UCC discusses amendments to proposed GenEd model

Dylan Pichnarcik / THE GATEPOST

By Sophia Oppedisano

Editorial Staff

The University Curriculum Committee (UCC) held a two-hour open forum to discuss amendments to the proposed general education (GenEd) model at an extra meeting held via Zoom on April 11. 

UCC Chair Michael Greenstein moderated the meeting and began by reintroducing a proposed amendment from previous UCC meeting to consider adding three overlays - technological literacy, creative experience, and civic literacy, as defined by the Massachusetts Department of Education - to the GenEd model.

Before opening the floor for discussion of the amendment, Greenstein requested the committee use the language of “University requirement” rather than “overlay.” 

According to Greenstein, the change in language is for clarity, as “what [the General Education Advisory Board] is actually proposing is a University requirement, not whatever an overlay actually is.”

He added an “overlay” means “next to nothing” for people who were not at the University when overlays were used in past GenEd models.

The language in the amendment was subsequently changed from “overlay” to “University requirement.”  

UCC member and Philosophy Professor Joseph D’Andrea said the three proposed University requirements might complicate the proposed GenEd model for students because they are structured in a manner that gives each of them a different set of standards to meet, as opposed to the way the core requirement standards are met by students. 

“I’m wondering if we're serving ourselves and our students well by creating something that is increasingly complicated. I really just want to pause before we add these sorts of University requirements,” D’Andrea said.

Lisa Eck, chair of the English department, said she wanted to “express enthusiasm” for the three proposed additions of technological literacy, creative experience, and civic literacy because she believes “they start to express our values and they start to speak to the mission statement,” specifically the area of the mission statement that stipulates the University will prepare students for a dynamic workplace. 

Eck said despite her enthusiasm, she is “left with a lot of questions about implementation” of the three proposed University requirements.

“My big question is about how technological literacy will affect our digital humanities minor, which, right now, lives as a quantitative reasoning class - I think that's where it belongs. … It's all about career readiness for humanities students, and if it just gets kind of tucked into the distribution model, or even gets met through majors and minors, I find it very difficult to think about being a student navigating this and definitely, being a chair planning for this,” Eck said.

The distribution model Eck was referring to in the proposed GenEd model is two arts & humanities courses, two social science courses, and two STEM courses.

Greenstein said the three new proposed University requirements would be independent of the distribution requirements.

Eck said she “likes the themes” of the University requirements, but if they do not “incentivize” students to take GenEd courses, then she is “less in support of them.”

UCC member and Dean of Arts & Humanities T. Stores said, “Getting into the weeds about specific learning objectives is to be delayed. … What I think we're aiming at here is a general model that we can then work to hash out some of these details going forward. … The details are to be determined in the next phase.”

UCC member and English Professor Kristen Abbott Bennett motioned to table the amendment “until the GenEd model, broadly speaking, has been voted up or down and we have a better idea of what shape these University requirements will take.”

Greenstein said the motion to table the discussion was “technically… a motion to postpone this discussion,” and asked for someone to second Bennett’s motion.

UCC member and Biology Professor Aline Davis seconded the motion, and it passed with no opposition. 

Greenstein asked if anyone had any questions or comments they would like to raise before he shifted to the next item on the meeting agenda, which was a broad conversation about the core requirements, including the RAMS first-year seminar courses, writing, math, and world languages.

Maria Bollettino, chair of the history department, raised a clarifying question about the purpose of the learning objectives and the ways in which the General Education Advisory Board (GEAB) will determine them, how they will be used by UCC, implemented by faculty, and assessed overall as being effectively met by students.

GEAB Chair and English Professor Patricia Lynne said, “We will be working on a specific assessment plan that has been added to the APR for the position of GenEd chair, with the idea that there will be yearly reporting that will go out assessing the GenEd program to UCC, to the administration, to the campus community as a whole. The specifics of the shape of that are not definable right now because we don't have them.”

Lynne said it is the intention to have learning objectives be required of the courses.

“The purpose of this is in part so that the next time GenEd review comes up, there is a body of data that can be used to drive that decision-making,” she said.

“One of the problems that the current model has is that we have these lovely learning objectives that have a passing relationship to the model, and we can assess them, but for example, for some of the requirements, we don't have enough classes to ensure that all students are actually meeting [the learning objectives],” she added.

Following Lynne’s response to Bollettino’s inquiry, Greenstein shifted focus to the RAMS 101 GenEd required course.

Psychology Professor Kimberly Arditte Hall, coordinator of the RAMS 101 program, indicated the RAMS learning objectives are currently being updated in Subcommittee B with “mostly wording, not conceptual changes.”

Lynne confirmed GEAB knew the learning objectives for RAMS were being updated, “but the timing didn't work out, and we would expect, frankly, that whenever the objectives are under review by one of the other groups that they would be updated in the catalog as those are approved.”

A concern was raised by UCC member and Art Professor Timothy McDonald over the language in the RAMS course description, which was being projected on the screen and read, “All entering first-year students are required to take a first-year seminar.”

McDonald asked about the implications of that language for transfer students.

Greenstein said the only way a student can waive the RAMS course is if they are not coming in as a first-year, first-time student.

Greenstein, Hall, and Angelina Barrett, UCC’s student representative, also discussed when it would be most appropriate for students to retake a RAMS course should they fail in their first semester.

Hall said it would be advised that the student take the course again in the spring, and Barrett agreed that course of action would be best for first-years to be better connected with the University community.

Greenstein then moved on to a discussion about the writing core requirement.

Davis said, “My only question is - I believe it is a total of 14 learning objectives for this course, and that seems a little high for me.”

Greenstein voiced his agreement with Davis. 

Lynne responded to their concerns, saying, “We've been teaching with these 14 learning objectives attached to Composition II for nine years. We are about to review them, but these are things that we actively teach. We can simplify them for the purposes of general education, if that is preferred, but that's not going to change what we teach in the class.”

Davis indicated her concerns are related to “the amount of artifacts that you may need to collect to assess all of these different things.”

Lynne said the learning objectives are going to be revised next year to account for AI, and they may be simplified pending the decisions of the First-Year Writing Committee.

UCC then moved on to discussing the math core requirements.

Initially, the learning objectives were designed for a quantitative reasoning core, not mathematics, but this changed late in the process when GEAB decided to establish a math core, prompting the need to create new learning objectives for math.

Psychology Professor Anna Flanagan brought up the issue of adding STAA 127, Statistics for Social Sciences, to the math core. 

Flanagan said STAA 127 meets the learning objectives for the math core and “we believe that it fits the statement that the specific core math course that students must take will be dependent on major requirements.”

Flanagan also noted that students are not allowed to take STAA 127 and STAT 117, Introduction to Statistics, because the courses are “so similar that you can only take one of them, so therefore, we are requesting that our course also be included as an option in the math core.”

GEAB member Michael Krul, chair of the mathematics department, said a faculty survey GEAB distributed indicated more faculty “wanted math to come from [the math department]. That’s what GEAB voted on and put forward with this proposal.

“I want students taking statistics from experts in the fields where they'll be applying those statistics. … I just don't think that STAA 127 is appropriate for a mathematics core,” he added.

Robert Donohue, a psychology professor who has taught STAA 127, said he reviewed the language the math department used to constitute a math core course, and with the exception of the geometry learning objective, STAA 127 met all of the criteria.

Donohue said whether STAA 127 and STAT 117 are similar enough in content that a student cannot take both courses does not change because of changes to the GenEd model. 

“The descriptions haven't changed, so now saying, ‘OK fine, you can take both because it's convenient to our cobbling together the GenEd model,’ I do not think really flies in terms of what should be the reason you can't take two courses and get credit for them. So that argument, I think, is flawed,” he added. 

UCC member and Math Professor Matt Moynihan said he is not in support of adding STAA 127 to the core requirements. “Broader than that, I think we need to identify the principles by which we establish a core. [It’s the] same argument that we should have consistency with writing. If we are saying [it is] any course that meets learning objectives - great. I'm sure there are some other departments that would be able to and possibly love to develop a first-year writing course,” he added.

Moynihan said one thing that is difficult about raising this particular point is that it sounds as though “we shouldn’t have writing in the English department - and I actually want that. I want all of our STEM majors to get out of Hemenway and … encounter faculty they are not encountering through their major.”

Eck acknowledged the point that had been brought up comparing the math core to the writing core and said the English department is “tasked with a lot” in teaching the Composition II course because “everybody needs this core skill.

“We are teaching a skill that's not an English course - it's a writing course that's foundational for the next four years of college, and we are teaching very specific skills. … I believe that math should stay in math, but I also see that you can meet the math core through different courses. … Whereas with writing … it's been our experience that everyone needs the core skills we're teaching. So I think this idea that it has to be the same just doesn't bear out in practice,” she said.

UCC member and Biology Professor Rachel Avard said even though she has to “fight daily” to break her students out of the habits they learn in Composition II to write effectively in their science courses, she would never argue that she does not want her students to take Composition II. 

“I feel largely the same way about this math. I think that while it's great for students to be taking a specific stats class within their own department … I don't think that we can say that a stats class that's not being taught by a statistician is going to be covering the broad range of content that's covered by a stats class from someone who specifically is an expert in stats, and that's how I feel about composition,” Avard added. 

Following Avard’s comment, there was a broader discussion about what Bennett referred to as a “subtext” in the conversation about expertise, which she said is “under siege from outside of our institution, and I really want to respect it from within our institution.”

Bollettino asked how the committee is defining expertise and who it is being afforded to. “For instance, when we get to determining learning objectives for the civic literacy requirement, who's going to get to determine who has expertise around civic literacy, and will those departments be privileged to be able to teach core courses or University requirements around civic expertise?” she asked.

“I want us to be careful here and figure out to whom we are extending expertise and why, and will that same extension be offered with every single requirement in this model?” she asked.

Greenstein called the meeting back to a focus on the math core requirement because “we do not have an amendment on the floor, and unless I hear someone on the committee suggest amending the core with a second, I think that we have discussed this extensively.”

Bollettino asked about how the core learning objectives are being determined, as she is seeing each department develop and define learning objectives for the four core courses. “Is this what we want to be doing?” she asked.

Krul clarified that English and world languages submitted their learning objectives to GEAB, which approved them because those classes were being taught by an individual department, while the math core was originally going to be quantitative reasoning. 

In the current model, there are no math core learning objectives.

“At the time that learning objectives were constructed, it wasn't math - it was [quantitative reasoning], and that changed at the very end, hence why this late addition. … Once GEAB proposed that math have the math core, it was definitely like, ‘Well, we're going to have to write some math core,’ which we never had to,” he said. 

UCC member and College of STEM Dean Lauren Nolfo-Clements agreed with Bollettino, saying, “Having learning objectives that all students have to abide by that are just created by a single group of individuals does not help us move into the future or diversify our offerings.

“I agree that we've got to look at this from a little bit of a broader view. What do students really need? … I know we've all been in this situation advising students, and a student says, ‘Why do I have to take this class?’ and we should all be able to say exactly why they're taking the class and how it applies to what they're going to be doing for the rest of their life,” she added.

Moynihan said he believed the “discussion has gotten bigger than the specifics we’re looking at,” and motioned to accept the learning objectives for the math core.

“​​The old learning objectives that were in the original proposal were the general quantitative reasoning requirement that was satisfied as your second math course in college, not your first math course. The updated ones that the math department put together were specifically designed to focus on a core math experience,” he added.

Avard seconded the motion.

The amendment passed 15-2.

Greenstein asked that the learning objectives for the math core requirement be changed to those that were written by the math department.

Greenstein added he would like to continue the discussion about “what it means for a course to fulfill the learning objectives, and having components of the core be broader than just math taught by math, English rightfully taught by English, and world languages taught by world languages. … But I would like to discuss world languages specifically as it's presented in the proposal, before we continue that broader discussion, because world languages are part of it and we've been so far ignoring them.” 

UCC member and Vice President of Enrollment Management Iris Godes, who raised concerns regarding requiring world languages at a UCC meeting on March 14, reiterated she believes world language requirements should be specific to certain majors.

Lynne noted GEAB voted specifically to pull world languages from the core.

Stores disagreed with Godes. “It is important as a core ideal of our general education at Framingham to assure that students have some experience with speaking in a language that is not English.”

Moynihan and D’Andrea also spoke in favor of keeping world languages in the core requirements. 

“I just think we are stepping in the wrong direction in a world in which diversity is needed if we remove language from the core - I really believe that,” D’Andrea said.

Greenstein acknowledged the statements in favor of world languages and asked if anyone wanted to motion to remove world languages from the core requirements.

Godes made the motion to remove world languages from the core, and the motion was seconded by Davis.

As Godes began to speak on her motion, Greenstein interrupted to squash the motion because there was no representative from the world languages department present at the meeting.

Greenstein asked for a motion to postpone the discussion until the UCC meeting scheduled for April 25. 

Godes motioned to postpone the discussion, and the motion was seconded by Bennett.

The motion passed unanimously.

Greenstein then shifted to finishing up the “broader core discussion” and the issue of whether core classes should be taught within a specific department or if they can be met by any course that meets the requirements of the learning objectives that are proposed in the model.

Bennett clarified whether the committee would be making that amendment for every course. “It seems irresponsible to me to say every course ever because we don't know what the future holds. So I'd be happy to make a motion to vote on this for the math core and the English core,” she added.

Greenstein said, “I think there have been a number of people who rightfully pointed out we should treat all the core classes equally. So presumably it would be math, English, and world languages, though I simultaneously understand that it’s highly unlikely any department other than world languages would be teaching courses in another language.” 

Bennett then asked which department would be overseeing adherence to the learning objectives if they are not being taught by “conventionally expert departments.”

Greenstein said the chair of GenEd, currently Lynne, and the Office of Assessment would be in charge of assessing adherence to the learning objectives “in some way.”

D’Andrea then motioned to have core requirements be able to be met by courses from any department, provided the courses meet the learning objectives. 

Nolfo-Clements seconded the motion.

Greenstein acknowledged the time and noted the committee was running out of its allotted time for the meeting. “This is going to be another long discussion. I don't foresee us being able to complete the discussion,” he said.

He noted the ending time of the meeting and Bennett made a motion to have the final UCC meeting take place on May 2.

The motion was seconded by Moynihan.

“We need to have an end point, and we have a lot of obligations, besides this committee, in May, to our students in particular, and I think those obligations should be prioritized,” Bennett said.

Davis said she agrees with ending May 2 as long as it does not rush the process. “If we are not done, we are not done. So that's the only thing I want to say - I have no problem with May 2, as long as there's not all of a sudden this chaotic push to try and get things through if we're not done with it.”

D’Andrea said he believes the end of May would be a more appropriate stopping point than the end of April. 

Moynihan defended the motion. “I also want to say I have no intention of rushing this. I just feel if we're not done by May 2, we won't be done in May at all. At some point, we either have to vote on it or send it back to GEAB, which is also something we could do, and I think we should make that call,” he said.

Greenstein agreed there needs to be a final deadline for the committee to vote on the proposal or send it back to GEAB.

Bennett said, “I think this is more complex, and I think we're getting valuable work done at these meetings, but I don't see it ending. … I also do not want to rush it, but I also don't want to feel rushed if we say we're going till the end of May, and we're all making all these sacrifices to go to extra UCC meetings.”

Stores said they support continuing to have meetings in May because they believe the committee has made “slow” but “important” progress. 

“It's a few Friday afternoons. … I think this is important work that needs to get to a stop date, but I do think that going to the end of May is not an unreasonable request,” they said.

Bennett’s motion to schedule the final UCC meeting on May 2 failed 3-11.

“We'll discuss at the end of the next meeting what future meetings will look like,” Greenstein said.

The next UCC meeting will be held as an open forum on April 26 on Zoom.