Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Review Update: “Making Connections” Curriculum 1 A. T. Panter Department of Psychology Chair, Curriculum Review Erika Lindemann Associate Dean for Undergraduate.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Review Update: “Making Connections” Curriculum 1 A. T. Panter Department of Psychology Chair, Curriculum Review Erika Lindemann Associate Dean for Undergraduate."— Presentation transcript:

1 Review Update: “Making Connections” Curriculum 1 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.

2 2 “Making Connections” Review

3 the curriculum review team 3

4 The Curriculum Review Team CommitteeReviewers FoundationsRich 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

5 The Curriculum Review Team CommitteeReviewers ApproachesMonika 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

6 The Curriculum Review Team CommitteeReviewers ConnectionsBarbara 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

7 The Curriculum Review Team CommitteeReviewers 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

8 The Curriculum Review Team CommitteeReviewers MiscellaneousGary 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

9 The Curriculum Review Team CommitteeReviewers 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

10 the review timeline 10

11 - 11 March Four Years Later… 2010 MayApril June, July, August Dean Owen developed committee charges Committees formed Steering Committee meets Committees charged Administrative Boards considered task Comment period began Student/faculty forums held Interviews with key informants (advisors, former deans) Existing data assembled Syllabuses sampled Syllabus rating rubrics created Committees meet Focus groups with students Syllabus reviews conducted Interviews held Draft reports exchanged

12 - 12 SeptemberNovemberOctoberDecember 2011 Committee reports finalized Reports due 9.15 Ad Boards discuss recommendations: Approaches, Miscellaneous, Supplemental Education Review updates provided Ad Boards discuss recommendations: Foundations, Connections, Criteria Document Ad Boards vote Final report submitted Report presented to Educational Policy Committee Educational Policy Committee considers recommendations from the Ad Boards Review findings presented to Faculty Council for discussion and vote

13 13 January and Forward 2011 Implementation of approved recommendations begins Task forces formed if needed to address topics for further study Next review?

14 some themes covered in the review 14

15 15 “Making Connections” Review

16 16 1. Number of Requirements

17 17 2. Intent of Requirements

18 18 3. Syllabus Review

19 4. Specific Inquiry Areas 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

20 4. Specific Inquiry Areas 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

21 4. Specific Inquiry Areas 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

22 4. Specific Inquiry Areas 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

23 4. Specific Inquiry Areas 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

24 4. Specific Inquiry Areas 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

25 4. Specific Inquiry Areas 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

26 where we are headed 26

27 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

28 q uestions, comments? 28


Download ppt "Review Update: “Making Connections” Curriculum 1 A. T. Panter Department of Psychology Chair, Curriculum Review Erika Lindemann Associate Dean for Undergraduate."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google