1
Recommendations for ISP from
Teresa Podlesney, Ph.D. and Karen Jennings, Ph.D.
Interim Co-Directors
May 15, 2014
To: Senate Executive Committee, Interim Provost Leversee, Provost Zakahi, and Associate Provost Rancourt
From: Karen Jennings and Teresa Podlesney
We have completed all of the immediate tasks and have begun working on the short term ones articulated in the revised Senate charge. We have inserted the outcome of this work after the language of the task. This report has been subdivided into two general sections. Section 1 details our work relative to the Senate charge. Section 2 articulates recommendations for moving the ISP forward.
Section 1
Immediate items to be completed no later than May 2014: (Recommendations regarding the Elected Director must be submitted to the SEC by November 15, 2013. Any other recommendation with requires Senate action must be submitted to the SEC by March 31, 2014)
· Work with Provost’s Office and Senate Secretary to identify and compile the most current documents related to the curriculum, the outcomes, and the requirements of the ISP. Determine the status of each of those documents. Review and update documents, where appropriate. Where necessary, submit documents to SEC for Senate approval. Maintain and share final documents with campus community using the Senate and ISP webpages.
· Work with Provost’s Office to create direct on-line access to the ISP with a link from the KSC home page.
Outcome:
ISP document repository created as a Dropbox: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/uyw08p3r6fzd0u4/-eeltUqvx6
Updated ISP documents and related information including a draft manual will be uploaded to the ISP internal website.
· Work with the SEC to identify, assess, revise (if necessary), and transparently communicate the governance mechanisms of the Integrative Studies Program Subcommittees.
Outcome:
The ISPC serves as a curriculum review body for ISP courses. ITW, IQL and II courses are reviewed for approval by the respective ISP subcommittees. Once reviewed by the subcommittees, they are sent to the SCC then the College Senate for approval. In the event that the ISP and SCC disagree with regard to a course approval process, the Provost will make the final determination for the course. The Perspectives course proposals are reviewed by ISPC, the School Curriculum Committees, the SCC and the College Senate.
· Develop a draft definition of “integrative study” that leverages best practice models, reflects campus values, and provides consistency.
Outcome:
Program “integration” has been conceptualized as occurring for the students in three primary ways, which initially resulted in the creation of three sets of program outcomes to be assessed: through the acquisition of a shared set of intellectual skills (intellectual skills outcomes), through a comparative understanding of disciplinary questions and methods (perspectives outcomes), and through a consistent emphasis on four integrative outcomes across the program’s course offerings.
These three assumptions still ground our commitment to integrative study. However, in recognition of the charge to simplify the ISP program, to further integration between the ISP and the majors, and to encourage more active student understanding of what “integration” means, we recommend the following revisioning of program outcomes.
Intellectual skills outcomes
The ISP is focused on the intentional development of the following intellectual skills:
· Critical Thinking
· Creative Thinking
· Quantitative Reasoning
· Critical Reading
· Information Literacy
· Critical Writing
· Critical Dialogue
These are skills that lay the foundation for both academic and professional success. In the ISP, faculty work with students to develop these skills at a level commensurate with a baccalaureate degree. Skills are practiced extensively, across the program, in the context of progressively more challenging problems, projects, and expectations.
Perspectives outcomes
In place of the current list of eleven perspectives outcomes that would be (but have never been) assessed by the ISP, we recommend the ISP provide one single outcome statement shared across the disciplines. Each department/program would be responsible for actualizing how its ISP courses articulate and engage with this outcome (developing from 100 through 400-level courses), and assessing this outcome would become part of the department/program assessment process. We see this as a specific means by which departments will be encouraged to intentionally articulate how their ISP offerings fit into their curricula. Department/program responsibility for this outcome will strengthen integration of ISP courses with work in the majors at a structural level.
The wording of this outcome has been subject to a process of discussion and editing by the ISPC and faculty in a variety of fora this year: Students are able to demonstrate an understanding of the questions a discipline asks, the methods it uses to engage those questions, and some of the key explanatory concepts arising from these types of inquiry.
Integrative outcomes
The ISPC recommends the idea of reshaping the four current ISP Integrative Outcomes as “themes” under which ISP courses can be “clustered.” Integrative studies models from COPLAC and other institutions utilize such an approach to integrating courses at the level of program design. This recommendation has been the subject of discussion by the ISPC and faculty in a variety of fora this year. Current integrative themes are derived from the KSC mission: Diversity, Ethics, Global Issues, Social and Environmental Engagement As we continue to discuss the potential of clustering courses under integrative themes, we need to consider whether the campus and the ISP are still committed to mission-driven themes, or whether—and why—we want to consider other approaches.
Definition of integrative study
Ultimately, our current definition of “integrative study” assumes the recommended reconceptualization of program outcomes and illuminates three processes of integration:
Integration across courses in the ISP, and between the ISP and the majors, is achieved in three primary ways. Courses offered in the ISP
· focus on students’ acquisition and development of a shared set of intellectual skills that build competence from 100 to 400-level course work
· foreground the questions a discipline asks, the methods it uses to engage those questions, and some of the key explanatory concepts arising from these types of inquiry
· can affiliate with a cross-disciplinary “cluster” or “concentration” of ISP courses that provide students with a(n) (inter)disciplinary approach to one of the program-wide themes that reflect campus values (currently Diversity, Ethics, Global Issues, Social and Environmental Engagement)
· Forward to the SEC a recommendation for qualifications and term limit for the Elected Director
Outcome:
The recommendations to the SEC on November 15th (see last page).
Short term items to be completed by May 2015:
We began to work on a few of these bulleted items during this academic year. We will report outcomes for these tasks.
· Forward recommendations to SEC for a simplified program structure.
o Develop 3-4 assessable programmatic outcomes. Work with OIA to create rubrics that work across disciplines.
Outcome:
1. We proposed simplified language for the Perspectives outcomes, met with faculty and departments for feedback about this revision, and created a Perspectives cohort who was charged with developing language for this outcome.
Proposed revised perspectives outcome
Students are able to demonstrate an understanding of the questions a discipline asks, the methods it uses to engage those questions, and some of the key explanatory concepts arising from these types of inquiry.
Each department/discipline will use this language as a template for framing its approach to answering questions, applying methodologies and articulating key concepts. Assessment for this outcome will be the department’s responsibility along with other departmental assessment work. Two ISPC members led a discussion of this recommendation to a group of faculty during the spring semester. Specific recommendations about this revision are located in Section 2 of this report.
2. We proposed a model for the revision of the Integrative Outcomes. Instead of incorporating the outcomes as is (ethics, diversity, etc.) we suggest changing our mission-driven thematic outcomes into clusters or concentrations. Many comparator institutions utilize the idea of clusters/concentrations or minors in their General Education programs. A group of ISPC members will investigate faculty interest in this revision during Professional development weeks in May, 2014.
· Evalute the effectivness and make recommendations regarding the Foundation Courses (ITW and IQL) models and consistent administrative structures.
Outcome:
Recommendations for IQL 101 Integrative Quantitative Literacy
Joe Witkowski and Mike Cullinane
IQL 101 Co-Coordinators
May 2014
I. Introduction
We became Co-Coordinators of IQL 101 in January 2014. Besides the expected activities of assisting and meeting with IQL faculty, developing schedules of IQL 101 course sections, and contributing to the programmatic assessment of IQL 101 (among other tasks), we served as part of the Integrative Studies Program Committee (ISPC) and were charged with informally reviewing the current program’s effectiveness and developing recommendations for improving the program. This report delineates our recommendations and attempts to provide supporting rationale for them.
II. Recommendations
Recommendation 1 (Revision of Quantitative Outcomes)
The current IQL 101 outcomes, which expect students to
1) apply the basic methods of descriptive statistics, including both pictorial representations and numerical summary measures, to analyze data;
2) use appropriate software to create spreadsheets, tables, graphs, and charts;
3) read and interpret visually represented data;
4) distinguish among various types of growth models (e.g., linear, exponential) and the types of situations fro which the models are appropriate;
5) critically read and interpret a quantitative problem;
6) apply prior knowledge to solve a new problem;
should be revised as follows:
Through their experience in IQL 101 students will:
(1) read, interpret, and critically analyze quantitative information, represented either numerically or graphically, found in real-world sources such as in newspapers and on the internet;
(2) develop and apply numeracy skills, including:
§ representing quantities, as appropriate to the situation, using fractions, decimals, and scientific notation;
§ checking the reasonableness of quantities presented to them and of numbers they have calculated or estimated;
§ providing correct units of measurement when numbers appear in context and converting measurement units as necessary;
§ interpreting percentages in various contexts (e.g., relative change, rate of change, probability, margin of error, etc.);
(3) recognize proportional relationships and apply, when appropriate, proportional reasoning skills;
(4) apply the basic methods of descriptive statistics, including both pictorial representations and numerical summary measures, to analyze data;
(5) apply algebraic reasoning to represent quantities and explore relationships among quantities, with particular emphasis on linear and exponential relationships;
(6) apply spatial reasoning to solve problems involving perimeter, area, and volume;
(7) use computer spreadsheets and other appropriate technology/software to organize, summarize, display, and analyze quantitative information;
(8) develop confidence in reasoning quantitatively by persevering when engaged with a task having a quantitative component and by applying learned quantitative concepts in new situations;
(9) use quantitative methods and concepts to support an argument.
Discussion/Rationale: The revised outcomes mark a natural evolution of the current outcomes. Specifically, current outcome (CO) 1 becomes revised outcome (RO) 4; CO 2 is expanded upon in RO 7; CO 3 and 5 are represented in RO 1 (and to some extent in several of the other revised outcomes); CO 4 is included within RO 5; and CO 6 is part of RO 8. Thus, the revised outcomes do not represent a fundamental departure from what is currently being expected of students in IQL 101.
At the same time, the proposed revision of the outcomes incorporates a somewhat broader quantitative framework than the current outcomes; for instance, the use of quantitative reasoning skills to support an argument is made explicit in RO 9. The new outcomes also include attention to basic numeracy concepts in RO 2.
The revised outcomes are also better aligned with the recommendations of the wider college-level quantitative literacy community. For instance, they are informed by the Carnegie Committee for Quantitative Reasoning Outcomes [http://www.carnegiefoundation.org/quantway/quantway-reference-materials].
Finally, the revised outcomes consider the needs of students in ISP Perspectives courses in the natural and social sciences as articulated by the departments in which these courses are offered. A survey (see Appendix A) was given to disciplines in the natural and social sciences and the results indicate that percentages, ratios/proportions, algebraic reasoning, and perimeter/area are important or moderately important to these disciplines’ ISP Perspectives courses. These topics are reflected in RO 2, 3, 5, and 6. In addition, the survey results suggest that descriptive statistics is important, though that topic seems to be the only outcome currently addressed in many IQL course sections.
Recommendation 2 (Pretest)
All incoming first-year students should complete an IQL Pretest and those students who demonstrate proficiency with the revised outcomes listed in Recommendation (1) should take another approved “quantitative intensive” course in place of IQL 101.
Discussion/Rationale: A more thorough analysis of incoming students’ quantitative skills is needed in order to better determine what should be emphasized in IQL 101, what sort of progress students make upon completing IQL 101, and to identify incoming students who already possess college-level quantitative reasoning skills.
Student success with college-level quantitative reasoning is dependent in part on basic quantitative skills. It is important that the IQL 101 teaching cohort understand the quantitative “baseline” their students bring to the course so that appropriate skill development can be included in the course. In addition, such information will help to determine the extent to which students’ IQL 101 experience helps them to build upon their prior quantitative foundation.
There is no need for students whose IQL Pretest performance indicates proficiency with the revised outcomes of Recommendation (1) to complete IQL 101. Instructors in the IQL 101 teaching cohort report such students tend to be bored and disengaged with the class. We believe such students are more likely to consider transferring from Keene State because of the lack of academic challenge provided to them. Thus, we recommend a set of currently-offered courses with a quantitative focus in a variety of disciplines be identified so that students who already demonstrate proficiency with the revised outcomes can take one of these courses in order to extend their quantitative reasoning skills in a meaningful way. By completing such a “quantitative-intensive” course a student would then be deemed to have met the College’s ISP quantitative literacy requirement.