Notes from April 29 2008 Special Faculty Meeting

''These notes are unofficial, collected by various members who attended the meetings. They are completely anonymous and are meant solely for use as general reference, in order to gain a better understanding of some of the common issues that were discussed. Please feel free to go in and add your own section to "Summary," with the major ideas or issues you see in these notes.''

Process
The faculty were divided up into eight equally-sized groups, with each group containing at least one EPC member and one student.

Small group discussion (45 minutes)

Reports (25 minutes)

1 - Convene promptly in your assigned meeting room. 2 - The group will be "chaired" by a member of EPC or ECF, but our intention is to have free exchange of ideas, not a formal debate. Select a "scribe" to record minutes to be reported out and to record notes on poster paper. 3 - We would like everyone to get a chance to speak to the question(s) at hand. 4 - We are looking for clarity of outcome, not necessarily consensus. That is, clear statements representing the range of responses are as valuable as a statement that all agree with. 5 - We will reconvene for short reports back from each group. 6 - We will collect written outcomes from each group and distribute them soon after the meeting.

Agenda
What to do with Division I and the first year has been a subject of conversation and debate throughout Hampshire's history. Over the years we have identified a set of ambitious goals for Division I. These include the acquisition of academic and artistic skills, an introduction to the modes of inquiry and central questions of the different schools of the college, preparation for Division II, gaining experience in doing independent work, learning to collaborate with other students on projects, and identifying the areas of interest for Division II concentration along with the faculty who might be appropriate committee members. Understandably, given the college's limited resources and the demands of the rest of our curriculum, we have had to choose which of these goals to emphasize in successive iterations of Division I.

These conversations, and these tensions, continue. Over the last two years, EPC has begun to study the outcomes of our current Division I program and to explore possible changes. Our November report to the faculty (attached) summarized much of the research that has been conducted and posed several important, basic questions for faculty discussion. The students of Re-Rad have also contributed important assessments and proposals to the campus debate; their report is also attached. On April 29 we are seeking a broad faculty discussion of some of these basic questions, in preparation for discussion of more specific questions and real action in the fall. We are asking small, cross-school groups to discuss two questions that have been at the heart of EPC deliberations this year:

1. What are the central goals and aims of Division I?

2. How can we better incorporate student independence and sense of ownership into the Division I experience?

Your answers to these questions will help EPC focus its efforts to produce proposals in the fall for improving the structure of the first year. We hope to see you all there on April 29 for this vital discussion. Please take a look at the two attachments; they will help you understand the background to EPC's deliberations this year.

Summary 1
Goals &amp; Suggestions for Div I: themes from the small group faculty discussions:

I found it heartening that some common themes emerge from the recent faculty small group discussions about the goals of the Division I program. Some of these themes point to problems or areas of concern, and others point to possible solutions. Either way the notes from these meetings convey both that we as a faculty are in agreement about many aspects of Division I, and that we care deeply about making the Division I program – and a Hampshire education in general - an exciting, challenging and transformative experience for our students.

Here is what I saw as the main recurring themes about the goals of Div I - ideas that came out in each of the small group discussions:

Help students acquire and develop basic skills: particularly writing skills (where many faculty see significant weakness), but also reading/analysis, research, and quantitative/scientific literacy. Expose students to a broad range of ideas, subjects, fields, modes of inquiry Prepare students to be active, responsible members of the Hampshire community (this was variously interpreted as including the fostering of life/learning skills such as time management, respect for self and others, responsibility, etc., and as referring to the skills needed to pursue independent work, be a self-motivated learner, engage with interdisciplinarity.

In pursuing these goals, the following comments were made by all or almost all the small groups:

Challenge, challenge, challenge: while this is understood differently by different members of the community (faculty and students), there were recurring discussions about the need to more clearly define expectations, have high expectations consonant with what we expect from students preparing to be part of a community of learners and engage in a serious and rigorous intellectual enterprise, and hold students to these expectations. This extends to faculty as well, for example: giving students timely feedback on work that lets them know how they are doing. In one group the idea of a classroom contract came up: one based upon principles of mutual respect and responsibility, not on punitive regulations. This is, I think, an instructive way to think about one dimension of the challenge issue. Better preparation, thought, and consistency about the aims and content in100-level classes (in particular the tutorials): These should more intentionally focus on helping students identify and build the intellectual tools needed to be successful; in particular, these should be better targeted at developing skills for success with independent, project-based work. Projects, projects, projects: while the conception of a project differs from field to field and school to school, there was wide agreement that Div I courses, particularly tutorials, should have a project built in. Too, we need to be more explicit in talking about and building the skills needed here. Focus on the portfolio: there was real consensus that the focus and culmination of Div I should be on building a portfolio that demonstrates competence in several areas, skills (reading, writing, quantitative, independent work?). The faculty and courses need better consistency, understanding of the goals of Div I and support for the program. Better training, buy-in, oversight needed here. More creative thinking about the structure, design of learning experiences, especially in Div I: large, group-taught classes organized around inclusive themes? 2 semester course sequences?

I think it is important to note that there were two kinds or avenues of improvement/change that were discussed:

1) Changes to the structure of Div I. While the need for some structural changes were prominent themes, it looks like a lot of the discussion concerned ways that we can more effectively do what we committed to doing 5 years ago.

2) Changes to the implementation of Div I, including changes/improvements in teaching and classroom content. Ideas about what should happen in the classroom were prominent in most discussions, with the recognition that structural changes and changes in teaching (including writing evals) and advising need to go hand-in-hand.

Given this, (as well as the dictates of common sense) it seems that EPC should recommend a two-pronged approach: one that looks for those structural changes that might help streamline, simplify, clarify Div I in ways that help it better serve the goals above, and that also identifies and puts in place avenues, systems for improving, discussing teaching and advising. The roots for our failings last time around were sowed by putting in place a structure without also insuring that faculty (and students) were adequately informed, trained, and providing the classroom and advising content needed to support and implement the structure. We should not design and vote on a system whose success depends upon an idealized sense of our selves when we know that it will be our real selves who show up to implement it. Instead we should think about how we can put in place structure and supports that are sensitive to the real heat-of-the-semester needs and limitations of faculty and students.

There was also a theme of dissatisfaction with the current distribution/LGs, and the companioning "checkbox mentality." As our discussions should always pair vision with how it will actually be put into place, we need to take care to ensure that Div1 no longer evokes that same-as-HS checking-off-requirements mentality.

Notes 1
What are the central goals and aims of Division I?

Helping students develop skills to do increasingly advanced work for both Div II and III.

SKILLS:

Writing skills

Critical thinking

Reading

Research

Oral presentation

Quantitative skills

Formulate questions and research answers

Student entrepreneurship, more independent work

Able to take care of yourself

These sorts of skills may be important in the role of the advisor. At one point with resident faculty, college did try to bridge the social and academic life. Faculty did programming. We now have fewer adults on campus at night. This is part of recognizing that students have complicated lives. This facilitated communication between residential life and advisors.

Integrate into an unusual community. Social/life skills.

Learn effective work pattern

Locate and take advantage of resources for physical and emotional health.

This suggestion is geared toward eliminating the learning goals as announced, but just to incorporate them into the courses. Can we associate skills with classes? Or associate particular skills with schools? If we go down this route there needs to be very specific cross-school goals.

Encourage first year students to experience a wide range of subject areas and modes of inquiry and to encourage them to start thinking and working across disciplinary boundaries.

EXPOSURE TO BROADER PERSPECTIVES:

This one may be in a different category: making art -- do all first year students need to make art? Maybe they don’t all need.

to do this. This is maybe too specific. Difference is between a skill and exposure to disciplines. What makes more difference than other

things. Perhaps the student body will tell us that students want to engage in art (those who want to engage in art should be able to do it, but they don’t necessarily need to be told to make art.

Distribution.

MEANS TO ACCOMPLISH SOME OF THE GOALS:

One approach: create specific courses that address goals. We discussed in EPC having courses focused on writing and revision. One could design a first-year course that also addressed the oral presentation goal. Many students want to be active politically, but don’t have the oral skills that they need to accomplish this.

Can we use first-year tutorials to cover more of these specific goals? Not all of the goals can be accomplished in one class.

Writing is so different in different disciplines. Building skills should not be limited to the first year, but should be a continuous process.

College needs to be administratively more consistent with presenting information to first-year students.

However, first year students are not being specifically introduced to working with older students. One approach in the sciences is with a science course that used upper-level students to run labs and act as teaching assistants.

Other things to be done:

We need to think about how we should evaluate these things.

Comment: this is orthodox, replicates what other colleges are doing. Should we have a different spin on this? Maybe we need to be more creative with this.

More likely to inspire/require kind of independence later on. At end of first year, students need to be able to work independently, how do we create this.

Findings of Wabash report:

How do we address the fact that students are not challenged in their first-year courses? Example in CS – they weren’t feeling challenged because they didn’t have a way to be evaluated. Instituted and “in class learning evaluation.” Students actually were doing well, and feeling challenged. Giving them an exam to study for with feedback is visible evidence of that in this case. HACU faculty member reports the same thing. It helps with learning the hard, cold facts that one needs to in certain areas. Faculty have been discussing “how the raise the bar.”

How does one accomplish this in the first-year? The contrast from a traditional high school education of taking tests to Hampshire first-year classes. Can we have a way to make that shift? It’s easy to gloss over doing the readings if students don’t have a method to drive students to learn. It’s hard for students to learn how to challenge themselves. By having distribution goals it’s hard to challenge yourself if you’re not motivated to accomplish something in a particular area. Student not willing to rise to the challenge if felt it was taking just for requirement.

Division I is the transition from high school to college. Is it the case that students haven’t figured out how to challenge themselves? If you look at Wabash data, it may be more to do with the lack of motivation. November 29 EPC report: readings and assignments challenging, but students don’t feel obligated to respond (to a course you don’t really care about.) Many fy students feel that 100-level courses are poorly taught, organized, and poorly prepared. Discussions are dominated by students who haven’t done the reading.

How do you shift this? In addition to “quizzes” or “in class learning evaluation.” Assigned weekly 2-page paper (not response paper) and to engage with the reading. Helped with discussions. Students had guidelines for what to address. Students learned how to quickly put together an argument in limited space. Downside – colleagues complained because they didn’t have weekly papers students didn’t do their readings.

Weekly expectations – rapid feedback.

Other faculty member – find ways to help students take ownership through choice and responsibility toward classmates, like running discussions. Change up the exercises in the class – bring reading to class and refer to it. Activities not the same for every class. Includes writing assignments. Group assignments to prepare for an upcoming class. TAs work with small groups to do research projects. Do research, find information, use library, archives. More than one way into this.

Can we get away from the course as “king.” Underneath the lack of challenge for fy students is that system is oppressive with no room for independent activities. Can we reorganize the amount and kinds of work, reduce number of required courses. What other types of activities are appropriate to the first year. This may solve much of the hostility. This comes up again and again in re-rad group. Smaller classes.

RE: challenge. It’s not that the course isn’t challenging, but there’s no impetus to engage with the material outside of class.

Much of the discussion focused on how to teach courses.

There’s a tension between supporting students to be independent and having a knowledge base that allows them to engage in projects with minimal structure. Encouraging independent work requires small class size. But this is a problem if we don’t have the resources to staff this. Can we afford to add faculty and remedial writing instructors?

Is this an anti-feminist or maternalistic framework? We’re nurturing students along – but if we integrate racial politics into this it feels like the faculty perhaps are running behind and cleaning up. Is it the students’ ages? Older students are able to be more motivated. If it becomes more formulaic, then are we more paternalistic? Faculty member has lots of assignments, paper topics to structure the ability to form a question, required readings. If students aren’t prepared they are asked to leave or withdraw in some cases, not evaluated, instructor has left the course if too many students have not done the reading. There’s no consistency among faculty. One should not be singled out for doing this as an “angry woman of color.” What support does this require, or is this the faculty responsibility. Should the dean stand up and support the faculty – when a student enrolls in a course, it’s a contract and we need to make it clear what the contract is. It’s OK for this to be inconsistent. What kind of authority d faculty have in the classroom? What do we do we do about lack of acknowledgement of faculty authority. There can be an attitude of disrespect from students for female faculty authority, or toward younger faculty.

Independent work is not coddling, but there need to be enough faculty who are open and available to giving students feedback. This should be expanded to EPEC, doing theater productions, off campus experience. This needs to be broader than the current independent study form, and doesn’t necessarily have to be “nurturing” or indulgent experience.

We can’t just set students loose to do student work. Can there be a course subsequent to the tutorial (the old proposal to make it a two-semester course and spring project is guided by the fall.) In the spring the instructor would have 12 independent studies.

We already have more than 50% of our teaching at the 100 level.

Is Div I really too complicated or are we infantilizing students to accept that they can’t do the program as it’s specified. If you’re trying to generate an independent drive, you have to expect students should be able to figure out the Div I requirements when they get here.

There’s a difference between acquiring skills and exposure at different class levels, and there is confusion over this.

Final comments on fostering independence:

Fundamental disconnect between what students and faculty see as independent.

There are issues of being respectful and learning to what it means to take control of your education in this environment.

We need somehow to be able to set students up to be able to succeed in their independent work. We need more definition.

Resources – how can we accommodate independent work in the first year with this framework.

Evergreen faculty – have a seminar where they work with 15 students over the course of a semester with two faculty. Time intensive – 15 hours per week.

Are there any possibilities for making small alterations in the current tutorial system? Meeting early with students – not so slight an idea. Graduation requirements can’t change from 8 to 7. Can we start orientation earlier and have civility conversations.

Notes 2
- distribution &gt;

- preparation for Div. II &gt; some

-“challenge” &gt; key issues

- community &gt;

goals/aims of Div. I independence &amp; ownership

check boxes on Hub undermine the importance of the Div. I portfolio (the latter should be emphasized.) current system – clash between distribution requirement &amp; learning goals; in the portfolio, the student asked to create an independent system for assessment. one goal of Div. I had to be more in the mode of Hampshire – less boring/conventional. Distribution requirements do not have to be clustered in the 1st year. (should still exist, however!) Div. I should prepare students for writing, research, and quantitative work -&gt; in current system Div. IIIs not always up to standards in these areas (expectations); also independent work developing the skill set.

acquisition of skills would help address the challenge issue. The breadth problem -&gt; are modes of inquiry school – or discipline – dependent? Or could we come up with an interdisciplinary seminar taught by 2 or 3 people, that would avoid the issue of distribution by school (thinking distribution in a creative way) Are the tutorials working? (they could be an independent project kind of course) Another option: a cluster of 3 or 4 faculty teaching a 2-course equivalent in the fall; students take one other course and modules in writing and computation (Brown’s idea)

Div. I : introduce students to Hampshire ethos of interdisciplinarity.

one way to address the issue of challenge would be to give students more w/ fewer courses (but it still needs to look like a recognizable transcript)

^ We don’t want to look like we’re lowering the bar! Then again, it works at places like Colorado College…

how do you convey the different kinds of questions that one might ask in different disciplines? Requires having some sense of different approaches.

another Div. I goal: 1. construct an argument &amp; 2. deconstruct someone else’s argument (learning a language – not just a skill set but a thinking set)

Q: what do you need to know in order to do interdisciplinarity?

we have to think about a 3-semester sequence (if we institutionalized overlap, students would be finishing Div. I and beginning Div. II in September of the 2nd year)

^ independent course or mini-project course in either a.) spring of 1st year or b.) third semester.

^ mentored independent study is another option (seems to work well – is it feasible workload-wise?)

CONSENSUS

we need to emphasize interdisciplinarity in Div. I distribution requirements should be creatively re-thought skills are essential (writing, research, experimental methods/ computation) (also discussion skills) center for teaching and learning needs to address how writing is taught ( a teach – the –teacher model) =&gt; we need the training to be able to teach writing effectively! To pass Div. I, students should be able to write an argumentative essay that is read by neutral people. Revision is fundamental.

look at the interdisciplinary course/ cluster model (with accompanying modules/ tutorials) independent work in some form.

Notes 3
We began by making a list of significant issues: Distribution, projects, prep for Div III at 100-level, challenge and accountability, community building: these are significant issues: how can these be addressed as part of goald for Div I?

Some observed that the idea of learning goals and checkboxes on the Hub undermine portfolio. Some argued to raise the importance of the Div I portfolio. This is done at individual level, but not systemically.

Another observation: In the current system there is a clash between distribution, learning goals, and how we evaluate these, VS the creation of portfolio (which is a more creative activity). One requires external evaluation, the other internal (student) self-assessment.

Another observation: Our first year curriculum is NOT exciting. It is a most conventional sort of curriculum. Our set of distribution requirements is very old-fashioned. Learning goals are an alternative to distribution. But we don’t treat them that way. What would help?

The bulk of the ensuing conversation circled around distribution (content? Modes of inquiry? “discourses”?) versus or in relation to skills (learning goals) – especially writing and computational skills.

Everyone seemed to be favor of distribution, “but we have to think more creatively about it.”

Maybe distribution doesn’t have to be in first year? Distribute across several years?

Skills/Learning Goals

Problem of skills acquisition huge. Many at this point began talking about how students are increasingly “incompetent writers.” Perhaps one possibility is to have Div I centered entirely on building skills. Question of challenge and accountability: that is, raising the bar. There has to be support for struggling students, however, if we are going to up the ante, as well as for faculty learning how to, for instance, teach writing. Skill acquisition means there has to be support built in. THIS could be our Division I.

Breadth

We are foundering on breadth. Think more creatively about this! Back to mode of inquiry problem. To get the idea of mode of inquiry, do you need to be exposed to many disciplines?

A new way of thinking about BREADTH: How about a CORE interdisciplinary course? Like CBD – a question approached form a variety of disciplines. Interdisciplinary seminars taught by two or three faculty from different fields. This feels like a more Hampshire model. There could be a number of these of these and students are required to take one.

There could be an Interdiscplinary cluster: of tutorials, or other units, or 3 or 4 faculty teaching a “double course”. In addition, students could do one other class in whatever they want. Then, intensive modules in writing and computation, at multiple levels. How does this interact with the tutorials? We have a problem, someone observed, in that we can’t keep staffing our tutorials under the current system.

Some recalled a few years ago an interdisciplinary course with eight faculty called “Values and Choices”. Other potential themes for a core interdisciplinary course: “Citizenship” “Masculinities” “Happiness.” These would involve dialogue about what questions different “disciplines” bring to a question, how they are in tension, the new questions that emerge. There needs to be a language about separations and interactions. These would be courses that challenge faculty as well as students.

These could be big classes with smaller modules, perhaps spin off classes with Div III students overseeing. Does emphasizing interdisciplinarity end up reifying those old disciplines we are reacting against? We were all conventionally trained: do you need to know “disciplines” before you can do “inter-disciplines”? What do you need to “DO INTERDISCIPLINARITY” in an effective way, responding to changes already happening in the world?

Interdiscplinary possibility varies also by discipline. Certain “disciplines” are actually really interdisciplinary – like economics. This is also about challenging students’ expectations about what disciplines really are.

Some argued for thinking of Div I as a three semester sequence (rather than two semester). Institutionalize the overlap.

Back to the model of one big interdisciplinary class with two related small modules – one quantitative and one writing/expressive intensive. This cluster could then feed into an independent project in second or third semester. Third semester could feature a transitional independent project that brings student into Div II.

Someone observed that in their experience the only manageable version of many students doing their own projects within a class setting with a faculty facilitator is the Div III seminar. Can this model be adapted for Div I? Peer review, workshops, library sessions. What would be the challenges? When is a good time?

Mentored independent study program: expand it!! This would help with workload, with collaborative learning, with community building.

We spoke at further length about the challenge question: students need at least one VERY demanding experience that they have enough time for.

Does reducing learning experiences from eight to something else signal less challenge and fewer expectations?

What about Colorado College??? They do one topic for three months and don’t have a challenge problem. Evergreen also mentioned as a possible model.

Back to the desire to build skills:

We made a list of skills that are important for students to be competent in Div II and III:

Writing, theory, critical literature – learning how to engaged with different discourses, quantitative skills. This is both skills and ways of thinking.

Summing up our conversation:

Skills: beef up challenge and support (students are increasingly incompetent writers – and so they become frightened, aggressive, confused. Solution? More one on one time) Have we overloaded the first year? MCP is definitely a check off. Rather, this should be built in into courses – get people addressing race in a thoughtful, literate way. Also build in the arts much more across the curriculum, more expressive possibilities across all the schools. We discussed the challenge of working with students at highly variable levels within one course. The problem of classes that are seen as “remedial.”

Perhaps ALL first year courses have to be intensively skill oriented. Writing intensive, quantitative intensive, whatever. How about a Div One required essay in order to pass, that gets read by neutral people, in addition to course work. What should the advisor’s role be? This is so important: how to train and evaluate?

We NEED a center for teaching and learning: faculty need to be supported and trained.

Short term solutions: have seminar for tutorial faculty on how to really teach writing (with imaginative assignments, exercises, etc.) in their tutorials (in all schools)

Breadth: we need to rethink distribution creatively as an INTERDISPLINARY core course or set of courses: not wed to schools. Look at the Rachel Conrad and Deb Martin course as a model where they had escalating interdisciplinary assignments that culminated at end of semester “Archaeology of Children” CBD funding can be used for this. There has to be serious NS component so that students are exposed to NS.

We could create four or five mega interdiscpinary courses and then cluster existing courses around them.

Notes 4
Question 1 Central goals and aims of Div I

We need to allow students to make a change from high school; need to create a challenge that they haven’t had in high school. They need to do a project and it should be built into the course as steps project. This gives sense of ownership; they need to do primary and secondary research. This would mean paying attention to Wabash

Create a sense of excitement by doing the project. We dropped the ball when redesigning div I and not including the project;

We need to keep, allows students to explore more broadly; explore schools and faculty in those schools

We have to be informed as advisors, give students lay of land

DOF office has to take responsibility for intellectual health of Div I, oversight, not just counting how many seats available but also about content of the program.

Locate work in sense of broad set of skills.

Tensions come in when student wants to do x and then students have to take different academic activities; exposed to different methodologies; we need to communicate with admissions about what we do. There is a disconnect here.

Do students have skills coming from high school? Impression is that they have been neglected; not up to snuff.

Students very connected to web, that is the place they start; we need to convey a sense of what we do, something that goes beyond wikipedia.; We are having to talk to students about why they are even here for an education.

I don’t think the Div I is that bad.; builds in modes of inquiry in distribution. It does build in skills. In theory it builds in ownership with project in the Div I course. If we had actually done what we said we were going to do.

We dropped the ball in not instituting div I projects in courses; having them meet three times a week; but the check off on the hub is reductionist; faculty don’t take it seriously; now no reason to have advisors. The hub could pass the students. Agree to the learning goals, but these could be subsumed within the class. No reason to have on the hub. Would like to have more robust interaction with advisees.

Portfolio in Div I could be more central and the hub less so; it is about implementation; use portfolio to show skills.

We also have to listen to students. They hate the inflexibility. I can’t wait to get to div II and III they say. We haven’t sold Div I.

We need to prepare students for what will happen later at Hampshire; that is what Div I should do; community of learners; responsibility for actions; living in diverse environment; have good 100-level courses with projects; how are we measuring what happens in Div I classes? We aren’t measuring things that are important for Div I.

We can’t provide a family environment. Build projects and other things will follow.; reinvigorating the classroom is what we should be doing

Time management issue; how to deal with deadlines

External internal motivation issues. Project has to be completed. They should be engaged with that. Don’t do rules of you won’t get this or that. Set of rules will not prepare students for Div III. Students not finishing Div III today because of lack of projects at the 100 level.

But there should be expectations. Use deadlines and stick to them.

Tension between exposing students to diverse projects and students wanting to do something else. How do we negotiate this? They think they know what they want to do, but they don’t always know.

Look at the end product so everything will have relevance to that portfolio. Use the portfolio as the driving force.

Aren’t we already doing portfolio? There is always tension between “I want to follow my own thing”… Students in my course learn things they would not have looked at if they had not been forced to take my course.; breadth is important

Stuck on idea of liberal arts college, that students should be good citizens. What students should know as educated adults; take these courses because it is important to know different stuff

Always doing balancing act between coddling and “well I told you about that in the syallabus..” We don’t put enough emphasis on taking responsibility for self and others. Getting sleep, going to writing center, calling home, not taking drugs; this idea of responsibility is necessary.

Community, responsibility, these are words. How do we make this real? We do this by taking the classroom seriously.

Line of discussion on evaluations…

Get away from “no eval.” Write bad eval if they have not done their work. Moves into pass fail. Write something. Even if it is bad eval.

Get rid of the check off box. This needs to be possible on the hub

We want a real “fail” as an option on the hub.

Everything should be available on the eval. Good and bad.

Why do we have to turn to Bobby or the hub to change these requirements.

No consequence for being in class and then not finishing. They hang around until almost the end, and then they drop.

We need a meritocracy. Reinstate quality control at Div I level. Quality control needs to be in hands of faculty, not Bobby and hub. If we give a no eval, we have to give reasons. We have to be able to give reasons, and they need to be taken into account.

Students don’t experience “no eval” as a failure.

We need to re-evaluate our evaluations. That is what we need to do.

We need to honor students who are excellent. Raise the bar in the classroom. Let people know what they are doing wrong, with care for the ego.

Student midterm self eval—require of students. End of the semester is too late.

But doesn’t the comparison go against the grain of Hampshire culture?

Shift discussion back to Div I …..

Schools? Distribution? What about decoupling distribution from schools

Build goals and projects into Div I courses and connect them to schools

Have distribution, otherwise students wont’ take science courses.

Yes, we need distribution; students self-select.

If we are liberal arts, we want them to have science, but they don’t have to be in particular school

“A science course”

Have to determine whose course is within the science or humanities etc.

How to control the course classification?

By going to schools they can skirt the breadth in the current configuration of schools.

Schools don’t make intellectual sense; try explaining them to students.

Yes, they are based on groups of friends.

Advisor

Role of the advisor and the role of the portfolio. From perspective of the student… if I had gone to my Div I meeting expecting to pass; if the advisor says not “sciency” enough, no pass—I would have been shocked.

Role of the advisor—advisor doesn’t know why she’s there either since everything is on the hub checked off.

Second year faculty should not be teaching tutorial.

Perhaps as a team teaching situation?

When students come to me as advisees, they have already made choices when they come.

Advise the first day of orientation; but faculty would have to come early. Some people do and others won’t/

This would be better than meeting about a book they read.

Need to communicate to students the value of education across the schools.

Want the first year to work? Reward people to come in a week early at least $500, make it $1000 dollars. Jan term started working when the pay was improved. Pay faculty to come in a week early and make it part of the program.

Count the workload of first year as seriously as other parts of curriculum

More on projects…..

Back to projects… Do we have different ideas about projects?

Built into project is the critique that goes on in class. Workshop critique. People talk about what they are going to do. Students learn from each other in class.

NS is same form of project; they or I come up with it; review over the semester; build over the semester; sometimes library or out in field.

SS: argument, literature, proposal, bibliography, drafts and use peer review

Community projects in class.

Get them to talk to each other in class about their own projects

Get students to think like scientists.

Problems in first semester, first year project—problem of philosophy project as new student

Use different kinds of articles from different journals. Encourage students to pick a style.

Difficult to have discussions about history. History projects are source based; I want them to understand primary source materials;; know how a historian works when she walks out of class.

Notes 5
Begin by having each person answer the questions individually…

person 1

Need to put project in course context, students need the skills, can’t just begin with independent work

p2

Begs the question- goals and aims for whom?

Institutional goals: distribution of workload, introduction to the market of possibilities (which different from introduction to modes of inquiry)

Vs

Student goals: notion that independent work can be done within the course has not been proven in practice – does not compare to old independent projects, where there is that spark of creativity, revisions, creation of final project. Tutorials are good – BUT it’s way more workload than promised. Courses need to be rigorous and engaging, that does not always happen.

-need to look at both together, how they interact

p3

goals-teach critical reading and writing, more project based work- if its within the course context, course needs to be developed with that as the main aim. Need to build more freedom into course selection, which is more constrained than many other liberal arts colleges, other colleges do that over 4 yrs (getting a wide breadth of knowledge). If had more latitude in course selection, there might be more ownership, and the courses need to be more engaging. More focus on writing really well coming out of div1 is really important.

p4

We as a faculty simply fail to collectively implement the system, THAT is the problem. Stems from a lack of real faculty unity and engagement. Students should come here knowing that the distribution requirements are serious, that they matter. Schools really need to articulate modes of inquiry and really target that. Faculty members should embrace that breadth. Metacognitive- students should reflect on this importance. Good writing skills- no unity on that- need faculty to get together and discuss what it means to be writing intensive, how do we determine that student should be held back?

Independence and ownership are loaded words. Want students to “own” liberal arts, be able to approach a problem from multiple perspectives, take pride in that. Independence = independence in inquiry, being an independent intellectual. Old system was a massive failure once there were lots of students, it always was great for the exceptional students but for half of the students it never worked. Steps are small, maybe can be implemented within the present system. Goals are as small as learning how to formulate a philosophical question, working out an original, sound argument.

p5

Question? Prepare students for my field, or whole school?

Within field- learn what a negotiated process is for proposing independent work. Develop a language to analyze and critique that work, visually, in context. Problem with new system is that many students no longer want to be in class, less investment. Issue of challenge is interesting, they come from grade-based system, that is how they perceive challenge. They are unfamiliar with the notion of learning for its own sake. We don't fully understand what challenge means, it’s a slippery slope.

Distribution is unclear to me right now. Difficult to measure because there is so much overlap between differently sized schools.

Writing skills important. History. They don't know that they are reinventing X.

p6

This new system seems much more constrained. Many times, students don’t have a choice.

What I do like is the LGs, find them very interesting. Right now, very minimal, uneven for getting credit, but they really do cover a wide range of ways of thinking about things. Need to have a conversation about implementing LGs successfully; what do we do if students do not fulfill them?

We lost something by going to this system, because they really don't know how to write papers, don't know how to hear when we tell them to do revisions- just want to know whether it’s good or bad. In old system, very rarely could you do things last minute and it’s awesome. You need to have critical review, do drafts, do critiques, etc. They don't rewrite, don't do it! Don't know what it means to keep going back and rewriting – 5 college students, as well, really don't have a clue!

Since classes are simply done at the end of the semester, students no longer go back and revise after the course is over.

These days, especially with homeschooled students, some now act as if they are the only people in the classroom. Agree with neil, misunderstanding of meaning of word independence, need a sense of responsibility alongside independence.

Made it more depressing for the “stars,” and has not impacted general retention rate at all! Many of the students who are doing beautifully are NOT happy. It’s very depressing.

p7

Always liked the idea of modes of inquiry in different fields. Students don't understand what experiencing a field means, they have a tendency to reflect on “did you learn anything” as meaning having memorized facts, not learning ways of understanding. Are 100 lvl courses even trying to approach this issue? Work with it?

Students in her 100 lvl are doing multiple revisions, students not saying they are getting that from other faculty. Are we united in our principles about 100 lvl courses? Need to discuss what is going on at the 100 lvl.

At present, lots of redundancy about LGs, some of them- every field contains them, does not need to be explicitly stated outside of the field. How do we all get on the same page??

Students need to get exposed to that, and ALSO need to understand why and what is going on. This will hopefully get students more excited about 100 lvl courses, as they will understand what their point is.

Students come in not understanding what is being asked of them, feeling like they are simply being forced to jump through hoops. Seeing students who hate their classes, thinking to self- this is exactly what don't want. On the other hand, some students think they should get away with doing no work.

Need to see independence AND initiative in students!!!

p8

Central goals and aims- we need to discuss what they SHOULD be, rather than what they are right now. Need to avoid using what we have now instead of what we could/WANT to have! Goal- reshuffle the deck- some students end up loving what they thought they would hate, their impressions are based on what they have experienced so far. We owe it to them to broaden their horizons, give them a chance.

Other goal- remedial. Need to ensure students are college-ready, and frankly Hampshire-ready.

Need to introduce students to range of activities, and ALSO faculty to work with. Especially need to address issue of adjuncts- students are not being introduced to permanent faculty!

Students need to know about more than one discipline. Need to look at things in terms of modes of skills, can’t look at things in terms of the 5 schools because that does not assure a spread across LGs OR disciplines, hard to justify them intellectually! If students map themselves on schools, we have a hard time justifying their program.

Independence –you have to be trained and enabled, need to reap it rather than assert it.

Re ownership- if students come in the first year and have begun something excited, stumbled onto something cool, they want to continue that. That is the only way they are going to have a sense of ownership.

p9

Faculty ownership ties into distribution, students see that the 5 schools don't make sense, thus they don't respect that requirement - they don't see the point. Replicates HS experience.

Need to have united vision, need to ensure that students get excited about div1 because profs are excited, that it’s not a hamptrix, it’s not confusing and full of long lines and paperwork.

p10

Real difficulty of Hampshire students is that they don't know how to work cooperatively!! Need to treat students as COLLEAGUES, need to have that collegial sense both between faculty and students and student-to-student.

LGs are good, but they need to stem from meaningful conversations between advisor and student. We need to emphasize the importance of advising in div1!

3 courses instead of 4- have the 3 courses be much heavier in workload, much more challenging, more project-based and meaningful.

Discussion

-other places who adopt our practices work better because faculty EXPECT students to do their work!!!

-on the other hand, remedial aspect is important, students are coming in less well-prepared! Need to up the ante, teach challengingly while acknowledging low base, there is a larger problem! What can we do to bring people up?

-those who survive the VERY THIN motivation of those who are told through HS that they need this for college either wander off or get super involved

-I thought that the whole point of div1 courses would be that we would start with things that were important to us, and that would reveal to them what was important to them, start those fundamental building blocks.

-good classes are the ones where they CHOOSE it!! MUCH more exciting !need to study tutorials, weed out un-interesting ones.

-NEED adjuncts because of sabbaticals/leaves (very little needed directly because of div1 program), but now there are sooo many, and they are not trained about what div1 means.

The dirty secret about what kept hampshire afloat is that we were dependent on a high level of failure, we needed those students, now we need to work with all of them without enough resources!

-who are we teaching to? The strongest? Or are we pulling along the weakest? Maybe that's part of why we have moved to one of the least selective colleges, maybe our stats need to move from 20% leaving, to 20% FAILING. Comparable colleges are doing better, more engagement.

-idea of “flunking out” 15% or something… can’t instantaneously change student body, need to work on engaging student body.

-we also don't ever admit that we have C students- students who pass but don't pass well! Who is responsible for them, and who are they responsible to?

-the students that intrigue me are those in the bottom third, who are not slackers, who are very bright/have learning disabilities, need to think about how to engage and stimulate them!!

-fundamental conflict- can you ever arrange an environment where it’s sheer excitement, or does there need to be challenge, bugging them and willing to crack the whip

-knows a guy who goes to skidmore, have a program where upperclassmen tutor freshmen on writing –very good.

-TAs and mentor div3s are depressed, because kids aren’t working with mentors to get better.

This meeting shows faculty unity, we can come to an agreement – yay!

Notes 6
What are the central goals and aims of Division I? What do we want students to achieve? Students should get a sense of what a Hampshire education is (project passed work, inquiry based learning, etc) Hard for students to learn to generate questions and figure out how to answer/explore them How can we help them Issue of “challenge” ie Wabash study…how do we improve challenge? How do other issues relate to it? Haven’t yet found paradigm/way to talk about this issue. Is intellectual challenge really the problem? Students feel that profs know a lot but don’t feel challenged to rise to that level Students see other students doing nothing and it undermines the eval system Student and faculty culture at Hampshire—no consequences for not doing work for classes “i feel like I’m working really hard and i see all these other students doing nothing who still get and eval” …sometimes evals not helpful/confusing/don’t give motivation to work hard/improve What exactly went into the Wabash study definition of challenge? It’s easy to solve a lot of the Wabash problems by re-conventionalizing Hampshire, but do we really want to do that? Instead of trying to walk the fine line between staying nominally “radical” but becoming more and more conventional, let’s find the answers to the questions that both work and are interesting? Advisor shouldn’t be the person who passes the div 1 Students should explore interests as widely as possible (since Div 2 and 3 are narrower/more focused) “if there is a moment for exploration and going to new places, it could be Div 1” How do we get students to that point?

Distribution requirements? Have always had them…do all people agree that it is a good thing? In concept it is a good thing most agree Should distribution reqs not be limited to 1st year? opens up room for more indep work in 1st yr? seems that div 2 already incorporates a fairly wide range since hard t take 12-16 courses only on 1 topic…others disagree, ways for ppl to only study 1 thing Variability in div 2 needs to be encouraged more KL: it makes a lot more sense to have interdisciplinary come through concentrations, when have context Hwvr, for many schools, unless students encounter those subjects relatively early, they’re not going to be in a position to develop concentrations that apply to them…won’t have the basics, won’t be exposed to them Could role of advisor help? Create new notions to idea of advising…when it happens, resources for advisors because given students not in field…create something like advising boards to create more freedom. Broaden idea of advising. Feels like can’t get to know the students well enough to advise well given current state of advising…change timing, 2x a week for 1.5hrs isn’t enough

Student body is skewed towards the arts consider a general ed. requirement instead of the five schools? Really cumbersome to have dist req and learning goals. Code courses by learning goal instead of school? Learning goals (or some sort of skill requirement) for all four years, emphasis on writing?

Most important for students who dont know what they want to do

Div 1 is trying to do too much, and don’t have the courses to do it: 1st year students feel that they are being asked to do too much Would it help to make 5college courses fulfill dist. Reqs? Too much pressure on dist. reqs… Not just “Show progress” in learning goals, but actually learn stuff…”I find the check-off things facetious at best and useless at worst” How are we teaching people how to learn and how to be intellectuals? How do we make our students “keen”? Kristin luschen: what does it mean to work with students to be in dialogue, to talk w/one another in an intellectual manner? How does one learn to engage intellectually in discourse? “if we don’t to things in the first year, student may never do them” idea makes it crammed to full When Hampshire got started questioned many things but never questioned the liberal arts…should we still design curriculum based on old definitions? What should count as academic? Why should 1st year be confined to courses whereas div3 is in terms of educations experiences? If expanded div 1 to other activities, would lighten the pressure on teachers/# of courses If expand div 1, role of advisor must expand as well, would require lots of faculty time/engagement Can we get the faculty to agree to that? Has to be something in it for faculty…if a tutorial had an option to be a fully year tutorial, the second semester of which would be indep. projects, faculty would get credit for a full year course but not as much time commitment. Some faculty disagree.

What does work? What do the successful students do? in the context of classes (though doesn’t have to be), getting students to work collaboratively on projects with self-identified problems/questions. Students will challenge each other (hopefully). Also helps complaints that div 1 is isolating. “The best experiences that ive had at Hampshire have been the jan term courses…not just because they’re interesting places and exciting things, but because it’s a small group of students who have to live/think/talk/work together” you have to do things that get students excited and engaged in things intensive experiences where students and faculty are able to work closely together on 1 thing want more emphais on writing (in all courses? Special course for students struggling? How to ensure that everyone can write?) How can we better incorporate student independence and sense of ownership into the Division I experience? Independent work doesn’t have to be individual work Group work sometimes fails…collaborative work is better (group=just split them up, divvy up tasks whereas collaborative=need to actually work together, approach to group work that means everyone works on everything) Connections between advanced students (div 3s) and div 1, know more about students point of view mentored idep study is too limited, too few ppl do it creating intellectual communities (since don’t have majors, how to get together people who are all interesting in same thing?) Celebrate students’ work more/earlier (not just have div 3s display work), makes students take more pride in them and also gives other students a chance to be inspired by others work

How committed are we to actually making things happen? Faculty tends to just sort of go off on their own, do things their own way, so if implement policy, faculty should actually agree to do it and then follow through. Major complaint abt Hampshire[ is lack of standardization/agreement among faculty methods/info

Notes 7
(IDEAS THAT HAD WIDE SUPPORT ARE IN BOLD)

Central Goals of Division I: Asking your own questions; ownership; introduction to our culture; negotiation.

Important to have a negotiated experience during 1st year - such as independent study, community service, governance – something decided between advisor and student.

Advisor-tutorial connection is crucial.

Need greater flexibility, simplicity

Need closure at end of first year.

Do not require students to take classes they don’t want to take

Separate breadth from learning goals.

Simplify learning goals.

Meld distribution requirements into learning goals

'''The arbiter of the portfolio should NOT be the advisor. Committees of 2 or 3 faculty meet over the summer could evaluate each portfolio based on some agreed upon standards. There is a conflict of interest if the advisor is simultaneously the arbiter of whether it is good enough.'''

Get rid of the check boxes for learning goals. Advisor should not be the only judge.

Need for faculty development and workshops to build agreement on qualities of a passable Division I portfolio.

''' Require a qualifying paper for entry into D2; make the student work to enter something (Div 2) instead of get out of something (Div I); work with advisor and D2 chair together. This could build upon the idea of the Div I retrospective but make it more about taking what the student has learned to the next step.'''

More project based courses driven by student interests.

Faculty need to talk about what we do in our classes – why are some classes successful and some not? Best practices – how can we learn from each other.

Some faculty LIKE teaching first year courses – why not have people who like teaching first year classes teach more of these classes?

Offer courses that cut across Schools.

“Individually negotiated” as an alternative to the notion of the independent project.

Negotiations involve two people – the student and the faculty member.

Under prior system, complete freedom to choose projects overwhelmed students. Instead how about a series of inter-school projects from which students choose?

Focus on First Year courses. – structured around methodology; students pursuing their own projects.

First year course content –How to formulate questions; is the hardest thing to teach. Course on methodology worked well when combined with highly structured projects. Students flounder in content-based courses if not given guidance on how to approach problems.

Determine core competencies rather than learning goals for students in Division

Replace notion of “Distribution” requirement with goals of “exposure” and “orientation.” – get students to know a lot of faculty

Learning and intellectual breadth that extends into D2.

2 of 5 schools (1 of them NS) during the first year, remaining 3 during next 3 terms

There is a tension between being well-rounded and the value of ownership, allowing students to pursue their passions.

Notes 8
Most of the discussion was similar to what has been reported from other groups. But several topics came up that do seem different:

1. Re distribution: shouldn't be limited to first year. And people noted that while we question so much of undergraduate education, we haven't seriously questioned the traditional liberal arts format.

2. We talked a lot about perceived problems in faculty culture: that it is overly individualistic, that there is not enough support for responsible teaching (planning/timely evaluations/low expectations/etc). Some questioned whether faculty were committed to change.

3. There was interest in alternatives to standard semester-long classes: shorter intensive modules; 2 semester courses/tutorials with independent projects in spring' use of many TAs; more flexibility with regard to non-classroom education activities.