The document summarizes a framework proposed by the Santa Clara University English Department for revising its curriculum. Key points of the proposal include introducing concentrations in Literature and Cultural Studies or Writing, reducing overall course requirements but offering more elective choices, and better communicating opportunities to students to increase enrollment and address career preparation. A survey found substantial student interest in both LCS and writing concentrations. The proposal aims to better integrate writing instruction while maintaining an integrated English studies model within one department.

1. Santa Clara University English Department Framework for Curriculum Proposal With Survey of Majors January 26, 2011

2. We Do Not Have to Change The Curriculum. (It's in order to vote to dispense with further consideration of this or any proposal at any time.)

3. However, we are considering changing the curriculum because of real concerns: Currency, Enrollment, Hiring, Student Need , etc

4. Shared Goals for Curriculum

5. Disciplinary currency: integrated English studies model with literature, cultural studies, and writing in positive, productive relationship. 1. Disciplinary Currency

6. 2. Institutionally Appropriate Offerings Offerings appropriate to SCU, a regional comprehensive with a social justice mission (literature and cultural studies, wgst, multi-ethnic and global literatures)

7. 3. Offerings Appropriate to Location Silicon Valley location: new media, science, technology and society, document design and technical communication. Information literacy=digital content production . SCU Strategic Plan 2B: “Strengthen distinctive academic niches that will allow us to meet the needs of Silicon Valley, both locally and in its global outreach."

9. 4a. Address Student Need Grad school in LCS/GRE readiness Grad school in writing/digital composition Employment involving writing/digital composition Other kinds of graduate/professional school

10. 5. Balance Reading and Writing. The curriculum is one location to help us address issues of department culture, power and resource allocation. It can help reflect our commitment to balance between literary consumption and analysis (reading) and textual production (writing).

11. Bracketed Questions

13. Areas of Agreement 1. Concentrations vs Tracks 2. Courses in Common* 3. Flexibility 4. We can do better with writing. 5. One-department solution.

14. Comparisons 1. Looking at “English department” often not enough—is there a separate WP, WD? 2. To express massive growth in writing side of curriculum these feature: writing majors, writing minors, tracks, concentrations certificates, and graduate degrees. 3. What is the best comparison for our goals?

15. Comparisons 2 Does failing to accommodate growth and change in Writing within an English department suggest that such changes will be addressed in another way? Recently, the most successful curricular change in the past ten years (Syracuse, St. John's, MSU, MIT) has been in stand-alone writing programs, new depts, or renamed/reorganized departments. Stand-alone units allow writing faculty to address the steadily evolving and growing number of writing-related fields of study... albeit sometimes at a cost.

19. Tracks vs. Concentrations

20. Tracks vs. Concentrations Writing tracks within traditional depts have been in place for 20 years or more. The possibility of tracks is where this conversation began. The “tracks” solution predates the electronic mediation of textuality and is increasingly unwieldy.

24. Proposal Framework

25. Concentrations in Two Groups: Literature and Cultural Studies Writing, including Creative Writing

28. Minor in Creative Writing Unchanged.

29. Diverse Sustained Intense Conclusion: Growing the minor in English is possible by building a current writing program. Non-English Majors' Interest in Writing

30. Non-English Majors: Serious Interest in All Writing Fields Out of 181 respondents, Career value in most fields: 30-50 Possible minor in most fields: 10-20 Possible major in most fields: about 10 Nearly across the board, writing concentrations attract at least 2-3 times the expression of interest in the top four LCS concentrations.

33. Summary by Major, 1 English: substantial interest in formal writing concentrations, across the board roughly equivalent to 2 nd choice LCS concentration. Business: Managers' first responsibility is organizational culture and communication; more interested in public interest & advocacy than we might expect.

34. Summary by Major, 2 Other humanities majors: more interest in LCS than business major, but mostly in established programs; like business majors. Substantial additional interest in English for writing concentrations addressing public, professional, organizational culture & communication. Engineering and Science: real opportunities, but leadership-level coordination and further research recommended.

35. Current English Majors Have a different profile than other majors in terms of LCS interests (though sample is too small). They also have much more intense interest in LCS (not surprisingly). Their interest in LCS is more intense than their interest in writing.

36. English Majors are Interested in Writing. Respondents expressed interest in nearly all of the potential writing concentrations at a level placing them in the middle of the interest range of LCS concentrations.

37. Survey of Junior and Senior English Majors, January 2011 Many, possibly most students would take more than the minimum number of courses and/or additional concentrations. Student interest remained diverse across LCS and Writing fields, including historical literary fields. Students showed substantial interest in the ability to feature writing and employment-relevant concentrations on transcripts and in recs.

38. Survey 100% of respondents would voluntarily elect a Writing concentration. 37% would choose 2 LCS concentrations and 1 Writing concentration. 23% would choose 2 Writing and 1 LCS. 16% would choose 1 of each.

39. Survey In answer to Question #3, 10 respondents (of 47) said they would choose “all Writing” concentrations. But what does that really mean? 1. 100% would voluntarily take many LCS classes, including historically grounded ones. 2. When asked in Q 4 to rank the top 4 choices for concentrations, 7 of the 10 actually included one or more LCS concentrations.

41. “ Writing Only” Students? WOS 1: Am Lit (2) WOS 2: Spir Lit (4) WOS 3: Melus (2), CCR (3) WOS 4: Lit Env (1) Spir Lit (2) Lit Change (3) WOS 5: all writing, but blank 2 nd choice WOS 6: Film (2), British Lit (4) WOS 7: Am Lit (2) WOS 8: all writing WOS 9: Design own (1), Adv. (2) Literacy (3) WOS 10: Am Lit (1) Lit Am (2) Cal Lit (4)

42. Choice: Recommending vs Requiring Advantages of requiring : more coherent experience, easier to predict/ensure head count in some classes; more likely to succeed at particular goals (eg gre readiness/prep for certain grad programs).

43. Choice: Recommending vs Requiring Disadvantages of requiring: more coherent experience—ie, some students will experience as irrelevant or an imposition, because the particular goals won't apply). Fewer electives for students=fewer non-survey courses can be offered. Less flexibility for individual students; advising can become about reqs and/or working around them, not student needs & development. Appeal of the major and minor drops.

44. Choice: Recommending vs Requiring As a choice, recommending is not just the absence of requirements. It's a positive choice fostering good matches between faculty and student interests, placing individual student needs and the learning relationship at the center. Overall it's potentially a very welcome culture choice.

45. Choice: Recommending vs Requiring 3. Survey: Are requirements necessary? Can advising address issues for individual students (Concentrations provide better matches.) 4. Are required courses the only or best solution to all of our concerns—eg GRE readiness, grad school in LCS? What about other forms of support for students with those interests? 5. Annual assessments: If a recommendation scenario isn't working, we can always adjust and add requirements later.

46. Process, p 1 Today: small group, then general. Brainstorm concerns and possible solutions, including solutions that aren't required coursework. Major choices: courses in common, require vs recommend. Sherry to record, send to CC. CC to solicit additional concerns and recommendations. Subsequently circulate a straw poll to gauge depth of concerns and breadth of appeal of possible solutions. Poll results to be shared, final round of commentary invited and an open meeting of CC for any interested persons.

47. Process, p2 CC will prepare a fleshed-out proposal for an up or down vote. If up: implementation process, including discussion of viability of concentrations, details of coursework in common, implications for hiring, etc. Possible retreat. If down: discussion of postponing curricular change, completely different frameworks, etc. Possible retreat.

48. Contact: Marc Bousquet pmbousquet (at) gmail.com