General
Studies Content Area Subcommittee Meeting
Gen 102 Content Evaluation Report
|
Date: May 19, 2001
Time: 11 a.m. � 1 p.m.
Facilitating: Ron Siddell, General Studies Area
Chair
Attending: Gen102 instructors Jon Corey, Fara
Nizamani, Jeffrey Leeper, Linda Kroner Robert Brennan and Shabbir Karim
This report is based on a two-hour dialogue
conducted at the above noted meeting. It was initially compiled by Ron
Siddell and, prior to being finalized, distributed for review by faculty
members attending the meeting. The report is composed of observations,
practices and recommendations. The observations provide background. The
practices are specific techniques that faculty members have incorporated
into the course delivery and are being shared with the intent that
others might consider applying the practices, or variations of these
practices, as they see fit. The recommendations are intended for use by
the General Studies Campus College Chair, as appropriate, and for Gen
102 instructors for implementation in the delivery of the course.
�
In first workshop, the Response to Critical Thinking
Inventory assignment is very confusing.
�
The Wild Card basics are outdated such as in the use of
asterisks. It may not be a good idea to actually use wild cards with the
state of sophistication now offered by search engines.
�
Regarding Internet capabilities, there is typically a wide
range of experience among students. The students who know how to use the
Internet see the search exercise as �silly,� and those new to the
Internet are somewhat overwhelmed. Emphasis on Boolean search techniques
may need to be revisited.
�
Regarding the Web Search Activity in Workshop 2, some see
the rather simplistic online training at $35.00 as simply another way
for the UOP to make money as the program is too basic, and for many a
waste of money and time.
�
Why is there an overlap from Gen101 to Gen102 regarding
critical thinking skills and problem-solving skills. (One instructor
deals with this overlap by treating 101 as an introduction to the
subjects and 102 and developing associated skills.
�
The module does not have good critical thinking exercises,
and could we (instructors) create a �pool� of exercises?
�
Why was there a switch from number of pages to number of
words for written assignments?
�
The Writing Lab evaluators do not seem to be consistent in
their approaches to evaluating papers, and go from micro-editing papers
to simply offering general comments. The questions arose as to whether
or not the Writing Lab is the final arbiter when it comes to grammar,
syntax, spelling and conformance to style requirements?
�
One instructor conducts an Internet �scavenger hunt�
activity for week two. Students are asked to come up with questions with
answers that could be found on the internet, write these on 3×5 cards
and then redistribute the cards among the students. Students then
research the questions on the Internet coming up with answers. Grading
is based on the quality of the questions and the quality of the answers,
so it is important to keep track of names as to who prepared the
questions and who responded.
�
A suggestion and practice by another instructor is to use
the syllabus as a model for written work requirements, such as use of
margins.
�
Still another practice is to encourage �peer
proofing,� that is have students proof one another�s papers.
�
Different practices regarding the debate exercise:
o
Use a timer to ensure strict adherence to time allocations
for the different phases of the debate.
o
Select topics from Taking Sides.
o
Provide a list of current �real world� topics.
o
Conduct a brainstorming session to develop suggested
topics, and then help students select most appropriate topics.
�
Regarding survey instruments, a number of practices were
shared:
o
Have students develop survey instruments in open class and
learn about the mechanics of research.
o
Require that research activities be related to the final
group project.
o
Distribute examples of research tools, such as surveys.
o
Encourage students to move out early in the course on
developing surveys: these require time to develop, distribute, retrieve
and collate.
o
About the initial problem statement, help students focus
on a subject or issue that is �doable,� that is not too broad.
�
To deal with the overlap from Gen101 to Gen102 regarding
critical thinking and problem-solving skills, treat 101 as an
introduction to the subjects and 102 as the class for developing the
associated skills.
�
Included as attachments to this report are three
�practices� developed by Bob Brennan.
o
Study Group Paper on a Research Project
o
Brennan�s Course Overview Gen
102
o
Brennan on
Arguments Gen 102
�
Create a �pool� (repository) of critical thinking
exercises.
�
Eliminate the Critical Thinking Analysis in back of
module.
�
Don�t have students bother with the $35.00 web search
program.
�
Eliminate the first assignment in module.
�
Eliminate the Wild Card Basics exercise.
�
Gen 102 needs updating and made fully independent from Gen
101 so that they are clearly differentiated. There is too much overlap.
�
It was suggested that assignments (at least some of them)
could be overly specific as to requirements, and it might not be a bad
idea to purposely create assignments that are ambiguous, which could do
a lot about getting students out of their �assignment comfort
zones.�