Recommendation SummaryGERT Rationale Summary*Background InformationImplementation of moving requirement into GE ProgramImplementation of a combined courseCourse DevelopmentTime LineRequirements for a combined courseWriting Requirements and InstructionCritical Thinking Requirements and InstructionClass SizeEvaluation of WritingImplementation considerations for the combined courseCombined InstructionPlace of writing instructionESL StudentsInstitutional SupportPrerequisitesAlternative Option One—Elimination of English 20Alternative Option Two—Add English 20 to lower division GEThis option could be implemented fairly quickly as the course already exists and faculty are in place. If approved by Spring 2003, requirement changes could occur in time for the 2004-2006 catalog. This alternative would move the second semester writing course within the lower division GE Program—most logically into Area A2-Written Communication. Implementing this option would increase lower division GE Program units from 39 to 42. This alternative would eliminate the confusion concerning the “graduation requirement” designation by making the course part of GE. This alternative also acknowledges the broad faculty concern with writing and the professional composition literature which acknowledges that writing is a skill that is developed over time and that frequent writing instruction is necessary to not only improve but also to maintain established skills. This option also preserves writing instruction at a time when an increased concern with writing in the major highlights the need for a solid foundation in composition skills so as to be more successful in the transition to disciplinary writing. Finally, campus studies have shown that students who have completed English 20 are more likely to pass the WPE, and in a small case study, students who completed the requirement were consistently ranked in the top two quartiles of their Advanced Studies courses while students identified in the lowest two quartiles were most likely not to have taken the course.Complicating the decision to add English 20 to lower division GE is the addition of 3 units to the GE Program. Although the Faculty Senate decided in 1991 to add this requirement, moving the course into the GE Program would add 3 units to the requirements outlined by the CSU system. And merely moving the requirement into the GE Program will not address two of the GERT concerns. If the course is not made a prerequisite for later writing requirements, students may still elect to postpone taking the course until they are near graduation—bypassing the intent of the course. Also, moving the requirement into GE does not address the inconsistent articulation standards. Students completing English 1C at the community college will still satisfy both the sophomore-level writing requirement and the critical thinking requirement (an option not available to CSUS native students) unless this articulation agreement is revisited.GERT RecommendationGERT Rationale for recommendationRecommendation 6A, PageRecommendation 6A:English 20 and Critical ThinkingRecommendation Summary 11. The recommendation proposes that if English 20 is maintained (in whatever form), it should be absorbed into the GE Program2. The recommendation details three options for English 20—with A being recommended:A. Combine the current second-semester writing requirement (English 20) with the critical thinking requirement (Area A3)B. Eliminate the second-semester writing requirementC. Retain the second-semester writing requirement, raising the lower division GE Program to 42 unitsGERT Rationale Summary*- There was unanimous agreement that if the requirement remains it should be part of the GE Program—not a separate “graduation requirement”—because of the confusion this distinction causes students and because the requirement was intended as part of students’ general education.- Concern was raised about the resources required to maintain English 20 as a stand-alone requirement—originally intended to require 3 FTE, last year it required 8.4.- Students often take this course as upper division students rather than as sophomores as the course was intended.- Community colleges already articulate an English critical thinking course (English 1C) tomeet both the critical thinking and English 20 requirement, and the committee believes both the writing and critical thinking needs of students can be satisfied in one course.- Anticipated problems:o sequencing of courses—how to keep students from taking both English 1A and the lower division critical thinking/English 20 combined course at the same timeo community college articulation issues related to critical thinking and a critical thinking/English 20 combined courseBackground InformationThe current critical thinking requirement was established by Title 5 and EO 595, which require that all CSU campuses offer “a minimum of 9 units in communication in the English language, toinclude both oral communication and written communication, and in critical thinking, to include consideration of common fallacies in reasoning.”The current English 20 requirement was designed and implemented in 1991. The Faculty Senate, in response to heightened faculty concern about the nature and quality of student writing on campus, proposed a mandatory second semester of writing instruction to be undertaken at the sophomore level. This requirement was designed to build on the instruction provided in the freshman course and continue students’ focus on writing as they worked their way through lower 1 The complete text of the GERT recommendation and rationale can be found at the end of this document.1Attachment CFaculty Senate AgendaOctober 17, 2002Recommendation 6A, Pageand upper division requirements. The Faculty Senate noted, “All students, including students who have completed the IGETC shall be required to complete a second semester composition course with a C- grade or better.” Thus, the intent was that this was a requirement to be adopted in addition to all other general education requirements.Because the majority of our students transfer in at the upper-division level, it became important for students to be able to fulfill this requirement at the community college prior to transfer. In articulation discussions, the community colleges were unwilling to design and implement a course which was not a CSU system-wide requirement. If no course was
View Full Document
Unlocking...