GE Course Proposal Guidelines

 

Course Proposal Suggestions 
provided by the General Education Governance Board, October 2026

 

 

Overview

When reviewing general education (GE) proposals, the General Education Governance Board (GEGB) reviews all aspects of a course, paying close attention to educational objectives (EOs) and course criteria (CRs) for the GE area in question. (For resources, visit the General Education Overview and GE Comprehensive Guide.)

The GEGB provides the information below to help GE course proposers craft the needed EOs and CRs. While the Board does not provide a list of recommendations for course learning objectives (CLOs), as these are discipline/course-specific, we do recommend that CLOs be clear, be consistent with other aspects of the proposal, contribute to the attainment of GE EOs, and use active verbs as specified by Bloom’s taxonomy (Krathwohl, 2002) to help inform assessment strategies. Please keep in mind that the guidance below does not constitute a full list of recommendations, but a baseline from which proposers can operate.

EOs are expectations for what students should be able to do after completing a GE course in the given area, the achievement of which can be periodically assessed. The responses to EO prompts should describe what the students will learn to satisfy each prompt.
 

A strong EO response: 

  • Uses active verbs.
  • Is elaborative and provides course-specific descriptions/examples and other student-centered details about how the course supports student learning.
  • Does not largely restate the EO prompt but rather details how a course specifically addresses the EO prompt through its course content.
  • Does not include a list of readings/references without elaboration. In general, a list of readings that informs an EO is not required and should be captured in the expanded course content (ECC). Should the proposer choose to include readings/references in EO responses, their contributions should be clearly specified beyond the listing of a reading/reference itself.
  • Is not a course learning objective (CLO). EOs are mapped to and connected with the CLOs later in the proposal; however, responses to EO prompts should address each specific EO. 
  • Is student-centered by explaining what students will learn (as opposed to what instructors will do).  
  • Describes what students will do with specific topics, materials, methods, or activities to achieve the objective


A useful structure is, “Students will [observable action] to [specific content or questions] through [specific course methods or concepts]. They will demonstrate this learning through [assessment or student work].”

CRs are expectations for course design that will be used in consideration of the course proposal. The responses are intended to describe how the course is designed, including prerequisites and assignments/assessment tools, to support the student learning that is described in the responses to the EOs. While some CR responses may replicate the content captured in the EOs, they also require elaboration concerning the specific assignments, assessment methods, and structural aspects of the course.

A strong CR response:

  • Shows how the course, through instruction, assessment, or other pedagogical elements, will help students learn what is expected in the EOs.
  • Does not largely restate the CR prompt.
  • Is course-centered (is specific to the course in question).
  • Identifies and elaborates on activities and assessments that will be used to gauge student learning.
  • Explains where and how the requirement appears in the course.
  • When applicable, identifies and elaborates on specific methods (e.g., experiments, close reading, ethnography, etc.) that will be used in the course.


A useful structure is, “Students will [complete a given action] that meets (or exceeds) [requirement specified].”

Other important points:

  • All elements of the course proposal (course description, EOs, CRs, ECC) should tell a consistent story that largely adheres to its proposed GE area.
  • The course proposal should be aligned with the rigor and objectives of its numerical designation (i.e., lower division vs. upper division).
  • All EOs and CRs must be mapped to at least one CLO.

 

Sources: 

Krathwohl, D. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice 41(4), 212-218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2 
 

 

Last updated October 12, 2026.

Related Content

<script type="text/javascript">
 
  var _gaq = _gaq || [];
  _gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-42881706-1']);
  _gaq.push(['_trackPageview']);
 
  (function() {
    var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true;
    ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js';
    var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s);
  })();
 
</script>