Compilation of Freshman Focus Group Reports

IHUM Focus Group #1:

Facilitator: A

Note Taker: B

I. Strengths of the program

· For the lectures it sounded as though several of the IHUM courses were team-taught and had profs. alternate weeks or even debate with each other. Most students appreciated this for it added variety although a few felt as though it diluted what the main points were that they were supposed to get. It sounded as though the courses where one prof. taught one book and a second prof. taught the next book lost some of the benefits of the team-teaching/novelty.

· When the profs. indicated a degree of interest in the students it was well received by all the students. They commented on actions such as some professors showing up to the sections and even fielding questions there on occasion. Sometimes they would just go to hear the student opinions. Several made extra efforts to be available for a lot of office hours.

· The use of alternative media to promote learning was well liked. Students seemed to be fond of assignments that were as diverse as going to the opera & going to the Big Game as opportunities to learn.

· The winter/spring continuity worked well for some students. Others switched sections or felt that there was very little continuity (sometimes they had different professors who had not appeared to coordinate with one another).

· They liked the fact that there was some choice of IHUM in winter/spring quarters.

II. Areas for improvement

· The topics chosen were seen as not always being ‘meaty’ enough to promote a full discussion for the length of the sections. Some teaching fellows would let students out early while others would try to fill up the time. A suggestion was made that the discussion sections be shortened.

· There seemed to be a consensus that there was not enough effort made to get a truly multicultural curriculum. About 9 of the 12 students seemed to agree with this (3 or 4 of the students appeared to be students of color).

· A couple students felt that the goal/purpose of IHUM could be made clearer. In a few cases there was a disjuncture between what the course descriptions advertised and what actually went on in the courses.

· Most of the students in this group wished that there could be more choice in which IHUM courses they took. Some thought this might help the aforementioned multicultural issue as some topics lent themselves to addressing multicultural curricula better than others.

· A suggestion was made to limit students’ IHUM obligations (about 8 of 12 students liked this idea). These suggestions included:

o Combine the writing requirements with IHUM so that IHUM included the writing requisites.

o Model the requirements after a school like Brown where there is a lot more flexibility and requirements can be fulfilled in later years.

o They thought that there was too much overlap with the GER & that those two requirements could have been synthesized to have fewer total requirements.

o One suggestion was to limit IHUM to 2 quarters.

· A couple students liked the idea of having more variety in section leaders. For example groups of 2-3 TF could rotate through a section each teaching for a couple weeks (for variety) and stay with this section for the whole year (for continuity).

· A suggestion was made to address students who dominated conversation in section. Either:

o TF’s could get some training on how to better manage their discussion sections.

o Or, sizes of discussion sections could be smaller.

· Some felt that the topics discussed in section should be more focused.

III. Class Structure

· There was a bit of a split on how effective the lecture-section congruence was. A couple students felt as though there wasn’t much of any while others felt that the sections did a great job of connecting lecture with the reading.

· Almost no students felt that they learned skills during the fall that then helped them in winter/spring (about 1 of 12). Specifically they felt that the content and the instructors’ expectations were too different for any transfer of skills to occur.

· The workload seemed to vary between classes. The consensus seemed to be that most students could put in a reasonable amount of work and get a B+. If you wanted to work really hard you might get an A. Most students claimed to have figured out by part way through the year that they could get away with not doing all the reading.

· Some students were concerned that there was a bit of a disconnect between the effort they put in and the grades they got. Specifically the students thought there was a trend where most students were given a B on the first paper, B+/A- on the second and an A on the third even if they worked much harder on the first paper.

· Most students felt that the workload did vary across the IHUM program.

IHUM Focus Group #2

Facilitator: X

Note Taker: Y

What did you like about your I-Hum courses? (15 min)

Three key areas seemed the foci of satisfaction with the program. First, the students liked the opportunity to read texts (specifically, classical texts) that they might not otherwise be exposed to. Second, the students appreciated having a choice of courses. Of the ten participants, eight had enrolled in their first choice for I-Hum in the fall and nine received their first choice in the spring.

Overwhelmingly, the participants identified the involvement of high-level professors with their best experiences with the program. They were engaged by professors that demonstrated excitement with the material. However, the participants agreed that the level of excitement of the professors decreased with each successive quarter. I-hum students enjoyed lecture most when the material was presented by lecturers from two different disciplines, and enjoyed section most when it was attended by the lecturers.

What if anything in your courses should be improved? (15 minutes)

Four “problems” dominated the discussion on question two: scheduling, section structure, grading inconsistencies, and workload differences. The first three will be summarized here, while the last will be included in question five.

Scheduling: Students complained that the scheduling (i.e., inflexibility) of I-Hum courses precluded them from taking courses toward majors and area requirements that they would have found more interesting (11am was mentioned specifically). Also, students expressed frustration at having to choose between eating lunch in the dining hall, or attending lecture/section and having to pay for a meal elsewhere. The students also felt that section times were forced to be artificially long—frequently, the discussion would end long before the time requirement had been met.

Section structure: Most students agreed that sections were structured too loosely. Long student presentations were often fruitless. One student explained that his teaching fellow had e-mailed discussion topics and reading questions before each section. This helped students prepare for section and forced them to keep up in the reading. When prompted for suggested improvements, the participants agreed that section leaders should take a more active role in organizing and facilitating section activities. Students also emphasized that sections should include a focus on real-world applications through alternative media and fieldtrips.

Grading inconsistencies: Eight out of ten students believed grading of papers and exams in the I-Hum program to be arbitrary. They believe that steps should be taken to make grading more consistent and feedback on papers more helpful (one-third of students claimed to have never received any feedback on a paper). Differences in TF and lecturer abilities to explain texts exacerbate the grading problem.

Do you feel that sections related well to lectures? (5 minutes)

The group was split on the basis of this question. Half believed that sections should relate to and expand upon lecture. The second half though that lecture should be mentioned in section only for points of clarification. Of the first half, most felt that teaching fellows were doing a reasonably good job of relating sections and lectures. However, they said that problems arose when lecturers would give a disorganized lecture. Then, they felt TF’s were too restricted by expectations to relate the two components.

Did you learn skills in your fall I-Hum course that you used in your winter/spring I-Hum course? (5 minutes)

Students agreed that little to none of what they learned in the fall carried over to their winter and spring courses. They claimed that they learned how one TF graded, what he/she wanted in a paper, then went to a new TF who had entirely different expectations for an entirely different curriculum.

Measuring Workload on a scale of 1 (easy) to 5 (difficult). (10 minutes)

Students evaluations of workloads across the quarters:

*No.*	*Fall Rating*	*Wint/Spr Rating*	*Comments*
1	5	3	Fall quarter was more demanding—but spring is relaxed
2	3.5	3	Reading was reduced
3	3.5	4	Reading is too heavy (1 book/lecture)
4	4.5	3
5	2	3	Very few papers
6	3	2	Shorter readings
7	3	2	Don’t have to do the readings to get by this quarter
8	3	2
9	3	4
10	3.5	4

General Comments:

Two other student observations are important to note. First, students talked about the program in terms of what they perceived its two goals to be: (1) to improve students’ writing, and (2) a familiarization with the classics. Second, students were very put off by the exclusion of I-Hum from Stanford’s policy of “shopping for classes.”

The students who attended represented eight different fall quarter courses and ten different winter/spring tracks. The group was nearly evenly split between males and females, with three different ethnic minority groups represented.

IHUM Focus Group #3

Facilitator: C

Note taker: D

7 students present: 5 males, 2 females

1) What did you like about your IHUM courses?

· Some (4) students really enjoyed the readings. They enjoyed that IHUM courses forced the students to read great literature that they would have not likely read (or much less known about) otherwise.

· All of the students present had IHUM courses that were team taught by two professors, in some form or another. All of the students remarked this approach was well received but noted the difference between true team teaching and not just the switching off of professors for each lecture.

· A few of the students were present in IHUM lectures in which the professor invited various scholars, sometimes from other Stanford departments or other universities, and conducted ‘panel discussions’. These panels actively debated various topics and pieces of literature which brought new perspectives and interpretations to the course. One student commented that this approach, “made what we were learning seem very important”.

· While one student commented that knowing the required sequence of IHUM courses for the year made scheduling easier. Other students disagreed.

· One student commented that it was “nice to hear peers’ views” because it brought new perspectives into the discussion (not just the professor’s and/or TF’s), but also commented that this experience required a unique blend of students and a skilled discussion facilitator.

2) What if anything about your courses should be improved?

· Discrepancies among Teaching Fellows: All of the students commented that these discrepancies were a major concern, as the overall experience with IHUM is so connected to the TF.

o Teaching styles and standards for students

o Grading discrepancies

o Feedback/relationships with students

· Core Focus: Several students agreed that maintaining a core (explicit) focus for each course would improve their overall satisfaction of IHUM.

o Not certain what the individual course themes were about, “If someone asked me what my IHUM course is about I wouldn’t have any idea what to tell them..”

· Shared Books:

o One student commented that books should not be shared between courses. Another student disagreed and noted that the student could easily speak with the professor and read the syllabus prior to enrolling to ensure there wasn’t duplication of selected readings from prior courses.

· TF should have some autonomy but now the oversight is too arbitrary. This student suggested “spot checks” to ensure grading consistencies.

Specific Recommendations:

· One student suggested a way of improving IHUM, “select great people – the success of this program is only about the great people” (TF’s) This student suggested that the development of a relationship between the TF and students was key. Being able to relate to the TF and have the TF relate the material to the student’s present world were key components of the “great people” suggestion. Fostering this relationship would allow the student to refine his/her ideas through an open collaboration/discussion with the TF. The majority of the students agreed.

· Similarly, a couple of students offered possible ways to link to everyday lives with the IHUM course work. One TF linked Greek comedy to current pop culture examples; a TF sent email with current events related to larger lecture/section discussion; and one TF wrote essays and emailed to section to give a personal interpretation and demonstrated a quality of writing.

· Several students commented that the section discussion style should not be another lecture. These students recommended that the TF should foster a debate – “the TFs should step back and trust the group”. Additionally, it was suggested that students should not feel responsible for answering questions which fit only the TF’s interpretations. The sections shouldn’t be so much about ‘right and wrong’ (section should not be a Q & A session) but more a demonstration of more complex intellectual thought and articulation of personal interpretation of ideas. TFs should “lead to believe” – “no, that wasn’t what I was looking for” as it creates a hesitation among students.

· One student, with the agreement of a couple of students, suggested that IHUM courses should have a topical focus – one single idea in a central theme.

3) Do you feel that sections related well to lectures?

· The students shared differing opinions on this question. Some students thought well the sections and lectures were well connected and complimentary (2), some thought not the purpose of the section (2), others thought not well connected (3). All noted that this is really dependent on the TF’s teaching style.

· Another student noted that this link depends on the subject matter. For example, a philosophical discussion may have multiple tangents and would not be so well related.

· Another student remarked, the “section helps to clarify lecture, our TF links lecture to the readings and bridges the gap”

· Lastly, a student commented that he believed it was “dangerous to make section an extension of the lecture”.

The discussion shifted to commentary on the variation in lecture attendance. Essentially, some courses require little consistency in lecture attendance because the material is often reiterated in section. There was a great deal of variety among the student’s opinions and experiences, but it was apparently an important point for the students. Additionally, the students also shared their opinions on the necessity and applicability of IHUM lecture finals. Again, there was great variation in opinion; some students believed the process of studying for the final was a good learning process while others strongly disagreed. The students did recognize that they all had very different final exam formats, which addresses some of their varying experiences. One student suggested a peer-review presentation in sections to replace the lecture final. A few students agreed that reviewing how the lecture finals are weighted (compared to sections and paper grades) in each course should be completed to reduce the variation of student expectation among courses.

4) Did you learn skills in your fall IHUM course that you used in your winter/spring IHUM courses?

· The majority of the students had little to comment on this question. One student sarcastically remarked, “I learned how to get through section”.

· One student mentioned earlier in the conversation that “his writing did improve dramatically” because of his work with the TF.

· One student, with the agreement of a couple students, commented that IHUM is not intended to be a skills acquisition course as the goal of IHUM is to increase the students’ exposure to various pieces of literature.

· Another student commented that the ‘skills’ he acquired were really ideas he gleaned from reading the required books, not from the lectures or discussions.

· Another student commented that the goal of IHUM is to teach students to write analytically, but this goal is difficult to achieve because the TF are all looking for such different things in the students’ work.

A. On a scale of one to five, where one is “easy” and five is “demanding,” how would you rate the workload in your current IHUM course?

There was some confusion and discussion regarding the difficulty in rating the workload in the current IHUM course, simply because many students have not had any assignments to date in their courses. The group chose to rate the “intended” and “actual” workloads for their fall quarter courses. Students responses were fairly equally distributed within the following ranges: ‘intended’ workload from 3-5 and ‘actual’ from 1-5. One student noted that the discrepancy in workload he experienced is a result of the TFs’ expectations, teaching style, and also his student relationship/connection to the TF. The strong majority of students agreed with this opinion. Other students noted that IHUM courses are not always a top priority among their academic studies, as their priorities fluctuate with each quarter.

IHUM Focus Group #4

Facilitator: E

Note Taker: F

What did you like about your I-Hum courses? (12 min)

Students had positive experiences in both lecture and sections. Half of the students claimed that lecture “made” their I-Hum experience. The elements that made the lectures so successful included: (1) lectures that related to pop culture, (2) professors who pushed controversial statements, (3) lectures that ended with a “seed crystal” of thought for section discussions, (4) lecturer enthusiasm, and/or (5) a clear, explicitly stated, purpose for the reading of each text and the content of each lecture.

Students who enjoyed section related nearly identical accounts of what made it work. Specifically, they liked the integration of alternative media, outside sources, supplemental readings, and field trips into the section pedagogy.

What if anything in your courses should be improved? (17 minutes)

The discussion of this question focused overwhelmingly on sections and teaching fellows. Students expressed great concern over variation across the different courses and within the courses, across sections.

Grading- Students felt that teaching fellows had too much discretion in deciding grades. Though most used the same rubric, the standards were too general to make grading remotely consistent. The participants suggested that TFs and professors work together to create prompt-specific rubrics, accompanied by more varied and clearly articulated writing prompts.

Teaching fellows- Both individual contact and group contact with TFs came under criticism. Students complained that their papers were being returned late and void of valuable comments from their teaching fellows. Half of the students had found that their teaching fellows were consistently unavailable to them for individual meetings at some point during the year. The students were also divided evenly on the issue of whether their TF had sufficient expertise in the content of the course. There was no difference on this issue from fall to winter/spring.

Section- The participants in the focus group had very different experiences with section. Most, however, agreed that section times should be divided among different activities. More specifically, students complained that an entire section time devoted to lecture or a student presentation was usually “pointless.” Instead, they suggested spending portions of each section on an activity, lecture, and group discussion. Students also emphasized that scheduling of sections should be cognizant of mealtimes, conflicts with other required courses, and locations that are disrupted by construction, etc. Many of the students also felt that sections were too large. Ideally, the group would hope for no more than twelve students per section.

Do you feel that sections related well to lectures? (5 minutes)

Few of the students in the group felt comfortable answering this question because they had stopped attending or rarely attended lecture. Of those who did attend lecture, they found that it became a substitute for doing the course readings—they would use comments from lecture in section discussions. Few of the TFs for the group made a point of addressing points from lecture in section.

Lecture attendance:

*No.*	*% Attended Fall*	*% Attended Winter/Spring*	*Comments*
1	90	80	Missed b/c of athletics
2	100	50	Realized could “get by without”
3	100	60	Lecturer in Wint/Spring had too thick of an accent to understand.
4	60	15
5	100	100	Sleeping in lecture
6	100	80
7	30	15
8	10	100	Substituting for reading
9	100	100

Did you learn skills in your fall I-Hum course that you used in your winter/spring I-Hum course? (5 minutes)

One student felt that the skills from his fall I-hum translated to his Wint/Spring courses. The remainder of the participants claimed that they had learned “nothing but how to BS” from their fall I-hum. Students nodded universal agreement when one student said: “ We learned the Stanford curve.... you get a B- on your first paper, then a B, then a B+”

Measuring Workload on a scale of 1 (easy) to 5 (difficult). (10 minutes)

Students evaluations of workloads across the quarters:

*No.*	*Fall Rating*	*Wint/Spr Rating*	*Comments*
1	2	4	A lot more reading this quarter
2	4	2	Reading was reduced
3	3	2
4	2	4	More papers and more reading
5	1	4.5
6	1	4	Very few readings first quarter, unable to do the readings now
7	1	4
8	1	3.5
9	2	1

The students agreed that workload differences across different I-hums are problematic. They feel that their should be greater standardization. Students felt pressured to skim all of their readings—they did not have time to read them in depth. They were frustrated when they would read books and articles that would never be mentioned in lecture or section.

General Comments:

Students in the focus group felt that the course descriptions were misleading. The change they felt most passionate about was allowing students to shop for, or at least review the syllabi and evaluations for) I-hum courses. Most of the group (one dissenter) adamantly favored eliminating the I-hum track system and adding the humanities to the area requirements. Half of the students claimed to be discouraged by the I-hum program from taking humanities in the future. One was encouraged by the program.

The students who attended represented six different fall quarter courses and six different winter/spring tracks. The group was nearly evenly split between males and females, with three different ethnic minority groups represented.

IHUM Focus Group #5

Facilitator: M

Notetaker: N

Attendance: 7

What did you like about your IHUM courses (both fall and winter/spring)? [what specific characteristics of the courses worked for you?]

· There was a general consensus among the group that the lectures and the lecturers “made the class.” The professors had a great deal of information, were very enthusiastic, and were accessible to students outside of class. One student said that he was not interested in philosophy at all, but took a philosophy IHUM for winter/spring to retain the same professor and TF.

· Students generally agreed that the “texts are the strength of the program.” They like the variety and choice of texts, especially because everyone in CIV had to read the same texts. IHUM allows students the opportunity to read texts they would not otherwise read. It allows them to get to a “high level” of discussion of the texts immediately. They said that IHUM had a good mix of basic and advanced texts, providing students with a background for future classes.

· All students also enjoyed the course readers, especially the inclusion of primary texts. In addition, students liked the use of alternative media, like movies and field trips.

· There was some disagreement about the continuation of the same theme in Winter and Spring quarters. Half of the students would have liked having a choice of choosing a new IHUM for Spring, and half of the students enjoyed the continuation of the same theme from Winter to Spring.

What if anything about your courses (both fall and winter/spring) should be improved? [Do you have suggestions for carrying out the improvement?]

· A lot of the concern among students centered on the discrepancies in the way TF’s run sections and grade students for their work. There is a general conception that there are “good, bad, and evil” TFs. Some TFs have negative attitudes or are inaccessible to students. Others need to improve their moderating skills – often either the TF or another student dominates discussion, not allowing other students to participate. In addition, discussion, many agreed, is often another lecture but should instead be an extension of lecture.

· In Fall, some students found the interdisciplinary curriculum a problem. For example, if two professors were teaching the class, one did not know what the other had taught; thus the different lecturers did not integrate material they presented with other lecturers. This did not happen in the Winter/Spring sequence when each IHUM focused only on one discipline.

· About half the students were concerned about the repetitiveness of lecture and text. These students felt there was a “go to lecture or do the reading” mentality. They felt lecture should be an extension of the reading. Other students felt the combination worked well and text and lecture fed off of each other but did not repeat.

· Students felt section was too long. They proposed three solutions: add a break, shorten discussion sections to one hour, or make sections more flexible – if discussion ends early, let the students out early.

· Student facilitations were seen as too long and taking up too much class time. Some students felt student facilitations should force students to extend the topic, not just summarize the text. Other students felt their sections were already doing this.

· All students highly recommended the inclusion of various media both in class and reflected in assignments. Some students felt they should have more options for paper topics; but other students felt their IHUMs provided a lot of options.

· All students highly recommended the inclusion of field trips as part of the curriculum.

· Students felt the grading procedures and workload varied too much across IHUMs. They felt these should be standardized. In addition, five students agreed that some IHUMs required too much reading – creating a very heavy workload, making students suffer in other classes. In addition to grading inconsistencies, students are dismayed with the IHUM curve: everyone gets a B- on their first paper and gets a B+ by their last paper.

· Students said that section sizes are too large (approximately 24 students). They feel there should be no more than 18 students per section. In addition, section rooms should be large enough to accommodate everyone in the class.

· Some students suggested that handouts summarizing lectures should be provided to students.

· Students felt strongly that they should have either a final or a final paper but not both.

· Students are dismayed by the fact that their professors could not summarize the goals of IHUM courses – they are not sure if this problem is unique to the philosophy IHUMs.

· Many students feel the participation in the Panfora web-rooms should not be required. Some students said they were graded on their web responses while others said they were not.

Do you feel that sections related well to lectures (in fall and in winter/spring)? [If so, what specific things made the connection work? if not, what could help?]

· Two students said section and lecture related well. They begin each section by going over the lecture notes. One TF, during Winter quarter, wrote down the main points from lecture at the beginning of section.

· Other students feel the role of section is not to reiterate lecture. Thus, students should be able to ask questions about lecture, but section and lecture should not have much overlap.

· Some students remarked that the size of section had a lot to do with how successful it proved to be.

· Three students wished section leaders discussed their specialty areas further.

Did you learn skills in your fall IHUM course that you used in your winter/spring IHUM courses? [If so, please describe some of these skills.]

· One of the only skills students felt they learned in Fall that helped them in Winter and Spring quarters was how to write an IHUM paper. Students felt that the expectations for IHUM papers different significantly from the requirements for POWER papers.

· In addition, they learned how much reading they need or do not need to do to survive in their IHUM classes. They also learned how many lectures they need to attend or do not need to attend.

· Some students felt they would be able to use the content learned in their IHUM classes in other classes in the future.

· Students also learned good notetaking skills through their IHUM classes.

· In general, students feel they learn by doing and adapting to the requirements of their IHUMs. They feel this focus on content is positive because it gives IHUM legitimacy – they feel negatively about taking the class to learn a specific set of skills, like learning how to write.

On a scale of one to five, where one is “easy” and five is “demanding,” how would you rate the workload in your current IHUM course? [By “workload” we mean amounts of reading and number, kind, and length of writing assignments.]

· Students rated how much work they were supposed to do as being between 3 and 5, with a mode score of 4.

· Students rated how much work they actually did between 1 and 4, with a mode score of 3.

· Students feel they should not be assigned more than 50 pages of reading per week. They feel students would do more thorough reading and complete their reading if there were less reading per class session.

· In addition, two students feel it is better to read one large book in the quarter than many small readings.

How does your current IHUM workload compare with that of your fall IHUM course?

· Students feel they had more work during the Fall quarter. They appreciate that the workload decreases in the Spring.

Apart from any workload differences between fall and winter/spring IHUM courses resulting from their different structures, do you think the workload is more or less the same across the IHUM Program?

· There is lots of variation, everyone agreed, across IHUMs – especially in terms of papers and reading.

· The change in workload depends on the number and length of papers – this varies across IHUMs. Some IHUMs require a 2000 word final paper on anything, while others require a research paper bringing in various texts.

· There is an imbalance between quarters but also within each quarter – there is more work toward the end of the quarters than the beginning.

IHUM Focus Group #6

Facilitator: P

Note Taker: Q

8 students: 2 female; 6 males; all minority students

1. What did you like about your IHUM courses (both fall and winter/spring)? [what specific characteristics of the courses worked for you?]

One of the first themes that several students mentioned liking was the opportunity to learn from “amazing” professors and getting exposure that they wouldn’t normally have gotten (both to the famous and instructors and to books that they wouldn’t have read otherwise.

Keeping sections small was recommended for a variety of reasons but the most important seemed to be that this facilitated student interaction with each other. The small groups also allowed for things such as rotating group leaders/section leaders i.e. each student was responsible for bringing food & leading section on a particular night. This issue seemed particularly important given the range of sizes of sections (from 12 – 22 students for those in this focus group).

Overall the group seemed quite positive about their TFs. The TFs who were more effective were well prepared for class, could relate to students well (often this was the younger TFs), and promoted more student to student interaction as opposed to having most of the conversation routed through the TF.

Some of the more impressive aspects in lectures were where professors went out of their way to be accessible to students, when they were energetic, when they promoted interaction in lecture, when they gave handouts, used multimedia, and when they alternated lecturers from week to week or class to class.

2. What if anything about your courses (both fall and winter/spring) should be improved? [Do you have suggestions for carrying out the improvement?]

Because of the variance in section size it was recommended that that remained small more consistently. Other suggestions to improve sections were to potentially have it meet only one day per week or shortened (others disagreed with this idea). Some felt that certain topics simply don’t manifest enough interest to warrant that much section time.

There was some feeling that there might be better coordination of what courses purported to cover vs. what they actually covered. Specifically, a couple of students felt that course description was unclear; they were not sure what was being covered (some disagreed).

Lectures could be improved by more team teaching, better lighting (i.e. it was too easy to fall asleep), and better coordination of professors’ expertise with the topic at hand (e.g. English professors trying to tackle historical issues.)

Most of the students agreed that the diversity of the curriculum could be improved. More modern themes, more minority authors, more courses focused on minority issues, and perhaps some more courses that compared European & non-European thinkers.

One student suggested that the websites for IHUM could be kept better updated. Several felt that the ‘chat’ functions were not taken advantage of and should be dropped.

Finally the theme of making IHUM more optional emerged. Some engineering professors say that engineering students are falling behind compared to MIT. The program could be required for only 1 or 2 quarters. They didn’t like the feeling of being forced to take it, thus, options would help. Perhaps the requirements could be spread out over four years or a more general ‘area 3’ requirement could be created instead. In combination with POWER it feels as though there are few choices in the first year. Some disagreed with this and felt that students needed to develop people skills in these courses, thus, it was good that some of the techies learned humanities & vice-versa.

3. Do you feel that sections related well to lectures (in fall and in winter/spring)? [If so, what specific things made the connection work? if not, what could help?]

One of the key areas to coordinate is to link lecture + section + the readings. When this didn’t happen the students felt as though it tended to lead to attrition (often from lecture). Another issue that came up was that some courses require a ton of reading but don’t discuss it in section, thus some students felt that they might explore topics more deeply and go for quality not quantity. Another student disagreed with the above comment saying that sometimes you can spend too much time on specific readings. Keeping the same TF for section over the winter/spring component (as long as it was a good TF) was a good way to maintain consistency – this allowed students to get acclimated to the expectations of the TF. A final issue for sections/lectures is that they should try to regulate the workload and course components among all sections/IHUM courses. About half of the students noted that this was very inconsistent. Another student felt that the differences were more in writing, but not reading.

Students seemed to feel that the assignments between lecture and section seemed congruent.

4. A. Did you learn skills in your fall IHUM course that you used in your winter/spring IHUM courses? [If so, please describe some of these skills.]

One student felt there was not always enough information on how to improve writing style, grades are simply distributed.

Most felt that there was not much transfer of skills though nobody seemed clear on what skills were supposed to have been learned in fall quarter.

Whether the workload for IHUM was consistent both within and among IHUM courses was disputed. Probably a few more felt that it was inconsistent than consistent. Most everyone agreed that in general all work is crammed in the last three weeks.

Students did not appear to have strong opinions about grading – a couple thought IHUM should be credit/no credit; but others disagreed, saying that grades are necessary. The students generally thought that TFs were grading fairly.

B. How does your current IHUM workload compare with that of your fall IHUM course?

Students suggested trying to regulate the workload and course components among all sections/IHUM courses – they seemed very inconsistent to several students.

IHUM Focus Group #7

Facilitator and Notetaker: X

Six students were present, all female, one African-American, one South Asian-American, three Caucasian, and one Asian-American.

1.) Students generally enjoyed lectures when the professor related the topic to their lives and stressed its importance. They were motivated to attend lectures if the content was interesting and if professors were enthusiastic or had a novel way of demonstrating themes and ideas. One student enjoyed when the professor stopped lecturing to ask questions of the students. Students enjoyed sections when TFs used a variety of activities, particularly different types of media or current newspaper articles. One student liked that the course provided an overview of the texts in winter and then a more focused analysis in the spring. 5 out of 6 students agreed that their IHUM courses used more effective teaching methods in the winter/spring sequence than in the fall.

2.) Even if students liked the course content, lectures still had to be engaging or related to the rest of the course for them to be interested. In the fall, one student mentioned that professors just posted lecture notes on the web, but that professors were more enthusiastic in the winter/spring. One student said that the choice of texts was important, and that some were very “dry.” Every single student voiced agreement in favor of shorter section times. They said that long sections are awkward, that they “drag on,” and that TFs should be able to end section early. They did mention that their section experience depended on their section leader. One student mentioned that student-led facilitations have the potential to work really well, but that the TF needs to let the students take over more and let the students conduct their own arguments without jumping in. Other students said that the amount of time allotted to facilitations is too long, and that 30 minutes would be good. One student pointed out that it is difficult to address everything while leading a facilitation for the whole class. Some students commented that TFs often don’t teach a course in their area of specialty, and that they would keep gearing the discussion towards their specialty. One student said she had a winter/spring TF with a lot of expertise, and that really made section valuable, but she said that the quality of TFs should be assured across all IHUMs. Other students said that they had very little interaction with the professors in the fall and that professors seldom looked at papers or make an effort to know students. One student mentioned that in the spring a professor was running some sections, and that it was good to interact with the lecturers. Two other students expressed that they would like the professor to come to section more. One student said that the atmosphere in section was not conducive to interaction. Students mentioned that lectures would be more interesting if professors would delve more into their field of expertise. Students got the feeling that professors were pressed for time. They would have liked for the professors to do a better job at incorporating importance, meaning, and their own interpretations, and not just give introductions to the texts. One student said that she would have been fine only going to lectures and not to sections, because sections never gave her any assistance in writing papers and that they did not have valuable discussions. Students wanted more interaction with the TF and guidance about papers. They wanted TFs to be accessible. One student said her fall TF was very good because he encouraged them to write good papers; one said that her winter/spring TF was not good because when the student asked for help on the paper the TF gave her the name of the writing tutor for the class. Another student liked it when the section leader acted like another student in the class.

3.) One student said that sections, lecture, and readings integrate well when the students have more interaction amongst themselves, not just with the TF. One student mentioned that her winter/spring paper topics emphasized putting the texts in context. Another said that in the fall her books were never connected with the lectures. A student suggested having the assignments require using lecture information, as they are doing in her winter/spring course. Another said that it was helpful to get questions before sections to think about the readings. 5 out of 6 students attended between 90-100 percent of their lectures in the fall, winter, and spring, and 5 out of 6 attended 90-100 percent of their sections in the fall, winter, and spring

4.) From their fall IHUM, students learned how to skim, pick out the relevant material in repetitive texts, and how to write a paper in a short amount of time. One student said she didn’t learn anything and that her experience was much like her high school English classes. Students mentioned that they were unclear about what professors and TFs expected from them, that professors and TFs should be more explicit about what they want, and that they should give more direction in how to learn critical thinking skills. Students all agreed that grading is very inconsistent among IHUMs and even within sections in the same course. They said that most students learn which TFs “not to take.”

5.) Student ratings of workload:

Fall Winter Spring

3 3 2

3 2.5 2.5

5 3 3

2 2 2

2 4 4

2 3 3.5

Students attributed differences in workload to the amount of reading they had to do (novels versus texts) and the number of papers they were expected to write. Although one student mentioned having a heavier workload in the winter/spring because of more books and papers, another student said that it was easier to do the work in winter/spring because she was given the “tools.” Every student agreed that the workload was not equal across all IHUMs. There is a reputation for each course, and students know these reputations when they enroll. After the fall, the RAs sent out a mass email that described what each IHUM was like. The students all liked getting feedback from others about the IHUMs, and that the feedback was valuable and helped them determine what courses they did and did not want to take in the winter/spring.

6.) When asked for final comments, one student said that IHUM was extremely Eurocentric, and that she didn’t know if it was a goal for the program to include one IHUM in each culture, but that they should. Another agreed that diversity would help a lot. One student said that the fall IHUM should be more “intense” because the approach is too general, and she got the feeling that the program is trying to “get” the students into humanities while they can. The facilitator asked the students whether they were encouraged to take more humanities courses because of IHUM. One said that she loved her winter/spring course but that she wasn’t encouraged to take more humanities. Another said that some of her experience was positive but not all of it was from her class. Two students said they were not enthusiastic about their topics and one said she did not want to take more classes in the humanities. One student said that she was enjoying her course and was thinking about majoring in the subject.

IHUM Focus Group #8

Facilitator and Notetaker: Y

Six students were present: four males, two females. 3 Asian-American (2 South Asian), 1 African-American, 2 Caucasian.

1.) One student liked his fall IHUM because it was taught by 3 people all with different perspectives on the material. A few students liked professors who brought in outlines of the lectures because they were helpful to have for finals, but another student said that professors don’t always follow outlines. Another liked small sections (11 people), but unfortunately his sections got progressively larger from winter to spring (11 to 15 to 19 people). Students felt that TFs who were great facilitators made a difference, and that one good TF made sure that students understood the lecture, sections, and reading before discussions. One student has had the same TF for all three quarters, and said that his TF was “excellent” because he helps with writing drafts of papers and understands the reading. Some students felt that their classes in winter and spring were more interesting than in the fall. Another student said it was effective when he had a professor that gave out readings and then had students conduct their own research. One student enjoyed the group debates that they had in section.

2.) One student mentioned that the topics in the fall IHUM were “disconnected.” Some students said that they had progressively more work from fall to spring. One student felt that student-led facilitations in the fall were not as effective because they were only based on questions. Students generally agreed that section time was too long, and that the ideal time would be more like 50 minutes or no longer than an hour. Students get anxious during long sections or fall asleep. They said that the TF and the structure of the section do make a difference, and that working in small groups or taking a break helps the time go faster. One student said that TFs should not re-lecture the same material that the professor covered. Another said that lecture was “superfluous,” that he could discuss the material in section without going to lecture, and that people would skip lecture and come to section but “you wouldn’t notice.” He added that sometimes lecture material is background and not related to the readings. Another student said that the TF talks too much and that students do not get their ideas out in section. Some students felt that their TFs did a good job discussing papers and were very helpful, but one student said that his TF refused to discuss the papers in advance. 4 out of 6 students felt they had received adequate guidance in how to write their papers. Students who felt they had adequate guidance had TFs who set aside time to explain expectations and guidelines, and that TFs asked students to bring in their introductions, theses, and drafts to class. Students who did not feel they had adequate guidance said that in the fall expectations were not clear, that TFs were very ambiguous and only made abstract comments. One student had a mixed experience, with peer reviews being helpful sometimes. Students gave mixed responses on whether they received adequate comments and feedback on their papers, with about 4 replying that comments were not adequate. One student said that the TF made too many comments on style and not enough on content.

3.) Three students said that lectures need to be more connected with the text. One student said that they did not discuss the text at all in winter quarter but they have more intense discussions and lectures on texts in the spring. One student had a section leader who facilitated discussion of lecture and text, and another student has a TF who sends out emails to sections with his reflections on the text, but this student still does not think lectures and sections are well connected. Most students said that they feel sections are more useful than lectures in doing the papers, although one said that he got most of his help in completing assignments from individual meetings with the TF and not the sections or lectures. One student said that it is a problem when TFs have too much “latitude” and not enough structure. Students had mixed feelings about course readers. One student said that you didn’t have to read the whole course reader and another said that it was easier to “just gloss over” the readings, but this student said that it was easy to refer back to a novel and get into it with more depth. Two students agreed that there were too many books, that professors seemed rushed and couldn’t cover anything in much depth. Two other students said that they liked the amount of reading and the pace of their classes because if you didn’t enjoy one reading, soon it was time to move on to another. One student felt like too much time was spent on each book.

4.) From their Fall IHUMs, students learned that “you don’t have to read all of the books” and “you don’t need to write down everything the professor says.” One student said “you learn which lectures you can skip.” They also learned how to take notes, how to better organize a paper, and how to read faster. Almost all of the students said they attended almost all of their lectures and sections. One student said he went to about a third of his lectures and sections. When asked which skills they wish they had learned, one student said she wished she learned how to speed read.

5.) Student ratings of workload:

Fall-Winter-Spring

3-4-4

2-4-3

3-2-3

1-5-5

3-2-2

3-4-4

Students attributed differences in workload to the volume of reading and writing they had to do. They said that if a topic was fun it wasn’t that bad and didn’t seem as much like an assignment. One student said that workload depended on the amount of creativity used in the class, rather than just “hashing out ideas.” Some students said workload depended on the TF, whether they challenged, supported, and were interested or invested in the students. One student said that texts were very important in determining workload. Students said that paper topics were just as difficult across all three quarters. One student enjoyed paper topics that were more free and open-ended. Another student said that it was better in the Fall and Spring, when TFs and professors got together to form questions, but that in the Winter the professor chose the topics and they were often narrow or uninteresting. Students all agreed that workload was uneven across the IHUMs and most students know which classes are “easy.” They get this information from looking at the syllabi for different courses, from talking to friends, and from looking at the online course guide. Everyone agreed that even within one IHUM course different TFs would grade differently and expect different levels of work. One student said that TFs should collectively decide how they are going to grade and that there should be some kind of scaling method that they use to standardize their grades.

6.) When asked for any final comments, some students said that participation varied across sections. One student said that there was a lot of weight placed on participation in sections, with mandatory attendance, but that it punishes students who are quiet or shy. Another said that it is hard to talk when sections get too large, over 15 people, and another student agreed that sometimes the only way to say anything is to interrupt because a few people dominate the discussion. One student said that she liked the program in general, and that the idea of it was good, but she has heard complaints from others (and she agrees) that there was too much focus on “the dead white male.” One student said that this depends on which IHUM course you are in, because he said that his courses focused largely on Eastern culture. Another student added that if you wanted to take more diverse classes, they weren’t available, particularly in the fall. One student said there weren’t enough female or minority voices. Another student said that he didn’t agree with the comments because he actually wanted to take a course only on Western culture. Some students felt that the fall course descriptions of IHUM classes were not clear, that they were abstract, that they were deliberately misleading, and that it was hard to tell what classes were going to be like. Most students liked to have a shopping period so that they could check out different IHUMs, and one student said that the administrative office was very nice about letting her change her IHUM. Some students said they didn’t feel much connection between the two courses in the winter/spring sequence, and that it would be better to just have a different third course. 3 out of 6 said that they would choose another Spring IHUM if they could have. 2 said that their winter/spring sequences went together well. Another student said that the only thing that separates his winter and spring courses are the professors. One student brought up a complaint with the on-line discussion forums (PanFora) and said that they were not good, that students only use them because participation is mandatory, but that online discussions were very thin. One student said that they used the online forum for 3 weeks and then forgot about it, but another said that it was helpful when her class used it and received comments from the professor.

IHUM Focus Group #9

Facilitator: S

Notetaker: T

4 students present: 1 male, 3 females

1. What did you like about your IHUM courses?

· Lecture. Most of the students commented that they enjoyed their IHUM lectures. Specifically, lectures were most enjoyable when the lecturer was dynamic, energetic, skilled in public-speaking, used appropriate outlines/guides, provided a lecture ‘thesis’ (objective) for each class, and did not impose his/her own personal views on the students. One student commented that their lecture professor posed three open-ended questions to the class at the end of each lecture. Students were required to contemplate these questions and be prepared to share their comments/ideas in their section discussions. These questions were a great way to start a section and ensure maximum participation from students while linking larger concepts covered in lecture to their sections.

· Section. The group expressed mixed reviews about the section; several noted positive aspects of the IHUM sections. One student enjoyed the opportunity to meet new students; others enjoyed section when other students were active participants in discussion; another student liked when the TF questioned the students instead of simply reiterating his/her (TF’s) views and when sections clarified lecture content.

· Curriculum/Reading Selection. Three of the four students noted they enjoyed IHUM because it forced them to read books they probably wouldn’t have otherwise. One student enjoyed IHUM because the curriculum took one idea and guided the students through the historical evolution.

2. What if anything about your courses should be improved?

· Section. As noted above, the students had mixed reviews and experiences with the IHUM sections. Below are specific suggestions for recommendations to improve section:

o Impose time-limits for sections. They should not be longer than one hour and fifteen minutes.

o Limit the section class size. All students agreed that smaller sections were positive environments for class discussion and TF feedback.

o Assign writing assignments earlier, in the quarter. Some students noted they did not receive feedback until too far into the quarter, just before the next paper is due. One student suggested that more writing assignments, smaller in scope, be required to ensure feedback from TF.

o Work to ensure more equal workloads in each of the sections. (See below for more detail.)

· Lecture. A couple of students commented on their dislike for specific lecture styles. Students would enjoy a lecture which works to establish links to the texts, when appropriate. The majority of the students would also like to see increased clarity of the ‘theme’ of the courses. A couple of students commented that their last IHUM lecture consisted of the professor explaining how the theme tied into the course; students were still unclear of the theme even after the professor explicitly tried to identify the theme.

· Readings. One student commented that she would like to see a more complete representation of diverse authors in the selected IHUM readings. One student disagreed; worried that ‘reverse discrimination’ would prevent the inclusion of worthy European authors in reading selections. While the majority of the students enjoyed the readings one student suggested that more works of fiction be included, instead of more philosophical works.

Other specific suggestions for improvement:

o Have popular lecturers stay and teach courses the following quarters (some students feel they often leave for sabbatical);

o Use movie clips and powerpoint presentations to guide lectures;

o Give students ‘briefings’ or directed reading questions before they are required to read a book;

o Have professors save a few minutes at the end of each lecture for questions – often students are nervous about speaking up and interrupting during a lecture;

o Use peer review techniques in sections, many students noted this forced them to be prepared for section.

3. Do you feel that sections related well to lectures?

· Students expressed varying opinions on how well the sections related to the lectures and also how necessary it is for sections to relate to the lectures. For the majority of the students, the TF and their teaching style greatly influenced their opinion of section/lecture linkages.

· For those students who did not enjoy the section/lecture linkage, they noted the following: the TFs did not keep the discussion on topic, the TFs posed questions that were ‘too intellectual’ and did not engage students in discussion, and often the TFs would reiterate what the students said instead of expanding on the discussion.

· For those students who did enjoy the section/lecture linkage, they noted the following: TFs were well-prepared, kept the discussion on track, were committed to getting every student involved in the discussion, and linked highly-theoretical discussions to real-world applications.

4. Did you learn skills in your fall IHUM course that you used in your winter/spring IHUM courses?

· All of the students shared skills they learned in the fall IHUM, they are:

o Efficiently writing long papers in a short amount of time;

o Taking notes in the book effectively;

o Knowing it is necessary to read for the final exam;

o Understanding of how to synthesize information better into a final project;

o Knowledge of how to writing a good thesis statement - a meta-thesis;

5. A. On a scale of one to five, where one is “easy” and five is “demanding,” how would you rate the workload in your current IHUM course?

· Students expressed some difficulty rating their current workload, noting varied interpretations of expressed vs. actual effort involved. Three of the students rated their current workload a “3” while on student rated her workload a “4.5”.

B. How does your current IHUM workload compare with that of your fall IHUM course?

· Two students: fall was easier

· One student: same workload level

· One student: fall was harder

C. Apart from any workload differences between fall and winter/spring IHUM courses resulting from their different structures, do you think the workload is more or less the same across the IHUM program?

· All students were very vocal in their agreement that enormous workload and grading discrepancies exist among the IHUM courses. Additionally, all students noted that certain TFs have a reputation for being either really ‘easy’ or really ‘tough’, which is a significant influence in the students’ decision to move in and out of various sections.

IHUM Focus Group #10

Facilitator: M

Notetaker: N

6 students present

1. What did you like about your IHUM courses (both fall and winter/spring)? [what specific characteristics of the courses worked for you?]

· All students agreed that their professors, each quarter, were very excited about teaching the course and loved what they were talking about. To them, this was one of the best things about IHUM. In addition, professors made themselves accessible to students; some professors walked up and chat with students before class and another had a tea for students.

· IHUM is a freshman bonding experience – even if the IHUM is bad (all agreed).

· Two students remarked that IHUM taught them to speak out in other classes since IHUM was an easy environment in which to get used to speaking in class.

· Most students felt they IHUM gave them the chance to explore in depth authors whose names they had heard before (like classics), but had never had the chance to read in depth. One student said that their reading was too obscure and two students said their reading was too narrow in scope.

· One student enjoyed the fact that all three quarters of IHUM were thematically connected. Other students agreed that this should be the ideal for IHUMs but yet others said that certain subject areas do not lend themselves to connections.

· In Fall, students liked hearing their professors debate with each other. Three students said that the professors and TFs had a panel discussion.

2. What if anything about your courses (both fall and winter/spring) should be improved? [Do you have suggestions for carrying out the improvement?]

· Students suggested, “A key to IHUM is having a good TF.” One student remarked that her TF first quarter was very organized, told her what to read, and provoked good discussions. Two other students said that their TFs were bad – no one talked in section and they repeated lecture material. One student said the difference between their Fall TF and their Winter/ Spring TF was drastic. Two students said that TFs have to be careful not to shoot students down when they are talking or writing because the students have a different point of view.

· Students suggested that there must be a balance between in-depth study of a certain area and attaining a broad range of knowledge about an area. They wish it were structured more like SLE.

· There was a large discussion about the inconsistencies among TFs. Students agreed that they should be trained better to lead discussions and to use time effectively.

· Students generally agreed that sections were too long; one person disagreed. They suggested doing more group work in sections. One student commended his TF for using various media for discussions.

· There was a problem with the continuity among IHUMs. Students thought that the University did not have a clear conception on the purpose of IHUM. IHUM needs to have a strong mission statement.

· There is no consistency in the courseload. Some IHUMs are very easy and others have a great deal of work and are very difficult.

· Two students felt the IHUM choices heavily emphasized literature and philosophy, but there was not much selection for someone whose interest was history or physics.

· Students complained about the inclusion of multicultural and feminist literature – they felt it was tacked on to the rest of the class. They felt that it sometimes did not fit into the curriculum and often felt tacked on by professors to meet an IHUM curricular requirement. One student felt that this tacked on multicultural and feminist literature has replaced some of the Western Canon. Others felt the multicultural and feminist literature should be better integrated into the curriculum.

· Several students felt that student facilitations repeated lecture rather than allowing students to learn new information. One student said his IHUM did not have any Winter Quarter, while other students suggested their presence was important because it forced quiet students to speak.

· Two students said that their texts were not student friendly; they were too hard – thus students did not read them. This made the class ”boring and worthless.” Students suggested there needs to be a better balance between difficult and easier texts. Dense texts need to be better integrated (2 students).

· Students expressed concern with the IHUM grading procedures. First, three students said that the participation component stifles discussion and creates an unhealthy environment for exploring ideas. There is a pressure to say something during each section and this pressure is too much. People say things just to say something. Others said that some people become intimidated. Two students said that there is no pressure to talk in their sections because it is not a requirement so people don’t respond or speak. Second, students thought it might be a good idea if their own TF did not grade their papers.

3. Do you feel that sections related well to lectures (in fall and in winter/spring)? [If so, what specific things made the connection work? if not, what could help?]

· One student said that in Fall sections and lectures were not at all related. His class would discuss heavy, obscure texts in class and the TF would not relate the sections to the reading at all. In Winter and Spring, his TF and professor were better coordinated.

· One student remarked that the sections and lectures aligned themselves very well during Spring and Winter Quarters

· Students liked when in discussion TFs first went over lecture but then allowed students to do their own thinking and discuss topics related to the material but not a reiteration of lecture.

· One student remarked that his TF had to relecture because the lecture was confusing so there was no discussion

· Students agreed that the point of section should be to “take what you have learned and go beyond it.”

4. Did you learn skills in your fall IHUM course that you used in your winter/spring IHUM courses? [If so, please describe some of these skills.]

· Two students said that the skills they learned were arbitrary.

· Others said that they learned how to write. One students said her TF would schedule individual conferences and write lots of comments on papers to help students with their writing.

· Students felt learning how to discuss and write were the points of IHUM. In addition, they learned how to think critically. Some students felt they did not learn the skills for critical thinking – they wish they had learned more critical thinking skills.

· Students learned what to skim and what to read carefully.

· Students mentioned about receiving a token B on their first paper, B+ on their second, and an A- on their last paper in the Fall no matter how much work they did or did not do.

· Students appreciated that the content of IHUM was general enough to appreciate the various works of art.

· Students said that their IHUM classes were so different from each other that the skills did not necessarily transfer from Fall to Winter and Spring.

· Three students suggested shortening essays but requiring more of them. In addition, topics should be broader to lend to more thinking. One student felt his Winter Quarter papers forced him to repeat what was said during lecture.

5. A. On a scale of one to five, where one is “easy” and five is “demanding,” how would you rate the workload in your current IHUM course? [By “workload” we mean amounts of reading and number, kind, and length of writing assignments.]

· Students ranked their Fall workload as 3’s and 4’s with one score of 1.5 and a mode of 3. Their Winter workload ranged from 1 to 5 with a mode of 3. Spring workload ranged from 1 to 4 with a mode of 3 and 4. The student who ranked his spring workload as a 4 did so because he has to write a research paper.

B. How does your current IHUM workload compare with that of your fall IHUM course?

· See scores above.

· Students all agreed that the workload varies greatly across IHUMs and referred to the above scores as a testament to that fact.