Transcript Power Point on Curriculum Review (Presented 9/17/2010)

Review Update:
“Making Connections” Curriculum
A. T. Panter
Department of Psychology
Chair, Curriculum Review
Erika Lindemann
Associate Dean for Undergraduate Curricula
Presentation for the Directors of Undergraduate Studies, Toy Lounge, Friday September 17, 2010.
1
“Making Connections” Review
2
the curriculum review team
3
The Curriculum Review Team
Committee
Reviewers
Foundations
Rich McLaughlin (chair), Yaakov Ariel, Glynis
Cowell, Chris Johnston, Leena Patel, Dulcie
Straughan, Dorothy Verkerk, Heather Williams,
Marilyn Wyrick
Liaison: Erika Lindemann
Represented Constituencies = 8: Mathematics,
Religious Studies, Art, History, Journalism and
Mass Communication, Academic Advising,
Undergraduate Curricula, Students
The Curriculum Review Team
Committee
Reviewers
Approaches
Monika Truemper-Ritter (chair), Allen Anderson,
Chris Carter, Aylim Castro, Art Champagne,
Suzanne Havala Hobbs, Michelle Hoyman, Beth
Shuster, Adam Versényi
Liaison: Nick Siedentop
Represented Constituencies = 9: Classics, Music,
Dramatic Art, Political Science, Physics and
Astronomy, Public Health, Academic Advising,
Undergraduate Curricula, Students
The Curriculum Review Team
Committee
Reviewers
Connections
Barbara Wildemuth (chair), Olivia Blanchard,
Drew Coleman, Bruce Fried, Kevin Guskiewicz,
Li-Ling Hsaio, Cheryl Junk, Sally Mauriello, Lily
Roberts, Randall Styers, Christy Walker
Liaison: Nick Siedentop
Represented Constituencies = 10: Information
and Library Science, Asian Studies, Exercise and
Sport Science, Geology, Religious Studies, Public
Health, Dentistry, Academic Advising,
Undergraduate Curricula, Students
The Curriculum Review Team
Committee
Reviewers
Supplemental
General
Education
Kenneth Janken (chair), Conor Farese, Rebecka
Fisher, Jackie Hagan, Ashu Handa, Kevin Jeffay,
Barbara Lucido, Barbara Stenross, Jan Yopp
Liaison: Erika Lindemann
Represented Constituencies = 9: African and
African-American Studies, Sociology, Public
Policy, Computer Science, English & Comparative
Literature, Journalism/Summer School, Academic
Advising, Undergraduate Curricula, Students
The Curriculum Review Team
Committee
Reviewers
Miscellaneous Gary Pielak (chair), Bethany Corbin, Alice
Dawson, Deborah Eaker-Rich, Miles Fletcher,
Dale Hoff, Roger Kaplan, Patricia Parker, Steve
Reznick, Sherry Salyer
Liaison: Bobbi Owen
Represented Constituencies = 8: Chemistry,
Communication Studies, History, Psychology,
Education, Academic Advising, Undergraduate
Curricula, Students
The Curriculum Review Team
Committee
Reviewers
General
Education
Criteria
Document
Update
Erika Lindemann (chair), Dale Hoff, Kenneth
Janken, Kevin Jeffay, Evan Lien, Richard
McLaughlin, Abigail Panter, Steve Reznick, Nick
Siedentop
Represented Constituencies = 6: African Studies
and Afro-American Studies, Computer Science,
Mathematics, Psychology, Undergraduate
Curricula, Students
the review timeline
10
Four Years Later…
2010
March
• Dean Owen
developed
committee charges
• Committees formed
• Steering Committee
meets
April
• Committees charged
• Administrative Boards
considered task
• Comment period
began
• Student/faculty
forums held
• Interviews with key
informants (advisors,
former deans)
• Existing data
assembled
May
• Syllabuses
sampled
• Syllabus rating
rubrics created
• Committees meet
• Focus groups with
students
June,
July,
August
• Syllabus reviews
conducted
• Interviews held
• Draft reports
exchanged
-11
2011
September
• Committee
reports finalized
• Reports due 9.15
• Ad Boards discuss
recommendations:
Approaches,
Miscellaneous,
Supplemental
Education
• Review updates
provided
October
• Ad Boards discuss
recommendations:
Foundations,
Connections,
Criteria Document
• Ad Boards vote
• Final report
submitted
• Report presented
to Educational
Policy Committee
November
• Educational Policy
Committee considers
recommendations
from the Ad Boards
December
• Review findings
presented to Faculty
Council for
discussion and vote
-12
2011
January and Forward
• Implementation of
approved
recommendations
begins
• Task forces formed if
needed to address
topics for further study
• Next review?
13
some themes covered in
the review
14
“Making Connections” Review
15
1. Number of Requirements
16
2. Intent of Requirements
17
3. Syllabus Review
18
4. Specific Inquiry Areas
Foundations
• Mandatory writing course, no matter what? If
so, how many credits should it be?
• Should students who place into Level 4 foreign
language be required to take the course?
• How many LFIT courses are appropriate?
19
4. Specific Inquiry Areas
Approaches
• Analysis
– Does Historical = Change over time, or is another history
requirement needed?
– Does Philosophical = Content in ethics or moral reasoning?
– Can Literary vs. Visual & Performing Arts be differentiated?
20
4. Specific Inquiry Areas
Connections
• What is the ideal timing of Connection courses?
• Different requirements for Arts and Sciences vs. Professional
Schools?
– 5 out of 8 courses
• Is the overlap of “Connections” designations and overlap with
Approaches courses appropriate?
21
4. Specific Inquiry Areas
Connections
• What should be done with the Foreign Language Intensive
requirement?
• Should Communication Intensive requirement reside in the
major (or minor)?
• How should Experiential Education be handled given diversity of
course styles and capacity to offer these courses?
22
4. Specific Inquiry Areas
Supplemental
General
Education
• Should B. A. majors have extra courses?
• Different requirements for Arts and Sciences vs. Professional
Schools?
• Is the Distributive option too restrictive?
• Is the Integrative option too restrictive and difficult to fulfill
(cluster availability)?
23
4. Specific Inquiry Areas
Meta-Curriculum
Issues
• Is the Connections Curriculum too complex and overlapping?
• Is the writing requirement appropriate?
• Should there be an upper bound on:
– by exam (BE) credits?
– number of general education designations per course?
– the number of majors and minors?
24
4. Specific Inquiry Areas
Meta-Curriculum
Issues
• What is an appropriate level of overlap for double majors or
majors with minors?
• Should these situations be permitted?
– two majors and a minor
– one major and two minors
25
where we are headed
26
Next Steps
• The Administrative Boards will vote on specific
•
•
recommendations in October.
Approved recommendations  Educational Policy
Committee for vote  Faculty Council for vote. Some
recommendations, if approved:
• Could be implemented today.
• Are complex and will need months to implement.
• Need an ad hoc committee for further study.
In six months and one year from now we will look back
to assess how recommendations from the current
review have been implemented.
27
questions, comments?
[email protected]
[email protected]
28