Open discussion area for March 8 faculty meeting

Please add comments, questions, or discussion here. You may post anonymously if you wish.

Here are two cards left at the meeting:


If you have another A&S [Art and Science] info meeting, don’t put it Friday afternoon.


Great meeting! New format is much improved.

And here is a card that I missed seeing in the box. I think it was submitted last meeting, the called meeting on March 1st, but I can’t be sure.

It may be worth asking in a survey if faculty will stand in the way of the concept. I feel when this concept comes for approval several will. Perhaps because their feedback is collected but not considered.



  1. Friends, thank you for these comments and for all the feedback we have received in the past several weeks, particularly the thoughtful emails from so many with constructive ideas for how to edit the proposal. As we work toward our next extended engagement with the faculty, we look forward to sharing more possible adjustments to the proposal and having a “workshop” approach so that we can work through our remaining areas of attention together. Everyone on LAGER appreciates the continued support and messages we have received. Serving the faculty in this way is challenging work, but it is a project we know will build and support a stronger community of learning at Guilford.

  2. Pingback:Discussion on Critical Perspectives – Wednesday, March 15, 3:45 p.m. - The Moon Room

  3. I’m probably not alone in thinking that my discipline has something to contribute to this Gen Ed revision process. I’d like to share a couple of ideas from developmental psychology.

    The first is Perry’s theory of epistemic cognition among college students.
    Friefly summarized here:,
    Primary source here:'s%20cognitive%20development%20college&lr&pg=PA48#v=onepage&q=perry's%20cognitive%20development%20college&f=false

    How can we structure our new curriculum to help students better understand the complexities of truth? Does this theory have something to contribute to our revision process?

    The second is Marcia’s theory of identity statuses in adolescence.
    Friefly summarized here:
    Primary source here: (since 1966, this theory has been validated in much more diverse populations in the U.S. and elsewhere)

    Do we have a shared goal of helping students avoid identity foreclosure (commitment without exploration) and allow space for a period of moratorium (exploration without commitment)? We could interpret “identity” to mean any number of things, but I’m particularly concerned about foreclosure of disciplinary identity if we ask students to commit to a passion (major, CIP, etc) without enough exploration of their interests. This foreclosure could also deepen current divides between student communities.

  4. Rachel speaks my mind. The idea of building a curriculum around finding your passion, as Arts and Sciences recommends, seems to fit with developmental theory, but I’m not sure that we’ve really moved in that direction if we do not allow for exploration and flexibility.

  5. I have not been present for any of the recent discussion, so please know I recognize that as problematic. However, at the outset of the process I was involved. I am just coming on line to say how appreciative I am of bringing up the importance of a couple of items:

    First of all, I appreciate the significant contribution an understanding of developmental theories are in making curricular decisions that involve students of all ages in complex, emotionally charged, psychologically discordant experiences is. While I am critical of much stage theory, I also recognize its contributions to understanding the processes we go through to grow into more complex understandings of the world, our identities in it, and our capacity to act on our newly developed competencies and understandings.

    I have long felt that in our efforts to correct injustice, oppression, misunderstanding, resolve conflict and dismantle systems of harm we have not attended to our students’ developmental processes, nor even our own. From my perspective this has left many students, as Rachel points out, stuck in stages of resistance or over-simplification –she states this in a more theoretically accurate way —

    On Eva’s points about communities and teams, conceptually, I just wonder what we mean either way. It seems to me that teams are often set against one another competitively, but I agree that belonging to different Communities may seem like a set up of subgroups.

    My biggest concern has been, and continues to be the actual logistics of operation of Communities in Practice – whatever it is called. ( I think continuing to refine the workings of it will help name it.) Education Studies has historically been deeply engaged in Communities of Practice if we think of these as Guilford College practicing in schools and other educational sites and being interdisciplinary by its very nature. Even with long term, well established partnerships the time to sustain the relationships with our partners and the time it takes to nourish our students and guide them as they grow through stages of development while engaged in active participation with communities is, well frankly, overwhelming. If we do this well.

    Others have written to this end, that to create CiPs that are well crafted, meaningful, reasonable and rigorous takes dedicated and extended time. We can not lose sight of that.

    I love “major + passion” and sincerely hope that this is what we have always kept central in our liberal arts.

    My final comment is this, and again, I have not been active in on-going forums so please take with a full recognition of that on my part —

    I wonder how we can proceed if we do not keep our principles at the forefront. When Jane arrived we would do a few things splendidly. My greatest commitment is not only to preserving, but uplifting our principles and keeping them central. Although I have heard it stated that Quaker isn’t a strong selling point, what are we if we are not Quaker at the core?

  6. Thanks, Julie. Friend speaks my mind.