UP Teaching & Learning Community Blog

Core Matters

As of the 2020-2021 academic year, UP is planning to implement a 'revitalized' University Core Curriculum that will phase in over several years starting in the Fall of the 2021-2022 academic year. This 'Core Matters' site was originally a space for sharing ideas about Core courses prior to revitalization; those ideas (in the form of some excellent essays) are still available in this feed published between 2018 and 2020. It is also now a space for sharing information about the revitalized Core, with links and posts to be added over time as the implementation process proceeds.

Starting Fall 2020, the Core implementation is being coordinated by Andrew Guest from the Department of Psychological Sciences in a new Core Curriculum Director position. Feel free to contact the Core Director with any questions at guesta@up.edu.

For UP community members, more technical information about the revitalized Core - including the proposal approved by the Academic Senate in November of 2019 - is available through pilots.up.edu.

Other general information, updates, and ideas are shared below...

By

Difficult Conversations and Liberal Arts Ideals

Conversation art - metal megaphones
Photo by Tom Hill on Unsplash

A good college education, even in the best of times, requires having difficult conversations. We can only learn and grow when confronted with new ways of thinking; engaging diverse and challenging ideas in an inclusive educational community is central to a liberal arts education and essential to the University of Portland Core curriculum. These particular times (November of annus horribilis 2020), however, are not the best – making the having of difficult conversations more fraught. And, just maybe, more important.

There is, unfortunately, no magic formula – but there are lots of recipes, and a general sense that good teaching requires thoughtful attention to creating classroom (or Zoomroom) communities that make difficult conversations healthy and educational. Michael Roth, the president of leading liberal arts university Wesleyan, writes about making “safe enough spaces” where colleges balance a careful attention to student well-being with the necessity of being exposed to different and uncomfortable viewpoints. In our deeply divided country, we need spaces where we can learn and feel a sense of inclusive community even if we don’t agree.

Some of the recipes I’ve come across are less specific to higher education, but may have relevance at this cultural moment. Organizations such as Braver Angles and Essential Partners (see also here), for example, both have guides specific to political conversations “across the red-blue divide.” James Madison University has also put out a guide for their academic community about “Facilitating Difficult Election Conversations.”

In other domains, in organizing “peer-to-peer conversations about race” last summer UP’s Office of International Education, Diversity, and Inclusion offered a “Guide to Respectful Conversations” by the non-profit Repair the World. I’ve also had psychology colleagues point me to a University of Michigan guide on “Intergroup Dialogue.”

My personal favorite, likely because it was formulated by social scientists thinking specifically about academic contexts, is the guidelines from the Heterodox Academy. The group itself tries to promote ‘viewpoint diversity’ in higher education, and I don’t always agree with all of their approach. But that, I suppose, is part of the point: to disagree, but still learn.

Their guidelines, which I do really like, include five points of emphasis:

Make your case with evidence. In my own classes I find students often default to talking about issues by prefacing “I feel that…” or “I believe that…” and those kinds of framings can be important in some contexts – it is good to have feelings and beliefs. But I tell students that in academic contexts, or at least in social science, as much as possible we want to focus on evidence – what do we know from research, observations, and direct experience?

Be intellectually charitable. This one is relatively simple: for discussion and learning, start by assuming someone you disagree with might be right. Be willing to explore a reasonable other position deeply, for the sake of understanding.

Be intellectually humble. This one is also simple: assume your position might be wrong. Be genuinely open to changing your mind.

Be constructive: This one may be the most important: don’t approach challenging academic discussions with the goal of being right or proving another wrong. Approach academic discussions as a chance to learn. As the Heterodox Academy puts it “target ideas rather than people.”

Be yourself: In our increasingly virtual lives, it can be easy to hind behind blank screens and user (rather than real) names. But we learn more when we are present with our real selves.

I’ve started sharing these ideas with my students, and keeping them in my own mind as I confront challenging conversations of both academic and non-academic types. They are surprisingly hard to execute. Respecting evidence, being charitable, being humble, being constructive, and being present are not the direction our broad cultural discourse seems to be moving. But, at least in classrooms and when trying to bring the values of the liberal arts to our students, they might help us learn from our difficult times.

Poster of the Heterodox Academy Way

By

What’s in a title (and course description)?

typewriter with the word goals
Photo by Markus Winkler on Unsplash

In much of higher education, as at UP, most course titles and descriptions have served a utilitarian function: they identify the disciplinary perspective on offer, and the basic content to be covered. Such titles and descriptions serve their purpose. They allow us to describe basic curricular components, to evaluate transfer credits, to meet accreditation requirements, etc..

Such titles and descriptions are also often dead boring. They don’t reflect the real energy, thought, and wisdom that goes into our courses. Most of our titles and descriptions don’t tantalize students and our shared educational community with all the wonderous things they can learn.

In my new role as Core director, I’ve found myself recently spending more time than I’d thought possible thinking about course titles and descriptions. Why? Because one major impetus for the Core curriculum revitalization is to bring more coherence, intention, and engagement to the shared educational experience at UP. While most of that work will happen in classrooms and the curriculum itself, some of that work starts before classes ever meet in how we think about our Core courses. The most basic manifestation of that thinking is course titles and descriptions: what, at their essence, are our courses up to?

Historically, many Core courses have doubled as disciplinary introductions. That won’t change, and there is lots of disciplinary content that is important for students to learn. But there are also many students taking Core courses who may never again need said bits of disciplinary knowledge. They will, however, need ways of thinking offered by the liberal arts. These ways of thinking, in our revitalized Core, are summarized by the six “habits of heart and mind” that organize Core classes. And we can help to make them coherent, intentional, and even tantalizing by crafting learning-centered titles and descriptions.

Making distinctions between educational materials and pedagogy that are “learning-centered” and “content-centered” is central to much contemporary educational research. The old “sage on the stage” model of education is “content-centered,” while the new interactive educational experiences we use to engage students and enhance how they learn and grow is “learning-centered.” Titles and descriptions exist at various places on the continuum between learning and content centered, with the best ones striking an engaging balance.

As one example from UP of how to strike this balance in a title, I like our English department Core course ENG 112: Thinking through Literature. The title used to be more content-centered: Introduction to Literature. But the faculty realized the course was about more than just introducing students to a discipline. It was also about helping student who might never again take a literature course to recognize the value of using literature to enhance our ways of thinking and understanding the world. All it took was a subtle, but meaningful, change of a few words.

I’ve also been playing with this shift for my department’s introductory psychology course, which we’ve forever called “General Psychology.” Fine, but not very engaging. We’re moving the title to something like “Psychological Science” to better reflect the scientific lens on offer. And I’m thinking through ways of making the shared description more inviting and learning-centered (while still under the registrar’s 60 word limit), moving from:

General Psychology offers an overview of psychological science, which uses theory and empirical methods toward understanding thought, feeling, and behavior. The course will introduce students to the methods of psychological research, and to topics including personality, learning, development, cognition, social psychology, abnormal psychology, the biological basis of behavior, and mental health.”

To something more like:

How does the mind work, and how can science help us better understand human experience? This course approaches such questions through an overview of major topics in contemporary psychology and through an integration of biological, cognitive, and sociocultural perspectives. Students will deploy a scientific lens in the exploration of human nature and examination of contemporary social problems.”

By themselves such changes may not have a huge influence on student learning experiences. But over time the hope is that they can help faculty, students, and any other interested community members to share an understanding of how we can all benefit from a broad engagement with the liberal arts and with the specific knowledge, skills, and values on offer at UP. There is even some evidence that such “invitational” framing of college courses in material such as syllabi can enhance the actual learning environment.

And Harvard’s Derek Bok Center for Teaching and Learning further offers a guide on creating good “catalogue materials” with a nice summation:

Course catalogue materials…may seem somewhat disconnected from the process of course design. You may consider these aspects of your course to be mere “advertising” (or, depending on how you believe students select their courses, to be altogether irrelevant). Yet the act of composing your course description can be a useful “self-test” on the road to great course design. Challenging yourself to describe the central issue(s) of your course, the kinds of material students will encounter, and the goals which you have for them by the end of the semester in a brief paragraph can be just the thing to clarify the voice in which your syllabus and assignment prompts will speak.”

By

The Revitalized Core: A Fall 2020 Update

Door and books
Photo by Eugenio Mazzone on Unsplash

Some of you may remember many eons ago, in those halcyon days pre-pandemic, that UP’s Academic Senate approved a “revitalized University Core Curriculum.” It was approved, to be specific, in November of 2019 after several years of gathering input and information, committee work, and consultation with departments across the UP community. The intention was and is to phase in the revitalized Core for entering students in the Fall of 2021. The purpose of this post is to update the UP community on where the Core revitalization process stands and on plans for moving forward.

First, a number of people have asked whether it even makes sense to proceed with implementation plans given the extraordinary circumstances of our present academic life. This is a reasonable question. UP’s academic leadership is, however, in favor of moving forward for a variety of reasons.

For one, a University Core Curriculum is a very slow moving thing that impacts all student academic experiences and requires years to revise. The UP Core was last substantively revised over 20 years ago, and our recent revitalization process is now in year 4 of a projected 8 year cycle. To stop or delay now would put much important work, and the quality of the Core, at serious risk.

Relatedly, the Core does need to be updated. Our Core is behind the academic times in regard to coverage of key topics such as diversity, equity, inclusion, and racial justice, and our Core often lacks the sense of communal, progressive, and intentional intellectual endeavor that is essential to a quality liberal arts education. The prior Core has served UP well, and offers many excellent classes, but after 20 years it needs revitalization.

At the same time, there is a clear recognition that the Core revitalization cannot proceed as it would in “normal” academic times. As we push forward, we are also actively thinking about ways to keep forward momentum without unrealistic asks of faculty and staff. We want to be in communication about what is realistic, and we are happy to compromise.

As one example, in trade for some advance planning for the start of phased implementation in the Fall of 2021 we are working to minimize (and in most cases eliminate) Core assessment exercises this 2020-2021 academic year. We will still ask people to help lay a foundation for effective assessment of the Core in the future – but given the circumstances it seems unnecessary to assess a Core that is being phased out during such as challenging year. As we push forward with the revitalization process, we’ll continue to actively find such compromises in ways that balance the quality of the future Core with the real human needs of faculty and staff.

So, what is the future of the revitalization process? One feature of the revitalized Core is a series of progressive levels for Core courses.

  • This starts with a new introductory Anchor Seminar (as an introduction to the liberal arts and to UP’s Core);
  • Continues with a “Foundation Level” largely comprised of existing Core courses;
  • Moves to an “Exploration Level” offering new interdisciplinary opportunities for courses that build on Foundation level classes;
  • And culminates with an “Integration Level” that will largely involve completing a portfolio encouraging reflection on Core educational experiences.

For the Fall of 2021, our plan is to only start the Anchor Seminar and the new Foundation Level. Because the Foundation Level is largely comprised of courses in the current Core, the new work should be minimal for most faculty and academic staff – mostly involving new student learning outcomes that can guide course organization towards consistency and coherence with a new set of six “Habits of Heart and Mind” that should be the result of a UP education. We will also be identifying approximately eight regular faculty to teach sections of the new Anchor Seminar. We hope to identify these faculty this Fall of 2020 so that departments have time to plan for the one course a faculty members gives up to teach in the Anchor Seminar. More information about teaching the new Anchor Seminar will be forthcoming.

The next phase of revitalized Core implementation for the 2022-2023 academic year will be the new “Exploration Level” courses. While the Foundation Level courses will come exclusively from CAS as UP’s liberal arts college, Exploration level courses can come from any college or professional school – as long as the courses employ a liberal arts lens. We’ll be sharing much more information about these courses over time, and will have opportunities to intentionally plan course possibilities in the 2021-2022 academic year run-up to implementation.

The final phase of revitalized Core implementation will likely start in 2023-2024 with the new integration assignment (the completion of a portfolio) in collaboration with majors. By the Fall semester of 2024, all students should be taking the revitalized Core and the current Core will be completely phased out.

Core director by a campus window
Dr. Andrew Guest is serving as Core Director as of the Fall of 2020.

We have many practical questions to deal with within this implementation timeline, and will try to provide more regular updates here and elsewhere on the UP website. if you have specific questions please reach out to me in my role as the new Core Curriculum Director – guesta@up.edu. As one near-term update priority, I am putting together a document outlining key differences between the current Core and the revitalized Core in hopes that will facilitate advising and discussions about transfer credits. I hope to post something about that here, and elsewhere, soon.

I also appreciate any follow-up questions; the essence of my job as Core Director is to generate collaborative ideas about how to make sure the revitalized Core fits our shared mission, builds on faculty expertise, and enhances the educational experience of our students!

 

By

Core Matters: History

This essay by Dr. Brad Franco, Associate Professor of History at UP, is part of a series of short pieces that offer faculty across the campus an insider’s tour of one of the courses that make up UP’s Core program. Since the Core involves almost a third of the curriculum for every UP student, faculty can benefit from these discipline-by-discipline essays, to better understand the breadth of their students’ campus experience.

Undergraduates at the University of Portland are required to take one history class as part of the university core. There is great diversity in what students can take, as all 200 and 300 level history classes satisfy the core requirement.

At first blush, having such a broad requirement might seem deeply problematic, as it means that students are studying wildly different topics to fulfill the same prerequisite. Indeed, we offer core classes that span five continents and three millennia; some of these classes emphasize social and cultural history, others focus more on gender, identity, and race, while still others are more oriented toward political or military history.

With such a wide range of core course offerings, one might wonder what students, regardless of which course they take, gain from the core history requirement. To begin, students gain an understanding of what the discipline of history actually is and why it matters. Dispiritingly, many of our students enter their first college history class still believing that history is rooted in memorizing names and dates or in learning about famous battles. Instead, our goal as a department, collectively, is to help students recognize that the value of history, like all disciplines in the humanities, is to help us better understand human nature, human societies, and the present.

Whether one studies the ancient world, early modern Europe, or modern America, to cite some of the subfields within which we offer classes, history provides endless insights about humans and societies that are directly applicable to understanding our world today. For example, any history class within the core will provide students with a greater understanding of how power functions, particularly at the institutional or societal level.

Closely connected to this, students learn the role of culture in shaping societal values and beliefs, the fluidity of gender norms and how they are used to regulate behavior, how societies “other” minority groups, reasons societies go to war, as well as how propaganda works.

The examples that we use to elucidate these topics (and many others) obviously varies dramatically depending on the focus of each course. For example, students studying medieval Europe, learn how “othering” was used to justify wars against religious minorities, ethnic groups, and even fellow Christians (as heretics). While the marginalization of minority groups as a means of strengthening one’s political power certainly looks different in a modern context (or even a pre-modern context), the use of such strategies can be found in nearly every society. Similarly, speeches from the Peloponnesian War (which led to the fall of the first democratic government in history in Athens) demonstrate how demagogues undermine public debate and the democratic process through misinformation, undermining political opponents, using emotional appeals, fear, and othering.

While these debates took place in a world very different from our own, the lessons that can be learned from studying these ancient speeches are remarkably applicable to anyone living in a democracy today. In fact, more broadly, one of the crucial insights that history offers is that nearly all human societies face many of the same kinds of challenges. By studying the past, we can glean all kinds of relational insights about our own world related to issues of justice, power, gender, culture, authority, and more.

In effect, the core history requirement offers students a set of lenses that offer access to entire other worlds full of answers to our own struggles and challenges today. The study of history makes students more curious about learning by exposing them to all kinds of new ideas and ways of thinking about the world that often, they didn’t even know existed.

Moving beyond any specific insights, historical inquiry promotes (or even requires) critical thinking and reading. Analyzing primary sources created in societies with different values and cultural beliefs than our own is extremely challenging because it requires students to move beyond their own worldview and value system. Students must learn to identify authorial intent and bias, and consider questions of genre, audience, and historical context before they can determine what particular primary sources reveal about the society in which they were written.

Closely connected to this, all core history classes help students to become better writers. While college writing is certainly part of many core classes, history papers present the unique challenge of requiring students to practice using primary source material as their evidence. They quickly discover the challenges of recovering the past (as we are limited by the sources that survive and the information or perspective these sources provide). This practice of analyzing evidence (written for a very different audience living in a radically different historical context) to create an argument and then write a persuasive paper rooted in the available evidence helps them to hone a set of skills that will be useful throughout the students’ lives.

In sum, the history core requirement opens students’ eyes to the importance of the past and its value in helping them make sense of our world; it makes them more intellectually curious; it helps them improve their critical thinking skills and become more effective writers. These are just some of the many things students gain from the core history requirement.

         -Dr. Brad Franco