GE100 Spring 2026 Faculty Survey May 21, 2026
Content 1. General Education Structures •
Distribution-based structure
•
Competency-based structure
•
Integrated approach
2. General Education Cross-Cutting Requirements •
First Year Experience
•
Writing
•
Languages Other Than English
•
Community/Experiential Learning
2
General Structure: Understanding Generally, faculty felt they had a clear understanding of presented structures. Prompt: I have a clear understanding of the… Disciplinary-based structure: 90% Strongly agree or Somewhat agree
Competency-based structure: 81% Strongly agree or Somewhat agree
Integrated approach: 77% Strongly agree or Somewhat agree
3
General Structure: Rankings, most popular The Distribution structure has the most 1st place rankings (31%; 32/104), though the Competency + Integration structure is not far behind (29%; 30/104);
53%
29%
31% 4
General Structure: Rankings, most popular The Distribution structure has the most 1st place rankings (31%; 32/104), though the Competency + Integration structure is not far behind (29%; 30/104); The Distribution + Integration structure and the Competency + Integration structure tied for most 1st + 2nd place rankings (56%; 58/104) 58% 53%
58%
5
General Structure: Rankings, least popular The Distribution structure earned the most 4th place rankings (42%; 44/104). Note: The Distribution structure earning both the most and least popular indicates a split opinion amongst faculty (see next slide for more quantitative and qualitative data regarding this split).
53% 42%
6
The Distribution structure, a selection of comments from faculty who… ranked the Distribution structure 1st
ranked the Distribution structure 4th
“I think the disciplinary model provides a stronger vehicle for critical inquiry and research methods...”
“…The distribution system we have now is such a check-box experience...” “… If we are going to keep a disciplinary based structure, I'd like to see it refreshed...” “I think students often struggle to see value in disciplinary-based structures…” “It's fine, but I don't think advising explains it well enough to students to make it clear.” “…it needs a little more "salesmanship" to emphasize to contemporary students why courses taken for a distribution requirement are valuable and not just checking a box…” “I have a problem with the idea of "general education" being disciplinary-based. I believe that the GenEd should emphasize skills and competencies, which might be fulfilled by any number of disciplines...” “This is what we have now. Time for a change.” “I think if intertwined strongly with the "integrated approaches" that this could work but it's very similar to what we already have.”
“The D.B.S. is simple and it keeps HCLAS at the center of gen. ed. In the current environment of "forever crisis," we need models that keep HCLAS disciplines in the foreground.”
“… Disciplines make deeper learning (or higher education) possible as well as research, and interdisciplinary studies are the fruit of profound engagement (and training) in multiple disciplines, not entry-level (un)familiarity with different areas of knowledge.” “For a century, traditional academic disciplines have prepared citizens for the challenges of maintaining democracy and participating as members of a workforce. The maintenance and advancement of disciplinary knowledge is both essential for academic freedom and for producing a well educated electorate, cultural literacy, and historically informed perspectives.”
7
Cross-cutting requirements: Writing
27% said they would never
18% said they would never
17% said they would never
support
support
support
Note: two people indicated they did not support any of these models.
8
Cross-cutting requirements: Writing
Model A is least popular.
Note: These counts include people who indicated they did not support certain models (presumably that means they ranked them last).
9
Cross-cutting requirements: FYE
15% said they would never support
31% said they would never support
24% said they would never support
Note: two people indicated they did not support any of these models.
10
Cross-cutting requirements: FYE
Model B is least popular.
Note: These counts include people who indicated they did not support certain models (presumably that means they ranked them last).
11
Cross-cutting requirements: LOTE
19% said they would never support
17% said they would never support
33% said they would never support
Note: two people indicated they did not support any of these models.
12
Cross-cutting requirements: LOTE Model C is least popular.
Note: These counts include people who indicated they did not support certain models (presumably that means they ranked them last).
13
Cross-cutting requirements: Experiential Learning
17% said they would never support
15% said they would never support
23% said they would never support
Note: Six people indicated they did not support any of these models; Some comments indicate this was because they didn’t have an opinion or it wasn’t valuable for their majors. 14
Cross-cutting requirements: Experiential Learning
Note: These counts include people who indicated they did not support certain models (presumably that means they ranked them last).
15
Some general takeaways… • A number of survey participants made comments about disciplinarity or not knowing how they would incorporate these elements into their major – they seem to be misunderstanding that this specifically for the GenEd requirements. • Disciplinary structure comments indicated that it’s what we know and that there is value in that (e.g., “nothing wrong with sticking the structure that has been used in most places at most times and has generally been successful”) with some recognizing that it might need a “refresh” • Some competency structure comments seemed skeptical (e.g., “Are there any data that shows the advantage/disadvantage of a competency-based curricula relative to the other options?”, “how would competency get tested or proven in other areas? exit exams?”) though not necessarily negative. • Integrated approach comments appeared to appreciate the value of this, but many concerns were raised about the costs and logistics of this approach
16