UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS ACADEMIC SENATE

Committee on Teaching

Annual Report May 15, 2001

The Committee on Teaching focused on two issues during 2000-2001.

The first item considered was the proposal to use the Varsity theater in downtown Davis as a lecture hall for university classes. The committee considered the benefits and potential problems. The committee report details the logistical difficulties that are foreseen with the proposal. The committee report is attached.

The second focus of the committee was the College of Letters and Science review of the composition requirement. The task force was chaired by Prof. Karl Zender. The committee on teaching considered the recommendations in the report. The committee evaluation of the individual items are in the committee report, which is attached.

The committee on teaching also contributed membership to the Chancellor’s Teaching Fellowship Committee, the Academic Senate award for excellence in teaching, and the Outstanding Graduate Student Teaching Award committee. The selection of the outstanding graduate TAs is in progress, with the award reception on Wednesday, June 6th from 3:30-5pm in MU II.

Prof. Peter B. Kelly

Chair, Committee on Teaching

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS ACADEMIC SENATE

Committee on Teaching

Considerations on the use of the Varsity Theater for instruction 11/21/00

Use of the Varsity Theater for large daytime classes is an idea worth consideration, however there are serious concerns that will require significant planning and effort. Our discussion assumed that the campus theaters would be used to the extent available. Questions would be raised regarding renting of an off campus theater if the Main Theater or new Performing Arts Center Theaters were not first considered for instructional use. Additionally, would renovation of Freeborn Hall be an economical alternative?

The need for additional space for large, > 300 student, classes is clear to the faculty on the teaching committee. The projected campus growth implies an increase in the enrollment of the lower division required and prerequisite classes. Economies of scale require that most of the prerequisite courses be taught as large lecture courses, with smaller weekly discussion sections. The current campus population stresses the available resources. The only option to avoid the need for additional space for lower division courses is a dramatic increase in the number of transfer students from community colleges and state universities.

Evening classes is an option for accommodating an increase in the number large lecture classes, however there are significant drawbacks. The problem raised by the undergraduates on the committee related to the logistics of coming back onto campus after dinner and the disruption of study time in the evening. They felt there would be an impact on the attendance, if not enrollment, if required courses were offered in the early evening hours. The perception that the university cannot provide "reasonable" scheduling of classes may have a negative impact on the ability to draw the best undergraduates to UC Davis. There is heavy use of the evening hours for lower division laboratory sections. The potential gain of offering a large lecture section in the evening could be significantly offset by the scheduling conflict with laboratory sections of the large lower division courses (biology, chemistry, physics). As the cost of construction of laboratory space far exceeds that of lecture space, full utilization of the instructional laboratories takes priority.

Renovation of the Varsity Theater for instructional use would include changes in seating to provide a writing surface, projection capabilities equivalent to those found in 1100 Social Sciences, and appropriate lighting. It is assumed that recovery of the cost of renovations would require significant use of the Varsity Theater on a daily basis. It is acknowledged that renovation costs generally are far less than construction costs, thus lacking an alternative the use of the Varsity is an idea worth consideration.

Use of the Varsity Theater for large daytime classes raises logistical and behavioral issues as well as seriously affects town-university relations. Logistics of moving 400 students in, and another 400 students out of the downtown on an hourly basis is daunting. Changes and increases in bus routes are required. Development of bike and vehicle parking are essential. The undergraduates on the committee noted that there would be a tendency to spend more time in the downtown area during the daytime hours, yielding an increase in student commerce and a potential distraction from attending classes on campus. Difficulties in logistics would affect attendance in on campus classes as well as classes held in the Varsity Theater.

The impact on the downtown community has significant advantages and disadvantages. The obvious advantages include above-mentioned tendency of the students to spend more time shopping in the downtown area. Assumption of a class size of 400 places 1200 students in the downtown area between the hours of 11 am and 2 pm. Shifting of the need to provide lunchtime dining facilities from campus to the private sector downtown poses potential facilities savings for the university and a bonanza for the downtown eateries. However, movement of 1200 students to and from the Varsity Theater during those hours has the potential to make the downtown impassable to the current clientele, consume all available vehicle parking, and essentially change the shopping patterns of the non-student population. Use of the Varsity Theater with classes of 400 students with just five classes per day yields 2000 students in the downtown area. There is the potential of enlisting the downtown merchants in contributing toward enhanced bus service to and from campus. The town – university relationship would be changed.

A clear comprehensive plan, similar in scope to an environmental impact statement, would be required before proceeding with the proposition of using the Varsity Theater for instructional use. Anticipation of potential problems and advantages could be ascertained by canvassing the other UC campuses as to their use and experiences with off campus lecture facilities. Co-ordination with the city of Davis with regard to traffic congestion, significantly expanded bike lanes or conversion of a street to bike/pedestrian only, bike parking facilities, car parking facilities, and bus schedules would be required. Co-ordination with the downtown merchants, perhaps through the chamber of commerce or a downtown merchants association, would be strongly recommended. There are both potential benefits and difficulties for both the university and the town implied in the proposed use of the Varsity Theater. On campus alternatives should be fully explored. Careful implementation of the use of the Varsity Theater would require significant planning and effort, however it is an idea worth consideration.

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS ACADEMIC SENATE

Committee on Teaching

Review of the Report of the Task Force to Review the L&S Composition Requirement

(Zender Report)

Summary follows format of Items 1-17

Item 1 First Level Course and Second Level Group A

Restructuring of level 1 and level 2A courses is one of the components in the Zender Report. The current requirements allow students to distribute their writing courses in a U shaped curve. They take it their first year and then put the remainder off until right before they graduate. The Zender Report proposes that there be a course in-between. Co-ordination with ethnic studies departments to accommodate anticipated increased enrollment appears to be prudent. Level 1 courses can be taken at junior colleges, perhaps level 2A courses as well. The Committee has concerns regarding the lack of standardization in JC vs. University writing courses.

Item 1 Second Level Group B

The committee was positive on the idea of the level 2 B courses in the subject area of the major. A key element is the requirement that students revise graded written assignments. The reconsideration of the graded work would be extremely beneficial in development of writing skills. Anecdotal examples were given of students in upper division major courses not even bothering to pick up graded written work, never mind considering what was "wrong" with their writing. There was some discussion that the minimum writing requirement seemed low.

Level 2B courses will add relevance to the writing curriculum in the context of the students' major field of study. The level 2B requirements will generally need to be incorporated into existing majors courses due to cap on credit hours that can be required. Such modification of the courses will require consent and co-operation of the various departments across campus. A flexible time frame for implementation will need to be adopted. The committee members generally feel that the level 2B requirement could be accomplished without significant difficulty and would enhance the quality of education at UCD.

The inclusion of graded writing and revisions would be on top of existing work, the question then comes: Who will do the grading? The Zender report suggests that TAs from the home departments would take courses in English to learn how to do the grading. That suggestion was greeted with skepticism. It was felt that a short workshop, similar to TA training workshops common in several departments would be more appropriate if the home departments exercised some care in selecting qualified candidates. The proposed alternative, asking a TA in the sciences to take English courses as a requirement of employment may raise issues in collective bargaining as well as in the home departments.

In several departments, the initial TA training is done in the form of one or two week workshops in September. Similar workshops could be instituted for TAs in the level 2B courses. The question of funds for increased TAs to accommodate the increased workload of the level 2B courses needs to be addressed, as does funds for operating the TA training workshops.

Item 3

Recommendation was discussed, appeared reasonable.

Item 4 and 5

Recommendations were discussed, appeared reasonable.

Item 6

“Transfer intensive” is not defined. Text on page 22 of the Zender Report recommends “rehousing” of English 102 A-G in “the disciplines on which their instruction focuses.”

It is not clear if these two items are related, but both relate to the Level 2A courses. The “rehousing” appears to represent a reduction in workload for the English department. There is concern that diffusing the English 102 courses among the various disciplines will weaken the instructional effort.

Item 7 and 8

The committee agrees with the recommendations.

Item 9

The Committee suggests allowing an exemption in the First Level, but not in the Second Level.

Item 10

The Committee questions the exemption of students from the Second Level, Group B courses.

Items 11 and 12

The items were discussed. No concerns were raised.

Item 13

The Committee questions the benefits of this proposal. What would be gained?

Item 14

The Committee has questions regarding the funding of this proposal. However some effort to retain highly qualified instructors in Lecturer SOE positions rather than in revolving three-year contracts would improve stability and consistency of the program. Moving to Lecturer SOE positions may have the added benefit of reducing the administrative workload associated with searches and initial employment paperwork.

Item 15

The Committee questions how this proposal contributes to an improved writing component.

Item 16

The committee questions the need, responsibilities, and structure of CTW.

a) Oversight of courses is already the charge of the COCI.

b) In reference to comments on Item 1 Level 2B, TA training would be best accomplished in workshops rather than in courses.

c) Efforts to “relocate” English 102 courses into the disciplinary areas are viewed with caution. Such a change in structure would shift responsibility without an obvious readjustment of budgetary and administrative resources.

d) Shifting responsibility for administering the English Composition Exam would require a readjustment of budgetary and administrative resources.

e) CAI appears to be a good concept.

f) –

g) The LSC currently handles tutoring services. It is not clear why there is a need for the CTW to take over this function.

h) Co-ordination of effort on level 1 and 2A courses with the junior colleges is a more critical form of outreach. The undergraduates on the committee have the feeling that the rigor of current level 1 courses offered at JCs varies widely. UCD cannot tell the JCs how to teach, but it was clear that constructive dialog with the Junior Colleges on establishing guidelines for level 1 and level 2A courses (note level 2A is to be moved to lower division) appears to be overdue.

Developing a K-12 outreach program is also a good idea.

Item 17

No comments.