Overview About this site Mission Statement Value Statements
Strategic Directions Information on Strategic Directions Strategic Directions with Institutional Priorities
Resources View resources
spacer

Summaries from the Fourth Stakeholder Conference

 

Question 3

How responsive is the proposal to the established criteria?

 

Responses for the Flannery O-Connor Studies Program

  • Limited evidence of potential for broad support from faculty, but program is not contingent or faculty/staff (i.e. concrete resources), and relies upon international scholars.
  • Builds on strengths already present.
  • Program's centrality to GCSU mission is generally not developed, except where potential exists for student leadership development.
  • Potential for external recognition is exemplary.
  • Potential for sustainability is exemplary.

 

Responses for the Creative Writing Program

  • It is central to the mission. It promotes intellectual curiosity, dovetails with the general education curriculum, and prepares students for a career in an ideal environment. It has tremendous potential for capitalizing on existing strength.
  • It capitalizes on existing strengths, already has broad faculty support and has the potential of attracting excellent faculty.
  • It is already widely recognized nationally and has the capacity for further recognition.
  • It is eminently sustainable, draws funding easily, and has already proven that it can achieve a lot even with limited resources.
  • Program has great potential for sustainability and further growth. Program has the most potential of the six for external
  • Program is very responsive to all the criteria for the Pillars of Distinction.

 

Responses for the Center for Educational Research and Service

  • "Mission centrality" could be strengthened, since students are involved in research in many programs and student research is not enough to tie closely to the mission.
  • Potential for broad faculty support outside of the School of Business is not clear, although a number of faculty are already involved. If Center is intended to impact K-12 there is no evidence of collaboration with the SOE.
  • No strong evidence that center capitalizes on existing strengths; there are only passing reference to others involved in education oriented research on campus. No indication that the Center's faculty have potential to be collaborators, since potential partners were not consulted in the proposal.
  • No evidence of strong potential for external recognition without a dramatic infusion of resources, a shift in our model of teacher/scholars, and discovery of a niche for Center, since it provides data already available on a national scale, there are other Centers in the state and its focus is too narrow.
  • Program has potential to be sustainable, since significant funding has already been received and there is potential to obtain future grants, but there are concerns about the need to provide large amounts of course release for faculty who are involved.
  • Program capitalizes on existing strengths, such as experience of SOB faculty, but does not appear to be drawing enough on outside resources.

 

Responses for the Outdoor Education Program

  • The proposal hits on some characteristics that illustrate its centrality to the GCSU mission but misses on other points. The goals of the program can easily be integrated with goals, interests, and outcomes of academic and co-curricular programs across the spectrum of disciplines; it is interdisciplinary (both academic and non-academic); educates whole person with emphasis on wellness, and on physical as well as mental exercise; program incorporates learning beyond the classroom; program speaks to GCSU's mission of providing a broad-based education that promotes better understanding of the world in which we live and the responsibility we have to protect it through concern impact on our environment. Program could further articulate its outcomes and connection to academic component of the mission, clearly articulate academic rigor of program, and to respond to fact that some courses can't be used towards 120 credit hour requirement.
  • Program is nationally recognized and is 1 of 4 nationally accredited programs by AEE; program has demonstrated student/alumni success; program has a good data-based argument for scarcity of comparable programs and potential for further distinction but not in a broad sense due to limited area of focus.
  • Program has potential to benefit the GCSU community in many ways and has potential for broad support through interdisciplinary focus on wellness as a fundamental aspect of a liberal arts education, but presently the program seems to lack broad faculty support since many do not even know anything about it. The small size of the program also makes it difficult to gain broad faculty involvement and distance from the main campus may also limit support.
  • Small size of program suggests very limited demand for it and raises questions about sustainability.
  • Program can capitalize on existing strengths, such as Lake Laurel facility and national recognition, but could develop its resources and approach.

 

Responses for the Science to Serve Program

  • Program is central to the GCSU mission. Scientific literacy)is a very important part of a liberal arts education, and the program involves service and leadership, analytical thinking, speaking, and an interdisciplinary focus.
  • Program is central to the GCSU mission. Scientific literacy is a very important part of a liberal arts education, and the program involves service and leadership, analytical thinking, speaking, learning outside the classroom. and has an interdisciplinary focus.
  • Program has a number of clearly evident existing strengths and great potential for sustainability since it already has funding. There is potential for potential for a model that could be used (with slight modifications) in other disciplines (i.e. business to serve) and faculty will be interested in popular topics (e.g. global climate change). Momentum is evident and will gain strength.
  • Proposal might be strengthened to gain further national distinctiveness.

 

Responses for Mentored, Field-Based Cohort (MFBC) Model, School of Education

  • The mission centrality statement seems to describe any of GCSU's programs. However, program needs to make clearer whether it is driven by accreditation requirements or the mission. Specific program goals are needed that tie it strongly to the mission.
  • Program needs to state showman programs are MFBC, how it is distinguished from them, and provide data on its national distinctiveness
  • Program can build on existing strengths, such as broad faculty support, Early College Program, and the continuing need for their students in work force.
  • Continuing need for their students in job market has already created sustainability.
  • Program needs to develop more its potential for external recognition, since it is criticized in the state for lack of student diversity. But the program does connect to the Center for Education Research and so helps university have potential to be recognized as a magnet university for education policy research.


Parkhurst at dusk
CONNECTING WHAT MATTERS
A-Z Sitewide Index
About the site
Georgia College • 231 W. Hancock St. • Milledgeville, GA 31061 • 1-800-342-0471 ; 478-445-5004 • admissions@gcsu.edu