2008 Woodie Awards
Faculty members protest core curriculum revision
Professors concerned about top-down approach and need for assessment
Kristen Alonso
Issue date: 4/25/08 Section: News
Armstrong faculty members have united in opposition to suggestions of a revised core curriculum. As of yet, they are the only consolidated group among the University System of Georgia (USG) to express concerns.
On Feb. 3, 45 representatives of learning institutions around Georgia gathered in Atlanta to discuss a revision of USG's core curriculum. Two conceptual models that could frame the design of a new core emerged from that meeting: "Framing World Views in a Global Context" and "From Self to Global Society."
Dr. Mark Finlay, assistant dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, who represented Armstrong at the Board of Regents, said the group received parameters to work within while brainstorming for new ideas. He added that "putting more 'global' issues into the new core seemed to be a priority."
Some of these guidelines included providing "flexibility to institutions for implementing a curriculum responsive to their student populations and missions," "focusing on written and verbal communications" and "quantitative reasoning." A new buzzword was "WOVEN" communication, which stands for "written, oral, visual, electronic and non-verbal."
Dr. Richard Nordquist, director of liberal studies and faculty development, said when faculty members learned of the developments at the April 4 Faculty Forum, many complained about the way the curriculum revisions were created.
"No one's objecting to revising the core; that's done traditionally every 10 to 12 years anyway, but it's the top-down approach," Nordquist said. He added that part of the accreditation of the university is based on an understanding that the faculty has control over the curriculum.
At the end of the forum, Nordquist offered to draft a resolution based on wording that other academic groups had already put forward. On April 14, those present at a faculty meeting unanimously approved a resolution in which the faculty members stated they "have grave reservations about the Systemwide process of reevaluating the core curriculum, and we strenuously object to the absence of adequate academic representation in the review process."
On Feb. 3, 45 representatives of learning institutions around Georgia gathered in Atlanta to discuss a revision of USG's core curriculum. Two conceptual models that could frame the design of a new core emerged from that meeting: "Framing World Views in a Global Context" and "From Self to Global Society."
Dr. Mark Finlay, assistant dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, who represented Armstrong at the Board of Regents, said the group received parameters to work within while brainstorming for new ideas. He added that "putting more 'global' issues into the new core seemed to be a priority."
Some of these guidelines included providing "flexibility to institutions for implementing a curriculum responsive to their student populations and missions," "focusing on written and verbal communications" and "quantitative reasoning." A new buzzword was "WOVEN" communication, which stands for "written, oral, visual, electronic and non-verbal."
Dr. Richard Nordquist, director of liberal studies and faculty development, said when faculty members learned of the developments at the April 4 Faculty Forum, many complained about the way the curriculum revisions were created.
"No one's objecting to revising the core; that's done traditionally every 10 to 12 years anyway, but it's the top-down approach," Nordquist said. He added that part of the accreditation of the university is based on an understanding that the faculty has control over the curriculum.
At the end of the forum, Nordquist offered to draft a resolution based on wording that other academic groups had already put forward. On April 14, those present at a faculty meeting unanimously approved a resolution in which the faculty members stated they "have grave reservations about the Systemwide process of reevaluating the core curriculum, and we strenuously object to the absence of adequate academic representation in the review process."
Be the first to comment on this story