CU:

A Colorado Challenge

A Colorado Challenge - Memo #5

In August 2004 I started a conversation with the faculty of the College regarding the academic challenge that we were providing to our undergraduate students. This conversation followed a review of a number of surveys that collectively suggested that we may not have always challenged our students as much as we could, or that they had expected from us. In April 2005 the deans and I shared a number of recommendations for curricular improvement that we had culled from discussions that academic year with individuals and A&S departments and programs. Those recommendations included suggestions of promising instructional techniques, course content and assignment recommendations, recommendations related to grading, and recommendations related to the use of FCQs in personnel evaluations. Colorado Challenge Memo #3, issued in October 2005, called attention to a study conducted by faculty and graduate students from the Department of Communication. I thought that their findings on the nature of meaningful course assignments and on student perceptions of reading assignments had general relevance. Memo #4 was issued in December of last year and communicated a number of recommendations from an ASC task force regarding curricular integrity and rigor. Most notable were recommendations that units i) take steps to insure similarity of multiple-sectioned and frequently taught courses, ii) apply stricter enforcement of course prerequisites, and iii) provide orientation to unit standards and practices to their newly hired and short-term instructional staff. (All these memos are on the College website should you wish to revisit them.)

What has our three years of conversation produced? There has been a perceptible improvement to many courses provided to our majors, and in many disciplines there has been a renewed emphasis on the coordination of material in the introductory courses to the major. We have adopted more examples of "active learning" pedagogies, particularly in the natural sciences, and many more of our colleagues expect meaningful written work from their students. Some units have modified their introductory course contents, and a few units have eliminated course content redundancy when it was found not to serve an educational purpose. One of the expected consequences of this effort was a slight lowering of assigned grades. This has been realized and was the subject of some local and national media attention. However, I believe that the underlying improvements in quality have been the more significant changes.

There are institutional limitations to making as much progress in this area as most would like. Large class size, frequently a negative factor on instructional quality, continues to plague us because of our financial and classroom constraints. Our student/faculty ratio remains much higher than our AAU peers, although we've made modest but fragile progress. Fundamental improvement in our prerequisite enforcement must await a new registration software system. Despite these limitations, individual faculty members and department curriculum committees are continuing to take on curricular revision, particularly in areas discussed in Memo #4. (If your unit has not yet addressed memo #4 topics, I urge you to do so.) In addition the A&S Curriculum Committee has begun a systematic review of our Core Curriculum courses for quality and for fidelity to the goals of each Core requirement. I encourage departments to continue their efforts this year.

Without abandoning our focus on the classroom improvements that will enhance our ability to offer a challenging educational experience today, I would like to expand this Colorado Challenge conversation into a new area — that of long range planning. Chancellor Peterson has led the campus in a strategic planning exercise — Flagship 2030- that is nearing finalization. That document (www.colorado.edu/chancellor/flagship2030/index.html) includes a number of initiatives and ideas that may affect the future educational mission of your unit. They include:

Some of these ideas (e.g., three semester year) will require long development times or require preparatory commitments outside of academic departments, but others can be explored and tested by departments and programs over the next few years. Do any of these strategic ideas offer an opportunity for you and your unit to improve the challenge and quality of your undergraduate program, now or on the longer-term horizon?

I would like to encourage unit curriculum committees to review the Flagship 2030 document and ask if there are any ideas that should be explored by your department. There are several indications that shortly after the strategic plan has been adopted, the Chancellor will issue a call for proposals from individuals and units that are interested in planning for, developing, or implementing ideas contained within the document. Behind the call for proposals will probably be some one-time or short-term funding, with a potential for more continuing funds for the most promising ideas. This may be an opportunity to improve your curriculum, or to fund some of the Colorado Challenge ideas that you have already discussed but have set aside for lack of seed funding.

As individuals and committees set their curricular agendas for the year, please review the older Colorado Challenge memos and continue to implement those changes that improve the quality and challenge of your educational offerings. In addition, please do look to the Flagship 2030 document for novel or longer-term ideas that you would like to develop or test-drive once the Chancellor invites you to respond. As always, the divisional deans and I look forward to discussing these ideas with you when we join you for one of your faculty meetings this fall.

Attachment: As requested by the ASC Task Force, I attach a summary of GPA data by unit, 2004- 2007