LPWG

Minutes of the LPWG
Curriculum Discussion
Friday October 19, 2007 – 3 p.m.
McNeill 109

In attendance: Nancy St. Clair, Stephanie Krauth, Kedron Bardwell, Lydia Sinapova, John Pauley, Patti Young, Murphy Waggoner, Sal Meyers, Lora Friedrich, Bill Friedricks, Steve Griffith

Dean Griffith brought the meeting to order and asked the members of the committee if they felt that using the list of The Essential Learning Outcomes would be best to use as reference or check list for this discussion. There was general agreement to that approach as it was a handy list to use (already there for the meeting). The group began with the Intellectual and Practical skills desired for students.

It was noted that in the last meeting writing & oral communication skills and critical thinking & creative thinking had been determined by the group as important or crucial skills that everyone would agree that our students need. Murphy and John both commented that they felt we had not defined completely what constitutes good critical and creative thinking.

A discussion ensued to find commonality of agreement for what we wish our students to be exposed to and what literacy’s to attain. Rather than spend time analyzing what these ideas mean at this point as far as practice, it was suggested that we look at the ideas to see if they are what we want as goals for learning outcomes for our students.

Dean Griffith then asked about quantitative literacy and information literacy. It was quickly agreed that quantitative literacy was important. Dean Griffith asked the group to define information literacy – did it relate to research etc? John Pauley noted that he felt that was part of it but that he also saw it as technological literacy. Bill said he saw it as the ability to do research as a large part. Nancy said that she thought it should include the ability to analyze the media and understand the rhetorical tools used. Murphy said that nowadays students are exposed to or have access to more and more information and need the tools to decide if the information is from a legitimate source or not.

Dean Griffith then brought forth the idea of teamwork and problem solving. John said that students learn best when they practice all the skills of problem solving etc. Lydia then noted that all the skills need to be practiced through all the classes. Murphy said that she had many classes that didn’t require information literacy for example. After some discussion of this idea, Dean Griffith stated that he thought some classes will have more emphasis on some skills and literacy’s than other classes.

Inquiry analysis was the next idea discussed. Murphy thought that maybe it might come in a major and asking questions within a major. Steve Griffith came back to Nancy’s point about analyzing information as a general skill and to promote students to be curious. John agreed about inviting the students’ natural curiosity as the spirit of inquiry. Nancy sees it as a very rigorous practice of the skills of inquiry being taught. For example, she had John come to one of her classes to visit about philosophy and to demonstrate the practice of inquiry or argument. He helped them to challenge pre-held beliefs, etc.

Dean Griffith then asked if there were more categories (intellectual or practical skills) to add to the list. Nancy responded that she likes a broad base and all other ideas for skills she might have could fit in to the ones already mentioned.

The group then moved to Personal and Social Responsibility. Kedron visited about where the knowledge meets the action and that one can focus on the research but that there’s an end to it, a focus as such. Nancy said that she keeps coming back to the book The Pedagogy of the Oppressed and that what Kedron is talking about is a blending of theory and practice. Murphy said that she is reading a book Thinking About Teaching and Learning and she noted that there is research about students who are taught certain skills and then there are studies about whether those skills are transferrable. Apparently this book says that this does not work. John then brought up the consistency of taking the skills of moral reasoning to other classes from a certain class is not always there. He notes the dichotomy between fact and value as bogus. Bill said that there is even a bigger problem that the students see each individual course as discreet and they don’t see the connections between courses.

Dean Griffith then asked would it be fair to say that the curriculum be deliberate and intentional rather than just exposure.

John said that there has to be integration between the classes or we won’t be able to be deliberate and intentional with some of these goals.

Murphy then said that this gets back to what Kedron was saying --- how much is this building a curriculum and how much is teaching pedagogy and she has thought about this a lot since Kedron brought it up.

Kedron asked that if we are intentional and deliberate and somewhat progressive, doesn’t that get away from the model that has lots of options?

Sal said she doesn’t agree with Lydia that all the courses teach all those things, but she couldn’t imagine that any course wouldn’t touch on one of the things.

Patti said that our curriculum has to match our pedagogy.

Murphy brought up the idea of development of character and leadership under personal and social responsibility.

Dean Griffith agreed and felt that this matched up with the strategic plan.

A discussion regarding and defining leadership followed.

Lora Friedrich commented that she didn’t think everyone wanted to be a leader. Dean Griffith said that there were many types and degrees of leadership. Lora argued that including this wording still reinforces the idea that we value leadership and might reinforce the idea among students if you’re not a leader, you’re lacking. She prefers as a theme – “being your best self”.

Bill Friedricks noted that not everyone can be a leader. Maybe another word would have a better connotation he suggested.

Stephanie Krauth thought maybe the word engagement – embracing engagement. She thought that it important to take action.

Dean Griffith agreed that maybe the word action was good – taking action.

Nancy said that she liked what Lora is saying. You have to be cognitive of yourself first – self actualization. Developing individuals – cultivating humanity one student at a time.

The committee moved on to diversity and global awareness. Sal Meyers said that when thinking about these items currently we have a distinction between local diversity (within the US) and global diversity. She wondered if we should rethink this distinction or do we want to maintain this distinction.

Nancy felt that local and global was the scope and that she was fine with a broad term that encompasses both.

Murphy would like to see it worded or structured in a way so that one could see things outside themselves. She would like to see the student studying something that is different than “what you are”.

Dean Griffith wondered if that would be captured in intercultural knowledge.

Bill said that you could change it to intercultural competence.

Kedron then raised a point about civic knowledge and engagement was that you had to have some sort of civic knowledge before one could engage. A student had to have the skills first before they could engage.

Dean Griffith then asked the group about integrative learning.

Nancy said that she liked the idea of a capstone course experience. There are a lot of problems with a lack of prerequisites in 300 level courses. Bill agreed and said that most persons that take the 300 level courses are not majors. Nancy said a problem is that we’re so tuition driven and we have limited resources – by not having prerequisites, we squish everybody into courses.

Dean Griffith noted that these are the kind of tough details we’ll need to look at and work on in the next couple years. These are important issues. The notion comes back to the maturity for the courses.

Regarding knowledge of human cultures and the physical and natural world, Lora Friedrich said that she didn’t believe travel had to be a part of competency. She felt it was about awareness and studying the UN Document on International Human Rights could add to one’s awareness as well as travel.

Bill said that we should have a statement about a broad knowledge that we want our students to leave Simpson College with.

John wondered if the students needed to address big questions in every field.

Dean Griffith then charged the group with next meeting’s discussion which will be over the top topic – the knowledge of human cultures and the physical and natural world – and big questions – how they should fit in to the curriculum. This is where the next meeting will begin.

The meeting was adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

Shelly Priebe


	Faculty Resources Academic Committees Academic Council Dean's Bio Prospective Faculty
Minutes Minutes of the LPWG Curriculum Discussion Friday October 19, 2007 – 3 p.m. McNeill 109 In attendance: Nancy St. Clair, Stephanie Krauth, Kedron Bardwell, Lydia Sinapova, John Pauley, Patti Young, Murphy Waggoner, Sal Meyers, Lora Friedrich, Bill Friedricks, Steve Griffith Dean Griffith brought the meeting to order and asked the members of the committee if they felt that using the list of The Essential Learning Outcomes would be best to use as reference or check list for this discussion. There was general agreement to that approach as it was a handy list to use (already there for the meeting). The group began with the Intellectual and Practical skills desired for students. It was noted that in the last meeting writing & oral communication skills and critical thinking & creative thinking had been determined by the group as important or crucial skills that everyone would agree that our students need. Murphy and John both commented that they felt we had not defined completely what constitutes good critical and creative thinking. A discussion ensued to find commonality of agreement for what we wish our students to be exposed to and what literacy’s to attain. Rather than spend time analyzing what these ideas mean at this point as far as practice, it was suggested that we look at the ideas to see if they are what we want as goals for learning outcomes for our students. Dean Griffith then asked about quantitative literacy and information literacy. It was quickly agreed that quantitative literacy was important. Dean Griffith asked the group to define information literacy – did it relate to research etc? John Pauley noted that he felt that was part of it but that he also saw it as technological literacy. Bill said he saw it as the ability to do research as a large part. Nancy said that she thought it should include the ability to analyze the media and understand the rhetorical tools used. Murphy said that nowadays students are exposed to or have access to more and more information and need the tools to decide if the information is from a legitimate source or not. Dean Griffith then brought forth the idea of teamwork and problem solving. John said that students learn best when they practice all the skills of problem solving etc. Lydia then noted that all the skills need to be practiced through all the classes. Murphy said that she had many classes that didn’t require information literacy for example. After some discussion of this idea, Dean Griffith stated that he thought some classes will have more emphasis on some skills and literacy’s than other classes. Inquiry analysis was the next idea discussed. Murphy thought that maybe it might come in a major and asking questions within a major. Steve Griffith came back to Nancy’s point about analyzing information as a general skill and to promote students to be curious. John agreed about inviting the students’ natural curiosity as the spirit of inquiry. Nancy sees it as a very rigorous practice of the skills of inquiry being taught. For example, she had John come to one of her classes to visit about philosophy and to demonstrate the practice of inquiry or argument. He helped them to challenge pre-held beliefs, etc. Dean Griffith then asked if there were more categories (intellectual or practical skills) to add to the list. Nancy responded that she likes a broad base and all other ideas for skills she might have could fit in to the ones already mentioned. The group then moved to Personal and Social Responsibility. Kedron visited about where the knowledge meets the action and that one can focus on the research but that there’s an end to it, a focus as such. Nancy said that she keeps coming back to the book The Pedagogy of the Oppressed and that what Kedron is talking about is a blending of theory and practice. Murphy said that she is reading a book Thinking About Teaching and Learning and she noted that there is research about students who are taught certain skills and then there are studies about whether those skills are transferrable. Apparently this book says that this does not work. John then brought up the consistency of taking the skills of moral reasoning to other classes from a certain class is not always there. He notes the dichotomy between fact and value as bogus. Bill said that there is even a bigger problem that the students see each individual course as discreet and they don’t see the connections between courses. Dean Griffith then asked would it be fair to say that the curriculum be deliberate and intentional rather than just exposure. John said that there has to be integration between the classes or we won’t be able to be deliberate and intentional with some of these goals. Murphy then said that this gets back to what Kedron was saying --- how much is this building a curriculum and how much is teaching pedagogy and she has thought about this a lot since Kedron brought it up. Kedron asked that if we are intentional and deliberate and somewhat progressive, doesn’t that get away from the model that has lots of options? Sal said she doesn’t agree with Lydia that all the courses teach all those things, but she couldn’t imagine that any course wouldn’t touch on one of the things. Patti said that our curriculum has to match our pedagogy. Murphy brought up the idea of development of character and leadership under personal and social responsibility. Dean Griffith agreed and felt that this matched up with the strategic plan. A discussion regarding and defining leadership followed. Lora Friedrich commented that she didn’t think everyone wanted to be a leader. Dean Griffith said that there were many types and degrees of leadership. Lora argued that including this wording still reinforces the idea that we value leadership and might reinforce the idea among students if you’re not a leader, you’re lacking. She prefers as a theme – “being your best self”. Bill Friedricks noted that not everyone can be a leader. Maybe another word would have a better connotation he suggested. Stephanie Krauth thought maybe the word engagement – embracing engagement. She thought that it important to take action. Dean Griffith agreed that maybe the word action was good – taking action. Nancy said that she liked what Lora is saying. You have to be cognitive of yourself first – self actualization. Developing individuals – cultivating humanity one student at a time. The committee moved on to diversity and global awareness. Sal Meyers said that when thinking about these items currently we have a distinction between local diversity (within the US) and global diversity. She wondered if we should rethink this distinction or do we want to maintain this distinction. Nancy felt that local and global was the scope and that she was fine with a broad term that encompasses both. Murphy would like to see it worded or structured in a way so that one could see things outside themselves. She would like to see the student studying something that is different than “what you are”. Dean Griffith wondered if that would be captured in intercultural knowledge. Bill said that you could change it to intercultural competence. Kedron then raised a point about civic knowledge and engagement was that you had to have some sort of civic knowledge before one could engage. A student had to have the skills first before they could engage. Dean Griffith then asked the group about integrative learning. Nancy said that she liked the idea of a capstone course experience. There are a lot of problems with a lack of prerequisites in 300 level courses. Bill agreed and said that most persons that take the 300 level courses are not majors. Nancy said a problem is that we’re so tuition driven and we have limited resources – by not having prerequisites, we squish everybody into courses. Dean Griffith noted that these are the kind of tough details we’ll need to look at and work on in the next couple years. These are important issues. The notion comes back to the maturity for the courses. Regarding knowledge of human cultures and the physical and natural world, Lora Friedrich said that she didn’t believe travel had to be a part of competency. She felt it was about awareness and studying the UN Document on International Human Rights could add to one’s awareness as well as travel. Bill said that we should have a statement about a broad knowledge that we want our students to leave Simpson College with. John wondered if the students needed to address big questions in every field. Dean Griffith then charged the group with next meeting’s discussion which will be over the top topic – the knowledge of human cultures and the physical and natural world – and big questions – how they should fit in to the curriculum. This is where the next meeting will begin. The meeting was adjourned. 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: 11/2/07	SEARCH: