Dr. Marjorie Warmkessel reviewed the format of the meeting to discuss GERC proposals on three issues, writing courses, diversity courses and the “2-course” rule. Each topic will be discussed for an initial period of 15 minutes. Discussion may be extended for up to three 5 minute periods by motion. Non-binding, straw votes will be used by GERC to evaluate general perceptions on discussed topics.
Writing Courses
Discussion was held regarding three issues: 1) reinstatement of original elements of the W designation from 1988 (a comparison guide was distributed) [see Attachment #1]; 2) establishing a class size limit of 25 for W courses; 3) dropping the W requirement from 4 to 3 to accommodate limited class size.
Discussion included the following comments and questions:
- The requirement of 10 pages of revised prose is no longer specified.
- Word count should be used as a more accurate standard than page number.
- The overall total could be distributed throughout a given week or across the semester to limit the burden on the instructor.
- How many courses would be affected by the class size limit? How many students are currently in W courses? Response: Some classes have up to 30 or 40 students, but most have fewer than 33.
- Will it be feasible to add necessary sections of classes? Response: The proposal to reduce the W requirement from 4 to 3 would help alleviate this issue.
- If we are committed to enhancing writing requirements, we need administrative support for adding the necessary sections.
- UNIV179 course should include a writing component since they are already meeting the class size limit. Response: Some UNIV179 courses do incorporate writing.
- Capping the size of W courses within a major is difficult, and many students fulfill their W requirement with major courses.
- Some courses designated as W do not have a writing component that meets the intention of the original designation. Should these courses be reviewed to be sure they meet standards?
- If there were more writing across the curriculum within majors, we would better achieve our goal of training our students to write well. Response: The community hiring our graduates requires that we adequately train our students.
- If we can be more effective in training students in early stages, they will carry that skill with them. Response: Students often lose these skills when expectations are not maintained continuously.
- We need to convince students that writing skills are essential and should be maintained.
Straw votes were taken on each of the three aspects discussed:
1) “Should we reinstate the original 1988 guidelines for the W designation?”
Yes (23), No (0), Abstain (1)
2) “If we reinstate the orginal 1988 guidelines, should we put a class size limit of 25 on all W courses?”
Yes (23), No (1), Abstain (0)
3) “If W courses are capped at 25, should we reduce the number of required W courses from 4 to 3 if necessitated by budgetary concerns?”
Yes (7), No (16), Abstain (0)
Diversity Courses
Discussion was held regarding whether to establish a required D designation. Although there was limited support from faculty for designating courses this way during discussions last year, GERC modified their proposal to indicate that students be encouraged by advising to take D courses. Dr. Scott Schaffer distributed a summary and a draft of a proposal from the President’s Commission on Cultural Diversity (PCCD) to GERC [see Attachment #2]. He noted that this was a revised proposal.
Discussion included the following comments and questions:
- Adding another label would further limit the choices students have for meeting Gen Ed requirements. Response: Dr. Schaffer indicated that a brief review of courses currently being offered resulted in 118 that would likely be given the D designation.
- Having a D label without a requirement in the curriculum is irrelevant.
- What qualifies a course for the D designation? Response: Dr. Schaffer noted eight types of diversity as outlined in the summary from the PCCD. Courses that address any of these eight factors would be eligible.
- • Do we achieve a better understanding of diversity if students take courses focused on a group of which they are a member? Would there be different D courses for culturally diverse groups? Response: It is a bad assumption that students know themselves or the groups to which they belong in a meaningful way. Advisement would be important in helping students find the best courses for them. However, students often take the easiest route.
- Designating courses this way does not make diversity more relevant on campus. The university should be aspiring to this in course content, hiring and elsewhere. Response: The designation can make a statement about the fact that we value diversity.
- What is the role of intellectual diversity?
- Other aspects of Gen Ed also carry expectations or ideals that we do not always accomplish.
- Could each department be encouraged to intentionally include aspects of diversity in their curriculum? Response: If this is a non credit-bearing requirement, there could be a place for it.
- Is GERC reflecting PCCD recommendations? More information seems to be needed about our goals. Response: GERC was charged to find intentional alignment of our courses to our institutional values.
- Guests visiting a university campus can see diversity that is institutional but will not see this if it is simply a designation.
- Perspective courses are supposed to be interdisciplinary and should inherently reflect a level of diversity. Response: Not all P courses reflect a multi-cultural aspect of diversity.
A Schaffer/Moné motion to continue discussion of diversity designations was approved without dissent.
Discussion continued:
- Just taking a course does not generate an appreciation of a culture or diversity. Working with other students of different backgrounds requires this. There needs to be more interactions among diverse people on campus. Response: Students who take a foreign language must enter a new way of understanding.
- P courses address diversity of ideas, intellectual diversity, but are not included in the courses identified as being likely D courses.
A Mowrey/J. Miller motion to continue discussion of diversity designations was approved without dissent.
Discussion continued:
- Need a better definition of what is meant by diversity to know how to implement this within the curriculum.
- No classes we teach can guarantee that the students will learn what we intend. We should at least try to expose students to ideas. PCCD hopes to generate encouragement of recognizing the importance of diversity.
- Diversity is a quality of a given community.
A Carter/Mollah motion to continue discussion of diversity designations was approved without dissent.
Discussion continued:
- The real question here seems to be how we define diversity and incorporate it. More information is needed on how these definitions would be implemented.
- What is the Millersville community? How are we bringing a diverse population to campus. We used to offer in-state tuition rates for international students.
- The onus is on departments to help us define this and identify courses that may meet diversity goals in unique ways.
- Education students already have difficulty meeting credit limits. There are not enough courses in the major to allow for double counting of these courses easily.
- Science students will also be limited by needing to fill the requirement outside the major.
- What we write down for ourselves is what we believe. Every one of us needs to include these aspects in our courses.
- One size fits all will not work. Departments should help lay out what their students need.
- English majors can benefit from understanding biology. Diversity of perspectives is important, yet it feels like the focus is on racism. We need to focus on student needs.
A Schaffer/Stengel motion to table discussion of diversity designations to allow further review was approved without dissent. Senator Schaffer requested that senators carefully review the revised recommendation from PCCD and invited any comments or suggestions.
“2-Course” Rule
Discussion was held regarding whether to eliminate the requirement that exactly two courses be taken from a single department in each G block.
Discussion included the following comments and questions:
- Would this change make it more difficult to meet the requirement for 3 200-level courses?
- The purpose of the restriction is to create depth within fields outside of the home block. Opposed to students taking only introductory courses for Gen Ed blocks.
- Since many students fulfill the 3 200-level requirement within their major, this is the only way to get depth outside their home block.
- Would this change also allow students to take all their courses in a block from a single department? Response: Yes. If the new Gen Ed program requires only 3 courses per block student would be able to take 1 course from each of 3 departments, 2 courses from 1 department and 1 course from another or 3 course from 1 department.
- The rule as it is now provides both breadth and depth. Students will likely choose to take the easiest path of all introductory-level courses.
- We want to keep student options open and allow for experimentation. We need to avoid defining sets of courses that students are encouraged to take.
- Could we eliminate the designation of specific courses as Gen Ed and allow any courses from the departments in each block? Response: The Education departments have courses with several different designations, but these could be accounted for.
- Reduction of block requirements from 4 to 3 will likely reduce student exposure to diverse concepts in other fields.
- Extreme cases of students taking classes with limited breadth and depth are unlikely to happen regularly.
Straw votes were taken:
“Should we eliminate the requirement that exactly two courses must be taken from a single department in each G block?”
Yes (6), No (13), Abstain (3)
Aimee L. Miller
Faculty Senate Secretary