Excel Logical Formula If for Grading by pah52896

VIEWS: 53 PAGES: 234

Excel Logical Formula If for Grading document sample

More Info
									                   1) What is the format of course – 2 semesters or 1 semester or
                   other, class size, # of meetings, etc?




Christ College -    sixteen-credit, two-semester, team-taught, 6 seminars of 15
VALPO              students, seminars five hours a week, common plenary
                   lecture and discussion two hours a week.




St. Catherine       two courses, each are one semester, 20 students per class,
                   and each meet for 3 hours per week.




Columbia U -       2 semesters; 20-22 students/class (22 max); 28 meetings;
Literature         seminar/discussion format
Humanities
Columbia U -     2 semesters; 21-22 students/class (22 max); 28 meetings;
Contemporary     seminar/discussion format
Civilization




Lawrence U       one course in each of two trimesters. Each trimester is 10
                 weeks long. Freshman Studies meets 3 times per week for
                 70 minutes each meeting. Once/week common lecture,
                 twice/week 15-16 students discussion




Lynchburg Col.   one-semester course, sections of no more than 24 students,
                 lectures once/week, discussion once/week
Manhattan Col.    1 semester, 3 times a week, 14 weeks. Class capped at 25
Global Origins
of U.S. Society

Manhattan Col.    1 semester.Class size: 25 Three weekly meetings for
- Classical       fourteen weeks
Origins of
Western
Culture

Mercer U.         eight course sequence, class size to eighteen, 3X50 or
                  2X70/week




NYU               One semester. Two lectures and one recitation (=discussion)
                  section each week, each 75 minutes long. Lecture are taught
                  only by regular faculty; graduate student preceptors (=T.A.s)
                  lead the sections. 20 students/section with lectures in the
                  range of 80-120 students.
Rhodes Col.     two semesters of a four-semester sequence. Class size: 18-
                20 students. Class meetings: three times per week, one-hour
                meetings (Monday, Wednesday, Friday) with a combination
                of lecture (called ‗common session‘) and colloquia.




Rockford Col.   1 semester, 2 hours/week, class size: 15
Samford U.      two semesters. Classes capped at 22, 2X110/week or
                3X65/week




Skidmore Col.   one semester (fall) course, 18 students/section, 55 min
                lecture once/week, 2X75/week discussion.
St.               one-semester, 14 students/section, 2X75/week or
Bonaventure U.    3X50/week




St. Mary's Col.   Four semesters required. 18 students/section. three hours a
(CA)              week for 13 weeks (MWF or T/TH).
Temple U.       two-semester sequence, 32 students each, meeting 3 hours
                per week




UNC-Asheville   4 courses, 18 students/section, three times per week 1
                lecture, 2 disc., 70 min each.
U. of Richmond     2 semesters, @ 20 students/class/3 credits (3 50-min MWF
                   classes or TR equivalent)




U. of Sciences -   two semesters, 25 students, 150 minutes each week. Classes
Philly             are available with one meeting, two meetings or three
                   meetings each week for the convenience of the students
Wabash         Two 15-week semesters; 14-17 sections of 12-16 students
               each. MWF 50 minutes.




Whitman Col.   two-semester sequence, 15 students/section. one or two
               plenary lectures during the year. 3X50 min/week
2) What are the goals of course – skills, not content?




introduce new students to the academic life by experiencing discourses and
practices of poiesis (imaginative making), analysis, critique, and persuasion.




Develop reflective judgement, active membership into scholarly community, develop
rhetorical skills in writing/speaking, develop academic skills




observation, analysis, argument, imaginative comparison, respect for ideas, nuances and
differences
observation, analysis, argument, imaginative comparison, respect for ideas,
nuances and differences




intro to liberal arts, Critical, analytic reading, clear and structured writing (of
thesis-driven essays), and facile and willing oral analysis.




familiarity with at least 9 readings from great books, make connections between
them, ability to synthesize ideas in great books texts, ideas presented by guest
speakers, contemporary issues, and personal experience, understanding and
appreciating diverse views from a range of disciplines, cultures, and milieux, think
critically and demonstrate it in oral and written coursework, Make connections
between various major fields, Gain an appreciation for the value of multiple perspectives
honing and improving students‘ writing, thinking, and speaking abilities



Reading comprehension of classical authors; developing skills in interpreting
literature, philosophy, drama from primary sources



become critical thinkers, good writers, and go to texts for evidence to support
their arguments, good readers




introduce students to the modes and methods of humanitic inquiry, develop their
reading, writing, and communication skills. Socialize them to the expectation of
University-level work. foster a shared intellectual experience
assists students in acquiring and developing a set of academic abilities. become
an independent thinker and researcher, and effective communicator, and a critical
evaluator. read, write, discuss effectively




careful reading, writing, critical thinking, speaking - provide an academic
experience that will be challenging, and valuable in itself; to prepare freshmen for
their college careers in general by exposing them to the demands of serious reading,
thinking, and writing, and to various academic disciplines; to promote bonds among
them that will attach them to their classmates and to the college as a whole
1. critical reasoning skills 2. ability to investigate/construct a well-reasoned and
coherent viewpoint. 3. communicate ideas/arguments clearly and persuasively
written/spoken means. 4. Understand through multiple perspectives and different
world values. 5. Explore religious and moral dimensions of critical issues. 6.
Appreciate how different disciplines advance understanding of cultures and
civilizations and recognize the interconnectedness of the disciplines. 7. Become a
part of a larger academic community




2) learn to explore a question from a variety of perspectives (disciplinary,
interdisciplinary, cross cultural) 3) learn to identify and formulate questions that
will produce knowledge 4) develop the habit of mind of making connections
among ideas 5) learn and practice critical thinking (which includes recognizing
choices, examining assumptions, taking a skeptical stance) 6) gain an appreciation
for ambiguity and complexity 7) commit to action despite the recognition of
ambiguity 8)create a community of learners among the students and faculty of
Skidmore College
ability to read, analyze, comprehend, interpret difficult readings, and communicate this
analysis, comprehension and interpretation orally and in writing.




We, the faculty, discuss this matter with some regularity. Some instructors
incline toward content some toward skills. Others reject that dichotomy. Some
see the sequence as ―history of ideas.‖ Some see it as an opportunity for the
students to activate their own intellectual interests and examine life.
Develop higher-order thinking skills: analysis, synthesis, evaluation, Develop
ability at reading serious college-level authors (Locke, Plato, Galileo), Build
writing skills, with an emphasis on argumentation and analysis




close reading of primary sources and literary works, informal discussion, and
gradual refinement of the student's capacity for written response
to develop your ability to read, think, speak, and write; to enlarge your
understanding of the diverse ways in which thinkers and writers have sought
meaning in human experience; and to establish a foundation for University-wide
conversation on serious questions




better readers and writers, to think critically, and to work in small groups
Reading: Discussion: Writing: Acquisition of content:




to read, write, think and participate in discussion. Analysis of texts
3) What are the pedagogy techniques of course –
seminar, lecture, etc – what fraction of each?




6 hours/week of discussion (5 in small seminars, 1 in
large plenary), and 1 hour/week of lecture.




discussion based courses




seminar format discussion courses. Instructors provide
context and guiding questions to engage the students in
discussion about the texts. The amount of time spent
providing context varies from section to section
both courses are seminar format discussion courses.
Instructors provide context and guiding questions to
engage the students in discussion about the texts. The
amount of time spent providing context varies from
section to section.




 20% lecture, 80% seminar/discussion format with the
group size of about 15 students and one professor.




 weekly lecture (frequently by a non-academic), small
group and section discussion conducted by peers, and
weekly essay graded by faculty
Lecture (15%), class discussion (65%), debates (5%),
small discussion groups (15%)

lecture and class discussions: 50% of each




NOT PROVIDED




Lecture-- 2/3, Recitation-1/3, Active-learning techniques
are encouraged, especially in recitation
20% lecture, 80% discussion




seminar format, Group projects, Some lecture, but not a
primary part, Individual presentations, Group
presentations, In-class and out of class writing, Formal
and informal
lecture comprises c.50%, and class discussion and
groupwork activities the other 50%.




1) One 55 minute lecture once a week 2) Two, 75-minute
seminar or small group discussion meetings.3)
Informally, the course pedagogy also incorporates peer
tutoring, and thus collaborative learning
seminar with little or no lecturing. Students are often
encouraged or required to lead discussions,




 ―seminar method.‖ We have criteria for ―good
discussion leaders.‖ They include one to the effect that
when an instructor has information which is needed to
make the conversation run well, he or she gives it quickly
and not at length
This is a discussion-based program, considerable
emphasis on collaborative learning and leading of
discussions, with ―mini-lectures‖ of 10-15 minutes at the
maximum




33% large-group lecture, 67% small group discussion.
Faculty use a variety of strategies: Journal and response
writing, whole class and small group discussion, close
reading of texts, role-playing, other active learning
strategies as appropriate.
class discussion of texts




 All faculty members lecture to some extent. On the other
hand, all the teachers aim to make their classes
interactive and student centered and, consequently,
emphasize small group discussion. Many faculty
members use films and slides to illustrate their lectures
5-10% large group lecture, rest is discussion in which the
faculty member, ideally, intrudes as little as possible, to
get things going, shift gears, insure adequate coverage.
Lecturing is inappropriate




Our course is taught exclusively through discussion. No
lectures
4) How much and what kind of reading do the students do? What other materials do they use – how
much and how often?




Lots of reading, probably too much. And it‘s all very demanding (e.g. Aristotle‘s Nicomachean Ethics ,
Kant‘s Grounding of the Metaphysics of Morals , etc.). Key factors in text selection include
interdisciplinarity (currently represented are literature, philosophy, theology, history, politics),
comparative east/west (3 Chinese texts in the fall, 1 in the spring), whole texts (e.g. all 12 books of
Augustine‘s Confessions ), and texts that place a salutary demand on the reader‘s attention. Texts are
occasionally (though rarely) supplemented by handouts of various sorts. In terms of quantity, we
probably average around 100 pages a week of reading.

There is an extensive amount of reading in both courses and both have a reader that we have compiled.
Each GSJ topic also has required readings related to the specific focus. Each course has an extensive
research project that requires use of library resourses.




students engage directly with primary texts (Plato‘s Republic, Homer‘s Iliad, etc.) Lit Hum: The
amount of reading varies, but averages 150-300 pages/wk. No secondary texts
students engage directly with primary texts (Plato‘s Republic, Homer‘s Iliad, etc.) CC: average 175
pages/ wk. Some instructors provide study questions or reading guidelines. Students do not read
secondary sources.




six works, in their entirety, per term, typically five of which will be texts. always a work of music,
sometimes there is an associated text. In recent iterations of the course there has been a work of art or
an entire art show. A play usually Shakespeare. 1 work of natural science, 3 works of social science, 2
works of visual art, 1 work of music, and 5 works from the humanities
The College uses its own ten-volume set of classical readings which offers classic readings collected under
themes such as Tyranny and Freedom , Poverty and Wealth , Society and Solitude . Readings from these
volumes can vary from 7 to 25 pages weekly,
Newspaper and learned journal articles, short stories, and a slave narrative. They also see 4 or 5 videos.
Students are expected to spend from 1-2 hours per night on assigned reading and/or writing

Students read primary source material from Greek and Roman classics. Some professors use secondary
historical readings




Typically ―a book a week‖. Course guidelines call for 100-150 pages per week--substantial, but not so
overwhelming that content gets in the way of skill development. Primary texts only. Some faculty
supplement their sections with guest speakers, slides, attending plays, &c.
Reading: for the most part students read a new assignment for each class reading; assigned readings are
primary texts in translation; students generally read 10-30 pages of reading per class.




We use the text The World of Ideas edited by Jacobus (6th ed.) ; there are core readings that all classes
cover, then extra readings that individual instructors select. Several also select readings from Jane
Addams‘ Twenty Years At Hull House because she is our most famous alumna and a model for our
vision. Most instructors teach one essay per hour, so those who teach two hours once a week do two
essays
Because the course uses a variety of genres, the amount of reading varies greatly depending on whether
the text is by John Calvin or Harriet Jacobs. Generally an excerpted text (often a chapter in our self-
published anthology of readings) by one author comprises the reading assignment for one class period.
A full paperback edition takes a full week. Many instructors assign films for out-of-class viewing and
require a visit to the Birmingham Museum of Art and/or the Civil Rights Institute. Special speakers on
campus provide further enrichment activities which the Cultural Perspectives (CP) faculty support.




four anchor texts and supporting articles (between 5-12 supporting articles for each unit). special
events: guest lecturers, visit to the Tang Teaching Museum, films, a student Dance concert, a music
concert, a pottery demonstration, or debates. On a voluntary basis, students can elect to attend
Residence Hall programs coordinated by the LS 1 tutors. Most typically these are films and
discussions.
common anthology of readings. The readings range from classical to contemporary philosophical,
theological, and literary texts




Most of the assignments appear on the reading lists I have mailed (and which are also available on the
website). Students regularly complain they are being assigned too much to read. Most students read
most of the assignment most of the time. We have a few paintings on the reading list
Reading is the focus of the course. Students use original texts only: Individual teachers use films, stage
productions and visits to local art museums whenever appropriate




The course syllabi will show you the extent of the reading. Reading primary materials is 75% of the
course reading. A survey text is also used to fill in background which is not covered in the lectures.
Each course has its own reader.
primary texts or selections from primary texts. 8 texts/semester.




All students read closely forty large pages a week of primary texts that range from Hebrew scripture to
Sartre‘s essays. Many faculty members, though by no means all, assign an additional whole text that
they believe is particularly relevant.
Most daily assignments are reading, and the amount depends on its difficulty (and to a lesser extent
where it falls in the calendar). One day‘s assignment might range from a high of four books of the
Odyssey to a low of perhaps 15 pages of Thucydides. For the ―kind‖ of reading, please refer to the
syllabus. Much of the reading is literary, historical, and philosophical, though not requiring technical
expertise in those disciplines in either faculty or students. Other materials include: images to be
viewed to study a culture‘s art (two days in F03); films (5 in S04). Music is typically joined with short
readings and its use is increasing in the second (largely modern) semester




We read hard books. We use no secondary materials. Ours is a text based course which emphasizes
close readings of difficult texts
 5) What fraction of the course syllabus is common    6) What, if any,
                 to all the sections?                 guidelines/restrictions are given
                                                      to faculty in choosing material
                                                      for non-common parts of the
                                                      syllabus?

Fall: 100%, Spring: 100% up to the second half,       None beyond common sense.
then 0%.




The Reflective Woman: 75 to 80% in common. The For GSJ courses, the non-
Global Search for Justice: 30 to 40% in common. common parts must be chosen
                                                in conjunction with all faculty
                                                that are teaching the same focus.




                                                  0.9 suggested discretionary
                                                      readings, but no restrictions
        0.67 suggested discretionary
             readings, but no restrictions




100%.          They may not add more works.
               As above, instructor‘s choice
               days are typically used to spend
               more time on the previous work,
               teach aspects of writing, do peer
               review of papers, or start the
               next work (often a combination
               thereof). With 70 minute class
               periods, we can spend a solid
               1/2 hour or so on aspects of
               writing and still have a pretty
               good class discussion on a work.




           1
0.85                                                    No restrictions; faculty
                                                        judgment is respected and
                                                        trusted
                                                  0.75 List of required readings




80% common, 20% choice                                  instructor can include
                                                        appropriate texts of her own
                                                        choice for 20%.




Six texts and authors from antiquity are speficially    Course is arranged to
recommended; and while faculty are free to vary         demonstrate the reception of
from these recommendations, they generally              ancient thought in a later period
recognize the value of commonality and don‘t stray
too far. For the second half of the term, there are a
few recommended anchor texts for each of the four
periods. Faculty are free to select whatever other
texts they wish to round out the reading list.
entire syllabus is common except for one week (M-       Faculty set the ―Colloquium
W-F) when individual colloquium leaders set their       Seminar‖ based on their own or
own topics of study and reading. (So 90-95%             on student interest. The amount
common)                                                 of reading and appropriate daily
                                                        assignments are also set in
                                                        accordance with the difficulty
                                                        and length of other course
                                                        material in order to retain
                                                        consistency. All students write
                                                        a paper as the product of their
                                                        seminar; this paper comprises
                                                        five percent (5%) of the final
                                                        course grade




                                                    1
                                               0.67 We ask that instructors choose
                                                    supplemental readings ―that
                                                    strengthen the units and goals of
                                                    the course.‖ We encourage
                                                    faculty to use these readings to
                                                    highlight their own fields so that
                                                    the students get the benefit of
                                                    specialized knowledge at an
                                                    appropriate place in the course

The syllabus (readings, assignments, due dates) is   None
basically 100% common. Faculty may add one or
two short readings to supplement those on the
syllabus, but few actually do. Paper assignments are
developed by a faculty committee. Faculty often
build-in individual section assignments here such as
presentations, journals, response writings
90+%. All students in all sections are required to    Readings total 40 selections
write at least 15 pages and make at least one oral    from common text. Of the 40,
presentation. All sections require a minimum          32 are chosen in common and 8
common final exam with a common question              by faculty individually. Faculty
determined by consensus of instructors.               may add supplemental materials
                                                      as they like. Faculty organize
                                                      summer meetings to exchange
                                                      supplemental materials




100% common. some faculty omit, shorten, or even      Faculty are strongly encouraged
increase the readings of an assigned work (reading,   to stick to the assigned syllabus
for example, the opening section of Book Two of
Don Quixote , which is not assigned); some few
faculty introduce favorites into the syllabus
Formally, faculty have the right to choose up to 20%    They have considerable latitude
of the reading material in addition to the common       but must justify their choice to
required texts. In practice, we have found that ―deep   the program leadership. Our
learning‖ comes from fairly intensive work on a         practice is to approve readings
limited number of readings, with the result that        that enhance students‘
faculty generally add relatively little to the common   understanding of the basic texts
syllabus                                                and of the western intellectual
                                                        tradition. This can include non-
                                                        western works




There is a core syllabus which is used in all the       Faculty meet in weekly staff
sections. There is some choice of additional            meetings where they share ideas
readings. Some of the courses give the Instructor the   about the types of texts that
option of choosing an additional book, often a novel,   work. New faculty can review
to complement the teaching of ideas in the course.      syllabi from previous semesters
                                                        for ideas. Each course has a
                                                        coordinator that faculty can
                                                        consult
16 of 18 texts/year (89%)                               need not be written texts, but
                                                        should be chosen for
                                                        contribution to the themes of the
                                                        course. Faculty are free to select
                                                        an event in the visual &
                                                        performing arts as a text if they
                                                        so choose




All students must take two semesters of IH and          The reading must be relevant.
enroll in a different theme each semester. Within a     Otherwise, faculty members
given theme, the basic readings, those that appear in   have no restrictions or
the IH Reader , are common to all sections. Some        guidelines. The IH faculty,
instructors add other readings to this base.            however, meet from time to
                                                        time to discuss what they are
                                                        doing in their classes. These
                                                        discussions exercise a certain
                                                        degree of control
                                                    1 N/A




100% for readings, each section has its own paper    Instructors are required to assign
assignments, due dates and any daily work which      at least four papers per semester
that section's instructor may choose
7) Is this course required for students (can students graduate    8) What year are the students – or is it
without the course – if so what is the substitute – how are       mixed?
transfer students handled)?




needed to graduate with honors, unless they transfer (either      All first-years.
from our university or another) into the college as
sophomores. If they have had a freshman core experience, they
would get credit for that and be asked, in most cases, to take 6-
10 additional credits. (Our Freshman Program satisifes the
university‘s gen ed requirements for CORE, intro theology,
intro literature/composition, intro history, and intro
philosophy.)
They are required for all students including transfers. We        The TRW course has different
don‘t accept any substitutes.                                     sections for first year students and for
                                                                  transfers. The transfer sections are
                                                                  very mixed. The GSJ class will have
                                                                  juniors and seniors.




All Columbia College students are required to take both Lit       Columbia College students are
Hum and CC. Transfers can request exemption if they have          required to take Literature
attended an institution that has a course similar in format and   Humanities in their first year.
content. Students fill out a course exemption form, write a       Columbia Engineering students
cover letter explaining their request, and provide course         generally take either Lit Hum or CC
description, syllabus (when available), and papers they‘ve        and generally do so during their
written (when available) to the Chair, who may grant partial      sophomore year
(one semester) exemption, full exemption (two semesters), or
reject the petition. Engineering students are required to take
two semesters of either Lit Hum or CC.
All Columbia College students are required to take both Lit       Columbia College students are
Hum and CC. Transfers can request exemption if they have          required to take Contemporary
attended an institution that has a course similar in format and   Civilization before graduation,
content. Students fill out a course exemption form, write a       generally in their sophomore or junior
cover letter explaining their request, and provide course         year. Columbia Engineering students
description, syllabus (when available), and papers they‘ve        generally take either Lit Hum or CC
written (when available) to the Chair, who may grant partial      and generally do so during their
(one semester) exemption, full exemption (two semesters), or      sophomore year.
reject the petition. Engineering students are required to take
two semesters of either Lit Hum or CC.


Transfer students coming with 1/2-year worth of courses (4.5) All students are first year students –
from a variety of disciplines can skip one term of Freshman    either freshman or a few transfer
Studies, students with the equivalent of 8 courses from a      students.
variety of disciplines are exempted from both terms. Transfer
students who are have course work from only one or two
disciplines will need to take Freshman Studies, for example if
they‘ve had only humanities courses or only math and
computer courses, they would need to take Freshman Studies.




Senior Symposium is required of all graduating seniors. Some 2nd term juniors and higher
Honors students elect to take an additional Honors
Colloquium instead. Transfers are able to enroll since it is a
senor level course. – no substitutions are allowed
Required for all students in the School of Arts. Transfers must Primarily freshmen
take it

The course is required for students in the School of Arts and    The majority of students are in their
the School of Science                                            first year of college



This course is selected (one of two options). The only           Generally the students begin as first
requirement is for the students in the Honors Program; they      year students and work their way up
must take the first Great Books (GBK) course. If students take   as described above. Sometimes
the first and second course and decide not to stay in the        scheduling difficulties mean a student
program, these two courses are accepted as part of the other     is out of sync
general education track




Required of every student. No substitutions allow                Intended for first-year students, who
                                                                 comprise about 75% of the course.
                                                                 Students in some programs with
                                                                 heavy pre-requisites (e.g.,
                                                                 engineering, pre-med, economics,
                                                                 computer science, music
                                                                 performance, nursing) are permitted
                                                                 to take the course as sophomores
                                                                 (20%). Remainder is stragglers,
                                                                 transfers, special cases, and students
                                                                 from other divisions taking the course
                                                                 as an elective
This is a choice of one of two tracks. All students must enroll   For the most part, the students in
in either ―The Search for Values in Light of Western History      Humanities 101-102 are first year
and Religion‖ (the common course) or a sequence of religion       students. The exception would be a
and humanities courses.                                           transfer student




If transfers come in with more than 30 hours, they are exempt Freshmen for the most part: fewer
from the course. This is of concern to the faculty who feel that than 30 hours
an all-college requirement is a mark of an RC education and
all should then have that mark. All others are required to take
it.
All entering freshmen are required to take it. For transfer          90% are freshmen. About 10% take
students, however, particularly to our professional schools, we      the course for a variety of reasons: no
generally equate their Humanities survey courses with the CP         equivalent course on their transfer
courses as an equivalent                                             transcript, failure the previous year,
                                                                     scheduling problem that couldn‘t be
                                                                     overcome the previous year




LS 1 is required of all students to graduate. If transfer students   Of the 39 sections of LS 1 we offered
lack an interdisciplinary common course from their transcript,       last fall, 36 sections were made up
they are required to take LS 1. We are a bit more flexible with      exclusively of first-year students. We
junior level transfers                                               had set aside the remaining three
                                                                     sections exclusively for sophomore
                                                                     and second semester students so that
                                                                     they could have a bit more
                                                                     sophisticated interaction with the
                                                                     course and materials.
This course must be completed by all students including          First year students except for transfers
transfers. There are no waivers or substitutes for this course   who are encouraged to take it their
                                                                 entering semester




Four courses are required for graduation. Transfers must take    2 courses taken freshman year (all
as many seminar courses as they will spend years at the          freshman, one taken soph year (all
college—usually two                                              soph), one taken junior year (all
                                                                 junior). Transfer sections will be
                                                                 mixed, will include some freshmen
                                                                 who have failed their first seminar,
                                                                 some juniors who are just starting
This is a required course sequence. Transfer students with     80% are freshman and sophomores.
more than 45 credits on entrance take only one of the two      English Composition (English 50) is
courses. Transfer students who can demonstrate that they‘ve    the prerequisite, so commonly
taken equivalent courses do not need to take Intellectual      students begin our sequence in the
Heritage: this amounts to less than 20 students a year         spring term of the freshman year.
                                                               Some avoid it for a few years, and the
                                                               tight curricula of some of our colleges
                                                               (e.g. Music) force some students to
                                                               delay taking it until later on




These courses are required for graduation. Transfer students   Most students begin in the sequence
go through a Transcript review. Often western civilization     of courses in their freshman year,
courses are accepted for Hum 124 and 214                       second semester, since they need to
                                                               meet the prerequisities. Hum 414 is
                                                               seem as a capstone experience.
                                                               Students must have completed 75
                                                               hours before they can take this course
required for graduation. Transfer students with 24 or more      all freshmen must take it. Those who
transferable hours are exempt. Transfers entering fall semester fail repeat. Transfers are enrolled as
with 1-11 hours take both semesters; those w/ 12-23 hours       above
                             st
take Core 101 only, during 1 semester enrolled. Transfers
entering spring: W/ 1-11 hours take Core 102 in lst semester
of enrollment & 101 the next fall. W/12-23 must take 102 only
& in 1st semester of enrollment




All students, regardless of major, must complete two            All students, with the exception of
semesters of Intellectual Heritage in order to be graduated. No occasional transfer students, are
substitutes are available. A few transfer students, never more sophomores
than two a year, enter with an experience so like Intellectual
Heritage that they are excused
Required, though (I believe) transfer students admitted with      Sophomores
Junior or Senior status are not required to take the course




All students with less than 56 transfer credits are required to   The students are all first-year students
complete the course for graduation                                or transfer students with less than 56
                                                                  credits
9) What fraction of the student body 10) Does course serve
takes this course during their       other masters – is it a
collegiate experience?               substitute for a
                                     composition course, non-
                                     Western Experience,
                                     etc?
98% of Christ College students =     Yes, as noted above
approx. 10% of the Valparaiso        (Honors College
University undergraduate             requirement), though
population.                          there has never been any
                                     pressure to determine
                                     curriculum based on
                                     these fealties.

                                   1 No




Columbia College - 100%.            CORE COURSES at
Columbia School of Engineering      Columbia, i.e., they are
and Applied Sciences: 100 % take    the cornerstone of a
either Lit Hum or CC (or two        Columbia education.
semesters in Major Cultures to
substitute).
Columbia College: 100 % --          CORE COURSES at
Columbia School of Engineering      Columbia, i.e., they are
and Applied Sciences: 100 % take    the cornerstone of a
either Lit Hum or CC (or two        Columbia education.
semesters in Major Cultures to
substitute).




Well over 90%. Only a few transfer no.
students do not take this course




                                   1 No
0.25                                     No, it is part of the core
                                         and is a substitute for
                                         nothing else
40% of the student body takes the        The course does not
course                                   substitute for another
                                         course in the curriculum.


About 25% of the students take the       As stated above, it is an
GBK track. Many more than that           alternative track for
begin and then switch. I don‘t have      completing general
figures on that. They often switch,      education requirements.
not because the do not like the          The other track, the
program, but because they have so        distributional track, is
many AP or transfer credits that it is   the traditional model of
easier to complete the distribution      a little of this and a little
gen. ed. track, which also requires      of that
eight courses
All undergraduates in the College of     No
Arts and Science, Stern School of
Business, and Steinhardt School of
Education (includes programs in
music, communications studies, and
nursing), and students from one
department in the Tisch School of
the Arts. Undergradates in other
Tisch programs, and in Social
Work, the Gallatin School of
Individualized Study, the School of
Continuing and Professional
Studies, and dental assistant
programs do not participate
60% of the first year class is         No
currently taking Search (common
course). This percentage has not
changed significantly in the last five
years




About half of the student body takes No
the course. The sad part is that true
to statistics around the country, only
about 40% of our graduates are 4-
year RC people who have had the
experience
In Arts & Sciences, almost 100 %.   No, it‘s a foundational
In the professional schools, I‘m    ―history of ideas‖ course
guessing it‘s about 75% due to      that replaced the former
transfer students entering the      Western Civ history
program at an upper level.          courses and the surveys
                                    of British and American
                                    literature which had
                                    constituted the previous
                                    General Education menu

Almost 100%. LS 1 is a flagship     No.
experience of Skidmore‘s
curriculum
1                                     None




1/1. A small number of                The courses used to
undergraduate, on-campus students     substitute for Comp 1
do not take the four-course           and 2. No longer. The
sequence. They follow a St. John‘s    elective courses, 124
style curriculum in a ―college with   and 125 fulfill the
the college‖ called the Integral      diversity requirement
Liberal Arts Program. This is
probably also the place to mention
that our adult B.A. completion
program requires two seminars of
its students
100%, with the exceptions listed   The course provides two
above                              of the five ―writing-
                                   intensive‖ courses
                                   required in Temple‘s
                                   Core Curriculum.
                                   Along with English 50,
                                   Intellectual Heritage
                                   provides the ―core of the
                                   Core‖: these are the
                                   sole universally required
                                   courses, the rest of the
                                   Core being a menu of
                                   options




all                                No
all but a few transfers              In effect, yes. We cut
                                     the frosh writing
                                     requirement from 2
                                     semesters to one when
                                     we created Core, since
                                     it‘s writing-intensive.
                                     We teach about 1/3 non-
                                     Western texts in it
                                     instead of having a
                                     diversity requirement




99.99% The only exceptions are      This course is not a
students who come to the University substitute for any other
with an experience so like          course.
Intellectual Heritage that they are
excused. Only one or two students
a year fall into this category
100 %, but see response to question Explicitly, no. We can
7                                   assume that Juniors and
                                    Seniors have been
                                    exposed to certain kinds
                                    of reading, discussion,
                                    and writing and have
                                    encountered certain
                                    kinds of texts. Other
                                    than this course, there is
                                    no specific non-Western
                                    (or non-dominant
                                    Western, like African-
                                    American) requirement,
                                    and clearly supplying
                                    this need is one of the
                                    rationales for this course.




98% is my guess. We don't get        We are supposed to
many advanced transfer students      teach them how to
here                                 write. That is a harsh
                                     master. The college
                                     does have freshman
                                     composition as an
                                     elective, but this is the
                                     only required course at
                                     the college and it
                                     requires much student
                                     writing. We also teach
                                     them Western
                                     Intellectual History, but
                                     that is, arguably, our
                                     own master
11) What is relationship of course with institute mission? Is there a relationship to the ‗first year
experience‘?




High degree of correlation with both. As to the first, the course highlights both thematically and in
practice the relation of moral and intellectual virtues and of human flourishing, and these are
discussed and practiced within an institution whose identity is self-consciously Lutheran. As to the
second, the 16 hour course, coupled with the intense experience of the freshman production and the
Cambridge debates, definitely forms a strong sense of community among participants.




These courses are directly linked to the mission of the college. The TRW course has some
components that would be identified as ‗first year experince‘.




Literature Humanities followed in 1937. designed as seminar style courses in order to provide
students with the opportunity to develop intellectual relationships with faculty early on in their
College career and to participate with them, and with one another, in a shared process of intellectual
inquiry. The skills and habits honed by the Core – observation, analysis, argument, imaginative
comparison, respect for ideas, nuances, and differences – provide a rigorous preparation for life as an
intelligent citizen in today‘s complex and changing world. They are fundamental to a Columbia
education. Since all College incoming first-years are automatically enrolled in Literature Humanities,
it is a fundamental part of the first-year experience. A course-wide lecture, given by the Chair of
Literature Humanities, is part of the first-year Orientation. In preparation, all incoming students are
told to read the first six books of the Iliad. For the rest of the year, roughly twelve hundred students
in 56 sections are simultaneously reading and discussing the same texts. Throughout the year, they
thus have common grounds for intellectual exchange
Contemporary Civilization began in 1919 as a course on War and Peace Issues, and the creation of
Literature Humanities followed in 1937. They are designed as seminar style courses in order to
provide students with the opportunity to develop intellectual relationships with faculty early on in
their College career and to participate with them, and with one another, in a shared process of
intellectual inquiry. The skills and habits honed by the Core – observation, analysis, argument,
imaginative comparison, respect for ideas, nuances, and differences – provide a rigorous preparation
for life as an intelligent citizen in today‘s complex and changing world. They are fundamental to a
Columbia education. Since all College incoming first-years are automatically enrolled in Literature
Humanities, it is a fundamental part of the first-year experience. A course-wide lecture, given by the
Chair of Literature Humanities, is part of the first-year Orientation. In preparation, all incoming
students are told to read the first six books of the Iliad. For the rest of the year, roughly twelve
hundred students in 56 sections are simultaneously reading and discussing the same texts.
This course the year, to our mission as it is an introduction to the expectations and
Throughout is central they thus have common grounds for intellectual exchange. content of the
liberal arts and sciences. It is central to the first year experience of our students. We start Freshman
Studies one day earlier than other courses, students are sent the first work free over the summer, and it
is the common experience shared by all LU students.




The Senior Symposium is the one core course that especially promotes the value of the liberal arts in
addressing contemporary issues. While other schools have great books courses and visiting speaker
opportunities for large student populations, no other brings them together in just this way in the senior
year. For our students, the Symposium is a course that helps them prepare to participate in a global
society and to be leaders in personal and local, even international, discussions of serious human
matters. It helps them make whole cloth out of their college educations, their personal experiences,
and their responsibilities as citizens in a participatory democracy. In so far as the first-year
experience at this liberal arts college lays the groundwork for as student‘s ability to perform in Senior
Symposium, all first-year classes are related to this one. Through a related program, faculty teaching
first-year classes are encouraged to use readings from the LCSR texts, and many do
It is not part of the ―first year experience‖ and shares the commitment to diversity and social action
that is stated (or implied) in the mission

The course is a basic component of the Liberal Arts core; elements of the course (reading, writing and
oral communication) are geared towards beginning college students



Not really, except for the Honors Program, as stated above. Retention always hangs over our heads
and we think our retention rate is better with GBK students than others. This needs to be viewed
carefully since the students self-select for GBK and tend, often, to be the better students




Not a close relationship, but part of a number of initiatives aimed specifically at the needs of first-year
students
The course is a central way that Rhodes embodies its historical relationship with the Presbyterian
Church. The following statement appears in the College catalogue: ―Rhodes‘ relation to the
Presbyterian Church has remained close and unbroken since 1855. The most recent expression of the
College‘s relationship to the Church may be found in a covenant statement between Rhodes and the
Church, summarized as follows: Rhodes is a liberal arts college associated with the Presbyterian
Church (U.S.A.). The College has a covenant relationship with the Synod of Living Waters
(Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama, Kentucky). Rhodes, as a church-related college whose primary
mission is to educate, guarantees freedom of inquiry for faculty and students. The College, without
pressing for acceptance, maintains a climate in which the Christian faith is nurtured. The curriculum
includes a variety of courses in Bible and religion that explore the Judeo-Christian heritage and its
implications for the whole of life. Students are required to study the Bible and its relationship with
history and culture as a part of their college work. As an academic community founded on Christian
ideals, Rhodes expresses personal concern for students, provides opportunities for corporate worship,
and maintains a commitment to social justice and human mercy.‖




It is an introduction to the liberal arts.
The course strives to give all freshmen a commonality of discourse so that they encounter the same
texts and ideas at roughly the same times in the year. We believe the course is responsible for the
markedly high response of students on the NSSE who rate their freshman year as ―the most intense‖
in their college career




LS 1 reflects the College‘s mission statement in that it introduces students to the liberal arts and a
liberal arts education. More importantly, by stressing interdisciplinarity, critical thinking, and
problem-based learning, LS 1 provides the students with a first step toward becoming ―informed and
responsible‖ citizens. In following with the College‘s tradition of mind and hand, LS 1 attempts to
provide students with both intellectual activities of the mind through reading, writing, and listening as
well as opportunities for artistic expression and exposure, through our final projects and work with
the Tang teaching museum. Since LS 1 is the one course all entering first-year students take—at the
same time—it plays an important implicit and explicit role in the first-year experience of Skidmore
students. Even if it is only as a common source of complaint (!), LS 1 serves to unify the new
students by giving them a shared learning experience and shared foundation for ideas and approaches
for the rest of their education. LS 1 also fully participates in the planning of our new student
orientation. In the past, LS 1 tutors have served as orientation group leaders and test proctors. LS 1
is now responsible for the selection of the College‘s summer reading, which is a focal point of
orientation. LS 1 leads summer reading discussion sessions during orientation and offers an
interdisciplinary presentation on responses to the book. We often try to connect the summer reading
to our opening convocation faculty speaker, too
This course directly serves the mission in several ways: We are committed to providing a liberal arts
foundation for all undergraduate programs. The Franciscan tradition is found in the schema of the
course readings, which is taken from the writings of our patron St. Bonaventure, a leading figure in
Franciscan thought, and the readings include several from St. Francis and St. Clare as well. Another
purpose of the course is to foster closer student-faculty relationships early in the undergraduate
experience, which we do by limitingclass size and by assigning faculty advisers to undeclared arts
majors from the course instructors. Plans are underway to offer a pilot learning community/first year
program with 2 sections of the course in the Fall 2004.




I can‘t answer the first question without choking on common pieties. As regards the second, our
Academic Advising program makes the beginning freshperson‘s seminar instructor also that person‘s
academic advisor. These advisors have a stipend of $1,000 to be spent on group activities of a
cultural sort
We work closely with the Temple Learning Communities Program in designating some sections as
linked courses in Learning Communities for freshmen and transfer students




The humanities core is central to the mission of the university to develop citizens who can think
critically and humanely
It is the required course for the college and it is taken during the freshman year. It is the common
first-year experience




Intellectual Heritage does not have at present a close relationship with the ―First Year Experience
Program,‖ although this matter is under review. A major element of the University‘s mission is ―to
provide a foundation of general education that prepares students intellectually, culturally, and
ethically for their professional lives.‖ Intellectual Heritage supports this aim directly. Since nearly all
our students intend to become pharmacists, physical therapists, or other health care professionals,
Intellectual Heritage is a primary source of general education
There is a loose relationship with the first year, during which students tend to take skills-oriented
small courses (freshman seminar, English composition, elementary or intermediate language) or large
survey courses. This sophomore course makes sure that no student goes further without having a
significant experience in a small class with serious reading and active discussion. We are a liberal arts
college, and this course reflects our commitment to the liberal arts. This is articulated by different
people differently; for my own articulation, please see my response to #12




We are a private, residential, liberal arts college. We emphasize intellectual community. This course
is fundamental to that mission. As to "first year experience," this course defines it
12) What does this course do that a system of distribution requirements does/would not?




INTEGRATION of fields of study, demands sustained attention to a cluster of questions from different
perspectives, and creates the social bonds attendant upon a common project.




COMMONALITY - It guarantees that there is something that all St. Catherine graduates have in
common, whether they come to us as first year students or with all their ―distribution requirements‖
met.




By having ALL Columbia College students take these Core courses, Columbia creates a tradition of
shared intellectual experience that fosters a sense of community and continuity.
By having ALL Columbia College students take these Core courses, Columbia creates a tradition of
shared intellectual experience that fosters a sense of community and continuity.




The course allows us to make connections between works from different disciplines in a way that is
more explicit. Because Aldo Leopold‘s A Sand County Almanac is followed by a study of Japanese
woodblock prints, we can ask students to compare how a naturalist and an artist depict nature and how
they depict, either in words or visually, the relationship of humans to nature, for example. Or we can
compare the way Dostoevsky‘s Underground Man demonstrates his free will with that of the subjects
of social psychologist Stanley Milgram‘s famous experiments. The course also gives students a
common language and framework, on which all faculty can then draw in upper level classes (both in
terms of students‘ skills and basic knowledge)




The Senior Symposium provides a forum for students to consider and address contemporary issues from
multiple perspectives in classroom discussion conducted by their peers. The course is intended to help bridge
the gap between student receptivity to established positions (as is appropriate to students) and a mature,
independent point of view essential to educated adults. The Senior Symposium stresses the oral and written
performance of the students. Therefore, the Senior Symposium is wider in scope than would be provided by a
system of distribution requirements. The Senior Symposium was designed to address the fragmentation
often found in system of distribution requirements by offering a course that concentrates differing,
informed, peer opinion. Ideally, the course will promote academic discussion among students outside of the
classroom and between disciplines
It serves, in particular, as a counterweight to the other freshman-year core course, Classical Origins
of Western Culture. It provides a balance to the study of brilliant Greek and Roman male individuals
from the distant past by introducing students to the lives and achievements of unsung groups of
non-whites and women from are in the beginning stages of the Liberal Arts core
By taking the course, students the much more recent U.S. history




GBK is coherent, and chronologically read. This means that as students get the early foundations of
Homer, they then see not only the groundwork of Western thought, they see how subsequent authors
responded to previous authors. Virgil makes more sense if you have read Homer, and Dante makes
more sense if you have read Virgil, etc. And, most importantly, in GBK, we read original (or at least
translated) texts.




Provides a common intellectual basis and academic socialization for students early in their careers.
Does something other than introductory courses in majors, which serve disciplinary goals rather than
the needs of general education. Provides central support and quality control
One of the things the Search course does that a system of distribution requirements would not is to
maintain an emphasis on consistency of content (chronological and thematic), skills (each semester
builds on abilities acquired or honed in the previous one), and community (colloquium leaders
generally have the same students in each section across the first two semesters and across the third and
fourth semester




It is supposed to be more explicitly about the liberal arts and more decidedly first year friendly
It allows us to arrange for campus-wide enrichment events that support the particular units in the
course, a partnership that guarantees a large, lively audience for special speakers. More importantly, it
creates a foundation of knowledge—of cultural literacy—that faculty can assume students have
encountered before the upper level courses in their majors.




Skidmore has a modified distribution requirement structure so obviously LS 1 does not substitute for
this. More importantly, LS 1 prepares the students for understanding the purpose and
(inter)relationship(s) among our distribution requirements and introduces them to many
different disciplines, thus enabling the students to make better choices about the courses they will take
to fulfill the various requirement categories.
It provides all students with a common intellectual experience that is decidedly focused on the
intellectual tradition of our founding order. It also has created an interdisciplinary,
extradepartmental community among the faculty




Students have a common experience. Faculty can count on students having been assigned to read
certain texts
Since its foundation in 1980, Intellectual Heritage has provided a common intellectual experience for
all students. Pedagogically, the common syllabus enables us to do extensive faculty development,
usually involving one pre-semester workshop and five two-hour sessions during the term. In general,
we have applied to this Program over a decade of work build on the AAHE Peer Review of Teaching
activities (subsequently extended at Carnegie) and the scholarship of Lee Shulman. This has included
a direct assault on ―pedagogical solitude,‖ the use of faculty portfolios, and careful study of student
work in general. With over 9200 students a year, we‘re probably one of the larger academic units built
on Carnegie principles




This sequence of courses gives students a common experience which is core to their experience at
UNCA, a public liberal arts university
Integrates writing & oral proficiency, minority and non-western texts, & literary with
theoretical/philosophical texts. Also ensures a frosh seminar experience: small seminar class with
close contact with professor & same students all year long




Intellectual Heritage provides a common experience for all our students. A set of distributions
requirement would not meet that aim. IH is also more multi-disciplinary and cross-disciplinary in
content
Distribution requirements introduce students to a mode of disciplinary knowing applied to a specific
topic (e.g., the literature or history or art or political systems of a certain period or place). This course
is non-disciplinary, in that it asks students (and faculty) to read (and view and listen) as actively
engaged amateurs, not as budding experts in a discipline. We hope that we model the life-long,
wide learning of roundly educated people as opposed to the methodologically and topically focused
learning of experts. This course also asks its members to compare and contrast material that cross
typical boundaries established in most distribution courses: a student in F03, for example, might
be asked to write a paper comparing Plato and Han Fei Tzu, or Greek art and Greek politics.
Technically, this course itself is a distribution requirement, fitting into a category consisting in
History, Philosophy, and Religion. No member of any of those departments would really consider
this a disciplinary course in his or her discipline, although the style of teaching (reading texts and
responding to them) is closer to the normal pedagogical style of such courses (and others in Humanities
and perhaps political theory).




It provides a common intellectual experience. It assures us that all of our college's students have
read Homer and his descendants. We also have distribution requirements as the other component of
our General Studies requirements
13) How are students evaluated (papers, exams, participation,
service learning, etc)?




90% formal argumentative essays, 10% discussion.




papers and participation. no exams.




midterm, final, class participation, and papers (minimum of 15
pages; number of papers is left to instructors‘ discretion
midterm, final, class participation, and papers (minimum of 15
pages; number of papers is left to instructors‘ discretion)




papers, essay-based midterm and final exam. (Participation also
seems like it would be a grading category)




essays, lead at least one class discussion during the semester, and
participate in weekly class discussions. They are graded in each of
these areas as well as on their comprehensive written examinations.
Three papers, three tests, oral and written class work



Students receive a minimum of two exams, and a minimum of 9
pages of academic writing



Students are evaluated on class participation, most professors
require a one-page ―daily‖ on the reading for each class period, and
there are several essays during the semester, with one final essay,
which spans the texts of the semester




Guidelines call for midterm, final, 2-3 papers, frequent, short
writing assignments and participation
Participation and Attendance (20% of final grade), Testing (55% of
final grade) broken down into: 2 one-hour tests (15% each) Final
exam (2 1/2 hours) (25%) Writing Portfolio (25% of final grade)
that includes Two Critical Response papers (5% each) One
Thesis Development paper (15%




Individual instructor discretion. Students are evaluated within the
course by each individual faculty member in the same way he or she
uses evaluation in all other classes, the main difference being that
there is an effort to try to grade earlier and more often. This is a
general guideline and not legislated
We faculty have agreed to require ―about 15 pages of polished
academic prose‖ per semester. This can be divided however the
instructor wishes: 4 essays of c.4 pp each, 3 essays of c.5 pp each,
one 10 pp paper and a short essay, etc. Each course also has a
midterm and a final exam. Many faculty include a student
presentation within a small group (4-5 students will have one class
period for their presentation) which counts 10% of the grade. Daily
quizzes and writing assignments may count another 10-20 %.


Students submit three papers during the semester and one term
long LS 1 Problem analysis project. They also are evaluated more
subjectively on their class participation in the seminar discussion
and seminar work. See
http://www.skidmore.edu/academics/ls1/grading.html
Students are evaluated on the basis of a common 15-page total
writing assignment, an oral presentation and a common
examination essay. Most sections include participation as a
significant portion of student grades.




Our rule is 50% class participation (includes preparation and is
sometimes tested by quizzes) and 50% on the three or four essays.
Almost no one gives a written exam on the texts read
The Program requires that evaluation be based on three papers of 3-
4 pages each, a mid-term exam, a final exam, and meaningful class
participation. (Some variation is allowed after consultation with the
Director




Papers, exams, participation, service learning. Check sample
syllabi available at the web page
All sections have midterm & final exam that require discursive,
analytical responses. All have at least 2 or 3 essays in textual
analysis per semester, totaling at least 3,000 words. Evaluation
includes participation in discussion, no service learning




Students are evaluated on the basis of their performance on papers,
examinations, and class participation. Service learning has not yet
become a part of this program
Students are evaluated as follows: 37.5 % based on student‘s
quality and quantity of participation in class discussion, as assessed
by section instructor. 37.5% based on student‘s written work, as
assessed by section instructor. 25% based on a final examination,
which is graded by section instructor and one other section instructor




The bulk of grading falls on the papers, but participation in
discussion and performance on final examinations is also important.
 Each instructor determines the evaluation instruments to be used in
his or her section. Many of our instructors place a significant
weight on daily work, i.e. brief written assignments completed for
each class meeting
14) How do the students evaluate the course?




12-page course evaluation form in which we ask them to comment
on everything from the physical environment of the classrooms, the
quality of their instructor‘s leadership, which texts they liked and
disliked, and what the course contributed to their own intellectual
and personal development.




course evaluation form and a final reflective paper that evaluates
the course and their learning




course evaluation forms in two parts: 1) a bubble sheet with 21
questions based on the University‘s 15 question formula but
modified to reflect the Core experience, and 2) a written evaluation
sheet that asks students to evaluate the written assignments, and the
responses and comments they receive on them, in the context of the
course as a whole; to comment on their instructor‘s teaching style,
its best aspects, and ways it could be improved; to comment on
which readings were most and/or least valuable; to comment on
outside events (such as museum, theatre, and opera trips, class
dinners or other events) and outside resources (such as computer
resources); and to provide any additional comments.
course evaluation forms in two parts: 1) a bubble sheet with 21
questions based on the University‘s 15 question formula but
modified to reflect the Core experience, and 2) a written evaluation
sheet that asks students to evaluate the written assignments, and the
responses and comments they receive on them, in the context of the
course as a whole; to comment on their instructor‘s teaching style,
its best aspects, and ways it could be improved; to comment on
which readings were most and/or least valuable; to comment on
outside events (such as museum, theatre, and opera trips, class
dinners or other events) and outside resources (such as computer
resources); and to provide any additional comments.

 students evaluation form given at the end of each term. Students
evaluate their own learning, their own effort, the effectiveness of
their instructor in a number of areas, the effectiveness of the
lectures, and the utility of the particular works studied.




national survey – IDEAS – for student evaluation. The course also
adds questions specific to the course goals
End of semester course and teacher evaluations and a senior exit
survey on the entire core. Most teachers also ask for mid-semester
feedback
Course and teacher evaluations are distributed at the end of the
course



course evaluations at the end of each semester




As a required course, not surprisingly a touch lower than the overall
average of College courses, but very strong overall--not least
because of the faculty selection process
formal evaluation tool at the end of each semester (written
evaluation form); informal tools may be used throughout the
semester by individual colloquium leaders




The students evaluate the course using the same tool they use to
evaluate all other courses in the curriculum. In addition, we use a
pre- and post-test Likert scale asking them to self-report on
academic skills
course evaluation at the end of the semester, at the beginning of a
class period. The instructor leaves the room, and a designated
student returns the forms to the core office




student evaluation form at the end of the semester (See attachment).
 This open-ended evaluation form invites them to comment on the
contribution of their classmates as well as their own contributions
to the course, the quality and value of the course materials, and the
seminar leaders
Students complete a standard evaluation of instruction for each
section




A course and instructor evaluation is administered through the
Provost‘s office for rank and tenure and general evaluative
purposes. The questions are hand-tailored for the seminar program
and allow room for written comments to three questions. Students
also deliver their opinions on the texts on a end-of-year
questionnaire. Many instructors have devised their own mid-term
evaluations to assist in piloting the class to harbor
There is a standard university-wide evaluation at the end of the
semester. Program leadership and the Program
Adviser/Ombudsman routinely handle student complaints and
concerns throughout the semester




course evaluations each semester. Faculty also take informal
surveys of students responses to a variety of teaching and
curriculum issues
Student evaluations at the end of the year & a longer survey sent
annually to a random sample of students




All students, every semester, must complete an evaluation of the
course using a standard form. Many instructors, also, have an
optional mid-term evaluation of the course. A few teachers meet
with students privately to discuss the course
Students fill out a written evaluation at the end of each semester, or,
more recently, at mid-term and again at the end. We have
experimented (and intend to more in future) with an on-line
evaluation administered through Blackboard. In addition, in a small
institution like ours, students‘ oral comments about the course are
regularly reported back to the co-directors and revision committees
by instructors of sections




Students use our standary course evaluation form which we use for
all courses at the college. Individual instructors may, in addition,
distribute their own course evaluation forms as they see fit
15) What are done with student evaluations of the course?




The Freshman program coordinator reads them all,
summarizes the salient features, and presents them to the
faculty at the next planning meeting. Individual seminar
instructors also receive copies of the pages devoted to
evaluating their own performance.




The student evaluations are collected in the Core Office,
they are summarized and shared with the faculty member
teaching the course, they are reviewed by the Core
Director and portions of the responses are used for
assessment of the course.




The bubble sheets are outsourced and yield a statistical
printout, which is then kept, along with the written
evaluation sheets in the Core office. They become
available for instructors to see and copy after they hand in
their grades. Both statistical evaluations and written
commentary are also available to departments evaluating
faculty for tenure, promotion, and prizes; and to the
Chairs for evaluating first-time instructors
The bubble sheets are outsourced and yield a statistical
printout, which is then kept, along with the written
evaluation sheets in the Core office. They become
available for instructors to see and copy after they hand in
their grades. Both statistical evaluations and written
commentary are also available to departments evaluating
faculty for tenure, promotion, and prizes; and to the
Chairs for evaluating first-time instructors.




The office of institutional research compiles the data by
instructor and each instructor is given a summary of
her/his data compared to the university average, as well
as any written comments the students have made. The
Dean‘s office uses these data to determine an annual
winner of a Freshman Studies teaching award. Data on
the effectiveness of various aspects of the course are
tracked over the years by the director and used to
determine the content of faculty development workshops,
etc. Data which speak to student perceptions of the
works studied are used by works committees when
designing the next year‘s iteration of the course




Student evaluations are used in making decisions about
readings, inviting speakers back to campus, keeping or
dropping faculty members from the program, and in
selecting themes. In preparation of new editions of the
books, readings that have not been used are replaced by
others that will be more appealing.
They are read by the dean, the director of the core, the
coordinator of the course, and the individual teachers

The Director of the Core, the Dean of Arts and the Area
Coordinators (Classical Origins, Global Origins,
Humanities, Social Sciences) read the evaluations and
make notes if desired.

professors get copies of their evaluations. Chairs can ask
for them if necessary. Most professors use course
evaluations as part of their tenure, promotion, and post-
tenure packets. We hope that professors use their
evaluations constructively and change what needs
changing




Courses are evaluated with both quantitative and
qualitative surveys. Results are reviewed by program
staff and the faculty steering committee
The results are used in: annual faculty evaluation and
annual course evaluation at a week-long meeting of the
teaching staff in May (called the Douglass Seminar




We tally the results and report the outcomes to the
general faculty. The teaching team uses the results to
think about pedagogy, appropriateness of the text,
difficulty of assignments, reading load, etc. We have
changed the text because of assessment and we have cut
down on the length of reading assignments
The core office collates the quantitative responses. The
Assoc. Dean responsible for the Core then reads the
discursive comments before returning the individual
packets to the appropriate dept. chairs. The packets are
returned within six weeks of the completion of the
course. Salient problems then become the subject of
discussion among the faculty member, Assoc. Dean, and
dept. chair. Packets for untenured faculty remain in the
core office, but faculty may read them there

Every spring term the LS 1 director reads all of the
evaluations and offers a synthesized report of the major
attitudes expressed in the evaluations to our planning
subcommittee, the Readings and Format Committee.
Course evaluations are taken into account for tenure and
promotion cases
Questionnaires are processed through the dean‘s office,
and faculty are given summaries and means.




Student evaluations of candidates for promotion and
tenure are photocopied and filed in the Provost‘s office
where they are consulted by Rank and Tenure committee
members and the Provost and Vice-Provost. They then
come to my office along with the evaluations of part time
and adjunct instructors. They are filed and consulted as
need arises.
Program leadership reads these evaluations. We combine
these evaluations with two other important sources of
information: A breakdown of grading, section by section
A ―course portfolio‖ for each section, including
significant samples of student work and a statement from
the teacher describing what he or she did to improve this
work. The Director meets annually (at least) with each
teacher to review these three items. We work closely
with the Measurement and Research office of the
university in developing reports on grades and
evaluations. Our goal is generally teacher improvement,
not teacher censure




Evaluations are reviewed by the director of humanities.
Trends are reported to courses coordinators for faculty
discussion and consideration
Go to instructors, & chairs & in tenure/promotion
portfolios




All evaluations are read by the chair of the instructor‘s
department and are part of that faculty member‘s annual
evaluation. They support claims for promotion, tenure,
and merit raises. The instructors themselves use the
evaluation to improve their classes
Section instructors summarize the results in a page or
two, report on those results at a staff evaluation luncheon,
and then turn in both summary and evaluation forms to
the co-directors. At that point, the evaluations tend to
disappear into a black hole of oblivion; however, enough
faculty teach regularly enough so that the results of recent
evaluations tend to remain alive in oral tradition and find
their way into revision meetings as the course is revised
each year. Anecdote trumps statistics in this process, but
in a place as small as ours, that‘s not necessarily a bad
thing.




Instructors read them. An instructor may use these forms
as part of the materials submitted to the Dean for the
evaluation of the instructor
16) How are faculty chosen to teach the course?




Dean of the College.




faculty volunteer but departments have certain number
responsibility




 These are service courses, to which 15 or so academic
departments contribute faculty. Slightly fewer than half the
classes are taught be advanced graduate students, completing
their dissertations. Graduate students must apply to teach these
courses; approximately one third of these are chosen to do so, on
the basis of application, recommendations, and interview.
These are service courses, to which 15 or so academic
departments contribute faculty. Slightly fewer than half the
classes are taught be advanced graduate students, completing
their dissertations. Graduate students must apply to teach these
courses; approximately one third of these are chosen to do so, on
the basis of application, recommendations, and interview.




The Dean of the Faculty solicits volunteers annually to teach
Freshman Studies. The Dean then accepts or rejects instructors
based on need and student evaluations. Freshman Studies
staffing is decided first every year.




Senior faculty who have broad knowledge of the curriculum are
invited to teach in the course. Many qualified faculty members
have asked to teach the course, but the most significant obstacle
is gaining teachers release time to teach a section
Those with appropriate expertise are asked by the core director.



The Director of the Core approaches Department Chairs and
asks for volunteer faculty to teach the courses. The Director will
approach the professor‘s Chair on the matter


Faculty self-select for this program as do students. Faculty who
teach in the program must sit in for an entire semester on another
professor‘s GBK course before being allowed to teach in the
program. To date, there is no compensation for this time spent
sitting in




Nominated by departments to a faculty steering committee
faculty volunteer to teach Search; in these cases Search becomes
part of their three-course per semester teaching load. Several
faculty have a contractual obligation to teach in the program.
Occasionally a faculty member may be given permission to teach
a section of Search as a course overload




We have a core of people who believed in the idea of the
seminar and who have been involved since the beginning. That
has winnowed down to about 2 or 3 of the 10. We invite people
who have real interest in first year students and their success, as
well as a good teaching record. People in the group suggest
others with whom they would like to work and who share the
right arts and skills. The new dean wants us to choose from
among people with very good teaching evaluations, and to bring
in some of the younger teachers. Some of it has to do with load,
but some of our teachers are teaching 18 hours, and the seminar
makes 20—they do it for the love of it.
The Associate Dean works with department chairs to schedule
the core classes. Most faculty in the relevant depts. expect to
teach one or two sections of CP each semester. After full-time
faculty have been scheduled, the Assoc. Dean hires adjuncts for
the remaining sections




Teaching in LS 1 is largely a voluntary service on the part of the
faculty. It is a challenge to get the entire faculty to teach the
course as Skidmore faculty have several other nondepartmental
programs vying for their attention, too. Typically, I have to
depend upon the ―strong arm‖ of the dean to encourage
departments to contribute instructors to the program. We also
rely on a small, regular pool of adjuncts to supplement our
regular faculty.
Faculty are chosen by the dean of Clare College (the core
curriculum) and are required to complete a summer workshop
lead by the dean




Tenured, tenure-track, and ―permanent adjunct‖ faculty self-
select in consultation with their department chairs. The office
has little ability to refuse a tenured-track applicant and no power
to choose. My office maintains a list of parttime faculty and
qualified administrators who are called on after the first round of
assignments has been made
We have a mixed faculty. Some are assigned by departments (the
Program has the right to veto any assignment). About 20% of
our classes each term are taught by adjuncts hired within the
Program. About half our classes each semester are taught by
―Dean‘s Appointments‖ hired directly by the Program. These
are one-year appointments with all benefits except for TIAA-
CREF, starting at $40,000. We use these primarily as post-
doctoral pedagogical appointments and work to build the
pedagogical skills of faculty as they begin a career of university-
level teaching




Faculty volunteer to teach in this core interdisciplinary program.
Urged to participate by other faculty, chairs & dean




Faculty members are recruited by the Intellectual Heritage
Committee and must give evidence of a broad general education,
whatever their own discipline may be.
Typically, this process easily produces the majority of the staff,
but usually some arm-twisting (sometimes by the Dean) is
needed to fill out the staff, and sometimes people who are not
regular teaching faculty (professional librarians, a dean,
academics in one of our think-tanks) take a section.
Consequently, the course co-directors have tended to take every
warm body they can get, regardless of their actual skill in
teaching a discussion-based course.




Begging, wheedling, bribery. But many, the best, volunteer.
Some have an obligation to the course written into their contract.
 Those who do teach have their course in their own department
replaced
17) What departments are involved in teaching this course (all,       18) What fraction of
humanities, etc.)?                                                    campus departments are
                                                                      involved in teaching this
                                                                      course?


There are no departments, per se, in Christ College, though we have Strictly speaking, 0%.
borrowed faculty on occasion from the departments of theology,
history, and philosophy (all located in the College of Arts and
Sciences) in recent years.




All academic departments and many student affairs departments are 100% of the
involved in teaching the course.                                  baccalaureate
                                                                  departments, and many
                                                                  50% of the student affairs
                                                                  departments




draw from most humanities faculties, including: Anthropology,         ~50%, although many of
Classics, English, French and Romance Languages, Germanic             the other departments
Languages, History, Italian, Middle Eastern Languages and             contribute to other Core
Cultures, Philosophy, Political Science, Religion, Slavic Languages   courses
& Literatures, Sociology, Spanish and Portuguese, Theater Arts.
The Mellon Society of Fellows in the Humanities also contributes
faculty as does the Society of Senior Fellows
draw from most humanities faculties, including: Anthropology,           ~50%, although many of
Classics, English, French and Romance Languages, Germanic               the other departments
Languages, History, Italian, Middle Eastern Languages and               contribute to other Core
Cultures, Philosophy, Political Science, Religion, Slavic Languages     courses
& Literatures, Sociology, Spanish and Portuguese, Theater Arts.
The Mellon Society of Fellows in the Humanities also contributes
faculty as does the Society of Senior Fellows.




ALL departments have an expected contribution to the course. The 100%, though not equally
English and History departments are one faculty member larger    so.
than they would otherwise be because they are expected to
contribute more faculty members to Freshman Studies, but NO
department is exempt.




Faculty members from three of our five schools teach in the             This depends on the
program routinely. These include faculty from physics, English,         semester and is difficult
communication studies, Spanish, French, computer sciences. Next         to determine since we do
year, the teaching faculty will come from four of the five schools to   not have departments as
include a professor of nursing                                          such
History, English, Religious Studies, Government, Sociology             0.15



At the present times, Classical Origins professors also serve in the                            0.2
English, History, Mathematics and Religious Studies departments.



We draw GBK faculty from most departments across campus. The Most
most sparse or non-existent faculty group is from the social sciences




All humanities and some social sciences. Occasionally faculty          See Previous -- Axtell
from other divisions also teach                                        estimates 55%
The following departments are involved in teaching Search:        Approximately 33%
Religious Studies, Art, Philosophy, History, English, Modern
Languages, Political Science, Greek and Roman Studies




People from all three of our academic divisions are now teaching in ~33%
the seminar: two chemists, one economist, one economist/political
scientitst, three English profs, one historian, one Spanish prof, and
one nurse
(in order of participation) English, History, Political Science,      35% of total depts. in
Classics, Philosophy, and Religion                                    Howard College of Arts
                                                                      & Sciences




Faculty from all departments are eligible (and do) to teach in LS 1                        0.7
Philosophy, Theology, English, Classics, Biology, Performing Arts, 20-25%
Business Management, Education




All                                                                         1
Faculty are drawn from all liberal arts disciplines (social sciences The entire College of
and humanities). We have also had good teachers from the schools Liberal Arts (24
of business, art, and journalism, among others                       departments and
                                                                     programs) provides
                                                                     teachers. Temple offers
                                                                     bachelor‘s degrees in 133
                                                                     areas. This means, 18%
                                                                     of all campus
                                                                     departments, but the
                                                                     question arises whether
                                                                     this is a more meaningful
                                                                     figure than the level of
                                                                     CLA involvement




All departments across divisions                                    All, although natural
                                                                    sciences have the lowest
                                                                    participation rate
All are eligible                                                                          0.7




Members of the Humanities Department account for 80% of the         33% departments are
faculty in Intellectual Heritage. But faculty members from Physics, involved
Mathematics, Information Sciences, and Business also contribute
significantly
In theory, all faculty in all departments should be willing and able   0.95
to participate in this course. In reality, several constraints make
participation less broad, e.g.




We are proud to have instructors from across the college. Nearly        0.9
every department, at one time or another, has contributed
instructors.
19) How are faculty rewarded for teaching the course (Rank/tenure/promotion)?




No differently than for teaching any other course.




rank/tenure/promotion and is often in-loaded.




Junior faculty receive one semester of paid leave for teaching six semesters of Lit Hum
or CC. Senior faculty are eligible for summer stipends after teaching four semesters.
Junior faculty who teach Lit Hum or CC with some regularity as a rule tend to earn
tenure slightly more often than those who do not
Junior faculty receive one semester of paid leave for teaching six semesters of Lit Hum
or CC. Senior faculty are eligible for summer stipends after teaching four semesters.
Junior faculty who teach Lit Hum or CC with some regularity as a rule tend to earn
tenure slightly more often than those who do not.




It is part of all college (i.e. not conservatory) faculty members‘ contracts that they teach
Freshman Studies at least twice prior to tenure and regularly thereafter. How regularly
will depend on individual interest, department size and constraints, and effectiveness.
Evaluating the teaching Freshman Studies is a large part of promotion and tenure. An
explicit reward is the annual Freshman Studies teaching award, based primarily on
student evaluations. The rewards of this course, like most for most teaching, occur in
the classroom, in discussions with students, and in discussions with faculty from a
wide range of disciplines. A huge reward (and challenge) comes from teaching outside
of one‘s discipline – forced open-mindedness and the opportunity to continue learning
beyond one‘s own narrow field




Most, but not all, of the professors teaching the course are tenured. Unfortunately, for
other professors who are interested, there are few extrinsic rewards for teaching the
course.
Personal satisfaction



N/A




Teaching in GBK is viewed with favor as contributing to the interdisciplinary courses
when faculty come up for promotion or tenure. The other reward is the pleasure of
teaching such a course




$2000 research stipend first time course is taught. Support for course costs, support for
teaching assistants. Successful teaching certainly viewed favorably for promotion
No specific reward with regard to rank/tenure/promotion




Some teach as part of load; some have special contracts if they are above load
As a teaching institution rather than a research one, we expect effective teaching, as
measured by strong evaluations, in order for a person to be tenured in their depts. We
haven‘t noticed a difference in the rewards system since we started the new core
curriculum




faculty at Skidmore are expected to contribute to the many interdisciplinary and
interdepartmental programs at the College. The teaching one does in LS 1 is assessed
along with other departmental teaching at times of promotion and tenure, primarily
through the review of student evaluations and through a letter written by the LS 1
coordinator.
There are no additional incentives for this course, although many faculty enjoy the
interdisciplinary nature of the course and the limitation of ## of students




Participation in these courses is favorably viewed by the R & T committee, though it is
sometimes viewed as ―service‖ to the college and not as evidence of teaching
competence
We do not promote within the Program, and the Dean‘s Appointments positions (#16
above) cannot extend beyond 7 years. Dean‘s appointments can receive annual merit
pay increases




Teaching in the core is considered an important part of teaching service. Teaching in an
interdisciplinary course, outside of the discipline, is considered an important attribute
during reappointment and tenure decisions
considered in annual reviews, tenure & promotion




Faculty members receive no special reward for teaching Intellectual Heritage. On the
other hand, the quality of their work in IH contributes to all decisions about promotion,
tenure, and the like just as does teaching courses in their discipline
 teaching in the course is looked upon as undertaking (what is often thought of as a
rather onerous) duty for the department and the College. As far as I can tell, nearly all
untenured folk are asked to teach at least once, and the co-directors write letters during
their review processes, though I do not know how much weight those letters are given.
Equally clearly, though, tenured (and some untenured) faculty can do perfectly well
here without ever teaching in this course (though they would almost certainly be
making contributions to the other all-college course, the freshman seminar)




First time instructors get a one semester course reduction. All instructors get a $1,500
bonus for participation in our two weeks of communal preparation, one week in
August and one in January. Participation in Core is considered by the Personnel
Committee at the time of tenure, promotion and review, but we have no policy on how
that participation will be evaluated or weighed. It won't get you tenure, but it can help
20) How are faculty trained to teach the course?                       21) How are faculty evaluated –
                                                                       students, other faculty, nothing?




the Freshman Program faculty meets every Monday morning to             By students and by the FP
discuss the week‘s materials, and that conversation is led by the      Coordinator, who visits each
faculty member with the appropriate disciplinary expertise. In these   instructor‘s class at least once a
meetings we also perform common grading exercises, discuss             semester.
pedagogical strategies, etc.




We have a four day workshop each May, and since the courses are        Primarily, faculty are evaluated
also writing intensive we have a three day writing workshop.           by the students, and the Core
                                                                       Director




All first-year graduate student preceptors must take a pedagogy       see previous – student
class taught by the Chair of Lit Hum or CC. The entire teaching       evaluations
staff is invited to attend the weekly Lit Hum and CC meetings, in
which a faculty member from Columbia or a neighboring university
leads discussion of the text under study that week by all 58 sections
of each course
All first-year graduate student preceptors must take a pedagogy       see previous – student
class taught by the Chair of Lit Hum or CC. The entire teaching       evaluations
staff is invited to attend the weekly Lit Hum and CC meetings, in
which a faculty member from Columbia or a neighboring university
leads discussion of the text under study that week by all 58 sections
of each course.




The director puts together an annual 3-4 day symposium that           Student evaluations are taken
occurs prior to new student week every fall. Typically at least one   very seriously – both by
day is spent discussing some aspect of pedagogy, sometimes with       evaluations at the end of the
the help of an outside expert. Teaching writing, grading writing,     course and student and alumni
assignment design, leading discussion are all topics that have been   evaluations and comments
covered recently. The rest of the symposium is spent learning         solicited at reappointment and
about and discussing the newer works in the course, usually with      tenure (when ALL students
the guidance of an expert from our own campus. In addition, we        taught by a faculty member are
have faculty lunches after each lecture (one for each work), at       polled). It is not typical for
which faculty discuss what they are doing as well as have the         other faculty or administrators to
opportunity to question the lecturer. There is also a great deal of   visit Freshman studies classes.
sharing of materials and approaches that is on-going. Shared          Occasionally a faculty mentor
computer network space becomes a repository of information. The       will visit the FS class of his/her
web site includes some of the available resources for faculty.        mentee.


The program director and assistant director work with the             Faculty are evaluated through
professors to create a common set of goals, a common syllabus,        student evaluations, and by the
and a common understanding of the course. All faculty who teach       director and assistant director in
in the course must complete the Pre-Service Workshop that also        conference
serves the Lynchburg College Symposium Readings Program.
Also, workshops to promote uniform grading are held each semester
Informal conferences with those already teaching it. Initially, there By students
was a workshop where we worked out the syllabus and teaching
strategies
Faculty are trained by the Area Coordinator and other Professors     Student Evals
who teach the course



Faculty who teach in the program must sit in for an entire semester The GBK program director sits
on another professor‘s GBK course                                   in on classes when faculty are
                                                                    new to the program and she also
                                                                    reviews all the course evaluations




Individual meetings with course director, new faculty orientation, student surveys (two - one for
course development guidelines, syllabi from other faculty,         program and one College-wide
handbook, six-week colloquium on the core ancient texts & authors course eval) and syllabi review
                                                                   by director and faculty steering
                                                                   committee
No formal training. There is a Teaching Guide as well as a wide    student evaluations, class visits
number of "teaching and learning" opportunities for faculty who    by Director of the Program and
teach in the program during the academic year: Douglass Seminar:   senior colleagues during
week-long meeting of the entire teaching staff at the end of the   triennial review and first year of
academic year in May. Search lunches with discussion of upcoming   a new faculty member's teaching
course material led by faculty with specialization in that area.   in the course
Regular staff meetings. Regular email correspondence and
conversation




We have had workshops focusing on some of the special skills we student evaluations
believe are important; our meetings are mentoring sessions in many
ways; some team members meet and plan their classes/semesters
together.
Course coordinators and the Assoc, Dean meet with new faculty to student evaluations
share relevant syllabi, handouts, and materials. The CP faculty then
meet about 3 times/year as a body, but we hold topical workshops
which faculty attend as their schedule and interests allow. Usually
we have 2-3 such workshops per semester




This past year we revised the curriculum, so we offered a two-week   primarily through student
summer training workshop for teaching the course. We don‘t           evaluations. In addition, faculty
regularly do this. Most of the training comes from hands-on          giving large group presentations
experience. We have developed a teacher resource guide for           also get evaluated informally on
teaching the course that includes supplementary readings,            the basis of their public work
additional resources, and classroom activities. During the
semester, the LS 1 faculty meets as a whole regularly each week to
discuss upcoming topics in the course and pedagogical approaches
to the material. Finally, we have a small mentoring program in
which experienced LS 1 faculty serve as mentors to faculty new in
the course
Summer workshops are offered as a necessary condition for            Student evaluations
teaching this course




Faculty are encouraged to visit classes in the semester prior to       visits by Governing Board
beginning and to attend a summer faculty workshop. A new-              members and Student
leaders‘ workshop is held prior to each semesters. All new faculty evaluations are kept on file
are paired with experienced faculty for their first semester. The
two faculty have joint responsibility for the one course. A member
of the seminar governing board visits all new faculty and meets
with them to talk about their class. A repeat visit occurs in the next
semester the new person teaches. New faculty are strongly
encouraged to attend both the fall and spring workshops (a day and
two days of seminars on amusing texts, and some discussions of
practicalities). New faculty are also encouraged (as are all faculty)
to attend lunchtime seminars on texts currently being taught
formal workshops and we do extensive in-program consultation,         Evaluations, Student work, Grading
sharing of information, comparison of syllabi, and so on. We‘ve       records
developed an inventory of ―faculty approaches,‖ some of them on
the web, eg




Faculty can apply for an internship. This is a full semester with four Student evaluations - Peer
hours reassigned time during which the intern attends classes and      review by the coordinators.
lectures and participates in the weekly staff meeting                  Evaluative review by the director
Faculty seminar that meets once/week spring semester, plus @ 6       By students
meetings following the end of that semester. We read one course
text for each week‘s discussion, & also discuss essay assignments,
leading discussions and exams




No formal orientation is provided. Any new instructor, however,      evaluations from students and
works closely with the IH coordinator                                from peer reviews. They may
                                                                     also request evaluation from the
                                                                     University‘s Teaching and
                                                                     Learning Center
Generally, most or all of the following take place each semester:       Nothing very systematic, though
An opening staff workshop (luncheon and an afternoon) going over        some questions on the
the course basics and the expectations of those who put together the    evaluation forms do ask about
syllabus (typically many of whom are on the staff). An opening          how the individual section is
workshop (1.5-2 hours) introducing each new major unit of the           going and faculty are welcome
course. A weekly 50-minute staff meeting, with a presentation and       to add questions of their own to
handout from an ―expert‖ on the upcoming week‘s readings and            the form
other materials. Between two and four evaluation meetings, which
either offer an opportunity to talk generally about how the course is
going or provide a venue for discussing student evaluations of the
course




two weeks of communal seminar and we have about ten evening       student evaluation forms and by
presentations during each semester when one of our number gives a having colleagues sit in on class
presentation to the rest of us on an upcoming author              sessions and write evaluative
                                                                  letters
22) What is done with any faculty
evaluations?




Instructor receives a copy, FP
Coordinator reviews them and keeps
copies.




The evaluations are stored in the
Core Office and copies are sent to the
faculty member and to the Chair of
her/his department.




see previous
see previous




The in-class evaluations are available
to faculty after grades are turned in.
They are kept in the Dean‘s office
until after reappointment, at which
time all evaluations are sent to and
kept by the instructors themselves.
These documents are not used by
tenure/promotion committee which
solicits evaluations of all students




This depends. If a faculty member is
not continued in the program, that
faculty member is told about the
problematic evaluations, as is the
School Dean. The Director regularly
informs course faculty members
about their performance in the
course. The faculty members receive
their student evaluations
There are none



Director looks them over




They go to the faculty person




Underperforming faculty are referred
to Center for Teaching Excellence
and/or given support by course
director, or, if need be, removed from
subsequent teaching
These are used by the Director of the
Program to communicate to
department chairpersons for annual,
triennial, and sixth year review of
faculty




The previous dean reviewed them
The annual evaluations by the chairs
go to the Dean‘s office and are used
to determine raises and such




We compile them by section into
annual notebooks and then the LS 1
coordinator (primarily) reads and
synthesizes the information and
presents it to the planning committee.
 Faculty evaluations are consulted
both by the coordinator and the
associate dean when we discuss who
is selected/hired to teach LS 1.
Questionnaires are processed through
the dean‘s office, and faculty are
given summaries and mean scores




Records of visits by Governing Board
members become part of the
instructors‘ files. Student evaluations
are kept on file. The director writes a
letter to the R & T on behalf of any
candidate for tenure or promotion
faculty evaluations provide one of the
three tools used in assessment:
Evaluations, Student work, Grading
records. Evaluations are kept by the
Program on CD‘s provided each
semester by the Measurement and
Research Office. We match
evaluations up carefully with grading
results, and we also study the
relationship between grades and
student learning. (We‘re concerned
about grade inflation but have also
learned that the relationship between
grades and student learning is full of
confounding variables.) In March of
each year, when fall term evaluations
come in, the Program Director
schedules one-hour appointments
with each of the Program teachers to
review these items. We do follow-up
meetings in June with faculty
who‘ve experienced problems
Evaluations become a part of the
faculty‘s permanent record. They are
reviewed by the director and later
tenure and reappointment committees
they go to dept chairs & instructors




They are used both by the chairs of
the appropriate departments in
making decisions about promotions
and raises and by the instructors to
improve their teaching
N/A, except see # 21 and 15. Slightly
differently, faculty are now being
asked to write an evaluation of the
course as a whole (not so much their
section) and turn that in to the co-
directors




They are used by the Dean and the
Personnel Committee during an
instructor's evaluation for promotion,
tenure and periodic review
23) What fraction of the faculty has been involved in teaching or constructing the course during
the past 5 years?




100% of Christ College faculty, including the Dean.




Probably 50%




There is a biennial syllabus review in each course, conducted by a subcommittee of 5-9, which
then is brought to the entire teaching staff for approval or modification
There is a biennial syllabus review in each course, conducted by a subcommittee of 5-9, which
then is brought to the entire teaching staff for approval or modification.




Teaching: For each of the past two years, 45 faculty out of about 120 faculty have taught the
course. By my count 72% of the current tenure track college faculty has taught in the course in
the last 5 years (the number is really more since I didn‘t count people who are no longer teaching
here). At least 65 out of 90 current college tenure track faculty have taught the course in the last
five years. In that same time three conservatory faculty have taught the course (out of about 28
tenure track faculty). Constructing: Theoretically, 100% of the faculty has a role in constructing
the course – all faculty are eligible to vote on their own divisional works list, and many do. More
conservatively, I would add about 10 more faculty to the list of faculty who have contributed
substantially to the course in the last 5 years (giving a lecture on a work or providing leadership
during the faculty symposium, for example), bringing participation to about 80% of the faculty
(again, this doesn‘t include administrators who taught the course, nor does it include non-tenure
track faculty or staff such as our art curator, or adjunct language faculty who contribute expertise
or who teach the course).




This is too difficult to really measure because the size of the general faculty has grown over the
last five years. Most of them are too new and are focused on developing their positions within
their respective schools to be concerned with fine-tuning this course
Ten out of 150-160 full-time faculty (6.5%)



5% of faculty have been involved in teaching the course during the past 5 years




Probably about 30%.




About 24 sections are offered each year, with an annual turn over of about 10-20%
26 faculty out of 125 faculty total (20%)




                                            0.15
Roughly 25% of the College of Arts & Sciences (which has 2,600 of the 4,500 students enrolled at
Samford U. Still, most of the professional schools require the core classes also




: I‘m going to have to ball park this number. We have a faculty of about 200 at Skidmore. Each
fall, about 35 people teach LS 1. Of those 35, probably 5 are totally new to the course each year.
(Axtell estimates 30%)
15-20%




(PERHAPS 80%)We have approximately 110 faculty teaching 150 sections every year. Over a
five-year period you might replace 10 of these every year. The definition of ―faculty‖ is not fixed;
and the numbers of faculty (by any definition) is not fixed; so this question is hard to answer.
About 80 of the 110 are tenure-track faculty. We have a tenure-track roster of 135. This includes
three dozen folk in graduate and adult programs. We have as a goal to have 80% of our offerings
taught by tenured and tenure-track faculty. We are at about 66% right now
The question is not completely clear. I would say that we have had participation from no more
than 5-10% of the tenure-track faculty of our College in the past 5 years. In part, this is because
we‘ve built a very competent in-house teacher cohort and CLA departments have been under
intense pressure (they‘ve been understaffed and enrollment has grown). As of the current
academic year, there have been significant budget and structure changes, including substantial
hiring of tenured and tenure-track faculty. This will change the faculty profile within our program
significantly




                                                                                                 0.5
~50%




10% of the University‘s total faculty
(ABOUT 70%) I am going to answer this on the basis of my own recollection, since we do not
keep statistics of this sort in an easily available way (though we know we should). (1) The fraction
that has taught even just once in the last five years varies by department from highs of (nearly)
100% (History, Philosophy, Religion, Classics), to something like 50-60% (most Math/Science
and Behavioral Science division departments), to lower percentages in some departments (Modern
Languages, English, Music, Art, Physics, Economics, Political Science). (2) Quite a high
percentage of those who regularly or periodically teach in the course are regularly involved in the
annual processes of revising the syllabus. This would be something in the neighborhood of 20-25
of a faculty of just under 100




About 33%
24) What is the governance structure of the course – who makes
decisions and how much power do they have?




Faculty, working by consensus, make all the important decisions.




director and three committees who are responsible for the course. The
director makes day-to-day decisions, but the committees set policy. We
have lots of power.




Director of Core Curr. And Chair of Lit Hum administer course. LH
has faculty subcommittees to produce a course-wide final examination
(twice a year) and syllabus (once every two years).
Director of Core Curr and Chair of CC administer course. CC is
governed by a faculty steering committee, which among other things
produces a syllabus for general approval.




Staffing is ultimately the responsibility of the Dean of the Faculty, as is
paying the bills. All the rest of the decisions are ultimately made by the
director, usually with other faculty members. The syllabus is the
responsibility of the faculty teaching the course. A works committee
chosen by the director meets in the spring, takes into account student
and faculty evaluations of the works, and recommends changes (we are
required to change at least 10% of the course annually). That
committee will bring to a vote at least two different syllabi to the
faculty who will teach the course the following year. Term I faculty
vote on the term I slate, and so on. The most recent review and revision
of the course took place in 1996-1997 by a 12-member faculty
committee. The director‘s ―power‖ includes choosing the lecturers for
each work, setting the agenda for the symposium, choosing works for a
mid-year reading group (to get everyone familiar with works on the
divisional lists), choosing (with the Dean) the next director, organizing
and chairing the: works committee, exam committee, & writing prize
committee as well as occasionally an assessment committee. The
Because the course is a general education course, any structural
changes or major changes in the goals, must be approved by the
College‘s Educational Policies Committee and then approved by the
General Faculty. The Program‘s director, who is a faculty member as
well as an assistant dean, reports directly to the Dean of the College.
The 5 to 8 faculty members who teach in the course also have voice on
syllabus construction, course requirements. Decision-making is
collaborative among faculty teaching in the program, but ultimately the
director is charged with the articulating the program needs, developing
and maintaining the budget, securing and negotiating with speakers,
and representing the program, as appropriate. The director can be said
to have a high level of responsibility and power
The teaching cadre has complete control over the structure of the course



the Area Coordinators call meetings of the course faculty; any
significant changes must be run by the Core Director and the Dean of
Arts


The GBK program has a program director and an advisory board. The
program director reports to the Interdisciplinary Department Chair, but
is pretty autonomous. Scheduling, faculty participation, budget, etc., are
all under the program chair. If she wanted to change a course or change
the curriculum, she would have to go to Curriculum Committee and
then to the faculty for a vote.




A faculty steering committee, in collaboration with the course
instructors, and the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee. Director
handles day to day, Steering comm sets policy and approves syllabi, etc.
Director of Interdisciplinary Humanities has chair status in the
administrative structure of the college




There is a coordinator for the course who is responsible, this year for
the first time, for creating a budget for the course. This person is
largely the convener. Most decisions are made by consensus of the
group.
We try to reach consensus about common texts and requirements when
we meet each semester, but the Associate Dean has the final say in
matters related to the goals of the course




LS 1 is directed by the LS 1 coordinator, a member of the faculty
appointed by the office of the Dean of the Faculty after nominations
from the LS 1 faculty have been taken and the LS 1 faculty has been
consulted. LS 1 itself is maintained by a number of faculty
subcommittees. The primary planning and oversight committee is the
Readings and Format committee. Other committees that sustain the
course have included a papers committee, an exams committee, and an
assessment committee. While the LS 1 coordinator has ultimate
responsibility and authority for the course, the course is run fairly
democratically, as are most ventures at Skidmore. On the other hand,
the LS 1 coordinator doesn‘t have any real ―power.‖ Since we are not a
department, recruiting faculty is often unfavorably misconstrued as
―begging.‖ We depend a lot on the good graces of our colleagues and
of the generous support of the Dean of the Faculty. LS 1 doesn‘t have
a distinct budget of its own, but rather the budget is part of the larger
Liberal Studies budget.
Course faculty meet to review the course periodically. The dean of the
Clare College core is the formal coordinator of the course. Decision-
making is collegial.




Practical decisions about assignments, course numbers and times are
made by the Program Manager (a staff position) and the Director ( a ½
time, or three course release, faculty position). The reading list is
determined by the Governing Board of twelve faculty members elected
from the college at large (including part time instructors). Members
have terms of 3 years. The board is self-perpetuating. Almost all other
matters are decided by the Director—major decisions, in consultation
with the Board. Three committees of the Governing Board have active
responsibility for faculty development, text selection, and assessment.
An Undergraduate Policies Committee would have intermediate
authority over any proposed curricular change, with the Educational
Policies Board and the Faculty Senate having power of veto
The Director and two Associate Directors report to the Intellectual
Heritage Policy Committee, which includes three tenured faculty from
CLA, two IH Dean‘s Appointments, one student, a faculty member
from the University Senate Educational Programs and Policies
Committee, and (ex officio) the Director of Core and Transfer, the
Director of University Writing, the IH Director and Associate Directors




Faculty make curriculum decisions. The Director initiates and leads
discussion of curriculum
Administered & led by Core Coordinator appointed from the faculty by
the dean for 3 year term. Works with Advisory Committee & Syllabus
Committee elected annually by Core faculty, who all meet once at end
of each term to approve proposed policy & syllabus changes




All decisions are made by consensus of the IH Committee. The
coordinator of the program schedules and recruits but has little
authority to make changes
Two co-directors (serving two-year terms) have ultimate responsibility
for the shape and management of the course. Traditionally, one co-
director has been largely responsible for one semester and the other for
the other semester, though that situation has changed, given the next
point. The co-directors have nearly total autonomy in respect to the
administration of the College; the real check on their autonomy is from
the faculty, both in the form of the opinions of current staff and in the
revision process. For three semesters, at the instigation of an outside
review team, we have had a Steering Committee, consisting of the two
co-chairs plus one appointed (by the Dean) representative from each of
the three divisions of the faculty. This body is charged with carrying
out long-term planning and evaluation and (currently) a serious re-
examination of the course. One co-director has chaired this group,
while the other sees to the day-to-day running of the course




Mob rule. Each instructor has a vote. There is a Core Coordinator,
moi, in charge of herding the cats, but the Coordinator actually has
nearly no power. We have a Core Curriculum Committee consisting of
six elected members who, each semester, propose any changes to the
curriculum. At the end of the semester we all vote on the changes
proposed by the CCC. It is an up or down vote. If the proposal is
accepted, the syllabus changes during the next iteration. If it is
rejected, we retain the existing syllabus
25) How is the course supported by the administration
(release time for directors, secretarial help, etc)?




I receive a course release as director, and all the CC
faculty share a common secretary, who devotes much
time and labor to the Freshman program. She is
supported by several student aides who do much
photocopying, etc.




The director position has a half-time release and there
is a full-time administrative asst. for eleven months.




The Director, who teaches a 1/3 load and who oversees
other Core courses as well, is supported by an
Assistant to the Director and a Programming
Coordinator.
The Director, who teaches a 1/3 load and who oversees
other Core courses as well, is supported by an
Assistant to the Director and a Programming
Coordinator.




The director receives a 1/9th summer salary for each of
two years of service as well as 2 courses of release
time. The director position begins in the spring term
(to prepare for the upcoming year) and runs for 2 years.
 We have building-based secretarial support, so the
director will ask for help from whichever secretary
supports his/her home department. We currently are
raising funds, with the help of an NEH grant, to endow
Freshman Studies. There will then be additional funds
to support the course (purchase of upgraded
audiovisual materials, for example). Others also
support the course: the webmaster updates the
website, librarians help find support materials for the
faculty, A/V types help with lectures, etc


Release time is given for director, assistant director;
the College provides a small portion of student
assistance. Unfortunately the college does not provide
secretarial help.
Money for lectures and workshops. Moral support
(this is important.)

The Core Director receives release time for her work




The program chair gets one course release. GBK is
housed in Interdisciplinary Studies (IDS) and IDS has
an administrative secretary for GBK and the other four
interdisciplinary courses




Release time for directors, administrative support
(administrator, secretaries, work-study aides);
photocopying, ordering of desk copies, support for
course expenses, &c
Director was given a one-course reduction. In
addition, he has status as a Department Chair and is
provided a stipend as such. An additional stipend is
provided for an Assistant Director. The program
shares an Administrative Assistant with the History
department




The coordinator receives a small stipend. Because the
position of the current coordinator has secretarial help,
there is some available. There is none as a part of the
position.
Assoc. Dean receives a stipend and is on a half
teaching load, or 3 courses/year rather than 6. The Core
has an office manager who herself teaches two sections
of another course. Course coordinators (two) receive
$500 each per year to handle various administrative
duties and plan the meetings and train new faculty




As LS 1 coordinator, I currently receive two course
releases (out of a five course teaching load). Part of a
secretary is provided.
The core curriculum as a whole, Clare College, of
which Intellectual Journey is a part, is supported by an
independent dean and secretary. Faculty development
is supported by disbursements from a dedicated
endowment




The director teaches half a full load. The Program
Manager is a full time staff position. An administrative
assistant works half-time. Student workers do publicity
work for co-curricular events, cost us $2,000 a year.
The Director has a 1-1 course load (standard is 3-3);
the Associate Directors have 2-2 loads. There is one
Administrative Assistant, and one graduate student in
English who serves as Writing Coordinator.




Release time for the director, an administrative
assistance, opportunity to apply for additional money
for staff development and faculty travel
one course release time for coordinator each year (one
semester). Secretarial help comes from Coordinator‘s
department. Administration provides annual budget to
cover costs of printing weekly newsletter, supplies,
copying, essay contest awards, stamps, entertainment,
travel, printing, materials




The administration has provided a number of faculty
lines for this course—the faculty members are in the
Humanities Department--and has given the Humanities
Department extra funds in its operating budget to
support the course
Support is minimal: A relatively small percentage of a
secretary has been made available. Recently, an as yet
undetermined percentage of an administrative assistant
has been made available on a trial basis. Co-directors
do not receive release time. On the good side, the
budget is plenty sufficient for our needs (meals or
refreshments as faculty events, outside speakers when
needed, textbooks for all faculty, etc.).




We have a budget which is quite generous. Being Core
Coordinator really isn't that onerous, so it only counts
as a committee service
26) How is course content evaluated? What info is used
to decide whether or not to revise a portion of the course?




Weekly staff feedback. Once a semester we meet to plan
the following semester‘s syllabus, and it is usually a two-
hour discussion that involves thoughtful reflection on our
pedagogical goals and the degree to which they are served
by current texts, practices, etc.




We use the data we collect from our course evaluations as
a basis for revising the course. We also look at the
reflection papers the students have written. We also
revise the readers every other year. We do a survey of
faculty and students that we use as the basis for deciding
what to change and we as that new readings be submitted
to the Reader Revision Committee. That committee
makes the final decision on any changes.
every two years the faculty reviews the syllabus (first by
committee, then by general vote); student evaluations also
include a section that allows students to comment on
which texts they find most and least valuable
every two years the faculty reviews the syllabus (first by
committee, then by general vote); student evaluations also
include a section that allows students to comment on
which texts they find most and least valuable.




Course content is revised annually – minimally 10% must
change, maximally 20%. Student and faculty evaluations
are used by works committees as are feelings about
stagnation vs. tradition. Major evaluation of the course is
done periodically by a task force called together just for
that purpose. Last done in 1996, followed by work of an
implementation committee. The task force used focus
groups, surveys, votes on different possible models of the
course and lots of discussion to come up with proposed
revisions.




The course content is under constant evaluation, with 3
new topics each semester and 12 new speakers. The
teaching faculty have the responsibility for revising an
portion of the course from semester to semester. Faculty
members create the texts used in this course
Two ways: By the teaching cadre at the end of each
semester and By quantitative tracking of four content-
related questions on the evaluations
Area Coordinators call meetings of the course faculty; any
significant changes must be run by the Core Director and
the Dean of Arts


Our course content is based on the program at St. John‘s
College. They initially helped us put the program in place
and have subsequently served as consultants, and recently
someone served as an external reviewer for the program.
Since we began, we had a program revision when we
switched from quarters to semesters. The revision was
accomplished by committee




Faculty and student feedback, results of experimental
sections, consultations with departments, internal and
external program reviews
Annual evaluation done by the entire staff over a week-
long meeting in may after the conclusion of the semester
(called the Douglass Seminar). Faculty experience, past
usage, course integrity are some of the factors used to
decide whether or not to revise sections the course




We tally the results and report the outcomes to the general
faculty. The teaching team uses the results to think about
pedagogy, appropriateness of the text, difficulty of
assignments, reading load, etc. We have changed the text
because of assessment and we have cut down on the
length of reading assignments
faculty discuss results in our meetings in response to
comments on evaluations and our own impressions of the
effectiveness of particular texts and units. We‘ve
discarded two common texts and added others.




Each spring the Readings and Format committee
reconvenes to review the previous semester and plan the
next fall. The committee draws upon formal and
informal evaluations that the faculty have completed of
the course and from student evaluations in analyzing the
semester.
Course content is evaluated by faculty who meet
periodically for review




The Text Selection Committee meets four times (once for
each course every other year. Before their meeting, they
solicit comment from faculty who have taught the course
in living memory. All interested faculty are invited to the
meeting. Proponents make a case for what should be
added and are allowed to do so only if they are also
willing to say what should be subtracted. The committee
then draws up a set of proposals and brings them to the
Governing Board which discusses the proposals and votes
up or down. We have a student survey giving some
indication of a reading‘s popularity
There are periodic reviews, the largest recent one being a
committee convened by the Provost in 1999-2000. The
IH Policy Committee is generally in charge of this and
makes key decisions, e.g. the move to include the
Bhagavad-Gita in IH 51 beginning in the fall of 2002.
But in general the program‘s readings have remained
fairly stable since 1980. An external Program Review
team (2003) suggested no changes in the readings.
Decisions about changes in course content could come
from a variety of sources. Since we serve the entire
University, we would take seriously any recommendation
from units within the University. The Director or
Program Committee could initiate change, as could the
Dean. The process in any case would be the same: review
by the Policy Committee, approval by the College of
Liberal Arts, and approval by the Core Curriculum
governance structure (since we‘re part of the Core).
―What information is used?‖ Any information that comes
forward has to be considered. This can include student
protests about various readings, which we‘ve tried to deal
with in a fair and responsive manner. (There have been
no recent protests. We have met with Muslim students to
explain why we usedeffectivenessof the Koran we do [theit
Faculty evaluate the the version of the course and how
is meeting course and university goals. Staff meetings
lead to curriculum revision. The director reports on
students‘ concerns to coordinators and faculty
Thematic framework of syllabus is fixed for 5 years,
during which texts can move in & out within limits (no
more than 2 new texts for the year, & texts also change
placement; may also rotate in texts not on the current
syllabus but previously taught in Core). Core faculty
propose new texts for inclusion in the syllabus. Faculty
select 2 of these to be read by the Core Faculty Seminar,
which makes recommendations to the Syllabus
Committee on which to add. All Core faculty review how
the syllabus has gone at their meeting at the end of each
semester. Their feelings are taken into account at the end
of the year when the syllabus committee meets to decide
the texts in the syllabus for the following year. Every 5
years the syllabus undergoes a full revision by a Syllabus
Committee: new themes, questions, major changes in the
texts
The IH Committee meets and revises the course in light of
its experience in teaching it. The IH Reader is revised
every other year and during its revision the Committee
uses student evaluations and their own experiences to
change the course and its reader
Traditionally twice a year (in spring for fall and in fall for
spring)—but more recently only once (in spring), the co-
directors convene open faculty meetings to begin the
process of revising the next term‘s or year‘s syllabus;
usually a group of 20-30 people show up, including a
good number of those who regularly or periodically teach
in the course. This unwieldy process has given way now
to one in which the Steering Committee plays a role in
deciding the shape of an upcoming year‘s syllabus,
although open meetings are still held to hear people‘s
concerns and suggestions. Once the overall syllabus is
decided, small groups of volunteer faculty members go to
work inventing or revising the units of the course, with
the co-directors (and now the Steering Committee)
providing continuity among the groups. On the whole,
evaluation of earlier semesters is accomplished through
active memory and oral tradition. A number of people
teach regularly enough in the course that a living tradition
of the content of earlier semesters‘ student evaluations
exists, and the co-directors generally look over the
 Core Curriculum previous two or three semesters. In
evaluations of the Committee. Each year's CCC may
decide how to engage in revision. Usually the CCC will
solicit suggestions for changes from the faculty.
Sometimes the CCC polls the faculty to find out what
elements of the course they consider to be successful or
not.
27) How is the syllabus constructed/revised (how many people are involved, who makes the decisions
and how)?




Again, it is done by consensus in an open meeting of everyone who will be teaching in the course in
the relevant semester.




The individual class syllabi is developed by each faculty member with access to those used by others
teaching the course. We have a set of guidelines that establish what elements are required in all
classes.




In LH, the Chair appoints a syllabus review committee, usually 6 people: 4 instructors of different
ranks plus the Chair and the Director of the Core Curriculum. They recommend revisions to the staff.
All faculty teaching that semester are eligible to vote – if the new syllabus gets passed, it replaces the
old one. If the new syllabus does not get a majority, the current syllabus remains in place for the next
two years.
In CC, the Steering Committee (7 members: the Chair, the Director of the Core Curriculum, and five
instructors of different ranks) oversees the syllabus review. The Chair sends out a memo to the entire
staff asking them for feedback; the committee takes this into consideration as it works on revisions.
Student evals are also reviewed. All faculty teaching that semester are eligible to vote – if the new
syllabus gets passed, it replaces the old one. If the new syllabus does not get a majority, the current
syllabus remains in place for the next two years.




A works committee chosen each spring by the director is composed of at least one fulltime tenure track
faculty member from each of 5 divisions of the college (music and fine arts (theater/art/arthistory) are
treated separately). This group will read evaluations, read new texts, and will devise at least two
syllabi for each term. The director will then convene all the faculty who will teach the course the
following fall and winter terms and faculty from each term will vote on the proposed slates for their
term only. So, 6-8 faculty on the works committee propose the slates and about 30-40 faculty vote on
the two slates




The teaching faculty in the course create and adjust the syllabus at meetings at the end of the year. The
director and assistant director make recommendations at this time.
The teaching cadre decides when and how much to revise. This issue is revisited every semester at the
regular meeting

The original syllabus was constructed by the committee that developed the course; on revisions. Area
Coordinators call meetings of the course faculty; any significant changes must be run by the Core
Director and the Dean of Arts


Individual faculty construct their own syllabi, but they must adhere to the required readings for the
course




Individual faculty plan their own syllabi in consultation with course director. Final approval comes
from the faculty steering committee. Overall recommendations and guidelines are set by the steering
committee
Syllabus is in six units. For part of the Douglass Seminar faculty divide to do focused work on
individual units, address content, determine the number of common sessions and colloquium meetings,
and set reading and writing assignments. Use of the current year's syllabus as a paradigm for revision.
Following unit work the entire staff meets to set the course; consensus is needed to adopt changes




At present about 6 of the ten sections are using a common syllabus: they got together and decided to do
so. The rest create their own syllabus using the common elements I described above
In the faculty meetings we discuss and then vote on common texts, with the intention of rotating one
text per year although that does not always happen. Democracy at work. Then each faculty member
constructs their own syllabus based on these common texts but with freedom to drop no more than one
common text (most don‘t drop any) and to add supplementary texts of their own choice




The Readings and Format Committee, under the direction of the LS 1 coordinator, puts together the
new syllabus for the course. After a strong working draft of the semester is completed, it is presented
to the full LS 1 faculty for review and discussion. Then the LS 1 coordinator takes primary
responsibility for shaping the syllabus and inserting assignments and due dates.
No response




(see previous answer
The core syllabus is developed by the Director and approved by the Program Committee. Faculty
shape and personalize this core syllabus




All the staff is involved. Often coordinators finalize discussion
Syllabus Committee has 6 faculty members elected. No more than 2 from any one dept & at least one
from either social sciences or natural sciences. When the Syllabus Committee speaks, debate ends. The
fifth year revisions are presented to Core faculty for discussion & then Syllabus Committee makes
final adjustments




Each professor has freedom within a theme to devise his or her own syllabus. The IH Committee,
however, provides general guidelines
See previous




Please see my response to #24 above
28) How often does this revision process happen (aside
from slight tinkering)?




Twice a year.




every other year, but we have not made any major changes
other than in the reader since the inception of the courses.




roughly every two years
roughly every two years




Syllabus reconstruction is annual. More extensive
revision of the whole course is roughly every 10.




In the past five years, three majors revisions have
occurred, so the syllabus is pretty much under constant
scrutiny. Revision is initiated at the request of the majority
of the teachers involved
See previous



To date, only minor revisions have been made




Rarely




A continuous process of evoluation
The teaching staff meets annually to plan the course for
the upcoming year. Triennial evaluation (much more
extensive revision) to make significant changes or
decisions about course content (such as dropping/adding a
unit or section of a unit




There is at this time no time table. The Assessment
Seminar is working toward standardized syllabus elements
and that may have some impact on regularity. Also the
fact that some are using common syllabi might cause
pressure for the rest. We will have to see how that works
in this mostly autonomous group
Continuous slight tinkering




As I noted in #31, a thorough revision of the course
resulting in major changes in both the course structure and
content has happened only once (2002). Some years, the
spring work we do with the course is just tinkering; other
times it is more substantive (as when we take up the nature
of papers in the course) even is the surface structure of the
course hasn‘t changed.
Aside from a slight modification of the number of reading
assignments, the course has not been modified since its
first offering (1997.)




The reading lists are revised every other year. In the
intervening year, we discuss and sometimes change
translations
Every year we spend some time thinking about the
readings. We don‘t plan major changes in the near future:
the most recent change was addition of Bhagavad-Gita last
year




Constant rethinking occurs
See above




Major revisions occur every other year when the IH
Reader is revised
See previous. Now annually, previously each semester




It usually is only slight tinkering, but we do it every year.
If we wanted to change the entire course, we would need
to go through our regular channels for curricular revision
involving all levels of faculty governance, i.e. culminating
in a vote by all faculty at the college. We did that last
about ten years ago
29) History of the course – where did it come from and where does it appear on
the transcript?




earlier iteration of this course was present at the founding of Christ College
(1967), and the college‘s ethos was in part determined by this commitment to
common texts read in small seminars. It appears on the transcript under gen ed.




The courses were developed by a large and very representative committee as part
of the process to revise our liberal arts requirements. The structure was adopted
by the entire faculty of the College.




Contemporary Civilization began in 1919 as a course on War and Peace Issues;
Literature Humanities was created in 1937 and followed the same organizational
pattern, though the content differed. faculty want students to engage themselves
actively with the material through class discussion rather than passively through
lectures. Contemporary Civilization and Literature Humanities rely on an
interdisciplinary framework:
Contemporary Civilization began in 1919 as a course on War and Peace Issues;
Literature Humanities was created in 1937 and followed the same organizational
pattern, though the content differed. faculty want students to engage themselves
actively with the material through class discussion rather than passively through
lectures. Contemporary Civilization and Literature Humanities rely on an
interdisciplinary framework:




The course began in 1945 and has evolved over the years, sometimes 2 semesters,
2 terms, 1 term with and additional term of faculty-designed seminars, back to 2
terms. It disappeared for a few years in the ‗70‘s. Shows up on the transcript like
any other course. Fulfills its own requirement




The course was created under the direction of the Dean of the College in 1976
who served as the first director of the program. The course has been continuously
offered since that time. From the beginning it has appeared on student transcripts
as GS (General Studies) 435 (first semester) and 436 (second semester) Senior
Symposium.
It was initiated by faculty. It appears on the transcript with all the other core
courses

History: the course was developed in the late 1980s as a response to a revamping
of the entire Liberal Arts core; a committee made up of professors created course
which was then approved by faculty of Arts&Sciences


The course was developed in 1984 with the help of some Title IV monies. The
courses are listed as GBK courses on students‘ transcripts




Created anew (though not without some precedents) when general education
curriculum was overhauled. Appears as any other course on the transcript
1945 – Man in the Light of History and Religion formed for freshman. Created in
response to perceived fragmentation of disciplines within university. Modified
significantly in 1986 to become The search for Values in the Light of Western
History and Religion
Began 10 years ago in response to the ideas of John Gardiner. Felt it would be good for
College. Spent time experimenting with various texts.
The course appeared in 1997 as part of a new integrated curriculum. Almost all
courses moved from three credits to four across the college in order to
accommodate active learning strategies and to allow for more depth. Faculty load
decreased from 4-4 to 3-3. Students taking 16 credits now took 4 courses instead
of 5 per semester.




LS 1 was created by a vote of the faculty in the mid-1980s when Skidmore
revised its curriculum from one that included a short January term to a more
interdisciplinary curriculum (still lovingly referred to as ―the new curriculum‖!).
The legislation that the faculty passed contained only a broad outline for the
course itself, and its details were worked out through a smaller faculty planning
committee. Every spring, the Readings and Format Committee convenes to
assess and revise the course, but typically this work is largely selecting readings
and ordering the syllabus. The summer of 2002 was the first time we did a full
revision of the course itself. Liberal Studies 1 appears on the student transcript
along side all departmental courses. It is noted as a foundation course.
In 1995, a Summer Curriculum Commission (―Summer Commission‖) was
established with representation from all the schools of the University, and charged
with formulating a core curriculum proposal for campus wide discussion and
Faculty Senate consideration in response to a recommendation by the Middle
States Association, in 1994, that it review its curriculum ―to ensure its quality and
integrity.‖ Among its recommendations was a proposal for a foundational course
integrating features of the Franciscan intellectual heritage into the university
curriculum. The objectives for this course were listed as: 1. To examine major
issues in the context of the spiritual vision of Bonaventure. 2. To analyze
readings in light of the Bonaventurean themes as developed in The Mind's
Journey into God . 3. To enhance writing ability and speaking skills and foster a
close student- professor relationship in a seminar environment. 4. To introduce
the rationale underlying the core curriculum at St. Bonaventure University.
Student transcripts show this course as CLARE 101. The Intellectual Journey.




These courses arose in the 40‘s when a professor at the college became friends
with Mortimer Adler and spearheaded a revolution in the curriculum. I believe
these courses appear as do other courses under a heading giving the semester and
year. The appear with the course prefix (―SEM‖), course number and course title:
Greek Thought; Roman, Christian, Medieval ; Renaissance, 17th, 18th;and 19th
and 20th
IH was developed in 1979-80 in response to two parallel pressures: desire for a
common undergraduate intellectual experience in CLA, and an administrative
need for a common location for faculty with too few students (CLA at that time
was overstaffed). In 1986, with the introduction of a University-wide Core
Curriculum, IH was adopted as a requirement not only for CLA but for all
undergraduates. As regards course goals and content, we‘ve seen a very
interesting evolution that tracks the national pattern. Begun in the 1980s as a set
of courses that would ―give students knowledge,‖ IH has moved significantly
toward becoming a program that ―builds student learning.‖ That is, it was at the
outset a top-down directed effort and has become a much more student centered
one. This has been the result in part of the revolution in the study of learning
during the 1990s (Barr and Tagg, Lee Shulman, others). One result of this
evolution has been our new focus not only on writing skills but on reading, and on
development of higher order thinking. We locally use the terms ―analysis,
synthesis and evaluation‖ instead of ―higher order thinking‖: we do this to
achieve such thinking while avoiding faculty complaints about ―jargon.‖




?? unclear -- Course is part of the student‘s general education program
Created by faculty during overall revision of the curriculum




developed about 12 years ago with support from the National Endowment for the
Humanities to provide professional students, largely embryonic pharmacists, with
the opportunity to study their culture‘s intellectual achievement. It appears on the
transcript as IH 201 and IH 202. Students receive 6 graded, credit hours for the
course. IH has an impact on the GPA
The course, more or less as it is has been in place for 28 years. Prior to that, there
was some kind of basically Western Civ course called ―Contemporary
Civilizations,‖ but I know very little about it. Changes in the course over these 28
years have been of two main types: (a) cultural modules or units (traditionally
three per semester) have changed, e.g., only Classical Greece and African-
American going back to the beginning; (b) in the last 15 years, some
experimentation with non-culture-based units (reading a big book like Odyssey or
a thematic unit on, e.g., war & morality) has occurred, especially at the beginning
of fall semester to get the course started and students‘ skills up to par. As
mentioned earlier, the course technically counts as a distribution requirement in a
category titled ―History, Philosophy, Religion,‖ which requires these two semester
courses plus two more courses from any of those three departments




We have had a General Studies program for well over twenty years. Before its
major revision ten years ago, we had a three track system. There were three two-
semester courses, "Classical Greece," "Great Works" and "Origins of
Modernism," and entering students each chose one of those three. When we
created "Antiquity and Modernity" as a common course required of all students,
we basically took the materials from the three pre-existing courses and folded
them into the single course. Impetus for the creation of this course and the three
pre-existing courses came largely from the faculty, but with strong support from
the administration. The course appears on the transcript under "General Studies."
30) What would/does success mean for this course?




intellectual formation of our students. When they, at the end of the year, are able to read
difficult texts with attentive care and active engagement, to pose good questions both to the
texts and to their seminar colleagues, to think creatively and incisively in response to the
questions of others, to engage others in genuine dialogue, to write persuasively and clearly
about something that truly matters.




Its continuation as a requirement.




A healthy proportion of faculty, advanced graduate students, and post-docs from a variety of
departments teaching these courses; participation by numbers of faculty in the chairing and
committee work for these courses; recognition by those who teach these courses and by
others that these courses are crucial to the Columbia experience; student satisfaction: nearly
80% said in a poll that they found the Core a rewarding intellectual experience. This is a
significantly higher degree of satisfaction than a decade ago.
A healthy proportion of faculty, advanced graduate students, and post-docs from a variety of
departments teaching these courses; participation by numbers of faculty in the chairing and
committee work for these courses; recognition by those who teach these courses and by
others that these courses are crucial to the Columbia experience; student satisfaction: nearly
80% said in a poll that they found the Core a rewarding intellectual experience. This is a
significantly higher degree of satisfaction than a decade ago.




improve students‘ skills of critical reading, cogent writing, and substantive discussion, that
we open students‘ minds by having them analyze closely works from a variety of
disciplines. That we continue to education and excite our faculty by having them interact
with interest works and with each other. That the course stimulate a collaborative learning
environment on campus.




students rate the course highly in all measures, that the faculty are proud of the course,
which is a high-profile course for the college, that outside presenters readily agree to
making presentations, and that the course is recognized by peer institutions, cited in books
and other journals as a model program
That students had internalized and acted on its goals



Success for Core courses is partially based on how well the elements of the course appear in
other Core courses. Classical Origins introduces several elements that other courses in
Humanities and Social Sciences also try to address from the points of view of their
disciplines. Student evaluations have also been positive, another sign of success

Success means that courses are fully enrolled, that students perceive the program as
worthwhile, that they learn the skills noted above, and that faculty are challenged and
motivated to stay in the program




Structural--putting regular faculty into first-year courses, providing small recitation
sections. Content--syllabus development and review process. Skill--assessed by faculty in
each course
The course has identified course content, ability and engagement outcomes. We have
mentioned the ability outcomes earlier but it may be helpful for you to see the entire
document here.

Course Outcome Objectives, The Program of Interdisciplinary Humanities

Along with the ―Life: Then and Now‖ Program, The Program of Interdisciplinary
Humanities aims to introduce students to questions about the self in relation to the natural
world, human society, and the products of human culture. Through the content, ability and
engagement outcomes, the Search program reflects the rich distinctiveness of the Rhodes
curriculum and equips students to enter into the lively conversation of ideas that
characterizes liberal learning.

Content Outcome Objectives

The Search and Life Programs function as microcosms of the entire Rhodes curriculum by
introducing students to questions of meaning that arise within the content domains of our
curriculum.

Search and Life engage students in critical reflection on how human beings make meaning
in response to persistent questions of value. These curricula make the familiar unfamiliar by
examining received opinions and texts carefully and critically, by examining their logical
and historical foundations. These courses make the unfamiliar familiar by exposing
students to traditions, artifacts, and issues that most students have not encountered before.
These curricula bring to the table a wide range of challenging and opposing answers,
interpretations, and arguments concerning central quandaries of human existence. The
effect should be not only to teach the students about these persistent arguments and disputes
students leave the course with academic skills to make the rest of their RC experience more
comfortable: they feel assured that they belong here, they know the ins and outs of how the
academic place works. They can do research, they know how to give a bare-bones speech,
they know one teacher who can help them in a special way. They have taken the time to
READ these short essays carefully, when perhaps they haven‘t read anything since seventh
grade. They can work through them to see that though they may be old they are still
relevant. They have been in a classroom with people who are starting in the same place
they are: they can ask the dumb question they might not ask elsewhere. They can meet the
off-campus people they might not meet elsewhere. They can work in groups, something
they might not do unless they are education majors. They can have opinions in class. They
have to think in class, not just sit there and absorb. They are responsible
marked increase in academic expectations and discourse in the student body. We believe
we‘ve seen this.




Success for whom? For the course at large, success for LS 1 would mean that it has
provided the students with a sound foundation for their Skidmore education and has
provided faculty with a common pool of knowledge to draw upon for their other courses.
Success would also involve introducing students to the excitement of interdisciplinary
studies and the rigors of critical thinking. Success may differ as we look at other
constituents. I think success for the course in terms of the faculty would include
challenging the faculty to work beyond their disciplinary boundaries, to take risks. The
course is successful for faculty if they have strengthened or enhanced their pedagogy and if
they have established new connections to colleagues outside their department. Success for
the students is another slightly different issue. Success would include gaining a familiarity
with academic disciplines and an introduction to interdisciplinarity. Success would involve
beginning to develop skills in critical thinking (reading and writing). Success would entail
learning to ask productive questions and not feeling uncomfortable with the lack of
answers, but knowing how to beginning pursuing those questions. Finally, success would
include feeling as if the course has initiated them into a larger academic and intellectual
community that is Skidmore College
Below I have pasted an extended identification of learner outcomes in terms of which we
have assessed the course, the successful demonstration of which would constitute success
for this course.
2. A. Identifying Learner Outcomes for the Intellectual Journey
When the Summer Commission first proposed the adoption of a first year seminar based on
themes from Bonaventure‘s Itinerarium, it identified four objectives:
(1) To examine major issues in the context of the spiritual vision of Bonaventure.
(2) To analyze readings in light of the Bonaventurean themes as developed in The Mind‘s
Journey into God.
(3) To enhance writing and speaking skills and foster a close student-professor relationship
in a seminar environment.
(4) To introduce the rationale underlying the core curriculum at St. Bonaventure University.
These objectives are manifest in the design of the course itself and in the following three-
fold schema of learner outcomes we developed:
Outcome I. Skills: The successful student will demonstrate an ability to read, analyze,
comprehend, interpret difficult readings, and communicate this analysis, comprehension
and interpretation orally and in writing.
 a. Reading, analyzing, comprehending: The successful student will be able to identify a
central idea of each reading and demonstrate how that idea is developed in the reading.
 b. Interpreting: The successful student will demonstrate an ability to relate the significance
of the ideas in the readings to the topics being discussed, to the basic themes of the
Itinerarium, and to her/his life.
c. Writing: A successful student must demonstrate an enhanced ability to
write a developed, unified, and coherent essay. Specifically he or she must be able to
articulate a clearly focused central idea or theme, arrange it such that all the elements of the
essay contribute coherently to the development of this single unified thought, and be able to
elaborate and successful if thought by a succeed at some worthwhile reference to lines, are
The course is develop that the students discussion filled with direct good. Those goods
itemized on our ―Learning Outcomes‖ screed
Students would be able to use the works they study in building good arguments about
meaningful topics. That single sentence captures many of our goals: use of texts, reading,
writing, and argumentation. We have developed a good team of faculty, and we work fairly
well within the university setting (i.e. we have no problems with administration at the
moment). From my own point of view as Director, I‘d say a major goal is continued faculty
improvement. Another goal will be, fitting into a new structure brought about by massive
hiring of senior faculty in the College of Liberal Arts




Student involvement in reading and discussing primary texts and making connections to
contemporary issues
1) to develop your ability to read, think, speak, and write; 2) to enlarge your understanding
of the diverse ways in which thinkers and writers have sought meaning in human
experience; and 3) to establish a foundation for University-wide conversation on serious
questions




Students have reported on alumni/ae surveys that IH caused them to begin thinking about
the assumptions on which they base their lives. That is success
 (1) The success of the individual sections. (2) the difference between what we expect of
beginning Juniors and what we expect of Sophomores. (3) students have been asked to read
and think about (in an active enough way to engage in a group discussion) some serious
materials from various cultures, then at some level we can claim success. (4) the
commonality of the experience. (5) The final examination tests basic content of the
readings and certain major themes developed (6) The Dean of Students interviews all
Sophomores and the Dean of the College interviews all Seniors. Comments about this
course in those interviews indicate general student satisfaction with various aspects of the
course. In addition, this course often comes up in the ―open‖ segment of the Senior
Comprehensive Oral Examination.




If the students learn to write reasonably well, participate in discussion with some grace, and
understand something of the history of Western thought, the course is a success. A sense of
common intellectual enterprise among both students and faculty is another important aspect
of the course's success
31) How would you (or do you) measure this?




We measure this through the students‘ (self-)evaluations at the end of each semester; we
also measure this by attending to the progress of individual students over the course of the
year (the low faculty/student ratio makes this possible; our faculty‘s care for students makes
it a reality).




See previous
See previous




Writing assessment, student evaluations, faculty buy-in to the course, faculty satisfaction
with student‘s skills beyond the course, the elusive campus climate…




We count the following as indices of success for this course: 1.The course, along with the
LCSR program, has brought national attention to the college. The college has been featured
in three books that specifically indicate the Senior Symposium as the reason for being
included, as well as journal articles. The director is regularly contacted by faculty members
and deans from other institutions who wish establish great books courses. Student
evaluations are routinely ―favorable‖ to ―highly favorable.‖ The guest lectures are open to
the public, and many members of the community outside of the college regularly attend.
Faculty members want to teach a section; others bring their classes to hear the presentation
or regularly attend the presentations. Underclassmen also attend when interested.There is no
shortage of speakers willing to address the students in the Senior Symposium program
Through the exit survey senior year and through the evaluations filled out at semester‘s end.
No follow-up has been devised to survey graduates who have been out for several years

Written evaluations, writing portfolios, goal meetings are all aspects of measuring the
course‘s success



Student evaluations, the number of students who stay in the program, and the number of
faculty who want to continue in the program




Greatest challenge is to devise outcomes assessment of skills development that goes beyond
grades assigned by faculty. This is an intiative for the future
We have not developed a specific assessment instrument to measure our success in meeting
our identified outcomes. However, through student course evaluations, conversations with
selected groups of students, and intense conversations among the teaching staff, we have
some sense of how well we are doing. I would say that we meet content objectives well,
ability objectives adequately and engagement objectives not well at all. But the exciting
thing is that we keep working at our ―product‖ and believe that the program is successful in
engaging students in the learning process




probably not measurable until they are about 10 years down the road after graduation. Some
students say in their post-tests that they have accomplished some of these things—that‘s
where I have gotten some of the ideas. The college is looking at new satisfaction and
attitude tests. There isn‘t anything that we can claim the FS does that also can‘t be claimed
for any other class. It is the fact that our campus believes that the FS does it and is willing
to support it that makes it real. And that some students say it on their post tests. We had
focus groups and asked them some questions, and will do that again. That is a way to
measure. These groups, contrary to all written comments collected over the years, had
nothing good to say about the seminar. They were very small and there was some question
about the way they were chosen.
We‘ve begun to require distinctive Senior Seminar programs in each major in which we use
outside evaluators for each Senior thesis, for ex. We‘re funding the MFT for most majors
and comparing results to previous years. We assume that success in the Senior Seminar
indicates better preparation in the earlier years, beginning with the core




No response
We have established an assessment process that randomly selects a representative sample of
common final exam essays. The essays are re-read by a committee that has taken steps to
insure a consistent understanding of an agreed upn set of rubrics. The complete document
describing the assessment process and its results are available on our website




We are currently engaged in an assessment frenzy. Anecdotally everyone knows that alumni
who have forgotten everything else remember seminar (and for the most part, fondly). We
have begun a satisfaction survey of Alumi, taking five year slices into the past. We think it
will continue until we have questioned every year group more than five years out. We
conducted a parallel survey of seniors. We did it on-line, had a great response rate (30%)
and lots of useful commentary. We have drawn up and piloted a procedure to send observers
into classes to record how well a certain learning outcome is being achieved. We will have
results in the spring. We are developing a video of a seminar to be used in testing students‘
judgments about what works and what doesn‘t work, what counts as good seminar behavior.
 We will pilot the video and examination this spring, put it to use next fall.
Continued review of student work, continued careful use of other indicators such as student
ratings




Review of student satisfaction with the course. Review of faculty commitment to the course
Student evaluations and annual survey




Alumni/ae surveys and focus groups are the major means of assessment currently in use
Answers embedded in response to #30




We think about it. We talk about it. We poll our alumni. Every few years the General
Studies Committee writes up an evaluation. We write lengthy evaluations for accreditation.
I don't personally think that any of these formal evaluations give us a terribly good
understanding of the success of the course. So far, I think that the course's success is
obvious. Perhaps, someday, the Sociologists of Education will show up at our doorstep and
declare that their Scientific Surveys have found our course to be a hideous failure. On the
other hand, perhaps, someday, Bards will sing our praises

								
To top