THE AD HOC CURRICULUM REVIEW COMMITTEE:

A PRELIMINARY REPORT

Executive Summary

Abstract The Ad Hoc Curriculum Review Committee was formed at the request of the President Malcolm Gillis, Provost David Auston, and the Faculty Council and was charged with developing recommendations for improving the undergraduate curriculum, particularly those aspects of the curriculum that do not ordinarily fall under the purview of the various majors. Though we are not yet ready to present a set of final recommendations, we ask you to consider what we regard as the major options available to us at Rice, given our size, our resources, the nature of our several constituencies, and our potential.

We hope you will use this summary to begin your preparation for being an active participant in upcoming curriculum discussions. This printed version has been produced with extra-wide margins for easy annotation. For a fuller version of our work to this point as well as descriptions of other programs and suggestions we have been considering, please check the electronic version and the many other documents we have gathered and placed on our web site. Reports of our meetings with the various university departments are also available. The URL is: http://ruf.rice.edu/~currrev.

Report of the Ad Hoc Curriculum Review Committee
Rice University
December 4, 1997

TABLE OF CONTENTS

The Rationale for Review: An enormous opportunity

Major Dimensions of a Plausible General Curriculum: Basic Skills

Major Dimensions of a Plausible General Curriculum: Substantive Areas of Study

Major Means of Accomplishing the Aims of General Education

Notable Issues and Problems Pertaining to Changes in the Curriculum

Some Further Thoughts to Ponder

A Hopeful Note

Committee Roster

The Rationale for Review: An enormous opportunity

MOUNTING CRITICISM OF HIGHER EDUCATION

In recent years, higher education has been the target of mounting criticism and discontent. Though Rice is not among the most heavily criticized institutions, such complaints raise issues that deserve our careful attention and thoughtful response.

  • Increased specialization and proliferation of programs and courses has led to fragmentation of the learning experience.
  • Students are neglected in favor of faculty research.
  • Curricula fail to stimulate intellectual development.
  • Students are unprepared for lifelong learning and participation in a globalized community
  • Teachers rely on outmoded methods.
  • Too many students do not possess the marks of a generally educated person.

RESPONSES: LOOKING AT UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION

A high number of colleges and universities have taken a serious, critical look at their curricula and have undertaken significant change. Though some disagree, it appears that a majority of the Rice community believes that faculty can and should take a significant role in shaping the intellectual, personal, and social development of students, and that our curriculum can be substantially improved.

At most universities, including Rice, degree requirements fall into three broad categories:

  • Major requirements
  • University-requirements outside the major
  • Free electives

Our charge is to focus primarily on that second set of requirements: information, skills, values, approaches, or experiences we want all our students to have when they graduate, whatever their field of concentration. Our goal is to work with the faculty, with appropriate input from students and other constituencies, to produce a curriculum that will not only add substantial value to the development of our students, but will be of such an appealing nature that students will want to come to Rice because of it.

TASKS FOR UNIVERSITY-WIDE EDUCATION

In examining numerous studies of curricula and general education programs and in talking with faculty and students, we have found substantial agreement on a number of goals thought to be appropriate for undergraduate education. Among these are the following:

  • Competence in critical and creative thinking, written and oral communication, quantitative reasoning, and problem-solving.
  • Interdisciplinary work.
  • An understanding of cultural diversity within America and throughout the contemporary world.
  • Development of a coherent framework for ongoing intellectual, ethical, and aesthetic growth.
  • An ability to work collaboratively.
  • Familiarity with a range of new technologies related to learning.

RESISTANCE TO CHANGE IN THE RICE CURRICULUM

Significant curricular change can be especially difficult to accomplish in a first-rate research university. Good students can scratch out a passable education without much help, which makes it possible to overlook the fact that their undergraduate experience might be markedly improved with careful attention. In addition, professors in such universities have been winners under the existing system, in which we have not had to be overly concerned with how well we are serving our students. Several recent surveys, however, make it clear that Rice students feel their education, good it as it is, could be significantly better. Many faculty members agree.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CURRICULUM AND RICE'S MISSION

Rice's mission, as set forth in the recent report of the Strategic Planning Committee, includes

  • Preparing students for positions of leadership,
  • Contributing to the advancement of knowledge through research, and
  • Cooperating with other institutions in the use of new discoveries and knowledge for the benefit as society.

While a program of general education fits most appropriately under the first of these missions, it should also prepare students to participate in achieving the other two goals.

Major Dimensions of a Plausible General Curriculum: Basic Skills

WRITING

The need for improvement in the ability to write effectively was easily the most frequently mentioned item in our discussions. Both faculty and students are concerned with the level of writing and writing instruction at Rice. Moreover, virtually every program or report we looked at put writing at the top of the list of needed improvements in contemporary higher education. Suggestions we have considered include the following:

Intensive writing during the freshman year

This might be accomplished through courses such as HUMA 101, "trailer" courses accompanying other introductory level courses, or freshman seminars.

Writing across the curriculum

Because different fields require different kinds of writing, many colleges and universities attempt to integrate writing into all disciplines, often with the aid of writing instructors specially trained to teach the kind of writing required by different fields. Both alumni and current students appear to favor this approach. One possibility would be to designate certain courses as "intensive writing" courses and to require students to take a specific minimum number of such courses during their undergraduate careerfor example, at least one each year.

A writing center

In an expanded writing center, instructors would help students identify the sort of prose needed for particular tasks and help them learn to write in that style. Several professors indicated they would be willing to assign more papers if there were more assistance in teaching writing.

Additional suggestions included assessing a portfolio of written work rather than asking students to take a single exam; more emphasis on revision, with greater feedback from professors; and a substantial writing component in each major.

ORAL COMMUNICATION

Faculty, students, and alumni regarded the need for greater skill in oral communication as second only to effective writing. Given the fact that Rice has no speech department and that only a handful of students can take the speech courses that are currently offered, the most feasible means of meeting this goal appears to be greater attention to active oral participation in class. This might involve student presentations, more (or more effective) discussion sections, and freshman seminars.

FAMILIARITY WITH LEARNING RESOURCES

We believe that an effective program of general education should include, during the freshman year, thorough instruction in the use of library resources, the Internet, and other forms of information technology.

QUANTITATIVE REASONING

We believe college graduates should possess considerable competence in quantitative reasoning, which would include familiarity with probability and statistics, the ability to use mathematics with confidence, and competence to analyze practical and scientific problems. Well-educated people should be able to understand the mathematical reasoning involved in matters of public policy and to detect faulty quantitative reasoning in newspapers and other accounts of public issues. They should know how to read tables and other visual presentations of numerical data intelligently and critically.

No single method seems appropriate for meeting this goal. The best-supported suggestions included the following:

  • A quantitative reasoning test, similar to the English composition test.
  • Quantitative reasoning as a distribution category.
  • Identification of a set of courses that require quantitative reasoning, across a variety of departments. Taking two or three such courses, within or outside the major, could meet the quantitative reasoning requirement.
  • Wider application of quantitative reasoning in many Rice courses, across numerous departments.

CRITICAL THINKING

Students should be able to interpret texts, make good arguments, and understand key concepts in a variety of fields. Often mentioned in this connection is the ability to understand the basic operations of science and the ability to apply concepts to real-world situations. The most fruitful way of inculcating habits of critical thinking may be to give greater attention to these matters in individual courses. Freshman seminars might help get students off to a good start in developing habits of critical thinking.

ETHICAL AND MORAL REASONING

Many faculty are concerned to ensure that students get considerable exposure to moral and ethical reasoningto the processes involved in making value judgments, in taking ethical considerations into account in the making of decisions, in resolving ethical dilemmas, and in the construction of and adherence to professional ethics. Most felt that, instead of requiring all students to take a particular course or sequence of courses to satisfy such a requirement, it would be preferable to consciously incorporate an ethical dimension into all majors.

RESEARCH

Most faculty believe students should get at least a taste of original research during their undergraduate years. Since most research efforts will occur within major fields, this is not really part of our committee's charge, but we believe it ought to receive careful consideration in any reworking of the curriculum. Several promising possibilities for encouraging research by students exist.

TEAMWORK AND COLLABORATION

We foundespecially among alumni who responded to a surveya strong sense

of a need to foster the ability of students to work in teams and to learn collaborative skills, since these are skills that prove to be extremely valuable in most careers. We welcome suggestions as to how this important aspect of education can be accomplished.

Major Dimensions of a Plausible General Curriculum: Substantive Areas of Study

HUMANITIES

Given the relative success of the humanities foundation courses, it comes as no surprise that the School of Humanities favors a program of general education and feels, in large measure, that courses such as HUMA 101 and 102 should play a prominent role in such a program. A recent Humanities Foundations Committee Report recommends that all entering freshmen be required to take a general education course in the Humanities. Such courses, the report notes, nurture critical and creative thinking, are characterized by interdisciplinarity, emphasize writing and speaking effectively, and involve common materials that should help create a sense of intellectual community among students and help facilitate serious discussion outside of class.

Some educational psychologists and admissions officers assert that the verbal SAT score predicts college performance better in all fields than the SAT in other fields, including math. If this holds true at Rice, requiring a higher verbal SAT cutoff for science and engineering students might result in better performance and might cut down on the number of students who abandon those majors. Other evidence from aptitude testing indicates that verbal proficiency is a key ingredient to success in almost any realm, including science, engineering, and mathematics. Thus, one could argue that particular attention should be devoted to developing and enhancing the verbal proficiency of S/E students, and that the humanities courses are particularly well suited for this task. In addition, it would follow that S/E courses would need to give increased attention to this dimension.

THE SOCIAL SCIENCES

The basic goals of social science overlap strongly with the goals of general education. These include knowledge of one's own and other cultures; the gathering, evaluation, and analysis of empirical data; an historical perspective and cosmopolitan outlook; openness to new ideas and methods; awareness of the influence of social structures and social forces on individual freedom and action; appreciation for the complex nature of human existence and interaction; and humility with respect to the limits of human understanding. The social science faculty manifests quite limited support for a broad-gauged foundations course, preferring instead that students satisfy any proposed social science requirement by taking designated courses, or perhaps a sequence of courses offered by individual departments or by interdisciplinary teams from two or more departments.

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Virtually all members of the faculty believe that any meaningful program of general education must include substantial instruction in science and technology, despite the difficulties involved in providing such instruction. A 1996 NSF report estimates that 95 percent of Americans are scientifically illiterate. If secondary schools, colleges, and universities fail to offer adequate science instruction to all students, we risk producing a society with little scientific literacy at a time when it is needed more than ever.

The situation at Rice is not as good as it could be. Of 100 entering students declaring engineering as a desired major, approximately 35 change majors or leave Rice. On the other hand, approximately 20 transfer into engineering, primarily from science but from humanities and social science as well. The resulting 85 graduating with 100 entering is near the university average. While the ability to decide on one's interests and abilities and to change majors is a strength of Rice, it may be the quality of the curriculum and instruction is part of reason that 35% leave engineering as major rather than a change of interests. This would be consistent with a complaint echoed throughout American academia. The NSF report called Science / Math / Engineering / Technology (SMET) instruction "perhaps the weakest part of American higher education - the Achillesí heel."

The large number of semester-hours required for the major makes it difficult to have enough time in the studentís program for both the desired amount of university required general education courses and enough free electives for the students to craft a personal educational program. This large number of courses in the major discourages the faculty from developing courses for non-engineering majors. This is a dilemma across the country but one with which Rice should be better able to deal.

Oft-repeated complaints include the following:

  • Teachers don't like to teach.
  • Sarcasm, degradation, ridicule, and sexism are fairly common in S/E courses.
  • Instructors are poorly prepared and present material ineffectively.
  • Memorization is over-emphasized, at the expense of adequate explanation of concepts.
  • There is a weak relationship between classes and labs and ineffective use of instructional technology

Some studies assert that curricula for majors may be in greater need of reform than that for non-majors, and that special attention must be given to the scientific education of women and minorities.

Most faculty clearly feel that Rice has a responsibility to ensure that all students achieve a certain level of scientific and technological literacy. At a minimum, students should be able to understand the basic operations of science and to acquire the ability to understand new and exciting aspects of science at the lay-critical level. They should also be conversant with technology and its implications, at least at the level discussed in Science and Scientific American.

Possible solutions

The NSF report offered numerous suggestions for improving SMET instruction. These include:

  • Accepting responsibility for undergraduate learning
  • Developing curricula that engage a broad a spectrum of students and are more connected with their experiences, across knowledge boundaries
  • Becoming more familiar with research about how learning is best facilitated
  • Using instructional technology effectively to enhance learning
  • Giving greater attention to communication and teamwork, critical thinking, and life-long learning skills.

Recent studies of curricular reform have asserted that it is important to have more courses that do not require the full-bore quantitative skills required by S/E majors. They have also found that integrative and interdisciplinary courses have been shown to result in substantial increases in learning.

Members of the faculty noted several concepts that might form common threads for a variety of interdisciplinary courses. Our research has led to an encouraging number of apparently successful efforts to provide more effective SMET instruction to non-S/E undergraduates.

Examples of these may be found in the full document.

ENGINEERING

Engineering presents a special challenge to a program of general education. The requirements for an engineering degree are typically so extensive as to leave limited room for general education courses and electives. In addition, even fewer existing engineering courses are appropriate for non-S/E majors than is the case for science courses. It was repeatedly noted that it would be extremely desirable to have additional courses similar to John Bennett's robotics course, in which students learn about technology by building robots.

Worth noting is that several engineering professors asserted with considerable assurance that some engineering majors could be streamlined, with the same material taught in fewer courses, thereby relieving some of the pressure on students and perhaps making possible a reduction in overall course requirements. In their view, majors need to be looked at carefully and perhaps seriously reworked. ABET (the accrediting board for engineering) is shifting its focus from numbers of courses to outcome-based criteria. If Rice were to adopt this approach, some of the tension between requirements and electives could be eased.

LANGUAGE

Virtually all our discussions acknowledged the advantages of knowing more than one language in an increasingly transcultural world, even though representatives of various disciplines tended to differ in the importance they placed on languages, particularly when compared to other learning opportunities.

An early proposal

The most thorough proposal regarding languages at Rice is that prepared by Professors Bernard Aresu, Deborah Nelson, and Harvey Yunis in 1987 and still felt by most members of the language departments to be worthy of serious consideration. Highlights of this report follow.

Justification for a language requirement

High school language instruction no longer provides the level of competence the Rice entrance requirement (two college-preparatory classes in a foreign language) is intended to secure. Perhaps the most important way to understand another culture is through learning a foreign language. Ignorance of a foreign language is a weakness in the modern world.

A strengthened requirement will better prepare students in all disciplines to meet demands they will encounter in graduate schools and careers and will help Rice produce its share of leaders in science, technology, culture, business, and politics.

A Proposed Requirement

Adequate competence in a foreign language could be satisfied in one of two ways:

A score of 560 or above on the National ETS College Entrance Level Placement Exam, 4 or 5 on the AP exam, or 62 or above on the CEEB achievement Test

A passing grade (C or above) in the 202 (second-year) level of any foreign language taught at Rice.

Students who do not meet the requirement will, in consultation with an appropriate member of the faculty, enroll in a language course proper to his or her level, and proceed with the sequence until the 202 level is completed.

Students may retake the exam, so long as it is passed before graduation. They could acquire the necessary competence through the language center, professional language schools, study abroad, summer travel, or private study.

The level of competence sought would be the ability to converse with a native speaker on everyday topics, read newspapers and basic texts of average difficultynot mastery, but a foundation, the ability to tell if one is being mistranslated, to get the drift of off-the-record talk at conferences, to exchange E-mail with foreign colleagues. There would be no requirement for conversation in Latin or Greek.

Requirements at a sample of leading institutions are provided in the electronic version of this document, together with opinions from various members of the faculty.

Plan 2000

In April 1996, the Committee on Languages, convened by Dean of Humanities Judith Brown, issued a report titled "Plan 2000," a proposal for overhauling and improving instruction in languages and enhancing the internationalization of the curriculum. One of its key recommendations was the institution of a Center for the Study of Languages. That center has now been instituted and Professor Maria-Regina Kecht has been appointed to direct it. In consequence, some of the recommendations of Plan 2000 are subject to alteration, but it seems worthwhile to summarize here those portions of the plan that are most pertinent to general education, particularly to consideration of a language requirement. For a somewhat fuller summary, please consult the electronic version of this summary.

The key recommendation: the creation of a Center for the Study of Languages, now accomplished

To enhance introductory language instruction, The Center, which falls administratively under the Dean of Humanities, will do the following:

  • Create appropriate committees and coordinators
  • Offer new and improved training for language instructors, including graduate students
  • Introduce proficiency testing, to facilitate accurate placement of studends and to reduce the problems caused by "false beginners," students already proficient in a language but who take introductory courses to get a good grade, thereby intimidating less proficient students.
  • Organize a "Foreign Languages across the Curriculum" program, perhaps by means of one-hour reading and discussion sections in the target language as an add-on to already existing courses.
  • Institute an electronic Language Technology Laboratory
  • Present colloquia, workshops, and seminars
  • Conduct research in second-language learning and teaching
  • Raise funds

Other major recommendations include the following:

  • Implement five-day-a-week introductory language courses, the standard at most universities.
  • Create a professional lecturer track, to make the instructional program more stable.
  • Regularize Less Commonly Taught Languages, primarily through the use of technology-based instruction (tapes, videos, computer programs, etc.)
  • Reorganize Classical and Asian studies
  • Establish a Foreign Language Reading Room
  • Include Language Instruction Classrooms in new construction or reconstruction
  • Integrate foreign television programs into existing courses. (This is now being done in Spanish 101.)
  • Relate the Center to Study Abroad programs, one of the most effective means of improving language facility.

The committee believed that implementing these proposals, as well as others included in the complete report, will not only significantly enhance foreign language instruction at Rice, but will also contribute to a greater student awareness of the diversity, richness, and relevance of other cultures.

CROSS-CULTURAL/INTERCULTURAL/TRANSCULTURAL EXPOSURE

Most faculty agreed that Rice students need greater exposure to other cultures. This is in line with a widespread trend in American colleges and universities toward "Internationalizing the Curriculum." The following points are often cited in presenting the rationale for this development:

  • America's continued economic success demands an international perspective. International trade generates a third of all corporate profits and four of every five new jobs.
  • There is increased need for cooperation in solving common problems that affect many nations.
  • A liberal education involves overcoming parochialism, developing deeper knowledge of other cultures and languages and the ability not only to value them for their distinctiveness, but also to be able to criticize them knowledgeably when appropriate.
  • Virtually all fields afford international dimensions. Universities need to identify and encourage their development. "What we don't know can hurt us."

A report prepared by Professor Benjamin Lee (Anthropology), Professor Richard Smith (History), and Dean Robert Stein (Social Sciences) offered additional observations:

  • Students need to learn how to think critically about contemporary issues and place contemporary debates into broader historical and comparative contexts.
  • Courses to facilitate this goal could easily be interdisciplinary in nature, standing at the intersection of international, ethnic, cultural, and area studies.
  • Such courses could also use global telecommunications and mass media to further understanding of global processes affecting both international and domestic events.
  • Existing and new forms of technology can also foster increased collaboration with domestic and overseas colleagues.

A more extensive document, prepared by Anthropology professor Ben Lee, offers helpful elaboration of the rationale for increased attention to what he and others prefer to call "transcultural studies." A summary of these points is available on line. Professor Lee notes that Rice could become the focal point for a network of institutions, both here and abroad, that could share resources and work together to develop innovative forms of teaching and research.

According to the 1996 Consortium On Financing Higher Education report, over 40 percent of Rice students who were surveyed expressed a desire for courses in international or intercultural communication, to enable them to communicate effectively with audiences in other cultures and countries. This was most often noted by students in the social sciences and humanities, but over a third of engineering majors expressed a desire for such courses, and no division had less than a third of its students responding positively.

Key elements of international education

In addition to substantive courses expressly dealing with, for example, historical, economic, sociological, literary, or aesthetic dimensions of the other cultures, other factors also contribute importantly to international education on the campus, such as

  • Language study
  • Study abroad
  • International students
  • Internationally minded faculty

Other possibilities for internationalizing the curriculum

  • Greater use of global telecommunications, especially the Internet and teleconferencing.
  • Greater incorporation into the undergraduate curriculum of the resources and programs of the Baker Institute.
  • Suggestions from Rice faculty and examples of international programs at other universities are included in the full document.

INTERDISCIPLINARY COURSES

Despite the difficulties incurred with some of the foundation courses, numerous faculty members expressed the conviction that we need more interdisciplinary courses, which have the potential to disrupt conventional modes of thinking and to encourage students to use their skills in imaginative ways.

Predictably, enthusiasm for interdisciplinary courses was not uniform. While many felt that interdisciplinary and interdivisional experiences can be quite important in expanding students' horizons and aiding their development as educated persons, some expressed concern about teaching in disciplines outside their area of expertise, as might be called for in interdisciplinary courses. Others feared that instructors from different divisions would simply talk past each other, with insufficient effort to cross disciplinary boundaries and integrate materials.

Overall, there appears to be support for the notion that interdisciplinary work might help offset the intellectual balkanization so common among Rice students. Virtually all agreed that interdisciplinary courses must have a strong intellectual (not procedural) justification.

THE ARTS

Most faculty members appear to believe that the inclusion of formal consideration of and exposure to the fine arts is a desirable component of a well-rounded education. A key problem at Rice is the lack of adequate staffing for such courses. While we believe that existing and new courses in music, visual arts, and theater, and perhaps in dance, could significantly enhance the educational experience of most Rice undergraduates, we suspect that any general requirement would be difficult to implement without significant increases in teaching personnel. Still, we think it important that faculty and students alike consider this matter seriously while contemplating revisions of the curriculum. We invite you to note examples of such requirements at other universities, a brief discussion of the current possibilities at Rice, and a letter from Professor Honey Meconi of the Shepherd School.

Major Means of Accomplishing the Aims of General Education

DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS

We found considerable support for some kind of distribution system. Some felt the present system is adequate, particularly if minor changes were made. Others expressed a preference for an earlier system that required a certain number of courses from each of three groups, with virtually free choice among courses in these groups. For an overview of the current Rice distribution system and examples of alternate systems from Duke, Trinity, Stanford, Harvard, and Brown, see the electronic version of the summary.

Flexibility is generally seen as vital. Opposition to specific, mandatory courses was reiterated. Current groupings of courses are perceived to be rigid and not always sensible. We should be careful about accepting divisional boundaries as accurate indications of content.

One major problem with the distribution system currently in place at Rice is that a number of courses seen as appropriate for distribution (e.g., HUMA 101 and 102 and various "restricted distribution" courses) are seriously overbalanced with students not majoring in those areas, depriving all students of the opportunity to interact with students from other divisions. Without having worked out the detailsthis may well be the hardest part of our taskwe are leaning toward a system of university-wide requirements (with considerable flexibility) that must be met by all students, but some of which could be met within the normal course of most, perhaps all, majors.

FRESHMAN SEMINARS

We have found consistent enthusiasm for freshman seminars in which students could have regular, sustained contact with faculty in a small-group setting and the opportunity to develop their reading, writing, oral communication, critical thinking, and research skills under close supervision. Dozens of excellent universities and colleges have instituted extensive programs of freshman seminars in recent years. They appear to be popular with both students and faculty and seem to foster higher achievement, greater satisfaction, and better retention rates. Several types of freshman seminars have been suggested:

Seminars with a common reading list, or at least enough commonality to facilitate effective training of the instructors and to foster the development of an intellectual community as students discuss the reading materials.

Seminars in which each instructor would choose the topic he or she wished to concentrate on, giving students and faculty wide choice. All courses, however, would emphasize a common set of skills, such as writing, speaking, library research, and effective use of the Internet and other information technologies. The experience of other universities indicates that professors would need to scale back the amount of material they could expect to cover in such a course, since part of the seminar's aim would be to foster the development of specific skills as well as to study a particular topic.

Seminars in which contemporary subjects, as examined in such major general publications as The Atlantic, The Economist, The New Yorker, or The New York Times might serve as stimuli for discussion. This should make it possible for professors to lead discussions on topics outside their fields but generally within their range of competence. It could also provide a common set of reading materials and help instill in students the habit of reading a major newspaper and other contemporary publications regularly.

If the faculty approves of freshman seminars, it should be possible to experiment with several types of seminars simultaneously, perhaps using the residential colleges as a way of funneling students into the various approaches.

Seminar Staffing

Although one major aim of freshman seminars would be to give all students the experience of working closely with a faculty member early in their careers, it would not be a simple matter to staff the fifty or sixty seminars that would be required each year. We estimate that it would be possible to recruit faculty to teach such seminars if they were expected to do so only one of every three or four academic years, and that such a plan would not seriously detract from regular departmental offerings. Some emeritus faculty might enjoy the opportunity to teach in such a program. Post-docs could be recruited to lead or take significant responsibility for seminars. Also, of course, the seminars could serve as a means of giving graduate students some teaching experience, either on their own or as assistants to regular faculty. At the least, graduate students could assist faculty who might not feel comfortable teaching writing. View a variety of options in the electronic version.

GREATER USE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

Given Rice's strengths and resources as well as the capabilities of our students, the faculty seem united in the belief that we must be certain that our students develop mastery of or at least significant familiarity with various forms of technology that have special pertinence for research and education. Since a high proportion of Rice students are already familiar with basic computing operations, much of any increased use of innovative information technology in the curriculum will require increased effort and creativity on the part of faculty.

The National Science Foundation has observed that learning from print and passive listening is increasingly foreign to students. Other organizations are offering sophisticated and effective multimedia instructional packages. The "virtual university" is becoming a much more likely possibilityat lower cost. Traditional universities ignore these developments at their peril. Radical transformation of the information industry is much closer than most people realize. Faculty in other institutions have noted that, if universities want their faculty to use these technologies and to develop curricular materials that make effective use of them, they must be willing to reward instructors for taking the time required to become proficient with them and to use them regularly.

Observations from Tony Gorry, Vice President for Information Technology

In a recent (October 13, 1997) paper, "Rice University in the Information Age," Tony Gorry made a number of salient observations about the potential role of information technology in the University. The following are but a few of these.

After noting that Rice's stance has been to take "a cautious, evolutionary integration of information technology into our academic endeavors." Dr. Gorry sees this approach as short-sighted, contending that "information technology should play a fundamental, not a peripheral role in the future of the University, and an excess of caution will stifle our development. Instead of hesitating, we should move aggressively to integrate new technology into the singular style of learning and investigation we value so highly. This integration will enrich the education of our students, enhance the scholarship of our faculty, and bring renown to the University in the Information Age."

Among his several recommendations for the use of advanced technology, he asserts that we can

  • prepare our students for life in the Information Age by facilitating a shift from teaching to learning throughout our academic programs,
  • create an electronic Rice community that becomes the primary environment for life-long learning among all our graduates,
  • extend the Rice community through electronic linkages to other organizations and institutions, and
  • develop new ways of using technology to help members of the expanded Rice community acquire, share, and manage knowledge.

To develop an appropriate technology infrastructure to accomplish these goals, he suggests that Rice should:

  • give every member of the University community appropriate access to up-to-date computing facilities (currently electronic mail, the World Wide Web, and soon tools for conferencing and sharing multimedia documents). In the very near future, we should enable the distribution of video to personal workstations.
  • equip our classrooms with a range of multimedia technology. All classrooms should have basic audiovisual capabilities. In selected classrooms, we should develop advanced facilities for visualization, simulation, collaboration and human-computer interaction.
  • aggressively develop digital technologies and information resources for the Library to strengthen its traditional support for the community of learners as we enter the Information Age.

Learning Technologies Center

Leslie Miller, Director of the Learning Technologies Center and Senior Research Scholar in the office of the Vice President for Information Technology, has expressed an eagerness to work with faculty who wish to incorporate various learning technologies into their courses and research programs. Our committee feels that the Learning Technologies Center can be of enormous assistance in the development of interdisciplinary courses that can be particularly effective in a program of General Education.

IMPROVED TEACHING

Obviously, no curriculum plan, however imaginative, can be effective in the absence of high-quality instruction. Much of the teaching Rice students encounter is excellent. Some, unfortunately, is apparently dreadful. The university rewards good teachers with several cash prizes and offers a brief orientation for new teachers at the beginning of each academic year. Encouraging and helpful as these may be, we found even more notable encouragement for good teaching at some other universities. Of 53 institutions participating in a study by the American Association of Universities, more than half claimed they were making more rigorous evaluation of teaching performance and were giving greater weight to teaching in hiring, tenure, promotion, and salary decisions. Nearly two-thirds have established teaching centers or special programs that concentrate on upgrading teaching efforts of regular faculty and teaching assistants. We do not doubt that any program of general education will be enhanced by administrative, divisional, departmental, and collegial support of good teaching.

Notable Issues and Problems

 

It should come as no surprise that a number of proposals made during our meetings were met with opposition, criticism, or questions about feasibility. We think it quite unlikely that any plan we recommend will be free of opposition or flaws. We hope that opportunity for feedback will help us identify less-than-obvious problems and, perhaps, point the way toward creative solutions. The following items were typically mentioned by several people, but might also represent the views of a small minority. Unless specifically noted, they may or may not to reflect the views of the committee. For a fuller account, see the electronic version.

Guidance vs. flexibility

Virtually every program we have examined acknowledges the inevitable tension between independence and guidance, between encouraging students to play an active role in shaping a course of study best suited to their abilities and aspirations and, at the same time, drawing on the experience and presumed expertise of faculty formalize guidance. The majority opinion at Rice appears to be that we must allow some freedom of choice, but that it is quite reasonable, perhaps even required of us as responsible educators, to lay down guidelines for a Rice undergraduate education. This is not an easy one, but we are optimistic that a satisfactory resolution?or a bearable level of tensioncan be achieved

Resources

A generally strong favorable interest in general education was tempered by the feeling that it should not detract or interfere with current faculty commitments and that we must keep in mind the cost of any changes. We assure our colleagues that we are acutely aware of this dimension of our task, but are pleased to report that President Gillis has made it explicitly clear that substantial new resources will be made available to support a responsible general education program. These resources might be used to hire new faculty, to pay for part-time faculty, to compensate departments for courses not taught, to pay for the start-up costs of new courses, to pay for the costs of continuing oversight of courses, as well as other costs of sustaining such a program.

Double and triple majors

We found little support for the common practice among Rice students of meeting the requirements for two, or even three, majors. Many felt that advisers should do more to discourage students from this practice and encourage them instead to avail themselves of a wider range of intellectual experiences.

Complaints regarding the humanities foundation courses

Although HUMA 101 and 102 are seen as successful, some are concerned that these courses take up too high a proportion of required courses in the humanities area and hope for greater flexibility. Others, however, feel that all students, regardless of major, should be required to take these courses. Humanities professors note that the costs of HUMA courses to the departments involved are significant, particularly in terms of other courses that do not get taught.

Problems for music students

Music students have no free electives and little flexibility within the distribution requirements. Some have expressed concern about any additional requirements that a revision of the curriculum might entail.

Course loads and schedule revisions

The committee found considerable support for a normal load of four courses per semester. Those holding these views felt that students need more time to absorb and reflect on what they are learning, as well as more time to take advantage of other opportunities available to them at the university and in the city.

Must all divisions meet the same general requirements?

Some noted that we do not have the same requirements for all degrees and asked how much uniformity is truly required. Perhaps different divisions could have different general education requirements.

Advising

Good advising is especially important in an open system with numerous choices. If we develop a system that depends heavily upon advising, we might face a serious problem, unless the advising system is also improved.

The physical education requirement

The university presently requires all students to take two physical education courses, for which they receive no credit. Many students, some faculty, and a few deans think the requirement is out of date. Others, however, feel that students need to participate in some form of physical education but that, lacking a specific requirement, many would not. The administration has suggested that a recommendation regarding the physical education requirement would be appropriate to our committee's task. Several noted the incongruity of requiring varsity athletes to meet such a requirement. Others feel that athletes need instruction in sports they can pursue after graduation, and that exempting athletes would further isolate them from other students.

Pass/Fail

We found general agreement with regard to undesirable effects of the pass/fail option. The 1995 Science Curriculum Committee strongly recommended that the pass/fail option not apply to any distribution course, suggesting that the option was a factor in the downfall of the foundation course system and has had bad effects in other courses. Participants in other divisional foundation courses agreed. The pass/fail option, we were told repeatedly, can ruin a small course. In general, sentiment strongly favored eliminating the pass/fail option completely. Another option might be to raise the threshold, so that a "C" would be the floor for a passing grade, or to restrict pass/fail to electives (courses that would not satisfy general education requirements).

Advanced Placement (AP) credit

Students should not be able to use AP credits to avoid taking general education courses. This opinion was expressed on several occasions. The committee agrees.

Some Further Thoughts to Ponder

One reason we have been a bit slow in coming to you with a report on our activities is that curriculum reform is such a multifaceted enterprise that we keep being reminded of additional dimensions we need to consider. Given our experience, we would not pretend to have thought of everything even now. So, we ask you to respond to anything you find here and to share with us and each other any thoughts you may have about matters we have failed to mention. We would especially appreciate your response to the following questions.

What difficulties do you see in implementing a program of university-wide requirements?

Immediately obvious possibilities include resistance from students or faculty, insufficient personnel, inadequate facilities, lack of room within course-heavy majors, and lack of sufficient commitment (from both faculty and administration) to ensure that even the best programs would last beyond a short period. You may readily think of others. What do you regard as the greatest problems that would have to be overcome, to make a program of general requirements a success?

What might you and your department contribute to a program of general education?

What changes, if any, might reasonably be needed in the programs offered by your own department or division that could enhance a program of general requirements? At this point, assume that logistics can be worked out and that reasonable resources will become available.

What will it take to get you involved in general education (or other efforts to improve the curriculum)?

Think about what your own participation might involve and tell us what might help encourage you to contribute to a program of general education or, for that matter, to other notable changes in the curriculum. For most of us, it would be easier simply to keep on doing whatever it is we have been doing. We have been impressed, however, by the fact that professors who have participated in curriculum changes and innovations in other universities frequently speak of the satisfaction and rejuvenation they feel as a result of this experience. Some changes might be relatively simple for you to make. Others might require significant time, effort, and money.

What kind of resources would be needed to sustain a top-notch program of general education?

What steps will Rice need to take to enlist the participation of considerable numbers of faculty and staff in a program of general education and, ultimately even more important, keep such a program going over a span of years? Faculty and administrative positions dedicated exclusively to the program? A special endowment? Regular orientation of new students, faculty, staff, emphasizing the rationale for the program and its relation to Rice's central mission? Again, we will value your best thoughts on this.

A HOPEFUL NOTE

A 1994 report of the American Association of colleges offered an encouraging word to universities considering curricular reform, particularly in the area of general education. Improving general education appears to have a positive impact on the university as a whole. Of institutions studied, 80 percent of those that reported making large changes in their curricula claimed a positive impact on the sense of community, the renewal of faculty, and the identity of the institution.

Committee Roster

William Martin, CHAIR

wcm@rice.edu x3481

Sociology MS-28

Brandon Bidlack

bidlack@rice.edu 527-4969

Senior, Lovett College

Sidney Burrus

csb@ece.rice.edu x5484 or 4020

Electrical and Computer Engineering MS-366

Priscilla Jane Huston

Special Assistant to the Provost

pjh@rice.edu x4007 MS-119

John Hutchinson jshutch@rice.edu

x5366 or 527-6025

Chemistry MS-60

Walter Isle

wwisle@rice.edu, x5606

English MS-30

Benjamin Lee

transcult@aol.com x2584

Anthropology MS-20

Kathleen Matthews

ksm@bioc.rice.edu x4871

Biochemistry and Cell Biology

MS-140

Carol Quillen

quillen@ruf.rice.edu x2269

History MS-42