Faculty Council Looks at Timetable for Undergraduate Curriculum Discussion
One month after a proposed framework for a new undergraduate curriculum received both praise for the concept and questions about its details, Arts and Sciences faculty returned to the topic to hear a timeline and a process for making a final decision.
The framework made clear that what at first was advertised as a “tweak” will end up significantly changing the current curriculum. The end result: It’s going to take a while longer, with no definite date for a vote on a final proposal.
Arts and Sciences Faculty Council Chair Anita Layton told council members Thursday that two important elements will come in March. She said the Imagining the Duke Curriculum Committee is collecting responses to the framework that month, around the same time Dean of Undergraduate Education Steve Nowicki updates the council on changes to the advising system, which is considered essential to the effectiveness of any new curriculum.
“That will be a prelude to months of discussion and feedback, leading to the committee revising the framework,” Layton said.
“We expect a proposal to be put forward in 2016-17, but there’s no certainty that we will be ready to vote then. It will be more important to have input to get this right.”
The framework, presented in January by committee chair Professor Suzanne Shanahan, garnered faculty support for its goal of simplifying the curriculum and improving student ownership of their education. The current Curriculum 2000 is 16 years old and doesn’t easily accommodate recent program innovations that promote interdisciplinary, international and independent study.
The proposal set out four graduation requirements and “five expectations” for students to fulfill.
However, in speaking to the council Thursday, Shanahan also acknowledged the proposal was short on details in several key areas.
-- The Duke Experience: The committee proposed a core interdisciplinary class taught by five faculty members that all first-year students would take.
The proposal came out of strong support from both faculty and students for first-year students to have a common educational experience. But the proposal also left questions about how it would affect the Thompson Writing Program, FOCUS and other successful educational programs.
“A lot of people wanted some granular detail on this first-year course and on changes to advising,” Shanahan said. “We were very appreciative of the feedback we received on it. We are going to create a faculty committee to put some flesh on the bones of this proposal and bring it back to the faculty when its ready.”
-- The Role of Majors: The committee wanted to emphasize the value of a major, even while promoting interdisciplinary study. Now the committee will go back and review questions, such as course requirements for completing the major. “After the meeting, we had many conversations about majors. In our plans, we approached it as a sacred cow, but lots of people said it’s it a good time to ask questions about what is the role of the major.”
-- Secondary Fields of Depth. In addition to the major, the curriculum framework called on students to show depth in another field. Shanahan said the idea was “to encourage a pattern of students doing things in wildly different areas and thinking through how they are connected.”
At the same time, Shanahan said she didn’t want to rule out studies in related fields, such as chemistry and biology. Here again, faculty asked the committee to flesh out these kinds of details, Shanahan said.
-- Mentored Learning. The proposal also requires students to end their Duke education with some broadly defined mentored learning experience. It could be an internship, a lab study, or independent or international project.
Shanahan said faculty members were supportive of the idea, but some expressed concerns whether Duke and its faculty had the capacity to support the requirement.
The coming year will see more opportunities for faculty to engage with the committee on the topic, through their departments, individual meetings with committee members, lunches on specific topics and at future council sessions.
Shanahan concluded her presentation by thanking the faculty for their feedback and for their support in shaping the curriculum around a coherent intellectual experience that reflected Duke’s particular qualities.
“We see the curriculum as an invitation to a scholarly community,” Shanahan said. “What we’re proposing is not social engineering, but we do want students to think of Duke as a scholarly community.”