6/11/04
TO: Lowell Bowditch, Chair
University Senate
FROM: Deborah Baumgold, Chair
Undergraduate Council
RE Report of 2003-4 Undergraduate Council Business
Review of the Group Curriculum
The main business of the Undergraduate Council this year has been to complete the review of the Group Curriculum that was begun in AY2002-03 and to develop supplemental guidelines to assist with the design, presentation and review of Group-satisfying courses in the future. These guidelines supplement existing legislation and were adopted by the Senate on May 12th (see Minutes for that meeting).
Purpose
and overall conclusion. Our review of the Group Curriculum -- that is, the body
of courses that introduce students to fundamental ideas and approaches in Arts
and Letters, Social Sciences, and Natural Sciences -- was undertaken at the
request of the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and the Vice Provost
for Undergraduate Studies. So far
as we're aware, this is the first systematic review ever conducted of the Group
curriculum as a whole, by contrast to the reviews of individual courses by
various curriculum committees at the proposal stage. The UGC review offered the university an unusual opportunity
to get a sense of the scope and character of the Group Curriculum, as well as
the quality of Group-satisfying courses as they are actually offered. The Council is delighted to report that
a great many excellent courses in all 3 areas were revealed by the review, and
most Group-satisfying courses clearly meet the previously-legislated guidelines
and are appropriate for this central curriculum.
Approach. For the purpose of review, the Council developed a questionnaire for
its own use that focused on whether a course met the specific legislated criteria
in its area and was consistent with the overall intent of General Education. The review was based on the syllabi of
all of the 100- and 200-level Group-satisfying courses (excluding Math and
Language courses) offered in 2002-3, plus the syllabi of the 300-level Group-satisfying
courses offered in Fall Term of that year. As shown in the summary tables below, this amounted to a
review of approximately 230 syllabi from the total of ~300 different courses that
make up the Group Curriculum.
2002/03 UO Group-satisfying
Courses
Courses
Offered
(Unique offerings; math and language courses
excluded)
|
|
FALL |
SPRING |
WINTER |
SUMMER |
Total |
|
100/200- level |
106 |
44 |
27 |
3 |
180 |
|
300-level |
57 |
31 |
27 |
5 |
120 |
|
Total |
163 |
75 |
54 |
8 |
300 |
Courses Reviewed
(Unique offerings; math and language courses excluded)
|
|
FALL |
SPRING |
WINTER |
SUMMER |
Total |
|
100/200- level |
106 |
44 |
27 |
3 |
180 |
|
300-level |
51 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
51 |
|
Total |
157 |
44 |
27 |
3 |
231 |
Results
and Recommendations. The review revealed a rich and diverse curriculum
that is not as unwieldy as might have been anticipated. The total number of distinct courses is not overwhelming, and
the Council was delighted at the ease with which course materials were obtained. The majority of syllabi were available
online, and the others were quickly provided by departmental staff or faculty. The Council endorses the idea of
global review as an effective means of understanding what we are doing as
educators and as a catalyst for general improvement. Four specific
proposals for improvement emerged from this review:
· Two of them are designed to increase awareness and appreciation of the excellent Group-satisfying courses that already exist. Since some syllabi did not do justice to the courses themselves, as inferred from other course materials, the Council’s recommendations are intended to help faculty communicate to naïve audiences the appeal of their subject and the key ideas in their courses.
· A third proposal deals with timeframe, since, although the Council encourages innovation in course design, it is convinced of the need for sustained engagement – particularly in the Group Curriculum, whose purpose is to provide entrée to new intellectual territory.
· The fourth proposal deals with the distinction between Group-satisfying courses at the lower- and upper-division levels. Although much of the Group Curriculum is deliberately offered at the lower division level, appropriate for incoming Freshmen, a substantial segment is offered at the 300 level. The Council
identified excellence at both levels, but sought to improve the review process by adding explanatory detail to the current criterion for upper-division Group courses.
Comments on the Council’s proposals were solicited from administrators and curriculum committees during Fall, 2003, and Winter, 2004, and the Council subsequently revised the proposals in their light. The product is the motion passed by the Senate on May 12th.
That motion is an amendment that is meant to supplement existing legislation and to be used in the review of new courses as well as cyclical reviews of existing courses. Points 1 through 3 of the motion apply to all Group-satisfying courses, and call for the following:
1. posting of electronic course descriptions for all Group-satisfying courses;
2. explanation in the syllabus of (a) the fundamental questions addressed by the course and (b) how the course meets the criteria for Group status; and
3. offering of Group-satisfying courses in periods standard for regular terms, and not less than 3 week format.
Point 4. applies specifically to 300-level Group courses, and offers guidelines to illuminate what is meant by requiring that upper-division Group courses provide "depth and rigor" beyond that typical of lower-division Group courses (the current criterion), yet be accessible to non-specialists. The Council provided illustrative examples, and suggested, in summary, that 300-level Group courses should:
a. introduce students to a discipline;
b. educate students in the way knowledge is produced in a discipline;
c. encourage students to integrate perspectives and material;
d. assume that students have completed lower-division University coursework,
although not necessarily in same field as the course.
Proposals
for New Programs
The Undergraduate Council is charged with advising the Office of Academic Affairs on proposals for new programs. During 2003-4, we reviewed five such proposals:
1. new major in Marine Biology
2. name change for Department of Exercise and Movement Science;
3. recognition of pre-major in Mathematics and Computer Science (MACS)
4. new major in Medieval Studies major
5. new minor in Nonprofit Administration.
We approved these proposals, in some instances with suggestions for revisions to the program.
Other
business
1. Changes in admissions requirements in 2006 regarding the SAT and ACT writing tests.
2. Removal of the ban on retroactive AA/OT degrees.
3. Endorsement of existing legislation governing the Dean's List criteria.
4. Revision of the policy concerning the mark of Incomplete. Notice was given (May 12th Senate meeting) of a motion that will be brought to the Senate for consideration next fall.