Memo
To: Louis Swift, Dean of Undergraduate Studies
From: Jim Applegate, Chair, Committee A-The Curriculum of Learning
President's Initiative on Undergraduate Education
Re: Draft report
Date: December 5, 1998
This is a DRAFT summary of the work of Committee A on curriculum issues tied to the undergraduate initiative. We have consensus on goals and in some cases on strategies to achieve these goals. Many of these will require significant new resources from administration and reallocation of effort on the part of faculty. Though we have representation from across the University on the committee we have not, for the most part, communicated any of the ideas outlined below to the affected constituencies (one exception is the communication skills area: the Chairs of the English and Communication programs are on the committee). We believe careful consideration needs to be given about how we carry these ideas to the campus community, especially those directly affected by the proposals. These ideas are presented as good faith efforts to improve the quality of undergraduate education on our campus. We look forward to suggestions and reactions from our colleagues on the faculty and administration that will significantly improve the document.
Life is interdisciplinary: it does not reflect the separation among departments, majors and courses that comprise the University's instructional program. We believe that graduates should be prepared to respond seamlessly to the challenges that arise in work and life. This means that they must speak and write with ease and effectiveness, pass effortlessly from matters that involve logical, numerical or technical skills to those that require familiarity with historical, artistic or literary context. They must have intellectual mastery of some parts of thought or experience and know how to approach other less-familiar parts when needed. They must "know" what they know and also know the limits of their knowledge. They must be prepared both for team effort and individual action and have an appreciation for the variety of human endeavor. We call this ideal the "practical scholar," because it represents a full integration of scholarship and practice. We seek to discover the curricular elements that will lead all who participate in the University closer to this ideal. The following initiatives contribute to this overarching goal.
In the process of developing these initiatives the committee engaged in a modified nominal group technique and identified 13 important goals for undergraduate education (see Appendix A). These were narrowed to four primary goals. Our focus has been on curricular reforms that address these four goals (though many of our suggestions address many others of the 13). The four goals are:
These specific goals and the strategic initiatives we propose are viewed as contributing to the more general goal of enhancing retention and graduation rates at the University as a whole. An omnipresent goal in all of our discussions. We also have been cognizant of a mandate to "simplify" and strengthen our general studies efforts. A final goal that informed all of our discussions is to successfully integrate Lexington Community College into our undergraduate work. This challenge is all the greater because the University is itself still defining that relationship in light of the changes in higher education effected by the State in 1997.
The draft offers a detailed account of various curriculum-related initiatives designed to improve undergraduate education. Resource needs and time lines for implementation are offered to better define the concepts for both administrative and faculty colleagues. We draw special attention to the recommendations in the low hanging fruit section concluding the report. These are largely administrative actions that should be taken immediately to improve our situation. Beyond these, in its final meeting Committee A did designate its "top three" priorities for action to improve undergraduate education. Detailed descriptions of each proposal are offered. Again, there is more agreement in some areas than others and we seek input.
Details for these and other proposals follow.
Models of related programs have been shared from other universities (e.g., the Gemstones project at Maryland) that carry this approach through the four year experience (see "inquiry block" and "capstone requirement" below). We see this six hour block substituting for the current cross disciplinary requirement in University Studies (USP). This would simplify that dimension of USP by eliminating the long list and changing list of "approved courses" now serving this goal and eliminate the acknowledged difficulties in scheduling this requirement has posed.
We view these seminars as heavily engaging faculty. Retention studies consistently point to the positive effect of identification with faculty and other institutional representatives as crucial in the early years. With proper attention to instructional support and professional development, scholars can best introduce our students to the benefits of attending a research university. Broad faculty participation at this level will better engage faculty in the undergraduate learning community. The professional development opportunities for faculty associated with the seminar will have significant spill-over effects in improving teaching on campus generally.
In addition, faculty in these seminars could be a part of a variety of associated programs such as an "early warning" program much like those employed at many peer institutions with better retention rates. These programs identify first year students "at risk" during crucial times (e.g., midterms) and refer them to needed programs offering support in academic and personal areas of students' lives.
We also see good reasons (both practical and conceptual) for use use of advanced graduate students (perhaps the "senior teaching fellows" proposed in Committee B's work) and senior undergraduate students as well in the seminars working side by side with faculty. A part of the proposal includes teaching assistant "adjuncts" from the English and Communication programs to assist in the development, implementation, and evaluation of seminar activities that enhance verbal communication skills (see "Basic Skills Inquiry Block" below).
In our proposal undergraduate seniors will play a valuable role assisting faculty in the teaching of the first year seminar. In doing so they also may fulfill the proposed required capstone research experience through introducing first year students to inquiry and research in these seminars. Work in the seminar would be a tremendous learning experience for the seniors, preparing them for professional and post-graduate work.
We are aware of an alternative model posed by Committee B. The key differences lie in a one year versus two year duration and the content focus of the course. Our version has a common structure that requires breadth of exposure while allowing some flexibility in content. The alternative is modeled after the current "Discovery Seminars" with a stronger link to individual faculty research interests. Beyond that there is a great deal of commonality in the proposals.
Budget and Implementation. A detailed version of the seminar is provided in Appendix B with a budget and time line for implementation. We see implementation occurring over a three year period at a cost of approximately four million dollars.
Inference/Problem Solving Competency: Description. Entering freshmen are assumed to have the equivalent of high school algebra. This assumption is consistent with the "Plan for Revising Minimum [college] Admission Requirements" approved by the Council on Postsecondary Education at its November, 1998 meeting. The revised minimums require high school algebra. For those who do not have an algebra course a course may be required. However, this course would not count as a part of the University Studies program. The Inference/Problem Solving Competency will be satisfied by an inquiry based seminar clearly addressing the goals of university studies in creating inferential problem solving abilities for entering students. The Departments of Mathematics, Philosophy, and Statistics (primarily) will be asked to consider creation of an inquiry based seminar focused on this goal of the University Studies Program. The possibility also would remain open that this inquiry based seminar could be by-passed based on one of a number of criteria (e.g. ACT scores, completion of a higher-level math course) or that current courses could be restructured to create an inquiry-based course within math, philosophy, or statistics that would meet the requirement (see this option as described in the disciplinary requirements section below).
Committee A is aware that a separate task force, created out of Dr. Bramwell's office and chaired by Dr. Donald Sands and Dr. Bill Bush (who is a member of Committee A) is devoting its full attention to reviewing math and science undergraduate education at the University. At this point, our recommendation is consistent with the direction of that task force. A full recommendation from that group no doubt will more fully address the need to redesign our efforts in this area.
A core question is whether a separate course is needed to focus upon the goal of inferential skill development in mathematical and non-mathematical domains. The option of re-configuring the pedagogy in existing required courses into an inquiry based format better suited to the perspective of the general student is also an option. The Committee strongly believes the current situation in which almost half of our students withdraw or receive below average evaluations on performance in math, science, and foreign language University Studies courses must be addressed through redesign of the structure and pedagogy of these course or creation of a new course designed to better address the goals of these courses as part of University Studies.
Inference/Problem Solving Competency: Budget and Implementation. Given that most of these courses are taught in small sections now, the major budgetary implications of such a change would be in faculty development efforts and other forms of instructional support. We expect specific budgetary recommendations from the math/science task force. Whatever is done should be immediately implemented to address the ongoing impact of poor student performance in these courses on retention.
Verbal (Written and Oral) Communication Competency: Description. This competency would be addressed in 6 hours of core instruction in written and oral communication (a reduction from the current nine hours required in USP for written and oral communication). The Departments of English and Communication will create a 6 hour sequence that provides core instruction in verbal (written and oral) communication. This may take the form of a integrated course following models currently used at the University of Iowa and the University of Illinois (material on these models available) or it may involve two coordinated three hour courses. Beyond this core, faculty, senior teaching fellows (see Committee B's description of a teaching assistant development "ladder") and lecturers in the Departments of Communication and English would be involved as consultants and adjuncts for multiple sections of the first year seminars and the inquiry courses included in the disciplinary inquiry block in natural science, social science, humanities and fine arts (see "Disciplinary Inquiry Block" below) to assist instructors in those courses to enhance written and oral communication competency across the curriculum. This approach will significantly simplify USP in this area and reduce the hours currently devoted explicitly to communication skill development.
Students taking the first year seminar and the six hour verbal communication block ideally would experience an integrated twelve hours of course work in which, for example, assignments in the first year seminar would be linked to principles being raised in the verbal communication courses and assignments in the latter could be tied to content issues being addressed in the seminar.
Students would be ensured of explicit exposure to the principles of good writing and speaking in a coordinated and integrated fashion in core courses. This focus is then carried into their first year seminar. As noted, faculty as well as teaching assistants and lecturers would be involved as adjuncts for consultants in the latter area. The use of faculty, teaching assistants and lecturers in this fashion would require significant professional development efforts. However, for teaching assistants this could be tied to the proposal from Committee B for a laddered program of development activities for teaching assistants moving them from beginner to "senior teaching fellow" status. There are models for the consultant/adjunct role in place. The English Department has teaching assistant adjuncts who work with the Engineering College as does the Department of Communication. This model is also in place for both Departments in the University Writing Center. Allowing our graduate students to have both traditional classroom and adjunct consulting experience also would enhance job placement.
Verbal (Written and Oral) Communication Competency: Budget and Implementation. A detailed budget and time line is presented in Appendix C. If it is assumed the staffing of this area would be done primarily with senior teaching fellows and lecturers additional teaching personnel costs would total between one hundred and thirty and two hundred thousand dollars depending on the relative use of senior teaching fellows and full time lecturers. Despite the reduction in core hours, the additional costs are generated by (a) staffing that integrates the core sequence with the first year seminar (b) the assumption that all first year students will be enrolled in this reduced core (c) bringing the oral communication component up to adequate staffing for a first year class of 2700 students (eliminating this "bottleneck"-see Appendix E) and (d) reducing the class sizes to 20 students from 25. The latter strategy is an effort to improve pedagogy and respond to criticisms in a variety of previous reports on graduate education that point to the work load for English teaching assistants particularly in composition classes of 25 or more as a obstacle to timely completion of graduate degrees.
On going staff development efforts are budgeted in the first year seminar costs (tied to the adjuncts program). Development efforts would be channeled through the Teaching and Learning Center and the University Writing Center. Coordination costs would be subsumed in large part in the office of the Administrator for the first-year seminar though some additional costs related to increased time required of the faculty currently coordinating the written and oral communication courses in English and Communication may be required.
This program could be implemented with Senate approval in the Fall of 2000. The creation of the coordinated courses and staff development efforts would be implemented in academic year 1999-2000 in tandem with the development of the first year seminar.
Foreign Language Competence. At present most of the committee, with some significant exceptions, views the current University requirement that all students must have two college semesters of foreign language (or its equivalent of two years of high school foreign language instruction) as appropriate. Though here, as in other areas, more of a focus on competency based assessment is supported. Consistent with this preference the current testing, by-pass procedures should be maintained. Individual programs should remain free to require higher levels of language competency.
Cross-Cultural Competence. The committee is agreed that our students must be prepared to celebrate and effectively adapt to the diversity of human culture. The ability to embrace differences across international and domestic racial and ethnic boundaries is a core competency. The question is how we best educate our students in this area. We are aware of the AACU diversity initiative for higher education. Various models introduce this component in the first year or as a capstone senior experience building on international and other extra-curricular activities. The Committee has not had adequate time to develop guidelines and models for this requirement. We suggest the office of the Vice-Chancellor for Minority Affairs and the University Studies Committee work closely to redefine this component of University Studies so that the concept of culture is expanded to include domestic diversity as a component while ensuring that the focus is on significant dimensions of diversity of human culture. In practical terms, while we support inclusion of study of differences between Native American, Asian-American, Hispanic, African-American, and Euro-American cultural traditions, we are concerned about a dilution of the requirement in ways that subvert the goal of the requirement to challenge students to confront, appreciate, and effectively address significant differences in worldviews of the type they will face in 21st Century society.
Description. The committee has discussed, at length, how to carry the inquiry based approach to learning highlighted in the first year seminars further into the curriculum. One vehicle would be to create inquiry based courses (new or restructured courses) designed to introduce students into the "ways of thinking and doing" that characterize each of four areas: the sciences, fine arts, humanities, and social sciences. One such course in each area would be supplemented by one more course from an appropriate department in each of the four areas if we wanted to maintain the six hour disciplinary requirement. This would simplify USP by eliminating another long and changing list of "approved" courses for these areas.
As an example, such an inquiry block course in the social sciences might be described as follows:
The social/behavioral science inquiry course would be a topical seminar introducing students to a research-based approach to social problems. Some vividly and widely recognized social problem would be used as the motivation for exploration and comparison of research methods and conceptual approaches in anthropology, demography, economics, geography, psychology, political science, communication, and sociology. Alternative schools of thought (e.g., behaviorism, utilitarianism) would be introduced. Each seminar would focus attention on how each discipline investigates a given phenomenon and illuminate the classic/standard works and current research in different fields of study. Topics might include: the causes of war, the stability of the family, the international monetary problem, terrorism and organized crime, global deforestation, aging and medical care.
On the other hand, the difficulty of designing such courses and the belief that they would not be accepted by disciplinary faculty, especially in the sciences led the committee to consider discipline based inquiry courses utilizing current course structures but modifying pedagogy and attending more to goals for the general students (as opposed to the "pre-major"). We offer a new strategy for the disciplinary requirements for USP in Appendix D.
Budget and Time line. Some of the courses currently available in the University Studies Program have large class sizes. The designated inquiry courses by their nature must have enrollments of less than thirty students. With students required to take more classes with smaller enrollments, this transition will no doubt require more faculty in some departments. The development of inquiry-based courses and interdisciplinary courses requires additional planning time. Incentives should be made available to faculty in order to encourage them to develop and initially teach such courses.
Funds should be set aside to assist Departments in development and redesign of current courses for the 1999-2000 year including cost estimates for downsizing of current large lecture classes where required. Implementation could begin in Fall, 2000 with Senate approval on a pilot basis if that has not been accomplished.
Description of proposals. The committee explored several models for infusing inquiry/research based experiences into the upper division. A required research experience for every student in every major is recommended. As noted, senior participation in the First Year Seminar would be one avenue through which seniors could be involved in the design and implementation of an inquiry project. Of course, each program would design the nature of the experience (a course, across multiple courses, in an independent study format, through a community-based service learning project, etc.). We have looked at the "Gemstones" program at Maryland and other universities that require certain types of senior projects. We recommend a requirement for ALL students (most programs we have found are tailored to a select elite).
This requirement would allow the University to design a variety of community building activities tied to the research enterprise. An annual undergraduate symposium, for example, including top-ranked work in each academic program could be created. Undergraduate presentation of results at other meetings would be encouraged. Ties could be made to funding proposals from the National Science Foundation and other agencies now encouraging if now requiring evidence of undergraduate participation in funded research .
We also strongly recommend that each major that requires over 128 hours for graduation be required to assess, consider changes in, and justify the size of the major. Programs must be encouraged to create a learner-centered approach to education that does not rely on faculty driven courses in a three hour format so exclusively.
Budget and Time line. During the 1999-2000 academic year each academic major should be asked to report on its current efforts to provide undergraduate inquiry-based research experience to every undergraduate. Programs would be asked to include budget requests for initiatives to develop or enhance programs that meet this requirement. Programs with over 128 hours in the major would complete their analysis during this period as well, identifying strategies to reduce the size of the major and enhance timely progress to degree. Allocations for undergraduate research initiatives would be made for the 2000-2001 academic year. At this point we have no way to estimate the costs of this initiative. We would recommend a pool of $100,000 initially be set aside as seed money to encourage program development.
The committee is recommending the following reforms tied to curriculum and the way it is offered. Most can be implemented immediately with good effects on retention and graduation rates as well as student satisfaction.
Data provided by the registrar show a 30% increase in the number of "closed" sections of lower division courses over the last six years. Meetings with University professional advisors suggest students are having increasing difficulty gaining access to needed courses at the lower division level. We are soliciting professional advisors' input and further analyzing data to determine the major "bottlenecks" that are hindering progress toward degree. The University must increase support to offer adequate numbers of sections in these areas. (For specific problem areas see Appendix E).
Life is interdisciplinary: It does not reflect the separation among departments, majors and courses that comprise the University's instructional program. We believe that graduates should be prepared to respond seamlessly to the challenges that arise in work and life. This means that they must speak and write with ease and effectiveness, pass effortlessly from matters that involve logical, numerical or technical skills to those that require familiarity with historical, artistic or literary context. They must have intellectual mastery of some parts of thought or experience and know how to approach other less-familiar parts when needed. They must "know" what they know and also know the limits of their knowledge. They must be prepared both for team effort and individual action and have an appreciation for the variety of human endeavor. We call this ideal the "practical scholar," because it represents a full integration of scholarship and practice. We seek to discover the curricular elements that will lead all who participate in the University closer to this ideal. The following goals contribute to this overarching goal.
COORDINATION
We discussed the need to have someone with primary coordinating responsibilities with adequate staffing to handle the process of developing the seminars, preparing faculty and students for teaching the seminars, assigning faculty to sections, scheduling the sections, monitoring progress through student evaluations, and making changes in seminars. The seminars are not attached to a college or department so responsibility and accountability will have to be assigned to someone on campus. This course administrator should have one staff assistant. A Coordinating Board of 12-15 faculty members would be necessary to help the Coordinator with these duties. The Coordinating Board initially would establish a framework or common syllabus to provide guidelines for seminar instructors.
GOALS
We developed the following student goals for the seminars: Students will learn:
In addition, the two semester course will provide an anchor for a variety of programs designed to enhance student retention:
ASSESSMENT
Students will work primarily in groups in the seminars. We discussed ways that grades might be assigned in this environment. Instructors will assess whether groups work productively and meet deadlines. They will assess how well group members contribute to the projects. They will also assess the quality of the projects. Students will be asked to assess their own contributions to the projects as well as the contributions of other group members (peer assessment). Written final examinations (and possibly midterm examinations) can be used to assess what individuals learned from their group projects as well as how their project results might apply to new problems or issues.
Approximately 100 sections of approximately 25 students each, meeting three times per week under the direction of a faculty member and an assistant (Graduate or undergraduate TA). For consistency and community-building, the same cohort would remain together for both Fall and Spring semesters under the direction of the same instructors. In each class of 25 students, the Fall semester would consist of four "units", representing respectively the four primary themes: Natural Science, Social Science, Humanities and Fine Arts. A topic would be raised that has one of these as its primary intellectual theme, but each topic would be examined by teams approaching from all four. Activities would include:
1) a master presentation (perhaps by video or in-person presentation by a faculty specialist),
2) class discussion to formulate questions and decide on approaches and information gathering methods,
3) work sessions and discussion sessions where teams of 5-6 students would meet to discuss progress, method and synthesis among themselves,
4) whole-class discussion led by one team to focus discussion on their aspect of the topic,
5) summary discussion to bring all threads together onto the central topic, and
6) campus-wide conference/bazaar/presentation to showcase the best results, compete among classes, and evaluate the semester's experience.
Classes could visit the four primary themes in any order throughout the semester but would visit each one once. (Detailed schedule and suggested topics below.) In the Spring semester, classes would meet again and select an overarching topic for its semester- long examination, divide into teams suggested by the previous semester's experience with disciplinary approaches (teams might reorganize in mid-semester). Activities again would include master presentations, strategy and method discussions, team-work, class discussions lead by individual teams, team presentations with peer assessment, discussion and feedback, possibly a decision for the final product: A public or presentation, individual paper competitions, initiative for new course or program creation, etc. The semester might end with a Spring campus- wide event with papers, posters, awards, evaluation, etc.
The four themes (Natural Science, Social Science, Humanities and Fine Arts) could be seen as the corners of a tetrahedron (three-sided pyramid). With each unit, the tetrahedron is set with the primary theme at the top and the three supporting themes at the base. The topic for that unit would have its most obvious relevance to the theme on top of the pyramid, but the groups of 5 or 6 students in the class would approach it respectively from each of the four thematic directions. Topics, organized by primary theme and accompanied by sample questions are avenues of investigation would be provided to all instructors, who would be expected to select one topic from each primary theme in collaboration with members of the class.
Example 1
A natural-science/mathematics topic might be "Prime numbers and divisibility." It could be approached thematically as follows:
Natural Science: What are prime numbers? How often do they occur? How many of them are there? Can they be predicted? Do they have any features in common? Are they "better" or "worse" than other numbers? Do they have any occurrence in nature? Is there a largest prime number? What is the largest one known? How are primes related to numbers in general? How many ways can a non-prime number be divided "evenly"? Patterns and symmetry in numbers, geometry and nature.
Humanities: How have computers changed the way truth is sought or confirmed? What are the metrical schemes of poetry? Are they related to prime-ness or divisibility? Where do the numbers 1, 3, 7, 11 or other special numbers appear in literature, and what is the fascination with them?
Social Science: Dynamics of groups, majority, plurality. Family structures. Voting, juries, proportional representation. Who was/were the first person or culture to investigate prime numbers? What is the history in recent times of such numerical investigations?
Fine Arts: Rhythm and arhythm in music. Consonance and dissonance. Pattern and symmetry in art. Order and randomness: pixels and pointillism.
Example 2:
A Humanities/Literature topic might be "The Observer and the Observed". It could be approached thematically as follows:
Natural Science: Perception vs. reality. Learning theory. The quantum measurement problem and the Uncertainty Principle. Relative vs. absolute in numbers and nature.
Humanities: Point of view in literature. Voice and narrative. Use of dialect in literature and journalism. What is knowledge, and how can we confirm it?
Social Science/History: Nationalism and ethnicity. Religion and religious strife and intolerance. Is history what happened or what historians tell us "really" happened? Who were the first to attempt an accurate recording of events? The role of the press in shaping events. Amateur sports, the Olympic Movement and the NBA.
Fine Arts: Abstraction and realism. Is music for musicians or for listeners? Theater performance and performance theater.
Organization of the Fall semester.
There are 44 class days. Divide them as follows:
The organization of the Spring semester would follow in a manner suggested by the above, but since classwork would revolve about a single overarching theme for the semester, the organization of students into groups and the scheduling of presentations and thematic emphasis might be altered or remain flexible.
An example of a Spring-semester topic might be "Water as an Organizing Principle". Ways to approach this might include:
The role of water in settlement patterns in US history.
The role of water resources in the wealth and poverty of nations.
Water resource conservation in central Kentucky: Social, scientific, economic aspects.
Space colonization and technology.
Life on Mars? Europa?
Climate change and the birth and death of coastal cities and cultures.
Oasis culture in arid lands.
Polynesian cultures and migrations.
Marco Polo and Alexander the Great meet the Vikings and Captain Cook
The evolution of land mammals from the oceans
Whales and whaling in natural and cultural history
BUDGET
2700 incoming students per year, 90% enrollment in first year seminar, 10% in current honors program
Class size = 25 students per class = 98 sections.
98 faculty members, each with a six hour (3/Fall, 3/Spring) assignment in the seminar
588 credit hours of faculty effort per year
Assume 1800 full-time faculty on Lexington Campus with an average 12 credit hour/year teaching load
1800 faculty X 12 hour load = 21,600 credit hour instructional effort per year on LC
Proportional increase of faculty effort for First Year Seminar: 588/21,600=2.7 %
Equivalent number of new faculty needed : 1800 X .027 = 49 faculty lines
Some faculty effort saved by substitution of First Year Seminars for Cross Disciplinary Requirement: estimate 9 faculty lines
New faculty necessary = 40 faculty positions@$75,000 (salary+benefits+proportional increase in department operating budgets) = $3 million *1
One new administrative position and one new secretarial position = $110,000
98 senior undergraduate student assistants @$7/hour X 10 hours per week X 15 weeks/semester X 2 semesters = $206,000
Recurring costs for development programs and teaching support for first year seminar faculty/student assistant and oral/written communication teaching assistant adjuncts = $150,000
Incentive dollars for faculty in first year seminar (to support professional travel, research, and development) @ $5,000 per section = $490,000 (minus savings from eliminating current program paying tenured faculty $5,000 to teach a lower division course)
TOTAL COST OF FIRST YEAR SEMINAR = $3,821,000 (minus savings from elimination of current program paying tenure faculty to teach an additional lower division course)
OTHER BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS: For the implementation of this seminar and other smaller inquiry based courses included in various dimensions of this proposal there will need to be a considerable increase in flexible, technology equipped instructional space. We know one indicator in the current University strategic plan calls for renovation/creation of 100,000 square feet of high quality instructional space over the next five years. Most if not all of the space/facility demands created by this proposal will be meet in the course of accomplishing that indicator.
--------
*1 The Committee felt is essential the new staffing needs of this
seminar be met with increased faculty. Not only would many of the benefits of the seminar be lost if this were not the case but the first year seminar would be in direct and counterproductive competition with current desperate need for faculty in upper division and graduate level courses.
Current Resources
English offers 216 sections of ENG 101/102 a year: equivalent of 54 teaching assistants *2
Communication offers 80 sections of oral communication courses a year: equivalent of 20 teaching assistants
Proposal
English/Communication develop a six hour verbal communication requirement (with appropriate bypass procedures maintained/developed)
English/Communication staff serve as adjuncts to first year seminar assisting faculty in development of activities and assessment procedures for verbal communication skill development
Needed Resources
Six hour requirement. 2700 first years students X 2 semesters = 5400/20 students per section = 270 sections.270 sections per year/4 courses per staff per year = 68 teaching assistant equivalents for the six hour requirement
First Year Seminar Adjuncts. 216 sections of First Year Seminar Sections/Year with One Adjunct for each 6 sections per semester (or divided by 12)= 18 teaching assistant equivalents
Total additional cost: 86 teaching assistant equivalents needed - 74 teaching assistant equivalents currently on staff = 12 teaching assistant equivalents
Options: 12 Tas @ $15,000 (stipend/tuition scholarship)= $180,000 6 lecturers @$24,000 (salary/benefits) = $144,000
--------
*2 Calculations based on teaching assistant or "senior teaching fellows" equivalent. Costs may vary depending on used of teaching assistants, full time lecturers, or faculty.
Disciplinary Requirements
The purpose of this requirement is to provide students experiences in inquiry and ways of thinking in a variety of disciplines, particularly those outside their major. To satisfy disciplinary requirements, students must complete at least six hours in each of the four areas below by completing A and B.
Natural Science (BIO, ENT, CHE, GLY, AST, PHY)
Social Science (ANT, ECO, FAM, GEO, PSY, PS, SOC)
Humanities (ENG, HIS, HON, CLA, PHI)
Fine Arts (A-H, MUS, TA)
A. Inquiry course
Students must complete a designated inquiry course in at least three of the four areas listed above. Designated inquiry courses must meet the following criteria:
Students must be engaged in inquiry original to the student in the discipline(s).
Students must learn about contemporary issues within the discipline(s).
Students must learn tools and methods for conducting inquiry in the discipline(s).
Students must complete at least one long-term project involving inquiry in the discipline(s).
Departments within the four areas have the option of developing integrated or non-integrated inquiry courses. For example, departments in the Natural Sciences may develop five inquiry courses in biology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, or geology and offer students the choice of one. Or, Humanities and Social Sciences Departments may develop thematic inquiry courses such as those in Honors, Global Studies, or Modern Studies program to meet the Cross-Cultural/Language requirement. Or, Social Sciences departments may develop both integrated and disciplinary inquiry courses, and students may select one.
Departments have the option of allowing their majors to substitute another disciplinary course for a designated inquiry course in one of the four disciplinary areas. For example, the Department of Physics and Astronomy may allow their majors to substitute a physics or astronomy course for the designated inquiry course in Natural Science. The Department of Chemical Engineering may allow majors to substitute a chemistry course for the designated inquiry course in Natural Science. In both cases, students must complete inquiry courses in the other three disciplinary areas, and they must meet the six-hour minimum requirement in the Natural Sciences.
B. Elective
Students can fulfill the remaining three hours in each disciplinary area by completing an elective in the area. Electives must be chosen from approved courses within the disciplinary area.
Budget and Time line
Some of the courses currently available in the University Studies Program have large class sizes. The designated inquiry courses by their nature must have enrollments of less than thirty students. With students required to take more classes with smaller enrollments, this transition will no doubt require more faculty in some departments.
The development of inquiry-based courses and interdisciplinary courses requires additional planning time. Incentives should be made available to faculty in order to encourage them to develop and initially teach such courses
Funds should be set aside to assist Departments in development and redesign of current courses for the 1999-2000 year including cost estimates for downsizing of current large lecture classes where required. Implementation could begin in Fall, 2000 with Senate approval on a pilot basis if that has not been accomplished.
Based on preliminary analysis of figures provided by the Registrar and input from the professional advising staff (in alphabetical order):
Anthropology 235;255 (USP options)
Art 100 (USP option)
Biology 150/152; 208 and USP relevant or pre-science major courses
Chemistry lab courses (true in other science lab courses as well)
Communication 181/252 (USP oral communication)
Computer Science 101
Music classes generally
Philosophy 100 (USP option)
Psychology (USP relevant courses)
Statistics 200
Courses central to pre-business majors including some above and English 203, Math 123, and premajor courses in the College of Business and Economics
Back to The President's Initiative
Home Page