College to examine successes, failures of pilot curriculum

As the five-year experimental pilot curriculum enters its fourth year this semester, it finds itself without its principal architect.

However, despite the departure of former College of Arts and Sciences Dean Richard Beeman, the program's quest to examine ways to re-shape undergraduate education at Penn continues. And new College Dean Rebecca Bushnell seems more than ready to pick up where Beeman left off.

As the first pilot class graduates this year, "we've learned some important things" already, said Bushnell, who in addition to serving as former associate dean of Arts and Letters, has also been a pilot adviser.

Initiated in the fall of 2000, the pilot program consists of 200 students per class, selected on a voluntary basis, who participate in a curriculum of four interdisciplinary course requirements and a research project.

Applicants this year will be the final pilot class, and, according to Bushnell, a finalized report is expected by the summer of 2004.

In October, an interim evaluation from the faculty is expected to yield some initial data about the curriculum. Nevertheless, Bushnell is already pleased with what she has observed thus far.

"We've learned a lot just from the process of course development," she said. "We're asking different questions than we used to."

The pilot courses have been "less about the facts and more about opening up student perspectives and experiences," she added. But, "Have they all been successful? No."

Indeed, within the pilot curriculum itself, adaptations have been made to address faculty and student needs and concerns.

"We've learned things that work well and not so well," School of Arts and Sciences Dean Samuel Preston said.

One particular area critiqued by some students and faculty has been the team-teaching aspect of Pilot courses.

Philosophy Professor Steven Gross is teaching the pilot course Cognitive Neuroscience -- one of the three team-taught pilot courses of the seven offered this fall -- for the third time, along with two other professors. According to Gross, the challenge of team-teaching "is part of the fun of it."

"We learn from each other, and the students enjoy seeing us interact," he said. But at the same time, he acknowledged that different teaching styles can be confusing, and sometimes "it may not be readily apparent how the content hangs together."

"It's challenging enough for one person to design a coherent set of lectures, let alone three people," he said.

This is not lost on Bushnell. "We've recognized that team teaching from some students' perspectives is confusing," she said. "Sometimes it is delivered best by one person."

Another source of confusion has been the research requirement, according to College senior Zoe Harris, a member of the Pilot Curriculum Advisory Board. But she added that "it has become less fuzzy."

The main problem, she said, is that "some departments aren't conducive to that kind of requirement, and while some departments have been good at adapting, others, like Math and Econ, have not."

She also sees advising as an area in need of improvement, seeking to reduce the numbers of students and personalize advice.

Though "we still can't draw firm, fast conclusions" about what aspects of the pilot curriculum should be integrated into the general curriculum, Bushnell said, she and Preston already have some ideas.

According to the two, the development of a curricular plan -- required of pilot students at the end of their sophomore year -- would be a particularly useful addition.

Other questions to be considered, according to Bushnell, are what general education should look like, how many and what kind of courses should be offered and whether the research experience should be required.

In conducting course evaluations, the Pilot Curriculum Advisory Board, composed of students from all classes, has been raising these issues themselves.

"What PCAB is focusing on now is the senior [research] project aspect of the pilot curriculum, how the seniors have felt about the pilot overall and what the pilot or general curriculum might evolve into," said Catherine Jensen, a College sophomore on the board.

According to Bushnell, all of these questions have "stimulated an interesting conversation on undergraduate research" -- a conversation she will expand nationwide this spring as the College hosts a symposium on undergraduate education for faculty and students from universities across the country.

Those involved said they hope these discussions, along with the conclusions reached in 2004, will be integrated into the general requirement.

But according to Bushnell, it's unlikely that changes will be made any time soon.

"Curricular change takes a long time, but that's not necessarily a bad thing," she said. "It's important that everyone feels that they are engaged in the process.

"I don't believe in change for change's own sake, but I do think that often changing something is an important and energizing activity."

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.