October 12, 2007 minutes

Minutes of the LPWG
Curriculum Discussion
Friday October 12, 2007 – 3 p.m.
McNeill 109

In attendance: Nancy St. Clair, Kedron Bardwell, Lydia Sinapova, James Hayes, John Pauley, Patti Young, Murphy Waggoner, Maria DiPalma, Lora Friedrich, Bill Friedricks

Murphy Waggoner called the meeting to order charging the group with “our dream of a general education program – what outcomes do we want – what do we want our students to look like, what do we want them to do, what do we want them to know? Specifically, when we meet them 10 -15 years down the line, who do we want them to be?”

“Big donors” replied Nancy St. Clair which drew general laughter. She then said on a serious note that she would like to see good writers. Murphy then asked what we mean by good writing.

Maria DiPalma said maybe we should say to express themselves well -- orally as well as in written form.

Lora Friedrich said she felt that a good communicator uses good syntax and structure, is able to use the right words, and has an expressive command of language and an excellent vocabulary – having the skills to express their ideas. She commented that also she hopes they would have good ideas, be critical thinkers.

Patti Young said that they should also be critical thinkers, astute analysts. She felt that maybe one could be a “pretty writer, but the substance of what one writes is crap”.

John wondered if we should separate out critical thinking skills from good writing.

Murphy said we all believe we want good writing, but if they aren’t good critical thinkers, can they be good writers?

John said he thought it possible to write well but not think critically depending on what they are writing about.

Nancy added that critical thinking needs a set of skills to be able to analyze as well as report.

John then posed a question to Nancy, “Do students learn how to be critical thinkers through writing exercises”?

Nancy responded that writing across the curriculum is different than writing within a discipline – there are different styles of writing required in different disciplines.

A general concern was that our students know how to write at the reporting stage but do not know how to ask questions.

John then asked when thinking about writing across the curriculum - is there such a thing as generically good writers.

Nancy replied that there are certainly adequate writers that have a command of grammar, punctuation and sentence structure and then there are other qualities of good writing such as a natural voice and unique perspective.

Murphy then said that we all seem to agree that we want our students to be good writers, but why? What are the myriad of reasons why we want our students to be good writers?

Patti Young said that she hoped students would use it to make a difference, to do something of significance.

Lydia said that she hoped it would help them to be better communicators.

Jim Hayes brought up the idea of a sense of identity. He hoped that the students would bring with it a sense of self.

John Pauley noted that being a good writer sets up a condition of being a lifelong learner.

Maria commented that if you cannot write well or communicate well, you would be hampered in being able to assume leadership. In fact you would be at a disadvantage in engaging in political discussions, etc.

Murphy looked at old Simpson College catalogs to see what the requirements were over the years and found one year (in the eighties) that there was a reading competency requirement. It was gone in the next catalog.

Maria thought this interesting and noted that more and more we deal with students coming in as freshmen who don’t have experience or extensive reading backgrounds.

Lydia recounted a humorous anecdote about a person who wanted to write and this particular person was asked if she had read certain large well known novels. She replied “I don’t want to be a reader – I want to be a writer”.

Kedron pondered what is good writing for and said that in his classes he felt that requiring multiple drafts and crafting each to get slightly better – to build mastery was an important element.

John agreed that this was a good point that Kedron was making and also noted that he gave rewrite options. He did think that they see incremental improvements in exercises like this.

Murphy then drew the group back to focusing on why we want students to become good writers. She described an experience in the work world before she attended grad school (later in life) and when she began the job she was handed reading materials followed by a work project which consisted of writing a report. She feels that she would like our students to be able to go to grad school or to the work world and be competent and confident in their writing ability. She wants them to be able to write well, and by well, she means that she wants them to be able to think about things as well as have good writing skills. Murphy said that writing has been identified by the group as important – she posed the question to the group “What else would we want our students to be in this dream general education curriculum”?

John Pauley said he saw several levels of critical thinking building on each level. He would like to see really solid creative and critical thinkers.

Kedron asked how much of that do we expect to happen in a gen ed program and how much do we expect that to be within the individual depts.?

Lydia commented that the more you know outside a discipline the more advantage one has because it contributes to your overall knowledge and improves the practice within your personal discipline.

Murphy said that in her dream world students would make more connections in critical thinking and might apply something they’ve learned in another area to a problem they are currently concerned with. Perhaps they are in a management meeting in the future and decision making and they say “I have a way of thinking about this – how about if we try…”

Maria agreed that it has to be inter-related so that their minds are open to thinking outside of the box. That is the crux of the whole thing. You have to have a syllabus structured or faculty members willing to pose questions to help students pull it together to see relationships. The point of being self-critical is a new concept for most students – athletes seem to embrace this concept the best of new freshmen – it’s the ability to reflect on one’s vantage point and then reach for a higher level or a further goal. What do I need to do to push myself intellectually?

Kedron said that they talk about this in a political psychology class and they talk about forcing one to argue a contrary view to push one’s thought processes.

Nancy said that in writing classes that they have students move from personal to referential writing.

Jim Hayes that before learning writing he would want to review communication – oral, physical, visual – communication is the genus and all the other stuff is underneath it.

John commented that listening is also important and if we think that our students all know how to listen, we’re badly confused.

Lora Friedrich said that it’s also an important piece to have the students unravel what they were socialized to believe, to be curious.

Patti Young expounded then on this concept saying that not only has a student’s beliefs been constructed by their grandfather, but also the media. If we take that base, find out who they are, and help them deconstruct this, teach them to be crap detectors, then they will walk out of here different and improved people 4 years later. If we teach them to be crap detectors and then teach them to be empowered to ignore it, to write against it, to do something to reshape their world, we will have helped the student and society in general.

Murphy said I want to emphasize a word that Patti said and that is empower.

Maria agreed and noted that she wanted our students to feel that they are empowered and can now add to the general body of knowledge as they go through life.

Jim said he is hearing inter-disciplinary and also hearing developmental.

Murphy then started a discussion on grades and noted that we don’t give students opportunities to make very many mistakes and then gracefully recover from those. It was brought up that maybe there should be no grade until the end of the semester. It appears that grades sometimes get in the way of deep learning because of fear, of avoidance of risk. And many times for many students, it’s all about the grade. But others in the discussion felt that students needed feedback, needed measurement.

Kedron asked how much is this about educating faculty and how much is it about a curricular issue.

Lydia said students could be rewarded in other ways than a grade – they should know in the real world they don’t get grades.

Murphy said she thinks it important to know who your students are and not think of them as vessels to fill up or persons to remediate, but people that can learn the ideas that we want them to learn. This idea is from a book she is currently reading – Thinking about Learning and Teaching.

Lydia thinks that sometimes a bad grade at the beginning of a class discourages students and likewise a high grade may mislead a student as to his/her competency level.

John then said that at the senior colloq level students have been found inadequate in expressing themselves - articulating. Some of the best students who write the best papers give oral presentations that are lacking maybe in content, quite often in confidence shown by the presenter. This is a skill that needs to be emphasized.

Murphy said there is a classical assumption that a student who has studied a topic and learns it well, that bam, then they can present it well. But that doesn’t always work.

Maria said that in the music dept. that that is the reason they start performance activities (however small) in the freshman year.

Lora said that in her classes an A really means that she thinks that a student knows as much as she does right now. An A doesn’t mean you’re done – it just means you are on the right track of where you should be going.

Kedron said that maybe what we do with students is not done through a gen ed curriculum. Maybe we find other creative ways of infusing the ideas (we’ve discussed) into the curriculum.

John said that seems right but also it strikes him that certain things have to be in a gen ed curriculum or otherwise they won’t be delivered.

In summary, as we move forward, Murphy charged the group that we should be looking at these ideas when discussing curriculum change. Maybe the things we want to accomplish are a part of each major.

Kedron said that would be a creative approach.

Lydia noted there are different styles of oral communication, writing, and presenting things.

Maria lamented that the Cornerstones were about building skills for students, but that’s been long lost. Students identify themselves as a musician or historian, etc. They wonder why I need English if I’m going to Medical school.

Lora said we should focus on identity – who am I as a musician, etc. – write about that.

Kedron then noted that a first year course could be used as a mission toward self-understanding and critical thinking.

John said that LAS needs to change. Critical thinking and imaginative boundaries are blurred in LAS. There should be some common vocabulary introduced/used in LAS so that students learn ideas such as inference and fallacy. Senior colloq students don’t have that vocabulary.

Lora added that in line with the idea of “I am a person living with Schizophrenia vs. I’m a Schizophrenic”, we should teach our students “I’m a person studying sociology vs. I’m a social work major”, etc.

John asked when the minutes would be done so the committee could read and assimilate the important points rising to the top and to avoid redundant discussion. Shelly promised Monday afternoon.

Respectfully submitted,

Shelly Priebe


	Faculty Resources Academic Committees Academic Council Dean's Bio Prospective Faculty
10/12/07 minutes Minutes of the LPWG Curriculum Discussion Friday October 12, 2007 – 3 p.m. McNeill 109 In attendance: Nancy St. Clair, Kedron Bardwell, Lydia Sinapova, James Hayes, John Pauley, Patti Young, Murphy Waggoner, Maria DiPalma, Lora Friedrich, Bill Friedricks Murphy Waggoner called the meeting to order charging the group with “our dream of a general education program – what outcomes do we want – what do we want our students to look like, what do we want them to do, what do we want them to know? Specifically, when we meet them 10 -15 years down the line, who do we want them to be?” “Big donors” replied Nancy St. Clair which drew general laughter. She then said on a serious note that she would like to see good writers. Murphy then asked what we mean by good writing. Maria DiPalma said maybe we should say to express themselves well -- orally as well as in written form. Lora Friedrich said she felt that a good communicator uses good syntax and structure, is able to use the right words, and has an expressive command of language and an excellent vocabulary – having the skills to express their ideas. She commented that also she hopes they would have good ideas, be critical thinkers. Patti Young said that they should also be critical thinkers, astute analysts. She felt that maybe one could be a “pretty writer, but the substance of what one writes is crap”. John wondered if we should separate out critical thinking skills from good writing. Murphy said we all believe we want good writing, but if they aren’t good critical thinkers, can they be good writers? John said he thought it possible to write well but not think critically depending on what they are writing about. Nancy added that critical thinking needs a set of skills to be able to analyze as well as report. John then posed a question to Nancy, “Do students learn how to be critical thinkers through writing exercises”? Nancy responded that writing across the curriculum is different than writing within a discipline – there are different styles of writing required in different disciplines. A general concern was that our students know how to write at the reporting stage but do not know how to ask questions. John then asked when thinking about writing across the curriculum - is there such a thing as generically good writers. Nancy replied that there are certainly adequate writers that have a command of grammar, punctuation and sentence structure and then there are other qualities of good writing such as a natural voice and unique perspective. Murphy then said that we all seem to agree that we want our students to be good writers, but why? What are the myriad of reasons why we want our students to be good writers? Patti Young said that she hoped students would use it to make a difference, to do something of significance. Lydia said that she hoped it would help them to be better communicators. Jim Hayes brought up the idea of a sense of identity. He hoped that the students would bring with it a sense of self. John Pauley noted that being a good writer sets up a condition of being a lifelong learner. Maria commented that if you cannot write well or communicate well, you would be hampered in being able to assume leadership. In fact you would be at a disadvantage in engaging in political discussions, etc. Murphy looked at old Simpson College catalogs to see what the requirements were over the years and found one year (in the eighties) that there was a reading competency requirement. It was gone in the next catalog. Maria thought this interesting and noted that more and more we deal with students coming in as freshmen who don’t have experience or extensive reading backgrounds. Lydia recounted a humorous anecdote about a person who wanted to write and this particular person was asked if she had read certain large well known novels. She replied “I don’t want to be a reader – I want to be a writer”. Kedron pondered what is good writing for and said that in his classes he felt that requiring multiple drafts and crafting each to get slightly better – to build mastery was an important element. John agreed that this was a good point that Kedron was making and also noted that he gave rewrite options. He did think that they see incremental improvements in exercises like this. Murphy then drew the group back to focusing on why we want students to become good writers. She described an experience in the work world before she attended grad school (later in life) and when she began the job she was handed reading materials followed by a work project which consisted of writing a report. She feels that she would like our students to be able to go to grad school or to the work world and be competent and confident in their writing ability. She wants them to be able to write well, and by well, she means that she wants them to be able to think about things as well as have good writing skills. Murphy said that writing has been identified by the group as important – she posed the question to the group “What else would we want our students to be in this dream general education curriculum”? John Pauley said he saw several levels of critical thinking building on each level. He would like to see really solid creative and critical thinkers. Kedron asked how much of that do we expect to happen in a gen ed program and how much do we expect that to be within the individual depts.? Lydia commented that the more you know outside a discipline the more advantage one has because it contributes to your overall knowledge and improves the practice within your personal discipline. Murphy said that in her dream world students would make more connections in critical thinking and might apply something they’ve learned in another area to a problem they are currently concerned with. Perhaps they are in a management meeting in the future and decision making and they say “I have a way of thinking about this – how about if we try…” Maria agreed that it has to be inter-related so that their minds are open to thinking outside of the box. That is the crux of the whole thing. You have to have a syllabus structured or faculty members willing to pose questions to help students pull it together to see relationships. The point of being self-critical is a new concept for most students – athletes seem to embrace this concept the best of new freshmen – it’s the ability to reflect on one’s vantage point and then reach for a higher level or a further goal. What do I need to do to push myself intellectually? Kedron said that they talk about this in a political psychology class and they talk about forcing one to argue a contrary view to push one’s thought processes. Nancy said that in writing classes that they have students move from personal to referential writing. Jim Hayes that before learning writing he would want to review communication – oral, physical, visual – communication is the genus and all the other stuff is underneath it. John commented that listening is also important and if we think that our students all know how to listen, we’re badly confused. Lora Friedrich said that it’s also an important piece to have the students unravel what they were socialized to believe, to be curious. Patti Young expounded then on this concept saying that not only has a student’s beliefs been constructed by their grandfather, but also the media. If we take that base, find out who they are, and help them deconstruct this, teach them to be crap detectors, then they will walk out of here different and improved people 4 years later. If we teach them to be crap detectors and then teach them to be empowered to ignore it, to write against it, to do something to reshape their world, we will have helped the student and society in general. Murphy said I want to emphasize a word that Patti said and that is empower. Maria agreed and noted that she wanted our students to feel that they are empowered and can now add to the general body of knowledge as they go through life. Jim said he is hearing inter-disciplinary and also hearing developmental. Murphy then started a discussion on grades and noted that we don’t give students opportunities to make very many mistakes and then gracefully recover from those. It was brought up that maybe there should be no grade until the end of the semester. It appears that grades sometimes get in the way of deep learning because of fear, of avoidance of risk. And many times for many students, it’s all about the grade. But others in the discussion felt that students needed feedback, needed measurement. Kedron asked how much is this about educating faculty and how much is it about a curricular issue. Lydia said students could be rewarded in other ways than a grade – they should know in the real world they don’t get grades. Murphy said she thinks it important to know who your students are and not think of them as vessels to fill up or persons to remediate, but people that can learn the ideas that we want them to learn. This idea is from a book she is currently reading – Thinking about Learning and Teaching. Lydia thinks that sometimes a bad grade at the beginning of a class discourages students and likewise a high grade may mislead a student as to his/her competency level. John then said that at the senior colloq level students have been found inadequate in expressing themselves - articulating. Some of the best students who write the best papers give oral presentations that are lacking maybe in content, quite often in confidence shown by the presenter. This is a skill that needs to be emphasized. Murphy said there is a classical assumption that a student who has studied a topic and learns it well, that bam, then they can present it well. But that doesn’t always work. Maria said that in the music dept. that that is the reason they start performance activities (however small) in the freshman year. Lora said that in her classes an A really means that she thinks that a student knows as much as she does right now. An A doesn’t mean you’re done – it just means you are on the right track of where you should be going. Kedron said that maybe what we do with students is not done through a gen ed curriculum. Maybe we find other creative ways of infusing the ideas (we’ve discussed) into the curriculum. John said that seems right but also it strikes him that certain things have to be in a gen ed curriculum or otherwise they won’t be delivered. In summary, as we move forward, Murphy charged the group that we should be looking at these ideas when discussing curriculum change. Maybe the things we want to accomplish are a part of each major. Kedron said that would be a creative approach. Lydia noted there are different styles of oral communication, writing, and presenting things. Maria lamented that the Cornerstones were about building skills for students, but that’s been long lost. Students identify themselves as a musician or historian, etc. They wonder why I need English if I’m going to Medical school. Lora said we should focus on identity – who am I as a musician, etc. – write about that. Kedron then noted that a first year course could be used as a mission toward self-understanding and critical thinking. John said that LAS needs to change. Critical thinking and imaginative boundaries are blurred in LAS. There should be some common vocabulary introduced/used in LAS so that students learn ideas such as inference and fallacy. Senior colloq students don’t have that vocabulary. Lora added that in line with the idea of “I am a person living with Schizophrenia vs. I’m a Schizophrenic”, we should teach our students “I’m a person studying sociology vs. I’m a social work major”, etc. John asked when the minutes would be done so the committee could read and assimilate the important points rising to the top and to avoid redundant discussion. Shelly promised Monday afternoon. Respectfully submitted, Shelly Priebe
About Simpson \| Admissions \| Evening, Weekend & Graduate Programs \| Academics \| Alumni Athletics \| Arts & Forum \| Campus & Community \| Student Life \| Support Simpson Simpson.edu \| Site Map \| Contact Us © Copyright 2008 Simpson College Last Updated: 11/12/07	SEARCH: