February 2008 EPC Discussion Board Topics

''This is currently a draft of the discussion board topics the EPC intends to post in February 2008, concerning changing Division I's distribution requirements. Each section would be a separate topic.''

Introduction: What is the purpose of Division I?
EPC’s proposal to reduce distribution requirements is a means to an end. Several years ago, many Hampshire students, in particular members of Re-Rad, argued that the requirements for First Year students were too restrictive. At the same time, a number of faculty observed that Division I advising did not prepare students for the kind of interaction with faculty required in Division II. Instead of discussing educational goals and program development, Division I advising centered on discussions of distribution requirement completion.

In responding to the dissatisfaction of students and faculty, EPC determined that strengthening the advisor-advisee relationship in Division I required giving faculty and students more freedom to negotiate a course of study. Reconfiguring the distribution requirement is the first-step in this process. After the faculty agree on distribution requirements, EPC will take-up first-year advising and learning goals.

These discussion board topics serve two main purposes:


 * To inform the EPC, ensuring that the proposals are revised and improved before the March faculty meeting


 * To provide you with a forum to discuss this matter in greater depth with the entire faculty before the March faculty meeting

Why change Division I?
There are many reasons why Division I is in need of improvement. Please feel free to add to this list and elaborate further.

This preliminary list is based on the Re-Rad Division I Proposal and the October 2008 EPC Progress Report on Revising Division I.

Concerns about Division I include:


 * deficiency in student engagement (as measured in quality and not quantity)
 * lack of student motivation
 * inflexibility in the advising system
 * poor advising quality
 * the high attrition rate
 * the tone that the Division I program sets for Division II and III
 * the extreme deficit of community engagement
 * shift of faculty burden from supervising independent projects to teaching more 100 level courses at the expense of the upper division courses
 * increased hiring of adjuncts
 * lack of self-initiated work and support for said work
 * extremely constrained and limiting first year experience that mirrors high school rather than Hampshire

School Based Proposal
Students will take one course in each of the three groups:


 * NS/CS
 * SS (or its successor)
 * HACU/IA

Comments: This is a variant of a number of models proposed within the small group discussions. Other versions were a) NS/CS, SS, HACU, IA-Lang; b) NS, CS-Lang, SS, HACU/IA; c) NS/CS, SS, and 2 HACU/IA

Advantages: It is operationally clear and would require no new structures to implement.

Disadvantages: It is relatively unexciting; does nothing to stimulate re-thinking our courses; and, especially in the two merged groupings, combines courses that have little in common.

Modes of Inquiry Based Proposals
These proposals are still in need of revisions and further discussions, especially as to the specific names of the categories. We encourage your insights and thoughts on how to improve them, while still holding true to the substance of this proposal: creative, flexible distribution requirements based on modes of inquiry.

Model 1
This four category version is based on Re-Rad's 2008 Distribution Requirements Proposal.

Students will take one course in each of the four categories:


 * Empirical and mathematical inquiry
 * Practice of art and design
 * Social thought, psychology and political inquiry
 * Humanities and modes of interpretation

Comment: This model is based on discussions of concept based models within the small faculty groups in which several came up with categories similar to those listed above, and it was further developed with the help of Re-Rad to flesh out where courses might fall, how to name and describe the different categories.

Advantages: Such a formulation explicitly supports a “mode of inquiry” conceptualization of the Division I curriculum, it is potentially more attractive and coherent to students, and may encourage greater interdisciplinary teaching

Disadvantages: It is not as immediately obvious where some courses fit. With four categories, more care is needed to ensure that there are enough course offerings in each group (particularly, perhaps, in the fourth group). We have done a preliminary analysis, and it looks as if existing FTE resources would be adequate to staff this model.

Model 2
This three category version is the same as the four category version, but collapses together practice of art and design with humanities and modes of interpretation.

Students will take one course in each of the three categories:


 * Analysis and practice of experimental investigations in the natural world
 * Analysis of behavior and social/political structures
 * Analysis and practice of created works

Advantages: Same as model 1, but with the two areas collapsed into one.

Disadvantages: While most classes would readily fit into one of the three categories, the assignment is not as automatic as it is in the school-based system.

E-Mail to Faculty
Hello!

In order to improve the distribution requirements proposals, provide a better forum for Hampshire-wide discussion, and ensure that your questions are answered and your insights taken into account, the EPC has set up some topics on the Hampshire discussion board. We hope you will take a few minutes of your time to visit the page and comment on the proposals and topics. Just follow this link: LINK!

Thank you so much for your time.

Sincerely,

the Educational Policy Committee