Review Update:“Making Connections” Curriculum

1

A. T. PanterDepartment of PsychologyChair, Curriculum Review

Erika LindemannAssociate Dean for Undergraduate Curricula

Presentation for the Directors of Undergraduate Studies, Toy Lounge, Friday September 17, 2010.

2

“Making Connections” Review

the curriculum review team

3

The Curriculum Review TeamCommittee Reviewers

Foundations Rich 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

The Curriculum Review TeamCommittee Reviewers

Approaches Monika 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

The Curriculum Review TeamCommittee Reviewers

Connections Barbara 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

The Curriculum Review TeamCommittee Reviewers

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

The Curriculum Review TeamCommittee Reviewers

Miscellaneous Gary 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

The Curriculum Review TeamCommittee Reviewers

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

the review timeline

10

- 11

March

Four Years Later…2010

May AprilJune, 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

September NovemberOctober December

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

January and Forward

2011

• Implementation of approved recommendations begins•Task forces formed if

needed to address topics for further study

•Next review?

some themes covered in the review

14

15

“Making Connections” Review

16

1. Number of Requirements

17

2. Intent of Requirements

18

3. Syllabus Review

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

Foundations

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

Approaches

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

Connections

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

Connections

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

SupplementalGeneral

Education

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

Meta-Curriculum Issues

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

Meta-Curriculum Issues

where we are headed

26

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

questions, comments?

panter@unc.edu

ulinde@ad.unc.edu

28