Vice Chancellor Genaro Padilla, Co-Chair
Dean Carolyn Porter, Co-Chair
Minutes of the CUE Sub-Committee on
Academic Enrichment Opportunities
Members Present: Koshland (Chair), Maslach
Staff Present: Schrager
Members Unable to Attend: Davis, Mascuch, Tanouye
Sub-committee chair Cathy Koshland and staff member Cynthia Schrager met and were later joined by Christina Maslach. Koshland reviewed the sub-committee’s agenda, as delineated in the minutes from the September 27, 1999 full commission meeting. She identified key background information that this sub-committee will need to carry out its charge and asked Schrager to obtain the following information for distribution to the sub-committee:
1. Research and Scholarship Programs. A report has been compiled by Judith Frank, Financial Aid Scholarships Office, which provides a start in this direction.
2. Education Abroad Programs. The EAP office’s data is a starting point, but it also does not include students who withdraw from Berkeley to take advantage of other study abroad academic programs for which they do not get credit. Koshland indicated that anecdotal evidence suggests these numbers are high. She asked Schrager to see what data may be available through the Registrar’s Office.
3. Service Learning. A report is currently being prepared on Service Learning and Schrager will see if it is possible for the sub-committee to get an advance copy. Koshland stressed that there are a wide-range of service learning opportunities happening on campus both inside and outside of the classroom, and it will be important to get a full picture of this range.
Maslach and Koshland also discussed the importance of tapping into the departments to see what kinds of research, service learning and other academic enrichment opportunities are being sponsored under their auspices. This information may need to be gathered anecdotally at least initially by going to departments that have a reputation for doing good things in this area. For instance, Schrager suggested that Physics might provide a model for a successful departmentally based undergraduate research program. The Annual Report to the Legislature on Undergraduate Instruction, prepared in the Division of Undergraduate and Interdisciplinary Studies, may provide leads in this regard as well.
The group also discussed funding for undergraduate research and the differential impact on faculty time from department to department because of varying student-faculty ratios. Funding proposals should take this into consideration. Maslach suggested one approach might be to seek funding for a limited number of model departmental research programs. However, there is also a need for a centrally administered fund where students could apply for small amounts of money throughout the year that would enable them to seek out faculty sponsors not necessarily tied to their major departments. This would also open up the professional schools as a source for undergraduate mentors, alleviating the burden on other members of the faculty.
The next sub-committee meeting will take place on Monday, October 25, 10:30-12 in 102 Campbell Hall.
Members Present: Koshland (Chair), Davis, Mascuch, Maslach, Tanouye
Staff Present: Schrager
Chair Cathy Koshland reiterated the following key points for sub-committee members to keep in mind:
1) the overlap between the charges of the sub-committees 2 and 3 on "integrative intellectual experiences" and "academic enrichment opportunities" respectively and the importance of keeping informed about each other’s work;
2) the goal of sending mini-proposals to the Chancellor timed to coincide with budget deliberations rather than issuing one grand report; and
3) the importance of reading the Boyer Report, which effectively frames the problems we’ll need to address.
Koshland noted that the work of sub-committees 2 and 3 will proceed more slowly than sub-committee 1 on advising, since less groundwork was laid last year. However, she added that existing proposals are out there; it will be a question of identifying them, seeing what can be put in place, and attaching dollar figures to them.
She then asked Cynthia Schrager to distribute background materials pertaining to the sub-committee’s charge. These included:
1) a packet of materials on Service Learning provided by Andy Furco, Director of the Service Learning Research and Development Center in the School of Education;
2) the most recent report on University of California Education Abroad Programs, which yielded the statistic that @400 students participate from Berkeley each year;
3) a quick statistical analysis provided by the Office of Student Research, which identified a pool of approximately 200 upperclass students with GPAs of 3.0 or above who withdrew for the spring ’99 semester and returned this Fall-- the "superset" of students who may be withdrawing to attend EAP or other educational programs without gaining credit from UC Berkeley. (Follow-up surveys would be required to obtain more definitive information.);
4) a matrix on undergraduate research programs on campus, including award budget, number of students served and other data, provided by Judith Frank of the Financial Aid Office.
Cynthia also provided the committee with a copy of a proposal currently being implemented by the Office of Undergraduate Research under the auspices of Dean Porter, whose goal is to leverage the resources of the Haas Scholars Program to encourage departments to think more strategically about integrating the capstone experience into their majors, as recommended in the Boyer Report.
Discussion on a range of issues followed, including:
Cathy Koshland stressed that it will be important for the sub-committee to think about what experiences we want students to have at what points during their undergraduate education. Barbara Davis compiled the following list of academic enrichment opportunities, gleaned during the general discussion, as a starting point:
Action Items:
In order to begin to get a picture of how academic enrichment opportunities are already incorporated into the major curricula, Cathy Koshland asked committee members to research academic enrichment opportunities for juniors and seniors in select major departments for our next meeting. These include research seminars, senior thesis options or requirements, service-learning opportunities etc.
Committee members will research the following:
Koshland: History, PACS
Maslach: Psychology
Mascuch: Rhetoric, English, Philosophy
Tanouye: MCB, ESPM
Schrager: Comp Lit, IB, Physics, Sociology
Davis: at her discretion
Cathy also asked Cynthia to obtain information on the freshman seminar program, including budget, # of student served, with an eye toward evaluating our commitment to the program, seeking more permanent funding for the program, and/or proposing a more in-depth program. She would also like the committee to get copies of an article on Stanford’s Sophomore College and four-year sequencing program.
The next meeting will take place on Monday, November 8, 10:30 AM-Noon in 344 Campbell Hall.
Members Present: Koshland (Chair), Davis, Mascuch, Maslach, Tanouye
Staff Present: Schrager
Cathy Koshland opened the meeting by distributing additional background materials of interest to the sub-committee: 1) a memo listing the break-down of where undergraduates live by zipcode; 2) a matrix listing undergraduate scholarships on the Berkeley campus (a companion to the matrix of undergraduate research programs distributed at the last meeting); and a memo from Alix Schwartz providing information as requested about the Freshman Seminar Program, including budget, number of seminars offered by year, and number of students enrolled by year. The data provided in the memo shows a steep increase in seminars offered following the inauguration of a three-year pilot program, funded by the Chancellor, that offers faculty a $2,000 research stipend as an incentive to teach freshman seminars.
Koshland also urged committee members to review background material distributed last time. She commented in particular that the materials demonstrate that Berkeley is very strong in the area of service learning, as compared with the other UC campuses. In contrast, our education abroad programs serve a surprisingly small number of students, a weakness that is in fact system-wide.
Reports on Academic Enrichment Opportunities in the Major Departments:
Koshland then asked committee members to report on the academic enrichment opportunities discovered in select major departments as agreed upon in the last meeting.
English/Philosophy/Rhetoric
Michael Mascuch reported on the following humanities departments: English, Philosophy and Rhetoric. With regard to the capstone/small seminar experience, English has the most formal structure of the three departments--perhaps owing to the fact that most of its classes tend to be large lectures. Majors are required to take a Junior and a Senior seminar (English 100 and English 150). There is also a two-semester senior honors program for students with a 3.51 GPA or above and a 3.65 GPA in the major (English 195 a and b). The fall semester is a seminar course in literary criticism taught by a faculty member. In the spring semester, students write their theses independently under the supervision of another faculty member in their area of expertise. They also continue to meet in a writers’ workshop with the instructor for the fall seminar, who serves as a second reader.
By contrast, Philosophy and Rhetoric have no required seminars for the major; however, the courses in these majors are typically quite small. The senior honors thesis in Philosophy is structured as a senior colloquium (H196) and an independent study (H195). Some students also take graduate seminars. In Rhetoric, there is no formal seminar for students in the honors program. Students writing an honors thesis pursue a two-semester independent study with a faculty member (H190 a & b); the amount of contact in this tutorial system depends on the student and professor in question.
Mascuch also indicated that service-learning appears to be less prevalent in the humanities than in some other disciplines--perhaps because it is intrinsically difficult to find service applications for humanities academic programs. There are no for-credit service learning courses currently offered through the Rhetoric Department; in the past, Rhetoric students have volunteered to teach writing to prisoners at San Quentin, although they did not receive credit for it.
Psychology
Christina Maslach reported on the Psychology Department. The major is quite large, enrolling 700 students, and a significant percentage of these students are involved in undergraduate research. Beginning in the lower-division, classes incorporate participation in research projects into the curriculum. In the upper-division, approximately 275 students are involved in research through 197s, 198s and 199s. While faculty sponsor these independent studies, students frequently work directly under a graduate student or post-doc and may also be involved in weekly lab meetings. The Honors Program consists of a year-long seminar (H194), taken in the senior year, and a concurrent 5-unit independent study (H195). The first semester of the seminar is devoted to research design. The department assigns a second reader based on the student’s research interests. Maslach noted that Psychology research occupies a wide spectrum, with disciplinary links to MCB on one end and Social Welfare on the other. Faculty specializing in clinical areas tend to be very overburdened in the department. The department attempts to deal with this by, for example, assigning faculty advisors alphabetically rather than by interest.
In the area of Service-Learning, Maslach noted Rhona Weinstein’s course Community Psychology: An American Cultures Perspective (132AC), which incorporates community-based action-research projects.
MCB, CNR-ESPM
Mark Tanouye reported on the Molecular & Cell Biology (MCB) major in Letters & Science, as well as College of Natural Resources’ ESPM majors, which include Molecular Environmental Biology (MEB).
He noted that most labs in MCB have undergraduates working in them, ranging from three to ten or fifteen. Unlike in many other disciplines, there is an existing infrastructure to support undergraduate research. Undergraduates usually participate in weekly lab meetings with graduate students, post-docs and the faculty member in charge of the lab. Among the many venues to get involved in research offered in and out of the department, the Biology Fellows Program, funded by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, offers research stipends to about 25 students a year, targeting under-represented minorities and women. In addition, the MCB department has an honors program, consisting of 4-8 units of H196, independent research. As part of the program, students are required to present their research at an approved forum such as the MCB symposium, undergraduate poster session or other professional meeting. Some students also publish in Berkeley Scientific, a student-run journal published out of the Division of Undergraduate & Interdisciplinary Studies Office of Undergraduate Research.
In the College of Natural Resources’ Environmental Science & Policy Management (ESPM) Department a dozen or more courses are offered that have a field research component. These range from a single field trip to Pt. Reyes to a semester-long 13-unit course that involves six weeks of field work at the Moorea Research Station in Tahiti to a soil science course that is cross-listed with UC Davis. He noted that these field research enrichment opportunities are very expensive.
Closing Summary:
In closing, it was noted that academic enrichment opportunities that take students beyond content absorption and regurgitation&emdash;including service-learning, fieldwork, lab experience, and undergraduate research--are all very resource intensive, requiring, for example, space, technicians, GSIs, and most importantly faculty time. A critical question will be how to "enrich" the curriculum without overburdening faculty. Further issues of liability and expense are raised when service learning, field-research and other off-campus educational experiences are considered. There are also many institutional obstacles to expanding these enrichment opportunities: the faculty reward structure disadvantages faculty who teach small numbers of students, and personnel policy has made it difficult to hire joint administrative/academic personnel, who could alleviate the burden on tenure-line faculty. In order to begin to address the issue of resources, we will need to think creatively about how to leverage new programs like the Health Sciences Initiative to benefit undergraduate education or to create new off-campus programs that access the rich resources of neighboring San Francisco to create internship opportunities for our students.
Action Items:
For the next meeting, Koshland suggested we continue our focus on academic departments, as follows:
Davis: Math, Architecture
Koshland: History, PACS, Mechanical Engineering.
Schrager: Comparative Literature, Integrative Biology, Physics, Sociology.
The next sub-committee meeting will take place on Monday, November 22, 11 AM-Noon in 344 Campbell Hall directly following the full CUE meeting at 9 AM.
Meeting Minutes Academic Enrichment Opportunities Sub-Committee November 22, 1999
Members Present: Koshland (Chair), Davis, Mascuch, Maslach, Tanouye Staff Present: Schrager
The sub-committee met following the full CUE meeting and heard the remaining reports on academic enrichment opportunities in selected majors departments.
History/PACS
Cathy Koshland reported on History and Peace and Conflict Studies. Both departments are distinguished by having a required capstone course for all majors, not just for honors students, as well as other small seminar opportunities.
In History, all majors take a junior seminar (103) as well as a senior thesis seminar (101). About 5% of majors also enroll in the honors thesis seminar (H102) and independent thesis study for honors thesis (H195). About 50% of the junior seminars (103s) are taught by faculty; only 3 out of 12 of the senior thesis seminars (101s) were taught by faculty this year, although the intention has been to have more faculty teaching them. The History Department also has a commitment to lower-division seminars; in addition to its freshman seminar offerings (24s), this year the department offered five or six 39s with ladder rank faculty, with enrollments limited to twenty students or less.
PACS also has a capstone seminar that is required for all students in the senior year (190). In addition, PACS major participate in a supervised internship in the community and enroll in a concurrent seminar (186 and 187). This internship seminar helps tie the capstone experience in the major to the students' professional development, teaching skills such a writing a grant proposal and developing a resume.
The PACS internship also falls under the category of service learning opportunities. In History, service learning opportunities are offered through Leon Litwack's course on race relations, which involves tutoring at Berkeley High School.
Math/Linguistics/Architecture
Barbara Davis submitted the following report verbally and by e-mail:
Math:
(1) - does Math have an honors program? if yes, what are the criteria for students to be admitted and approximately how many students are involved? if yes, what are the requirements or opportunities of being an honors math student?
(A) Math has a sequence of honors courses, Math (1A), 1B, 53, 54, 104, 110, 113, 185. These are the core courses in both Pure and Applied math major. Students are free to sign up for these courses if they like, no admission is necessary. Typical class enrollment is 10-20 students, with a drop rate of 25-35%. To get the honors designation, students must have 3.6 in all upper division/graduate courses and 3.3 in overall. In addition students must either write an honors thesis or pass two graduate courses with a grade of A-. Each year maybe 2-3 people write a thesis, and 5-10 students complete the two graduate courses.
(2) - does math have any capstone or small seminar classes for students in their senior year that kind of pull together the whole field? if yes, please describe.
(A) They have two courses that pull things together, math 187 and math 189. These are taught roughly once a year. In general the faculty say "that math is too rich a field to allow an overview. It easily becomes superficial."
(3) - are there opportunities for undergraduates to conduct research in math? if yes, how does it work and how many students participate (approximately)?
The last two years they have created a new course, Math 191. It is a research seminar, where the students are handpicked (normally 10 students are admitted), and they offer the class 3 times a year. The subject matter depends on the teacher expertise, but the idea is to expose the students to reading research level papers. The students can then go on in summer with the teacher and do "sandbox research." Math faculty believe that serious research CANNOT be done by undergraduates. Last year maybe 2-4 students did such summer internships (actually paid by NSF)
(4) - are there any formal kinds of service learning programs in math (e.g., students majoring in math go into the schools and tutor elementary school kids, for ex).
(A) They did have a program where students were tutoring in Oakland tech, but they used the money to create the "teach math" program. In this program they take two students with special interest in highschool teaching. The students get $3000 in their senior year, and $5000 in a subsequent year. The program leads to a teaching credential in addition to the bachelor degree. The idea is to create graduates with strong backgrounds in education and with a couple more math courses than usual for a math major. These students do go to highschools and become substitute teachers in the last semester of the fifth year. The problem is that the students do almost all the work necessary for a master's degree, except writing the thesis. They are trying to make an easy transfer out of this program, into a masters in education.
It should also be mentioned that Prof Wu has experimented with teaching the core upper division courses such that they appeal more to prospective highschool teachers. A little more emphasis on applications and less emphasis on proofs.
Linguistics:
(1) does Linguistics have an honors program? if yes, what are the criteria for students to be admitted and approximately how many students are involved? if yes, what are the requirements or opportunities of being an honors student?
(A) With the approval of the major advisor, a student with a grade point average of 3.5 or higher, both overall and in the upper division requirements for the major, may apply for admission to the honors program. Students are required to take two or more units of Linguistics H195 per semester for at least two semesters. Under the direction of a faculty member, students carry out an approved program on a specific linguistic topic. As evidence of each semester's work, the student must submit a term paper critically summarizing the material that has been covered. Some years we may have only 1 or 2 students signed up for honors; in good years we can have 5-6 students in the program.
(2) does linguistics have any capstone or small seminar classes for students in their senior year that kind of pull together the whole field? if yes, please describe.
(A) Unfortunately not.
(3) Are there opportunities for undergraduates to conduct research in linguistics? if yes, how does it work and how many students participate (approximately)?
(A) A number of our professors have worked with undergraduates through the Undergraduate Research Apprentice Program, including Larry Hyman (Comparative Bantu On-Line Dictionary), Sharon Inkelas (Turkish Electronic Living Lexicon), and Eve Sweetser (Gestures and Abstract Language). There is a possibility that undergraduates will be involved in the research of Professors John Ohala and Ian Maddieson through NSF grants.
(4) are there any formal kinds of service learning programs in linguistics (e.g., students majoring in linguistics go into the schools and tutor elementary school kids, for ex).
(A) No.
Architecture:
(1) - does architecture have an honors program? if yes, what are the criteria for students to be admitted and approximately how many students are involved? if yes, what are the requirements or opportunities of being an honors student?
(A) NO
(2) - does architecture have any capstone or small seminar classes for students in their senior year that kind of pull together the whole field? if yes, please describe.
(A) YES. Architecture has a capstone seminar that explores the relationship between practice and the discipline. The course is offered each semester and involves students being assigned to an architectural office (placements arranged by the department). Students "work" in an office and attend class to discuss what they are learning. The course can only be taken in a student's final semester. About 45 students a year participate in this course. This is the 8th year of this course.
(3) - are there opportunities for undergraduates to conduct research in architecture? if yes, how does it work and how many students participate (approximately)?
(A) YES. Undergraduates can be appointed as RAs for extramural grants, but mostly graduate students fulfill these roles. About 2-3 undergrads a year work with faculty on their extramural grants.
(4) - are there any formal kinds of service learning programs in architecture?
(A) NOT FORMAL BUT DEFINITE OPPORTUNITIES. These activities are typically organized by student groups and run by students. Students do community service in such organizations as Habitat for Humanity, Asian Development (in SF) and other nonprofits that focus on housing and planning issues. About 50-60 undergraduates a year participate in some type of service activity, usually without receiving course credit.
Comparative Literature/Integrative Biology/Physics/Sociology
Cynthia Schrager reported on four departments with which the Office of Undergraduate Research is currently partnering to promote undergraduate research/capstone experiences for their majors.
Of the four, Physics has the lowest ratio of faculty to students and, significantly, the highest number of "enrichment" opportunities afforded its majors. These include several Service Learning opportunities, in which students teach in local elementary schools. Physics also has a number of resources for undergraduates interested in research, including what may be the only departmentally based funding program for undergraduate research on campus; the program gives any declared physics or astrophysics major a $500 stipend upon completion of a "deliverable" under the supervision of a faculty sponsor. The department hosts an annual undergraduate poster session and is starting up a one-semester Intro to Research seminar, modeled after the graduate level seminar offered by the department. The department also has an honors program that includes a one-semester seminar plus one or two semesters of independent research. On the whole, its courses are small (25-30 in upper-division and 15-20 in some specialized courses). The department appears to have access to external funding sources for academic enrichment; for instance, they are providing a student group with money to start a student run journal in the physical sciences.
Comparative Literature shares features with other small humanities departments discussed in the previous meeting. Comp Lit classes are generally small, and all students take a senior seminar. Honor students have typically pursued the thesis as an independent study with a faculty sponsor they identify; however, the department is beginning to organize a group cohort for honors students, although no formal seminar currently exists. Students are strongly encouraged to pursue Education Abroad options through referrals to the campus EAP office. No service learning opportunities are offered through the department.
Integrative Biology also has no formal seminar structure for senior honors students; however, like Comp Lit, the department is tentatively exploring the possibility of making the capstone experience more formal. Currently, the honors thesis and other independent research is done through independent studies. There are no small seminars at the upper-division level, but advanced undergraduates are encouraged to take graduate seminars; about 5 undergraduates do so each semester. The department has a well-established Service Learning course, taught by Marian Diamond, which involves teaching anatomy in the public schools. It also offers a 13-unit field research course in Tahiti (cross-listed with Geography and CNR-ESPM). This course culminates in a symposium in which students present the results of their research, thus combining a number of the enrichment features this sub-committee is interested in promoting.
Finally, the Sociology Department offers a two-semester honors thesis seminar, taught by a faculty member and two GSIs. The seminar, at 30 students, is larger than they would like. They have a new course call Field Methods and Research Program, taught by Martin Sanchez-Jankowski, which permits students to work as part of a research team with the Center for Urban Ethnography in the Survey Research Center. Sociology majors are also required to take at least one upper-division seminar, which is limited to 20 students. Five to eight are offered each semester and about half are taught by faculty and the remainder by GSIs. Although Sociology would seem to lend itself to Service Learning, the department has not to date pursued incorporating a field component into the curriculum, because it does not feel it has the resources to deal with the volume of majors undertaking this component. This is perceived as a large unmet need in the department.
The last sub-committee meeting of the semester will take place on Tuesday, November 30 at 2 PM in 344 Campbell Hall immediately preceding the full CUE meeting at 3 PM.
Members Present: Koshland (Chair), Davis, Mascuch, Maslach, Tanouye
Staff Present: Schrager
The sub-committee met briefly prior to the full committee meeting. The discussion was free-ranging and centered on the desirability of establishing a context for "academic enrichment" over the four-year undergraduate education.
Michael Mascuch suggested we need to think about a "cornerstone experience" as well as a capstone experience. Cathy Koshland agreed and suggested that the freshman seminar and/or 1A-1B writing course provide that in the Freshman year and could/should be enhanced. She would also like to see the 39s or Sophomore Seminars developed and enhanced, along the lines of Stanford's Sophomore College, where many sophomores take an intensive seminar prior to the start of the fall semester. She pointed to the History Department, where a commitment has been made to offer a number of small sophomore seminars taught by ladder-rank faculty. If Berkeley were to adopt a Stanford-type model, it might utilize the existing summer sessions or perhaps create a winter "intersession" as some east coast colleges have done. (The latter would involve addressing logistical issues raised by legislative requirements for weeks in session.) Both Mascuch and Koshland stressed the need to also offer opportunities for students, especially non-math and science students, to develop quantitative and computer literacy (understood as two separate kinds of literacy) as a cornerstone to a Berkeley education.
The discussion then turned to the capstone experience in the majors. It is clear from the informal survey of departments conducted by the sub-committee that the capstone experience that students have in the various majors varies widely. Furthermore, in many majors, the opportunity for a formal capstone experience is limited to honors students. Another area that needs to be addressed in the context of the capstone experience is Junior-year preparation, particularly as regards methods courses. Christina Maslach suggested that the University might want to establish broad criteria for a capstone experience, and then ask departments to come up with new or existing courses that would meet those criteria. Tentative thoughts toward such criteria included: 1) that the capstone experience should be inquiry-based or project-based; and 2) that it should involve the opportunity to present the results of the inquiry or project to an audience. Koshland added that the presentation should also involve rigorous dialogue and interaction with an audience, and Mascuch noted that the development of communication/presentation skills needs to be part of the cornerstone as well as the capstone experience.
The meeting was adjourned to make way for the full CUE meeting which followed immediately.
January 24, 2000 Meeting Minutes
Present: Koshland (Chair), Davis, Maslach, Schrager (Staff)
Absent: Mascuch, Tanouye
Meeting Schedule for Spring 2000 Semester:
The sub-committee will meet on the following Mondays 2:15-3:30 PM:
2/7 (339 Campbell, 2:30 start time)
2/14 (102 Campbell)
3/6 (261 Campbell)
3/20 (261 Campbell)
4/10 (102 Campbell)
5/1 (261 Campbell)
Summary of Discussion:
Cathy Koshland began by giving a brief report of the full CUE meeting of 1/21/00. She stated that the Chancellor has asked for the two proposals sent to him thus far to be placed in a broader context. To this end, the Commission has decided to take the following actions: 1) to draft a concept paper that can provide an overall vision and conceptual framework for specific implementation plans; and 2) to review recommendations from reports on undergraduate education from the last decade or more in order to evaluate what has been implemented already and what remains to be done.
Koshland noted that she is not at all sure that academic enrichment opportunities--this sub-committee's area of charge-- --should be conceptualized as "extras." Rather, these opportunities should be "mainstreamed" and made an integral part of a Berkeley undergraduate education. The concept paper should provide an academic framework and justification for these so-called "enrichment" activities, e.g. that an inquiry-based capstone project be an integral part of every Berkeley student's education, not just that of a select group of honors students or students in random majors.
The sub-committee spent some time brainstorming about the concept paper: its content, form and intended audiences. In addition to laying out a vision for undergraduate education encompassing the three phases Koshland outlined in the full CUE meeting, it was suggested that, like the Boyer Report, the document might give some concrete, anecdotal examples of best practices already occurring on the Berkeley campus. Members also discussed a variety of potential audiences for the document:
Sub-Committee members also identified several challenges that must be faced in the implementation of such a vision, including:
Sub-committee members reiterated the need to gain a historical view of shifts in undergraduate education at Berkeley. Davis also noted that attention to undergraduate education has waxed and waned over the decades and agreed that it is essential for the Commission to examine and tie together the work of previous reports, as is the intention of the new sub-committee that VC Padilla is chairing.
Action Item: Contact Diane Harley at the Center for Studies on Higher Education to see what materials she can provide to document the history of undergraduate education at Berkeley, including relevant sections of Clark Kerr's memoirs.
Next Meeting: Monday, February 7, 2:30-3:30 PM in 339 Campbell.
DRAFT UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH CONCEPT PAPER (2/9/00)
Overview :
On February 3-4, 2000, the first in a series of UC system-wide Dialogues on Undergraduate Education took place at UCLA. The focus of the meeting was: Research as a Cornerstone of Undergraduate Education for Students in the University of California. The UC Berkeley campus was represented by the following delegates: Carolyn Porter, Dean of Undergraduate Education, Catherine P. Koshland, Professor of Engineering, and Terry Strathman, Director, Office of Undergraduate Research.
The objectives of the meeting were:
*to draft a clear and compelling statement of the role of undergraduate research and creative activities at the University of California
*to draft a clear definition of undergraduate research and creative activities
*to identify barriers (faced by students, faculty, and administrators) to promoting and supporting undergraduate research and creative activities
*to identify best practices on the various UC campuses that support and facilitate undergraduate research and creative activities
This meeting serves as a useful catalyst for the Commission on Undergraduate Education to engage in an examination of Undergraduate Research on the UC Berkeley campus and to lay the groundwork for a campus-specific strategy to enhance the undergraduate research experience. To this end, the sub-committee on Academic Enrichment Opportunities offers the following outline of issues and recommendations:
Opportunities and Assets:
As a research university, UC Berkeley has an abundance of assets that can enrich the undergraduate educational experience: an outstanding research faculty, a talented cadre of graduate students and post-docs, and laboratory, research and library facilities commensurate with Berkeley's status as a world-class university. Just as research is integral to the faculty and graduate experience, so research can be incorporated into the undergraduate experience at Berkeley both in and outside the classroom
Issues and Barriers:
Despite the rich resources available, a number of obstacles exist that present challenges to efforts to make research an integral part of the undergraduate experience.
For students, these include: shyness in approaching faculty members, lack of time outside of classroom and work commitments, a lack of adequate preparation for research, and a lack of funding that can support their research efforts, both in terms of time and resources.
For faculty, constraints include: a lack of time, a lack of institutional incentive/rewards, a lack of desire to work with undergraduates in some cases, and a lack of funding and resources. In addition, there are discipline-specific barriers, particularly in the humanities and social sciences, While a strong apprenticeship model exists in science and engineering laboratories, where post-docs, graduates students and undergraduates work together under the mentorship of a faculty member, humanities and social science faculty have typically not evolved similar models to introduce undergraduates to research as apprentices. A bias toward autonomy and independence (the lone creative genius) and the absence of an institutionalized mechanism whereby more senior apprentices (graduate students, post-docs) can be used to mentor junior apprentices mean that faculty may be both resistant to and burdened by attempts to expand undergraduate research opportunities in those fields.
From an administrative viewpoint, campus obstacles include the decentralization of administrative programs supporting undergraduate research, the absence of a mechanism by which to recognize and reward undergraduate mentorship, the absence of monies and resources to support such efforts (particularly unrestricted funds), and the difficulty inherent in coming up with a model that is sufficiently flexible to accommodate the very different needs of the various disciplines and departments.
Best Practices:
Despite these obstacles, a there are a number of exemplary practices currently occurring on the campus, as well as opportunities to expand and build on other practices that have the potential to support undergraduate research efforts. These include:
[Agenda Item?: Commission members can help to identify best practices we want to investigate and to highlight.]
Conclusions and Recommendations:
Issues involving undergraduate research cannot be separated from issues involving undergraduate education more broadly. Thus, the 3-phase framework for undergraduate education that the Commission has crafted can also provide a framework for understanding how undergraduate research can become part of the overall Berkeley experience.
The Cornerstone Phase: In this first phase, research can be incorporated into the lower-division curriculum through courses designed to introduce students to basic library research skills and qualitative and quantitative research tools that are foundational in a broad array of disciplines. In addition, students in the lower-division, especially in the sophomore year once they have gained skills through the lower-division curriculum, have the opportunity to serve as apprentices to Faculty-initiated research through programs such as the Undergraduate Research Apprentice Program (URAP) and the College of Engineering's Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program (UROP). Such opportunities should be expanded to include more faculty and to provide funding to support such efforts. The university should build on existing models that are successful to make such opportunities available to a broader group of students.
The Springing Point: The second phase, in which students are launched into the study of a specific discipline and its methodology, is a critical step toward preparing the student to engage in a student-initiated capstone project in the senior year. Methods courses in the majors help to prepare students to initiate independent projects, under the guidance and tutelage of a faculty member(s), and in some cases to apply for funding programs to support the capstone project. Apprenticeships with faculty researchers in this middle phase can continue to give students critical transferable skills that they can use to initiate their own projects or to extend and develop work they are already doing under faculty supervision in a more self-directed way.
The Capstone Experience: We recommend that the "capstone" experience should be an integral part of every Berkeley undergraduate's education; however, we recognize that the specific parameters of such an experience are best defined within the given discipline or department. This might take the form of a thesis, a research or design project, or even an internship for example. Thus, capstone courses in the majors may look very different depending upon the discipline, ranging from relatively autonomous effort to team projects; despite these inherent differences, capstone courses should function to create and sustain a community of scholars engaged in related pursuits, who come together under the tutelage of a faculty member for mutual support. In addition, for a number of students, funding programs, such as the Haas Scholars Program, the Biology Fellows Program, the President's Undergraduate Fellowship and the McNair Scholars Program provide opportunities beyond the major to receive support, guidance and community. We recommend that such opportunities be expanded and that successes be replicated wherever possible.
March 20, 2000 Meeting Minutes
Members Present: Koshland (Chair), Maslach
Staff Present: Schrager
Members Unable to Attend: Davis, Mascuch, Tanouye
The sub-committee meeting was structured as a working session to respond to the action items delineated in Gregg Thomson's memo of March 17, 2000 regarding the proposed CUE survey of undergraduates. We also reviewed a redraft of question #3 that Barbara Davis submitted in absentia, which we used as a starting point for the discussion.
We focussed not only on revising Question #3--the question assigned to us--but also on the qualitative section as a whole. Koshland and Maslach felt that the questions were too long and might discourage response. Furthermore, they wondered whether students responding to the survey had sufficient distance on their education to give thoughtful responses to Question #2 on the relationship between their undergraduate education and their long-term goals. For this reason, they recommended that Question #2 be eliminated and that Questions #1 and #3 be revised as submitted below. No revisions were suggested for Question #4.
(Note: We assumed that the audience for the first set of questions in each case was the Commission (i.e. a clarification of what we were trying to find out) and not the students (i.e. not language that would actually appear in the survey.))
Revised Question #1:
How have students chosen majors and activities (academic and otherwise) during their time as undergraduates? What factors have influenced them and whose advice have they relied upon (staff, faculty, peers, etc.)? What obstacles have they encountered?
Every semester all students have to make choices about their education here at Berkeley. These include choices about a major, which courses to take, and where to go for advice or advising. Please discuss the kinds of choices you make and how you make them. In particular, how have you gone about choosing (or changing) a major? Who or what factors have influenced your choice? Also, how do you choose your courses? And where do you go for advice about all the choices you have to make? Please explain candidly with details and examples.
Revised Question #3:
What kinds of opportunities have students had to discover or
generate new knowledge, integrate or synthesize knowledge, or apply
the knowledge they have gained to real world examples?
Undergraduate students at Berkeley have a variety of opportunities to
participate in activities both inside and outside of the classroom
that can provide significant intellectual discovery and academic growth. Such activities might include conducting original research with a
professor or on your own, undertaking an honors thesis, exploring a
particular topic in depth through classroom assignments or out of
class research, spending a semester abroad or at an off-campus educational program, participating in a community service activity for credit or linked to a class and so on.
Have you participated in any of these kinds of activities so far at
Berkeley? If so, please describe the one or two significant
experiences that you have had that have been most meaningful to you
in terms of your intellectual growth. Please tell us candidly: Is
having these kinds of experiences important to you? If so, what kinds of opportunities or obstacles have you encountered?
Koshland and Maslach also requested that Thomson submit a draft of the quantitative section for their review.
The next sub-committee meeting will take place on Monday, April 10 at 2:15 PM in 102 Campbell Hall.
April 17, 2000 Meeting Minutes
Present: Koshland (chair), Davis, Maslach, Tanouye, Schrager (staff)
Absent: Mascuch
Koshland began by requesting a recap from the 4/3/00 CUE meeting, which she was unable to attend. In view of this sub-committee's charge, Schrager particularly noted Ling Chi Wang's statement that the Commission's report should include a strong recommendation regarding creation of increased opportunities for Berkeley students to engage in education abroad programs. Such programs address the challenges of expanded enrollment (Tidal Wave II) at the same time as they add value to the Berkeley undergraduate education.
The ensuing discussion focussed around the contribution the sub-committee will make to the Commission's final report. Koshland requested that the sub-committee come up with specific recommendations to present to the full Commission regarding service learning and education abroad programs, as well opportunities for discovery and invention in and outside the classroom (aka undergraduate research). Discussion focussed on a number of issues including:
&Mac183; the lack of permanent funding and administrative affiliation for the Center for Service Learning;
&Mac183; the decentralization of service opportunities on campus, the resulting obstacles for students, and the possibilities for creating more user-friendly services, via technology or otherwise;
&Mac183; the need for more resources for faculty, including course release time, to encourage the creation of service opportunities that are have pedagogical and intellectual value--whether or not they are tied to course credit;
&Mac183; the need to examine risk management issues related to service learning;
&Mac183; the importance of opening up education abroad programs to students in areas such as math and science, not just students of language and culture (e.g. Maslach noted a successful math program in Budapest that exposes students to cutting edge international research);
&Mac183; the need to find alternatives to the "competitive proposal approach" to soliciting ideas for new academic programs and to foster approaches which are less draining on faculty time and resources.
Action item: Koshland requested that sub-committee members e-mail suggested recommendations to the CUE3 listserv by Thursday, April 27. Schrager will then compile a draft of recommendations for review and discussion at the final sub-committee meeting on Monday, May 1, with a view toward submitting the sub-committee's recommendations to the full Commission on May 8, 2000.
Next Meeting: Monday, May 1 at 2:15 PM in 261 Campbell Hall.
Last updated on 5/9/00 by CS.