|
Concerns were expressed about the level of competence of current undergraduates, both in terms of their breadth of knowledge (e.g., history), perspective and their ability to write, reason and make presentations. There was a divergence of opinion regarding the role of general education: the first set of opinions suggests that our concern should be skills (being literate, numerate, able to think critically), while the other set suggests the students should have breadth, range and distribution of exposure to ideas (multiple disciplines, cultures, languages). Some felt that an absolute requirement was a writing course; we must make it imperative that they write effectively. Some felt that this course must be taught by the English Department and expressed the view that writing across the curriculum does not/will not succeed. Others felt that writing throughout the curriculum was important, particularly within the discipline. Some questioned whether we should impose a requirement for skills that some students already have. Others asked how we empirically assess writing. The view was expressed that we need a greater participation by the faculty in basic education, that we need to ensure small class experiences taught by faculty that include writing and discussion (encouraging the ability to think critically and to express ideas effectively, to formulate a logical and compelling argument). The University needs to stand for literacy and breadth of exposure as values. We need to free students to take things outside their major area of study. A question was raised regarding the HPER requirement. We discussed whether students could select existing courses or whether new courses should be designed. There was mixed opinion, but many felt that certain courses should be designated, but not designed. Sentiment in favor of keeping the current HUMA courses was expressed. In this regard, the importance of small sections was emphasized. Students learn in such settings how to defend their ideas, to think and present clearly and critically, to learn how critical thinking produces knowledge (irrespective of discipline). The issue of how we introduce students to assimilate computer-generated materials (downloading from the Web) was raised, how we convey sensitivity to diversity, ethical decision making, etc. For such efforts, it may be necessary to design specific courses. A different view was that indeed we wish our students to learn about ethics, to be able to write, able to think, but there are lots of ways to reach these goals, and we can't create courses for each one. (NOTE DIVERGENCE ON THIS ISSUE!) Concerns were expressed about the freedom of students to choose. This issue often surfaces around the HUMA course. We must maintain choice, selection, and freedom for the students. Generally there was sentiment for a distribution-type system with existing courses, although Science and Engineering were encouraged to create additional courses that address the needs more effectively than in the past. The potential was raised for having a multi-layered structure with some required courses and some distribution courses, perhaps Freshman seminars. A question about whether the same total hour requirements should apply to all majors was also put forth and led to a brief discussion of BA/BS issues. The issue of sequencing of courses and how we get students with proper prerequisites for course material at the right time. Additional need for interdisciplinary courses was indicated. We need to disrupt conventional modes of thinking and get skills conveyed in an imaginative way. There can be different tracks within these areas. There was disagreement about whether general education should be subject-related (i.e., a specific selection of books, historical coverage, etc.) or skills-related. Generally, agreement exists about skills, but not subject. There is perceived to be a failure of will in making the appropriate curricular changes. A strong perception was voiced that the Humanities should not bear the burden of the failure of science/engineering in our current system. There must be a decision on the part of the administration to back the courses, support the curriculum, and stand up for what must happen. We need a benevolent despot or strong collective will, which seems unlikely. Resources were perceived to be a key issue. Significant demoralization of people has been observed in the core HUMA course. Whatever is constructed, the resources must be available, and there must be built-in mechanisms for evaluation and implementation. Continuous commitment from the faculty and the University are essential. |