Hi, Don! Me again!

First, let me apologize for emailing you directly. For some reason I can't get on committee's web site at home, and really want to do this while I have blocks of quality time to think about these important issues - which is on the weekends when I'm home.

Second, let me officially state (in case it isn't already clear) that my comments about the draft and my suggestions for revision come from "Dona Warren, Teacher," and not "Dona Warren, Chair of the Philospohy Department." I'm not in any way representing my department here.

Third (and perhaps most importantly) I woke up at 2:00 a.m. realizing that some of the ideas and suggestions that I shared with you yesterday were seriously flawed and that another suggestion was seriously absent.

Accordingly, I'm attaching two new documents: a revised version of "Gen_Ed_Objectives_Draft_9-11-08_Warren's_Thoughts.docx" (which is the draft from your committee, with my comments inserted) and "Gen_Ed_Objectives_Warren_2.docx" (which is what the gen eds might look like if my all of my current suggestions were adopted). Please toss the other two gen ed documents that I sent you yesterday to avoid confusion.

I still like the idea of dividing out the First Year Experience and giving it its own category, because I think that this better represents the position of the FYE relative to the other gen ed requirements (e.g. it introduces and discuess the other gen ed requirements).

I still like the idea of dividing the other gen eds into a skills category and a content category, and I still like including quantitative literacy under the skills category and dropping the "Core Requirements" category becuase everything that was in that category would be under "Skills."

Looking at the "Skills" category, I'm now thinking i) that "critical thinking" and "problem solving" can be combined ii) that students should be required to take at least three credits in each of these skill areas (they should be required to take 3 credits of quantitative literacy, 3 credits of critical thinking and problem-solving, and so on). (That's probably the most "revisionist" of the ideas that I have, but I think that it's important. I justify this idea below.)

I decided that it would be a good idea to require students to take at least 3 credits in each of these skill areas after realizing that my previous idea of requiring every gen ed course to satisfy one skills category and one content category, although well-intentioned, was probably a bad idea at the end of the day. I realized that it was probably a bad idea because students need courses that focus specifically on writing (like our current Freshmen English courses) and specifically on quantitative literacy (like our basic math courses). To require a course to equally meet communication learning outcomes and humanities learning outcomes, for example, or quantitative literacy learning outcomes and natural science learning outcomes, would amost inevitably compromise the attention that a course can give to those important skills. We need to require courses devoted specifcally to communication and quantitative literacy - as your original draft quite correctly recognized.

I think I had difficulty admitting this to myself because I didn't want to admit the obvious corrolary: we need to require courses devoted specifically to critical thinking, too. I was afraid to admit this because I didn't want to appear to be defending my turf, but this honestly isn't about turf. As I note in the attached documents, critical thinking courses don't need to be the exclusive property of the Philospohy Department. David Oszvath and Steve Wright are probably already offering courses that should satisfy this requirement. My own critical thinking course doesn't focus very much on philosophy per se. In fact, if I had to restructure that course to insert more philosophical content (in order, say, to fulfil the humanities category) I would without question compromise the quantity and quality of attention that I can give to things like the application of basic logical principles and the basics of premise evaluation. It wouldn't really be a critical thinking course anymore, or at least it wouldn't be a very good one, and my students wouldn't be learning things they need to know. I suspect the same thing is true of David Oszvath's course. It wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that he wouldn't be able to teach the critical thinking skills that he focuses on so very well if he needed to insert more content specifically about geology in order to meet natural science learning objectives. Courses like David's are incredibly valuable, and by introducing a critical thinking requirement, we can encourage and nuture them. Imagine what some professors in history, or psychology, or astronomy, or English might do if we said to them, "Feel free to develop a critical thinking course in your field. It's understood that you'll probably draw upon examples taken from your discipline, because that's your field of expertise, but the focus of the course should be critical thinking, and your learning outcomes should be critical thinking learning outcomes, rather than discipline-specific learning outcomes or learning outcomes associated with some other gen ed category." Wow!! I predict that within five or six years, we'd have a group of fired-up faculty, enthusiastically offering critical thinking courses in their areas. Can you imagine how good that would be for our students? And for our univeristy? I get all happy and excited just thinking about it! And this is the opportunity to make it happen!

At the end of the day, then, I'm saying that just as students really need courses in writing and math, they really need courses in critical thinking. We can't expect other courses to satisfactorily fill this need, in addition to meeting their other learning outcomes, any more than we can expect our students to pick up their writing or math skills in this way. Just as a Freshmen English course might have students write about Shakespeare primiarly in order to teach them writing and not primarily in order to have them learn about Shakespeare, and just as math courses have students do word problems primarily in order to teach them math skills and not prmiarly in order to have them learn when train A will pass train B, critical thinking courses would have students think about particular arguments or passages primarily as a way to have them master some basic principles of good reasoning and not primarily to have them learn about philosophy, or chemistry, or geology.

(A potentially neat consequence of requiring students to take at least one courses in each of the skill areas, including critical thinking and problem solving, would be that instructors from across campus who are interested in offering a critical thinking course could get together on a regular basis to chat about the critical thinking skills that transcend disciplinary boundaries. The conversations and courses that emerge from those collegial discussions would, I have no doubt, be incredibly good things!)

Thanks!

Dona

From: Guay, Don
Posted: Sunday, October 05, 2008 7:22 PM
Subject: General or Comprehensive Comments

General Discussion General or Comprehensive Comments Discuss general education and respond to questions asked by the general education policy review committee. // <![CDATA[ _spBodyOnLoadFunctionNames.push("setupPageDescriptionCallout"); // ]]>

General Discussion General or Comprehensive Comments

Discuss general education and respond to questions asked by the general education policy review committee.