TO:

FROM:
DATE:
RE:

Members of the General Education Task Force

University College English Committee
Kristen Olson, Chair
October 31, 2014
General Education Prototype Feedback

The University College English Committee (UCEC) is an advisory body representing English
faculty on the 14 University College Campuses. Our faculty teach general education courses in
writing, literature, womens studies, film, comparative literature, American studies, and
integrative arts. We have reviewed the three prototypes and our current general education
program and offer the following comments to the General Education Task Force.

The UCEC supports the emphasis on writing skills within the current general education
curriculum, and thus endorses this aspect of the Modern Literacies Prototype.
The UCEC acknowledges the critical importance of flexibility in general education
requirements, and of exposure to diverse academic experiences, and endorses elements of
all three models that preserve flexibility as well as equitable distribution of required credits
among general education areas.

Thus, we express the following concerns about the three prototypes proposed:

The UCEC strongly opposes changes to the writing skills elements of general education.
These include:
Conflation of CAS 100 and ENGL 15 into a single course (Chosen Topics Prototype).
Although there are some commonalities between the courses, the two disciplines are
methodologically and pedagogically distinct. The opportunity to focus on the demands of verbal
presentation and of written presentation is critical to the development of strong skills in both of
these fundamental areas.
English and Communication draw upon faculty who are experts in their specific fields, with
particular knowledge and training, as well as research that they share with students in the
classroom. Students benefit from this diversity. The academic integrity of Composition and
Communication must therefore be maintained as discrete disciplines, with distinct purposes,
standards, pedagogies, and means of assessment.
A 6-credit variation of the combined course might be feasible in the longer term, as currently
piloted in the Schreyer Honors College, where there is continuity from one semester to the next.
However, designing and implementing such a course will require considerable planning,
collaboration, and cross-training, something extremely difficult to maintain at the campuses,
where much of this instruction is provided by adjunct lecturers.

Requiring that English 202 (or Advanced Writing) be taken in the sophomore year (Chosen
Topics Prototype).
Moving ENGL 202 into the second year for all students will require significant additional
staffing at the 2+2 campuses to provide an additional limited-enrollment course to the entire
student body. The need to hire additional faculty can be mitigated somewhat by incorporating
members of faculty in other disciplines into the teaching staff for this course (i.e. writing in the
social sciences could be taught by a social scientist), though not fully. There would also be an
impact at University Park, where graduate students do much of the 202 teaching. Displacing all
202 instruction to the sophomore year, and thus substantially to the campuses, would lessen the
need for graduate student instructors and the commensurate funding for graduate students in
English.
Elimination of ENGL 202 (Scaffolded Prototype).
Penn State's existing writing requirements are weaker than those of most peer institutions.
Universities commonly require a two-semester composition sequence, addressing fundamentals
of grammar and structure in the first semester, building to the organizational skills of argument
and persuasive writing in the second semester. Fifteen weeks is not sufficient time for students
to develop the complex skills they will need in order to be successful in their academic majors
and in their chosen professions.
While ENGL 202 does not extend fundamental composition instruction to the extent that a twosemester composition sequence would, it does provide an introduction to specialized writing as
students deepen their work in a major discipline, an important enhancement to students writing
experience. As currently structured, the ENGL 202s address a critical need at a particular stage
of a student's academic career (4th semester standing or above) by enhancing writing skills
expected in upper-level courses, as well as in specific professions. Eliminating ENGL 202 will
lower rigor in upper-level courses, and handicap the reading, critical thinking, research, and
communication skills of all who earn baccalaureate degrees from Penn State.
Further, some of the courses proposed as substitutions for ENGL 202, such as an advanced
writing course in World Languages, will not meet the goals of supporting and developing student
writing. The writing assignments in an advanced writing course in a world language do not
advance the same set of rhetorical skills as ENGL 202, which focuses on writing in disciplinary
and professional contexts.
Moving skills courses forward in curriculum.
Models that concentrate skills courses in the first two semesters delay exposure to academic
fields. At most campuses, the DUS population is large. If students are to identify a major in a
timely way, then delaying exposure to academic fields will delay the selection of a major,
making a 4-year gradation timeline more difficult to assure.
Summary: The Penn State writing curriculum is increasingly asked to correct insufficient
writing development at the secondary level. We should be reinforcing and augmenting writing

skills with additional resources, not further compromising writing instruction. Faculty advocate
for increasing the required ENGL composition courses and CAS courses taught in small,
intensive sections by faculty experienced in teaching the particular skills needed by lower-level
undergraduates, and for maintaining the ENGL 202 courses deeper within the curriculum as
students advance within their major disciplines.
Proposed changes that reduce the writing skills component may disadvantage our diverse
student population.
Any proposed changes to the general education curriculum should also address the needs of the
English Language Learner (ELL) student population.
The population of international and second/third-language students is increasing at Penn State, a
trend projected to continue. These students would benefit from dedicated courses in the
language skills needed to complete degrees.
Combining writing and CAS courses and eliminating ENGL 202 will hinder the success of ELL
students, who are often among the strongest and most motivated students. If we do not
adequately address the specific needs of these students in writing and in speaking, they may go
elsewhere.
Moreover, if global competency is important to the general education curriculum, which we all
agree it is, integrating ELL student peers more fully into the classroom will enhance learning
opportunities for all populations.

The UCEC acknowledges the critical importance of flexibility in Gen Ed requirements.

The current General Education structure offers flexibility to students moving between PSU
campuses, to transfer students, and to adult learners. The campuses are a frequent point of entry
for transfer students and adult learners. These populations will be reluctant to pursue a Penn
State degree if transfer credits do not satisfy more-specialized general education requirements.
The Scaffolded Prototype, in particular, creates enrollment challenges at 2+2 campuses because a
substantial requirement for general education courses at the 400 level may cause students
needing those courses to transfer to other campuses earlier than they would under the current
system, in order to make timely progress toward their degrees. This model would likewise
increase the burden on University Park to accommodate students with such grounds for earlier
change-of-assignment.
The UCEC reiterates the importance of exposure to diverse academic experiences.
A cornerstone of general education is exploration and exposure to different modes of knowledge
across disciplines. A university education not only prepares students to succeed in the
marketplace, but also to become well-rounded, creative, culturally-competent citizens of the
world. English faculty offer courses in humanities disciplines (literature, womens studies, film,

comparative literature, and American studies) and in arts disciplines (creative writing, film, and
integrative arts). We have deep concerns that humanities offerings and arts offerings would be
seriously compromised under the proposed models.
In seeking to fulfill a set of vague categories (as in the Modern Literacies and Chosen Topics
Prototypes), students would be re-directed from recognizing disciplinary continuity within and
among specific academic disciplines. Further, it is important for students to experience diverse
modes of acquiring and organizing knowledge by experiencing the different methodologies
established within varying academic disciplines. Ensuring exposure by requiring at least two
courses in each general education area, while encouraging exploration by providing flexibility to
pursue deepening curiosity, remains the core objective of general education. General education
requirements should therefore be proportional. Two of the models, for example, (the Modern
Literacies Prototype and the existing general education framework) require more courses in
science (GN) than in other general education disciplines, and this inequity should be re-balanced.
General education requirements must also be flexible, allowing students to pursue developing
interests gained through the exposure to diverse fields, creating continuity driven by their own
curiosity. It is, moreover, within general education that students are able to pursue a minor. A
strong undergraduate curriculum should enhance these opportunities rather than narrowing them.