MINUTES
of the Faculty Forum
February 29, 2008
1005 Constant Hall
The forum was convened by Senator Drewry, Chair of the Faculty Senate, at 3:03 PM.
In Attendance: over 85 faculty; Provost Carol Simpson; Professor William Drewry, Chair of the Faculty Senate; Professor Charles Wilson, Chair of the General Education Revision Committee (GERC); Chandra de Silva,
Dean of the College of Arts & Letters and member of GERC; Janet Katz, Associate Dean of Arts & Letters and a member of GERC, Terri Mathews, Assistant Dean of the College of Sciences and a member of GERC, Martha Sharpe, Assistant Vice President for Institutional Research, and Worth Pickering, Director of University Assessment.
Senator Drewry introduced Professor Charles Wilson who gave a brief overview of the proposed general education program revisions. He said that GERC was recommending a revised program based on four primary objectives: (1) to satisfy SCHEV and SACS requirements for competencies; (2) accommodate the needs of the professional programs and their accrediting agencies; (3) reduce the number of general education requirements, but make them more efficient; and (4) allow more flexibility for the student to explore different areas of study without being penalized by burdensome credit requirements if the student decides to change majors.
Professor Wilson said that the Revision Committee worked collegially with the best interest of the student their foremost concern. He remarked that the Revision Committee operated off one basic question: "What do students need to know at the beginning of this, the 21st century"? If the new curriculum is to be implemented by 2010, it will 2014 before the first students graduate under it. What kind of world will these students live in; what kinds of studies will help them cope? He said there were no turf battles, adding jokingly that "this would undoubtedly come later."
Professor Wilson went on to say that the committee foresaw a leaner, but more qualitative program that would hopefully get students past the idea that they were just "jumping through hoops" to get finished with it. He said the proposed program would provide ongoing value-added assessment, as mandated by SCHEV. It would provide a schematic for encouraging all colleges to participate (currently the Colleges of Arts & Letters and of Sciences are the two most involved with general education). He said that skills are still identified as such, but the term perspective has been supplanted with ways of knowing. He explained that the term perspective suggested discipline-based course structures, but that the new term, ways of meaning, would focus on the acquisition of knowledge as being "student-centered."
Using a visually screened chart, Professor Wilson reminded the forum of the SCHEV competency requirements:
(1) written communication, (2) technology/information literacy, (3) quantitative reasoning, (4) scientific reasoning,
(5) critical reasoning, and (6) oral communication. The SACS requirements included: (1) a minimum of 30 hours in general education, (2) at least one course in the humanities/fine arts, (3) at least one course in the behavioral/social sciences, and (4) at least one course in the natural sciences/mathematics.
Professor Wilson then opened the forum up to questions, and comments.
Secretary's note: The question or comment by each participant is listed as "Q" and answers to specific questions are listed as "A." Most speakers are identified, although some names were not heard by the secretary.
Q. 1. N. Hutchinson (Mathematics) asked if the minutes of the forum would be published.
A. Both Wilson and Drewry assured the Forum that the minutes would be published; they would
appear on the Faculty Senate webpage. They indicated that both the Secretary of the Senate and the chair
of Faculty Senate Committee A (also a member of GERC) would be taking minutes.
Q. 2. F. Lubich (Chair of Foreign Languages) objected to the optional requirement for foreign languages among the colleges. He expressed several points stressing the importance of foreign language study in addition to its cultural significance. He said that as the economy has become more global it is increasingly important for students entering the professional world to know languages other than English. It is also an important component of study abroad. Demand for language knowledge is increasing, especially for Chinese and Arabic. The department will be initiating a course in Farsi due to such demand. Approximately 79% of the U.S. population supports study abroad. Lubitsch closed his remarks by saying that if ODU wants to be among the top 100 public research institutions of higher learning, it must include a foreign language requirement for everyone. He suggested a minimum 6 hour requirement for all programs.
Q. 3. A faculty member from the History Department objected to only a 3 hour requirement in history. He said that students should have both American and European history, the latter being the background, the basis for understanding the American Revolution and subsequent rise of the U.S. to a global power. He felt such grounding in history was essential to providing students with a sense of citizenship.
Q. 4. K. Kilburn (OEAS), a member of GERC, spoke to the issue of two courses in a discipline. She asked if two courses in a subject, such as a foreign language, could really provide either adequate content knowledge or adequate general skills/perspective knowledge. In terms of content, she said that there is way more there than can be taught in either one or two courses. She asked if we should be emphasizing content in general education courses, or "better preparing our students to ask the right questions."
Q. 5. C. Drake (Geography) stated that we now live in a shrinking world; that globalization affects all aspects of our lives. She said students need an awareness of different cultures and should learn other languages. She said she does not see enough content addressing global issues in the revised curriculum.
Q. 6. R. Zimmerman (OEAS) stressed that in order to teach students how to think critically and analytically, they must first know basic information, fundamental processes, and necessary facts. This concrete information, taught as content, must come first, otherwise what does the student have to critically compare and evaluate?
Q. 7. S. Davis (Mathematics) expressed the importance of mathematics as the language by which we understand the world. She said that we do not need "math appreciation" and that she was worried that this was what the quantitative skills competency would be reduced to.
Q. 8. Another faculty member from the Mathematics Department stressed the need for graduates to leave college with analytical skills, something that a course such as MATH 102M provides. He too wondered if the new proposal for quantitative skills would actually include the studying of fundamental mathematics.
Q. 9. L. McGreevy (Art), a member of GERC, said that the committee had carefully considered the issues being expressed, such as in mathematics, and had attempted to address the difficulties and conflicts in proposing new course designs for some of the skills and "ways of knowing" categories.
Q. 10. K. Kilburn (OEAS), a member of GERC, claimed that the committee could not and did not want to avoid content in general education courses; all courses are meant to have content embedded. In the case of the mathematics requirement, it does not apply to specific programs. GERC recognizes that each program has its own needs. But basic general education courses should address basic student needs. What are the useable skills that students should be able to take with them from college regardless of program or profession?
Q. 11. L. Lombardo (Sociology) stated that Senior Assessments over the past few years from the Colleges of Engineering, Sciences, and Health Sciences, have shown significant improvement in satisfaction for general education courses. He wondered if the recommendations for new courses, such as in mathematics, was basically a way to address declining retention rates. He asked if GERC had considered how much time and resources would be necessary to develop new courses for mathematics, technology, and information competencies. He said that experience has shown that we must have resources equal to our commitments or the noblest goals fail to be reached. He said that more important than curricular shange may be the question of how we teach. How qualified are our faculty?
Q. 12. D. Burdige (OEAS) asked, "What's broken?" He said he has not yet had a satisfactory answer to this question; that a response from the President indicated that the problems were "mechanical." Burdige asked again if there are fundamental problems with the current program; do we have to invent most all of it again from scratch?
Q. 13. T. Mathews (OEAS), a member of GERC, pointed out that some programs require as many as 60 hours of general education, yet some professional programs "get a pass" and require a minimum number of hours. In many cases if a student changes a major he/she often has to take extra general education courses required in different colleges and programs. She explained that the new courses and a reduction of hours were suggested so that there could be a common general education program for all college programs.
Q. 14. D. Burdige (OEAS) responded that ODU is not Toys 'R' Us where the objective is to give the customer what he/she wants and get them out the door. He said that changing a major at any institution usually requires extra courses and extra semesters.
Q. 15. C. de Silva (Dean, College of A&L), a member of GERC, reminded the forum that what they have before them is a draft to be examined, and it can be changed. With the forum meeting we have begun the examination. The Revision Committee will profit from what is aid at the forum. He said the faculty will make the final decision, through its representatives, when the proposed document (with any future changes by GERC) is sent to the Faculty Senate for approval. De Silva proceeded to address the question of what is wrong with the current program. He said that the literature on general education systems in the last thirty years indicate that you could build general education systems either on a foundational model, where the system is seen only as a foundation to the major; or on an integrational model, where general education is seen as a system that provides a breadth to a student's education throughout
university education. DeSilva claimed that our system is currently inclined towards the former although that was not how it was originally designed in 1986. Rather than further revise that model, he said the Revision Committee chose convert to an integrated model based on the required competencies. The current system is built on several foundational courses that were part of disciplinary majors. Because these courses fulfill both functions, the original general education objectives of the courses are often forgotten. De Silva asked, "Who remembers the original goals and objectives of the 1986 model, especially among many new faculty hires and adjuncts who teach the lower level courses?" He said much general education course work remains only a foundation for the major, and this is a fundamental problem with the current system. We are not doing justice to the students. We now have a proposed structure with a set of objectives, and we can go to the departments and ask them to design courses to fit the proposal.
De Silva said he had no problem with the substance of the 1986 program, but it needs a new delivery system. This new scheme would teach skills, and it would ensure that those skills would be used and reinforced at the upper level.
The current scheme suggests that there should be an element of upper level general education in the minors. Minors, as they have evolved since 1986, have been pale reflections of the majors and do not address the objectives of general education at the upper level.
Q. 16. J. Dorrepaal (Chair, Mathematics Department) expressed his concern that no one from his department was appointed to GERC. He questioned how the objectives for quantitative reasoning were arrived at, noting that SCHEV lists basic skills and elective skills. Basic skills include arithmetic, algebra, geometry, set theory, pre-calculus-in general symbol manipulation. He said he thought the course proposed by GERC was more statistically oriented, and that he would have a counter-proposal to send to the committee. He acknowledged that the Mathematics Department is largely service oriented; it teaches all majors. He wondered why GERC thought the recently designed course for the broad base of majors, MATH 101M, would not suffice for the quantitative reasoning competency. Dorrepaal noted that MATH 101M now has 8 sections a semester filled. It is a wide-ranging course in that it incorporates critical thinking to several quantitative applications such as consumer economics, financial management, probability and statistics; it incorporates logical reasoning and quantitative modeling. He added that a check of grades from last semester showed that it was not a particularly "strenuous" course in that 75% of the grades were A or B.
Q. 17. L. Hatab (Philosophy) reiterated the question about what is wrong with the current program. He said he thought revision was being driven by the wrong reasons, and that one of these was to more easily accommodate the professional college programs. He said that he was one of the faculty who worked on the 1986 revisions, and that lower level general education was not meant to be foundational-the intent was for it to be global. He added with levity that SCHEV's valued-added assessment mandate may as well be called "No Undergraduate Left Behind." He said it's not called that yet, but he's waiting for it. Hatab observed that all general education for the past decades has been driven by the so-called professional requirements, as he suspects the current changes are, and that what we call general education used to be an entire liberal arts college education.
Hatab brought up the Ethics and Values category of the Ways of Knowing. He said it would seem natural that this would be a course centered in the Philosophy Department. However, with the new program any college department can design a course for this requirement, and the Philosophy Department could, de facto, be denied a key role in the global program. Hatab added that ODU would be the only institution he knows that would that would not have at least an option for a genuine philosophy courses. He said that for 2500 years, since Plato, philosophers have been dedicated to critical thinking. He closed his remarks by asking, "Where are we?"
Q. 18. T. Matthews (Assoc. Dean of Sciences), a member of GERC, reminded the faculty that the reduction of credit hours in the general education program meant that some courses had to be restructured. She said that as it stands, a student who decides to change a major from science to non-science will take an extra year to graduate. She said we cannot ignore the state mandated 120 hour degree limit, or the fact that SCHEV is requiring a value-added assessment of all competency metrics. She said that by simplifying the program we can assure students will be able to change majors and still graduate in four years. But we cannot do this if some programs require 60 hours of general education.
Q. 19. J. Katz (Assoc. Dean of A&L), a member of GERC, added that college programs that choose to opt out of one year of a foreign language will pose a problem for major switching. She said that while one year of a foreign language will not make a fluent speaker, it will at least give a student a basic knowledge of the culture.
Q. 20. D. Metzger (Chair, English Department) said he saw some positive potential for the program's revised writing structure. He said no one can learn to write with just two freshman composition courses; it is not a "lather, rinse, and repeat" process. Students must not only learn to write, but they must also write to learn. Therefore writing must be emphasized across disciplines and the revised program recognizes this. However, Metzger was skeptical that we have an infrastructure in the university that will support the GERC goals. For instance, who will teach writing in Physics? Would that person have the training, the interest, and a sound methodology for teaching writing? Would a common response from faculty in various departments be, "On top of everything else, I need to teach writing?" Metzger also wondered if the university has the infrastructure and resources to implement the proposed program.
Q. 21. A faculty member asked why a general education course cannot serve as a real foundation courses. Why cannot a general education course both serve as a foundation course for majors and as an introductory course that fulfills general education requirements for non-majors?
A. Dean de Silva replied that most current courses are taught within a context. For example, a student learns about chemistry in CHEM 107N, but what about the broader principles of scientific inquiry? He wondered if we were addressing the broader issues in those courses that are foundations for majors. Even though that might have been the objective in 1986, are we actually doing that now? He added that, in light of the conversation about the mathematics requirement, perhaps GERC should take another look at it, and certainly consider the proposal from the Mathematics Department.
Q. 22. C. Markowski (MIS/Decision Sciences) pointed out that most courses offered in the College of Business are at the upper level (junior and senior). Except for writing intensive courses, students are expected to come into the college with skills already in place. And while the revised general education requirements may affect our future incoming freshmen, the problems of the Business College are still unaffected since more than half of its majors are transfer students. She cautioned that an addition of more upper level requirements would be in competition with upper level major requirements.
Q. 23. Z. Razzaq (Civil & Environmental Engineering) observed that only one 2 hour technology course is proposed. He suggested that students intending to major in the humanities should take more technology courses, and that basically the course of modern education has been to "humanize" the technologists and engineers because there is a perception that they are "robotic," that they know little else besides their discipline.
Razzaq went on to suggest that a general education course in the social and behavior sciences should address the larger issues that affect our cultural, things like the 50% divorce rate. He said in a modern era we need to give our students more practical general education; teach them such things as marketing and geography. He questioned the emphasis on the word "global." He said he did a survey of one of his classes and asked the students what is the diameter of the earth. None knew, with estimates ranging from a thousand miles to a million miles. He said "students do not know what they are sitting on."
Q. 24. N. Minguez (Spanish) said we cannot do what we would ideally like to do in 120 hours. She asked, "why not adopt a revolutionary idea and expand beyond the 120 hour limit? She said there is so much more to know now, more disciplines, and more pressure for students to know it.
Q. 25 S. Kuhn (Physics) opined that the proposal was rough and nebulous, and that it still needed a lot of work. He was particularly concerned that the proposal indicated a reduction in the natural sciences requirement. He said he thought some of the expected outcomes should have already been fulfilled in a middle school curriculum. He wondered how the new requirements would affect transfer students. And why only four hours of science?
Q. 26. K. Kilburn (OEAS), a member of GERC, replied that too often the 8 hour science requirements are too specialized, too esoteric, and do not engage students in scientific inquiry about things that engage them in their world. She said that the science requirements need to be more practical, but will be consistent with the SCHEV expected competencies and outcomes. Courses that address scientific reasoning do not have to be discipline specific. Perhaps a non-major would be served with a course that emphasizes health and nutrition
Q. 27. J. Chen (Political Science & Geography) complained that there was not an international dimension to the proposed program. He said he thought "Ways of Knowing" should include an international or global category. He asked if there would be formal guidelines by which to submit feedback to GERC; also would there be guidelines for departments to submit course proposals, and how many could a department submit?
A. Professor Wilson said that materials could be submitted to GERC at anytime. Guidelines for submitting new general education courses would be forthcoming in advance of the implementation stage, and that a department could offer several choices for a requirement. Dean de Silva reminded the forum that by rule new courses are submitted to Faculty Senate Committee A for approval, and that any department in any college can submit a course proposal for a general education requirement.
Q. 28. D. Naik (Mathematics-Statistics) said he had difficulty in understanding just how the new quantitative reasoning proposal would meet SACS requirements. He in fact had difficulty interpreting the SACS requirements since he had gone online and found that the language for the elementary third grade requirements was almost identical to the language for the college level requirements. He said he had visited the websites of other Virginia colleges and universities. He said they all have more stringent mathematics requirements than ODU, and that the new proposal indicates to him a decline in our standards. He said students of the 21st century will live and work in a world of technology, and that they will need advanced quantitative skills.
Q. 29. A faculty member from the Chemistry Department asked about SCHEV's reporting requirements onmeeting the competencies. He said that in CHEM 115N, for instance, added pre- and post class tests are used to measure SCHEV standards for competency. Progress in deasily iscipline specific natural science classes can be measured. But now it seems all classes will need such a mechanism. Is this possible? Are any plans in place?
A. Terri Mathews responded that the plan will be revised to accommodate all courses with value-added teating. All general education courses will need an assessment plan/methodology
Q. 30. D. Miller (Philosophy) agreed that 60 hours of general education is too much. He asked how we compare to other schools in terms of the number of hours required for general education. He asked how many hours are required at some of the top 100 research institutions that ODU is trying to emulate.
A. Dean de Silva responded that no scientific survey of the top 100 research institutions was undertaken, but that the committee looked at several programs. He said that 60 hours of general education is high. The program proposed by GERC is much lower. He said that some institutions need less general education. In our case we accommodate many students who are under-prepared. A faculty member from the Physics Department pointed out that just about all students come into the major with the 6 hour foreign language requirement already satisfied in high school. Most physics majors take only 33 hours of general education courses; so although 60 may be the maximum, but it is hardly typical.
Q. 31. S. Doviak (Mathematics) supported a higher number of general education course options, saying that ODU is not a trade school.
Q. 32. C. Colburn (Urban Studies) questioned whether the upper level requirement would encourage or discourage the option for a double major. Also, could the upper level requirement be satisfied in the major? He said this is unclear in the document.
Q. 33. E. Justice (Psychology) told the forum that she was the chair of FS Committee A in 1986 when the last revisions were made. She said every course in that program was reviewed and activated only if it met general education objectives. She said she does not think the current program is broken and in need of a major overhaul. Justice said she believes content foundations and general education objectives can be blended. She said she favors a 9 hour requirement for upper division general education that would be flexible.
Q. 34. A faculty member from the Chemistry Department said that he thinks general education objectives are being met in the current program. He said he incorporates scientific reasoning into his introductory chemistry classes. He added that students might not like content driven courses such as his, but that come away with a respect for the knowledge imparted. He added that the GEN 101 NewPage course was an example of a process-oriented course, and that the students hated it.
Q. 35. A faculty member from Decision Sciences addressed the issue of students having mobility to change majors and not have the burden of many additional courses, as was suggested the revised program would do. To the contrary, he thought that less content would be counterproductive and cause more difficulty, not less. He said students need to get a real sense of a discipline through its content-driven courses. Otherwise they only will be making uninformed choices. Does "well-rounded" (i.e., making courses more process-oriented) merely equate to "watered-down?"
Q. 36. L. Lombardo (Sociology) asked the forum for a show of hands as to how many teach critical thinking in their courses. All acknowledged doing so. Lombardo emphasized that we teach both substance and process, and that we must communicate to students why our discipline is important; it is up to us as teachers to make our general education courses more that just hoops for students to jump through.
Q. 37. W. Drewry (Civil & Environmental Engineering) said that he would like to see an upper level option that will allow a major program to require a minor. He said that the College of Engineering values the lower sequence of ENGL 110C and 111C. He said he did not think these courses needed to be about content, and that they should emphasize skills. He said he thought the courses were largely successful in imparting both elements of style and critical thinking. He added that for an engineering student to take the current lower level general education load was "no big deal."
Q. 38. J. Burnell (Computer Science) expressed a desire to have more options in the way of general education introductory disciplinary courses, but stressed the need to avoid the "cookie-cutter" mentality. She agreed that it is up to the teachers of lower division general education courses to make their discipline come alive, and to put some passion into their teaching.
Q. 39. D. Burdige (Biology) pointed to the failure of the Virginia Standards of Learning for secondary schools to provide its institutions of higher education with prepared students. He asked why then are we incorporating a similar SOL system for higher education?
Q. 40. Dean de Silva said that there are no real problems with the substance of the 1986 general education program, but that it needs a new delivery scheme. In regard to minors, he said that many are pale reflections of the major, and do not really address the objectives of general education at the upper level. De Silva said that the proposal is not cast in stone, and that the departments and the faculty must feel an ownership of the program, and be convinced that it will work.
Q. 41. Provost Simpson spoke. She said this was the best faculty forum she has ever attended; she was astonished at the terrific feedback that came from the group. Provost Simpson said that Dean De Silva had "hit the nail on the head: change has to come from the faculty; nothing will be implemented unless the faculty think it's the right thing to do."
Q. 42. L. Hatab (Philosophy) cautioned that delivery is a key problem, and that three to four years out the original objectives get lost or are forgotten as new faculty come on board and more courses are assigned to adjuncts. He said that he has suggested in the past that departments have a full time position dedicated to general education. He suggested that every year there should be at least one public forum about general education. Faculty could come together on a common theme or question; perhaps a keynote speaker could be invited. It will be important to regularly renew the spirit of general education, to keep it in focus and not let it drift into banality.
Faculty Senate Chair Drewry noted that the hour was late. He asked Professor Wilson what the next step would be.
Professor Wilson responded that faculty are welcome to submit their comments and suggestions over the next three weeks (through Friday, March 21st). The revision committee would then reassess the current proposal, reconfigure its structure as necessary, and make further revisions. Drewry asked Wilson if the second revision would be presented to a Faculty Forum before the package went to the Faculty Senate and Committee A. Wilson replied that it would, and that he would be revising the projected timetable for the approval process.
The Faculty Forum was adjourned at 5:15PM.
Respectfully submitted by
Ken Daley, Secretary
Faculty Senate
