Page 1


EDITORIAL TEAM Editor Violeda A. Umali, PhD Editorial Assistant Sinta Posadas Editorial Adviser Benito M. Pacheco, PhD Design/Layout Lemuel Ahmad C. Sugui Cover Design Gracezl Mark T. Manuel

Documenters/Rapporteurs Michelle G. Acantilado Anthony N. Atuel Inch-Ayh F. Dulla Ma. Cecilia S. Estrada Ma. Beatriz S. Flores Rizalyn V. Janio Myzel Y. Marisfoque Leslie S. Navarro Ma. Criselda D. Pabalan Elmer T. Tolentino Administrative Support Staff Evangeline N. Dionisio Mary Rose A. Pastrana

These proceedings have been published by the Office of the Vice-Chancellor for Academic Affairs (OVCAA), University of the Philippines Diliman. 2/F DILC Building Magsaysay Avenue corner Apacible Street University of the Philippines Diliman, Quezon City 1101 PHILIPPINES

(63 2) 928.2889; 981.8500 locals 2583/2584/2585/2586 (63 2) 928.2889 ovcaa@ovcaa.upd.edu.ph

Copyright Š 2015 OVCAA. All rights reserved.


University of the Philippines Diliman General Education Conference 2015

Conference Proceedings


TABLE OF CONTENTS Session 6 Assessing the Future GE Program Prof. Marian P. Roque, PhD

69

Workshop Summaries

74

Workshop 1: GE Context, Rationale, and Philosophy

76

38

Workshop 2: GE Objectives, GE Students’ Attributes and KSAs (Knowledge, Skills, Attitudes and Values)

79

Session 2 Report on the June 2015 Workshops on GE Associate Prof. Leonardo C. Rosete Prof. Miguela M. Mena, PhD Prof. Mark Albert H. Zarco, PhD Prof. Grace H. Aguiling-Dalisay, PhD

45

Workshop 3: GE Curriculum Structure: Pedagogical Principles and Types of Courses to be Taken

81

Workshop 4: GE Curriculum Structure: Number of Units

85

Session 3 Highlights of the 24 August 2015 Pre-Conference Symposium on the Number of GE Units Prof. Violeda A. Umali, PhD

59

Workshop 5: GE Curriculum Structure: ‘Candidate’ Courses

88

89

Session 4 Ang Palisi sa Wika ng Unibersidad ng Pilipinas Associate Prof. Rommel B. Rodriguez, PhD

62

Workshop 6: GE Implementation: Program Planning and Coordination Workshop 7: GE Implementation: Course Delivery

92

Workshop 8: Assessment of GE Courses and the GE Program

94

Executive Summary

6

Conference Program Keynote Address Prof. Michael L. Tan, PhD Chancellor, UP Diliman

28 33

Plenary Presentation Summaries Session 1 Overview of the Draft UP GE Framework 2015 Prof. Patricia B. Arinto, PhD

37

Session 5 65 The Proposed New General Education Program with the University Writing and Communication Program (UWCP) Prof. Ruth Jordana L. Pison, PhD


Conference Resolutions

97

Closing Remarks 100 Prof. Benito M. Pacheco, PhD Vice-Chancellor for Academic Affairs, UP Diliman Conclusion 102 Conference Logistics Evaluation

117

Link to Annexes

119

Annex 1: Other Materials Presented during the Conference 1.1. UPCAT 2015 data 1.2 Day 1 Highlights Prof. Grace H. Aguiling-Dalisay, PhD 1.3. Draft Syllabi of UWCP and Junior Writing Courses College of Arts and Letters 1.4. Workshop Guidelines Annex 2: Conference Reference Materials 2.1. A Framework for General Education in the University of the Philippines in the 21st Century UP GE Task Force 2.2. Report on the UP Diliman GE Cluster Workshops 2.3. Integrated Summary of Cluster Workshop Outputs versus 2015 Proposed GE Framework 2.4. Highlights of the UPD Pre-Conference Symposium on the GE Number of Units 2.5. Palisi sa Wika ng Unibersidad ng Pilipinas Sentro ng Wikang Filipino

2.6. The University Writing and Communication Program (College of Arts and Letters Proposal) 2.7. Sub-Committee Report on the Review of the UP General Education Program Assessment, 1994 – 2014 2.8. List of Existing UPD GE Courses Annex 3: List of Participants Annex 4: Conference Evaluation Form


I. Event Summary

Conference Name

UP Diliman General Education Conference 2015

Date

28-29 September 2015

Organizers

UP Diliman General Education Committee 2015 Dr. Benito M. Pacheco, VCAA, ex-officio Chair Dr. Violeda A. Umali, ODI Director, ex-officio Co-Chair Dr. Marilyn R. Canta, University Registrar, ex-officio Member-Secretary Dr. Aura C. Matias, Chair, UC CAPP Prof. Leonardo C. Rosete, Arts and Letters Cluster Chair Dr. Miguela M. Mena, Management and Economics Cluster Chair Dr. Mark Albert H. Zarco, Science and Technology Cluster Chair Dr. Grace H. Aguiling-Dalisay, Social Sciences and Law Cluster Chair Dr. Robin Daniel Z. Rivera, Representative, College of Arts and Letters Dr. Marian P. Roque, Representative, College of Science Dr. Aldrin P. Lee, Representative, College of Social Sciences & Philosophy

Venue

National Institute of Physics Auditorium National Science Complex, UP Diliman

Number of Delegates

233 faculty members registered for the Conference 76 from the Arts and Letters Cluster 20 from the Management and Economics Cluster 62 from the Science and Technology Cluster 46 from the Social Sciences and Law Cluster 29 from other CUs

Keynote Speaker

Prof. Michael L. Tan, PhD Chancellor, UP Diliman


II. Conference Overview

The UP Diliman General Education Conference serves as a major platform for discussing various concerns regarding the design, implementation, and evaluation of the framework, structure and curriculum of UP Diliman’s General Education Program. The 2015 GE Conference had two main objectives, namely: 1.

2.

8

To come up with a consolidated UP Diliman response to the proposed Framework for a Revised UP GE Program drafted by the UP GE Task Force; and To draw up resolutions regarding UP Diliman’s GE Program for presentation to the UP Diliman University Council.

Guided by the first objective, the Conference featured six plenary sessions: the first three tackled components of the GE Task Force’s Proposed Framework for a Revised UP GE Program and the last three dealt with concerns that impact on the design and implementation of the GE curriculum. In line with the second objective, the Conference had eight workshops, each one dealing with a particular component of the GE framework. The first four workshops were held simultaneously on the first day of the Conference; the next four, on the second day. To facilitate workshop discussions, reference materials for the Conference were disseminated to the UPD faculty prior to the Conference, via the UPD website and emails to the deans/heads of academic units.

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015


III. Conference Highlights A. Keynote Speech of Chancellor Michael L. Tan: Major Takeaways •

The “keynote speech” is actually a context-setting for the GE curriculum that UPD will implement in the coming years.

The UPCAT this year had a significantly fewer applicants than in previous years. ₒₒ Previously, around 90,000 applicants took the UPCAT; this year, only 5,015 took the exam. Among them, 4,493 indicated Diliman as their first choice of campus. ₒₒ Almost all applicants are from private schools. Further, there were no applicants from science high schools. ₒₒ Applicants’ choice of degree Program clustered around a few courses.

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015

Implications for the GE Program: ₒₒ Next academic year, the existing GE curriculum will still be implemented. ₒₒ This “lag year” is also a good time to clear the backlog in GE course offerings. ₒₒ Additionally, existing GE courses could be evaluated and new GE courses could be pilot-tested.

9


B.

The Plenary Presentations

Session 1– Overview of the Draft UP GE Framework 2015 Resource Person

Prof. Patricia B. Arinto, PhD Chair, UP GE Task Force

Abstract

This presentation gives the context and key aspects of the 2015 UP GE Framework drafted by the UP GE Task Force, as well as updates on the Task Force’s consultations with the different UP constituent units.

Major Takeaways

Feedback from the constituent units •• On the proposed GE philosophy, aims and objectives: a) clarify the ontological frame for the UP GE Program, b) articulate better the marriage of specialization and interdisciplinarity, c) include ethnic rootedness/ groundedness and gender sensitivity among GE student attributes, and d) affirm the importance of nationalism. •• On the proposed thematic clustering/classification of courses: a) the University is structured along disciplinal domains, b) the GE courses cut across themes, and c) being interdisciplinary demands being grounded in the disciplines. •• On interdisciplinarity: a) administrative issues regarding the offering of courses must be addressed, b) shifting from domain-based to interdisciplinary courses requires a major paradigm shift that academic units may or may not be prepared for. •• On the mix of GE courses: a) it must be clarified which pool of GE courses (System 11, current GE courses, etc.) should be considered when academic units decide on their recommended mix of GE courses, and b) guiding principles for selecting GE courses must be spelled out. •• On Program implementation: a) smaller CUs do not have facilities for large classes, b) administrative aspects of team teaching need to be worked out well, c) a system for crediting of courses across CUs should be designed, and d) assessment of student learning should include entry-level knowledge and skills.

10

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015


Session 2 – Report on the June 2015 Workshops on GE Resource Persons

Associate Prof. Leonardo C. Rosete, Arts and Letters Cluster Chair Prof. Miguela M. Mena, PhD, Management and Economics Cluster Chair Prof. Mark Albert H. Zarco, PhD, Science and Technology Cluster Chair Prof. Grace H. Aguiling-Dalisay, PhD, Social Sciences and Law Cluster Chair

Abstract

This presentation gives the highlights of the cluster workshops held in June 2015 to discuss the draft GE framework prepared by the UP GE Task Force.

Major Takeaways

Points of agreement among the four clusters •• There is a need to revise the present GE Program given the national and international trends affecting the Philippine higher educational system. •• The implementation of the K-to-12 Program will bring about significant changes in the profile of students admitted to college: they are expected to be more intellectually and emotionally mature, and more heterogenous – because they are taking different tracks and strands in senior high school – than the previous years’ high school graduates. •• GE Program objectives should: a) develop a high level of competence in languages and literacies beyond the oral and written, b) be open to various modes of knowledge such as sensorial and embodied knowledges (danas and damdam), c) aim to produce students who are responsible, critical, creative, ethical, analytical, independent thinkers, aware of history, and capable of critical reflection, and d) develop a global citizen who has a strong sense of his/her identity as a Filipino. •• The GE Program should support specific learning outcomes such as lifelong learning and social awareness. •• There should be domains or themes within the GE curriculum, as well as required and elective GE courses. Colleges should be given the latitude to prescribe the required and elective courses. Students should be able to take the GE courses at any year level and any sequence.

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015

11


Session 3 – Highlights of the 24 August 2015 Pre-Conference Symposium on the Number Of GE Units Resource Person

Prof. Violeda A. Umali, PhD Director, Office of the Director of Instruction

Abstract

This presentation gives a recap of the symposium held on 24 August 2015 to present and deliberate on the number of GE units that the UPD colleges/ academic units recommend for their respective undergraduate degree programs.

Major Takeaways

•• Sixteen (16) of the 19 colleges/units with undergraduate degree programs submitted recommendations on the number of GE units that undergraduate students should take. °

Nine colleges/units had the same recommendation for all their degree programs.

°

The recommended number of units ranges from 18 to 45.

°

Eleven (11) colleges/units included courses from the proposed University Writing and Communication Program (UWCP).

•• Participants’ recommendations:

12

°

The minimum number of GE units in each undergraduate degree program shall be 21.

°

The UWCP proposal shall be elaborated on by the College of Arts and Letters (CAL). The number of UWCP units to be included in, or to complement, the GE curriculum shall be decided upon by the colleges/ academic units.

°

The specific courses that will make up the GE curriculum shall be tackled in future fora including the GE Conference.

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015


Open Forum for Presentations 1 – 3 Moderator

Prof. Elizabeth L. Enriquez, PhD, College of Mass Communication

Major Takeaways

•• With UP’s shift to the “cafeteria” approach for choosing GE courses, it will be difficult to go back to the old design wherein all UP students took the same set of GE courses. But Tatak UP remains as the spirit of the GE Program. •• The Program goals and objectives should guide all other decisions regarding the design and implementation of the GE curriculum. •• Whether domain-based or theme-based, GE courses should develop scholarship and commitment to excellence. •• Types of courses taken in senior high school and under the GE curriculum could overlap, but they are different in their approach/ pedagogy. •• The commonalities in the comments of the clusters about the proposed GE framework should be summarized. •• Presentations about the UWCP proposal and the UP language policy should be held prior to the workshops.

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015

13


Session 4 – Ang Palisi sa Wika ng Unibersidad ng Pilipinas Resource Person

Associate Prof. Rommel B. Rodriguez, PhD Director, UPD Sentro ng Wikang Filipino (SWF)

Moderator

Prof. Grace H. Aguiling-Dalisay, PhD, College of Social Sciences and Philosophy

Abstract

This presentation issues a reminder to UPD constituents about the University’s policy on the use of Filipino as medium of instruction for teaching, whilst underscoring the practice that adoption of Filipino remains a voluntary decision of the faculty.

Major Takeaways

•• The implementation of the language policy is not the sole responsibility of the SWF; it is the responsibility of the whole University. •• The implementation of the language policy has not cascaded to such things as the board exams and policy-making. •• Filipino should not just be the medium of instruction; it should also be the medium of knowledge production (i.e., of research and other discourses). •• The SWF should consider doing an assessment of the status and direction of the implementation of the language policy.

14

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015


Session 5 – Proposed New General Education Program with the University Writing and Communication Program (UWCP) Resource Person

Prof. Ruth Jordana L. Pison, PhD GE Program Coordinator, College of Arts and Letters

Moderator

Prof. Grace H. Aguiling-Dalisay, PhD, College of Social Sciences and Philosophy

Abstract

The College of Arts and Letters presents the features of the UWCP as a component of CAL’s proposed New GE Program (NGEP).

Major Takeaways

•• The UWCP is premised on the principle that letters are at the center of a liberal humanist education. Language is not a tool; language is critical and transformative. •• The UWCP of 12 units is the core of CAL’s proposed NGEP. The second layer consists of 12 units of disciplinal electives and the third layer consists of 9 units of interdisciplinary electives. •• From the Open Forum

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015

°

The proposed UWCP courses seem to overlap with some courses already taught in other colleges/units.

°

Instead of having four disciplinal clusters, the existing three knowledge domains could be considered. This is because management courses cannot be dissociated from the social sciences, and thus are part of the social sciences and philosophy domain.

°

Similar to other proposals that include interdisciplinary courses, the UWCP also needs to look into the administrative issues that accompany the implementation of interdisciplinary initiatives.

°

It should be clarified what kind of English will be taught by the UWCP.

15


Session 6 – Assessing the Future GE Program Resource Person

Prof. Marian P. Roque, PhD College of Science Representative to the UPD GE Committee

Moderator

Prof. Mark Albert H. Zarco, PhD, College of Engineering

Abstract

The presentation is divided into two parts. The first part gives the highlights of past reviews of the UP/UPD GE Program, while the second part lists some points for consideration in the design of an evaluation scheme for the new GE Program.

Major Takeaways

•• Among the GE programs of UP, only the RGEP was systematically assessed. •• Recurring issues identified by the past reviews/assessment of the GE Program include the: a) lack of systematic monitoring and evaluation of the GE Program, b) lack of clarity in Program standards, and c) backlogs in course offerings. •• Some questions that need to be addressed in designing the evaluation scheme for the new GE Program are:

16

°

How do we verify that the objectives of the GE Program are met?

°

What systems/protocols could be established – e.g., pretest, midterm assessment, exit exam?

°

What kinds of exam could be given (quantitative, qualitative, etc.)?

°

How do we assess the GE Program from the point of view of students, teachers, and administrators?

°

What new strategies for assessing GE courses and the GE Program could we adopt?

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015


•• From the Open Forum

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015

°

How do we operationalize values that we want inculcated in our students via the GE Program?

°

How do we isolate the impact of GE education versus other courses and other experiences that a UP student goes through?

°

A ‘think tank’ should be constituted to plan the assessment of the GE Program.

17


C.

The Workshops

Workshop 1 – GE Context, Rationale, and Philosophy Presenter

Prof. Lynna Marie Y. Sycip, PhD, College of Social Sciences and Philosophy

Facilitator

Prof. Ruth Jordana L. Pison, PhD, College of Arts and Letters

Key Points/ Outputs

•• On the points articulated in the proposed GE framework: °

The workshop participants agree with the statements regarding the liberal education philosophy, types of students envisioned, and the values to be developed among students.

°

However, we must recognize the need for continuous review of GE courses and the GE Program itself to be responsive to national, international, global, and technological developments.

°

We need to be aware of the threats to liberal education – i.e., the move towards neo-liberalism and globalization that tend to reduce education and students to commodities.

•• From the Open Forum:

18

°

Liberal education is the bedrock of UP’s General Education Program.

°

GE courses should develop higher-order skills (e.g., critical and creative thinking skills, and methods of inquiry skills).

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015


Workshop 2 – GE Objectives, GE Students’ Attributes, and KSAs (Knowledge, Skills, Attitudes and Values) Presenter

Assistant Prof. Felipe P. Jocano Jr., College of Social Sciences and Philosophy

Moderator

Prof. Ruth Jordana L. Pison, PhD, College of Arts and Letters

Key Points/ Outputs

•• Suggestions for the proposed GE framework: °

Add gender sensitivity, responsiveness, and empowerment to GE dispositional outcomes.

°

Regarding GE students’ attributes, nationalism should be rooted in local diversity so that it is more inclusive.

°

Regarding KSAs, the following could be added: a) knowledge of technology, digital literacy skills, attitude and disposition towards innovation, and b) pakikipagkapwa-tao.

•• From the Open Forum:

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015

°

Concepts for further clarification include: a) global citizen, b) social justice, and c) liberal education in the humanist vs. the socialist perspective.

°

The proposed GE framework needs to sharpen the analysis of the national context – i.e., have a clearer conceptual and operational/curricular articulation of what it means to be a Filipino, and what it means to foster a commitment to service and social justice.

°

The current matrix of attributes and KSAs is linear and seemingly sequential. Relationships among concepts and outcomes are not clearly shown.

19


Workshop 3 – GE Curriculum Structure: Pedagogical Principles and Types of Courses to be Taken Presenter

Assistant Prof. Wilfredo M. Rada, College of Engineering

Moderator

Prof. Ruth Jordana L. Pison, PhD, College of Arts and Letters

Key Points/ Outputs

•• An “interdisciplinary” course has been operationalized in various ways in the University: a) a course that combines/integrates several disciplines both in content and teaching approach, b) a course taught by one department but synthesizes ideas from various disciplines, or c) a course grounded in one discipline but borrowing techniques, approaches, tools, etc. from other disciplines. •• Points for consideration regarding the teaching of interdisciplinary courses: a) there should be a way of assessing if a course satisfies “interdisciplinarity”; b) the level of maturity of students is a factor in the effectiveness of an interdisciplinary course, c) the nature of the course determines the need for interdisciplinarity (not all courses should be interdisciplinary); and d) introducing major and minor degrees could foster interdisciplinary perspectives among students. •• From the Open Forum:

20

°

Interdisciplinary is not the same as multidisciplinary. As an instruction design or approach, interdisciplinary is thematic, interactive and integrative, while multidisciplinary is sequential.

°

Interdisciplinarity should be approached in a way that does not undermine the integrity of the individual disciplines. Students must be grounded in their individual disciplines for them to fully appreciate and benefit from an interdisciplinary course.

°

The key constructs of “holistic learning” and “critical thinking” are not achieved by content alone; they are also dependent on pedagogical approaches that we use.

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015


Workshop 4 – GE Curriculum Structure: Number of Units Presenter

Mr. John Michael G. Constantino, College of Engineering

Moderator

Prof. Ruth Jordana L. Pison, PhD, College of Arts and Letters

Key Points/ Outputs

Almost all colleges/units agree that 21 shall be the minimum number of units in the GE curriculum. •• All colleges/units agree that there should be a maximum number of GE units. While the workshop groups recommended not going beyond 45 units of GE, it was noted that majority of the colleges/units specified 33-36 units of GE as their maximum. •• Most of the colleges/units agree that there should be required/core GE courses but there are no concrete recommendations as to what these courses are. •• We must have a system for identifying the strand that students took in their senior high school. •• From the Open Forum:

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015

°

It might be good to look at the GE curricula of other universities when we decide on our own GE curriculum’s structure.

°

The number of units should be gauged against GE Program objectives and target attributes – will a particular number of units be sufficient to achieve those objectives, attributes, and KSAs?

°

There are also administrative issues to consider, such as when students shift from one course to another.

°

GE objectives and targets may also be achieved through non-GE courses. But GE should not be viewed separately from, or in competition with, specialist courses. A university education is a whole, and should always be approached as such.

21


Workshop 5 – GE Curriculum Structure: ‘Candidate’ Courses Presenter

Associate Prof. Ma. Theresa T. Payongayong, PhD, College of Social Sciences and Philosophy

Moderator

Prof. Mark Albert H. Zarco, PhD, College of Engineering

Key Points/ Outputs

•• The group does not agree with the proposed GE framework’s classification of GE courses according to themes. The group suggests shifting from themes to domains (Arts and Humanities; Math, Science and Technology; Social Sciences and Philosophy), as domain classifications already exist. •• The UWCP is important but is not the core of the GE Program. Not all courses in the UWCP need to be taken by all students. The courses may be offered as separate from, or parallel to, GE courses. •• The recommended minimum of 21 GE units could be broken down into 12 units of required/core courses and 9 units of domain- or cluster-based courses (one course per domain/cluster outside of students’ own program cluster).

22

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015


Workshop 6 – GE Implementation: Program Planning and Coordination Presenters

Assistant Prof. Bernard N. Caslib Jr., College of Social Sciences and Philosophy Associate Prof. Maria Christine M. Muyco, PhD, College of Music

Moderator

Prof. Mark Albert H. Zarco, PhD, College of Engineering

Key Points/ Outputs

•• The UPCAT should have a measure of students’ proficiency regardless of their track in senior high school. Bridge/remedial courses may be provided as needed. •• GE courses should not have prerequisites. But units offering GE courses may indicate if there is a preferred level of maturity/preparation for students who will enroll in a particular GE course. •• Individual units/departments and the students should be given the option to decide on the sequence in which GE courses will be taken. •• Current GE courses should be reviewed to determine if they are aligned with the goals and objectives of the new GE Program. •• The standard channels and procedures should be followed in evaluating GE curricular proposals. •• The GE Center should take care of the administrative matters regarding the planning and coordination for the GE Program.

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015

23


Workshop 7 – GE Implementation: Course Delivery Presenter

Prof. Flaudette May V. Datuin, PhD, College of Arts and Letters

Moderator

Prof. Mark Albert H. Zarco, PhD, College of Engineering

Key Points/ Outputs

•• The group agrees with the language policy but remains open to a bilingual teaching approach. •• Both junior and senior faculty with appropriate background may teach GE courses, as each brings different experiences and perspectives into the teaching of the courses. •• Team teaching and blended learning strategies should be incorporated in GE courses. •• There is a need to review the system for assigning multipliers and overload credits for teaching GE courses. Likewise, the system for giving grants, awards, and promotion points for GE should be reviewed. •• During the transition period, a comparative study of students who took the different GE programs could be undertaken. “Old” and “new” ways of teaching existing GE courses could be implemented side by side.

24

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015


Workshop 8 – Assessment of GE Courses and the GE Program Presenter

Prof. Jorge V. Tigno, PhD, College of Social Sciences and Philosophy

Key Points/ Outputs

•• The objectives and outcomes of the proposed GE framework should be revisited to see if/how they lend themselves to evaluation. •• It should be acknowledged that each GE course is but a component of a larger GE Program, and that the GE Program is but a component of UP education. •• Evaluation must begin at the point of course conception. •• UPD could consider developing a set of GE “rider questions” in the SET. •• The GE course syllabi must include specific and measureable objectives. •• Points for consideration:

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015

°

When does UP education become evident?

°

Is the 3-out-of-5 formula for assessing GE course objectives sufficient? What if all courses in the student’s GE Program target the same three objectives?

°

Is numerical grade necessary for GE courses?

°

What incentives could be offered to teachers of GE courses?

25


Discussion: Workshops 5-8 Outputs Moderator

Prof. Mark Albert H. Zarco, PhD, College of Engineering

Key Points

•• It was reiterated that UPD’s GE Center will be an administrative center. •• The language policy will still be implemented on a voluntary basis. •• It was reiterated that the choice of GE courses should be based on GE Program objectives, student attributes, and KSAs.

Resolutions Moderator

Associate Prof. Leonardo C. Rosete, College of Fine Arts

Key Points

•• Given the scope of the framework and the amount of inputs collated prior to and during the Conference, it was decided that the GE Committee prepare a report on what have been discussed and agreed upon, and circulate the same to the Conference participants. •• The chairs of the four academic clusters will work on the UPD document that will be submitted to the UPD ExeComm and the UP GE Task Force.

26

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015


D.

Closing Remarks of Vice-Chancellor Benito M. Pacheco: Major Take-Aways ••

••

E.

The composition and profile of the participants of this year’s UPD GE Conference is noteworthy, and show how important the GE Program is to all of us. We are optimistic that in the November UC meeting, we will be able to come up with decisions that would enable our degree programs to move forward with their curricular plans.

••

In the next two years, we have the chance to pilot test our new GE courses.

••

We have agreed on many things, and we shall await the cluster chairs to articulate those agreements in writing.

Conclusion: Major Agreements Reached during the Conference

The major agreements reached during the Conference are classified into three: a) those that could become part of the implementing guidelines for the new GE Program, b) UPD’s comments on the proposed GE framework that the GE Task Force might consider as inputs for editing/revising said framework, and b) potential resolutions regarding the design and implementation of the new GE Program, which will be reviewed and deliberated on by the colleges/units before the special UC meeting on the GE Program.

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015

27


28

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015


DAY 1 Monday, 28 September 2015

8:00 am – 8:30 am

Registration/Breakfast

8:30 am – 9:00 am

Opening Program National Anthem Keynote Address: Chancellor Michael L. Tan, UP Diliman

9:00 am – 9:20 am

Plenary Session 1: Overview of the Draft UP GE Framework 2015 Prof. Patricia B. Arinto, PhD Chair, UP GE Task Force

9:20 am – 10:00 am

Plenary Session 2: Report on the June 2015 Workshops on GE Associate Prof. Leonardo C. Rosete Arts and Letters Cluster Chair Prof. Miguela M. Mena, PhD Management and Economics Cluster Chair Prof. Mark Albert H. Zarco, PhD Science and Technology Cluster Chair Prof. Grace H. Aguiling-Dalisay, PhD Social Sciences and Law Cluster Chair

10:00 am – 10:30 am

Open Forum

10:30 am – 10:40 am

Photo-op

10:40 am – 11:00 am

Coffee Break

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015

29


11:00 am – 11:20 am

Plenary Session 3: Highlights of the 24 August 2015 Pre-Conference Symposium on the Number of GE Units Prof. Violeda A. Umali, PhD Director, ODI-OVCAA

11:20 am – 11:45 am

Open Forum

11:45 am – 12:15 pm

Overview of Workshops Prof. Violeda A. Umali, PhD, ODI-OVCAA Moderator for the Morning Sessions Prof. Elizabeth L. Enriquez, PhD, CMC

12:15 pm – 1:15 pm 1:15 pm – 1:35 pm

Lunch Break Plenary Session 4: Ang Palisi sa Wika ng Unibersidad ng Pilipinas Associate Prof. Rommel B. Rodriguez, PhD Director, Sentro ng Wikang Filipino

1:35 pm – 2:00 pm

Open Forum

2:00 pm – 2:20 pm

Plenary Session 5: Proposed New General Education Program with the University Writing and Communication Program (UWCP) Prof. Ruth Jordana L. Pison, PhD GE Program Coordinator, CAL

2:20 pm – 2:45 pm

Open Forum Moderator for the Afternoon Sessions Prof. Grace H. Aguiling-Dalisay, PhD, CSSP

2:45 pm – 5:00 pm

Parallel Workshops Workshop 1 – GE Context, Rationale, and Philosophy Workshop 2 – GE Objectives, GE Students’ Attributes and KSAs (Knowledge, Skills, Attitudes and Values Workshop 3 – GE Curriculum Structure: Pedagogical Principles and Types of Courses to be Taken Workshop 4 – GE Curriculum Structure: Number of Units

30

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015


DAY 2 Tuesday, 29 September 2015

8:30 am – 9:00 am

Registration/Breakfast

9:00 am – 9:30 am

Recap of Day 1 Activities and Outputs – Prof. Grace H. Aguiling-Dalisay, PhD, CSSP

9:30 am – 10:30 am

Presentation of Workshops 1 – 4 Outputs

10:30 am – 11:00 am

Coffee Break

11:00 am – 12:00 pm

Presentation of Workshops 1 – 4 Outputs (cont’n.) Moderator for the Morning Sessions Prof. Ruth Jordana L. Pison, PhD, CAL

12:00 pm – 1:00 pm

Lunch Break

1:00 pm – 1:20 pm

Plenary Session 6: Assessing the Future GE Program Prof. Marian P. Roque, PhD Representative to the UPD GE Committee, CS

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015

31


1:20 pm – 3:30 pm

Parallel Workshops Workshop 5 – GE Curriculum Structure: ‘Candidate’ Courses Workshop 6 – GE Implementation: Program Planning and Coordination Workshop 7 – GE Implementation: Course Delivery Workshop 8 – Assessment of GE Courses and the GE Program

3:30 pm – 4:00 pm

Coffee Break

4:00 pm – 5:00 pm

Presentation of Workshop Outputs

5:00 pm – 5:15 pm

Conference Resolutions Associate Prof. Leonardo C. Rosete, CFA Moderator for the Afternoon Sessions Prof. Mark Albert H. Zarco, COE

5:15 pm – 5:30 pm

32

Closing Remarks Prof. Benito M. Pacheco, PhD Vice-Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Chair, UPD GE Committee

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015


UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015

33


Professor Michael L. Tan, PhD Chancellor, University of the Philippines Diliman

I think a keynote address always sounds so fancy; this is really a welcome address, plus, I think pwede tayong mag-context setting. And I thought that to set our context for today I will share some data and information from the most recent UPCAT, which is just last month, kasi maraming implications ito para sa planning natin for GE. We’ve gone this far in terms of Diliman’s discussions on GE. Ang feeling ko nga, medyo appropriate ang ating pagbukas dito na ginamit natin ang ating Pambansang Awit. Napansin ninyo yung ending? Carrying the Philippine flag and wading through the flood waters? Feeling ko ganoon ang GE discussions natin, wading flood waters and sometimes almost overwhelmed by the floods. But, like the theme of the upcoming Physics event, the International Year of Light, let’s hope that today’s discussions are enlightening. But let me get into that UPCAT 2015 data. These1 are some figures from the most recent UPCAT, which was held last August 2015. There were 5,015 students who took that UPCAT, compared to almost 90,000 who took last year’s UPCAT. More than 90% of this year’s applicants took the UPCAT here in Diliman. There were a lot of testing centres that had to cancel their scheduled exam. We actually sent people to these testing centers pero walang dumating. UP Mindanao had three takers.

1.

34

Almost all of the applicants were products of Grades 11 and 12. So I want to make clear, even if some of us had continued to be in denial, iniisip pa rin na di matutuloy [ang K-to-12], the fact is that we are getting Senior High School graduates. These are schools like Claret, La Salle Greenhills, and Xavier. They put in summer classes and they put in all kinds of mechanisms, and I saw their materials – they offer Grades 11 and 12 subjects. So their graduates are products of the new curriculum. Hilaw ba o hindi, malalaman natin. But they have already taken courses in Psychology, Statistics, and others. Among the applicants, very, very few graduated from high school earlier at gusto pang mag UPCAT ngayon. Konting-konti at wala pang isandaan iyan. So all the others are Grades 11 and 12 products. And almost all came from private schools. There were few from public schools, but these are the ones who graduated earlier. And there were none from Science high schools. I think this is a major variable to consider: walang Pisay (Philippine Science High School), wala ring mga Quezon City science high schools because they are still using the old curriculum and they did not accelerate the students. Although these schools have the option to accelerate their students, they chose not to do so.

See Annex 1.1 for the UPCAT 2015 Figures

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015


Hindi pa released ang UPCAT scores; the Office of Admissions is still processing the data. But they have a general idea that the scores were slightly lower than in the previous year, which is sort of surprised us. Kasi kung galing sa private schools ang applicants, hindi ba dapat tumaas yan? But the results are such because wala ang Science high schools. If they were there, they can pull-up the average. And it seems that in the past, every year, they have the sufficient numbers for pulling up the average UPCAT score. Yung mas of direct concern for us today is the breakdown of the applicants’ first and second choices of degree programs. We can then know what the demand is, and we can compare it with the quota of the different degree programs. For Psychology, the data I have is that their quota is 50 for BA Psych and 75 for BS Psych. So the quota for the two degree programs is 125. But you have 420 wanting to get into the program. So the demand is four times the quota. For Architecture, what we have in the data for the quota is 70 or 100. But 280 of this year’s batch of UPCAT applicants want to be in the Architecture program, so there’s a two-fold demand for that program. For Fine Arts, there are 115 applicants. Then there are some programs whose demand is lower than their quota. For Philo, 70 ang quota pero 20 lang and nag-first choice. For Chemistry, it’s 27

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015

vs. 80. Applied Physics, Community Development, Nutrition, and Engineering programs also have lower demand, and this is because the demand for these courses usually comes from the public schools and Science high schools. So without them this year, bumababa din ang demand. Geodetic Engineering has a quota of 75 and there are only six who applied to that program. For Math, 120 ang quota pero 19 lang ang nag-apply. Ang mga private schools po yata takot sa Math eh (laughter from the audience). Statistics also has 120 for quota, and 30 lang ang nag-apply. It’s the same pattern for Physics. This just to give you a broad view of what has happened. The deans have these figures and we will try to give more figures so that in the next ExeComm, we can analyze them more deeply. So what do these data state? Of the 5,000 who took the UPCAT this year, 4,493 indicated Diliman as their first choice, and the quota we have is 3,885. If we add the quota for all courses, mga 3,892 slots total, but there are 4,493 applicants whose first choice is Diliman. So the demand is still over the quota that we have. This is totally unscientific, but my gut feel is that we’ll probably have at least 2,000 students, considering that there are more than 4,000 who want to get in.

35


With the other CUs, like UP Mindanao, UP Baguio ... the decision to make here is that if you have only 10 students who would like to enrol in one of your units, maybe it’s not worthwhile opening up the programs. So may appeal that maybe UP Diliman, UP Los Baños and UP Manila could take those students, if those units could not open up their programs. Another important implication is that I think we will have to use the existing GE Program because if the other CUs are not getting freshmen and then we start using the new GE Program, it’s going to dislocate everything. Paano naman iyong mga transferees? So maraming implications iyan, so we will have to stick to our existing Hybrid GE Program at least for next school year. It’s interesting that the departments that are offering the required GE courses have very low demand right now in terms of freshmen. That means you will have some breathing space. In general, there will be fewer freshmen coming into Diliman next year, so we will all have some breathing space. And academic units could use this lull to handle the backlog in course demands, especially the GE subjects. And there are other options – for faculty development, plus there’s been a call na tulungan ang mga senior high schools.

36

The last two points are important and interrelated. We keep hearing, are these senior high school students ready for our new GE Program? And the feedback we are getting now is that we have not evaluated the Hybrid GE Program. So I think this is the opportunity. Now we should evaluate the existing Hybrid Program – go to those who have taken the Program in the previous years, as well as this new batch that’s coming in, so that we can then assess their competencies. This is our chance to handle this work. And I feel that the year ahead will be a chance to pilot test the GE subjects that we might decide to adopt, and that is what we’ll have as part of the discussions today as well as the special University Council meeting that we move to call on November 9. So, ito iyong mga dapat talakayin, or at least to keep at the back of our minds, as we discuss the GE today and in the other days. So as I’ve said, this not really a keynote address but it’s a context-setting presentation and hope that it will help us to move forward through the plans for GE and our discussions today. Maraming salamat po.

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015


UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015

37


Session 1: Overview of the Draft UP GE Framework 2015 Prof. Patricia B. Arinto, PhD Chair, UP GE Task Force ABSTRACT This presentation gives the context and key aspects of the 2015 UP GE Framework2 drafted by the UP GE Task Force, as well as updates on the Task Force’s consultations with the different UP constituent units.

PRESENTATION HIGHLIGHTS Presentation outline 1. Context 2. Key aspects of 2015 draft UP GE framework 3. Consultations with UP constituent units

Context (chronology of events) 1. October 2013: System GE Council disseminated proposal to revise the GE Program; CUs asked to formulate outlines for 8 proposed “GE core courses” 2. May 2014: System workshop to “harmonize” the course outlines •• GE core courses increased from 8 to 10 •• Recommendation to convene a GE miniconference for each course 3. August - October 2014: 10 GE mini- conferences held •• Decision not to count PI 100 as GE •• Number of GE courses became 11

2.

38

4. November 2014: GE “advocates/champions” workshop •• Review of 11 course outlines •• Recommendation to request CUs to formulate or provide inputs for a framework for GE Program revision 5. February 2015: System-wide GE Conference •• Agreement to set GE Program size at 21-36 units •• Constitution of UP GE Task Force, with one representative per CU, to formulate a System-wide framework for the revision of the GE Program Components of draft framework 1. Context and rationale of proposed GE Program revision 2. Proposed GE Program revision a) Philosophy and objectives b) Curriculum structure c) Pedagogical principles d) Guidelines for Program implementation Context and rationale Ø GE Program revision history • 1958 – Institution of GE Program • 1986 – 1st major revision: From 60 units to 42 units • 2001 – RGEP • 2010 – Hybrid GEP

See Annex 2.1 for the full text of the proposed GE framework UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015


Ø Internal factors • Increasing emphasis on specialization • Logistical challenges to GE Program implementation: ₒₒ In mid-1980s – Splitting of AS into three colleges and formal establishment of the UP System ₒₒ In mid-1990s – Increase in student enrollment and shortage of GE classes and teachers ₒₒ In mid-2000s – Decline in sense of nationalism and communication skills among UP students Ø External factors • National developments – People Power Revolution in 1986; K-12 Program in 2012 • Regional integration à Internationalization of higher education • Globalization à New trends in employment • Complex global issues and challenges – Climate change and natural disasters; new diseases and threats to health and public safety; economic exploitation and extreme poverty; social conflicts, wars, and international terrorism • Exponential growth of knowledge and emergence of new technologies GE philosophy GE as the embodiment of a liberal education • Holistic and integrative, non-specialist, and non-utilitarian •

Aims to develop an understanding of the

appreciation of the connections between and among the disciplines, a broad perspective, habits of thought and ways of perceiving, intellectual and moral integrity, humanism and commitment to democratic values and transformative action GE aims and objectives Ø To develop leadership characterized by integrity and honor, excellence, and public service Ø Through a foundation of study that will — 1. Broaden intellectual and cultural horizons; 2. Hone critical and creative thinking; 3. Develop a passion for learning and scholarship; 4. Cultivate a high sense of moral and intellectual integrity; and 5. Foster a commitment to service and social justice. Ø GE student attributes = Integrity, Scholarship, Broad intellectual and cultural horizons, Nationalism GE curriculum structure Ø 21-36 unit liberal education program Ø An interdisciplinary curriculum, with courses in the humanities, social sciences and philosophy, and science and mathematics Ø Thematic classification of courses promoting an interdisciplinary approach to course design (i.e. a theme as shared focus of two or more disciplines)

nature and foundations of knowledge,

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015

39


Ø Streamlined curriculum for Program flexibility; complementarity between specialist courses (major courses) and non-specialist non-GE courses that may be required by programs to improve learning performance (e.g. courses on writing, quantitative reasoning, critical digital literacy) Pedagogical principles Ø Learning-centeredness • Clear learning outcomes • Alignment of learning activities with learning outcomes • Emphasis on development of higher order thinking skills, creativity, and critical reflection Ø Interdisciplinary approach • Topics are concept- or problem-based, and experts discuss each concept or problem from different disciplinal perspectives • Hybrid approach: (multi)disciplinary lectures + interdisciplinary ‘syntheticintegrative’ discussions and other learning activities Ø Resource-based learning: use of different types of learning resources and tools that support different learning experiences • Exploratory learning, experimentation and practice, communication and collaboration, and construction / production of new representations of knowledge, in addition to assimilation of information

40

Teacher-led and collaborative in-class activities + guided independent study + experiential learning

Program implementation Ø GE Program administration a collaborative effort of the GE faculty, CU GE Program coordinators, CU GE Councils / Committees, and System GE Council Ø Course institution From proponent department/s or unit/s within a CU or between two or more CUs To CU GE Council/s or Committee/s To System GE Council To CU Curriculum Committee/s (through the Faculty or College Assembly) To University Council/s Ø Faculty support •• Constitution of teaching teams per course •• Library and multimedia unit support for resource curation and production •• Teacher professional development (TPD) in interdisciplinary teaching, use of new technologies for teaching and learning (resource-based learning) Ø Program evaluation •• Regular course evaluation via the SET •• Annual course review by course teams •• Cohort-based assessment of crosscutting skills and attitudes •• Annual conference by thematic cluster •• Biennial System-wide GE conference

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015


Consultation process Ø Framework as work in progress and refinementas a collaborative process by all UP faculty across all CUs Ø Review and discussion by CUs from June to Oct 2015 • UP Visayas: 22-23 June • UP Baguio: 9 July (Part 1) and 5 October (Part 2) • UP Cebu: 15-16 July • UPOU: 13 August • UP Mindanao: 17 August • UP Manila: 20-21 October Ø Formal curriculum approval process by the CU University Councils to commence in late 2015 Key points from CU consultations Comments on proposed GE philosophy, aims and objectives 1. Clarify the ontological frame for the UP GE Program — is it mass training? employability? nationalism and civic participation? (UP Cebu •• Need to avoid simply reacting to situational exigencies (UP Cebu) 2. Articulate better the “marriage of specialization and interdisciplinarity” (UP Cebu) 3. Include ethnic rootedness or groundedness (in recognition of cultural diversity) and gender sensitivity among GE student attributes (UP Baguio) 4. Affirm the importance of nationalism; the fifth GE Program goal should be “to foster a commitment to nationalism and social justice” (UP Mindanao)

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015

Comments on proposed GE curriculum structure Ø On the proposed thematic clustering/classification of courses 1. The university is structured according to disciplinal domains, which reflects a long tradition of learning and knowledge construction, including how disciplines have come together (UP Baguio) 2. The courses cut across the themes (UPOU 3. Being interdisciplinary demands being grounded in the disciplines (UPOU) Ø On interdisciplinarity 1. Implications of interdisciplinarity on course and Program implementation: Which department will administer a course? Shouldn’t interdisciplinary courses be taken at the end/latter part of the Program? (UPOU) 2. Radical shift from domain-based to interdisciplinary; there is a deep chasm between domains that are supposed to come together; how viable is interdisciplinarity, which requires an overhauling of our disciplinal cultures? (UP Mindanao) •• Need for proper scaffolding; need to recognize degrees of interdisciplinarity (from subordinate-service mode to synthetic-integrative mode); an interdisciplinary approach can be more conceptual and not always problemoriented or “practical” and applied (UP Mindanao)

41


Ø On mix of GE courses 1. Are we limited to the 11 courses that emerged from the mini-conferences? What about existing GE courses that embody the uniqueness of each CU? (UPV, UP Baguio, UP Cebu, UP Mindanao) 2. What about the principle of a common GE formation for students across CUs (“regardless of campus”)? (UP Baguio) 3. Can new GE courses be proposed for inclusion in the list? (UP Cebu, UPOU) 4. How to decide the mix of prescribed (or core) GE courses and elective GE courses (i.e. the criteria for classifying courses as prescribed and elective)?

42

Comments on Program implementation 1. On class size: Smaller CUs do not have facilities for large classes 2. On faculty selection: Expertise in subject matter + GE orientation 3. On team teaching: Factors to consider are availability of experts, faculty loading, sustainability 4. On Program administration: Need for a GE Centre in each CU? 5. Provision for crediting of GE courses across CUs 6. Assessment and evaluation of student learning should include entry-level knowledge and skills (in light of K-12)

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015


CU

Total units

Prescribed GE courses

UP Visayas

36

24 units: Kasaysayan ng Pilipinas, Ethics and Moral Reasoning, Wika Kultura at Lipunan, Critical Perspectives in the Arts, Critical Perspectives in Communication, Math Culture & Society, STS 27 units: Kasaysayan ng Pilipinas, Ethics and Moral Reasoning, Wika Kultura at Lipunan, Critical Perspectives in the Arts, Critical Perspectives in Communication, Living Systems, Probing the Physical World, STS + Self and Society (2 of 3 colleges) or Gender and Society (1 of 3 colleges)

UP Baguio

36

UP Cebu

36

24 units: Kasaysayan ng Pilipinas, Ethics and Moral Reasoning, Critical Perspectives in the Arts, Critical Perspectives in Communication, Self & Society, Math Culture & Society, STS, Living Systems

UPOU

30

21 units: Kasaysayan ng Pilipinas, Ethics and Moral Reasoning, Wika Kultura at Lipunan, Critical Perspectives in the Arts, Living Systems, STS, Mathematics, Culture and Society

UP Mindanao

30

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015

18 units: Kasaysayan ng Pilipinas, Ethics and Moral Reasoning, Critical Perspectives in the Arts, STS, Mathematics, Culture and Society, Mindanao Studies 1

43


CU

UP Visayas

UP Baguio

UP Cebu

44

Total Units

Elective GE Courses

36

12 units from the rest of the 11 new courses + ENVI SCI 10, SOCSCI 5, AQUA SCI

36

9 units from the rest of the 11 new courses + History 3 (History of Ethnic Minorities), SOC SCI 13 (Gender and Society), and other existing GE courses

36

12 units from the rest of the 11 new courses + other existing GE courses, History 12 (Philippine Islamic History), Sugbuanon Literature

UPOU

30

UP Mindanao

30

9 units from Self and Society, Critical Perspectives in Communication, Philippine Arts and Culture, SOC SCI 13, HUM 1 (Literature Society and the Individual), SOC SCI 2 (Social Economic and Political Thought), Critical Perspectives on Globalization

18 units from rest of the 11 new courses + BIO 8, Programming, Filipino “Great Books” course, and combined HUM 3 and PHILO 1

Non-specialist Non-GE courses

12 units: Academic Discourse, English for the Professions, Critical Digital Literacy, Analytics

6 units: reconfigured COMM 1 and 2 (specified by CHSS only)

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015


Session 2: Report on the June 2015 Workshops on GE Associate Prof. Leonardo C. Rosete, Arts and Letters Cluster Chair Prof. Miguela M. Mena, PhD, Management and Economics Cluster Chair Prof. Mark Albert H. Zarco, PhD, Science and Technology Cluster Chair Prof. Grace H. Aguiling-Dalisay, PhD, Social Sciences and Law Cluster Chair

ABSTRACT This presentation gives the highlights of the cluster workshops3 held in June 2015 to discuss the draft GE framework prepared by the UP GE Task Force.

PRESENTATION HIGHLIGHTS Cluster Workshops •• Arts and Letters Cluster, chaired by Asoc. Prof. Leonardo C. Rosete of the College of Fine Arts (CFA): 10 June, 9 AM to 12 PM, at the College of Fine Arts •• Science and Technology Cluster, chaired by Dr. Mark Albert H. Zarco of the College of Engineering: 10 June, 1 to 5 PM, at the National Engineering Center (NEC) Audiovisual Room •• Management and Economics Cluster, chaired by Dr. Miguela M. Mena of the Asian Institute of Tourism (AIT), 11 June, 8 AM to 12 PM, at the AIT Seminar Room •• Social Sciences and Law Cluster, chaired by Dr. Grace H. Aguiling-Dalisay of the College of Social Sciences and Philosophy (CSSP), 11 June, 1 to 5 PM, at CSSP Palma Hall 207

3.

Outline • Context and rationale • Philosophy of General Education • Program objectives • GE curriculum structure • Pedagogical principles • Program implementation

See Annexes 2.2 and 2.3 for the full cluster workshop reports

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015

45


• Context and Rationale System Proposed

• Since its institution more than half a century ago during the term of President Vicente G. Sinco, the UP General Education (GE) Program has undergone two major revisions — the first time in 1986 during the term of President Edgardo J. Angara, and then in 2001 during the term of President Francisco Nemenzo. • In the 1986 revision, from a total of 63 units the Program was cut to 42 units that included new interdisciplinary courses, namely, Social Science I and II, Natural Science I and II, and Science, Technology and Society (STS). • In the 2001 revision, the ‘cafeteria’ model was adopted where, instead of taking a common set of prescribed courses, students could select five courses each (15 units) in the Arts and Humanities (AH), Social Sciences and Philosophy (SSP), and Mathematics, Science and Technology (MST) domains from an array of GE courses offered not only by the humanities, philosophy, social sciences, science, and mathematics departments but also by other units that in the past offered only specialist courses.

46

From Clusters

• Overall, the Clusters are in agreement that there is a need to revise the present GE Program given the national and international trends affecting the Philippine higher education system • The Arts and Humanities Cluster and the Management and Economics Cluster agree with the general idea presented in the Proposed GE Framework which states that the UP GE Program is an articulation of the principles of a liberal education which provides a counterbalance to specialization. • The Science and Technology Cluster believes that with the “rapid pace of development and technological innovation” together with the “exponential growth of knowledge,” universities today face the challenge of how to educate students so that they do not become antiquated shortly after graduating from college.

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015


System Proposed

• In the intervening years two other revisions to the GE Program were made, as follows: in 1971, during the term of President Salvador P. Lopez, students were given the option to take 12 units of Pilipino and/or English within the GE Program (Evangelista, 1985); and in 2010, the ‘hybrid’ curriculum consisting of a small number of prescribed GE courses combined with elective or free choice GE courses in each of the three domains, was adopted. • Like the previous GE Program revisions, the current review of the UP GE Program is influenced by developments in the University’s internal and external environments. The 2013 UP GE Program revision proposal cites two external developments as the most cogent: the implementation of the Enhanced Basic Education or K-to-12 Program, and the internationalization of higher education particularly in the context of ASEAN integration.

From Clusters

• The Social Sciences and Law Cluster articulated the point that with the implementation of K-to-12 Enhanced Basic Education, there will be courses which will be absorbed, especially those that are remedial in nature, to the Academic Track of Grades 11 and 12. In addition, the cluster referred to the CHED Memorandum No. 20, which mandates the revision of GE programs of colleges and universities in the context of globalization. • The Clusters anticipate that the implementation of the K-to-12 Program by the Department of Education will bring about numerous changes in the profile of students admitted to college. Having undergone an additional two years of basic education, graduates of the K-to-12 Program are expected to be intellectually and emotionally more mature when compared to graduates of the current basic education program. It is also anticipated that students graduating from this K-12 Program will be more heterogeneous with respect to knowledge and skills given the different tracks and strands in the Senior High School curricula. The Clusters recognize that with the implementation of the K-to-12 Program there will be a need to revise specific undergraduate programs from five years to 4 years, to be make them comparable with similar programs worldwide. There is also concern regarding the possible duplicity of courses between core and applied track subjects to be instituted in Senior High School with currently offered General Education courses.

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015

47


System Proposed

• The Proposed GE Framework also cites the GE Program assessments conducted in the past before any Program revision was made. • The Proposed GE Framework acknowledges a strong scientific and technological “as well as an array of higher-order cognitive and social skills” (Haddad and Draxler quoted in the Proposed Framework 2015, 7) as the foundation of the students’ life-long learning ability. This foundation is argued to be a necessity considering the “exponential growth of knowledge, and increasing global interdependence.”

From Clusters

• It is anticipated that the move towards greater global interdependence and the forging of international agreements will result in the need to establish substantial equivalence of academic programs based on globally accepted benchmarks. No assessment or review, however, was made of the existing GE which is about to be overhauled. The absence of an internal review which could help the University craft a stronger GE Program becomes more apparent vis-à-vis the Proposed Framework’s focus on the external factors that impinge on and therefore necessitate the revision of UP’s GEP. There is a general perception that the UP GE Program is ineffective in achieving the Program objectives. Representatives from various colleges expressed the concern that some of the students completing their programs lack the skill set needed for academic and scholarly rigor.

• The Proposed GE Framework is silent, however, on the need for multiple literacies honed by the Arts and Humanities, disciplines that continuously challenge existing knowledges and paradigms. Overall, the AH cluster observes a bias towards scientific and binarist thinking in the Proposed Framework.

48

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015


Philosophy of GE System Proposed • The GE Program is the embodiment of the UP tradition of liberal education which “aims to provide students with a broad perspective that would enable them, outside their own field of specialization, to engage with issues and realities of their own times as citizens with sturdy moral and intellectual integrity. The General Education Program, sensitive to the synergistic relationship between the sciences and the humanities, would therefore effect the marriage, as it were, of lofty ideals and constructive action for the common good.” • That broad perspective implies various approaches or ways of looking at things, concomitant with discernment and good judgment, whereby is enhanced the ability to create, innovate, and communicate for the production of knowledge and the actual implementation of advocacies and projects.

From Clusters • The AH, ST, and SSL Clusters expressed broad agreement with liberal education as a major guiding principle of the General Education Program philosophy. The GE Program is seen as an embodiment of the core values of UP education. It espouses a transformative and holistic education for Filipino students. • However, there were differing views on the role of the GE Program in the students’ degree program. The question being: Is the GE a foundation or frame for the specialist/ professional courses? The ME Cluster Report primarily posed a series of questions with regard to the GE Program itself. Corollary to this, the ST Cluster noted that the ME subjects are not among the currently offered GE courses. It was suggested that this be corrected since the GE Program best encompasses all disciplines. Lastly, the AH Report called for a articulation of a clear GE philosophy since they found this lacking in the Proposed Framework. The AH Cluster believes that a GE philosophy is an ethos characterized by the following basic principles: GE is by nature a liberal education that need not be expressly utilitarian. It is nonspecialist (i.e., it is holistic and integrative) and its value is not immediately obvious or particularly manifested in a set of measurable skills. At its best, it develops not only critical,

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015

49


System Proposed

From Clusters

but more importantly, creative thinking and action. The UPGEP develops ways of being and the embodiment of the loftiest principles at the core of a UP education. The Program, thus, by going beyond inculcating habits of thought and ways of perceiving, develops students who live the ideals of pagiging makabayan and makatao. GE is a transformative education that potentially changes oneself, one’s worldview, and one’s world. A meaningful GEP encourages creative and constructive action that contributes to the improvement of the student’s community, nation, and the world. This transformative nature of the GEP draws it strength from recognizing the Filipino student’s cultural specificity at the same time as his/her shared humanity. The Science and Technology (S&T) cluster generally supports the philosophy that the UP Diliman GE Program should be an articulation of the principles of liberal education. Nevertheless, a number of issues were raised by some of the workshop participants. Regarding the scope, the proposed GE Program appears to give emphasis to the natural sciences, social sciences, and the arts and humanities. It was noted that the proposed GE framework does not include disciplines coming from the Business and Management and Economics cluster. Some participants believe that the scope of the GE Program should be expanded to include disciplines from all academic clusters. Some

50

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015


System Proposed

From Clusters workshop participants expressed differing opinions on the role General Education should play with respect to the overall undergraduate curriculum. Some participants the emphasized the role of General Education courses as a means of framing specialization and professional courses within the proper context, while other participants expressed the opinion that General Education courses should serve as the foundation for specialization courses. As an example, participants from the School of Statistics explained that in order for students to properly interpret the results of statistical analyses, they need to be aware of the specific context of the data being analyzed. • The Social Sciences and Law Cluster is in agreement that UP GE Program necessarily embodies liberal arts education, through which students are infused with capabilities unique to the University for their holistic development as individuals. The tradition of liberal education serves as trajectory where Asian studies, Islamic studies, or studies on comparative religion can also have their place in the integration of knowledge complementing the GE.

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015

51


Program Objectives System Proposed

• Develop leadership characterized by integrity and honor, excellence in scholarship, and public service, the hallmarks of a UP education. Provide students with a broad foundation of study that will: broaden intellectual and cultural horizons; hone critical and creative thinking; develop a passion for learning and scholarship; cultivate a high sense of intellectual and moral integrity; and foster a commitment to service and social justice.

• In line with the proposed GE Program objectives, an integrated curriculum consisting of a minimum of 21 units and a maximum of 36 units of interdisciplinary courses is proposed. Each CU shall determine the total number of GE courses at the CU level based on an analysis of undergraduate program needs and requirements, and select the GE courses to be taken by their students from the array of GE courses to be approved based on the principles and guidelines laid out in this framework.

From Clusters

• Broaden intellectual and cultural horizons by developing in the students a high level of competence in languages and literacies beyond the oral and written. Such expansion of horizons can only happen in a GEP that is open to various modes of knowledge such as sensorial and embodied knowledges or what we refer to as knowledges embedded in danas and damdam.

• GE Program aims to develop in the student a responsible, critical, creative, ethical, analytical and independent thinker, aware of history, and capable of critical reflection, is able to see things from the perspectives of different disciplines and their interrelationships, a global citizen, who has a strong sense of his/her identity as a Filipino.

• To underscore the interdisciplinarity that distinguishes the GE Program from specialist education, a thematic rather than domain-based classification of GE courses is proposed. Themes are interdisciplinary in character — i.e., they cut across disciplines, and different disciplines can and should contribute to the elucidation of each theme.

52

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015


System Proposed

• Each program and/or CU may complement the GE

From Clusters

• Develop a passion for learning and scholarship

Program with other non-specialist courses that develop non-domain specific skills which program faculty might consider in determining which and how many non-domain specific courses to require of their majors.

that leads to constructive and creative action. It is not enough that the GEP encourages students to have a high regard for scholarship. More important is the “living out” or pagsasadiwa of academic excellence characterized by the continuous pursuit of knowledge and an engaged practice of scholarship.

GE courses shall be interdisciplinary in pedagogy as well as in content. An appropriate mix of instructional methods and strategies shall be adopted to enable the synthesis and integration of concepts learned from various disciplinary perspectives and paradigms.

Cultivate the embodiment of a high sense of intellectual and moral integrity. Intelligence, which is manifested in the student’s ability to think critically, is not confined to the mind. Likewise, ethics is not merely a cognitive function but an embodied philosophy. Thus, the GEP’s strong grounding on ethics must emphasize that ethical principles are “lived.” The main objective of the GE Program that distinguishes it from specialization and other courses should be the broadening of intellectual and cultural horizons beyond one’s discipline as well as allow students to develop a holistic and integrated perspective of critical issues.

• GE courses shall develop critical, creative, and reflective thinking skills through the appropriate use of learning resources and technologies. Learning activities should develop analytic skills, as well as creativity and the ability to critically reflect on one’s own thinking and practice.

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015

Foster a commitment to service and social justice that is grounded on the student’s strong sense of Filipino-ness but complemented by a strong understanding of his/her position and location in the world. The GE Program should aim to develop in students leadership characterized by specific attributes such as nationalism and public service, scholarship, and integrity and honor. The GE Program should provide knowledge skills, and training for creative and critical thinking to enable students to become not only leaders

53


System Proposed

From Clusters

• The GE courses require teams of faculty members who are specialists in their fields but who are also interdisciplinary in orientation. Professional development in interdisciplinary pedagogies and instructional support services should be made available to all GE course teams. In support of the scholarship of teaching and learning, faculty members handling and/or coordinating GE courses or Programs should also be encouraged to undertake research on GE and publish such work in scholarly journals.

• The administration of the GE Program is a collaborative effort of the faculty handling the GE courses, the CU GE Program Coordinators, the CU GE Councils or Committees, and the System GE Council. The CU GE Councils or Committees and the System GE Council shall be responsible for the policymaking aspects of Program administration, and the GE faculty and GE Program Coordinators shall be responsible for Program implementation.

54

in their chosen disciplines, but also model members of society.

The GE Program should support specific learning outcomes such as lifelong learning and social awareness.

Learning outcomes should also include knowledge of technology, visual and digital literacy, social skills and emotional maturity, empathy and charisma. Hone critical thinking and nourish creative knowledges complemented by a participative/reflexive practice. The GEP cultivates in the students the ability to harness creative and artistic practices for the exploration of alternative forms of thinking and being. The student should be skilled in solving problems, making decisions, independent learning, effective communication, ICT, research, and multicultural competence. He / She values service, honor, excellence, commitment, appreciation of culture, honesty, integrity, creativity, empowerment, gender responsiveness, citizenship, social responsibility, intellectual curiosity, concern for the environment, appreciation and respect for diversity, collaborative attitude, commitment to equity and social justice, integrity and sensitivity to varied cultures/countries, nationalism, vocation for national service, and professionalism.

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015


GE Curriculum Structure System Proposed

•

The proposed GE Program involves an integrated curriculum consisting of a minimum of 21 units and a maximum of 36 units of interdisciplinary courses. Each CU shall determine the total number of GE courses at the CU level based on an analysis of undergraduate program needs and requirements, and select the GE courses to be taken by their students from the array of GE courses to be approved based on the principles and guidelines laid out in this framework.

From Clusters

•

A&L: 33 units consisting of 12-unit University Writing and Communication Program (UWCP), 12 units of disciplinary courses (one from each of the four academic clusters) and 9 units of interdisciplinary courses. M&E: No recommendation. However raised questions regarding what will happen to existing GE courses. S&T: Agrees with system proposal. Majority of S&T units that need to reduce programs from 5to 4-years favor the 21-minimum. SS&L: Cluster has two proposals. The Hybrid Flexibundle program proposed by CSSP ranges from 36- to 45-units consisting of 7 required courses in the Hybrid Program with the remaining 15 to 24 units consisting of domainbased courses. The second proposal is to reduce the number of units from the present 45 units to 36 units.

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015

55


System Proposed

• To highlight the interdisciplinary emphasis that distinguishes the GE Program from specialist education, thematic rather than domain-based classification of GE courses is proposed. Themes are interdisciplinary in character — i.e., they cut across disciplines, and different disciplines can and should contribute to the elucidation of each theme. Four themes are proposed: Culture and Identity; Language and Expression; Social Systems and Natural Systems. • Each program and/or CU may complement the GE Program with other non-specialist courses that develop non-domain specific skills which program faculty might consider necessary for effective learning and performance in the major fields. The unbundling of these skills or “tool” courses from the set of GE courses is proposed to give program faculty more latitude in determining which and how many non-domain specific courses to require of their majors.

56

From Clusters

• Majority agree there should be domains or themes within the GE Curriculum structure based either on the academic clusters, or the themes described in the proposed framework. Most workshop participants agreed that there should be both required as well as elective GE courses. Students should be able to take GE course at any year level and in any sequence. Colleges should be given the latitude to prescribe the required and elective GE courses. A&L is recommending that the UWCP be required of all students. M&E did not recommend any specific courses. S&T is recommending that courses be selected to cover all domains or themes. SS&L is recommending that domain-based courses be prescribed based on the Program (selective) or by choice of the student (elective).

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015


Pedagogical Principles System Proposed

• GE courses shall be interdisciplinary in pedagogy as well as in content. An appropriate mix of instructional methods and strategies should be adopted to enable the synthesis and integration of concepts learned from various disciplinary perspectives and paradigms. • GE courses shall be learning-centered, with a clear focus on learning outcomes. Learning activities should be designed to enable learners to achieve the envisioned learning outcomes. There should be integration across activities, and a focus on the formative and summative assessment of learning and providing timely feedback and support to all learners. • GE courses shall develop critical, creative, and reflective thinking skills through the appropriate use of learning resources and technologies. Learning activities should develop analytic skills, as well as creativity and the ability to critically reflect on one’s own thinking and practice.

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015

From Clusters

• A&L recommends a mixture of writing and communication, domain-based courses, and interdisciplinary courses. M&E has no specific recommendation. S&T recommends a mixture of domain-based, interdisciplinary courses and complementary non-specialist courses. SS&L recommends disciplinal together with domain-based courses. No comments regarding specific instructional method to be used. • Units stressed the need for learning activities which develop students both intellectually as well as psycho-socially. Learning activities should integrate thinking and cognitive skills with other skills such as communication, numeracy, digital literacy.

57


Program Implementation System Proposed

• The GE courses require teams of faculty members who are specialists in their fields but who are also interdisciplinary in orientation. Professional development in interdisciplinary pedagogies and instructional support services should be made available to all GE course teams. In support of the scholarship of teaching and learning, faculty members handling and/or coordinating GE courses or Programs should also be encouraged to undertake research on GE and publish such work in scholarly journals. • The administration of the GE Program is a collaborative effort of the faculty handling the GE courses, the CU GE Program Coordinators, the CU GE Councils or Committees, and the System GE Council. The CU GE Councils or Committees and the System GE Council shall be responsible for the policy-making aspects of Program administration, and the GE faculty and GE Program Coordinators shall be responsible for Program implementation. • There should be a regular evaluation of GE courses and the GE Program as a whole, at the CU and System levels. The design of GE Program and course evaluation should be carefully and collaboratively planned by the System GE Council and CU GE Councils or Committees at the outset (i.e., upon the adoption of this proposed GE Program framework).

58

From Clusters

• Most clusters were silent on the aspects of the Program administration, course programming, faculty support, and Program evaluation. Regarding the institution of courses, the College of Science explicitly stated that in addition to the 11 courses included in the proposed GE Framework, existing GE/RGEP courses should be retained in the pool of possible GE course offerings. Other participants expressed the view that existing courses may need to be evaluated and possibly revised to conform to the GE framework before they can be included in the pool of GE course offerings. • Within the M&E cluster, questions were raised regarding the consequences of having varying GE courses across CUs. The M&E cluster also pointed out the need to help units with limited resources and limited GE courses being offered to their students such as the UP Extension Program in Pampanga, as well as the need for graduate programs offered by SOLAIR and TMC to have GE Programs from students whose undergraduate degrees were not obtained from UP.

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015


Session 3: Highlights of the 24 August 2015 Pre-Conference Symposium on the Number of GE Units Prof. Violeda A. Umali, PhD, Director, Office of the Director of Instruction ABSTRACT

Survey results

This presentation gives a recap of the symposium held on 24 August 2015 to present and deliberate on the number of GE units that the UPD colleges/ academic units recommend for their respective undergraduate degree Programs4.

••

PRESENTATION HIGHLIGHTS Symposium overview •• •• •• ••

Date held: 24 August 2015 Venue: College of Engineering Theater Number of participants: 99 Agenda: Presentation and discussion of the recommendations of colleges/units regarding the number of GE units for their respective programs

Survey of colleges/units

•• ••

••

16 of 19 colleges/units with undergraduate degree programs submitted recommendations ₒₒ In 9 colleges/units, the recommended number is the same for all undergraduate degree programs ₒₒ In 2 colleges, the recommended number is the same for all but one of the undergraduate degree programs ₒₒ In 5 colleges, recommendations differ across undergraduate degree programs The recommended number of GE units ranges from 18 to 45 11 colleges/units included UWCP courses ₒₒ Part of GE for 7 colleges/units ₒₒ Not part of GE for 4 colleges/units ₒₒ Number of UWCP units not the same across colleges/units Colleges/units used different bases for the distribution of GE courses

Symposium participants’ recommendations Memorandum No. OVCAA-BMP 15-088 ₒₒ Number of GE units for degree program/s 1. The minimum number of GE units in each ₒₒ Types of GE courses undergraduate degree program shall be 21. ₒₒ Courses from the UWCP 2. The UWCP proposal shall be elaborated and/ ₒₒ Other relevant information or revised by CAL as the lead proponent; the number of UWCP units to be included in and/ or to complement the GE curriculum shall be decided upon by the colleges or units. 3. The specific courses that will make up the GE curriculum will be tackled in future GE fora including the upcoming UPD GE Conference on 4. See Annex 2.4 for the details about the Symposium. 28-29 September 2015. ••

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015

59


Other points ₒₒ ₒₒ

ₒₒ

ₒₒ ₒₒ ₒₒ

60

Clarify terms: e.g., domains, clusters, course categories, themes, disciplinal, interdisciplinary. GE curriculum planning should clarify what GE courses are being discussed – past, present or future GE courses; disciplinal or interdisciplinary courses; and when (year) GE-related plans will be implemented. To guide curricular planning, disseminate information about what current GE (and other) course offerings will be abolished, modified or replaced with another course. GE courses should be handled by experts on the subject matter of the course, not by new faculty. Decisions on GE courses to require/offer should take into consideration the resource requirements for offering/teaching those courses. Pilot courses should be offered by AY 20162017. AY 2015-2016 should be devoted to the formulation of the course syllabi.

OPEN FORUM FOR SESSIONS 1 – 3 AND WORKSHOP OVERVIEW: HIGHLIGHTS Prof. Elizabeth L. Enriquez, PhD College of Mass Communication Moderator

••

Prof. Priscelina Patajo-Legasto (CAL) sought clarification on the use of the terms “interdisciplinary” and “multidisciplinary” and which of the two might be more appropriate to use to refer to GE courses. Prof. Patricia Arinto (UPOU) pointed out that while some might interpret “interdisciplinary” to mean “between two disciplines,” an alternative perspective is to consider a hierarchy starting from monodisciplinary, to multidisciplinary as the middle point, and to interdisciplinary as the highest point. In the latter perspective, “multidisciplinary” refers to the combination of two or more disciplines in one course, but the combination is not as deep and as profound as the integration of disciplines in an interdisciplinary course.

••

Vice-Chancellor Benito Pacheco (OVCAA) proposed, as a working definition of “discipline,” to treat each undergraduate program as one discipline. There have been a lot of debates on what constitutes a discipline; the working definition provides a clear way of assessing whether a course is interdisciplinary or not.

••

Assistant Prof. Julius Balista (UPLB) pointed out that to achieve Tatak UP, there should be common GE courses across CUs. Prof. Arinto

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015


(UPOU) said that in the past, UP students indeed took the same set of GE courses regardless of what degree program they were majoring in. However, with the shift to the “cafeteria” concept for choice of GE courses under RGEP, it will be difficult to go back to the old GE curriculum because of logistical challenges. Nonetheless, Tatak UP remains as the spirit of the GE Program. ••

Associate Prof. Aldrin Lee (CSSP) inquired about the GE Task Force’s proposal to categorize GE courses according to themes instead of categories, the latter being the system of classification that has been used in the 2013 GE proposal and the basis for the course syllabi developed in the 2014 GE mini-conferences. Prof. Arinto (UPOU) said that whereas “category” is a neutral term, “theme” is conceptual and veers away from the tendency to identify courses with particular disciplines/programs. That said, Prof. Arinto reminded the body that decisions about courses, including how they are to be classified, should always be based on program goals and objectives.

••

Prof. Toby Melissa Monsod (SE) said that she believes that interdisciplinarity has always been a feature of UP courses. Also, learning outcomes are not produced in a year but through the course of a student’s life in UP, and even beyond the university. She also pointed out that even if some college-level courses might seem to overlap with senior high school courses, there is a difference in the pedagogical approach for college and high school courses. College courses integrate whatever learning students got from their high school courses

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015

••

Prof. Violeda Umali (ODI) gave an overview of Workshops 1 – 4, and the following were the main comments and suggestions of the body: ₒₒ Dean Amihan Ramolete (CAL) suggested that the proceedings of the 2014 GE Conference be consulted to determine if there are issues in this year’s conference that were also tackled in the previous year. Prof. Umali (ODI) said that the 2014 conference proceedings are available online and can be downloaded by those wishing to do so. ₒₒ Asssistant Prof. Clod Marlan Krister Yambao (CAL) noted that it might be difficult for participants to keep track of agreements in the different workshops since the workshops are to be held simultaneously. Prof. Mark Albert Zarco (COE) said that the plenary sessions will be the venue for the presentation and discussion of workshop outputs. Through the plenary sessions, participants will get updated on the outputs of the different workshops. ₒₒ Prof. Nymia Simbulan (UPM) suggested that the commonalities in the comments/ feedback of the four academic clusters about the proposed GE framework be summarized. ₒₒ Assistant Prof. Nancy Kimuell-Gabriel proposed that the presentations on the Palisi sa Wika ng Unibersidad ng Pilipinas and the proposal for the University Writing and Communication Program (UWCP), which are originally scheduled on Day 2 of the conference, be held prior to Workshops 1 – 4. The body concurred with this proposal. 61


Session 4: Ang Palisi sa Wika ng Unibersidad ng Pilipinas Associate Prof. Rommel B. Rodriguez, PhD Director, Sentro ng Wikang Filipino – UP Diliman ABSTRACT This presentation issues a reminder to UPD constituents about the University’s policy5 on the use of Filipino as medium of instruction for teaching, whilst underscoring the practice that adoption of Filipino remains a voluntary decision of the faculty.

••

••

PRESENTATION HIGHLIGHTS Konteksto ng pagkakaroon ng Palisi sa Wika sa Unibersidad ng Pilipinas ••

••

••

4.

62

Ayon kay Carlos P. Romulo (1968), upang lubos na mapag-aralan ang kultura ng Pilipinas, kailangan ang kabatiran sa Tagalog bilang midyum ng saloobin ng masa at ng malaking bilang ng mga Pilipinong makabayan at pinuno. At para sa kanya, sa pamamagitan ng wika mas nagkakaroon ng malawak na integrasyon at palitan ng kaalaman ang mga bansa sa pagitan ng mga skolar at mananaliksik. Para sa lingwist na si Prof. Ricardo Nolasco, noong 1960s pa lamang ay may umiiral nang Tagalog lingua franca, samantala ang Pilipino naman ay uri ng Tagalog na ipinalaganap at itinuturo sa eskwelahan noong 1970s. Ang Pilipino ay bunga ng deliberasyong konstitusyonal noong 1986. Nakapaloob sa probisyong ito na ang Pilipino ay ang magiging Wikang Pambansa na lilinangin at pagyayamanin batay sa iba’t-ibang wika sa Pilipinas kasama na ang Ingles at Espanyol.

••

••

••

Taong 1968 ay tinatalakay na ang mga nakitang suliranin sa paggamit ng Wikang Pambansa sa pagtuturo. Ilan sa mga ito ay ang pinansiyal na suporta, ang kakulangan sa pangunahing materyales at babasahin, at kakapusan ng silidaklatan. Bago pa man aprubahan ang Palisi sa Wika ng Unibersidad ng Pilipinas, naging paksang usapin na ang paggamit ng Wikang Pilipino sa pagtuturo sa ibat-ibang disiplina ng mga guro sa dating College of Arts and Sciences (CAS) sa UP Diliman. Isang isyu ng General Education Journal (1970-71) na inilathala ng CAS ang inilaan upang talakayin sa paggamit ng Pilipino bilang wikang pagturo. Sa panahon ng pamumuno ni dating Pangulong Salvador P. Lopez ay ipinatupad ang patakarang bilingual sa UP. Maluwag na tinanggap ng mga estudyante ang revised GE Code noon na nagtatakda sa mga kurso ng Pilipino. Pinnagunahan ng Departamento ng Pilipino at mga Wika ng Pilipinas ang pagpapatuloy sa mga programa ng Wika at Panitikan sa larangan ng pagtuturo at pananaliksik. Ginagamit na ang Wikang Pilipino bilang midyum ng pagtuturo sa mga kurso sa Psychology, History, Speech and Drama, Physics, Chemistry, Medicine, Engineering, Law, Agriculture at iba pa. Inaprubahan ang Palisi sa Wika ng Unibersidad ng Pilipinas noong Mayo 29, 1989. Sa pamamagitan ni Prop. Gemino Abad na noon ay Vice President for Academic Affairs ay ibinaba ang Memo Bilang 89-4.

Please refer to Annex 2.5 for the full text of the policy UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015


••

Sa Palising ito ay nakasaad na mangunguna ang Unibersidad sa pagtulong sa pagbuo ng nasyonal na Wikang Filipino. Filipino ang magiging midyum ng pagtuturo sa Unibersidad sa undergraduate na lebel sa loob ng isang risonableng panahong transisyon. At sa panahon ng transisyon ay magiging boluntaryo ang pagtuturo ng Filipino.

••

Konteksto ng pagkakaroon ng palisi sa wika sa Unibersidad ng Pilipinas ••

••

The language policy is one of the strong foundations of UP and guides the collective creation and ownership of the characteristic of the University of the Philippines as a distinct University that produces excellent, honorable and committed iskolar ng bayan. Paalala ni Ronaldo Tinio, National Artist for Literature, na “Tayo ay marapat na matutong tumanda ng paurong.” Ayon kay Tinio, mahalaga ang pag-atras, pag-urong at palaging pagpihit at pag-uwi sa sariling pugad, at “higit sa pag-unlad at pagsulong ang pagtining at pagtiim ng diwa.”

••

••

OPEN FORUM – HIGHLIGHTS Prof. Grace H. Aguiling-Dalisay, PhD, College of Social Sciences and Philosophy Moderator

••

Assistant Prof. Junius Balista (UPLB) said that using Filipino in the Sciences has two challenges: lack of available resources and teaching materials in Filipino language, and lack of experience among Science faculty members in teaching subjects in Filipino. Associate Prof. Rommel Rodriguez (SWF) said that there are available resources and textbooks in Filipino; however, they need to be

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015

••

••

updated. Moreover, in UPLB, most of the faculty members of the Science Department have started or have done researches in Filipino language, and have translated their Biology and other subjects to Filipino language. Associate Prof. Rodriguez (SWF) reiterated that compliance with the language policy will still be voluntary. However, in accordance with the provisions of the Palisi sa Wika, all steps to ensure the success of the use and evolution of Filipino language should be undertaken. He also emphasized that the implementation of the language policy is not solely the responsibility of the SWF; it is the responsibility of the whole UP community, since the policy was approved by the Board of Regents. Assistant Prof. Glen Imbang (TMC) noted that the implementation of the language policy has not cascaded to such things as the board exams and policy-making. He also noted that even in the UP Integrated School (UPIS), Science subjects are taught in Filipino but the exams are still in English. Associate Prof. Melania Flores (CAL) said that discussions on the language policy started in 1989, during the term of former U.P. President Jose V. Abueva, and after the EDSA 1 People Power Revolution. The goal then was to make Filipino the medium of teaching and learning, as well as the official language of the bureaucracy. Unfortunately, the policy has not been implemented fully. Significantly, Filipino is not being used as the language for knowledge production (i.e., of research and other discourses). Associate Prof. Rodriguez (SWF) concurred that the University’s language policy should be considered in the design the GE Program, and in the identification and establishment of courses that will be required under the GE Program. Dean Rosario Alonzo (CEd) suggested that efforts 63


••

••

64

be undertaken to revisit, re-evaluate, and even re-introduce the language policy, given that some faculty members may not even be aware that there is such a language policy in the university. Prof. Roland Sarmago (CS) said that given the limited implementation of the policy, it might be difficult to undertake the suggested policy review. Dean Grace Aguiling-Dalisay (CSSP) pointed out that since the implementation of the policy is a dynamic process, there are instances when the implementation of the policy is more or less successful than in other instances. Associate Prof. Rodriguez (SWF) stressed that his arguments about the language policy “ay batay sa mga testimonyang nakalathala sa mga historikal na tandang kilala ko para bigyan ng buhay at istraktura kung bakit may palisi sa wikang Filipino sa Unibersidad.” Associate Prof. Portial Padilla (CEd) clarified that the College of Education would like to determine whether or not the language policy has been successful, and to identify what the problem areas are in connection with the policy’s implementation, so that they are better guided on the next steps to take regarding said policy. Associate Prof. Rodriguez (SWF) requested participants, in the course of identifying the resolutions for each of the workshops, to take note of Section 2.2. of the language policy: “Filipino ang magiging midyum na pagtuturo sa Unibersidad ng Pilipinas sa undergraduate na lebel sa loob ng isang risonableng panahon ng transisyon.”

••

••

Associate Prof. Aldrin Lee (CSSP) noted that the current practice in teaching is to use Taglish, even for courses that are supposedly to be taught in English. One of the problems with the use of Taglish is that foreign students are unable to follow the class discussions. It will thus help to identify whch courses are being taught in English, and which ones are being taught in Filipino. Associate Prof. Flores (CAL) raised two points: first, it is necessary to recall the philosophy of our national language and, second, in crafting the GE Program, academics should be guided by vision and idealism instead of allowing themselves to be restricted by operational challenges. She also urged her colleagues to dream and create knowledge and intellectualize in the Filipino language.

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015


Session 5 - The Proposed New General Education Program with the University Writing and Communication Program Professor Ruth Jordana L. Pison, PhD GE Program Coordinator, College of Arts and Letters ABSTRACT The College of Arts and Letters presents the features of the UWCP as a component of CAL’s proposed New GE Program (NGEP)6.

PRESENTATION HIGHLIGHTS What kind of UP graduate do we want? •• •• ••

Wields language as a means of inquiry and investigation Integrates and synthesizes knowledge derived from various fields Commits to service and social justice

Course classification systems

Current UP Diliman Hybrid GE (45 units) Arts and Humanities

Social Sciences and Philosophy

Math, Science and Technology

Eng 10

Kas 1

Math 2

Fii 40

Philo 1

STS

Comm 3

SSP Elective

MST Elective

AH Elective

SSP Elective

MST Elective

AH Elective

SSP Elective

MST Elective

The Proposed New General Education Program (NGEP) •• •• •• •• •• •• ••

6.

Minimum: 33 units The Program will be effective in 2018 The UWCP will replace existing GE subjects offered in Grades 11 and 12 such as Eng 1, Eng 10, Comm 3, etc. Existing CAL GE courses will be offered until students using the old curricula graduate The program will NOT be retroactive The program is NOT a modified version of the current hybrid GE The UWCP of 12 units is the CORE of the proposed New General Education Program

Please see Annex 2.6 for the Sample Syllabi of UWCP Courses

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015

65


SECOND LAYER : DISCIPLINAL ELECTIVES (12 units) ••

UWCP

••

A 3-unit course from EACH of the following disciplinal clusters: Arts and Letters Social Sciences and Law Science and Technology Can include the existing GE courses (modified to adjust to K-to-12) or introductory, survey, or entrylevel courses in any of the disciplines

THIRD LAYER: INTERDISCIPLINAL COURSES (9 units)

Interdisciplinal

••

UWCP

Disciplinal Courses

Interdisciplinal Courses

•• •• ••

12 units

12 units

9 units

••

FIRST LAYER: UWCP (12 units) •• •• •• 66

6 units Writing courses in Filipino AND English 3 units Oral Communication course in Filipino OR English 3 units Junior year writing in Filipino or English

Any 3 courses from the proposed System GE courses Proposed new Diliman interdisciplinary courses Including STS Philosophy of the UWCP The UWCP is a PROGRAM. It should be considered as a program in its entirety. It is conceived as a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. Assumptions of the UWCP Letters are at the center of a liberal humanist education.Disciplinal knowledge is the foundation of interdisciplinal thinking.

Layer 1: UWCP Breadth of knowledge Layer 2: Disciplinal courses Depth of knowledge •• Introduce students to disciplinal rigors in fields outside their own majors Layer 3: Interdisciplinal •• Connector courses to demonstrate and provoke critical thinking across disciplines •• Problem solving integrative-synthetic mode

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015


Language = a tool we use to render reality Language is CRITICAL Language is TRANSFORMATIVE Writing IS Thinking OBJECTIVES OF THE UWCP After going through the new GE Program which includes the UWCP as its core, a student will:

Proposed Courses UWCP 1 Mapanuri at Malikhaing Pag-iisip at Pagsulat sa Akademiya at Lipunan UWCP 2 Writing as Thinking UWCP 3 Persuasion and Public Communication UWCP 4 Junior Writing Courses (Filipino) UWCP 5 Junior Writing Courses (English) UWCP : Junior Writing Courses (Filipino)

1.

create new knowledges formed from understanding, interpreting and questioning what s/he has learned and to communicate it to the world 2. wield language primarily in the form of written and oral communication 3. take a reasoned position primarily in oral and written language 4. claim a responsible voice in a community in order to contribute to social transformation

• • • •

Pagsusulat sa mga Akademikong Disiplina (Agham at Teknolohiya) Pagsusulat sa mga Akademikong Disiplina (Negosyo at Ekonomiks) Pagsusulat sa mga Akademikong Disiplina (Agham Panlipunan) Pagsusulat sa mga Akademikong Disiplina (Sining at Humanidades)

UWCP : Junior Writing Courses (English)

A means of inquiry and investigation

A method of arriving at truths

• • • • •

Writing for the Arts and Humanities Writing for Organizational Communication Writing for the Engineering Sciences Writing for the Sciences Writing for the Social Sciences

OPEN FORUM - HIGHLIGHTS The very shaper of knowledge

Prof. Grace H. Aguiling-Dalisay, PhD College of Social Sciences and Philosophy Moderator •• Dean Elena Pernia (CMC) noted that the proposed UWCP courses seem to overlap with some courses already taught in other colleges/units. She also raised the concern that if the UWCP is packaged as a all-or-nothing program, it might

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015

67


run into implementation problems particularly with regard to interdisciplinary courses. Prof. Pison (CAL) assured that the UWCP will collaborate will all concerned colleges so as to avoid overlaps in course offerings. She also clarified that taking the Program as a whole package with the minimum 33 units is just a suggestion from CAL. They believe that implementing the Program as they have suggested will produce better UP graduates.

writing courses, i.e., if such courses as Writing for the Sciences will be taught by CAL or will be team-taught. Prof. Pison (CAL) said that it will be the latter arrangement. Prof. Jonathan Malicsi (CSSP) said that he concurs with the other participants’ observation that there are logistical concerns that the UWCP proposal must look into, such as the division of units in a course and the number of teachers who will participate in the team teaching.

•• Prof. Ma. Gloria Talavera (VSB) said that Business Administration should not be considered as one of the GE courses because it is not a separate discipline but a “derived discipline.” Prof. Toby Melissa Monsod (SE) shared the same sentiment; according to her, the Management and Economics cluster was really not conceived for GE because Economics is a social science and thus is part of the Social Sciences and Philosophy domain. •• Associate Prof. Portia Padilla (CEd) asked if the Philippine Studies requirement was considered in the discussions of the Task Force’s proposed GE framework. Prof. Patricia Arinto (UPOU) replied that, with the current draft framework, the Task Force tried to leave it as open as possible with respect to the combination of courses. She reiterated that the choice of courses and their combination should depend on the program goals. As such, if CUs believe that sense of nationalism (as one of the GE attributes) will be best achieved by requiring a certain number of what might be considered Philippine Studies courses under the current set of choices, then the CU should require such courses. •• Assistant Prof. Bernardo Caslib Jr. (CSSP) inquired about the logistical aspects of the offering of the 68

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015


Session 6 – Assessing the Future GE Program Professor Marian P. Roque, PhD Representative to the UP Diliman GE Committee, College of Science ABSTRACT The presentation is divided into two parts. The first part gives the highlights of past reviews of the UP/UPD GE Program, while the second part lists some points for consideration in the design of an evaluation scheme for the new GE Program.

PRESENTATION HIGHLIGHTS Part 1 – Summary of Past Assessments of the GE Program7 A subcommittee of the UP Diliman GE Committee reviewed past initiatives towards assessing the GE Program in the University. The members of the subcommittee are: Assistant Prof. Jay A. Yacat (Chair), Dean Miguela M. Mena, Associate Prof. Robin Daniel Z. Rivera, Prof. Marian P. Roque, and Prof. Violeda A. Umali. The past initiatives are presented in the following documents: • 1994 report of the UPD Task Force on Undergraduate Programs • 1995 report of the UPD Task Force to Review the GE Program • 2009 report on UP RGEP Evaluation (released in February 2011) • 2010 report on the System-wide GE evaluation • 2014 presentation of Drs. Evangeline Amor and Rex Jalao on GE performance statistics • 2014 presentation of Jay Yacat on GE student outcomes 7.

A. 1994 Report of the UPD Task Force on Undergraduate Programs •• The Task Force was given the responsibility to review the undergraduate Program, and part of the undergraduate Program was the GE Program. •• The Task force examined and made recommendations on: ₒₒ the language requirement ₒₒ addition of Philosophy courses ₒₒ offering a common computer course •• Remarks: Lack of evaluation data regarding the GE Program and inadequate representation of disciplines/programs in the Task Force •• Recommendations based on the report: ₒₒ 6 units of English and 6 units of Filipino language courses, additional 6 units to total GE units from the past •• Issues identified: ₒₒ availability of competent faculty members teaching GE ₒₒ absence of a mechanism to monitor and evaluate Program implementation ₒₒ lack of available teaching materials ₒₒ lack of coordination with the University Library for materials B. 1995 Report of the UPD Task Force on GE Programs •• The Task force was given the responsibility to review the GE Program with the intent to propose ways to revitalize it, and to explore the possibility of instituting a GE Center

Please see Annex 2.7 for the detailed Subcommittee Report

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015

69


•• Recommendations: ₒₒ retention of the number of GE units (42) to be distributed across three clusters ₒₒ include non-credit remedial course in English; remedial course for Math should also be included ₒₒ possibility of a practicum as a capstone course for UPD students ₒₒ the best teachers should be handling GE courses ₒₒ no need for a GE Center; tap the University Library for materials instead •• The report gave rise to the 2002 RGEP: ₒₒ an openness to the idea of broadening the coverage of course offerings and some form of specialization through clusters and electives ₒₒ exploring “market” approach where courses were made attractive and the courses and teachers need to be more competitive ₒₒ the term “cafeteria” approach was also used C. 2009 UPD RGEP Evaluation •• Focused on student perspectives and experiences after 7 years of RGEP •• Exit exam and student feedback questionnaire were given to 381 students from 14 Colleges •• Comments: ₒₒ previous GE Program was better than RGEP; ₒₒ free option allowed students to choose “uno-able” courses or those taken by friends ₒₒ need to be advised on which subject to take, since in the RGEP, you can take any subject 70

ₒₒ ₒₒ

ₒₒ

teachers handling courses had uneven capabilities, and some were always absent some courses that were identified to be helpful in AH, SSP, and MST clusters: § Comm 3, Eng 1, Eng 10, Eng 11, and Eng 30 § Econ 11, Soc Sci 1/2, Socio 10, Kas 1, Philo 1 § Math 1/2, Envi Sci, STS, Physics 10, Chem 1, Bio, Geol, Nat Sci other observations: § MST courses received relatively less positive evaluations due to perceived inability to satisfy the GE objectives, probably in relation to Nationalism § taking of Math 2 was significantly correlated with better scores in the MST exit exam; Philo 11 to Logic exam, and Comm 3 to communication exam § no communication course helped the performance in the essay writing

D. 2010 System Report •• Pre-conference focus group discussion •• Idea of a single GE Framework •• GE Program objectives were too general and no indicators were defined •• Students preferred the free choice •• Free choice was actually constrained in the actual implementation, in terms of availability of slots •• Some GE courses should be prescribed or required per domain UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015


•• Age or seniority should not be sole basis for selecting GE faculty members •• Increase of class sizes 2011 UPD GE Conference •• It was decided that there should be 7 required GE courses: KAS 1, Philo 1, Comm 3, Eng 10, Fil 40, Math1/2 and STS •• Hybrid GE Program E. 2014 UPD GE Conference: Presentation of Drs. Evangeline Amor and Rex Jalao on GE performance statistics •• OUR Report and Recommendations (based on the report presented by Dr. Amor): ₒₒ Performance Statistics § Supply and Demand • Course demands of students based on CRS and what the colleges can supply • Backlogs, especially in MST and for the required subjects in STS and English ₒₒ Questions (Reflections): § How do we meet the objective of enhancing competencies of students by making them take GE courses preferably in their first two years? • There was a move to have the students take most of the GE in the first two years § How do we find out if they really learned the competencies and values that the GE Program aims for? • Do grades really measure what the students learned? UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015

F. 2014 UPD GE Conference: Results of Prof. Jay Yacat’s analysis of GE student outcomes •• Only GE courses were assessed based on SET and exam given to Psych students on motivation, satisfaction, student outcomes, student learning, attainment of course objectives •• No significant significant differences, except for some required courses, Math, Philo 1, STS •• Highlights of the study (based on student rating): ₒₒ English 10 got the highest score in motivation ₒₒ Math got the highest score in satisfaction ₒₒ Comm 3 got the highest score in student outcomes (sense of responsibility and creativity), student learning, and attainment and course objectives ₒₒ Philo got the highest score in critical thinking § Generally, there was no significant difference when the Critical Thinking Standardized Test was conducted •• Reflections/Recommendations ₒₒ There seems to be a difference in students’ perceived outcomes in RGEP and GE ₒₒ CT Test showed otherwise ₒₒ Grades in GE course may not reflect student outcomes ₒₒ How do we know if students develop the necessary knowledge, skills and orientation laid out in the GE Program? ₒₒ Important to keep track of the development of our students in 71


72

the required competencies as they progress through the GE Program. How do we find out, though, if they learned the competencies?

ₒₒ

Part 2 – Subcommittee’s Concluding Observations and Recommendations for Evaluation of New GE Program •• Among past GE Programs, only RGEP was systematically assessed •• Recurring issues: ₒₒ Lack of systematic monitoring and evaluation ₒₒ Lack of clarity in the Program standards ₒₒ Lack of course offerings •• These issues were still not addressed in the new System proposal for our new GE Program. But since the proposal includes student KSAs, perhaps we can have better tool for assessing not just the courses, but also the Program. In connection with this: ₒₒ Have GE course coordinators and faculty members identify competencies that their courses develop, which is already the practice in some courses in the College of Science ₒₒ Collect and analyze all GE syllabi, course projects, departmental exams, exam results ₒₒ Review SET instrument because the SET for the course is general and develop a section or new course evaluation instrument for GE courses ₒₒ Review existing GE courses •• To be discussed: ₒₒ How do we verify that the objectives of the GE Program are met?

ₒₒ ₒₒ ₒₒ ₒₒ

What systems/protocols can be established to assess the Program at different levels (pretest, midterm, and exit exam)? What kind of exam should be given? Quantitative? Qualitative? How do we assess the GE courses/ Program from the point of view of students, teachers, and administration? New strategies for assessment of GE courses and Program Customizing SET for the GE courses

OPEN FORUM - HIGHLIGHTS Prof. Mark Albert H. Zarco Science and Technology Cluster Chair Moderator •• Assistant Prof. Junius Balista (UPLB) suggested conducting a tracer study with 10-year or 15-year duration in assessing the GE Program, instead of just the SET. A sample of UPCAT takers could be obtained, and their progress will be tracked until after they have graduated from the University. •• Associate Prof. Portia Padilla (CEd) pointed out that there are challenges in conducting a longitudinal study, especially because there are extraneous variables to contend with. Even if a very good tool for assessing GE impact is developed, to measure attributes like the level of nationalism is difficult because students take other courses, not just GE courses, that also impact on students’ sense of nationalism. •• Associate Prof. Melania Flores (CAL) raised the

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015


following points: a) in Program evaluation, the methodology and accuracy of information have to be checked, b) there should be well-developed schemes for measuring objectives such as social skills and social justice, c) how will the success of the language policy be assessed given that the policy has not been fully implemented, d) good evaluation is premised on having a good program in the first place, e) philosophical, ideological and operational issues have gotten conflated in the discussions and debates; we should focus on the philosophy of the GE Program because it will be the basis for determining whether or not the Program is a success, f) past GE assessment initiatives used different evaluation parameters, with some focusing on the philosophy and others, on courses.

of evaluation but the actual operationalization of the evaluation scheme requires constituting a committee of experts, who will think things through, given the principles that have been agreed on. •• Associate Prof. Padilla (CEd) affirmed the points raised by Profs. Natividad and Arinto, and reminded the body that the University has educational research area at the College of Education, assessment psychology experts at the CSSP, an Office of Instruction, and a landmark study done by Prof. Ma. Luisa Doronila and her team, on knowledge, attitude, values, and skills of UP students. As such, it will be easy to constitute the think tank for GE evaluation.

•• Prof. Josefina Natividad (CSSP) commented that all GE stakeholders should learn from the past, and move on to the future. She also challenged everyone to do things that will make the new GE Program better, now that the new GE Program is being crafted. She also reiterated the suggestion from the College of Education to incorporate the evaluation plan in the planning stage of the GE Program. •• Prof. Patricia Arinto (UPOU) pointed out that there should be a certain model to follow in the evaluation of GE courses and the GE Program. There should be clear criteria at each level of the evaluation – within a course, across courses, the GE Program itself – and at each point in the evaluation (pre- and post-tests in a cohort study). The GE Framework could specify the principles

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015

73


74

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015


Introduction to the Workshops Prof. Violeda Umali, ODI Director, presented the workshop guidelines to the participants (see Annex 1.3 for the detailed Workshop Guidelines). She reminded the body that the workshop reference materials have been uploaded to the UP Diliman website. Additionally, the access link to the Google folder containing the reference materials has been sent days ahead of the conference to the deans/unit heads. Since the workshops are to be held simultaneously, the deans/ heads have also been requested to discuss who among the conference attendees from their respective colleges/units will attend each workshop. Eight workshops were lined up during the conference, with each workshop corresponding to one or several components of the proposed GE framework drafted by the GE Task Force. These workshop groups are as follows:

For Day 2 (29 September) •• Workshop 5 – On the GE Curriculum Structure: ‘Candidate’ Courses •• Workshop 6 – On the GE Program Implementation: Program Planning and Coordination •• Workshop 7 – On the GE Program Implementation: Course Delivery •• Workshop 8 – On the Assessment of GE Courses and the GE Program The Workshop Guidelines contain the key points for each framework component, comments on the framework components from the academic clusters where available, and suggested guide questions for the workshop discussions. Workshop groups may opt to omit or add guide questions as they see fit.

For Day 1 (28 September) •• Workshop 1 – On the GE Context, Rationale, and Philosophy •• Workshop 2 – On GE Objectives, and Attributes and KSAs to be Developed among GE Students •• Workshop 3 – On the GE Curriculum Structure: Pedagogical Principles and Types of Courses to be Taken •• Workshop 4 – On the GE Curriculum Structure: Number of Units

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015

75


Workshop 1 – GE Context, Rationale, and Philosophy Presenter : Professor Lynna Marie Y. Sycip, PhD College of Social Sciences and Philosophy WORKSHOP OUTPUTS 1. Why is there a need to revise the existing Hybrid GE when it was just implemented last 2012? •• As a reaction to K-to-12, CHED GE memorandum; move towards internationalization, etc. it may appear that there is a need to revise the existing GE Program; BUT there is the sentiment that… •• Hybrid GE Program can stand as is even in the face of the K-to-12; •• Whether categorization is by domain, theme, etc., the existing GE courses can be examined to check for which ones can stand up to the philosophy and objectives identified – i.e., subject existing hybrid courses to check for the extent that they meet the liberal education framework or vision; •• Just add on to what has already been developed and taught over the years – why throw away all of that expertise and experience – if necessary, just add on to complete the agreed upon number of units; •• Check for which subjects can simply be upgraded in terms of content (in cases where they may appear to now be a duplication of newly created Grade 11 and 12 subjects especially in English and Math) or greater attention can be paid in terms of how they are to be handled (i.e., considering the increased maturity of the expected K-to-12 graduates) 76

such that greater depth and a liberal arts perspective can be brought in; •• If ever it may be mainly the ‘skills’ courses (especially when they are remedial in nature) that will likely be most affected – (sidebar: perhaps skills courses, especially when remedial in nature, should not be included as part of the GE Program); •• Given the different tracks envisioned by DepEd, there should be a measure of the college readiness of incoming freshmen and, if necessary, setup a different program to make such students ‘college-ready’ (i.e., perhaps offering an entire semester of ‘remedial’ courses); 2. What is the compelling reason or rationale to change the Hybrid GE? •• See above 3. Do we agree with the points articulated in the proposed GE framework? •• Agree re. liberal education •• Agree re. the types of students envisioned •• Agree on the values to be developed BUT… •• Recognize the need for continuous review of courses and the Program to be responsive to international, global, technological developments – need to be aware of what has changed, what has NOT changed, the localnational-global context of knowledge creation and use UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015


•• Be aware of the threats to liberal education – i.e., the move towards neo-liberalism and globalization that tend to reduce education and students to commodities – critical thinking re proposed philosophies and frameworks •• Some mentioned the need to involve stakeholders – but most agreed that this was not appropriate for the GE Program, but rather more of a concern for disciplinal programs

DISCUSSION Moderator : Prof. Ruth Jordana L. Pison, PhD College of Arts and Letters •• Prof. Ramon G. Acoymo (CMu) suggested reexamining the seeming tendency to look at “general education” and “liberal education” as identical concepts. He said that the two are not similar. General education refers more to the subject matter or the content of the course. Liberal education, on the other hand, refers to the general liberating approach in the course. As such, a GE course may not be liberal and a liberal education course may not be general. Prof. Lynna Marie Sycip (CSSP) concurred with Prof. Acoymo’s points; according to her, it is because of the same arguments that Prof. Acoymo raised that Workshop 1 participants felt that the Hybrid courses can be retained in the new GE Program. Even if some of the course titles or descriptions are in the K-to-12 Program, it is possible to deepen the treatment of the courses/subject matter under the GE Program. •• On the question of whether skills courses should be included in the GE Program, Prof. Eufracio Abaya (CEd) clarified that skills courses are not devoid of conceptual frames; therefore, separating UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015

skills and perspective (conceptual) courses is creating a false dichotomy. Skills are part and parcel of that education process; consequently, GE courses will have skills component in their content. Prof. Acoymo (CMu) said that he agrees with the point of Prof. Abaya; indeed, teaching concepts will not be fruitful if students do not have the skills to process and clarify the concepts. The question that needs to be addressed, however, is when we can consider that the skills are sufficient so that students may be introduced to the deeper concepts. It is acknowledged that skills are developing and evolving, but we should be able to know when, in the course of a student’s residency in his/her degree program, the student should have sufficiently developed a particular set of skills. •• Prof. Ruth Jordana Pison (CAL) added that the discussions on general vs. liberal education, and on skills vs. perspectives, also have implications on the offering of remedial courses, i.e., on whether or not they should be part of the GE curriculum. Prof. Sycip (CSSP) said that it depends on the coverage of the remedial course – e.g., if it tackles basic things such as sentence construction, it should not be part of GE; if it deals with more complex subject matter such as composing or organizing text, it could be part of GE. Assistant Prof. Junius Balista (UPLB) expressed his concern that if remedial courses were to be institutionalized, K-to-12 implementers might become complacent about the teaching of senior high school courses since they know that gaps will be addressed in the college-level remedial courses.

77


•• Prof. Patricia Arinto (UPOU) said that she agrees that general education and liberal education are not identical. However, UP in particular considers liberal education as the bedrock of its general education program. The examination of the GE courses, therefore, should be according to whether or not they do conform to the notion of liberalizing education. Any analysis of any course we will include in the GE curriculum – if we subscribe to the idea that the bedrock of GE in UP should be liberal education – should look at the extent that such a course furthers a liberal education philosophy. Skills courses are not automatically excluded; if the skills that are being taught are higher order skills, the course could be part of the GE curriculum. Prof. Arinto said that it might be good for UP to now adopt a sharper articulation of the UP GE Program as being a liberal education program. As regards the remedial or “summer bridge” courses, Prof. Arinto believes that they are following the broader notion of how GE is general and not necessarily liberal.

78

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015


Workshop 2 – GE Objectives, GE Students’ Attributes and KSAs (Knowledge, Skills, Attitudes and Values) Presenter : Assistant Professor Felipe P. Jocano Jr. College of Social Sciences and Philosophy WORKSHOP OUTPUTS We want to add to the objectives of the System proposal the following: gender sensitivity, responsiveness and empowerment, nationalism rooted in local diversity, application of skills and learning. There was a debate about what it means to be developing a sense of Filipino-ness: is it something that is Manila-centric, or is it something that considers the diversity of language groups and ethnicities? We should have something that is more inclusive, that acknowledges all of these and yet comes together under an identity called Filipino. The College of Science suggests adding to the attributes knowledge of technology, digital literacy skills, attitude and disposition towards innovation. In terms of the knowledge, skills, and attitudes (KSAs), colleagues from College of Education suggested adding pakikipagkapwa-tao, in keeping with the UNESCO education pillar of “Learning to Live Together.” KSAs cut across GE attributes but the Task Force proposal is silent in that regard; as such the workshop participants would like an explicit articulation of the relationship among the items in Figure 1 (GE student attributes and component knowledge, skills, and attitudes) of the Task Force’s proposed GE framework. “Global citizen” needs to be defined. Putting global discussion ahead of being Filipino is problematic, inasmuch as it should be the other way around.

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015

DISCUSSION Moderator : Prof. Ruth Jordana L. Pison, PhD College of Arts and Letters •• Prof. Aurora Odette Mendoza (CSSP) pointed out that the concept of liberal education, as well as the historical objectives of the GE Program, cannot be isolated from the types of students that UP accepts. GE requires a range of subjects, from writing skills, thesis writing, term paper writing, up to literature and knowledge of philosophical issues, and certain thinking skills that manifest in the Tatak UP. GE is not so much as what you know but as how you deal with what knowledge is presented to you. Free thinking is an aspect of liberal education. Communication skills are also part of a liberal education. •• Associate Prof. Melania Flores (CAL) said that the concept of liberal education could contradict with the general definition of social justice. Social justice requires taking a stand; liberal education leans towards a market of ideas that enriches a person’s scholarship. •• For Prof. Eufracio Abaya (CEd), UP’s conceptualization of “liberal education” already gives sufficient attention to social justice. What needs to be given more attention is how to properly articulate “social justice” in the GE framework. An issue related to this is how to deal with the contending principles of education for human capital vs. education for human development. 79


•• Assistant Prof. Glen Imbang’s (TMC) suggestion was to consider UP’s motto of “honor and excellence” and to design the GE Program in a manner that would meet these two criteria. Simultaneously, the relevance of the GE Program should be assessed vis-à-vis developments such as globalization and regional integration. •• For Assistant Prof. Nancy Kimuell-Gabriel (CAL), the term “liberal” is associated with free thinking, modernity, progressiveness. Liberal education could also be contrasted with liberating education. If UP would like to anchor education on social justice, liberating education appears to be the more appropriate context for it. •• Prof. Patricia Arinto (UPOU) said that what she could now see as a gap in the proposed GE framework is the national analysis. There is already a very good analysis of the internal/ institutional factors that will explain why we need to take a second look at GE now. There is also a clear accounting of external factors, by which is meant the rest of the word. What is missing is the national analysis, the articulation of what it means to be a Filipino. •• Prof. Ruth Jordana Pison (CAL) reiterated that GE is a transformative education that potentially changes one’s self, one’s world view, and one’s world. A meaningful GE Program encourages creative and constructive actions that contribute to the improvement of the students’ community, nation, and the world. The transformative nature of the GE Program draws its strength from its recognition of the Filipino students’ cultural specificity juxtaposed with his/her shared humanity. 80

•• Assistant Prof. Josephine Dionisio (CSSP) said that she agrees that liberal education should continue to be the bedrock of the GE Program of UP. However, she suggested considering putting in liberal and liberating education as a major guiding principle of the GE philosophy. •• Prof. Arinto (UPOU) observed that the matrix presented in Figure 1 of the Task Force proposal is linear and seemingly sequential. An alternative way of presenting the relationships among attributes and KSAs needs to be identified to represent more accurately how the various elements relate to each other. •• Prof. Pison (CAL) ended the session by reiterating some points from the consolidated report of the clusters regarding the June 2015 workshops on the proposed GE framework. These are: a) some units in the AL Cluster recommend 33 units of GE, broken down into 12 units of UWCP, 12 units of disciplinary courses, and 9 units of interdisciplinary courses, b) the ST Cluster agrees with the System proposal, and majority in this cluster are open to reducing 5-year degree programs to 4 years; they recommend 21 GE units minimum, c) the SSL cluster proposes the Flexibundle Program which ranges from 36 to 45 and has 7 required GE courses, d) majority of the workshop participants agreed there should be domains of courses in the GE curriculum, e) most participants agreed that there should be both required and elective GE courses that students should be able to take at any year level and in any sequence, and f) colleges should be given the latitude to prescribe the required and elective GE courses.

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015


Workshop 3 – GE Curriculum Structure: Pedagogical Principles and Types of Courses to be Taken Presenters : Assistant Professor Wilfredo M. Rada College of Engineering Associate Professor Daniel L. Mabazza College of Social Sciences and Philosophy WORKSHOP OUTPUTS Defining “Interdisciplinary” Workshop Groups 3A and 3C: •• Mono g Multi g Inter (Highest) •• Combination of many disciplines that are integrated •• Context and conflict resolution, social justice embedded in course (Phys 10: lecturers were invited) •• Not taught by many departments, but only one ₒₒ Taught by several faculty members with one faculty in change (2/3 of unit load) ₒₒ Synthesis of ideas •• Not relay teaching but real synthesis •• Existing courses can be considered if reframed/ structured as interdisciplinary •• Grounded in one discipline, but borrowing techniques, approaches, tools, etc. from other disciplines •• Also for survival of discipline •• Original Soc Sci I ₒₒ Experts as guest speakers per topic ₒₒ “Main Teacher” imbibes lectures and can eventually teach material themselves ₒₒ Problem: What happens when 1st set of teachers disappear? •• How do you sustain the interdisciplinarity/ wideness and breadth of perspective?

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015

•• Mechanism so that effectivity of course is not finite •• Course design is key ₒₒ *How do you assess if course satisfies “interdisciplinary”? •• Subject matter determines if course should be interdisciplinary/is already interdisciplinary •• Course that are truly interdisciplinary should be formulated •• Use current technologies to prolong life of course (videotape lectures) •• Maturity of student matters for effectiveness of interdisciplinary course ₒₒ Important to have a strong basic knowledge in the discipline before one can appreciate interdisciplinary approach •• Course that incorporates different ways of thinking and learning from the different fields/disciplines •• The subject can be taught by a single or many teachers •• Subject can fall under more than one department (alternative mode) but will have one main discipline as framework •• All fields are inherently disciplinary and evolving ₒₒ Is disciplinal vs. interdisciplinary an artificial dichotomy? •• Interdisciplinary has many modes (spectrum) and need is dictated by nature of course (inception) •• Emphasize links between the disciplines

81


Workshop Group 3B: •• Interdisciplinary should go deeper • Interdisciplinary = Multidisciplinary •• The team of faculty conceptualizes the course: the student will look at issue/s and try to resolve it/ them using different frameworks •• Department-based •• Minimum: Objectives, Methods, Contents Group B •• Combination of Core, Disciplinal and Interdisciplinary courses •• Core: • could be interdisciplinary • should not be an introductory, a fundamental, elective course • by domains • (choice) leave it to the department • taken by all UPD students • Tatak UP

•• Dapat kinukuha lahat ng UP Diliman students ang core courses at dito masasalamin ang tinatawag nating “Tatak UP.” Noong sinimulan ang RGEP, wala dapat na GE Course na may prerequisite, halimbawa, Comm 1 ang prerequisite ng Comm 2, na prerequisite naman ng Comm 3. Hindi ka pwedeng mag-Comm 3 kung hindi ka nag-Comm 1. Napag-usapan na ang modelo ng isang transdisciplinary o matatawag din na inter-disciplinary ay ang STS kasi doon pumapasok lahat ng mga konsepto na pag-aaralan mula sa iba’t-ibang disiplina, may affective at cognitive. May tinatawag na foundation courses at capstone courses. Maaring ang capstone courses ay courses na pwede mong kunin sa period ng iyong education na bumubuo pa rin sa tinatawag na GE. Nature of Courses Workshop Groups 3A and 3C: •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• ••

82

Not all should be interdisciplinary (combination) Maybe more disciplinary than inter-disciplinary But at least one interdisciplinary course required Interdisciplinary treatment of traditionally monodisciplinary subjects Major and minor degrees to foster interdisciplinary students as a whole Core g Disciplinal g Interdisciplinary Must be grounded in own discipline before you can go interdisciplinary When to take interdisciplinary course/s: Later ( junior standing at least) so that the student is already grounded in own discipline If some of the courses in the discipline are already interdisciplinary, how do we treat them?

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015


DISCUSSION Moderator : Prof. Ruth Jordana L. Pison, PhD College of Arts and Letters

Note: Core means common to all? All UPD or all CUs? Other discussion points raised Workshop Group 3B •• Let’s resolve the issue of number of units then we can resolve the combination, possibly department level can decide •• Prerequisite issue •• RGEP •• (Course) structure: emphasis on the philosophy and nature of science •• STS – transdisciplinary •• Must put mechanisms to ensure courses do not run out of people who can teach them •• Core courses vis-à-vis required courses •• Core courses: foundation plus capstone courses •• Capstone courses: something that the student take up in a latter period •• Mentoring •• Discipline, college content •• Team teaching •• Writing research outputs, performance oriented •• 3-unit writing course in a foreign language

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015

•• Prof. Aurora Odette Mendoza (CSSP) expounded on the concepts of multi- and inter-disciplinary using her own teaching experiences as examples. According to her, multidisciplinary is when you have a certain topic, and multiple perspectives are gathered in order to understand that particular phenomenon. Traffic Psychology is a multidisciplinary discipline because it uses inputs from an/a engineer, sociologist, psychologist, urban planner, and others. CE 10 (DMAPS) is a interdisciplinary course wherein teachers from different fields are always together in class sessions. Different perspectives come together and even the teachers are forced to re-arrange their cognitive schemata in order to include alternative conceptualizations of disasters. Whereas STS follows sequential (relay) teaching, DMAPS is thematic. The inter-disciplinary approach requires an interaction between disciplines. Interdisciplinary is thus not multidisciplinary because the interactions between disciplines and the application of disciplines to a topic results in a new discipline by itself. •• Prof. Ramon Guillermo (CAL) also expounded on the concepts of multi- and inter-disciplinary, thus: ₒₒ “I think what you mean by discipline is more of an institutional historical category, kung paano ang ilang mga object of study, approaches and philosophies cohere themselves institutionally at nagkakaroon ng mga pangalan katulad ng Department of History, Department of

83


Sociology, Department of Psychology…. Yung trans-disciplinary, pag meron kang pagtatagpo ng mga iba’t-ibang departamento [na magsasama-sama to] have a trans-disciplinary new department…. Ang inter[disciplinary] … we get methods from each other; it’s actually interacting … meron kang Sociology Department, na maaring makipag-connect sa Geography of sa Geology o kaya Psych para pag usapan ang disaster management.” ₒₒ “Kung sa usapin talaga ng GE, we should appreciate disciplines historically, institutionally as valuable in themselves not necessarily because they are connected with our disciplines…. Kailangan, nirerespeto natin ‘yung dignidad nu’ng disiplina…. A discipline has integrity [and] we can recognize this integrity and respect it from our own tradition also. Yun ang isang problema ng isang early inter-disciplinarization: we might lose sight of this integrity that we’re talking about for each discipline…. Kaya, ang tingin ko kailangan ma-preserve ‘yung diversity, ‘yung integrity mga disiplina in the beginning dun sa basic [planning] natin sa GE Program natin.” •• Vice-Chancellor Benito Pacheco (OVCAA) clarified that UP Diliman will not pursue interdisciplinarity at the expense of the individual disciplines. He then reiterated his suggestion to treat each undergraduate degree program as corresponding to a discipline. As such, when two BS Engineering programs come together, their collaboration can already be considered inter-disciplinary. According to him, an inter-disciplinary course can be very exciting not only for students but also for the teachers handling the course because it is an eye-

84

opener to be in the same class with other teachers who come from different disciplines. •• Prof. Flaudette May Datuin (CAL) pointed out that although GE courses do not have a prerequisite, inter-disciplinary GE courses are best taken by students who already have the level of maturity necessary to process the mix of perspectives discussed therein. •• Associate Prof. Zenaida Galingan (CA) shared her college’s experiences in teaching Landscape Architecture 1 (LA 1) and noted that it would be good if units offering inter-disciplinary courses could come together and discuss the challenges of offering an inter-disciplinary course. In LA 1’s case, the course syllabus is very detailed and all teaching materials have been digitized so that it would be easy for another teacher to take over the teaching of LA 1 should the current teacher/s become unavailable to teach them. •• Prof. Eufracio Abaya (CEd) said that the concepts “holism” and “critical” also need to be clarified. He believes that the concept of holism embodies the idea of drawing from different knowledge systems to make sense of the fundamental question of being and becoming human. To be holistic, then, is to invoke multi-, trans-, and inter-disciplinarity. With regard to being critical, Prof. Abaya said that part of the articulation of this concept is embodied in critical pedagogy. He enjoined the participants to revisit critical pedagogy – a “very fascinating, very practical, very transformative way of teaching and learning.”

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015


Workshop 4 – GE Curriculum Structure: Number of Units Presenter : Mr. John Michael G. Constantino College of Engineering WORKSHOP OUTPUTS 1. Do we agree that 21 units should be the minimum? •• Almost all of the units agree •• NIP wants to have 18 units of GE, though they can accommodate 21 units 2. Should there be a maximum number of units? What should this be? •• All units agree that there should be a maximum •• Maximum number of units vary across colleges and degree programs •• No degree program will have more than 45 units of GE 3. What is the rationale for our recommended number of units? •• Holistic development, breadth, exposure to areas outside a student’s field of specialization •• Equal distribution of domains/clusters •• Current number of required units in the Hybrid GE Program is 21 •• Consider need of degree programs to reduce number of units or to institute new courses 4. Should there be required/core courses? How many units of required and elective courses? •• Most of the units agree that there should be required courses •• What and how many courses to require varies across colleges and degree programs (e.g. Food Tech to require Econ 11)

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015

5. Proposed number of units per college •• College of Arts and Letters (CAL) – UWCP •• College of Mass Communication (CMC) – 21-33 units (18 units common to all programs, include nationalism and history) •• School of Statistics (STAT) – 24 units required GE + 12 units writing •• Virata School of Business (VSB) – 12units free choice + 6 units per cluster or domain •• College of Engineering (COE) – 21 units from “System 11” + 6 units writing (possibly propose to include 6 units of writing in the 21 units) •• College of Social Work and Community Development (CSWCD) – 21 units from clusters + 6 units from “System 11” + 3 units writing •• College of Social Sciences and Philosophy (CSSP) – “Flexibundle 2.0” with 21 units either from “System 11” or from existing prescribed subjects + 6 units per domain or cluster; degree program or student will decide on the subjects but will follow System decision •• College of Education (CEd) – 36 units total (3-9 free choice units from “System 11”, Hybrid, or UWCP, depending on the degree program) •• College of Fine Arts (CFA) – 36-45 units total, with required 6 units of communication skills •• College of Music (CMu) – 6 units writing + 3 units interdisciplinary + 3 units per cluster (+ core to make up 21 units) •• UPD Extension Program in Pampanga (UPDEPP) – 36 units of GE plus 6 units of writing

85


6. Can we reduce 5-year courses to 4 years? •• Engineering degree programs, BS Food Tech, B Music, BS Physics + Applied Physics, BS BAA can be reduced to 4 years – possible by reducing not only GE units but also major subjects •• BS Architecture will still have 5 years 7. What are the implications of the GE units on our curricular plans? •• For those with reduced number of total units, they can use it for the major courses •• Possibility of exploring new research areas •• Other concerns ₒₒ Admission processes for Senior High School students ƒƒ Will we be able to identify in the UPCAT the strand the student took in Senior HS? ƒƒ How do we help non-UPCAT passers? ₒₒ Option: Colleges will teach their own technical writing course or its equivalent ₒₒ Suggestions for UWCP: language assistance for staff and REPS, remediation program for those coming from Tech-Voc

DISCUSSION Moderator : Prof. Ruth Jordana L. Pison, PhD College of Arts and Letters

86

••

Associate Prof. Jerry Yapo (UPLB) suggested that, as an input towards deciding on the number of GE units, CUs might want to look at the GE curricula of other universities abroad.

••

Associate Prof. Yapo also noted that different ways of classifying GE courses have surfaced in the discussions: a) by academic cluster, b) by

domains of knowledge, c) as core (disciplinal) and interdisciplinary, and d) as foundation, perspective, and capstone. He further noted that the body seems to find that GE capstone courses are lacking. ••

Associate Prof. Portia Padilla (CEd) reminded the body that the decision on the number of GE units and types of GE courses should be guided by the objectives of the GE Program, as well as the envisioned attributes and KSAs for students.

••

Prof. Ruth Jordana Pison (CAL) observed that some colleges/units have recommended the same number of GE units, but the general sentiment is that colleges/units will be given the leeway to decide on the number of GE units for their respective undergraduate degree Programs.

••

Prof. Ramon Guillermo (CAL) reiterated that decisions on the number of GE units and types of GE courses to require have to consider pragmatic/administrative issues, such as dealing with shiftees and transferees, and evaluating students for graduation. There are also philosophical issues, i.e., in relation to the idea of one GE curriculum for all UP students, said curriculum being a reflection of the mission and goals of UP as an institution. Finally, in connection with some people’s perception that the GE Program exists to support disciplinal degree programs, Prof. Guillermo countered that such is not the case because GE is about broadening the horizons of students, not about having an instrumental relationship with other disciplines or other knowledges.

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015


••

Prof. Roland Sarmago (CS) pointed out that values and traits like nationalism and creative/critical thinking, which the GE Program aims to develop among students, can also be developed by other courses and other student experiences.

••

Prof. Patricia Arinto (UPOU) agreed that there are curricular goals that are said to be goals of GE but which can be achieved through major courses as well. But the GE Program should not be seen as separate from, or in competition with, specialist education. A university education is a whole; what need to be problematized are the relationships among the parts that comprise this whole, and, in the interest of excellence and rigor, which of the components will take charge of certain aspects of the formation of an intelligent, accomplished, competent citizen.

••

Prof. Arinto also concurred that it is difficult to arrive at a consensus regarding the number of units and types of GE courses within a CU, and more so, across CUs. What the stakeholders should be constantly conscious of are the tradeoffs—advantages and disadvantages—when deliberations and decisions are considered from a particular perspective.

••

Vice Chancellor Benito Pacheco (OVCAA) said that he thinks that seven core courses (21 units) to be required of all UP students (i.e., Systemwide) will be a good way to achieve the “Tatak UP” that the conference participants and other GE stakeholders have been articulating. He challenged the participants to identify what courses they think should comprise the core courses.

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015

87


Workshop 5 – GE Curriculum Structure: ‘Candidate’ Courses Presenter : Associate Professor Ma. Theresa T. Payongayong, PhD College of Social Sciences and Philosophy WORKSHOP OUTPUTS 1. Do we agree with the system for classifying GE courses according to themes described in the proposal? If not, what scheme should be used for classifying GE courses? •• The group does not agree with the thematic system of classification of GE courses because it is not well-grounded in philosophy and application. •• The group recommends the present system of classification according to the three domains of Arts and Humanities, Math, Science and Technology, and Social Sciences and Philosophy. This system has practical advantage because the domain-based classification already exists. Moreover, some members of the Management and Economics cluster have argued that their courses should be classified under the SSP domain because the ME programs are derived from the social sciences. They also argued that the four academic clusters are administrative categories, not disciplinal domains. 2. Will the full 12 units of UWCP courses be taken, or could there be some modifications to the Program? •• The UWCP should be modified. UWCP courses are important, but they are not the core of the GE Program.

88

•• Comments from the College of Science: a) The college considers UWCP courses as separate from the GE Program, not as the core courses of said Program, b) UWCP courses might overlap with courses offered in other colleges/units such as the College of Mass Communication. •• Comments from the College of Education: a) The discipline is the core of the academic program, not the UWCP; b) different degree programs will have different need for the UWCP courses. •• The College of Fine Arts would like to know if the UWCP is a flexible program. •• Comments from the College of Social Sciences and Philosophy: a) individual departments already have existing writing courses; b) some aspects covered by the UWCP courses are also covered in existing courses, e.g., critical thinking that is taught in Philo 11 (Logic) •• Suggestion: UWCP can be offered as a separate or parallel program 3. On the number of GE units and mix of GE courses •• Number of units: 21 could be the minimum but can be expanded by the colleges/units •• Mix of courses: 12 required or core courses + 9 (1 course per domain outside of own domain), or the 21 units could be the current prescribed courses

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015


Workshop 6 – GE Implementation: Program Planning and Coordination Presenters : Assistant Professor Bernard N. Caslib Jr. College of Social Sciences and Philosophy Associate Professor Maria Christine M. Muyco, PhD College of Music WORKSHOP OUTPUTS 1. How will we implement the GE Program given the greater variety of students who will be admitted as a result of the differing tracks and strands they will be coming from in Senior High School (SHS)? Response of Workshop Groups 6A and 6B: •• The GE Program should not be affected by this because there is a set of core subjects taken by all SHS and the core subjects should have prepared them for the GE classes in UP. •• UPCAT should have measured the proficiency of students coming in to the University, regardless of their track in SHS. •• The Bridge Program/remedial classes may be needed as determined by the departments handling concerned students. Response of Workshop Group 6C: •• The GE Program will not be affected as SHS subjects cut across tracks. 2. Is there a sequence in which GE courses should be taken? Response of Workshop Groups 6A and 6B: •• GE courses should not have any prerequisites. UP has been accepting graduates of Grade 10, in addition to “normal freshmen” who underwent Grades 1-6 and 4 years of HS. The

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015

two additional years of high school should have prepared incoming UP students for the GE courses in the university. •• Units offering GE may give recommendations and indicate if there is a preferred level of maturity for students taking their GE, since there might be subjects that may require a higher level of maturity of students. •• The units should determine the sequence in which GE courses should be taken by their majors, although under the current practice, colleges/units do not strictly implement the sequencing because of factors such as the supply of classes and availability of slots. •• Conclusion: Allow the students to determine when they will take their GE subjects in the University. Response of Workshop Group 6C: •• There should be a sequence for colleges to anticipate course offerings. •• However, in cases when prescribed courses close, the sequence is compromised to allow the student to have alternatives. The advisor can suggest other available GE courses. Most of the time, there are semesters wherein some courses close. The adviser could advise other courses that can be taken even if there is a sequence. •• There should be a projection/anticipation on the number of students who will enroll in each course. We are actually doing that already, we 89


anticipate. There are surveys done, but some colleges don’t have this anticipation. 3. How should GE courses be distributed throughout the Bachelor’s program? Response of Workshop Groups 6A and 6B: •• Colleges/units and the individual departments offering the degree programs should determine. Response of Workshop Group 6C: •• Distribution of GE courses will depend on the decision of the college; however, the tagging of electives, in terms for example, of adding the year level restrictions, will depend on the college handling the GE course. Math 2, for example, may be taken by anyone at any year level, whereas STS can be taken as early as the third year level. 4. What will be done to existing GE courses? Response of Workshop Groups 6A and 6B: •• Review the current GE courses and check whether they are still aligned with the objectives and goals of the new GE Program. ₒₒ The Department of History does not intend to abolish Kas 1 as of the moment, because they are still awaiting the first four batches or products of the K-to-12 to find out what K-to-12 graduates have learned from their SHS History courses.

5. What system will be used to evaluate curricular proposals for the institution of new GE courses? Response of Workshop Groups 6A and 6B: •• Pending the establishment of the GE Center, GE courses should pass through the standard channels and procedures for curricular proposals. Since the new GE courses proposed by the System are, ideally, interdisciplinary in nature, we can probably apply the same rules used for programs like the Philippine Studies program, wherein curricular changes are reviewed by the TriCollege. As such, in the case of the new GE courses that are interdisciplinary, all clusters involved should participate in the curricular review. 6. What system will be used to review and revise GE courses? Response of Workshop Groups 6A and 6B: •• The GE Center will take charge of this. Response of Workshop Group 6C: •• It might be possible to use the PSA (Program for International Student Assessment). This is usually employed or used for 10 year-old students to assess their Math, Science, and language aptitudes/skills. •• The System can also review and revise courses versus the GE Framework, and hinging on K-to-12 offerings.

Response of Workshop Group 6C: •• Review and revisit the framework vis-à-vis K-to-12

90

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015


7. What is the role of the GE Center in the planning and coordination for the GE Program? Response of Workshop Groups 6A and 6B: •• With its own office, the GE Center should take charge of the administrative matters regarding training of faculty, sustainability of the Program, evaluation of courses and the GE Program, piloting of courses, and general course development for the General Education Program. Response of Workshop Group 6C: •• There will be centers for each unit, just like a satellite GE Center. This Center will analyze the GE Framework, align courses that are not validated in different UP units, and standardize courses and accreditation across UP units. •• The Center will focus on three aspects: Syllabus, content, and faculty development. •• With these satellites, there should be an organization of GE centers to facilitate units’ efforts in consolidating, aligning and evaluating courses and Program within the policy framework of the UP System.

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015

91


Workshop 7 – GE Implementation: Course Delivery Presenter : Professor Flaudette May V. Datuin, PhD College of Arts and Letters WORKSHOP OUTPUTS 1. On the medium of instruction: Sang-ayon po kami sa pilosopiya ng ng language policy, pag-uusapan na lamang ang implementasyon. Pwedeng magkaroon ng mga material para sa vocabulary building at marami na ring mga materyal na lumabas para magabayan ang isang faculty kung gusto niya talagang gamitin ang Filipino bilang medium of instruction. Pero, hindi naman isinasara ang pintuan doon sa pagiging bilingual. Ibig sabihin, pwedeng maging transition. Boluntaryo pa rin po ang pagimplement ng teacher sa policy na ito. 2. Who will teach GE courses? Pwede naman kasing mixed, tapos ayusin lang ang mentoring •• Mayroong mga Juniors na kahit na bata pa sila, nakalabas na rin sila, na-expose na rin sila. At mayroon din naman Seniors na maaaring kailangan na rin ng fresh infusion ng bagong insights na manggagaling din sa Junior. •• Mahirap talagang i-implement yung policy na talagang Seniors lang dapat ang magturo. 3. What resources do we need for training faculty, enhancing GE courses and development of new courses? Pwedeng mag-umpisa sa team teaching •• Sa DMAPS model, every session, nandoon

92

lahat ang teachers, kahit hindi sila ang maglelecture. Dahil malaki ang klase, nagkaroon ng break-out sessions. May naka-assign sa bawat teacher, at pina-process doon yung mga hindi ma-process sa loob ng large class. Blended learning strategy ang DMAPS; lahat nakaUVLE. •• Mahalaga ang institutional memory. Lahat ng materials at syllabi, nakalagay na sa website at sa kung anu-ano pang mga platforms para kung kumpleto na iyon, pwede na rin i-transfer doon sa junior faculty. •• May mga considerations sa administration. So, mayroong iba na konti ang Seniors, mayroon yung iba na ito ang pangangailangan nila. Kanya-kanya rin ang mga logistic and administrative constraints ng bawat unit. 4. How do we encourage faculty members handling and/or coordinating GE courses or Programs to undertake research on GE and publish research outputs in scholarly journal? •• Tungkol sa teaching load credit ₒₒ I-review ang multiplier at saka yung overloads. Maaaring incentive ito, pero hindi na rin nagiging effective kung masyado na ring marami yung estudyante. ₒₒ Hindi pa rin commensurate and multiplier at saka yung overload lalo na sa mga Seniors o Senior na yung rank, kasi pag tumaas na yung bracket,ang taas na rin ng tax. •• System of incentives ₒₒ Bawat team teaching, tulad ng DMAPS

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015


model, na kung saan, 3.0 credits and bawat isa, at lumalabas sa CRS na mayroong mga estudyanteng kanya-kanya na 20 or 25 each ₒₒ Pag-aralan yung promotion points for GE, awards, and grants ₒₒ Nire-request ang OVCAA at OVCRD na aralin ang sistema ng pagbibigay ng grants, awards, at promotion points for GE, para nga ma-enhance yung prestige. •• Magkaroon ng GE conferences para maipakita rin o mai-deliver yung research outputs at saka i-revive yung GE journal •• Pagkakaroon ng GE Center 5. How do we handle the transition period from the old to the new GE Program? •• Conduct an evaluation or comparative study on the three batches of students from the old, Hybrid, and K+12 GE Programs. •• Teach old and new side by side, halimbawa, AS 1 na course, yung isa naka-dedicate sa batch na old at isa naman naka-dedicate sa batch na new, o kaya, mayroong teachers na nakatalaga sa teaching ng old at nakatalaga sa teaching ng old. •• The College of Education commits to faculty training for the new GE Program.

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015

93


Workshop 8 – Assessment of GE Courses and the GE Program Presenter : Professor Jorge V. Tigno, PhD College of Social Sciences and Philosophy WORKSHOP OUTPUTS Agreements •• Need to identify key GE Program objectives and outcomes for students; revisit objectives in the GE Task Force proposed framework and align to make them more measurable for evaluation •• Acknowledge that the GE courses to be offered are just components of the larger GE Program despite certain assumptions attached to certain courses, such as that they need to address all five objectives •• The GE Program is in itself also a component UP education •• Evaluation parameters need to be embedded into GE Program •• Parameters for evaluating and measuring student performance need to be evident in the assessment; adopt a student-centered assessment framework •• Evaluation must begin at the point of course conception; when proposing a course or Program, incorporate or mention how the course/Program and its effects or outcomes will be evaluated •• Evaluation need not be a one-time event/ activity; Proposal: conduct pretest (to generate baseline data on students), formative assessment (mid-term, teacher could adjust Program in the middle of the semester based on this, although there were concerns about certain teachers possibly abusing this

94

•• ••

••

•• •• •• ••

mechanism), and outcomes assessment (end-ofterm, teacher assesses how students performed and how Program was conducted) Important to consider the enabling administrative/logistical environment; provide incentives to senior faculty to teach GE courses Constitute evaluation plans at different levels ₒₒ The student ₒₒ The teacher ₒₒ The GE course / syllabus ₒₒ The GE Program / curriculum Evaluation components need to be SMART (specific, measurable, attainable, realistic and time-bound); should have both qualitative and quantitative dimensions Consider developing a set of GE rider questions in the SET Undertake curriculum mapping of existing GE courses as part of the assessment; revisit all GE syllabi Consider baseline data generation from UPCAT takers; will help UPD anticipate what kind of students to expect Syllabus construction must incorporate specific and measurable objectives

Issues •• Tatak UP and GE philosophy: When does UP education become evident? When can we say that one has really received a UP education? If a graduate does something bad or unethical, we say hindi natutunan sa UP; but if a graduate excels and does something very good for the country and for world, we say we are proud of

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015


••

••

•• ••

••

this person from UP. There is a differentiation on how we value the extent to which a person gets a UP education, a GE education in particular. How can the GE Program be isolated in the course of evaluating it? How do you isolate this particular component in the over-all Program within UP? Shelf life: Are not the GE Program objectives lifetime / lifelong objectives such as integrity? Why not focus on student-centered measurable objectives? Program objectives: Is the 3-out-of-5 formula sufficient? What if all GE offerings target only the same three objectives? Mapping of all syllabi could address the second question. Grade-sensitivity: Is a numerical grade necessary? Would Pass or Fail be sufficient? How can a student’s performance in a GE course be graded / evaluated? Is a ‘1.0’ in one GE course the same as a ‘1.0’ in another GE course or in a disciplinal course? All grades in all subjects are included in the GWA, so it might be better to not give a numerical grade. Logistical problems and concerns: How many sections can be offered? What incentives can be offered to GE faculty? What can be done to ensure/develop/improve the capacities of GE teachers?

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015

95


Discussion on Workshops 5 – 8 Outputs Moderator : Prof. Mark Albert H. Zarco, PhD College of Engineering ••

••

••

96

Assistant Prof. Jaime Naval (CSSP) commented that the GE Center structure proposed in the previous GE Conference was top-heavy. He suggested having GE coordinators, instead of a GE Center, for big CUs like UPD. He also commented on the suggestion to give Pass/ Fail rating, instead of numeric grades, for GE courses. He said that the Pass/Fail system could be counterproductive because, based on the experience with NSTP students, attendance goes down once students know that they will pass the course. Associate Prof. Portia Padilla (CEd), responding to Assistant Prof. Naval’s comment, explained that the GE Center being discussed is for UP Diliman, not for the System. The establishment of the UPD GE Center was endorsed in last year’s UPD GE Conference. Vice-Chancellor Benito Pacheco (OVCAA) clarified that, as agreed upon, the UPD GE Center will be an administrative center. It will not develop its own curriculum or offer courses. It will undertake administrative coordination, and provide administrative support to GE-related research and incubation of courses. It will not have affiliated faculty who will teach or assess GE courses, but it can help in the development and administration of tools for GE assessment. The departments, Curriculum Clusters, and GE Committee will be the ones to endorse courses and course revisions. Vice-Chancellor Pacheco also clarified that there is no presumption that every CU must/will have a GE Center of its own. UPD is committed to creating a GE Center because it is a big CU and needs one. After the

••

•• ••

••

••

••

UP GE Framework is approved, the GE Center can be set up to implement what the University Council will decide upon. Prof. Ramon Guillermo (CAL) said that it is not anymore possible to revert to the fully prescriptive GE system or to RGEP. The Hybrid GE Program is the middleground. For the GE curriculum structure, he suggested 12 units of core subjects to be taken by all students across UP Diliman, plus required courses to be decided upon by each college, plus GE electives that could be cluster-based. Dean Jose Maria Balmaceda (CS) expressed his personal preference for requiring a Filipino writing course. Associate Prof. Johnrob Bantang (CS), for his part, would like a Philosophy course to be required to acquaint students with various philosophical perspectives, and develop their competence in argumentation and scientific debate. Associate Prof. Padilla (CEd) reported that for the College of Education, the GE courses all departments identified as core courses are: a course in Filipino (Fil 40 or UWCP Fil), an English course (Eng 10 or UWCP course), Kas 1, and Ethics. Assistant Prof. Nancy Kimuell-Gabriel (CAL) reiterated the suggestion to include gender sensitivity, responsiveness and empowerment among the GE objectives. As such, a course on gender should be among those to be required in the GE curriculum. Dean Amihan Ramolete (CAL) suggested consulting the GE Program objectives and KSAs while discussing what GE courses to require. UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015


UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015

97


Dean Leonardo C. Rosete (CFA) presented to the body a list of basic items about the GE framework that the body could possibly agree on, as follows: ••

Context and rationale It takes into account significant developments in the internal and external contexts of the University

••

Philosophy Liberal education of the Filipino students

••

Objectives ₒₒ We agree to the following objectives, subject to the articulation of suggestions regarding the KSAs: ƒƒ Broaden intellectual and cultural horizons ƒƒ Hone critical and creative thinking ƒƒ Develop a passion for learning and scholarship ƒƒ Cultivate a high sense of moral and intellectual integrity ƒƒ Foster a commitment to service and social justice ₒₒ Add pakikipagkapwa-tao among the GE KSAs Comment from Associate Prof. Portia Padilla (CEd): Add nationalism, gender sensitivity, and cultural-rootedness in the objectives

••

98

Structure ₒₒ No. of units: Minimum 21 ₒₒ Courses should be distributed among all clusters and should satisfy 6 units of the Philippine Studies requirement

ₒₒ

ₒₒ ₒₒ

ₒₒ ₒₒ

That GE courses be classified according to clusters and a GE course may belong to more than one cluster Comment from Prof. Ma. Gloria Talavera (VSB): Courses should be grouped according to the similarity of disciplines. Business courses are derived from other disciplines; as such, they cannot be dissociated from the more fundamental social sciences and will therefore be included in the social science domain. Because of this, GE courses cannot be classified according to the four academic clusters. The clusters are useful for administrative purposes but not for classifying GE courses. ƒƒ Correction suggested by Dean Rosete: “That GE courses be classified according to domains and a GE course may belong to more than one domain.” The discipline is associated with an undergraduate degree Program A course is considered interdisciplinary if it involves two or more disciplines in content and delivery Comment from Dean Jose Maria Balmaceda (CS): For units offering purely graduate degree Programs but have GE courses, the definition of a discipline being associated with an undergraduate degree Program will not apply. GE courses will come from the existing and new courses that will satisfy three out of the five objectives for a GE course. Suggest to modify UWCP so that courses under the Program may be selectively chosen by units

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015


••

Language policy ₒₒ Implement language policy ƒƒ Will assess ways of implementing it effectively – including resources, administrative requirements, and teacher training

••

DISCUSSION ••

••

••

••

•• ••

Associate Prof. Melania Flores (CAL) suggested that the Hybrid GE Program be continued, since (with the exception of the objective on commitment to service and social justice) it has the same objectives as the proposed GE framework, it is domain-based, and has the minimum 21 units. Associate Prof. Portia Padilla (CEd) reiterated the suggestion to include cultural-rootedness, nationalism, and gender sensitivity among the GE objectives. Prof. Percival Almoro (CS) concurred with Prof. Padilla’s point, and also reiterated the previous suggestions to sharpen the national analysis, reference to the “liberal” philosophy, and inclusion of the idea of “liberating” education in the GE framework. Vice-Chancellor Benito Pacheco (OVCAA) suggested an alternative approach, which is to include some traits/attributes not among the objectives but among the KSAs associated with particular objectives. Associate Prof. Padilla (CEd) also reiterated the suggestion to include pakikipagkapwa-tao among the KSAs. Prof. Almoro (CS) suggested rephrasing Objective 4 from “Cultivate a high sense of moral and

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015

••

••

••

intellectual integrity” to “Cultivate a high sense of ethical and intellectual integrity” because “ethical” is more precise than “moral”. Dean Amihan Ramolete (CAL) reiterated her suggestion to review the inputs about the GE objectives that are stated in the report on the June 2015 cluster workshops. She noted that the discussion seems to be going back to individual comments by faculty members. According to Prof. Mark Albert Zarco (COE), there was no consensus across clusters regarding the GE objectives. Assistant Prof. Josephine Dionisio (CSSP) reminded the body about past venues wherein the GE Program has been discussed, both in terms of the System-proposed GE framework and in terms of broader issues that have to do with varied perspectives on general education. As such, it might indeed not be possible to process and synthesize all discussions during the GE Conference itself. She suggested that a synthesis of key points covered in the cluster workshops and the Conference plenary sessions and workshops first be prepared before proceeding to the GE resolutions. Associate Prof. Ma. Theresa Payongayong (CSSP) concurred with Assistant Prof. Dionisio’s suggestion, and further suggested that the documentation work be undertaken by the UPD GE Committee. Vice-Chancellor Benito Pacheco (OVCAA) proposed to mandate the four academic cluster chairs to work on the document in time for the next Diliman Executive Committee meeting. Same document will be distributed via email to the conference participants. The body endorsed VC Pacheco’s proposal.

99


100

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015


Professor Benito M. Pacheco, PhD Vice-Chancellor for Academic Affairs University of the Philippines Diliman I am optimistic for a number of reasons. Marami tayong nagawa, nahihirapan na tayong isara kung paano na ngayong gabi. If you look at the profile of the participants, yung mga sumali at nagbantay ng dalawang araw kasama natin ay napakarami at napakaganda yung composition. At the same time, optimistic tayo na ang ating GE Committee, yung sub-committee nung apat na Cluster Chairs, ay dinidibdib talaga, danas na danas at damdam na damdam yung pagluluto natin ng nilalaman ng GE. At ang staff din po natin, nararamdaman na kahit ilang taon na ang GE Conference, ginagawa pa rin. Dumadami lalo yung naga-attend kasi nga ganyan kahalaga yung GE for all of us. Sana po, ang ibalita natin sa mga kasama natin, marami ng napagkasunduan sa Nobyembre. Kakayanin natin sa UC na mag desisyon ng ilang hakbang nang sa ganoon sa lebel ng degree programs ay makapagpatuloy na tayo. Lahat tayo ay looking forward na merong initial decisions. Maybe small, maybe we will not be able to cover all matters. But these initial decisions are decisive steps ng Diliman para maka-abante sa next steps ng pagpa-plano para sa GE Program. Sabi nga ni Chancellor Tan, hindi pa ito para sa 2016, pero puwede naman mag-pilot. May pagkakataon tayong subukan itong mga bagong kurso nitong dalawang taong namamagitan. At hindi rin puwede magbagal kasi ang 2018, before we know it ay napakabilis, nandiyan na. Kaya I hope you will agree with me on two things: it’s time to go home, that’s one; and we agreed on many things. Hihintayin natin yung apat na Cluster Chairs to articulate those things in writing, with much anticipation. Maraming salamat po sa ating lahat.

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015

101


102

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015


Major Agreements Reached during the Conference

The key points discussed during the Conference could be grouped into three major themes: 1) those that could be used as inputs for formulating the implementing guidelines for the new GE Program, 2) those that could be used as inputs for editing the draft GE framework prepared by the GE Task Force, and 3) those that could be considered as potential resolutions regarding the new GE Program. The matrix that follows presents the synthesis of the Conference discussions organized according to the three themes discussed above. In compliance with the Conference participants’ request for a synthesis of the discussions on the new GE Program, the same matrix, together with the Conference Summary report, were disseminated to the UPD faculty through their deans/heads for their deliberation. The deliberations are expected to lead to a set of resolutions regarding the GE Program that will be presented in a special University Council meeting, for the UP Diliman faculty’s endorsement.

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015

103


(A) FOR POTENTIAL IMPLEMENTING GUIDELINES

FRAMEWORK COMPONENT 1.0 Context and Rationale In sum, the revision of the GE Program has a broad context. As the writers of the 2010 GEP Review Final Report remind us, “UP has regularly revised its GE Program in light of the changing contexts and conditions of the university and its experience in implementing the Program.” While the periods between earlier GE Program reviews were relatively long, the gaps between Program reviews in recent years have become shorter. In the 1990s, the GE Program was reviewed in 1991, 1992, and 1995, with the reviews culminating in the adoption of the RGEP in 2001 (Re-examining UP’s General Education Program Final Report, 2010). The RGEP itself was subjected to a systemwide review in 2009, only eight years since its adoption. And then in 2013, a mere four years later, the UP System proposed a new set of Program revisions. 104

The Hybrid GE Program might still be applicable even in the face of K-to12. Check which existing GE courses could be upgraded in terms of content and pedagogical approach.

(B) FOR POTENTIAL EDITS OF THE TASK FORCE GE FRAMEWORK Sharpen the articulation of liberal education as bedrock of the GE Program. (Perhaps to revise the last sentence of the paragraph quoted – see leftmost column of this table – to include the phrase that “liberal education is the BEDROCK of UP’s General Education Program.”)

(C) FOR POTENTIAL UC RESOLUTIONS POTENTIAL RESOLUTION 1 There is a need to revise the GE Program given the national and international trends affecting the Philippine higher education system.

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015


FRAMEWORK COMPONENT

(A) FOR POTENTIAL IMPLEMENTING GUIDELINES

(B) FOR POTENTIAL EDITS OF THE TASK FORCE GE FRAMEWORK

(C) FOR POTENTIAL UC RESOLUTIONS

The frequency of GE Program reviews reflects the increasingly rapid pace of change. But it is the direction rather than the pace of curricular reform that is perhaps more noteworthy. Without exception, all attempts to revise the GE Program are re-affirmations of the continuing relevance of liberal education as the core, or “heart” (Kintanar, 2001), of undergraduate education in UP.

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015

105


FRAMEWORK COMPONENT

2.0 UP General Education Philosophy The liberal education insures a broader outlook on God, man, and events; skills [sic] the student to react properly to the promptings of truth and to the world; and develops in him acumen and quickness of mind, so that in the course of time he is able to learn thoroughly the particular practices of a certain professional or technical activity, because they are nothing more nor less than the specific utilization of general cultural attainment.... The primary aim of all education is to form the habit of thinking, of judging facts and circumstances in their proper light, of logically deducing inferences from them — and this aim cannot be attained save through the instrumentality of a liberal education. (Palma quoted in Doronila et al., 1993, pp. 136-137)

106

(A) FOR POTENTIAL IMPLEMENTING GUIDELINES

(B) FOR POTENTIAL EDITS OF THE TASK FORCE GE FRAMEWORK

We should continuously review GE courses and the GE Program itself to be responsive to national, international, global, and technological developments.

The AH Cluster finds the GE philosophy not (yet) clearly articulated in the draft document, and suggests the following as inputs:

(C) FOR POTENTIAL UC RESOLUTIONS POTENTIAL RESOLUTION 2 Liberal education is the bedrock of UP’s General Education Program. POTENTIAL RESOLUTION 3

A GE Philosophy is an ethos characterized by the following basic principles: • GE is by nature a liberal education that need not be expressly utilitarian. It is nonspecialist (i.e., it is holistic and integrative) and its value is not immediately obvious or particularly manifested in a set of measurable skills. At its best, it develops both critical and creative thinking and action. • The UPGEP develops ways of being and the embodiment of the loftiest principles at the core of a UP education. The Program, thus, by going beyond inculcating habits of thought and ways of perceiving, develops students who live the ideals of pagiging makabayan and makatao.

GE courses should develop higher-order skills (e.g., thinking skills, both creative and critical; methods of inquiry skills).

(Note: During the September 2015 GE Conference, there was no consensus regarding the relationship of GE with specialist education, and GE’s role in the undergraduate curriculum).

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015


FRAMEWORK COMPONENT [I]nstead of contrasting GE with specialist education and thinking of it as a corrective to specialism, it may be more appropriate to consider GE as a complement to and a co-requisite of specialist education. By helping to build foundational skills, GE courses can prepare students for the major courses. In basic education the approach is introductory and the aim, generally speaking, is to develop basic skills, such as comprehension and problem solving. In GE courses the approach is not remediation of the basic skills (cf. Tenmatay, 1960) but deepening the understanding of key ideas, theories, and paradigms in various disciplines, and the aim is development of higher-order cognitive skills, such as analysis, synthesis and integration, and problem formulation or articulation.

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015

(A) FOR POTENTIAL IMPLEMENTING GUIDELINES

(B) FOR POTENTIAL EDITS OF THE TASK FORCE GE FRAMEWORK

(C) FOR POTENTIAL UC RESOLUTIONS

• GE is a transformative education that potentially changes oneself, one’s worldview, and one’s world. A meaningful GEP encourages creative and constructive action that contributes to the improvement of the student’s community, nation, and the world. This transformative nature of the GEP draws it strength from recognizing the Filipino student’s cultural specificity at the same time as his/her shared humanity.

107


FRAMEWORK COMPONENT 3.0 GE Program Objectives The UP GE Program should aim to develop leadership characterized by integrity and honor, excellence in scholarship, and public service, the hallmarks of a UP education. To this end it shall provide students with a broad foundation of study that will: broaden intellectual and cultural horizons; hone critical and creative thinking; develop a passion for learning and scholarship; cultivate a high sense of intellectual and moral integrity; and foster a commitment to service and social justice.

108

(A) FOR POTENTIAL IMPLEMENTING GUIDELINES Suggestions from the AH cluster: • Broadening intellectual and cultural horizons should be realized by developing in the students a high level of competence in languages and literacies beyond the oral and written. Such expansion of horizons can only happen in a GEP that is open to various modes of knowledge such as sensorial and embodied knowledges or what we refer to as knowledges embedded in danas and damdam. • Honing critical thinking and nourishing creative knowledges should be complemented by a participative/reflexive practice. The GEP should cultivate in the students the ability to harness creative and artistic practices for the exploration of alternative forms of thinking and being. • Developing a passion for learning and scholarship should be done in a manner that leads to constructive and creative

(B) FOR POTENTIAL EDITS OF THE TASK FORCE GE FRAMEWORK • The Proposed GE Framework needs to sharpen the analysis of the national context – i.e., have a clearer conceptual and operational/curricular articulation of what it means to be a Filipino, and what it means to foster a commitment to service and social justice. • Add gender sensitivity, responsiveness, and empowerment to GE dispositional outcomes.

(C) FOR POTENTIAL UC RESOLUTIONS POTENTIAL RESOLUTION 4 GE objectives and targets may also be achieved through non-GE courses. But GE should not be viewed separately from, or in competition with, specialist courses. A university education is a whole, and should always be approached as such.

(Note: During the September 2015 GE Conference, it was noted that the following concepts need further clarification: a) global citizen, b) social justice, and c) liberal education in the humanist vs. the socialist perspective).

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015


FRAMEWORK COMPONENT 3.0 GE Program (cont’n.) The envisioned GE student attributes of integrity and honor, scholarship, broad intellectual and cultural horizons, and nationalism and public service are the outcome of a set of knowledge, skills, and attitudes or dispositions (KSAs).

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015

(A) FOR POTENTIAL IMPLEMENTING GUIDELINES

(B) FOR POTENTIAL EDITS OF THE TASK FORCE GE FRAMEWORK

(C) FOR POTENTIAL UC RESOLUTIONS

action. It is not enough that the GEP encourages students to have a high regard for scholarship. More important is the “living out” or pagsasadiwa of academic excellence characterized by the continuous pursuit of knowledge and an engaged practice of scholarship. • Intelligence, which is manifested in the student’s ability to think critically, is not confined to the mind. Likewise, ethics is not merely a cognitive function but an embodied philosophy. Thus, the GEP’s strong grounding on ethics must emphasize that ethical principles are “lived.” • Fostering a commitment to service and social justice should be grounded on the student’s strong sense of Filipino-ness but complemented by a strong understanding of a his/her position and location in the world.

109


FRAMEWORK COMPONENT

(A) FOR POTENTIAL IMPLEMENTING GUIDELINES

(B) FOR POTENTIAL EDITS OF THE TASK FORCE GE FRAMEWORK

(C) FOR POTENTIAL UC RESOLUTIONS

• The current matrix of attributes and KSAs is linear and seemingly sequential. Relationships among concepts and outcomes are not clearly shown. • Add the following KSAs: ₒₒ Knowledge of technology ₒₒ Visual and digital literacy ₒₒ Attitude and disposition towards innovation ₒₒ Pakikipagkapwa-tao ₒₒ Social skills and emotional maturity ₒₒ Empathy and charisma • Nationalism should be rooted in local diversity (i.e., recognizing the diversity of language groups and ethnicities).

110

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015


FRAMEWORK COMPONENT 4.0 The GE Curriculum Structure An integrated curriculum consisting of a minimum of 21 units and a maximum of 36 units of interdisciplinary courses is proposed. Each CU shall determine the total number of GE courses at the CU level based on an analysis of undergraduate program needs and requirements, and select the GE courses to be taken by their students from the array of GE courses to beapproved based on the principles and guidelines laid out in this framework. To underscore the interdisciplinarity that distinguishes the GE Program from specialist education, a thematic rather than domainbased classification of GE courses is proposed. Themes are interdisciplinary in character — i.e., they UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015

(A) FOR POTENTIAL IMPLEMENTING GUIDELINES • The idea of “interdisciplinary” at Program and course levels has to be clarified. One approach suggested during the UPD GE Conference 2015 is to consider a degree program as equivalent to a discipline. Thus, an interdisciplinary course is one that is enriched by content from different degree programs and such course is taught by faculty members coming from different degree programs. • a) There should be a way of assessing if a course satisfies “interdisciplinarity”; b) The level of maturity of students is a factor in the effectiveness of an interdisciplinary course, c) The nature of the course determines the need for interdisciplinarity; and d) Introducing major and minor degrees could foster interdisciplinary perspectives among students. • Interdisciplinarity should be approached in a way that does not undermine the integrity of the

(B) FOR POTENTIAL EDITS OF THE TASK FORCE GE FRAMEWORK • Not all courses should be interdisciplinary. • The GE courses may come from the existing GE courses that may meet the GEP objectives, the System 11 courses, and other new courses that may be approved.

(C) FOR POTENTIAL UC RESOLUTIONS POTENTIAL RESOLUTION 5 Not all courses should be interdisciplinary. POTENTIAL RESOLUTION 6 The GE courses may come from the existing GE courses that may meet the GEP objectives, the System 11 courses, and other new courses that may be approved. (Other points raised in the cluster workshops and the September 2015 GE conference: a) “Interdisciplinary” courses have been operationalized in various ways in the University: a) a combination of many disciplines that are integrated, b) a course taught by one department but synthesizes ideas from various disciplines, c) a course grounded in one discipline but borrowing techniques, approaches, tools, etc. from other disciplines, d) subject matter determines if the course is interdisciplinary or not; e) The key constructs of “holistic learning” and “critical thinking” are not achieved by content alone; they are also dependent on pedagogical approaches that we use).

111


FRAMEWORK COMPONENT cut across disciplines, and different disciplines can and should contribute to the elucidation of each theme.

(A) FOR POTENTIAL IMPLEMENTING GUIDELINES individual disciplines. Students must be grounded in their individual disciplines for them to fully appreciate and benefit from an interdisciplinary course. • We must have a system for identifying the strand that students took in their senior high school. • It might be good to look at the GE curricula of other universities when we decide on our own GE curriculum’s structure. • The number of units should be gauged against GE Program objectives and target attributes – will a particular number of units be sufficient to achieve those objectives, attributes, and KSAs? • There are also administrative issues to consider, such as when students shift from one course to another, or transfer from one CU to another. • On the UWCP The UWCP is important

112

(B) FOR POTENTIAL EDITS OF THE TASK FORCE GE FRAMEWORK • On the number of GE units: ₒₒ The minimum number of GE units shall be 21. ₒₒ There should be required (core) GE courses. ₒₒ A maximum number of GE units could be set. • On the thematic classification of courses: ₒₒ Instead of themes, the existing three domains should still be used as system for classifying and/ or characterizing courses.

(C) FOR POTENTIAL UC RESOLUTIONS POTENTIAL RESOLUTION 7 The minimum number of units in the GE curriculum shall be 21. POTENTIAL RESOLUTION 8 There should be core (prescribed) GE courses. POTENTIAL RESOLUTION 9 The existing system of classifying GE courses by domain (Arts and Humanities; Math, Science and Technology; Social Sciences and Philosophy) should still be used in the new GE Program. POTENTIAL RESOLUTION 10 The decision to include University Writing and Communication Program (UWCP) courses and how to include them in undergraduate degree programs will be made in the proposals by the individual colleges and degree programs.

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015


FRAMEWORK COMPONENT

(A) FOR POTENTIAL IMPLEMENTING GUIDELINES

(B) FOR POTENTIAL EDITS OF THE TASK FORCE GE FRAMEWORK

(C) FOR POTENTIAL UC RESOLUTIONS

but is not the core of the GE Program. Not all courses in the UWCP need to be taken by all students. The courses may be offered as separate from, or parallel to, GE courses. 5.0 Pedagogical Principles The following principles derived from theory and research on what makes for effective teaching and learning in higher education, as well as from the University’s long experience in the teaching of GE, are recommended to underpin the GE Program: • GE courses shall be interdisciplinary in pedagogy as well as in content. • GE courses shall be learning-centered, with a clear focus on learning outcomes and their alignment with teaching and learning activities and assessment of learning.

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015

• GE courses should not have prerequisites. But units offering GE courses may indicate if there is a preferred level of maturity/preparation for students who will enroll in a particular GE course. • Individual units/ departments and the students should be given the option to decide on the sequence in which GE courses will be taken. • The group agrees with the language policy but remains open to a bilingual teaching approach. • Both junior and senior faculty may teach GE courses, as each brings different experiences and perspectives into the teaching of the courses.

See item 4.0 (GE Curriculum Structure) above re interdisciplinary courses.

POTENTIAL RESOLUTION 11 GE courses should not have prerequisites. POTENTIAL RESOLUTION 12 Individual undergraduate programs will have their respective proposals on the sequence in which GE courses will be taken by students. POTENTIAL RESOLUTION 13 The language policy will still be implemented on a voluntary basis. POTENTIAL RESOLUTION 14 Both junior and senior faculty may teach GE courses so long as they have the necessary qualifications for teaching these courses.

113


FRAMEWORK COMPONENT • GE courses shall develop critical, creative, and reflective thinking skills through the appropriate use of learning resources and technologies. 6.0 Guidelines for Program Implementation The administration of the GE Program is a collaborative effort of the faculty handling the GE courses, the CU GE Program Coordinators, the CU GE Councils or Committees, and the System GE Council. The CU GE Councils or Committees and the System GE Council shall be responsible for the policy-making aspects of Program administration, and the GE faculty and GE Program Coordinators shall be responsible for Program implementation.

114

(A) FOR POTENTIAL IMPLEMENTING GUIDELINES

(B) FOR POTENTIAL EDITS OF THE TASK FORCE GE FRAMEWORK

(C) FOR POTENTIAL UC RESOLUTIONS

• Team teaching and blended learning strategies should be incorporated in GE courses.

• The UPCAT should have a measure of students’ proficiency regardless of their track in senior high school. Bridge/ remedial courses may be provided as needed. • Current GE courses should be reviewed to determine if they are aligned with the goals and objectives of the new GEP. • The standard channels and procedures should be followed in evaluating GE curricular proposals. • The GE Center should take care of the administrative matters regarding the planning and coordination for the GE Program.

Add the GE Center among those in charge of Program implementation.

POTENTIAL RESOLUTION 15 Current GE courses will be reviewed to determine if they are aligned with the goals and objectives of the new GE Program.

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015


FRAMEWORK COMPONENT 6.0 Guidelines for Program Implementation (cont’n.)

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015

(A) FOR POTENTIAL IMPLEMENTING GUIDELINES

(B) FOR POTENTIAL EDITS OF THE TASK FORCE GE FRAMEWORK

• Review the system for assigning multipliers and overload credits for teaching GE courses, as well as the system for giving grants, awards, and promotion points for GE teaching. • During the transition period, a comparative study of students who took the different GE Programs could be undertaken. “Old” and “new” ways of teaching existing GE courses could be implemented side by side. • Some questions that need to be addressed in designing the evaluation scheme: ₒₒ How do we verify that the objectives of the GE Program are met? ₒₒ What systems/protocols could be established – e.g., pretest, midterm assessment, exit exam? ₒₒ What kinds of exam could be given (quantitative, qualitative, etc.)? ₒₒ How do we assess the GE Program from the point of view of students, teachers, and administrators?

• The GE Program should be assessed at the point of inception (pretest), during its implementation (formative assessment), and after the students have completed the Program (exit exam). • Assessment should be from the point of view of students, teachers, and administrators.

(C) FOR POTENTIAL UC RESOLUTIONS POTENTIAL RESOLUTION 16 The GE Program should be evaluated at various points; there should be a baseline study (pretest), formative assessment, and exit exam for students who have completed the Program. POTENTIAL RESOLUTION 17 The assessment should consider the perspectives of students, teachers, and administrators. POTENTIAL RESOLUTION 18 A think tank will be constituted to plan the assessment of the GE Program.

115


FRAMEWORK COMPONENT

(A) FOR POTENTIAL IMPLEMENTING GUIDELINES

(B) FOR POTENTIAL EDITS OF THE TASK FORCE GE FRAMEWORK

(C) FOR POTENTIAL UC RESOLUTIONS

ₒₒ What new strategies for assessing GE courses and the GE Program could we adopt? ₒₒ How do we operationalize values that we want inculcated in our students via the GE Program? How do we solate the impact of GE education versus other courses and other experiences that a UP student goes through? • A ‘think tank’ should be constituted to plan the assessment of the GE Program.

116

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015


UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015

117


Quantitative ratings for various aspects of the conference (using a 5-point rating scale with 5 as the highest score) show that the event garnered above-average evaluation for all but one item: •• •• •• •• •• ••

Venue (accessibility, general condition) 4.40 Schedule (time allotment, pacing) 2.90 Plenary sessions (content and purpose) 4.00 Workshops (content and purpose) 3.72 Conference materials (content and distribution) 3.51 Food (quantity and quality) 3.52

The qualitative feedback of the participants can be summarized as follows:

Item

f

On the Conference Arrangements •• •• •• •• ••

Recommendations regarding providing better facilities (food, venue, writing supplies, handouts, wifi) Better planning for workshops Better program planning More time for workshops and/or the conference itself Earlier distribution of materials, and direct distribution to participants

13 9 5 5 4

On the GE Program – Topics for Future Discussions •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• ••

118

Review/Development of GE courses GE evaluation Further discussions on topics covered in the conference The GE Center Pedagogy for teaching GE GE implementation Administrative matters Specific GE courses GE for graduate programs Faculty incentives for teaching GE courses GE of other universities abroad

5 5 5 4 4 3 2 1 1 1 1

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015


Annexes <link> (Please click on link icon)

UPD GE CONFERENCE 2015

119

UP Diliman General Education Conference 2015: Conference Proceedings  

The Conference Proceedings was published by the University of the Phiippines-Diliman.

Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you