TO: Caroline Eckhardt, Professor of Comparative Literature; Ken Womack, Professor

of English and Integrative Arts; Members of the General Education Task Force
FROM: Jennifer Nesbitt, Discipline Coordinator in English
DATE: October 23, 2014
RE: General Education Prototype Discussion/Feedback from PSU Fall English Faculty
Conference

On October 10, 2014, members of the PSU faculty in English met with Professors Caroline
Eckhardt and Ken Womack to discuss the three prototype Gen Ed models. Faculty attending
represented University Park, Berks, Harrisburg, Behrend, Abington, Altoona, and University
College campuses. After a presentation from Professor Eckhardt, faculty raised the following
points for consideration by the GETF.

WRITING AND COMMUNICATIONS:
o Chosen Topics Model: this prototype calls for 6 credits of advanced writing
before the end of the second year. How will students fit this matter in and what
other courses or series (world languages? quantification?) will be delayed to meet
this timing requirement? It might be advantageous for many courses to have early
scheduling so that students are exposed to a variety of disciplines before choosing
a major program. Further, some students need English 04 and may not be ready
for advanced writing, if it is really advanced, on that timetable. And students are
to complete these credits before taking a W course, but the status and
effectiveness of the W program is unclear in the present formulation.
! Thus, there is not clear support for requiring this early scheduling but
it could be among the options.
o Strong support for the retention of the English 202 course: Students require
focused extension and reinforcement in writing skills, and this course provides a
venue for instruction in discipline-specific writing. While it is possible that
advanced writing objectives could be met in multiple courses rather than 202, the
practical likelihood at campus locations is low. The faculty indicated that
evaluation of the four types of 202 (A-D) may be beneficial: the current system
may not adequately address the needs of science majors.
! Thus, the elimination of ENGL 202 from the Scaffolded Prototype
is not supported.
o Objection to shared ENGL/CAS model across university (Chosen Topics):
Broader implementation of this option would require extensive resources to cross-
train faculty and/or strong support for team-teaching. Implementing this joined
course more broadly in the university system could be a longer-term goal but will
have bad unintended consequences in the short term. On the other hand, the
advantage of combining the two courses would be the overarching emphasis on
rhetoric in a two-semester sequence that reflects changing use of media.
! Thus, a mandated ENGL/CAS model is not supported.
! A realistic exploration of the possibility of combining the two courses
could be a possibility later.
SAT/UNSAT option: Excellent idea in theory, but unlikely to produce the desired result,
curiosity, risk taking, in practice.
o Thus, SAT/UNSAT is not supported. Because the concept of encouraging
risk-taking and curiosity is valuable, other means should be sought.
Scaffolding Model: This option, as described, would be extraordinarily complicated to
navigate, especially if presented to students in its current form. In general, these
prototypes are all more complicated than existing models and mayeven with training
confuse students, faculty, and advisers.
o Thus, the scaffolding model is not supported.
Global Competency: will this term replace the problematic term, Other Cultures,
currently in use?
o It was clarified that Other Cultures is a term specific to B.A. programs, not
General Education.
Preservation of space for the study of literature is important to cultivate literacy in
reading. Models that might practically have the effect of reducing these opportunities for
students, by reducing humanities credits, will not meet the universitys long-term goal of
creating active, informed, broad-minded citizens.
o Thus, models that would reduce the humanities credits from the present
requirement, which is 6 unless students use a 3-6-9 option, are not supported.
The October 2014 Progress Report indicates the strength and flexibility of the current
General Education Program as a unifying element across diverse campuses and programs.
We agree. We already have policies in place (3-6-9 and substitution of 400-levels in Gen
Ed domains) that could address some of the perceived weaknesses in the program.
Publicizing these policies more effectively to students and reiterating their availability
through advising could provide the academic challenge and integration we seek in
revising Gen Ed. For example:
o Students may already use 3-6-9 to increase study in a domain that may lead to
completion of a minor (if not necessarily an interdisciplinary one). The dialectic
between the major course of study and this mini-minor could encourage
integration across domains.
o Students may already choose to have 400-level courses count as Gen Eds, thus
seeking more challenging courses later in their college careers.
o Thus, there is support for more fully implementing the opportunities already
present in the current Gen Ed program rather than making large changes.