|
|
(Attending: Stewart, Olson, Bennett, Beckingham, Gibson, Rudolph, Lee, Isle, Matthews) The meeting started with a discussion of the driving forces for this change. Comments were made that the science majors with which this group is familiar generally seem to be enjoying HUMA (even if they don't do all the reading!). The question was raised whether Huma/SS majors who take NSCI courses are going to be reluctant and will not like these courses no matter what. Others felt that how material was presented made a big difference. Considerable discussion centered around the need to teach our students to write, present, construct an argument well, and think clearly and critically. The only way to do these things is to practice (A LOT!). There was disagreement over whether a rhetoric course should be required (writing only), but congruence around the idea that writing should be encouraged in the major courses as well as in other courses that students take (writing across the curriculum). Upper level courses should be structured to investigate a topic and write about it. The problem is where the grammar, design of argument, etc. get taught, when these courses are designed to teach about concepts in the discipline. Nonetheless, the perception that students learn by writing and getting feedback, reinforcement over and over was shared. One possibility is to make a writing course a requirement and allow exemptions. It was suggested we look at the writing requirement at Trinity University (San Antonio). The tension between "general education" defined as specific courses/exposure to ideas versus skills that our students should have was discussed. Most felt that we needed to focus on skill problems. In particular, we need to be sure that our students leave here knowing how to continually educate themselves on whatever topics or areas interest them. The emphasis should be on learning how to learn/explore/teach themselves, how to get, digest, and interpret information. We must convey how to discern quality and have perspective. We discussed how and whether we should we make science palatable to humanities/social sciences majors. Concern was expressed about a distribution system in which students go for the "rolls"; we must insist that students learn some science to be informed consumers/voters and to know how sciences works, what important scientific principles are, and how hypotheses are tested, etc. Limited distribution was cited as one mechanism to ensure the quality of the courses. (Better to have unlimited distribution than NSCI 101/102-type experience). Any courses must meet a similar level of scientific understanding. Freshman seminars were discussed as one mechanism for this type of activity. A variety of scenarios were presented. It was felt that we need more interdisciplinary courses and small courses that allow discussion as well as feedback to the students. A large lecture course will work if there are also smaller discussion sections for assignments, writing, discussion, etc. Students can help each other (read one another's essays and critique, etc.). We must be clever about the time required for these efforts and use students (both graduate and undergraduate) with appropriate supervision. These "general education" courses should NOT be pass/fail. Students don't put in the requisite work. With regard to "technology", our students are perceived as being pretty much literate about computers already. Examples of innovation/models: Bios 122, Chem. 101 Strong interest was expressed in general education, but NOT on top of current faculty commitments. Resources for this effort must be made available across the university. |