FAQs on FYE
Q: What are the main learning objectives (or development goals) of a first year experience (FYE) at SSU?
A: The primary component of FYE that will be examined in the pilot year 2005-06 will be the lecture/seminar model called First Class. The primary learning outcomes for the pilot First Class are:
- To develop skills in writing, critical thinking, reading, and information literacy through exploration of broad interdisciplinary topic in both lecture and seminar formats.
- To build a community of peers for both students and faculty.
- To help students' understanding of the value of liberal arts education in order to progress more holistically through their college career.
Specific learning outcomes are articulated in the document "The Whole University Supporting the Whole Student."
- Build academic skills by introducing materials that complement weekly lectures and teaches college skills such as seminar discussions, reading, writing, and research aimed at developing deep and confident critical thinking abilities and a personal voice.
- Improve writing skills in a variety of college level styles: creative nonfiction, response/position papers, and research-based papers. Writing to include grammar rules, and rhetorical strategies for each style.
- Develop college level critical thinking abilities.
- Connect skilled faculty with small learning communities of students through the twice-weekly seminars, and establish strong mentoring relationships between students and faculty mentors.
- Situate students within peer groups formed through academic engagement.
- Set rigorous expectations for academic achievement.
- Introduce a range of academic disciplines through the lecture series.
- Demonstrate interconnectedness of knowledge bases and the value of problem solving through collaboration.
- Major problems have been resolved, the design theory showed substantially correct. Expand First Class in 2006-07.
- Significant problems remain, but First Class is showing real promise. Mount a second demonstration pilot in 2006-07 at the 2005-06 levels, and continue working through the issues.
- Problems are insurmountable or design is fatally flawed; go back to the drawing board in 2006-07.
Q: What is the major contribution of the FYE Pilot toward that objective, which the existing program does not provide?
A: First Class embraces the whole student-the social being as well as the learner. It inspires engagement, demonstrates rigor, promotes consistent standards and expectations across all First Class sections, and models creative problem solving.
The academic content of First Class will particularly emphasize skill building with rigorous expectations in:- reading in depth for meaning and analysis, including textbooks, syllabi, websites, videotext, etc.;
- writing as an integral tool in the process of learning, with a strong focus on interdisciplinary writing as the foundation for students' experience of Writing Across the Curriculum at SSU;
- critical thinking in an interdisciplinary context, allowing faculty and students to:
- pose questions and discuss possible assumptions and conclusions;
- evaluate multiple viewpoints found in a variety of relevant sources;
- encourage students to develop a personal voice
- information literacy and appreciation for research and scholarship in a variety of disciplines;
- research methodology: locate, select, evaluate, use, and cite sources for academic research;
- listening skills to enhance attention to course content and to each other;
- learning skills, note-taking, study strategies, and time management;
- communication skills, including participation in seminar discussions and oral reporting;
- ethical behavior in the pursuit of knowledge; and,
- feedback that is sustained and rich from faculty, SSPs, and peers at all levels.
- effectively aid the social transition of freshmen students into the new world of college;
- academic skill-building that introduces materials that complement weekly lectures and teaches college skills such as seminar discussions, reading, writing, and research aimed at developing deep and confident critical thinking abilities and a personal voice;
- academic advising and career counseling;
- students' co-curricular and social needs identified and addressed using learning objectives of Freshman Seminar/EMT (U 102); empowering them to develop their educational objectives, including why they are in college, where they belong at SSU.
Q: By what means will the FYE Pilot achieve that contribution?
A: The First Class pilot will include be an interdisciplinary approach, providing an intentional context for discovering the meaning of liberal arts and sciences education and the complementary roles of general education and a major discipline.
It is designed as a common experience that is academically stimulating, rigorous, and supportive of students' social transition into university life, and is comprised of 5 components- a multi-disciplinary problem-based lecture series, delivered Wednesdays at noon for all 150 pilot students and their Learning Teams (LTs) that frames:
- small seminars of 15 students who meet twice weekly with their Learning Team for a total of 3 contact hours
- academic advising, college career counseling (including finding a major and an advisor within the major), and transitional support by knowledgeable Learning Team members.
Q: What are the additional resources and/or structural changes (say reallocations) necessary for implementing those means?
A: Pilot students will receive GE credit in Areas A2, A3 and E for a total of 9 units. Since the 150 students in the pilot represent the anticipate growth in freshmen over the 2004-05 year (a rise from 1100 to 1250in 2005-06), no structural changes in existing programs will occur.
There will be program start-up costs, primarily to create/organize the demonstration pilot syllabus; coordinate faculty, SSPs and peers, provide professional development for pilot faculty, to assess learning outcomes, and to evaluate the pilot. The budget for these expenses is approximately $58,000. The Development Office is seeking outside funding to cover these costs.
A preliminary projection and analysis regarding student-faculty ratio suggests that the WTU earned through the high-enrollment weekly lecture balances the very low SFR of 15:1 in the seminars to average at 23:1 overall. Funding features include:
- enrollment of 150 students at a minimum of 6 units for faculty will produce 90 FTES (150 x 9/15=90) over 2 semesters, and breaks down to 45 FTES in the fall and 45 in the spring (30 for A2 and A3, and 15 for area E on a semester basis).
- enrollment targets in Areas A2, A3, and E, prorated across those areas, will be reduced by 90 FTES to offset the reduced need for traditional GE sections;
- departments will be reimbursed at actual replacement cost for full-time faculty participating in the demonstration pilot;
- participating Lecturers will be directly compensated;
- summer stipends will be provided for faculty developing the First Class curriculum;
- pilot start-up support will be provided out of the Provost's Office;
- other than the FTES target reduction for Area A2, A3 and Area E courses, demonstration pilot funding will not require reductions to the Schools' budgets.
Has the cost of FYE in dollars rather than WTUs or SFR been considered? In addition to units for pilot instructional faculty, in real dollars the cost of the pilot will be approximately $58,000. This figure includes average unit costs for pilot coordinator, and 7 faculty, 10 student development personnel, 10 peer mentors, summer stipends for coordinator, faculty and Learning Team mentors, administrative support and materials.
In the short term, the modest 150 student pilot (only 12% of incoming freshmen) will be funded from 2005-06 growth money out of the Office of Academic Programs. Given that there will be a 12% increase in first year students from the current year, some of the growth money intended to support those new numbers would go to the pilot.
In any significant curricular change, resources are shifted, and the University community must weigh where its resources should go.
One goal of the pilot is to discover where resources are actually needed, and from where they would come, should the pilot prove successful on an academic level, and want to be scaled. The pilot year will help answer these questions, and a further recommendation on scalability will be made by the GE Subcommittee in February of 2006--whether to expand First Class for the following year, re-tool and re-pilot at a similar level as in 2005-06, or scrap and redesign.
The January '06 recommendation will be forwarded with full data on 2006-07 costs and funding sources.
Q: What are and will be the costs of the peer mentors?
A: Peers are paid $7.50 per hour, and will be scheduled for 5 hours per week. This amounts to $562 per peer per semester.
Q: Is the expected contribution (improvements) to learning (or development) worth its opportunity cost (as defined by additional resources and structural changes)?
A: The designers of the pilot feel that, yes, the benefits of First Class will justify its resources, but only a real-time experimental offering of the U150 course will determine if that hypothesis is correct. One of the objectives for the pilot is to learn the answer to this question.
We know that the contribution of SSPs in its current form is not scalable. One task of the pilot will be to determine how best to deliver student development content in a manner that is both effective and sustainable.
Q: What is going to be the main function of a Pilot (as different from a permanent FYE program): a process for learning by doing and therefore adjusting the program? or a way to appraise the worth and costs of a FYE relative to existing programs?
A: Yes, the pilot will be a process of learning by doing, affording the planners, coordinator, evaluators, and faculty working on the pilot the opportunity to adjust pedagogy to address challenges that the pilot raises. Secondly, the pilot will teach us about true costs, and allow for the development of solutions to long term scalability and sustainability issues.
Q: How will the pilot be assessed?
A: Art Warmoth and Carlos Benito have written: "We think that the faculty, through its governance structures, in collaboration with the administration, should approve the implementation of the pilot project.
To accomplish its goals, however, the FYE project has to go along with an evaluation project. Were the evaluation absent or incomplete, one of the functions of a pilot experiment would be missed." ("Learning from the FYE Pilot Project", Benito and Warmoth, March 2005)
Broad teaching goals for the pilot in writing, critical thinking, information literacy, reading comprehension, and oral communication, based on the Area A lab findings (2001), and aligned with the MGOs of GE will be conveyed to the coordinator and the pilot faculty. This group will be responsible for developing the specific curriculum plan, including lecture theme, syllabus, reading assignments, and course schedule, and specific learning outcomes.
Assessment protocols for pilot will be developed in consultation with EPC, a neutral faculty evaluator, and the Office of Institutional Research. Several levels of assessment and evaluation are to be applied:
1) Authentic, targeted assessment of student learning based on specific learning outcomes. Baseline indicators will be taken, and progress monitored throughout the year, then analyzed to provide data to instructors and coordinator showing areas of achievement and for improvement.
2) In the case of the Freshman Year Experience, program evaluation should incorporate both ongoing program assessment designed by faculty working for the pilot and a comparative assessment of the outcomes of three major components of the freshman curriculum: 1) students taking the FYE, 2) students taking the current EMT Program, and 3) students taking only English 101 and Philosophy 101.
3) This could be accomplished with a common final exam scored according to a rubric generated by the faculty to discern writing and critical thinking skills, and then use an ANOVA to compare means across groups. If we wanted to account for entry verbal skills we could compare with SAT-verbal or EPT scores.
4) Benito and Warmoth recommend that the program evaluation methodology should identify and evaluate outcomes consistent with the Mission, Goals and Objectives of General Education. It would involve the following design elements and steps.
- A. Quantitative Methods
- 1.1. Sampling (control group issues)
- 1.2. Standardized Assessment Instruments
- 1.3. Survey
- 1.3.1. Questionnaire Design
- 1.3.2. Survey Administration
- 1.4. Data processing
- 1.4.1. Statistical analysis
- 1.4.2. Path Analysis
- 1.4.3. Regression Estimations
- 1.5. Interpretation of results
- 1.6. Report
- B. Qualitative Methods
- 2.1. Focus Groups
- 2.2. Embedded Assessment
- 2.3. Other Methods
- 2.4. Report
5) Evaluation of faculty, SSP, and student satisfaction through opinion surveys
6) Evaluation of costs, and determination of costs and resources necessary for scaling and sustaining First Class.
Q: What is the budget for program assessment?
A: An evaluator drawn from SSU faculty (and one who will not teach in the pilot) will be supported with release time, and staff support for the pilot are itemized in the Provost's pilot budget.
As part of their assignments, pilot faculty and coordinator will be charged with applying assessment rubrics and turning raw assessment data over to the evaluator. This function is funded through the faculty and coordinator unit loads. Any support for pilot assessment efforts provide by the Office of Institutional Research are revenue neutral as part of its normal load.
Q: What will happen with assessment and evaluation data?
A: Once preliminary data are available, the GE Subcommittee can make a recommendation to EPC and the Academic Senate-say in January of 2006-whether to expand for the following year, re-tool and re-pilot at a similar level as in 2005-06, or scrap and redesign.
The Coordinator, faculty, and student development personnel engaged for the pilot will use the planning and mounting of a real time course (rather than a hypothetical discussion) to refine and define learning goals and outcomes in A2 and A3, student development, the lecture series' purpose, and how it is integrated into the whole of First Class.
Under assessment, there is the description of comparing students in FYE with students taking English 101, Phil 101 or 102, and Freshman Seminar. FYE also includes 3 units of Area E.
Q: Shouldn't we also have Area E classes as part of the control group?
A: Since a more direct comparison is between Freshman Seminar and First Class outcome effectiveness is relevant, these are the courses that should be compared through assessment.
Q: Are there plans to follow pilot students in their 2nd to 4th years to study persistence of effect rather than just immediate assessment?
A: This is a great suggestion and will be examined to see how that can be achieved.
Q: How will the composition of the 150 student set be determined?
A: New freshmen will self-select during SOAR. Materials on the pilot will be included in the SOAR brochure. Hutchins and EOP Academy students would be excluded from the pilot.
Q: How will we insure a seamless integration between academic and EMT content and materials?
A: The skill-building component of First Class is taken from the current set of outcomes in Freshman Seminar, while writing and critical thinking skills can be developed through both academic and co-curricular content.
Certainly, creating an integrated, seamless pedagogy will be a key concern for the pilot planners, coordinator, faculty and SSPs this summer. The pilot represents an opportunity to develop common goals that serve the transitional and academic needs of the students.
Q: Would U150 eventually be a required course or another option for Freshmen?
A: A successful First-Year Experience embraces the whole student-the social being as well as the learner.
It inspires engagement, demonstrates rigor, promotes consistent standards and high expectations, and models creative problem solving. Because college is a new world for every new student, FYE sets the stage for the rest of the college experience by focusing upon why education is worthy and important. FYE teaches essential skills, and addresses advising and co-curricular needs, including guiding students in the selection of a suitable major. (Toczyski 5)
A primary goal for GE reform is to provide effective academic and transitional support in an intentional way for all freshmen. The pilot will examine its own methodology to see if such an approach can support the goals of FYE as articulated above. Only then will we know how to proceed.
Additionally, some have argued that a common experience-including content set(s) and standard outcome and expectations-promotes real discussion among students and faculty because they are reading some of the same books and hearing the same speakers. The pilot will test this argument.
Q: What are the implications on workload? Would there be time to pursue outside research?
A: Faculty will experience reduced workload because SFR is significantly reduced-even for ENG 101 and PHIL 101 which have current SFRs that average 27-1.
Because the pilot is a two-semester course, one prep replaces two, and faculty will develop relationships with 15 students rather than 52-plus. Some of these reductions would be offset by additional time in organizing and making the pilot go and an additional scheduled hour spent in the weekly lecture. Still, faculty must always do prep in some form, and the lecture could be considered as part of normal course prep. Finally, though the pilot office hour is part of the schedule, faculty time devoted to this function is not increased.
It is anticipated that faculty effort would be reduced, and at a minimum, faculty workload will be neutral in comparison to the traditional course delivery. Still, the pilot will provide real time data, and is a good reason for conducting the pilot.
Q: What are the implications for the RTP process?
A: As with all legitimate academic output, teaching in the pilot will be part of RTP documentation. Though learning outcomes of pilot will be assessed, faculty will not be evaluated for the purpose of RTP. Data from the pilot will not be submitted for inclusion in RTP documents unless an individual faculty member chooses to do so, as is her/his right.
Q: What will insure the integrity of assessment and evaluation?
A: Primarily, the knowledge that the purpose of First Class is to build a more effective means of bringing students into the academic community, and to reach higher levels of achievement. Poor assessment and evaluation will not give the answers needed to improve the model.
Still, assessment and evaluation will be multi-faceted. First Class coordinator and instructional faculty will develop learning objectives and assessment protocols. An outside evaluator, drawn from the SSU faculty, will analyze assessment results and provide feedback to the pilot coordinator and faculty, the GE Subcommittee, and EPC. The Office of Institutional Research will support both efforts. The assessment will:
- incorporate internal assessment tools and feedback loops to track student achievement in key learning outcomes;
- establish control groups of students in traditional delivery of A2, A3, and Freshman Seminar; and
- log and analyze issues and problems discovered through the pilot to be addressed in the recommendations.
Q: Would the FYE lecture/seminar require allocation to be moved from upper division allocations to lower division allocations? And make other larger classes across major disciplines and the faculty burden in them greater?
A: The 2005-06 pilot will not cause such an outcome. But if this were a long-term consequence of FYE, it would be untenable.
FYE will improve the academic preparedness of students in their majors, but the majors must be sound when these better prepared students enter their major course of study. Therefore solving the scability challenges requires that disciplines remain intact, and indeed also have improved resources.
The pilot will be funded by lowering targets in GE areas A2, A3 and E. So the majority of funding for the pilot will come from a new way of delivering a portion of lower division GE curriculum.
One of the goals for the First Class Pilot will be to determine what cost might be for the long term, anticipating increased numbers of students as well as growth money, without impacting upper division offerings.
It is imperative that the long-term resources for First Class to make it be scalable and sustainable must be in place before the University takes a decision to expand First Class above the 150 pilot. This should be seen as an exploratory, go slow approach-and not as a rollout. The pilot is needed to answer this and other questions.
Q: Isn't the FYE pilot proposal really a ploy to gain approval for a pilot that is actually a rollout of a new program without full examination of the resource and pedagogical implications?
A: Not at all. We have too much to learn, and too many legitimate questions to be studied through the pilot before considering the future of First Class.
However, we did an ineffective job of communicating the pilot's intent to the University. Raising the "rollout" question demanded more clarity in stating the intentions of the pilot. So here goes:
The pilot will be an experimental laboratory where real learning about the First Class model will occur for the designers, coordinator, faculty, administration, various staff and other stakeholders. The proposal is pedagogically exciting, but it is also complex proposal. The pilot is a real time experiment where the issues legitimately raised in the faculty governance process, and elsewhere, will be worked out in detail, assessed and evaluated in full view of the University community.
Then we will know if there are design or application flaws and discover means for correcting them. If the evaluation shows that flaws are insurmountable, we should go back to the drawing board.
Q: How will the pilot be managed to insure that assessment data is fed back into planning for whatever may happen in 2006-07?
A: Concurrent to developing the 2005-06 pilot, we will keep a log of desirable improvements for any future version of First Class. In this way, any problems (and successes) that are identified in the planning and implementation of the pilot can be addressed for the future.
As early as January of 2006, we expect to be able to see in broad terms what First Class might look like, its costs, and have a better sense of what revisions in the design are needed to move it to scalability and sustainability.
Q: Will students suffer from loss or dilution of content if we do too much in the lectures?
A: We don't think so. The lecture will frame a major theme for the year, and that theme will be approached from many disciplinary perspectives.
But the real work of the course will take place in the 3 per week contact hours of seminar where additional readings that compliment or critique the viewpoints presented in the lecture will be examined rigorously. Writing and research will have rigorous expectations, and faculty will have real time to work with students over two semesters to insure that content is not superficial, and that the efforts of students are serious and deep.
Q: Who will teach these sections if the course is all about writing?
A: There are many faculty outside the English Department who are qualified to teach writing at this level by virtue of their training and teaching experience. The pilot will test to see if learning outcomes in writing can be effectively reached through the mix of faculty participating.
First Class is more than the sum of its parts-and it's not all about writing, though writing is a critical component. As educators, we see the First Class pilot as an opportunity to discover and try creative ways of bringing new students into the college experience, and to develop foundational skills. First Class is not simply a merging together of ENG 101 + PHIL 101+ EMT + Area E. It is a philosophical, structural, pedagogic and creative approach to solving some real problems in academic engagement, foundational skill building and student transition.
The current GE model separates writing and critical thinking. A core curricular principle of FYE is that such a separation does not truly support students' learning of these "academic behaviors" that are in truth so richly related-even, ultimately, inseparable. We also know that these behaviors develop only slowly, over an extended period. We believe simply that a full year of integrated attention to these core academic behaviors will offer a much better learning experience for students and yield better learning outcomes.
First Class is an integrated experience where foundation skills (including college writing, critical thinking, information competence, oral expression, and others) are taught in relationship to a common, problem-based multi-discipline lecture series.
Q: Shouldn't English and Philosophy faculty be the ones to teach writing and critical thinking?
A: While writing and critical thinking instruction have traditionally been based in the English and Philosophy Departments at SSU, there are many successful models at other CSU campuses, and nationwide, where these areas of instruction are delivered by faculty from several other disciplines.
The pilot will test whether these areas of instruction can be taught by faculty from more diverse disciplines. Faculty in English and Philosophy can perform a critical function by teaching in First Class, and by serving as mentors to faculty from other Schools who will teach in the pilot.
Q: What is Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) in relationship to First Class?
A: The "New Path for General Education" document (May 2003) calls all SSU graduates to take four writing intensive courses over four years. First Class would be the first of these. The Chair of the English Department and the Director of the Writing Center have both suggested that the second course in the sequence be a "college writing" course taught by writing faculty.
While First Class introduces a variety of writing styles that students would be expected to work in at SSU (while providing detailed feedback on multiple drafts), the college writing course would develop writing technique. The other two writing courses might be taught in major disciplines and/or in GE capstone courses.
Other than the writing portion of First Class, the GE Subcommittee has yet to address the Writing Across the Curriculum portion of the GE Path in further detail. It is thought that consideration of WAC will go forward in 2005-06.
Q: Who determines standards for writing and writing courses?
A: Scott Miller, Director of the Writing Center, has offered a blueprint for the Writing in First Class based on Area A lab findings, and discussions with several English faculty. Mentoring from this group and further development of the Miller proposal is expected in the creation of the learning outcomes for First Class.
Q: If English 101 is replaced by FYE, will students really get sufficient writing instruction?
A: Yes. This is one of the most important objectives for First Class.
Structurally, writing can be developed over 30 weeks, in conjunction with research and critical thinking outcomes. Additionally, because SFR is 15-1, faculty will have time to work intensively with student writing and writers. The pilot will test whether writing instruction will lead students to increased appreciation for and ability to express themselves effectively.
The current GE model separates writing and critical thinking. A core curricular principle of FYE is that such a separation does not truly support students' learning of these "academic behaviors" that are in truth so richly related-even, ultimately, inseparable. We also know that these behaviors develop only slowly, over an extended period. We believe simply that a full year of integrated attention to these core academic behaviors will offer a much better learning experience for students and yield better learning outcomes.
Q: Will this course be rigorous enough to replace content in GE areas A2 and A3?
A: Yes, that is a prime objective for First Class.
Q: We will need a full time coordinator for the FYE lecture/seminar, one who has expertise in transitional issues, writing assessment, EMT, etc. Has that been considered?
A: Yes, this was raised by a senator in a December Academic Senate. The pilot budget provides for a coordinator who would receive 4 units for each of fall and spring semesters next year, and a summer 2005 stipend of $3000. A full job description has been posted.
The GE Subcommittee will recommend a candidate to the Provost with an anticipated appointment date of April 30, 2005.
Q: What about long-term employment implications for lecturers?
A: With increased enrollment accompanied by growth dollars, significant increases in course sections in most departments will be necessary. Units available to support lecturers over the long term are certain to increase rather than decrease.
Growth projections over the next 5 years indicate that no current faculty-tenure line or long-term lecturers-will lose their jobs as a result of the First Class pilot, or in the event that First Class is scaled up. Additionally, First Class itself will open job opportunities should long-term lecturers choose to seek this opportunity. Employment of current faculty is not under threat.
Q: Will lecturers be able to teach their current courses?
A: During the pilot year, no current faculty will be required to teach in First Class rather than her/his regular departmental assignments, not would s/he lose employment opportunity as a result. Faculty will teach in First Class only if they choose to apply to do so.
Q: Would this be true if the program expands?
A: This question may be premature since the pilot is a one-time experimental course. However, should First Class develop, faculty will have the opportunity to teach in the new program, which will require new learning and new preps.
It is conceivable that some courses currently offered in Area A might by shifted to Area C. It is also hoped that faculty will find satisfaction in the teaching of First Class.
While lecturer positions are secure, course offerings would evolve to suit curricular choices and student needs. After all, this is an effort to reinvigorate GE, and to do so some course sections in Areas A2 and A3 would be supplanted by U150 First Class sections.
Q: Is FYE a way to get grad students to cover these sections?
A: No. This has never been discussed in any design or planning meeting.
Q: What is a "Passion Strand?
A: " (It has a new name: First Person) Through this process we have discovered that the name "Passion Strand" is not very descriptive, which of course helps prompt this very question. A new name of First Person, which resonates with First Class, is being tried.
But "Passion Strands" refer to a way of ensuring that first-year students are able to register for GE classes that are close to their interests and/or reflect possible student choice of major. For example, if a first semester freshman student is (or thinks s/he wants to be) a Political Science major, then s/he is guaranteed enrollment in into Social Science GE's rather than the Sciences. First Person is about individual student interests, and is part of a strategy to ensure maximum engagement for first-year students. Many Departments already do some form of this as major requirements that also serve as GE courses.
Q: Will First Person be part of the pilot?
A: No. Significant advance planning on the part of the Registrar and Departments would have to occur. First Person would be tried if a second version of First Class is mounted in the future.
Q: What happens to the units earned in First Person if a student switches emphasis or major?
A: The units have already been earned in GE categories, and so travel with the student to fulfill breath requirements in GE. No "do-overs" are anticipated.
Q: Will declared students in majors with heavy first year requirements such as Nursing and Engineering be in jeopardy of completing their requirements if they take First Class?
A: With 9 units earned over 2 semesters, these students should be fine. Moreover, they will not be required to register for U150.
Q: What will be the ratio of contact hours to time for which faculty is paid?
A: There are 4 contact hours per week, one of which would be a strictly passive role of listening to guest speakers. This activity might be compared to reading over lecture notes or a text in preparation for a class.
In the other three hours, faculty would be facilitating seminar discussions or giving lessons in information literacy, writing, learning skills, student development. There is a fifth hour that is set aside as a weekly office hour dedicated to the students within the faculty members' cohort.
Q: As a section leader, what input do I have regarding the materials for the class? How specific will the common content be?
A: The instructional faculty, once selected, will make these determinations. We anticipate that there will be developed a balance of common materials shared by all 150 pilot students, and materials specific to individual sections.
Q: How will we be able to take care of remediation in English 30 and 99 students? Will they be able to keep up in FYE while concurrently taking remediation in English?
A: The First Class lecture-seminar is aimed at a) bringing first year students into a community of learners who study parallel content sets, b) providing students with transitional support, and c) developing foundational academic skills for college success. It is therefore important that remedial students not be denied access to these crucial transitional components of FYE.
Students would take their English remediation concurrently with FYE. The pilot will include students needing English 30/English 99, so we will be able to assess whether or not they are able to deal with the FYE material concurrently with English remediation.
Q: What about those students who need remediation in both math and English. What will be their unit load?
A: If a student needs English and Math remediation, her/his unit load in the fall semester would be: 4 units of FYE; 3 Units of English (E99 or E30); 4 Units of Math = 11 units. If the student needed a second semester of remediation in Math and English, it would be 5 units FYE; 3 units of English; 4 units of Math = 12 units.
Q: How will you deal with students who do poorly (in the lecture/seminar) in the first semester? How will they "redeem" themselves for the second term?
A: With the low 15-1 SFR, faculty will have ample opportunity, incentive and time to address student learning issues regularly throughout the semester. This is one of the GREAT features of First Class.
Faculty and SSPs will develop strategies, such as Writing Center tutorials, to address problems. Intersession study is another way place to "catch up."
Still, a 100% success rate is probably not doable. Students retain options to withdraw during the semester, or to shift to traditional ENG 101 and PHIL 101 courses in the spring.
Q: How many SSPs will be involved, and for what kind of weekly time commitments?
A: The pilot budgets for 10 SSPs, who would use an average of 6 hours per week on First Class. There will likely be 1-3 sections of Freshman Interest Groups (FIGs) in the pilot. FIGs are mounted without SSPs. This would free up some of the 10 SSPs.
The specific delivery of student development content is a key area of concern for the development of the course syllabus, as well as for scalability. We know what the student development objectives are because they closely follow those articulated through EMT. We have to work through the means of adapting them to this model, and this can most effectively be done through the real time of the pilot.
Q: Departments have had to abandon courses due to the budget crises. Will departments be mandated to offer certain courses because they are in this GE program, or will they have the right to choose how they split their resources?
A: We must recognize that as a result of recent cuts from the State lower-division GE has suffered drastic increases in SFR, while forcing departments to offer more and more sections of GE to fill seats. Some amelioration of this situation is needed to achieve a viable GE program.
First Class is a good place to start, and may prove to be successful in preparing students for success in large lecture course that will increasingly be the norm.
Q: What will be the commitment from SSPs for follow-up mentoring/advising after the freshman year for these students?
A: It is hoped that a greater percentage of students who enroll in First Class will be able to choose a major by their sophomore years. This will free up SSP advising time as students are "handed-off" to major advisors.
Q: Are SSPs reimbursed for their time in First Class?
A: No, it would be part of their work load, as EMT and U237/8 are.
Some SSPs teach Freshman Seminars in the fall, and then several teach University 238 and 237 in the spring, or are heavily involved in spring planning for summer programs. We know that in the near term there will not be enough SSPs to cover the potential for increases in First Class sections, or for that matter, increased sections of EMT.
Because we are convinced of the value to student success and retention of an effective student development component within FYE, while we conduct the pilot the GE Subcommittee will work with the SSPs to develop effective, creative, and scalable solutions to this long-term problem
Q: Projected enrollment for this fall is already 1250. The plan for the full program only discusses 1200 students. We will continue to grow too. What will happen with FYE as enrollments grow?
A: From a fiscal and human resource standpoint, the question of scalability and sustainability is paramount. We know what we have on the drawing board now-particularly the SSP contribution-is not scalable. The pilot year will be used to discover how to deliver the content and goals, and learning outcomes in an expanded and sustainable way-without hurting the majors.
Q: Is EMT on board with the new plan? What are their concerns, if any?
A: EMT faculty and SSPs have been deeply involved in the design process, and every attempt has been made to satisfy their concerns.
These have centered on 1) contact time with students to develop content response, 2) worries about dilution of content, and 3) concern for EOP Academy students being placed at additional risk.
The contact time concern was addressed by assuring that students development would have every 3rd week over 2 semesters to deliver content and seminar with students.
Regarding the point 3, it was determined to remove EOP students for the pilot year.
As to point 2, This summer, SSPs assigned to the pilot will be intimately involved with faculty in determining syllabus and schedule and we expect content issues to be substantially resolved in that process.
We must recognize that with increased enrollment, EMT as it is currently delivered will come under staffing pressure, and it is unlikely that that model can be long sustained. FYE offers a means and an opportunity to structurally ensure that EMT goals are delivered for to our freshmen.
Q: How will students in the pilot be enrolled and graded?
A: Though First Class will be structured as an integrated two semester course, practically it will be administered through the Registrar in the following way:
- Two course numbers will be designated: U150A for 4 units (fall only), and U150B for 5 units (spring only)
- The GE designation will be assigned to the U150B course only and will be indicated via a Course Topic (ex: Meets Area A2, A3, & Area E GE requirements)
- Both courses be offered for a letter grade only
Q: Would students be able to change sections at semester break?
A: No. One of the benefits of FYE is that the year-long structure allows for a deepening in relationships between faculty and students and among the members of the learning community.
To change sections would not only sever the relationships developed in the first semester but necessitate the recreation of new relationships within the second semester section and also create distrust within the group identity when new members join at the second semester. The community-building method has an effective track record in the Theatre Department's Acting Block program, where students are admitted in the fall, and may leave at semester break, but not start anew in the spring.
Moreover, the First Class design seeks to alter the accidental and often fragmentary experience that our freshmen encounter. Continuity form semester to semester will contribute significantly to achieving this goal.
Q: What if a student decides not to enroll for a second semester?
A: First, the Learning Team would have a prompt a conversation with the student to find out what factors play into the decision, and attempt to help solve what problem (s) may emerge.
If that intervention fails, and the student only finishes U150A, s/he would receive 4 units of general elective work. No GE designation will be applied. S/he would then be advised to begin a traditional ENG 101/PHIL 102/2 sequence.
Q: What is the impact on A & R?
A: There are always details in a start -up, but the Registrar has indicated the following: At the time of self-selection into the pilot, students would reserve a spot, and then be block enrolled in one of 10 sections for the fall semester.
Then, in order to have students in the same sections for the spring, the Pilot Coordinator would have to either:
a. Create individual student groups associated with each section and link each student group to the appropriate 150B course. With this option we might have the benefit of "block enrollment," but remember that the coordinator would have to have a separate student group for EVERY section. This could be a bit cumbersome.
b. Add each student into the permission screen of the correct 150B section. With this option the Coordinator would have to manually enter ID's into the permission screen for each section, but it would be the responsibility of the student to register for the class. This would seem to be the cleaner option.
Q: What is the rationale for Area E credit in the First Class pilot year?
A: All along the GE reform process an attempt was made to bring U 102 content into the GE pattern because the lack of such GE credit is one reason for the recent drop in enrollment in Freshman Seminar (to @ 60%) and the concomitant loss in effective transitioning strategies delivered to our freshmen.
Note that Freshman Seminar has never been a GE course.
Using a rationale that the gestalt of First Class is an integrated person experience, the GE Subcommittee thinks that providing Area E credit is one way to credit students for content currently delivered through Freshman Seminar. This concession is only for the Pilot year to see if that is a suitable place for credit to be given in the future.
Psychology Chair Art Warmoth has offered that as long as Freshman Seminar content and pedagogy is delivered through SSPs qualified in student development, there is no problem from a pedagogical point of view with Area E credit being awarded to the pilot cohort.
From a resources standpoint, the Area E component of the First Class pilot will produce 45 FTES per semester, and would be funded by a lowering of FTES targets in Area E (rather than cuts in budgets). The target reductions would be dispersed across all Schools proportionally to the number of Area E courses each mounts.
Q: From a workload standpoint doesn't a 4 unit per semester assignment for faculty make more sense than 3/3 units, given the necessary and ongoing planning and assessment?
A: Pilot faculty will receive summer stipends for course planning, and have the opportunity to advise in SOAR (which trains faculty in effective GE advising) for additional income.
Q: The question of equitability is an open one, the answer to which will be determined by the pilot. Will a 3/3 scale prove too much work for the units? Will a 4/4 scale prove too generous? Can the pilot be scaled at 4/4 without adversely impacting majors?
A: The pilot will help determine the answer.
Q: Are the English and Philosophy Departments on board with the pilot?
A: English has sent a statement of support if the pilot is a 4/4 unit model for their instructors.
Philosophy offered a statement that supports many of the goals of the pilot, but questions the wisdom of having critical thinking instruction placed elsewhere than in Philosophy, and wonders what will become of a Philosophy Department that is weakened by resource transfers.
Discussion and debate in the School of Arts and Humanities has been lively, but the Chairs have declined to offer a statement of any kind.
A presentation on the pilot was given for the A & H faculty on April 4. Key faculty in English and Philosophy modified their previous concerns and offered qualified support for a limited-term pilot with expectations of full assessment and resource data as outcomes for the pilot.
There is no doubt that the pilot has both its strong supporters and detractors. In seeking endorsement for the pilot, we recognize that all the questions have neither been asked nor answered fully. The pilot will teach us all.
