College Abbrev: LAS

Department Prefix: LAS

Proposal # 12

Short Proposal Title (10 words or less):

Modify Freshmen seminar and create new degree requirement

I X

II X

III X

IV X

V X

VI X

VII X

Check

Course Changes

Course Number(s)/Title(s)

Change course’s offering semesters

X

Reword the description of a course

COL 101 Freshman Seminar

Delete a non-shared course from the catalog

X

Change course’s departmental prefix, title, number, or prerequisite²

COL 101 Freshman Seminar

Add or Delete LAS Focus Area ^{1, 2}

Other clerical changes

Check

Program Changes

Affected Program(s)

Reword description of program

Other clerical changes

Check

Course Number(s)/Title(s)COL

X

Add a new course^{1, 2}

COL 151 Introduction to Critical Thinking

Change course level from lower to upper or upper to lower division^{3, 2}

Delete course if in another department’s degree or a prerequisite²

Change course’s prerequisites if non-departmental

Change a course’s credit hours

Check

Program Changes

Affected Program(s)

Add new major, minor, associate, certificate, emphasis area, or option^{2, 4}

Title change of existing program or emphasis^{2, 4}

Delete existing program⁴

Change an existing major, minor, associate, or emphasis area’s requirements²

Change Entrance and/or Exit Requirements

Change Certification Requirements

Brief Description:

COL 101: The title change reflects the broadened scope of the course, and Western’s change to university status.

COL 151: Create a course which introduces the vocabulary and processes of critical thinking for first year and transfer students

Brief Justification:

COL 101: MWSU has placed the development of critical thinking as point of focus in its new strategic plan and as an AQIP action project. With this proposal the teaching of the vocabulary and processes of critical thinking will become the dominant feature and study skills and campus orientation will take a diminished part of the curriculum. It is proposed that this course become the foundation of Western’s critical thinking across the curriculum initiative as described in the MWSU 2007-2009 AQIP action projects.

COL 151: MWSU has placed the development of critical thinking as point of focus in its new strategic plan and as an AQIP action project. This course will introduce to the language of critical thinking in use in Western’s critical thinking across the curriculum initiative.

Depart.

Chair’s Name

Endorsement

Comments

ART

Yes

No

.

BIO

Todd Eckdahl

Yes X

No

CHE

Ben Caldwell

Yes X

No

CST

Marilyn Hunt

Yes X

No

CMP

Ken Lee

Yes X

No

ECO

Pat McMurry

Yes X

No0

FIRST, I CANNOT GET RID OF THE STUPID DELETED ICONS. SECOND, I WOULD PREFER TO VOTE ON THIS CHANGE AFTER I ATTEND THE SESSIONS WHICH PURPORT TO SHOW EACH DEPARTMENT HOW TO INCORPORATE THE “COMMON LANGUAGE” OF CT INTO ALL OF OUR COURSES. IF IT ENHANCES LEARNING AND THINKING WE WOULD ACCEPT. IF IT IS INTRUSIVE AND REPLACES THE MATERIAL THAT WE FEEL IS NECESSARY FOR THE ECONOMICALLY LITERATE, THEN WE WOULD OPPOSE. IF IT ELIMINATES ACADEMIC FREEDOM, WE WOULD OPPOSE.

EFJ

Mike Cadden

Yes X

No

GSS

Joachim Kibirige

Yes X

No

HPG

Steven Greiert

Yes

No X

The Department of HPG strongly supports the concept of “critical thinking.” We apply this in every class that we teach. We want students to be as analytical as possible. But we do not support this curriculum proposal for a “system” of “critical thinking,” because we do not believe that it addresses the real problems that exist at MWSU. Our reasons are as follows:

1. The data provided to support it as a likely success is minimal and unimpressive. This argument was brought forth in an earlier meeting with our department but was disregarded. As it stands now, this curriculum proposal is based upon casuistic argumentation, which we cannot accept.

2. This proposal does not differ much from its predecessor. Our department suggested a test-run in a few sections of COL 101 before bringing it forward as a curriculum proposal. This proposal is not a demonstration of a test-run. Before we can support this proposal we need to see data over a period of three or four years with a “control group” and an “experimental group” here. This is the first step in a full curriculum revolution that will affect MWSU for many years. Once again, after consultation, our suggestion was disregarded. We think MWSU should move forward slowly at a measured pace in curriculum development rather than launch into something that has not been proven to work at many other places, much less here.

3. We have questions that remain unanswered regarding the rubric used as a pre-test and a post-test. Yet, we already have been invited to a symposium with a session involving assessment and the clear understanding that attendance at this event conveys tacit approval of the entire “system” from beginning to end.

4. The “system” or “model” of “critical thinking” advocated by the Blue Book is unacceptable, because we do not agree with important premises upon which it is based. Course content is far more important to “critical thinking” than as described by this book. We would not include this book in required reading for our courses now. Why should we do so in the future? We disagree with several of the definitions put forth in this book. Why should we teach things in which we do not believe? We do not think that each person – student or faculty member – should define things in exactly the same way. That is unrealistic, because it does not occur among educated people here or elsewhere. To insist that we teach the same definitions of the same terms is an infringement on our academic freedom. We have been told that the COL 101 is not a “required” course. At the same time, we have also been told that every department will be “expected” to make sure that its students learn how to think critically – according to the specific “system.” Is this not a de facto “requirement.” Why should we teach a “method” or a “system” to which we do not subscribe?

5. We believe that reading is the key to critical thinking and success for students in college.

Faculty at this university have not been held accountable for making students actually read their assigned readings. As a result, students across campus have not learned to think critically, because they do not take their reading assignments seriously or because they do not read well. Instead of this critical thinking proposal, we should institute a “reading across the curriculum” proposal with an emphasis on interdepartmental readings of “real scholarly literature” in upper-level courses – not in lower-level courses. This Blue Book is not the answer to our students learning how to think critically. We need to emphasize more students taking RDG 095 and to insist that other students in our regular content courses be held accountable for their reading assignments in every course. Learning Communities should exist among the upper-level courses, where students would have to read literature that applies to more than one academic discipline. In this way they can better make the “connections” that the current curriculum proposal purports will occur in the lower-level courses. If one does not know how to read, then it does not matter how creative one is. It does not matter if they memorize definitions. Students need to learn content knowledge first before they can read critically or analytically. The “reading across the curriculum” proposal should be connected with a new “writing across the curriculum” initiative. Once students are reading, the next step to think critically is for them to write in every class. The actual process of writing is the “critical thinking” that is necessary for them to reach the level at which we want our graduates to be. Upper-level Learning Communities would address the issue of compartimentalization of learning at MWSU much better than lower-level Learning Communities.

6. This type of curriculum development and regimentation of thought will drive away faculty – whether they are new or veterans. Faculty applying for positions at MWSU will find this approach to education to be uninspiring and repugnant. We will lose talented faculty as a result. Much of the joy of teaching is creativity – not adhering to a “system” or a “model.”

7. Approval of this curriculum proposal by chairs and faculty is abdication of our responsibility to maintain control of the curriculum. This proposal is motivated almost exclusively by a desire to improve exit scores. It represents a stop-gap approach to real problems in learning on our campus. It is itself an example of “uncritical thinking,” which should be rejected by the UGCC.

MUS

Matt Gilmour

Yes X

No

PSY

Phil Wann

Yes x

No

BUS

Carol Roever

Yes X

No

CJLS

Yes X

No

The course should not be required this year and should be studied for the possibility before another proposal is made.

EDU

Richard Porr

Yes X

No

The Ed Dept supports the concept of developing critical thinking across the curriculum but agrees with other departments that decision need to be data driven to include qualitative data from the end users—students. There needs to be a close look at how this fits into the holistic impression of Western and its impact upon admissions as per advice given by Noel-Levitz. We support going forward only to gather more data and to improve the proposal.

ET

Virendra Varma

Yes X

No

HPER

Brenda Blessing

Yes X

No

Agree with the changes - NOT a required course.

NUR

Kathleen Andrews

Yes X

No

I support with reservation. I think studying this for a year, e.g. having several sections of COL 101 that are an experimental critical thinking group and comparing outcomes with those in traditional COL 101 would be a logical firststep before full adoption of this course.

Department Name

No Impact

Req. course

Elective course

Prerequisite

ART

BIO

X

CHE

X

CST

CMP

X

ECO

X

EFJ

GSS

X

HPG

X

MUS

PSY

X

BUS

CJLS

EDU

X

ET

X

HPER

X

NUR

X

Responsibility

Name/Endorsement

Proposal’s Author

Martin Johnson

Department Curriculum Chair

Martin Johnson

Department Chair

Martin Johnson

Check

Impact(s) of Proposal(s)

Explanation(s)

X

Increase in full or part time faculty

Additional sections of COL 101 and COL 151 may be required. These may be covered by full-time or part-time faculty.

Increase in overload

Increase in load offset by reduction of:

Decrease in existing load

No impact existing load

General Studies Course

Required or elective course in another department’s program

Prerequisite for course in another department

Other impact

No impact

Yes

No

Support

Opposition

Neutral

Reservation

Other

Dean’s Name

Endorsement

Comments

Martin Johnson

Yes X

No

Concern

Yes

No

Are department faculty qualified to teach courses or implement change(s)?

X

Is the proposed department the most reasonable one to implement the proposal?

X

Are the faculty and financial resources adequate to implement the proposal?

X

DHE notification required?

X

General Studies processing required?

X

Dean’s Name

Endorsement

Comments

Steve Estes

Yes X

No

Concern

Yes

No

Are department faculty qualified to teach courses or implement change(s)?

X

Is the proposed department the most reasonable one to implement the proposal?

X

Are the faculty and financial resources adequate to implement the proposal?