Gen Ed Discussion
From MWCSWiki
Contents |
General Education Review Committee Report
A listing of ideas/discussion regarding the Gen Ed proposals at Mary Washington
one course - one credit
>>>> Debra Schleef 10/04/06 2:56 PM >>>
>Hi all,
>
>There seems to be a good amount of interest in talking about
implementing this idea. I had actually not realized until you all
responded that Frawley had so forcefully touted this issue himself,
rather than just mentioning it.
>
>Now I think two things perhaps need to be done. One would be to
continue to talk about this idea with other interested colleagues and
get them to think about how to include this idea in their major
strategic plan. Craig noted, "Our task is to get it around to all the
faculty that the administration feels this way." I did get some names
for people to approach, but not enough of them. Perhaps you all have
been working the grapevine and I am not aware of it, but I think we
have to have some way of figuring out who's going to support it.
>
>Second, I am wondering if some of us need to meet with Frawley directly
to talk about strategy. Craig also said, "the best would be if he'd
come out now, since the call for gen ed overhaul, and say it, and say
what he wants to see" but he seems disinclined to do this, wanting it
to come from us somehow (?). But it seems a bit of a catch-22-- we're
not going to do that until we feel that more faculty is on board or we
at least have a larger group whose entire departments are making it
part of their strategic plan. When Eric Gable and I were talking about
this, we considered approaching the Senate as before, but even with
issues of partisanship aside, we don't really have the time to run this
through the Senate yet again.
>
>Debra
>>> Margaret Huber 10/5/2006 10:35 AM >>> As part of Debra's department, which is 100% in favor of going to 1-c-1-c, I may be redundant in responding to other comments, but I'll do it anyway. I agree with Ernie that a meeting is most desirable. My sense is that Rosemary may be the most difficult to persuade (but in fact all I know for certain is that she opposes going to a four-credit system). If that's the case then we should certainly meet with her, and with Nina & Frawley too, ideally at the same time. So, what are the chances of getting on their calendars? Margaret
>>> Eric Gable 10/06/06 12:54 PM >>>
I had wanted to make a few comments on the one-credit proposal itself too:
1) FTEs: Spring semester we collectively taught 16000 plus FTEs. My guess then is that the actual FTEs we will be required to service in a one credit system will be considerably fewer than 32000 annually.
2) On what to do about 491s. I'd say that we leave the system as flexible as possible. Students take them now. That's good. Leave it at that.
3) On the issuse of computer sciences.Any way to think of their courses as equivalent to math and/or science?
4) On sciences and math--are they really equivalent? Might we have a science and a math requirement? Remember that science and math have dug their heals in when there was the glimmering of a possibility to move to 4 credit system. Might they also feel short-changed if they are lumped together in the new gen eds?
5) Can we even be more radical in our revisions of gen-eds? what about none? What about replacing them with proficiencies--language proficiency, math proficiency, etc?
This last a comment that is still very much off the cuff.
>> Jeffrey Edmunds 10/06/06 1:35 PM >>> Hello,
Since Eric brought it up, I thought you should all know that the math department on Monday successfully approved proposed changes to our major requirements which will make them much more flexibe and easily transitioned to a one-credit system. I was pleasantly surprised at how agreeable the majority of the department was - some requirements have been in place for very questionable reasons and some members had previously opposed any exceptions even when it was the obvious right thing to do. I think they clearly have a sense that change is coming whether they like it or not.
We also discussed how our courses would look under a one-credit system and everyone seemed to think it would be fine; at least I got no sense of opposition to the idea. As far as GenEd requirements go, having served on the Senate I think the Sciences will heavily oppose anything but a full-year requirement as is currently in place. I don't have a sense on what my department wants for a math requirement, and I haven't looked at how other schools deal with it. My sense is that a requirement of at least one course is standard, and we're ready to make adjustments to our current offerings if necessary. Currently students can take one computer science course in addition to one math course to satisfy Goal 2 - if we went to a one-course requirement I don't know if that could count.
Jeff
How to Proceed
There seems to be a huge issue related to how to process the Gen Eds issue -- someone has to propose something, as Craig did, but then you have other people saying, that will not work because of xyz. How is this supposed to work? Should each chair in consulation with department members come up with a Gen Ed plan, and then look at them all at once and see what falls out of that? (which of these plans could the most of us live with?) Or perhaps we could come up with 3-4 plans and discuss the merits of each? There seem to be many competing and overlapping ideas posted just by the few of us, so I'm not sure what happens in a meeting with many clamorous voices. I think we have to have some structure.
I think a Gen Ed blog or WIKI is a good idea; I was just talking about that earlier, though I don't think I can be the one to do it, so if anyone wants to take it on, go for it. It's been a bit difficult following all these emails.
Debra
>>> Elizabeth Lewis 10/05/06 9:06 AM >>> What about Rosemary and the President, or the new VP for Strategic planning? Spanish as a section is interested, but I think they are really more willing to go along than to lead. I passed it by the entire department last week, and got the same sense. Nobody said much, neither for nor against. I think everyone is waiting for someone else to make the first move. Betsy
>>> "Dr. Eric E. Gable" <egable@umw.edu> 10/05/06 8:58 AM >>>
Ernie's suggestion makes sense to me as long as the general feeling is
that Rosemary isn't against the idea.
Ernest Ackermann wrote:
>I'm willing to be in on a meeting. Rosemary is goign to be upset,
though because she'll feel we've gone around her. What abotu a meeting
with her first or putting her in the loop on this?
>>> Craig Vasey 10/06/06 12:15 PM >>>
I’ve just been talking with Nina, so here’s some information you may find helpful.
First, we agreed that we (this group of chairs and faculty) need to get Rosemary to get Frawley to come to the meeting on Oct 18 so the chairs can ask him questions about his expectations regarding gen ed, turf worries, workload, undergrad research, freshman seminars, timetable, urgency, etc. We should insist if we have to, to Rosemary, on hearing from him up front and having the opportunity to pick his brain before any other planning gets going. Rather than meeting with him ourselves or even with RB in advance of that chairs meeting, she thought this was better.
So I would propose that, for starters, this group send an email to Rosemary to that effect, cc’ing it to Frawley; and that we do it right away so he can arrange his calendar to be there. There are four dept chairs already in this group, and if we need to, we can talk it up among some others. I don’t think anyone could disagree that genuine clarity about his vision and expectations will be important for us to have, so I would think that even those inclined to foot-dragging on the overhaul would be supportive. Here’s another thought: the four chairs here (Ernie, Margaret, Steve, me) could send the email to RB, cc it to the other Chairs, and ask them to voice their support of it to her. Which is better in your opinion?
Second, she expressed some frustration at hearing from various sources that we have a process of committee review and senate review of changes that will make everything take much longer than it really ought to take; the Faculty Senate can always vote to change or suspend the usual process if it wants to. I think it’s a good point to keep in mind. The rules are made by us to serve our purposes, not to get in the way when we’re trying to make changes on a large scale. For instance, rethinking the prefix of freshman seminars: instead of FSEM 100, there should probably be a number like 099 that can be used in all depts. (GEOG 099, PHIL 099, SOCG 099). If we put them in departments with disciplinary prefixes, they can be counted as electives for the major (in those depts that want to), and have a clearer relevance to whatever gen ed or distribution areas are identified. That should not be a task that takes six or eight months to accomplish, but that’s what some people are suggesting. She also suggested that faculty should be getting involved and getting students involved, eg. visiting schools that have gone through such curriculum overhauls, creating a blackboard-like web space where we can all post ideas and arguments, urls, etc., so everyone who wants to can havea voice instead of having things happen secretively. ernie: shall we create a GEN ED Blog in one of our Bluehost accounts?
That’s it for now. Please try to get some feedback in here today.
craig
>>> Stephen Hanna 10/06/06 8:07 AM >>>
Jeff Edmunds sent the following link to Pres. Frawley's page at Delaware. It has a proposal for reviewing and restructuring Gen. Ed. and the program for a General Education Institute he helped organize. All of the ideas may not be suitable for the type of institution we want to be, but it may be helpful to learn more about how his thinking has developed over time
http://www.udel.edu/billf/~frawley.html
sph
Harvard's Gen Ed Preliminary reprot
http://www.fas.harvard.edu/%7Esecfas/Gen_Ed_Prelim_Report.htm
New Plan to Overhaul Harvard Curriculum Singles Out Religion and American History for Study By ROBIN WILSON
A Harvard University panel released a proposal on Wednesday to revamp the university's core undergraduate curriculum in a way that differs sharply from both the current core requirements and a set of highly criticized reforms proposed two years ago. Students would be required to study religious faith and American history, among other elements of a more broad-based curriculum.
The new proposal, by a committee known as the Task Force on General Education, recommends that students take one course in each of the following areas: "Reason and Faith," "The Ethical Life," "Cultural Traditions and Cultural Change," "The United States: Historical and Global Perspectives," "Societies of the World: Historical and Global Perspectives," "Life Science," and "Physical Science."
As they do today, undergraduates would also have to take a writing course, show proficiency in a foreign language, and enroll in an analytical-reasoning course.
A proponent of more-traditional curricula lauded the proposal. The university's new report "rejected the 'anything goes' distribution requirements in place across the country in favor of a more structured, rigorous, and cohesive core curriculum," Anne D. Neal, president of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, said in a written statement issued on Wednesday.
Ms. Neal, who has been a frequent critic of the Harvard faculty, said the preliminary report showed that Harvard had taken "big steps to develop a unified concept of general education -- how to educate our students as responsible human beings and citizens."
A co-chairman of Harvard's committee, Louis Menand, said the university's current core focused on exposing students to "various disciplinary approaches to knowledge," teaching them how mathematicians, scientists, and historians, for example, evaluate questions. As a result, he said, some core courses are narrowly focused on highly specialized subjects.
The curriculum panel, which consists of six professors and two students, wanted to get away from the more-academic approach of the current core and broaden the subject matter of classes that qualify as fulfilling general-education requirements, he said. The panel's 39-page report, called simply "Preliminary Report," echoes that theme.
"The courses are not introductions to disciplines," the report says of the core requirements it recommends. "They are exposures to major arenas of change and influence in the 21st century." General education, it says, should not be "a form of pre-professional training." Rather, it says, "our students should see how the ideas, facts, and perspectives they are learning in the college come to life in real-world scenarios."
Mr. Menand, who is a professor of English and American literature and language at Harvard, said the committee wanted to emphasize "interconnectivity around the world."
He added: "If we're looking to help students prepare themselves to be ethical citizens for democracy and a global society -- characterized by rapid change and conflicts between reason and faith and by massive social change and changes in quality of life introduced by science and technology -- these are areas we want to make sure they have an understanding of."
Harvard has been trying to rewrite its core curriculum, which dates to 1978, for several years. Its first attempt, which was released in 2004, abandoned the idea of a core entirely and replaced it with distribution requirements. That proposal was criticized as vague and as failing to put forward a set of courses about ideas and principles that all undergraduates should study (The Chronicle, May 7, 2004).
A new draft of that report -- which included similar proposals -- was unveiled in March 2005 but was never adopted following criticism from professors and others outside Harvard. The latest panel was assembled in June.
The current proposal maintains a core, but in an updated fashion, Mr. Menand said. The "Reason and Faith" requirement, for example, may be controversial. But Mr. Menand said it would help students "think about the role, historically, faith has played."
"Twenty years ago," he said, "we might not have thought it was that important that students need to understand something about religion, but we felt that it is something secular universities may not be preparing students to deal with."
A professor who has criticized both the 2004 proposal and Harvard's existing requirements praised the preliminary report.
"There does seem to be something of a soul in this, some motivating principle about what undergraduate education needs to accomplish for the good of society," Harry R. Lewis, a professor of computer science at Harvard and a former dean of Harvard College, said in an interview. He published a critical book on Harvard this year called Excellence Without a Soul: How a Great University Forgot Education (PublicAffairs).
"Academics have gotten extremely specialized, focused, and expert in narrower and narrower fields," Mr. Lewis said. "At the same time, the student body has grown much more diverse. The task force has recognized the costs to undergraduate education of the extreme specialization of academia."
Copyright © 2006 by The Chronicle of Higher Education
Colgate's Gen Ed
Colgate University Has 2, 750 students
One distinct advantage that Colgate holds over larger universities is that faculty, rather than graduate students, teach all courses. When it comes to research, the advantage becomes even more pronounced, as faculty in all departments and programs closely engage students in research projects - sometimes as early as sophomore year.
By the time they are seniors, it is not unusual for motivated students to have presented work at conferences or even to have co-authored papers in academic journals.
All departments offer senior seminars and the opportunity for the most outstanding students to engage in honors research. Science departments in particular expect all majors to engage in laboratory or field-based research with a faculty member.
In addition to research within the curriculum, Colgate also offers a vibrant summer research program. Every summer, about 100 students receive paid summer research fellowships. These fellowships allow students to work closely with faculty for eight to ten weeks on projects of common interest.
For more information on research opportunities, we encourage you to explore the faculty directory, which lists specific programs by faculty member. Alternatively, explore the department pages that interest you. For a discussion of research opportunities between semesters, please visit the summer undergraduate research program page.
Departments and Programs Summer Undergraduate Research Program 2006 Celebration of Undergraduate Research and Creative Work
Core Requirements
Recognized as one of the most ambitious and elegant general education programs in the country, Colgate's Core has been at the center of the curriculum since 1928.
The Core asks students to both confront the question of "Who am I?" and cultivate habits of mind that form the lifelong legacy of a liberal arts education. Students learn to think in an integrative manner that crosses boundaries, to see disparate ideas in context, and to communicate effectively as they examine basic questions on the nature of their individual and cultural identities.
Students are required to take four Core classes by the end of the sophomore year. Two courses explore the full range of Western culture, its foundations, and its most pressing contemporary issues. A third course focuses on a specific non-Western culture of Africa, Asia, or the Americas. The fourth course explores how the world has been shaped by science and technology.
The Core also offers an opportunity for honors work at the junior and senior levels. Interested students may earn distinction by completing projects in courses on ethical issues and contemporary society.
Contact the Office of Admission if you have any questions about the Core, or check a link below:
Liberal Arts Core 151: Western Traditions Liberal Arts Core 152: Challenge of Modernity Liberal Arts Core Cultures Liberal Arts Core Distinction Liberal Arts Core Scientific Perspectives
Liberal Arts Core 151: Western Traditions
Chair: Frederick Luciani Admin Assistant: Stacey Snyder Office: Alumni Hall Phone: (315) 228-7807 Dept. Fax: (315) 228-6707
In this course students learn about the beginnings of Western thought and its resonance throughout the ages. They confront the complexity of Western culture and the impossibility of either embracing it or rejecting it reductively.
Students will be engaged by two questions that are central to understanding the past: How does the past continue to speak to us today? To what extent are the ideas and values of the past significantly different from our own?
Liberal Arts Core 152: Challenge of Modernity
Chair: Marilyn Thie Admin Assistant: Stacey Snyder Office: Alumni Hall Phone: (315) 228-7807 Dept. Fax: (315) 228-6707
The 19th century marked a crucial turning point in the West. Revolutions in technology and thought transformed Western culture; in some sense they created modern language and the modern world.
This course explores the distinctive features of modernity, providing students with a clear sense of the problem and promise of modernity for contemporary life.
Liberal Arts Core Cultures
Chair: Yoichi Aizawa Admin Assistant: Stacey Snyder Office: Alumni Hall Phone: (315) 228-7807 Dept. Fax: (315) 228-6707
Students will study one of three cultures -- Africa, Asia, or the Americas -- that are considered to be distinct from the Western tradition.
Each course is multidisciplinary in approach and materials and is taught by a faculty member with a special interest in and knowledge of the culture concerned.
These courses contribute to the student's skills, critical acumen, and breadth of understanding, including an appreciation and a measure of skepticism regarding a variety of beliefs, values, and conventions, including their own.
Liberal Arts Core Distinction
Chair: Kenneth Valente Admin Assistant: Stacey Snyder Office: Alumni Hall Phone: (315) 228-7807 Dept. Fax: (315) 228-6707
The Core Program offers a limited number of upper-level interdisciplinary courses each semester, focusing on ethical issues with contemporary significance.
These courses extend the four-course required program with an integrative capstone experience; they are open to all students who have completed the four-course Core requirement.
Liberal Arts Core Scientific Perspectives
Chair: Douglas Johnson Admin Assistant: Stacey Snyder Office: Alumni Hall Phone: (315) 228-7807 Dept. Fax: (315) 228-6707
This series of courses provides students opportunities to become involved in the process of scientific reasoning, methods of verification, and scientific explanation.
The courses are designed to introduce students to topics of current interest and to examine the historical and contemporary influence of science on the individual and society.
A starting point perhaps
>>> Craig Vasey 10/05/06 10:55 AM >>> Oct 4
What follows is just a first proposal, a starting point perhaps, not the result of prolonged reflection, or a plan I would say I’m committed to yet, but I think we need to get something out there to react to and talk about amongst ourselves. Maybe considering some of the pros and cons of a plan like this will help overall. It would definitely be helpful to me before Rosemary’s Oct 18 meeting.
I think I’ll give Nina a call about the strategy later today.
a)
First assumption: students will take 4 courses per semester, a total of 32 courses, to graduate. This student load is appropriate because it allows students to work in depth in fewer courses, thereby learning more thoroughly; concomitantly, it means that faculty will expect and demand greater depth in all their classes. We are not going to draw evaluative lines between, e.g., science-lab courses and others. (A course is a course, of course, of course-but who ever heard of a talking course?)
In place of our Gen Eds, let’s have a Distribution Requirement:
Two courses in each of the following areas (at the 100-200 level):
Social Sciences (Political Science, Sociology, Anthropology, Geography, Historical Preservation, History?, Psychology)
Mathematics and Natural Sciences (Math, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Geology)
Humanities (English, Classics, Philosophy, Religion, History?)
And
One course in the area of Arts (Art, Art History, Music, Theater, Dance)
Three courses in a Foreign Language (modern or ancient)
(Questions: As proposed here, this plan does not include courses in Business, Computer Science, Education, or Physical Education in the Distribution requirements. Ought any of them to be included in one of the above Distribution requirement areas? Should PE be allowed to be just an option? Education is not a major program, and one has to apply and qualify to be admitted to it; students must major in a traditional area. Should BUAD follow such a model too?)
Freshman Seminars should satisfy Distribution Requirements, and, with the approval of the respective department, may count in the major as an elective. They cannot be required for a major program.
This would make 10 courses required in place of the Gen Ed approach. Allowing between 8 and 12 to constitute a major program, students will have an additional 11-13 courses for electives, for a double major, for a minor, or for prerequisites that do not count in the major.
b)
Second assumption: all students will take at least one of each of the following:
+Internship or Service Learning
+Independent Research (Jr/ Sr level) 491
Fr/Soph Research Assistantships (URES 197?) will be optional, for up to two courses.
We drop all the ATC requirements. That streamlines things a lot. No one who cares about writing, about speaking, about race and gender, about global awareness, etc., is going to stop teaching with an eye to those things.
c) Here’s an attempt at putting some numbers out there (but I’m no number-cruncher, so please offer some help):
With 4000 students needing 8 classes per year, 32000 seats are needed. If every student is required to take Internship/Service Learning and Independent Research, we might say that on average, 1000 fewer seats/ year in standard classes are needed as a result of each requirement: i.e., 2000 total. So 30,000 seats are needed on average.
If 200 faculty have to provide 30,000 seats/ year, on average that comes to 150 seats/ faculty member per year, or 75 per semester. Today the target we are aiming at (with our 40 course requirement model) is 100/ faculty member.
If every faculty member is responsible, on average, for 75 seats per semester, it is within the realm of possibility that, on average, every faculty member have a 2 course/ semester load. ON AVERAGE. Of course, the details will be complicated, especially in the beginning of this change-over, but if not 2/2, it should certainly be possible to envision an average of a 3/2 load for all faculty. One idea would be to have this rotate within departments: e.g., one third of the faculty in the dept have a 2/2 load every third year (one third have a 2/2 load, one third have a 3/2 load, one third have a 3/3 load, and this rotates amongst them).
d)
Scheduling issues: how many hours of class time/ week? There is no reason to expect more than the standard 3 hours per week to be required. This is standard at the kinds of schools we are looking to for models. The difference is the expectation the faculty imposes on the amount and quality of student work: if today we tell them to expect two hours outside of class to be prepared for every hour in class, then we should expect that to nearly double.
craig
>>> Elizabeth Lewis 10/05/06 1:53 PM >>> Hey everyone. What if instead of dropping ATC's, we make sure they are built into the curriculum, either as a natural part of certain Gen Ed courses (or the courses formerly known as Gen Ed), Freshman seminars, or parts of the various majors? I would hate to see, over time, a return to the days when only English teaches writing, Speech speaking, and women's studies gender. As far as cutting FL requirement, we don't have a problem with # of courses. Actually now in theory Goal #7 can be no courses (with an appropriate AP, SATII or placement exam score), but students seem compelled to start in 101 if they don't place out. In Spanish we'd like to stop offering 101-102, and 201-202 in favor of our intensive courses 105 and 205, even if we don't switch to the total course model. However, I think we can do it in 2 intensive courses that meet everyday , or in 3 regular ones that meet 3. I have no idea what French, German, Italian and Arabic would think. The languages that are not frequently offered in highschool would most likely be the ones most at risk with this sort of plan. These are my personal views. Betsy
>>> Stephen Hanna 10/05/06 2:14 PM >>> Thanks Betsy, that was the other thought I meant to raise in response to Craig's starting point. I would like see distribution requirements worded in a way that reflects something more than 'social science,' 'humanities,' etc. If so, then GA, RG, and EA can be incorporated into those requirements - as themes and not as added course requirements. And while I think many people in many departments do and will continue to teach writing and speaking as key components of their courses, it may be politically expedient to find a way to maintain writing and speaking programs. I would argue for a system that requires all majors to incorporate writing and speaking into their programs of study. This could result in courses like our WI courses or perhaps the requirement could be fulfilled in other ways.
sph
>>> Margaret Huber 10/05/06 2:56 PM >>>
Regarding distribution requirements I agree with Steve--why limit them to 100- and 200-level courses? I'd like to see a broader array of possibilities. In disciplines where the intro course are prerequisites for everything else, there's no choices, but we have a lot of disciplines where this isn't the case. Having more choice would relieve pressure to provide umpteen seats in the lower-level courses, thus making it possible to offer a greater variety of courses.
Regarding ATCs, while I share Betsy's concerns, Craig and Steve are right I think that no one's going to stop talking about gender or good prose, etc., now just because we don't "have" to. I have to confess, though, that I'm not too happy with the idea of requiring majors to incorporate things into their programs. But it may be that we must do that to satisfy SCHEV and the rest of them.
MH
