Core letter designations criteria
Version 25 feb 19 - NM
IIT has various requirements aka “letter designations” in the core curriculum that are mandared by for all IIT UGs and required elements of all UG degrees. This includes
· H – humanities
· S – Social sciences
· C – Communication
· N - natural science
There are also requirements that do not carry designations, but are functionally equivalent.
· CS – computer science
· Math – Math
· ITP – itp classes
· IPRO - IPROS
There is a current pilot program operating AY2020 implementing an “I for IPRO” designation. Furthermore, there is a proposal being studied to create de novo an additional designations:
· E – ethics
As required elements in our UG programs these are of interest and relevance to the accreditation process. However, this effort is NOT the accreditation process and is only focused on developing criteria and a mechanism for course approval /designation/ review. It seems likely that the accreditation process will need to interact with these designation in some way, so cooperation and consultation is recommended.
Courses need to be reviews and designated for letters. Each “letter subcommittee” once fully defined, needs to develop and present a mechanism whereby courses are reviewed and designated.
· We need to develop criteria and decide who if anybody needs to control.
o It seems this is UGSC areas and UGSC should approve, and then UFC if it wishes
o It also seems that the various dept should be consulted, and or give approval. If a requirement for dept approval is decided upon, then we need to produce a list of dept that need to approve and an approval mode.
· Current UGSC documents list a point person (“letter sub chair”) but do not formally list other depts or individual for each letter designation committee.
· Below are criteria, or proposed criteria. If any are in fact already approved, we need to document when approval was given and by whom (UGSC; various depts, UFC). Most are draft and are for informational purposes only, as they are developed. However, we want everyone who needs to be in the loop informed as this happens. Eventually these should be forwarded to UFC for UFC/ administration (accreditation? ) approval
Draft – not approved by anybody yet
1. (H)-courses should analyze and evaluate literary, artistic, philosophical, linguistic and historical human artifacts and the conditions and processes though which they have been and continue to be produced, consumed and preserved.
2. This analysis and evaluation should normally occur in small, diverse classes which are typically more open-ended (WRT “correctness”) and more discussion-oriented than most STEM courses.
3. (H)-courses should bring together students from multiple disciplines and cultural backgrounds to either (1) survey broad trends within a relatively wide topical swath, or (2) dive deeply into a narrow channel of human activity or accomplishment.
4. (H)-courses should have a strong emphasis on ethics and morality though a consistent focus on both the diversity and universality of human experience.
Proposed subcommittee: as designated by HUM
Perhaps approved, not sure when or by whom… need to document
1. Acquaints students with the scientific study of individual and group behavior
2. Introduces students to fundamental concepts, theory or methods from one or more of the social/behavioral sciences (e.g., anthropology, economics, sociology, political science or psychology).
3. Enables students to think critically about human behavior and society to offer meaningful explanations of social and individual behavior.
4. Frames social science problems broadly in a way that is accessible to the general population (i.e., not exclusively for majors within a specific discipline)
Proposed subcommittee: UGCS Lewis college dept reps or alternates as designated by chairs of these depts
Approved I believe, as this is an ongoing process – where and by whom?
1. Students receive instruction in, or modeling of, discipline-specific discourse.
2. Students have opportunity to put instruction a/o modeling into practice.
3. Students receive (timely) feedback on their efforts.
4. Students have opportunity to incorporate feedback into subsequent efforts.
Proposed subcommittee: Pulliam
Science dept (BIO CHEM PHYS) saw these in 2017 with no comment. Approved by BIO 21 Feb 19. We are asking CVHERM and PHYS if they wish to formally approve or comment now.
1. Acquaints students with empirical and/or theoretical understanding of the natural world that is based upon observation and the scientific method
2. Enables students to think critically about the natural world, to offer meaningful explanations of natural phenomena, and develop and test hypotheses about natural phenomena
3. Communicates natural science to the general population (i.e., not those educated in natural science) in a way that is accessible to them.
Proposed subcommittee: UGSC reps form BIO CHEM and PHYS or alternate as designated by chairs of these depts. Possibly add a rep form Armour and or Lewis?
Draft by Matt Bauer. CS is working with relevant depts (ITM ARCH) to finalize and approve
1. use computation to represent problems (i.e. abstraction) and implement solutions using an appropriate programming environment.
2. - use computation to demonstrate algorithmic thinking.
3. - utilize computational applications for modeling, simulation or visualization.
4. - explain the limitations, assumptions, and trade-offs inherent in computing models.
5. - apply a software development process (specification/ requirements, design, programming / documentation, debugging / testing).
Proposed subcommittee: as designated by CS and…. ???
Nothing yet
UGSC approved: 24 Feb 2015
1. Ethics: Understand the ethical framework applicable to the discipline. Understand the importance of ethics to the profession. Be able to recognize ethical issues and propose ethical responses to ethical problems.
2. Communication: Understand the standards of professional communication used within the profession. Be able communicate (understand, and respond) in a discipline specific fashion
3. Professionalism: Understand the norms of profession behavior within the discipline. Be able to discuss and understand how professional conduct reflects on and supports the discipline.
Proposed subcommittee: to be formed by UGSC as needed. Do we need to look at this for accreditation? Also, it looks like all ITPs may be E as well?
Nothing approved yet, as discussed last meeting (12 April 19). Here are “proposed criteria” form that background documents
1. Be project based (course will develop a novel, non-obvious solution to a contemporary issue) Also, at least 70% of the activities outlined in the syllabus (measured by time spent) should be related to planning and completing the project.
2. Be team based (60% of points from team assignments)
3. Include communication (oral and written communications evaluated outside experts, including a juried exhibit presentation at I course day (the day formerly known as IPRO day))
4. Be inter-disciplinary.
5. Include ethical considerations. 10% of total assignments must include some reflection on the role of the project /
Proposed subcommittee: UFC IPRO oversight committee.
Will 10% merit an E? some likely not to not all IPROs will have E.
E does not exist yet, but there is a nascent effort to possibly create such a designation. See UGSC minutes . that committee shod be kept aware of this process.