments administer such programs: two departments
in CAS, two in GHWSBT, and all four in LGCFA. All BFA and BM degrees fall in
departments in LGCFA.
The programs that appear to face the most obvious challenges in implementing the
Global Citizenship Program for Webster students are all in the departments of
Dance, Music, and Theatre. For that reason, implementation of the new program for
students in those areas is deferred. The Task Force and faculty leaders in those
areas jointly expect that the time cushion provided makes it possible either to
insure that the program as adopted will not harm those students or to permit
alternative proposals, as reason and evidence might dictate.
Teacher education programs also present interesting issues. Teacher certification
requirements are not academic majors. Courses satisfying state-mandated teacher
certification requirements are, thus, not courses required for the major. As with
professional preparation programs in the arts, reason and evidence might later
dictate that accommodations for teacher education students with respect to the
breadth requirements are needed.
Transfer
As we move into any new general education program, we would necessarily need to
evaluate transfer courses in relation to our new curriculum. This is true no matter
what meaningful changes we implement. Whatever our new program, we will
develop instructive criteria for categorizing course within the new framework as we
identify and develop our own courses that meet general education goals. Those
criteria will inform our evaluation of transfer courses, just as Tom Nickolai's "Gen
Ed Online" document guides our thinking for transfer into the current general
education programs. Standard courses common to all colleges and universities will
transfer readily into Webster, just as Webster versions of those courses do
elsewhere. As with, for example, Critical Thinking under the current system, we will
readily find guidelines that capture specifically what we mean for our students to
master in relation to roots of cultures, quantitative literacy, and the rest, and we will
gain practice in identifying those characteristics in courses from other institutions.
The recommended implementation timeline allows a period of years to develop the
criteria and related systems.

29. 28
For students who transfer having completed a degree, the expectations would be
almost identical to those for our current systems. Students who have earned a
previous baccalaureate degree may apply to pursue a sequential degree in a
different area of study. Sequential degree students are not required to complete the
University's Global Citizenship Program requirements. Students with an Associate in
Arts (A.A.) will have fulfilled all of Webster University’s lower-level general
education requirements. As noted above, these students are still required to
complete the upper-level, Global Keystone requirement. Students with an Associate
in Science (A.S.) degree, Associate in Applied Science (A.A.S.) degree, or Associate in
Fine Arts (A.F.A.) degree will have their transfer coursework evaluated on a course-
by-course basis for equivalency with Global Citizenship Program requirements, as is
done for general education requirements in our current programs.

30. 29
Assessment
We assess, first, “to ensure that [we] are actually doing what [we] set out to do,
namely to produce educated persons.” (Levi & Stevens, 2009) We aim also to assess
the Global Citizenship Program in order to be able to improve it. Specifically, we
want to be able to improve the performance of our education mission with respect
to preparing students for responsible global citizenship in the 21st Century. We
propose a rolling evaluation of student learning outcomes performance, along with
other, indirect measures, to provide longitudinal data which can inform future
decisions about undergraduate education at Webster. As Astin, notes:
If institutions wish to revise their assessment practice to focus more on
their talent development mission, they must view assessment much more as a
form of feedback that can be used to enlighten both teacher and student about
the student’s progress and the effectiveness of the teaching. Such a view of
assessment frequently requires that repeated (longitudinal) assessment be
used so that growth or change in the student can be assessed. (Astin,
Assessment for Excellence: The Philosophy and Practice of Assessment and
Evaluation in Highe Education, 1991)
Although students’ entire educational experience is implicated in developing the
core competencies for responsible global citizenship in the 21st Century, our focus
here is on assessment of the general education component of that experience, the
Global Citizenship Program. For direct assessment of student learning, we propose
to follow the plan of Nichols and Nichols, who recommend:
just as in the major, the General Education program should develop its own
long list of intended educational outcomes and from that list select a more
reasonable number of between three (3) and five (5) intended outcomes for
assessment during any one time period. (Nichols & Nichols, 2000)
Student work will be evaluated from the beginning and the end of the program to
investigate the impact of the Global Citizenship Program. Work from the Great
Thinkers Seminars and from the Global Keystone Seminars will be archived in a
digital repository, using an “organization” created in Blackboard Learn, according to
a plan developed in collaboration with the Online Learning Center. Each year, two
skills and one responsibility area will be assessed. A random sample of student
papers from the digital repository will be reviewed in a process approved and
supervised by the Global Citizenship assessment committee. The process will use
common rubrics to rate levels of competence in regard to the global citizenship
learning outcomes, and raters will be trained in the use of the rubrics, as well as
scored to maintain inter-rater reliability. The results will be tabulated and

31. 30
documented. The Global Citizenship Program Review Committee will review and
discuss the results.
In addition to the direct assessment of student learning by way of evaluation of
authentic student work, several indirect methods will be employed. These include
surveys of employers, exit interviews of graduates, focus groups of students,
periodic review of syllabi from coded courses to verify use of outcomes and map
outcomes in the curriculum, and review of enrollment patterns. The Global
Citizenship Program Review Committee will produce a report summarizing the
results of both indirect and direct assessment as well as the Committee’s findings.
The Task Force is confident that this approach will provide data that can
meaningfully inform decisions to modify the GCP in the future – or to stay the
course. The use of a systematic program of periodic evaluation of the program, with
multiple methods of assessment and a balance of direct and indirect measures
provides further assurance that the process will not be a mere exercise. Indeed,
those factors, as well as the approach of objective, blind review of a random sample
of artifacts of student work, are among the specific suggestions offered in the
“Advancement” section of the Team Report that followed the 2008 HLC visit.
(Talburt, 2008)
Finally, note that the assessment plan outlined above (and detailed in a separate
document), is a starting point, rather than something carved in stone tablets. As we
gain experience with assessing the Global Citizenship Program, we will learn. We
might come to learn that the portfolio approach of the GCP has much to recommend
its use in other programs in the University. We might learn that it requires
modification to be successful. We might find that it needs supplementation to give
us all the information we want and need to improve the education of our
undergraduate students. Whatever the case, moving forward we will make choices
about assessing the GCP, not primarily out of fealty to words in a Task Force report,
but, first and foremost, in order to improve our performance of our educational
mission.

32. 31
Faculty and Curriculum Development
The Task Force applied to participate in the Greater Expectations Institute held in
June 2010, on the campus of Vanderbilt University. Erik Palmore, Director of the
Faculty Development Center, was a member of the team that worked together that
week. As a result, the FDC has developed a framework for faculty development for
the Global Citizenship Program, featuring two paths for faculty involvement and
learning. As he explains it:
The Faculty Development Center (FDC) is committed to supporting
implementation of a Global Citizenship Program. The formats preferred by the
task force based on input from consulted experts are 1) faculty learning
communities and 2) and a GCP “academy.”
Faculty LAB (Learning Across Boundaries), the faculty and professional
learning community (FPLC) initiative of the FDC is an excellent opportunity to
for faculty and curriculum development to support the GCP. A Faculty LAB
community is a cross-disciplinary group of 8-12 faculty and professional staff
that engage a topic or set of issues in an active, collaborative program of
activities related to enhancing and transforming teaching and student
learning. Individual community members apply their learning to provide
outputs that strengthen institutional capacity to excel in the subject area, in
this case, the objectives of the GCP
A Faculty LAB community supports:
 Opportunities to support change and transformation of teaching and learning
as a collective
 Improvement of faculty teaching and student learning based upon theory,
evidence, practice and assessment
 The scholarship of teaching and its application to student learning
Suggested activities and topics for GCP Faculty LAB communities include:
 Reflection on how to infuse global citizenship into existing general education
courses
 Identify and test strategies and practices for achieving GCP outcomes
 Sharing of interdisciplinary opportunities for developing experiences that
address GCP outcomes.
The GCP Academy will be a collection of interactive workshop experiences to
provide a deep understanding of the GCP program and the high-impact and
high-quality teaching methods used to address the knowledge and skill
outcomes of the program. An optional capstone experience for the academy

33. 32
would demonstrate application of those methods and illustrate the learning-
centered nature of the GCP.
Advisor Training
In addition to faculty and curricular development, successfully implementing the
Global Citizenship Program requires reorienting faculty advisors and professional
staff advisors, both in St. Louis and at extended campuses. The Extended Campus
Directors in discussions in September 2010 identified this as a specifically
important need. It became clear, also, in a September meeting of Task Force
members and faculty of the School of Communications, that the Global Citizenship
Program model involves a paradigm shift in advising in the SOC unlike that for other
parts of the University. Consequently, special attention must be paid to helping SOC
advisors prepare to advise students within the new program.
Kim Kleinman, Assistant Director for Undergraduate Advising, is preparing advisor
training for St. Louis-based faculty and professional advising staff. Moreover, we
propose to work with Ron Daniel, Academic Director of the Geneva campus and
representative of extended campuses on the GCPTF, and with the Extended Campus
Advisory Council and the Office of Academic Affairs to develop a plan for training
advisors at the international campuses in the first year and at domestic campuses
with undergraduate instruction in the second year of implementation. (Because of
the staging of implementation that defers new program requirements for transfer
students, no domestic campus outside St. Louis will be affected by new
requirements in the first year of the new program.)

34. 33
Summary of recommendations
Global Citizenship Program
The Global Citizenship Project Task Force recommends that Webster University
undergraduate degree requirements be amended to substitute “Global Citizenship
Program” for “general education program.”
The Global Citizenship Program is a program comprising these educational
experiences:
 Two seminars (the lower-level Great Thinkers Seminar and the upper-level
Global Keystone Seminar)
 Eight additional courses (two in Roots of Cultures, two in Social Systems and
Human Behavior, one in Physical and Natural World, one in Global
Understanding, one in Quantitative Literacy, and one other)
 One Practical Learning Experience
The mission of the Global Citizenship Program is ensure that every undergraduate
student emerge from Webster University with the core competencies required for
responsible global citizenship in the 21st Century. These competencies are
Knowledge of Human Cultures and the Physical and Natural World; the practical and
intellectual skills of written and oral communication, critical and creative thinking,
information literacy, and teamwork; an Understanding of Personal and Global
Responsibility, including intercultural knowledge and competence, ethical
reasoning, and civic knowledge; and Abilities to Integrate and Apply what is learned,
including integrative learning and the foundations and skills for lifelong learning.
The Task Force further recommends that the Global Citizenship Program be
implemented using the course requirements, timeline, and accommodations for
high-credit majors and students completing BFA and BM degrees specified in this
Report.
Undergraduate learning outcomes
The Global Citizenship Project Task Force recommends that Webster University
adopt undergraduate learning outcomes that reflect the full list of “Essential
Learning Outcomes” promulgated by the Association of American Colleges and
Universities, and including also at least one outcome for study in depth.

35. 34
Periodic review and assessment
The Global Citizenship Project Task Force recommends that the Global Citizenship
Program be considered a starting point rather than an eternal requirement in all its
details. The Task Force recommends, as part of the process for assessing the Global
Citizenship Program, that the Program be evaluated every six years. The Task Force
recommends that courses not be included in the program in perpetuity, but that
courses are to be reviewed at intervals specified in the Global Citizenship Program
Assessment Plan. The aims of all such periodic review shall be to maintain the
quality of the Global Citizenship Program, insure that the Program and its
component parts are accomplishing their goals, and to modify the Program to
improve its educational value. The Global Citizenship Program Review Committee
should be expected to report to the Faculty Assembly in at least the second and fifth
year of program implementation.

36. 35
Appendix 1

37. 36

38. 37
Bibliography
Astin, A. W. (1991). Assessment for Excellence: The Philosophy and Practice of
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. New York: American Council
on Education.
Astin, A. W. (1994). The American Freshman: National norms for fall 1993. Los
Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, University of California, Losd
Angeles.
Boix-Mansilla, V. (2009, October). Reflections on the Future of Learning. Integrative
Learning: Addressing the Complexities Conference . Atlanta.
Boyer, E. (1987). College: The undergraduate experience in America. New York:
Harper and Row.
Clayton-Pedersen, A., Parker, S., Smith, D. G., Moreno, J. F., & Teraguchi, D. H. (2007).
Making a Real Difference with Diversity: A Guide to Institutional Change.
Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.
Cross, P. (1982). Thirty years have passed: Trends in general education. In B. L.
Johnson, General Education in Two-year Colleges (pp. 11-20). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Cueso, J. (1991). The freshman orientation seminar: A research-based rationale for
its value, delivery, and content (Monograph No. 4). Columbia, SC: National
Resource Center for The Freshman Year Experience, University of South
Carolina.
Evans, G. G. (2010, June). Assessment of General Education: Course and Program
Levels. AAC&U Greater Expectations Institute . Nashville.
FCA Approves New Education Model. (1992, Octoer 22). Webster University Journal ,
1.
Ferren, A. S., & Slavings, R. (2000). Investing in Quality: Tools for Improving
Curricular Efficiency. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and
Universities.
Gaff, J. G. (1989). General Education at Decade's End: The Need for a Second Wave of
Reform. Change , 21 (4), 10-19.
Gaston, P., & Gaff, J. G. (2009). Revising General Education - And Avoiding the
Potholes. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.
GERTF, N. (2006). Proposed New General Education Program (GEP) at NCSU. North
Carolina State University, Raleigh.
Goodman, K., & Pascarella, E. T. (2006, Summer). First-Year Seminars Increase
Persistence and Retention: A summary of the evidence from How College
Affects Students. Peer Review , pp. 26-28.
Hart Research Associates. (2009). Trends and Emerging Practices in General
Education.

39. 38
Kolb, D. A. (1983). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and
Development. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kuh, G. (2008). High-impact Educational Practices: What They Are, Who Has Access to
Them, and Why They Matter. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges
and Universities.
Kuh, G., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., Whitt, E. J., & al., e. (2005). Student Success in College:
Creating Conditions That Matter. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Leskes, A., & Miller, R. (2005). General Education: A Self-Study Guide for Review and
Assessment. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and
Universities.
Leskes, A., & Miller, R. (2006). Purposeful Pathways: Helping Students Acheive Key
Learning Outcomes. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and
Universities.
Leskes, A., & Wright, B. The Art and Science of Assessing General Educaion Outcomes.
Levi, A. J., & Stevens, D. D. (2009). Assessment of the Acdemy, for the Academy, by
the Academy. In T. L. Rhodes, Assessing Outcomes and Improving Achievement:
Tips and Tools for Using Rubrics. Washington, DC: Association of American
Colleges and Universitites.
Moseley, M. E. (1991). Proceedings. Asheville Institute on General Education.
Asheville: Association of American Colleges and University of North Carolina
Asheville.
National Association of Schools of Theatre. (2007). NAST Handbook: Standards for
Accreditation. National Association of Schools of Theatre.
National Leadership Council for Liberal Education and America's Promise. (2007).
College Learning for the New Global Century. Washington, D.C.: Association of
American Colleges and Universities.
Nichols, J. O., & Nichols, K. O. (2000). The Departmental Guide and Record Book for
Student Outcomes Assessment and Institutional Effectiveness, Third Edition. New
York: Agathon Press.
Pascarella, E. T., & Ternzini, P. T. (1991). How College Affects Students: Findings and
insights from twent years of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Prohaska, V., & Whittaker, R. (2010, February 19). Interdisciplinary Capstone
Courses in Gen Ed: Recruiting Faculty and Supporting the Development of
Learning Objectives for Effective Assessment. AAC&U General Education and
Assessment Conference . Seattle.
Shell, J. (2010). Design Outside the Box. (J. Shell, Performer) DICE 2010, Las Vegas.
Shoenberg, R. General Education and Student Transfer.
Talburt, N. L. (2008). Report of a Comprehensive Evaluation Visit to Webster
University for The Higher Learning Commission, A Commission of the North
Central Association of Colleges and Schools. unpublished.
Tinto, V., Love, A. G., & Russo, P. (1994). Building Learning Communities for New
College Students: A summary of research findings of the Collaborative Learning
Project. University Park, PA: National Center on Postesecondary Teaching,
Learning, and Assessment.

40. 39
Virginia. (1999). General Education in Virginia: Assessment and Innovation, A
Challenge to Academic Leadership. Council of Higher Education of Virginia,
Richmond.
Webster University. (2008). Webster University Self-Study Report 2007-2008. (B.
Umbaugh, Ed.) Webster Groves, MO.
White, C. R. (1994). A Model for Comprehensive Reform in General Education:
Portland State University.