Vice Chancellor Genaro Padilla, Co-Chair
Dean Carolyn Porter, Co-Chair
Minutes of the CUE Subcommittee on
Integrative Intellectual Experiences
Present: Ellen Meltzer, Carolyn Porter (Chair), Angy Stacy, Alix Schwartz (staff)
Discussion: At the beginning of the meeting, Carolyn Porter asked Ellen Meltzer for a summary of the course-integrated courses offered by the Teaching Library. It became clear that the working relationships that the Library has developed with various faculty members and departments provide a model worth emulating in our work of integrating the curriculum.
The members agreed that the administration needs to do more to facilitate cross-departmental and cross-college courses. The departments themselves are often an obstacle to interdisciplinarity, because they are fixed in their disciplinary identities and resistant to work that crosses boundaries. The faculty reward system needs to be changed, and the climate in which to build intellectual communities among faculty members needs to be improved.
The members also discussed the difference between memorization, which is often expected of students in the sciences in particular, and a more interactive model, which might involve research, guided inquiry, and/or discovery. Angy Stacy experimented with a more interactive teaching/learning style in her big Chemistry lecture course, and she found that although the students learned more, they were not necessarily comfortable or happy being pushed to learned actively. Even more surprising was the fact that the graduate student instructors were more resistant than the undergraduates were. Next time she will devote more thought and time to preparing her GSIs. It was agreed that faculty members such as Stacy, who are working hard to explore alternate teaching models, need a forum in which to share what they have learned with other faculty members.
At its next meeting, the group agreed to come up with a list of goals for a Berkeley undergraduate education. Some ideas towards this list, which emerged during a spontaneous brainstorming session, include the following: communication, critical thinking, access to information and knowledge, breadth (well roundedness), depth, student service/citizenship, the ability to read and speak the languages (including math, literature, foreign languages) required by the culture, the ability to think creatively and reason critically, and an understanding of diverse values.
The group also looked over some data provided by Planning and Analysis related to double majors. The data showed which double majors have been most popular over the last six years, how well the double majors did on their standardized tests and what their GPA’s are, etc. The members asked that the information be summarized and that they be provided with comparison data on single majors as well.
Other data requests that the sub-committee anticipated making in the coming months include the following:
Action: Carolyn Porter will send a copy of the Boyer Report to each member of CUE. The sub-committee members found the Boyer recommendations extremely useful in framing their discussion.
Present: Alice Agogino, Ellen Meltzer, Angy Stacy, Ling-Chi Wang
Staff: Alix Schwartz
Unable to attend: Erin Bardin, Bob Brentano, Carolyn Porter
Discussion:
1. The members expressed the wish to collect articles demonstrating good pedagogical practices with a proven track record. These articles will suggest the kinds of work, and the kinds of studies, that could be sponsored at the Center for Teaching and Learning. The members came up with the following leads:
Except where otherwise noted, Alix will try to track down the articles and sources listed above. We are especially looking for articles that expose the misconceptions under which faculty members often operate.
2. Ling-Chi brought up the topic of campus resistance to multi-media instruction. In particular, he finds a resistance to assigning video production as an option instead of written work, because visual media are seen as entertainment as opposed to academic work. There are very few courses on campus that teach students how to use video as a tool for research: he offered an Ethnic Studies course as one of the only such methodology courses. Alice pointed out that many Engineering courses require that homework be submitted electronically, and students are often required to present the results of their group work in a visual format. She also mentioned that Larry Rowe and others have long been eager to set up an interdisciplinary degree option in multi-media and information technologies, but there are institutional barriers to working across disciplines. There is a need to integrate the services of the Office of Media Services, for instance, with the academic mission. She foresees that the new Center will create a place for this kind of synergy. Some of the resistance to multi-media presentations comes from a perceived shortage of resources. However, here again a Center that brings together disparate parties and interests could help. For instance, several different groups (e.g. Digital Storytelling, the Media Resource Center, and courses in multi-media production offered by the departments) could all share one facility.
3. Alix brought up the question of how the College Writing Programs might be reconceived as University Writing Programs, how its mission might be broadened with the result of improving writing instruction on campus. Angy pointed out that in her remarks Alix flipped back and forth between the term "writing" and the term "communication." Angy, like many faculty members, is inclined to see "writing" as a narrow concern, something to do with topic sentences and grammar–clearly not anything a faculty member would concern him- or herself with. However, communication, more broadly defined, is certainly something that would capture faculty interest and participation. In fact, seen in this light, this issue clearly overlaps with the multi-media production issue discussed above. Some existing courses on campus that would bear emulating and expanding include a course on presenting research results and a course on graphical communications. Alice reminded the group that the new Center would be dealing with strategic areas of greatest need, and communication is very likely to be one of these areas. We would need to research where the best work in this field is being done, and how to motivate faculty members to work together on this (perhaps using the American Cultures seminars as a model).
4. Ling-Chi expressed a difficulty in understanding how the work of the Commission and our sub-committee will come together into a coherent document, one that expresses the principles and goals of an undergraduate education, to contextualize our recommendations. Others agreed that although our discussions have been stimulating, the underlying values (which we may or may not all share) have never been explicitly stated. Although it is important to focus on action items that can be implemented, we can’t lose sight of a larger vision, perhaps framed as the response to the question "Why is undergraduate education worth funding at a research university?" Alice also mentioned that she would like to revisit this Commission’s relationship to WASC. She reminded the members that although the old WASC process involved answering a pre-set list of questions, the current WASC process is set up to facilitate a campus’ own self-study process. She announced that although the campus is scheduled for WASC in fall 2000, the Executive Vice Chancellor has requested an extension, to fall 2001, to accommodate the upcoming changes in Berkeley’s higher administration.
Next meeting: Tuesday, November 16, 1999, 10:30 - 12:00 p.m., 102 Campbell Hall.
Present: Alice Agogino. Erin Bardin, Bob Brentano, Ellen Meltzer, Carolyn Porter (Chair), Alix Schwartz (Staff), Angy Stacy
Unable to Attend: Ling-Chi Wang
The members began by discussing writing instruction. Brentano asked if there had been any studies of the long-term effects of Reading and Comp 1A/1B: do the lessons learned in this course sequence carry forward into the essays students write in their senior year? Bardin noted that she feels her ability to write well has decreased since high school, and Agogino referred to a study that showed students’ math scores decreasing in college, as compared to high school.
Action: The sub-committee will recommend that CUE recommend a long-term study of the effects of the Reading and Comp sequence, as a follow-up to the Simons report on College Writing 1A.
The members then discussed math. Porter expressed a commitment to working on changing the fact that math courses currently do not fulfill Letters and Science breadth. The members discussed the kind and level of math instruction that a literate (or numerate) citizen needs. Agogino suggested that statistics is the most important mathematical discipline for the generally educated person to understand. The members also discussed the low level of math expected in courses designed for social science and humanities majors. Designating certain sections as math-intensive might help, as would higher expectations overall: shouldn’t all the students have the opportunity to study the math concepts in depth? Stacy cautioned that there is a danger in making calculus too big a part of chemistry or physics courses: students learn to plug problems into a formula without learning the concepts and their applications.
Action: The sub-committee will recommend that CUE recommend that a task force be formed under the aegis of the Center for Teaching, Learning, and Technology to address the problem of increasing the numeracy and technological literacy of our undergraduates. (Professors Jenny Harrison and Cal Moore have done some important work in related areas.)
Stacy brought up the question of why so many Chemistry students switch majors. One reason is that Chemistry, with its lower admissions requirements, is a back door for Letters and Science. But it’s also the case that Chemistry 1A is a course that both makes too many assumptions about the background students come equipped with and passes too many students who will then be ill equipped for their more advanced courses. There is no prep course available for students who are not quite ready for this gateway course. The question arose whether a prep course should be created or whether scaffolding the learning would be a sufficient measure. If a prep course were to be created, we would also need an assessment test to help students decide their readiness levels.
Action: Schwartz will research the following questions: What are the grade distributions for different offerings of Chem 1A? Who in particular is not passing Chem 1A, and who is dropping out of the course before the semester’s end? Schwartz will also look at four gateway courses selected by the members–Chem 1A, Econ 1, Physics 7A/B, and Math 1A/B–to determine the degree of attrition in these courses, as compared to the campus average, and the grade distribution in these classes.
Following up on the discussion of the previous meeting, Porter distributed an article that touches upon the discussion of multi-media instruction. The following members agreed to complete actions in the pursuit of further studies showing the effects of pedagogical innovations:
Action:
The committee members acknowledged the fact that we need to find other measures of success besides grades. For example, Mazur used the Hestenes test as his before-and-after measure of the success of students in grasping mechanical concepts. Bardin pointed out that students are never asked to tell their professors what they have learned in a class. The members discussed the fact that some exams are not designed to elicit what a student knows, and some exams are designed to do so, but do not fulfill their intent. We need to develop a concept and practice of "authentic assessment," according to Agogino.
Finally, Porter announced that the Regents will be asking the legislature for $5,000,000 a year for undergraduate education, system wide. Left to its own devices, the university will simply translate those dollars into faculty FTE.
Action: The Commission needs to take a stance on the potential uses of this funding for undergraduate education.
Attending: Alice Agogino, Erin Bardin, Bob Brentano, Ellen Meltzer, Alix Schwartz (Staff), Ling-Chi Wang
Unable to Attend: Carolyn Porter (Chair), Angy Stacy
This meeting was focussed around two goals: to begin the process of designing follow-up questions to Gregg Thomson’s undergraduate survey, and to strategize about how the Integrative Intellectual Experiences Sub-Committee will construct its contribution to CUE’s final report. Immediate action items that emerged from this meeting are in bold below.
We began by looking at the survey results Gregg Thomson distributed at the last general meeting of CUE, focussing our examination in two ways: identifying questions that seemed to relate, at least potentially, to integrative intellectual experiences, and identifying results that seemed surprising or disturbing. In the process, questions arose that require further action:
In the meantime, each sub-committee member (except Bob Brentano, who had to leave early for a job talk) volunteered to construct a sample question or two, on the model of the multiple-choice question #19, on a specific topic of interest, as follows:
Alice: computer literacy
Ellen: library use
Erin: goals of an undergraduate education (survey question #1)
Ling-Chi: housing
Alix: writing
These questions will be posted to the CUE listserve.
As for the sub-committee’s contribution to CUE’s final concept paper, we agreed to be mindful, in all future sub-committee meetings, of how our discussions fit into the framework provided in the last general meeting. For instance, if our recent conversations about Chemistry 1A result in any recommendations, we would include these under 5a: "Recommendations for the Cornerstone Phase," since Chemistry 1A and all the other gateway courses fall under the cornerstone category. Our definition of "integrative intellectual experiences," once we have developed one, will also play into our strategy for contributing to the final report.
Finally, the committee discussed whether it would be possible and/or desirable to solicit feedback from the Senate and the new EVC on our concept paper (either our sub-committee’s contribution or the entire document) before submitting it to the Chancellor. We agreed that while it would be desirable to receive and incorporate feedback, there probably would not be time to do this in a thoroughgoing manner before May. Instead, we recommend the following:
Ling-Chi will bring our piece to the Committee on Educational Policy (in keeping with his, and, before him, Robert Knapp’s usual practice of keeping CEP informed of CUE’s discussions and proposals) for its feedback. If the other sub-committees would also like to solicit CEP’s feedback in advance, they should contact Ling-Chi. Short proposals (3-4 pages) are most likely to receive a timely response.
We will invite Paul Gray to a CUE meeting, to solicit his feedback and increase the likelihood that he will endorse the Commission’s recommendations;
We will refer to the Commission’s final product as a "white paper," or choose some other name that implies an openness to further discussion, refinement, and revision.
March 17, 2000
Attending: Alice Agogino, Erin Bardin, Ellen Meltzer, Alix Schwartz (Staff), Ling-Chi Wang
Unable to Attend: Carolyn Porter (Chair), Bob Brentano, Angy Stacy
This meeting was focussed around two goals: to revise questions two and four from Gregg Thomson’s draft survey, and to examine the summary data on gateway courses.
The members decided that shorter questions would be more likely to be read and answered fully. (Ling-Chi Wang pointed out, for instance, that students often answer only one part of a several-part essay question on exams.) The members agreed on the following wording for questions two and four:
#2. What are your long-term goals? What's the relationship between your educational experiences and choices at Berkeley and your long-term goals? How have your long-term aspirations changed since you came to Berkeley? What factors and what people have influenced your thinking about your long-term goals, and what obstacles have you faced in this regard? What kinds of advising have you sought and found on campus in relation to your aspirations? Was it helpful? How would you suggest we improve it?
#4. From your perspective, what's special or unique about an undergraduate education at Berkeley? How well is the education you are getting at Berkeley living up to what you think a Berkeley education should be? Is there anything that's missing for you? What's the one thing that the campus could do to improve your educational experience here at Berkeley?
Members also wanted to suggest that question #1, for which the Advising sub-committee is taking primary responsibility, be tightened. Here is some language that might serve as a start on that question:
#1. Tell us about your process of choosing a major. How do you go about choosing your courses? Who do you go to for help on these decisions? Have you had access to the kind of course and major advising you have wanted or needed?
After discussing the survey questions, members turned their attention to the summary data on gateway courses provided by Pamela Brown in Planning and Analysis. There was not time for a thorough analysis of the data, but the sub-committee members did make the following observations, recommendations, and requests for clarification:
&Mac183; Women do better in gateway math courses at Berkeley than men do. (Alice explained this: the SAT under-predicts female performance in math classes, and our admissions process does not correct for this fact.)
&Mac183; There are radical differences among faculty members in terms of numbers of students not passing and dropping out.
&Mac183; We need to follow up by looking at variations in pedagogical practice to see if these variations coincide with the differences noted above.
&Mac183; We recommend a positive spin: give department chairs this data, ask them to identify which faculty members are most successful teachers, and multiply our successes by inviting these faculty to give presentations and workshops.
&Mac183; The members wondered whether class size might have an effect on number of students dropping out or not passing; Pamela Brown will provide this information, which we had not asked for previously.
&Mac183; The members also wanted to confirm that the "dropping out" figures were not incorporated into the "not passing" figures. Pamela Brown confirmed that the students who dropped out are not double counted.
Finally, Erin Bardin promised to email the sub-committee members a copy of the survey instrument she is developing for her thesis project on undergraduates’ expectations and experiences. She would like feedback from the members.
May 5, 2000
Attending: Alice Agogino, Bob Brentano, Carolyn Porter (Chair), Ellen Meltzer, Alix Schwartz (Staff), Ling-Chi Wang
Unable to Attend: Erin Bardin, Angy Stacy
The main business of this meeting was to ensure that any important recommendations stemming from the sub-committee’s discussions this year are reflected in the Commission’s final report. Towards this goal, the members reviewed the minutes of the sub-committee meetings, and decided upon the following recommendations:
1. Reading and Composition: The Sub-Committee recommends a study of the long-term effects of reading and composition courses: do the lessons learned in this course sequence carry forward into the essays students write in their senior year? Writing and literacy need to be looked at in a richer way, while not neglecting attention to sentence-level grammar, syntax, and logic. Departments have to take the teaching of writing seriously.
2. Authentic Assessment: As a necessary complement to the principle of inquiry-based learning, we need assessment strategies that are contextualized, integrated and multi-dimensional. Faculty members need to build assessment into their courses from the outset, defining their learning goals and then determining how best to assess the students’ success in meeting them. (Although it is easier to see how this recommendation applies to the sciences than to the humanities, the College Writing Program’s portfolio assessment model might be used as a humanities exemplar.) It’s not clear yet where this recommendation will fit in: perhaps as part of an integrative intellectual experiences recommendation?
3. University Writing Programs: Porter has been working to transform the existing College Writing Programs into the University Writing Programs, a campus-wide network of all writing-related programs. Agogino proposed the Berkeley Language Center as a model.
4. Gateway Courses: The sub-committee has commissioned and examined extensive data on the several gateway courses, to determine which groups (by gender, class level, and ethnicity) are most likely to drop or not pass these courses. Perhaps the most significant discovery was the significant difference among faculty members teaching the same course, in terms of drop and attrition rates. The sub-committee recommends, first, that Planning and Analysis be asked to make these reports standard for all gateway courses, and, second, that the Chair of each relevant department regularly receive the reports for his or her gateway courses. Chairs could then decide the best approach in each situation: relieving a faculty member from a particular teaching assignment; requiring or encouraging professional development; creating team-teaching assignments, etc.
5. Hypertext Catalog: Porter would like to see the creation of a hypertext catalog, which would help students make informed choices towards a cohesive program of study. Agogino pointed out that the intellectual part of this project would be more challenging than the programming. Advisors from all colleges could be called upon to suggest linkages and interconnections among the courses offered.
6. Cognate Majors and Minors: The idea for minors that would be linked with, and integrated with, major programs, is one that we might add to a list of outstanding ideas to be pursued by a later committee (or CUE’s reincarnation).
7. Guarantee of Acceptance into Major Programs: Meltzer pointed out that it is unacceptable that students who have worked hard to be accepted at U.C. Berkeley often fins that they are not accepted into the major of their choice. We need to find a way to ensure that students can get into the major program of their choice.
8. Use of $6 million allocation to enhance undergraduate education systemwide: Sub-committee members agreed that the campus needs to plan carefully and send clear signals to ensure that these new funds aren’t either devoted in their entirety to faculty FTE or retroactively allocated to cover initiatives the campus already has in place.
Last updated on 3/13/00 by CS.