Sign in or 
Share this
Dec 6 2007
Notes from 12/6
L4L Forum: Six Options for Restructuring the Core (22 colleagues in attendance at 3:00)
3:05 Formed small groups (2-4 members each) to discuss the merits of the proposals on the two handouts.
3:20 Reconvene as a group; Scott outlines the merits of the Core Emphasis Option
(Mike Samball): Who is this aimed at? Who are these students? Is there a need?
(Scott): The student who’s interested in the liberal arts.
Q (Craig Hemmens): What are liberal arts courses? Can they be found in all three areas of the Core?
A (Lisa Brady): It’s more the way the course is taught than the discipline in which the course is offered. Interdisciplinarity is an important element.
David Saunders: A result of our previous meetings is that there’s too much separation between the disciplines and that we need to do something to make the Core work better as a general education tool. So I don’t think there’s a particular demographic that we need to have in mind. The Bachelor of General Studies has certain features of the changes we’d like to see implemented at the lower-level general requirements.
Susan Shadle: Students can (and do) simply discharge the general education requirements by checking off boxes. They have a lot of choices but very little perspective; and advising is to haphazard that we don’t know what they’re taking. We need to impose more structure on the general requirements so that
Scott Yenor: I’d add that how the courses get taught is also an important component: source texts, not textbooks; composition skills, not multiple-choice;
Tara Penry: I like the idea of adding some intentionality to the Core, and it seems like there are a number of structures that might serve the purpose. But I also think that we need to add intentionality to other aspects of the student experience. For example, we might link advising to the general education requirements; linking advising to the major is a missed opportunity. I agree with Scott that we need more consistent pedagogy across disciplines within the general education courses. Curriculum is important in core reform, but other items are also relevant.
Gail Schuck: I agree. I’d like to see more interdisciplinarity. If we faculty can’t connect ideas across our different disciplines, how can students do it? The Environmental Studies program is a good model: everyone looks at common issues through the lenses of different disciplines..
Mike Samball: The Core has looked pretty much the same since 1984, and its stated goals are admirable and resemble the goals in this proposal in certain ways. Scott’s proposal assumes that all courses are taught as an initiation into the discipline. But I don’t teach my courses that way. The core revision committee put together a nice package in 1993, but it died in upper administration on account of two insurmountable problems: who’s going to pay for it, and who’s going to administer it?
Lisa Brady: We’ve got President Kustra’s support, so this initiative isn’t doomed to fail. It sounds to me that you’re ahead of the curve in terms of teaching core courses in a broad and liberal way, but I live with students and hear them ask all the time, “Why am I taking this course?” The purpose of this initiative is to address the questions students ask. How can we better serve our students?
Scott Yenor: I wrote this proposal with this decision rule in mind: Don’t touch the Core. Too much has been invested in it. This proposal prescribes a way of getting through the Core.
David Saunders: Lisa’s right: Pres. Kustra is behind this initiative. And maybe it is time to mess with the core. We need to do what we can to make sure that students who graduate from this institution go away with a good exposure to the liberal arts.
Mark Buchanen: What is the definition of the problem? Pres. Kustra’s understanding might be very different from what we come up with. We might be thinking of citizenship, whereas he might be thinking of public relations. We might want to know up front what Pres. Kustra thinks the problem is.
David Saunders: My impression is that he wants us to define the problem and make the proposals.
Tara Penry: We have two bits of relevant evidence about Pres. Kustra’s state of mind: the strongly-worded rejection letter from Phi Beta Kappa irritated him, and he’s recommended Bok’s book to the steering committee. Emma Easteppe: I like a lot of what’s been proposed, but I’m surprised at how much it looks like what the Honors College is supposed to be doing. I thought that the point was to spark our interest in reconceiving what counts as a liberally-educated person. Pres. Kustra directed us to the Harvard task force report on their own general education
Charlie Gains: In 1979 we started the Construction Management program, the oldest interdisciplinary program, and it’s been tremendously successful. I am a “Core frustrated” person. I think we need to anticipate where this university and the general education requirements need to be not in 2008, but 2018. China is putting a thousand universities online in the next ten years. I think it’s absolutely essential that any proposal we make has some kind of global or international aspect to it. We should support international studies and travel abroad.
Susan Shadle: We should think big; we shouldn’t pre-censor ourselves. There are points along the way where might ask Pres. Kustra, “Is this what you’re thinking?” Tara is right that several models might work, but we send messages to our students by the structure that we employ. The areas of the Core are really still discipline-specific, and that inhibits students and faculty. I also agree with Charlie in looking forward. If we could determine how to complete the following open sentence, we’d be able to think about our task more clearly: “In order to be a liberally educated person, one has to have studied __________.”
Tara Penry: Let’s take a poll about the proposal. How many want to mess with the core doing something bigger and deeper? [Unanimity, or nearly so.]
(Unknown): The Core assessment process might reveal some specific problems and give us something to work with.
Susan Shadle: It might, but a lot of what we want isn’t in the stated goals of the Core, and that’s what’s being assessed. We won’t get any assessment of interdisciplinary work, lifelong learning.
Mike Samball: Wouldn’t it be nice if a revision of the Core could provide for all students the benefits that are being offered to just some students in this proposal?
Scott Yenor: Anything we do needs structure, and it also needs flexibility. The only way to tie those together, I think, is to offer choice.
L4L Forum: Six Options for Restructuring the Core (22 colleagues in attendance at 3:00)
3:05 Formed small groups (2-4 members each) to discuss the merits of the proposals on the two handouts.
3:20 Reconvene as a group; Scott outlines the merits of the Core Emphasis Option
(Mike Samball): Who is this aimed at? Who are these students? Is there a need?
(Scott): The student who’s interested in the liberal arts.
Q (Craig Hemmens): What are liberal arts courses? Can they be found in all three areas of the Core?
A (Lisa Brady): It’s more the way the course is taught than the discipline in which the course is offered. Interdisciplinarity is an important element.
David Saunders: A result of our previous meetings is that there’s too much separation between the disciplines and that we need to do something to make the Core work better as a general education tool. So I don’t think there’s a particular demographic that we need to have in mind. The Bachelor of General Studies has certain features of the changes we’d like to see implemented at the lower-level general requirements.
Susan Shadle: Students can (and do) simply discharge the general education requirements by checking off boxes. They have a lot of choices but very little perspective; and advising is to haphazard that we don’t know what they’re taking. We need to impose more structure on the general requirements so that
Scott Yenor: I’d add that how the courses get taught is also an important component: source texts, not textbooks; composition skills, not multiple-choice;
Tara Penry: I like the idea of adding some intentionality to the Core, and it seems like there are a number of structures that might serve the purpose. But I also think that we need to add intentionality to other aspects of the student experience. For example, we might link advising to the general education requirements; linking advising to the major is a missed opportunity. I agree with Scott that we need more consistent pedagogy across disciplines within the general education courses. Curriculum is important in core reform, but other items are also relevant.
Gail Schuck: I agree. I’d like to see more interdisciplinarity. If we faculty can’t connect ideas across our different disciplines, how can students do it? The Environmental Studies program is a good model: everyone looks at common issues through the lenses of different disciplines..
Mike Samball: The Core has looked pretty much the same since 1984, and its stated goals are admirable and resemble the goals in this proposal in certain ways. Scott’s proposal assumes that all courses are taught as an initiation into the discipline. But I don’t teach my courses that way. The core revision committee put together a nice package in 1993, but it died in upper administration on account of two insurmountable problems: who’s going to pay for it, and who’s going to administer it?
Lisa Brady: We’ve got President Kustra’s support, so this initiative isn’t doomed to fail. It sounds to me that you’re ahead of the curve in terms of teaching core courses in a broad and liberal way, but I live with students and hear them ask all the time, “Why am I taking this course?” The purpose of this initiative is to address the questions students ask. How can we better serve our students?
Scott Yenor: I wrote this proposal with this decision rule in mind: Don’t touch the Core. Too much has been invested in it. This proposal prescribes a way of getting through the Core.
David Saunders: Lisa’s right: Pres. Kustra is behind this initiative. And maybe it is time to mess with the core. We need to do what we can to make sure that students who graduate from this institution go away with a good exposure to the liberal arts.
Mark Buchanen: What is the definition of the problem? Pres. Kustra’s understanding might be very different from what we come up with. We might be thinking of citizenship, whereas he might be thinking of public relations. We might want to know up front what Pres. Kustra thinks the problem is.
David Saunders: My impression is that he wants us to define the problem and make the proposals.
Tara Penry: We have two bits of relevant evidence about Pres. Kustra’s state of mind: the strongly-worded rejection letter from Phi Beta Kappa irritated him, and he’s recommended Bok’s book to the steering committee. Emma Easteppe: I like a lot of what’s been proposed, but I’m surprised at how much it looks like what the Honors College is supposed to be doing. I thought that the point was to spark our interest in reconceiving what counts as a liberally-educated person. Pres. Kustra directed us to the Harvard task force report on their own general education
Charlie Gains: In 1979 we started the Construction Management program, the oldest interdisciplinary program, and it’s been tremendously successful. I am a “Core frustrated” person. I think we need to anticipate where this university and the general education requirements need to be not in 2008, but 2018. China is putting a thousand universities online in the next ten years. I think it’s absolutely essential that any proposal we make has some kind of global or international aspect to it. We should support international studies and travel abroad.
Susan Shadle: We should think big; we shouldn’t pre-censor ourselves. There are points along the way where might ask Pres. Kustra, “Is this what you’re thinking?” Tara is right that several models might work, but we send messages to our students by the structure that we employ. The areas of the Core are really still discipline-specific, and that inhibits students and faculty. I also agree with Charlie in looking forward. If we could determine how to complete the following open sentence, we’d be able to think about our task more clearly: “In order to be a liberally educated person, one has to have studied __________.”
Tara Penry: Let’s take a poll about the proposal. How many want to mess with the core doing something bigger and deeper? [Unanimity, or nearly so.]
(Unknown): The Core assessment process might reveal some specific problems and give us something to work with.
Susan Shadle: It might, but a lot of what we want isn’t in the stated goals of the Core, and that’s what’s being assessed. We won’t get any assessment of interdisciplinary work, lifelong learning.
Mike Samball: Wouldn’t it be nice if a revision of the Core could provide for all students the benefits that are being offered to just some students in this proposal?
Scott Yenor: Anything we do needs structure, and it also needs flexibility. The only way to tie those together, I think, is to offer choice.
nmiller |
Latest page update: made by nmiller
, Jan 27 2008, 2:24 PM EST
(about this update
About This Update
Edited by nmiller
2 words deleted view changes - complete history) |
|
Keyword tags:
None
More Info: links to this page
|
There are no threads for this page.
Be the first to start a new thread.
|
L4L Dec 6 07.doc (Word Document - 36k)
posted by nmiller Jan 28 2008, 11:08 AM EST
December 6 Forum Notes
|
