The Moon Room

A Community Forum on Guilford College Faculty Life

Comments from the Curriculum Discussion

November 2nd, 2016

The following comments were written on the large sheets at our November 2 faculty meeting during our discussion on the proposed general education curriculum revision. The comments were in four sections:

Questions

  • Who will staff the 2-credit seminars? (Why not have two 4-credit seminars?)
  • Where are the Arts?
  • How will students understand this curriculum more clearly than the current one?
  • How do we avoid substituting enthusiasm for actual planning in the implementation
  • Are critical thinking skills somewhere (for sure?)
  • Would faculty workloads change because of 2-credit courses?
  • Which “staff” will participate in CiPs? How?
  • What does “intercultural” mean in the new curriculum?
  • What is “Design Thinking?” And why is it appropriate to our goals and values?
  • Could a student take a Nature Breadth course that was not a lab science?
  • Will students be permitted to delay 1st and 2nd year Gen Ed courses to final semester? (ex. Quantitative or Foreign Language)
  • What might be an appropriate place for courses that have an international and/or global component? How would “experiential learning” be implemented for courses whose focus is outside the U.S.?
  • If a semester is 12 weeks, would class sessions meet for longer?
  • Where do IDS courses fit – will there be IDS prefixes? How do they mesh with the “courses from different departments” stipulation?
  • Would “Last Course” be offered only in the spring? Seems restrictive; what if a student fails? Has to wait another year to retake?
  • How will we fund significant changes in teaching expectations?
  • Where is the budget process happening?
  • What does this make easier for me so I can have time to get involved in CiPs?

Concerns

  • Should all of our students have this much community engagement?
  • Use of the word “discrete” is confusing to many students when considering major/minor course selections. Please clarify with examples for students
  • Do we lose writing skills? Not clear new curriculum is as in-depth as 101, 102, HP…
  • Not clear how CiPs are distributed around campus (workload/responsibility)
  • Too much double-counting might leave us with CiPs that are too closely related to or linked to majors
  • No mention of transfer or CCE in implementation guide
  • We really need to see worked-through examples/models of CiPs before moving ahead, i.e. approving in-the-dark
  • CiPs sound potentially clique-ish and a site for territorial battles
  • Increases workload of faculty teaching Gen Ed course exponentially
  • Does not build on existing talent/interests/strengths of the faculty.
  • Need commitment from admin for appropriate funding/resources/course releases to do this right!
  • Do we know where GELO skills are being imparted/assessed?
  • *Draft 2: What happened to community seminars? Necessary curricular component for interdisciplinary programs.
  • How do we know whether students will understand or want this format
  • I haven’t seen any clear explanation for what makes this better rather than just different.
  • Too great a need for additional administration/increased workload
  • How would this affect advising? / Evaluation of advising?
  • If students get too focused on gen ed their 1st to 2nd years, it may be difficult for them to complete highly sequenced majors and programs (just like now – so advising)
  • It’s a very applied curriculum
  • What do we think about a new layer of administration and costs?
  • We lose part of who we are if we don’t include SJ, ER, DUS, ICUL–>Non-Western. HUGE LOSS.
  • We need HP skills built into curriculum
  • Not enough explicit, universal emphasis on what were Critical Perspectives or anti-oppression work
  • How to/if translate for adult and transfer students
  • Are benefits greater than costs?
  • The switch to 4 x 2-credit experiential seminars in the C.I.P.s eliminates studio arts courses from fulfilling these seminar requirements, which is where we thought studio ARTS could fit into C.I.Ps.

Roadblocks

  • How would this plan fit schedules of CCE students? Especially if 12-1-3
  • Teaching a 3-week night class seems like a big burden on faculty.
  • Not sure this is a roadblock, but I’m having a hard time getting excited about the gateway seminar, especially without the unifying place-based theme; seems like a little bit of a wasted 8-credit requirement
  • Can students and faculty accommodate the 12-1-3 model?
  • (connected to previous point by another writer) Yes! What do we gain from changing the calendar. Not clear.
  • The CiPs feel onerous for non-extroverted students or students w/ certain learning differences and mental illnesses.
  • Really need explicit requirement for a way to switch CiPs
  • What is the net revenue gain?
  • Clarity about explicit gen ed writing instruction above English 102
  • We need enough support to make these changes. Faculty and student development will be expensive.
  • Nowhere even close to approving this
  • Does this work with on-line course formats?
  • PLACE IS IMPORTANT
  • 2 semesters of Gateway Seminar sounds like too much of a not necessarily good thing
  • Want to assure anti-racism content/curriculum is EXPLICIT
  • Where do we ensure global (not European) studies?

Commendations

  • I appreciate the potential integacism and cultural competency into the general curriculum and TEAM TEACHING OPPORTUNITIES, including collaborating and inter-disciplinary pedagogy.
    • (one person added FSMM, which I now know is “Friend Speaks My Mind”)
  • CiP’s are a great idea
  • Like the creative, new parts – looking forward to working on them (CiP, Gateway …)
  • Love the idea of increasing the knowledge of second and/or third languages to the minimum of national standards to increase students’ intercultural competence.
  • Interdisciplinary and integrative collaboration between and among faculty, staff, and students will provide much deeper teaching AND learning opportunities for everyone! Hooray!
    • (one person added FSMM)
  • CiPs have a lot of potential
  • Minimum 2 semesters of foreign language! Yay!!!!! FINALLY!
    • (one person added ‘+1’)
  • I like the cohesive nature of the overall idea.
  • I love the possibilities of experiential opportunities with the new proposed schedule
  • I love the concepts!
  • Love the interdisciplinary emphasis

Comments

One Coment

RSS
  • Nancy Daukas says on: November 14, 2016 at 3:49 pm

     

    What would folks think about infusing the core SLOs from our current ICUL, SJ, ER, DUS into either theGateway courses or the CiPs? (i.e., I want to acknowledge that we are in an anti-multicultural / backlash political moment and I hope we can ensure that our curriculum will not backslide).

    And a question to LAGER (and forgive me if you’ve already answered this & I missed it !): why not propose that the final course for CiPs be interdisciplinary? OR is it that the seminars that include integrative reflection on curricular & co-curricular work in the CiP, also ensures opportunities for interdisciplinary/academic integrative work?
    THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR EXCELLENT WORK
    Nancy

Your email address will not be published.

The Moon Room

A Community Forum on Guilford College Faculty Life