Following the return from winter break and the beginning of the spring term, the Faculty Senate received a proposal from the Core Curriculum Committee proposing the modification of the core “writing intensive” course requirement. The committee, chaired by Professor Christoph Steinbruchel of the Materials Science and Engineering Department, has proposed the creation of a “communication intensive” requirement. According to a November memo on the subject, this proposal would move away from the heavy emphasis on writing, and place emphasis equally on oral, written, and visual interpretation and presentation of information.
According to Steinbruchel, “the purpose of renaming the requirement is to broaden it beyond writing.” Some courses currently designated writing intensive, unless modified by the professor, may not be deemed communication intensive. In general, the proposal will retain the writing requirement as a component of communication intensive courses, but will require additional forms above and beyond the written word in the form of oral communication and visual presentations.
The proposal’s goals seemed to echo a recommendation from the Task Force on Undergraduate Communication, which recommended establishing a framework for assignment criteria, such that both students and professors will have to proactively demonstrate their work to be communication intensive. The recommendation calls for “at least three graded assignments that result in formal presentations in written, oral, and/or visual media.” The two communication intensive courses will be required for all new students, and at least one of them must be in the student’s major. Currently, there are approximately 53 writing intensive courses within students’ majors, not all of which will be designated communication intensive.
Another memo from Professor Lee Odell to the H&SS Faculty Council regarding the communication intensive proposal addressed several concerns brought up by faculty. In answer to the question of whether faculty teaching communication intensive courses would need to teach writing/public speaking, Odell responded that they should not need to do so at the expense of teaching their subject matter as long as they had small classes and the support of the Writing Center. As to questions regarding whether the proposed auditing process of communication intensive courses would impose on academic freedoms or create a needless bureaucracy, Odell responded by saying that a careful balance was needed in terms of course regulation and the liberty a faculty member has over his course over time.
According to Steinbruchel, the proposal for communication intensive courses was submitted in writing to the Faculty Senate and the Student Senate. Additionally, a presentation of the proposal will soon be made to the Student Senate. Steinbruchel indicated that the Faculty Senate would most likely vote on the issue sometime this spring.
In a memo to the Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee, Odell stated, “By any measure, the Writing Center is drastically underfunded.” Several factors were at fault for this, including TA staffing (12 a few years ago to four currently), budgetary constraints, and lack of any sophisticated technology. Additionally, the memo noted a possible shortage of course sections for students. Courses with the WRIT prefix accommodate 650 students while First Year Studies courses accommodate 300. The curriculum committee indicated that it planned to accommodate 1,200 students.
Though the memo seemed to suggest that RPI lacks some of the staffing and support necessary for such a change in the near-term, the proposal probably will not become effective for at least the next academic year.
However, if and when the changes are completed, courses will be held to a consistent standard, and that may serve to alter the perception that many RPI students are poor communicators and alleviate complaints that many of the writing intensive courses are not completely legitimate in terms of content. In a recent survey, RPI alumni rated the Institute three out of five in terms of preparation for communication in the professional world.
Last year, a 22-part proposal with changes to the core curriculum, that would have required a biology course Institute-wide, was voted down by the full faculty 144 to 64. The proposed communication requirement has not yet been acted on by the full Faculty Senate.
